The landing site [later general discussion]

[AdrianF]

It makes me laugh. Every time something appears on this forum that might move our collective research a little further forward, up pops the lighthouse theory to divert our attention yet again. Now, why is that? Just whose side are some contributors on?

It looks to me as if those of us who are genuinely interested in solving this mystery are being hampered by disinformation and obfuscation. Perhaps the real discussion should take place off line?

Puddlepirate,

It's a fine line between sitting on the fence and being objective. I for one do not wish to take sides at present, whatever that might mean. Unless we were in the forest with the witnesses or have very good evidence to counter their claims, should we be? I do believe however, that ignoring certain facts, doesn't help in any way move the discussion further. On the contrary, it just heaps more ridicule on the case. I haven't met Andy ( who originally started this conversation off ), but I get the impression that he probably isn't on the pay roll of a deep black agency, so I doubt he is the one trying to divert the forum away from the truth. Sorry Andy if I'm wrong.

This discussion has been taking place off line for years, but it would be a shame to not to take the opportunity to further it in this forum.

Adrian

[Observer]

Adrian
I see the point you are making but the light house subject has been done to death on forum never mind off forum. You know my views on the subject and i stand by my comments that the light house was seen but it was an entirely un related observation to the main event.
Obs

[Andy]

I've been watching this thread closely over the last couple of days. What has amazed me the most, is that there is still ( quarter of a century plus later ) a conversation going on as to whether or not the lighthouse can or cannot be seen from what might be the "established landing site". Apologies if I've got this part wrong.

Whilst in the area in April I decided to go down to the site and do a few tests, just to see how I could cover this at a later date. I took a shed load of equipment with me and probably looked liked the Terminator walking the forest tracks. Unfortunately, whilst loaded with enough technology to cripple a small government, I still managed to leave my torch in the car. Not a great move, as it meant taking notes was difficult. Also seeing lens markers properly, using the lcd screen from my other camcorder, was not easy. Therefore my apologies for this not being as scientific as it should be.

Anyway, I've uploaded a video clip to my website, which I hope will establish that the lighthouse can be seen from the forest edge at least. The area I've established, that the lighthouse can be viewed from, runs approximately 100 yards along the edge of the field. It can also, at times, display different colours. To view the clip you will need Quicktime 7.

http://chillfactorfilms.com/codename/lighthouse.html

Cheers

Adrian

Sorry, but i didn't see any different colours Adrian??? Just a pin-prick flash of light in the distance (and that's all it basically is, if anyone care to go there after dark in Rendlesham, i've no doubt they'd view the same)....and, i hasten to add, would not in a million years mistake for an apparent UFO.

[Andy]

It makes me laugh. Every time something appears on this forum that might move our collective research a little further forward, up pops the lighthouse theory to divert our attention yet again. Now, why is that? Just whose side are some contributors on?

It looks to me as if those of us who are genuinely interested in solving this mystery are being hampered by disinformation and obfuscation. Perhaps the real discussion should take place off line?

Puddlepirate,

It's a fine line between sitting on the fence and being objective. I for one do not wish to take sides at present, whatever that might mean. Unless we were in the forest with the witnesses or have very good evidence to counter their claims, should we be? I do believe however, that ignoring certain facts, doesn't help in any way move the discussion further. On the contrary, it just heaps more ridicule on the case. I haven't met Andy ( who originally started this conversation off ), but I get the impression that he probably isn't on the pay roll of a deep black agency, so I doubt he is the one trying to divert the forum away from the truth. Sorry Andy if I'm wrong.

This discussion has been taking place off line for years, but it would be a shame to not to take the opportunity to further it in this forum.

Adrian

However, i thank you for your interest, and support in what i'm trying to say, and no, i'm not on any deep black agency payroll. Perish the thought

Despite what people may think, i personally believe trying to find the alleged 'initial landing site' is very important, and on the contrary. Look how much confusion it has caused. I always say, you can't build a house on poor foundations. Granted we will never be able to find it within the nearest inch, but to have at least a true idea of where it apparently was, would help. Aside from the non players, each doing their own investigations and contributing to this forum, those i really do admire are Ian R and Larry Warren. Two totally opposed in their beliefs, but at least they are steadfast, and willing to give an honest answer and argument, as they see it, as opposed to 'I will have to show you'.... yeah right, and when is that about to happen?

