CIA using us

[Deep Purple]

Re Lighthouse Theory
I'm sorry I dont buy it either. The lighthouse would be visible every night. The securtiy patrols surely would have been patrolling at night and be used to working in the dark .
Also the light would appear similar most nights and Halt is no idiot and would have realised what it was, and surely would have got his troops together taken them back in the woods at night and shown them the UFO was in fact the lighthouse, and put the whole thing to bed.
Halt etc must have been back in those woods most nights straight after the incident and realised their mistake. Writing official memos about strange lights with hits of inidentified craft would also be a risky thing to do unless it was either true of part of a disinformation campaign.
If it was the lighthouse surely someone on the ground would have twigged what had happened and the whole thing put to bed with much leg pulling

[Observer]

No body can be sure any more where the alleged landing sites were due to the great storm in 87, The forest was re planted but not exactly in the same pattern and i have this info from the forestry commision. Recent expeditions on camera to the forest including Vince Thirkettle's comment were vague to say the least as to the light house being visible. Vince as you say came over as no longer sure rather than it was definately the light house and that is how it came over. Editing or not, he has not tried to clarify the statement.

Sorry mate, your in the minority concerning the light house theory. Prove it to us.

Why don't you ask Gary yourself and let us all know.

Observer

[Deep Purple]

I do greatly respect IanR's efforts in trying to get to the bottom of this mystery and him engaging in sensible forum discussion on this event

[puddlepirate]

Hi Observer, Deep Purple, Ian, forum all...

1. The lighthouse has been done to death and it most definitely was not that.
2. Manmade? Almost certainly.
3. A prank by the ARRS using the Apollo capsule? A distinct possibility.
4. Something lost in the forest from an inbound aircraft? Perhaps.
5. A Soviet defector flying to the west in some odd craft? Highly unlikely but not totally impossible
6. A remote controlled aircraft (ROV?) being tested at night when few people were about? Could be - but this stuff was usually done at Groom Lake, Nellis or Edwards AFB was it not?
7. Something to do with Orfordness activities? No idea if that would hold water
8. A substantial piece of the Russian Cosmos vehicle - something that didn't burn up and was of value to the US? Worth a look, perhaps.
9. An alien craft not from our planet downed by a defect that needed spare parts to rectify - which our obliging US cousins could supply from stores? No comment (I struggle to get parts for my Jeep Grand Cherokee - perhaps I should trade it in!) - but see 6. above.
10. Something brought down by a radar test at Orfordness or RAF Bawdsey or other nearby establishment (BT use Martlesham Heath as an experimental station to this day)? No idea on this one but I suspect most unlikely.

Whatever it was I am still pretty sure it was manmade and had to be kept quiet. My view is that it was either highly classified experimental kit; a weapon or ammo of some kind detrimental to the local enviroment with risk of demonstration a la Greenham Common or worse if people became aware; part of a Russian space module; the Apollo capsule dropped by the ARRS for a lark; something else not yet proposed.

Just had a thought!! Given the level of Soviet espionage activity in the area as mentioned by Observer, if it were a part of Cosmos, then that would most definitely need a cover story or the Soviets would want it back, pronto - and thinking outside the box, what better cover story than a UFO....based on truth, nobody knew for sure what it was, US specialists would whip it away smartish and it might also be radioactive and I suspect it would still be pretty damned hot after re-entry. It would probably also have Soviet markings and whilst it didn't need spare parts, it might have needed something done it so it could be moved - but that's enough on that one (for now)!

It's New Year's Eve so I'm off for a drink or three but in the next couple of days I'm going to spend some time going back over the various witness statements and so forth and attempt to read between the lines.

Happy New Year everyone.

Puddlepirate

[IanR]

I just don't buy the lighthouse theory. You would never be able to see the lighthouse from east gate

I'm sorry I dont buy it either. The lighthouse would be visible every night.

Now come on lads, which is it?

