It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 80
39
<< 77  78  79    81  82  83 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2019 @ 04:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Baablacksheep
a reply to: ConfusedBrit


No, I most definitely have NOT. Shall I?


Go for it CB. You know you want to!


I'll do a deal with you, Baa - YOU watch it and post a review with all your thoughts and feelings, and then I'll promise to watch it.

And don't come back at me with all that "I'm irrelevant" nonsense.




posted on Feb, 28 2019 @ 03:06 AM
link   
a reply to: ConfusedBrit

You want me to watch it again😐.

No!



posted on Feb, 28 2019 @ 01:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Baablacksheep
a reply to: ConfusedBrit

You want me to watch it again😐.

No!


Blimey, is it THAT bad? Let's take a peek...

Overloud, throbbing OTT music... throaty narrator warbles on as if Quinn Martin Productions had never died... ALIENS HAVE BEEN SENDING MESSAGES... Well, we'll be the judge of that... Oh, look! Jimbo and John actually sitting together, as if friends, the latter displaying a rare public belief in the code's importance (before the pair split up in 2015, then)... "EXPOSING THE BIGGEST SECRETS ON PLANET EARTH!"... Speaking to an alien would uncover the universe's secrets? I bet they're just as clueless as we are... Look! It's that geeky wee Nick Pope! Who would have believed it? What a surprise this isn't, looking particularly awkward and pseudo-dramatic in a head-set, hamming up his lines for all they're worth, which isn't much..."ABOVE THE TREES, THE TWO MEN SEE THE SHAPE OF A TRIANGULAR-SHAPED CRAFT LOWERING TO THE FOREST FLOOR"... No, they bloody didn't... So it landed twice???... Will To Live Officially Lost after 3.21 minutes...


That's enough - can't take anymore of that codswallop, Baa.


But well done YOU for sitting through the entire show.



edit on 28-2-2019 by ConfusedBrit because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2019 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: ConfusedBrit

You get a star for your overview of that hideous show. I wanted to crawl under a rock I can assure you.






posted on Feb, 28 2019 @ 03:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sutekh
You are confusing the 10:30 call with the routine shift visit made by PCs King and Brophy to the RAF Bentwaters Law Enforcement Desk ca. 02:00 on 27 December 1980 (as described by Bruni). It was whilst they were there that a further report came on the radio stating that there were lights in the forest at the exact same spot as the night before. They were interrupted on the way by a call about the post office being broken into at Otley 10 miles away, which they attended instead.


I am more than willing to stand corrected but have you got anything other than Bruni for that because that is not the impression that the letter from the then Chief Constable Scott-Lee gives in response to John Hasting's FOI request.

www.whatdotheyknow.com...

He appears to be responding to a specific question, which I cannot find, so it is more than possible that that would explain matters.


originally posted by: Sutekh
The photograph of the landing site does appear to have been illuminated by flash in the near-ground. There is also clearly light coming through the trees in the distance. It was therefore taken during daylight hours. Sunset would have been just before 4pm, so a police response in the early afternoon was most likely. Again asking for clarification from Penniston might help. Was it him, and not Burroughs, who discussed the site with PC Creswell, and about what time in the afternoon did this occur?


I don't think that anything is particularly clear in that photograph and I remain unconvinced that you can see daylight through the trees, I can only see reflected light. If it is daylight then that would suggest that Bruni has made a mistake in estimating the location, the treeline she describes as being close enough by to allow light in appears to be east facing.

I, obviously naively, assumed that since Burroughs and Penniston had worked with Pope together on the book, which I quoted from, that it would be agreed that it was Penniston that went back home and then back into woods. Silly me.



