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

[Observer]

Hi Admin
Your added page headed, The Incident Begins is very good. It outlines in good detail with condensed statements in blue of those airmen who witnessed the incident.

The SR 71 Blackbird although tried out at RAF Woodbridge was never operational ( for long). It ended up at RAF Mildenhall and it also flew a few missions out of RAE Boscome Down.
The U2 and Martin RB57 (both highly secret spy planes) were also tried out at Woodbridge, but again due to a rather uncooperative USAF with the CIA who had overall command of the missions, these aircraft never stayed at woodbridge for that long. Another reason was that hanger space at Woodbridge was minimul and it was hard to house the SR71 out of sight.

In one witness description of the UFO in Rendlesham forest, it was said that it was the size of a 'tank', was this meant to be a battle tank? I know that the object was seen at several locations including up in the air so which sighting was it that described it as tank sized.

Most other witness statements suggested the object was only about 3 metres wide and about 2 metres high when seen on the ground.

It would be a good idea to have this discrepancy clarified.

Observer

[Guest]

I've spent far too many years nit-picking over the details of this case.

From my understanding, and all the people I've spoken to both military and civilian, there is quite a good agreement on sizes: The first object seen on 26th December 1980 was (approx) 6 feet by 9 feet (2 metres by 3 metres) about the size of a battle tank. The second object seen on 28th Deceber was larger about 30 feet in size.

On the second night Airman Bobo in the Bentwaters tower also saw a large hovering UFO over the forest at the time the Halt patrol and Warren's patrol were encountering the downed 30 feet craft. At that distance that hovering craft must have also been large although the exact size is not known and it might have been the 30 feet craft prior to the landing.

[Observer]

Hi Admin

I have read your guest's suggested size of a 'battle tank'.

Just to put a finer point on it. It was American airmen that said the UFO looked the same size as a battle tank, which i presume is them comparing it to one of their US Army tanks which they had probably seen back in the US or Europe. There were no US army tanks in East anglia or the UK for that matter. Some did attend the test ranges in Wales as did many NATO tanks.

The Tank in service at that time in the British army was Challenger 1,

This measured 8.5 m long x 3.5 m wide x 2.5 m high. Which is some what larger than the previous letter suggested.

Again, no British army tanks were ever stationed near Woodbridge so for comparrison purposes i guess the US army tanks were of similar size to Challenger 1. Nit picking i know, but i guess we all get the picture now.

Observer

Observer

[chaiyah@abidemiracles.com]

Oh.

THAT photo.



And all this time, I thought somebody made it up.

I have another photo from UK that's interesting; but I don't know the story on this one either.



Anybody know the details on this one?

I thought it was a fake. I found it on-line about five years ago, and archived it without having any info about it.

[Andy]

Hi, i enjoyed reading your page and feel it is one of the best i've red to date. It was very informative. Having red Georgina Bruni's book, and from information gained therein, i managed to trace what i believed to be the original route (on a map), and then actually reading your page today confirmed it.
I recently went on the UFO trail using the map provided by the forestry commission. However, at present i'm a bit dubious as to the accuracy of the locations; judging by pictures i have seen and descriptions. Can anyone tell me if the points 3 and 5 on the Rendlesham UFO trail are accurate, and if not, is there anyone who would be willing, at their convenience, to show an intrigued individual exactly where the original sites are?

[Andy]

Regarding your conclusion 'My thoughts' i must say that 'No', i do not believe the witnesses were telling lies. I consider myself to be a level headed person and not taken with flights of fancy. I am also a psychiatric nurse, and have spoken to various colleagues who worked at the Psychiatric hospital 'St Audry's' which was not very far from Rendlesham. Two of them were working on seperate wards at the very top of the hospital in the latter part of December 1980, but gave the same account of seeing very bright orange lights hovering above the trees over Rendlesham and also giving off other colours (mainly blue). Apparently they were there for some while and my colleagues said that having worked those wards for a number of years it was definitely NOT lights from the lighthouse. It was also apparently a clear night and they had a clear view over the trees from their lookout point. They also said they were looking down on the lights as opposed to up. Another colleague dated a farm worker in the area who claimed to have saw a craft and was forced to sign an official secrets document. Apparently he had a mental breakdown soon after due to the incident. All these people i have known for years, i consider them honest, level headed and as said previously, not prone to flights of fancy.