I have asked various questions of key players, but seemingly got evasive answers from a few.

I agree with Ian, GB's photo really is a great legacy, but due to the above said, confused me for years, because it would not appear to tie in with GB's site mentioned in her book?, or Halt's sight marked out by the forestry commission on the UFO trail, and also confirmed by BB? However, 'In line with the lighthouse and fifty yards within the trees' would seemingly fit this photo, and would also tie in with Ian's theories?

I just wish i could get them all together to apply the thumb-screws:
1. GB gives a map and description of a site VT apparently showed her on the day she visited.
2. BB claims 'nothing happened the other side of route 10' which is where GB/VT's site would be. However, then said GB's site was in line with the lighthouse etc, etc?? Where did BB get this information from? And she was adamant this was GB's site, despite whatever she may have mentioned in her book.

I find it very disappointing that those who seemingly were privileged to this can't seem to even come to a consensus of opinion and get their facts straight?..... The question was not particularly hard.... ie where WAS/IS the initial landing site?

Moving on though, i really do think 'SOMETHING' really did happen in that forest, and hopefully one day i will find out.

Colleagues from the top storey of a local mental hospital viewed five bright orange lights hovering over the forest. Helicoptors or UFO's? Whatever, they apparently were there for some time, so there must have been something of importance and interest going on?

Another colleague's father was working on base at the time, and ventured into the forest in the immediate days after and saw 'scorch marks' and the area was being closely guarded. Then soon after, fenced off so that no-one could get near the area at all?

My own father going on a fishing trip and passing the base witnessing the forest edge being guarded by USAF personell??

I have no reason to disbelieve any of these people, because i know them well. None of them to my knowledge are fantasists or outright liars.

What happened?....someone dropped a red lensed torch in the forest?

[Andy]

What i also find fascinating though is this. I've mentioned on other threads about my dogs reacting out of character and strangely whilst on a certain part of the previous route 12 ( Now eight, and from the farmer's field up until what i believe to be Larry Warren's mentioned staging post, and also compasses, mobile phones etc reacting strangely.

The other week i was in the forest with two other fellow greyhound owners (and one of which was the one who previously (and i saw it too), witnessed the strange happenings on his compass). On this occasion though the dogs were fine, and checking the compass, it was accurate? Very bizarre. What is going on in this area, i ask myself, that seemingly switches on and off? You really have to witness it for yourself to believe it. And trust me, it really is not in my nature to b**l-S**t people, or would desire to do so.

[Andy]

Should have been titled 'Emma finds the lighthouse' Maybe?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBjrUZq_LKE#

[Andy]

Was really chuffed to hear from you today Puddlepirate, and thanks for the call. Looking forward to you visiting this neck of the woods, and going to Rendlesham. I wasn't aware you lived so far away?.... a true enthusiast!

Tongue in cheek ref the previous posting, but seriously, have you ever driven a Lotus Elan?

If the answer is no, then i'll leave the dogs at home, and you can get the chance to drive one, and we'll get to Rendlesham in record time Trust me, you'll be in awe mate. It goes like s**t off a stick, Fabulous car....... now, where were we on the Rendlesham front?

[AdrianF]

However, i thank you for your interest, and support in what i'm trying to say, and no, i'm not on any deep black agency payroll. Perish the thought

Well that's you ruled out then and I know I'm not a disinformation agent ( though I hear the salaries are very good ).

On the landing site(s), I have always understood there to be, the landing site investigated by Halts team, featured on the tape recording and what we are calling the "established landing site", Larry Warren and Adrian Bustinza report seeing a craft on the ground out in the farmers field ( though Larry says he never saw it land ) and this is marked on the map in Skycrash, then we have the landing site that Jim Penniston has now said is in a different place than the one investigated by Halts team, who were investigating the landing site that Penniston reported ( I think ).

