Rendlesham Forest UFO Incident

[JJB]

I've followed the incident a bit. Maybe you will just have to agree to disagree on what actually happened. I often find a certain bias when the most likely or possible explanation is settled on as a default for cases; it's a bias born of successfully debunking many proffered cases, which has raised the evidentiary bar. It's the need for proof beyond a reasonable doubt vs preponderance of evidence, circumstantial evidence and eyewitness testimony, even where corroborated. Hardcore skeptics are a good thing; we need them. I can appreciate why they take the stance they do, though they may be more open-minded than the facade suggests. It's interesting how one person can look at the evidence and think something anomalous happened, while another person can find the other's mundane explanation far more absurd, less likely and cobbled together.

What you're describing is really about perception. One person sees the same situation and thinks something anomalous happened, while another sees the mundane explanation as obvious and finds the "anomalous" version overcomplicated or cobbled together.

It's not that the facts differ, it's how each brain weighs plausibility and prior experience. Other factors play a role too - cognitive biases, emotional investment, gaps in knowledge, social influence, and even personality traits all shape whether someone sees the ordinary or the extraordinary.

 

[Mendel]

What you're describing is really about perception. One person sees the same situation and thinks something anomalous happened, while another sees the mundane explanation as obvious and finds the "anomalous" version overcomplicated or cobbled together.

That's really the crux of argument by incredility. Someone shows you something you've not seen before and goes "Incredible, can you believe it? What a scandal!" At that point, it pays to step back and look for data on what is normal. Why are the amateurs upset, but the experts aren't? Could it be that people who actually work with this can frame it better, and know things that put the phenomenon in perspective? That's often the case.

People who don't do that are susceptible to be led down rabbit holes.

 

[Todd Feinman]

What you're describing is really about perception. One person sees the same situation and thinks something anomalous happened, while another sees the mundane explanation as obvious and finds the "anomalous" version overcomplicated or cobbled together.

It's not that the facts differ, it's how each brain weighs plausibility and prior experience. Other factors play a role too - cognitive biases, emotional investment, gaps in knowledge, social influence, and even personality traits all shape whether someone sees the ordinary or the extraordinary.

Certainly with cases in the LIZ. In some cases I think skeptics would have to say that some witnesses are confabulating, lying, or hallucinating.

 

[John J.]

I often find a certain bias when the most likely or possible explanation is settled on as a default for cases; it's a bias born of successfully debunking many proffered cases

The most likely or possible (often the simplest) explanation, that takes into account the known facts, is often closest to what really happened (not just in the context of UFO reports).
Not always; sometimes important information is missed or misinterpreted, or relevant information not available, or unidentified factors are involved.
This principle, a bit like Occam's Razor, is widely observed in science. It might be considered a bias, but if so it's a useful one which has predictive validity, i.e. it's often right. It's rare for people to photograph models UFOs and claim to have met aliens, and stick to their stories for many years, but people who thought this might be more likely than George Adamski or Billy Meier regularly meeting beings from Venus or the Pleiades were correct.

Over time, details get added, stories get dramatized, and speculation solidifies into "fact,"

Totally agree.
I genuinely don't understand how anyone can take Penniston's notebook "message", revealed years after the event, seriously
(except as evidence of an unreliable account), but it's become a part of the Rendlesham story for some.

 

[JJB]

Certainly with cases in the LIZ. In some cases I think skeptics would have to say that some witnesses are confabulating, lying, or hallucinating.

In some cases, sure, but that is not the default assumption. Memory is unreliable, perception is fallible, and stories change over time without anyone lying or hallucinating. Most of the time it is just misinterpretation layered with later embellishment. Actual fabrication or delusion happens, but it is the exception, not the explanation skeptics start with.

 

[NorCal Dave]

n some cases I think skeptics would have to say that some witnesses are confabulating, lying, or hallucinating.

Not piling on, just following on from @JJB comments above. Even in the case of "confabulation, lying or hallucinating" only lying is intentional and even then not always.

Confabulation is just part of human memory, stuff gets jumbled. I've told before of my still very clear memory of meeting a guy, who is now a good friend, out in the desert. He was all set up a little ways from us with a blue Toyota Tacoma (Toyota's small truck in the US). It was several years later when he pointed out that he had been in a white RAM 2500 (a large truck from Dodge/FCA) and he'd never owned a Tacoma or a blue truck. I'd have sworn on it.

Hallucinating varies, but is often associated with mental health issues, like schizophrenia or possible hallucinogen use. But things like waking dreams are very much like hallucinations and are very common. Some people can also reach an altered like state through meditation, chanting, dancing or whatever. I also think any of us can just zone out sometimes and think we saw or experienced something, especially due to stress, exhaustion and other things life throws at us. If that something then gets a bit confabulated later it can create a false memory that feels real.

I think most of us here are careful about saying people are outright lying about something. Some do it maliciously of course, but I think a lot of what might be considered lies regarding UFOs, are more like exaggerations and tall tales. We all know that guy that tells tall tales, sometimes knowingly so and sometimes they've told them so often they now believe the stories. Are they lying? Yes and no.

Even when we look at Penniston's evolving claims, was he lying? He clearly made no mention of a notebook at the time of the incident and the note book wasn't mentioned at all until the mid '90s. And it wasn't until the mid '00s that he mentioned the telepathically transmitted binary code he supposedly wrote down the day after the event. I think it's very likely he wrote the code down at some much later date, but Ian Ridpath notes that he underwent hypnotic regression therapy in the '90s:

After undergoing regression hypnosis in September 1994 he seems to have become convinced that it was a craft from tens of thousands of years in the Earth's future. According to what Penniston told the hypnotist, it contained our distant descendants returning to obtain genetic material to keep their ailing species alive: 'They are time travellers. They are us,' he said.

