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…, A Christmas Story from 1980 - Can We ‘Let it Be’?

page: 14
87
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by FireMoon
 



That would be as opposed to Ridpath misrepresenting just about everything in his vain attempts to shut this one down. Penniston was not "new" on the base, he'd been there several months, every last visual witness says it was not the lighthouse

I have read Mr Ridpath's arguments and he seems to back up what he says with documentation and actual facts. I have not come across any misrepresentions.

Just how many months is "several". I have been at my new company for 7 months and am still considered new.

"every" witness? Didn't you say that Thurketle said "right on camera" that it couldn't have been the lighthouse? I still have not seen this clip. However, I have seen several pieces of evidence to the contrary.

So, I would ask that YOU present some actual facts to back up your statements instead of the usual garbage that you post. It's becoming glaringly obvious who is misrepresenting who and it is not Mr. Ridpath.




posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 12:43 PM
link   

ianrid

CJCrawley
reply to post by Ectoplasm8
 

Halt has explained that he was speaking into a dictaphone with a limited amount of tape, so that he had to keep switching the thing on and off to avoid running out. So we aren't hearing everything in real time. Seconds or minutes could elapse between each new sentence, but it sounds instantaneous.

The section with the 5-second flash is continuous, though. Or haven't you listened?

edit on 27-1-2014 by ianrid because: explaining which stretch of tape is meant


I'm just presenting Halt's argument because it doesn't seem to have been mentioned. Maybe it has - I haven't waded through all the posts.

It is certainly possible he did misidentify the lighthouse flash for a UFO, but surely he would have discovered his error at some point during the next two weeks before deciding to submit his memo?

Perhaps he saw his opportunity for a second career.



posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 01:42 PM
link   
Halt explained how the object moved in his first public interview, just after his retirement (Omni interview with A. J. S. Rayl):
>> "It shot over the field and then moved in a 20- to 30-degree horizontal arc."
These movements correspond with the tape recording made that night.

On the tape, the movements of the object start at a 110 degrees compass .ing:
(In 1980, the lighthouse was at a 96-97 degrees compass .ing.)
>> SGT NEVELS: "About a fraction of four foot off the ground...with a compass .ing of 110 degrees."

After this compass reading by Sgt Nevels the object approaches them while a new object appears on their left side:
>> LT COLONEL HALT: "It is definitely coming this way."
>> SGT BALL: "Look to the left!"
>> SGT NEVELS: "Yeah, definitely moving. There's two...two lights. One light to the front and one light to the left."

Sgt Ball watches the second object move off to the right.
Then Halt notices that the first object came to the left:
>> SGT BALL: "it just moved to the right... it moved off to the right."
>> LT COLONEL HALT: "Yeah ... strange, whoohh."
>> LT COLONEL HALT: "The-other-one came to-the-left!"
Halt speaks very rapidly in his excitement, but that is what he really says.

So basically the tape corresponds to the movements described by Halt in his first interview:
>> "It shot over the field and then moved in a 20- to 30-degree horizontal arc."

This final horizontal arc puts the object in the farmer's field, at a distance of a few hundred yards.

Nevels, who was with Halt, was interviewed by Earthfiles a few years ago:
>> "we saw this object that was sitting over in the farmer’s field about 200 yards away.
>> To me it looked kind of yellowish orange like very hot, and it looked like it was on fire, burning.
>> And every once in a while I would see something shoot off that looked like molten metal."

In that same interview, Nevels mentions the similarity between what he saw and the drawing made by Burroughs in Burroughs' original witness statement.
Burroughs’ drawing contains a red/orange sphere, which corresponds to the 'sun-like' object reported by Halt.
But Burroughs also added a conical beam with small blue 'sparkles' in it. He added the remark that this beam with its blue sparkles only came out when the sphere was 'sitting in one place', not when it was moving.
Did Halt and his team observe that same phenomenon, but interpreted it as 'pieces shooting/dripping off that looked like molten metal'?



posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 02:08 PM
link   

ZetaRediculian
reply to post by FireMoon
 



That would be as opposed to Ridpath misrepresenting just about everything in his vain attempts to shut this one down. Penniston was not "new" on the base, he'd been there several months, every last visual witness says it was not the lighthouse

I have read Mr Ridpath's arguments and he seems to back up what he says with documentation and actual facts. I have not come across any misrepresentions.

