Two types of landing marks: Two encounters?

[Frank]

Just discovered this and couldn’t resist posting it:

The landing marks found by John on the first night had a circular shape:

- Halt’s memo describes the landing marks as 1.5 inches deep and 7 inches in diameter, i.e. circular.

- The plaster cast made by Jim Penniston also shows a circular landing mark.

- In this interview Richard Bertolino describes the landing marks as circles, “cut out almost circular like you’d used a coffee can”: http://www.earthfiles333.com/earthfiles/audio/mp3/EarthFilesEpisode57_high.mp3

- Chris Armold visited the site around 04:00 on the first night. John Burroughs took him to the landing site and Armold (who is very skeptical) thinks the landing marks could be impressions of a coffee can, i.e. they are circular (source: http://web.archive.org/web/20021210083709/www.ufoworld.co.uk/v15.txt)


I always wondered why the landing marks on the photographs in the MOD files (especially the first and third one) look more like a V, they do not look circular at all to me:
http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/884131E3-7DBF-4553-88C0-1FFD555B3967/0/hill_norton2.pdf

Then I suddenly realized: In the famous sketch of the triangular craft made by Jim, he not only tries to convey the shape of the craft and the location of the symbols of the craft. He also seems to indicate the shape of the footprints left by the craft. The front view in Jim’s sketch contains a line labeled “Footprint” pointing to a footprint shaped like a V:




So the craft sketched by Jim seems to have V-shaped footprints, V-shaped landing marks are on some of the landing site photographs, but the landing site found by John contained circular landing marks. Could this be related to the fact that their memories of the events on the first night are so very different?

Cheers,
Frank

[Frank]

In a thread on this forum I found some more info on the landing marks, corroborating the evidence presented above that there were actually two sites on the first night of which one had triangular (or V-shaped) landing marks. As stated above, these triangular (or V-shaped) marks correspond to the shape of the footprints in Jim’s sketch of the craft.

http://www.rendlesham-incident.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=459
The most relevant excerpts are copied below.

P4, John Burroughs on how the marks were found:
“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 Verano and Msgt Gulyas and I also believe the ops Commander Maj Druery showed up...”

P19, Robert McClean on the existence of two sets of landing marks (emphasis is mine)
“Ray Gulyas took photographs which were published in Georgina Bruni's book. One photo shows Capt Verano and PC Cresswell inspecting the site. These photos showed marks pressed in to the pine needles in what looks to be a very shaded area within the forest. Normally, the forest floor is covered with ferns, but the marks shown in the photos were in an area where it was too dark for ferns to grow. Have you seen these photos?
Did you know TSgt James Caston - Flight Security Supervisor? He was out there that morning too, but the group he was with found a different set of triangular marks, not in the trees, but in a clearing. He never knew about landing site in the trees shown in Ray Gulyas's photos.”

P20, John Burroughs answering Robert McClean:
“If I remember right they were in the trees i.e. there were trees but there was a small area within the trees that they found the marks and damage to the trees.”

P20, John Burroughs on his investigation of the marks:
“I did not look that close at the marks or was I involved in the plaster taking. And it looked like the damage was more from something going up not down....”

[Frank]

Another interesting clue that two crafts were involved:

Jim was walking to the craft and then suddenly said it was behind him (http://www.earthfiles333.com/earthfiles/audio/mp3/EarthFilesEpisode57_high.mp3 and http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/Buran1.PNG).

This would be a hard thing to do with just one craft, but it is much easier with two crafts ...

[Frank]

Bruni's book contains a description of the craft by Ed Cabansag:

p193: "It was cone-shaped - egg-shaped, with lights running around its belt from left to right. They were blue, white and red lights, flashing, sometimes rapid, sometimes slow."

p195: "I had, and still have, better than average vision. There was no fog, it was a clear night and I could see something moving which was silver in colour with lights"

This does not sound like the black triangular craft from Jim's sketch.