It sounds like the plot of a B movie, and very possibly that's where it came from. A TV movie called Official Denial was broadcast on the Sci Fi channel in November 1993 and was released on video in May 1994, both within a year prior to Penniston's hypnosis. In it, an alien craft is shot down by the USAF and lands in a forest. It contains creatures that are here 'To get genetic material to help them reproduce because their race is dying out.' And where are they from? 'They're not aliens. They're us. From the future – our future.' The similarities with Penniston's story including the statement 'They are us' are striking. This would not be the first time that a UFO witness under hypnosis has told a story from false memory based on a TV show.

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

We now know this kind of therapy not only doesn't "recover" hidden memories, it often creates them. It would seem his stories are a mish-mash of what he remembers seeing that night, some confabulations, hypnotic memories and a desire to be part of the story, perhaps the main part. So, is he lying? I don't really know.

The "truth or lies" false dichotomy is a standard in UFOlogy. There is some guy that shows up over in the Ariel School thread every so often and just comments like:

"Are you saying these children , now adults , are lying ? Isn't it possible that they are just telling what they saw ?Did this ever occur to you ?."

Nobody said they were lying.

 

[Todd Feinman]

I agree. I understand those things occur very often.

 

[Scaramanga]

I know, we've been over this before. I'll just say, and with all due respect and sincerity, I think you project too much of yourself into the situation. Obviously we've never met and don't know each other, but I've read enough of your posts that I think you're an avid hiker, photographer, astronomer and someone who is always learning new things and expanding your mind. Not unlike many of us here on the forum. Had YOU been stationed at Bentwaters as a guard, I'm sure you would have been off exploring the countryside, star gazing at night, going to the lighthouse and reading OMNI or Scientific America at the commissary. But these guys are not YOU.

These were mostly young men that had joined the Air Force for a variety of reasons and ended up far from home. As I noted up-thread, this was known as the "Hollow Forces" era for the Air Force. These guys would have joined in the wake of the Vietnam retreat. The Army's now vaunted Delta Force and the Air Force's Special Ops groups had just left a pile of burning aircraft in the Iranian desert as evidence of another spectacular US military failure. Bill Murray's Stripes, mocking the military as a dead-end place for half-wits would come out the following year ('81). The US military was hurting, and like the other branches in the late '70s, the Air Force was taking what it could get:

Well, no, my primary point was an objection to the way in which things always seem to revert to a 'silly people who don't know what stars look like' explanation just because some people are clueless about the night sky. To me this is a sort of cover-all cop-out...a way of avoiding having to give the matter any real thought.

For example, Halt was in a team of 5 people when he made his recording. When he describes the beam of light coming down...not one of them says ' 'Huh ? What are you on about ?'. There's zero indication that anyone else is not seeing the same thing. Someone else even makes an exclamation about the 'colours'...

HALT: Now we're observing what appears to be a beam coming down to the ground.

SHOUT IN BACKGROUND: Colours! [?]

HALT: This is unreal. [Laughs]

Nobody questions Halt. Nobody says ' that's just a bright star' or 'That's just the lighthouse beam'. I think it is just absurd to treat this as though it was just five clueless hillbillies who'd never seen a star or a lighthouse before yet were somehow put in charge of our nuclear defence !

All too often I think cases are 'explained' by simply being patronising and condescending to the witnesses.

 

[John J.]

Nobody questions Halt. Nobody says ' that's just a bright star' or 'That's just the lighthouse beam'.

Maybe that's the problem. Halt and his party didn't identify the clearly visible lighthouse at any time. As already mentioned, the visible characteristics of the lighthouse light- yellowish, darker at the centre, flashes observed every 5 seconds- were all on Halt's tape.
Other ranks (Airmen, NCOs) aren't usually rewarded (polite understatement) for questioning the opinions of Colonels in front of other junior ranks.

(We know that Halt and his party were unfamiliar with the Geiger counter, and believed their Starlight Scope could detect heat; they also don't appear to have used a map. Because of their unfamiliarity with the Geiger counter and Starlight Scope, they believed each was showing evidence of something unusual; neither was. But it may have reinforced any belief that something strange was going on).

I think it is just absurd to treat this as though it was just five clueless hillbillies who'd never seen a star or a lighthouse before yet were somehow put in charge of our nuclear defence !

No-one here described any of the claimed witnesses as "clueless" or "hillbillies".
But people can be mistaken.
And some people sometimes give unreliable accounts. What to make of Penniston's notebook binary message? Or Warren's account?

If there were nuclear weapons stored at the WSA, these would probably have been a legacy from the earlier hosting of F-4 Phantoms.
As has been pointed out, the only combat jets at Woodbridge and Bentwaters in December 1980 were A-10s, not nuclear-roled aircraft.

The Security Police squadron would have had the primary mission of defending key points on the twin bases from ground attack in the event of war. They would have had no role in planning or directly assisting in air operations; they wouldn't have maintained, repaired or armed aircraft.
In peacetime, they had the important role of securing the airfield perimeters and denial of unauthorised access to weapons storage and other key points (as well as law enforcement and, IIRC, smallarms training for other USAF personnel).
But this doesn't mean they were "in charge of our nuclear defence", just as in the UK we don't describe the MoD Police or 43 Commando as being in charge of nuclear defence: They are force protection, but not in charge of that force.

In the event of hostilities, the security of the twin bases would not have relied entirely on the single Security Police squadron. Most of the other servicemen and women (i.e. the overwhelmingly large non-SP majority) would have received some training in defending a location, and smallarms would have been available for this. Any intruder would literally be entering an armed camp.