Actually it's (a) and this explains why it came as a surprise to them. The security officer who called out the local police on Night One, Chris Armold, spoke to james Easton a few years back and told him:
"contrary to what some people assert, at the time almost none of us knew there was a lighthouse at Orford Ness. Remember, the vast majority of folks involved were young people, 19, 20, 25 years old. Consequently it wasn't something most of the troops were cognizant of. That's one reason the lights appeared interesting or out of the ordinary to some people."

Sorry mate, your [sic] in the minority concerning the light house theory. Prove it to us.

Well, I have put together some nice web pages to help you but it seems from your comments here that you haven't bothered to read them so there's not much more I can do.

Jenny Randles, who you'll know has spent more time on this case than anyone, now thinks that the Halt sighting "is not that strange and pretty clearly features the lighthouse plus some stars", as she said in an email to me only a couple of weeks ago.

And might I remind you that, in science, votes don't win arguments.

All the best for a skeptical New Year,
Ian

[Observer]

Every bodies view is welcome and it makes for great debate. There are those who have one theory and there are others with different theories. All must be respected.

Ian Ridpath has always or to my knowledge always been a supporter of the light house theory and that i respect even though i don't aggree with it. His contribution about radiation was very helpful.

However, some of us have tried to look out side the box just to see if there is any mileage in new ideas, some new ideas have mileage and others are dead ducks.

Long may this debate continue with all concerned, but i'm hoping that we will all learn sooner rather than later what happened.

Now all go get a drink.

Observer

[Deep Purple]

The lighthouse would always be visible as a fixed reference point as long as the visisbility was good enough and not marred by fog etc. But the lighthouse would be the same night after night . When I'm out on the boat at night "the Needles lighthouse" looks the same after all these years!
As a youth I spent many nights playing night games in the scouts and night fishing on deserted beaches, I am not a particulalry brave person, but no lights or anything ever spooked us and we used to fish a variety of different locations. A lighthouse always looked like a lighthouse. Aircraft can sometimes look a bit strange at night on approach to a runway or taking off as there appears to be a bright fixed light hovering in the air.
I would imagine the USAF security personnel on duty although young would have gone through their basic training in the US and be well used to night security patrols, this would have been part of their regular training. Also I doubt whether anyone new to the base would have simply been pushed out at night for a security patrol without experienced hands in place. Have you any evidence that this was not the case

[IanR]

Why don't you ask Gary yourself and let us all know.

I just did and he says "I was told that it would go out sometime in February and March 2008" so I presume the one that aired on Dec 26 was simply a repeat of the old one from two or three years ago.

Something to look forward to!

Ian

[Observer]

Ian

I have read all your web pages and i am not convinced.

Admin initially informed us of the documentory to be shown on the 26 Dec [US only] and it was going to reveal some new unheard of info from Halt. Take it up with admin, as he knows more than i do.

Jenny Randles was a huge advocate of the UFO story and writing about it is how she earns a living along with other mystical topics, so what changed her mind? Admin quoted her statement in a post some months ago and i think it went like this. "I no longer believe anything significant happened at Rendlesham" These may not be the exact words, but she had just written a book on the subject and now no longer believes. Strange.

Observer

[DoRayEgon]

So we agree you can see the lighthouse from the edge of the forest yes? how far is it? 4 miles? but the other 1/2 mile to the east gate is an impossabilty?
Going to the forest today and trying to compair it to a "managed" woodland as it was back in 81 is not what i'd call the ideal trial, now maybe going to a manged woodland and actually trying a few experiments with decent lights at night is more in keeping with the "lay of the land" as it where.
It's a HUGE difference, go try it sometime, i have

Now of course wether the LH could have been seen from EG really depends on the orientation of the tree lines, something i've not yet managed to nail down BUT if they were aligned correctly the veiw would/could have been total uninterupted, lots of if and buts but then no more than the other side of the argument

Now i'm sure somone will as usuall point out that a lighthouse cant fly and as usuall i'll say where did i say it did? where did i say the LH was the same light as the light halt first saw in the forest and why would it be? 2 lights both behaving differently both in different places and only ASSUMED to be the same light, by halt and most who follow the story, a possability or no?

