And the simple fact is that however they were using or mis-using the Geiger counter, it clearly did detect more of whatever it was they were mearing in the depressions than outside of them.
That isn't clear at all. Halt only records figures for one depression.
The 1st mark gave a reading of 0.03-0.04 mR/h.
The 2nd mark was "dead", no values were recorded on tape.
The 3rd mark "I'm getting some residual" (Nevels), "The meter's definitely giving a little pulse" (Halt), no values recorded.
On the tape, Halt says
External Quote:
This is out toward the number one indentation where we first got the strongest reading
a short time
after a higher reading was gathered between the indentations. (which Halt described as "...the best deflection of the needle I've seen yet"), so his perception/ recollection of where the highest readings were was inaccurate even at the time.
He is using a small tape recorder so he doesn't have to make written notes. Higher readings were gathered later, not at the depressions.
Halt stated in his memo that readings of 0.1 mR/h were detected; there is no indication of this on the tape.
One of the 0.07 mR/h readings was between the depressions (but only on the
second time it was examined- why is this?), so it isn't accurate to say the readings were higher "
in the depressions than outside of them." The other 0.07 mR/h reading was from a marking on a tree, gathered while that marking was also being viewed from close by using the Starlight Scope, with its radioactive components. Nevels, using the counter, goes to the other side of the tree away from the scope and shielded by the trunk, and the reading drops. (We know the likely cause of the tree markings).
The second reading (0.07 mR/h) at the point between the depressions seems to have taken while Englund was there, in the middle. He was close enough to Nevels to recount the Geiger counter readings. Englund might have been carrying the Starlite Scope at the time:
He answers when Halt asks about its name, Englund also answers when Halt asks if they are getting a "heat reflection"; and it is Englund who says
External Quote:
...when the lights are turned off, once we are focused in and allow time for the eyes to adjust we are getting an indication of a heat source coming out of that centre spot
...and Englund asks Ball to shine a flashlight on the area being examined with the scope, so it's unlikely Ball was carrying the scope (Ball had it earlier, Halt had it later).
The men are using a Geiger counter but appear unaware that they're also carrying a radiation source. The highest readings seem to be when the two might be close together.
The Geiger counter used was not optimal for measuring background radiation. In addition, at some point the beta shield was removed (we don't know when) and Halt (inexplicably) asks for it to placed on the ground
before the highest readings are detected. Halt and co. record peak readings, not readings sustained over time.
Both the UK National Radiological Protection Board and the manufacturers of the AN/PDR-27 Geiger counter have questioned the accuracy of the readings;
External Quote:
NRPB contacted the American manufacturers of the AN/PDR-27, who stated that Halt's peak measurement of 0.1 mR/h was the 'bottom reading on the lowest range' of the monitor and was 'of little or no significance'. They noted further that these instruments are designed to be used to monitor workplace fields or radiation levels after sizable nuclear incidents and are therefore not suitable for environmental monitoring at background levels. On the basis of this information from the manufacturers, NRPB concluded that using such an instrument to establish a level of 10 times background is not credible. ...I subsequently wrote to NRPB to ensure that there was no misunderstanding. In a letter to me dated 1997 July 7 Michael Clark of the NRPB stated: 'We are convinced of the correctness of our interpretation.'
Ian Ridpath, Rendlesham Forest UFO Case website
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham4.html
Giles Cowling of DERA Radiation Protection Services, who advised Nick Pope, didn't know that an AN/PDR-27 had been used; he later said to Ridpath
External Quote:
In my original discussions with Mr Pope I did indeed state that the readings were around 10 times normal background levels, provided that the instrument was appropriate for measuring background radiation (at the time of our discussions he could not state what the instrument was), calibrated and being used/interpreted correctly. I share the NRPB view that the use of a high-range survey instruments to measure (accurately) environmental levels of radiation is somewhat questionable and this must throw some doubt on the validity of the data reported.
(ibid.)
And that's without considering the proximity of the Starlight Scope, the absent beta shield and the counter being placed on the ground and the selective recording of peak, not sustained readings.
Halt takes no action about what he believes are elevated radiation readings (nor does anyone else). He doesn't write his memo until a couple of weeks later. He doesn't alert local or UK authorities about this or the "blast site" (not seen when looked at in daylight 2 days earlier, by a USAF commissioned officer and Suffolk police, within an area less than 4 square metres).
As in some other claimed UFO cases, highly questionable evidence (e.g. the AN/PDR-27 readings), adequately explained by mundane factors, is mythologised by some as something extraordinary.
