|
Post by observer on Jul 28, 2012 9:08:43 GMT -5
Hi snapper Would you care to elaborate on your comment that the 'answer' lies elsewhere. Reason I ask is because I have always believed that the RFI mystery [if it actually is a mystery] was an event or several events over 3 nights and not necessarily related with the answers lying some out side the forest and possibly twin bases.
I suggested a long time ago on the old forum to look around the edge of the incidents or even further out than that rather than looking headlong at the centre of the incident which seems what every one does. There are clues lying elsewhere and probably staring you in the face. A bit of sideways thinking and out of the box is the best approach. Observer
|
|
|
Post by snapper on Jul 28, 2012 11:45:22 GMT -5
Hi Observer
Nothing to add to be honest other than the RFI as it currently stands - lighthouse, memo, witnesses, binary code, blah, blah, blah has been done to death. USAF jurisdiction ended at the wire so they had to have permission to go off base. That means someone must have requested that permission and someone else must have granted it. If it was only 'odd lights' the local police would have dealt with it. So it had to be something more. And if they were only looking for the source of 'odd lights', then why the need for a Geiger counter?
Obviously the witnesses haven't a clue - no more than any of us - as to what was really going on. Thus the fact they were there is somewhat irrelevant but what they can provide though, is valuable insight into the way the USAF worked back then.
Even allowing for the extremes of behaviour our US cousins are sometimes known for, to be granted permission to go off base in numbers in the middle of a night when most people, including the USAF, would be partying, smacks of something serious. And given the USAF were (as far as we know at least) the only ones involved in the 'investigation', then it had to be something they knew about....or only they could deal with.
Therefore whatever happened - and something had to have happened or why did they go off base - was beyond lighthouses, aliens, binary code, odd lights and strange night-time excursions by senior officers. To my suspicious mind all of that is utter tosh and is being perpetuated by goodness knows who to ensure eyes are kept off the ball. The RFI as we know it reeks of both bullshit by the bucket load and diversionary tactics
I have no particular theory nor am I a conspiracy theorist. I am simply a realist who doesn't believe everything I'm told - especially when it comes to what the MoD or DoD claim. Just because someone says they saw 'odd lights' doesn't mean they actually did - it can mean they were told to say that.
|
|
|
Post by observer on Aug 3, 2012 11:26:32 GMT -5
Snapper
Have you considered that the RFI could have been a 'Black Op' and the British were in on it. This has been suggested by a couple of well known American UFO commentators, not to mention a few Brits as well. The Christmas holidays were deliberately chosen because all aircraft were grounded.
Obs
|
|
|
Post by snapper on May 11, 2013 15:22:53 GMT -5
I thought this forum had died our ages ago...... !! Good to see it's still up and running.
|
|
|
Post by observer on May 12, 2013 2:40:45 GMT -5
Hi snapper Yes, its good to see this forum is still open and available for those who wish to continue investigating the Rendlesham Forest Incident. I'm not sure there is much left to research, but any new ideas would be good. It would be great if some of the old forum members could join us.
Obs
|
|
|
Post by epl442 on Oct 9, 2013 10:38:27 GMT -5
May i ask ian,or his representer - How was the Lighthouse responsible for the Lowestoft/pakefield & southwold sightings? You cannot see the Lowestoft Lighthouse in Lowestoft let alone one FIFTY MILES AWAY! 9 good witness sightings that havent been made into a crappy video,uploaded to uchoob or tried 2 get on the lecture circuit,9 normal people left out of ALL books on this case so far (by choice it has to be pointed out) there are hundreds more who havent come forward,i personally know 2 people who saw what they described as a "pyramid tumbling anti clockwise" passing over pakefield,carlton colville,kessingland.southwold-b4 literally hugging the coast for the rest of the journey (where witness 6 comes in he was fishing- long lining for cod )They did NOT see a lighthouse-they saw something incredible -But a fisherman who talks in suffolk "boy" talk doesnt sell videos or books does it.Id like to know how this was a lighthouse please? this i HAVE TO HEAR. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by Elian Gonzalez on May 1, 2014 21:08:03 GMT -5
I await a better, more logical, more well thought out, cogent explanation that explains the case in in the context of it's entirety, impartially. Translation: "I want someone to confirm what I already believe." UFO folks keep complaining that journalists should take this seriously and here we have someone who did and has several write ups on it. But because the conclusion is not what it desired, here comes the stock and trade (and so very played out) tactic of claiming to wait for a "real journalist" or someone who is impartial. It's of the same vein as right-wingers who bib-dribble against "so-called scientists" who say things about climate change and are therefore dishonest and impartial. But that's fundamentalism for you: inept, intolerant and deeply angry over all that eerie silence.
|
|
|
Post by observer on May 21, 2014 8:47:21 GMT -5
Hi Elian
Thanks for an interesting and honest post. What are you beliefs? There are now too many conspiricy theories attached to the RFI that its almost impossible to sort out fact from fiction.
Obs
|
|
|
Post by galileoslovechild on Dec 18, 2014 19:54:20 GMT -5
Mr. Ridpath, your ability to miss the point is truly impressive. It doesn't matter whether or not the lighthouse beam was visible in the forest. The point is that what Halt saw and describes on the tape could not be the lighthouse beam: he plainly says that a beam of light came down to the ground, which means it was coming from above. The lighthouse could not have been floating overhead in the sky. Halt also describes a fairly large glowing ball of light that was floating around in the field and winking, first dripping some kind of substance looking like molten metal, and later splitting up into multiple parts and scattering away. How could this be the lighthouse beam - with all your glorious research, surely you know the lighthouse looks like little more than a single, small point of light from there. And many other witnesses clearly state that there were multiple lights in the sky, not just one. So the lighthouse hypothesis does not correspond to the phenomena described on Halt's tape. If you are such a brilliant scientific mind, surely you know that you haven't solved the problem when your hypothesis does not even begin to explain the observed phenomena.
|
|
|
Post by schenkerflyingv on Mar 7, 2016 8:22:47 GMT -5
I'm new to this site, and recently became interested in the whole RF incident. Having read most of the books that are out there, and watched hours of Youtube interviews etc., I have come to the conclusion that Larry Warren is 100% the real deal. I think other personnel involved maybe putting out disinformation under duress of some description. My main point is this: Why did no one see strange lights in the forest before or after this famous incident? How come there wasn't a 4th, 5th or 6th night etc? I look forward to visiting RAF Bentwaters museum and Rendlesham Forest over the August bank holiday 2016.
|
|
|
Post by puddlepirate on Oct 25, 2016 13:06:14 GMT -5
Hello all. I'm new to this forum but used to participate in a previous, now defunct, RFI forum. Is the RFI dead? Well, to be honest I think it is. It's dead and buried and has been for ages. I've been researching the RFI for years, have visited the forest many times, also Orford Ness. I've watched the Orfordness lighthouse from the quay at Orford. I've made trips to the forest in the daytime and at night, toured Bentwaters, photographed (external only) Bawdsey, searched records at the National Archives at Kew and the newspaper library at the British Library close to St Pancras station, London. I was at the 30th Anniversary 'conference' at Woodbridge in 2010. When I worked for BT I visited Martlesham. I've listened to the Halt tape, viewed umpteen documentaries and once I even spoke to John Burroughs on the phone. My best mate whom I've known since we were kids, was the head PSA electrician at the twin bases at the time of the event. From all of that, I've learned absolutely nothing apart from one thing - that even when standing on Orford quay the light from the lighthouse is, or rather was - the lighthouse has since been decommissioned - a tiny speck of light in the distance, so small in fact I had to check with a local boatman to confirm that what I was looking at was indeed the light from the lighthouse. The RFI has become a farce; a circus bandwagon overloaded with nonsense, fantasists, and those seeking to make a fast buck from the silliness.
However, one undeniable fact remains. If nothing at all happened then why was Penniston authorised by CSC to take a squad comprising himself, Burroughs and Cabansag off base to investigate and why did they submit witness statements (on scraps of paper? Only Penniston used the official AF form - that's odd in itself given the statements were deemed to be official documents authored by trained Law Enforcement officers). Why did Halt lead a similar squad off base the following night and why did Warren report a convoy of vehicles and a road block? Yes, the RFI per se is dead, long dead. But what is not dead is the true cause of this activity. One thing is for sure, not even the USAF are daft enough to go traipsing around a foreign forest in the dead of night during the Christmas holiday looking for odd lights. A landed UFO is out; the lighthouse is out; so what do we have left? A cache of illegal drugs found in the forest, perhaps? An accident with a weapon maybe? But if it was a weapon then it was most definitely not a nuke. The USAF had a bit of previous regarding accidents with nukes and confessed to such accidents. Therefore if, and I stress IF, it was a weapon there had to be something about that weapon the USAF did not want to reveal - not then, not today, not ever. The same has to be said of incidents related to illegal drugs. They would not want the local population nor anyone else, least of all the media or HMG, to know there was a problem with personnel using illegal substances at a base where nuclear weapons were stored. As Sherlock Holmes once said 'when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable must be the truth'.
|
|
|
Post by puddlepirate on Oct 25, 2016 17:53:01 GMT -5
With reference to comments in my previous post this makes for interesting reading. It is a report on drugs misuse in the US military. Focusing mostly on Vietnam where drugs abuse was high (82% of those interviewed stated they used drugs to relieve boredom - see page 208) it also provides similar information of the same problem within Soviet forces in Afghanistan and among the Mujahideen. Start at page 196 then scroll down. To open the document simply cut and past the link into your browser address field. books.google.co.uk/books?id=NAVCCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA211&dq=peak+year+for+drugs+abuse+in+the+us+military&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiW0ebv8vbPAhUrAcAKHdivDEIQ6AEIVzAJ#v=onepage&q=peak%20year%20for%20drugs%20abuse%20in%20the%20us%20military&f=falseIf, and again I stress IF, drugs were the problem then the last thing the USAF would want the Soviets to know at the height of the Cold War was that USAF personnel guarding nuclear weapons in East Anglia were high as kites when on duty. Soviet agents were known to be active in East Anglia at the time of the RFI so if drugs were the problem they might have had a hand in supplying the drugs. In the early 1980s most of the heroin seized by UK Customs was from northern Afghanistan / northwest Pakistan (page 229). Later in the 80s large shipments were arriving by Soviet ship at Rotterdam (heroin) and London (hashish). Perhaps in the late 70s/early 80s similar cargoes were slipping through the net at Ipswich or further south at Rowhedge, nr Colchester. Circa 1981/2 I visited a small cargo ship at Rowhedge. I arrived alongside early on a weekday evening. There was no customs and no security. I simply drove down a country lane to the waterfront, parked alongside the ship (Svanur - an Icelandic flagged vessel), went on board to meet my brother who was the first mate. Soon after he, the captain, myself and a couple of the crew went ashore to a local Greek restaurant then to a pub and afterwards a disco. I asked my brother if they had been searched by Customs before docking. He said he'd not seen any customs officers for years. They had always docked at Grimsby, Rowhedge, Shoreham and other small UK/EU ports without any hindrance whatsoever (Shoreham is now fenced off, not sure about the other two). Therefore in 1979/80 it would have been perfectly feasible for a small Soviet ship to do the same. Someone from the ship could bring a package ashore, meet someone else in a pub or wherever and hey presto - another shipment arrives to be sold to those who want it. It has been alleged that boredom was a factor at the twin bases, and several of those serving at the twin bases were Vietnam vets so (from information in the document) might have been familiar with the use of illicit pharmaceuticals to relieve boredom. Odd lights, my arse! Burroughs did see odd lights from his patrol car - no reason to doubt that - but what did Penniston, Burroughs and Cabansag inadvertently stumble across when they went off base to investigate? And did what they stumble across require them to submit statements to initiate a cover story? Was that why they used scraps of paper? By not using the official AF form Burroughs and Cabansag could later claim they were not official statements, only notes hurriedly made from memory. Penniston on the other hand, being OIC of the squad, had to use the official form but perhaps the content, although based partly on the truth, was dictated. All good cover stories are built on a truth and let's face it, the creation of the RFI was and still is, one of the best. Nothing leaked out for two years and by concocting a story about a UFO landing in the forest, it has kept the world looking the other way ever since. Of course, none of this is anything more than pure speculation on my part. I don't know any more than anyone else does, after all I wasn't there.
|
|
|
Post by observer on Oct 26, 2016 2:58:45 GMT -5
Hello all. I'm new to this forum but used to participate in a previous, now defunct, RFI forum. Is the RFI dead? Well, to be honest I think it is. It's dead and buried and has been for ages. I've been researching the RFI for years, have visited the forest many times, also Orford Ness. I've watched the Orfordness lighthouse from the quay at Orford. I've made trips to the forest in the daytime and at night, toured Bentwaters, photographed (external only) Bawdsey, searched records at the National Archives at Kew and the newspaper library at the British Library close to St Pancras station, London. I was at the 30th Anniversary 'conference' at Woodbridge in 2010. When I worked for BT I visited Martlesham. I've listened to the Halt tape, viewed umpteen documentaries and once I even spoke to John Burroughs on the phone. My best mate whom I've known since we were kids, was the head PSA electrician at the twin bases at the time of the event. From all of that, I've learned absolutely nothing apart from one thing - that even when standing on Orford quay the light from the lighthouse is, or rather was - the lighthouse has since been decommissioned - a tiny speck of light in the distance, so small in fact I had to check with a local boatman to confirm that what I was looking at was indeed the light from the lighthouse. The RFI has become a farce; a circus bandwagon overloaded with nonsense, fantasists, and those seeking to make a fast buck from the silliness. However, one undeniable fact remains. If nothing at all happened then why was Penniston authorised by CSC to take a squad comprising himself, Burroughs and Cabansag off base to investigate and why did they submit witness statements (on scraps of paper? Only Penniston used the official AF form - that's odd in itself given the statements were deemed to be official documents authored by trained Law Enforcement officers). Why did Halt lead a similar squad off base the following night and why did Warren report a convoy of vehicles and a road block? Yes, the RFI per se is dead, long dead. But what is not dead is the true cause of this activity. One thing is for sure, not even the USAF are daft enough to go traipsing around a foreign forest in the dead of night during the Christmas holiday looking for odd lights. A landed UFO is out; the lighthouse is out; so what do we have left? A cache of illegal drugs found in the forest, perhaps? An accident with a weapon maybe? But if it was a weapon then it was most definitely not a nuke. The USAF had a bit of previous regarding accidents with nukes and confessed to such accidents. Therefore if, and I stress IF, it was a weapon there had to be something about that weapon the USAF did not want to reveal - not then, not today, not ever. The same has to be said of incidents related to illegal drugs. They would not want the local population nor anyone else, least of all the media or HMG, to know there was a problem with personnel using illegal substances at a base where nuclear weapons were stored. As Sherlock Holmes once said 'when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable must be the truth'.
|
|
|
Post by observer on Oct 26, 2016 3:27:20 GMT -5
Hi puddlepirate, welcome and thanks for an interesting post. Drug issues at the twin bases kept flagging up over the course of many years research that I and yourself have been doing. Its a known fact that there were some serious issues with drugs and even the Suffolk Police were concerned that the problem was spilling over into the local community. It has been suggested the drugs played a part in compromising security both on the airfield boundaries and at the WSA's of both bases. However, equally puzzling is where the drugs were sourced, One retired airman told me that most were flown in from the USA in secret on C-141 and C-5 transports.
For those who have done there research, its known only Bentwaters had Nuclear weapons, there was no HOT ROW system installed at RAF Woodbridge for NW stockpiling. If a NW had fallen in the forest from an aircraft on finals approach to the airfield it would not have been an A-10 as they were not nuclear capable, so it could have been an unscheduled landing, may be an emergency landing possibly by an F-111. One did crash land at Woodbridge but not over Christmas 1980. Now to add to the confusion, 1980 was at the height of the cold war and both sides had their spies on the ground so to speak. Skoda Cars at that time had their docking and import business in Kings Lynn Norfolk, but I will leave it there for the moment, another post later
|
|
|
Post by puddlepirate on Oct 26, 2016 4:02:57 GMT -5
Hi Observer. My two earlier posts have appeared out of sequence. The drugs, if idrugs lie at the root of the RFI, would have come in via a small Soviet ship docking at Ipswich or similar small port. Soviet agents were active in the area so coukd easily have gone on board to collect a package. Believe it not many small ports had no security. Anyone could simply drive in and park alongside the ship. I understand there was a Skoda car importers in East Anglia perhapds various consignemts could have been offloaded hidden in the cars, not only drugs but other items required by Soviet agents. In the 1950s/early 60s Volkswagen cars were shipped from Bremen to Ramsgate to be offloaded. As a kid on holiday I used to watch the cars coming off the ship. This was in the days before Ro-Ro. They were lifted off by crane and driven to a car park. There was never any sign of customs nor any other official. Getting back to the RFI there might even have been a concerted effort by the Soviets to sell drugs to US airmen at the bases. It was not a landed UFO, it was not the lighthouse nor was it a crashed aircraft. Had it been an accident with a nuke , we'd have been told so it wasn't that. Official documents, newspaper reports, local rumour all point towards something related to drugs - and the last thing the USAF would want anyone to know, especially not the Soviets, at the height of the Cold War was that USAF personnel guarding nuclear weapons, flying armed fighter aircraft etc had a problem with drugs abuse. Personally, and this is only a personal opinion, the answer has been staring us in the face all along but UFOs make a great cover story.
|
|