Larry Warren Interview on "Now That's Weird"

[puddlepirate]

Hi LW

Many thanks for answering my questions. In my previous post I used the word 'crashed' because of the damage to the trees, i.e. not exactly a planned and controlled landing in a clear area but as landing (or as it would seem now, three separate landings) is the accepted condition then I'm not going to get hung up on that. Plus the craft could have landed in a clear area then manoeuvered into the trees for cover.

Given there were three(?) landings - the first being that observed by Penniston with the second being that observed by Col Halt and his team and the third by yourself and your colleagues, do you think there were three different craft involved or do you think it was the same one returning on different nights? I know reference was made to 'it's back' when Halt was summoned from his social function but I wondered what your view was. Two came down -or were first sighted - in the trees, whilst if I remember LAEG correctly, you saw something in the field at Capel Green. Plus there were other craft overhead shining beams of light onto the WSA and at the feet of Halt's squad in the forest.

If one or more craft were on the ground, especially two on the same night (the one seen by Halt et al moving through the trees and the one seen by yourself - unless this was the same craft viewed from different positions), then the beams of light might have come from some kind of escort group which remained airborne in a defensive role to protect the landed craft, maybe engaged in some kind of recovery op similar to that performed in theatre today by Black Hawk helos when a US aircraft is down in hostile territory.

Just trying to get a clear picture of everything that was going on.

Incidentally, in my PM to you I mentioned working with the NSA in Agnano, Italy. This was not the US National Security Agency but the US Naval Support Activity. This was in 88/89 ('89 was during exercise Open Gate) - and if you happen to know anyone who was in the comcen there at that time, ask them if they remember Melanie - one quality American babe for two outstanding reasons!! - or the Tennis Hotel (Melanie had absolutely nothing to do with any activity at the hotel I should hasten to add).

[Dave100]

Iv'e read all the posts on here since being asked by Observer about my thoughts on the RFI and reading Larry's responses are great,you are as forthright as ever Larry and tell it as you saw it.
One thing I always mention in regards to this case and Iv'e mentioned it loads of times on other forums is that its vital to read the witness statements and watch and study their appearences on the various TV documentarys down the years.You can still see the bewilderment on their faces as to what they witnessed.
Sceptics and people with other theories have to address the following points regarding what the witnesses saw who were actually there.
What kind of technology does it take for an object to split into seperate objects and fly off in different directions at high speed in total silence?
what kind of technology does it take for objects to do fast right angled turns in silence and then hover and beam pencil thin beams of light to the ground?
Colonel Halt has said that the objects were under intelligent control,I think there is little doubt about that,so what is behind this intelligence?
These craft had a fight envelope well beyond anything we have and yet were capable at the same time of "adversly affecting" nuclear ordnates by beaming down some kind of energy in the form of what looked like laser beams.
So these craft were under intelligent control,that means someone built them for a purpose and that those controlling them must have had a motive and mission in mind given other witness statements describing "grid searches" by the airbourne objects.
I simply don't believe we could have manufactured these objects and then decide to fly them round an English forest at the height of the cold war when this base was on high alert due to the Soviet threat to Poland at the time,it would make no sense to add to the tension at the time to fly things about during a holiday period,for what reason?
Jim Pennistone's statements are absolutely crucial to this case and his description of the craft and its take off from the forest floor,it had no intakes or exhausts and operated in complete silence,he is an excellent witness and now we know there were some 80 witnesses to the crafts take off.I can't say hand on heart that this was an alien vehicle but it has to be considered given its extraordinary manouveability,does anybody really believe we could manufacture something like this?
There were also the strange affects seen by Larry on the third night at Capel Green,namely when their shadows were cast onto the landed object and would move a further pace when they had stopped,also the ammount of static in the air.So these craft seemed to affect the immediate enviroment around them.
I think the word "crash" has been used just for dramatic purposes for book titles,its an emotive word that would stir up more interest not to say book sales,I've read no witness statements that would suggest any kind of crash whatsoever but plenty of evidence to say they were controlled landings by fairly heavy objects given the size and depth of the plaster casts taken by Jim Penniston and Col Halt of the landing marks.
Those casts coupled with the soil samples discussed in Larry's book are as near as we have got to physical evidence apart from the radiation readings and the broken branches.
Andrew Pike did indeed do some great work on this case and it would seem a very exotic technology was on display that I personally doubt was ours.Again it comes down to witness testimony and their interpretation which counts in my book.
If other lifeforms were seen and I certainly believe they were by Larry and others then this should be explored more as some kind of lifeform had to be piloting these things.
This might explain the incredible lengths the USAF went to,to cover up what happened.