I'm glad Ian has picked up on the starlight use of veiwing the light (be it a LH or alien light) something people tend to gloss over/forget, again go try veiwing the LH (or any light for that matter) with a night vision and see how different it looks, then try looking at some stars using the now knackerd starlight and see how different they also look, again i have.

As a side note i have noticed damaged trees with sap showing reflect IR light (in much the same way as insects wings do but thats a whole different UFO discussion) and show up as a light source (did somone say heat source ) when veiwed through a night vision scope

[DoRayEgon]

The lighthouse would always be visible as a fixed reference point as long as the visisbility was good enough and not marred by fog etc. But the lighthouse would be the same night after night . When I'm out on the boat at night "the Needles lighthouse" looks the same after all these years!
As a youth I spent many nights playing night games in the scouts and night fishing on deserted beaches, I am not a particulalry brave person, but no lights or anything ever spooked us and we used to fish a variety of different locations. A lighthouse always looked like a lighthouse. Aircraft can sometimes look a bit strange at night on approach to a runway or taking off as there appears to be a bright fixed light hovering in the air.
I would imagine the USAF security personnel on duty although young would have gone through their basic training in the US and be well used to night security patrols, this would have been part of their regular training. Also I doubt whether anyone new to the base would have simply been pushed out at night for a security patrol without experienced hands in place. Have you any evidence that this was not the case

Sorry i don't see how you can compair playing on a beach at night to being on guard patrol expecting an attack at any given moment, i think the airman would have been under slightly more stress than a scout having a laugh.

sorry if that come accross as a bit sarky i don't mean it too

[Observer]

Hi DoRayEgon

Its perfectly reasonable that Halt and others may have seen the light house [from limited positions in the forest] with its every 5 second flash. I also don't doubt he may have looked at it through a star scope which would have made it look wierd if not spooky. What i do say is that there was another event going on in the forest not connected to the light house. It was just coincidental.

I have no reason to doubt Jim Penniston's description of the object or his note pad sketches.

I have no reason to doubt the duty crew's observations from the Bentwaters control tower which was approximately 2 miles away where they described lights hovering [for some time] over the forest.

I have no reason to to doubt Pennistons and Halts description of how the object manoeuvred through the trees.

Lastly, i have no reason to doubt that the tape recording Halt made at the scene is not genuine.

From all 2/3 alleged landing sites visited since the incident, the light house cannot be seen, but we must all bare in mind that these sites are only approximate as when the forest was re planted after the 87 storm, it was not in the same pattern or lay out.

Observer

[Observer]

Hi puddlepirate

A good summery which is what this forum needed.

I shall try to address a few of your comments.

A piece of soviet hardware coming back to earth out orbit would i have thought caused a bit more damage than a couple of broken branches and 3 small foot prints in the earth.
Yes, some of these satelites contained radio active isotopes mainly for generating electricity and other fuctions!

The Cobra Mist radar system on Orfordness had been dismantled by the late 70's.
RAF Bawdsey radar was part of the eastern radar network and although an experimental station still contributed to our radar defence.
Cobra Mist was actually connected to the BT Research centre at Martlesham Heath [for some undisclosed reason] and i was told this by one of the road workers who layed the cables.

According to Larry Warren, the local British Police were initially kept out of the forest by the USAF, even though they had more right to be there than the USAF. Why?

If you take on board what Graham Haynes has said about the A-10, and he is an expert, there is no way that the 30mm DU ammo could have been dropped from the aircraft. It was all housed in an internal magazine.

Some thing off an under wing pylon may be, but from all accounts there was no flying scheduled or unscheduled over that period at the base. Could some thing have dropped off an under wing pylon days earlier when they were flying, and it was only discovered later?

I like your espionage angle, and this must deserve more investigation.

I can never ever remember seeing A-10's flying fully armed [visible odinance on under wing pylons] from the base, however, they often used the practice range in the Wash near Kings Lynn.

I aggree with you, it was a man made incident.

I also think that the light house theory and the incident are two seperate events and are not related. It was just a coincidence that they were both seen in the same area and time.

