Rendlesham Forest UFO Incident

[Ann K]

By what conceivable stretch of the imagination could your pic be interpreted as a 'beam....coming down to the ground' ?

The light clearly illuminated the green grass, and even casts shadows. Calm down and READ the posts before you fly off the handle.

 

[FatPhil]

Whatever it was, it was clearly being thought of as a 'landing site' before Halt even went out there. Indeed, that is why Halt was taken to it. People were already there. Halt wasn't stumbling around in the dark looking for 'the site'. Everyone already knew where it was.

So he didn't have any knowledge of 'UFO lore', but he knew that was being thought of as a landing site?
And he didn't have any knowledge of 'UFO lore', but he wanted to 'put the matter to rest'? What was that "matter" if it wasn't UFO lore?

You're not even being internally consistent, even within the space of a few posts.

 

[Ann K]

In those two days there's zero indication that anyone took any radiation measuring device into the woods. So why is Halt suddenly concerned about radiation after two days in which it would seem half the base had been trampling the woods.

"In those two days there was zero indication that anyone took a photo of a fairy. So THIS time Halt decided to take a camera."

 

[Bristolian]

Well...firstly there's zero evidence Halt had any knowledge of 'UFO lore'. So this is precisely one have those ' must have been....' contrivances that I object to.

But consider also.....after the initial incident in the woods ( which caused the very imprints in the wood that Halt later measured ) two entire days passed. In those two days there's zero indication that anyone took any radiation measuring device into the woods. So why is Halt suddenly concerned about radiation after two days in which it would seem half the base had been trampling the woods. Why the need to suddenly measure the radiation at 2am in the morning ?

Indeed, let's start asking some unanswered questions that never get asked . Like...why did Halt need to go into the woods at all at 2am ? He's deputy base commander. He could just order the men in the woods to stop messing about and come back to base. He's already aware that people have been messing in the woods since the Penniston incident, and that Penniston and others went back out there and Penniston even took a plaster cast.

Why does Halt suddenly need to abandon an award presentation, go home and get changed, grab a geiger counter, and head out into the woods at frikin 2am when he's got no end of people under him to do that job....and it seems some were already out there. Why could he not have radioed and asked what the hell was going on and got his subordinates to sort it out ?

People have asked why would a deputy base commander be the one checking for a dropped nuke. But one should really be asking why was Halt out there at all. If I report a UFO to the police, I'm pretty sure the Deputy Commissioner for the Metropolitan Police is not gonna show up...especially not at 2am.

I can think of a couple of reasons that Halt might have got involved.

One person interviewed (possibly Buran, I'm not sure as I read this a long time ago) said that Halt was, in his words, a "cop buff" who enjoyed taking time to tag along with the security staff. This might have influenced his decision to go out there himself.

The second is that by the time of the Christmas party there had been at least two separate sets of base staff (if you count Greg Battram's patrol) running around after lights in the woods and perhaps some rumours about UFOs spreading more generally (if we take as true Battram's story about overhearing Warren talking to his mother on the phone about UFO rumours; I could imagine this being possible even if Warren's own story of involvement is mostly made up).

Englund was the person under Halt who had been handling things up until that point, but Englund clearly, for whatever reason, chose to come and interrupt Halt at the party rather than continue doing so (Englund has never gone on record, but was claimed to regard the reports as groundless, like Buran and Armold). I'm inclined to believe Halt's claim that he felt enough time had been wasted on this and his intention was somehow to get things back under control.

 

[Mendel]

I keep returning to why Halt took the geiger counter with him on his trip. Some claim it was to debunk a UFO, but in what sense would 'look, there is no radiation ' debunk any UFO ? Whoever said UFOs had to have radiation ?

We don't have a proper explanation for why Halt took the geiger counter.

So could we just leave it at that? We know he took one, we don't know why.

Why does Halt suddenly need to abandon an award presentation,

First I heard of there being awards. (If there were, I'd be tempted to leave, too.)

 

[John J.]

Whatever it was, it was clearly being thought of as a 'landing site' before Halt even went out there.

Yes, the proposed "landing site" had been found on the morning of the 26th, and visited by two Suffolk policemen.
The site was identified by three very modest scrapes on the ground and the marked/ damaged trees, at least some of which we know were caused by forestry workers. And, er, that's it.

The impression that anything of any interest happened there might be down to over-interpretation of what was actually there to be seen.

I think this is a recurring theme in the events (the "evidence" from the Geiger counter and Starlight Scope, probably the sightings themselves, noises perhaps made by muntjac deer misinterpreted as noises made by excited, but non-existent, farm animals).
Then there's Halt and Englund's supposed discovery of a "blasted area" at the location earlier visited in daylight by Suffolk police officers, who found no blasted area. There's no evidence that the leaf litter and other forest floor clutter was disturbed (excepting the scrapings).The finders of the proposed landing site didn't mention finding a blast area. (How do you cover up evidence of blast damage to trees without felling them?)
Halt supposedly finds possible evidence of a blast near his airbase, but doesn't tell the British authorities.
If he brought it to the attention of his superiors, there's absolutely no evidence that they pursued the matter.

Terrorism wasn't unknown in Britain in1980, and there were concerns that known militant groups might attempt to steal weapons from armouries, and that locally-recruited pro-Soviet interests might attempt to disrupt defence infrastructure. American servicemen and airbases in other European countries were targeted by terrorists in the 1970s and 1980s, some servicemen were killed, see "Baader-Meinhof Gang attacked US troops, bases in 1970s-1980s", Stars and Stripes, Nancy Montgomery 5 August 2005 https://www.stripes.com/news/2005-0...d-us-troops-bases-in-1970s-1980s-1919708.html, as well as Baader-Meinhof the French group Action Directe and (probably, 1986) pro-Gaddafi elements were implicated.
Halt thinks he's found a "blasted area" in woodland near his airbase, but doesn't appear to consider any known real or suspected threats- it's been caused by a UFO. He doesn't take any precautionary measures to protect his men. There's no increase in alert status that we know of.

People were already there. Halt wasn't stumbling around in the dark looking for 'the site'.

Evidence for this? There is no indication on Halt's tape that he went out to a location where there were people.
On the tape, he only talks to men who we know accompanied him.
Why didn't Mr Boast or his family notice them camped out across the field from the farmhouse? They made it clear they didn't see anyone IIRC.
This seems unlikely if there had been men present with a Light-all for the best part of two days.

Halt can't get his Light-all to work, so if it was already at the site then it wasn't running, and the men who were hypothetically already there hadn't noticed or reported that it wasn't running.

 

[Scaramanga]

The light clearly illuminated the green grass, and even casts shadows. Calm down and READ the posts before you fly off the handle.

