Favourite group is Deep Purple , hence tag, but I listen to all types of music nowadays.
A bit of Purple still revives flagging spirits now a days still!
Would your friend be Roger Glover? he is DP bass player right back to the 60s.
Its good to have people to talk these events through on a sensible "Professional" calm basis.
I dont really know what happened with this event but it is fascinating.
On the one hand it could be a joke that went wrong, on the other it could be CIA or other disinformation, or it could be the real deal---- Alien Landing!!!
Although in the past weeks I have been going towards the hoax / disinformation route, I could still be so wrong and have paused for thought. My previous post contained references to the Apollo astronauts and some seem to confirm the existence of UFO's in an alien sense.
Cast your minds back to the stealth fighter, which was so top secret, and leaks occurred , people got wind of it and it turned out to be true. Could some of these people be telling the truth , just like the stealth fighter?
[Part 1] Rendlesham explained? [Visitor Submitted Article]
Re: Fire men
by ghaynes » Fri Aug 17, 2007 7:51 am
Observer wrote:Hi deep purple
My mate was Deep purples's bass player in the early days.
You are quite right in what you say re the fire men. It was only part of my theory. They could of course have arrived on foot fully kitted out thinking it to be a crash.
I think we can safely say it was not a crashed aircraft.
As for why and where the HH-53 dropped the capsule is pure conjecture but is quite feasable. Graham Haynes may be able to put my theory into a more logical sequence of events than i did.
Regards
Observer
Not sure I can sadd much more to what has all ready been said but here goes.....
I would say that the capsule was un-manned while it was underslung. It would be suicidal (and not Standard Operating Procedures), to 'carry' anyone....even if it was a practical joke. A routine capsule recovery training sortie would see the 'occupants' of the capsule been carried inside the HH-53 to the drop-zone (usually in the sea just off Bawdsey). They would then be dropped in the sea after the capsule had been lowered into the sea first. The 'astronauts' and the capsule would then be recovered.
My take on the silver suits would be firemen......possibly called by someone thinking the HH-53 had crashed?
The distance between the landing lights and the alleged landing site is possibly only a few hundred yards. Taking into account the speed at which the HH-53 would travelling with an underslung capsule at the time, bearing in mind it would probably only have just got airborne (50ish knots at a guess) and the reaction time of the crew to the emergency, the 'landing' site would be approximately where the UFO was alleged to land (the field at Capel Green).
Regards.
Graham
Last edited by ghaynes on Fri Aug 17, 2007 11:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
Visit Bentwaters Aviation Society on the web:
http://www.bentwaters-as.org.uk
http://www.bcwm.org.uk
http://www.bentwaters-as.org.uk
http://www.bcwm.org.uk
-
ghaynes - Posts: 140
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 10:11 am
- Location: Rendlesham
Theories
by Observer » Fri Aug 17, 2007 9:48 am
Hi deep purple and Graham
Firstly, It was Nick Simper who was Deep purple's bass player for a short while in the early days. He played along side Richie Blackmore who i also know.
Back to the serious stuff.
Thanks Graham for your take on the my theory. My current thoughts are that the ARRS wanted the joke to be seen as an alien space craft. Most of the airmen based at both bases probably would not instantly recognise the Apollo capsule for what it was.
Seen at night in a field and totally out of context to where it should be probably through them into panic. Conclusions were jumped to before the facts were known by quite a few airmen.
On the other hand, the collision with the landing lights possibly had to be covered up by the ARRS so the UFO hoax was there way of taking the heat off.
Regards
Observer
Firstly, It was Nick Simper who was Deep purple's bass player for a short while in the early days. He played along side Richie Blackmore who i also know.
Back to the serious stuff.
Thanks Graham for your take on the my theory. My current thoughts are that the ARRS wanted the joke to be seen as an alien space craft. Most of the airmen based at both bases probably would not instantly recognise the Apollo capsule for what it was.
Seen at night in a field and totally out of context to where it should be probably through them into panic. Conclusions were jumped to before the facts were known by quite a few airmen.
On the other hand, the collision with the landing lights possibly had to be covered up by the ARRS so the UFO hoax was there way of taking the heat off.