Just how many months is "several". I have been at my new company for 7 months and am still considered new.

"every" witness? Didn't you say that Thurketle said "right on camera" that it couldn't have been the lighthouse? I still have not seen this clip. However, I have seen several pieces of evidence to the contrary.

So, I would ask that YOU present some actual facts to back up your statements instead of the usual garbage that you post. It's becoming glaringly obvious who is misrepresenting who and it is not Mr. Ridpath.


What documentation, there is no documentation save for Halt's memo and the written statements, none of which support anything Ridpath claims. So Ridpath is making stuff up again. Ridpath is proven bovine waste artist, a man who claims that Venus can be seen some 30 degrees above the horizon from England at 2 am on an October morning. A man who. when asked to give his qualifications and what right he has to call himself an "astronomer". has so far, failed to do so. A man who has been a writer and nothing more for 30 years . A man whose own twitter account says occupation "media" nothing to do with science . A man who passes himself off as "professional scientist" without ever specifically claiming he is one. As I have already mentioned, the self same people who demand absolute accuracy from witnesses are happy to just let it ride when someone you support proves to be not quite that they claim to be.

So, as you're so smart, why was Thurkettle visited by "British agents" asking had her heard of any "Red lights" seen in the forest, before Halt had even written the memo? Why did my friends father say. "something very strange happened on that base that night" and why would he , a security agent, know anything about it? Why was he base in almost total lock down for two weeks after event according to those civilians who worked there even though, until the newspaper articles came out, they knew nothing of the actual events.

Unlike Ridpath, although I had new information I wanted to share with the public at large, I waited to receive clearance form the person who told me before bringing it to the forum. A fact a moderator will confirm, because that was the "right thing to do" in my eyes. I've added two completely new strands to the Rendlesham case, one of which I have spoken of before that is confirmed by a totally independent witness on this very thread. What have you done exactly to bring something new to the table about the case?



posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by FireMoon
 


You say your friend says his father said "something very strange happened on that base that night"?


Well I consider that case closed!
edit on 27-1-2014 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by CJCrawley
 


This was exactly my point in my earlier post:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

At least 2 witness statements mention a beacon or lighthouse, the British police came out and reported all they could see was a lighthouse. Lt. Col. Halt goes walkabout for a good few hours in Rendlesham Forest and must have seen that damned lighthouse. Amongst all the evidence presented is this re-occurring theme of a lighthouse.

A good couple of weeks are allowed to pass whilst "investigations" take place.

After the two weeks of investigation, he obviously did not consider what he and other airmen thought were UFOs to be the lighthouse and so he sends his famous memo. So it appears that the lighthouse was never the obvious answer to this seasoned military man. Even in those early days when surely he could not have foresaw a career speaking on radio/TV and conferences about the incident.



posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 02:40 PM
link   
For those who have been following this closely and remember the reference to Nick Pope's mentioning a paper trail leading to General Gabriel the USAF Commander in Europe.

I have tracked down a "loose minute" from Sqd. Ldr Badcock from 16th Feb 1981 to DS8

It mentions the recent visit of General Gabriel (who had made an official visit in early December 1980) and how Neatis. radar camera recorder was switched off on Dec 29th.




"....tape recorders of the evidence had been handed to General Gabriel who happened to be visiting the station. Perhaps it would be reasonable to ask if we could have tape recordings as well"


Whatever happened to those "tape recorders" and what did they contain?
edit on 27/1/14 by mirageman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 02:59 PM
link   

mirageman
After the two weeks of investigation, he obviously did not consider what he and other airmen thought were UFOs to be the lighthouse and so he sends his famous memo. So it appears that the lighthouse was never the obvious answer to this seasoned military man. Even in those early days when surely he could not have foresaw a career speaking on radio/TV and conferences about the incident.

