The Case for Rendlesham

Originally posted by Essan
Hi John

Out of interest, when did you leave Bentwaters?

I lived just down the road in Tunstall from 1982 when my parents took over the village Pub

My only comment on the whole story is that although I moved to the area after the incident, as a teenager and son of a local publican, I'd thought that if any stories of mysterious events were still in circulation amongst the local population, I'd have heard of them. We also had some USAF personal as customers in the Pub (though I think later they were stopped from drinking off base?) and, as we did B&B, also had some stay with us at times.

But I only heard of the incident some years later, after I'd moved away.

All I can conclude is that Rendlesham Forest and the surrounding areas were not known locally as sites of mysterious events.

(NB I do appreciate though that Tunstall is on the other side of the base from where the events supposedly took place )

I was stationed there from July 1979 to July 1981. After the incident happened it was kept quite for a while untell James Archer thats who Dot Street and Jenney Randles called him but it was Penniston started talking about the incident. I lived in Ipwich and I enjoyed England except for all the rain. Also the 2 years I was there the summers were colder than normal.

John:As far as what I saw I have done many interviews if you have not seen them take a look if you have any questions I will do my best to answer them

OK - That's fine.
I suppose that was a silly question, considering that there is so much to go through...

I do have three questions which I would like to ask you:

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

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

This is something which is just a rumour, but I would like to sort out what exactly happened:
On the second night, you went into the forest and witnessed blue balls of light acting intelligently ... Did you chase after these lights, after they had flown near you?

Originally posted by rendlesham_incident

John:As far as what I saw I have done many interviews if you have not seen them take a look if you have any questions I will do my best to answer them

OK - That's fine.

I suppose that was a silly question, considering that there is so much to go through...

I do have three questions which I would like to ask you:

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

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

This is something which is just a rumour, but I would like to sort out what exactly happened:
On the second night, you went into the forest and witnessed blue balls of light acting intelligently ... Did you chase after these lights, after they had flown near you?

1 Over 2 hours 2 No I didnot see him out there. The Blue balls of light were out there on the second night. One of them did fly right at us. And one of them did send down a beam of light at Halts feet. As far as acting intelligently be careful how you imply that. I stated if there was anything out there that could be taken as acting in a intelligent manner that would be the Blue lights. And there in fact is where Warren gets his story of aliens making contact with AF personnal . We did have them come towards us. Also look at one of his first interviews when he stated LT Col Williams the Base commander was out there. It was LT Col Halt Dep Base commander who was out there. Not Col Bri Gen select Williams Wing Commander . Also I got to meet with Warren in the late 80's in Califorina when a man by the name of Curt Bruebaker flew us out to possibley do a documetry on Bentwaters and his story did not even come close to adding up and has changed so very much over the years.

Would you allow me to quote you on some of your posts?

Thankyou very much for answering the questions which I asked you, I really appreciated it.

[edit on 24-4-2006 by rendlesham_incident]

Some craft had been there, probably a ufo. It's said the ufo was beaming the nuclear items. Is that true?

[edit on 24-4-2006 by Rappa Z]

A search on the MOD's website [www.mod.uk] for "Rendlesham Incident" comes up with these results:


Link

Here's an a FOI search results in:

www.mod.uk...

www.mod.uk...

www.mod.uk...

www.mod.uk...

www.mod.uk...
`````````````````
shortened link (streching page)

[edit on 23/1/07 by masqua]

[edit on 23/1/07 by masqua]

Just one REALY GLARING PROBLEM... why are these peopl eall giving measurements in american units, and not the Metric system, realy odd to me that People who use the metric system, would report in yards?

Originally posted by TKainZero
Just one REALY GLARING PROBLEM... why are these peopl eall giving measurements in american units, and not the Metric system, realy odd to me that People who use the metric system, would report in yards?

en.wikipedia.org...:SI-metrication-world.png

Up until around early 80s by law. They stopped "teaching" the Imperial System in the 70s as a pre-req for ECC (EU) membership. It's common for people born before the 70s to STILL prefer Imperial System over Metric (such as my parents born ~1950s).

This is a key case in the annals of ufo histories (if there is such a thing). Revived interest in this case was very recently totally shut down sumarily by a moderator on this site. I have no idea why they would actually lock down a thread which merely was a revisit to a very celebrated and honest case. I can only speculate on the motives for such a move; I have not seen a thread actually "locked" in all of the time that I have spent on ATS so far. It seeems very much like one more "hit" on a legitimate case that never deserved this kind of treatment in the first case. Pun intended.

[edited for grammar on 4-4-2010 by liquidself]

[edit on 4-4-2010 by liquidself]

[edit on 4-4-2010 by liquidself]

reply to post by liquidself


agreed liquidself i found that odd as well especially as the other thread was obviously current, most of the links on this one no longer work, and when you try and use the MOD ones, you now need a username and password.

Considering that Nick Pope himself has stated in interview in his opinion this case has far more significance than Roswell. A strange statement to make but one thing I find rather odd amongst all the oddness Nick Pope worked as the head of the UFO department. Amongst his other jobs there he would have been privy to all the files.

Given that he worked there from 91 to 94 i think it was and the MOD files to the case were released in 2001, he had some time to look at "a case which potentially has a greater significance the Roswell" and yet he just speculates himself. I think Mr Pope has more info than he is giving.

Another factor that seems to escape public scrutiny a lot is the fact that although "the radar was turned off for that period of time" at the Norfolk base there are inconsistencies in how this is dealt with. Public lore has it that the radar tapes were requested. However when asked for the official line was the radar was dead and being repaired at the time. However in the MOD files - "the radar was turned off due to the fact that flying operations has ceased and as part of the criteria the radar was turned off after the last flight". This discrepancy could be sorted out with an official description of the purpose of the Norfolk radar base. If it was high profile it would not be turned off at all. If it was just a small country runway then perhaps. I do not know any more about the norfolk radar refered to, because I have only started looking into this case. So forgive any ignorance.

Also in the MOD files a letter states "sorry but thar radar records show nothing of note and did not show anything at the time, although lights were reported by a civilian aircraft", I have not read that anywhere else so far and yet it seems to have been over looked.

There are a few other things as well which are glaring mistakes and I will try to explore these when I am more comfortable with the details and nitty gritty. As an ex military person myself I know how to read MOD files and see what they infer. I found amusing the RAF press office referring to a certain public request and asking DS 8 for clarification on what they were allowed to disclose and offer to "sanitise" the Holt report for disclosure.

Its these things that interest me because that shows a very presumptuous attitude or a common practice with regard to procedure when the press officers spoke to DS 8. This then clearly reduces DS 8's in fact the MOD's credibility when you deal with them for open and nothing to hide, attitudes.

In a post on this thread I saw a quote from someone who had written a book, and she said that there was no fog on any of the nights. Penniston states that when he entered the clearing there was a fog.

Also is the lack seemingly total of any kind of serious research to discover what the readings represent. 0.1 instead of 0.01. Conversion to the english system of micro and mili seiverts is important here if we are to work out what is relevant. Argument has always been that the instrument used was not able to measure low level radiation accurately. However it had a beta shield. Beta radiation can only travel a few meters through air and is stopped by virtually anything. Hence the shield is a thin metal slider. So it was delicate enough to have a beta scale. Think on that.

I think, that Holts tape is real. I think he has edited the details greatly. Hence the time lag bewteen incident and report. Also on his tape he turns off the tape for nearly an hour between reports. Right when Larry says other things happened. Imagine holt looking at a landed craft and talking about something other than what he says he was!

In fact I need to clarify something I said there about the radiation. The instrument used I did find what it was somewhere is similar to our RO2. It would depend on whether it was a contamination meter or a rate meter. Both measure radioactivity.

Radiation radiated depends on the source. IE whatever is deemed radioactive, throws off certain types of radiation. Alpha Beta and gamma. Alpha - stopped by skin, beta also stopped by skin but causes Beta burns but is stopped dead by boronated polythene's and aluminium. Gamma punches through anything but lead. Lead slows it down significantly. However there is a side effect in some circumstances with lead in that it forms x rays through an effect called Brem Stralla. SO what woul they have had that instrument for.

They would have had it on THAT base for measuring radioactivity. Why, because someone would have had, to do rounds of the weapons to make sure certain areas were safe to walk around. As in to make sure the doses were not TOO high. They would also have had to wear dose meters. And possibly neutron meters. Where are these results from those that they wore. I doubt in the *)'s that they would have been issued with one each but they may have. So these are people who are well aware of radiation. You do not have a piece of kit that ONLY measures high end radiation in the event of an accident as is implied by all who seem to investigate RIDPATH I MEAN YOU, you leg iron. No there is much more to that. As for it being in calibration I have to give ground there. IF it had a GM tube in it, the GM tube could have been damaged, however you do normally have a test function setting as part of the dials. You select test and this clarifies if the tube is damaged. As for if it was in callibration, I would suspect that it was.

Besides another thing Ridpath forgets is that Holt took samples of the soil. The results of which would have been tested in a contamination lab and would have been tested accurately for contamination levels and radiation levels and any isotopes isolated. This would have been done by either our labs or the USAF. The reason for this would be that Holt reported high readings. I would imagine the men would have been swabbed as well. And before you all go OH COME ON, remember the Americans with Hiroshima. They learnt a lot there. Their procedures would have been in place for ages. So they would in no way want to risk potential radioactive contamination of their base and make getting to certain parts of it not possible due to it being covered in something radioactive. They would have done an entire survey of the men, and of the grounds, and of the area and of where ever those men went. Guaranteed. And pennistons "pod" molds. They too would hold any long term isotopes. Because they picked up the ground when he cast them. No evidence have I seen for the measurement of these casts in a mass spectrometer.

Lots of stuff left undone even now it seems.

Originally posted by TKainZero
Just one REALY GLARING PROBLEM... why are these peopl eall giving measurements in american units, and not the Metric system, realy odd to me that People who use the metric system, would report in yards?

To further explain. We use the metric system here in England but not for distances. Road distances, on signs, are still given in miles. In 1980 virtually every adult in Britain quoted distances and for that matter, any other measurement, in imperial.

A1C Chris Arnold, who placed the call to the police and waited at the end of the access road, gave this description in a 1997 interview:

"There was absolutely nothing in the woods. We could see lights in the distance and it appeared unusual as it was a sweeping light, (we did not know about the lighthouse on the coast at the time). We also saw some strange colored lights in the distance but were unable to determine what they were... Contrary to what some people assert, at the time almost none of us knew there was a lighthouse at Orford Ness. Remember, the vast majority of folks involved were young people, 19, 20, 25 years old. Consequently it wasn't something most of the troops were cognizant of. That's one reason the lights appeared interesting or out of the ordinary to some people."

As for the geiger detection ,
(col)Halt properly armed himself with a Geiger counter and an audio recorder ( and took some men to examine the landing site and the strange lights. )It's been reported that Halt found radiation levels at the landing site ten times higher than normal background levels:


He used a standard issue AN-PDR 27 Survey Meter, which detects beta and gamma radiation. The highest level reported by Col. Halt on his audio tape, "seven tenths", corresponded to .07 milliroentgens per hour, just at the lowest reading on the bottom range of the meter, the "point five scale". The UK's National Radiological Protection Board say that levels between .05 and .1 mR/h were normal background levels; however, this particular meter was designed to measure much higher levels of radiation and so it was "not credible" to establish a level of only ten times normal background. So much for Col. Halt's radiation.

side note ..Orford Ness at the time was a atomic weapons institute test centre , testing the hard shells of nuclear weapons....



[edit on 13-5-2010 by gambon]

[edit on 13-5-2010 by gambon]

[edit on 13-5-2010 by gambon]

I'm not sure why the "other thread" was locked. Does someone have a link for it? I'll be happy to look at it to determine why, etc. This thread is certainly old enough to where it's existence wouldn't have been a reason for closing.

It was also prior to us having some of the current tools for links, pics, etc., so apologies for any broken links/images...it's a few years old I think.

reply to post by gambon


thanks Gambon for the info - as I suspected the details relating to the radiation meter are not precise. The implication was that the meter was not sensitive enough to give an accurate reading because it was a high end radiation meter for use in the event of a nuclear accident. The UK have similar apparatus for this purpose. The aim in a weapons accident is to measure the danger from exposure. The exposure that would cause the most danger in a radiated sense would be gamma, as beta can only travel a few meters at most through air. So you use a mater that only measures gamma which can travel hundreds of meters.

In this link scroll down and you will see a military member using the same equipment as Holt is reported to have used. Except this chap is using it to measure radiation on a casualty. If as the sceptics would have us believe, Holts meter was not sensitive enough to measure the ground accurately, how is it part of their EOP(emergency operating procedures) accurate enough to measure radiation of a casualty before sending him back to a treament area. This is NOT going to happen unless the casualty was deemed free or only had a minute, amount of radioactive contamination.

www.orau.org...

find the picture with this quote:

"The photo below (from the National Archives) was taken in 1956 at Darmstadt, Germany. It shows Pfc John E. Gankawis of the 517th Medical Clearing Co., using an AN/PDR-27 to test an incoming patient for radioactivitiy before sending him forward to the evacuation hospital"

Welcome back Gazrock here is the link to the closed thread that was mentioned:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Its hard to work out the radiation readings into something familiar, however it seem that 1 Roentgen = 0.11933174224 sievrt.

will edit when I have converted it to reflect a proper background reading as well.
Radiation Converter



[edit on 13-5-2010 by Stormwind™]

Originally posted by Stormwind™
Welcome back Gazrock here is the link to the closed thread that was mentioned:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Hm..seems very inconsistent as threads pop up repeatedly on the same subjects over a period of time without leading to closure, I wonder why that one was singled out, unless the mod thought this one was not as old as it is.

reply to post by Gazrok


Gazrok, great thread.
Don't know how true it is but Nick Pope mentions in this interview that a lot of the 'evidence' collated for this incident got sent to Germany.

Cheers.

My guess is that the thread mentioned was closed due to the original, opening post simply being a link to a You-Tube vid, with zero comment by the original poster... (I didn't close it, so can only speculate on the motive)...

Still though, myself, I wouldn't have locked it, but maybe just given kind of a nudge to the poster to please provide their own thoughts on it, etc. vs. just providing a link.