Someone else even makes an exclamation about the 'colours'...

Scintillating stars have been reported to display various colours, see thread Odd light " sphere" hovering and changing color video, particularly Mick West's post #9. Also,

If you look up on a clear night, you'll see there are bright stars that sparkle with a tint of their true colours.
Some stars also appear to flicker between different colours as a result of the distorting effects of Earth's atmosphere...

BBC Sky at Night Magazine, Anton Vamplew https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/space-science/star-colours

 

[Scaramanga]

Scintillating stars have been reported to display various colours

But this is precisely my point. People focus on stars and completely ignore the rest of the story...such is the determination to squeeze it into a particular narrative. Anything that does not fit that narrative just gets ignored.

For example the geiger readings. Surely the issue is not whether the readings were 'high' or whether they understood that, but that the readings were high-er near the indentations in the ground...

HALT: I can read it now. The meter's definitely giving a little pulse.

ENGLUND: ... about the centre ...

HALT: I was gonna say let's go to the centre of the area next and see what kind of a reading we get out there. You're reading the clicks, I can't hear the clicks. That about the centre, Bruce?

ENGLUND: Yes.

HALT: OK, let's go to the centre.

NEVELS: Yes, I'm getting more...

HALT: That's the best deflection of the needle I've seen yet.

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

Then there's the 'lighthouse'. Do pieces shoot off lighthouses ?....and notice that there are actually two lights, not just one.

HALT: It's coming this way. It is definitely coming this way.

VOICE: Pieces of it shooting off...

HALT: Pieces of it are shooting off.

VOICE: At eleven o'clock...

HALT: There is no doubt about it. This is weird!

VOICE (NEVELS?): To the left...

HALT: Definitely moving...

VOICE (NEVELS?): Two lights – one light just behind [?] and one light to the left.

What's more, one can claim that Halt saying they were heading at 110 degrees agrees with the lighthouse direction ...but then what is this ' at 11 o'clock ' ? 11 o'clock would put the light a full 30 degrees to the left of the direction they were heading...i.e at 80 degrees. I do not think I have ever seen anyone mention this. If the light is at 11 o'clock relative to their bearing then it can't be the lighthouse.

On top of that, the light was moving, or so the tape says. Here are all the statements referencing the light 'moving'....

HALT: It's coming this way. It is definitely coming this way.

HALT: Definitely moving...

ENGLUND: Sir, it just moved to the right...

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 sort of has a hollow centre, a dark centre, it's...

Then there's the 'stars'. I've seen it claimed that the ones to the north were Deneb and Vega. But that does not accord with what is actually said...

HALT: 3:05. At about ten degrees, horizon, directly north, we've got two strange objects, er, half moon shape, dancing about, with coloured lights on 'em. At, er, guess to be about five to ten miles out, maybe less. The half moons have now turned into full circles as though there was an eclipse or something there for a minute or two.

In other words there were two objects BOTH directly north. But Deneb and Vega are separated by 24 degrees or so. And the 'stars' were moving...

HALT: And the ones to the north are moving. One's moving away from us.

BACKGROUND VOICE: (indistinct, but includes 'moving')

NEVELS: Moving out fast.

BALL(?): This one on the right's heading away, too.

Stars 'moving out fast' ? And then the 'star' moving in fast from the south....

HALT: They're both heading north. Hey, here he comes from the south, he's coming toward us now.

HALT: Now we're observing what appears to be a beam coming down to the ground.

This does not sound even remotely like stars. You have to completely ignore most of what is said in order to fit stars and lighthouse into the narrative.

 

[JMartJr]

Well, no, my primary point was an objection to the way in which things always seem to revert to a 'silly people who don't know what stars look like' explanation just because some people are clueless about the night sky. To me this is a sort of cover-all cop-out...a way of avoiding having to give the matter any real thought.

It is not necessary for you to insert into that post language denigrating the witnesses and putting sentiments into the mouths of your "adversaries" in this debate which they have not expressed.

Nobody has said people who report extraordinary (or even just mysterious) sighting based on seeing something mundane with which they were not familiar, or which the mis-perceived, are "silly." Nor liars, nor hillbillies, etc.

Respectfully, please cut it out.

 

[John J.]

For example the geiger readings. Surely the issue is not whether the readings were 'high' or whether they understood that, but that the readings were high-er near the indentations in the ground... ...http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/halttape.html

The readings do not seem to have been higher at each of the three indentations/ scrapings than at other places.

They were reportedly higher near the middle of the (notional) triangle made by the three markings, and on a nearby tree; the one quantified Geiger counter return on the tape that might apply to one of the indentations was matched by readings elsewhere.
As measured by a Geiger counter that wasn't optimised for detecting low levels of radiation, used by someone who mangled the readings.

From the same source as above (Ian Ridpath's transcript)- bold = things I think are particularly relevant to this point, [italics] my comments:

HALT: Where are the impressions? Is that all the bigger they are?

ENGLUND: Well, there's one more well-defined over here.

SECURITY COMMUNICATION: Sergeant Bustinza – Security Control.

HALT: We're still getting clicks. [Not "more clicks", no indication of any increase from any earlier readings]

NEVELS: ...getting clicks...

SECURITY COMMUNICATION (includes 'Sergeant Bustinza... We're outta gas...Security-6 boarding...East Gate').

HALT: Can you read that on the scale?

NEVELS: Yes, sir. We're now on the five-tenths scale, and we're reading about third, fourth make [? – perhaps he meant to say 'mark'] over... [This might mean 0.03-0.04 milliroentgens/hour; see below. It might refer to the 1st mark/ depression checked, as the next reading on the tape appears to be for what is referred to as "the second pod indentation"]

HALT: OK, we're still comfortably safe here.

