CIA using us

[Deep Purple]

Personally I think ufo incident is unlikely,
more likely that ARRS prank was used to cover up options 3/4/5

[puddlepirate]

I've said quite a lot in my previous posts and much of what I have said, with the excption of an alien UFO - which I discount absolutely - goes along the lines proposed by Redsocks. All I can add to what I have said before is it is a fact there have been many accidents involving nuclear weapons, some serious some minor - and it still goes on today. If we knew what really went on, nobody would sleep. That's why I am convinced we will never find out what really occurred at Rendlesham all those years ago.

Can you imagine the public reaction, even today, if it ever became known the USAF had had a major accident with a nuke only a few miles from Sizewell A? If the nuke had detonated it would have created a similar event at Sizewell. Most of Eastern England from South Yorkshire to Dover, from Orford to the Midlands and down to London - wiped out in an instant and if not totally wiped off the map, a radioactive desert for thousands of years. It would have made Cherynobyl look like a firework party. It might not have been of defence signifigance but if that is really what happened (and possibly brought on by a British EW/EMP test) then it was certainly of signifigance to the people of south east England - and of such magnitude there would have been and possibly still could be, riots in the streets. The US would have been forced to give up the twin bases at the height of the Cold War and that would have been unthinkable. For either the US or UK govt to reveal anything, either about a broken arrow or highly classified EMP experiment, is an impossibiliy. Even more so now the UK Govt is considering a return to building nuclear power stations.

[Observer]

Hi all

I go along with puddlepirate in as much that we my never find out.
However, for the New Year, i am concentrating my research in the area of an accident which may or may not be connected with a man made test/experiment. Both could well be linked. I will also not be discounting the involvement of aircraft.

Observer

[puddlepirate]

Some light bedtime reading to support what I said in my post above:

Source: http://www.nukewatch.org.uk/newsitem.php?n=25

"...In 2003, the British government released information identifying more than a dozen nuclear weapon accidents and incidents since 1960. [10] The British define a nuclear weapon accident as "an unplanned occurrence involving the destruction of, or damage, or suspected damage to, a nuclear weapon which has resulted in actual or potential hazard to life or property, or which may have impaired nuclear safety." There are two categories of accidents: Category 1, in which no release of radioactive material occurs, and Category 2, in which a release is detected. Between 1973 and 1987, there were seven Category 1 accidents and zero Category 2 accidents. None of them involved anything like the 32 acknowledged U.S. "broken arrows" (accidents), which include airplanes crashing and submarines sinking with nuclear weapons aboard. In one instance, an explosion inside a U.S. missile silo catapulted a nuclear warhead 600 feet into the adjacent woods. British accidents include a few minor traffic mishaps involving vehicles transporting nuclear weapons and instances in which weapons fell a few inches with no damage to the warheads..."

I just love the one which catapulted a warhead 600ft into adjacent woods...you can just imagine it:

"That man there!..."
"Wot? Me chief?"
"Yes. You. You 'orrible little git. Get your hair cut - and don't lean on that butto........"

Now, I wonder whereabouts it happened. Not in Suffolk by any chance?

[Observer]

Hi puddlepirate

Looks like a good read and i like the bit about a warhead being tossed 600ft into some adjacent woods [wherever that was] Its just the sort of thing that could have been Rendlesham. if it wasn't for the fact that no nukes were stored at Woodbridge. Only Bentwaters some 2 miles away had them. Graham Haynes will tell you this.

I do dispair at times over the 'loose' ship that is the US military. As one air commodore once said to me "i don't trust them with a box of matches let alone a nuke". I know that the UK and France run a very tight ship when its concerning nukes. One wonders just how many accidents involving nukes the reds have had?

Observer

[Observer]

Hi all

Just a short note concerning the alleged high suicide rate at the twin bases.
Was it do you think due to some having nervous breakdowns or guilt trips over an incident that was in their eyes so horrendous and they just couldn't handle it?

