Bigger than Roswell, Bigger than Kecksberg: The Landings at Rendelsham Forest

[SteveGrenard]

I am not a big UFO fan but I searched Rendelsham on this forum and found nobody seems to have mentioned this as yet. The SciFi Channel edition of this story appears tonight. Here are some websites:

http://www.ufocasebook.com/rendleshamdocuments.html from British MOD




from: http://www.scifi.com/onair/specials/

UFO INVASION AT RENDELSHAM
Join host Bryant Gumbel as SCI FI exposes one of the most notorious UFO incidents of the 20th century, a series of events that occurred near a U.S. military base in Rendlesham Forest, England, in 1980. Now that the British government has admitted it classified documents to cover up the incident, witnesses (both civilians and former military personnel) have come forward to provide new evidence for SCI FI's investigation.

Premieres Friday, December 12, at 9PM & 11PM ET/PT

[kookbreaker]

Perhaps UFOlogist Nick Humphries wrote one of the better summaries of this case:

http://www.beyondweird.com/ufos/Nick_Humphries_The_Stranger_Side_of_Life.html

There also an admission of it being a hoax at http://www.themedianews.com/DAGGER/UFO%20Hoax/rendlesham.htm

Even more (from James Easton) at http://www.forteantimes.com/articles/152_rendlesham.shtml

Sci-fi channel is beating a another dead horse. Given that they are adding woowoo salacious details (commercials imply "brainwashing...mind control..." to those who were there and scoff at the nonsense), and how they treated that Pennsylvania case...

Pheh.

[Paladin]

Please, let's not scoff at the world-renowned UFO expert, Bryant Gumbel.

[JimTheBrit]

I haven't had chance to look over James Easton's site on the incident but here's the link anyway: www.rendlesham.com. It seems to offer a 'terrestrial-based' explanation of what happened.

[kittynh]

actually, I've read that it had something to do with a light house at eye level. when I was walking in Wisconsin once I came upon a weird scary light, that turned out to be the lighthouse (I was up on a bluff) with the fog in the dark, all I saw was the light.

I could see how it would be weird to see.

[Darwin'sGoat]

Hey while we've got a UFO thread, it's been bugging me FOREVER that I never saw a follow up story on the "Phoenix Lights".

http://www.cnn.com/US/9706/19/ufo.lights/

I was actually camping out in the Arizona desert while it happened (but no, I didn't see anything) and have not been able to sift out an answer that didn't sound like it was coming from a crazy person.

[xouper]

Darwin'sGoat: Hey while we've got a UFO thread, it's been bugging me FOREVER that I never saw a follow up story on the "Phoenix Lights".

http://www.cnn.com/US/9706/19/ufo.lights/

I was actually camping out in the Arizona desert while it happened (but no, I didn't see anything) and have not been able to sift out an answer that didn't sound like it was coming from a crazy person.I don't recall where or when, but I saw something on TV how a video expert super-imposed the skyline over the original nighttime video of the lights, and it was immediately obvious that the lights were drifting slowly downward and each light disappeared at exactly the point where they would go behind the mountains. This seems like compelling evidence that they were parachute flares over in the next valley. Sorry I don't have any cites or validations, but it might be enough of a clue as to what to go looking for.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by xouper
I don't recall where or when, but I saw something on TV how a video expert super-imposed the skyline over the original nighttime video of the lights, and it was immediately obvious that the lights were drifting slowly downward and each light disappeared at exactly the point where they would go behind the mountains. This seems like compelling evidence that they were parachute flares over in the next valley. Sorry I don't have any cites or validations, but it might be enough of a clue as to what to go looking for.

I remeber this as well. Like you, I don't remember the name of the show. :o

I'm tempted to say it was on the History Channel, but I'm probably wrong.

[CFLarsen]

This article touches on the subject of spotlights (http://www.skepticreport.com/mystics/crapcircles.htm)

Scroll down.

[SteveGrenard]

I don't know how many people tuned in, but if you did, you may've come to the conclusion that the lights seen in Rendlesham Forest on that night in 1980 could be attributed to a lighthouse in the area. One of the colonels interviewed said he saw the lights in the sky at the same time he saw the light from the lighthouse. Like any spotlight, couldn't a lighthouse throw images onto the background of a night sky?

I think that lighthouse and its capabilities to duplicate what was seen deserves more investigation.

[Hazelip]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Like any spotlight, couldn't a lighthouse throw images onto the background of a night sky? No, not sky. Against clouds or fog or mist, perhaps, but not sky.

