• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

U.K. UFOs

I see lights like that all the time...because I live near the Sandy Heath transmitter. I can see it miles away as I'm driving home.
 
While driving around the hills here we can see the Emily Moor mast in the distance.

The thing to remember with lights is that if you look at them for a while they will appear to move. Usually upwards and to the right.

INT21
 
WayMarker,

..So perhaps lights (e.g. lighthouses etc) near Rendlesham Forest also tricked the witnesses into thinking they were seeing something spooky because their brains couldn't process what their eyes were feeding them?..

But that doesn't fit in with the reported sighting details.

Particularly they part where one of the witness is supposed to have touched it. Or the alleged impact holes in the ground.

It all seems to boil down to 'was Halt telling the truth' ?

INT21
 
^ Yes...leaving the lighthouse out of it for a moment....the question of seeing it on the ground, touching it, and landing marks remain to be explained. So is Halt and the other man telling the truth?
 
That is the big question.

INT21
 
..one of the witness is supposed to have touched it. Or the alleged impact holes in the ground.
It all seems to boil down to 'was Halt telling the truth' ?

If Halt and the other Rendlesham witnesses could provide photos of the craft their account would carry more weight.
Did nobody have the foresight to go into the forest carrying a camera?
 
I do not believe for one second that Penniston touched the object. His initial statement indicates that he was 50 metres from the object- probably a rough estimate in the dark, and wildly inaccurate - but certainly too far away to touch, and in a forest, probably too far away to see the object clearly. When Halt made the tape recording in the forest two days later, there was no object on the ground.

Honestly the whole idea of going out to the forest two days later expecting to see the UFO again is bizarre, and everything they did see on the second expedition has been explained quite comprehensively. The tape is a valuable tool to help decode the events of the second expedition, but the events of the first have been elaborated into fantasy by the least reliable of the witnesses.
 
..Honestly the whole idea of going out to the forest two days later expecting to see the UFO again is bizarre,..

If I remember correctly, it was the guards who informed security 'it's back'.

So they didn't go looking for it, it came back to them.

I can't recall just at what stage they experienced problems with the 'light-all's. I'd have to read up on the whole thing again.

I also am a bit skeptical about Penniston's account.

INT21
 
If I remember correctly, it was the guards who informed security 'it's back'.
Whoever made this report on the second day (guards or otherwise) have never come forward since. Note as well that neither Penniston or Burroughs were invited on the second expedition. Burroughs even asked to come and was denied the opportunity. That suggests to me a strict demarcation between roles at this base- the guards were a separate entity, and Halt didn't include them in his investigative team for whatever reason.
 
If Halt and the other Rendlesham witnesses could provide photos of the craft their account would carry more weight.
Did nobody have the foresight to go into the forest carrying a camera?


It's very easy to say this now, in the age of cameraphones. But I think we do forget that back in the 80s we were still using film based, hand-winding cameras. And while most people owned some kind of camera more often than not they only got them out, bought and put film into them for holidays, family get-togethers, Birthdays and special occasions. You got your photos processed and then the camera lay empty until the next time. :)

I re-posted my own account of seeing a strange object in the sky back in 1996 recently, but while myself, my brother and parents watched the bloody thing through binoculars until about 01:00 am we had no camera with film in it to snap a photo. And it's not like we had any 24 hour shop open were we could buy camera film.
 
..I think we do forget that back in the 80s we were still using film based, hand-winding cameras. And while most people owned some kind of camera more often than not they only got them out, bought and put film into them for holidays, family get-togethers, Birthdays and special occasions. You got your photos processed and then the camera lay empty until the next time. :).

Yeah, and if only PC Alan Godfrey had had a cam or dashcam in his cop car, it'd be the picture of the century because he could just show the photo around instead of having to draw what he saw like this..:)-

AlanGodfrey.jpg

http://www.ufocasebook.com/godfreyabduction.html
 
As the number of available cameras has increased, the number of UFO photos has decreased (apart from obvious CG fakes).

On the other hand the number of filmed meteors and rocket-launches has increased considerably. That suggests that there were natural or mundane causes behind most of the unexplained cases in the early years, causes that a camera could have helped to solve.
 
As the number of available cameras has increased, the number of UFO photos has decreased (apart from obvious CG fakes).