Regards
Observer
- Observer
- Posts: 1284
- Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:31 pm
- Location: Woodbridge Suffolk, now London.
by Deep Purple » Fri Aug 17, 2007 4:15 pm
Hi Observer & Graham
Re Deep Purple the group, I do remember Nick was the Bass Player early on but I never saw him. I did see Ritchie Blackmore and still think on his day he was one of the best Rock Guitarists.
Back to business, Graham's valuable input and insight has gone a long way to explaining some of my doubts about the Apollo theory. My concerns still are Why did they create a UFO flap to cover a pratical joke ( and it would have been a good one), when all they had to do was say a traing mission went wrong, no one was hurt, no danger to public etc.
Secondly why did they leak the memo well after the event had died its original death.
To date the Apollo still ranks as the best explantion
Regards
Adrian
Re Deep Purple the group, I do remember Nick was the Bass Player early on but I never saw him. I did see Ritchie Blackmore and still think on his day he was one of the best Rock Guitarists.
Back to business, Graham's valuable input and insight has gone a long way to explaining some of my doubts about the Apollo theory. My concerns still are Why did they create a UFO flap to cover a pratical joke ( and it would have been a good one), when all they had to do was say a traing mission went wrong, no one was hurt, no danger to public etc.
Secondly why did they leak the memo well after the event had died its original death.
To date the Apollo still ranks as the best explantion
Regards
Adrian
- Deep Purple
- Posts: 209
- Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 7:48 pm
Apollo capsule
by Observer » Fri Aug 17, 2007 6:01 pm
Hi Adrien
Firstly, thanks for you valid input. It was Christmas, they were on low alert and although part of the ARRS training was Apollo capsule recovery after re entry, i very much doubt if there would be a training recovery exercise scheduled for that period.
The ARRS always had a crew on standby for general duties even at Christmas as they could get called out for any number of reasons, for example, an F-111 escape capsule recovery, although i doubt that as the F-111 bases would also be on low alert thus no flying as such.
We also have to remember [an ARRS pilot told me this] the Apollo's trajectory round the earth was not over East Anglia, thus they never ever expected to recover the real thing while stationed in that part of the UK.
This was probably mostly known by the ARRS and its command, but i suspect that the average airman and even regular officers in other sections at the bases would not know!
So it could only have ever been a Christmas joke. I say this reservedly as its still remains but a theory.
Regards
Observer
Firstly, thanks for you valid input. It was Christmas, they were on low alert and although part of the ARRS training was Apollo capsule recovery after re entry, i very much doubt if there would be a training recovery exercise scheduled for that period.
The ARRS always had a crew on standby for general duties even at Christmas as they could get called out for any number of reasons, for example, an F-111 escape capsule recovery, although i doubt that as the F-111 bases would also be on low alert thus no flying as such.
We also have to remember [an ARRS pilot told me this] the Apollo's trajectory round the earth was not over East Anglia, thus they never ever expected to recover the real thing while stationed in that part of the UK.
This was probably mostly known by the ARRS and its command, but i suspect that the average airman and even regular officers in other sections at the bases would not know!
So it could only have ever been a Christmas joke. I say this reservedly as its still remains but a theory.
Regards
Observer
- Observer
- Posts: 1284
- Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:31 pm
- Location: Woodbridge Suffolk, now London.
Apollo capsule
by Observer » Fri Aug 17, 2007 7:38 pm
Just a bit more to my last post.
I mentioned a ARRS crew was always on standby. This does not normally mean that a crew were sitting in their Helicopter or even in their flight building waiting for the all go signal. No, they were on standbay but were probably having a few snifters at local mess parties etc. There would also be a designated ground crew on standby but were probably doing the same thing as it was Christmas.
My theory lays the blame on the standby crew including the ground crew. I suspect that whoever else noticed them take off would not have payed a great deal of attention as they were the standby crew after all.
They were also trained [a ARRS pilot told me] to take off with or without control tower guidence and once airborn give their flight path to the next nearest manned tower which was probably RAF Bentwaters or even RAF Wattisham.
Both these bases towers would be manned over Christmas because at least one, Wattisham had a QRA system in place. Of course they may have kept quiet and not radioed any body. Hey folks, its still only a theory.
Observer
I mentioned a ARRS crew was always on standby. This does not normally mean that a crew were sitting in their Helicopter or even in their flight building waiting for the all go signal. No, they were on standbay but were probably having a few snifters at local mess parties etc. There would also be a designated ground crew on standby but were probably doing the same thing as it was Christmas.
