The Rendlesham Forest UFO - What really Happened?

reply to post by black cat


Dear black cat

Too me the idea that the light house is the culprit is total nonsense. It is always there doing exactly the same thing night after night no change no way to look strange one night and not the same the night after. Or maybe all theses folk where from Wyoming and had never seen a coast line with light houses before.

A light house omits a white light out to sea at a given pulse that is it.


[edit on 19-8-2010 by MAC269]

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Again and with all due respect but much like your last post directed at me you seem to add only information that backs up your claim and you seem to completely discard any that goes against it for some reason.

Proving your right is about being right.

Anyway here’s an image you yourself added, ones which are very similar to the ones in my OP but you left off the second picture which shows that from even moving to a short distance away you can’t see the lighthouse anymore.

The first picture, the one from my OP which is startlingly similar to the one you added...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/942d3e9e3a93.jpg[/atsimg]

Move slightly out of your way and you can’t see it anymore...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ee3f44d34c3d.jpg[/atsimg]

And you seem to be forgetting that the lighthouse can't be seen from many places in and around Rendlesham forest as well, especially in 1980 I might add.

So sure they could have confused themselves and thought that they was seeing a UFO and it turned out to be the lighthouse at times and actually you mention this here....

The people who some might be tempted to think of morons are those who read the first hand witness account of Burroughs saying he followed a light that was flashing every 5 seconds, and he ended up at a lighthouse that was flashing every 5 seconds,

But this is what was written in his witness statement exactly...

You could see the lights down by a farmer's house. We climbed over the fence and started walking toward the red and blue lights and they just disappeared. Once we reached the farmer's house we could see a beacon going around, so we went toward it. We followed it for about 2 miles before we could see it was coming from a lighthouse. We had just passed a creak and were told to come back when we saw a blue light to our left in the trees. It was only there for a minute and just streaked away. After that we didn't see anything and returned to the truck."

People love to bring up the fact that they confused themselves with the lighthouse and they use it against them every chance they can (not directed at you but in general lighthouse theory believers) but that only seemed to have happened on one short occasion, and something they realized DURING the incident itself.

They then saw another light that clearly wasn't the lighthouse (and others before and on the night after it might I add)

Also have you actually read what the men have said about the lighthouse itself as well??

This is what Halt says...

Charles Halt - Deputy base commander at time - present on second night
"The whole time this was going on, we could see the lighthouse, the lighthouse was about 33-35 degrees off where this object was this seen....A lighthouse doesn't move through the forest, the lighthouse doesn't go up and down, it doesn't explode, doesn't change shape, size, doesn't send down beams of light from the sky."

Ed Cabansag...

Edward Cabansag - Airman at time - present on first night
"It [the UFO] was to the right of the lighthouse" "... It wasn't the lighthouse."

Halt once again...

Charles Halt - Deputy base commander at time - present on second night
"I knew where the lighthouse was. This thing was not it. I saw the lighthouse as well but I never mentioned it [on the tape]. Why should I? Everybody present knew what that was!"

"A lighthouse doesn’t move through the forest; the lighthouse doesn’t go up and down, it doesn’t explode, doesn’t change shape, size - doesn’t send down beams of light from the sky”.

"I don't want to talk to people that tell me I was looking at the lighthouse... I could see the lighthouse... I knew where the lighthouse was. That's ludicrous."

"They [the sceptics] weren't there that night, I certainly wish some of them had been - they might have had a different opinion of things. But they're entitled to their opinion, they certainly are. I know what happened. I was there."

And Vince Thurkettle..Someone YOU yourself linked to to seemingly back up your claim...

Vince Thurkettle - forester at time - first to suggest the lighthouse theory.
He spoke to Georgina Bruni, "they [the sceptics] take a cluster of facts and only pick up on those that suit the situation"

Even the lighthouse keeper does not subscribe to the lighthouse theory.
He spoke to Georgina Bruni, "... some time the skeptics have been pestering me in an attempt to get to support their theory. I cannot do it. I know what my lighthouse looked like from the forest. I have seen it in all weathers. It just could not do what those airmen and local people describe the UFO as doing..."

To name a few.

