Rendlesham Forest 1980 Pt II - Will There Be An Answer?

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: KilgoreTrout

Ian doesn't include the rocket booster burn up as a part of the RFI as such. More that it sparked UFO reports off on Christmas Night that might have filtered onto the base via radio broadcasts.

The Astronomical Association article has a map that illustrates part of the Cosmos 749s path as it re-entered the atmosphere. It is only a partial map but it shows that it travelled across Beachy Head passing over southern England across to the Isle of Sheppey. Using a ruler to follow that line and it goes directly across Rendlesham, as far as I can tell and given my basic technique. How likely do you think it is that the RFI lot stumbled across a recovery mission for fallen parts? It doesn't seem to be a certainty that nothing would remain after such a re-entry. Perhaps there was something salvageable, or someone thought there was enough of a chance to take a look. Seems unlikely to me, but no less unlikely than some of the other things we've been considering here.

Moving beyond that, I am also rather intrigued by the two key informants, the one who approached Nick Begg and Brenda Butler's close personal friend "Steven Roberts" or J D Ingalls as we seem to be led to believe. The latter appears to be without much in the way of loyalty if he was willing to blab at the first opportunity and then to allow a fellow officer to take the blame for something that he did and get that officer shipped back to the US.

It all has an orchestrated feel to it, it is almost like they wanted it to be leaked.

Although that only raises the question of "who" wanted it leaked. How sure are we that Brenda Butler's Steve Roberts had even ever set foot on the base?

a reply to: ctj83

We could argue a number of biases caused by the predominance of German ancestry in the US, including those related to Operations Paperclip and the siting of bio-chemical factories deep in wooded and/or mountainous areas where the air is (or was) clear and the local people are too grateful for the work to ask too many questions about all the scientists with German accents.



I couldn't rule out the possibility that some people may experience what you describe, but I would have thought lack of food, drinking water or injuring one's self stumbling around in the dark would be enough to make you vulnerable to attack by a predatory, or angry, animal. The chance of that attack happening while an EM sensitive is stood very close to a granite outcrop with some kind of anomalous magnetism to the rest of the environment seems somewhat convoluted. There are hundreds of thousands of people registered as missing in the US, 411 that have occurred in national parks doesn't seem that significant to me, statistically that is, every missing person is significant. I would also have thought that any feeling of disorientation, if there was any at all, would be temporary and relieved by moving away from the perceived source.

I don't know, it all seems a little "Picnic at Hanging Rocks" to me.

a reply to: KilgoreTrout

As regards Missing 411 you may like to peruse this review.

Back to RFI now...

The Cosmos 749 rocket burn up seems to have occurred just after 9pm on Christmas Day before the main players were all on shift (11pm). Despite it's apparent path passing over the North Sea close to the Twin Bases it doesn't seem to have been sighted and was probably too high for radar detection.

I am basing the shift times on research done by Georgina Bruni for her book "You Can't Tell the People"



Source : Georgina Bruni - You Can't Tell the People

The "Steve Roberts" character and story all do have the whiff of a controlled leak and cover story. But I think it probably needs looking over in detail before I comment any further on it all.

a reply to: KilgoreTrout

You know that there is an unpublished chapter of that book? If you read it, you might get an early insight into 411.

a reply to: KilgoreTrout

You know that there is an unpublished chapter of that book? If you read it, you might get an early insight into 411.

originally posted by: mirageman
The Cosmos 749 rocket burn up seems to have occurred just after 9pm on Christmas Day before the main players were all on shift (11pm). Despite it's apparent path passing over the North Sea close to the Twin Bases it doesn't seem to have been sighted and was probably too high for radar detection.

It didn't "pass over the North Sea", it came in over the English Channel and it's path, had it not seemingly burnt out by then, would have taken it almost, if not directly over the bases. It could not be seen by a sky camera in Ipswich so it is presumed to have burnt up by then, the objects were seen to be fading by witnesses in the Thames estuary and Surrey areas so it seems quite possible to me that some parts had survived the re-entry and were cooling as they descended. If some parts descended would they be visible on radar? If it couldn't be seen by a camera at Ipswich then I doubt it would've been possible for those on duty to have seen it unless they were looking for it.

a reply to: ctj83

That's rather confusing. How can I read it if it is unpublished?