Oh come off it. Seriously ? That constitutes a 'beam...coming down to the ground' ?

And of course you're going to see the reflected illumination when you are right next to the lighthouse. Try being 6 miles away.

 

[Scaramanga]

So he didn't have any knowledge of 'UFO lore', but he knew that was being thought of as a landing site?
And he didn't have any knowledge of 'UFO lore', but he wanted to 'put the matter to rest'? What was that "matter" if it wasn't UFO lore?

You're not even being internally consistent, even within the space of a few posts.

Uh uh. Methinks you are creating a straw man with gaslit questions. I have stated what I have stated...the 'inconsistency' lies in your twisting of that. And by what absurd twisting of things does Halt not knowing about UFO lore mean that he took the geiger counter along to debunk UFO lore ?

 

[Scaramanga]

Englund was the person under Halt who had been handling things up until that point, but Englund clearly, for whatever reason, chose to come and interrupt Halt at the party rather than continue doing so (Englund has never gone on record, but was claimed to regard the reports as groundless, like Buran and Armold). I'm inclined to believe Halt's claim that he felt enough time had been wasted on this and his intention was somehow to get things back under control.

If Buran regarded the reports as groundless, why did he call in the British police within 11 minutes of calling the USAF policemen back to base ? What would have been the point of sending the police out to look for something the USAF police had given up on chasing and which he allegedly regarded as groundless ?

As for Halt regarding the goings on in the woods as a waste of time....he'd had two entire days to interject. He knew about the sightings and the alleged landing site. He knew people had been out in the woods all day. He waits till 2am on a freezing winter night to take action ?

When Halt goes in the woods, there are light-alls set up just 150 feet from the 'impact point'. That is quite deep in the forest, and not at the edge of it near the base as many documentaries show. And what's the first thing Halt does ? Does he say ' OK...where is this UFO that has come back ?'. After all...he was brought out on the basis of 'they're back'.

There's zero mention of anything being 'back' for almost 2/3 of the Halt Transcript. Halt's been dragged out into the woods on the entire basis that 'they're back'. But nowhere does he ask 'well, where the hell are they then ?' and there is nothing whatever in his tape to indicate he even asked anyone.

Perhaps now you understand why I don't think the first 2/3 of the Halt tape has anything to do with a UFO. There never was any UFO.

My contention is that the entire 'UFO incident' and the final 1/3 of the Halt tape were added later. Even the use of the phrase 'impact point' in the first part of the Halt tape implies something dropped....not something landing. The references to a 'blast' and that blast having a 'centre' also do not accord with something simply soft landing in the woods.

And consider how suspicious it is that Halt....who has rambled away endlessly for 2 hours, suddenly clams up the minute he mentions the 'beam of light...coming down'. Nothing more is said about the most interesting event of the entire night. Just one line. To me that screams out that none of it actually happened. Halt gives one line because that is all he needs to give to introduce the UFO cover story.

 

[John J.]

If Buran regarded the reports as groundless, why did he call in the British police within 11 minutes of calling the USAF policemen back to base ?

(1) The on-duty USAF Security Police had no business to be off-base, although when there was an initial fear of an aircraft crash (possibly due to the 03:00 fireball) sending a few to check was both civic-minded and understandable. It became clear there hadn't been an air crash, there was no justification for their presence off-base to continue.
(2)

ARMOLD: Yes, I remember the call was rather late in the shift and I'm certain the decision to call the local constabulary was one that was made late in the morning and with hesitation. You see no one was particularly eager to call the local police and ask silly questions about UFO's. However one also must cover all the bases so we made the decisions to call and ask if they had any reports of aircraft accidents or similar phenomenon.

Skeptoid Website https://skeptoid.com/episodes/135.

The USAF SPs thought that unusual lights had been seen. They decided to tell the civil power solely responsible for safety and security around the bases, for which they (USAF personnel) had no responsibility or authority whatsoever about this.
This seems entirely sensible, whatever the misgivings Buran/ Armold might have had about 'phoning in what was effectively a UFO report.
Perhaps some prevarication- an initial reluctance to phone the local police- is also understandable.

He knew people had been out in the woods all day.

Any evidence that "people had been out in the woods all day"? -Preferably from contemporaneous sources; some later claims seem, um, unlikely to be objectively accurate.
What would be the justification? US visiting forces in the UK were not serving on the same basis as US forces in FRG at that time, see above.
They had no legal basis or precedent to conduct operations off-base without the host government's permission.
And as far as history tells us, no need.

Halt's been dragged out into the woods on the entire basis that 'they're back'.

No, Halt took himself out into the woods. He wasn't following orders to be there, and had no authority there- no more than any member of the public (with possible exceptions re. the behaviour of US personnel under his command, e.g. if a junior rank insulted him off-base, that might not be an offence under UK law but the miscreant might be subject to disciplinary proceedings, maybe prosecution under US service law when back on base).
Halt had the right to be there, but that's a different thing. He didn't have the right to be conducting ad-hoc operations by uniformed personnel there.
Halt had absolutely zero responsibility for security/ zero right to perform any sort of investigation in the UK outside of US bases.

Even the use of the phrase 'impact point' in the first part of the Halt tape implies something dropped...

Yes, it implies that. Of course, no artefact was found at that location, and there was no crater. There was no radar track of anything dropping. Later, same source, Halt said "landing site".
Halt also implied there were farm animals at the Boast's farm (there weren't).
And Halt also referred to a "blasted area" in the middle of the three scrapes that local Police officers, who saw them in daylight, thought might have been made by rabbits. Which he failed to consider, if it was a blast area, as a possible security concern.
And claimed he saw lights beaming down. Years later, he would remember- he didn't mention it at the time- that he had seen a beam targeted on the weapons storage area at Bentwaters (refuted by Tim Egercic who was actually in the WSA. Also refuted by Conrad).
Halt believed elevated radiation levels had been detected, they hadn't. Halt also said he had

... never seen a pine tree that's been damaged react that fast

...though quite what that's based on, or its relevance, is unclear. Maybe Halt had extensive experience of arboriculture/ tree surgery, but I doubt it. He thinks the axe marks left by forestry workers on trees to be felled are something strange.
He believed a Starlight Scope pointed at a tree showed "...some form of energy."


Personally, I think Halt told the truth as he saw it, although we know he was mistaken about some things (certainly the Geiger counter readings, what could be seen through a Starlight Scope, the tree markings). Some of his judgements- the whole foray of 28th December- are questionable.
I believe that Penniston's, Cabansag's and Burrough's statements of January 1980 also reflect what they believed to be true, though Penniston's failure to mention his colleagues conclusion, that they had followed a lighthouse lamp, might be a "sin of omission": he believed that the lights he saw were of unusual origin, so he didn't mention the lighthouse because he didn't want his account to be diluted by mentioning something mundane which others might interpret as the cause (I have less sympathy for some of his much later claims).