Source of these are in my Opening posts.

The lighthouse debate is starting to seem unnecessary to me now as if they was confusing a UFO with it then it certainly wasn’t at all times during the first night and certainly not often at all on the second.

Just my opinion ofc. but It seems irrelevant.

[edit on 19-8-2010 by Rising Against]

Originally posted by Rising Against
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Proving your right is about being right.

ealized DURING the incident itself.

They then saw another light that clearly wasn't the lighthouse (and others before and on the night after it might I add)

This is what Halt says...

Charles Halt - Deputy base commander at time - present on second night
"The whole time this was going on, we could see the lighthouse, the lighthouse was about 33-35 degrees off where this object was this seen....A lighthouse doesn't move through the forest, the lighthouse doesn't go up and down, it doesn't explode, doesn't change shape, size, doesn't send down beams of light from the sky."

Ed Cabansag...

Edward Cabansag - Airman at time - present on first night
"It [the UFO] was to the right of the lighthouse" "... It wasn't the lighthouse."

And Vince Thurkettle..Someone YOU yourself linked to to seemingly back u your claim...

Vince Thurkettle - forester at time - first to suggest the lighthouse theory.
He spoke to Georgina Bruni, "they [the sceptics] take a cluster of facts and only pick up on those that suit the situation"

Even the lighthouse keeper does not subscribe to the lighthouse theory.
He spoke to Georgina Bruni, "... some time the skeptics have been pestering me in an attempt to get to support their theory. I cannot do it. I know what my lighthouse looked like from the forest. I have seen it in all weathers. It just could not do what those airmen and local people describe the UFO as doing..."

To name a few.

Source of these are in my Opening posts.

Oooouuuch!

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9551d6d31c8a.gif[/atsimg]

An excellent collection of quotes there RA!

So basically the officers could see:

a) the lighthouse
b) another source of light.

So they were either seeing 2 lighthouses (which we know there aren't 2 of)
Or some weird reflection that distored the light and made it dance around and behave strangely.

So what is more strange? A UFO or some sort of unusal atmospheric weather phenonenom that made the lighthouse light behave in such a strange manner... whilst also still being present and correct in its usual visual manner?

I think you have thoroughly debunked the lighthouse debunkers tbh

Originally posted by Rising Against
People love to bring up the fact that they confused themselves with the lighthouse and they use it against them every chance they can (not directed at you but in general lighthouse theory believers) but that only seemed to have happened on one short occasion, and something they realized DURING the incident itself.

They then saw another light that clearly wasn't the lighthouse (and others before and on the night after it might I add)

Yes that's more or less what happened, we're not that far apart on that. I agree with what you said about it not being visible everywhere which only adds to the credibility of the claim that when they were in a position to see it they may have been unfamiliar with it, and detracts from the claims that the lighthouse was always there so they should have been familiar with it. If they could only see it from certain locations, it kind of debunks the claim that they would definitely be familiar with it, supported by the statement I quoted that they weren't familiar with it (though Halt was).

The lighthouse was the flashing light and they saw (apparently) the meteor which flashed briefly in the sky, and they also saw some other lights, like the farmhouse lights for example. I can't read the writing on the drawing but it looks like it might be the word "boat" maybe on one of the drawings? But the writing isn't clear enough for me to speculate on what it says.

Also have you actually read what the men have said about the lighthouse itself as well??

Yes but I don't take witness testimony at face value (nor should you), especially when the witnesses don't even agree with each other regarding all the facts the same night of the sighting. Worse yet is when people change their statements after the fact, which several of the witnesses did in this case, possibly to avoid being called "morons" by some of the people that want to ridicule them for being confused by a lighthouse light they were unfamiliar with which is a mistake any of us can make.

And contrary to the assertion that a lighthouse light doesn't move through the forest, I say that statement shows ignorance of human perception and that a lighthouse light in the distance can appear to do EXACTLY that. You keep walking toward a distant light but you don't seem to get any closer to it for a long time, so this creates the illusion the light is moving away from you when in fact it's not. So when Halt says lighthouse lights don't move away from you, he fails to address the fact that they can appear to move away from you (or follow you) without actually doing so. Humans are easily fooled, as seen in the last episode of "Paranormal files: fact or faked" in which they investigated vehicles that rolled uphill. Every witness said the vehicles were rolling uphill and every witness was wrong, it only looked like they were rolling uphill.

