CIA using us

[puddlepirate]

Hi

Following my trip up to east gate yesterday pm, I had a quick scan through Larry Warren's sighting report given in his book 'Left at East Gate'. I then had a skeg at Georgina Bruni's book 'You Can't Tell the People' and the witness statements contained therein. I don't know if any of you have access to either of these or have read them but if you read the witness statements, a common thread starts to emerge. Once the guys get into the forest, several of them report events that are quite similar but not exactly the same. There is mention of coloured lights, lights moving up and down, 'starburst' type effects with lights 'dripping like molten metal', yellow mists, things hovering in the air and so forth. They speak about disorientation, 'unreal' feelings, of their shadows continuing to move even after they have stopped walking, alien beings hoverng in shafts of light, all kinds of stuff like that. There is also mention of people from Porton Down and a similar US authority coming along after the event...

Given the above and not being one to be shy in coming forward with controversial theories, I now have another one for you to ponder...

The US invented LSD in WW2 and as most students and others know, this is a mind-bending drug, an hallucinogenic. The witness statements seem to suggest that once the SP arrived in the forest many of them suffered what might be described as hallucinations. And many report odd feelings for several days afterwards. Perhaps we should be considering a chemical, not nuclear or DU weapon?

Of course this doesn't explain the lights seen hovering over the forest from the WSA watchtower at Bentwaters, nor the sighting over Sudbourne, nor the events on the first two nights but it might explain the sightings in the forest and the variations in the witness statements...

[Observer]

Well done puddlepirate

Sod the petrol or was it diesel?

You have basically done what a few of us have done including admin who did a video set and arrived at the same conclusion.

Curious yes, but lets all move on now.

Observer

[puddlepirate]

Hi Observer

I felt it important to satisfy myself as to what and what could not be seen at night and put that to bed once and for all. The whole incident is complicated and is beginning to look like several different incidents coincidentally happening pretty much at the same time.

I'd like to know a bit more about the damage to the landing lights. Was it severe, was it on the forest side or the airfield side, that sort of thing. Like you said, there was substantial Soviet espionage activity in the area and that would be worthy of more investigation. Graham Hayne's information about the magazine on the A10 being internal, not external makes the DU rounds theory highly improbable. The US was [allegedly] supplying Iraq with chemical weapons around that time and was to use phosphorous shells in Iraq (Fallujah) so there might be something there that's worth a look.

I think we have to work from some givens and accept the witness statements and the Halt tape as true accounts of what each individual saw. If we don't then we don't have a starting point and will go round in circles for ever! Aligned to the witness statements must be the hard evidence of actual, known events. I suspect much of this has been gone over many times before so it's probably not appropriate for the forum.

I would still like to meet up and discuss

[ghaynes]

I'd like to know a bit more about the damage to the landing lights. Was it severe, was it on the forest side or the airfield side, that sort of thing.

Hi Puddlepirate,
The complete first row of landing lights at the Runway 27 end (furthest from the threshold) were replaced. These lights are within the airfield boundary and you can easily see the first row is a lot newer than the other ones.
Regards.

Graham

[redsocks]

Hi All,

Re the USAF vehicle seen at Rendlsham,I have ask the guy in question about this and he says that they are USAF vehicles, all blue with the USAF number plates he says he knows this because he has had to cover other runs which have included Mildenhall and lakenheath and knows what the USAF vehicles look like,he says that he has actually seen them on the technical site at what was RAF Bentwaters and the road going through Rendlesham,not Woodbridge which is of course still operated by the MOD.Now your guess is as good as mine as the why the USAF would still have involvement on the base.
Going back to the aircraft incident if you look left from East gate across the end of the runway where the airfield lights are you can see into Rendlesham forest quite clearly theres no obstructions if something did fall of an aircraft like has been said you can see the flight line into the forest very clearly from that gate,i'm sure any unsual lights in the forest in the dead of night would have been spotted by the airmen which I think does gives added strength to an incident with an aircraft, after all would the ARRS guys put a capsule on the flight line?and would a UFO specifically land on a flight line?

Redsocks

[Observer]

Hi

If any body knows what these vehicles are doing in and around the base, your best bet is Graham Haynes of the Bentwaters cold war museum.

Observer

[Observer]

Hi all

I believe it was Jenny Randles in her book 'Skycrash' where she mentioned that there had been some damage to an approach landing light. She apparently got this information second hand from a local but i may be wrong. Perhaps some one can re read her book to check as i no longer have mine.

My original theory was that it had been damaged by the Apollo capsule whilst suspended under an HH53. This started the capsule swinging which in turn made the heli unstable, so they dropped it in the forest. Hey, this is only a theory.

Observer

[redsocks]

...

[puddlepirate]

Hi Observer, all

Skycrash, chapter 1; p14 (Randles, J et al, Grafton Books, London (1986))

'...on this occasion he was asked to fix some of the lights at the end of the main runway.....Apparently these were broken, as if they had been struck and it was his task to repair them as quickly as possible. ...... He was led to the spot by an armed guard, with quite a show of security. This he found rather peculiar as he had never been put under guard at any other time he had visited. ....the damage was great enough for him to require more wiring and other materials than he had brought with him. .......He presumed that an aircraft must have made a crash landing, thus producing the damage.'
++++

My comments:

1. The unusual escort of an armed guard suggests the base was at an increased state of alert.
2. The damage is not fully described. Did it include the masts to which the lights are affixed? However, the statement 'he presumed an aircraft must have made a crash landing' suggests the damage was caused by an aircraft coming in to land, not taking off.
3. That the lights were damaged has been confirmed by others so what struck the lights? A helo would take-off/land almost vertically elsewhere on the airfield so it was probably a fixed wing a/c but what type? (I'm assuming that if the Apollo capsule was being lifted out of the base for prank then whatever was being used to lift it it would not have followed the usual flight path in case it got in the way of something).

[redsocks]

Hi Graham,

Can you shed any light as to why USAF vehicles have been seen in the Rendlesham area as recent as last summer? I have been around the site including the airfield and wouldnt consider anything of interest to the USAF or could they still still pinching bits that are servicable! just off track a second the USAF retired Major General Dale Tabor that was at your opening for the museum,was he based at Woodbridge/Bentwaters at all?,If so do you think can we squeeze some info out of him about the incident over a ham sandwedge in the Butley Oyster??

Redsocks

[Observer]

Hi redsocks

You might get through to Graham Haynes better through the Bentwaters Cold War Museum.
Use google.

Observer

[Observer]

Hi puddlepirate

I sent you a PM e mail, did you recieve it?

Observer

[IanR]

Jenny Randles was a huge advocate of the UFO story and writing about it is how she earns a living along with other mystical topics, so what changed her mind?

I have to say that it was the emergence of new evidence in the late 1990s, although I cannot claim any particular influence. To go back over some history: In her 1998 book UFO Crash Landing? she wrote on page 181: “Frankly the first time I saw the lighthouse at night I was 80 percent convinced that this was the explanation. When I first heard the Halt tape this conviction rose to 90 per cent. It only plummeted after talking to eye-witnesses like John Burroughs who were actually out there.” And on the next page: “I personally have huge difficulties accepting that the lighthouse was the object that Burroughs and Penniston confronted in the woods on 26 December.”

However, even as she was writing those lines James Easton was uncovering the witness statements which made it clear that these airmen had indeed chased the Orford Ness lighthouse for 2 miles before recognizing it. Faced with this new evidence, Jenny about-turned completely. Given her earlier espousal of the case it was a brave and principled change of view.

It’s also worth remembering that Easton was a believer in this case before he started his investigations, but he ended up an even more outspoken critic than I am.

Easton published the background to his findings on his website which has, alas, been defunct for some years. However, you can still find an archive version of it on
http://web.archive.org/web/200212100837 ... uk/v15.txt

Note that this server is *very* slow and you will have to wait some time before anything happens. There is a lot of stuff here that newcomers to the case won’t know, and James sets it out in full. This is something to read and absorb when you have plenty of time to spare.

Ian

[pupil88]

Hi IanR,

your comment “base under attack”

Halt’s communication system tapped into three of the bases’ communication systems. He could hear what was being transmitted and where blue laser beams were probing the area.

I suggest Col. Halt takes two steps around a bend while everyone is trying to digest what he says. He met with some noted astro-physisists regarding the incident and left them in a daze. He sent a scorching response to Jacques Vallee regarding his experience of the event...met with him...and convinced him.

I suggest he covered up as much as he could, especially dates and conflated events, situations, individuals.

This being the second night of unearthly crafts, I’m certain he conferred with his superiors regarding the events of the night. But wouldn’t it have been something if he called a full base alert and relayed to all on the communication networks, “Aliens are attacking. Take cover.”

Puddlepirate’s response brought up the name Philip Klass. The radar sightings in 1956 at Bentwaters and Lakenheath were never investigated. Klass suggested the cause of the white light could be attributed to Orford Ness lighthouse. Imagine a fighter jet trailing a flying lighthouse.

I’m nearly finished reading SKY CRASH. The authors mentioned your involvement in the News Of The World story. The authors, while disagreeing with you, had a tremendous respect for you.

I believe that media, cinema and TV and all of the electronic gadgets of computers and mobile communication has flattened the lighthouse theory. Movement and time have integrated and those who are calling the shots want everything faster.

Observer- I think the authors of SKY CRASH were all over the place. They had very little concrete to work with and any anomalies, however lame that came up were included.

Puddlepirate- regarding experimentations with drugs and ASC, altered states of consciosness...remember this was a base that contained weapons of mass destruction.

"I had a quick scan through Larry Warren's sighting report given in his book 'Left at East Gate'. I then had a skeg at Georgina Bruni's book 'You Can't Tell the People' and the witness statements contained therein. I don't know if any of you have access to either of these or have read them but if you read the witness statements, a common thread starts to emerge. Once the guys get into the forest, several of them report events that are quite similar but not exactly the same. There is mention of coloured lights, lights moving up and down, 'starburst' type effects with lights 'dripping like molten metal', yellow mists, things hovering in the air and so forth. They speak about disorientation, 'unreal' feelings, of their shadows continuing to move even after they have stopped walking, alien beings hoverng in shafts of light, all kinds of stuff like that."

Also, electromagnetic interference with engines, gas powered light-alls, communication devices occured on two nights. Electric-static fields effecting bodies’ skin and hair on the back of the neck occured on two nights. Altered states of body movement and consciousness and a pronounced slowdown of time occured on at least two nights. Distinctive unearthly crafts were visible on all three nights: one on the first night, three or four on the second, at least two on the third.

Observer - “it was a man-made incident.”

[ghaynes]

Hi Graham,

Can you shed any light as to why USAF vehicles have been seen in the Rendlesham area as recent as last summer? I have been around the site including the airfield and wouldnt consider anything of interest to the USAF or could they still still pinching bits that are servicable! just off track a second the USAF retired Major General Dale Tabor that was at your opening for the museum,was he based at Woodbridge/Bentwaters at all?,If so do you think can we squeeze some info out of him about the incident over a ham sandwedge in the Butley Oyster??

Redsocks

Hi Redsocks,
The USAF have no involvement at all with Bentwaters. The vehicles you saw were either involved with film work or a military vehicle rally. We had a large number of ex-USAF vehicles at the museum opening last May. This could explain the sightings.
Dale Tabor lives in the U.S and was an A-10 pilot and former commander of the 81st TFW. We did ask him if he could shed any light on the UFO but as he wasn't based at Bentwaters/Woodbridge at the time he didn't really have that much to say.
Regards.

Graham

[puddlepirate]

Hi Pupil88

If you go back to my post you will see that what I said was:

The witness statements seem to suggest that once the SP arrived in the forest many of them suffered what might be described as hallucinations. And many report odd feelings for several days afterwards

I did NOT say they had been experimenting with halluciagenic drugs - only that if you read the witness statements they appeared to be suffering from what could be described as hallucinations. What [if true] might have caused that is a totally different issue. I am NOT suggesting that any member of the USAF either took drugs before they went into the forest, whilst they were in the forest or afterwards. This is an extremely important issue and I want to make that absolutely clear.

[puddlepirate]

IanR

I am sure you are totally convinced they were following the lighthouse and followed it for two miles.

Perhaps then you can explain the following:

The red light shows only at a height of 14m. On line of sight from where you took your photograph of the light, the ground dips down to sea level (the farm) then rises to 19m (see OS Explorer map 212). I am intrigued to know how they managed to see a red sector light positioned at 14m though a 19m high hill covered in trees. It is true the light bears approx 110 from the point where you took your photograph but even your own photo only shows the top 1/4 of the light, if that. The white light is at 28m and if you look at your own photo, you will see the shield at the back of the lamp room blocks almost half the light. What you see is the 'V' cut into the shield to allow the white to shine along the coast to enable identification of the light. The red sector would still be 5m below the hill (not even allowing for the distance off, which is approx 5.5 miles from your viewpoint). If you were at sea level, i.e. next to the farm you couldn't even see that much. Also, one witness says they got within 50m of the 'object'. If that were the lighthouse, they would be on Orfordness Beach because the light is approx 1.5 miles from the quay at Orford. The main, white light is at 28m so they were, apparently, less then twice the height of the light away from it!!....Now call me old fashioned, but even the most dimwitted of airmen would surely recognise a lighthouse from 50m away?

[IanR]

I am sure you are totally convinced they were following the lighthouse and followed it for two miles.

Actually, I’m quoting what the witnesses on the first night said in their own statements. Burroughs: “We followed it for about 2 miles before we could [see] it was comming [sic] from a light house.” Cabansag: “We ran and walked a good 2 miles past our vehicle until we got to a vantage point where we could determine that what we were chasing was only a beacon light off in the distance.” Penniston does not estimate the distance walked or mention identifying the lighthouse.

The business about the red sector light is something you have introduced to the discussion and has never been part of anyone’s explanation before now, as far as I am aware. The culprit has always been identified as the main light, as seen on my original BBC TV report back in 1983:
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham1c.htm

Also, one witness says they got within 50m of the 'object'.

I’m sure you are well aware of the impossibility of estimating the distance of a bright light at night so I think you are just teasing me here. UFO witnesses regularly underestimate the distance of the objects they see, although the objects involved are usually celestial and the estimates are even more grossly in error than at Rendlesham.

Hope this helps,
Ian

[puddlepirate]

Hi Ian

er, no...Halt introduced the red light not me (from a transcript of the tape):

Voice: 1:48. We're hearing very strange sounds out of the farmer's barnyard animals. They're very, very active, making an awful lot of noise... You just saw the light? [garbled]. Slow down. Where?

Voice: Right on this positon. Here, straight ahead between the trees....There it is again. Watch. ...straight ahead off my flashlight, Sir. There it is...

Halt: I see it too. What is it?

Voice: I don't know sir

Halt: It's a strange, small red light......

[IanR]

er, no...Halt introduced the red light not me (from a transcript of the tape):
Halt: I see it too. What is it?
Voice: I don't know sir
Halt: It's a strange, small red light......

Ah, so now you change your ground to the *second* night. If you read on, you will find the exchange continued as follows:
HALT: There is no doubt about it – there is some type of strange flashing red light ahead.
VOICE: Sir, it’s yellow.
HALT: I saw a yellow tinge in it, too.
So maybe the light was not so red after all. As I have noted before, you have to be pretty certain of your ground to correct your commanding officer, as this witness did.

But, to come back to the the main point, I have never suggested that what they saw was anything other than the main beam of the lighthouse, which at that time was powered by a 3KW 100V filament lamp.

Hope this makes it clearer.
Ian