The Rendlesham Forest UFO - What really Happened?

I on the other hand love the apollo recovery team idea .. It strikes me as just the sort of prank that would be played on a sister military base ...lol but even I dont think we need to go that far to find holes in the story(ies)

reply to post by Arbitrageur


The only believers I see here are people like you and Ridpath who believe nothing weird has ever happened that can't be explained by current knowledge. Simply quoting reams and reams from a person's site who has a known agenda and has been proved fast and loose with the facts, before, doesn't constitute evidence or research, it just comes across as the dogma it is. I've been to Rendlesham and to say the lighthouse is well, underwhelming as a source of anything peculiar, is an understatement.

The specifics of what happened will always be argued about, the evidence something was in the air above the base is virtually irrefutable, a fact that you and Ridpath simply cannot countenance, hence the continual side stepping and reliance on a sheer volume of, largely irrelevant, data to hide that.

Originally posted by FireMoon
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

.....the evidence something was in the air above the base is virtually irrefutable,

No it is deffoes refutable , not "virtually irrefutable " if you think it is virtually irrefutable it suggests to me that you have your own doubts tbh...
BTW what is ridpaths known agenda?the guys playing fast and loose with the "evidence are peniston and the ltcol..

I have been there on multiple occasions , lastly to the anniversary , and the lighthouse and the fact its light apears perfectly in time with the tape recording is to much for coincidence ,again I would also say look up what colour the lights on the comms arrays at the nuclear research facility were....

Originally posted by Arbitrageur


"wouldn't a competent commander have rushed back to the base or radioed the base and requested some aircraft to be scrambled to investigate?"

Yes A competent base commander would have .

We forget he wasnt that big a chief more a military janitor in charge of day to day stuff , hence him being in charge over crimbo.....when all the other higher ups at home...

reply to post by gambon


I have my own doubts about what it was in the sky yes however, it wasn't the lighthouse that started the whole furore though.

There's a reason such a large piece of "desirable" real estate was available for use as a huge air base. In short, its' history for hundreds of years meant, even in times of hardship, no-one really ever wanted to live or work there given a choice. Scarily unscientific however, visit the locality talk to the locals and they will tell you exactly the same. Even going back to Roman and Saxon times when England was a huge exporter of wheat, that area was underdeveloped when the areas around it were rife with activity. How that all ties into what happened that winter, I don't know, I suspect it might well have had something to do with it. That said, given it was 1980 and an airbase, a manifestation, now there's a scary word, involving a UFO, would seem to be par for the course.

Originally posted by FireMoon
reply to post by gambon

 

I have my own doubts about what it was in the sky yes however, it wasn't the lighthouse that started the whole furore though.

There's a reason such a large piece of "desirable" real estate was available for use as a huge air base. In short, its' history for hundreds of years meant, even in times of hardship, no-one really ever wanted to live or work there given a choice. Scarily unscientific however, visit the locality talk to the locals and they will tell you exactly the same. Even going back to Roman and Saxon times when England was a huge exporter of wheat, that area was underdeveloped when the areas around it were rife with activity. How that all ties into what happened that winter, I don't know, I suspect it might well have had something to do with it. That said, given it was 1980 and an airbase, a manifestation, now there's a scary word, involving a UFO, would seem to be par for the course.

They say the same about pretty much any stretch of ancient woodland in the country , It is no different in this neck of the woods , if it aint witches and warlocks its spirits or ethereal mist , all over the countryside , this bit of wood is nothing special in that regard.Also the reason it wasnt farmed may be due to the fact it was woodland not pasture or arrable fields..

However i would like to thank you for admitting you do have your doubts , as even do I even if from opposite sides of the fence as it were...

Originally posted by gambon

Originally posted by Arbitrageur


"wouldn't a competent commander have rushed back to the base or radioed the base and requested some aircraft to be scrambled to investigate?"

Yes A competent base commander would have .