John Burroughs might be able to confirm if the Halt team were investigating the same site that he and Jim Penniston had witnessed, or whether this was a landing site witnessed/found by somebody else?

cheers

Adrian

[IanR]

John Burroughs might be able to confirm if the Halt team were investigating the same site that he and Jim Penniston had witnessed, or whether this was a landing site witnessed/found by somebody else?

If Halt wasn't investigating the 'real' site, then so much of what this case is based on - the radiation readings, the landing marks and the tree damage - is rendered meaningless. This is what I meant in an earlier post about the cover-up theorists throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

How Nick P and Georgina B squared their opposing beliefs on this I have never fathomed. Nick P has always espoused the radiation readings and the landing marks at the Halt site as the strongest evidence in favour of something unusual, while Georgina was dismissive of Halt and supported Penniston's entirely different landing site (as Andy has remarked in a previous post).

So if the two strongest proponents of this case cannot agree on a basic issue such as this, who needs an official cover-up? Or are Georgina and the Pope really the disinformation agents??

Ian

[larry warren]

wow!
i cant keep up with you guys!
i think it was three nights of activity, the sp bloter that covered thoes days went missing,
when Halt went after it, now thats a HMMMMMMMM situation if i have ever seen one.
how do i know this? Halt told me.
the second night is hearsay, as i and others have been told about over flights of unknown objects
by people that saw them.
as to what John B was dressed like in the woods, i discussed this with halt he said i was right,
so i will hold on to that for the time. it wasent georgio armani!
and to my buddy soxman, bro give it up, you think im BS, fine im afraid you think we are all BS that saw
stuff, i remember your interaction with John, and that seemed to go upsidedown! i am not alone
in my Alledged, piss off claims! and have backup but who gives a damn the world is f..ked, and you
keep obssesing on me, knock it off and move on to somthing else, life is too short,
keep it up and someone will have a word with you.
Ian, ran into your pal down in glastonbury this past week, nice fella!
the worst thing, down there is the hippys and freeks that need jobs!
not as nice a bunch as they portray! letem eat mud.

[IanR]

Ian, ran into your pal down in glastonbury this past week, nice fella!

Which one?

Ian

[John Burroughs]

On the landing site. There were 3 nights ours started Thur night into Fri (Mids). Then Fri night into Sat Mids again I know that for sure because I went up to the base on Sat mourning the desk Sgt Obrain told me they had a incident he told me the Shift commander went out into the woods and was so upset she had to be releived of duty and sent home. That is why I went back on Sat night. I beleive after the 2 incidents that is why Halt was contacted. I dont beleive he was the first one contacted it would have been our commander Zigler who was at the Party. Halt has stated the shift commander showed up at the party and it was deceided he would go out and put it to rest. As far as the 2 sites go Penniston and him made that know on Sci fi but why not went they went out there together when Strange but true was filmed several years earlier!! When I got out there on Sat night there was lightalls in a clearing and Halt team was past where we first had our encounter. I know Halt knew where our site was because he went to the site that Friday mourning. I also know they were looking at a site on the tape before his encounter with the beams of light beaming at his feet and the lights braking into pieces by the farmers house which is if I remember right is where he stated his site was. Uncle Larry on Sat night were you working Swings or Mids when the incident happend?

[IanR]

As far as the 2 sites go Penniston and [Halt] made that know[n] on Sci fi [channel documentary] but why not [when] they went out there together when Strange but true was filmed several years earlier!!

Why not indeed! In fact, Halt seemed as surprised as anyone when Penniston identified this second site during the filming of the Sci fi channel programme. I don't think Halt and Penniston have seen eye to eye since then. Penniston was not with Halt when Halt came over late last year for the UFO Hunters programme.

Ian

[John Burroughs]

Could be Nevills seems to be the great Col new side kick!!

[IanR]

Could be Nevills seems to be the great Col new side kick!!

I think he is in the programme called Out of the Blue made by James (Jamie) Fox, but I haven't heard when or where that will be transmitted.

Ian

[John Burroughs]

From what I understand there working on a movie now. The out of the blue update is allready out.

[puddlepirate]

Sgt Obrain told me they had a incident he told me the Shift commander went out into the woods and was so upset she had to be releived of duty and sent home.

