Page facilities

• View/Add comments about this article/subject in the forum: click here
• Link to this page: right click here, choose 'Copy Shortcut'
• Skip to places in this page: [The UFOs' descriptions] [What the witnesses say]
  [The witness statements] [The lighthouse's flash] [Radiation readings]
  [Tree damage] [Landing marks] [Radar tracking - just a rumour?]
• View photographs related to this page: [Click here]

Introduction
A few years after the incident, Vince Thurkettle - a local forester - was briefly questioned by a television crew following the News of The World's front-page story on Rendlesham claiming that a UFO had landed in Suffolk and had been confronted by men from a nearby USAF base.

Vince stated that the airmen had probably just seen the Orford Ness lighthouse's beam sweeping through the trees and so the 'lighthouse theory' was born. Although witnesses continue to deny that the lighthouse played any part in the incident, the lighthouse theory is still used by sceptics to 'explain' the incident away.

Before I express my opinion about the lighthouse theory, I feel it is important for me to first explain my view on the UFO phenomenon in general. I am generally sceptical about most UFO cases/sightings and think that the majority of them can be explained. I have seen unusual things in the sky numerous times, and I have been able to explain almost all of them - it's something I like to do - there's no point in pretending you have seen a UFO when in fact you know it was something far more mundane.

On the other hand, it was only last Summer (August 2006) when a friend and I witnessed a large, dark cigar shaped UFO silently pass right over us - so I have a very good reason to believe in UFOs, but there's a big problem - I have absolutely no reason to believe that the UFO I saw in August was extraterrestrial in origin - it could have been a new type of spy plane, for example.

In short, I believe in UFOs, but I am still skeptical - I always look for explanations before coming to the conclusion that something cannot be explained. If the explanations don't add up, I discount them. And in my opinion, this explanation does not add up.

In this case, I think too many people are looking at the case with a fixed view - some people refuse to believe in UFOs, simply because they don't want to. No matter what the witnesses say and no matter what the evidence points to, some people refuse to admit that something strange happened. Many times I have seen people take a few small parts of the story, inadequately explain them and claim to have solved the whole case.
On the other hand, it is equally as bad to have a fixed idea that it was a UFO and ignore the other side's arguments. In this article I will not ignore the sceptic's arguments, I will address each one explaining why I either agree or disagree with it.

The previous version of this article was one of the most read pages on the site - let's see if I can make an even better page this time round. The article will be written for people who are familiar with the case - if you are not familiar with the case, I suggest you start reading the pages listed in the Rendlesham section and carefully make your way down the list.

Our purpose is to find the real facts, what ever this facts may be, they need to be
revealed.

First, let's put an end to two myths which have only ever added confusion to this already complex case.

Is the lighthouse visible from Rendlesham forest?
In short, yes. But it's harder to say how visible. Due to the angle which the lighthouse is at and the gentle slope of the land, the lighthouse is only visible from a comparatively small area. In day time, I found that it only takes about a few dozen steps to the North, East, South or West to put the lighthouse out of my view. Basically, there is a little notch on the horizon where the lighthouse is visible, if you move, the lighthouse disappears. I have to some photos to prove it:

You can see the lighthouse clearly. Bear in mind that I zoomed in 12x to take this photo.

But if you move to the left, the lighthouse disappears. Magnified 12x again.

I walked around a bit more, and eventually came to the conclusion that the area where the lighthouse can be seen is quite small. It would be greater at night though.
This means that the two-mile chase, described in John Burroughs' and Edward Cabansag's statements could not have happened - the lighthouse disappears from your view after only a matter of metres.

Is the lighthouse visible from East Gate?
No. It is not visible now and was not visible in 1980 from RAF Woodbridge's East Gate. The forest was apparently a lot thicker back then too.

The objects which the witnesses have described since the first time they have spoken on the record bear no resemblance to a lighthouse. On the first night (25/26), SSgt Jim Penniston and A1C John Burroughs encountered the strange lights and Penniston even managed to touch the UFO. On the second night the UFOs seen were equally strange.

The lighthouse looks like a faint glow on the horizon, not much bigger than Venus in the night sky. I have seen the lighthouse blinking on the horizon with my own eyes.
I have also seen the Sci-Fi channel's "UFO invasion at Rendlesham" documentary, where the lighthouse is filmed and compared to the 'Halt tape'. It turns out that whoever filmed the lighthouse did not film it from Rendlesham forest, it was very clear that the lighthouse had been filmed from a much closer location, there were only two rows of trees infront of it too.

Why? My guess is that from Rendlesham forest the lighthouse's light looks too insignificant, the viewers would have trouble seeing what the narrator was talking while watching it on a television screen. I visited Rendlesham forest in the late evening and waited until it was dark. There's a whole page devoted to my observations, which can be found here. I managed to see the lighthouse and was really disappointed:

"Within a few seconds, my eyes were attracted to a small point of light near to the farmhouse. It disappeared. A few seconds later the light flashed again – this was the Orford Ness lighthouse.
I sat on a nearby picnic table and watched as the lighthouse’s weak light flashed from time to time. At first I began smiling to myself as I thought, “how could this tiny, dim light cause USAF personnel to ‘freak out’ and think they were witnessing a UFO landing, for up to three consecutive nights? It couldn’t.”

The amusement of the situation soon disappeared and I was left feeling quite angry. The sceptics claim that the UFO story has grown over time and become more elaborate in a negative sense.  In my opinion, it has “grown” for one reason only - researchers have dug deeper and uncovered more information.

But if anything has grown with time, I can assure you it is that lighthouse’s ‘beam’!

On the History Channels recent documentary on the Rendlesham forest incident, “Britain’s Roswell”, UFO sceptic James McGaha remarked, “If you’re out, a dark sky on a cold night in December, and a lighthouse is swinging through the trees, with this bright beam of light passing through the trees – it’s going to have some strange unusual effects – light is going to get scattered by the trees.”

Mcgaha seems to believe that there is some kind of beam which sweeps through the trees, and that light gets scattered everywhere – creating some kind of optical illusion. I can only assume that Mcgaha has no idea of what the lighthouse actually looks like. Let’s see what the lighthouse’s wonderful “beam” really looks like, here’s a frame from my video footage. I zoomed in almost 10x to capture this shot on my camcorder.

This animation shows two frames, one with the lighthouse off and one with the lighthouse on. The animation is 225kb and may take 10-20 seconds to load on a slower connection.

Yes, that’s right - that really is the lighthouse. The little window in the farmhouse was much bigger than the lighthouse’s so-called “beam”. You must remember that the lighthouse is almost six miles away too, you can’t seriously expect it to “swing between the trees”. I decided to forget about the lighthouse for a while and walked off deeper into the forest".

It could be argued... The lighthouse's bulb must have been different over 26 years ago, you cannot really make a comparison between the two.
Yes, the bulb has been changed, but it is actually brighter and more powerful than the old one. The lighthouse is still in the same position obviously, it is still the same colour, it still flashes at the same rate and it's brighter than ever - so I would say that it's easy to make a comparison.

With a description of the lighthouse (and the images above) in mind, let's compare the lighthouse to the descriptions of the UFO offered by witnesses. I will begin with descriptions from the first night (25/26).

Jim Penniston said the UFO was triangular in shape, he estimated that it was "three meters tall and about three meters wide at the base". He said it seemed to be made from 'opaque, black glass'. Here is a sketch of the object, taken directly from Penniston's notebook:



John Burroughs said the UFO was the size of a 'tank', it had a bank of blue lights and had supporting feet - "It was unbelievable...we got pretty close to the object, we knew it had the feet on he ground from there". He made a sketch of it soon afterwards, this accompanied his written statement.



Edward Cabansag, who saw the UFO from a distance, said that the object was conical in shape, it had a 'belt' of lights around it and crucially was to the right of the lighthouse.
"It was to the right of the lighthouse. It was cone-shaped, egg shaped, with lights running around its belt from left to right. They were blue, white and red lights, flashing, sometimes rapid, sometimes slow".

The second night and third nights (27/28) (28/29)

Charles Halt, who was the deputy base commander at the time, said that the UFO first encountered on the second night looked like a red, pulsating eye. It was pulsing as if it was blinking, again like an eye. "At this time we could see the lighthouse, it was off to the side of this object by about 30 degrees. This object was no lighthouse, it was dancing about in the forest, woods and all." Halt and Nevilles both said that the UFO appeared to be throwing off sparks, both likened it to 'molten metal'. Halt has since confirmed that the red pulsing light they observed was a solid object.

It could be argued... if there was a thick fog, the lighthouse's beam could become distorted and look much more unusual.
I suppose it may look a bit more fuzzy, but we know that both nights of the incident were clear and crisp. There was no fog. None at all.

Munroe Nevilles, who was with Halt, said, "If we looked at it through the night vision goggles it looked like a large brick. The heat was coming off it. Every once in a while it would flash, throwing off sparks."

The UFO then silently exploded, so the witnesses say, and flew off into the sky in many different parts. One of the pieces hovered over Rendlesham forest (although Halt says it was probably thousands of feet in height) and began beaming down pencil-thin beams of light down to the ground, one landed straight infront of Halt's feet.

"We could fairly clearly see it. It sort of danced about in the sky and it sent down beams of light. I noticed other beams of light coming down from the object, falling different places on the base. My boss was standing in his front yard at [RAF] Woodbridge and he could see the beams of light falling down, and the people in the Weapons storage area [aka WSA] and several other places on the base also reported the lights [beam lights]. They didn't seem to be harmful. [The beam] stayed on for about 5-10 seconds and just as abruptly as it came, it disappeared...", there's no way a lighthouse could do anything like this, or even give the illusion of doing this.

The descriptions offered by other witnesses, such as Larry Warren and Adrian Bustinza of a large rainbow coloured object sitting in the 'farmer's field' are so unusual that there is no way that they could be attributed to a lighthouse - it would be ridiculous to make such a claim.

It could be argued... the beams of light were in fact just image noise caused by Halt looking at a bright star through the group's night vision scope.
Sceptic's have occasionally used this argument to 'explain' the pencil-thin beams of light which were sent down by the UFOs in the sky. While it's completely acceptable to doubt the Rendlesham case for a specific and genuine reason, I don't think it's necessary to make-up information such as this.

As the beam shot down to the ground, Halt was speaking into his tape recorder - are we meant to think that Halt was holding a large night-vision monocular while speaking into his tape recorder?

If he was looking at a star, what would cause the beam to land at his feet?

What about Halt's boss at RAF Woodbridge, did he have a pair of night-vision goggles too?

Sgt. Robert Ball was with Halt at the time, he saw the beam too and recalled that the objects seemed to be boxing off areas with their beams and searching for something.

As Halt shouts out "Now we're observing what appears to be a beam coming down to the ground!", instead of shouting "sh*t" in reply, wouldn't the other men present enquire, "what beam?" Remember, there was only one night-vision scope.

The last two records that Halt makes on the tape both mention the objects in the sky beaming down lights:

"Lt. Colonel Halt: 3.30: And the objects are still in the sky, although the one to the south looks like it's loosing a little bit of altitude. We're turning around and heading back toward the base. The object to the...the object to the south is still beaming down lights to the ground.
[Break in tape]
Lt. Colonel Halt: 0:400 Hours one object still hovering over the Woodbridge base at about 5-10 degrees off the horizon. Still moving erratic and similar lights beaming down as earlier."

You should notice that there is a 30 minute gap between the two records, in that half-hour would it not occur to Halt that the beams of light were not visible when he wasn't using the night-vision scope? Unless the monocular was glued to Halt's eye somehow...

All of the eyewitnesses are certain that they did not mistake the Orford Ness lighthouse for a UFO.

John Burroughs - Airmen first class at time - present on first night
"There is no way that many people were fooled by that lighthouse...There is just no way that we were fooled, something actually went on on out there."

Jim Penniston - Staff Sergeant at time - present on first night
[Arguing with Vince Thurkettle] "You know, we've worked out here for months. We know where the lighthouse is, it's just so ridiculous to bring that up."

Charles Halt - Deputy base commander at time - present on second night
"The whole time this was going on, we could see the lighthouse, the lighthouse was about 33-35 degrees off where this object was this seen....A lighthouse doesn't move through the forest, the lighthouse doesn't go up and down, it doesn't explode, doesn't change shape, size, doesn't send down beams of light from the sky."

Edward Cabansag - Airman at time - present on first night
"It [the UFO] was to the right of the lighthouse" "... It wasn't the lighthouse."

Charles Halt - Deputy base commander at time - present on second night
"I knew where the lighthouse was. This thing was not it. I saw the lighthouse as well but I never mentioned it [on the tape]. Why should I? Everybody present knew what that was!"

"A lighthouse doesn’t move through the forest; the lighthouse doesn’t go up and down, it doesn’t explode, doesn’t change shape, size - doesn’t send down beams of light from the sky”.

"I don't want to talk to people that tell me I was looking at the lighthouse... I could see the lighthouse... I knew where the lighthouse was. That's ludicrous."

"They [the sceptics] weren't there that night, I certainly wish some of them had been - they might have had a different opinion of things. But they're entitled to their opinion, they certainly are. I know what happened. I was there."

Steve La Plume - Airmen first class at time - present on second or third night
"I mean, come on here, this is not rocket science. I saw something, Busty [Adrian Bustinza] saw something, [Larry] Warren saw something.
Everyone there saw something. Perhaps on different nights, perhaps with a different perspective but we did not see a light house and mistake it for a bloody UFO.

[...] I am personally offended by the fact that anyone can even think that we are so stupid as to believe what we saw was a dammed light house[...]"

Larry Warren - A1C - present on second or third night
"The British press always brings up astronomer Ian Ridpath's insane lighthouse theory as the cause of the UFO incidents. USAF security police are highly trained people, and I'm sure all Bentwaters veterans must find Ridpath's ramblings insulting in the extreme".

Gregory Battram - A1C at time - present on second/third night
"I just wish I knew why those things landed and what they wanted - isn't that the most important question? No lighthouses and theories from people who don't have a clue..."

Other relevant quotes

Vince Thurkettle - forester at time - first to suggest the lighthouse theory.
He spoke to Georgina Bruni, "they [the sceptics] take a cluster of facts and only pick up on those that suit the situation"

Even the lighthouse keeper does not subscribe to the lighthouse theory.
He spoke to Georgina Bruni, "... some time the sceptics have been pestering me in an attempt to get to support their theory. I cannot do it. I know what my lighthouse looked like from the forest. I have seen it in all weathers. It just could not do what those airmen and local people describe the UFO as doing..."

You can find all the original statements on the witness statements page.

Sceptics have claimed that the witnesses' statements prove that the lighthouse was misidentified as a UFO. I do not believe this to be true and will explain why below. With the witness statements often being used as evidence to support the lighthouse theory, it is also rather ironic that the statements also support the UFO sighting and the witnesses.

"On one occasion Penniston relayed that he was close enough to the object to determine it was definitely a mechanical object." - Msgt. J.D Chandler (crucially, a "mechanical object")

"He eventually arrived at a 'beacon light', however, he stated that this was not the light or lights he had originally observed." - Msgt. J.D Chandler. (It was not the same light)

"After talking with him [Jim Penniston] face to face concerning the incident , I am convinced that he saw something out of the realm of explanation for him at the time."
- Fred A. Buran.

"SSgt Penniston reported getting near the object and then all of a sudden said they had gone past it and were looking a a marker beacon that was in the same direction as the other lights. I asked him if he could have been mistaken, to which Penniston replied that had I seen the other lights I would know the difference." - Fred A. Buran.

"I would like to state at this time that SSgt Penniston is a totally reliable and mature individual. He was not overly excited, nor do I think he is subject to overreaction or misinterpretation of circumstances." - Fred A. Buran

Chandler and Buran were not involved to much extent, so their statements are not really important - although it is worth noting that Buran says that Penniston is 'totally reliable', 'mature', also that a 'mechanical' object had been seen.

The statements submitted (or perhaps not) by John Burroughs, Edward Cabansag and Jim Penniston are the significant ones.

The sceptic's crucial point - which cannot be ignored - is that John Burroughs admitted the men had chased a lighthouse for "two miles" before realising what it was. He said:
"We climbed over the fence and started walking toward the red and blue lights and they just disappeared. Once we reached the farmer's house we could see a beacon going around, so we went toward it. We followed it for about 2 miles before we could see it was coming from a lighthouse."
When the witnesses' statements first surfaced, many people jumped ahead saying that this piece of information revealed in John Burroughs' statement was a 'revelation' and that it had effectively solved the Rendlesham incident. Not so fast.

Burroughs said is that the unusual (red & blue) lights first disappeared, they then followed another light before realising it was a lighthouse. Don't believe me? John said it himself on a recent UFO documentary (History Channel's "Britain's Roswell"), remarking that 'some people' have tried to twist his words.

"There are some people that try to twist it - If you read the statements, especially mine they are clearly distinguished between what we saw at the beginning and then we did see a beacon light and we followed it. Nowhere [in my statement] does it say that I felt the beacon light was the object."

They simply investigated the light and later discounted it. It's also worth mentioning that the lighthouse cannot be followed for two miles - it is only visible in a certain area.

Edward Cabansag's statement is interesting too, it is full of errors and is very vague, it mentions that they chased a lighthouse for two miles too - but there's a big problem.
Cabansag claims he could not operate a typewriter at the time, he simply signed a statement which was given to him by Charles Halt. In an interview with Georgina Bruni, author of "You Can't Tell The People", Cabansag said: "The only thing that I signed was for Colonel Halt. I didn't type anything out. Maybe someone else did it and asked me to sign it. Besides, I couldn't type, I had never used a typewriter before. I don't even remember what I signed. I was so nervous, I just signed it. I don't remember talking to Halt, I remember sitting in his office in fear of Halt. I was fresh from school."

Jim Penniston's statement is very vague, and is full of errors too - it seems that the statements were all typed by the same person. Like Cabansag, Penniston claims to have never typed a statement in any shape or form either - Penniston's statement is not even signed. Penniston's statement doesn't make any mention of a lighthouse, just that the object zigzagged away and eventually they lost sight of it.
But there is one problem with Penniston's statement - something that doesn't fit in with what he has recently claimed. Penniston has recently said that he was able to get close enough to the object to actually touch it - but his statement contradicts his claim:

"When we got within a 50 metre distance, the object was producing red and blue light. [...][...][...] This is the closest point that I was near the object at any point."

50 metres is equal to ~164.5 feet, that's quite a big distance. But does this mean Penniston's claim of touching the UFO is a lie? I don't think so. We know that the witness statements were deliberately 'sanitized' and for a very good reason too - they were afraid that the UFO sightings could jeopardize their career - they feared they could even loose their pensions.
For example at the end of John Burroughs's statement, Charles Halt wrote: "Now he's worried that this might affect his career." Another example, on Cabansag's statement, Halt wrote that he is "convinced that this is a 'cleaned up' version of what happened".

UFO researcher and author, Jenny Randles, who spoke to Burroughs and Penniston only a few years after the incident said: "right from the beginning, Burroughs and Penniston had always insisted that their statements were not the full story and were watered down."

I believe the first time Jim Penniston spoke on record was in 1994, on the "Strange but True?" documentary. His story has remained completely consistent. Investigative journalist, Georgina Bruni, said that he was an "amazing witness".

If you are still doubtful, let's look at the evidence which supports Penniston's claim of being within arm's distance of the UFO. He made this sketch of the UFO - how would he know what it looked like if he hadn't been as close as he claims?

He made a sketch of the symbols on the UFOs hull while watching it - how would he know what these looked like if hadn't been as close as he claims?

Also, Fred Buran's statement says that Penniston told him over the radio that the object was definitely mechanical - you would probably need to be closer than 164.5 feet to determine that. In Halt's memorandum there is a hint that someone had been quite close to the UFO: "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." I think it would be very hard to give such measurements at a distance of 164.5ft, especially in the dark - in my opinion, the men must have been closer in order to determine the object's size.

As you should know, Lt. Colonel Charles Halt recorded an audio tape during the incident. At one point the men spot a strange red light.

Lt. Colonel Halt: You saw a light? Slow down. Where, where?
Sgt. Nevilles (spots UFO): Right on this position here. Straight ahead in between the trees... we're getting it again.
Lt. Englund: Watch... Right there...
Sgt. Nevilles: I'll throw the hell off my flashlight there. There it is!
Lt. Colonel Halt: Oh yeah, I see it too. What is it? Sgt. Nevilles: We don't know sir.

You can download a clip where this can be heard here. It is 13 seconds in length and 210kbs in size. Click here, the audio clip should play shortly.

The light is seen at roughly five second intervals, which is the same rate at which the lighthouse pulses. Although this only happens twice: "We're getting it again" and "there it is." - this leaves us with very little data, but we do know a few other things. The lighthouse sits on the horizon at about 100 degrees, Halt maintains that the light they were referring to at that location in the tape was 30-35 degrees to the right of the lighthouse. The description of the UFO offered by witnesses is totally different to what the lighthouse actually looks like, so in my opinion the UFO seen through the trees twice, with a five second gap in the middle doesn't mean much. Especially as soon afterwards the red, pulsing object 'silently exploded' and flew off into the sky.

Nick Pope, someone who has been researching the Rendlesham forest case for years now, has said that the radiation readings are "the most tangible proof that something extraordinary happened there." With all due respect to Nick Pope, I do actually disagree with him on this point. The radiation aspect of the Rendlesham forest case is important, but it certainly does not make the case.

The sceptics claim that the geiger counter used to measure the levels of background radiation was not designed for the job. They are correct. It was an AN-PDR27 and was designed to measure high levels of radiation. Although it was being used to measure milliroentgens, on the .5 scale - the lowest that the An-PDR27 can cope with. The bottom line is that the readings would not be very accurate at such a level.

However, as always I always like to look at both sides of the story, the radiation readings are hardly 'evidence' of a UFO landing but they still have some significance. The MoD's defence staff had come to the conclusion that, "background radioactivity varies considerably due to a number of factors. The value of 0.1 milliroentgens, I assume that this is per hour, seems significantly higher than the average background of 0.015m." And, "I you wish to pursue this further I could make enquires as to natural background levels in the area. The way the US report is written, however, suggests that 0.1mr was greater than they expected." It's also worth noting that the radiation readings were higher on a tree facing in towards the landing site, than on the other side of the tree facing away from the alleged landing site.

This can be heard on Halt's tape:

Lt. Colonel Halt: We are getting readings on the tree. You're taking samples from on the side facing the suspected landing site?
Lt. Englund: Four clicks max.
Lt. Colonel Halt: Up to four. Interesting. That's right were you're taking the sample now.
Lt. Englund: Four
Lt. Colonel Halt: That's the strongest point on the tree?
Sgt. Nevilles: Yes sir, and if you come to the back, there's no clicks whatsoever.
Lt. Colonel Halt: No clicks at all in the back
Sgt. Nevilles: Maybe one or two
Lt. Colonel Halt: It's all on the side facing the [landing site?]...interesting.

Coupled with the fact that this is the same location where there were three mysterious landing marks discovered and the trees were damaged (top - branches broken, bottom - scrape marks), I think it's clear that something physical had certainly been there! As Nick Pope says, the sceptics do have 'legitimate doubts' but there may be more to the radiation readings than first apparent.

I have just mentioned the tree damage in relation to the radiation readings, I do not see these are a particularly important part of the case - but in relation to all the other parts of the case, they do have a certain significance. Sceptics claim that the scrape marks reported on the trees, found only a few feet above the floor were just marks made by foresters. They are cut in with an axe and are made to test how healthy the tree is - based on this they know whether or not to cut down the tree. I took this photo a few years ago, these are the usual kind of marks that can be seen around the forest.

It's a reasonable claim that makes sense, but it can't actually explain all the tree damage noted by Halt et al. On the tape Halt said, "looking directly overhead, one can see an opening in the trees, plus some freshly broken pine branches on the ground underneath. Looks like some of them came off about fifteen to twenty feet up. Some small branches about inch or less in diameter". The foresters' axe marks cannot be responsible for freshly broken branches and tree damage 15-20 feet above the ground.

Sgt. Robert Ball's input is certainly eye-opening too, on the "Unsolved Mysteries Bentwaters incident" segment, he said, "It didn't take us long to find what we thought to be a landing site of some sort. The trees had branches broken off. As we looked up, we had high power flashlights with us, we could see branches, up to an inch, two inches in diameter had either been knocked completely off or had been bent downward. It was clean up to the top of the trees."

This information is absolutely crucial, especially as Ball mentions branches 'bent downward', this can only indicate that something entered the trees forcefully. With the mysterious landing marks down below and all of this tree damage above, I can only come to one conclusion: the foresters' axe marks may have played a part in the tree damage, but it is clear that something else damaged the trees too and settled on the floor.

When questioned by a TV crew after the publication of the NOTW's article in 1983, he also suggested that the landing marks found were the result of rabbits digging in the floor. Living near the country, I am quite familiar with how rabbits dig into the earth. Often they try to make burrows, but if a root is in the way or the ground is too tough to dig in, they give up and move on to a different location.

I have never seen rabbits create geometric shapes. They may be clever enough to give up digging but they are hardly artistic in nature.

Ray Gulyas visited the alleged landing soon after the incident, and is convinced that the landing site was not created by rabbits, "all I can say is that they must have been very smart rabbits...very mathematical in nature, and I have never found a rabbit that smart. ...They were 12 foot from center to center...that's not normally found in nature, it was obviously something man made."

Why does the Suffolk Constabulary's report say that they were only rabbit scratchings? According to Jim Penniston, the PCs present refused to put anything other than that in their report. Jim Penniston maintains that the ground was frozen at the time, so something extremely heavy would have been responsible for the landing marks. "I asked him [the PC] why and he said, because he's not going to put anything other than that in his report [that the marks were rabbit holes]. We found that just totally absurd. The ground was frozen and it was just impossible for that to happen." We also have the photos taken at the time when the police were present, this photo is used with permission from Georgina Bruni and must not be reproduced anywhere else.

I have highlighted the alleged landing marks on the photo, for further clarification you can see stakes next to each indentation. It looks like a perfect triangle to me. Jim Penniston made three plaster casts, two of which were stolen from him (I recall one disappeared at an airport from his luggage), but he still has one left. This was shown on the Sci-fi Channel's "UFO Invasion at Rendlesham" documentary.

It clearly shows that the indentations were not made by rabbits. You can find the page here. In view of this, why did Vince Thurkettle think that rabbits were responsible? There's a very good reason, Vince visited the landing site six weeks after the incident had occurred! Being a forester, he of all people should realize that the frequent rain that we get in England would have washed away most of the ground traces. Vince says that there were Pepsi cans and other rubbish all over the landing site area, it's obvious that people been there and had 'poked around' - so it's no surprise that the landing site looked somewhat out of shape.

This section has been taken directly from my page, the MoD's files on Rendlesham.

Unless you want to believe that the Ministry of Defence was/is involved in a cover-up, then the MoD's files have just about squashed the radar evidence. So was the alleged radar tracking of an unknown object just a rumor? Let's examine the evidence.

Nigel Kerr was stationed at RAF Watton during 1980. He says that sometime near Christmas 1980, he received a phone call from RAF Bentwaters. The person who he spoke to wanted to know if there was anything unusual on his radar screen, as some strange lights had been seen falling from the sky.
Nigel checked the radar screen and noticed a strange blip, it was visible over the Woodbridge area, it was visible for three of four sweeps of the screen, until it suddenly disappeared. No report was ever made.

It was years later when Nigel realized the significance of his memories. Could Nigel have been forgotten or mistaken the crucial details of his story over 15 years? Some might say so, but I don't think so.

When Jim Penniston spoke to John Coffey, who had contacted staff (Mr Kerr?) at RAF Watton, Coffey said that RAF Watton had tracked an object which had disappeared into the forest area. Minutes after hearing this, Jim Penniston et al were trooping through Rendlesham Forest in search of the UFO. There is a definite link - Jim Penniston and Nigel Kerr's claims both collaborate.
There are also many people who have spoken about radar tapes being taken from RAF Watton or Neatishead, these were among the first rumours to ever surface in 1981-82. There's little point going into too much detail about these rumours, after all they were just rumours - but there's no smoke without fire.

Let's get back on track, was RAF Neatishead's radar camera really turned off during the incident? And was RAF Watton's radar film damaged?

Gary Baker contacted UFO Magazine (closed March 2004 due to Editor's tragic death, UK Edition) after reading an article by Georgina Bruni which examined the claims that RAF Neatishead's radar camera was switched off around the Christmas period of 1980.
From 1979 to 20 November 1981, Senior Aircraftman Gary John Baker was stationed at RAF Neatishead as an Aerospace systems operator with 2 squadron, Air Defence unit. He supplied UFO Magazine with his papers, certificates etc. proving that he was stationed at RAF Neatishead at the time, copies were printed in UFO Magazine's article concerning him.

Gary's claims are most interesting, and while answering many questions they also create new ones. Baker said that "RAF Neatishead had not one Primary air defence radar in 1980, but two!". In other words, if the primary radar camera was down for maintenance during the UFO incident, then the second one would have been in operation instead. In my opinion, Gary's statements are nothing short of a revelation. Among this, Gary has numerous other bits of information to add:

"These [radar cameras] would always work together apart from routine planned maintenance, but you don't have both going wrong and the same time. Maintenance is planned well in advance so that one is always operational." "I've been aware of the Rendlesham Incident for some time, but always felt that I didn't have anything to add to what was known but when I read UFO Magazine and saw what Georgina Bruni had to say about the newly released documents, I wouldn't quite believe it.
Radar switched of at RAF Neatishead and poor and unusable radar film at RAF Watton? I find this totally unacceptable. Remember the cold War? The importance of RAF Neatishead and RAF Watton to NATO? You cannot have equipment that goes wrong simultaneously and at separate installations.
That's why we used two radars, and even then, other overlapping stations would take over if RAF Neatishead were ever taken out. "I find it absolutely inconceivable that both radar cameras could go wrong, but the files don't mention 2 cameras or 2 radars, just a camera. That smells of a cover-up and from my own point of view, I distinctly remember rumours flying around at the time, within the 'Ops [operations] room, of a UFO incident and a UFO Flap [a UFO flap is when many UFOs are seen over a period of days]. It was common knowledge amongst personnel that the MoD had come down to remove the tapes. I should add that I was personally not a witness to the Rendlesham Forest Incident, but I never heard any other rumours about a UFO flap during my time at RAF Neatishead. That said, there would definitely be film of radar of that incident at that time."

I was also able to find an interview with Gary Baker (the text above is from that interview), and with the kind permission of Russel Callaghan (he interviewed Baker), I have been able to reproduce the entire interview here on this website in MP3 format.

Russel runs UFO Data Magazine, which has been created to fill the void left by the old UFO Magazine, now the magazine has gone into full A4, 68 glossy page production and in a few months should be on the shelves. I have read issue two of the UFO Data magazine and can honestly say it was excellent.

It must not be reproduced anywhere else without Russel Callaghan's permission!
Listen to Russel Callaghan's Interview With Gary Baker
It must not be reproduced anywhere else without Russel Callaghan's permission!
Click the link above, unless you have a very quick internet connection I recommend you download the MP3 file by right clicking the link above, and choosing 'save target as...'.

Finally, I need to make another point. The MoD's files claim the (single, even though there were two) radar camera at RAF Watton was turned off on the 29th December at 3:27PM, so they don't have any records relating to the incident.
What I would like to know is where did the MoD get this date from? Halt's memorandum clearly states that the first incident took place on the morning of the 27 December (26/27 December), although it was infact on the 25/26 December.

In my opinion, The MoD's claim regarding the radar camera seems all too convenient, in light of Baker's claims it seems even sillier, and the claim that RAF Watton's radar film was faulty seems to be an excuse as well.