UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2001 > Nov > Nov 4

Re: Rendlesham Radiation - Easton

From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2001 03:47:24 -0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2001 11:17:29 -0500
Subject: Re: Rendlesham Radiation - Easton


Regarding:

 >From: Joe McGonagle <joem_cgonagle@yahoo.com>
 >Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 14:21:13 +0100
 >Fwd Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 22:02:06 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Rendlesham Radiation - McGonagle

Joe wrote:

 >>On the 'point five scale', it's obviously impossible to obtain
 >>a reading greater than 0.5 mR/h. This has been substantiated.

 >>That could only have occurred if the AN/PDR-27 setting was 'X10
 >>- >between 0-5 milliroentgens', or higher.

 >>However, Halt confirms they were utilising, as we would expect,
 >>the most sensitive setting.

 >>Consequently, the 'minor clicks' and levels of 'up to seven
 >>clicks' etc. which were being observed on the 'point five
 >>scale' must have been between 0.05 and 0.07 mR/h.

 >I agree with all of this, but the issue really is (to my way of
 >thinking), that the readings can't be compared to the background
 >readings because of doubt concering how the readings were taken.

Joe,

You are of course absolutely correct that those 'radiation
readings' were comprehensively unreliable in the first place.

However, although that's now established, they did find their
way into Halt's memo to the Ministry of Defence, where it's now
evident he mistakenly reported the "peak readings" as ten times
higher than had actually been recorded.

Halt's claim subsequently led to Nick Pope, who believed it to
be accurate, proclaiming this was the most significant basis for
Britain's 'Roswell' having involved a 'UFO' - aka 'alien
spaceship' - landing.

As Ian Ridpath wrote: "In his book 'Open Skies, Closed Minds',
Nick Pope described the radiation readings as 'the most tangible
proof that something extraordinary happened there'. Hence it is
essential that the readings are shown to be beyond reproach".

Reiterating his conclusions, on 23rd May 1998, Pope participated
in a 'United Kingdom UFO Network' IRC [Internet relay chat] and
when asked, "What in your opinion is the most credible of all UK
ufo related cases and why?", replied: "I'd say it was the
Rendlesham Forest incident, and it's the radiation readings that
clinched it for me. I checked them out with the Defence
Radiological Protection Service, who told me they were ten times
normal for the area".

The facts we're now aware of have further confirmed a number of
issues in their true perspective.

 >According to the report that I have from NRPB, Appendix A is a
 >copy of the "Guidance for surveyors". Point (10) in the section
 >headed "Notes on measurement procedures" states explicitly:

 >"Do not measure in densely wooded areas".

This is surely a somewhat devastating discovery and realisation
for 'UFO radiation' proponents.


Also:

 >From: Joe McGonagle <joem_cgonagle@yahoo.com>
 >Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 00:13:49 +0100
 >Fwd Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 03:45:13 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Rendlesham Radiation - McGonagle

 >>Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 16:49:27+0100
 >>From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Rendlesham Radiation

 >Like Roswell, I am convinced that something took place, but I
 >don't know what.
 >
 >One excellent hypothesis is that it was a re-entry of a KH-9
 >film cannister.

The KH-9 [KH7?] theory is an interesting possibility and for
those not familiar with this background, see:

http://dialspace.dial.pipex.com/town/close/kca07/refint.htm

However, I've discussed the scenario with a number of
contemporary, December 1980 base personnel who were involved
with the 67th Aerospace Rescue and Recovery Squadron [ARRS] and
they have refuted any connection. There were statedly no
helicopters from the 67th ARRS in operation during our late
December 1980 'UFO' incidents.

Indeed, Halt commented on this during one of those pivotal 1997
'on-line' interviews with Salley Rayl:

RAYL: Okay. Another question from Nels. "What type of aircraft
were at the base at that time and were there any in the air at
that time?"

HALT: Yes.

RAYL: ...In other words...

HALT: There were approximately 120 to 125 A-10s. There were I'm
trying to think, about 12, 14 C-130s, several H-3s it was in a
rescue squadron, plus the A-10 squadrons. The A-10 squadrons
were done for the holidays. Not flying, doing any night flying.
The rescue squadron was done. In fact, the rescue commander at
that time, a good personal friend of mine, really chastised me
for not calling him immediately, cause he said I could have
gotten a chopper in the air within an hour or two. I kind of
don't believe that because, you know, you'd have trouble finding
a crew and get one free-flighted, but there was no aircraft
activity. In fact, the tower at Woodbridge was down.

RAYL: Well, it was Christmas time, too.

HALT: Yeah. It was Christmas time. In fact, the tower at
Bentwaters was manned only for an emergency. In other words,
there was a standby crew up there, but it was not active.

RAYL: So, there were no jets, helicopters or any other aircraft,
American aircraft, that were scrambled at that time.

HALT: There were none that were scrambled from Bentwaters, and I
knew of nothing in the air at that time.
[END]


It was pointed out to myself by Chuck Dalldorf:

I was an aircraft maintenance technician with the 81st TFW
working on A-10A and prior to that F-4D's during my tour which
lasted from December 1977 through July 1981. I had also been
assigned several times to the 67th ARRS on temporary duty to
work on both the HC-130N/P's and the HH-53's as well.

[...]

There were no alerts anytime during the week between Christmas,
1980 and New Years Day 1981 at RAF Bentwaters or RAF Woodbridge.
No alerts for the 81st Tactical Fighter Wing (A-10A) or for the
67th ARRS (HC-130 and HH-53).

As a matter of fact, traditionally we had always been able to
get a few extra, non-leave days off over the holiday week, at
least in aircraft maintenance. We would split the time off
between the married people who generally wanted the period
including Christmas off to be with family, and then the single
GI's who generally wanted the period including New Years off. I
don't have a 1980 calendar available, however, depending on when
Christmas Day and New Years Day fell, it would have been
something like this:

Let's say Christmas Day and New Years Day fell on a Saturday.
People who wanted to be off for Christmas would start their
unofficial vacation on Friday morning and be off with no
obligation through to the following Wednesday morning (coming
back to work that day). People opting for New Years would then
take Wednesday through to the following Monday off (coming back
to work that Monday morning). While you were off, you were not
on call and had no obligations. Unless the base was called on
alert, then all deals were off and everyone reports.

There was a trip that I helped run with my landlord, Joe Haninia
of Woodbridge Town who ran a travel service for the base called
Big Ben Travel. The trip went from RAF Bentwaters to Edinburgh
to celebrate Hogmanay in Scotland. We left the base and were not
recalled. There were 28 people on the trip from both the 81st
TFW and the 67th ARRS.

The week I worked I was at the RAF Woodbridge shop and it was a
very quiet week. Some delayed maintenance (there were few if any
flying hours going on). It was a good time to take care of
paperwork, make sure there was training going on, etc. I was an
E-5, Staff Sgt. at the time.
[END]


Aside from anything else, a recovered film capsule hypothesis
doesn't equate with what was the essence of those 'UFO'
perceptions.

Comparative 'sightings' occurred over three nights/early
mornings and in the same vicinity - which might just be a clue
to their origins.

We know about those documented incidents in the early hours of
26th December [Burroughs, Cabansag and Penniston] and the
night/morning of 27/28 December [Halt and co.], however, there
has been some disagreement about whether we had an 'intervening'
night.

In 'Left at East Gate', Larry Warren claimed that there was and
Halt disputed this.

I conclude that Warren is correct - we should of course expect
further sightings if the 'UFO' had a mundane, local origin - and
in recent discussions John Burroughs noted, "they had a incident
on the night of the 26th".

Consequently, it doesn't seem likely that we're dealing with any
67th ARRS operations in search of reconnaissance data.

What seems crucial and may have been a catalyst for all which
transpired is that documented astronomical occurrence - the
'fireball' which would have apparently been visible from East
Anglia and is timed at 2:50 a.m. on the morning of 26 December.

Confirmed in those early January 1981 statements requested by
Halt [he explained the delay in obtaining same was due to the
holiday period], we find how at almost the exact same time, -
"at around 0300" [Burroughs] or "at approx. 0300 hours, 26
December 1980" [Chandler], or "at approximately 0300 hrs, 26
December 1980" [Buran], the 'UFO' sightings were first observed.

In search of a 'UFO', we can perhaps surmise what the 'strange
lights' were that everyone - Burroughs, Cabansag, Penniston,
Halt et al - found to be in the direction of Orfordness [Orford
Ness] lighthouse, plus the nearby and similar Shipwash lightship
and why Halt ultimately discovered and recorded on his
microcassette [thought never mentions] the 'UFO' was found to be
"clear off to the coast" and "right on the horizon".

Perhaps worth keeping in mind Chris Armold's insight:

EASTON: Significantly, in July 1997, you mentioned there were
'some strange lights' in the distance, whose origin could not be
determined. Can you recall what those lights looked like -
indeed, anything about them at all - colour, size, whether they
were flashing or moved, etc.

ARMOLD: Yes, there were what we initially interpreted as
'strange lights' and in my opinion and 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.

After it was discovered that a lighthouse was out there the
'strangeness' of the lights evaporated.
[END]

The full interview with Armold can be read at:

http://www.rendlesham.com/v15.txt


How familiar were those coastal lights, deceptive as viewed from
within the forest and appearing to be at eye-level...

Burroughs was asked to reconcile the admission in those
statements - that Cabansag, Penniston and himself pursued an
unfamiliar light source for _two miles_ in the darkness, before,
as he wrote: "Once we reached the farmer's house we could see a
beacon going around so we went towards it. We followed it for
about 2 miles before we could see it was coming from a
lighthouse".

He acknowledged to myself - and in absolute contradiction to
what he had previously told Jenny Randles - "As far as the part
about Penniston saying he examined it [the 'UFO' - James] at his
leisure i beleive that came out when he went under hypnotic
regression. As far as the lighthouse goes the statement's that
everybody made such a big deal about were first made available
by Col Holt [sic] during the filming of unsolved mys and if you
stop and think about it nobody asked us if we ever followed the
lighthouse beam. What i mean by that is we did follow a light
not knowing what it was...and wanted to see what the flashing
light in the distance was".

There's more to Burrough's story than this, to be published in
due course. However, it's now proven that the lighthouse and
lightship were not, contrary to some assertions - notably
excluding Chris Armold's - familiar local landmarks when
'encountered' within Rendlesham forest.

If you were looking for 'UFOs', it was an extraordinary
environment where evidently you would find them on any one, or
more, nights.


Joe, thank you for the most informative and helpful resolution
of this associated 'ten times background radiation', as now also
seen in a factual 'best UFO evidence ever' context.


James Easton

E-mail: voyager@ufoworld.co.uk
www.ufoworld.co.uk




[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com