[quote="Observer"]Hey guys, come on.
It was me that introduced the Apollo capsule theory in the first place.
Yes, i mixed quite a lot with the servicemen [Mostly at the Gun club and around the married quarters] I have to admit that there was a lot of 'piss' taking going on about the incident, most was friendly banter.
If i run with the Apollo theory for a bit longer and please don't beat up about it, i suggested that it was not a caper in one of my articles but an accident. This occurred during the last couple of days of flying before they stood down for Christmas. The CH-53 with capsule slung underneath had taken off for a practice drop in the sea but clonked the landing lights with the capsule. They dropped it immediatly in the woods for safety reasons. The rest is Hoo Hah.
Hi Observer,
Do you not think that the capsule incident was the front runner to all this,it happened before the sightings and could have led to some servicemen not knowing what they were looking at and thus we have a UFO story.To tell you the truth Observer I am sick and tired of the airmens inconsistances with their version of events,they are constantly moving the goalposts and think people are so stupid to buy their UFO gig.Now theres an issue about the 80 airmen who saw the object leave the forest, Penniston didnt say it originally and now he says it did happen,of the 80 "trained spotters" as he calls them none have come forward?,heck he's even changed he's sketch drawings from the originals to make them look more like a spaceship!.Halt also is constantly changing the story because people let him get away with it.A stronger case here would be for us to stop trying to find some crazy theory to brighten our lives up and look at what is staring us in the face.I still speak to someone who was at Bentwaters at the time as I live near Mildenhall, he and others just dismiss it with a laugh,like their retired USAF buddies are making a great job of their BS story.I would love to think there is some other theory but nothing else figures,sure some other military people go along with it but they do that,the "band of brothers" stuff for serving and retired military guys still very much exists.....Can we put something together with the theorys we have dismissed and the obvious mistakes the airmen have made and keep making to dispell this tale?.
Redsocks
Observer[/quote]
CIA using us
by redsocks » Fri Jan 18, 2008 6:48 pm
[quote="puddlepirate"]Hi All
So let's get this right. The suggestion now is that in the late evening of the 26th December personnel of the 67th ARRS wheeled out the Apollo capsule from its storage, hooked it up to an HH53 and took off on an unauthorised flight, completely unnoticed by anyone, including the SP guards and the duty watch in Woodbridge and Bentwaters flight towers or anybody else, then to complete the hoax the ARRS dropped the capsule in the forest. This is the sighting that Pennston, Burroughs and Cabasang witnessed.
Then in the early morning of the 29th of December, obviously flushed with success at having completed the hoax first time around and having covertly retrieved the capsule and returned the aircraft without anybody noticing, they did exactly the same thing all over again. This is the sighting that Halt, England, Warren and others witnessed.
Wow. I'm impressed. Mystery solved. I am hugely impressed that they managed to succeed twice and despite the fact that, apparently, the Apollo capsule was known to many, that not one person amongst all the officers and men searching the forest - 80 on the first night (according to Penniston) and many on the second (according to Halt and Warren) - recognised it for what it was. A truly remarkable feat. All hail to the 67th ARRS![/quote]
Puddlepirate,
I dont want to fall out with you,let me answer text from your post.
I'm not saying the capsule thing was a prank,I'm saying an incident involving the capsule happened at the time the airmen saw the supposed UFO,look the capsule does fit the description, Pennistons sketches and the marks in the ground also fit....What I would like to know is when ARRS dropped the capsule how long was it in the forest for,was their anybody guarding it before its retrieval.These questions will help to strengthen the ARRS/capsule theory.
Secondly on the second night I am pretty sure the airmen were chasing the lighthouse.where they started their chase and where they ended up is a direct path to the lighthouse,come down to suffolk and I will show you this at night,ive done it it is very earie and that could add to Halts tape somewhat.I think theres a case for mass hysteria on the second night like they actually thought they were chasing a UFO and getting carried away with it.Thats my theory and I aim to prove it.