[Andy]

Me again, sorry to be a pain. I should have put it all into one posting, but having spoken to various colleagues over time, it's just that other recollections are suddenly recalled from the various conversations i have had. In the days after the incident various colleagues, (unbeknown to what had taken place, bearing in mind it wasn't reported in the press until some years after (circa 1983)) went into work commenting that Rendlesham forest had been sealed off. Some of the more inquisitive ones had also ventured into the forest and reported 'scorched areas.'

[Andy]

Hi Admin, yes, you have my permission to publish my information on your website, No problems. The two who saw the lights from the top building were not the only ones to have seen them, as colleagues from other wards, who had also seen them, were going to the other wards within the hospital to alert others to the spectacle. The lights were apparently very bright and enough to draw the attention from the windows of the upper hospital wards. They also were there for some while, enough for my colleagues to become bored with watching and believing 'The Americans are probably up to something at the base.' Like i said, it wasn't until some years after when it came out in the press that they connected the two. The bit about the farmer i am still investigating, and i am very close to getting a name, as the colleague i spoke of used to do potato picking for him, but as it's a number of years ago could not at the time i spoke to her recall his name off the top of her head, but said she will find it out for me. I'm glad the information was of interest. Like i said these are level headed, honest people and would have nothing to gain from fabricating such stories.

[Observer]

Hi Andy
Your posts were very interesting. As yo may remember, the great hurricane (date escapes me) flattened most of Rendlesham and Tunstall forests.

The forests were re planted and some but not all fire breaks and tree avenues ended up in slightly different places to where they were originally. This probably did not help the forestry commision when they layed the UFO trail in its accuracy. Admin is in a much better position due to his local knowledge for a more accurate picture.

When Lt Col Halt and Jim Penniston re visited the forest for a recent TV documentary, they seemed to know exactly where things occurred, but i suspect they were to a point guessing mainly due to the forests slightly different layout. I don't think we are ever going to find each location to the nearest square yard, but quite frankly, i think its a bit academic.

Obersver

[Andy]

The mysterious farmer came up again today. Some friends dragged me along to a car boot sale and i found a book on the Roswell incident. The woman selling it said there was also one on the Rendlesham incident, but when we looked it had been sold. She then said 'My ex-husband saw it, and received an official secrets document to sign to basically say that he hadn't seen anything.' Apparently he had been a farm worker at Rendlesham.

[Andy]

My friend (who got me into all this; and has caused me much frustration, and intrigue ever since, the swine), and myself, went on the UFO trail, yet again today, ( i don't care if i'm sad and need to get a life However, we followed what we thought was the original route i.e. right at east gate and first left... gate 8. But on viewing your website, your picture distinctly shows route 12. Has this been changed, or is route 12 further down the road? Route 8 did lead up to area 5? However, we are still unconvinced about this area as according to the map (in kilometers), and as you quite rightly said, the original landing site, is probably more further north (and we did find a barren site, just slightly to the left and further north which would be a good contender), but area 5 is only a few paces from the path?
Other maps i've seen, eg Ms Bruni's (You can't tell the people) would also suggest that area 5 is inaccurate judging by the site shown and the tree species and planting locations shown, in the immediate area. I realise that i am at risk of becoming very anal about all this, but i am just intrigued and enjoy researching local history/events. Any advice, answers or willing guides to help put my friend and i out of our misery would be welcome

[Observer]

Hi Andy

Firstly, admin is probably in the best position to respond to your queries concerning the UFO trail and its accuracy.

The forestry commission have admitted that the trail was laid out as an approximation of where events took place.

One reason for this is because the forest lay out since the great storm which was a few years after the UFO sightings is slightly different. Fire breaks and logging tracks are in some areas different to where they were pre storm.

The forestry commission took advice from several sources before laying the trail. I have no idea who these people were. The trail as a whole is reasonably accurate, but a think that in a couple of places they may be not so accurate. Does it matter?

Observer

[Andy]

Hi observer. Thanks for your message(s), and advice. I enjoy reading your replies, and also like the fact that someone else takes as much interest in the subject as i/we do. Perhaps you're right. At the end of the day, (for the majority of individuals going on the UFO trail), does the accuracy really matter? In truth, perhaps no. However, for myself, and my personal friends also interested in a fascinating event in our local history; and having spent many months reading, re-reading, researching, visiting Rendlesham forest (many times)/investigating, deliberating over various and pertinent maps, discussions and trying to seperate the 'wheat from the chaff' and coming to the conclusion that the initial landing site is much further north, up near Foley House/Cottage/Woodbridge base flight line, and nowhere near area 5 on the forestry commission's UFO trail and map, then yes, for us personally, it does matter. Considering that trail was funded by public funds.