Look forward to more debate

Observer

[puddlepirate]

Hi All

For goodness sake!!

Any lighthouse - including the one at Orfordness is an important navigational mark. They are designed to be seen by ships at sea and are usually screened from the landward side, as is the Orfordlight. The lamp emits a powerful light and the Orford light has a range of 30M (to seaward). The Orford light is sectored - red/white/green. Only one light is visible in each sector (or what would be the point of the sectors!) and the sectors indicate to a ship that it is approaching from a danger area (red) or from an area of safe water (green) or is viewing the light from some distance off or approaching it from seaward, i.e. not from along the coast (white). The light emits one flash every five seconds in each sector. Some lights have rotating sheilds to acheive this (NOT the same sheild as that which protects the shore from the light). It does not vary. The reason it does not vary is because the flash identifies the light. Some lights have groups of flashes, e.g. a group of three flashes every ten seconds. Orford flashes once every five seconds and any ship in any of the red/white/green sectors can time the flash and by reference to a chart will know that what they are seeing is the Orford light. This is hugely important to ships at sea. If you approach the Orford light from west of south, between the coast and 210deg (bearing from the light, not your course) you will see red and must alter course to seaward (starboard in this case). If you approach from east of north, between 038 and 047deg you will see red. If you approach from east of north between the shore and 038 deg you will see green. Between 210 deg and 047 deg you will see white. If running down the coast towards the Orford light you will be steering at least 190 (T) or you will be aground. On this course you will see Orford flashing green every five seconds and will be able to identify the light and alter to port (seaward) as required, unless you intend to enter Orford Haven, which is tricky and requires local knowledge. The light does NOT emit a visible beam inland between the coast to either the north or south, the sheild to the coastal side of the lamp room prevents this. From the lamp this shielded area is an arc extending from approx 245 (south of west) via west and northwest to just east of north, to approx 005deg. Halt said the light was on a bearing of 110deg. What he saw COULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE LIGHT BECAUSE IT DOES NOT SHOW TO 110deg. 110deg towards the light equals 290deg FROM the light and that is in the sheilded sector. If you doubt any of this get an admiralty chart and a nautical almanac and check it for youself. If he saw a light at 110deg then there was something between him and the Orford light. Further still, there is one thing odd about Orford light. It has a white light only at 28m visible for 30M (to seaward!) but flashes red and green from a height of 14m. The red light has a range of 14M and the green has a range of 15M. This means that the red/green is for coastal shipping and local vessels only, whilst the higher, white only light is for ships making their way up or down the North Sea. Thus the red and green lights are only 14m above sea level - approx 46ft. The primary white light is at 28m -some 14m higher. As only the very top of the lighthouse is visible from Capel Green, then only the white light would be visible, not the red or green. But as from Capel St Andrew, the light bears approx 140deg (from the light Capel St Andrew is at 320deg) then this too is in the shielded sector. So whilst it might be possible to see the top of the lighthouse, anyone looking at it would see only the back of the lamproom - and that is sheilded so I doubt they would see any light at all or if they did, it would be a very tiny speck of white light. From the light, east gate is in line with Butley Abbey on a bearing of approx 280 deg (bears 100 deg when viewed from east gate) but given that east gate is just over 6 miles from the light and remembering the inverse square law that applies to light, you won't see that at east gate, plus of course the light is going to flash every five seconds every night of the year so even if you did by some fluke manage to see it through the trees etc, then it would have flashed every single night, in exactly sthe same position.....white flash, one and one thousand, two and one thousand, three and one thousand, four and one thousand, five and one thousand, white flash....as long as the lamp is lit. Over and over again. Every single night, for years on end. Anyone who had been at east gate, Woodbridge as a guard for any length of time would and IF they could see it, know exaclty what it was and would inform any new guys joining the watch. It was NOT the lighthouse!!

I'm going to drive up to Orford this afternoon (I should get to east gate at about 4pm) and take my camera. The forest might have changed but the light will be eactly the same and I shall see for myself what the SP on duty at east gate would have seen - and will photograph it!!

