25/26 December 1980 - Incident Begins [Page Discussion]

[Andy]

Hi Admin, for risk of being put on section 3 (treatment order) of the mental health act, held against my will in my place of work and nursed by my colleagues, i will just say this. From what i have red and researched so far, and with the numerous accounts of all the individuals i have spoken to over the past few months, which are level headed, down to earth, intelligent and educated people, this is to date (bearing in mind this will be ongoing research and new information will emerge over time) is what i believe at the present time. There very likely is a USO base beneath the waters in the Orfordness area. That would therefore account for why they were (Christmas week 1980)/are in the Rendlesham forest area. I cannot unfortunately explain why they were seen in the Ipswich area at that time in the 1980's i.e Bertie Coleman (Bruni p115) and a colleague of my stepmothers who saw the bright lights fly over her car (not to be confused with recent sitings mentioned in the local press which i also saw and looked like nothing more than lights that the Hollywood night club in Ipswich used to use) as she drove towards the Trimley area. However, Gary Collins (Bruni p117/118) allegedly saw it crash into the forest from the Capel Green area ie very near Orfordness. This is how i feel it all started back in 1980 ie one came from the Orfordness area, got into trouble, landed in the forest and the rest is history, but with too many professional, intelligent and credible individuals involved for it to be just fantasy and local legend.

[Andy]

I'm intrigued. I have just viewed again, Ian Ridpath's website and the video clip of the young Vince Thurkettle being interviewed with the flashing lighthouse literally just to his right. Vince Thurkettle showed Georgina Bruni 'the original landing site,' which she quite clearly describes and gives directions for in her book. And i have located that site. If i were to stand there (assuming this is where Thurkettle stood for his interview) then there is no way the light house would be seen from there on a video clip, and if it could, no way would it be seen flashing literally just to the right of your shoulder. Did you stand much further along the path ie near to the area 4 of the forestry commissions UFO trail Mr. Thurkettle? From that position, yes, the lighthouse would be very clearly seen just to the right of your shoulder.

[Andy]

Apologies, i said 'to his right.' What i meant was to the right of the video clip which would be his left shoulder.

[Observer]

Hi Andy
Re your post concerning your Greyhounds and how they won't go nere the alleged landing sight.
I have heard of many instances over the years where dogs and some times cats sense things we don't and get spooked.
I swear my cat senses things that i do not and some say (me not included) that cats and dogs especially cats can see ghosts and other paranormal activities.

I have to say this so please accept it in the way i am putting it. Are you sure that your Greyhounds are not just picking up on your excitement/apprehension as you approach the landing area. This is a very common thing amongst dogs and their owners? Dogs can sense their owners moods! If you show emotion or apprehension when your out walking the dog say at a particular place on the walk, the dog will sense this and will join ranks with you.

Observer

[Andy]

Hi Observer, interesting point. However, i was nowhere near the dogs, and well ahead of them when it last occured. My partner and sister where holding the leads, and they have no particular interest in the case and only went out of curiosity. I can appreciate exactly what you mean, and you are right, dogs can pick up on their owners or atmospheres (i used to work in a haunted warehouse which my Dobermann at the time refused point blank to go into), but no, in this case i was well away from the dogs, and i have been there so many times now that i don't get that sense of excitement that the dogs might pick up on. Even my eight year old niece who was with us and knows the dogs well was spooked by it, as she could see the dogs were acting totally out of character.

[Andy]

For anyone interested in the area of forest i am speaking of. Go to the end of route 8 (which used to be route 12). Just as you approach the farmers field this is the area. Like i said i was well ahead. Some helpful individual had cleared a pathway through the bracken into the farmer's field. I was actually standing in the field (don't tell him but rest assured i did no damage), and was wondering what was taking my partner, sister, niece and nephew so long. I called out to them and that is when they called back to inform me that the dogs were refusing to come any further, were digging their paws in and trying to pull away in the opposite direction. Both partner and sister later said that they were tugging hard on the leads but there was no way those dogs were going to enter that area. Similar to my previous experiences.

[Andy]

What an amazing, and totally fascinating evening i spent yesterday. A personal tour of Rendlesham forest with Brenda Butler and an equally fascinating and knowledgeable friend of hers! I shall be forever grateful to them. Two very kind and sincere individuals. Area 3 on the UFO trail is the site colonel Halt showed to Brenda. Bruni's/Thurkettle's site (ie end of second turning on the left of route 8 is something i now personally would not get too excited about (this is my own opinion i hasten to add, not Brenda's, who made no comment). As for the lighthouse theory? Please, don't even go there! A pathetic glow on the horizon. My friend Sue and i nearly got 'Arc eye' looking at it! Yes, after that, we were totally convinced Mr Ridpath and Thurkettle.