RADIO COMMUNICATION (BUSTINZA?): Do you happen to have a Light-all?

GARBLED SECURITY COMMUNICATION (Includes: 'East Gate security... Security Six... have a light-all with gas...please.')

HALT: Still minor readings, the second pod indentation... [The markings, suspected by a local police officer as perhaps animal-made scrapes, are now being described by Col. Halt as "pod indentations"]

BACKGROUND SECURITY COMMUNICATION.

NEVELS: Nope.

HALT: This one's dead. Let's go over to the third one over here. ["Nope", "dead" Might Imply there wasn't a raised level at the 2nd mark. No values recorded]
[The "dead" comment has also been interpreted as referring to a light-all, but as there's no other discussion of the 2nd ground mark, or any mention of a Geiger counter reading for it, I think it might be that which is being talked about. "This one... Let's go over to the third one"]

BACKGROUND SECURITY COMMUNICATION: Sergeant Bustinza...

NEVELS: Yes, now I'm getting some residual. [A higher reading than at the "dead" second mark?]

HALT: I can read it now. The meter's definitely giving a little pulse. [No-one states any numbers, but this implies that the reading was higher than at the second mark].

ENGLUND: ... about the centre ...

HALT: I was gonna say let's go to the centre of the area next and see what kind of a reading we get out there. You're reading the clicks, I can't hear the clicks. That about the centre, Bruce?

ENGLUND: Yes.

HALT: OK, let's go to the centre.

NEVELS: Yes, I'm getting more...

HALT: That's the best deflection of the needle I've seen yet. OK, can you give me an estimation. We're on the point five scale...we're getting...have trouble reading... [So according to Halt the highest reading so far is between the marks, not at the marks].

ENGLUND: At approximately 01.25 hours...

NEVELS: We're getting right at a half of a millirem. [More likely 0.05 milliroentgens/hour (mR/h): The AN/PDR-27 meter displays milliroentgens/hour. Roentgens and REMs (Roentgen Equivalent Man) are not quite the same.]

Colonel Halt's memo dated 13 January 1981 to the UK MoD (Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rendlesham_Forest_incident#/media/File:Halt_Memorandum.jpg) states that the peak reading was 0.1 milliroentgens (again, he should have said milliroentgens/hour) not the 0.5 apparently stated by Nevels, but 0.1 isn't evidenced on his tape either.
The memo continues

...with peak readings in the three depressions and near the center of the triangle formed by the depressions...

...but the tape transcript (above) does not support this statement about the marks/ depressions. Halt also says

A nearby tree had moderate (0.05–0.07) readings on the side of the tree toward the depressions.

0.07 is higher than the readings at the marks/depressions if we're using the tape as evidence, which is presumably what Halt was using it for, to avoid having to write notes in the dark.
"The best deflection of the needle" Halt has seen up to this point of the transcript seems to be 0.05 mR/h in the middle of the "landing area", not at any of the marks.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ian Ridpath's Rendlesham Forest UFO case website presents evidence, from the AN/PDR-27's manufacturer, that the readings reported by Halt were of little significance, and that the AN/PDR-27 wouldn't be an optimal device for measuring background/ very low levels of radiation
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham4.html. Another UFO researcher, familiar with AN/PDR-27, came to a similar conclusion (see below).

But if we assume the AN/PDR-27 readings were broadly accurate, the tape transcript appears to tell us this
(admittedly it requires some interpretation, which I might have got wrong):

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.

The first recorded reading of 0.05 mR/h was from a point between the marks, not at the marks themselves, and was "the best deflection of the needle" Col. Halt had seen up to that point.

Nevels misreports the numbers (by a magnitude) and uses the wrong name for the units of measurement (Halt's memo indicates that he was aware of this, no reference to "half a millirem"). Tim Printy, editor of UFO investigation magazine SUNlite2 (6), Nov-Dec 2010 (PDF attached below, pg. 10 "The AN/PDR-27") noticed this too:

The comments on the tape demonstrate that Nevels did not quite understand the device or was unfamiliar with it. Is he actually describing the audible signal or is he referring to each tick on the meter as a "click"? His reading of the meter as "seven-tenths" also speaks volumes. A proficient operator would have announced the reading as 0.07 mrem or mroentgens/hour.

Tim Printy is familiar with the AN/PDR-27; his article on its use by Halt/ Nevels in SUNlite 2 (6) starts

My experience in the US Navy's nuclear propulsion program exposed to me the use and maintenance of various radiation detectors. One of those happened to be the AN/PDR-27 that was used in Rendlesham that night. As a result, I feel I can act as something of an expert on this part of the Rendlesham case. First of all, the choice to use the AN/PDR-27 was not a very good one.

Interestingly, Printy says (I've no idea if it is accurate)

Colonel Halt claimed on a Strange but true program that only the center of the "triangle" was "hot" and the rest of the forest was "cold".

Printy points out that on the tape Halt finds radiation in multiple places. -I think this is interesting because if Halt did say this on Strange But True, it supports the interpretation that the ground markings were not significant "hotspots" (which I think is in line with the evidence on the tape, but at odds with Halt's 13th January 1981 memo to the MoD).
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Meanwhile, back in Rendlesham Forest or thereabouts, 1980:

HALT: ...best point. I don't seen it go any higher.

VOICE (BALL?): It's still flying around.

HALT: OK, we'll go out toward the...

NEVELS: Now it's picking up.

HALT: This is out toward the number one indentation where we first got the strongest reading. Yeah, it's similar to what we got in the centre. [The tape appears to indicate that the "number one indentation" had a reading of 0.03-0.04 mR/h, the strongest reading was a small area in the middle of the "triangle" described by the marks, 0.05 mR/h.]