The Rendlesham Forest UFO

Cabansag, however, reported that the only light they saw after actually leaving the base was the one that all three men eventually identified as a lighthouse or beacon beyond the farmhouse. Cabansag reported that the yellow haze had simply been the glow from the farmhouse lights...Only Cabansag's version of events, that there was a single pulsing light later determined to be a distant beacon or lighthouse, describes events that all three men agreed on, and is consistent with the statements of others.

Regarding Halt's familiarity with the lighthouse location:

Col. Halt, having been in the area longer than most of the young servicemen, did know about the lighthouse; but he didn't think this light could be it because it was coming from the east. Col. Halt believed the lighthouse was to the southeast. This is true from RAF Bentwaters, where Halt was from. But the chase through the forest proceeded due east from RAF Woodbridge — two miles south of Bentwaters — and from there, unknown to Col. Halt, Orfordness lighthouse is indeed due east.

His recording indicates it's the lighthouse with the 5 second intervals between the light flashes in the recording.

Originally posted by Rising Against

Even the lighthouse keeper does not subscribe to the lighthouse theory.
He spoke to Georgina Bruni, "... some time the skeptics have been pestering me in an attempt to get to support their theory. I cannot do it. I know what my lighthouse looked like from the forest. I have seen it in all weathers. It just could not do what those airmen and local people describe the UFO as doing..."

This is a misrepresentation of the "lighthouse theory". I'm not saying and I don't think anybody is, that the lighthouse explains every light they saw that night, like the light from the meteor, it took a meteor to make the meteor light. So I have to agree with the lighthouse keeper that the lighthouse can't do everything the airmen describe. But that's a misrepresentation of the "lighthouse theory" to say people claim the lighthouse explains everything, it doesn't. It only explains the light that was flashing at 5 second intervals, like the one in Halt's recording and described by Burroughs as the object they chased through the forest.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

Yes that's more or less what happened, we're not that far apart on that. I agree with what you said about it not being visible everywhere which only adds to the credibility of the claim that when they were in a position to see it they may have been unfamiliar with it, and detracts from the claims that the lighthouse was always there so they should have been familiar with it. If they could only see it from certain locations, it kind of debunks the claim that they would definitely be familiar with it, supported by the statement I quoted that they weren't familiar with it (though Halt was).

Hey Arbitrageur, I agree that Maybe Burroughs and Cabansag for example may have been unfamiliar with it but what about Halt?

He would have most definitely been familiar with it as he was the lieutenant base commander (I may have got that slightly from as it's from memory alone :/) at the time which means he should have known about everything at his base.

That being so, he claims it was impossible to be the lighthouse as he could see the lighthouse at a different location on at least one occasion that he could see the supposed UFO meaning he was seeing both at the same time as I mentioned in my previous post to you.

And yes, I agree with you that it does debunk that Burroughs for example, as well as the "newbies" at the base would have been unfamiliar with it and yes, burroughs did notice the light first but the matter of the fact is this occurred over (possibly) 3 nights and at the very least one of those nights this case was joined by a high ranking member of the base, someone who was familiar with it, and they claim this was no ordinary event also.

And please don’t think (not that I think you do...) that I'm just being sceptical because I want this to be a genuine extraterrestrial case, I'm sceptical because from where I am the lighthouse theory just seems incredibly unlikely to be the source for all the nights IMHO.

And yes, you can quote me on this but I do believe something extraordinary happened here.

Maybe It's subconsciously influencing me I'm not sure but I do think something did happen and I'm more than happy to at the very least try and prove it.

The lighthouse was the flashing light and they saw (apparently) the meteor which flashed briefly in the sky, and they also saw some other lights, like the farmhouse lights for example. I can't read the writing on the drawing but it looks like it might be the word "boat" maybe on one of the drawings? But the writing isn't clear enough for me to speculate on what it says.

I apologize for my ignorance here but do you mean on the witness statements??

