'New' Landing site

[bignos]

Hi, the 'new' site mentioned in earlier posts (next to the runway)... what is the deal here? By 'new', when was it identified and by whom? What exactly happened there or is it just a mark in the landscape and someone has put two and two together to make five?

[Ignis Fatuus]

Ha I still have the same questions regarding the original landing site. For such a momentous discovery, nobody seems to want to own it.

EASTON: When you went into the forest with Burroughs, you must have ended up in that same clearing - it's where the ground marks were and you recall Burroughs showing them to you. Appreciating this was 20 years ago, is it possible you are mistaken about the ground marks having been identified so early? There are, typically, different accounts - Burroughs has said the 'indentations' were found next morning, in the daylight, when they went back to look for evidence; Penniston claims the indentations were discovered that same night and before they all returned to duty.

Jim Penniston: We only got about 300 yards into the woods before we turned around. We still had no radio contact, which I thought was strange. We weren’t even getting squelch. We went back to the clearing. There, Airman Burroughs noticed the impression, the indentations in the ground. We found three of them, all triangular in shape, each about three meters apart.
http://rendlesham-incident.co.uk/evidence/witness-interviews/salley-rayl-interviews-jim-penniston-1997/

ARMOLD: I'm quite confident that Burroughs pointed out these marks before daylight. My opinion was that they looked like an impression made by a 3 pound US coffee can.

EASTON: If Burroughs and the others located these marks earlier that night, how did they do so in a dark forest, where the ground must have had numerous small pits/divots, etc? What did Burroughs suggest had made these particular marks? Presumably he must have thought it was an object of some kind? Did he explain where he thought it had gone!?

ARMOLD: Well James, that's a very good point, I suggest you ask Burroughs because in my opinion it would have been very difficult to have found them. What he said at the time was that he saw something that 'landed' in the forest at that position. I found this to be quite unrealistic as there were no destroyed trees, scorch marks or the like. I found it and still find it very fishy.

Ian Ridpath: There are conflicting reports about who found the landing site, but John Burroughs told me by email on 2008 January 17 that he thinks it was Captain Mike Verrano and Master Sergeant Ray Gulyas.

John Burroughs: This is what happened. Penniston and I were told to go to the shift commanders office and after we were finished we went out to the site. There were already people at the area where we were the night before. I don’t remember who they were for sure but they were dayshift personal and I don’t know how they found the area. We looked around at the damage done to the trees and area that had the marks. Again I will not be able to tell you who found the area first or much about what was found I just took a quick look the people who were out there were involved with the British police and the area in question. If I remember right 2 of the names were Capt Vereno and Msgt Guylouis and I also believe the ops Commander Maj Druery showed up...

Not according to Jim.....

Jim Penniston: After the debriefing, Airman Burroughs and I were put on authorized break for six days, so we drove home to Ipswich. I dropped Airman Burroughs off, then went home, changed clothes, and drove back to Woodbridge. But first I stopped by a friend’s place in Ipswich, who was a contractor and painter, who gave me some plaster. Then, I went back out to the forest and the clearing where the three indentations left by the craft we had seen were. I poured plaster into the impressions left in the ground by the craft and waited about 40 minutes. Then I pulled them up and put them in the back of my car, just as Maj. Ed Drurry, the Deputy Security Police Commander, and the assistant operations officer showed up. They asked me what I was doing. I told them I was just looking around. They told me they wanted to do the same.
http://rendlesham-incident.co.uk/evidence/witness-interviews/salley-rayl-interviews-jim-penniston-1997/

Yes Chris - very fishy indeed.

Math never was their strong suit Bignos.

[Observer]

In the Salley Rayl interview with Col Halt, he said there were 80 trained observers who saw the UFO from a distance on the first night and an additional 30 on the 2nd night. Does that mean there was a 110 observers on the second night or just 30? Yet in another interview not with Rayl, he said there was upwards of 40+ people in the woods. I can't remember the exact figure. Were these the ones observing from a 'distance'?

Any way these numbers seem crazy as there were not that many on duty over the Christmas break, just security/Police and several other skeleton crews.

The bottom line to this is why have none of these 80+ people come forward to tell us what they saw? It could put an entirely different perspective on this incident.
It has been suggested that a good proportion of those in the woods were off duty airmen hoping to see a UFO.
Obs

[Ignis Fatuus]

Yeah I found the whole Rayl-Penniston interview to be just as sus.
Very interesting how he painted himself out to be the only one who kept his head.