Quite right -- the lighthouse wasn't the obvious reason to him then and still isn't. And we know why.

Halt has said repeatedly that he thought the lighthouse was off to the southeast. As he told Salley Rayl: "If you were standing in the forest where we stood at the supposed landing site, or whatever you want to call it, you can see the farmer's house directly in front of us and the lighthouse was, like I say, 30 to 35 degrees off to the right and the object was close to the farmer's house.”

But we know that the lighthouse is not 30 to 35 degrees off to the right from where he was standing — it's in line with the farmhouse, right where he saw the flashing UFO. So Halt, by his own words, has admitted that he didn't recognize the lighthouse when he saw it in front of him. I've written in more detail about that here
www.ianridpath.com...

As far as the first night is concerned, it's clear from Halt's statements that no one ever told him the police had been called out on the first night and fingered the lighthouse as the culprit.
THE POLICE EVIDENCE
www.ianridpath.com...

If he had been told, I wonder how differently this case would have turned out?



posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 03:02 PM
link   

mirageman
Whatever happened to those "tape recorders" and what did they contain?

I've always understood that to be a reference to the Halt audio tape.



posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 07:18 PM
link   

ianrid
But we know that the lighthouse is not 30 to 35 degrees off to the right from where he was standing — it's in line with the farmhouse, right where he saw the flashing UFO. So Halt, by his own words, has admitted that he didn't recognize the lighthouse when he saw it in front of him. I've written in more detail about that here
www.ianridpath.com...

I'm a professional news videographer and realize that positioning and perspective is everything, so it may not mean much, but the photo of the farmhouse and lighthouse on the preceding page by Ectoplasm seems more inline with Halt's statement if it is positioned correctly.



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 04:19 AM
link   

The GUT
the photo of the farmhouse and lighthouse on the preceding page by Ectoplasm seems more inline with Halt's statement if it is positioned correctly.

Recall also that John Burroughs said in his statement about the first night: “We got up to a fense (sic) that separated the trees from the open field and you could see the lights down by a farmer’s house”. That sounds pretty much the same as Halt’s description two nights later.

So I think that Halt was standing in pretty much the same spot as Burroughs had been on the first night. The images posted by Ectoplasm8 show the situation.



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 05:01 AM
link   

Ectoplasm8

spacevisitor


I would say Ectoplasm8 because of what for instance Rising Against posted about it in his marvelous thread;


Also, here is what the men themselves say about the Lighthouse Theory, something that they are certain about that this incident is not the result of!


You're pointing out quotes from years after the incident by various people.

I'm not talking about a story of what was or wasn't seen years after the fact, I'm speaking of what was actually said during the incident via Halt's taped recording. The first mention of anything mysterious was a light that was flashing. Flashing at exactly the same rate as the lighthouse.

So Halt said he saw the lighthouse, but didn't mention it. So we're to assume then that there were two lights in the forest blinking at the same rate? That makes it even more coincidental.



I personally believe that the reason why Halt did not talk or mention the lighthouse in his tape was because of that it had really nothing to do with what they encountered in the midst of the woods.
I assume that because of the density of the forest back then it was not even visible until they came out of it near that farmer’s field.
It was definitely not visible from the point where the men at the base saw some strange lights above and in the forest which started the so called first night event.
And when I look to this video, I cannot imagine myself that so many security men would have stumbled around in the woods during the night over a three days’ time period, being shocked by what they saw and experienced, severely interrogated about it all, injected with a truth serum, being even threatened with being killed, experienced some medical damage by such a really pathetic light flash from that lighthouse as is to see here.

www.ianridpath.com...


Above is a still from my interview with forester Vince Thurkettle for BBC TV’s Breakfast Time programme, broadcast on 1983 October 7, five days after the story first hit the .lines in the News of the World. It shows the Orford Ness lighthouse flashing as seen from Rendlesham Forest, in the same direction that the US airmen saw their flashing UFO. You can download a movie file of the interview by clicking on the picture above, or see the entire report by clicking here. Copyright remains with the BBC.


www.ianridpath.com...

edit on 28/1/14 by spacevisitor because: correction



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 04:33 PM
link   

ianrid

mirageman
Whatever happened to those "tape recorders" and what did they contain?