If so then I agree it's hard to read which is why it's already been re-wrote in a readable manner in my opening posts.

Link to them all is here.
(you may have to scroll down to find them)

(I couldn't read it either btw so luckily someone had already rewrote it before me which is where I got it from and the source to those links is found under each witness statement.)

Yes but I don't take witness testimony at face value (nor should you), especially when the witnesses don't even agree with each other regarding all the facts the same night of the sighting. Worse yet is when people change their statements after the fact, which several of the witnesses did in this case, possibly to avoid being called "morons" by some of the people that want to ridicule them for being confused by a lighthouse light they were unfamiliar with which is a mistake any of us can make.

I agree, Genuinely I do, but the witness statements is probably the best source of information we have still, and that's because it came from the men themselves. Not some researcher, but the people who was at the scene when it happened. And sure they may have changed it but who’s to say they didn't remember something else that happened that night or thought differently after the incident with a clearer mind perhaps.

It could have been because they didn't want to be ridiculed sure, but all we can do is make assumptions as to why it was changed sadly.

You keep walking toward a distant light but you don't seem to get any closer to it for a long time, so this creates the illusion the light is moving away from you when in fact it's not.

Yes, but they did seem to get close to the object, that's why we have notes supposedly taken from Penniston as well as the grooves in the ground from the supposed landing site where they saw the object as well as the description of it...

The top portion is producing mainly white light, which encompasses most of the upper section of the craft. A small amount of white light peers out the bottom. At the left side centre is a bluish light, and on the other side, red. The lights seem to be moulded as part of the exterior of the structure, smooth, slowly fading into the rest of the outside of the structure, gradually moulding into the fabric of the craft'.

"As I was taking notes, I also memorized what was in front of me for what seemed like hours, but was in fact only minutes. Finally, I unleashed my camera-case cover and brought the camera up to focus. I began snapping photo after photo.

[Soon] I had already taken all 36 pictures on my roll of film. On the smooth exterior shell there was writing of some kind, but I couldn't quite distinguish it, so I moved up to it. It was three-inch lettering, rather symbols that stretched for the length of two feet, maybe a little more."

"I touched the symbols, and I could feel the shapes as if they were inscribed or etched or engraved, like a diamond cut on glass."

- Source in in this post -

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I agree that the lighthouse could be responsible for some of the activity that was seen but IMO it's very minimal at best and what was described for the duration of the events is something that as of right now is very much so unexplainable.

.....Just an opinion ofc.

Originally posted by Rising Against
Hey Arbitrageur, I agree that Maybe Burroughs and Cabansag for example may have been unfamiliar with it but what about Halt?

He would have most definitely been familiar with it as he was the lieutenant base commander (I may have got that slightly from as it's from memory alone :/) at the time which means he should have known about everything at his base.

He was familiar with it from the other base. I know you think Ridpath is a disinfo agent or something but if you can specifically debunk his claims about that I'm listening:

www.ianridpath.com...

3. Although Col. Halt maintains he saw the Orford Ness lighthouse in the southeast, it is actually east of where he stood. Evidently Col. Halt confused it with another flashing light in the southeast, probably the more distant Shipwash lightship.

4. His mistake arose because he was used to seeing the Orford Ness lighthouse in the southeast from his home base of Bentwaters, which lies to the north of Woodbridge.

So which base was really his home base? And could that have caused some confusion? It does appear that Halt's statement is incorrect about the lighthouse being to the southeast of Woodbridge, it would have been due east, (though it would be Southeast from his home base of Bentwaters according to Ridpath).

the lighthouse theory just seems incredibly unlikely to be the source for all the nights IMHO.

once again I think we are in agreement on this point. I don't know of anyone who thinks the lighthouse explains every single thing that happened both nights, clearly it doesn't.

The lighthouse was the flashing light and they saw (apparently) the meteor which flashed briefly in the sky, and they also saw some other lights, like the farmhouse lights for example. I can't read the writing on the drawing but it looks like it might be the word "boat" maybe on one of the drawings? But the writing isn't clear enough for me to speculate on what it says.

I apologize for my ignorance here but do you mean on the witness statements??