Apart from this, i don't think there is much mileage in the suicide angle.

Observer

[Deep Purple]

I'm not sure the increased suicide rate has much mileage?
Do we know that this even occurred and was any increase statisically significant?
Also if it was statisically significant was there a known or suspected problem for this aside from UFO incidents, ie drugs, exposure of young recruits to Vietnam Vets, bullying/sadism, love problems?
Re Nuke
I think it is unlikely that any aircraft would have been carrying this type of weapon over xmas, and reports do not indicate any type of NBC reaction by ground staff/ airmen other than testing with gieger counters. I suspect if you knew it was a nuke you would be a lot more careful.
Also if a nuke came off a plane at say approach speed 160knts it would cause a lot of visible damage in a forest as it would hit with a shallow angle of attack.
If it was a nuke why did not Halt cover the thing up by saying that an aircraft was on a training mission and a new type of dummy cluster munition was lost off an aircraft and hit forest. The munition was not live and contained no explosive and had been fitted to assess aerodynamic properties. Recovery was made by specialist ground staff no risk to the public blah blah blah God save he Queen etc or something along those lines.
Whatever they saw or whatever happened was highly unusual and not just a simple loss of ordnance
what do people think.
we have some good minds on this puzzle now--- well done people

[Observer]

Hi all

I'l start the ball rolling by saying what i think [and forgetting my previous theories]

The object, craft or whatever you want to call it was placed there. It did not fall off any thing. It may though have been placed there by helicopter bearing in mind the slight damage to branches above it. If it fell there the chances of it staying on its feet would be slim.

It was heavy, which caused the 3 indentations in the ground.
Its flashing lights were to attract people to it rather than keep people away. It was designed to draw people to it.

It was some sort of experiment run by the Brits with some US involvement.

Sorry lads, can't prove it, but we should seriously consider this option for the new year.

My only other 2nd choice to this is, it was a Russian re entry capsule along with 2 occupants.

Observer

[puddlepirate]

Hi Observer, Deep Purple, Redsocks

Following on from Redsocks:

1) UFO - not an alien, that's for sure.
2)ARRS prank - fully authorised covert diversion
3)missile/object falling of an aircraft(accident) - Definitely but cause uncertain. Nobody has yet stated what hit the landing lights and I think that is very relevant
4)man made experiment/test - definitely. Black project. Possible unfortunate concurrence with something the UK was doing at Bawdsey or on the ness.
5)other - Yes - bigger picture here; radar tapes, alleged increase in voice traffic to Martlesham, damaged landing lights, confusion in the forest, Sizewell A, alleged evacuation alerts at local prisons, alleged Soviet activity at Ipswich, EW/EMP/3D radar (not Cobra Mist), grid search, possible debilitating chemical weapon deployed for short term effects, sketches by Penniston/Bustinza, stealth, damage to trees, marks on forest floor at landing site, classified glass like material that was warm to touch, helo's apparently sweeping field, farmer's animals disturbed, personnel suffering similar effects as those experienced when standing near to active radars.

What was it:

a. WE177 too small and had four fins - used by Brits
b. F111 escape module - highly unlikely
c. F117 Nighthawk - possibly nose+cockpit not whole aircraft - but what happened to the
rest of the aircraft? F117 is unstable in all three planes - pitch, roll and yaw. It has to be
flown by computer - and EMP is known to destroy semi-conductors and can travel along
comms cable that has a copper core. F117 only flew at night - as do many black projects
d. Something off an A10 - but hard to define what exactly. DU ordnance / classified kit,
both too small
e. Remote surveillance craft of some kind - used in Vietnam but tested in Suffolk at
Christmas, surely not?
f. COSMOS - possibly but all the secrecy wasted a major propaganda coup, surely?
g. Apollo capsule used as recovery device and disguised with all kinds of stuff - a tad far
fetched but possible
h. Hoax by ARRS - possible on one night despite the difficulties but not three times in a
row. Easily seen by Bentwaters/Woodbridge towers. Easily recovered - but helo taking
off would have been seen by SPS or any one wandering around and somebody would
have queried it, especially with the capsule suspended below the helo. I like this but just
cannot see it happening.....in Vietnam yes but not at a front line base. Just way too risky.