[puddlepirate]

Theories other than alien craft are perfectly valid, although not everyone might agree with them.

If we consider alien craft for a moment and in so doing accept absolutely everything at face value - all the witness statements, the Halt memo and the Halt tape and overlook any attempt at cover up or diversion then it would appear that what we have is not one but several alien craft, each under intelligent control, penetrating UK airspace without detection, landing in possibly three locations and in at least one case, apparently effecting repairs with the aid of the USAF. While one craft was on the ground and two(?) of its crew were allegedly conversing with senior USAF officers, other craft of what seems to be an alien task group of some kind, were still airborne and directing beams of light onto the Bentwaters WSA and at the feet of Col Halt and his men. After each craft had been on the ground for a while, each one suddenly took off at high speed with one or perhaps two of the craft, appearing to break up into several parts before disappearing.

From the witness statements etc, that appears to the case. Does everyone agree or have I misunderstood?

Assuming the above is correct, it raises a couple of questions - if the craft were under intelligent control, then why did the pilots choose to land where they did? One can reasonably assume that the crew wanted to get back home at some point (after all, even aliens would have families and so forth) and would have been in communication with some sort of control authority - even if detached from a mother ship of some kind that remained outside our atmosphere, so why choose to come down - even damaging trees and possibly the craft itself - at a very risky landing place known to be populated, not just with local civilians but wth heavily armed military forces with an airborne capability, which, if they were clever enough to get here un-observed, they must surely have known about. Remember, as the witnesses have already said and this forum has confirmed, this was NOT a crash, it was a controlled landing by intelligent beings. Also, is it likely they would have spoken English? Even if using some kind of thought control process and most of us for whom English is a first language, think in English, there must have been some kind of translation facility in place.

Then of course there is the 'of no defence significance' statement. MoD are not fools. If they said that then they knew why. And they knew why because they knew what it was. What MoD did not do, nor have they done, is to say what it was.

One other point - the nukes in the WSA would not have been armed until needed, surely. It is known that aircraft were armed and flew missions with tactical nukes (not necessarily from the twin bases but why hold the weapons there if they weren't for use by aircraft stationed there). That being so then target co-ordinates would not have been loaded until the target was known. I'm not absolutely sure but in 1980 I think - I'm sure someone will correct me - that the co-ordinates were programmed into the targetting computer in the aircraft, not into the weapons themselves, i.e. they weren't smart weapons.

As for advanced technology, how many of us that were around in the UK in the early 1960's would have thought we had an aircraft that could take off vertically, hover, move from side to side in the air, then shoot of at high speed? We did. And my brother and I, plus many others who lived in Watford at that time, saw it. It was an Harrier jump jet prototype being flown at night. The aircraft was built at Hatfield, about 11 miles from Watford. If that had come down anywhere other than at the factory airfield, even in a controlled landing, because of some kind of problem, you can bet your life that the powers that be would have denied all knowledge of it - even if it had landed on the pitch at Watford football club during an FA Cup qualifying game to be witnessed by thousands (well, at Watford only a dozen or so but you get my drift) the existence of such a craft would have been denied. Just because we don't know doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[larry warren]

for dave 100;
thanks dave for fighting the good fight as always!
the division of beleif systems has begun on the site and it is a healthy thing indeed!
else lifes a drag, so keep em coming.
buy the way guys , the case rfi is not the larry warren show, and never has been, but i wont
speek for others as i hate when its been done to me, so i just talk about what i think i know.
be in touch soon dave!
best to you all
larry

[puddlepirate]

References:

website at: http://www.stealthskater.com/Documents/ ... dge_01.doc

The reference on the website states it was taken from: Above Top Secret; Good, T.

Beyond Top Secret; Good, T; Pan Books (1996) where the same appears on page 60

Skycrash; Butler B, Randles J, Street D; Grafton Books (1986)

News of the Woodbridge incident first leaked out in January 1981 when Brenda Butler was approached by a U.S. Air Force security officer who had proven to be a reliable source of information in the past. Given pseudonym of "Steve Roberts" by the authors of Sky Crash, he confided that a UFO had crash-landed in Rendlesham Forest on the night of December 27. And that he himself witnessed its 3 small silver-suited occupants carrying out repairs on the ground for several hours, he claimed, during which time General Gordon Williams -- overall Base Commander at the time -- had communicated with the "aliens!" Many military personnel were present. And films and photos were taken which were immediately confiscated by senior officers when the craft had taken off....