JP:That was when I decided to have Burroughs stay there as a radio link. He did not seem calm. He didn’t acknowledge what I was saying, but I thought he understood. I was more concerned at that moment with what was going on in front of me

Did it happen like that? Conveniently he is then in a position to make a claim that can't be confirmed or denied by anybody else.

JP: As I continued on into the woods, I started seeing the outline of the object itself. The lights that had just been a blur from 300 meters away were now definite, distinct colors — light blue, yellow, and red — and they were pulsating. Looking at the silhouette of the object, I realized it was not a conventional aircraft, meaning that it was not one that was already published in Jane’s All the World’s Aircraft. It was no aircraft I had ever seen, and it wasn’t one that I knew any prototype of.

“I had my notebook and camera while I was out there, so I began taking notes. This is what I wrote:

Triangular in shape. The top portion is producing mainly white light, which encompasses most of the upper section of the craft. A small amount of white light peers out the bottom. At the left side center is a bluish light, and on the other side, red. The lights seem to be molded as part of the exterior of the structure, smooth, slowly fading into the rest of the outside of the structure, gradually molding into the fabric of the craft.

“As I was taking notes, I also memorized what was in front of me for what seemed like hours, but was in fact only minutes. Finally, I unleashed my camera-case cover and brought the camera up to focus. The air was electric. It made my hair and skin feel as if I were surrounded by static electricity or some type of energy. I began snapping photo after photo. It was still eerily quiet.

“I got to within 10 feet of the craft and the clearing where it sat. I estimated it to be about three meters tall and about three meters wide at the base. No landing gear was apparent, but it seemed like she was on fixed legs. I moved a little closer. I had already taken all 36 pictures on my roll of film. I walked around the craft, and finally, I walked right up to the craft. I noticed the fabric of the shell was more like a smooth, opaque, black glass. The bluish lights went from black to gray to blue. I was pretty much confused at that point. I kept trying to put this in some kind of frame of reference, trying to find some logical explanation as to what this was and what was going on. It was dead silent. No animals were even making noise anymore.

“On the smooth exterior shell there was writing of some kind, but I couldn’t quite distinguish it, so I moved up to it. It was three-inch lettering, rather symbols that stretched for the length of two feet, maybe a little more. I touched the symbols, and I could feel the shapes as if they were inscribed or etched or engraved, like a diamond cut on glass.

“At that point, I backed away from the craft, because the light was starting to get brighter. Still, there was no sound. There was no physical contact with any kind of life form, but there did seem to be a life presence. It was mechanical, this ship, and it seemed to be under intelligent control.

“The next thing I knew, I was standing about 20 feet away from the craft with Burroughs, who I thought I had left back near the tree line.

Guess he forgot about Cabansag huh. Hang on - there he is - Jim put him somewhere away from the unfolding BS.

JP: As we started getting closer, it was apparent that it was not an aircraft downing or a crash. We weren’t sure what it was at that point, so we radioed that information back to Airman Cabansag, who radioed it back to CSC

Funny how he does that. I've always found that you can piece together what happened from the Who & the What that Jim omits from his version of events.
Plus I suspect the reason for fudging dates and times was....well..look what happened when the correct date and time was established.....FIREBALL.

JP: I asked Staff Sgt. Steffans if he had heard it go down. He told me there had been no sound, that it didn’t crash, that it had landed.

That's something that has been dropped from the retelling over the years eh - the UFO falling into the forest.

JP: When we arrived at CSC, we ran into Sgt. Chandler and two or three other security people. They had had negative contact with us for almost three hours, and they had been concerned. I remember saying to Sgt. Chandler, `You’re not going to believe tonight.’ He said, `Yeah? If it has anything to do with what I saw a little while ago, I would believe you

Really?

J.D. Chandler: After talking to the three of them, I am sure that they had observed something unusual. At no time did I observe anything from the time I arrived at RAF Woodbridge.http://rendlesham-incident.co.uk/evidence/usaf-witness-statements/j-d-chandlers-witness-statement/

JP:I was extremely upset by the memo’s release, because the story being leaked as a result included my name and I was being tied into it. I had been assured by my senior officers at Bentwaters that at no time would my name or whatever be used or released outside official U.S. channels. Of course, they hadn’t released it, but the next thing I know, it’s being covered on CNN and Unsolved Mysteries and in books and magazines. Fortunately, I was still in the service and managed to duck them all. But I was confused. I thought — and I had been told — that this was a top secret incident. And now all this

So TOP SECRET, he had to tell Brenda Butler all about it. I often read how Jim was a serious by-the-book operator, yet would such an operator go lone wolf in the woods and risk accusations of evidence tampering? By-the-book? Buy-the-book.

