Rendlesham Forest UFO Incident

[Mendel]

Curious they didn't realise it was all a bit of a nothing burger after an entertaining night out there and then.

it's pretty wild to think about the social psychology of it—

If I understand this correctly, BC&P come back, and whoever debriefs them hears two guys say "just the lighthouse" and one guy tells him it's a UFO. Open and shut case, right?

But then Penniston probably talks about UFOs all day to his mates because he had an interesting story, while BC's story merely goes "off to investigate some light, saw a lighthouse". Penniston's story gains so much prominence that unrelated SP later interrupt an officer's party to say "they're back", instead of "we can see the lighthouse again tonight". Even if some SP thought that, it wouldn't have caused them to show up at the party.

The paranormal narrative wins because it captures the imagination more; it's not about facts or evidence at all. (And that's why conspiracy theories spread so well: because it's easier to fire up the imagination than to reason with facts.)

 

[Bristolian]

it's pretty wild to think about the social psychology of it—

If I understand this correctly, BC&P come back, and whoever debriefs them hears two guys say "just the lighthouse" and one guy tells him it's a UFO. Open and shut case, right?

But then Penniston probably talks about UFOs all day to his mates because he had an interesting story, while BC's story merely goes "off to investigate some light, saw a lighthouse". Penniston's story gains so much prominence that unrelated SP later interrupt an officer's party to say "they're back", instead of "we can see the lighthouse again tonight". Even if some SP thought that, it wouldn't have caused them to show up at the party.

The paranormal narrative wins because it captures the imagination more; it's not about facts or evidence at all. (And that's why conspiracy theories spread so well: because it's easier to fire up the imagination than to reason with facts.)

The story about a "UFO" was certainly going round the base. The major role of Battram in 'Left at East Gate' was to confirm that he overheard Warren calling his mother and telling her about a "UFO". I don't believe any of Warren's more elaborate claims - far more sensational than Penniston's, even - or indeed that he was directly involved at all, but I can well believe he was party to the rumours going round.

I think the rest comes down to the fact that we have a lot of young, relatively inexperienced men who had little prior knowledge of or interest in the forest beyond the base perimeter and what was in it, combined with lights seen in misty conditions. Penniston, Burroughs (to a lesser extent) and Halt himself appear to have been fairly excitable. Those with a perhaps more phlegmatic outlook (Cabansag, Armold) seem to have quickly realised they were looking at a 'beacon' and other quirks of the local lighting conditions (eg the windows of the farmhouse at Capel Green seeming to 'glow').

 

[Duke]

Battram was also interviewed for Larry Warren's book "Left at East Gate":

For those who are not aware, Warren's co-author of this book, Peter Robbins, disowned it after discovering Warren lied to him about many aspects of the story. Robbins explained this on a few different radio shows/podcasts, but went into excruciating detail in this lengthy, stream-of-consciousness post from 2017 on his website. You might want to pack a lunch if you are going to read the article in its entirety.

At the center of this storm of controversy is a man named Larry Warren. He was my coauthor on a book some of you may have read or heard about. Its title is Left At East Gate: A First-Hand Account of the Rendlesham Forest UFO Incident, Its Cover-Up and Investigation.
~
The assorted evidence included here is anything but a full accounting of the outrages in question, but I my efforts will be enough to assist all of us in bringing this sad ugly affair to an end. I very much regret that the conclusions I have been forced to arrive at fly in the face of certain specifics published in Left At East At East Gate and that many of the falsehoods referred to are ones I stood by as 100% factual and repeatedly defended over the years, then the decades, some of them not only in Left At East Gate, but in part in two follow-up books I authored as well. My unswerving belief in almost all of them had remained the case until said 'facts' began to fully unravel for me beginning in the spring of last year.

http://www.peterrobbinsny.com/

Robbins, btw, had a running feud with Nick Pope about their respective Rendlesham books and co-authors. If you have the time/interest to listen to it, here is a show Peter Robbins did with Art Bell back in Aug 2015. Robbins was a train wreck, not exhibiting any objectivity in his arguments. Not exactly a good trait for a guy who considers himself an "investigative writer." His segment starts at about 45 minutes, but he really hits his stride at from about 1:15 for about an hour to the end of the show. I never heard Bell get as frustrated with a guest as he did here, and the angry comments from the listeners/callers were amazing. The next night Bell opened the show with commentary/apologies about Robbins' appearance the night before.


Source: https://youtu.be/vmcivjkzlfA?si=zRNVkcxNPU8Xeg5V


BTW, this show aired a couple years before his messy breakup with Warren. Here Robbins repeatedly praises Warren, vouching for his honesty and integrity.