Apparently the MOD took Halt's failure to do so as evidence that what happened was nothing to get excited about:

The Rendlesham Files

The MoD’s final assessment of Halt’s report was not revealed until further papers were released at The National Archives in 2008. In a private briefing given to Lord Hill-Norton in 1985 defence minister Lord David Trefgarne said:

"...it is highly unlikely that any violation of UK airspace would be heralded by such a display of lights. I think it equally unlikely that any reconnaissance or spying activity would be announced in this way. We believe that the fact Col Halt did not report these occurrences to MoD for almost two weeks after the event, together with the low key manner in which he handled the matter are indicative of the degree of importance in defence terms which should be attached to the incident."

I can't argue about the low key manner statement...that's part of the problem I have with people saying this was a big issue and Halt was a competent commander...I don't see how both statements could possibly be true. The MOD files also reveal part of the reason no further action was taken...there was no radar evidence of anything in the air:

a contemporaneous note in the MoD file dated 26 February 1981 and signed by Coumbe which reads:

“On the night of the reported sighting our controller on duty was requested to view the radar; nothing was observed. These facts are recorded in our logbook of that night.”

Lighthouse through the trees ....Blink......Blink......Blink......Blink..
Paranoia and mistaken Identification on the ground...... No real hard facts

Just loads of mind numbing delusion...

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by gambon

Originally posted by Arbitrageur


"wouldn't a competent commander have rushed back to the base or radioed the base and requested some aircraft to be scrambled to investigate?"

Yes A competent base commander would have .

Apparently the MOD took Halt's failure to do so as evidence that what happened was nothing to get excited about:

The Rendlesham Files

The MoD’s final assessment of Halt’s report was not revealed until further papers were released at The National Archives in 2008. In a private briefing given to Lord Hill-Norton in 1985 defence minister Lord David Trefgarne said:

"...it is highly unlikely that any violation of UK airspace would be heralded by such a display of lights. I think it equally unlikely that any reconnaissance or spying activity would be announced in this way. We believe that the fact Col Halt did not report these occurrences to MoD for almost two weeks after the event, together with the low key manner in which he handled the matter are indicative of the degree of importance in defence terms which should be attached to the incident."

I can't argue about the low key manner statement...that's part of the problem I have with people saying this was a big issue and Halt was a competent commander...I don't see how both statements could possibly be true. The MOD files also reveal part of the reason no further action was taken...there was no radar evidence of anything in the air:

a contemporaneous note in the MoD file dated 26 February 1981 and signed by Coumbe which reads:

“On the night of the reported sighting our controller on duty was requested to view the radar; nothing was observed. These facts are recorded in our logbook of that night.”

true....BUT if we agree that halts dates are perhaps wrong the raf did in fact have a blip the night before which was unexplained at the time ....lol the hole gets deeper lol

Originally posted by gambon

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
The Rendlesham Files

true....BUT if we agree that halts dates are perhaps wrong the raf did in fact have a blip the night before which was unexplained at the time ....lol the hole gets deeper lol

Halt got some dates wrong, but this addresses that:

While the MoD’s file on the Rendlesham incident reveals that checks were carried out on incorrect dates and times provided by Halt’s memo, it makes clear that no unusual targets were detected by any RAF radars during the Christmas/New Year period of 1980. A RAF minute from Squadron Leader Jack Badcock dated 21 March 1983 reveals that:

“[RAF] Neatishead, which is the Sector Ops Centre responsible for that area [Bentwaters/Woodbridge], had nothing unusual to report, and nothing more substantive has come to light. I have received no evidence that any radar reported unusual tracks.” (DEFE 24/1948/1).

Badcock’s testimony was confirmed by Squadron Leader Derek Coumbe who was duty commander at RAF Watton, the air traffic control centre for the region, during the incident. When I spoke to him in 2001 he recalled receiving a call from the USAF at RAF Bentwaters whilst Lt Col Halt’s team were in the forest observing lights in the sky.