NEVELS: ...right in the pod, it's right near the centre. [Nevels adopts Halt's term, "pod", for something they haven't seen]

ENGLUND: This looks like an area here possibly that could be a blast...it's in the centre of the triangle... [Could be a blast? They've just noticed it? Remember, this is in the middle of three scrapes in the ground in a triangular arrangement, each side approx. 2.5 metres/ 8ft 2 inches long (Vince Thurkettle, sketch on Ian Ridpath's site), where Halt and co. have been taking Geiger counter readings.
Some accounts (which I feel are unreliable) claim there have been men there since early morning on the 26th December. The site was visited by local police, who saw the scrapes/ marks, but missed the blast area in the middle. Nevels and Halt have checked the centre of the triangle with a Geiger counter- but didn't notice a blast area until Englund mentions it.
If anyone present took this seriously, their subsequent actions are hard to understand: An unexplained blast area near US airbases. Do they immediately contact the British authorities? No. Does Halt arrange for photographers, perhaps EOD specialists (if the bases had them) to discretely revisit the site in daylight? Not that we know of.]

[In passing, they believe they've detected abnormally high radiation readings- and they don't do anything serious about that, either.]

HALT: It's hard to tell... Here take this, my fingers [are] about to freeze.

ENGLUND: ...up towards seven...Just jumped up towards seven tenths. [Higher than the readings for the ground markings]

HALT: Seven tenths? Right there in the centre?

ENGLUND: Uh huh.

[Ian's note: this is the second time they have checked the centre; no 'jump' in the readings was mentioned the first time.]

HALT: We found a small blast – what looks like a blasted or scruffed-up area here. We're getting very positive readings. Let's see, is that near the centre?

ENGLUND: Yes, it is. This is what we would assume would be the dead centre. [This seems strange to me, remembering the tiny area of forest floor in question- perhaps less than 4 square metres- how would the centre not be fairly obvious? Are the indentations that difficult to see?]

NEVELS: Picking up more as you go along – the whole area here now...

A FEW CLICKS ARE AUDIBLE.

HALT: Up to seven tenths? Or seven units, let's call it, on the point five scale. OK, why don't we do this: why don't we make a sweep – here, I've got my gloves on now – let's make a sweep out around the whole area about ten foot out, make a perimeter run around it, starting right back here at the corner, back at the same first corner where we came in, let's go right back here. I'm gonna have to depend on you counting the clicks. [Halt doesn't seem to know what units of measurement the Geiger counter uses. Maybe he did some checking before writing his memo, which is fair enough]

NEVELS: Right.

HALT: OK, let's...

NEVELS: I'll tell you as it gets louder...

HALT: ...then I can put the light on it and sweep around it.

VOICE: (Unintelligible)

HALT: Put it on the ground every once in a while.

ENGLUND: This looks like an abrasion on the tree... [the sight of marks on the trees, facing into the small clearing with the scrapings, seems to be evidence supporting the blast theory. Englund refers to the site being a "landing site" and a "landing area". We know that they were in a managed forest where the forestry workers would use axe-marks to identify trees for felling; the airmen probably didn't know that.]

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The guys continue to get readings between 0.01 and 0.04 mR/h as they do a sweep around the area. Using a device whose manufacturers have said is not appropriate for low-level/ background radiation detection.

Even if the AN/PDR-27 was giving dependable readings, I don't think the tape supports the idea that the 3 ground markings had higher radiation levels than the surroundings.

The group started with three nondescript ground marks, each approx. 7 inches/ 18cm across and 1.5 inches/ 3.8 deep, and they've discovered a radioactive scene and a blast area caused by a "pod" using the forest as a landing site.
And don't follow it up the next day.

I do wonder about the Starlight Scope; it has mildly radioactive components. Englund states it detects heat, it doesn't; perhaps he is unaware of its other characteristics. Halt, also apparently not aware that the scope is an image intensifier using visible spectrum light, opines that it is showing "Heat or some other form of energy" when they view a bright patch on a tree.

Coincidental fact about Orford Ness, the spit where the lighthouse (and Cobra Mist) were sited- almost certainly with no connection to any of this-

The Atomic Weapons Research Establishment had a base on the site, used for environmental testing, i.e. testing conducted to determine the functional performance of a component or system under conditions that simulate the real environment in which the component or system is expected to operate.

Wikipedia, Orford Ness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orford_Ness

 

[Scaramanga]

It is not necessary for you to insert into that post language denigrating the witnesses and putting sentiments into the mouths of your "adversaries" in this debate which they have not expressed.

Nobody has said people who report extraordinary (or even just mysterious) sighting based on seeing something mundane with which they were not familiar, or which the mis-perceived, are "silly." Nor liars, nor hillbillies, etc.

Respectfully, please cut it out.

I respectfully disagree.....as that is exactly how those witnesses are being treated. I am basically being told that numerous trained service personnel haven't the faintest idea what a star looks like and wouldn't recognise a lighthouse if they were sat on top of it. A case of multiple people responsible for the defence of the UK all suffering from this supposed affliction. This level of dismissal is what's patronising. Sorry I used exaggerated language to make the point...but there is a point there to be made.

One of the things I increasingly find tiresome is precisely that patronising attitude towards witnesses. The notion that because some witnesses haven't a clue what's in the sky, that everyone who ever sees anything in the sky can be dismissed under some umbrella ' folks are useless at identifying stuff ' or your 'something mundane with which they were not familiar' . Even if there are multiple witnesses. I'm not saying this can't happen, but I object to it being some sort of default people jump to so readily as that is what is denigrating the witnesses.