Either way, I find it unlikely that they're going to respond to my questions with a sudden display of clarity...and where's the adventure in that anyway.
edit on 28-2-2019 by KilgoreTrout because: dodgy linkage



posted on Feb, 28 2019 @ 04:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: ConfusedBrit
I've just watched the BBC's "Britain's Closest Encounter" for the first time, first broadcast 15th March 2003 and available in six parts via Ronnie Dugdale's YouTube channel. As the final TV show about Rendlesham that I had yet to see, it's ironic how it's far and away the best.


Thanks for posting that, it was informative. As you say, a touch depressing in places, but sensitively handled by the Beeb. Halt's not the most expressive individual is he? The only time he displays any form of expression is when he repeatedly says that naysayers "weren't there". It's a little bit eerie. It's like he's telling us that this extraordinarily amazing thing really did happen, but you know, whatever, it's not a big deal. Weird.

Did he end up "flying a desk" for the rest of his career?



posted on Feb, 28 2019 @ 05:54 PM
link   

throaty narrator warbles on as if Quinn Martin Productions had never died.


I cried with laughing. Thanks CB.



posted on Mar, 1 2019 @ 12:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: KilgoreTrout

I am more than willing to stand corrected but have you got anything other than Bruni for that because that is not the impression that the letter from the then Chief Constable Scott-Lee gives in response to John Hasting's FOI request.

www.whatdotheyknow.com...


If you look at the incident logs in the FOI response you will see the point I am making. The 04:11 report on the night of 26 December is logged as the time the report came in (as confirmed in the two letters also included). Later in the report it states "search made of area - negative. PCS 297 320" [past tense]. PCs 297 and 320 are presumably PCs King and Brophy.

So what you have here is a log entry which is being made contemporaneous to events. You can also see after "Action (FHQ)" the reference "A0076". and after "Resulted by" the number "76". This would appear to be the Force identification Number "FIN" of the officer who initiated and closed off the log.

Now if you look at the 26 December 10:30 log entry, the initiating time is 10:30 (obviously am). Under "Action (FHQ)" is "W2R Officer Attending" [present tense] and then "A0604." Under "Result" you have "PC Creswell attended" [past tense]. The log entry is "Resulted by" and then "604." So again this appears to an officer noting and closing off the log. Was this PC Creswell or a desk officer? Who knows? You will also note that the closing of this log entry is noted as a "Late Entry 26/12/80."

So, with the mixing of tenses in the entry for 10:30, you can again see that it is a contemporaneous record of what transpired. These entries were being made on a computer system, which the Suffolk Police had adopted in 1975 (Source: Bruni). This is how people use such systems. An entry is opened and then added to as the incident progresses. When it is concluded the entry is closed down.

You find the same behaviour used in electronic patient records in the NHS. It can be a nightmare when investigating serious incidents as it does confuse who did what when. However the evidence is quite clear here. 04:11 and 10:30 relate to the timings of the initial reports to the police. The logs document the actions subsequently taken.



posted on Mar, 1 2019 @ 12:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Sutekh

Hmmm, an extremely new member pops in with a matter-of-fact, take-it-or-leave-it approach within the deep weeds of the details of the account?? Not suspicious in the least, no? Yes, very suspicious.

What’s your deal? Cop to the truth: have you been previously bannned, or are you here to elucidate to us the perils of truth-telling, or more likely, someone with a personal agenda lacking the constitution to cop to your real identity? It’s pretty clear, but as a once wise person said: I’ll give you enough rope to hang yourself (you’re not long for this charade); will you have the personal integrity to cop to it yourself, like a true arbiter of the truth?

Come correct, or unceremoniously ‘tap out’ — it’s not going end well for you here with the intellectual-heavyweights in this thread.

You’ve beeen warned.


edit on 1-3-2019 by BeefNoMeat because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2019 @ 12:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: KilgoreTrout

I don't think that anything is particularly clear in that photograph and I remain unconvinced that you can see daylight through the trees, I can only see reflected light. If it is daylight then that would suggest that Bruni has made a mistake in estimating the location, the treeline she describes as being close enough by to allow light in appears to be east facing.


The forest in 1980 was a working forest planted principally with conifers. Their rough bark does not reflect light well. You can see the trees in the foreground, even with the use of flash, have not reflected the light as highlights. Contrast this with the reflection from PC Creswell's reflective hat band. You can also clearly see trees in the middle fore-ground which are darker again than those in the near-ground (as they are further away from the flash). The brighter areas are clearly more distant. Only silver birch is likely to reflect light in this way. These do not seem to have been present in the forest at the time in any numbers, and currently are planted in belts (as they don't tend to grow amongst tall pines). You can also see a wider area of brightness at the top middle of the photograph, which looks like light coming through the leaf cover.

So it seems clear that the photograph was taken with a flash, in a darkened forest (due to leaf cover) but during daylight hours. It also suggests that there was at least a clearing, if not the forest edge, in the distance. So yes, likely east facing.

Here is a good newspaper write up of the storm of 1987 and the effect it had on the forest. Broad-leaf trees were only introduced more substantially after the storm to increase diversity in the forest.

www.eadt.co.uk..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">https...://www.eadt.co.uk/news/rendlesham-scene-of-destruction-in-forest-1-1656809



posted on Mar, 1 2019 @ 12:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: BeefNoMeat
a reply to: Sutekh

Hmmm, an extremely new member pops in with a matter-of-fact, take-it-or-leave-it approach within the deep weeds of the details of the account?? Not suspicious in the least, no? Yes, very suspicious.

What’s your deal? Cop to the truth: have you been previously bannned, or are you here to elucidate to us the perils of truth-telling, or more likely, someone with a personal agenda lacking the constitution to cop to your real identity? It’s pretty clear, but as a once wise person said: I’ll give you enough rope to hang yourself (you’re not long for this charade); will you have the personal integrity to cop to it yourself, like a true arbiter of the truth?

Come correct, or unceremoniously ‘tap out’ — it’s not going end well for you here with the intellectual-heavyweights in this thread.

You’ve beeen warned.



I seriously do not have a clue where all that came from. No I have not previously been banned. I am happy to stand corrected if you have something constructive to offer.



posted on Mar, 1 2019 @ 12:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: KilgoreTrout

I, obviously naively, assumed that since Burroughs and Penniston had worked with Pope together on the book, which I quoted from, that it would be agreed that it was Penniston that went back home and then back into woods. Silly me.



Either way, I find it unlikely that they're going to respond to my questions with a sudden display of clarity...and where's the adventure in that anyway.


I have not heard Burroughs counter that explanation in recent years. It was only in the 1991 broadcast that he seemed to claim that he returned to the forest and met with a policeman. As Penniston is not named in this programme (he is simply referred to as Burroughs' partner) I presume that he wished to remain anonymous as he was still in the USAF at the time.

So, a bit of poetic licence on the part of the production company (what is new?). I am sure Burroughs will be only too happy to correct the record on this detail.



posted on Mar, 3 2019 @ 02:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Sutekh


I am sure Burroughs will be only too happy to correct the record on this detail.


I think he is busy.




posted on Mar, 4 2019 @ 02:40 AM
link   
So, I listened to the new Blackvault podcast with Gary Heseltine, which led me to the upcoming (?) new documentay called Capel Green.

I am, of course, quite ignorant with regards to the whole RFI saga, and indeed ignorant about the goings-on in the whole ufology scene of your fair island, but I cannot help feeling there is a lot happening behind the scenes. Mr. Heseltine had a bit to say about it even on the blackvault podcast, with many a comment about trolls and personal attacks. These accusations seem, however, to go the other way as well, perhaps even with more substance, but it certainly does the "field" little good. The problem with that is that one, as an outsider, feels inclined to throw the whole jumbled mess into the bin and move on. Which is a bit sad, because it was once an intriguing story.

Regarding witnesses, I also find it a bit strange that on a base with hundreds of personell, we have only five to seven witnesses? Are there not more than that, after all these years? There seem to be no shortage of claims of people, even with camera equipment being taken away, so who were they?
edit on 4-3-2019 by beetee because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2019 @ 03:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sutekh

originally posted by: KilgoreTrout

I am more than willing to stand corrected but have you got anything other than Bruni for that because that is not the impression that the letter from the then Chief Constable Scott-Lee gives in response to John Hasting's FOI request.

www.whatdotheyknow.com...


If you look at the incident logs in the FOI response you will see the point I am making. The 04:11 report on the night of 26 December is logged as the time the report came in (as confirmed in the two letters also included). Later in the report it states "search made of area - negative. PCS 297 320" [past tense]. PCs 297 and 320 are presumably PCs King and Brophy.

So what you have here is a log entry which is being made contemporaneous to events. You can also see after "Action (FHQ)" the reference "A0076". and after "Resulted by" the number "76". This would appear to be the Force identification Number "FIN" of the officer who initiated and closed off the log.

Now if you look at the 26 December 10:30 log entry, the initiating time is 10:30 (obviously am). Under "Action (FHQ)" is "W2R Officer Attending" [present tense] and then "A0604." Under "Result" you have "PC Creswell attended" [past tense]. The log entry is "Resulted by" and then "604." So again this appears to an officer noting and closing off the log. Was this PC Creswell or a desk officer? Who knows? You will also note that the closing of this log entry is noted as a "Late Entry 26/12/80."

So, with the mixing of tenses in the entry for 10:30, you can again see that it is a contemporaneous record of what transpired. These entries were being made on a computer system, which the Suffolk Police had adopted in 1975 (Source: Bruni). This is how people use such systems. An entry is opened and then added to as the incident progresses. When it is concluded the entry is closed down.

You find the same behaviour used in electronic patient records in the NHS. It can be a nightmare when investigating serious incidents as it does confuse who did what when. However the evidence is quite clear here. 04:11 and 10:30 relate to the timings of the initial reports to the police. The logs document the actions subsequently taken.


I am sorry, I was unclear. I realise that the two phone calls from the base were logged as seperate incidents and consequently alloted seperate incident numbers however what I was querying was where the "routine" visit to the Law Enforcement Office falls within the timeline.

The Chief Constables letter confirms that Police were in the Law Enforcement Office at Bentwaters when diverted to the robbery. It does not say when that took place, merely confirms that it did. He does not state that such attendence was routine but he does state that a robbery would take higher priority over a "reoccurrence of a previous incident". This to me appears to indicate that those officers were responding to the second call, but as I said, I am open to being stood corrected.

Furthermore, in the same letter, the Chief Constable writes that "There is no documentary evidence that police officers were involved in similar incidents on 27-31 December that year..."



posted on Mar, 4 2019 @ 03:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sutekh
The forest in 1980 was a working forest planted principally with conifers. Their rough bark does not reflect light well. You can see the trees in the foreground, even with the use of flash, have not reflected the light as highlights. Contrast this with the reflection from PC Creswell's reflective hat band. You can also clearly see trees in the middle fore-ground which are darker again than those in the near-ground (as they are further away from the flash). The brighter areas are clearly more distant. Only silver birch is likely to reflect light in this way. These do not seem to have been present in the forest at the time in any numbers, and currently are planted in belts (as they don't tend to grow amongst tall pines). You can also see a wider area of brightness at the top middle of the photograph, which looks like light coming through the leaf cover.

So it seems clear that the photograph was taken with a flash, in a darkened forest (due to leaf cover) but during daylight hours. It also suggests that there was at least a clearing, if not the forest edge, in the distance. So yes, likely east facing.