We have evidence that (a very small minority of) USAF personnel* at the twin bases reported seeing UFOs.
We have no credible evidence, from any source, of anything else dramatic happening there over 26th-28th December 1980 (until Loutzenheiser's uncorroborated 2024 claim, which requires us to believe 67th ARRS, effectively a special operations unit, needed a truck driver from outside their squadron and decided to ask a junior rank Security Policeman, not someone whose trade actually involved driving heavy trucks or recovery vehicles for the USAF. Not even someone responsible for driving a nuclear weapons carrier, if there were nuclear weapons present there at that time).

Extraordinary claims are often shown to be inaccurate, but they don't always require another extraordinary, or dramatic, explanation.


*No spouses or teenage kids who might be out and about visiting their neighbours/ friends over the Christmas period. No control tower/ air traffic control staff and no aircrew, who tend to be interested in/ have knowledge of flying things (and none of whom seem to have been approached by Halt for their opinion).

 

[Mendel]

Halt had absolutely zero responsibility for security/ zero right to perform any sort of investigation in the UK outside of US bases.

I wouldn't go as far as that. He was certainly within their rights to move about and have a look. It'd be prudent to do so if he suspected that activists had set up camp in the nearby woods, even though the facility no longer had nuclear weapons.

 

[FatPhil]

Uh uh. Methinks you are creating a straw man with gaslit questions.

How can using your *exact wording* be gaslighting? If you do not think you are contradicting yourself, then you are either equivocating, or otherwise using ambiguously interpretable language. Both of which should be avoided.

And by what absurd twisting of things does Halt not knowing about UFO lore mean that he took the geiger counter along to debunk UFO lore ?

This is a pure straw man as my post made no claims about such matters. Stop getting in a flap, and focus, please.

 

[Eburacum]

By what conceivable stretch of the imagination could your pic be interpreted as a 'beam....coming down to the ground' ?

Like this;

Even if the lighthouse itself were not visible the loom could still be seen.

Note that I am not firmly convinced that Halt was observing the lighthouse loom when he spoke those words; I'm more of the opinion that he was observing a Starlight Scope artifact.
Like this

 

[Scaramanga]

How can using your *exact wording* be gaslighting?

But you are not using my exact wording ( i.e quoting ). You are instead using your own words to contrive a make believe 'inconsistency' via two rather absurd questions where you try to force an inconsistency that isn't even there....

" So he didn't have any knowledge of 'UFO lore', but he knew that was being thought of as a landing site?
And he didn't have any knowledge of 'UFO lore', but he wanted to 'put the matter to rest'? What was that "matter" if it wasn't UFO lore? "

The non-sequiturs are yours, not mine. The word 'UFO' never appears in the Halt tape or in his memorandum. All Halt knew was that there were claims that 'something' had appeared in the woods. Even when the infamous beam of light comes down, Halt never uses the term UFO.

And by what stretch of things does 'put the matter to rest' mean he's putting 'UFO lore' to rest ? He simply wants all the crazy activity ( of his own staff ) in the woods to end.

And seriously, accusing someone of 'getting in a flap' is the oldest gaslighting tactic in the book.

 

[Scaramanga]

Like this;

Seriously ? You're going to make equivalent the view from 100 feet from a lighthouse with that from 6 miles ? And your beam 'coming down' from the lighthouse is actually ( by definition ) angled away from the lighthouse. That means that at 6 miles any such beam could not be more than 1/5th of a degree in length....which was the angular size ( the height ) of the lighthouse. That's an extremely short straw to clutch at.

 

[Scaramanga]

I wouldn't go as far as that. He was certainly within their rights to move about and have a look. It'd be prudent to do so if he suspected that activists had set up camp in the nearby woods, even though the facility no longer had nuclear weapons.

There is a video from a few years ago of Halt giving a tour of the base, and he comments that certain parts of the perimeter were specifically kept clear of trees and foliage for several hundred feet precisely so that activists, infiltrators, etc could not creep up. Which seems quite reasonable. It also makes clear that the 'extent' of the base didn't simply end at the fence.

 

[Scaramanga]

Personally, I think Halt told the truth as he saw it, although we know he was mistaken about some things (certainly the Geiger counter readings, what could be seen through a Starlight Scope, the tree markings). Some of his judgements- the whole foray of 28th December- are questionable.
I believe that Penniston's, Cabansag's and Burrough's statements of January 1980 also reflect what they believed to be true, though Penniston's failure to mention his colleagues conclusion, that they had followed a lighthouse lamp, might be a "sin of omission": he believed that the lights he saw were of unusual origin, so he didn't mention the lighthouse because he didn't want his account to be diluted by mentioning something mundane which others might interpret as the cause (I have less sympathy for some of his much later claims).

Well, here we have another example of selective reading so common in interpretations of the event. Sure, Cabansag states that the team end up chasing the lighthouse. But he clearly states that prior to that, all three men had seen 'blue, red, white, and yellow' lights. He even states that one of the lights 'moved quickly' and that it 'spun'.

All three men mention a blue light. The lighthouse is not blue. But things that don't fit the lighthouse narrative just get ignored.

http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/Cabansag.PNG

 

[JMartJr]

Well, here we have another example of selective reading so common in interpretations of the event.

This is to some extent unavoidable. We KNOW that witness testimony, particularly with the passage of time, contains inaccuracies based on things misperceived or misunderstood at the time, and on the plasticity of human memory. A reading of events that accepts everything the witnesses report will be accepting uncritically good and bad information, and an explanation that is accounts for incorrect testimony as if it were correct will not be the explanation for what actually occurred.

Of course, trying to figure out which parts of testimony might be accurate and which not is difficult, if not impossible. But if it is the goal to figure out what happened, an attempt must be made. At the very least, we have to be aware that details might be wrong -- it MAY BE that a beam of light was seen coming down, for example, but it may also be that the testimony is in error because testimony is often in error and there is no handy tool for detecting which bits are accurate and which are inaccurate.

Which is why trying to "solve" cases like this, based on nothing but witness testimony, is so difficult. Figuring out exactly what DID happen is often going to be impossible because some unknown proportion of our evidence is wrong. In such cases, showing that there are one or more plausible scenarios that might have led to people reporting what the they say that they witnessed, scenarios which require fewer assumptions than "it was aliens," is about the best that can be done.

 

[John J.]

Halt had absolutely zero responsibility for security/ zero right to perform any sort of investigation in the UK outside of US bases.

I wouldn't go as far as that. He was certainly within their rights to move about and have a look. It'd be prudent to do so if he suspected that activists had set up camp in the nearby woods, even though the facility no longer had nuclear weapons.