 

[Scaramanga]

The readings do not seem to have been higher at each of the three indentations/ scrapings than at other places.

They were reportedly higher near the middle of the (notional) triangle made by the three markings, and on a nearby tree; the one quantified Geiger counter return on the tape that might apply to one of the indentations was matched by readings elsewhere.
As measured by a Geiger counter that wasn't optimised for detecting low levels of radiation, used by someone who mangled the readings.

Nevertheless the readings were higher in the vicinity of the 'landing'. One can quibble over 'near the indentations'...the point surely is that higher readings were associated with the scuffed area.

And I totally agree with Ridpath's comments about Halt and team not raising the alarm over a 'blast area' or the heightened radioactivity. Or the UFO shining beams of light down. It appears baffling.

 

[JMartJr]

I respectfully disagree.....as that is exactly how those witnesses are being treated. I am basically being told that numerous trained service personnel haven't the faintest idea what a star looks like

Please cite an example where anybody here has said that witnesses have no idea what a star looks like.

and wouldn't recognise a lighthouse if they were sat on top of it.

Please cite an example of anybody saying that witnesses would not recognize a lighthouse if they were sat on top of it.

A case of multiple people responsible for the defence of the UK all suffering from this supposed affliction. This level of dismissal is what's patronising. Sorry I used exaggerated language to make the point...but there is a point there to be made.

The point is undercut when you have to make up what somebody else is saying so that you can refute the made up stuff.

 

[Eburacum]

I am basically being told that numerous trained service personnel haven't the faintest idea what a star looks like

And yet many, many trained personnel have misidentified stars and planets in a wide variety of situations, over, and over and over and over again. As I'm sure you are aware.

Anyone can make this kind of mistake. As an amateur astronomer, I have sometimes misidentified certain planets as aircraft, including Mercury, which sometimes appears in the late twilight looking like a plane coming in to land. A whole bunch of people have filmed Venus or Jupiter thinking they were drones.

 

[Scaramanga]

Please cite an example where anybody here has said that witnesses have no idea what a star looks like.

But that is the entire basis of Ridpath's theory, quoted numerous times in this thread, that Halt and team were looking at Sirius, Deneb, Vega, etc. Those who support that theory are basically saying that Halt and team....not just one man but five...mistook not just one bright star but several fainter ones. Yet at the same time they didn't mistake Jupiter, which was at pretty much the same elevation as Sirius and was twice as bright. I mean...what an inconsistent theory ! The whole Ridpath star theory is selective. He totally fails to mention that there were other bright stars ( and Jupiter ) that were not 'mis-identified'. I see the classic drawer effect....and this all masquerading as a rational 'explanation'.

Sometimes you have to be skeptical of the skepticism.

 

[Scaramanga]

And yet many, many trained personnel have misidentified stars and planets in a wide variety of situations, over, and over and over and over again. As I'm sure you are aware.

Anyone can make this kind of mistake. As an amateur astronomer, I have sometimes misidentified certain planets as aircraft, including Mercury, which sometimes appears in the late twilight looking like a plane coming in to land. A whole bunch of people have filmed Venus or Jupiter thinking they were drones.

Of course anyone can make such mistake. I am also a long standing amateur astronomer. But a theory invoking that has to at least be internally consistent. You can't have Halt & Co 'mistaking' Sirius whilst at the same time twice as bright Jupiter is sitting there at the same elevation and in the same field of view.....and no-one even mentions it let alone mistakes it !

The only other explanation is that they got their bearings off by at least 30 degrees ( which would actually accord with the '11'o'clock' issue I pointed out above ) ..and it was actually Jupiter and very close by Saturn that they were mis-identifying. Now that would make a lot more sense.

 

[Eburacum]

Jupiter was partly concealed by moonlight IIRC, so would not have been so obvious. Having said that we can't really be sure that some of the observers, including Halt, were not misled by Jupiter at this time. All we really have as solid evidence is the tape, which seems to consist of a bunch of people shouting at the sky.

 

[Eburacum]

Here's Jason Colavito about the inability of 'trained observers' to identify things in the sky.
https://www.jasoncolavito.com/volume-28-archive.html

This week, the U.S. government gave us a real-time demonstration of the dangers caused by their inability to effectively identify objects in the sky when the FAA closed the airspace over El Paso, Texas, after the Department of Homeland Security fired a laser weapon at an object they thought was a Mexican drug cartel's drone but was in fact a children's party balloon. This incident is reminiscent of the many times that members of the military have mistaken balloons for flying saucers. It should give all of us pause that the people tasked with defending our country cannot reliably distinguish between alien spaceships, drones, birds, and children's balloons—and have not been able to do so since the dawn of the UFO era.

 

[Scaramanga]

Jupiter was partly concealed by moonlight IIRC, so would not have been so obvious. Having said that we can't really be sure that some of the observers, including Halt, were not misled by Jupiter at this time. All we really have as solid evidence is the tape, which seems to consist of a bunch of people shouting at the sky.

Jupiter would still have been a bright object in the sky, and Saturn was very close by.

When Halt says .... HALT: They're both heading north. Hey, here he comes from the south, he's coming toward us now.

Jupiter and Sirius are the same distance from 'south'.

I feel we thus really have to explain why Sirius becomes a 'UFO'....yet Jupiter is sitting there brighter, and looking odd with Saturn very close by in conjunction, yet Halt and team totally fail to 'mis-identify' this bigger elephant in the room....

 

[JMartJr]

Please cite an example where anybody here has said that witnesses have no idea what a star looks like.