[Lucianarchy]

"1. Early in the morning of 27 Dec 80 (approximately
0300L), two USAF security policemen saw unusual lights outside
the back gate at RAF Woodbridge. Thinking an aircraft might
have crashed or been forced down, they called for permission to
go outside the gate to investigate. The on-duty chief respond-
ed and allowed three patrolmen to proceed on foot. The indi-
viduals reported seeing a strange glowing object in the forest.
The object was described as being metallic in appearance and
triangular in shape, approximately two to three meters across
the base and approximately two meters high. It illuminated
the entire forest with a white light. The object itself had
a pulsing red light on top and a bank(s) of blue lights under-
neath. The object was hovering or on legs. As the patrolmen
approached the object, it maneuvered through the trees and
disappeared. At this time the animals on a nearby farm went
into a frenzy. The object was briefly sighted approximately
an hour later near the back gate.

2. The next day, three depressions 1 1/2" deep and 7"
in diameter were found where the object had been sighted on the
ground. The following night (29 Dec 80) the area was checked
for radiation. Beta/gamma readings of 0.1 milliroentgens were
recorded with peak readings in the three depressions and near
the center of the triangle foRAGRAPHS 2 AND 3.

(Signed)
Charles I. Halt, Lt. Col, USAF
Deputy Base Commander "

[Lucianarchy]

"Details of one of Britain's most famous UFO scares was among
information repeatedly suppressed by government defence chiefs,
according to a Westminster watchdog.

Parliamentary Ombudsman Ann Abraham said the Ministry of Defence
(MoD) had broken open government rules three times in recent months
over cases including the Rendlesham Forest UFO scare.

Details of the alleged sighting at an RAF base more than 20 years ago
were released last week after the Ombudsman ruled the MoD were
wrongly suppressing them.

The so-called 'Rendlesham File' details the sighting of a "glowing" triangular
object by US Air Force police in Rendlesham Forest, near RAF Woodbridge
in Suffolk.

The documents had only previously been made available to about 20 people
who used the American Freedom of Information Act to gain access to them.

In the early hours of 27 December 1980, a number of US Air Force men
witnessed the object hover in the darkness, transmitting blue pulsating lights
and sending nearby farm animals into a "frenzy".

In a report titled "Unexplained Lights", USAF Lt Col Charles I Halt, Deputy
Base Commander at RAF Bentwaters, adjacent to Woodbridge, told how he
witnessed an object emitting a "red sun-like light" moving through the trees.

"The Ministry of Defence is bedevilled by a culture of secrecy"
- Peter Kilfoyle, Former defence minister.

Sceptics say the witnesses were fooled by the beam from a lighthouse
on the nearby coast.

While the actual documents had not been released, the details were widely
known, the Ombudsman said in her report.

"Given their age and the fact that these documents contained no information
not already in the public domain, the Ombudsman saw no reason why they
could not be disclosed," the report said.

Complaints about the MoD's refusal to list countries prioritised for arms
sales or reveal details of an armed services survey were also upheld.

Former defence minister Peter Kilfoyle said the examples outlined in the
report on the Ombudsman's work between May and October were symptomatic
of a "culture of secrecy" in the MoD.

Veil of secrecy

"It is one of those departments that have always opposed freedom of information
and are not very attuned to what is required in a modern, open and accountable
government," he said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2537115.stm

[LTC8K6]

Yes, Col. Halt had the beta window open on his AN/PDR-27's large probe, thus rendering his radiation readings worthless.

With the beta window open, that meter can only indicate the prescence of beta radiation, it cannot give an accurate reading of the amount. That is, you cannot read from the scale and say, "there was a reading of X milliroentgens" when you have the beta window open. You can only say that the meter indicated the presence of beta radiation.

He also had the meter on the lowest scale.

He was just getting background, which you will always get in that situation.

Having worked with many of these meters for the U.S. Army, I can tell you with confidence that you can dismiss any radiation readings at this incident from Col. Halt.

When I heard them say that the beta window was open on the audio tape, I could not believe they had done that and were claiming the readings meant anything.

[Bentspoon]

I have family in Phoenix and I know the area very well having grown up in the city. The lights were indeed floating down and a big deal was made about the fact that they flashed out one by one in an "intelligent" manner. In fact this is where the superimposing came in. If you superimpose a day time picture of the film from the same location, it is obvious that the lights switching off was really them disappearing behind South Mountain which would put them somewhere around Gila Bend. Of course, this is vast desert and near the west tip of the South Mountain range is an ........... AIR FORCE base. Great place to train and, in fact, at that time the the national Guard from, I think, Georgia was visiting for night time maneuvers - they were dropping flares.