To summarize the facts in this thread so far:

A cone-shaped/egg-shaped craft that is silver in colour is observed by Ed Cabansag, probably when he was together with Jim and John. Its (circular) landing marks are observed and investigated by Ray Gulyas, Capt Verano, PC Cresswell and others. They were located in a small shaded area within the trees. These landing marks are described in Halt's memo and witnessed by Richard Bertolino and Chris Armold. Probably, Jim took plaster casts of them the next day.

A triangular craft that is black in colour is observed and thoroughly investigated by Jim Penniston. He sketches the craft in his notebook for Richard Bertolino in the bus right after his shift. This is just before he is taken away for debriefing. Its V-shaped landing marks are investigated by a group with TSgt James Caston. They were located in a clearing. Photographs of these marks can be found in the MOD files. Many years later Jim copies the sketch of this craft from his notebook in an interview - this is the sketch that is in the public domain.

While Jim was walking towards one of the crafts during the first night, he suddenly reports that the craft is behind him now. This may indicate a second craft that was behind him while the other one was in front of him.

So there is quite some evidence that two crafts were involved during the first night!

[Admin]

Its V-shaped landing marks are investigated by a group with TSgt James Caston. They were located in a clearing. Photographs of these marks can be found in the MOD files. Many years later Jim copies the sketch of this craft from his notebook in an interview - this is the sketch that is in the public domain.

While Jim was walking towards one of the crafts during the first night, he suddenly reports that the craft is behind him now. This may indicate a second craft that was behind him while the other one was in front of him.

So there is quite some evidence that two crafts were involved during the first night!

Frank,

Not trying to 'debunk' you here, but I have some thoughts on your theory.

The USAF's photographs of the landing site show circular indentations: http://rendlesham-incident.co.uk/Origin ... SitePhotos

p193: "It was cone-shaped - egg-shaped, with lights running around its belt from left to right. They were blue, white and red lights, flashing, sometimes rapid, sometimes slow."

It must be remembered that Cabansag observed the UFO from some distance. A cone, a pyramid, a triangle... they're all essentially the same shape when obscured by trees and, as reported, a bright light.

[Frank]

There is a big difference between debunking and discussing, Admin, and I like a good discussion that is based on facts and theories.
Thanks for your post!

The picture you show is interesting, because it seems to be the same one as the first one in the MOD files (http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/884131E3-7DBF-4553-88C0-1FFD555B3967/0/hill_norton2.pdf), but the MOD's copy of this picture misses the left part and has a circle drawn around a landing mark that looks like a V.
The left part missing in the MOD copy, however, does seem to contain a circular pattern.
So ... what was the real landing mark ...? Did the MOD make a mistake when they copied this photo? It would not be very clever to copy a photograph containing a landing mark but leave out the .. landing mark But then again - people do make mistakes ..

[AdrianF]

The left part missing in the MOD copy, however, does seem to contain a circular pattern.
So ... what was the real landing mark ...? Did the MOD make a mistake when they copied this photo? It would not be very clever to copy a photograph containing a landing mark but leave out the .. landing mark But then again - people do make mistakes ..

I thought the same thing when looking at these shots. There does appear to be a circular marking in the left part of the image. The thing is, it doesn't appear to form the focal point of the shot, as the other marking does, which is probably why the image was cropped.
I presumed the reference to v shaped landing marks comes from Jim Ps plaster casts, which are oval in shape, but when viewed in profile are actually triangular.

[IanR]

There does appear to be a circular marking in the left part of the image. The thing is, it doesn't appear to form the focal point of the shot, as the other marking does, which is probably why the image was cropped.

Good point. Adrian. At the risk of stating the obvious, is it possible that the circular marks, which two witnesses described as looking like they were made with a coffee can, were in fact just that -- reference marks put down by the airmen who originally found the site and mistaken by later witnesses for the 'real' marks?

Ian

[stephan]

is it just me or is there a tree (very small one) standing between the two (?) circular shaped landing marks ? If so I wonder if it had always been standing there because in that case the landing gear would have either been extended from the craft or the craft itself was bent inwards between the two legs.

[Frank]

I think the small branch you are referring to was put there to indicate the location of the mark during the investigation, Stephan.

Another interesting fact: Adrian Bustinza describes the landing marks they found during the third night as triangular:
(Source: http://www.stealthskater.com/Documents/ ... dge_01.pdf)

"We started to search. … One individual had said that he had spotted the object -- like sitting on the ground. We proceeded to look and in the process found kind of like triangular tripods … burned into the [ground] at 3 different standpoints. …"

I had the same thought on the circular marks, Ian. They may have been put there for reference. That does not have to mean there was no other landing site that did have circular marks. Halt's memo seems to indicate circles (using only depth and diameter to describe them).

[IanR]

I think the small branch you are referring to was put there to indicate the location of the mark during the investigation, Stephan.

Yes, each of the "landing marks" had a small stick placed in the ground next to it, as we see on this photograph
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/landingmarks.htm

Halt's memo seems to indicate circles (using only depth and diameter to describe them).

As you say, Halt doesn't describe a shape, only diameter and depth. When Halt spoke to a UFO group called Quest International at Leeds, England, in July 1994, he said that the marks looked as though they were made by legs sticking out at an angle. That description accords with the photographs we have of them, and also with the shape of the plaster casts.

The plaster casts are approximately circular, but that's as much a result of the way that Penniston poured the plaster as the marks themselves. When turned upside down they're roughly conical, although with the centre of the cone slightly offset
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/plastercast.htm
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/plastercast.mov

Ian

[Admin]

Stephan,

It's a small twig/branch to mark the alleged landing marks. It's definitely not a tree.

At the risk of stating the obvious, is it possible that the circular marks, which two witnesses described as looking like they were made with a coffee can, were in fact just that -- reference marks put down by the airmen who originally found the site and mistaken by later witnesses for the 'real' marks?

What purpose do you propose these 'reference marks' would serve? Perhaps, the photo simply confirms that the indentations were uniform - as Penniston, Gulyas and Armold have said (three off the top of my head).

[Admin]

To add to Ian's post, here's another example:



On a separate note (let's not allow the thread to derail), you might find this video I put together interesting, Ian:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GK3zZcShJ8

[stephan]

thx Frank, Ian and Admin ! Makes sense of course

[IanR]

On a separate note (let's not allow the thread to derail), you might find this video I put together interesting, Ian:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GK3zZcShJ8

Thank you. I've been meaning to do something like this myself!

To answer the point you raised on the YouTube posting, it was not this flashing light to the east that Halt said sent down a beam of light, but the starlike object hovering over Woodbridge base - a quite different object in a different direction and with a different explanation. But, as you say, that's taking us away from the topic of this thread.

Ian

[stephan]

at first I didn't want to mention it before I have read through LAEG but I think at this point of the discussion it may be okay if I just throw this in because we are talking about the landing marks and site.

On the way, Steve Longaro joined me. Steve said he'd learned that a few men had been sent out to the forest to create a false landing site, Penniston among them.

I've speculated already in the thread in which I present my version of the Halt tape that latter may have been ''produced'' to set investigators on the wrong track. I don't say that this was the case, I cannot prove it. But if this assumption was true it would imo indeed allow interpretations like yours, Ian. The lighthouse and the Halt tape overlay as shown in the video above is one - very impressive - example. The other example is that which Ian just alluded to, the position of certain stars in the sky and the remarks on the tape. I've checked the positions of the stars Ian has mentioned on his website (i.e. Vega, Deneb and Sirius) and compared them with the statements (also as indicated by Ian) on the tape (I used Stellarium for that purpose). It seems that they match.

But keeping in mind above quote it may be necessary to revise assumptions of what really took place. Could it be that this tape was meant to mislead people ? Anyway, I think the content of it is not really amazing while in the meantime Halt and Penniston have come up with very different statements. Even if not all of it is true those statements contain some important messages, e.g.: Yes, the UFOs were extraterrestrial in origin and yes, the WSA was affected in some way. That's neither being mentioned on the tape nor in the Halt memo but it coincides in part with Larry Warren's statements which makes them more credible or let's say more likely as ALL witnesses say the same.

Again, this is just a hypothesis and I think if it's wrong it would make Halt and Penniston very angry if they come across it. If that's the case I'm really sorry. The disadvange I have is that I wasn't on-site when it happened. Therefore I (and everyone else who was not involved) have no choice but speculate and take into consideration different paths.

[Frank]

I think it would be very difficult to make a plaster cast of a V-shaped imprint with an underground full of pine needles, expecially if this is not your daily job. I can imagine the result could take many shapes.

In any case, there is a clear consistency between the footprint of the craft in Jim's sketch and the actual shots made of the landing marks.

Whether there also were circular landing marks? I'm not so sure anymore. But there do seem to be different landing sites that were investigated just after the first night:
http://www.rendlesham-incident.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=459, p19
“Ray Gulyas took photographs which were published in Georgina Bruni's book. One photo shows Capt Verano and PC Cresswell inspecting the site. These photos showed marks pressed in to the pine needles in what looks to be a very shaded area within the forest. Normally, the forest floor is covered with ferns, but the marks shown in the photos were in an area where it was too dark for ferns to grow. Have you seen these photos?
Did you know TSgt James Caston - Flight Security Supervisor? He was out there that morning too, but the group he was with found a different set of triangular marks, not in the trees, but in a clearing. He never knew about landing site in the trees shown in Ray Gulyas's photos.”


With the recent interview of SSgt Nevels, the first night has become much more complicated and seems to involve an airman that was abducted. I was hoping that maybe the traces left by the footprints could shed some light on the sequence and locations of the events.

Interview with Nevels:
http://www.earthfiles.com/news.php?ID=1735&category=Environment

Thread discussing the interview:
http://www.rendlesham-incident.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=759

[AdrianF]

It does look increasingly likely that more than one landing site was investigated over the 2 days following the first night. In my view the idea of different landing sites being investigated is open to interpretation, it could mean that there was a craft(s) that landed in various parts of the forest, or it could mean that similar markings are found around the forest and therefore made finding the real ones difficult.

Admin..thanks for the credit on the video!

[AdrianF]

I've speculated already in the thread in which I present my version of the Halt tape that latter may have been ''produced'' to set investigators on the wrong track. I don't say that this was the case, I cannot prove it.

Stephan, Halt has sugeested already on the Sci Fi channel documentary, that false landing sites may have been laid around the forest.

[stephan]

I've speculated already in the thread in which I present my version of the Halt tape that latter may have been ''produced'' to set investigators on the wrong track. I don't say that this was the case, I cannot prove it.

Stephan, Halt has sugeested already on the Sci Fi channel documentary, that false landing sites may have been laid around the forest.

really ? Then this confirms another element of L. Warren's statements. Nevertheless, I think that Halt may still be hiding something. For example Adrian Bustinza says in LAEG that it was Halt who conversed with the aliens. You won't happen to know if he mentioned that in a documentary as well ?

Again, it's just a hypothesis that what we can hear on the Halt tape was intended for us to hear, i.e. a flattened version of what really took place with room for terrestrial explanations. But of course - even if that's the case - he's just as an important witness of the events as before, even more so when he tells the truth and does not omit facts.

In addition it certainly was not Penniston's or airmen's idea to create a false landing site. I guess if they did it they certainly acted on orders which came from senior staff (Halt perhaps among them ?). Well, and even though Halt and Penniston were not (?) together on the same night there still could be a connection between the allegedly created false landing site and the Halt tape, iow, false landing site = scene where Halt and his men took the radiation readings and observed some objects in the sky that seduce one to identify them as the lighthouse and some bright stars in the sky...