My theory lays the blame on the standby crew including the ground crew. I suspect that whoever else noticed them take off would not have payed a great deal of attention as they were the standby crew after all.
They were also trained [a ARRS pilot told me] to take off with or without control tower guidence and once airborn give their flight path to the next nearest manned tower which was probably RAF Bentwaters or even RAF Wattisham.
Both these bases towers would be manned over Christmas because at least one, Wattisham had a QRA system in place. Of course they may have kept quiet and not radioed any body. Hey folks, its still only a theory.
Observer
- Observer
- Posts: 1284
- Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:31 pm
- Location: Woodbridge Suffolk, now London.
by Deep Purple » Sat Aug 18, 2007 7:11 pm
Its so difficult to know what went on or did not.
It would be intersesting to know what the major players in the event thought of the Apollo Capsule theory ie Halt, Pennistone, Warren etc, Am I right in thinking that there has been no response from them ?
But you would have thought they would be monitoring this site, ---- its a good one.
To me this might suggests you are correct with the theory, that is why there is no response they dont want their little "earner" going bottoms up!
Your theory is sensible, and well founded and deserves aproper response
It would be interesting to know what Georgini Bruni thinks about this, again the above applies.
If it is a cover up the military witnesses may just go back to their handlers to reaffirm what to do next.
I would have thought Halt knows much more than he is saying and is having a laugh! (But probably uner orders).
I think the key to this might be go over what civilian witnesses that are available and re interperate their statements in the light of an apollo hoax---- do we have a match?
It would be intersesting to know what the major players in the event thought of the Apollo Capsule theory ie Halt, Pennistone, Warren etc, Am I right in thinking that there has been no response from them ?
But you would have thought they would be monitoring this site, ---- its a good one.
To me this might suggests you are correct with the theory, that is why there is no response they dont want their little "earner" going bottoms up!
Your theory is sensible, and well founded and deserves aproper response
It would be interesting to know what Georgini Bruni thinks about this, again the above applies.
If it is a cover up the military witnesses may just go back to their handlers to reaffirm what to do next.
I would have thought Halt knows much more than he is saying and is having a laugh! (But probably uner orders).
I think the key to this might be go over what civilian witnesses that are available and re interperate their statements in the light of an apollo hoax---- do we have a match?
- Deep Purple
- Posts: 209
- Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 7:48 pm
by Wolf » Sat Aug 18, 2007 11:24 pm
Hi Gents
I remember when a group of us first seriously discussed the NASA capsule theory in relation to Rendlesham. The majority of the points that have been raised on this thread also came up. I remember seeing the capsule mentioned some time before that, but can not remember where. Having checked on my pc the creation date of the NASA capsule pic was October 05, so it was a probably a month or two before that.
We too puzzled as to why if it was a simple accident did the UFO story take off (sorry for pun). I guess that if drink and or drugs were involved then there would have been a huge political and military investigation. Also, as the accident happened off base there should have been procedures followed and a set group of individuals would have been informed and involved in the investigation. If there was a possibility to sweep the incident under the carpet as quietly as possible then this may have been what they tried to do, but due to the time of year I dare say the odd lock in or two, there were more people out and about and if rumours of a UFO started they may have been fuelled, as talk of an accident would have raided concerns where the word UFO would be ignored or treated with shades of humor.
Allegedly, they always used to do the majority of testing in and around Area 51 on the nights when there was normally the least road traffic. They also knew that if anyone was watching what was going on it was generally UFO spotters, and hence any strange sightings would be reported as UFO's and not generally aircraft testing.
I do not discount the possibility that there is life on other planets and they may have visited ours, but as someone once said to me " if they have the technology to travel light years to get here, evade our rader and fighters, mutilate cattle, abduct and implant humans then why do they crash so much?"
I think that there is a very down to earth explaination for the Rendlesham incident, but getting the truth out will be very difficult. There has been so much white noise created about the incident by various soiurces that any evidence will have to be bullet proof before it gets given serios consideration. I mean, even the Forestry commision run UFO walks and have even laid out a trail taking people to the important locations around the forest.