I've always understood that to be a reference to the Halt audio tape.


It's open to interpretation but the memo clearly says :


" I asked if the incident had been reported on the USAF net and was advised that tape recorders of the evidence were handed to General Gabriel who happened to be visiting the station"


The fact that it mentions tape recorders (in plural) and the "USAF net" suggests to me it was the recordings of the conversations over the security and command "net" (ie radio conversations) at the time of the incident(s), not the micro cassette recording made by Colonel Halt.

Gabriel had only just been to Bentwaters before Christmas. Now he may have made regular monthly visits to every USAF base in Europe, I don't know, but it seems more than coincidence that he went there and took away material surely?

I am unaware of any release of documents by the United States on this incident as well.

Can anyone advise?



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 05:18 PM
link   

ianrid
THE ORFORD NESS LIGHTHOUSE AND RENDLESHAM — THE LOCAL FORESTER REPLIES

The question was recently raised on these pages as to whether Vince Thurkettle, the local forester, had changed his mind about the role played by the Orford Ness lighthouse in the Rendlesham Forest sighting. I emailed him to check and he affirmed: “My position has not changed!”.

He gave me permission to quote the following:
“The alleged UFO landing site on the eastern edge of Rendlesham Forest is the one I was first shown, and taken to by Col Halt and shown in the police photographs: the lighthouse was very clearly visible from this, the real site. I was present when a TV company moved the landing site about 300m further east, downhill into the field, so that they could then 'prove' the sighting could not be the lighthouse. This was scandalous as it hugely muddled an already complicated mystery. I was also present for another TV investigation once when Penniston took Col Halt and I to a new 'landing site' deep in the forest, from where the lighthouse could not be seen. When questioned Penniston said he clearly remembered the site because he recognised the trees which made up the glade he had taken us to. Nobody seemed interested when I pointed out that all of the trees around us were less that 30 years old and didn't exist at the time of the incident - so he could not, as he had firmly argued, remember them.” The programme he refers to in which Penniston invented a new landing site from which the lighthouse cannot be seen was the SciFi channel documentary of 2003, which I have previously written about. I also have an earlier email from Vince which he sent me in 2012 in which he says: “Communication is so odd nowadays - everybody now has a voice, even those who know nothing but want to be heard! I've seen comment that 'I'm not very convincing' etc. I'm not trying to be 'convincing - like some salesman - I'm just saying they were looking into the bright beam of a lighthouse, we foresters marked the trees etc. I now think there is no point in trying to explain rationally and honestly. Nobody wants to believe there is a simple explanation, so why give them one.” I hope this finally answers the question and we can now move on.


Whilst it's important to note that Vince Thurkettle was not a witness in this case he did live in the forest at the time.



Here is what Vince Thurkettle had to say on BBC Suffolk's "Rendlesham Revealed" in December of 2010. I find Vince to be a highly articulate man and I don't think he needs to be convincing he's simply a matter of fact. He begins speaking at around 1:20:00 in to this particular broadcast.

The original recording is available here



Here's a loose transcript, which gives a lot more clarity on what his position is on this case.


..what's interesting is a lot of people saying they [the USAF personnel] were familiar with the lighthouse. Now that's probably rubbish because I lived and worked in this forest for seven years. There is a very small area of the forest where the beam of the lighthouse penetrates it and it was not visible from Woodbridge..where the guys came from.

One of the great flukes, the lighthouse is..5 miles from the forest and inbetween there is a hill, Gedgrave Hill.There's a little gap in the trees on Gedgrave Hill. So I think with a lot of things in big mysteries we've got a string of coincidences. The Russian material coming in had caused the impression something had crashed in the forest.

The men then went out to look and by fluke walked to an area where the beam of the lighthouse came in and I saw it. It really did penetrate the forest and appeared to be a few feet above the ground. Now if they knew about that and you've got this dazzling white (reports mainly mention red and even blue) thing shining amongst the trees next to a UFO you are going to mention it.....

