Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here Our Bookstore is OPEN Over 5000 new & used titles, competitively priced! Topics: UFOs - Paranormal - Area 51 - Ghosts - Forteana - Conspiracy - History - Biography - Psychology - Religion - Crime - Health - Geography - Maps - Science - Money - Language - Recreation - Technology - Fiction - Other - New Search... for keyword(s)   in Page Titles in Book Title/Author in Contents of Pages ---other searches--- Metacrawler Yahoo FAST Search Google Altavista Dogpile Inference Find Northern Light IWon.com MSN Search Las Vegas Sun Location: Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 2000 -> Sep -> Re: Orford Ness Lighthouse 'UFO' - Easton

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 03:46:44 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 12:31:30 -0400
Subject: Re: Orford Ness Lighthouse 'UFO' - Easton


In response to some recent claims concerning the relative
visibility of Orford Ness lighthouse and its beam, I trust the
following information will be of assistance:

[Originally posted to UFORL]

From: "James Easton" <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
To: "UFO Research List" <UFORL@listbot.com>
Subject: Re: Rendlesham...
Date: 12 September 2000 01:58

In answer to a previous question, what colour was the Orford
Ness beacon, we do of course have an apparent first hand
confirmation. According to Ed Cabansag, "While we walked, each
one of us could see the lights. Blue, red, white and yellow. The
beacon light turned out to be the yellow light. We could see
them periodically, but not in a specific pattern".

The following may help to further understand events, especially
in their original perspective and relates to previously
unpublished material from last year. Some concerning the
lighthouse will be familiar, however, no harm in confirming a
few facts.

1. Extracts from conversation with Bernard Edwards, the Lights
List Officer, re Orford Ness lighthouse [my questions/responses
are prefixed by 'JE:'] -

..it's light number 2258 if you want a future reference for
it...

...let me just see what the characteristics are now... it's a
flashing white light and there's also a fixed red and a fixed
green... the red covers a certain arc and the green covers
another certain arc.

JE: Which of the lights would be visible from inshore?

Well... the red sector goes from shore, clockwise round to 210
degrees true, there is another red sector from 038 degrees to
049 degrees, which is a nine degree arc and there's a green
sector from 047 degrees to shore.

Now, any angle in-between those, it obviously doesn't shine
over.

The white light... it doesn't tell me here, but I would imagine
that's all round, but maybe it's blanked inshore a bit, because
lighthouses tend to upset local people.

Now, when you draw out those bearings, you must remember they
are bearings as a mariner would see the lights from seaward, so
it's no good putting a dot on the paper for the light and
drawing a bearing down to the south-west of 210. It is the
mariner looking from the north-east, down a bearing of 210
towards the south-west and there he sees the light.

JE: Is there any reason this white light, or the beam, might be
described as yellow or yellowish-white, as opposed to just plain
white?

A white light can look yellowish and a yellow light can look
whitish.

JE: What might cause that, could it be the Fresnel lens?

I don't honestly know, it may be something to do with the
atmospherics at the time. Was it in the winter?

JE: Yes, this particular observation was in December.

You see, lights do alter if they get a bit of ice on the lens,
you know, a bit of frosting. I'm not saying that was the
reason... [End]


2. Extracts from conversation with Keith Seaman, responsible for
maintenance of the automated Orford Ness lighthouse and who
knows the UFO story well:

...when you get right into the forest, the beam actually
traverses through the forest...

...you're getting well down [towards the coast] then, because as
I pointed out at the time, the lighthouse beam does not go any
further inland than the coast; the coast curves, it doesn't
follow a dead straight line and you obviously get a little bit
of overthrow from the beam.

I've looked after the lighthouse since 1994, I wasn't involved
with it at the time [December 1980], but I'm fully aware of all
the equipment that was in there and where the light shone and
that hasn't been altered since 1914.

JE: Has the light which shines inland been dimmed or reduced in
any way?

The range and possibly the intensity has been reduced since,
that happened in 1990.

JE: Another possibility which came up was that the Shipwash
lightship may have been a factor.

The Shipwash was certainly there at the time.

JE: It's been replaced since then by a buoy, hasn't it?