Redsocks
So let's get this right. The suggestion now is that in the late evening of the 26th December personnel of the 67th ARRS wheeled out the Apollo capsule from its storage, hooked it up to an HH53 and took off on an unauthorised flight, completely unnoticed by anyone, including the SP guards and the duty watch in Woodbridge and Bentwaters flight towers or anybody else, then to complete the hoax the ARRS dropped the capsule in the forest. This is the sighting that Pennston, Burroughs and Cabasang witnessed.
Then in the early morning of the 29th of December, obviously flushed with success at having completed the hoax first time around and having covertly retrieved the capsule and returned the aircraft without anybody noticing, they did exactly the same thing all over again. This is the sighting that Halt, England, Warren and others witnessed.
Wow. I'm impressed. Mystery solved. I am hugely impressed that they managed to succeed twice and despite the fact that, apparently, the Apollo capsule was known to many, that not one person amongst all the officers and men searching the forest - 80 on the first night (according to Penniston) and many on the second (according to Halt and Warren) - recognised it for what it was. A truly remarkable feat. All hail to the 67th ARRS![/quote]
Puddlepirate,
I dont want to fall out with you,let me answer text from your post.
I'm not saying the capsule thing was a prank,I'm saying an incident involving the capsule happened at the time the airmen saw the supposed UFO,look the capsule does fit the description, Pennistons sketches and the marks in the ground also fit....What I would like to know is when ARRS dropped the capsule how long was it in the forest for,was their anybody guarding it before its retrieval.These questions will help to strengthen the ARRS/capsule theory.
Secondly on the second night I am pretty sure the airmen were chasing the lighthouse.where they started their chase and where they ended up is a direct path to the lighthouse,come down to suffolk and I will show you this at night,ive done it it is very earie and that could add to Halts tape somewhat.I think theres a case for mass hysteria on the second night like they actually thought they were chasing a UFO and getting carried away with it.Thats my theory and I aim to prove it.
Redsocks
- redsocks
- Posts: 211
- Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 10:27 am
by redsocks » Fri Jan 18, 2008 6:57 pm
[quote="Silvertop"]Redsocks, do you have a link to the original Peniston drawings and the revised ones. I was only aware there was one sketch of the triangular craft.
Silvertop[/quote]
Hi Silvertop,
Look under "national press club" etc thread,those new sketches are very different from the sketches Penniston jotted down in he's note pad the morning after the event.(Maybe someone can find a link I saw them in Warrens book)...How now after all this time some 27 years can he put together something so detailed and not do this in the past?.He has totally elaborated on the original sketches and we are supposed to buy it lol.
Redsocks
Silvertop[/quote]
Hi Silvertop,
Look under "national press club" etc thread,those new sketches are very different from the sketches Penniston jotted down in he's note pad the morning after the event.(Maybe someone can find a link I saw them in Warrens book)...How now after all this time some 27 years can he put together something so detailed and not do this in the past?.He has totally elaborated on the original sketches and we are supposed to buy it lol.
Redsocks
- redsocks
- Posts: 211
- Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 10:27 am
by Observer » Fri Jan 18, 2008 6:58 pm
Hi redsocks
I totally aggree with your frustration, join the club. It really boils down to 2 things. The Apollo story was a smoke screen for something else or it was actually the culprit?
Forget recent statements by those involved and concentrate on their first statements and take them just at face value. Take only Pennistons first sketches not more recent ones.
Consider all the evidence, and then take a sideways look as there are clues.
Look at it this way, The Apollo program by NASA was known by the whole world, the media, Russia, amd your sister. It wasn't even a military program as such.
So why all the fuss, disinformation and lies over one tiny little training capsule that ended up in the woods.
Why did Maggie Thatcher say those famous words to Georgina Bruni "get your facts right and you can't tell the people"
I'm sure maggie would not even have known about a mishap with a training capsule, she would not have been informed, as it would have been of no defence significance.