While I think it's very possible to be fooled by the lighthouse. The idea that two different groups of men on two different nights were fooled - that I find hard to believe.

But don't let anyone say they weren't fooled by the lighthouse. They were staring straight into it. It's not an easy thing to find. You have to be just right in the forest to see it..... They were looking at the lighthouse, no doubt about it. I

t's whether they were looking at anything else is the question?

....One of things about this mystery is that it's really not helped by people embroidering things. There are a very few facts. One fact is that the lighthouse, at the time, shone a brilliant beam into the forest. Full stop it did.....


The incredible thing, using the word properly, is the idea that two nights running they could be fooled for hours. I believe anyone could be fooled for a few minutes, suddenly see this beam amongst the trees and think 'what the devil's that?'. But the idea that two different groups of different men could be fooled for hours I find very hard to believe.


Vince also spoke about the visits from British "agents" (for want of a better word) before the Halt memo was even typed up in 1981 asking questions about strange lights in the forest in that same series of broadcasts.

However I have yet to transcribe it all (and there may be no publicly available source for that).

But I'll post it up in a day or two.



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by spacevisitor
 


If you read my earlier posts this is what the local forester was saying as well.


That, yes, the lighthouse is visible but only in a specific location. Halt obviously felt the lighthouse was unimportant and not the UFO. Does he have to mention a lighthouse on his infamous tape to prove he knew what it was, does he refer to the light of the moon for instance to rule that out?

Another thing as well. Do we know if Halt's tape recorder was affected by static? It doesn't sound like it was even though other equipment was reported as not working and the men reported the affects on their skin.

edit on 28/1/14 by mirageman because: spelling



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 06:46 PM
link   

mirageman
Vince also spoke about the visits from British "agents" (for want of a better word) before the Halt memo was even typed up in 1981 asking questions about strange lights in the forest in that same series of broadcasts.

At that time the only people off base who knew of the sightings were the local police, because they had been called out twice and it was in their log book.

Who rings up the police to find out what they’ve been up to? Local journalists.

So, in my estimation, the two men asking questions were nothing more sinister than local journos in search of a story. They didn’t find one so nothing appeared.



Do we know if Halt's tape recorder was affected by static? It doesn't sound like it was even though other equipment was reported as not working and the men reported the affects on their skin.

No sign of any effects of static on Halt's night. The tape recorder worked properly, the radios were working properly, the starscope was working properly... They had trouble with the light-alls, but that's all.



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by FireMoon
 



What have you done exactly to bring something new to the table about the case?

Absolutely Nothing.Is it a requirement? I offered some common knowledge about perception which seems to be ignored. Why? because people who see strange lights never get them confused with normal lights? its beyond ridiculous.

So you really don't have much to offer either it seems since I have gathered exactly zero facts from your rants. The only thing I gather is you have some sort of deep seated anger towards certain people. your posts read like a scorned woman.


A man whose own twitter account says ...

Really?
edit on 29-1-2014 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by spacevisitor
 


I personally believe that the reason why Halt did not talk or mention the lighthouse in his tape was because of that it had really nothing to do with what they encountered in the midst of the woods.

Well, as I said, then you would have to believe there were two lights flashing at the same interval in the woods that night. A "UFO" and a lighthouse. Seeing as the lighthouse could be seen from their perspective, I find that far too coincidental.


I assume that because of the density of the forest back then it was not even visible until they came out of it near that farmer’s field.

The lighthouse "beam" was nearly 3,000,000 candlepower and could be seen for 25 miles. Halt and his men were only about 5 miles from it. Halt wasn't deep into the middle of the woods. He was on the leading edge with a clearing at the farmer's field just beyond. So the density of the forest wasn't that thick from the area they saw the light.

Halt also mentioned about the light during his tape:

Halt: Yeah, like a pupil of an eye looking at you, winking. And the flash is so bright to the Starscope that it almost burns your eye.

