[Part 1] Rendlesham explained? [Visitor Submitted Article]

[Observer]

Hi
I'm not sure what all the fuss is about concerning the radiation readings and the word Nick Pope uses persistantly on his 'one liners' on some documenteries 'significantly higher'

For a reading in the milli reontgen range to be a few points above back ground readings can in no way be classed as significant.

I have used these meters in fallout training and they were not that accurate when measuring mili Reontgens.

Observer

[Observer]

Hi Admin

I have wondered for some time why they took a geiger counter out with them into the forest?

Thinking about it, it is a standard bit of kit used by the 'disaster' crews. The most likely disater at an air base being a plane crash.

Even if a crashed aircraft was not carrying nuclear weapons, there are systems on board some aircraft that contain radioactive isotopes which could end up as 'spillage' to the area in a crash.

This i suspect is why the geiger counter was taken out which then begs the question, did Halt think it was a crashed arcraft?

If Halt did not think it a crashed aircraft then he knew some thing about the event that all the others did not know and he must have also known that there was going to be some radioactivity albeit very small.

The readings in millireontgends [Gamma] that we have all read about are too small to be hazardous. Beta & Alpha readings are not given but they are pretty harmless at low levels and they do not have the penatrating qualities of Gamms rays. At low levels they would not go through paper let alone human skin.

Observer

[IanR]

Hi again Ian,

With all due respect to Nick, I cannot agree that the radiation readings are "the most tangible proof that something extraordinary happened there."

Agreed on that.

On the other hand, Nick has made a good point regarding the radiation readings being higher on a tree facing in towards the landing site, than on the other side of the tree facing away from the supposed landing site.

Bit of a red herring, that, I fear. Most of the time they are dealing with levels that they describe as "three to four clicks" or "minor clicks", and that's all they find on the tree. They find slightly higher readings, four or five clicks, on the other side of the second farmer's field, a long way from the landing site (see the last page of my tape transcript).

However, the readings come and go. One of the supposed landing marks (or "pod spots" as Halt terms it at one place) is described as "dead" and Halt is about to switch off his recorder. The highest reading they got was a brief spike in the middle of the supposed landing area, which could have been due to natural emission from the ground or from a cosmic ray hit. Even so, it was only "seven tenths", as they described it, or barely double what they got everywhere else.

What Nick P never makes clear, perhaps because he doesn't realize it himself, is that this 0.7 reading is only a peak, not a steady level. The National Radiologcal Protection Board (NRPB), who I consulted on this, are quite clear that Halt's readings are only normal background and I can't think of a more authoritative opinion.

Anyone who wants more detail on this can look here:
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham4.htm

I'm still a bit confused as to why Nevilles took a geiger counter with him at all... They went out intending to 'debunk' the UFO sightings (and came back surprised according to Halt)... but what use is a geiger counter?

Good question. It was Halt's decision to take out the geiger counter but he has never explained why, nor has he even been asked, as far as I am aware. Observer's suggestion that Halt might have thought he was dealing with a crashed aircraft sounds as good as any – after all, a crashed aircraft was the original supposition of the witnesses.

One other question worth asking is: what were all those blokes doing out in the forest before they called out Halt? And why, having told him "the UFO is back", didn't they show him the flashing light straight away? They knew it was there because they had already seen it. Why spend all that time fiddling around with geiger counters first? Think about it.

Ian

[Andy]

So John Burroughs et al stood at East Gate and didn't notice a helicopter carrying what looked like a UFO? Amazing. Very well thought out, but sorry, still not convinced. And i can't believe that someone would fly one after a bout of drinking? And besides, what's funny about that 'Joke'? None at all. I'd hardly have cracked any ribs laughing.

[Observer]

Hi Andy

As you have probably guessed, my article is pure theory although it was based on a few serious comments from friends in the ARRS.

Geiger counters are standard kit for the ARRS and the distaster teams in the USAF. They are not always taken out to incidents as it is up to the investigating officer at the scene to decide if the incident warrents it or not.

Clearly Halt thought it necessary, but his reasons [other than a suspected air crash] are obscure. I wonder if Halt new before the incident that the gieger counter was needed even though subsequent readings in my view were insignificant.

I ask another question, why did Larry Warren in his book Left at East Gate mention helicopters flying over head on the 3rd night? Notice he mentions them in the plural. However, it could have been just a general remark to aknowledge that there was one chopper flying over head.