It must be time for sleep.

a reply to: KilgoreTrout

It didn't "pass over the North Sea", it came in over the English Channel and it's path, had it not seemingly burnt out by then, would have taken it almost, if not directly over the bases. It could not be seen by a sky camera in Ipswich so it is presumed to have burnt up by then

I didn't phrase that very well did I?

The Cosmos rocket appears to have burned up and fell somewhere into the North Sea on it's flight path. However that wasn't really my point. It appears that nothing was picked up at the twin bases relating to the Cosmos 749 rocket to trigger a reaction. Otherwise activity would surely have been reported much earlier on Christmas Night?

We can debate the timings of when the events of the first night began. But they all seem to point to around 3am from official witness statements and, if we accept other testimony, just after midnight.

Or is there an indication of anything kicking off just after 9pm when the Soviet rocket booster was burning up?

originally posted by: KilgoreTrout

Although that only raises the question of "who" wanted it leaked. How sure are we that Brenda Butler's Steve Roberts had even ever set foot on the base?

Colonel Halt in his 'Halt Perspective' memoir (well, not a memoir, more a 2-tonne brick with scattered personal comments among a mass of mostly irrelevant local sightings and gossip over 80 years) is very clear about Steve Roberts being J.D. Ingalls, and acknowledged that Ingalls was indeed at the base. I'd gladly quote from the text, but the trouble with that brick is that it's impossible to refer back to a particular page or section due to the book's chronologically inept narrative structure.

An amusing part of the Dot & Brenda saga is Halt having to actually call the police to arrest the two intrepid researchers after they busy-bodied their way into his own home via his son. I actually felt really sorry for Halt at that point! Can you imagine the irritation and harassment? "Oh, Colonel! COLONEL! Coooo-eeeee!!! Did you shake hands with ALIENS, Colonel?"

I also believe it was whilst stalking Halt's property that D&B witnessed a triangular UFO flying overhead. Again, I wish I could quote from the book, but it's as user-friendly as a house made of water.

a reply to: ConfusedBrit

Dont you think its all a...

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: KilgoreTrout

Typing that into Google will give you the Chapter. Unpublished means it's not in the published book.

Hanging Rock - Secret Ending

a reply to: ctj83

Oh you meant the book of Picnic at Hanging Rock...I had forgotten I'd mentioned it, no wonder I was confused. There was a documentary about the author on the BBC not long back, I think it was to co-incide with the dreadful and hammy recent adaptation. She was a very interesting character.

Cheers.

a reply to: ConfusedBrit

Georgina Bruni's now two decade old book linked earlier provides a short interview with Roberts aka J D Ingalls (where his first name went to, I don't know!). Ingalls was a member of the Security Police Investigations (SPI) squadron who Brenda had known for over a year. Initially after the incident at a New Year's party he told her that a UFO had landed. There were 3 entities around three feet tall in silvery suits that came out. They seemed to be floating in mid-air beside the craft within shafts of light and a senior officer was communicating with them.

He was also responsible for circulating the saucer drawing that made it into the national press. This was done after he disappeared for 3 weeks in early Jan 1981 for 'special training' according to the story. He later changed this to say he was taken to an underground facility where he felt he was being brainwashed into believing the story was nothing important.



(Yep it's largely Larry Warren's story)...

However in 1987 he returned to Britain and told Brenda the story was a hoax. He had been told to spread stories by his superiors as something did happen. But this was unimportant and she was wasting her time. He later told Bruni in 1999 that he did see a UFO in the sky. There were no aliens though and only 5 men went out on the third night to investigate.

It could be he was just trying to impress the locals with his tall stories. Maybe he was trying to help them out in a roundabout way. However another angle is that he might have purposely been spreading disinfo.

Bruni also stated that he moved on to work for a "government contractor whose role is to secure classified projects".
The Roberts story is much like the larger story. A mess.

originally posted by: mirageman

I didn't phrase that very well did I?

That's one way of looking at it I suppose.

originally posted by: mirageman
The Cosmos rocket appears to have burned up and fell somewhere into the North Sea on it's flight path. However that wasn't really my point. It appears that nothing was picked up at the twin bases relating to the Cosmos 749 rocket to trigger a reaction. Otherwise activity would surely have been reported much earlier on Christmas Night?

You would have thought so, wouldn't you?

originally posted by: mirageman
We can debate the timings of when the events of the first night began. But they all seem to point to around 3am from official witness statements and, if we accept other testimony, just after midnight.

But you stated that Ian Ridpath's theory was that it was the reports of the Cosmos 749 rocket launch re-entry that led to the jitteriness that was then exacerbated by the 02:50 am bright object that only lasted for a few seconds and could only be seen through a screen of trees. Do we even know whether the "fireball" had been reported on the radio and that any of the airmen had been listening to the broadcasts? There were bright objects observed in the south of England at 17:20 on Christmas Day, and again at 19:20, in addition to the fireball at 21:08. At the same time as the fireball, bright objects were observed passing over Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands. I at least have an answer to my question about whether Burroughs said it was "comet-like" on that evening, even if he didn't say it, it seems to be an appropriate assessment. It was a busy night in the skies it would seem, what with the comet discovery and a possible nova.

originally posted by: mirageman
Or is there an indication of anything kicking off just after 9pm when the Soviet rocket booster was burning up?

Assuming it did burn up that is. The men were already in the woods (by 02:44 from what I can gather) when the bright object that Ridpath claims accounts for part of the light display, but that leaves a lot of lights to be explained. If they had heard radio reports of the fireball, depending upon which witness accounts they heard, the ones later reported in The Sun perhaps, I think, from Canvey Island, then they may have indeed been "primed" to consider that a UFO crashing into the woods wasn't out of the question and given the path of the re-entry, it doesn't seem out of the question that something could have fallen in the woods.

originally posted by: ConfusedBrit
Colonel Halt in his 'Halt Perspective' memoir (well, not a memoir, more a 2-tonne brick with scattered personal comments among a mass of mostly irrelevant local sightings and gossip over 80 years) is very clear about Steve Roberts being J.D. Ingalls, and acknowledged that Ingalls was indeed at the base. I'd gladly quote from the text, but the trouble with that brick is that it's impossible to refer back to a particular page or section due to the book's chronologically inept narrative structure.

Not to worry, that's grand enough. Jenny Randles makes a comment about how "impressive" Brenda Butler's information network was but it seems odd that absolutely no names appear to have gone on the record, (Randles explains at some length that this was Butler's choice, not the witnesses which only makes it odder, more suspect) and none of the initial accounts that she took from the witnesses that she spoke to seem to have been possible to verify. I have developed some doubts about Butler, at best I think she was played with/wound up, but I don't rule out that being six of one and half a dozen of the other too.

However, that still leaves us with the chap who approached Begg and his wife in the local pub on 18th February 1981. According to Randles, it was only when she found out that other people were talking about an event at the bases that she broke her own promise to Roberts/Ingalls not to tell anyone what he had told her. Dot Street seperately recounts that it was also on the 18th that Butler told her about the crash. She was clearly champing at the bit to tell someone. The account given to Begg is alleged to have come from another source though, and offers a vaguer narrative. Given that Butler spilled the beans so quickly makes me suspect that she was told that only when it was mentioned by some else should she come forward. Like she had been waiting for a cue.

Purely speculative of course, but what about RFI isn't?

Cheers again

a reply to: KilgoreTrout

...you stated that Ian Ridpath's theory was that it was the reports of the Cosmos 749 rocket launch re-entry that led to the jitteriness that was then exacerbated by the 02:50 am bright object that only lasted for a few seconds and could only be seen through a screen of trees. Do we even know whether the "fireball" had been reported on the radio and that any of the airmen had been listening to the broadcasts?

He said

The security guards could well have heard these reports. So when the (natural) fireball appeared at 3am the following morning they were already primed.

The guys might well have heard these reports before they came on duty on the radio. That's Ian's theory. But I have never heard anyone mention hearing earlier reports of UFOs.

A number of witnesses have said that Heathrow Tower reported something to them that was tracked over the base. That story seems to have never been followed up and remains anecdotal.