So, two points... This light wasn't a steady intensity. It's blinking or flashing as he described. Just as the lighthouse. The next point, viewing it through the Starscope, he commented the flash was extremely bright. Which would be typical of viewing a 3,000,000 cp lighthouse beam through a Starscope.

You also have to take into account the frame of mind Halt had going out into the forest. He was looking for indentations of a UFO. He looked for broken branches above in the trees. He brought someone with a geiger counter and measured readings around the "landing site". As he walked into the farmers field and beyond, he still continued to take readings for some reason as he walked. It seemed that he had a tendency towards believing this initial UFO story. He didn't go out there with a: "it's time to put this to rest" attitude as he has said in many of these UFO television show interviews. He started out with a heightened sense, looking for something strange, not trying to rationalize.



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Ectoplasm8
He didn't go out there with a: "it's time to put this to rest" attitude as he has said in many of these UFO television show interviews. He started out with a heightened sense, looking for something strange, not trying to rationalize.


I think he did both. There were some reasons for a 'heightened sense', but when he arrived and found a lot of personnel running around he really wanted nothing more than to ‘put this to rest’. You can hear his agitation at the start of the tape, when they are investigating the indentations (“What are the impressions? Is that all the bigger they are?”), but he gets more interested as they find more traces.

The reasons for his 'heightened sense' were:

1. One of his science officers, Nevels, had been in the woods that afternoon with Englund for an investigation. Around 19:00 they saw a pulsating light and experienced a static charge in the air.
Nevels: "about that time I had static all over my hair and my arms and everything and I knew something was wrong – like you would say ‘static in the air’. And I naturally got scared too, because I didn’t know what I was looking at."
That is when they said "the UFO is back" while reporting back at a dinner party. As a result Halt took over the coordination and probably stationed extra patrols at the base perimeter.
(Earthfiles interview with Nevels).

2. But it got really interesting after midnight, when a patrol with Battram saw and investigated lights in a clearing in the woods; these lights were first discovered from the base perimeter, after seeing lights moving in the sky. Battram and his patrol got permission to investigate and they went into the woods:
"We began to feel the hair on our arms stand up and we could see into the clearing and see a set of lights that seemed to be alternating through different color ranges but it was predominantly a red or reddish-orange hue to it. And about that time, we decided that we’d better get the heck out of there ’cause we were getting a little too scared to just stick around and we saw some other people coming up from one of the access roads.”
Among the ‘other people coming up from one of the access roads’ were Englund and probably Bustinza.
They must have decided to call in Halt, which is where the Halt tape starts (at around 01:00) - one o’clock at night isn’t exactly dinner time, just before dessert, is it?
(Battram in a 1984 CNN documentary, search for “The lost Rendlesham CNN special” on youtube.)

So yes, Halt had some reason to be concerned. The woods were full of personnel (he immediately sent back most of them) and there was a lot of commotion. I think he was brought to the site observed by Battram and his patrol, but due to the commotion he may have been under the wrong impression that this was the site of night one.



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Ectoplasm8
reply to post by spacevisitor
 


I personally believe that the reason why Halt did not talk or mention the lighthouse in his tape was because of that it had really nothing to do with what they encountered in the midst of the woods.


Well, as I said, then you would have to believe there were two lights flashing at the same interval in the woods that night. A "UFO" and a lighthouse. Seeing as the lighthouse could be seen from their perspective, I find that far too coincidental.


Again Ectoplasm8, there is no one in that tape who even talks about or even mention the lighthouse, so I believe therefore that what they encountered in the midst of the woods and also because how they described it all had nothing to do with it.
They say at some point that the lights are moving, one to the left and the other one to the right and I cannot imagine myself that a lighthouse could do that?
But if you want to continue your believe that Halt and his men could see the light flash from that lighthouse when they were in the forest and that it was that what they saw then that’s entirely up to you of course.
But I do not share that view.

Perhaps you wil find these videos interesting.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...


edit on 29/1/14 by spacevisitor because: (no reason given)

edit on 29/1/14 by spacevisitor because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
87
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join