Hopefully other people who read this thread will be able to cross a few more i's or at least dot some t's, as based on the missions performed by RAF Benwaters and RAF Woodbridge this sits the best with what was on the base at the time.
Re - guitarists, I'm a Joe Satriani fan myself.
V/R
Wolf
I remember when a group of us first seriously discussed the NASA capsule theory in relation to Rendlesham. The majority of the points that have been raised on this thread also came up. I remember seeing the capsule mentioned some time before that, but can not remember where. Having checked on my pc the creation date of the NASA capsule pic was October 05, so it was a probably a month or two before that.
We too puzzled as to why if it was a simple accident did the UFO story take off (sorry for pun). I guess that if drink and or drugs were involved then there would have been a huge political and military investigation. Also, as the accident happened off base there should have been procedures followed and a set group of individuals would have been informed and involved in the investigation. If there was a possibility to sweep the incident under the carpet as quietly as possible then this may have been what they tried to do, but due to the time of year I dare say the odd lock in or two, there were more people out and about and if rumours of a UFO started they may have been fuelled, as talk of an accident would have raided concerns where the word UFO would be ignored or treated with shades of humor.
Allegedly, they always used to do the majority of testing in and around Area 51 on the nights when there was normally the least road traffic. They also knew that if anyone was watching what was going on it was generally UFO spotters, and hence any strange sightings would be reported as UFO's and not generally aircraft testing.
I do not discount the possibility that there is life on other planets and they may have visited ours, but as someone once said to me " if they have the technology to travel light years to get here, evade our rader and fighters, mutilate cattle, abduct and implant humans then why do they crash so much?"
I think that there is a very down to earth explaination for the Rendlesham incident, but getting the truth out will be very difficult. There has been so much white noise created about the incident by various soiurces that any evidence will have to be bullet proof before it gets given serios consideration. I mean, even the Forestry commision run UFO walks and have even laid out a trail taking people to the important locations around the forest.
Hopefully other people who read this thread will be able to cross a few more i's or at least dot some t's, as based on the missions performed by RAF Benwaters and RAF Woodbridge this sits the best with what was on the base at the time.
Re - guitarists, I'm a Joe Satriani fan myself.
V/R
Wolf
-
Wolf - Posts: 154
- Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 11:13 pm
The theory
by Observer » Sun Aug 19, 2007 9:18 am
Hi all
It so nice to see some sensible debate on this most intriguing of incidents. Keep the posts coming. Larry Warren was a pretty good [blues] guitarist and he knew Stevie Ray Vaughan, one of my heroes quite well. Larry is or was living in Liverpool but i have no more information as to his whereabouts now. It would be great if Larry made contact with us on this forum. I suspect as was said in the last posts, some of these ex USAF witnesess could well be looking at our forum. Peter Robbins, Larry's co author gave me his Liverpool address and i wrote a short letter to Larry but never received a reply. This was late last year.
Wolf, you are quite right when you said, if alien beings had the technology to travel here why are there so many crashes? It does not add up.
I'm sure you all well maybe not all would love this incident to have been of extra terestrial origin as i do, but we must consider all other possibilities.
We must also consider that the USA were not the only high tech country during that period and thus we have to incorperate the possibility that it was some sort of spying mission by perhaps the Russians? This is my favourite theory after the Apollo one.
Regards
Observer
It so nice to see some sensible debate on this most intriguing of incidents. Keep the posts coming. Larry Warren was a pretty good [blues] guitarist and he knew Stevie Ray Vaughan, one of my heroes quite well. Larry is or was living in Liverpool but i have no more information as to his whereabouts now. It would be great if Larry made contact with us on this forum. I suspect as was said in the last posts, some of these ex USAF witnesess could well be looking at our forum. Peter Robbins, Larry's co author gave me his Liverpool address and i wrote a short letter to Larry but never received a reply. This was late last year.
Wolf, you are quite right when you said, if alien beings had the technology to travel here why are there so many crashes? It does not add up.
I'm sure you all well maybe not all would love this incident to have been of extra terestrial origin as i do, but we must consider all other possibilities.
We must also consider that the USA were not the only high tech country during that period and thus we have to incorperate the possibility that it was some sort of spying mission by perhaps the Russians? This is my favourite theory after the Apollo one.