[Observer]

Hi Andy

You were very fortunate to be able to go round the forest with Brenda Butler. I have never met her but in the 2 TV docs she has apperered in, they portrayed her as a 'local eccentric' which i'm sure is not true.

I dumped the light house theory years ago as a non runner and wonder why some people keep bringing it up as 'the' cause, especially Mr Ridpath. Vince Thirkettle did retract his light house theory on a more recent TV doc.

There has been a recent re run on the History channel of The strangest UFO stories where Nick Pope contributes a few words in each program. The trouble is, Nick never really ever says anything. He always seems to be sat on the fence with fairly non contentious comments.

The presentation of these programms is to say the least tongue in
cheek which always says to me that the programm makers have a debunking agenda.

Observer

[Andy]

Hi guys. Well, one thing now is for sure. Area 3 on the UFO trail IS the initial landing site as shown to Brenda Butler by Colonel Halt himself in 1981. Bruni would appear to disagree with this in her book, but let's consider a few things here, using her book as a reference. However, i will just say this beforehand. A lot of my confusion has arisen from the photos of the 'initial landing site' shown in Bruni's book. My book is the updated re-print. Having found the site she describes (which is a nondescript, hardly room to 'swing a cat in' site, for a long time now i have been confused (not hard for me ) as the picture does not correspond with her site. However, Mr Slow to catch on, here, suddenly realised that the copyright for the picture is 1999,and is therefore Brenda/Colonel Halt/Adrian Bustinza's initial landing site (which does correspond with the photo in the book) not Bruni/Thurkettle (who showed her his site in 2001). I'm not sure how the publishing business work, but i would have thought that if she was that 'excited' about finding the initial landing site, courtesy of Mr. Thurkettle, she would have changed the photos in the book. I personally think she was shown the false sight she mentions in her book. Pepsi cans and vehicle tracks? Vehicles would not have been able to get to the initial landing site proper, amongst the trees at that time. However, vehicles might have been able to travel along route 10 (although Brenda told me the logging paths at that time had deep grooves, therefore making it difficult to drive along). Bruni/Thurkettle's site is just within the tree line off route 10, which is what makes me suspicious theirs is the false site, especially as he viewed it six weeks after, and was disappointed with it, and did not see a scorched area which he had been told about. Also the ring (circle?) of sticks marking the site that Thurkettle saw? A triangle (ie three sticks) is not to my understanding anywhere near similar to a circle. And what is most peoples' idea of a flying saucer? A circle. Bruni states that Penniston and Burroughs were suprised when Halt led the film crew to a different site. Your point being? Brenda Butler is a local who knows the forest probably better than all three put together. Halt showed her the site soon after the event. By the time Halt, Burroughs and Penniston returned to the area many years later for documentary filming, post felling and hurricane, it is understandable that they would have been confused as to the intial landing site, but Brenda would not have been. She has photos of herself and Dot street writing 'Skycrash' there. The site is firmly imprinted in her mind despite felling and hurricanes. Besides, penniston apparently led the film crew to film in an area near to Foley house. Accurate location? Or just a more atmospheric area within the forest for a general public that on the whole would be none the wiser and just intrigued by a documentary on the Rendlesham UFO incident?

---------------

*Admin: here are the photos you requested to be added. Click on the thumbnails to full the full versions.

"Bruni's Landing Site"


"Colonel Halt's Landing Site"


---------------

[Andy]

However guys, this is where things get interesting. Seemingly with most things pertaining to this particular case, the closer you think you are getting near to an answer, something drops into your path to confuse you even further! You have my full permission to challenge/'rip me to shreds' over this (but believe me, i shall be standing my ground), because i realise it challenges what we have been led to believe to date. Brenda's friend took me to another site which he believes to be the original landing site. Nowhere near Colonel Halts. It is called area 1. Next to the Woodbridge base flight-line (track 4). Interesting also that for a long time now my exasperated father (who went past the area literally days following the incident(s), has 'agreed to disagree' with me and my beliefs that the initial landing site took place in the forest proper) was seemingly pointed out the initial landing site area, which corresponds to area 1. However, we are unsure how his driver at the time could have known this, but possibly had informer(s) stationed at the bases at the time? I/we (ie my friend Sue, who is no gullible individual by any stretch of the imagination) were shown both strong, and seemingly unchallengable video and photograhpic evidence which ties up with Ray Guylas's photos of the original landing site -in area 1- i.e. the barren area surrounded by ferns, light coming through the trees to the right of the picture and the location of the trees themselves, the idiosyncrasies of the trees and close up video evidence which corresponds closely with Halt's tape. In Halt's tape Bustinza states 'we're at East gate...east gate,over.' (Halt's site, as shown to Brenda, is not NEAR east gate). Also Colonel Halt, regarding the marker stake(s) 'Closest to the Woodbridge base.' In area 1 this would be close to Woodbridge base, but in the forest, surely 'Closest to the direction of Woodbridge base.' ? Early on in the tape we hear 'we have lights nearby.' There are also a lot of 'breaks in tape.' The incident apparently occured over a number of hours but the tape is only a few minutes. Bustinza also believes the tape is edited. Did they leave area 1 and enter into the forest to follow the 'lights nearby?' which would lead them into the forest proper? Some researchers/experts claim there were no animals in the farmer's field that night? I've not heard a clear copy of the tape, but for those who have, can you hear 'barnyard' animals on the tape? The witness statements also seemingly contradict each other. Are we being duped and led away from the initial landing site in area 1? Buran and Chandler in their statements mention 'beacon light' and 'marker beacon.' To most Americans i know a 'lighthouse' is just that. However, is a 'marker beacon' something that could have been on the woodbridge flightline? Therefore, in area 1 you could easily have viewed lights on the runway which could have been 'marker beacons.'