No I was thinking of this drawing made by Penniston the night of the incident (which reminds me you asked me what I thought about his trangular drawing he made at a later time, I think that one looks different than this original drawing (This is half of it, the half I couldn't read the word on:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d23646679740.png[/atsimg]At the bottom I can read, "us, brush" then at the top right, "light" followed by a squiggly line (I assume that's a scratch-out and not a word)? Which leaves the other words I can't read, it looks something like "Copter or Boat" but I can't really make it out. Have those words been transcribed somewhere?

BTW thanks for posting the Burroughs transcript (though I actually read his handwritten copy before you did that).

You keep walking toward a distant light but you don't seem to get any closer to it for a long time, so this creates the illusion the light is moving away from you when in fact it's not.

Yes, but they did seem to get close to the object, that's why we have notes supposedly taken from Penniston as well as the grooves in the ground from the supposed landing site where they saw the object as well as the description of it...

That's Penniston's story, Burroughs original story is, they eventually did get closer to the flashing light and learned it was a lighthouse. The illusion that it's moving away from you (or following you) only works at greater distances, so if you're 10km away and you move 0.5km, it's still 9.5km away so the 5% change is almost imperceptible, which can lead one to believe it must be moving away because you moved closer to it, yet it looks the same. Obviously this illusion falls apart if it's 1km away and you move 0.5km toward it, because then you'd see a dramatic change in the size (100% increase) over that 0.5km, which is much more dramatic than a 5% increase in apparent size.

As you may have noticed, Penniston's account is not in agreement with Burroughs and personally I find Penniston less credible.

No I was thinking of this drawing made by Penniston the night of the incident (which reminds me you asked me what I thought about his trangular drawing he made at a later time, I think that one looks different than this original drawing (This is half of it, the half I couldn't read the word on:

[SNIP]

Ah, my apologies then and yes I know what you mean now and I actually added this pic (the full picture with both images ) in my opening posts as well btw.

Here it is again.



Oh, and here's the other one.




I agree that it does look slightly different to Burroughs' drawing but that's not really important....What is important is neither look like a lighthouse. In fact the lights coming from the object itself are red and blue for example with a very bright white light, the blue light being actually underneath the red one.

Also, what's interesting is the first image Penniston actually drew an actual object and not just a light thus giving us a reason to believe it's not the distant lighthouse as that would appear to be a light on it's own. Oh and once again might I add, it's a light in various different colours coming from object, an effect which a lighthouse doesn't do surely.

The area in front of us was lighting up a 30 metre area. When we got within a 50 metre distance, the object was producing red and blue light. The blue light was steady and projecting under the object.

It was up the area directly extending a metre or two out. At this point of positive identification I relayed to CSC, SSgt Coffey. A positing sighting of the object...1....Colour of lights and that it was definitely mechanical in nature.

- From the witness statement -


Oh, and just to have both in this one place for a better comparison, here's Burroughs drawing....



Sure I do agree that they do look slightly different in nature but the overall description is relatively the same IMO. Well, see the external material above and below but it sounds very much so the same to me.

"On the night of 25-26 Dec at around 3:00, while on patrol down at East Gate, myself and my partner saw lights coming from the woods due east of the gate. The lights were red and blue, the red one above the blue one, and they were flashing on and off. Because I've never seen anything like that coming from the woods before we decided to drive down and see what it was. We went down east-gate road and took a right at the stop sign and drove about 10-20 yards to where there is a road that goes into the forest. I could see a white light shining into the trees and I could still see the red and blue one.

- Again, from the witness statement -




Anyway to the small image you posted again...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d23646679740.png[/atsimg]

I just inverted it so I could see a little bit better as shown here...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6d9fc8f2f574.png[/atsimg]



This is just something that I noticed AFTER posting and thought I'd add without making the post look too messy, but is it just me or is he identifying the lighthouse here (which is what was wrote at the very top) and then he identifies where the object is which is in the middle?

I ask because I still have no idea what it says in the middle but maybe he's identifying the object perhaps?

Just a quick thought I had anyway...



From the bottom it looks like it says "Us" and "Bush".. (Not brush) and I can only assume he's just making it clear about what's around him as it isn't unlikely there was a bush in front of them IMO.

Well that's what it looks like to me as in the image above it clearly looks like he made a simple mistake and then crossed it out giving the illusion of that extra letter.

In the middle however, I'm not sure at all.

And above it looks simple like the word light with something crossed out.

Could be the lighthouse, could be something else, but from the pictures, it’s hard to tell in my complete honest opinion.

He was familiar with it from the other base. I know you think Ridpath is a disinfo agent or something but if you can specifically debunk his claims about that I'm listening:

Oh, no I don't think he's a disinformation agent or anything.

Personally I just think he's just a very very VERY lazy investigator and always has a biased opinion.

That's not to say he has but that's just my opinion of him and he can come up with some good points admittedly.

To this point though...

3. Although Col. Halt maintains he saw the Orford Ness lighthouse in the southeast, it is actually east of where he stood. Evidently Col. Halt confused it with another flashing light in the southeast, probably the more distant Shipwash lightship.

From a ship??



I wasn't aware he would be able to see that as the landscape wouldn't allow it but hey I could be wrong ofc.

And it's easy to say hey, maybe he saw this or that but Halt was the guy out there at the time remember and he should have had a compass as well would he not?

I mean before going out they all did grab all available supplies so surely a compass would have been brought and if not then why not?

Now don’t get me wrong, That's just a quick off the top of my head idea but it makes sense to me and again, I can’t help but stress that Halt was the one out there, not Ridpath and he also did in fact identify the light from the lighthouse which looks like nothing but a light in the distance so how could he not spot the light from the supposed ship, assuming he could see it in the first place?

ETA: I'd also like to add that Halt wasn't an idiot, in fact he was far from it and I think he's a smart enough person to not jump to conclusions, something which he did until he was really involved in what was happening, but I just get that from Ridpath he's trying to make them all out like complete fools and people who confused a lighthouse light for an extraterrestrial craft for 3 nights straight.

Anyway that's just a quick observation I get from him that I thought was worth sharing with you.

[edit on 19-8-2010 by Rising Against]

The Rendlesham Forest UFO - What really Happened?

Check-out Face book, the boys who were there in 1980, are there at Face book. Their holding nothing back as far as I can see.. Ret Staff Sgt Penniston's got abunch to say. I'll ask them to consider opening a line or two here at Above Top Secret.

Decoy

reply to post by Decoy


And how can you know if it's credible?

(second line )

Originally posted by Rising Against
Also, what's interesting is the first image Penniston actually drew an actual object and not just a light thus giving us a reason to believe it's not the distant lighthouse as that would appear to be a light on it's own.

The one with the question mark next to it? I took that to mean he wasn't exactly sure about what he saw.

I ask because I still have no idea what it says in the middle but maybe he's identifying the object perhaps?

In the middle however, I'm not sure at all.

At least I'm not the only one who can't read it, but I am a little curious about what it says, it might be a clue.

From a ship??

I wasn't aware he would be able to see that as the landscape wouldn't allow it but hey I could be wrong ofc.

Good question, I'm not sure if it was visible either, though it was a great distance away so it would essentially be on the horizon if the water was visible on the horizon. Actually there were two lightships. Steuart Campbell has a sketch of the direction of the shipwash lightship and the outer Gabbard lightship here:

magonia.haaan.com...

The light does stick up above the water as shown in this photo but at that distance I wouldn't expect it to be significant:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a2ac8e5a6f5d.jpg[/atsimg]

And it's easy to say hey, maybe he saw this or that but Halt was the guy out there at the time remember and he should have had a compass as well would he not?

Well let's say he had a compass with him, I don't follow your point? Actually after looking at that Steuart Campbell diagram, the angles between the lighthouse and the two lightships aren't as great as I thought, you might need a compass to distinguish between 95 degrees and 105 and 110 degrees.

magonia.haaan.com...
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7d07e7f0f5ac.jpg[/atsimg]
It sounds like he had a compass to be calling out degree measurements:

Halt: It’s a strange, small red light. Looks to be maybe a quarter to half mile [1 km], maybe further out. I’m gonna switch off. The light is gone now. It was approximately 120 degrees from our site. Is it back again?

If that 120 degrees is from a compass, then it's not true, the 110 degrees is from true north not magnetic north. I think you add about 3 degrees to true to get magnetic now, but I'm not sure about back then.
www.go4awalk.com...

If it was the Outer Gabbard lightship, it would blink 4 times every 20 seconds, versus the Orford Ness lighthouse which had an interval of 5 seconds.

May I add if halt was using a standard hand held compass , whilst on the move throught he woods , that sort of misreading or deviation is very possible.. or any metal or magnetis objects , eg the tape recorder he was also using...

reply to post by Arbitrageur

The one with the question mark next to it? I took that to mean he wasn't exactly sure about what he saw.

I took that to mean he wasn’t sure if the drawing of it was accurate enough to be perfectly honest because if he had doubts it was an object at all then he wouldn't have drawn something like that unless he was relatively would he?

I mean if he was in fact fairly confident it was something then yes, he would draw an actual mechanical object like that but if he had serious doubts then IMHO he wouldn't have done so. Also the drawing from Burroughs also seems to confirm this was some sort of triangular shaped object as well which only adds to the credibility as it isn’t an account from a single member here.

So I have to ask, if all he could see was a light for example, meaning the lighthouse or the ship, then why would he draw an object like this?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e0f748f207f0.jpg[/atsimg]

(Here it is inverted to see it (hopefully) slightly better.)

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2a0a28da05ad.jpg[/atsimg]

It just doesn't make sense.

Also why would he clearly state the colours like he has done if he was unsure of what he was seeing, if it was the lighthouse or even if it was the unlikely distant ship perhaps? Seeing the lighthouse or ship would only mean seeing a light in the distance so if it was the light house or the ship then why draw the mechanical shaped object?

Again, it just doesn't make sense...Unless there was an object to be see that is.....

At least I'm not the only one who can't read it, but I am a little curious about what it says, it might be a clue.

I agree, and I'm very curious what it says as well but I really have no idea.




I made the point that he had a compass because having one would have put him at an advantage because he knew the landscape well already and he knew if he would have known if he was looking at the lighthouse or not for example.

But hey, from what you quote from Halt here...

Halt: It’s a strange, small red light. Looks to be maybe a quarter to half mile [1 km], maybe further out. I’m gonna switch off. The light is gone now. It was approximately 120 degrees from our site. Is it back again?

It does admittedly sound like he was looking at the ship that you mentioned, but it's not confirmed ofc. But what's even more interesting is Halts own words on this as he claims that it's impossible for it to be a lighthouse or anything primarily because they saw the actual object themselves.

Not lights but the object.

Also, Surely from that distance that you showed wouldn't the lights from the ship have been too far to see? Surely they would? Especially too far away to fit the descriptions given by the Halt anyway.

But anyway, here's what Halt says in an interview with Salley Rayl....

“Eventually, a group headed out to the forest. They reported strange noises — animals, movement, like we heard two nights later.

“As they approached the clearing, they reported seeing a large yellowish-white light with a blinking red light on the upper center portion and a steady blue light emanating from underneath. The tower again reported nothing on radar.

“A few of the men moved to within 20 or 30 feet. Each said the same thing independently — a triangular-shaped metallic object, about nine feet across the base, six feet high, appeared to be sitting on a tripod. They split up, walked around the craft. One of the men apparently tried to get on the craft, but, they said, it levitated up.

“All three of the guys hit the ground as the craft moved quickly in a zigzagging manner through the woods toward the field, hitting some trees on the way. They got up and approached again, but the object rose up, and then it disappeared at great speed.

“Finally, on January 13, 1981, I wrote a memo to the British Ministry of Defense. Despite my efforts, to my knowledge, no one from any intelligence or government agency ever came on base to investigate.

“I have never sought the limelight, nor have I hidden. I stand to receive no financial benefit from this interview but consented because it’s time the truth came out. I don’t know what those objects were. I don’t know anybody who does. But something as yet unexplained happened out there.”

Salley Rayl Interviews Charles Halt

The lighthouse theory or the ship theory IMHO all seems to fall down unless Halt and his men have been lying and/or exaggerating because the object simply was seen by them. Not a light but the actual object itself.

This was from 1997 which some (this isn't aimed at you) may claim is too long after the event ( ) but the matter of the fact is it's his words and he was present at the time of the incident and we sadly weren't.

Originally posted by gambon
May I add if halt was using a standard hand held compass , whilst on the move throught he woods , that sort of misreading or deviation is very possible.. or any metal or magnetis objects , eg the tape recorder he was also using...

Care to elaborate? especially since I didn't quite get what you mean about the tape recorder..Are you saing it didn't work or he made a mistake and mentioned it on the recording or what?...

reply to post by Rising Against


certainly, when using a military or otherwise,compass , they are designed to be used when stationary , after they have stabilised a little eg walking/joggingthrough the woods in this case and reading the compass on the move wold not result in a very accurate reading , but one that would do if you knew(or thoughtyou new) the area , now putting myself in halts shoes , ....


The Woods........

It is dark , I am walking through the woods and something is making me edgy, Its it really dark so i get out my flashlight with metal components ,I stumble on , I get out my compass(with my free hand).I then decide I need to tape record some notes ...but my left hand has the torch ,my right the compass,I need to be able to talk to record notes so which do i put away..

I need to tape record a heading from the compass but I have thes compass in on hand and the recorder in the other ?, now tape recorders of the day needed to be near your mouth record sound,,and the compass would need to be fairly close to be able to be read at night in the dark either by flashlight or glow in dark figures,

I would do this by bringing both the compass and the tape recorder together nearer to my eyes /mouth if i was not thinking , OR the flashlight and the compass nearer together ,I am doing all of this whilst moving throught he woods....nevr taking my eyes of the lights i can perceive in the woods....,,both items contain metal one contains magnets...

doing either of these things as well as taking a reading from that type of compass on the move would result in erroneous reading.


www.nationalmuseum.af.mil...
link to the 67arrs,rescue capsule as a gate guard at the sister base in january 81.........top line second pic from left


[edit on 20-8-2010 by gambon]

[edit on 20-8-2010 by gambon]

[edit on 20-8-2010 by gambon]

[edit on 20-8-2010 by gambon]

reply to post by gambon

certainly, when using a military or otherwise,compass , they are designed to be used when stationary , after they have stabilised a little eg walking/joggingthrough the woods in this case and reading the compass on the move wold not result in a very accurate reading , but one that would do if you knew(or thoughtyou new) the area

Umm..Isn't that how any compass in the world works? (You can't read them while jogging for example because it would move around too much) And how could you possibly know that Halt would have been reading the compass while on the move, more specifically jogging??
Please don't assume Halt is an idiot because he's NOT.

He knows not to read a compass while on the verge of running and yes he would have known the area well but that shouldn't have aided his compass reading skills in this situation still.

now putting myself in halts shoes , ....

[SNIP]

And you feel that you had to make up, what at first appears to be, an entirely fictional account based on absolutely no facts, sources or evidence what so ever all the while questioning, but not directly Halt's very own intelligence why?

Oh, and Halt didn't take Notes, Penniston did on the first night.

And why have you linked me to the National museum of USAF??

You're post doesn't seem to make much sense.

of course he made notes ....what is the tape.......?it is verbal notes recorded on cassette tape.......he makes a compass reading on the tape........look at the capsule..I think you have selective blindness regarding evidence...

"As I was taking notes, I also memorized what was in front of me for what seemed like hours, but was in fact only minutes. Finally, I unleashed my camera-case cover and brought the camera up to focus. I began snapping photo after photo."


Cabansag totally denies he(penniston?) was making notes at the time and definately did not get close enought to touch symbols.....or take any photographs....

[edit on 20-8-2010 by gambon]

[edit on 20-8-2010 by gambon]

reply to post by Rising Against


reply to post by gambon


reply to post by Arbitrageur


Rising Against, Gambon & Arbitrageur…..

May I commend you for your extremely interesting discussion.

I am learning a lot about “Rendlesham” from you.

Kind regards
Maybe…maybe not


[edit on 20-8-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]