It has been replace by a buoy, but at the time the Shipwash was
there, but it was some miles further out and my understanding of
that is that it was blanked off towards the land anyway, because
it wasn't necessary to shine the light towards the land because
you'd already got the lighthouse there.

The lighthouse is blanked off to a certain area, it's not a
completely visible light all the way round the 360 degrees, it's
blanked off towards the land. And that's when the light
disappears, because it's screened off.

JE: So, the lightship at that time, would just have been a
plain, white light as well?

Yes, but it had a very different flash sequence.

There were two lightships out there at the time, there was the
Gabbit as well, which was a lot further out.

JE: I'm not aware of that one.

That was off Felixstowe. [End]


In view of the landscape and lighthouse alterations since
December, 1980, a previously mentioned, 1997 public statement
from Chris Armold is perhaps worth considering again.

As noted, Armold was the security policeman who, after the first
incident, reported concerns of an aircrash to the local Suffolk
Constabulary. He wrote:

In any case here is some information regarding that wonderful
goat rope outside the RAF Woodbridge East Gate that December
morning. I was a member of the 81st Security Police Squadron on
"B" Flight Law Enforcement. If I remember correctly (and you
must forgive me for some memory lapse as you must realize that
at the time this was not a significant event, consequently it
really hasn't been burned into my mind, obviously had I seen
flying saucers, and little green men I doubt I would have any
problems retaining the information) those of us working were
having some fun as we actually were playing music over one of
the Police Frequencies. It was very quiet and since it was the
holiday season, not much was happening. Things were pretty laid
back. In any case, we were playing Music on the Security
Frequency and the Law Enforcement freq was being used in case
someone had an emergency or actual work related transmission to
make.

After midnight, John Burroughs radioed the LE desk and reported
he had seen strange lights in the outside the East Gate on RAF
Woodbridge. I was actually on RAF Lakenheath hanging out at the
Law Enforcement Desk at the time. Burroughs, who liked to draw
attention to himself, often over-reacted to situations and was
considered very unreliable, wanted to know if there were any
reports of downed aircraft.

We called the Control Tower and I even called the local
Constabulary (I can't remember the town the constabulary was in
, but I do know it was outside of Ipswich and I think it used to
be an air base during WWII, I believe the control tower was
restored in the 80's)

In any case, after getting a negative reply from the British
Cops, My flight chief asked me if I wanted to head out to
Woodbridge to meet up with Burroughs and see what was up. I
grabbed the back gate keys, and took the back way to RAF W/B. I
met Burroughs at the East Gate of WB. We left our guns with the
guy riding with Burroughs and drove to the end of the long
access road. We left our vehicle and walked out there.

There was absolutely nothing in the woods. We could see lights
in the distance and it appeared unusual as it was a sweeping
light, (we did not know about the lighthouse on the coast at the
time). We also saw some strange colored lights in the distance
but were unable to determine what they were. [End]

Armold is a vital witness and apparently one of only three
security policemen, the others being Burroughs and Chandler, who
directly participated in both night's events.

I've recently been discussing the case with him and hope to
shortly be able to publish his more detailed account.

What's important and may not be generally appreciated, is how
Arnold went back with Burroughs to the 'site' of that inaugural
'UFO' scare and it was from this vantage point he could see
"lights in the distance and it appeared unusual as it was a
sweeping light", plus, "some strange colored lights in the
distance".

In recent correspondence, I asked:

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. The lights were
primarily white and were very small, far off in the distance.
Occasionally one would see a shade of blue or red but I
attribute that to refraction from stained glass windows in a
local church in addition to the fog and weather at the time. The
lights did not move in erratic fashions nor did they move
towards us or act in any manner which violated the laws of known
physics. [End]

So, of immense significance, according to Armold some distant
red and blue lights were still visible from the 'landing site'.
However, according to Penniston, the red and blue lights
encountered earlier were attached to a small craft which had, by
that time, zoomed off into the night sky. [END]


[From Ian Ridpath and posted with Ian's full permission]

Sparks seems to think that the fact that the lighthouse dips
below the horizon as one moves into the farmer's field somehow
disproves that Col Halt (or anyone else) could have chased it
for two miles. Au contraire: it simply confirms what Halt said
on the tape, namely that he lost sight of it and then made
sighting again "at the far side of the second farmer's field".
 From Halt's time markers on the tape, it seems there was quite
an interval between passing the farmer's house and re-sighting
the light. (Note, however, that he says: "We've passed the
farmer's house and are crossing the next field" as though the
two events were almost consecutive - no suggestion of a long
walk along the lanes as proposed by Robert McLean).