Lastly, i was a regular visitor to both bases [when i lived in the area] for many years and take my word for it, they were huge practical jokers.

Some of the jokes were in my view way over the top but the USAF were compared to the RAF much more easy going about them. The biggest jokers of all were the Officers rather than the enlisted men. Knowing the USAF as i did, it was almost part of their culture.

Observer

[Andy]

Observer, my sincere apologies, i hadn't realised that it was you who actually wrote the article. I also must confess that i haven't had time to read the whole thread thoroughly. I thought it was some anonymous person who wrote it and albeit a very plausible explanation, trying to debunk. I'm always suspicious of anonymous people and their motives, but like i said, didn't realise it was you who actually wrote it.
The helicopter thing does interest me, because having seen the local police helicopter in the distance at night it appears as an orange ball of light hovering. As i've said in another thread, colleagues at the local hospital at the time viewed four or five orange balls of light hovering over the forest. I'm beginning to wonder whether it was actually helicopters they viewed especially as they said the lights gave off smaller intermittent flashing lights, mainly red and blue?

[Observer]

Hi Andy

No probs. i am also the author of "The Crucial Reason".
Both these submitted articles were written as an alternative explanation to the the UFO incident. They were designed to create debate. If any body wants to be bunk them fine, i have no problem with that.

I have no way of ever proving the theory as my pal [ex ARRS pilot] wishes to remain anomemous as in his words, Im protecting my pension.
In a way i feel that quite a few of the witnesses of this incident are including Halt. I still feel he is holding back on some of the info as are others.

I feel that Larry Warren bucked the system and would not play along with whatever people had decided, which could explain why the US authorities disowned him and the aleged treatment he got? He was and still is a rebel but i admire him for that and i certainly think that he needs more allies in his quest.

I am very intrigued with the statement about helicopters in his book and feel that this needs further investigation.

Regards

Observer

[ghaynes]

Hi All,
Just stumbled across this forum. Have found the threads very interesting. Believe I may have corresponded with 'Observer' recently via email as his 67th ARRS theory is virtually identical to mine!

Not sure though where that was but i'm told some where in the far East.

Observer

Moron AB, Spain

Regards.

Graham

[Observer]

Hi Graham

Thanks for your post and info on the Moron AFB Spain.

It would do this forum some good to have fresh points of view posted on it and i hope that we as a group can accept that there are several theories concerning this most strange incident. Not all are little green men from Mars. We do however maintain an open mind.

If you feel like contributing i for one would welcome it.

I was up in your area this last sunday 15th and drove over to the now derelict Rod & Gun club where i used to shoot clays with the US Airmen.
It was very nostalgic and sad to see such a great shooting facility no longer in use.

Observer

[ghaynes]

Hi Graham

Thanks for your post and info on the Moron AFB Spain.

It would do this forum some good to have fresh points of view posted on it and i hope that we as a group can accept that there are several theories concerning this most strange incident. Not all are little green men from Mars. We do however maintain an open mind.

If you feel like contributing i for one would welcome it.

I was up in your area this last sunday 15th and drove over to the now derelict Rod & Gun club where i used to shoot clays with the US Airmen.
It was very nostalgic and sad to see such a great shooting facility no longer in use.

Observer

I'll contribute where I can. Suffice to say (as you already know), my theory is the same as your ARRS one. We have a guy on our team at the museum who worked for the POL section at Woodbridge at the time of the incident. According to him, one of his shift colleagues saw the Apollo capsule (underslung from the HH-53), hit the landing lights. If you actually go to the landing lights at the 27 -end at Woodbridge you will see that the front row have been replaced (i.e. they are different to the rest of the lights). This was apparantely due to the aforementioned collision.
As for the antics of 67th ARRS personnel, I think this is well known. They certainly liked a good joke. We have some examples on display in the museum
Regards.

Graham

[Observer]

Hi Graham

Thanks for that. If it turns out that it was an ARRS prank [currently we have no way of proving it], we do however need to tie up a few loose ends such as explaing the lights on the object, warm to the touch if you believe Jim Penniston and what was the light phenomena in the sky observed by many.

If these bits of so called evidence and many more can be pieced together we may start to see the bigger picture. Currently in my view there is no bigger picture. We just seem to have a collection of statements that are intriguing yet mystifying. Some are condradictory and some are in agreement. It really does come down to who you believe.

Regards

Observer

[ghaynes]

Hi Graham

Thanks for that. If it turns out that it was an ARRS prank [currently we have no way of proving it], we do however need to tie up a few loose ends such as explaing the lights on the object, warm to the touch if you believe Jim Penniston and what was the light phenomena in the sky observed by many.

If these bits of so called evidence and many more can be pieced together we may start to see the bigger picture. Currently in my view there is no bigger picture. We just seem to have a collection of statements that are intriguing yet mystifying. Some are condradictory and some are in agreement. It really does come down to who you believe.

Regards

Observer

Yes, I must admit the lights on the object are a mystery. I saw the Apollo Capsule at Woodbridge a few times (post-1980) as it used to be on display outside the 67th ARRS ops building. It didn't look exactly the same as the photos posted earlier in this thread either. The top cone was missing giving it a 'flatter' top. This 'cone' was probably removed to allow strops to be attached when the HH-53s used it for training. It was also painted white and had three short legs welded to the bottom with tri-angular shaped feet. I don't recall seeing any lights on it though.
Regards.

Graham

[Observer]

Hi Graham

Thats very interesting about the legs and feet on the capsule.

Col Halt and others described 3 indentations of equal distance in the forest floor. The indentations or foot marks on the forest floor were not stricktly triangular in shape more oval, but then i don't think a triangular foot is going to leave a perfect mark.

It was apparently below freezing on the nights in question as the airmen had mentioned that the logging tracks were hard with frost. Amongst the trees was softer due to being sheltered from frost.
What weight do you think the capsule was?
One theory i heard, was that the ARRS had adorned the capsule with christmas tree lights which flashed different coloured lights. I have checked and these were available in the 80's.
Regards

Observer

[ghaynes]

Hi Graham

Thats very interesting about the legs and feet on the capsule.

Col Halt and others described 3 indentations of equal distance in the forest floor. The indentations or foot marks on the forest floor were not stricktly triangular in shape more oval, but then i don't think a triangular foot is going to leave a perfect mark.

It was apparently below freezing on the nights in question as the airmen had mentioned that the logging tracks were hard with frost. Amongst the trees was softer due to being sheltered from frost.
What weight do you think the capsule was?
One theory i heard, was that the ARRS had adorned the capsule with christmas tree lights which flashed different coloured lights. I have checked and these were available in the 80's.
Regards

Observer

Yes, interesting about the legs and feet!
According to Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_Module
the weight of the command module was 12,807 lb. I would say that, in order to provide the HH-53 crews with realistic training, the 'training aid' at Woodbridge would have been a similar weight.
Would like to know how they powered the Christmas Tree lights
Regards.

Graham

[Observer]

Hi Graham

I mentioned this to Admin some time ago that i had been corresponding by e mail with and ex 67th ARRS HH-53 pilot who was stationed at Woodbridge in the 80's. He has asked to remain anonimous which i have to respect.

This retired pilot denies having taken part in the scam as he said he was on leave Stateside over the Christmas period of 1980. He did however offer some info which he says was 3rd hand. The lights were christmas tree lights powered by a car battery that was duck taped inside the capsule. As for lights shining from under the surface of the capsule as described by Jim Penniston, i can only assume that these must have been placed behind a window or such like on the capsule.[Was there any windows on the capsule]?

Just as a matter of interest, another ex 67th ARRS pilot suggested the scam was done with a F-111 escape module which was also part of the training equipment at Woodbridge. Not sure how true this is as it does not fit the description by those involved or if it was ever there at that time.

Regards

Observer

[ghaynes]

Hi Graham

I mentioned this to Admin some time ago that i had been corresponding by e mail with and ex 67th ARRS HH-53 pilot who was stationed at Woodbridge in the 80's. He has asked to remain anonimous which i have to respect.

This retired pilot denies having taken part in the scam as he said he was on leave Stateside over the Christmas period of 1980. He did however offer some info which he says was 3rd hand. The lights were christmas tree lights powered by a car battery that was duck taped inside the capsule. As for lights shining from under the surface of the capsule as described by Jim Penniston, i can only assume that these must have been placed behind a window or such like on the capsule.[Was there any windows on the capsule]?