[Observer]

Hi Andy

I guess you are a local person hence your interest.
First of all the map that admin has posted on this web site forum is as accurate as your going to get. It was based round much research and correlation of the many witness statements of the events by admin.

I doubt you will get any more accurate, If you feel that there is some inaccuracies, i suggest you ask admin for his opinion on the subject.

As i siad in my earlier post, the forestry commission laid out the trail as accurate as they could, but shall we say with a few minor inaccuracies for the reasons i explained.

It would pay all of us to accept that where the sitings took place is our bench mark into the investigation. We must also accept that landing sites depicted are never going to be to the nearest square metre.

Our investigations which includes myself should be directed towards what was witnessed, the descriptions, and how it was reported by many people.
As far as i can see, most witness statements are singing from the same hymn sheet, there are a couple of exceptions, but bearing in mind that most are of the same opinion we must thus accept that this is our direction of investigation.
Best regards

Observer

[Andy]

Hi Admin, thankyou for your map showing the location of the initial landing site, (and the excellent photos you also kindly sent to enable me to accurately locate the Larry Warren Oak tree. I would never have found it without them). I think where my confusion has arisen (regarding the landing sites) is due to the map Georgina Bruni shows on the page in her book (You can't tell the people) prior to her introduction. However, this is no personal criticism towards her as the book is, in my opinion excellent, and she quite clearly states the map is a 'rough map' and therefore not to scale. However, if you walk along routes 10 and 12 it becomes apparent that there is more than one path leading off to the left or the right (depending on what route one is taking). On her 'rough map' Ms Bruni only shows one. Therefore, this is where the ambiguity and confusion has arisen for myself. Is she referring to the first path (to the right) one come across along route 10 (not far from Folley house) or towards the far end of the track up near the field (the track which, if my recollection is correct, leads one to area 4 on the UFO trail (Larry Warren's field)? I now personally feel it is probably the latter having wandered round Rendlesham forest yesterday. I have sent a message (via her agent) to Ms Bruni in the hope that she will explain her map more clearly to me. Thanks for all the help you have given, and patience you have shown, and for an excellent website.

[Andy]

Hi Admin, you really are a star! Thankyou so much for that map. It is a great help. My friend and i have been looking for an aerial map with that sort of detail for a while, but to date had not been able to find one. I think you are right in what you say, and on page 408 of her book 'You can't tell the people' Georgina Bruni describes going along route 12 and taking the second turning on the left and parking the vehicle a few hundred feet along the path. That therefore would be the area you also believe (and myself) to be the site of the initial landing. I'm satisfied now. Like you said, that is about as close as we are going to get. Once again, many thanks.

[Andy]

Just got back from Rendlesham, having walked the dogs. That aerial map was a God-send. I also took along Georgina Bruni's book, for good measure. Admin, i have to hand it to you, i really do feel that yourself and Ms Bruni have got it right. Burroughs said he 'saw lights coming from the woods due east of the (East) gate.' If you place a ruler along East gate road on the aerial map and follow it along, it goes straight in the direction, and area, that yourself and Ms Bruni believe is the initial landing site. That is one of the reasons why i could not understand why area 5 on the UFO trail claims to be the landing site? (as it is nowhere near!) Also the fact that John Burroughs (You can't tell the people - page 167) said 'we walked for quite some distance.' Area 5 is literally a few feet from route 12, whereas the area yourself and Ms Bruni claim is in fact 'quite some distance.' I am now quite satisfied that i at least have been looking in the right area, even though it would be impossible to find the exact spot. And let's face it, Vince Thurkettle saw the original landing site back in the 1980's, he knows the forest like the back of his hand, and he led Ms Bruni there after taking 'one look at them' (photos- would he have needed to even look?) One eerie moment though was when my two greyhounds tore off all of a sudden to the end of route 12. I hunted for a while and eventually located them - standing in the field under Larry Warren's oak tree!!! And could i entice them out of that field? Even when i put their leads on they kept pulling away in hesitation, to the point where i thought they would start snarling at me (quite out of character for them as they are generally docile). I had to walk along the field some way, shi**ing myself, thinking 'at any moment now, i am going to hear gun shot!' before i could lead them out of the field.