“They were very jumpy and panicky on the phone…but I personally checked the radar picture and there was absolutely nothing to be seen. They kept coming back and implying there should be something but we kept a watch on it through the whole period and nothing was seen.”

The fact that he refers talking to them on the phone indicates it was a contemporaneous radar check with the event and that nothing was seen on radar, even if Halt got the dates wrong. They would only be jumpy and panicky on the phone while the event was taking place, right?

that would be correct , it would , i did post the source for the idea in one of the previous threads ...to much to look through at the moment lol
mmm i never did realluy see how nigel kerr could not have heard about the "incident " at the time tbh

Wow, so much vitriol in this thread!

Firstly, I would like to say to Arbitrageur- I was posting from work yesterday, and much as my boss would like me to live here, I do have a life outside. Unlike some folks, I do not have time to sit on ATS all day having arguments about the Rendlesham incident, as interesting as it may be.

Now I have to admit, I havent personally memorised every witness statement from the case, and cannot recite every line of Pennistons and Burroughs statements on command, but I dont think this dismisses me from discussing it. I simply asked you to clarify who you were talking about, and to be quite honest, the response you gave completely took me aback- one minute we are having a civilised discussion, next you are dismissing me for not knowing every line of every witness statement. Hence my response to Firemoon as my last post as I was leaving work. Doesnt exactly encourage someone to continue the discussion.

Now I would like to address Gambon. Unfamiliar as I am with 'early starscopes', I would like to ask, does this mean a bright light source would remain as an 'artifact' on the lense for a long time after the light has gone. I obviously know that lighthouses do not 'flash', and that they rotate- however, if you stand in one place, the light 'flashes' as it passes over you. In the footage I was talking about, you can see the lighthouse in the background, and the light, as it rotates, produces a flash. A very dim one.

I think IsaacKoi has got it right when he talks about 'reinvention of the wheel' on UFO cases, and I think alot of this comes down to personal beliefs. I personally believe Halt, but its quite obvious that many here do not. Ranting and raving back and forth wont change that either way, but its interesting to find out further information. I would just hope that we could remain civil whilst discussing, and if not, I would rather not take part.

Depends what you mean by a long time , how the scope was set up and also the intensity of what was being looked at , the short answer is yes ghost images could remain on the scope especially if the reciever had been oversatirated for a little while, also the human eye could have these ghost images on it after looking through one , much like looking at a bright light with your bare eyes and the after images you get whenyou look away.

A question I have is why would you need a starscope(image intensifier) to see something that was lit up , that is not what theyare designed for?

If it was a light why would a starscope be needed to see it , and how come the other people present at this time without a starcope did not see anything?

reply to post by gambon


Thanks for the response- thats kind of what I thought- like if you stared into a bright light and then looked away, the artifacts left on your retina.

It was my understanding that other people in the group had seen things through the star scope too- in fact you can hear one of them in the back ground on the tape, and Halt says 'see if you can get it on the star-scope'.

He also describes it as a 'flashing red light', 'two lights', 'pieces are falling off it again' without the star-scope, then 'when you look at it with the star-scope it seems to have a hollow centre and almost burns your eye'. Then "10 degrees off the horizon, we have two objects with coloured lights on them" 'Now 10 degrees directly South we've got lights moving away from us' 'object hovering over woodbridge base beaming lights down to the ground'

Now, I will admit, he never says 'there is the light-house' or make any reference to it, but he clearly states on several occasions he can see more than one object, and that they are moving around the sky, and most of the time he describes it as a red light.

I dunno- people have there own thoughts and beliefs on this, but it seems far more to it that a simple misidentifcation of a lighthouse.

Originally posted by Thunda
I dunno- people have there own thoughts and beliefs on this, but it seems far more to it that a simple misidentifcation of a lighthouse.