Here is a good newspaper write up of the storm of 1987 and the effect it had on the forest. Broad-leaf trees were only introduced more substantially after the storm to increase diversity in the forest.

www.eadt.co.uk..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">https...://www.eadt.co.uk/news/rendlesham-scene-of-destruction-in-forest-1-1656809



Well, by reflection I meant "lit up", as in the flash is highlighting the trunks of the trees, it was the hat band that caught my eye though so reflection was at the forefront. The image seems over-exposed or negativised or some other technical deficiency, which may be why there isn't enough "daylight" shown on the image. If the forest is thin and it is earlier in the day, then there doesn't seem to be enough light "shining through" ...but I can agree to disagree pending further evidence.

I am really only trying to pin point the time that Burroughs/Penniston went back into the forest after the first night, if they did, and whether they went straight to the base or checked in to the base first.
edit on 4-3-2019 by KilgoreTrout because: bad grammar.



posted on Mar, 4 2019 @ 05:44 PM
link   

I am sorry, I was unclear. I realise that the two phone calls from the base were logged as seperate incidents and consequently alloted seperate incident numbers however what I was querying was where the "routine" visit to the Law Enforcement Office falls within the timeline.

The Chief Constables letter confirms that Police were in the Law Enforcement Office at Bentwaters when diverted to the robbery. It does not say when that took place, merely confirms that it did. He does not state that such attendence was routine but he does state that a robbery would take higher priority over a "reoccurrence of a previous incident". This to me appears to indicate that those officers were responding to the second call, but as I said, I am open to being stood corrected.

Furthermore, in the same letter, the Chief Constable writes that "There is no documentary evidence that police officers were involved in similar incidents on 27-31 December that year..."


Again Bruni is the only source, as she interviewed PC King directly. So to quote her:

"On the second night of the sightings (26/27), PC Dave King and PC Martin Brophy were in the Law Enforcement Office at Bentwaters when the report came in. Dave King recalls the incident:

"'It was a frosty night. I was doing my routine check with the Law Enforcement desk on RAF Bentwaters. We did that every night. We checked in with them and exchanged information. While I was there another report came in on the radio, a pocket radio, saying that there were lights in the forest at the exact same spot as the previous night. This would now be the early hours of the 27th. I was just about to go and have a look, thinking I might see something this time, when I got an
emergency call to attend to a post office break-in about ten miles away at Otley.'

"I asked King if there was a report filed in the police log for this sighting.

"'No, we didn’t bother with it; we just thought they were bored watching their planes, and besides we
had an emergency on.'"

So if this is reliable, the call into the base was on the night of 26th/27th, the shift after PC Creswell had visited the presumed landing site. And PC King did not make a report, which is why we have no log entry. There should, of course, be a log entry about the suspected break in, in Otley. So that could be asked for under FOI, I suppose. If it is there in the log, then it happened as PC King suggested. If there is no such entry, then there might be a suggestion of police logs for 26th December evening to 30th December morning being suppressed.



posted on Mar, 4 2019 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Well, by reflection I meant "lit up", as in the flash is highlighting the trunks of the trees, it was the hat band that caught my eye though so reflection was at the forefront. The image seems over-exposed or negativised or some other technical deficiency, which may be why there isn't enough "daylight" shown on the image. If the forest is thin and it is earlier in the day, then there doesn't seem to be enough light "shining through" ...but I can agree to disagree pending further evidence.

I am really only trying to pin point the time that Burroughs/Penniston went back into the forest after the first night, if they did, and whether they went straight to the base or checked in to the base first.


There are various versions of the photograph available on-line. The one Ian Ridpath has uploaded appears to have been post-processed and the foreground brightness enhanced, giving it an over-exposed look. The best copy I can find is 1211 x 785:

1211 x 785

This seems to be a faithful reproduction of the copy in Bruni. The light through the trees is clearly brighter than the foreground, which has been lit by flash. There is more light evident to the right, suggesting that the camera is pointed to the North-East if the landing site is where it is alleged to have been. The edge of the forest looks like it is not that far distant. As for the low level of light penetration, that is not unusual for a managed pine forest. I go walking in a number near where I live. Because the trees are in regular lines and tending to be equidistant from each other, unless you are looking directly down a row the trunks seem to form an almost constant barrier to the light as they diminish to the vanishing point. The picture is consistent with this.