Observer mentioned a Brit angle and I am inclined to agree. There could have been a couple of things going on that required a particularly quiet time of day and a particularly quiet time of year with those involved totally unaware that anything else was happening. By pure coincidence one activity had a catastrophic affect on the other. Perhaps we could assume the Brits were conducting trials with an EMP weapon of some kind. A 'black' - let's assume for the sake or argument it was a F117. It's a stealth and therefore isn't seen on radar so nobody is aware - except those very few US personnel expecting it. They don't know of the EMP test. The aircraft becomes unstable as it enters the EMP footprint. It is on the very edge of the footprint so doesn't suffer total loss but the temporary interruption to the onboard system causes something to be released. Whatever that was drops into the forest, the aircraft is able to land but hits the landing lights. Covert recovery and diversion is actioned. Confusion reigns.....

It's just a thought.

[puddlepirate]

Just a note re my previous post - obviously EMP is a very short burst of energy. It would be extremely unlucky for a stealth to be within the very edge of the footprint at exactly the right moment and of course, the pilot - unaware of the EMP test - would wonder what on earth had happened. Such a coincidence could be a classic example of the product of the US not telling us of what they were up to and the Brits not telling the US what they were up to. If both were 'black' projects, each party would want to keep their project secret so any comms or signal message traffic relating to either would not only be classified at the highest level but with distribution further restriced by caveats, e.g. 'US Eyes Only' or 'UK eyes only' or 'Eyes Only' . This would mean that only very, very few people knew anything at all and even then, they would only know of what their side was doing.

If such an incident did occur, then any signal messages relating to it would be highly classified and at national not NATO level. Anyting to do with the recovery would almost certainly have a 'US Eyes Only' caveat with an AAA dist and if it was a nuke it would probably have an ATAMOL classification.

Therefore, if something akin to a nuke came off a US stealth as a result of an accidental intrusion into the footprint of a Brit EMP test and landed in the forest, there would be some very unhappy bunnies around. I can just imagine both sides trying to establish what had happened but because of the secrecy surrounding both projects, neither side wanting to admit to anything......our radars couldn't see the stealth and their stealth wasn't aware of our EMP.......I just love it. Heck, you couldn't make this up!! If such a thing did happen I'd have given anything to have been at the resulting meetings "You Limey b****ds - look what you've done!"..."er, sorry old boy, not sure what you mean? Done what?"

[Observer]

Hi puddlepirate

Very interesting senario, and lets be honest, nothing is impossible. However, the chances of these two events being brought together at the same time must be over a million to one.

Just as a point of interest, the Russian claim they can detect stealth aircraft and its only partly due to radar. They claim to have other systems that can reveal not only its presence but its trajectory.

This darn object in the woods, it got there by coming down vertically from above. This was either by parachute, helo, dropped from very low altitude or under its own power!!
In other words, it was placed there.
The evidence shouts this, slight damage to branches above it and 3 foot prints in the earth
I cannot see it being the nose/cockpit section of an F-117. Why, the surface skin on this arcraft is not smooth like glass, its more of a matt finish due to the anti radar paint.
Also it would not have 3 legs/feet and for sure it would not have flashing lights all over it.

A section falling off an aircraft perhaps on finals would scathe a path through the trees causing lots of damage and small piece wreckage.

Radiation readings were allegedly higher than back ground in the immediate surrounding area which suggests to me that there was a radioactive source on board. This in turn suggests that this object had some sort of energy/power supply.

Interestingly, the readings taken [in my view fairly inaccurate] were below hazard level to humans, but having said that there could have been some sort of shielding fitted [usually lead] to reduce gamma/x-ray emmisions.