Hmm, I might be guilty of using a bit of hyperbole (the zeroes). Halt would have a legitimate interest in the base's environment.
But the USAF personnel would have no powers of arrest or to deny public access to areas off-base. There have been camps set up by anti-nuclear protest groups very close to USAF bases in the UK, most famously at RAF Greenham in the 1980s Common (Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenham_Common_Women's_Peace_Camp). Their presence would have been unwelcome, and protestors sometimes damaged perimeter fences and entered the base, but policing/ legal action was conducted by UK authorities. US personnel had powers of arrest on-base, but AFAIK any detainees were rapidly handed over to UK police. When large incursions were anticipated, UK (civilian) police and soldiers were sometimes posted onto the base and (if memory serves) formed the first line of "defence", arresting people who broke in.

There is a video from a few years ago of Halt giving a tour of the base, and he comments that certain parts of the perimeter were specifically kept clear of trees and foliage for several hundred feet precisely so that activists, infiltrators, etc could not creep up. Which seems quite reasonable. It also makes clear that the 'extent' of the base didn't simply end at the fence.

That makes sense, and I'm sure concerns about perimeter security, lines of sight etc. would have been considered sympathetically by the host government, just as they would re. UK bases (although not all concerns might be addressed, local landowners and protestors have the same rights as anyone else. Compulsory purchase orders etc. are used relatively rarely in the UK).
But you wouldn't have USAF personnel going outside their bases to fell trees or cut back bushes on their own volition (or at all).

 

[Scaramanga]

This is to some extent unavoidable. We KNOW that witness testimony, particularly with the passage of time, contains inaccuracies based on things misperceived or misunderstood at the time, and on the plasticity of human memory. A reading of events that accepts everything the witnesses report will be accepting uncritically good and bad information, and an explanation that is accounts for incorrect testimony as if it were correct will not be the explanation for what actually occurred.

Of course, trying to figure out which parts of testimony might be accurate and which not is difficult, if not impossible. But if it is the goal to figure out what happened, an attempt must be made. At the very least, we have to be aware that details might be wrong -- it MAY BE that a beam of light was seen coming down, for example, but it may also be that the testimony is in error because testimony is often in error and there is no handy tool for detecting which bits are accurate and which are inaccurate.

Which is why trying to "solve" cases like this, based on nothing but witness testimony, is so difficult. Figuring out exactly what DID happen is often going to be impossible because some unknown proportion of our evidence is wrong. In such cases, showing that there are one or more plausible scenarios that might have lead to people reporting what the they say that they witnessed, scenarios which require fewer assumptions than "it was aliens," is about the best that can be done.

Yes but the bits that are 'inaccurate' always just happen to be those bits that don't fit some simplistic explanatory narrative.

If we go by all three witness statements from December 26th, which are all in agreement on a blue light, it is quite clear that an object was initially seen that was not the lighthouse. That tends to just get ignored in favour of ' oh....but Cabansag admitted that they ended up chasing the lighthouse '.

Also, note that Cabansag correctly identifies the 'yellow light' as a 'beacon'...in other words a lighthouse. So much for the theory that these silly airmen couldn't recognise a lighthouse when they saw one.

And on the subject of the men not knowing about the lighthouse....I saw Halt on a recent interview with Ross Coulhart state that not only did he know about the lighthouse...he had even been there several times.

Anyway....

I have literally just heard of the Soesterberg incident, allegedly at a Dutch air force base on Feb 3rd 1979. It all seems ( from the documentary 'The UFO's Of Soesterberg' which is literally all I can find on the matter ) remarkably similar to the Rendlesham incident. Is this event for real ? It's useful if it is, as we then have a similar time period, similar event for which we can compare . Oh...and it seems there's a recorded tape transcript from the time as well ! Hmm. I'm a little suspicious that the documentary is the only reference to the alleged event.

 

[FatPhil]

But you are not using my exact wording ( i.e quoting ). You are instead using your own words to contrive a make believe 'inconsistency' via two rather absurd questions where you try to force an inconsistency that isn't even there....

" So he didn't have any knowledge of 'UFO lore', but he knew that was being thought of as a landing site?
And he didn't have any knowledge of 'UFO lore', but he wanted to 'put the matter to rest'? What was that "matter" if it wasn't UFO lore? "

I may not have quoted entire sentences, but I quoted the exact phrases that you used. And given that my point was that you were using contradictory phrases, that's all I needed.

The non-sequiturs are yours, not mine. The word 'UFO' never appears in the Halt tape or in his memorandum.

That second sentence is an exemplary non-sequitur. So in that context, it really looks like you've transitioned fully from "flap" to "troll".

 

[Scaramanga]

I may not have quoted entire sentences, but I quoted the exact phrases that you used. And given that my point was that you were using contradictory phrases, that's all I needed.

What contradiction ? One that you just made up. Where on earth does 'putting the matter to rest' mean he is 'putting UFO lore to rest' ? There is no equivalence. I never made one...you did. And then you portray your made up interpretation as what I actually said.

I never equated the things you equate. There is no contradiction. I'm not the one 'getting in a flap'.

Quite poignant really, given that the entire discussion is about what people said and how it is interpreted.

 

[John J.]

Personally, I think Halt told the truth as he saw it, although we know he was mistaken about some things (certainly the Geiger counter readings, what could be seen through a Starlight Scope, the tree markings). Some of his judgements- the whole foray of 28th December- are questionable.
I believe that Penniston's, Cabansag's and Burrough's statements of January 1980 also reflect what they believed to be true, though Penniston's failure to mention his colleagues conclusion, that they had followed a lighthouse lamp, might be a "sin of omission": he believed that the lights he saw were of unusual origin, so he didn't mention the lighthouse because he didn't want his account to be diluted by mentioning something mundane which others might interpret as the cause (I have less sympathy for some of his much later claims).

Well, here we have another example of selective reading so common in interpretations of the event. Sure, Cabansag states that the team end up chasing the lighthouse. But he clearly states that prior to that, all three men had seen 'blue, red, white, and yellow' lights. He even states that one of the lights 'moved quickly' and that it 'spun'.

All three men mention a blue light. The lighthouse is not blue. But things that don't fit the lighthouse narrative just get ignored.

No, it's not selective reading, and with respect you are making a straw man argument.
I have repeatedly said on this thread that I don't think all the lights seen on December 26th-28th are due to the lighthouse:

(1)

But if you are arguing that the 'beam' is the lighthouse beam

I'm not sure anyone is.
I think it's more likely something like the Dorset policemen reporting Venus radiating beams of light in 1967 (well, "...radiating points of light from all angles").