---------------

*Admin: here are the photos you requested to be added. Click on the thumbnails to full the full versions

1st track on left of route 4.JPG


approaching area 1.JPG


area 1 directly in front.JPG


area 1 initial landing site.JPG


area 1.JPG

[Andy]

Sorry guys about the seperate messages, but only limited space for each message permits. However, here is some extra info:
The individual concerned was originally drawn to the site (area 1) due to four (oak) wooden stakes strategically placed at North, South, East and West in the area concerned, and painted with 'Day-glo" paint. Pine rots relatively quickly, but oak takes a lot longer to rot. The individual has retrieved the said stakes (oak) which shows a degree of rot at their bases which suggest they have been there for a considerable amount of time. Why? The individual did geiger readings of the site which showed, even to date, radioactiveness. He did 'dowsing' which highlighted three points which made a triangle (my father can dowse so it will be interesting to take him to the site in relative ignorance to see if he too can dowse the three indentations? The individual concerned for many years kept 'his mouth shut' regarding the site until he had undertaken his own experiments. Eventually he announced his find on TV. Shortly after the area concerned was felled to the ground? Normal routine forestry work?

[Observer]

Wow Andy

You have realy been busy with your detective work concerning the landing sites. Well done.

Just a small point re the runway landing lights.

Set at ground level each side of the runway threshold were/are VARSI lights. The runway approach lights which are situated on a staggered height system of pylons representing the approach glide path and in a cleared area of the forest. These approach lights were sequential strobe lights.
Ether of these 2 landing light systems would not be observable unless you were at least to the side or ahead of them facing the runway.

As there was no flying at that time, i don't think they would have been switched on!
Its also interesting to note that Jenny Randles had suggested that the UFO had actually collided with one of the strobe light pylons and this was one of the reasons it ended up in the forest and again she suggests it was being repaired over the 3 nights. We obviously don't know who was repairing it if that was the case.

Observer

Observer

[Andy]

Hi Observer, thanks for the helpful info. I knew you would know and that's why i mentioned it to get your views and advice. It also makes me wonder about something else. If area 1 is the initial landing site, it would be far too close to the base for comfort, especially with the cold war going on etc, and curious people snooping around would not be a good thing security wise. Perhaps they realised it would be too big an event to keep away from the public forever, and to draw people away from the area another site at the other side of the forest was said to be the one. The runway lights which allegedly got damaged would have been very near to area 1 and the craft would have come from the direction of the forest proper. The photos and video i saw of the trees in the area before they were felled showed scrapes running down the trees which looked liked something had crashed into them and slid down. I'm trying to get hold of the photo (if the gentleman concerned will allow me to have one) so that you can all see for yourself and make your own judgements. But believe me comparing Bruni's (Ray Guylas) and the other said photo, they are very, very similar, in fact i would go as far as to say exact.

[Observer]

Hi Andy

I like your theory concerning the landing site 1 and how it may have been re located to keep prying eyes away from the base.

As for the scrapes and marks on the trees, Vince Thirkettle in his first interview was adament that the marks were made by forestry workers. In later conversations he was not quite so convinced but never withdrew the idea.

As you may remember. i used to go shooting in the forest with a local friend who shall be nameless. We would on occasions get near the perimeter fence and on two occasions we had a chat with a USAF police patrol who stopped to talk to us. We would spend a few minutes chatting through the fence and it was always friendly. They were more concerned if we had cameras than the guns we were holding.

If you stuck your arm through the fence you are technically trespassing on US soil and could be arrested. USAF police are given lectures on this so they know the score before being posted to the UK.

This was one of the contentions at Greenham Common if you remember the peace camp there.