But that is the entire basis of Ridpath's theory, quoted numerous times in this thread, that Halt and team were looking at Sirius, Deneb, Vega, etc. Those who support that theory are basically saying that Halt and team....not just one man but five...mistook not just one bright star but several fainter ones. Yet at the same time they didn't mistake Jupiter, which was at pretty much the same elevation as Sirius and was twice as bright. I mean...what an inconsistent theory ! The whole Ridpath star theory is selective. He totally fails to mention that there were other bright stars ( and Jupiter ) that were not 'mis-identified'. I see the classic drawer effect....and this all masquerading as a rational 'explanation'.

Sometimes you have to be skeptical of the skepticism.

OK, I note that you did not cite an instance of anybody saying that witnesses have no idea what a star looks like or any other derogatory statement about the witnesses.

Perhaps more importantly, you ably explained your position without putting words into the mouths of the "other side" that they did not say. As I read it, you accurately summarized the position of those who maintain that witnesses mistook stars for UFO lights, and explained why you think they are wrong, without inaccurately attributing opinions nor positions to other posters that they have not put forward.

More of that, please. For what it is worth, I think your points are worth considering and debating, and are stronger without the mischaracterizations of what other people have said, I'm going to move on if I can. While looking forward to seeing what you and the rest of the gang continue to come up with in this and other threads.

 

[Eburacum]

Well Sirius is significantly further away from the Moon than Jupiter and Saturn on this date, so would have been more clearly visible.

When one of the witnesses on the tape (no one knows who) says "Colours!" I'd give about even odds that he was looking at Sirius. Sirius is of course famous for its colours, but probably fewer than half of any given group of observers will have noticed this scintillation before. In a small sample like this, it is entirely possible that none of them had ever noticed Sirius' colours before.

A bunch of men in the dark, looking at the sky but not at each other, only one of which could use the Starlight Scope at any one time - I doubt they were all looking at the same thing, or even in the same direction, at any given moment in time.

 

[John J.]

Nevertheless the readings were higher in the vicinity of the 'landing'. One can quibble over 'near the indentations'...the point surely is that higher readings were associated with the scuffed area.

But there was no baseline. The AN/PDR-27 is not designed for monitoring such low levels of radiation. It was designed to monitor fallout and for use where there are strong sources of ionizing radiation.
Had it been used in the same way elsewhere a long way away from the site, might it have returned similar results?

the tape has Sgt. Nevels noting radiation levels on the trees, in the various holes, and when pointing it at the "winking eye". Halt even reports they were getting radiation levels of "three good clicks" after they had ventured beyond the second farmer's field!

Tim Printy, SUNlite 2(6), PDF attached to post #692

Englund, carrying a Starlight Scope, is nearby. Did he get closer to have a look when specific areas were being investigated?
This might explain why the centre of the triangle gave different readings. Equally, it could just be noise, remembering the limits of the AN/PDR-27. Getting different readings from the same target, seconds or minutes apart, might be a red flag.

Edited to add- to clarify, the Starlight Scope has radioactive components:

Radiation Warning Information: The following radiation hazard information must be read and understood by all personnel before operating or repairing the Night Vision Sight AN/PVS-2, AN/PVS-2A, and the AN/PVS-2B. Hazardous radioactive materials are present in the above listed components of the Night Vision Sight AN/PVS-2, AN/PVS-2A, and AN/PVS-2B. ...NEVER place radioactive components in your pocket. Use extreme care NOT to break radioactive components while handling them. NEVER remove radioactive components from cartons until you are ready to use them.

TM 11-5855-203-10C, "Operator's Manual For NIGHT VISION SIGHT, INDIVIDUAL SERVED WEAPON AN/PVS-2 (5855-087-2947), AN/PVS-2A (5855-179-3708), AND AN/PVS-2B (5855-760-3869)", Headquarters, Dept. of the Army, April 1976 https://www.liberatedmanuals.com/TM-11-5855-203-10.pdf

Halt, I think rather strangely, asks Nevels to put the Geiger counter on the ground. Maybe he intuited this would get higher a reading, but it's not what you'd normally do with a Geiger counter doing an environmental survey AFAIK. Tim Printy has pointed out that the AN/PDR-27 has a beta window:

It is important to note is that the AN/PDR27 large probe has a "beta-window" on it (see the photo at bottom). If the window is open, it allows the probe to read low energy Beta radiation that normally would not be detected with the window closed. Potassium-40 is a high energy beta-emitter found in soil.

"The AN/PDR-27SUNlite 2(6)", Tim Printy, PDF attached to post #692

The "scuffed area", in the middle of a (notional) triangle about 2.5 metres a side (approx. 3.125 square metres area) is only noticed after the interesting Geiger counter reading. But they'd already been looking directly at it. Only after the 2nd higher reading can they see a blast area.

The area had already been looked at, measured, and the indentations/ scrapes photographed on the 26th December. A Suffolk policeman had a look, and thought the indentations might be caused by animals.
No-one noticed a "blast area", within a triangle of less than 4m2​ , while looking at a proposed UFO landing site! The airmen and local police who originally examined the area might also have been looking for any evidence of human activity (dropped cigarette butts, litter, footprints/ tyre tracks etc.), but inexplicably missed evidence of a blast at the centre of an area they were examining, an area less than that of two double beds.

The supposed blast was powerful enough to damage nearby trees (actually deliberate axe marks made by forestry commission workers) but there's no crater, no scorch marks. Forest floors do have what might be described as scuffed areas, made by wildlife.

Maybe the scuffed area wasn't seen on the 26th December because it was new (it would still have to be pretty unimpressive, no-one comments on it when the first Geiger counter reading is made by Nevels/ Halt at the centre of the triangle).
Maybe an alien "pod" (Halt's term) had returned to the exact same landing site, making sure its 3 landing struts ended up in the 3 original markings, but its antigravity drive or whatever was iffy so its standby chemical or nuclear rocket engine was used to leave.
Or maybe there were still rabbits or badgers or muntjacs in the forest, and they revisited an area where they'd been before.
Perhaps there was an element of conjecture or even wishful thinking in Englund's observation, which took hold, just as three depressions in the ground became evidence of a "pod" at a "landing area".

