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.
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!
originally posted by: Baablacksheep
a reply to: ConfusedBrit
You want me to watch it againđ.
No!
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.
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?
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.
throaty narrator warbles on as if Quinn Martin Productions had never died.
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...
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.
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.
Whatâs 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? Itâs pretty clear, but as a once wise person said: Iâll give you enough rope to hang yourself (youâre 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 âtap outâ â itâs not going end well for you here with the intellectual-heavyweights in this thread.
Youâve beeen warned.
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.
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.
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
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..."
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.
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.
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 donât 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 Iâm not giving you any information," he stated.
originally posted by: beetee
I am, of course, quite ignorant with regards to the whole RFI saga
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.
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?