He also tries to make a point about magnetic deviation, but
simply ends up confirming the figures we already have. What he
says is: "Contrary to erroneous skeptic information the magnetic
declination or correction from magnetic to true bearings was
-5.2 degs, not -10 degs, according to the NOAA Geomagnetic
Synthesis program and Historical Declination database for Dec
28, 1980, at 52-05 N, 1-30 E, zero elevation. With these two
5-degree errors by skeptics -- in the bearing to Orfordness and
in converting Halt's compass readings from magnetic to true --
skeptics have conveniently improved their case by a total of 10
degrees."

Now, we have to distinguish between true north and grid north,
since most of us are working from OS maps and true north at that
location is 2 degrees 50 minutes west of grid north. In
addition, at the date of the sighting magnetic north was about 8
degrees west of grid north. Deduct 2*50 from 8 and you have a
deviation of magnetic north from true north of -5.2 degs, as
quoted by Sparks from NOAA info, confirming my info from the OS.

On the other hand, his own measurement of the azimuth of the
lighthouse from East Gate as 85 degrees is clearly wrong.
(Coincidentally, the azimuth is virtually identical from East
Gate and from the alleged landing site). Where he gets the "5-
degree errors by skeptics" from I don't know. My own value for
the azimuth of the lighthouse (measured from the OS map) was 91
degrees from grid north, which converts to a magnetic bearing of
99 degrees, using the figures above.

As an amusing aside, had Sparks followed his own logic to its
inevitable conclusion, he would have realized he had just proved
that the lighthouse should have been some 30 degrees to the
*left* of Halt's bearing to the UFO, rather than to the right
where Halt claimed to have seen it. [END]


[Also from Ian and forwarded with permission]

I see from the latest postings to UFO Updates that David Rudiak
has done some research and undergone a rather remarkable (and
principled) change of view about the visibility of the Orford
Ness lighthouse.

He posts a link:

http://www.debenweb.co.uk/img/suff/orfd/orf10.jpg

to a photo of the lighthouse.

It so happens that on my last trip to the area I took a photo of
the lighthouse from almost exactly the same position as the one
at the above URL. Hence I can state with confidence that this
photo was taken from somewhere very near to (and most probably
on) the jetty that sticks out into the River Ore from the
riverfront at Orford. If you have the relevant Pathfinder map,
you should see a dotted line marked 'Ferry V' crossing the River
Ore at this point. In fact, it looks to me as though the line of
sight of this photo is almost exactly along this dotted line.

A glance at a map will show that the position from which this
photo was taken is to the NNW of the lighthouse. I do recall
seeing the direct flash of the beam even from this position on
the riverfront, but it is probably the very northerly limit of
visibility. Perhaps Robert McLean could confirm this. In any
case, it is clear from the photo that the lamp is not entirely
blocked from view by shielding at this point. This makes sense,
since direct visibility of the light would be valuable to boats
in the River Ore.

Hence, Rudiak has neatly provided evidence for everyone on the
UFO Updates list that the beam is indeed directly visible well
to the north of west, and no southerly adjustment of the
position of the presumed landing site is necessary. [END]


[Originally posted to UFORL]

From: "Robert McLean" <robert.mclean2@virgin.net>
To: "Rudiak, David" <DRudiak@aol.com>; "UFO Research List"
<UFORL@listbot.com>
Subject: Rendlesham: Visibility of Orfordness Lighthouse
Date: 25 September 2000 22:37

(The contents of this message are non-confidential and can be re-
posted.)

There was some discussion a few weeks ago on UFO UpDates about
the visibility of the Orfordness Lighthouse from the "accepted
landing site", and how this could be possible, given that the
rear, or landward, face of the lighthouse is blacked-out with a
"shield". See for example:

http://personal.riverusers.com/~tanseyj/orford.jpg

and

http://www.debenweb.co.uk/img/suff/orfd/orf10.jpg


On 23/09/00 I went over to Orfordness for the afternoon. The site
is run by the National Trust, and you get there by taking a small
boat that leaves from the Orford pier, exactly where the debenweb
photo was taken.

The Orfordness Lighthouse is, of course, visible from the
"accepted landing site" in Rendlesham forest, the  location of
which on Ordnance Survey maps is at grid ref TM364490 - I've seen
it there and so have lots of others. (N.B. Please ignore the
circular logic: - The "accepted landing site" is believed to be
at grid ref TM364490 mainly because the lighthouse is visible
from there!)

In August I walked along the coastal path north from Orford.
Simply out of curiosity, I used my binoculars to find the point
along the path where I appeared to be directly "behind" the
lighthouse, i.e. centered on the shield. It is possible to do
this, because the shield follows the diamond pattern of the
window panes. When you are directly in line facing the shield,
you can see two small triangles of glass at the left and right
sides of the lantern.

The point on the path from where these triangles of glass looked
to be equal was at grid ref TM436499, which is about 1750 m
inland of the lighthouse. The lighthouse is at grid ref TM450488«
(you measure to the base of the lighthouse symbol on the OS map)
and so the centre of the shadow cast by the shield is at an angle
of 308ø grid north, or 310.4ø true north. This line passes no
closer than 750 m NE from the centre of Orford. The centre of
this shadowed area is not centered on Orford, but very nearly
bisects the angle formed by the change in direction of the
coastline at the lighthouse. If it wasn't for this change in the
direction of the coastline, the Orfordness lighthouse would not
be visible inland the way it is.

The difference in angle between the centre of the shield and the
line to the accepted landing site is 37ø. (The error on this
number will be low, probably within ñ2ø, because it is possible
to compare accurately the size of the triangles of glass as
mentioned above.)

When I was at Orfordness, I walked around the lighthouse. There
are 16 of the diamond-shaped panes of glass around the
circumference of the lantern, and only 3 of these are blacked out
around the mid-vertical circumference of the shield. The shield
therefore extends a minimum of ñ33.75ø from the centre of the
shadow cast by the shield, which is 37ø-33.75ø=3.25ø short of the
angle to the accepted landing site.

There are three similar Fresnel lenses inside the lantern
arranged as an equilateral triangle which rotates fully in 15
seconds, giving one flash every 5 seconds. Each of the lenses is
quite large, with a diameter maybe one-half of the lantern. The
lighthouse beam therefore fades gradually as it turns across the
edge of the shield.

To work out the rate at which the beam fades, and the percentage
of light visible at the accepted landing site, you'd have to know
the cross-sectional intensity profile of the beam, and well as
the angle formed by the diamond panes at the edge of the shield.
The beam is probably most intense at its centre. The diamond
pattern is "tall". So a good estimate would be that the beam
intensity at the accepted landing site is about one-half what it
would be out to sea.

The range of lighthouse at sea is stated by Trinity House to be
19 nautical miles. Since the accepted landing site is 8.5 km from
the lighthouse, it is easy to see why the flash of the lighthouse
is still bright at the accepted landing site at night, even when
half of it has been obscured by the shield.

Robert McLean
[END]


To reiterate; when Burroughs, Cabansag and Penniston originally
pursued some unidentified lights, in the early hours of 26th
December, 1980, we know that the following occurred:

"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" - Burroughs.

"We figured the lights were coming from past the forest, since
nothing was visible as we passed through the woody forest. We
could see a glowing near the beacon light, but as we got closer
we found it to be a lit-up farmhouse. After we had passed through
the forest, we thought it had to be an aircraft accident. So did
CSC [Central Security Control] as well. But we ran and walked a
good 2 miles past our vehicle, until we got to a vantage point
where we could determine that what we were chasing was only a
beacon light off in the distance. Our route through the forest
and field was a direct one, straight towards the light.