 

[Ann K]

I'm not sure a precise compass reading was ever taken on the Halt tape. It sounds like estimations as far as I can tell--"approximately", "about", and there's already at least 10 degrees of uncertainty in the approximation.

As I understand it, there was a certain amount of wandering in the forest involved. Even if compass bearings were obtained (unknown), do we even know their location when they checked it, or which of several lights they were viewing at that particular time? I'd not be too concerned about discrepancies in the direction.

 

[JMartJr]

The largest predatory animal farmers have to deal with in UK, Ireland is the domestic dog; largest wild predators are badgers and foxes- .22 territory (and badgers are often protected).

However, a farmer or citizen might arm themselves based not so much on what the largest predatory animal actually is, but on what it is believed to be... the persistent belief in "big cats" roaming the countryside might come into play. (See: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/cl...ck-panthers-in-the-british-countryside.12957/) Belief in such things might be less prevalent than belief in, say, dogs and badgers, but if predatory animals are relevant, might keep in mind those panthers!

 

[John J.]

However, a farmer or citizen might arm themselves based not so much on what the largest predatory animal actually is, but on what it is believed to be... the persistent belief in "big cats" roaming the countryside might come into play.

I was guilty of an anachronism in saying that military-style rifles weren't in civilian hands in the UK in 1980; semi-automatic rifles could be legally owned until 1988. They were banned following the Hungerford massacre of 1987, a spree-killing that killed 16.

JMartJr is probably right; I wouldn't be surprised if some farmers etc. (who could get UK firearms licenses relatively easily) had rifles of a type they didn't strictly need for farming purposes. And of course some people enjoy practising marksmanship and/or competition shooting as a legitimate hobby (unfortunately that was the reason the Hungerford perpetrator got his licence).

Still think that hearing a 5.56 in Rendlesham forest / thereabouts would draw attention if there were others within a few hundred yards/ metres.

-While I'm in a confessional mood, maybe I've been in danger of interpreting Ian Ridpath's work as the definitive solution.
His work to find out what happened in 1980 is impressive, and I'd guess right in large part, but there are other ways of interpreting some of the evidence we have and maybe it would be daft to take any one explanation as canonical (which Ridpath might not have intended).

 

[Bristolian]

I've found the interview that Easton conducted in c.2000-ish with Armold, the member of the base security police who was responsible for calling the Suffolk constabulary that night. It's pretty instructive:

EASTON: Who suggested that you go back to the logging road? If it
was Burroughs, did he still think that 'strange lights' were
visible? Even if it was your suggestion to return, can you recall
if he indicated in any way that 'something' was still 'out there'?

ARMOLD: I'm quite certain it was a mutual thing, I cruised out to
Woodbridge after my Flight Chief said it would be okay to check it
out. I suppose he wanted a second opinion or something, but no, we
saw no evidence of lights, ships, creatures, aliens or the like. He
had no idea what he saw. He related he saw lights but that was it.
Period.

EASTON: Significantly, in July 1997, you mentioned there were 'some
strange lights' in the distance, whose origin could not be
determined. Can you recall what those lights looked like - indeed,
anything about them at all - colour, size, whether they were
flashing or moved, etc.

ARMOLD: Yes, there were what we initially interpreted as 'strange
lights' and in my opinion and contrary to what some people assert,
at the time almost none of us knew there was a lighthouse at Orford
Ness. Remember, the vast majority of folks involved were young
people, 19, 20, 25 years old. Consequently it wasn't something most
of the troops were cognizant of. That's one reason the lights
appeared interesting or out of the ordinary to some people.

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

Another useful section:

EASTON: When you were in the forest that second night, or at any
time afterwards, were those red and blue lights also visible then?

ARMOLD: According to my recollections, there were some lights but
they seem to me to have primarily been a neutral color. I'm certain
there could have been tints of blue or red but nothing striking and
nothing spectacular.

EASTON: Can you recall what Burroughs told you about their pursuit
of these lights through Rendlesham forest? How did he rationalise
that the red and blue lights - which in truth they couldn't locate
the source of - were still there?

ARMOLD: Now remember, I was with Burroughs and Bustinza out in the
woods the second night. I too saw the lights but while interesting
initially, we never thought much about them (Once I realized there
was a lighthouse at Orford Ness, things became a bit clearer). As
for rationalizing the lights, it never was an issue.

Lastly Armold has some fairly direct things to say about Halt et al:

James this entire episode has been a farce since the beginning. I
again go to my recurring theme that one can't prove that something
didn't happen. The British UFO enthusiast community need to put the
onus on Burroughs, Penniston and Halt to substantiate their side of
the story. Why is it that these three men claim to have observed
the same phenomenon, yet it seems the events continually change as
time passes. From what I understand, their stories are often
radically different from each other.