Just as a matter of interest, another ex 67th ARRS pilot suggested the scam was done with a F-111 escape module which was also part of the training equipment at Woodbridge. Not sure how true this is as it does not fit the description by those involved or if it was ever there at that time.

Regards

Observer

Don't recall any windows on the capsule. There should be some photos of it in the museum somewhere. I'll try and find them tomorrow and get them scanned.
Think the F-111 escape module can be discounted as it doesn't fit any descriptions. The F-111 module was always left outside the base on Sutton Common. Became a childrens plaything very quickly as well as attracting the attention of souvenir hunters!
Regards.

Graham

[Robert8982007]

Obsserver, we really appreciate your sharing what your sources have intimated may have happened to cause the Rendlesham events. The alleged module however would not have had the capability of flying on its own, so a helicopter would have had to be used to hoist the module out of the forest and return it to the storage facility where it had been previously housed during its stay at the base.

With that helicopter requirement in mind, listen to Jim Penniston's account of what happened the first night in the forest. And I have copied his words from the main page of this site. "The craft moved up off the ground, about three feet, still with absolutely no sound. It started to move slowly, weaving back through the trees at a very slow pace, maybe a half a foot per second. It took about a couple of minutes for it to manoeuvre itself back to a distance of about 100 to 150 feet, then it rose up just over the trees, about 200 feet high. There was a momentary pause -- and then literally with the blink of an eye it was gone. All with no sound. That still boggles my mind", said Penniston."

You will notice I added bold lettering to the quote for emphasis. If helicopters were used to retrieve the alleged module that night (and pray tell how else could it have been removed by human design), then how in the world could Mr. Penniston make the statement that there was absolutely no sound, and then repeated that statement a second time for emphasis. There is no way any human by ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER could have retrieved that alleged module silently that night and then caused it to disappear "with the blink of an eye". That alone seems to me to totally discount the possibility of the alleged rumors ever being true. Penniston is believed to be a credible witness by most accounts I have read, and I continue to believe his story.

Observer, I do not intend this reply to be disrespectful in any way to your post because these allegations are not yours but merely repeats of what you have been told. I am simply pointing out to you what makes the rumors impossible as explanations of what has happened in my mind. I could use similar logic for the other two nights of the occurrences as well, but I thought I would stop here and see if anyone had any observations to make isolating in on this one event.

[ghaynes]

Obsserver, we really appreciate your sharing what your sources have intimated may have happened to cause the Rendlesham events. The alleged module however would not have had the capability of flying on its own, so a helicopter would have had to be used to hoist the module out of the forest and return it to the storage facility where it had been previously housed during its stay at the base.

With that helicopter requirement in mind, listen to Jim Penniston's account of what happened the first night in the forest. And I have copied his words from the main page of this site. "The craft moved up off the ground, about three feet, still with absolutely no sound. It started to move slowly, weaving back through the trees at a very slow pace, maybe a half a foot per second. It took about a couple of minutes for it to manoeuvre itself back to a distance of about 100 to 150 feet, then it rose up just over the trees, about 200 feet high. There was a momentary pause -- and then literally with the blink of an eye it was gone. All with no sound. That still boggles my mind", said Penniston."

You will notice I added bold lettering to the quote for emphasis. If helicopters were used to retrieve the alleged module that night (and pray tell how else could it have been removed by human design), then how in the world could Mr. Penniston make the statement that there was absolutely no sound, and then repeated that statement a second time for emphasis. There is no way any human by ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER could have retrieved that alleged module silently that night and then caused it to disappear "with the blink of an eye". That alone seems to me to totally discount the possibility of the alleged rumors ever being true. Penniston is believed to be a credible witness by most accounts I have read, and I continue to believe his story.

Observer, I do not intend this reply to be disrespectful in any way to your post because these allegations are not yours but merely repeats of what you have been told. I am simply pointing out to you what makes the rumors impossible as explanations of what has happened in my mind. I could use similar logic for the other two nights of the occurrences as well, but I thought I would stop here and see if anyone had any observations to make isolating in on this one event.

Before Observer steps in with a reply please note the bold text in your quote above. I notice you state 'most' accounts and not 'all'. Jim Penniston could also have been involved in this cover-up. In my mind the creation of the UFO incident to hide what really happened, has succeeded. Even if the true story were to be made public, people have already decided what they want to believe.
Living at Rendlesham, knowing Bentwaters and Woodbridge 'intimately' and having met a lot of ex-67th ARRS/SOS personnel, I have formed my own opinion of what happened. As I've stated before, Observers theory is virtually identical to mine.
I, for one, wouldn't mind if the truth never came out. The UFO story brings a lot of much-needed tourism to the Rendlesham area and to the Bentwaters Cold War Museum........and that is not a bad thing
Regards.

Graham

[Robert8982007]

I am not aware of anyone who has questioned Penniston's veracity; however, I used the word "some" since I do not consider myself an expert in the Rendlesham event other than having viewed a few documentaries and having joined this site and read the verbal reports over the past 24 hours. If anyone is aware of any evidence that Penniston is not a credible witness, then I would like to hear what that evidence is.

As for now, however, as far as I am aware Penniston has verified the truth of all he has told for 28 years now. In addition John Burroughs was there to substantiate much of Penniston's testimony although he did not physically touch the object as I recall. Then on the nights of the 27th and 28th, we have the eyewitness testimony of Halt, Nevilles, Ball, Burroughs and many more who all saw the objects in the sky with their rays beaming down to the ground (right before them in some cases). So, I guess you have concluded that they are deliberately lying too. Having seen these guys give their documentary statements and read their statements as well, I have concluded otherwise. Again, if you have any reasonable evidence that these guys were all part of a massive coverup, then I'd love to read it.

Halt has an outstanding record of service, and I find his testimony and apparent veracity convincing. There are so many witnesses over the two or three episodes in the aggregate that I simply find it impractical to attribute any of the testimony that these men have given as being consistent with helicopters retrieving a single module--that is just not a rational explanation for any of what I have read. And I am one who does not tend to believe most of the UFO stories I have read; however, this particular one I tend to believe due to the number and apparent credibility of the witnesses versus the alleged joke rumors being spread by some who continue to hide after the passage of 28 years. The facts as verified by a large number of people seem to give a reasonable inference that the facts are as they have been alleged to be by Halt and his men.

[ghaynes]

I am not aware of anyone who has questioned Penniston's veracity; however, I used the word "some" since I do not consider myself an expert in the Rendlesham event other than having viewed a few documentaries and having joined this site and read the verbal reports over the past 24 hours. If anyone is aware of any evidence that Penniston is not a credible witness, then I would like to hear what that evidence is.

As for now, however, as far as I am aware Penniston has verified the truth of all he has told for 28 years now. In addition John Burroughs was there to substantiate much of Penniston's testimony although he did not physically touch the object as I recall. Then on the nights of the 27th and 28th, we have the eyewitness testimony of Halt, Nevilles, Ball, Burroughs and many more who all saw the objects in the sky with their rays beaming down to the ground (right before them in some cases). So, I guess you have concluded that they are deliberately lying too. Having seen these guys give their documentary statements and read their statements as well, I have concluded otherwise. Again, if you have any reasonable evidence that these guys were all part of a massive coverup, then I'd love to read it.

Halt has an outstanding record of service, and I find his testimony and apparent veracity convincing. There are so many witnesses over the two or three episodes in the aggregate that I simply find it impractical to attribute any of the testimony that these men have given as being consistent with helicopters retrieving a single module--that is just not a rational explanation for any of what I have read. And I am one who does not tend to believe most of the UFO stories I have read; however, this particular one I tend to believe due to the number and apparent credibility of the witnesses versus the alleged joke rumors being spread by some who continue to hide after the passage of 28 years. The facts as verified by a large number of people seem to give a reasonable inference that the facts are as they have been alleged to be by Halt and his men.

[/quote] Halt has an outstanding record of service, and I find his testimony and apparent veracity convincing. [/quote]

Wouldn't you try to appear convincing if you made as much money as he has out the incident?

I wouldn't say any of them were 'deliberately' lying. I'm suggesting that they were ordered to cover-up something that would have been an enormous embarrassment to the United States Air Force if it ever became public. It's no different from receiving orders from 'above' in any branch of the military......you do as you are told or else!
You really need to visit the area yourself, particularly Bentwaters and Woodbridge bases and then form your own conclusions. TV documentaries are not always the best means of forming a judgement.
Regards.

Graham