Any large gathering of people on the British side of the fence would or could give cause for concern to the USAF but their remit would be to call the British police to deal with it as it was not on their territory.
The USAF personel who went into the forest (British soveriegn proporty) were actuall breaking the rules and protocol does say that the local police and military high command are notified first. They basically needed permission via the British liaison officer which they did not get. However, i do concede that it was very special circumstances and i don't blame them.

The British police would be pretty powerless to do much if snoopers or sight seers were not posing a threat or security had not or was not going to be breeched.

So i find that moving an alleged landing site to keep people away from the base a wee bit far fetched. I may be wrong.

Observer







They were more concerned if we were carrying cameras than seeing our scoped air rifles.

All US bases in the UK are little bits of America with all their laws etc applyable. They are tactically US proporty but strategically they remain British soveriegn proporty.

On the other side of the fence so to speak it is solely British soveriegn proporty which i and my friend were standing on. The USAF police are given lectures on all this before being posted to the UK.

iF YOU STICK YOUR ARM THROUGH THE FENCE, YOU ARE IN THEORY TRESSPASSING ON USAF/US GOVERNMENT PROPORTY AND IT COULD END UP AS AN ARREST.

[Andy]

Hi Observer something you said makes me even more suspicious that area 1 is possibly the initial landing site area. You would not be able to see the lights unless you were to the side or directly facing the runway. Standing at the site in question you would be both very near to and to the side of the runway; and you would be able to look directly at it. It is that close. Other things have also interested, but confused me, until now when i read them in relation to area 1 rather than Halt's site. Buran in his statement says that Penniston had informed him that the lights appeared to be no further than 100 yds from the road east of the runway. This would be literally just across the road from area 1. Chandler made his way over to Woodbridge and parked his vehicle on the side of the road near the flightline. Why there? And again it would be in close proximity to area 1. Previously i speculated that a false site may have been set up to draw people away from area 1. I've also red somewhere recently and i might have my facts wrong here, that Larry Warren had allegedly been told to create a false landing site. However, it is clear that Bustinza was with Halt when they were examining the intial landing site, but was sent to get more lightalls. However, on his return he found Halt and others surrounding a craft in a clearing. Like i speculated earlier, perhaps they were examining area 1, saw the lights in the forest proper, followed them and it landed in the area 3 of UFO trail which is Halt's site. Pennistons maps would appear to show a similar landing area to Halt's but i would find it strange that a UFO lands on seemingly exactly the same spot. Also the witness statements explanations of their route taken to the landing site (considering they were all supposed to be together at the time) vary considerable. One claims to have crossed a small open field, yet the other's map shows them going at an angle into the trees from route 12 (now eight).

[Observer]

Hi Andy

Its all a bit bewildering and i fear hard to prove one way or the other. Congrats on your detective work. I can see where you are coming from but at the end of the day we may never know. Mostly i might add caused by conflicting statements.

I put a post onto the general discussion page concerning the alleged prison evac standby. I think there could be more mileage in this if some one can delve deeper. Its an area that has yet to be investigated that seriously, but i think if it were true we need to know why?
This area of investigation has no statements to sift through or witness reports so not sure how to start it. Perhaps admin could suggest a starting point?

Observer

[Guest]

I shall take a look observer. I have contacts who were with the prison service in the area at that time. Might be able to pick up a few leads there.

[Andy]

Hi Observer, i did send a previous message regarding the long scrapes/gouges on the trees but it doesn't appear to have shown. The marks i saw were high up on the trees (bearing in mind they were the original trees that would have been there in 1980 and much taller than the majority of the ones there now.) Forestry workers would have needed a crane type lift to get them to that height.

[Observer]

Hi Andy & Guest

First of all Andy, i suspect you are right even though Thirkettle suggested the marks were made by his workers as a reference for felling. They were too high up for that. This then suggests that 'some thing' did come crashing down through the trees and made the marks. It also suggests that the object was solid and had 'mass'.

It would be interesting to see if the prison service have records and if they are willing to reveal them especially any records that concern the alleged EVAC standby. Of course, if there was an evac standby, we have to be prepared that it was unrelated! The dates of these records would be interesting and perhaps crucial.
I should imagine that the local Police would have also been informed of a possible evac (as that would have been standard practice) and should also have records. Again the dates would be crucial.

There is another forestry worker (i cannot find his quotes) who gave Anglia TV some interesting info, This was on another Web site that i cannot find, he also disagreed with Thirkettle on some of the points raised.

Observer

[Andy]

That Richard Davies sounds like an open minded guy. Just been reading Bruni's bit about prisons put on standy alert, Observer. A bit of luck maybe, one of the contacts i spoke of above worked at Hollesy bay, and would have done at that time. It is his wife i used to work with and i've never known much to escape that woman's attention! I shall ring her tomorrow.