The witness was identified only as 'Steve Roberts' ...an SP at the twin bases who was a friend of BB's...see Skycrash for details.

[Dave100]

There is some very well written and thought provoking stuff on this forum.I do take your point about the Harrier jump jet puddlepirate and the need for secrecy and of course denial of any said technology accidently seen by the public.My brother in law helped design the Tornado and has spoke of that aspect of secrecy and denial etc and said some very interesting things about ufo's.
Mostly, as we all know testing of advanced prototypes takes place over military controlled areas where you can have people on the ground or chase planes in case of a prang.
The Blackbird was denied for years I believe and its very convinient for the military,CIA,MOD,take your pick,to use the ufo phenomenon as a smokescreen for test aircraft if seen by anyone and then reported.So they can, when it suits them class it as a ufo,neat trick and double standards given the fact that any genuine ufo seen(i mean truly unidentified)by someone leaves himself/herself open to ridicule by the same said powers who give the subject the lunatic fringe dressing.
The trouble with the RFI is that the craft seen were completely silent requiring a technology that must be incredibly advanced and in my opinion not from around these parts and yes they will have a home to go back to I presume,but where who knows.
They must have taken decades to develop to be able to hover in silence but also to be able to split into seperate controlled craft,that part of it I find mindboggling but thats what the witnesses saw.
If these were ours we should surely be seeing them by now,they would make excellent weapons delivery craft moving at high speeds and in total silence but we are not so I don't believe they are ours,they can't be,I would say an impossibility,especially back in 1980.
I don't want people to think that I think it had to be alien and nothing else will suffice but it has to be high up there for consideration as in many other famous ufo incidents be it Roswell(i really think that was alien)or the Belgium triangles.
God knows why they landed where they did but the area certainly did have some interesting features,two nuke bases and orfordness.Look how many ufo incidents/sightings have been seen over nuclear installations over the decades,absolutely loads, so that could have been the motive.
I've never been sure about this USAF assistance to affect repairs on any said craft,in fact personally I dont buy it,there doesnt seem to be a lot of evidence for that,these craft would need some pretty fancy spanners! How many witnesses have spoken about this aspect?
If more firm evidence came out about this aspect that might change things but I dont think any of the major witnesses have given it much credence(let me know if I'm wrong)
if these craft were capable of affecting warheads without permission using somekind of lazer or energy beam then I cant see us helping them out when they get a flat so to speak.
I was always under the impression that it was just the warhead part that was stored in the WSA ready to be mated with the rest of the "firework"
interesting views on here,good stuff.(talk sometime larry.)

[puddlepirate]

Just to pick up on Dave100's repy for a sec. and in particular the technology element.

Therein lies the problem. If we take all the witness statements at face value, then there was certainly more than one craft. At least three - Penniston's, Halt's and LW's - were on the ground. albeit it not on the same day, whilst at least one appears to have remained airborne at the time of Larry W's sighting.

The one Larry W reported seeing was (from P 45 LAEG; Michael O'Mara Books; London (1997)):

"...almost the shape of a pyramid,. At the top of the object was that same off-red glow. The main body was pearl white, with a rainbow-color effect. Its image was constantly distorting; its shape was best seen by peripheral vision. At the base was a band of extremely bright cobalt-blue lights. Below that, I thought I could make out what looked like dark landing gear. Covering the entire surface were what looked like boxes, pipes and strange extensions".

This is a different craft to the one Penniston described. From his notes (this from an image shown elsewhere on this site.../plaster-casts-and-pennistons-notepad.php):

Skin of craft
Fabric
Black
Smooth
Glass like
Surface unknown
Identity unknown

This is followed by sketches of a series of symbols which Penniston suggested were familiar but he didn't know why.

Thus we have two quite different craft, appearing on two different nights. Plus there is the 'craft' that Halt and his men saw, apparently on the same night as LW witnessed 'his' craft in the field. At this time LW reports approx 40 men already in the field and another group, possibly including Lt Col Halt, apparently led by 2/Lt Englund mustered in the parking area.

That said, there is a connection between the shape, lights and possibly the landing gear
of the craft that Penniston and Larry W each saw. The major difference being that Penniston's was smooth, whilst Larry W's was covered with pipes, boxes and strange extensions.