Halt and the others reported seeing multi-coloured or red lights, not a single, white light flashing every 5 seconds. If they saw a red light then they must have been much nearer the coast and much further to the south of the light than they are reporting and even then, if they saw it/them on bearing of 110deg it still would NOT have been the Orford light.

Source:
Admiralty Chart SC2695; Leisure edition 2002. Crown copyright.
Section 22 Visual Navigaton Aids and Port Information; Reeds Nautical Almanac; Thomas Reed Publications (1992)

Note: Reeds (1992) states that the primary white light is visible for 30M. The Admiralty Chart gives this as 20M (2002). Therefore and to give the best case scenario, I have used Reeds in the text above as the light ranges shown in Reeds are greater than that of the Admilaty chart (which will have been based on a survey by the Hyrdrographer of the Navy).

[Deep Purple]

RE:
Sorry i don't see how you can compair playing on a beach at night to being on guard patrol expecting an attack at any given moment, i think the airman would have been under slightly more stress than a scout having a laugh.

As UK was not under any form of attack I dont think security personnel would have been "expecting an attack at any given moment", Rather it would have been a quiet xmas duty with the anticipation of nothing happening other than keeping an eye out for drunken airmen. There is no indication of any violent problems occurring prior to the incident and I doubt that the security personnel felt any more stress than say a police officer on night duty--- probably less. But I no doubt there are others who could comment on this having actually been on the base at night

[Observer]

Now now chaps,

If you re read admin's article on the light house and his video footage, you will see that it is almost impossible to be the culprit of this incident.

The light house theory was done to death on this forum last year and the year before and many of the more recent points in posts on the subject have already been covered and put to bed. Puddlepirate's description of how the light house works in relation to ship navigation only goes to yet again put the theory out to graze.

I think i will start the New Year buy saying you are all wrong, it 'was' little green men from Mars and they pulled over because they needed a new fan belt.

Observer

[puddlepirate]

Hi

I'm just about to leave for Rendlesham but a quick reply to Deep Purple...you are not far off the mark, The only time I've ever come close to being on guard when an attack was anticipated was at HMS Tamar in Hong Kong immediately after the Americans bombed Tripoli. Rioting crowds were expected to congregate outside the walls of the base and start lobbing grenades over. The duty fire and emergency party was mustered, issed with all the kit....r/t, radio mikes, SLR's with loaded magazines etc etc....the rest of us just went for scran or got on with whatever we were doing and the whole thing was treated as a bit of a hoot.......ditto the expectation of demonstrators at Northwood for something or other. We all got some training in crowd control from the Royal Marines, were issued with rounders bats and that was it....another hoot to be had.

In my experience, until the bullets actually start flying and someone gets hurt, it's all treated quite lightly. Guards/sentries do their rounds but hardly ever expect to find anything - except when drunken matelots try to smuggle in crates of lager into a secure NATO base guarded by the Royal Marines. Then things get a tad more serious because the 'bootnecks' just love it when things kick off.

[Deep Purple]

Aw! Observer all we were doing was banging a few nails into the lighthouse coffin, making sure the dead dont come back to life lol

[puddlepirate]

Hi All

Well, well, well. What an interesting adventure....I went up and stood at the bottom of the service road leading to east gate. No point going right up to the gate, there's a bar across the road and it's quite a long walk but standing with my back to the bar and looking towards the forest gave me exactly the same view as somebody standing at east gate would get. I then drove down into Orford and stood on the quay.

Guess what? As far as I could tell all the trees were coniferous pines, so it was like looking at a dense forest of 50-60ft christmas trees. They were so high, so close to each other and so covered in pine needles that it was impossible to see into the forest. I suspect if a searchlight were placed 200ft into the forest and aimed at east gate, it would hardly show.

Then, when viewed from the end of the quay in Orford, Orford light itself is a very small white light flashing every five seconds but because it is 1.5 miles away from the quay, right on the edge of the ness, it is only about 6ft above the horizon! (the light is 92ft high remember) . I timed it several times. There are no other lights visible, thus it was definitely Orford light. I was surprised to see any light at all given the sheild at the back of the light.