So when did Penniston go back into the forest? (I don't believe Burroughs did later that day; as I said that was likely just poetic licence to keep Penniston's part anonymous in 1991). Well it looks like it was before sunset which was just before 4 pm. It was obviously sometime after 10:30 am that he met PC Creswell, though he could have gotten there earlier. Ipswich was an hour return journey. I suppose the determining factor would be PC Creswell's response time to the call out. Can I ask why this timing is so critical?



posted on Mar, 4 2019 @ 09:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sutekh
There should, of course, be a log entry about the suspected break in, in Otley. So that could be asked for under FOI, I suppose. If it is there in the log, then it happened as PC King suggested. If there is no such entry, then there might be a suggestion of police logs for 26th December evening to 30th December morning being suppressed.


That is a good point, not discussed previously. I doubt that anyone has done a FOIA on Otley, and if the entry is indeed missing, further speculation could open about British police attending on Night Three. PC King believed the irritable PC Creswell could have attended on Night Three. As Bruni (page 133 of YCTTP) said, "It just seemed strange that he would be so evasive if all he did was examine a few rabbit scratchings." And, oh boy, when she managed to telephone Creswell...


He began shouting down the phone in a very determined gruff voice. Now I know why Woodbridge had a low crime rate for so long. You would not want to get on the wrong side of PC Creswell!

"I know who you are. I know you have been trying to find me. I know you want to talk to me and I don’t want to talk to you. I have nothing to say to you."

... I threw in my ace and told him I had a photograph of a police officer examining the alleged landing site and I had reason to believe it was him. He wanted to know where I had got the photograph, but then he answered his own question by suggesting it must have come from the Americans. I explained that I only wanted to talk to him about his visit to the forest and his conclusion that the ground indentations he had examined were nothing more than animal scratchings. He was clearly not going to discuss it.

"I know what I saw. I know what I did and I’m not giving you any information," he stated.


One should remember that Creswell's anger is likely rooted in local false rumours about him being an alcoholic rather than suppressing vital info about a 'UFO landing'. Larry Warren hadn't helped matters by stating these rumours as Fact.


edit on 4-3-2019 by ConfusedBrit because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2019 @ 10:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: beetee

I am, of course, quite ignorant with regards to the whole RFI saga


You lucky sod!


Just kidding, but it IS one helluva rabbit-hole to stare into, let alone to actually climb down.


Mr. Heseltine had a bit to say about... trolls and personal attacks. These accusations seem, however, to go the other way as well, perhaps even with more substance, but it certainly does the "field" little good.


The irony is that the RFI is so incredibly vast and complex that the appalling online flame wars occurring between Larry Warren (Heseltine's main very controversial witness) and his detractors can be easily ignored, having no impact on the overall case.


Regarding witnesses, I also find it a bit strange that on a base with hundreds of personell, we have only five to seven witnesses? Are there not more than that, after all these years? There seem to be no shortage of claims of people, even with camera equipment being taken away, so who were they?


Most of the dozen or so MAIN witnesses (ie up close and personal, so to speak) have given testimony since 1980 with the exception of one Lt Englund (Night Three; allegedly quite traumatised) and Lt Tamplin (Night Two; sent back to the USA in distress). The only official USAF statements relate to Night One, not released until 1999.

On Night Three, Colonel Halt stated he saw 20-30 personnel milling about in the forest before he began his investigation.

As for the TOTAL number of witnesses (main and peripheral), I think the estimate is at least sixty, but I'm sure others will clarify that if not.

Are you thinking of jumping into this rabbit-hole, beetee?



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 77  78  79    81  82  83 >>

log in

join