If a nuke was accidentally dropped in the woods [and i'm not saying that this is what happened] She would have been informed by her defence staff immediately.
There is some evidence that we have not looked at closely, such as Halt's remark to Bruni that a secret aircraft landed at one of the bases, it was not that clear which base and he and nearly everybody else were not allowed near it. It was out of bounds.
So there is plenty more to look at. Forget who said what and why, look at their actions more than their words.
Observer
I totally aggree with your frustration, join the club. It really boils down to 2 things. The Apollo story was a smoke screen for something else or it was actually the culprit?
Forget recent statements by those involved and concentrate on their first statements and take them just at face value. Take only Pennistons first sketches not more recent ones.
Consider all the evidence, and then take a sideways look as there are clues.
Look at it this way, The Apollo program by NASA was known by the whole world, the media, Russia, amd your sister. It wasn't even a military program as such.
So why all the fuss, disinformation and lies over one tiny little training capsule that ended up in the woods.
Why did Maggie Thatcher say those famous words to Georgina Bruni "get your facts right and you can't tell the people"
I'm sure maggie would not even have known about a mishap with a training capsule, she would not have been informed, as it would have been of no defence significance.
If a nuke was accidentally dropped in the woods [and i'm not saying that this is what happened] She would have been informed by her defence staff immediately.
There is some evidence that we have not looked at closely, such as Halt's remark to Bruni that a secret aircraft landed at one of the bases, it was not that clear which base and he and nearly everybody else were not allowed near it. It was out of bounds.
So there is plenty more to look at. Forget who said what and why, look at their actions more than their words.
Observer
- Observer
- Posts: 1284
- Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:31 pm
- Location: Woodbridge Suffolk, now London.
by puddlepirate » Fri Jan 18, 2008 7:33 pm
I'm quite happy to examine the Apollo capsule theory in detail. All we need is some evidence to back it up and to consider the actual circumstances prevailing at the bases at the time.
I've worked on several occasions with the Americans during NATO exercises at home and abroad. They might not have such a broad spectrum of knowledge in their respective professional roles as our lads do in theirs but they aren't idiots. Far from it. The SP would be well trained for their duties, although at an indiviual level and particularly at a junior rank level, those duties might not be particularly broad. I have a good friend in the US whose nephew is training to be a plane captain. His name will, apparently, be painted on the side of 'his' aircraft. Therefore, I would expect this to be a USAF tradition and the ground crew to be very proud of their assigned aircraft. That is why I have my doubts about the aircrew being able to joy ride in an HH53 without being found out, especially when the bases were on alert.
However, as I said, I'm happy to run with the Apollo theory so let's find the evidence.
I've worked on several occasions with the Americans during NATO exercises at home and abroad. They might not have such a broad spectrum of knowledge in their respective professional roles as our lads do in theirs but they aren't idiots. Far from it. The SP would be well trained for their duties, although at an indiviual level and particularly at a junior rank level, those duties might not be particularly broad. I have a good friend in the US whose nephew is training to be a plane captain. His name will, apparently, be painted on the side of 'his' aircraft. Therefore, I would expect this to be a USAF tradition and the ground crew to be very proud of their assigned aircraft. That is why I have my doubts about the aircrew being able to joy ride in an HH53 without being found out, especially when the bases were on alert.
However, as I said, I'm happy to run with the Apollo theory so let's find the evidence.
You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time (Winston Churchill)...causa latet, vis est notissima
- puddlepirate
- Posts: 637
- Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 11:47 am
- Location: UK
by puddlepirate » Sat Jan 19, 2008 12:40 pm
Source: The Times; Dec 9 1980; Page 6; Col E: (electronic and microfilm copies of The Times are available in almost all UK libraries so this can be verified)
Article headed: Polish crisis behind NATO decision to keep five-ship force together over Christmas holiday
"NATO's standing naval force in the north Atlantic is being kept in European waters instead of dispersing for Christmas, officials confirm here today......" the article goes on to say "...uncertainty over the outcome of the Polish crisis is the reason."