NB: in my previous post I gave the height of the white light as 46ft. An error! 28m x 3.3 = 92.4ft. Apologies for that. The red and green lights are at 14m or 14 x 3.3 = 46.2ft

What really concerns me about this is that - forget the lighthouse, that's done and dusted - a guard standing at east gate and looking into the forest would be lucky to see any lights at all, especially if they were anything beyond a few feet into the forest. There is a logging road off to one side but not in direct view of the gate. So, if lights were seen from east gate and of sufficient lumiosity to attract attention they must have been massively bright. The other complication is that guard rooms and the area around them are usually well lit, so light pollution and poor night vision would play a part in limiting what could be seen from the gate. Unless the service road were lit (there is no evidence that it was), I'd bet they couldn't even see to the end of it and would only know if a vehicle was approaching once they saw it's headlights. This whole thing gets curiouser and curiouser.

[puddlepirate]

Hi Observer

Thanks for your response:

1. A piece of soviet hardware coming back to earth out orbit would i have thought caused a bit more damage than a couple of broken branches and 3 small foot prints in the earth.
Yes, some of these satelites contained radio active isotopes mainly for generating electricity and other fuctions! Concur - can rule this out, I'm pretty sure of that.

2. The Cobra Mist radar system on Orfordness had been dismantled by the late 70's.
RAF Bawdsey radar was part of the eastern radar network and although an experimental station still contributed to our radar defence.
Cobra Mist was actually connected to the BT Research centre at Martlesham Heath [for some undisclosed reason] and i was told this by one of the road workers who layed the cables. Nothing at all odd with BT being involved, certainly in the 80's BT landlines, Kilotstream, Megastream, PSS etc etc were all extensively used by MoD for secure transmissions between major, minor and tributary stations.

4. According to Larry Warren, the local British Police were initially kept out of the forest by the USAF, even though they had more right to be there than the USAF. Why? Hmm. I'd be inclinded to dispute this unless there was evidence that MoD had been approached, the matter discussed and responsibility handed over to the USAF for some reason. In which case the UK police would not have been refused entry as such, it would have been agreed they didn't need to be involved. Perhaps a passing patrol unaware of what was going on or of any MoD/USAF agreement, happened on the incident and stopped to check and were then refused entry because it was understood by the SP that it was a USAF led op

5. If you take on board what Graham Haynes has said about the A-10, and he is an expert, there is no way that the 30mm DU ammo could have been dropped from the aircraft. It was all housed in an internal magazine. Happy with that, no need to take that one any further

6. Some thing off an under wing pylon may be, but from all accounts there was no flying scheduled or unscheduled over that period at the base. Could some thing have dropped off an under wing pylon days earlier when they were flying, and it was only discovered later? I'd like more info on the damage to the landing lights. Which side - forest or airfield; extend of damage, etc etc. I still like this idea. An aircraft taking off would probably turn north to avoid overflying Orford or the masts at the north end of the ness. Inbound a/c might well used Orford church as a marker to line up an approach. Perhaps somebody can advise on this one.

7. I like your espionage angle, and this must deserve more investigation. This is indeed most interesting. If I were a soviet agent intent on taking phots around Woodbridge flightline I might want to get draw the SP's away from the back gate and sneak in that way. Few people around, stuff to see.....what better way than to have the SP rush off into the forest on a chase for odd lights. I presume they didn't close the gate after they went?

8. I can never ever remember seeing A-10's flying fully armed [visible odinance on under wing pylons] from the base, however, they often used the practice range in the Wash near Kings Lynn. I'd like to do more work on how Soviet activity along the Polish border was being monitored...probably by satellite and radio intercepts but nonetheless, I'd like to know a bit more before I fully discount this one.

9. I aggree with you, it was a man made incident. I'm sorry UFO fans, but it has to be a man made craft or whatever it was.

10. I also think that the light house theory and the incident are two seperate events and are not related. It was just a coincidence that they were both seen in the same area and time. I totally agree.