One can quibble over 'near the indentations'

Maybe it's more trying to understand what went on. The readings were not highest, or higher than at other places monitored, at the indentations. Halt said in his 13th January memo ((https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rendlesham_Forest_incident#/media/File:Halt_Memorandum.jpg)

Beta/ gamma readings of 0.1 milliroentgens were recorded with peak readings in the three depressions...

...but his tape (which he did not submit with the memo) doesn't support this; nor is a reading of 0.1 mR/h mentioned.

And I totally agree with Ridpath's comments about Halt and team not raising the alarm over a 'blast area' or the heightened radioactivity. Or the UFO shining beams of light down. It appears baffling.

Er, the italics are my comments . Looks a bit twee but Ian Ridpath had already put some comments in brackets in the transcript.


Edited to add; the AN/PDR-27's beta window was open, at least later in the expedition. If it had been open earlier, placing the counter on the ground could cause misleadingly high readings, as mentioned by Tim Printy. The instrument's display dial doesn't distinguish between beta and gamma radiation.

NEVELS: ...make a notation that this is on a beta reading, too...
[Ian's note: They pronounce beta as 'bayta', the American way.]
HALT: It's on a beta reading?
NEVELS: The beta shield has been removed.

 

[John J.]

But that is the entire basis of Ridpath's theory, quoted numerous times in this thread, that Halt and team were looking at Sirius, Deneb, Vega, etc.

Well. it's Ridpath's theory about the "other lights" seen by Halt and co. Most of Ian Ridpath's proposed explanation on his website concerns the lighthouse. It isn't necessary to establish what specific stars/ planets were being seen to theorise that the men might have misidentified some, though knowing if there were any particularly bright objects visible might be interesting. We'll never know what any given individual was looking at.

It 's worth remembering that as Halt and his group return, the lights are still there, gradually becoming fainter as dawn breaks.
Again, Halt takes no further action about this.

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 Ridpath's website http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham3.html

 

[Eburacum]

It isn't necessary to establish what specific stars/ planets were being seen to theorise that the men might have misidentified some, though knowing if there were any particularly bright objects visible might be interesting.

It is entirely possible that some of the reports were associated with Jupiter and Saturn; the relatively bright star Porrima was also in the same small segment of the sky, which could have added to the general feeling of High Strangeness. But these people were not astronomers, or even amateur sky watchers, so the details are difficult to establish.

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.'

At this time in the morning Jupiter and Saturn would have been the most prominent objects after the Moon, and they may have been the objects which Halt could see. They would have been slowly moving towards the west.

 

[Scaramanga]

Well Sirius is significantly further away from the Moon than Jupiter and Saturn on this date, so would have been more clearly visible.

After 50 years of being an amateur astronomer....I just don't buy that. It was barely a half moon. Jupiter was not only 1.75 times brighter than Sirius but had magnitude 0.8 Saturn just 0.6 degrees away from it. This conjunction would have been highly visible in the sky. Heck...I have seen occultations of Jupiter by a full Moon where Jupiter was highly visible.

 

[Scaramanga]

Well. it's Ridpath's theory about the "other lights" seen by Halt and co. Most of Ian Ridpath's proposed explanation on his website concerns the lighthouse. It isn't necessary to establish what specific stars/ planets were being seen to theorise that the men might have misidentified some, though knowing if there were any particularly bright objects visible might be interesting. We'll never know what any given individual was looking at.

Ridpath gets to pick and choose, mix and match, what objects were 'mis-identified' in what would lead to cries of statistical bias or the drawer effect in any proper scientific study. He picks on Sirius....never mind that Jupiter was brighter and in the sky. In fact I don't think he ever mentions Jupiter at all...or Arcturus...or Rigel, or any of a host of other stars that Halt could have 'mis-identified'. This is classic drawer effect. Just ignore the stuff that doesn't fit.

And where does the lighthouse explain the blue light seen by all of the original Penniston, Burroughs team ? Once again....drawer effect and just ignored. Where does it explain the clearly stated motion of the objects Halt saw ? Or the beam of light ? How can the UFO be the lighthouse AND be Sirius that was over 100 degrees from where the lighthouse was ? This is what I object to....the whole ' it doesn't fit my hypothesis so just ignore it ' that masquerades as a debunk.

 

[Mendel]

After 50 years of being an amateur astronomer....

This means you are ill equipped to relate to what Hall would have interpreted the sky as.
To misidentify a celestial object as a UFO, it typically needs to be close to the horizon, not obscured by trees or by clouds. We don't know Halt's circumstances. I've also opined upthread that a normal person is going to identify a light next to the moon as a star, because the moon provides mental framing for it to be a celestial object, and a benchmark for observing it is motionless.

I've also diagrammed upthread where Halt may have been on his return journey to see Sirius over the base, which helps with the misidentification, and puts trees between him and Jupiter.

Generally, the mindset of amateur UFO witnesses is such that if they see a strange light over here, and then see a strange light over there, they conclude that the light must have moved. We would be ill advised to take that conclusion for a fact, especially if it seems more likely these were separate lights.

 

[Eburacum]

Heck...I have seen occultations of Jupiter by a full Moon where Jupiter was highly visible.

Yeah! I've seen Jupiter and Saturn occultations. Very beautiful.
Strangely, though, they are rarely noticed by the general public. I think it is because the Moon washes the planets out too much.