On the other hand the number of filmed meteors and rocket-launches has increased considerably. That suggests that there were natural or mundane causes behind most of the unexplained cases in the early years, causes that a camera could have helped to solve.


Quite probably, yes. I mean we'll never be able to confirm without some element of doubt. But common sense would suggest that you'd have to see a likely connection between the two.
 
As the number of available cameras has increased, the number of UFO photos has decreased (apart from obvious CG fakes).

On the other hand the number of filmed meteors and rocket-launches has increased considerably. That suggests that there were natural or mundane causes behind most of the unexplained cases in the early years, causes that a camera could have helped to solve.

This fits with another pair of trends I've noticed, particularly over the last 20 years or so:

(1) Folks are progressively more prone to consider anything they don't immediately recognize in the sky as a UFO; and

(2) Folks are decreasingly familiar, to the point of outright ignorance, about what all is 'up there' in the first place.

The classic incidents from the late 1940's through the 1960's involved reports of objects observed closely enough to afford descriptions of (e.g.) shape, lights, windows, etc. Now the reports get triggered by any speck of light that seems to be moving.

There weren't any waves of UFO hysteria about (e.g.) Sputnik or any of the early satellites, even though they were every bit as visible as some of the trivial items reported as UFO's today.

It took more than a mere Iridium flare to warrant the UFO tag back in the Olde Daze, dammit! ... :omr:

That contrasts with today's reports, which are quick to label well-known, and even predictable, small moving dots as UFO's.

One way to put it is that premature attributions and tacit gullibility have increased while depth of observational detail and the threshold criteria for claiming something extraordinary aloft have decreased.
 
Just to advise that the June 2018 issue number 195 of Northern UFO News is available to read for free on the final page of my website, with all previous issues since Oct 2017 available to read afterwards. There is also a new blog post from me up with news on the MoD and UFOs.

The blog post has a little news on the Alan Godfrey case btw.

You can access this on:- www:ozfactorbooks.com
 
Just to let you know that the May 2018 issue of Northern UFO News (issue 194) is now free online on
www.ozfactorbooks.com

It has a long look at the MOD ending all UFO interest and a case from Yorkshire where they broke up a press conference being given by the witness.

I have just read the article - very enjoyable and the MOD's interest in the case quite intriguing. The fact that they only seemed interested in the 'doorway' if the craft makes me think they were curious about the technology, perhaps?
 
As the number of available cameras has increased, the number of UFO photos has decreased (apart from obvious CG fakes).

On the other hand the number of filmed meteors and rocket-launches has increased considerably. That suggests that there were natural or mundane causes behind most of the unexplained cases in the early years, causes that a camera could have helped to solve.

People say this all the time, but how much actual evidence do you have for it? Have you done a count of all the available UFO shots out there and compared them to the number in the past? How have you established which ones were CGI and which ones not? Are you sure that all the ones you think are rockets and meteors actually are - or is this just your own hypothesis? Are you a better man than all the rest of us?

It seems to me that there are considerably more alleged UFO photos and (particularly) films out there than there was in pre-interweb times - and yet the nature of these pictures is much the same as back in the day. The average UFO book of the 70s and 80s would showcase a few visual humdingers (obvious clouds for example. Le Poer Trench being a particular sucker here), a few could-be -his, could-be-that type shots and a then one or two real puzzlers. So it is now.

The problems now are that: (a) we are in a situation of `infobesity`, whereby it is a full time job to sort through all the available material. Nobody has the time to do so, and (b) computer technology has become so advanced that it is difficult, or impossible, for the average layman to tell a CGI fake aprt from a real picture - and so the temptation is to default to the former explanation in all cases.

Let us imagine that in Warwickshire on the evening of a certain October in 1996 the poster Curiousident (Cf his post on IHTM) had had a digital video camera with him and took a film of the illuminated cylindrical object that he saw that night. Let us also imagine that Youtube technology existed at that time and that he posted it on there. The reaction would have been very predictable, viz:

* True believers would have gone: `Cool! More proof of E.T visitation.
* The open minded agnostic would go: `Hmmm...interesting.
* The Skeptoid would go: `It's a dirigible, dummy` Or (ignoring the corresponding witness testimony): `It's obviously CGI!`
Then the whole post would get forgotten and buried beneath countless other posts, some fake pisstakes, others could-be-this-could-be-that and some rather more interesting ones.

Let's accept that UFOs (whatever they might be) are a transient and rare phenomenon. If so there will only be a few shots of them - and these will often be taken by amateurs who were unprepared for the event (I don't go with this idea that photoing and filming things is a piece of cake these days. There have been plenty of times when I've tried to get a shot of a known phenomena - a double rainbow for example - and the results have proven pointless because I'm no photographer and have only basic equipment.). And trying to find these shots would be like trying to find a needle in a haystack.
 
If Curiousident did have a camera with him or her on that date we would have something to analyse. I am fairly sure that with a video to look at
a/ we could come up with some plausible explanations for this event and
b/ it wouldn't look much like the way Curiousident remembers it.
Videos that are not fakes can be analysed in some depth nowadays, as the people at Metabunk are demonstrating.

But the vast number of fakes makes analysing UFO videos a dispiriting task. The best rule of thumb is that a fake will have no context and no independent witnesses. Given enough context I have no doubt that absolutely every real UFO could be explained.
 
If Curiousident did have a camera with him or her on that date we would have something to analyse. I am fairly sure that with a video to look at
a/ we could come up with some plausible explanations for this event and
b/ it wouldn't look much like the way Curiousident remembers it.
Videos that are not fakes can be analysed in some depth nowadays, as the people at Metabunk are demonstrating.


You know the saddest thing is that today I (and all of us really) take video very much for granted. Even the more basic of smartphones can record video. You see something, you get your phone out, you capture something.

For those interested in the account which eburacum is referring to, you can find that here: http://forum.forteantimes.com/index.php?threads/ufo-sighting-warwickshire-october-1996.63860/

I've not posted it into this thread before.

And yes, I wish I had a photo or camera footage to show you. I don't. Because, like I say, we're talking about pre-digital here. Cameras which still needed physical film. Camcorders which still needed charging and inserting video tape into. Items which you would need to prepare in advance of expecting to see something.

I certainly was expecting to see something. :)

Nor was my father, or my mother and younger brother.

In 1996 it was still a couple of years before I owned by crappy old 2G Nokia 5110 - my first mobile phone, period. And a decade before my owning a phone capable of taking photos or recording video.

In '96 even camcorders were a luxury which few people afforded. We certainly didn't own one. The first time I got my hands on a video camera was at uni in '98. Though even if we had had access to one the likelihood of capturing anything truly visible on a home use camcorder, at the kind of distance I'm talking for when we got back home, it would have been a tiny dot on the horizon. Almost impossible to make any real conclusion on.

I mean sure while my father and I were still in town, trying to get closer to wherever this thing was hovering, that would of given us a much better image. But, you know, who the hell carried a bulky camcorder in their car just in case they spotted something unusual, which they hadn't been expecting to see...?

Sorry if I'm sounding a little dismissive here, but your post does come across as a little bit condescending. I certainly don't consider myself to be a believer in alien visitors or flying saucers. I shared an account of this odd sighting of something in the sky (and indeed elsewhere on these boards), submitted As Is. I don't claim to have an answer for it.

I don't know what the shape in the sky actually was. I have definite doubts (largely based on it speed of travel and it's flying at night with no obvious logo) that it could have been an advertising blimp. But I don't believe it was some kind of bizarre alien exploration craft. I do live in an area where military aircraft do fly overhead from time to time. So some kind of craft or dirigible they were testing or using is not implausible.

I just look at it quite literally as a Unidentified Flying Object. In as much as it was airborne and I could not readily identify it as an object which would/should normally be there.

As to any claim that I am in some way remembering the visual detail of said object incorrectly, I would point out that by day I am actually employed for my attention to detail. The heady (sometimes tedious) world of Quality Assurance, in which I send my days reporting anything from rogue unlicensed logos in images to to the exact circumstances of reproducing a problem with a view to getting it resolved.

I am not prone to hyperbole or exaggeration. And while we are talking about an experience from over 20 years ago now, it is something which has stuck in my head pretty distinctively ever since.
 