(Should have said "Devon", not "Dorset").
(2)

I don't think anyone who thinks the Orford Ness lighthouse played a part is claiming it was responsible for all lights seen (and misidentified), we know Penniston/ Cabansag/ Burroughs followed lights and ended up at the Boast farmhouse

(3)

...I think it's likely Halt thought some bright stars/ planets were something extraordinary; IIRC he reported lights in the sky, which he thought were unusual, were visible for some time but that they became invisible as dawn broke.

(4)

Please have a quick look at "What were the other lights seen by Colonel Halt?" on Ian Redfern's website
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham3.html.

Ian Ridpath thinks the lights seen by Halt later in the expedition- at low elevations (i.e. near the horizon), of long endurance but becoming less visible as dawn breaks- are celestial bodies. We know Conrad, on-base (over which, by Halt's account, a light was positioned) and aware of Halt's impressions went out to have a look but saw nothing unusual.
Redfern is in good company, UFOlogist Jenny Randles agrees,

British investigator Jenny Randles adds another telling quote on pp. 123–4 of her book UFO Crash Landing (1998). She says Halt told her that when he was back at base, 'the objects were still in the sky – however, it was getting light and they were getting faint'. Jenny adds: 'I suspect that this is the final clue that demonstrates that these star-like lights to the north were, indeed, just stars.'

Quote from Ian's website, http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham3.html
(5)

Nobody here (as far as I know) has ever claimed the lighthouse is responsible for all the lights seen by Halt, nor does Ian Redfern's site.
You said something similar very recently, I responded (as per below); again, please check out the link.

...But yet again you have implied (post #617) that I think all lights are attributable to the lighthouse; I very clearly don't.
Please stop misrepresenting my views.

(6) I have mentioned the 03:00, 26th December fireball which I believe might have played a role in initiating the whole affair.

Although it might be unlikely to be part of an explanation, I have discussed Kevin Conde's claim about altering the lights on his SP car to put on a lightshow (post #424). In that post,

We have to accept that the airmen on the 26th (Burroughs, Cabansag, Penniston) were following pretty much any light they saw- that's why they ended up at one point looking at a farmhouse with its lights on, and finally ended up looking at a lighthouse. As per their statements.*
They could not have been in constant visual contact with a single lightsource.

@JMartJr gave an excellent example (post #412) of three policemen and a magistrate describing a sizeable (not a point) light in the sky, one describing it as rectangular. Other witnesses said it shined down on them. It was Venus.
Jimmy Carter probably saw Venus.
Post #407 has examples of police officers in Georgia and England pursuing Venus- in the latter case it was sort of cross-shaped, radiated beams of light, stopped in a field and acted as if it knew it was being chased.

"...any light they saw..." and "They could not have been in constant visual contact with a single lightsource" are not compatible with me supposedly claiming that the airmen only misidentified a lighthouse.
Note the witnesses in the case mentioned by @JMartJr who claimed a light shined down on them, it was Venus.

We know Penniston, Cabansag and Burroughs reported coloured lights (but there were some differences in the colours reported).

...when watching Sirius, Canopus, and Procyon... ...I noticed that they scintillated strongly... ...different colours could be seen in them at each scintillation. These colours, as far as I remember, were blue, green and orange.

Chaplain John T. Bird, Transvaal, 1901, posted by Mick West (post #9), "Odd light "sphere" hovering and changing color video" thread.

There are several well-known examples of UFO claimants believing that (what were probably) stars or planets manoeuvred, fled from them or followed them, and of stars/ planets being perceived as having shapes.

 

[NorCal Dave]

Perhaps now you understand why I don't think the first 2/3 of the Halt tape has anything to do with a UFO. There never was any UFO.

My contention is that the entire 'UFO incident' and the final 1/3 of the Halt tape were added later.

Then what is he doing in the first 2/3 of the tape? If it's some secret recovery program that needed a UFO cover story WHY not classify the first 2/3 of the tape? WHY keep the first 2/3, if is clearly NOT about UFOs and tack on a fake 1/3 about UFOs?

Is someone so clever, they're going to hide a recording of a super secret recovery program in plain site by altering the ending of it? Really?

There is ZERO evidence of anything happening in that time and place that would require a half-assed UFO cover story. Zero.

As I stated up-thread, this means, either nothing requiring a cover story happened OR whatever happened has been so completely and totally hidden and classified for 40+ years that there is no hint of anything.

If your theory that the first 2/3 of the tape is authentic, it's the only piece of evidence for whatever happened. So, whoever was in charge of covering up this event and creating a UFO cover story, did a remarkable job, as there is zero evidence for it. Except when that person got to Holt's recording. Instead of just confiscating it as classified with all the other evidence for whatever happened, they chose to instead leave it unclassified AND then got the participants to create a reenactment so as to doctor the tape. That makes sense?

Which is easier, collect and classify a recording of a secret event or round up the participants from that recording at a later date and have them act out a scripted fake UFO scenario to add to the recording because it wasn't classified like everything else about this event?

 

[Scaramanga]

Ian Ridpath thinks the lights seen by Halt later in the expedition- at low elevations (i.e. near the horizon), of long endurance but becoming less visible as dawn breaks- are celestial bodies. We know Conrad, on-base (over which, by Halt's account, a light was positioned) and aware of Halt's impressions went out to have a look but saw nothing unusual.

That's the same Ian Ridpath who picks on Sirius and Vega yet fails to mention that Jupiter and Saturn were very close in conjunction that night in the south east. So...we're to believe that Halt mistook Sirius for a UFO....yet completely failed to notice the even brighter Jupiter/Saturn conjunction in the southern sky that was even more ripe for mistaking for a UFO.

This is what happens when people just throw mud until something seems to stick. Never mind that 90% of their mud didn't stick. They'll focus only on the bits that do. I've spent hours sitting under the night sky. On a clear night you can always find a 'bright star' at some random 'closeness' to any arbitrary point in the sky.

 

[Scaramanga]

Quote from Ian's website, http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham3.html
(5)
...But yet again you have implied (post #617) that I think all lights are attributable to the lighthouse; I very clearly don't.
Please stop misrepresenting my views.

(6) I have mentioned the 03:00, 26th December fireball which I believe might have played a role in initiating the whole affair.

Although it might be unlikely to be part of an explanation, I have discussed Kevin Conde's claim about altering the lights on his SP car to put on a lightshow (post #424). In that post,

Sorry....I was referring generally, rather than to your specific views. I should have made that more clear.

The trouble is that introducing a multiplicity of mistaken stuff....police cars, fireballs, etc...only serves to be an insult diminishing the observational capacities of a whole bunch of people. They mistook a fireball....and they mistook a police car....and they mistook a lighthouse....and they mistook stars....and....