It took the Air Force a week to say that. In the meantime, the legend grew significantly in only a week. They are obviously flares yet the story won't die.

As far as Rendleshem, well, it is now so legendary, it makes no sense to pay attention to that. It is one thing to examine a set of facts but what are the facts here? You have at least 25 different stories ranging form very plausible events to the stuff Lucianarchy posted. What is even releveant?

I have seen a meteor flash across the sky and explode and the descriptions of molten stuff sloughing off remind me of that sight. It is rather spectacular. Also, I am not amazed that a lighthouse and fog would produced very unusual effects.

I think Rendleshem is just an example of how quickly legend can grow and live upon itself.

Bentspoon

[Stumpy]

An American airman has admitted to hoaxing this, there was a documentary on this a few years ago showing how he did it:


http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/east/series3/rendlesham_ufos.shtml

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/suffolk/3033428.stm


Stumpy

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Ohrryp
Please, let's not scoff at the world-renowned UFO expert, Bryant Gumbel.

Would you have been satisfied with any host? :)

[SteveGrenard]

Imagine my horror when I visited the BBC websites that stumpy was kind enough to post, and then surfing the side links,found buried in the MOD one, the following statement. I am really sorry I plagiarized my own opinion regarding the lighthouse as the source of the lights. Therefore, because I do not want to be gulity of being accused of strealing this opinion from the BBC, I reprint below their statement as well as the website from which it came. We must all be very vigilant never to say anything which we find out afterwards has been previously said elsewhere without correctly attributing this previously unknown opinion and updating our own opinions to reflect that. Would this be a requirement under Rule #4 or not?




"Sceptics say the witnesses were fooled by the beam from a lighthouse on the nearby coast."

from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2537115.stm

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Imagine my horror when I visited the BBC websites that stumpy was kind enough to post, and then surfing the side links,found buried in the the MOD one, the following statement. I am really sorry I plagiarized my own opinion regarding the lighthouse as the source of the lights. Therefore because I do not want to be gulity of being accused of strealing this opinion from the BBC, I reprint below their statement as well as the website from which it came. We must all be very vigilant never to say anything which we find out afterwards has been previously said esewhere without correctly attributing this previously unknown opinion and updating our own opinions to reflect that. Would this be a requirement under Rule #4 or not?

Imagine the horror, indeed....

Nobody is complaining about you saying things that have been said by others.

It's your repeated violation of copyright rules that is pointed out. It is your blatant plagiarism that is at issue. It is the fact that you steal the works of others and present them as your own that people are complaining about.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Stumpy


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/suffolk/3033428.stm


Stumpy

US Air Force Sergeant John Burroughs said: "The blue lights coming down from the sky... I still have never heard of any technology capable of doing what I saw happening."

"The original stuff we saw cannot be taken for a police car. There's no way possible."

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
US Air Force Sergeant John Burroughs said: "The blue lights coming down from the sky... I still have never heard of any technology capable of doing what I saw happening."

"The original stuff we saw cannot be taken for a police car. There's no way possible."

No offense to the flyboys, Lucianarchy, but a USAF sergeant is hardly an authority on technology...

Sure it's possible.

[kittynh]

well I would say the biggest boo boo is the dog that didn't bark in the night...

meaning that no one SAW the lighthouse light that night. It was certainly working, and would have been VERY obvious to anyone there at the site. No one said, "I saw these strange lights, oh yeah and then there was the beam from the lighthouse too." or "well, apart from the light house light there was this strange light we didn't know what it was."

Did the UFO turn off the lighthouse light?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by kittynh
well I would say the biggest boo boo is the dog that didn't bark in the night...

Good observation!

Dogs (and cats, to the extent that does not involve the disturbance of their 18-hour nap, and the endangering of their supply of food and cuddles) are far better than us humans to detect "things". They hear better, they see better, they smell better.

Well, they have better "noses". A wet dog smells terribly! :)

Originally posted by kittynh
Did the UFO turn off the lighthouse light?

Like the cars that are turned off by passing UFOs? Good question.

[Stereolab]

Originally posted by Bentspoon

It took the Air Force a week to say that. In the meantime, the legend grew significantly in only a week. They are obviously flares yet the story won't die.

I remember a story in USA Today about this. It had a map of Arizona, and showed the path/timeline of how the calls to police were coming in. Apparently the calls started coming in at one side of the state, and then some time later the path had gotten to the other side (south to north I think)? Would flares account for this? Were they just dropping a lot of flares?