A craft with 'boxes, pipes and strange extensions' does not, at face value at least, appear to be a particularly advanced space vehicle. It would seem to be more akin to something that has broken off or otherwise been detached from, something else. Also, why did Penniston think the symbols on his craft seemed familiar? They don't appear to be conveying a message of any kind, just random symbols. Where they 'idiot guide' graphic type symbols you sometimes see on machines to depict, e.g. oil goes in here, water in here, chemical hazard such as acid or alkaline; risk of injury, no step - and so forth? And was that why they seemed familiar?

As far as I can determine, only 'Steve Roberts' mentions the craft being repaired but both he and LW state that Col Gordon Williams conversed with the occupants of the craft in the field. I understand that Col Williams later denied this but assuming 'Steve Roberts' is not LW, then two witnesses state that he did indeed converse with the 'alien' beings.

The problem with the RFI and the reason it is unlikely ever to be resolved is the amount of contradicting information, the length of time that has elapsed since the event, the fact the forest was changed almost beyond recognition in the hurricane of Nov 1987 and the number of other stories relating to 'odd incidents' in the area.

Personally, I am inclined to believe it was an accident with a nuke or a chem weapon of some kind. I know people will say that is impossible but the only thing we know for sure is that a substantial number of USAF personnel, including senior officers, were searching for something over several nights in Rendlesham Forest - and they wouldn't have done that without very good cause indeed.

I agree that the mystery is so strange that an alien craft cannot be ruled out - but two of them and one in the sky? I am not saying it is the wrong answer but I would have thought if that were true, then UK MoD would have been heavily involved. This was on UK sovereign territory over which the USAF had no jusrisdiction - unless they had cocked up, big time.

[larry warren]

hi di hi!
the thing i saw was like majic, time slowed down, my discription does the thing an injustuce.
please desiminate the next thing far and wide, i have never said that williams comunicated with aliens! ever.
only other writers have said that i claim that and some slezeball tv programs!
i also have never called those things any thing other than lifeformes, as i still do not know what it was that i saw.
i asume the things were alive as they moved,beyond that ive no clue what they were.
Gordon Williams was in the field, the man was close to the object and the lifeformes, if comunication
did happen, it would have been at that point, and if comunication took place it would have to have been
telipathic! i heard nothing, and there was no sign language aswell, bet ive seen me quoted as saying it, crap!
as to repairs to the object that is crap too! it was like majic not close encounters the movie,
georgina, quoted me as saying ,aironautic entities! in her book, folks i dont even know what that means!
williams has never confirmed or denide his involvement, and he has never sued me for placeing him in the
events, that says alot,wish he and a few others would though,so we can debate this thing in court insted of
on the internet, i often wonder why i wrote the book, because my position on this thing remaines unchanged,
and yet questions answered in the book keep getting asked! and no i have never Chanded my story
thats the enemy little old game for years, people grow steel balls when they can hide behind a key board
and a fake name, seen it all, lastly i am not steve roberts and have never been.
i dint think he exists and the early uk recherchers heard rumers and gave them a name.
oh, one more thing, i never used the name art wallace, i just dident want my name used at all untill others
came out! that was an other invention of early ufo researchers.
sory for the tone but the chickenshits know i mean them only, troublemaking pricks!
best to the the rest!
uncle larry

[puddlepirate]

i have never said that williams comunicated with aliens! ever

Sorry, Larry but I beg to differ on that one. From Left at East Gate, same edition as that quoted in my previous post, page 47:

After a short duration, Colonel Williams approached them slowly. Standing about five feet apart; they seemed to stare at each other; Williams, well over six feet tall, looked down at them. The entities appeared to cock their heads back slowly so they could see his face. It was amazing. It was then I knew they were really alive. I could not hear any conversation. I don't think there was any communication in the traditional sense, but I believe they were communicating.

In the next paragraph you go on to say:

The beings' arms immediately moved up close to their chests, as if in defense. They floated backward to a point almost under the craft. Now, I could see a white membrane cover their eyes.

Then in the following paragraph:

..Williams turned and faced the beings again. Their eyes were black again, arms at their sides. They glided to within five feet of the commander.

entities...beings...white membranes over their eyes...floating backwards...gliding. Correct me if I am wrong but these are not physical attributes or actions of any known creature in the UK or even the Earth, so by default they have to be aliens.

I didn't make it up. You said it. Not me.

[puddlepirate]

Oops! Tone was a bit harsh there...not intended. Should have added a at the end.

[Andy]

Ian, one of the questions i really would like answered, seeing that it involved you, was regarding the footage of Vince Thurkettle with the tiny, regular blink of the lighthouse beam behind him. Where exactly was this taken? From my knowlege of the forest and the UFO trail, i would guess this to be, (and i might be wrong but going there on Saturday, so i will check) area 4 on the UFO trail? and that part which over-looks the field? (where Mr Warren's alleged incident took place). From there, yes, the lighthouse would have been directly behind Vince Thurkettle. However, in her book, and God rest her soul, Georgina Bruni describes being taken to a site by Vince Thurkettle. This one was the second path on the left of route eight (previously twelve) and at the end of it, and just within the tree line directly in front, and slightly to your left. I've stood there many times whilst walking my greyhounds at all hours of the day and night, but not once can i see a light house beam flashing just to the side of my left shoulder? Similar to that in the Vince Thurkettle video footage? However, by his own admission Vince Thurkettle didn't view the site until many weeks after, and we are also lead to believe that a false site was constructed, including arrows pointing to it? I tend to think this is the site he viewed?... but may be wrong.... however, would still like to know exactly where you filmed that particular footage? I live nearby to Rendlesham, so if ever you happen to go there again, i really would like to meet you, so that you might show me.

[IanR]

Ian, one of the questions i really would like answered, seeing that it involved you, was regarding the footage of Vince Thurkettle with the tiny, regular blink of the lighthouse beam behind him. Where exactly was this taken?

Vince took us along the route into the forest which is generally reckoned to be the one taken by the witnesses, including LW, as marked in orange here:
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham2d.htm
We then turned left (northwards) along one of the north-south rides. It was dark and it was my first time in the forest so I cannot be absolutely certain which one, but I know we were not at the eastern edge of the forest. We just walked northwards along it until we could see the lighthouse.

Assuming the rides are the same position now as they were then, we were probably on the easternmost one shown on this aerial view. This was also the position from which I took the night time view of the lighthouse between the trees shown halfway down this page:
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham1a.htm
At that time, of course, most of the trees in that area had been felled.

The orange dot labelled 'landing site' on the aerial view is what one might term the 'traditional' landing site, identified by Halt. LW was south of Halt's position, evidently in the southern half of the farmer's field. The landing site photographed by Gulyas the morning after
http://www.rendlesham-incident.co.uk/im ... -photo.jpg
is clearly the 'traditional' site among the trees, and not out in the field.

As Halt has said, from where he was standing at the forest edge, the flashing light lay pretty much due east, almost in line with the farmhouse visible across the field. Do go there and tell us what you see!

Hope this helps,
Ian

[puddlepirate]

I just don't understand the lighthouse thing. Even when standing on the jetty at Orfordness at night the light is not as big as in the photo. From the jetty it is about 1.5 miles off and because of the distance, appears to stand about six feet above the horizon - and that is on the jetty with nothing in the way, never mind being between five and six miles inland with a ridge of trees between the observer and the light - and a shield at the back of the lamp room masking most of the light from shining inland. Still, not to worry....it will be interesting to see what Andy comes up with.

Also, the forest floor is littered with animal scrapings - several of which are conical and many are grouped together. If you enlarge GB's photo you will see the traces in that photo look remarkably like regular animal scrapings. I took these images in RF in May this year.

http://www.powfoto.com/Untitled1.html

[IanR]

I just don't understand the lighthouse thing. Even when standing on the jetty at Orfordness at night the light is not as big as in the photo.

There are a couple of factors at work here. First, the light is 28 metres above mean sea level, so when standing on the jetty at Orford it is well above your head. In addition, the light is deliberately shielded from the town of Orford so you wouldn't expect to see much of it from the jetty.

However, from the forest edge you are at an altitude of around 20 metres so you will be looking almost directly into the beam, which passes the edge of the shielding as seen from that location. Also, back in 1980 the bulb was bigger and brighter than it is now.

the forest floor is littered with animal scrapings - several of which are conical and many are grouped together. If you enlarge GB's photo you will see the traces in that photo look remarkably like regular animal scrapings. I took these images in RF in May this year.
http://www.powfoto.com/Untitled1.html

Quite right. Lord Hill-Norton sent enlargements of Georgina's photos to the MoD in 2001 and they emerged under a FoIA release last year:
http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/884131E3 ... orton2.pdf
Georgina only showed these frames v. small in her book. As you correctly say, the forest floor is littered with any number of similar marks.

Ian

[puddlepirate]

Ian

No, on the jetty it is not well above your head. Far from it. It is nowhere near above your head. At most it is six feet off the horizon, if that. When standing on the jetty it is a very small, insignifcant light. Tiny. I was so surprised at how small the light was that I had to ask a local if what I was looking at was indeed the Orfordness light. I've seen a brighter light from a match.

You might well have seen a light from the edge of the forest but whatever it was, it wasn't the Orfordness light. I've stood at the edge of the field at Capel Green with binoculars and still could not see the top of the light as shown in your photo. Also, Halt reported seeing a red light. and a red light cannot be seen from the forest. A red light cannot be seen from the jetty at Orford. If you doubt that I will meet you at the jetty and you can prove me wrong.

[Andy]

Ian, one of the questions i really would like answered, seeing that it involved you, was regarding the footage of Vince Thurkettle with the tiny, regular blink of the lighthouse beam behind him. Where exactly was this taken? From my knowlege of the forest and the UFO trail, i would guess this to be, (and i might be wrong but going there on Saturday, so i will check) area 4 on the UFO trail? and that part which over-looks the field? (where Mr Warren's alleged incident took place). From there, yes, the lighthouse would have been directly behind Vince Thurkettle. However, in her book, and God rest her soul, Georgina Bruni describes being taken to a site by Vince Thurkettle. This one was the second path on the left of route eight (previously twelve) and at the end of it, and just within the tree line directly in front, and slightly to your left. I've stood there many times whilst walking my greyhounds at all hours of the day and night, but not once can i see a light house beam flashing just to the side of my left shoulder? Similar to that in the Vince Thurkettle video footage? However, by his own admission Vince Thurkettle didn't view the site until many weeks after, and we are also lead to believe that a false site was constructed, including arrows pointing to it? I tend to think this is the site he viewed?... but may be wrong.... however, would still like to know exactly where you filmed that particular footage? I live nearby to Rendlesham, so if ever you happen to go there again, i really would like to meet you, so that you might show me.

Ian, you really are a star, and sincere thanks for your reply and all the fascinating and detailed information. At present i may not, and have not, agreed with all you've said over the years, (but will always keep an open mind, and open to having my mind set challenged), but i've always felt you are genuinely scientific, honest, and give what you truly believe, and i have the greatest and utmost respect for you. However, i feel it is Mr Thurkettle i need to speak to? Ref the map you showed......Yes, that would appear to be in area 4 overlooking the field and the lighthouse WOULD have been directly behind him. So why then, did he show GB a site much further to the left of that map???? Only he can answer that. But where is he?

[Andy]

Also i would like to know, did he allegedly sign an official secrets document? I don't necessarily expect an honest answer, or get one, or you to be able to answer it, because only he can answer that, but considering OSD's might have been involved, would be interested to read, nonetheless, an answer. Also, how much was he paid exactly, if at all, for doing that video clippage for TV?

[Andy]

Halt describes a blinking RED eye. I've never seen that lighthouse beam red..... only white. Also he describes it splitting up into other balls of light over the field and performing strange maneouvres.... again nothing i've ever seen that tiny blink of the lighthouse do in all the times i've been there, both day and night.

[IanR]

So why then, did he show GB a site much further to the left of that map????

Where does Georgina say that? I can't find that in the first edition of her book (I don't have the second edition).
Ian

[IanR]

Ian
No, on the jetty it is not well above your head. Far from it. It is nowhere near above your head.

Here's a photo of it on this site, as seen from the jetty:
http://www.rendlesham-incident.co.uk/ga ... m=2&pos=71
I would think that much of the beam would pass over your head. In any case, it's not the appearance from the shore we are interested in but its appearance from the forest edge, where you are just about at the same height as the light.

At most it is six feet off the horizon, if that.

Ironically, that's pretty much the description of it the airmen gave.

I've stood at the edge of the field at Capel Green with binoculars and still could not see the top of the light as shown in your photo.

I can only assume you were unlucky with the weather. Compare this photo
http://www.rendlesham-incident.co.uk/ga ... m=2&pos=11
with this
http://www.rendlesham-incident.co.uk/ga ... =2&pos=100

Ian