I wont use Nick Pope's 'highly trained' trope, but heck, these guys were our last defence against the Soviet hordes. You'd think they'd have some skills at recognising stuff so they wouldn't start World War III because someone had never seen a star before !

 

[John J.]

Sorry....I was referring generally, rather than to your specific views.

After quoting one of my posts and saying it was an example of selective reading. You didn't mention anyone else. That felt specific.

The trouble is that introducing a multiplicity of mistaken stuff....police cars, fireballs, etc...only serves to be an insult diminishing the observational capacities of a whole bunch of people. They mistook a fireball....and they mistook a police car....and they mistook a lighthouse....and they mistook stars....and....

Some airmen reported seeing lights, which some interpreted as UFOs.
Considering what light sources might have been visible seems a pretty good starting point. Better than "What are they covering up?"

Questioning the accuracy of observations made by claimed UFO witnesses isn't some radical departure from skeptical thinking.
There are many examples on this forum, and sometimes this has led to likely explanations for UFO reports.
Alleging that they are lying in support of a cover-up, for which there is no evidence whatsoever, might be more insulting.

 

[Scaramanga]

Then what is he doing in the first 2/3 of the tape? If it's some secret recovery program that needed a UFO cover story WHY not classify the first 2/3 of the tape? WHY keep the first 2/3, if is clearly NOT about UFOs and tack on a fake 1/3 about UFOs?

Is someone so clever, they're going to hide a recording of a super secret recovery program in plain site by altering the ending of it? Really?

There is ZERO evidence of anything happening in that time and place that would require a half-assed UFO cover story. Zero.

As I stated up-thread, this means, either nothing requiring a cover story happened OR whatever happened has been so completely and totally hidden and classified for 40+ years that there is no hint of anything.

If your theory that the first 2/3 of the tape is authentic, it's the only piece of evidence for whatever happened. So, whoever was in charge of covering up this event and creating a UFO cover story, did a remarkable job, as there is zero evidence for it. Except when that person got to Holt's recording. Instead of just confiscating it as classified with all the other evidence for whatever happened, they chose to instead leave it unclassified AND then got the participants to create a reenactment so as to doctor the tape. That makes sense?

Which is easier, collect and classify a recording of a secret event or round up the participants from that recording at a later date and have them act out a scripted fake UFO scenario to add to the recording because it wasn't classified like everything else about this event?

You wouldn't classify stuff if you wanted the cover story to come out. It is ( in my opinion ) better to cover stuff up in plain sight and leave it unclassified with some wacky UFO story attached....than to classify the whole thing 'top secret' and thus open to later FOI investigators to wonder why it is top secret...and no UFO to laugh at.

I mean let's face it...if there was a cover up...it worked ! Everyone is too busy arguing over lighthouses.

The truth is, we don't actually know when stuff happened at Rendlesham or in what order. Halt's memo was not written until over 16 days later. Penniston's statement has no date. Burroughs statement has no date. Cabansag's statement has no date. Don't you find that just a little odd ? Halt's tape also makes no reference to the date.

The other statements ( Buran and Chandler ) are both dated January 2nd 1981....a whole week after the alleged initial events, and 5 days after the alleged Halt event.

So there's no actual date evidence of any UFO story being recorded until a week after the alleged events. Halt even gets the date wrong in his memo. Penniston has the same wrong date in his notebook. Penniston and Burroughs completely differ over the 'structured craft'...which Cabansag never mentions. What a mess ! Anybody'd think none of it ever actually happened and they were given a brief script to follow and they couldn't even manage that.

 

[Scaramanga]

Questioning the accuracy of observations made by claimed UFO witnesses isn't some radical departure from skeptical thinking.
There are many examples on this forum, and sometimes this has led to likely explanations for UFO reports.
Alleging that they are lying in support of a cover-up, for which there is no evidence whatsoever, might be more insulting.

But we're not just talking about 'accuracy'. We're talking about three men going into the forest and giving completely different stories that contradict each other. We're talking about Penniston ( a military policeman ) recording the wrong date on his notebook, and Halt using the same wrong date in his memo. If this were a court case, this would all be evidence for the prosecution that the events described never actually happened.

It's odd how Halt can remember to Ross Coulthart 45 years later that his event happened on a Sunday, yet he couldn't remember the date 16 days after it allegedly occurred.

 

[Mendel]

I have literally just heard of the Soesterberg incident, allegedly at a Dutch air force base on Feb 3rd 1979. It all seems ( from the documentary 'The UFO's Of Soesterberg' which is literally all I can find on the matter ) remarkably similar to the Rendlesham incident. Is this event for real ?

The guys from UFO Meldpunt seem serious, so the reports are real. Different to Rendlesham, there's nothing physical about the Soesterberg sightings, and the explanation doesn't involve a lighthouse.

Article:

The sightings themselves—three at the air base, the rest at Leusderheide or Panbos—are enhanced with animations intended to provide viewers with more clarity about why the UFOs allegedly appeared around Soesterberg. The documentary's strength is also its pitfall. The eyewitnesses carry the film, but how much can an eyewitness accurately recall after forty years?

And what do you do with eyewitnesses who recall the same event very differently? According to the Air Force's official explanation, lights may have been visible due to a so-called temperature inversion, where the glow from car headlights in the hilly landscape would have been reflected on colder air layers. So what's the situation? One of the twelve soldiers appeared to be present at the screening in Hilversum in early December of last year, and he told me he saw two lights, which is in stark contrast to the triangles from the other sightings in the film.

Source: https://skepsis-nl.translate.goog/ufo-soesterberg/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de&_x_tr_pto=wapp

Some combination of that, and maybe aircraft less noisy than expected (triangle of white lights with a red light at the center--come on!).

Definitely doesn't belong in this thread.

 

[Bristolian]

One of the Soesterberg witnesses (De Groot) later said he thought the object was a small aircraft, while another (Jansen) has claimed it was some kind of 'stealth' aircraft.

 

[John J.]

It's odd how Halt can remember to Ross Coulthart 45 years later

No it isn't. Halt will have been made aware that he used the wrong date. We know he has an ongoing interest in the case. He's had 45 years to correct his story.

...Penniston ( a military policeman ) recording the wrong date on his notebook

Penniston's notebook wasn't a police notebook in the sense that you might imagine a (traditional) UK police notebook.*
The later are individually identified to the holder, who can only have one at any time. The notebooks were acquired from secure printers and were not available except through the issuing police force. UK service (military) police, who are not constables, used similar style notebooks.

All pages are numbered, and may not be removed. Blank pages/ lines are not permissible between entries. If an entry ends before the end of a line, the rest of that line is ruled through.
Entries should be dated, timed and written up as soon as is practical after the events described.
The holder is responsible for the notebook, but it is not their property; it may (and ideally should) be reviewed by superiors periodically.
When a notebook is full, damaged or the holder leaves that service, the notebook is returned.
Notebook styles varied; most had "notes for the guidance of the officer" or something similar printed on or inside the front cover.

Penniston's notebook is a small ring-binder; the pages are not numbered. Pages can be removed and inserted.
He leaves blank pages and spaces, and does not rule through blank/ incomplete lines. Some entries are undated. It clearly wasn't reviewed at any time by his superiors, as they'd have noticed his binary code. He still had it at the event with Charles Halt many years later.

There's nothing wrong with any of this; it was a notebook- but it wasn't a notebook in the sense of it being like a UK police notebook, and Penniston didn't use it in that way.

UK service police (RMP, RAF Police etc.) would have a notebook but would also carry paper for sketches, less formal notes etc. etc.
The "guidance for officers" on police notebooks often said something like "Notes should not be made elsewhere and copied into the book"; this was always a grey area. It's not practical to make sketches of e.g. the positions of vehicles in a traffic accident, or draw maps, in a small police notebook. And military police often have duties/ training requirements that are "military" but not "police", not all the notes they might need to take would be written in their police notebook.

*The following description applies to normal practice (as far as I'm aware) in the 80s/ 90s. Current procedures may be very different.

 

[Bristolian]

Going back to the 67th ARRS and the Loutzenheiser story, another member of base staff at the time (Chuck Dalldorf) confirmed to James Easton that there were "no alerts anytime" during the period for this unit:

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

[...]

One issue I would like to address right away is, the 67th ARRS
did not scramble any missions (either HH-53 or HC-130 during the
week between Christmas 1980 and New Year's Day 1981).

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

[...]

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

From

https://forums.forteana.org/index.php?threads/rendlesham-forest-incident.1914/post-2045250

 

[Scaramanga]

No it isn't. Halt will have been made aware that he used the wrong date. We know he has an ongoing interest in the case. He's had 45 years to correct his story.

Well that's sort of missing the point. Of course Halt now knows he used the wrong date, but in his recent interview with Coulthart he is remembering events and he can clearly remember a lot, especially when it comes to disputing Larry Warren's account of events. Halt clearly remembers....'it was a Saturday night'.....I've attached a link to where he says that....


Source: https://youtu.be/UfKwQgmHfII?t=540


And my point, which is perfectly valid, is that 45 years later he can remember that it was a Saturday night.....but he couldn't 16 days after the alleged event.

And I don't see how the nature of Penniston's notebook alters the fact that he too got the date wrong.

http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/pennistonnotebook.html

And note that he's not getting the date of Halt's event wrong, he is getting the date of his own alleged encounter wrong.

What are effectively the two main protagonists of the story both get their dates wrong.

I'm simply making the point that there is surely a step prior to asking did the events happen as described. That step is to ask....did the events happen at all.

 

[Scaramanga]

The guys from UFO Meldpunt seem serious, so the reports are real. Different to Rendlesham, there's nothing physical about the Soesterberg sightings, and the explanation doesn't involve a lighthouse.
Article: The sightings themselves—three at the air base, the rest at Leusderheide or Panbos—are enhanced with animations intended to provide viewers with more clarity about why the UFOs allegedly appeared around Soesterberg. The documentary's strength is also its pitfall. The eyewitnesses carry the film, but how much can an eyewitness accurately recall after forty years?

And what do you do with eyewitnesses who recall the same event very differently? According to the Air Force's official explanation, lights may have been visible due to a so-called temperature inversion, where the glow from car headlights in the hilly landscape would have been reflected on colder air layers. So what's the situation? One of the twelve soldiers appeared to be present at the screening in Hilversum in early December of last year, and he told me he saw two lights, which is in stark contrast to the triangles from the other sightings in the film. Source: https://skepsis-nl.translate.goog/ufo-soesterberg/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de&_x_tr_pto=wapp
Some combination of that, and maybe aircraft less noisy than expected (triangle of white lights with a red light at the center--come on!).

Definitely doesn't belong in this thread.

A few years later I worked right next to the Soesterberg base...yet never heard of the incident, so I just wanted to know was the event for real as the film was all I could find.

 

[John J.]

I'm simply making the point that there is surely a step prior to asking did the events happen as described. That step is to ask....did the events happen at all.

Unless there's good reason to believe otherwise, with any unusual claim it might be best to proceed with a presumption of honesty.

Any theory that the claimed UFO sightings didn't happen depends on Halt, Cabansag, Penniston, Burroughs, Englund (who has not subsequently spoken about events, but featured on Halt's tape) lying, and Conrad, Buran, Chandler and Armold either lying or being dupes.

A theory that there were a series of misperceptions does not question the honesty of those men at that time.*

The trouble is that introducing a multiplicity of mistaken stuff....police cars, fireballs, etc...only serves to be an insult diminishing the observational capacities of a whole bunch of people.

I'd guess many people would rather be thought of as mistaken than dishonest.

What evidence is there of an incident requiring a cover-up?
Inconsistencies in the UFO-related narratives are not evidence of something else dramatic happening, but that is the only evidence that you've put forward. Oh, and Halt taking a Geiger counter, whose readings he didn't understand.

No records of aircraft lost or in distress; no emergency landing at any airfield or airport. No accounts from personnel who might credibly have a primary role in crash response or munitions retrieval.
No evidence of any type of increased alert at Woodbridge/ Bentwaters. No cancelling of Christmas/ New Year activities at the bases.
No curfew/ temporary order to stay inside (airmen and their families are just as curious as other folk).
No accounts of anyone called back from Christmas leave (some personnel, particularly officers, senior NCOs and their families would be living off-base).
No credible evidence of heavy trucks or plant in the forest. No security cordon. No restrictions on public access at any time.
As far as I can tell, no change to the Security Police's rota: Shifts change as per usual. This is not what would be expected during a major incident, particularly if a security crackdown were required.
No readying of potassium iodide stocks. No-one in NBC suits.
No rationale for why any incident (which was evidently cleared up in one or two days, with no injuries to anyone, no known losses of materiel, and with zero noticeable impact on the area(s) concerned) has been kept secret for 45 years, when what must be more serious incidents were revealed in much shorter timescales (e.g. the 1958 Greenham Common accident, which involved USAF aircraft in Britain).

No explanation of how a UFO story, which attracts interest, helps cover-up an incident three years earlier which nobody had heard about.


* I think some much later additions to the accounts are extremely unlikely to be descriptions of what really happened.
Larry Warren's accounts are problematic, not least because other participants deny he was involved at all.

 

[Scaramanga]

No records of aircraft lost or in distress; no emergency landing at any airfield or airport. No accounts from personnel who might credibly have a primary role in crash response or munitions retrieval.
No evidence of any type of increased alert at Woodbridge/ Bentwaters. No cancelling of Christmas/ New Year activities at the bases.
No curfew/ temporary order to stay inside (airmen and their families are just as curious as other folk).
No accounts of anyone called back from Christmas leave (some personnel, particularly officers, senior NCOs and their families would be living off-base).
No credible evidence of heavy trucks or plant in the forest. No security cordon. No restrictions on public access at any time.
As far as I can tell, no change to the Security Police's rota: Shifts change as per usual. This is not what would be expected during a major incident, particularly if a security crackdown were required.
No readying of potassium iodide stocks. No-one in NBC suits.
No rationale for why any incident (which was evidently cleared up in one or two days, with no injuries to anyone, no known losses of materiel, and with zero noticeable impact on the area(s) concerned) has been kept secret for 45 years, when what must be more serious incidents were revealed in much shorter timescales (e.g. the 1958 Greenham Common accident, which involved USAF aircraft in Britain).

There doesn't need to have been an actual incident. There only needs for the participants to have thought there was one. A well planned psyop. Nobody's 'lying'. Everyone's reporting exactly what they 'experienced'...and that probably includes Larry Warren and explains why so many accounts contradict each other. It even explains small discrepancies such as Halt seeing a light as red while others see it as yellow.

HALT : 'This is unreal'

That's because it was unreal.

I mean consider this. Halt reports unknown craft type objects in the sky...even shining down beams of light. Penniston reports an unknown type of craft lurking in the woods. And no-one thinks to raise base security, put the base on alert, etc, etc.

 

[JJB]

Whatever it was, it was clearly being thought of as a 'landing site' before Halt even went out there. Indeed, that is why Halt was taken to it. People were already there. Halt wasn't stumbling around in the dark looking for 'the site'. Everyone already knew where it was.

Calling it a landing site does not make it one, it just shows how assumptions spread before any evidence was established.

(On the first night, U.S. Air Force security police (Burroughs and Penniston) and local Suffolk police had already been in the woods earlier responding to reports of lights. By the time Halt went out on the second night, the area was already being talked about as a "site", based on those earlier reports and assumptions)

Halt being taken to a pre identified spot only demonstrates that a narrative had already formed before he arrived. It does not validate the narrative. No verified landing traces, no heat damage, no compression consistent with a heavy object, no instrument readings, and no independent confirmation were ever produced.

 

[JMartJr]

Unless there's good reason to believe otherwise, with any unusual claim it might be best to proceed with a presumption of honesty.

Two thoughts:

Is the known tendency of humans to make up stories and try to pass them off as true a sufficiently good reason to question the assumption of honesty in cases that are essentially evidence-free?

In cases where there is no supporting evidence, and thus no evidentiary value at all when trying to answer "Are some UFOs aliens or something else extraordinary and currently unknown?" is it even necessary to take a stand on suppositions of honesty/dishonesty? Obviously a dishonest report has no evidentiary value. but an honest report without strong supporting evidence doesn't really have any, either, since there is no good way to differentiate between the honest and dishonest ones, and given that even honest reports by witnesses are subject to gross error such as reporting that Venus chased the witnesses car or flaring satellites are circling in a racetrack pattern?

 

[John J.]

There doesn't need to have been an actual incident. There only needs for the participants to have thought there was one. A well planned psyop.

But many of the same factors that make theories of an actual secret incident unlikely make this unlikely as well.
There's no evidence that, other than Halt and a small number of Security Policemen, anyone was involved.

No raised alert, no interruption of usual routines or shift patterns. If a serious incident happened, or was suspected, servicemen could be called back to duty, there's no indication this took place. If there were SPs constantly in the forest (which I doubt), there's no evidence that any of their peers were recalled to cover those men's on-base duties.

No involvement of weapons/ EOD technicians, crash recovery teams/ firefighters or anyone involved in the maintenance/ repair/ piloting of aircraft or their systems and stores.
No-one who knew how to interpret Geiger counter readings involved. Because there wasn't a serious mandated operation to retrieve anything, real or imagined.

In passing, no evidence that Halt's party carried NBC suits or respirators, which they all would have had (or at least have had access to), so they didn't really anticipate a radiological hazard: Perhaps circumstantial evidence that Halt took the Geiger counter on a whim.
And evidence that neither Conrad or the Security Police's senior officers thought there was a radiological (or chemical) hazard.

It's hard to see the need for a "psyop" (or perhaps more likely, a security evaluation) aimed specifically at Halt and a small number of Security Police, most of whom were relatively junior ranks. And it's hard to understand why those men, if they believed something was lost/ being recovered, didn't wonder why no-one else (crash response team, weapons techs, EOD, aircraft engineers) was involved, including the highly-trained personnel of 67th ARRS (Aerospace Rescue and Recovery Sqn.), based at Woodbridge.

Nothing seen by the overwhelming majority of the (likely) thousands of personnel at the two bases, or their families, although their movements were not restricted.
I don't know how many people there were at Bentwaters/ Woodbridge, but we can get a ball-park estimate.
Currently (2026) RAF Lakenheath is the largest US base in the UK;

The 48th Fighter Wing hosts nearly 7,000 active-duty personnel, British and U.S. civilians, and 11,000 family members across RAF Lakenheath and RAF Feltwell, England. As the largest U.S. fighter operation in Europe, the wing employs four combat ready fighter squadrons of F-15 Strike Eagles and F-35A Lightning II aircraft.

(USAF) Royal Air Force Lakenheath website, https://www.lakenheath.af.mil/About-Us/Units/

So, 4 jet squadrons, approx. 7,000 personnel/ employees and 11.000 spouses/ children.
In 1980, RAF Bentwaters/ RAF Woodbridge (which can be regarded as a single site for most practical purposes) had 6 jet squadrons

With the arrival of the Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II in USAFE in 1979, the 81st TFW was expanded to six squadrons... It was decided to expand the 81st with six A-10 squadrons distributed over both Woodbridge and Bentwaters...

RAF Woodbridge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Woodbridge
...plus 1 squadron, 67th ARRS (HC-130 Hercules, HH-53 heavy-lift helicopters) for combat search and rescue.
The base's A-10s were simpler machines than the 2026 Lakenheath planes.
Nonetheless, it seems likely there were several thousand personnel at the twin bases, and a similar or larger number of dependents.

The Woodbridge American High School was opened on the base in 1973. The bases were not at a remote location; they were served by regular bus services, and likely received daily newspaper/ milk deliveries (and groceries etc. on many days) from local suppliers, using vehicles on local roads.
But no partying (or just plain curious) teens, no delivery drivers saw anything, nor did the many hundreds of personnel directly involved in aircraft operations.