I've always been intrigued by the Phoenix story, but I've never really thought it was a UFO. I figured it was a new and classified military aircraft. (The Stealth Bomber started flying around ten years before it was declassified.)

[hammegk]

Originally posted by kittynh
well I would say the biggest boo boo is the dog that didn't bark in the night...

meaning that no one SAW the lighthouse light that night. It was certainly working, and would have been VERY obvious to anyone there at the site. No one said, "I saw these strange lights, oh yeah and then there was the beam from the lighthouse too." or "well, apart from the light house light there was this strange light we didn't know what it was."

Did the UFO turn off the lighthouse light?

IIRC, the Lt Colonel stated that he saw the both the lighthouse light and the other lights.

The Sgt did not make that claim. His claim was that he touched the craft and it felt glassy rather than metallic.

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

If skeptics say this type of thing isn't real then it isn't because skeptics are supported by science and woo-woos are supported by delusions! Skeptics are too rational to be wrong!

[Stereolab]

Hey Rational! I like you. I think.

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Originally posted by Stereolab
Hey Rational! I like you. I think.

That is very rational of you!

[Darwin'sGoat]

Originally posted by Stereolab
I remember a story in USA Today about this. It had a map of Arizona, and showed the path/timeline of how the calls to police were coming in. Apparently the calls started coming in at one side of the state, and then some time later the path had gotten to the other side (south to north I think)? Would flares account for this? Were they just dropping a lot of flares?

I've always been intrigued by the Phoenix story, but I've never really thought it was a UFO. I figured it was a new and classified military aircraft. (The Stealth Bomber started flying around ten years before it was declassified.)

The thing that really threw off the warning lights in my head was the fact that only AFTER a million people in Phoenix noticed them and documented the hell out of it with a couple thousand pictures and video clips, only THEN did the other stories start creeping in. Tracing the "flight path" back across Arizona, to the Superstitions, and then further east, with more and more people coming forward saying that they saw it, and how there were people on board, with not a shred of photographic proof, just drawings they did of the ship and the happy waving big headed aliens on board. And then how our stunning media just dropped the story and never bothered to tell anyone that it was fake.

[Stereolab]

Originally posted by Darwin'sGoat


The thing that really threw off the warning lights in my head was the fact that only AFTER a million people in Phoenix noticed them and documented the hell out of it with a couple thousand pictures and video clips, only THEN did the other stories start creeping in. Tracing the "flight path" back across Arizona, to the Superstitions, and then further east, with more and more people coming forward saying that they saw it, and how there were people on board, with not a shred of photographic proof, just drawings they did of the ship and the happy waving big headed aliens on board. And then how our stunning media just dropped the story and never bothered to tell anyone that it was fake.

I don't know. I seem to remember that the flight path was traced through actual phone call times to local police departments...not based on what people came forward and said days later. I might have the paper up in my attic...I save that kind of stuff.

[CFLarsen]

"Once news coverage leads the public to believe that UFOs may be in the vicinity, there are numerous natural and man-made objects which, especially when seen at night, can take on unusual characteristics in the minds of hopeful viewers. Their UFO reports in turn add to the mass excitement, which encourages still more observers to watch for UFOs. This situation feeds upon itself until such time as the media lose interest in the subject, and then the "flap" quickly runs out of steam."
Phillip Klass' UFOlogical principle 6 (http://www.skepticreport.com/tools/klass10ufo.htm)

[kittynh]

wasn't there a time when Mr.Randi appeared on a radio show (as a UFO expert) and said he had seen a UFO on the way to the station. The station was then flooded with calls from other people who had also seen the UFO.

[Blondin]

Originally posted by !Xx+-Rational-+xX!
If skeptics say this type of thing isn't real then it isn't because skeptics are supported by science and woo-woos are supported by delusions! Skeptics are too rational to be wrong!
That frood really knows where his towel is!

[Ersby]

Originally posted by Blondin

That frood really knows where his towel is!


I get weirder things than him with my cornflakes.

[Iamme]

Hi Ersby.

Does anyone know if the show is airing again tonight? Either it was going to last night...or tonight.

[bjornart]

Originally posted by !Xx+-Rational-+xX!


That is very rational of you!

"liking" is an emotion, emotions are irrational, you are a doofus

(These items do not necessarily follow one from the other, and they are not necessarily true, they are, nevertheless, amusing. :D

And now back to the flying saucers.)