I'm not trying to be uncivil here, but at least Firemoon realizes that Venus is not the lighthouse and demonstrates some awareness of both sides of the debate, which is an awareness your statement about "a simple misidentifcation of a lighthouse" fails to demonstrate. I've never heard anybody suggest this was "a simple misidentifcation of a lighthouse" so you're dismissing a nonexistent position.

I think Rendlesham with only the information available in the public domain means this case will just go round in circles. The lack of action by the USAF and RAF in the aftermath suggest they wanted to bury the incident.

The evidence of the men who were there just don't add up. Maybe Halt or the other witnesses know more about this case than they are revealing. Perhaps one or more of them are being misleading for other purposes.

John Burroughs is perhaps the one witness who hasn't changed his story much and was the only witness to both nights at Rendlesham. He also appeared on ATS for a brief time in Spring 2006 with around a dozen posts. Here are some of his comments which again show the personal disagreements going on.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

“To all who feels Larry Warren was there please understand he was not. He took Adrian Bustinza's story and ran with it!!!! How do I know this? I was there!!! “

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I will also say Penniston and Halt have also have hurt the case . Penniston by the way his story has grown and Halt from the beginning putting the wrong dates on his memo holding onto important evidence and getting witness to change or withdraw their stories

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Q: How long do you think you were out in the forest, on the first night/26th December '80?

Over 2 hours

Q: The second night - So you didn't see Larry Warren there?

No I did not see him out there. The Blue balls of light were out there on the second night. One of them did fly right at us. And one of them did send down a beam of light at Halts feet. As far as acting intelligently be careful how you imply that. I stated if there was anything out there that could be taken as acting in a intelligent manner that would be the Blue lights. And there in fact is where Warren gets his story of aliens making contact with AF personnel . We did have them come towards us. Also look at one of his first interviews when he stated LT Col Williams the Base commander was out there. It was LT Col Halt Dep Base commander who was out there. Not Col Bri Gen select Williams Wing Commander . Also I got to meet with Warren in the late 80's in Califorina when a man by the name of Curt Bruebaker flew us out to possibly do a documentary on Bentwaters and his story did not even come close to adding up and has changed so very much over the years.

Burroughs remembers no interrogation or heavy de-briefing. Whereas Penniston claims he was drugged with truth serum and Warren claims he was abducted and taken to a hidden underground complex.

Halt first of all claimed Warren was not there at all on the 2nd night and then slowly backtracked when it was proven that he was. He now states that Larry Warren was "messed" with (along with others) by AFOSI or other secret service agents. Who knows? The whole story is jumble of mis-placed pieces to different jigsaw puzzles all thrown into one box. The events in late 1980 are only part of the story.

There is also a guy called Steve La Plume who was not a witness to the original two nights at Rendlesham but did witness a UFO later in 1981 about 3 weeks after the original incident. He also wounded himself in a desperate attempt to get out of Bentwaters. His story is a very interesting one indeed if I can dig it out I will post it. Or maybe someone has it to hand and can beat me to it.

This case IMO is the smoking gun of smoking guns when it comes to Ufology. It is the single best case in UFO history, hands down, no contest.

But that is just one mans opinion.

reply to post by gambon


Usually a prank comes out and is told it was a prank (not long after it happens in fact) if this was a prank pulled on this base, it would have came out years and years ago.

Originally posted by Vrill
This case IMO is the smoking gun of smoking guns when it comes to Ufology. It is the single best case in UFO history, hands down, no contest.

But that is just one mans opinion.

Agreed. The witness testimony is riveting and it's backed up by so many corroborating stories from different locales. It's easy to debate the details but when it's all thrown together there is too much happening to not signify some kind of extraordinary event.

reply to post by kronos11


Not to mention, its no wonder that *some* of the testimony doesnt add up and doesnt sound the same due to how far spread out people were from different vantage points along with the encounter(s) taking place in different areas/spots and so on.