Anyway, still no closer to resolving the discoverer of the rabbit scrapings.

What do the believers make of the ever changing story? Like, he kind of went into alot of detail in the Rayl interview for it to have been an innocent foggy memory due to the passage of time.

Obs
It has been suggested that a good proportion of those in the woods were off duty airmen hoping to see a UFO.

Was the Party at Folly Cottage still rocking?

[Observer]

IF
Let me put it this way, this incident/light show was at night, come day time the forest was absolutely normal and that was confirmed to me by a mate who walked his dogs [2 Boarder Collies] in that forest over the Christmas break. Come night and it all kicks off again, so one has to conclude that night time was used for maximum effect with the light show. Hardly worth doing that during the day, no one would notice. So, the lights were to attract attention and possibly lure poeople into the forest.

Alien craft, wow, why do they always come at night and not during the day. Yes, Cindy MacFadden's rave ups [and it wasn't just booze] at Folly cottage were going on over the Christmas break, mostly with the PJ's. Its funny how all these people are staying quiet, yet Folly cottage is right near East Gate.

Obs

[bignos]

I often read how Jim was a serious by-the-book operator, yet would such an operator go lone wolf in the woods and risk accusations of evidence tampering? By-the-book? Buy-the-book.

-

but still no-one knows about the origin of the 'new' site?

[Observer]

Which new site are you referring to. One of the most recent new sites was Penniston's new site in line with the runway just at the forests edge under the flight path. Makes you wonder if something got dropped into the forest from an aircraft on approach or even on take off if the wind was in the other direction, worth a look I think. Also Halt admitted he 'went out' to invent new sites which makes me think he was trying to take the heat of the real landing site which was Pennistons. Why? Was some thing dislodged from an aircraft when he hit the landing lights on take off and it fell in the woods? Its worth looking at these questions if only to elliminate them,

Obs

[bignos]

Obs,
The one mentioned here (half way down, above Brenda's picture):
http://www.chilling-tales.com/page63.html

and by Gordy here:

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=capel+green+suffolk&sll=52.087731,1.455506&sspn=0.000628,0.001966&ie=UTF8&t=h&ll=52.094853,1.435862&spn=0.00994,0.031457&z=15

Open the link in another window. At the bottom of the picture you can see the east end of RAF Woodbridge runway. Now look at the circular image with the dark green center (light coloured circular shape with a dark green circular center). Above that there is a triangular shaped section of trees. In that rough area is the location we think this photograph above was taken, the photo obtained by Georgina Bruni featuring a British Policeman and a US Airman (Capt Verrano) with his hands behind his back. We are sure this is that location because we have photographs taken in 2002 and the trees and branches match PERFECTLY with those in above photos. I may be able to post these photo's up if I get permission from him but we will show these photos on Sept 10 at our talk. The trees were cut down in 2004 but at the exact spot my colleague used divining rods in 2002 and found the three holes where the steaks were knocked in. We refer to this location as Area 1. This location is almost bare, like nothing seems to want to grow, maybe an area 15ft in diameter

[Gordy]

This site was discovered by Brenda Butler, Peter Parish and a few others in 2002 before the trees had been felled. We have photographic evidence that this location is where the photograph of Verrano and the British Police Officer was taken. I don't own the rights to these photographs hence the reason I have not posted them here or emailed them to John Burroughs. I have seen them and the trees, branches etc are a perfect match.

[bignos]

aaaah, thanks Gordy!
How do we get to see these photos?
is it this one or another?
http://rendlesham-incident.co.uk/eviden ... te-photos/

[IanR]

This site was discovered by Brenda Butler, Peter Parish and a few others in 2002 before the trees had been felled. We have photographic evidence that this location is where the photograph of Verrano and the British Police Officer was taken. I don't own the rights to these photographs hence the reason I have not posted them here or emailed them to John Burroughs. I have seen them and the trees, branches etc are a perfect match.

Hang on, how can it be a "perfect match" over 20 years after the event?

There were precious few trees left even in 1983 -- see photos 3 and 4 on this page
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/photos.htm
and I thought they, too, were flattened not long after. Do you remember all those pictures from the early 1980s of Brenda and Dot sitting at the landing site surrounded by tree stumps?

Ian

[Gordy]

This site was discovered by Brenda Butler, Peter Parish and a few others in 2002 before the trees had been felled. We have photographic evidence that this location is where the photograph of Verrano and the British Police Officer was taken. I don't own the rights to these photographs hence the reason I have not posted them here or emailed them to John Burroughs. I have seen them and the trees, branches etc are a perfect match.

Hang on, how can it be a "perfect match" over 20 years after the event?

There were precious few trees left even in 1983 -- see photos 3 and 4 on this page
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/photos.htm
and I thought they, too, were flattened not long after. Do you remember all those pictures from the early 1980s of Brenda and Dot sitting at the landing site surrounded by tree stumps?

Ian

I remember them for sure, I don't know where in the forest those particular photo's were taken, Ill ask her tonight. You may have thought "they, too, were flattened not long after", however:

The trees in what we call "Area 1" is, we believe is the location where the photograph of Verrano and the British Police Officer was taken is just off what was originally Track 1 (now Track 74), hence the reason we call it Area 1. I will put our case for this below:

Some of these tree's came down in the Oct 87 storm, the rest were felled by the Forestry Commission in 2004, a few of the original tree's still stand in this area. In 2002 Peter and Brenda located this location and were stunned when they looked at the number and position of the trees, and one tree in particular that has a branch growing out from the side. This branch cannot be seen on the tree in the famous photo obtained by Geogina Bruni (that appears in my UFO free speech for all thread on this forum), but Georgina mailed a full size copy of that photograph to Brenda when she was writing You Can't Tell the People, and this was before Brenda found Area 1. I have seen the original photograph Georgina mailed to Brenda,

I have seen the photos of Area 1 taken by Peter Parish in 2002, he has several in fact, and when you compare the two, without a shadow of a doubt this is the location of the photograph featuring Capt Verrano and the British Police Officer. All five trees are in the same places, one has the distinguishing curved branch growing out the left side clearly visible in the full size Geogina Bruni photo. If I owned copyright on these photographs I would put them up on here right now to rest my case.

Ian perhaps you would be so kind and advise the location in the forest where photograph # 3 and 4 that your refer to above were taken? Putting 2 and 2 together I figure they were taken near the edge of the forest near Capel Green, ie "Halt's landing spot" circled on your site here http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham5b.htm

[Gordy]

aaaah, thanks Gordy!
How do we get to see these photos?
is it this one or another?
http://rendlesham-incident.co.uk/eviden ... te-photos/

If you are refering to the photograghs I refer to above, I don't know if the full size Georgina Bruni photo has been published, at the time of coarse cutting the photo to size did not seem to matter as probably no one (in the public domain) knew where this location was and did not deem the branch on the trees details important, but she did mail a copy to Brenda, my colleague Peter owns copyright to the ones he took on 2002, I will ask if he is prepared to publish them.

[Gordy]

See here for the location, green arrow marks the spot:

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=52.0953 ... 31457&z=15

[Observer]

This looks like the New Penniston landing site which is not far of the runway glide path. Also, was it this site or another one that Halt had the Light Alls taken to. You must also consider that the vehicle towing the Light Alls will only be able to go so far into the woods on the logging tracks. So which site were they towed to. After turning left from East gate is where BTDT said the light alls were lined up along the road side dazzling the drivers so they could not see behing them as they drove past. Halt has never ever mentioned what he 'did' with the light alls but BTDT has, strange.
Any body add to this.
Obs

[IanR]

Ian perhaps you would be so kind and advise the location in the forest where photograph # 3 and 4 that your refer to above were taken? Putting 2 and 2 together I figure they were taken near the edge of the forest near Capel Green, ie "Halt's landing spot" circled on your site here http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham5b.htm

Yes that’s the site Halt was at. My photos were taken in pretty much the same spots as photos 4 and 5 in Sky Crash which show the supposed landing area. It’s clear from the book that Brenda, Dot, and Jenny all regarded this area as the landing site. Brenda and Dot were photographed there many times. And Vince the forester confirmed that the site he saw was in this same area at the eastern edge of the forest.

The police file tells us they were taken to a site two miles to the east of East Gate
http://www.suffolk.police.uk/NR/rdonlyr ... lights.pdf
Admittedly their distance estimate is somewhat too large -- it’s more like 2 km than 2 miles -- but I don’t see how that description of being some way east of East Gate fits with any of the other sites proposed.

Ian

[Observer]

Just how relevant are these 'alleged' landing sites in the grand scheme of things. If, we eventually come to a majority aggreement as to their locations [which I cannot see happening in the forseable future] what then? We have still to prove that something actually landed at all, let alone where. I'm as keen as the next guy to find out what caused the RFI and I have some pet theories, [but then I'm sure you all have theories on it], but because some third parties have asked me not to reveal their ID's here, I'm saying nothing, so perhaps different lines of enquiry may be more fruitfull than 'landing sites'

Obs

[webplodder]

IanR, in your opinion, did Col. Halt report accurately what he witnessed, completely made the whole thing up, or saw something that he and others misinterpreted? Col. Halt does strike me as being an honest man but that is my subjective experience and not scientific evidence.

It seems a bit far fetched to suppose the airmen that night simply saw the lighthouse light because, for one thing, they say the reflection of the object when in the farmer's field could be seen in the farmer's house windows which faces away from where the lighthouse is located. Also, how could the light from the lighthouse 'explode' into several pieces, which, according to Halt, did occur? The lighthouse light hypothesis would have to account for all the visual experiences the airmen had that night which does seem to be stretching things a bit. Could a satellite re-entering earth's atmosphere be the answer? Another point is that one would have expected the same phenomenon to occur on any other night if it was the lighthouse light since it comes on every night. Was this tested?

[IanR]

IanR, in your opinion, did Col. Halt report accurately what he witnessed, completely made the whole thing up, or saw something that he and others misinterpreted?

I have never had any reason to doubt that Col Halt reported on his tape recording what he saw as accurately as he could. This is what makes the tape so fascinating for UFO researchers -- it documents a long-duration UFO sighting while it is in progress.

In fact, from Halt’s descriptions we can make a pretty good stab at identifying what it was he and the others saw. As everyone here should know by now, I am of the opinion that he and the others misinterpreted natural and man-made lights -- initially the lighthouse and later on bright stars. There is nothing unusual in this, since we know from years of experience that misidentification of known lights seen in unusual circumstances is the main cause of UFO reports. Bright stars are common culprits but the lighthouse was a new one, at least to me.

Since then, however, this has become a celebrated case and the previously reticent Halt has embellished his story to the point of fantasy, with the encouragement of others such as TV companies and UFO researchers. It’s got the point where he can’t even keep his own story straight any more -- see, for example, the lamentable affidavit that he put out last year
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/Halt_affidavit.htm

It seems a bit far fetched to suppose the airmen that night simply saw the lighthouse light because, for one thing, they say the reflection of the object when in the farmer's field could be seen in the farmer's house windows which faces away from where the lighthouse is located.

But when and where do they say this? As far as I am aware Halt is the only one who says this and he has added this detail to his story in recent years, no doubt in an attempt to “prove” it couldn’t be the lighthouse he saw. He has also moved the flashing light to the left of the farmhouse, but that is not consistent with his compass reading at the time, which puts it firmly to the right of the farmhouse, where the lighthouse is. Halt is wriggling, and as someone who demands high standards of evidence I would expect you to see through it.

Also, how could the light from the lighthouse 'explode' into several pieces, which, according to Halt, did occur?

But it didn’t. The supposed “explosion” is one of Halt’s later elaborations. On the tape, he simply says: “We’ve passed the farmer’s house and are crossing the next field and now we have multiple sightings of up to five lights with a similar shape and all but they seem to be steady now rather than a pulsating or glow with a red flash.”

That’s all, from the man on the spot, at the time.

We subsequently learn from him that the light has not exploded at all, for he goes on to say: “2:44.  We’re at the far side of the farmer’s...the second farmer’s field and made sighting again about 110 degrees.  This looks like it’s clear off to the coast.  It’s right on the horizon.”

In other words, it was there all the time, but temporarily out of sight behind the intervening hill. As I like to ask: what lies on the coast in the direction of Orford Ness and flashes?

The lighthouse light hypothesis would have to account for all the visual experiences the airmen had that night which does seem to be stretching things a bit.

No it wouldn’t and it doesn’t attempt to. Read my full analysis of the tape here, particularly Point 10 onwards:
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/halttape%20analysis2.htm

Could a satellite re-entering earth's atmosphere be the answer?

No. This is a long-duration sighting over multiple nights, remember.

Another point is that one would have expected the same phenomenon to occur on any other night if it was the lighthouse light since it comes on every night. Was this tested?

Interestingly enough, the flashing light was indeed seen over a number of nights. The three airmen saw it on the first night. John B assures us there was an undocumented middle night when some others went out and saw the light. Then there was Halt’s night. And there are anecdotal stories about others going out there on subsequent nights to see the lights, presumably until weather intervened or they lost interest.

It does all rather fall into place, don’t you think?

Yrs skeptically,
Ian

[webplodder]

Ok, well, thank you IanR. I began looking at this case on the assumption that Col. Halt was at least being entirely honest in his account. In light of what you have told me I have to be very skeptical about any of his story. Case closed I think.