Last edited:
We live in a area were military aircraft are tested as well as being a low fly route so are always on the look out for interesting stuff, have even got a pic of one or two but by the time you get the camera or phone lit up they are often miles away, thing is when you do see something really strange you don't want to take your eyes off it, in the last 25 years we have lived here I have seen at least two things that I should have reached for my phone cam for but didn't even though I had plenty of time, If I am ever lucky enough to see anything again I really must grab for the phone cam.
It can be done I walked out to the car one day and caught this, one of the last flights of the Vulcan and right over our st just had time to get the phone out and get off 3 shots must try harder instead of standing there saying "what the f was that"

XyoKdyA.jpg
 
Last edited:
I saw one of the last flights of the Vulcan too - no pictures unfortunately. I also saw the documentary on telly a few weeks later - so now I can't be sure which memories are real and which ones are derived from TV. Memory is an unreliable guide, I'm afraid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RaM
We live in a area were military aircraft are tested as well as being a low fly route so are always on the look out for interesting stuff, have even got a pic of one or two but by the time you get the camera or phone lit up they are often miles away, thing is when you do see something really strange you don't want to take your eyes off it,

XyoKdyA.jpg

Only last night (20/06/2018) something happened to me to confirm this.

Disclaimer:This is not a UFO report.

I live and work in Moscow as a teacher of English. I had just finished a class at 9pm in a centrlL area of Moscow called Universitet (It's where Moscow State Univerisity is situated). I made my way up the main road to the Metro which would take me home.

It was a pleasant summer evening - with a dark blue sky and a cresent moon out. There were a fair few people around - some of them South Americans visiting for the World Cup (which is going exceedingly well, btw). As the atmosphere was quite festive I decided to just on a bench to just take in the ambience - but kept an eye on the sky, as I am wont to do.

Then I saw, coming towards my direction what I assume to be a drone. Private drones are strictly banned in Moscow so it must have been millitary or otherwise official in nature. It looked like two small paralell spheres on some sort of frame. No lights. Nor could I see propellers, although I assume they must have been there.

I'd say it was about the size of a car and around a mile up in the sky - the size of a drawing pin held at arms length.

I watched it with interest as it veered purposefully towards the South East of the city - then I thought:` Uck! I should be getting a shot of ths!` (It's a rare sight after all - i've never seen this before). So I fished out my smart phone, located the camera option only to find that it was in Selfie mode and I had to remember how to reverse this. Then when I'd done that the vehicle was but a faint speck and unphootgraphable.

(I'm not one of those people who takes pics of every damn thing I do. I only use my phone camera to take records of my salary slip and that sort of thing. For `proper` picures I will still use a digital camera).

As said, there were plenty of other people around, but I was the only one that seemed to notice the drone in the sky.

The point being: (A) a genuinely anomlous object could pass over a built up area without many people noticing it and (B) those who do wouldn't necessarily be quick enough to take a shot of it.
 
Last edited:
I'm not really sure where to post this, a group of UK believers explore areas that also have military sensitivity .. I'm sceptical .. I think it's a bit of Most Haunted style presentation BS myself ..

 
Last edited:
Finally managed to get Northern UFO News issue 196 (July 2018) published It features in detail a Pennine landing case we did not have space to cover in Who or what were they? The site also has a new blog. NUN is available for free along with the previous nine months issues (that follow on after it). I have moved the placement on the scroll bar at the top by request so it should now be visible without scrolling and you can click straight on for acess. Check it out on www.ozfactorbooks.com
 
Thanks, Jenny! That's a lot to read.
 
Just to advise that the August 2018 issue, number 197, of Northern UFO News is now out. Along with a new blog post. We just made it into August!

This is an Isle of Man holiday season special. Available for free, along with the previous years worth of issues afterwards, on

ozfactorbooks.com
Oz factor books
Oz factor, Aliens, UFOs and unexplained phenomena from eye witnesses, with news, reviews, puzzles and commentary by Jenny Randles
 
Just letting you know that Issue 198 of Northern UFO News is now available - with the past years worth of issues archived directly afterwards. This month is a special on mystery aircraft sightings. A new blog post also features. You can acccess for free via:-

www.ozfactorbooks.com
 
Last edited:
Just letting you know that Issue 198 of Northern UFO News is now available - with the past years worth of issues archived directly afterwards. This month is a special on mystery aircraft sightings. A new blog post also features. You can acccess for free via:-
ozfacorbooks.com
www.ozfacorbooks.com

Website cannot be found!
Can anyone else confirm?
 
Back
Top