For John Burroughs

[puddlepirate]

Hi Observer - absolutely agree. And I've said myself that take away everything probable and whatever is left, no matter how improbable, is the truth. Like the lighthouse, the Apollo capsule and now an F117 once it has been proved it cannot be that, then things move on.

However, the questions of the purpose of the road block, who authorised it and who manned it still remain. As does the issue over what hit the landing lights. These need to be answered.

[puddlepirate]

Hi Observer

Just a thought...but it it would be highly likely that a film would be taken of a stealth involved in an accident in friendly territory outside the US. It would provide valuable information for later analysis. All it would mean is that there was probably only one or two cameramen with the appropriate security clearance (maybe part of the development/test evaulation team)and that the film itself would be of the same classification as the project and handled accordingly.

A lot of footage exists of highly classified projects. Two that immediately spring to mind are the AVRO car (a saucer shaped aircraft developed by us British but taken over by the Canadians and later the Americans) and the moon lander piloted by Armstrong that went out of control causing Armstrong to eject at a low level.

[Observer]

Hi puddlepirate

Yes i aggree there is a lot of film footage of various secret projects and most seem to take up air time on the history channels for 'blowing your own trumpet' docs.

Do a FOI to the Suffolk Police re road block. Thinking about it, if there had of been an aircrash, stealth or not, that would have got out one way or another and we would be reading about it, not to mention the debris and almost certainly fire.
Even the highly secret aircraft that crashed at Boscombe Down got into the papers, admittedly it was not disclosed what it was but never the less it made the news, not national but local.
Road blocks are not that unusual, especially if some unexploded ordinance is found and the area would automatically be cordened off by whatever authority. Air crashes without exception are attended by the fire service. They are trained for them and when an air base is on the fire services patch they work in conjunction with the base fire service. Neither of these attended the forest. Do a FOI to Suffolk Fire service in case they were given an alert.
I wonder if the 2 major Ipswich hospitals were given a HAZ CHEM alert at that time?

Observer

[Wolf]

I have a couple of contacts who are ex ammo guys (IYAAYAS). I'll contact them and see if they can provide any further gauge on the underground areas in the WSA's, but as far as I'm aware there were none at the twin bases. They were closed before the WS3 systems were introduced, so as far as I know there were no links to the NAPA's either.

I had a response from one of my friends who said that as far as he's aware there was no underground storage in the WSA on either bases in the late 60's early 70's.

Sometimes I do think terminology is a stumbling block in this case though. The bunkers in the WSA's and NMSA's (CAS's) ar earth covered but are above ground level. This applies to the fuel tanks in the POL areas.

Also UFO, all it means is an Object that was Flying and was Unidentified by the observer. It in no way infers that it's a craft under intelligent control by a nonearth entity. As a friend of mine once said they can't be alien, as if they were so damn clever they wouldn't crash so much and they'd abduct cheerleaders instead of cattle.

V/R

Wolf

[IanR]

UFO, all it means is an Object that was Flying and was Unidentified by the observer. It in no way infers that it's a craft under intelligent control by a nonearth entity. As a friend of mine once said they can't be alien, as if they were so damn clever they wouldn't crash so much and they'd abduct cheerleaders instead of cattle.

Of course, it's not widely realized that the reason the Space Shuttle crashed is because it was based on alien technology...

Ian

[puddlepirate]

Observer, all

Re ECM/EW - there is a technical branch in the Royal Navy where those who work in that branch are nicknamed 'gollies'.... It is the Electronic Warfare (EW) branch. The reason they are called 'gollies' is because some years back, mid 1970's I think, when the branch was first created it was possible to collect the labels from jars of Robertson's marmalade (whose logo was a golliwog) and send them off for a lapel badge. Because the EW branch was new, promotion witihin it was rapid and it was reckoned by others in the RN at that time, that to get promoted in the EW branch all you needed to do was collect the labels from marmalade jars and send off for your promotion - hence the nickname.

The point of all this is that EW and electronic countermeasures were new and there must have been many tests of various bits of EW/ECM kit going on all over the place but especially at sites like Orfordness.

This has to be a strand deserving of further research - especially in light of the recent post by admin.