Regards
Observer
- Observer
- Posts: 1284
- Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:31 pm
- Location: Woodbridge Suffolk, now London.
by Deep Purple » Sun Aug 19, 2007 6:07 pm
Joe Satriani , Stevie Ray Vaughan all top axe men , you boyz have good taste.
I also like Hendrix, Toni Iommi, Alvin Lee, Jimi Page and one who was very under rated Bill Nelson of Be Bop Deluxe, If you havent heard him play try "Adventures in a Yorkshire Landscape".
Thanks Wolf for your input its so useful to have people come forward who were there at the time and add comment , information and insight into our thoughts.
Like Observer, I think it would be a "Wow" moment if we could show the Rendlesham incident was extra terrestial, but I dont think it is. I think the Apollo capsule incident was the initial cause, then they thought to spin it back up as it involved triangular UFos as a cover for the first stealth fighters arriving at night in UK
I also like Hendrix, Toni Iommi, Alvin Lee, Jimi Page and one who was very under rated Bill Nelson of Be Bop Deluxe, If you havent heard him play try "Adventures in a Yorkshire Landscape".
Thanks Wolf for your input its so useful to have people come forward who were there at the time and add comment , information and insight into our thoughts.
Like Observer, I think it would be a "Wow" moment if we could show the Rendlesham incident was extra terrestial, but I dont think it is. I think the Apollo capsule incident was the initial cause, then they thought to spin it back up as it involved triangular UFos as a cover for the first stealth fighters arriving at night in UK
- Deep Purple
- Posts: 209
- Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 7:48 pm
Apollo capsule
by Observer » Mon Aug 20, 2007 1:29 pm
Hi
These are great pictures of the Apollo re entry capsule. We now need to do a little detective work. Perhaps Graham Haynes can assist.
Firstly, what if any difference is there between the ARRS training capsule and the real thing? How far apart are the feet/legs of the training capsule. This could then be checked out with the measurments they took of the 3 indentations in the forest floor.
Secondly, Jim Penniston [ and i have no reaon to doubt his word] said that the 'object' he touched in the forest was smooth like glass and warm to the touch. What was causing it to be warm, was it the onboard lights etc?
Thirdly, what kind of lighting would be used to give all the colours that witnesses described and as Jim said looked to be under the surface of the craft. I put forward the theory that it was Christmas tree lights which had a timer switch to slowly flash different colours and were situated behind port holes.
Forthly, what could have caused as Lt Col Halt described like orange/red molten metal falling from the craft while it was ascending. Could this have been some sort of flare or even a downward pointing 'fire work'?
We need to perhaps look out of the box on these issues.
Observer
These are great pictures of the Apollo re entry capsule. We now need to do a little detective work. Perhaps Graham Haynes can assist.
Firstly, what if any difference is there between the ARRS training capsule and the real thing? How far apart are the feet/legs of the training capsule. This could then be checked out with the measurments they took of the 3 indentations in the forest floor.
Secondly, Jim Penniston [ and i have no reaon to doubt his word] said that the 'object' he touched in the forest was smooth like glass and warm to the touch. What was causing it to be warm, was it the onboard lights etc?
Thirdly, what kind of lighting would be used to give all the colours that witnesses described and as Jim said looked to be under the surface of the craft. I put forward the theory that it was Christmas tree lights which had a timer switch to slowly flash different colours and were situated behind port holes.
Forthly, what could have caused as Lt Col Halt described like orange/red molten metal falling from the craft while it was ascending. Could this have been some sort of flare or even a downward pointing 'fire work'?
We need to perhaps look out of the box on these issues.
Observer
- Observer
- Posts: 1284
- Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:31 pm
- Location: Woodbridge Suffolk, now London.
Re: Apollo capsule
by ghaynes » Tue Aug 21, 2007 6:54 am
Observer wrote:Hi
These are great pictures of the Apollo re entry capsule. We now need to do a little detective work. Perhaps Graham Haynes can assist.
Firstly, what if any difference is there between the ARRS training capsule and the real thing? How far apart are the feet/legs of the training capsule. This could then be checked out with the measurments they took of the 3 indentations in the forest floor.
Secondly, Jim Penniston [ and i have no reaon to doubt his word] said that the 'object' he touched in the forest was smooth like glass and warm to the touch. What was causing it to be warm, was it the onboard lights etc?