....Assuming it did burn up that is. The men were already in the woods (by 02:44 from what I can gather) when the bright object that Ridpath claims accounts for part of the light display, but that leaves a lot of lights to be explained.

The witness statements confirm Burroughs reporting strange lights in the woods around 3am. WIth the exceptions of Penniston's testimony where he seems to believe things started just after midnight. Halt has it all starting the following day at 03:00 in his memo. So 02:44 could well be correct.

The real problem is the following nights. There were no booster rocket burn-ups or unusual celestial displays in the sky. Nor are any witness statements publicly available from those nights. Even Burroughs, who was present on both nights, only talks about the first night in his statement. Why did he not mention the later night's events? All we have is Halt's tape and his memo (which is seemingly inaccurate with its dates).

originally posted by: mirageman
Even Burroughs, who was present on both nights, only talks about the first night in his statement. Why did he not mention the later night's events? All we have is Halt's tape and his memo (which is seemingly inaccurate with its dates).

The frustrating aspect of Burroughs and Penniston's statements is that they are BOTH undated.

Did they not say they made the statements the following day (26th)? Or even the 27th? That would still predate the 27th/28th night of Halt's trek. EDIT: Oh, you mean why did Burroughs not make a second later statement? There were rumours that numerous statements DO exist for the third night, but is that idle, unsubstantiated gossip? I can't recall who mentioned it - was it JB on a radio show?

Oh, and Cabansag's was undated, too. Add in Halt's ham-fisted dating on his memo, plus the fact that Lt Buran and MSgt Chandler never bothered to write anything until 2nd January, and it all sounds extremely sloppy and, yes, unprofessional. Especially for blokes guarding a nuclear weapons stockpile.

originally posted by: Baablacksheep
a reply to: ConfusedBrit

Dont you think its all a...

www.youtube.com...

Well, yes, there IS that possibility, too.

a reply to: ConfusedBrit

You could try a cold beer for your morning beverage.

a reply to: ConfusedBrit

The frustrating aspect of Burroughs and Penniston's statements is that they are BOTH undated. Did they not say they made the statements the following day (26th)? Or even the 27th? That would still predate the 27th/28th night of Halt's trek

From what has been said (again in Georgina Bruni's book "You Can't Tell the People" linked above) it states that the men were given a break of 6 days after the incident. This would tie in with Burroughs story that on the 3rd night he was in civilian clothes and went up to the base to see if something was going on. It doesn't prove it of course but would also suggest all the statements were compiled on January 2nd 1981 (after the 6 days break) by Halt. So why was nothing mentioned about the "Halt night" at all? Did he not interview the others involved on that night? Somewhere there must be more documentation on this case.

There is a lack of adherence to procedure when recording witness statements. The fact that only the commissioned officers' statements were recorded on official stationery should raise concerns about lack of attention to detail. Halt has stated he was apparently unaware that one of his officers resigned from the Air Force due to trauma (Tamplin) shortly after the incident. Which I found unbelievable.

Following that he dithered on sending a memo for nearly 3 weeks. It probably should have come from the Base Commander Ted Conrad, but he obviously wanted to distance himself from the whole thing. The date of the first night is incorrect in Halt's memo when he says "Early in the morning of 27 Dec 80 (approximately 0300)....”. It is even inconsistent with itself when he says "The following night (29 Dec 80) the area was checked for radiation”. Halt also bemoaned the fact that the UK MoD did nothing on receipt of his memo. But he doesn't actually ask MoD to take any action. It was in effect just a statement and the MoD treated it as such. Problems from the very earliest days following the incident. Not forgetting there was an SPI officer telling locals tall tales of a UFO landing in the forest.

Good points, MM. I can feel my brain bleeding again.

Meanwhile... back in Crypticville...

originally posted by: Baablacksheep
a reply to: ConfusedBrit

You could try a cold beer for your morning beverage.

Perhaps my brain has packed in completely but I have no idea what you mean, Baa.

However, I can imagine Penniston and Burroughs sitting in an English pub saying, "You limeys call this a COLD beer? Mannnn, this is ****Ing TEPID!"