Back on track with a short summery

[Observer]

Hi all

I have decided to write a short summery as i see it. We as a group have more or less elliminated some things and established others, so here is my take. These are the established facts.

1: Some thing about 3m high and pyramid shaped sat on the forest floor amongst the
trees. It was illuminated with different coloured lights. Are these coloured lights
significant due to it being Christmas time ??? 3 foot marks were seen on the forest floor

2: How did it get there?

A, It landed there under some sort of control?
B, It crash landed there?
C, It was dropped there from some thing flying in the air?
D, It was placed there by people?

3: What it wasn't.

A, It was not a crashed aircraft, or stealth aircraft that one ignorant author suggested.
B, It was not a weapon, nuclear or otherwise.
C, It was not a UAV, Too early for the technology.
D, It was not a satelite that had re entered, no re entry parachutes were found.
and if it had come down with out a chute, there would have been some devistation.
E, It was not an F-111 escape module, wrong shape and again no prachute evidence.

So what are we left with? Over to you.

Observer

[Observer]

Hi

I have often wondered about the Rendlesham forest UFO's arrival and departure modes. The evidence points to an arrival that was far from controlled as it caused minor damage to some trees. Yet on its departure according to the witnesses, it manouvred through the trees without touching one single branch in quite a complex pattern before ascending into the sky. What is this telling us, was it a semi controlled crash landing and then a fully controlled take off?

Observer

[Deep Purple]

Nice summary Observer,
A few more possible questions
Why have the autorities gone to so much trouble of this case?
If it was an ARRS hoax why not tell us now! Hey we all know the USAF are no angels and it would put to bed the whole thing! Drunken airmen 20+ years playing pranks 20yrs ago should not be too much of a worry to the public.
Could it be some one managed to take or attempt to take a nuke, and the whole thing is an attempt to cover this up.
It must be pretty serious whatever they are trying to hide.

[Observer]

Hi deep purple

I like your takes and possible nuke theory. I suggested the nuke possibility some time back in one of my published set of theories. Problem is, there were no nuclear weapons stored at RAF Woodbridge, only RAF Bentwaters some 2 miles away had them, thus it would have to have been transported all that distance and probably by truck. I guess by airmen who were totally 'pissed' off with their life at the bases. There was no love lost between some of the ex NAM vets and officers.

Its the only senario in my mind that was serious enough to warrent all this alleged disinformation and cover up. I cannot see any other senario more serious. Many of the reactions and subsequent procedures that took place after the event and recalled by those involved points to this as a very serious situation especially for international relations amongst allies!!!!

Observer

Observer

[Deep Purple]

Yeah I agree with what you have said.
Something must have frightened the authorities big time.
A laser designator falling off an A10 for example would just be described as an accident.
I doubt they would have been practised flying with nukes so close to xmas so I dont think one could have simply dropped of an aircraft and landed in the forest.
If you were stealing a nuke you might want to route in via and adjacent base to cover your tracks and xmas time would be the ideal time to attempt. Perhaps a vietnam vetran turned stealing a device?
Could also be some sort of US or British top secret test that went so wrong.
Was the Halt memo and tape eloborate disinformation?
Could it be an Alien Probe which landed and sampled us? WOW!
We are far more liekly to send a probe to any planet we thought was inhabited then just go there.

[Observer]

Hi deep purple

The alien probe or some experiment that went wrong are two reasonable theories.

First of all as i said there were no nuclear weapons at Woodbridge, secondly, the A-10 did not carry nuclear weapons. N weapons were were at Bentwaters for other aircraft such as the F-16 and F-15 which would be deployed there in the event of escalating hostilities. The A-10's would move to mainland Europe to be nearer the front line so they can do what they do best, tank busting.

I believe the Halt tape is genuine and i don't think it was an elaborate cover up recording.

Just how you steal a nuke from a heavily guarded bunker under flood lights with armed guards who by the way were under instruction to shoot any one who shouldn't be there i don't know. The RAF had a similar policy at their nuke bases.

Unless of course it was a mock up of a nuclear bomb made as a joke and placed in the forest for Christmas including flashing tree lights.

In order of severity and requiring cover ups, a nuclear weapon must come first followed by 'alleged' aircrew under the influence.
My third choice is some thing the Russians may have got up to.
All the above require cover ups, but if it was of alien origin i feel that it would be out in the public domain very quickly by one means or another.

As for experiments that went wrong, its a good theory, but why at Christmas and who was doing the experiment and what was it? If this was the case, i guess it would also require a cover up. If it was an experiment, where was it conducted from and by which power/s?

Observer

[Deep Purple]

RE the stolen Nuke,
You get all the signed orders etc to move to woodbridge, falsify the documents etc. Once you've got it at Woodbrdige the device is in a less secure enviroment much easier to spirit away , but this would have all required someone high up to be in on this and I would have expected the security services to have flushed them out by now.
The ARRS dont want to talk about the event which is strange, if it was nothing why the secrecy?
Could it be that an Alien Probe did land and the ARRS attempted at some stage to recover it? The probe went away and the ARRS crews were told that it was the Apollo training capsule to keep them quiet

[Observer]

I would think it highly improbable that a nuclear weapon was stolen from Bentwaters and then dumped in Rendlesham forest. I guess though that any thing is possible, but this senario is highly unlikely. A mock up may be as a prank for Christmas.

As for telling the ARRS that it was an Apollo command module to keep them quiet is rather like showing your grandmother how to suck eggs. If it was some thing else then i would suggest the ARRS would have been in on the deception from the start. All ARRS crews would have been very familiar with the Apollo module as they all trained on one that was based at Woodbridge.

However, i like your suggestion that it was an alien UFO and the ARRS were asked to retrieve it, better still, some people involved in the incident claim the USAF helped in its repair by giving 'them' [entities] a spare part. I don't think it was a spark plug. I cannot see us having technology in the form of spare parts for an alien space ship, so it kind of suggests that the craft/object was man made.

A new documentory on Rendlesham is being broadcast on the History channel Dec 26 2007.
It is reported that Lt Col Halt Ret has some new revelations he is going to release on the incident.

Observer

[pupil88]

Hi

It was below freezing. The pickup truck they drove did not make any indentations on the ground yet this object made a three inch indentation which suggested that it weighed two to three tons.

I posted an encounter I had with a UFO at RAF Mildenhall in 1954. I saw alien entities. I'm going to withdraw it within a week. I've already cut it down in pages. It's posted at http://www.ufomagazine.co.uk/ufoforum. It's posted under Bubblehead in Sightings. I'm going to expand it into a book.

I've read nearly this whole site. I found it extremely useful for my interest. I expect to add a chapter on the Rendlesham forest incident but from a perspective yet unheard from... the alien and how they affect those they come in contact with. Larry Warren saw them in a holographic mode and look how they affected him.

[ppulatie]

Observer is correct in that Woodbridge had no nukes and that the A-10 could not carry nukes.

A-10's could not fly at night. Flights did not take off until daybreak.

The thought of an illegal transport of the weapons to Woodbridge is absurd. There could be no way for it to be accomplished. Safeguard were too great. Security would have known something was up just by any paperwork directing a weapons release to Woodbridge. Then having a convoy to Woodbridge, forget it.

ARRS did not know anything. Of course, they could not talk about it.
ARRS did not fly at night either, unless they were on an actual rescue.

[ghaynes]

Hi Patrick, welcome to the group. With all due respect I felt I needed to respond to a couple of your comments.

A-10's could not fly at night.

Yes they could...and did regularly!

ARRS did not fly at night either, unless they were on an actual rescue.

Yes they did! They wouldn't be a lot of use carrying out a night-time rescue if they didn't train at night! I often sat at Woodbridge watching Herks and HH-53s night flying (and A-10s for that matter).
Regards.

Graham

[Observer]

Hi all

This forum established quite some time ago that there were no nukes stored at RAF Woodbridge. The assumption by one or two USAF personel that the beams of light were being directed towards the WSA because nukes were there is actually nonsense. It wouldn't have been the reason if it happened at all.
We also know that the A-10 is not a nuke carrying platform and was never designed to be one. Larry Warren's remark that they had nukes at both bases [partly right] without the knowledge of the British Government is utter nonsense.

Observer

[ppulatie]

Graham,

I may have been wrong on 67th. That was 28 years ago for me.

But the A-10 was not night capable for its role. The engines started up before the dawn, but the planes would not take off until dawn or maybe shortly before. And the pilots tried to return before dusk.

There may have been some flown at night on occasion, but this was not a standard practice. Night flying in the A-10 was useless. It did not have the capabilities until much later, when the plane was upgraded with better avionics.

[ghaynes]

Graham,

I may have been wrong on 67th. That was 28 years ago for me.

But the A-10 was not night capable for its role. The engines started up before the dawn, but the planes would not take off until dawn or maybe shortly before. And the pilots tried to return before dusk.

There may have been some flown at night on occasion, but this was not a standard practice. Night flying in the A-10 was useless. It did not have the capabilities until much later, when the plane was upgraded with better avionics.

Hi Patrick,
Agreed, the A-10 couldn't fly it's mssion at night but I would guess that aircrew still needed to maintain their night/instrument rating? I saw numerous A-10s flying circuits after dark.
Regards.

Graham

[ppulatie]

What years were they being flown?

Second or third series of A-10's had the upgrades that did allow for night missions and flights.

After I left Bentwaters, I returned to the Barksdale area, which had transitioned to A-10's. My home was right under the takeoff pattern. Even there, I saw nor heard any night flights of A-10's

It may have happened on ocassion at Bentwaters, but it was very randon in 79-81.

[Observer]

Hey guys, i know you have a defference of opinion concerning the A-10 night time flying at Bentwaters/Woodbridge, but is it relevant to our main topic? If not it should be discussed on another page.

Observer

[ppulatie]

Okay, here is a question for everyone.

There were 10 security troops on the flightline each night. They were located in the aircraft parking areas, as well as one "roaming" securlty patrol with two personnel in it.

All were in positions that if the UFO were hovering above the treeline, or when it took off, they would have been able to see it.

None did see it. CSC did not ask them to be on the lookout for it either.

Knowing how the flights worked, they would have been advised to watch and report.

Does this make any sense?

[ghaynes]

What years were they being flown?

Second or third series of A-10's had the upgrades that did allow for night missions and flights.

After I left Bentwaters, I returned to the Barksdale area, which had transitioned to A-10's. My home was right under the takeoff pattern. Even there, I saw nor heard any night flights of A-10's

It may have happened on ocassion at Bentwaters, but it was very randon in 79-81.

Would have been mid-80s onwards.
Regards.

Graham

[ghaynes]

Hey guys, i know you have a defference of opinion concerning the A-10 night time flying at Bentwaters/Woodbridge, but is it relevant to our main topic? If not it should be discussed on another page.

Observer

Wasn't it suggested that something may have fell off an A-10 on take off..or even one crashed that could have started the whole UFO thing? The facts regarding night flying would be very relevant is this case, don't you think? (more relevant that suicide rates amongst USAF personnel IMO).
It appears that Partrick and I do not have a difference of opinion...we were talking about different time periods!
Regards.

Graham

[Observer]

OK, Just establish what was what re night flying and let us know.

Yes, we thought the A-10 may be involved, but we have all basically ended up thinking it could not have carried any thing fitting the description.

Observer