Thirdly, what kind of lighting would be used to give all the colours that witnesses described and as Jim said looked to be under the surface of the craft. I put forward the theory that it was Christmas tree lights which had a timer switch to slowly flash different colours and were situated behind port holes.
Forthly, what could have caused as Lt Col Halt described like orange/red molten metal falling from the craft while it was ascending. Could this have been some sort of flare or even a downward pointing 'fire work'?
We need to perhaps look out of the box on these issues.
Observer
Hi Observer,
As I mentioned in an earlier post, the Apollo capsule at Woodbridge was a real one (ser/no BP-1206 ). No idea how it differs from a 'training' version.
Regarding the statement by Jim Penniston of the the object being warm to the touch. The rotor downwash from the HH-53 (which would be very warm due to the eflux from the engines), would have heated the capsule sufficiently to make it appear warmer than the ambient air temperature. During my career in the RAF I spent many a time underneath hovering Chinooks working with underslung loads. Believe me, it gets very hot under there!
Regards.
Graham
Visit Bentwaters Aviation Society on the web:
http://www.bentwaters-as.org.uk
http://www.bcwm.org.uk
http://www.bentwaters-as.org.uk
http://www.bcwm.org.uk
-
ghaynes - Posts: 140
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 10:11 am
- Location: Rendlesham
by Deep Purple » Thu Aug 23, 2007 7:39 pm
Thanks Graham for info,
Love the picture of the A10 Wharthog, one of my favourite aircraft, tough simple with a "BIG GUN". I wish I had a GAU Avenger cannon on my Harley then all the idiots who cut me up would suffer! Only joking guys!
I dont know what people think but it seems to me that the critical phase of the investigation is to try and find witnessess that heard or saw helicopters in action just prior to the first incident, this would explain why the the capsule might be warm. But we do need to consider what the capsule was coated with and how quickly it could disperse heat or act as a thermal barrier. Certainly on a cold December evening something warm to the touch will not stay that way for long unless it has an internal heat source. Nights of winter beach fishing can qualify me to state this together with helicopters flying at night in rural areas are very very obvious.
There must be some member of the public who thought or noted the helos flying before the event.
With regard to the heat, I dont know how advanced the covering on the Apollo capsule was but if it was a real capsule it would have been very good at insulating against heat and would have been poor at storing downwash heat. A few years after the apollo mission they developed the Space SHuttle and I have seen a demonstration of the shuttle's heat insulating/ absorbing tiles where they heat one in an oven till its glowing incadescent orange and 30 seconds later its is cool enough to handle in your hand--- Wow!
Love the picture of the A10 Wharthog, one of my favourite aircraft, tough simple with a "BIG GUN". I wish I had a GAU Avenger cannon on my Harley then all the idiots who cut me up would suffer! Only joking guys!
I dont know what people think but it seems to me that the critical phase of the investigation is to try and find witnessess that heard or saw helicopters in action just prior to the first incident, this would explain why the the capsule might be warm. But we do need to consider what the capsule was coated with and how quickly it could disperse heat or act as a thermal barrier. Certainly on a cold December evening something warm to the touch will not stay that way for long unless it has an internal heat source. Nights of winter beach fishing can qualify me to state this together with helicopters flying at night in rural areas are very very obvious.
There must be some member of the public who thought or noted the helos flying before the event.
With regard to the heat, I dont know how advanced the covering on the Apollo capsule was but if it was a real capsule it would have been very good at insulating against heat and would have been poor at storing downwash heat. A few years after the apollo mission they developed the Space SHuttle and I have seen a demonstration of the shuttle's heat insulating/ absorbing tiles where they heat one in an oven till its glowing incadescent orange and 30 seconds later its is cool enough to handle in your hand--- Wow!
- Deep Purple
- Posts: 209
- Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 7:48 pm
Apollo capsule
by Observer » Fri Aug 24, 2007 8:26 am
Hi deeppurple
The Apollo command module was not covered in those 'magic' tiles and from my recollection, it's outer heat shield covering was a sort of ceramic material with i think a titanium mix. Graham may be able to help here but it could well explain the smooth feeling like glass that Jim Penniston described.