++++
STANAVFORLANT (Standing Naval Force Atlantic) comprised five ships. Amongst them were HMS Norfolk (UK) and USS Valdez (US) plus a Canadian ship HMCS Fraser. The Dutch and German ships which made up the remainder of the force sailed to their home ports but the British, US and Canadiian ships remained at Portsmouth, UK.
If the sitiuation was serious enough for STANAVFORLANT to remain in European waters then the situation was almost certainly serious enough for the two major USAF bases in the UK to be on alert.
Article headed: Polish crisis behind NATO decision to keep five-ship force together over Christmas holiday
"NATO's standing naval force in the north Atlantic is being kept in European waters instead of dispersing for Christmas, officials confirm here today......" the article goes on to say "...uncertainty over the outcome of the Polish crisis is the reason."
++++
STANAVFORLANT (Standing Naval Force Atlantic) comprised five ships. Amongst them were HMS Norfolk (UK) and USS Valdez (US) plus a Canadian ship HMCS Fraser. The Dutch and German ships which made up the remainder of the force sailed to their home ports but the British, US and Canadiian ships remained at Portsmouth, UK.
If the sitiuation was serious enough for STANAVFORLANT to remain in European waters then the situation was almost certainly serious enough for the two major USAF bases in the UK to be on alert.
You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time (Winston Churchill)...causa latet, vis est notissima
- puddlepirate
- Posts: 637
- Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 11:47 am
- Location: UK
by Observer » Wed Jan 23, 2008 7:16 pm
Hi silvertop
You are quite right concerning their oath. In the UK its the OSA and there will be an American equivalent. They normally stay with you for life which includes after you retire. Break these signed codes and you are in deep trouble and liable for prosecution. The penalties in the UK are quite severe for often minor transgressions.
Larry Warren in his book intimated that there were nuclear weapons stored at both bases [ he didn't pick out one particular base] that was without the British Government's knowledge. This is aboslute nonsense.
Only Bentwaters had the HOT row storage system for 'nukes'.
In one of Halts statements where he said that laser type beams of light were being shone down over the weapons storage area, we assume he meant RAF Woodbridge as Bentwaters was about 2 miles away.
Somebody else suggested it was because 'nukes' were stored there which if meant to be Woodbridge is not true.
Or did Halt mean Bentwaters? Some discrepancies here?
Any way i'm not surprised that these people are not saying much.
The MOD and British Government when asked about nuclear weapons and their storage and deployment will always say. "We have no comment". Clear, simple and sod off.
Observer
Observer
You are quite right concerning their oath. In the UK its the OSA and there will be an American equivalent. They normally stay with you for life which includes after you retire. Break these signed codes and you are in deep trouble and liable for prosecution. The penalties in the UK are quite severe for often minor transgressions.
Larry Warren in his book intimated that there were nuclear weapons stored at both bases [ he didn't pick out one particular base] that was without the British Government's knowledge. This is aboslute nonsense.
Only Bentwaters had the HOT row storage system for 'nukes'.
In one of Halts statements where he said that laser type beams of light were being shone down over the weapons storage area, we assume he meant RAF Woodbridge as Bentwaters was about 2 miles away.
Somebody else suggested it was because 'nukes' were stored there which if meant to be Woodbridge is not true.
Or did Halt mean Bentwaters? Some discrepancies here?
Any way i'm not surprised that these people are not saying much.
The MOD and British Government when asked about nuclear weapons and their storage and deployment will always say. "We have no comment". Clear, simple and sod off.
Observer
Observer
- Observer
- Posts: 1284
- Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:31 pm
- Location: Woodbridge Suffolk, now London.
by Observer » Thu Jan 24, 2008 8:34 am
Hi silvertop
In a word, nonsense. The British government would be fully aware of what was at what and where.
Your best bet is Graham Haynes who is the best authority to my knowledge on these issues concerning the twin bases. In one of his posts from some time ago he explained why there were no NW at RAF Woodbridge.