We informed CSC that the light beacon was further than we
thought, so CSC terminated our investigation" - Cabansag.


On the night of 27th December, Halt was investigating a report
that the 'UFO was back' and was at the 'landing sight' when it's
recorded on his microcassette:

HALT: You just saw a light? Where? [Unclear] Slow down. Where?

VOICE: Right on this position here. Straight ahead, in between
the trees - there it is again. Watch - straight ahead, off my
flashlight there, sir. There it is.

HALT: I see it, too. What is it?

VOICE: We don't know, sir.

VOICE: Can I just have a...

HALT: It's a strange, small red light, looks to be maybe a
quarter to a half mile, maybe further out. I'm gonna switch off.

HALT: The light is gone now. It was approximately 120 degrees
from the site...

VOICE: It's back again.

HALT: Is it back again?

VOICE: Yes, sir.

HALT: Well douse flashlights then. Let's go back to the edge of
the clearing so we can get a better look at it. See if you can
get the Starscope on it. The light's still there and all the
barnyard animals have gone quiet now.

[...]

HALT: There is no doubt about it - there is some type of strange
flashing red light ahead.

VOICE: There! It's yellow.

HALT: I saw a yellow tinge in it, too. Weird! It appears to be
maybe moving a little bit this way? It's brighter than it has
been. It's coming this way. It is definitely coming this way.
Pieces of it are shooting off. There is no doubt about it. This
is weird!

[...]

HALT: OK, we're looking at the thing, we're probably about two to
three hundred yards away. It looks like an eye winking at you.
Still moving from side to side. And when you put the Starscope on
it, it sorta has a hollow center, a dark center, it's like a
pupil of an eye looking at you, winking.

And it flashes so bright to the Starscope that it almost burns
your eye.

HALT: 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: 2:44. We're at the far side of the second farmer's field
and made sighting again about 110 degrees. This looks like it's
clear off to the coast. It's right on the horizon. Moves about a
bit and flashes from time to time. Still steady or red in color.

[...]

HALT: 3:05. We see strange strobe-like flashes to the... rather
sporadic, but there's definitely something there. Some kind of
phenomenon.
[END]

Incidentally, thanks to Robert McLean, we now know what the
'strobe-like phenomenon' almost certainly was - it's still
visible from the same vantage point, 'at the far side of the
second farmer's field'. I'll leave that aside for now though, I'm
not sure Robert wants to disclose this outwith UFORL at present.

As previously noted, Halt's publicised recollection is how the
initial red [yellow] light observed then exploded into five white
lights and was never seen again. That's evidently not what
happened - as I'm sure Halt will now acknowledge - the white
lights were a separate sighting (again, we now know what they
almost certainly were) and the 'red' light was in fact seen once
more, this time unmistakable "clear off to the coast" and still
flashing.

In 'Rendlesham Unravelled', I wrote:

Science writer Ian Ridpath proposed a more mundane explanation,
that Halt had been deceived by the nearby Orford Ness lighthouse
and Shipwash lightship and these were responsible for the
'phenomena' witnessed.

Halt's tape recording also noted the 'eye' had a dark centre,
only visible when using the 'starlight scope', an image
intensifier. Using the intensifier to view a bright object may
have produced this 'burn out' effect.

Subsequent comparisons between the timing of the 'flashing red
light' from Halt's recording and the Orford Ness beacon,
indicated the lighthouse was indeed an obvious source.

Jenny Randles, one of Britain's foremost authors on the
'unexplained', has written extensively about the case and was one
of the first to investigate the rumours, long before Halt's memo
surfaced.

In her latest book, 'UFO Crash Landing?', she writes:

"Once the men entered the woods on foot and headed towards the
clearing, the option that they saw the lighthouse certainly
increases in strength. I have stood and watched it several times
at night".

"Being inside a forest several miles inland, a lighthouse beacon
would not be the first thought to explain a low-level pulsing
glow. Because of the way the land slopes, the lighthouse sits on
the horizon and appears almost on the ground - just as described
on the Halt tape".

"At the site, the lighthouse does pulse like a winking eye, just
as Halt explains on the tape. The pulses can even be timed as the
beacon rotates (taking about five seconds) and there is a
comparison with part of the tape where the men notice that the
light briefly disappears and then shout, 'There it is again', as
it reappears. This match is quite striking if you judge film of
the lighthouse alongside the audio of the tape. Finally, the
bearing given by the men for the location of the UFO as they walk
toward the coast closely mirrors that of the Orford lighthouse as
seen from the landing site.

Frankly, the first time I saw the lighthouse at night I was 80
per cent convinced that this was the explanation. When I first
heard the Halt tape this conviction rose to 90 per cent. It only
plummeted after talking to eye-witnesses like John Burroughs who
were actually out there, although I did have some concern because
the lighthouse appears as nothing more than a tiny pulsing light,
not a massive red object throwing down beams towards the ground".

Although Halt has repeatedly stated the lighthouse was also
visible and not the source of the pulsating red light with a
"yellow tinge" - exactly like the lighthouse beacon - Ian Ridpath
reiterated to me his belief that Halt was deceived by the beacon
from the adjacent Shipwash lightship and mistook this to be the
recognisable lighthouse.
[END]

As Jenny only subsequently appreciated, Burroughs had been
involved in that abortive two mile pursuit of a 'lighthouse' - a
fact he had never revealed.

Also, as Halt confirmed in a later interview with Salley Rayl,
the light he observed was indeed a tiny, pulsating light:

RAYL: Now, I know it's hard to tell because it was dark that
night, but any idea what size the initial red object was? Any
idea?

HALT: Nah. I would just have to guess. My guess would be probably
two to three feet, maybe a little less.

RAYL: Two to three feet?

HALT: From the distance, in diameter.

RAYL: In diameter. So, it's a very small object?

HALT: It was a very small object, but it was very bright.

RAYL: But not a craft that could hold a human being, for example?

HALT: No. It couldn't have been. But it appeared to [be] under
some kind of intelligent control.
[END]

On the question of whether it could have been the lighthouse he
observed - I highlighted this in 'Resolving Rendlesham':

Halt was asked [by Salley Rayl] about the assertion he had been
deceived by the Orford Ness lighthouse and replied:

"First, the lighthouse was visible the whole time. It was readily
apparent, and it was 30 to 40 degrees off to our right. If you
were standing in the forest where we stood, at the supposed
landing site or whatever you want to call it, you could see the
farmer's house directly in front of us. The lighthouse was 30 to
35 degrees off to the right, and the object was close to the
farmer's house and moving from there to the left, through the
trees".

Here, as never before, Halt provides specific details of the
perspective he believed to be accurate. When he states, "If you
were standing in the forest where we stood, at the supposed
landing site or whatever you want to call it, you could see the
farmer's house directly in front of us", that's correct and the
Orford Ness lighthouse is in a direct line of sight, east,
towards the coast.

However, when he claims, "The lighthouse was 30 to 35 degrees off
to the right." that seems to be consequentially incorrect; the
Shipwash lightship was "off to the right", the lighthouse was
straight ahead, where Halt observed the 'unidentified light' to
be.

His comment that "the object was close to the farmer's house",
again places the light source in the line of sight to Orford Ness
lighthouse, whereas he believed the lighthouse to be much further
south.

Jenny has provided me with a detailed sketch of the location,
based on her visits and setting out where the lighthouse,
lightship and the then prominent blue lights from the NSA
building at Orford Ness all lay in relation to the 'clearing' and
farmer's house. etc.

 From the clearing which is supposedly the 'landing site', the
lighthouse is shown by Jenny to be directly in line with the
farmer's house, with the lightship distinctly further to the
south-east.

This early familiarity with the site is important as a number of
factors have changed since then, the lighthouse isn't now so
noticeable inland, the NSA facility is no longer operational and
the lightship has been replaced by a buoy.
[END]

I hope this all proves to be a definitive explanation of the
factors to be considered regarding these events, which are, of
course, cited as pivotal evidence why scientists and the media
should pay serious attention to claims of encounters with
extraterrestrial civilisations.


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