If this object was a nose section off an aicraft its more probable that it was off one of the US high speed programms such as Aurora, where an escape module system would undoubtedly be used. [F-117 just an ejector seat].
The surface texture [glassy ceramic type feel fits in with heat protection that these aircraft must have].
Lets look at the evidence logically, and believe the witness statements at face value.
Or! was the 'funny' writing described by Penniston, Russian alphabet which he did not regognise?
Penniston and others never ever said there were wndows or a door/hatch visible on the craft which must be another clue. They also said its construction looked to be seamles as if it was a one piece moulding!

Observer

[redsocks]

Hi All

I get an idea that some of the recent suggestions arnt so much ball park but on the button,but which one? The man made theory carries some strength in all this as well as an accident for me but lets go back to man made.If the US military wanted to test the airmans reactions to an incident I'm sure they would not do it in the US I'm sure they would do it in another country where the Airman are not at home it gives that elemant of "what the heck goes on here".We all know that there is stuff at Groom Lake that the US military are involved in that is very secret take aurora for example thats been about years but they still wont own up to it.It is possible that there could have been something flown in to Woodbridge or Bentwaters hid and then put in a place in the forest where they knew the security guys would spot it and analyise their reaction,maybe it went wrong I dont know.Now the Airmen either still dont know a thing about it to this day or the do but are not letting on.We have to really consider that maybe even Halt wasnt privvy to what was going on that is entirely possible.I have always maintained that the guys saw something usual the way Penniston sincerly spoke on the History channel a few years back made me think that this guy saw something and really doesent know what it was,hasnt he even said that he thinks it wasnt a UFO at some stage? Maybe I got my ideas wrong about the guy we want to speak to with Warren maybe Penniston who We know visits this website from time to time may give some more info about the object etc,it would be great to just get some questions out of the way and maybe he's the guy to do it.I am well aware the Penniston may not say anything but by now we all know how this works and who could blame him.This is for me is the one or the other theory with the other being an accident.lets just disect this bit by bit cos I know we are on the right track.

Redsocks

[Observer]

Hi redsocks

I said this in an earlier post. It was placed there and the lights on it were to attract attention. You don't place a Christmas tree with all the lights working in the forest hoping that no one will notice do you !!
So it could have been an experiment of some sort? I still think we Brits had a hand in it.

Observer

[Observer]

Just a follow on to some of your other comments.

Its interesting to note that although some of these people may visit our site on occasions, not one single person has attempted to enter into the forum discussions. I wonder why that is? They must all have hidden agendas that either prevent them doing so or are unwilling due to pressures we know nothing about? Of course theres the old, "theres money to be made by keeping the UFO story going" game.

Would a million Dollars entice some one to speak?

Observer

[redsocks]

[quote="Observer"]Just a follow on to some of your other comments.

Its interesting to note that although some of these people may visit our site on occasions, not one single person has attempted to enter into the forum discussions. I wonder why that is? They must all have hidden agendas that either prevent them doing so or are unwilling due to pressures we know nothing about? Of course theres the old, "theres money to be made by keeping the UFO story going" game.

Would a million Dollars entice some one to speak?

Observer[/quote]

Hi Observer,

I totally agree why arnt they entering in discussions here? but lets not put pressure on them they either can or cant so lets have a go lets ask someone who we know comes on here from time to time Jim Penniston, who we know hasnt made a penny out of this.If we dont get a reply does that strengthen what we all ready assume?