Observer
In a word, nonsense. The British government would be fully aware of what was at what and where.
Your best bet is Graham Haynes who is the best authority to my knowledge on these issues concerning the twin bases. In one of his posts from some time ago he explained why there were no NW at RAF Woodbridge.
Observer
- Observer
- Posts: 1284
- Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:31 pm
- Location: Woodbridge Suffolk, now London.
by ghaynes » Thu Jan 24, 2008 12:04 pm
Observer wrote:Hi silvertop
In a word, nonsense. The British government would be fully aware of what was at what and where.
Your best bet is Graham Haynes who is the best authority to my knowledge on these issues concerning the twin bases. In one of his posts from some time ago he explained why there were no NW at RAF Woodbridge.
Observer
Quite simply, there were no NATO Cube nuclear weapon storage igloos at Woodbridge. Only Bentwaters had this facility (known as 'Hot Row'). IMHO nuclear weapons had nothing to do with the Rendlesham incident.
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 Observer » Thu Jan 24, 2008 6:11 pm
Hi silvertop
I think we are all a bit obsessed with this mystery, but then we have a right to be. No body else is digging like we are.
I've had a feeling for some time that the reported search lights coming from the air were in fact from a helicopter doing a grid pattern search over the ness and adjacent sea areas. As for the light beams shining down at Halt's feet, it still could have been from a helicopter.
I don't wish to say on the forum what i think they were searching for.
The reported lights hanging in the sky at some distance were the nav lights of at least 2 HH-53's. In the hover mode. Well i think it was?
Observer
I think we are all a bit obsessed with this mystery, but then we have a right to be. No body else is digging like we are.
I've had a feeling for some time that the reported search lights coming from the air were in fact from a helicopter doing a grid pattern search over the ness and adjacent sea areas. As for the light beams shining down at Halt's feet, it still could have been from a helicopter.
I don't wish to say on the forum what i think they were searching for.
The reported lights hanging in the sky at some distance were the nav lights of at least 2 HH-53's. In the hover mode. Well i think it was?
Observer
- Observer
- Posts: 1284
- Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:31 pm
- Location: Woodbridge Suffolk, now London.
by John Burroughs » Thu Jan 24, 2008 7:39 pm
His Boss would have been the Base Commander Col Conrad. As far as it being Helicopters over Halt or in the distance not possible. The objects were blue lights that changed in size and shape. There was never any kind of noise comming from the lights. And I can tell you there were no weapons stored at Woodbride and I will not commet on what was stored at Bentwaters other than there was a weapons storage area.
- John Burroughs
- Posts: 964
- Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2008 9:16 pm
by Observer » Thu Jan 24, 2008 10:44 pm
Hi John
Thanks for your reply, it was just a theory re choppers.
Although it was not known by the general public, most military aviation nuts knew about the NW at Bentwaters and they knew there were none at Woodbridge. The RAF also had them in several Suffolk and Norfolk bases.
If this 'UFO' was interested in NW and their WSA, it should have gone up the road to RAF Marham or Scampton in Lincolnshire where they had the big Strategic MT weapons in storage. So i don't buy it was there because of NW.
I can understand all the secrecy, disinformation and treatment of USAF guys if this incident involved a 'nuke' or even some 'black' stealth aircraft that officially didn't exist being in the forest, but not for an alleged UFO.
Observer
Thanks for your reply, it was just a theory re choppers.
Although it was not known by the general public, most military aviation nuts knew about the NW at Bentwaters and they knew there were none at Woodbridge. The RAF also had them in several Suffolk and Norfolk bases.
If this 'UFO' was interested in NW and their WSA, it should have gone up the road to RAF Marham or Scampton in Lincolnshire where they had the big Strategic MT weapons in storage. So i don't buy it was there because of NW.
I can understand all the secrecy, disinformation and treatment of USAF guys if this incident involved a 'nuke' or even some 'black' stealth aircraft that officially didn't exist being in the forest, but not for an alleged UFO.
Observer
- Observer
- Posts: 1284
- Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:31 pm
- Location: Woodbridge Suffolk, now London.
by IanR » Fri Jan 25, 2008 12:34 am
Silvertop wrote:I am sorry if I am covering old ground, but I am relatively new to this and I would really like someone to tell me what actually happened over those 2 nights !!
You can read a transcript of Halt's tape of the second night's events here
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/halttape.htm
There are links on that page to the actual audio recording. You'll note that it didn't happen quite like the reconstruction (or "fictionalization" to be more accurate) on the TV clip you have seen.
Ian
- IanR
- Posts: 388
- Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 12:13 pm
by Pluton » Fri Jan 25, 2008 3:01 am
Hi Silvertop
If it's any help what I did to understand the case was to first read an old copy of Skycrash, then just as I was half way through Larry Warren's book came out (Left at East Gate) then You Can't Tell The People by Georgina Bruni filled in much more of the military side for me a few years later, then in 2005 just when I thought I had read everything I was able to get to grips with the scientific side with The Rendlesham File by Andrew Pike.
The last one is a bit difficult to get now, it's out of print and Andrew Pike does not deal with Rendlesham anymore, but as an Astrophysicist he covers a great deal of interesting stuff (the book is 650 pages long). So between them they cover the early years, the personal side, the military stories and the possible science going on.
I found these far better than many of the over dramatic TV which seemed to be aimed at viewer figures by dragging out all the old tired debunkers to stir up things rather than accurate facts.
Don't know if that is of help, but it certainly worked for me with my attempts to get to grips with the case when I was starting out.
If it's any help what I did to understand the case was to first read an old copy of Skycrash, then just as I was half way through Larry Warren's book came out (Left at East Gate) then You Can't Tell The People by Georgina Bruni filled in much more of the military side for me a few years later, then in 2005 just when I thought I had read everything I was able to get to grips with the scientific side with The Rendlesham File by Andrew Pike.
The last one is a bit difficult to get now, it's out of print and Andrew Pike does not deal with Rendlesham anymore, but as an Astrophysicist he covers a great deal of interesting stuff (the book is 650 pages long). So between them they cover the early years, the personal side, the military stories and the possible science going on.
I found these far better than many of the over dramatic TV which seemed to be aimed at viewer figures by dragging out all the old tired debunkers to stir up things rather than accurate facts.
Don't know if that is of help, but it certainly worked for me with my attempts to get to grips with the case when I was starting out.
- Pluton
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:47 am
- Location: Here and Now
by Observer » Fri Jan 25, 2008 9:14 am
Hi guys
This forum just seems to be going round in circles especially concerning who said what, when they said it, what they saw, how they described it, who was there and who was not, i could go on. You can research these statements etc till hell freezes over but i'l bet you will be none the wiser.
These same arguments were being discussed 2 years ago which only goes to show that we are no nearer the truth now than we were then.
We have one person saying it was a prank and another saying it was the light house and yet another saying it was stars in the sky. Others have said it was an accident and others said it was deliberate.
We have had several books on the subject all with different angles and we have had TV Docs which have all been sexed up for viewing figures.
We have had TV interviews of well known people such as Nick Pope who says nothing of interest except for the obvious which we already know
What we need are new theories to get our teeth into otherwise its back to square one.
Observer
This forum just seems to be going round in circles especially concerning who said what, when they said it, what they saw, how they described it, who was there and who was not, i could go on. You can research these statements etc till hell freezes over but i'l bet you will be none the wiser.
These same arguments were being discussed 2 years ago which only goes to show that we are no nearer the truth now than we were then.
We have one person saying it was a prank and another saying it was the light house and yet another saying it was stars in the sky. Others have said it was an accident and others said it was deliberate.
We have had several books on the subject all with different angles and we have had TV Docs which have all been sexed up for viewing figures.