[ghaynes]

Hi Graham

(Apologies if this post appears twice)

The PDU consisted of equipment that could record the radar image on 35 mm film, develop, fix and dry the image and then project it up on to the plotting table in the control room on the floor above. The displayed image was one minute behind real time. The PPI image from a high intensity CRT was projected on to the film through a focusing lens. Each revolution of the radar antenna took 15 seconds, so it took this time to expose the film to a full revolution. At the end of the sweep the frame would be moved on to be developed, whilst the next frame was exposed. When the frame moved on at the end of the next sweep the image was fixed, it then moved on again and it was dried. Finally the frame moved on once more where it was projected, via a mirror, to the floor above. Mean while the next frame to be exposed has been following on through the process, so at the end of the next revolution this frame was projected, 15 seconds after its predecessor. As frame after frame was displayed on the map the plotters in the pit could place markers on the map to indicate friendly or hostile returns. The senior officers could rapidly judge how a threat was building and see the big picture by watching the display on the map. The photograph shows the image at R.A.F. Sopley in southern England. The centre of the display usually consists of permanent echoes, or "clutter", and has been "blanked off" here (clear circular area, right of centre). Principle airways are represented by the long straight parallel lines. The squares with letters in them are used to make up the "Geo-Ref", used to convey the position of a target by voice over telephone lines. Individual aircraft appear as small black dots. The maximum range shown here is around 450 Km or around 260 miles. Occasionally there would be an incident such as an aircraft accident or an air miss and like the MARS described tapes above, we would be ordered to secure the relevant film until an enquiry could be held.

Source: http://www.radarpages.co.uk/mob/mrs/mrs.htm

Hi Puddlepirate,
Thanks for that but unfortunately that's a very misleading description. There was only one floor underground but the ops room was on two levels (a raised and lower (pit) area) very much like the ops room in the command post at Bentwaters. The plotting system at Bawdsey was different when I was there (1984-1990) as everything was digitised. I can only assume that radar images weren't recorded in the same way either, seeing as I have never come across that method.
Regards.

Graham

[ghaynes]

The PDU consisted of equipment that could record the radar image on 35 mm film, develop, fix and dry the image and then project it up on to the plotting table in the control room on the floor above. .. Occasionally there would be an incident such as an aircraft accident or an air miss and like the MARS described tapes above, we would be ordered to secure the relevant film until an enquiry could be held.

Evidence from an RAF witness confirms that this was indeed the case. Squadron Leader Derek Coumbe, who was on duty at RAF Watton on the night of Col Halt's sighting, was interviewed by BBC Radio 4 in October 2004 and explained what happened.

He says: "As usual, with any incident of any kind, any aircraft incident, any reports coming through, the automatic procedure was for the voice tapes initially to be impounded and also the radar film because the radar was on a permanent camera, to be impounded as well, and they would then be scrutinised later as and when required."

I have put a transcript of the interview on my website here
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/Coumbe%20interview.txt
and will leave it up for the next week or so.

The bottom line is that nothing was seen on radar that night.

Ian

Like I said, the recording of radar images didn't happen at any of the bases I was on (Wattisham, Bawdsey, Chivenor, Byron Heights FI)...only audio (1983-1992). Can't speak for Watton though, never went there fortunately!
Regards.

Graham

[John Burroughs]

No!!!

[Andy]

Hi John, really good to have you on the forum. Please can you answer something, that has always confused me regarding the intial landing site you witnessed on the first night? Jim Penniston spoke of seeing the lights just within the tree line a short way, and i may be wrong, but he would also seem to suggest the initial landing site was not far from East Gate, maybe a few hundred yards within the forest, if that? However, according to Halt, the initial landing site was up near the farmer's field, roughly around half a mile away? Where was it that you came across the machine that you saw?

If you do come to England, count me in for a few beers and a group chat.
Great fun. I also do not live far from Rendlesham.

[Andy]

Seeing you on here has re-wetted the appetite I have so many questions i want to ask. Your witness statement has always interested me, as with the others that were made. If i may refer to it, please can i take the liberty of asking:

1. 'My partner and myself saw lights coming from the woods due east of the gate.'

Q. Were these lights straight ahead of you, looking down from the East gate? Or off to the right or left of the east gate road?

2. 'We went down east-gate road and took a right at the stop sign and drove down about 10 to 20 yards to where there is a road that goes into the forest at the road.'

Q. Was this what was known as route 12 (now eight)? In the 1980's it probably didn't have logging route numbers, but what i want to know is this? As you turned right at the end of the east gate road, was it the first logging path on your left that you are referring to? What confuses me is that you mention 10-20 yards, but the logging path i'm referring to, is a lot more than 20 yards along the road from east gate.

3. 'We stopped the truck where the road stopped and went on foot.'

Q. Other witnesses have apparently stated that the logging path was too rough, and therefore had to stop the vehicle and proceed on foot. However, your statement would seem to suggest you were able to relatively easily drive the vehicle down the path to where the path ended. Where was this? Larry Warren speaks of a 'staging post' which according to him was up near to the farmer's field. Is this where you stopped the vehicle?

4. 'We crossed a small open field that led into the trees where the lights were coming from.'

Q. Was this the farmer's field, where apparently the farm animals were making a lot of noise? If so, why did you cross it, only to re-enter the forest again? Surely there would have been no need to do this? What i'm trying to say is this, the machine was in the forest. The field is beyond the forest. Why didn't you just walk through the trees from the logging path to get to the machine, as opposed to obviously passing it, walk across a field, then walk back into the forest again?

5. 'All three of us hit the ground and whatever it was started moving backwards towards the open field and after a minute or two we got up and moved into the trees and the lights moved out into the open field.'

Q. By saying 'three' Cabansaq was therefore with you then? And not left as a radio link? Also what did you mean by after a minute or two we got up and moved into the trees? Were you not already in the forest and therefore in(to) the trees?

I hope you don't mind me asking all these questions, but the Rendlesham case fascinates me, and it's not everyday you have the chance to talk to a first hand witness.

[Andy]

Sorry to be a pain, John, a few more questions:

1. You claim in your statement that you and your partner 'saw lights coming from the woods due east of the gate.' Due east would be straight ahead. I've also just re-read Jim Penniston's statement 'Upon arriving at east gate DIRECTLY to the east (ie straight ahead) about 1 1/2 miles in a large wooded area. A large glowing light was emitting above the trees. In the centre of the lighted area directly in the centre ground level, there was a red light blinking on and off 5 to 10 sec intervals. And a blue light that was being for the most part steady.'

I know the forest has changed since then, but even so, was it really that clear from one and a half miles away through a thick forest of mature pine trees?

2. Seeing that the 'lights' were due east and therefore directly in front of you, why did you then drive to the end of the road, take a right, and then enter the forest on the logging road? (some distance down) where you apparently see a white light shining into the trees which then follows you down the road? However, according to the diagram in Skycrash p46 the security patrol entered the forest 'on foot' directly in front of the east gate, (obviously couldn't have been wide enough for a vehicle), then, for some strange reason branched off to the right, and onto route 12 (now eight) continued along, then towards the farmer's field re-entered the forest at an angle towards the left to the alleged landing site? If Skycrash is to be believed, then there would appear to have been a path directly in front of east gate leading into the forest? Can you see how i'm confused? You were there on that first night. Step by step, do you care to give us more clarification and accuracy as to the true account of the evening and help to clear up the confusion, ie the route you took, where exactly you found the machine etc.

[Wolf]

I have just had another response from another of my Ammo friends.

He says that while he was stationed at the twinbases there were no underground storage withing the WSA/NMSA.

There are lots of rumours about this kind of storage on base, but to be honest I have never spoken to anyone who has mentioned any form of underground shelters for personnel.

There is also story that has been floating around the internet regarding the truth being stored in building 398, which is a bunker within the WSA on Bentwaters. This bunker has a safe inside it which requires 2 keys and 2 combinations to open. In the floor of this bunker it used to say EDM LIVE -> and <-EDM 'INERT' (or something like that). This bunker was used to store Emergency Destruct Munitions, which would have been used to destroy any ordenance in the WSA in the event that it was likely to be overrun by enemy forces.

Any exotic ordenance would have been delivered to Woodbridge and Bentwaters via C5.

V/R

Wolf

[IanR]

There is also story that has been floating around the internet regarding the truth being stored in building 398, which is a bunker within the WSA on Bentwaters. This bunker has a safe inside it which requires 2 keys and 2 combinations to open. In the floor of this bunker it used to say EDM LIVE -> and <-EDM 'INERT' (or something like that). This bunker was used to store Emergency Destruct Munitions, which would have been used to destroy any ordenance in the WSA in the event that it was likely to be overrun by enemy forces. Wolf

That story comes from the Twin Bases website, which includes an amusing insight into how some of these "UFO" stories start:
http://twinbases.org.uk/photbw/pc/2005- ... 98-wsa.htm

Ian

[John Burroughs]

Guys
Here is the big picture. First of all I would like to create just one area to work on this there are to many different areas to keep track of.Second of all I had the flu this weekend so that is why you have not seen me on this site for the last few days. Redsock to answer your question about a lie detector test I will not come over and have you conduct a witch hunt a lie dector test is no problem if it is done in a professionel way . One of the people I would want to have present would be Nick Pope I say this because if he truley was involved he could help clear up somthings. I also would try and get a unanmed person at this point to come over only because I need to check and see if he is interested. Andy my statement is and true as I can explain it. I would have to come over to try and show you where I was. I was only out in the forrest twice. As far as Halt goes that was he and Penniston on the Sci Fi that came up with 2 different sites when they were out in the forrest. Cabansag was with us when we first came upon the lights and it only lasted a couple of min not over 45 like Penniston has stated. Jim went under hypnosis and that has changed his story allot. This incident was not a hoax period. There are things that happened that cannot be talked about to this day because of what was stored there and what happened. As far as the under ground storage area that was Warren story and I just want to make sure there is nothing there. Penniston and the rest of them stated they were taken to the OSI office I have heard of rumors there was a under ground complex plus I was showen entrances that led to tunnels that I was told went to a area underground. One of them was in the weapons storage at Woodbridge. What happened is still a mystery but I know almost for sure it was some kind of weapons mind control test. As far as the US government not willing to do it they tested nuclear blast in Nevada on there own troops and told them there would be no problems. As far as Steve Roberts goes I know who he is and why he did it. Ask Dot street to give you the name if not have her contact me and will take it from there. And take a look to see if there is a tunnel that runs from the WSA to the NSMA at Bentwaters...

[Observer]

Thanks John for some interesting info.

What i cannot understand, if you are right, is why conduct an experiment in mind control weapons on you guys during the Christmas holidays?
It doesn't make sense. Surely also they could not risk involving local British people which would or could happen in the forest as it was off base.
Hope the flu is better.

Observer

[John Burroughs]

Christmas would be the best time not many people on duty. Who knows for sure if they were testing it on us. They my have been running some kind of test out to sea and we just got sucked into it. Or they might have been trying to effect somthing that was out in space.

[Observer]

Whichever way, they wrecked your Christmas.

Observer

[Andy]

Fascinating, and as said thanks for the info. It would be great if you could come over and try and show me where the initial landing site was. However, i could appreciate the difficulty of this, as the forest has now changed considerably. That was why i asked the simple question, were you near to east gate, or some half a mile away near the farmer's field when you came across the machine? If you had said the latter then i would know exactly where you are referring to, as Brenda Butler showed me the site, as shown to her by Halt back in 1981. However, i still would find it unfathomable why you bypassed it, crossed the farmer's field, then turned back on yourself to re-enter the forest to find it, when it had been sitting there all the while and giving a good clue as to it's presence due to the bright glowing lights it was emitting and described by various witnesses, including yourself? However, if it was the former, then yes, you would have to try and show me. I was surprised to hear that you were only out in the forest twice? According to Halt, after the initial event you apparently camped out in the woods?

I was interested to read that there are things that cannot be talked about to this day because of what was stored there and what happened? Makes the new documentary with Halt and his apparent new revelations even more intriguing.

I really do look forward to meeting you John, because then seeing really is believing. Forgive me if at present i'm not wholly convinced.

[redsocks]

Guys
Here is the big picture. First of all I would like to create just one area to work on this there are to many different areas to keep track of.Second of all I had the flu this weekend so that is why you have not seen me on this site for the last few days. Redsock to answer your question about a lie detector test I will not come over and have you conduct a witch hunt a lie dector test is no problem if it is done in a professionel way . One of the people I would want to have present would be Nick Pope I say this because if he truley was involved he could help clear up somthings. I also would try and get a unanmed person at this point to come over only because I need to check and see if he is interested. Andy my statement is and true as I can explain it. I would have to come over to try and show you where I was. I was only out in the forrest twice. As far as Halt goes that was he and Penniston on the Sci Fi that came up with 2 different sites when they were out in the forrest. Cabansag was with us when we first came upon the lights and it only lasted a couple of min not over 45 like Penniston has stated. Jim went under hypnosis and that has changed his story allot. This incident was not a hoax period. There are things that happened that cannot be talked about to this day because of what was stored there and what happened. As far as the under ground storage area that was Warren story and I just want to make sure there is nothing there. Penniston and the rest of them stated they were taken to the OSI office I have heard of rumors there was a under ground complex plus I was showen entrances that led to tunnels that I was told went to a area underground. One of them was in the weapons storage at Woodbridge. What happened is still a mystery but I know almost for sure it was some kind of weapons mind control test. As far as the US government not willing to do it they tested nuclear blast in Nevada on there own troops and told them there would be no problems. As far as Steve Roberts goes I know who he is and why he did it. Ask Dot street to give you the name if not have her contact me and will take it from there. And take a look to see if there is a tunnel that runs from the WSA to the NSMA at Bentwaters...

John,

I am not interested in a "witchhunt" against you,far from it Its your chance to put your story forward simple as that.Yeah sure there will be questions but wouldnt you expect that?,you would be are guest and treated with the utmost respect I promise you,heck you can even stay in my house.I will talk to some people including Nick and give you some dates.Dont think that I'm against you here far from it.

Redsocks