[Andy]

How interesting it was to read Ian Ridpath's website this evening http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/photos.htm and being able to view such detailed photos, with compass point directions (taken in 1983, only three years after the event) of the area of Rendlesham forest where the alleged landings took place. Photos 2. (the view from East gate)and 3. (still standing) were of particular interest to me. I have red (somewhere) that following the incident, the trees in the immediate area were apparently removed (allegedly for 'tests'?- Please feel free to correct me if i'm wrong). Mr Ridpath explains that 'many of the trees in the area of the alleged UFO landing area were felled (as can be seen in his photographs) as part of normal forestry operation in the two or three years following.' Interesting. Perhaps i'm reading too much into this, but i cannot help asking myself, why just the immediate area that is very apparent on the photographs? What about the trees to the left, to the rear and to the right? Why just stop there? (which would appear to be in the areas of route 12, Larry Warren's field, and route 10? I may be mistaken.) However, it was also interesting to see the trees removed, as it gives a clear sight to the area 'due east' (Burroughs) from East gate road (where the lights were first seen), which appears to lead to the area (and also seem to correspond to the area shown on aerial map provided by admin- see above) that Georgina Bruni and Admin believe to be the area that the initial landing site took place.

[Andy]

Is there anyone 'in the know' who would be able to tell me, what were the make(s) and model(s) of Jeep(s) used on base, particularly around the 1980 era? So that i can find out more about them and their performance/capabilities etc. The reason i ask is that i have spent much time deliberating over the witness statements, Burroughs, Penniston, Cabansaq etc, and although appearing to be conflicting at times, nonetheless i do feel that amongst it all there is a clearer picture to be gained (even if it is a personal one) of the events/locations that night. On one hand i'm reading that Burroughs states they stopped the vehicle where the road ends and went on foot across an open field (which i assume to be the capel green field (Larry Warren's field), but on the other hand Jim Penniston is stating that due to the rocky terrain (and also frozen i recall reading somewhere) they had to abandon the vehicle and proceed on foot (Bruni, 2001). Surely a Jeep would be able to handle these sort of conditions? Any advice on the Jeeps would be much appreciated so that i can make further studies and come to my own conclusions.

[Andy]

It would appear that i probably have found the answer to my own question above - Willy Jeep (6 speed manual gearbox; 3 high, 3 low and reverse). Therefore i find it difficult to understand how such a vehicle (and Penniston) could have found problems dealing with 'rocky terrain (and having to)abandon the vehicle and proceed on foot' (Bruni 2001, p173), as opposed to Burrough's statement 'We stopped the truck (Cabansaq refers to it as a 'Jeep' p192) where the road stopped and went on foot. We crossed a small open field (which can only be Capel green/Larry Warren's field?) that led into the trees where the lights were coming from' (p164).
Halt later describes (p213) making 'his way to the initial landing site, which he explained was difficult to find in the dark and apparently took some time before they managed to reach it...Halt spotted a glowing red object...but at one point the light startled them as it turned and headed towards them before receding and moving back again through the forest...they pursued the light as it moved in the direction of the adjacent farmer's field...they neared the fence line, which seperated the forest from the field.' Page 271 'We continued to walk towards the left of the field, as witness Colonel Halt claims he did. P272 'He (Halt) explained that he was on the far left-hand side of the farmer's field, near a farmhouse.'
For anyone going on the UFO trail and would like to see an alternative, and, in my opinion very probable landing site; as per Bruni (2001) follow route 8, take 2nd path on left and follow it to the end (which leads onto what was route 10) and directly in front of you in the adjacent tree line is the area to look. This would appear to be the area Vince Thurkettle (and his six week old radioactive rabbit scrapings showed to Ms Bruni, and in my logic would tie into that as described above. Penniston's claimed landing site to my reckoning would have been (and i may be wrong) too far away to hear animals going beserk in the farmer's field. Unfortunately, to date, polite but probing questions to the forestry commission as to the sources that led to the placements of their landing sites have been met with apparent silence. Good luck all with your own studies and investigations because it is only through this that one day, and hopefully in my life time, we may get the truth as to what did really happen in Rendlesham forest back in 1980.