Redsocks

[puddlepirate]

Hi all

I should point out that the scenario I proposed was purely hypothetical. I'm pretty sure it wasn't anything to do with an F117. I only used that as a 'what if' illustration. I think we are probably on the right track re a covert recovery and a diversion. We know something relatively small in size came down through the trees and whatever it was must have landed right way up because it left equally spaced marks on the forest floor. This suggests a controlled descent, albeit perhaps under a parachute. Whatever it was was either highly classified (a US stealth) or much sought after (something Russian). Certainly something Russian might account for the 'its new but looks kind of old' type comment and could explain the 'strange markings'. To give us a baseline from which to progress perhaps we should accept the witness statements and sketches as true; regard the whole incident in the forest as a covert recovery masked by diversionay tactics; the lights seen over the field as something to do with the recovery, e.g. the grid search. This leaves us with a man-made; something not very big; something somebody did not want anybody else to see, even any traces of it; something that came down from above in a controlled descent. There was no evidence of fire so it didn't crash land as such, nor was there evidence of jet engines being used to control that descent. Thus it must almost certainly have come down under a parachute. That it came through the trees seems to indicate whilst it was a controlled descent the landing site could not be chosen. If it were lowered into the forest it would almost certainly have been placed in a small clearing to avoid any probs with the strops snagging - and to ensure it was seen. No point in a hoax if nobody sees it!. If it had simply fallen it is unlikely to have landed four square...it would probably have tipped over as it crashed through the branches - this is also a problem with a controlled descent of course but possibly easier to control. Because of this, I'm now wondering if the ground traces are actually of any value - they could be misleading. One thing: if it were that small then why have a grid search in the field (assuming it was a grid search, of course)? That suggests it was something a bit bigger which broke up. Part of it landing in the forest under a controlled descent with other parts coming down in the field.

But what was it that hit the flippin' lights??? I think that is a key component of this puzzle. If we can find out what caused the damage to the landing lights we have hard fact concerning a known accident and that must help us to move forward. The cause of that damage must have been logged somewhere - and contact with the lights might have damaged whatever it was that hit them. It must have been airborne so any damage to whatever it was that hit them must be logged somewhere.

[Observer]

Hi all

I have pondered on the assumption that the 'pyrimid' shaped object in the forest was just part of a larger object and it broke off for whatever reason and descended by parachute.

Maybe the radiation readings were just incidental and it was not sat on 3 legs/feet but part of its protruding structure after seperation.

Look at the senario from another angle, it was not an aircraft landing it was taking off. It clipped the lights, the crew ejected [seats or pod] the large object in the field was the bulk of the aircraft and the bit in the forest floated down under its parachute. The lights were distress lights. The rest we know. The yellow mist was its special fuel evaporating.
Good senario if it wasn't for the fact that there was no significant damage to the field.
Check web sites on special fuels for hypersonic aircraft under Aurora.

Observer

[puddlepirate]

Hi all

What Observer says makes sense....it fits with a sensible trajectory. Take-off, hits lights, crew eject, whatever they were flying carries on into the field - or if it flew on, Woodbridge is close enough to the coast for it to go down in the sea. Warren saw something in the field and commented that even today, there is part of the field that remains discoloured and (apparently) the farmer does not cultivate it. Could that part of the field have been soaked in Avcat or an experimantal fuel being used by whatever came down? Thus part could have come down in the forest, part in the field and the rest in the sea.

[Observer]

Hi all

We could run with this for a while to see how it develops.
Note on special fuels for hypersonic aircraft [which may explain why no fire damage in field] Some of the fuels were in two parts in the aircraft and individually were not flammable. When mixed together they became highly volatile.
I'm not saying this was an air crash or a hypersonic black project. As puddle pirate said there could be other parts still missing such as in the sea.

It could be that the aircraft took off, but was too low due to some malfunction, clipped the lights, crew eject in escape pod, the rest just 'belly' flops in the field probably at quite low speed which from my experience often leaves aircraft written off but often quite intact at first glance. The BEA Trident crash at Heathrow is a good example of this.

Observer

[Observer]

Hi Silvertop

As far as i can remember, Halt said on one interview that the spacing between the 3 indentations were equal distance but he never gave any measurments. As for the size of the actual indentations it would be impossible to differentiate between metric and Imperial.
The plaster casts that Penniston took will in no way reveal this. Any of the measurments at best would only be to the nearest 20mm, so inches or metric could fall within that parameter.

Observer