I have a feeling that the 'warm to the touch' that Jim described may be more to do with an internal heat source. Grahams was right when he said there is a lot of heat from under a heli from jet eflux and downwash. I know as well as i have been wnched up a few times by a Sea King. However, i cannot see the capsule retaining this heat for more than a few minutes as it was below zero at the time and if the capsule was hooked up to the HH-53 it would have been a couple of hundred feet above due to the trees, thus any down wash heat would be dissipated before it reached the capsule, certainly not enough to warm it up.
Yes, we need more civilian witnesses to come forward re heli activity.
Observer
The Apollo command module was not covered in those 'magic' tiles and from my recollection, it's outer heat shield covering was a sort of ceramic material with i think a titanium mix. Graham may be able to help here but it could well explain the smooth feeling like glass that Jim Penniston described.
I have a feeling that the 'warm to the touch' that Jim described may be more to do with an internal heat source. Grahams was right when he said there is a lot of heat from under a heli from jet eflux and downwash. I know as well as i have been wnched up a few times by a Sea King. However, i cannot see the capsule retaining this heat for more than a few minutes as it was below zero at the time and if the capsule was hooked up to the HH-53 it would have been a couple of hundred feet above due to the trees, thus any down wash heat would be dissipated before it reached the capsule, certainly not enough to warm it up.
Yes, we need more civilian witnesses to come forward re heli activity.
Observer
- Observer
- Posts: 1284
- Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:31 pm
- Location: Woodbridge Suffolk, now London.
Apollo capsule
by Observer » Thu Aug 30, 2007 3:30 pm
Hi Admin
You make some very interesting points re the helicopters and the capsule.
From what i remember, Graham Haynes said the training capsule used by the ARRS was the real thing and not a mock up. He also mentiones that it did sit on legs/feet or at least when it was hangered. Perhaps Graham can clarify this as i don't want to miss quote him.
Yes, i think some of the statements by these airmen had clues as they were under strict orders not to say anything that could give the game away.
History will tell you that humans cannot keep secrets or at least not for long.
I'm sure there is a story to tell by a number of these now retired airmen, but it could be that the TV networks etc. are not that interested or will not pay huge ammounts for a story that has been covered many times. It is probably in the TV companies interest that the UFO myth continues as they can keep returning to the subject. Once the real story is out, its more or less dead in the water re ratings.
Observer
You make some very interesting points re the helicopters and the capsule.
From what i remember, Graham Haynes said the training capsule used by the ARRS was the real thing and not a mock up. He also mentiones that it did sit on legs/feet or at least when it was hangered. Perhaps Graham can clarify this as i don't want to miss quote him.
Yes, i think some of the statements by these airmen had clues as they were under strict orders not to say anything that could give the game away.
History will tell you that humans cannot keep secrets or at least not for long.
I'm sure there is a story to tell by a number of these now retired airmen, but it could be that the TV networks etc. are not that interested or will not pay huge ammounts for a story that has been covered many times. It is probably in the TV companies interest that the UFO myth continues as they can keep returning to the subject. Once the real story is out, its more or less dead in the water re ratings.
Observer
- Observer
- Posts: 1284
- Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:31 pm
- Location: Woodbridge Suffolk, now London.
by Deep Purple » Thu Aug 30, 2007 7:01 pm
Thinking a bit more about the Apollo capsule , and if it had feet, I doubt whether a proper one would have any feet. This thing was designed to hit earths atmosphere at many times the speed of high velocity round, so I would not think you would want anything causing drag to make the capsule go unstable. The thing when it enters the atmosphere is going so fast that even in the upper atmosphere incredible heat is generated. I would have thought feet might have just burnt off in any event. To give an example the Lockheed Blackbird travelling at just 65,000 feet and 3500mph got so hot you could melt lead on it.
So it would be interesting to see if any one says the base capsule had been modified to include feet, but presumably this would have been fairly difficult because you would have had to go through the ceramic outer core and still make it water tight if it was used in wet testing to attach feet.
Having said this Pennistone could have taken plaster casts of what he thought might be landing marks but in reality could be any indentations made by man eg forestery vehicles etc? When did Pennistone say he made the plaster casts? if this was straight after wards you have to think it may be a set up job. How many of you keep plaster of paris in your houses just in case.
So it would be interesting to see if any one says the base capsule had been modified to include feet, but presumably this would have been fairly difficult because you would have had to go through the ceramic outer core and still make it water tight if it was used in wet testing to attach feet.
