The landing site [later general discussion]

[Observer]

For a UFO, lets say an alien craft to visit Rendlesham Forest is an exciting and bewildering event, when it appears again the next night, that is an absolute bonus, but when it appears on a third night that is just is just plain old taking the piss.

I have to agree with puddle that an accident with a nuke really does tick more boxes than any other theory and it has a lot going for it. Other theories do fall quite a bit short of this one.
Both puddle and myself have military back grounds and i also have a Police back ground and what puddle said in his last post is right on the nail. We knew the procedures and we knew the protocols of that period.

The nuke theory is almost convincing and it has to its credit the fact that it was perfectly possible and there is history of these types of accidents. Obviously, no theory to date has reached a conclusive position and i doubt we will ever be able to prove one theory or another to any great satisfaction.

Theories can have alternatives, and my alternative is that this event was a carefully planned hoax perpetrated by a few pranksters and deliberately planned to happen over the Christmas holidays.

I'm not going to tell you why i have this as my alternative because you can do your own research.

I also say to those that just sit back and pick holes, almost scornful picking in other peoples theories, come up with your own theory and i can then sit back and pick holes in it.

Obs

[John Burroughs]

There was no cover up because the USAF at Bentwaters didnot know what was going on. #1 night Penniston and Mine encounter Penniston Prior to going under reports somekind of object not a Nuke. Second night strange lights not a nuke. 3rd night lights to include a lazer beam of light at Halts feet and mine and Bustinza encounter not a Nuke. The 3rd night and even the first night apeeared to be lights but also some kind of engery source again not a Nuke. We never went on alert status and we were not prepared for the first 2 nights. #rd night after the first 2 they wanted to send someone out there from higher enters Halt and his ego. Nobody had a answer for what was happening and then you have Halts encounter. Sunday night a team comes in goes out in the forrest and possibly checks weapons. Goggle Chuck DeCaro and look at RF weapons Tesla Balls of light plus EM weapons. Also look at a article on Chuck Decaro mind cotrol experminet. Fact a Russian Sat came down also there was Ships off the coast possibly for a recovery. If we brought down that Sat the Russian would want it back. They were ahead of US in RF weapons and the Tesla Ball fits what we saw in the sky. They also could have ships in the area and could have sent out some kind of Recovey team. They could have used EM and RF to stop us from recovering the Sat or what ever it was we brought down. We also could have been using the same weapons. It would explain why Jim and I have strange stuff comming out under Hypnois EM weapons. Chuck has told me to take a close look at this. Cobra mist Freq was 6-40 MHZ and yes it was shut down but the scientist were still there and this was the Frequency that EM went off of. The Russian also had Woodpecker and somthing was Jaming Cobra mist went it was active. Read DeCDaro report it fits on several ends. They would not want peole knowing about this kind of weaponary and mind control weapons for sure...

[John Burroughs]

It would also explain Observer 67th friend saying I know what happened but I value my stripes. If they recovered the piece from the down Sat that was Russian he could not talk about it. Also the Base itself would have no Idea about what the Russian or US were doing and the Memo was drafted because we didnot know at the local level what was going on. Williams my have been briefed on a need to know which explains some of what he has been saying over the years and Halt was kept in the dark on the kind of weapons we encountered.

[Observer]

Hi John

If it was a downed SAT or part of it, i would like to research this more as it is one of a couple of theories that ticks a few boxes. You will have to acknowledge that so far a dropped NW does tick more boxes than any thing else, even though it might not be the culprit, it still ticks more boxes at the moment. I also heard from a Police dog handler that part of the RFI was a hoax which was used to cover up a more serious incident.

Obs

[Observer]

St

I never realised, i really must get out more.

Obs

[Observer]

John

Lets suppose for a moment that it was a Satellite. This raises many questions. I am no expert on satellites or how they work or their purpose with the obvious exceptions. There are comms sats, spy sats, scientific research sats, 'manned sats', good old weather sats and probably more i don't know about. The US and Russia were not the only countries to have sats up in orbit.

Now, if this was a Russian sat that the US had in some way forced out of orbit, they were either very clever in making it land [i doubt it] almost on US soil at RAF Woodbridge or it was just a stroke of luck it landed where it did. If it was the former as a planned capture, then i would have thought a recovery team such as the 67th would have been on standby to recover it either from land or sea. Was the ARRS on standby?

As for the ships out off the Suffolk coast where you suggest they may be involved either in its recovery or some thing, puddle is better placed to make comment on this rather than me.
We know that most recoverable Russian sats were designed to come back to earth over land by parachute so they could be recovered and this was also the case with their manned vehicles, they never did water plash downs as the US did.

If this was a sat, then what type was it and what purpose was there in its capture.
If this was a totally unforseen event then it would have cought every one by surprise which seems to be the case at the moment. However, there is a little evidence to suggest that this re entry was expected.
Looking at the many pictures of sats on the web, very few if any had any sort of writing on them with the exception of the usual NASA and CCCP.
Why don't we ask the Russians, they have freed up quite a bit recently and just might give us some info.

It was suggested to me that it was pay back for the Russian interference of Cobra Mist, but that is only a guess.

Obs

[puddlepirate]

With the exception of the ships that formed STANAVFORLANT, I am not sure of ship movements in the North Sea over the Dec 80 Christmas period. However, there would have been ships such as Leeds Castle acting as fishery / oil rig protection. In wartime, certainly in WW2 the Admiralty would publish each month what were known as 'pink lists'. The pink list was highly classified as it showed the location of very RN ship around the globe. I don't know but can find out, if there is a similar list posted in peacetime. I would expect there is. There was another list, not sure if it might have been the 'green list' which showed the postion of merchant vessels. Ships logs are available at the National Archive but only after 30 years from the date of the last entry so logs for Dec 80 are probably not available yet. Thus if there is a published monthly list showing the location of RN ships for Dec 80 it will be possible to find out which ships were in the southern North Sea at that time and once that is known it will be possible to view the ships' logs for the period Dec 80 (once they become available at Kew).

I have been told - but whether it is true or not I have no idea - that a Russian Auxiliary General Intelligence (AGI) vessel or 'spy trawler' radiated the signals that caused the demise of Cobra Mist but given the role of an AGI was mostly passive intercepts or to spoof voice comms, then I'm not sure they would have had transmitters of sufficient power to radiate signals in the VLF / ULF bands that would cause problems for Cobra Mist. However radar techies might know more. That said, Cobra Mist ceased ops in July 73 so any AGI off the UK east coast in Dec 80 would not be there to target Cobra Mist with EW signals. If an AGI was on station off Orfordness, then it could have been used to target/track something else of course. And if it was there our lads would have 'pinged' it and would have taken a look - and there would be an entry in the log. Ditto the crabs - er, our gallant RAF colleagues (well, something has to winkle them away from cocktail parties and five star hotels!! ) they'd have been up and about to take phots, beat up the ship and generally irritate those on board.

[puddlepirate]

Thanks ST. I was aware of the movements of the STANAVFORLANT ships but was unsure which ship was tasked with fishery protection - in this instance it was the Alderney (Island class). Soviet warships didn't usually transit the southern North Sea as it meant having to pass through the Dover Strait - not only horrendously busy with cross channel traffic and ships coming / going up to the Baltic and so forth (a radar image of the Dover Strait looks much like an image of traffic on the M1 coming out of London on a Friday night - most skippers of naval vessels hate the place) but where the world and it's dog were watching. Mostly they came out into the Atlantic via the Scotland - Faroes - Iceland - Greenland gap, where SOSUS was lurking on the seabed ready to identify anything that passed over. AIG's used to follow NATO exercises. Whenever there was a live exercise, off Norway or in the SWAPs or wherever, there'd be a faithful AIG keeping an eye on activity. I happened to see one alongside in Isafjord, northwest Iceland on the day that England won the World Cup... its decks were the cleanest of any fishing vessel I have ever seen and it was festooned with aerials/antenna of every description..... the crew came down the brow in a tight bunch, a bit like a cartoon then wandered into town. I seem to recall it was an east German ship so we gave them a bit of banter. Well, needs must I suppose. Flippin' long time ago now.

[John Burroughs]

On this site awhile back it was posted the Russian Sat was a spy Sat and it gave the number. Also I beleive it was posted another Sat russian came down on the night of 27th -28th. I beleive it was stated both entrys were not normal and they could have been brought down. Randles was the one who stated she was told there were ships off the coast that night. Someone else posted that fishing ships were not allowed in and there was a green type fog in the area. Again recovering a nuke from the forrest would have involved us and we were not out there. Recovering a Russian Sat that we brought down would not involve us and the Russian would have been trying to keep it from also. Also they would have had a recovery team in the area. The 67th was not on alert IE flying on the nights we were out there but they were flying on Monday-Tues over the forrest when I was posted on the gate...

[Observer]

According to NASA, it is difficult to predict just exactly where a sat will come down, Today with all the technology and aided guidance they can just about estimate an area the size of Ipswich and that's only for those sats they want to recover, but not down to the size of a forest like Rendlesham. Its too small. Back in 1980 the estimated ground zero for recovery was about the size of Norfolk and that was with very crude guidance of the time. Plus other sats that burn up on re entry with just large solid parts making earth could be any where in the world under its orbital flight path, hence the bits that crashed in Canada recently even though it wasn't supposed to. So i find it hard to believe that a sat was deliberately crash landed or brought down in Rendlesham Forest. What if it had missed and hit some important building on the base or the airman's mess. Too risky so it didn't happen.
I don't buy this sat theory.

Obs

[John Burroughs]

It was not the whole Sat just the part they would realease for recovery. And that would add up no one was expecting it to go down in that area of the forrest. Probley somewhere out at sea. And thats great you don't agree with what I have to say. You don't beleive in most of what I'm saying and again thats fine. There was somekind of energy source in the forest. There was somekind of object flying around in the sky and it was beaming down some kind of engery to the ground. That is a fact the rest is up to trying to figure out what it was and why it was there.

[Observer]

John

First of all who do you think 'they' are, US or Russia. If as you say it was part of a sat that came down, i think that it was more by luck than judgment that it landed where it did. As you say it was probably going to be a sea plash down.
I can understand some sort of pod or capsule being released out of orbit but for what purpose, i can only think it was something to do with surveillance because of the cold war.
I think this was more to do with a surveillance pod dropped from an aircraft. Whatever it was must have come down by parachute as there was no debris or impact crater.

John you are wrong, i listen to every thing you say and try to investigate it, but there are other theories as well to look at. This does not mean your wrong, just that we have difficulty in making much head way with your theories, but don't give up.

Obs

[Andy]

Just viewed the 'UFO Hunters' documentary. Fascinating.

In part two 'three indentations' are described. And Nick Pope saying ' It's almost as if this craft had come down on a landing strut.....some sort of tri-pod' I speak via local investigation and witnesses. As said before, a colleague's father worked on the base at the time. News spread fast, and he ventured into the forest with others in the days after. He also describe seeing three indentations *and scorch marks* Also the area was fenced off? However, in accordance with Pope, he (ie colleague's father) too said it was as if whatever it was,
purposefully landed, as opposed to crashed.

Halt was very interesting. Seemingly very more vocal after all these years? I have numerous American friends and aware of the different dialects (similar to all the UK dialects) but as much as i have re-listened, does Halt seemingly say 'Tapes' ? I seem to recall Georgina Bruni claiming that Halt said he did more tapes than the one that is commonly known? a Faux Pas Mr Halt?

The map on the documentary leading to the landing site intrigued me? Did they not turn right????? Instead of left, which the documentary would seem to suggest???.... Go to Rendlesham and follow it. If you come to the alleged landing site following the documentary's course, you are a better person than i.

Halt describes five objects in the sky..... various colleagues witnessed five strange lights in the sky over Rendlesham at the time we are speaking about. The documentary described them as white, my colleagues saw them as orange.

Vince Thurkettle!!! Another seemingly more vocal? (Buy some razors and get a hair cut...scruffy sod )


Part four also interesting.... Halt states that a day or two after people were sent out to construct one or two false landing sites?...... when asked why.... he states 'to mislead people... i don't know.'

???? You were aware that people went out to make false sights????.... but don't know why????

I feel so patronised. For all your exalted status, Mr Halt. Please don't think that everyone beneath you are ignorant.

[Andy]

And i wish Brenda Butler was on here. I will always be thankful of her giving us a tour of the forest, but she left me more confused in retrospect. ???????

We were walking down route 10 and i pointed out the landing site which the late Ms Bruni clearly describes in her book (and even gives a rough map). Butler claimed 'nothing happened the other side of route 10'....*and heard by more ears than my two*

She showed us the initial landing site *clearly marked on the UFO trail* but further along the track claimed that Bruni's site was 'in line with the light house and approx fifty yards into the tree line.' Again this was heard by various others. However, Bruni never once mentioned this site in her book.

I recently re-read 'You can't tell the people'

How interesting.

Quote: 'As we approached the initial landing site Brenda pointed to an area that had been cleared of trees soon after the incident........As we moved through the forest she guided us to a clearing which was another suspected landing site.... we then moved to a field adjacent to the forest near Capel Green, where Larry Warren believes a landing took place.' The second site *which apparently was Bruni/Thurkettle* was half way between the initial site and Larry Warren's field?

Get your facts right Brenda. Also the staging post. Larry Warren states it is nowhere near where you claimed.

[Observer]

Andy

I can see the confusion you and we have with these alleged landing sites, but when Halt admits that there were others that were 'invented' just makes this whole incident farcical. Its now become a wild goose chase and the bottom line is, you may never establish a factual landing site because there are too many people changing their stories not to mention the fact that there may not have been any in the first place.

This whole alleged incident is based on hear say, Bob told me in the pub, third hand information that's highly suspect and many unsubstantiated claims. I have to agree with Jenny Randles that i now believe that nothing of any significance happened at Rendlesham and its looking more and more like Ian Ridpath was right.

Obs

[redsocks]

Andy

I can see the confusion you and we have with these alleged landing sites, but when Halt admits that there were others that were 'invented' just makes this whole incident farcical. Its now become a wild goose chase and the bottom line is, you may never establish a factual landing site because there are too many people changing their stories not to mention the fact that there may not have been any in the first place.

This whole alleged incident is based on hear say, Bob told me in the pub, third hand information that's highly suspect and many unsubstantiated claims. I have to agree with Jenny Randles that i now believe that nothing of any significance happened at Rendlesham and its looking more and more like Ian Ridpath was right.

Obs

I'm standing with Observer,Jenny Randles,Ian Ridpath on this,I have looked into the RFI for a long time now and when you take in the facts you can only come up with one conclusion and thats that indeed nothing significantly happened at Rendlesham.But the facts of why there is a claimed incident at all are coming to light,the pieces of the puzzle are coming together and I'm not the sort of guy who's just going to drop it,theres a story to the story if you know what I mean.

Redsocks

[Andy]

I totally agree obs, all that i have heard was also on hear-say, but it is due to the individuals i heard the hear-say from, is what makes me think something of significance did happen? All very credible individuals, with seemingly nothing to gain? Added to the fact many of them were Psychiatric nurses, and risking being seen as 'Mad.' Not a good career move

[Observer]

Andy

I don't doubt what your nurses saw, but as one very reliable and trustworthy friend of mine said, there were flares used over the forest on numerous occasions and they are on parachutes so they descend quite slowly.
Ian Ridpath also said that there were one or two very bright stars in that sky and in that general direction over that period and there were quite a few UFO reports over them.
The other possibility is that what your nurses saw was some sort of light phenomenon out at sea but from their vantage point looked like they were over Woody. This was suggested by some body else as well.
Like my friend, your nurses are both credible, sensible and have nothing to gain, but you can hardly say that about the main players in this incident.

Obs

[Andy]

Hi Obs. Would the flares glow orange and hover over the forest for a couple of hours or more and move about? On landing would they cause scorch marks? Would military personell be out in force guarding some landed flares, and the area fenced off in the days after? Not being cheeky, just relaying the bits of what i've heard from credible witnesses.

[Observer]

Hi Andy

Flares do have an orange glow at night especially if seen from a distance, i have used them myself when i was in the RAF. In one of Halts statements, he said he saw something like dripping molten metal coming/falling off said object. That is exactly how a flare looks and if you remember, BTDT said he saw this happen often as flares floated down in the forest from exercises at night.
You are right about the flares, when they come down by parachute, depending on the altitude they were deployed, is only in minutes rather than hours.
I would love to know the extent of those scorch marks, how big and what was scorched in the forest?

A friend of mine who has little interest in this incident said he walked his dogs in that forest nearly every day including the days of the alleged incident and he said the forest just seemed normal to him.

There is a possibility that he walked in an area no where near where the alleged landing sites were, but his two border Collies were always let off the lead and they never showed any unusual behaviour. Dogs normally sniff out other things when they are off the lead and run off to investigate.

Its worth bearing in mind that the duty crew in the Bentwaters Control said they saw some bright lights stationary over the forest for a long time and Ian Ridpath has suggested that they could have been observing some very bright stars that were low in the sky. From the BW control tower to the forest is a mile or two and they may well have appeared to be over the forest from that vantage point.
Also the Cosmos re entry was apparently visible at that period, but i don't know much about that or the exact timing.
I don't doubt your nurses observations, and you are absolutely right that they are credible and have nothing to gain from saying what they did. So i have no explanation for that.

Obs