Was that the person being comforted in the forest when Lt Englund and his men arrived?

Given the apparent confusion over the precise location of the landing site - aren't we simply looking at three different sites, not one?

Three sites (apparently), scorch marks, area fenced off and guarded (secured by any other name) by USAF personnel and one person being comforted? That suggests something serious happened and for the airwoman to see something so upsetting that she had to be taken off duty and sent home indicates she might have seen bodies but not regular undamaged dead bodies but very badly wounded or mutilated bodies, or worse still, bits of bodies.

[Andy]

On the landing site. There were 3 nights ours started Thur night into Fri (Mids). Then Fri night into Sat Mids again I know that for sure because I went up to the base on Sat mourning the desk Sgt Obrain told me they had a incident he told me the Shift commander went out into the woods and was so upset she had to be releived of duty and sent home. That is why I went back on Sat night. I beleive after the 2 incidents that is why Halt was contacted. I dont beleive he was the first one contacted it would have been our commander Zigler who was at the Party. Halt has stated the shift commander showed up at the party and it was deceided he would go out and put it to rest. As far as the 2 sites go Penniston and him made that know on Sci fi but why not went they went out there together when Strange but true was filmed several years earlier!! When I got out there on Sat night there was lightalls in a clearing and Halt team was past where we first had our encounter. I know Halt knew where our site was because he went to the site that Friday mourning. I also know they were looking at a site on the tape before his encounter with the beams of light beaming at his feet and the lights braking into pieces by the farmers house which is if I remember right is where he stated his site was. Uncle Larry on Sat night were you working Swings or Mids when the incident happend?

That is really interesting. The second night was Halt's night?... correct me if i'm wrong. This is the first i've ever heard about a shift commander going out into the woods, but what did she see that was so disturbing that she had to take immediate sick leave?? According to Halt it was just some lights in the sky? It's a pity this woman has never gone on record.

Is also very interesting as you say, that Penniston suddenly changes his mind as to the alleged landing site, but never made this known in a previous documentary? Also that Halt was investigating another site, past your site, ?? yet apparently knew where your site was? Why would he want to do this? Makes no sense to me, whatsoever. However, in view of this i find Bustinza's account in 'You Can't Tell The People' interesting. I've always said Halt knows, and probably saw more than he is letting on.
Interesting also that in GB's book she shows the map and point 2. Landing site pointed out by Brenda Butler (and shown to her by Halt), and confirmed to Adrian Bustinza.

I've no doubt he's a very nice man, but i'm afraid i have to say, in view of things, Halt has made himself look an idiot over the years, (and he is not the only one as there are seemingly many more), and people aren't stupid.

[Andy]

John Burroughs might be able to confirm if the Halt team were investigating the same site that he and Jim Penniston had witnessed, or whether this was a landing site witnessed/found by somebody else?

If Halt wasn't investigating the 'real' site, then so much of what this case is based on - the radiation readings, the landing marks and the tree damage - is rendered meaningless. This is what I meant in an earlier post about the cover-up theorists throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

How Nick P and Georgina B squared their opposing beliefs on this I have never fathomed. Nick P has always espoused the radiation readings and the landing marks at the Halt site as the strongest evidence in favour of something unusual, while Georgina was dismissive of Halt and supported Penniston's entirely different landing site (as Andy has remarked in a previous post).

So if the two strongest proponents of this case cannot agree on a basic issue such as this, who needs an official cover-up? Or are Georgina and the Pope really the disinformation agents??

Ian

I've often wondered that too Ian. I'm not speaking ill of the dead here, but she was another one when i emailed her with a simple question who could not give me a straight answer. As said, some really don't do themselves any favours, or their credibility.

[John Burroughs]

Sgt Obrian was the Desk Sgt and was typing up the report and the blooter entry on the incident. she did not see dead bodies but was freaked out by the beams of light that lit up her vehicle and the blue lights that and i quate the report that passed threw her vehicle and caused her vehicle to shut down. They also lost radio contact with her for over 10 min.... Andy less get this straight I thought I made myself very clear in my last post. Halt was out there on the third night not the second.....