We have had TV interviews of well known people such as Nick Pope who says nothing of interest except for the obvious which we already know
What we need are new theories to get our teeth into otherwise its back to square one.
Observer
- Observer
- Posts: 1284
- Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:31 pm
- Location: Woodbridge Suffolk, now London.
by redsocks » Fri Jan 25, 2008 3:45 pm
Agree Observer,
People are making money and we are just going around in circles.Why o why cant somebody stand up and tell the truth.We've pretty much established this incident was man made but I believe the players want us to still believe in little green men.I can only think that the players are squirming a bit because the truth is so close now....hence the certain interest lately.WE WILL GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS AND MAKE IT PUBLIC theres no way out we just need a bit more time.........
Redsocks
People are making money and we are just going around in circles.Why o why cant somebody stand up and tell the truth.We've pretty much established this incident was man made but I believe the players want us to still believe in little green men.I can only think that the players are squirming a bit because the truth is so close now....hence the certain interest lately.WE WILL GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS AND MAKE IT PUBLIC theres no way out we just need a bit more time.........
Redsocks
- redsocks
- Posts: 211
- Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 10:27 am
by John Burroughs » Fri Jan 25, 2008 5:53 pm
redsock
More time for what? The people making money are the one who wrote the books. You make it sound like you know what happened will guess what I was there and to this day I cannot tell you what it was except to say it was not the light house. Part of the problem is that this happened in England and most of the people involved live in the states. I would love to get everybody together in England it would be very interesting to see who would show up.
More time for what? The people making money are the one who wrote the books. You make it sound like you know what happened will guess what I was there and to this day I cannot tell you what it was except to say it was not the light house. Part of the problem is that this happened in England and most of the people involved live in the states. I would love to get everybody together in England it would be very interesting to see who would show up.
- John Burroughs
- Posts: 964
- Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2008 9:16 pm
by redsocks » Fri Jan 25, 2008 6:22 pm
John Burroughs wrote:redsock
More time for what? The people making money are the one who wrote the books. You make it sound like you know what happened will guess what I was there and to this day I cannot tell you what it was except to say it was not the light house. Part of the problem is that this happened in England and most of the people involved live in the states. I would love to get everybody together in England it would be very interesting to see who would show up.
Hi John, Can you please give a clearer picture of what you saw? I have asked you about the ARRS theory which is pretty strong and never really got a reply.as the capsule was dropped into the woods very prior to your sighting,is this what some of you 81st guys saw and decided to start some UFO folklaw?.I still know people that were at Bentwaters around the time of the incident that are still serving and ALL dismiss it as a joke,it was a joke then and still is.Surely this is some big USAF tale to brighten your lives in the uk that got out of control.1st night ARRS capsule+ 2nd night lighthouse=big UFO mystery.Can I ask you John are you familiar with an Apollo capsule? it matches Pennistons sketches and it sits on 3 legs that will make the indendations Penniston took the plaster casts of.It makes no odds to anyone if you come clean,it just solves a 28 year old mystery.
Redsocks
- redsocks
- Posts: 211
- Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 10:27 am
by Observer » Fri Jan 25, 2008 6:23 pm
Hi John
I understand you are no wiser now than you were then, join the club.
It would be great to get everybody together but could be difficult.
Over the years since this incident, you must have had some thoughts and senarios to what happened. For one thing, do you think the US and UK governments are hiding the facts?
Have any of the other guys that you may have been in touch with had 'pet' ideas or theories?
Halt recons he has more to tell, but we are not sure what.
Observer
I understand you are no wiser now than you were then, join the club.
It would be great to get everybody together but could be difficult.
Over the years since this incident, you must have had some thoughts and senarios to what happened. For one thing, do you think the US and UK governments are hiding the facts?
Have any of the other guys that you may have been in touch with had 'pet' ideas or theories?
Halt recons he has more to tell, but we are not sure what.
Observer
- Observer
- Posts: 1284
- Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:31 pm
- Location: Woodbridge Suffolk, now London.
Return to The Rendlesham forest incident
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests