• Server Outage Announcement

    Hello, Everyone.
    We will be installing an update to XenForo (the forums software), and doing some server maintenance.
    Consequently, the forums will be unavailable from about 12 - 2 MDT / 2 - 4 EDT / 6 - 8 GMT on Sunday 9th May 2021.

Rendlesham Forest Incident

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
7,563
Reaction score
12,089
Points
279
Location
Phone
Zero connection with our case? Well, if the initial "crash" report of something diving into the forest -- Garry Collins...
Now that has been clarified, as concluded, there is no tangible evidence of any, 'stealth' connection.

If that unverifiable story, told sone 30 years later is the only thing existing...

What about our actual puzzling object that first night?

As Penniston latterly describes it, to Sally Rayl:

"It appeared very shiny, black, opaque in appearance..."

Or, do we stick with what Jenny Randles published in, 'Skycrash'' that Penniston said the object was a, 'dirty, off-white' colour?

There is, however, something else I have only just come across this morning and seemingly of related interest.

It originates from David Clarke's exceptional endeavours to successfully obtain release of the MoD's 'UFO' files.

David has provided a tremendously helpful guide to the contents, in which he notes that at one point the MoD considered the possibility that a, 'prototype stealth aircaft' had crash-landed.

I haven't had time to search for this as yet and if anyone can locate same?

This is the starting point!

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ufos/
 

Carl Grove

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Dec 14, 2014
Messages
1,151
Reaction score
1,440
Points
159
Location
Bury St Edmunds
Now I understand... which might well be a rarity in our discussions.

You are the fount of helpfulness.

We are incredibly fortunate being able to discuss this case and other eclectic matters, plus a good old chat with brilliant laughs, within an online environment which is seamless.

That acknowledged, can I please go back to being plain old, 'Comfortably Numb'.

Firstly, with name change, I am confused (doesn't help that it's my birthday today and the kids tell me I'm now 63...) when I try to search for my old postings.

Secondly, the change hasn't gone unnoticed and with our Shug Monkey allegedly being, 'the combination of an ape, a dog, a bear, a lion and a rhinoceros', I am receiving a number of PMs with a 'friends request', for some reason predominantly from folks in Cromer.
You mean you are only one person and not two? Is this purely for confusion purposes or is there some hidden agenda? Could it be that you are actually everyone else posting on this thread? Does that include me?
 

Carl Grove

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Dec 14, 2014
Messages
1,151
Reaction score
1,440
Points
159
Location
Bury St Edmunds
Having gone over Battram's account again, I came across correspondence from some years back with Airman Kenneth Green:

(Beginning of correspondence)
My problem; there is a testimony which refers to the 'UFO' incidents occurring during an alert/exercise.

It's the published account of Airman Greg Battram, interviewed by Larry Fawcett.

GB: I was in the Air Force up to this point a little over a year. I had been in England about two months.

LF: OK, you were stationed at Bentwaters or Woodbridge?

GB: At Bentwaters.

LF: Were you attached to the Eighty-first Police Security Squadron?

GB: Yes.

LF: What was your job there, Greg?

GB: I was in the planning and program section.

LF: Go ahead.

GB: We had an alert over there for exercises and things about once or twice a month. And during those times, all the back-office people would go on a security post, additional posting and stuff out there. So, the night we saw the UFO, we were out there on duty, on one of these exercises, and it was nighttime.

Nothing going on but we all still had to be there, and we were driving around on Woodbridge base on a perimeter patrol, and we saw some lights up in the sky, and it looked a lot different from any other aircraft we had ever seen.

We watched them for a while and then they disappeared... in a clearing of a forest and that's when we saw the object or whatever. We thought it was a fire at first.

[NOTE: The original transcript reads: "We watched them for a while and then they disappeared. A short distance from where they disappeared is a clearing and a forest and that's when we saw the object or whatever. We thought it was a fire at first".]

When we saw that, we thought, oh boy, we could have some problems out here, so we called Central Security Control and told them we wanted to go out and see what it was.

They said go ahead and they would notify the base fire department and the British authorities. So we took off out the back gate, there at Woodbridge, and headed toward the forest.

LF: Who was with you, Greg?

GB: I can't remember the names of those guys. Three other guys in the truck.

LF: OK.

GB: We got out there and parked the truck on the side of the road and went walking in toward the clearing. Just as we got about fifty yards away, we started to feel the hair on our necks and arms and stuff stand up.

LF: Yes.

GB: And it felt really strange. And we could hear a thrumming kind of sound.

LF: A what kind of sound?

GB: A thrumming noise coming out of the forest, from the direction of that object. It had a ground fog all around it.

LF: OK.

GB: We couldn't really see a distinct shape, but there were alternating colors in it and the whole bit. It was really strange. The closer we got, the worse the static electricity feeling got, and we just said, 'Fuck', and we turned around and took off.

[...]

[END OF TRANSCRIPT EXTRACT]


If, as Battram relates, the 'second' incident happened during a training exercise, it's a significantly different context.

From my reading, Battram was one of those 'back-office people', in the 'planning and program section'. He was only on patrol duties because an exercise was taking place.

Battram adds:

"Then we went back to the perimeter of Woodbridge and stuck around there. We could see some activity over there but that was it. And then we got off at the other end of the base there and got involved with exercises and horsing around and stuff.

Never did see any more from that point on. The next day was when we heard all the silly stories and stuff. Oh! Sounds like ---- city!".
[END OF TRANSCRIPT EXTRACT]


He further recollects:

LF: And this incident was in December, right?

GB: Yes.

LF: OK.

GB: It seemed like a week before New Year's. Something like that, it seemed real close to it.

LF: Were there any other sightings after that, Greg, that you heard of?

GB: The stories went on for a while like they did before that night. We heard a lot of stories about people seeing lights at night and strange things. We thought they were all on dope.

LF: Yes.

GB: That's why it was strange that night, because it was the second night we had been out on this alert. I had thought the night before, now I get to see if these guys are really high or if they're really seeing something. The night it happened, it was like - Holy shit! there must be something in the water.
[END OF TRANSCRIPT EXTRACT]


If, "the second night we had been out on this alert", does that imply the "alert" was something specific?

Three nights earlier, the inaugural 'UFO' incident had occurred.
(End of my correspondence)


This brings us back to the question of what initiated the second night's events and my post #1,023.

Is this related and does it explain Bustinza's account (and Warren's) of a, 'UFO in ground fog' that second night (leaving aside their respective story of Halt conversing with object's occupants!).

If the second night's adventures did actually occur during a base exercise (although that would seem unlikely during the Christmas holiday period), then it brings Kevin Conde's hoax aspect back into the frame.

Although initially recalling this occured, "just after Christmas", Kevin subsequently had doubts because he remembered it occuring during an exercise.

If Battram's story is taken as, 'conceivable', then do we have another sighting of, 'unfamiliar lights' descending into the forest, at the outset of our second incident?

In essence, this would appear to be the only testimony we have re the onset of events resulting in Lt. Bruce Englund alerting Halt of a, 'return visitation'?
Battram's account seems to be quite consistent with the Collins observation -- something in trouble, with some material leaking from its base -- descends into the wood -- the material creates a colourful fog effect with high tension fields causing witness reactions -- then men going out to deal with it (i.e. try to minimise the damage and hopefully rescue the pilot, then clean up afterwards). Forget the ET angle and a black project triangle seems a plausible alternative.
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
7,563
Reaction score
12,089
Points
279
Location
Phone
Here's a summary of the times Collins has been mentioned in this thread.
It's a good day... another mystery solved.

Why did my prerequisite search not pick up on this... that's because I'm certain I searched for posts with 'Collins' which I had made.

'Old age disnae come itself...'. :omr:
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
7,563
Reaction score
12,089
Points
279
Location
Phone
...something in trouble, with some material leaking from its base -- descends into the wood -- the material creates a colourful fog effect with high tension fields...
Stop making apparent sense.

So, why then would we have another 'object' descending into the same vicinity a couple of nights later...

Dare say, one could surmise that's exactly what we should expect.

There would be contingency plans for any such rescue and surely therein plans for any necessary subterfuge, possibly even aeriel dispersion of a, 'hallucination compound', so that witness testimonies would never really make sense:

'Shit, look at the colors'...

:popc:
 

Carl Grove

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Dec 14, 2014
Messages
1,151
Reaction score
1,440
Points
159
Location
Bury St Edmunds
Stop making apparent sense.

So, why then would we have another 'object' descending into the same vicinity a couple of nights later...

Dare say, one could surmise that's exactly what we should expect.

There would be contingency plans for any such rescue and surely therein plans for any necessary subterfuge, possibly even aeriel dispersion of a, 'hallucination compound', so that witness testimonies would never really make sense:

'Shit, look at the colors'...

:popc:
If that first sighting was of a black project device then all the subsequent "sightings" would have been part of the cover-up phase, all pointing at the ET theory yet all strangely inconsistent with each other -- disinformation, in other words. The alternatives are all mistaken observations or all alien craft.
Thus generating decades of confusion and debate.
 

Trevp666

It was like that when I got here.........honest!!!
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
3,835
Reaction score
9,798
Points
219
Location
Welwyn Garden City (but oddly, not an actual city)
I blame Ebenezer Howard and Louis De Soissons.
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
7,563
Reaction score
12,089
Points
279
Location
Phone
I wondered if we could definitely clarify the situation re the actual stars which could be responsible for those 'star-like' objects our second night.

Slightly uncertain as I came across this on my old 'UFO Research List' and with permission to post elsewhere:

The relevant extract:

James,

At 3:05 AM on Dec 28, 1980, when Col Halt began his recording... the brightest star in the heavens Sirius was about 11 degs above the horizon to the SW or more precisely about 222 degs azimuth (SW is at exactly 225 degs).

Kappa Orionis (Saiph) was farther to the right at about 11 degs above the horizon at about azimuth 238 degs.

Rigel was about 8 degs above the horizon still farther to the right in the WSW at about 246 degs.

It seems unlikely that Col Halt's lone object in the south was Sirius which was in the SW, but the elevation angle was strikingly close.

Halt estimated it was about 10 degs above the horizon and Sirius was about 11 degs high.

As for Halt's two objects to the north at about 10 degs elevation, it is striking that Deneb was almost due north (about 10 degs azimuth) at about 8 degs elevation. Fifth brightest star Vega was farther to the right almost to the NE (about azimuth 34 degs) at about 9 degs elevation, again strikingly close to Halt's 10-deg estimate.

But the separation between the stars seems rather large, about 24 degs, with Vega not actually being to the north but almost to the northeast.

Brad Sparks.
(End)
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
7,563
Reaction score
12,089
Points
279
Location
Phone
In summarising our conclusions, can we also definitely clarify - such that it can be referenced elsewhere - what is the correlation between Halt's tape recorded observations and Orford Ness lighthouse, plus the Shipwash Lightship, etc.

Is it simply that we know from the compass bearings documented on that recording, Halt's sighting - twice referenced at 110 degrees - was in the vicinity of Orford Ness lighthouse and the lightship is irrelevant?
 

Ian Ridpath

Junior Acolyte
Joined
Apr 16, 2021
Messages
62
Reaction score
124
Points
33
I wondered if we could definitely clarify the situation re the actual stars which could be responsible for those 'star-like' objects our second night.
As I explained on this site not long ago, Halt described the brightest object as lying over Woodbridge base, which was to the southwest, not the south. This matches the position of Sirius. If his idea of north was similarly skewed, then the objects he described as lying to the north would actually be to the northeast, which matches Vega and Deneb.
I go into this in great detail on this page
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham3.html
Also search for Vega and Sirius on this page
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/halttape-analysis2.html
 

Ian Ridpath

Junior Acolyte
Joined
Apr 16, 2021
Messages
62
Reaction score
124
Points
33
Is it simply that we know from the compass bearings documented on that recording, Halt's sighting - twice referenced at 110 degrees - was in the vicinity of Orford Ness lighthouse and the lightship is irrelevant?
The lightship could not be seen directly from Halt's position, so it is irrelevant.
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
7,563
Reaction score
12,089
Points
279
Location
Phone
The lightship could not be seen directly from Halt's position, so it is irrelevant.
Thank you... it's just that I came across some old maps this morning, meaningfully contributed by various researchers and showing interpretations of relationships to what Halt observed re the lighthouse, lightship and potentially other coastal sources - they were all different (as one might expect...).

Important clarification - it's easy to be sidetracked here.
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
7,563
Reaction score
12,089
Points
279
Location
Phone
If his idea of north was similarly skewed, then the objects he described as lying to the north would actually be to the northeast, which matches Vega and Deneb. I go into this in great detail on this page...
Again thanks... again, it's easy to be sidetracked.

With above re the lighthouse, two significant, definitive resolutions.

Additionally, is the fact Halt's recollection of the small red light exploding into five white lights is evidenced as a mistake.

That is crucial, as it has become a mainstay of, 'inexplicable phenomena'.
 

Ian Ridpath

Junior Acolyte
Joined
Apr 16, 2021
Messages
62
Reaction score
124
Points
33
Additionally, is the fact Halt's recollection of the small red light exploding into five white lights is evidenced as a mistake.
Yes, that was one of the many things he made up years after the event.

What he actually said on the tape was:
"We’ve passed the farmer’s house and are crossing the next field and now we have multiple sightings of up to five lights with a similar shape and all but they seem to be steady now rather than a pulsating or glow with a red flash’. Halt’s description of these lights is too vague for us to be sure what they might have been, but at least he tells us that they were not flashing.

At 02.44 he reported: "We’re at the far side of the farmer’s...the second farmer’s field and made sighting again about 110 degrees. This looks like it’s clear off to the coast." So the light had not broken up after all, but he conveniently forgets this part of the tape.

Burroughs, Penniston, and Cabansag had much the same experience two nights earlier except that they eventually recognized what the flashing light was.
 

charliebrown

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Nov 2, 2020
Messages
698
Reaction score
877
Points
93
Location
Earth
British ufologist, David Clarke, claims the always overlooked answer is that the British SAS and the Americans hated each other and were always pulling pranks on each other.

He claims that the UFO was a SAS prank.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
7,563
Reaction score
12,089
Points
279
Location
Phone
He claims that the UFO was a SAS prank.
"Lights and coloured flares were rigged in the woods and black helium balloons were coupled to remote-controlled kites."

Not even remotely (sic) comparable to what is documented in our original witness statements.

See my most recent post, documenting the events, as they unfolded.

I'm extremely surprised David went along with this suggestion.

Who is the source... apparently some anymous guy called Frank...

It's maybe now time to reveal a few things here.

The reason I take a tough stance against proclaimed evidence is purely that, being a hard core ufologist, I will not cite evidence which can be shot down.

I will rigorously do that first.

During lengthy correspondence with Burroughs some 20 years ago, he explained one crucial aspect of the incident.

Whilst Penniston's later story was of them both approaching the perceived object, that's not what happened.

They had become seperated and he was not in contact with Penniston for some time.

When Penniston returned, he told Burroughs and Cabansag they had just encountered a, 'UFO'.

This obviously gives leeway for Penniston to have, as he claims, taken notes.

Whether that is the case, or otherwise, is another matter.

It is however conceivable.

We can see comparative evidence in Buran's (monitoring communications) original statement:

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

Buran's testimony dates from a week later and his recollection, "all of a sudden said they had gone past it" is erroneous.

Essentially, I didn't want to emphasise any of this without that prerequisite assurance it would not simply be helping to perpetuate a myth.

What has changed is now revisiting the seemingly early sketch from Penniston we have discussed.

Everything about it looks genuine and appears to have been drawn some time soon afterwards.

Irrespective of what any perceived object might have been, it's imperative to seperate our proverbial, 'wheat from the chaff'.

We all appreciate how, dare we say typically, this particular UFO case has, 'grown exponentially'.

If... there's... 'something'.... still perchance 'worthwhile'... when all the clutter has been cleared...

That kinda thing...
 
Last edited:

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
7,563
Reaction score
12,089
Points
279
Location
Phone
Burroughs, Penniston, and Cabansag had much the same experience...
What the explanation is for all that preceded their eventual destination...

Who knows...

If I was now contemplating closure, regarding any further progress explaining events our second night, there is a fundamental remaining issue...

Halt's recorded observation of "star-like" objects and 'beams of light':

This, regrettably, is inadmissible testimony.

We know he was using a, "starlight scope" and "power lens". To what extent, where and when, is now indeterminable.

We know it affected his perception of that initial 'red flashing light', conceivably associated with the, 'pupil of an eye', how it resulted in the farmer's house, 'appearing to be on fire' and when 'zoomed into' those 'star-like' objects appeared to change shape.

We can never know what else was affected and to which extreme.

Annoying as hell, but what can you do...

End of - closed.
 

eburacum

Papo-furado
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
3,999
Reaction score
2,311
Points
184
I might suggest that Halt's Starlight Scope and 'power lens' were in fact the same instrument. The Starlight Scope also magnifies the image significantly, so you wouldn't need a separate optical magnifier. It is possible that they also had a separate monocular of some sort, but this is not necessary to explain the observations recorded on the tape.
 

Ian Ridpath

Junior Acolyte
Joined
Apr 16, 2021
Messages
62
Reaction score
124
Points
33
British ufologist, David Clarke, claims the always overlooked answer is that the British SAS and the Americans hated each other and were always pulling pranks on each other.
He claims that the UFO was a SAS prank.
No he doesn't. That claim was made in a hoax letter which was sent to him, and which he correctly identified as an attempt to fool him. Unfortunately some parts of the media gave a misleading impression when they wrote the story up.

Go to this page on my site
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham7.html
and scroll down to the subhead "The SAS ‘revenge’ hoax", which also includes a link to Dave's blog in which he makes it clear that he doesn't believe the story.

Always go back to the original source!
 

Ian Ridpath

Junior Acolyte
Joined
Apr 16, 2021
Messages
62
Reaction score
124
Points
33
I'm extremely surprised David went along with this suggestion.
Who is the source... apparently some anymous guy called Frank...
No, Dave didn't go along with the suggestion. The letter from 'Frank' was sent to him to arrive on April 1, Dave checked out the story with his military contacts, and correctly identified it as a hoax. There is no evidence that 'Frank' was ever in the SAS or had any inside knowledge of the case.

Go to this page
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham7.html
and scroll down to the subhead "The SAS ‘revenge’ hoax", which includes a link to Dave's blog in which he makes it clear that he doesn't believe the story.

Some press reports distorted what Dave said, which has started yet another myth.
 

Ian Ridpath

Junior Acolyte
Joined
Apr 16, 2021
Messages
62
Reaction score
124
Points
33
I might suggest that Halt's Starlight Scope and 'power lens' were in fact the same instrument. The Starlight Scope also magnifies the image significantly, so you wouldn't need a separate optical magnifier. It is possible that they also had a separate monocular of some sort, but this is not necessary to explain the observations recorded on the tape.
In para 3 of his memo
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/appendix.html
Halt said "the objects to the north appeared to be elliptical through an 8-12 power lens".
Unfortunately he doesn't mention this lens on his tape. He just says "3:05. ‍At ‍about ‍ten ‍degrees, ‍horizon, ‍directly ‍north, ‍we’ve ‍got ‍two ‍strange ‍objects, ‍er, ‍half ‍moon ‍shape, ‍dancing ‍about, ‍with ‍coloured ‍lights ‍on ‍‘em. ‍At, ‍er, ‍guess ‍to ‍be ‍about ‍five ‍to ‍ten ‍miles ‍out, ‍maybe ‍less. ‍The ‍half ‍moons ‍have ‍now ‍turned ‍into ‍full ‍circles ‍as ‍though ‍there ‍was ‍an ‍eclipse ‍or ‍something ‍there ‍for ‍a ‍minute ‍or ‍two.".
There's no indication they are using the starscope, which ‍‍had ‍a ‍magnification ‍of ‍4 ‍times and wouldn't show any colour, other than green.
 

Ian Ridpath

Junior Acolyte
Joined
Apr 16, 2021
Messages
62
Reaction score
124
Points
33
It's worth remembering that the Halt memo was not classified. The fact that he got the dates of the events wrong indicates that he was working from memory. If Halt kept a diary he evidently never recorded these events in it, which gives some idea of how (un)seriously he took them at the time.
 

maximus otter

Recovering policeman
Joined
Aug 9, 2001
Messages
8,272
Reaction score
17,768
Points
309
Collins...sighting occurred at circa 2330 in the vicinity of Capel Green.

The landmark cited is a sharp bend in the road called Lion's Corner. I can't find any reference to this name, and there are multiple bends or turns that might be the place cited.
I've spent a while looking into this.

Maps show no obvious geographic feature called "Lion's Corner". Collins' route home from the pub would seem to amount to about 6½ miles in an almost direct NNE direction from Alderton. This is complicated by the fact that Capel Green is a flyspeck on a flyspeck; virtually just a couple of houses at a bend in the road. To get round this, I've used the postcode of Butley Abbey (IP12 3NR) as his destination.



In descending order of likelihood, I've explored the possibility that "Lion's Corner" might refer to:

a) A pub called the Lion/Red Lion/White Lion/Lion and Lamb etc.

b) A Lyons tea shop

c) A meeting hall for the Lions Club

Unfortunately, none of these has panned out. The area seems too much of a backwater to support a national-level tea room; there don't appear to be any lion-related pubs on or near the route; and the Lions only appear to have four meeting halls in Suffolk, all in large towns.


maximus otter
 

Analogue Boy

Bar 6
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
11,745
Reaction score
12,089
Points
309
I've spent a while looking into this.

Maps show no obvious geographic feature called "Lion's Corner". Collins' route home from the pub would seem to amount to about 6½ miles in an almost direct NNE direction from Alderton. This is complicated by the fact that Capel Green is a flyspeck on a flyspeck; virtually just a couple of houses at a bend in the road. To get round this, I've used the postcode of Butley Abbey (IP12 3NR) as his destination.



In descending order of likelihood, I've explored the possibility that "Lion's Corner" might refer to:

a) A pub called the Lion/Red Lion/White Lion/Lion and Lamb etc.

b) A Lyons tea shop

c) A meeting hall for the Lions Club

Unfortunately, none of these has panned out. The area seems too much of a backwater to support a national-level tea room; there don't appear to be any lion-related pubs on or near the route; and the Lions only appear to have four meeting halls in Suffolk, all in large towns.


maximus otter
Try Lion’s Den.
 

Analogue Boy

Bar 6
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
11,745
Reaction score
12,089
Points
309
Just before a building called Lion's Den is reached, turn left along a bridleway that heads east-southeastwards, eventually leaving the golf course and running with trees on the right. When a T-junction with another track is reached at TM313493, turn right and follow this new track southwards for two-thirds of a mile. The westernmost fence of RAF Woodbridge is followed on the left before the trail reaches a road at TM310483.
https://www.britishwalks.org/Trails/SandlingsWalk/WoodbridgetoTangham.php
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
7,563
Reaction score
12,089
Points
279
Location
Phone
Some press reports distorted what Dave said, which has started yet another myth.
That's precisely where I picked up on this, from a Google search leading to a newspaper article.

As expressed, I was somewhat shocked to read that David had promoted such, 'evidence'.

Not like him to lose all common sense!

Thanks for explaining - as you say, 'another myth'...
 

eburacum

Papo-furado
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
3,999
Reaction score
2,311
Points
184
There's no indication they are using the starscope, which ‍‍had ‍a ‍magnification ‍of ‍4 ‍times and wouldn't show any colour, other than green.
Ah, that's true. Although Deneb and Vega are bright stars, they wouldn't show half-moon shapes unless you were looking through a badly-focused optical instrument; and the Starlight scope wouldn't show colours. So they must have had some sort of telescope/monocular/binocular.
 
Top