Having said this Pennistone could have taken plaster casts of what he thought might be landing marks but in reality could be any indentations made by man eg forestery vehicles etc? When did Pennistone say he made the plaster casts? if this was straight after wards you have to think it may be a set up job. How many of you keep plaster of paris in your houses just in case.
- Deep Purple
- Posts: 209
- Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 7:48 pm
by Deep Purple » Thu Aug 30, 2007 7:12 pm
Just read elsewhere on the site, recently posted, that Jim P made the Plaster casts the next morning---- sorry people for asking a question with the answer readily available.
- Deep Purple
- Posts: 209
- Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 7:48 pm
Re: Apollo capsule
by ghaynes » Fri Aug 31, 2007 7:04 am
Observer wrote:Hi Admin
You make some very interesting points re the helicopters and the capsule.
From what i remember, Graham Haynes said the training capsule used by the ARRS was the real thing and not a mock up. He also mentiones that it did sit on legs/feet or at least when it was hangered. Perhaps Graham can clarify this as i don't want to miss quote him.
Yes, i think some of the statements by these airmen had clues as they were under strict orders not to say anything that could give the game away.
History will tell you that humans cannot keep secrets or at least not for long.
I'm sure there is a story to tell by a number of these now retired airmen, but it could be that the TV networks etc. are not that interested or will not pay huge ammounts for a story that has been covered many times. It is probably in the TV companies interest that the UFO myth continues as they can keep returning to the subject. Once the real story is out, its more or less dead in the water re ratings.
Observer
Hi all,
Yep, the capsule at Woodbridge was the real thing. I'm pretty sure (but not 100%!), that the feet/stand was added when it ceased to be a training aid and was put on display outside the 67th ARRS building (as in Wolf's earlier post). Don't think it would have been a realistic training aid if it had been 'flown' underslung with a stand/feet fitted to it.
Never got close enough to the capsule to be in a position to say what the heatshield was made of unfortunately.
Regards.
Graham
Visit Bentwaters Aviation Society on the web:
http://www.bentwaters-as.org.uk
http://www.bcwm.org.uk
http://www.bentwaters-as.org.uk
http://www.bcwm.org.uk
-
ghaynes - Posts: 140
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 10:11 am
- Location: Rendlesham
Capsule as a training aid
by Observer » Fri Aug 31, 2007 2:11 pm
Hi all
Did the incident take place whilst the capsule was still operational or was it after they had retired it.
My guess is that it was sat on its feet out in the open and it was winched up from where it sat feet and all as it was a caper not a training exercise.
There would mot be many people about if any in that area as they would all be either in their messes or at Christmas parties both on and off the base. At that time in the evening and below freezing, only a duty Police patrol would be covering that area which would only be occasionally as they would have other parts of the base to patrol as well.
Observer
Did the incident take place whilst the capsule was still operational or was it after they had retired it.
My guess is that it was sat on its feet out in the open and it was winched up from where it sat feet and all as it was a caper not a training exercise.
There would mot be many people about if any in that area as they would all be either in their messes or at Christmas parties both on and off the base. At that time in the evening and below freezing, only a duty Police patrol would be covering that area which would only be occasionally as they would have other parts of the base to patrol as well.
Observer
- Observer
- Posts: 1284
- Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:31 pm
- Location: Woodbridge Suffolk, now London.
Just noticed this......
by Wolf » Mon Sep 03, 2007 11:00 pm
Just noticed the fact that the site that used to list all the Nasa capsules and there location is now unavailable. It was fine 2 weeks ago......
Type in nasa capsule raf woodbridge in google and it was the 2nd page returned.
If you look on the picture of the capsule from one of my earlier posts you can see the stand on the capsule. I cannot remember if there were 3 or 4 legs on the thing though. If there were 3 then that would open a can of worms.....
V/R
Wolf
Type in nasa capsule raf woodbridge in google and it was the 2nd page returned.
If you look on the picture of the capsule from one of my earlier posts you can see the stand on the capsule. I cannot remember if there were 3 or 4 legs on the thing though. If there were 3 then that would open a can of worms.....
V/R
Wolf
-
Wolf - Posts: 154
- Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 11:13 pm
Return to The Rendlesham forest incident
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest