Ian was right

[Admin]

Thanks John. Not sure if Suffolk F&R will have records going back to Dec 80 but I'll give them a call to see what they've got. er... I've never mentioned a starscope so I guess that comment was for someone else?

Looks like it has already been done:

FOI Number: 2302
Request from: Individual
Date received: 29-Mar-10

I wish to make a request under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act (2000).
My request is for copies of any information held by Suffolk Fire and Rescue Service, or its
predecessors, relating to an incident that occurred in Rendlesham Forest, outside the
perimeter fence of RAF Woodbridge, during the period 25-29 December 1980.
I have information to the effect that officers and/or appliances from the Fire Rescue Service
were called either to the forest or to the immediate vicinity of the airbase during the time
period I have specified. The incident involved a sighting of “unexplained lights” in the forest
Responded in full by USAF airmen who initially believed the lights were those of an aircraft which
had crashed among the trees.

It has been established (from an RFOIA request to Suffolk police) that the USAF security
office at RAF Woodbridge contacted the Suffolk constabulary in the early hours of 26
December 1980 to report this occurrence and request attendance at the scene. It would
appear that given the circumstances (i.e. a crashed object in the woods) that assistance
from fire crews at the scene would have been standard procedure.

Source: http://www.suffolk.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/FA6147FF-6D70-4A19-BE56-4272DE14706C/0/April2010FOIDisclosureLog.pdf

[ncf1]

Proponents of the brilliant lighthouse theory - there is an abundance of reports and reported sightings of animals having gone ballistic during the event. What part of the lighthouse or its emittances from it precisely, caused the animals to behave in such an erratic matter? This is real testimony, by a lot of people, lots of farmers baffled as to why it happened, airmen, I would absolutely love to hear your theories on how the lighthouse did this to them - and why it didn't have the same effect on them on subsequent nights.

Or just perhaps do as you've always done and completely ignore this totally relevant and important question. I await your response, or perhaps more fitting with usual behaviour utter lack of response, with baited breath.

[stephan]

Stephan
Birds of a feather stick together. My guess you and Ian are Pm or E-mailing back and forth and your the messenger. But the interesting thing is I was out there on night 3 also and observed the blue lights in action. And unless stars and planets can pass through a truck dart in and out of the trees. And then there is the problem of the explosion that led to the blue lights going off into different directions that happened near the ground Hmm. That's why spook lights are of a interest to me and the Mod have looked into them and even they can't explain them.... But Ian says there just plain fringe and can't be taken serious even know his good friend David Clarke was the one who wrote the article....

John, I had a few PMs with Ian where I asked him a couple of things of which some remained unanswered though, maybe because they were not necessarily on topic. Ian may be totally convinced that ET has never visited Earth, I don't know. But I am definitely not convinced. Even if it appears to you that I could be his ''follower'' or something (re Ian Jr Stephan ) I assure you that's not the case. And I don't think it's his intention that I become one. All I did was looking at his findings and checked them because I was very suspicious about them. Unfortunately - and I say unfortunately because I still think that something strange has occured at RF - I was able to verify them as you can see in my posts. And I only used means that are available to everyone - such as Google Earth, that magnetic declination website and Stellarium.

IMO there's no need for intimidation if you are honest and fair, even if you are sure that it was not the way Ian, I or others have suggested. And especially when you were not even involved in Halt's team! I want to take a look at your witness statements as well, unfortunately I've been unable to decipher your handwriting!! Is there perhaps some transcribed version of it available somewhere ?

btw, the stars mentioned here, i.e. Sirius, Vega, Deneb, Aldebaran, Rigel are all among the Top 7 brightest stars below 30° altitude (as indicated below) and even among the Top 11 of all visible stars, as you can verify here:

http://www.horizonenergycorp.com/hpo/co ... ghtest.htm

Sirius
Arcturus
Vega
Capella 51°
Rigel
Procyon 42°
Betelgeuse 32°
Aldebaran
Spica
Pollux 63°
Deneb

(time: around 3:30 am)

the objects which were mentioned by Halt were mostly (if not all) low above the horizon. As for Jupiter which was very bright that night, too and Arcturus and Spica they were in the east and may have formed part of the five lights Halt reported:

passed the farmer's house crossing the next field, now we have mulitple sightings of up to five lights with a similar shape of it. They seem to be steady now rather a pulsating or glow with a red flash

so we see that we have nearly all the brightest stars plus Jupiter which were visible that night among the possible candidates for the lights. All other stars were probably of no interest or concern as they were too faint.

[John Burroughs]

Well it seems other people have been able to figure my handwriting out. And guess what I was out there with Halts team and to be honest I'm tired of all your assumptions considering you never set one foot in the forest.

[stephan]

sorry John, I thought you were not with 'em because you were not on the tape and because of this:

bg: about an hour between Burroughs and two other personnel requesting to Sgt. Ball in jeep at your location

B: tell'em negative at this time. We'll tell them when they can come out here. We don't want them out here right now.

so you arrived later at the scene ? Had you already been with them when they were at the edge of the forest observing the ''winking eye'' object ?

and if you are tired of my assumptions that's okay. Just ignore them as you please If I was sure that I had seen ET I wouldn't care what others would assume. I'd just lay back and enjoy their struggle to explain the inexplicable.

[ncf1]

All you have here are astronomers getting themselves heard at the expense of real truth-seekers such as John who just wants to know what on earth happened to him. They could care less about the truth as opposed to bignoting themselves and imposing their repetative theories onto the likes of the real witnesses. Because they focus on ONE part of the testimony and utterly and completely ignore everything else. One must look at the entire picture in order to get to the bottom of something but these people just have no interest whatsoever in it.

There are so many other strange events, inexplicable events that went on that desperately need to be looked at. All these people are doing is, in essence, jerking off with their astronomy theories and nothing more, they dont really care about the *truth*.

[John Burroughs]

Well another assumption on your part I never said I saw ET. And its really hard for me to sit back while someone who has no Idea what there talking about IE was not there when the incident happened has never set foot in the forest and does not even know all of the facts behind the incident continues to take shots at the people who were out there. Your just like Ian you take little bits and pieces that fit into what you feel happened. You sit behind that computer and take shots at people you don't even know we called them gutless wonders!!!

[Admin]

I want to take a look at your witness statements as well, unfortunately I've been unable to decipher your handwriting!! Is there perhaps some transcribed version of it available somewhere ?

http://rendlesham-incident.co.uk/evidence/usaf-witness-statements/john-burroughs-witness-statement/

Also, it's quite clear reading John and Jim's original statements that the lighthouse ("beacon light") was seen and then discounted after the original red, blue and white lights (or "mechanical object") had "dissapeared".
Jim's original sketch shows a physical craft on legs, and John's implies a structure behind the arrangement of lights. Ian did not mention this important fact in his presentation at Unconvention 2010.

[ncf1]

and that precisely emphasises the point I just made - astronomers like Ian et al just wanting to get heard and let their ego's run rampant at the expense of the real truth. Chopping and changing things to fit their OWN theories.

Some removed...careful not to overstep the line - Admin.

[AgentAppleseed]

Thats it exactly ncf1, and I notice its o.k for a respected astronomer to speculate on the motives of others but not the other way around! Id call that double-standards. In my book, you get what you give and you reap what you sow, but Im just old fashioned like that!

[puddlepirate]

Don't know if this is of any relevance but it might have had some influence on what was going on - not sure how exactly but it might

This is what the weather was doing:

T = Temp deg C; W = wind speed Km/h; WM = Max wind speed; WG = wind gusts

26th Dec: T = 3.1; W = 23.9; WM = 23.9; WG = 36.7
27th Dec: T = 2.1: W = 13.9; WM = 20.2; WG = -
28th Dec: T = 2.9; W = 14.6; WM = 23.7; WG = -
29th Dec: T = 8.3; W = 22.8; WM = 40.7; WG = 51.9
30th Dec: T = 8.7; W = 23.5; WM = 33.2; WG = 64.3

So whilst it was quite warm on the 29th and 30th, the wind was between force 4 (moderate breeze) to 5 (fresh breeze), gusting to near gale for most of the period. This would probably have made the trees move about a bit, especially on high ground. If Halt was observing lights that were in fact just on the tree line, this might have made fixed lights look as if they were flashing or moving. Given it is known there were 11 fixed red lights in the north east at or just above the tree line perhaps he might have seen one or two of these - pure speculation of course but Halt does mention red lights that first appear to flash / move then remain staionary viz:

passed the farmer's house crossing the next field, now we have mulitple sightings of up to five lights with a similar shape of it. They seem to be steady now rather a pulsating or glow with a red flash

No idea if the radio mast lights can be seen from where Halt was or even if they are in the same direction he was looking but they are (were) there. Visibility was fair throughout - from 11.3Km on the 26th, dipping to 5.6 Km on the 28th then back up to 11.3 Km on the 30th. No mention of fog but the reduced vis on the 28th suggests mist

[stephan]

passed the farmer's house crossing the next field, now we have mulitple sightings of up to five lights with a similar shape of it. They seem to be steady now rather a pulsating or glow with a red flash

No idea if the radio mast lights can be seen from where Halt was or even if they are in the same direction he was looking but they are (were) there.

if the radio masts were visible then this might be a good explanation (imo) for those five lights indeed. We've got some similar masts around here.

[AdrianF]

a. Why does Ian R’s photo show the lighthouse approx 20 deg off to the south and Adrian F’s video clip show the light 20 deg off to the north when both were taken from virtually the same spot looking directly at the farmhouse?

b. How can a 28m light be seen by an observer standing 5.5 miles away on ground at 23m with 19m of high ground in direct line of sight between the two. The angle of view over that distance would reduce the lighthouse to a far off speck, easily blocked by the 19m high ground north of Gedgrave Hall.

I think you should take a look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_distortion_(photography)
The reason I said I really don't know, is because I'm not confident enough in the minute details of camera position between the shots that I did and the one Ian has on his site. I like the effect of field of view distortion and by moving a camera just a few inches when zoomed in, it can give some great perspective changes that at times can be a real surprise. I'm not sure what can be really gained from debating this. The lighthouse is clearly within view of this part of farmers field, like it or loathe it. The radio masts can be seen from the other side of ( what was then ) the second farmers field. But I have never seen them from the forest edge, though I'm not saying they can't be.

[John Burroughs]

Adrian will you be coming over for sure on the 28th of Dec?

[AdrianF]

Adrian will you be coming over for sure on the 28th of Dec?

I'll be in the UK for Christmas, so it's no big deal for me to extend a couple of days. So yes.

[John Burroughs]

Good I will see you out there then.

[AdrianF]

OK great, I've marked it in the diary!

[AdrianF]

On the subject of the radio masts.. I watched Coast on beeb tonight. They featured Cobra Mist and did a cgi reconstruction of the masts. If you're in the UK you can probably get this through iPlayer.

[puddlepirate]

No need to debate anything. Fact is fact - and for the lighthouse move through approx 40 deg when the photographers are standing in the same place, facing the same way supposedly photographing the same thing is not perspective distortion. A telephoto lens will bring the subject closer and can appear to compress perspective but it won't move the subject from one side of a house to the other. The other fact and this has absolutely nothing to do with photography is that from that position in the field both the farmhouse and the lighthouse are in line, on behind the other, on 090. That has nothing whatever to do with atmospherics, refraction, lens distortion,the landscape, stars or anything else.

[AdrianF]

A telephoto lens will bring the subject closer and can appear to compress perspective but it won't move the subject from one side of a house to the other

Except for when the camera moves. I don't know exactly the spot where Ian was standing when he took his photo, but I suspect it was some way to the south of where this shot was taken. If a camera dollies left to right or vice versa, whilst using a long focal length, the distant object will shift rapidly in relation to the foreground object ( the farmhouse ). Trust me, I spent four days last week filming dolly shots with medium to long focal lengths.

No need to debate anything. Fact is fact - and for the lighthouse move through approx 40 deg when the photographers are standing in the same place, facing the same way supposedly photographing the same thing is not perspective distortion.

The most likely answer is, that they weren't standing in the same place.