I'm very disappointed at how silly this makes 81st SPS appear. It
was a good squadron with very competent people who worked hard.
That's a good point to consider as well that on a base of several
thousand Americans, why are these few individuals who can't get a
story straight, the only ones whose story is taken as gospel?

Lt Col Halt... that guy telephoned me in around 1992 asking me to
jump on his bandwagon and confirm his contentions. I declined to
participate in this charade as did several other individuals to
include then Lt Bruce Englund.

Strangely, I don't seem to have the 'external source' button available yet, oh well.

 

[John J.]

I've found the interview that Easton conducted in c.2000-ish with Armold

That really is interesting, and a useful find I think.
Full text on Wayback Machine here

https://web.archive.org/web/20021210083709/www.ufoworld.co.uk/v15.tx
-where there's more material from the Easton-Armold discussions to ponder.

 

[deirdre]

Strangely, I don't seem to have the 'external source' button available yet, oh well.

its hidden under the last three dots. or you can type

at beginning then the same with a /ex in brackets at the end.


More importantly pasting in source links, to what youre quoting, is kinda required.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
another useful tip, if you want to find an original comment click the little up arrow next to the name (in this case Mick West)

When quoting content from an external source use the

tags. Examples

 

[Ann K]

its hidden under the last three dots. or you can type

at beginning then the same with a /ex in brackets at the end.

I found they appear on one of my iPads but not the other, so I always just go with "ex" tags. Not all the features are universally available.

 

[Mendel]

Another useful section:

I'd like to highlight two parts of your quotes:

ARMOLD: Now remember, I was with Burroughs and Bustinza out in the
woods the second night.

Evidence of a second night!

I'm very disappointed at how silly this makes 81st SPS appear. It
was a good squadron with very competent people who worked hard.
That's a good point to consider as well that on a base of several
thousand Americans, why are these few individuals who can't get a
story straight, the only ones whose story is taken as gospel?

This highlights how few people with an imaginative story (stories?) can take over the narrative.

 

[Bristolian]

I'd like to highlight two parts of your quotes:

ARNOLD: Now remember, I was with Burroughs and Bustinza out in the
woods the second night.

Evidence of a second night!

I'm very disappointed at how silly this makes 81st SPS appear. It
was a good squadron with very competent people who worked hard.
That's a good point to consider as well that on a base of several
thousand Americans, why are these few individuals who can't get a
story straight, the only ones whose story is taken as gospel?

This highlights how few people with an imaginative story (stories?) can take over the narrative.

Yes, Armold was in the area on the night of the 27th / 28th when Halt made the tape, along with (as he notes) Sgt. Adrian Bustinza.

To clarify, only three people were really involved in both the 'original' sighting (on 26th) and the Halt incident: Burroughs, Armold and M/Sgt Chandler, the latter of whom acted as a radio relay on 26th and was part of Halt's "team of specialists" on 27th / 28th.

 

[Mendel]

That really is interesting, and a useful find I think.
Full text on Wayback Machine here

https://web.archive.org/web/20021210083709/www.ufoworld.co.uk/v15.tx
-where there's more material from the Easton-Armold discussions to ponder.

I've attached it here.

 

[Scaramanga]

I'm not sure a precise compass reading was ever taken on the Halt tape. It sounds like estimations as far as I can tell--"approximately", "about", and there's already at least 10 degrees of uncertainty in the approximation.

I'm trying to find a short 'documentary' video clip, if anyone else can find it first let me know, but I am certain it exists as I have seen it. There is definitely a clip out there from a few years back ( not the one I show in post #191 ) where Halt claims he could see the UFO 'and' the lighthouse and I recall he stated whether the UFO was to the left or the right of the lighthouse. It was probably one of the most detailed descriptions Halt has given, but I'm largely going by memory of it and I'd have to find it to be sure. Point being that if he claimed then that the UFO was to the left of the lighthouse then we'd have proof the 110 degrees was nonsense.

 

[Scaramanga]

Even then certain people involved, such as Cabansag and Armold, thought it was all a nothingburger at the time. But certain people are by nature less excitable or imaginative I guess.

I had a theory, a few years back, that the entire Rendlesham incident was a cover for something else. That some embarrassing incident occurred, maybe a nuclear weapon fell off a plane into the forest ( see how close the 'landing site' is to the flight path onto the runway ) and Halt and a few others were the 'fall guys' charged with falling on their swords over some bogus UFO cover story.

One does have to ask....why did the men on the base spend so long wandering about the forest after the 'initial incident'. Why were there already a whole bunch of people there with floodlights when Halt arrived for the 'they're back' incident ? What were they looking for ? According to Halt himself people had been in the forest all day. Why ?

And why did Halt take a geiger counter to 'debunk' a UFO ?

And just look at how much sheer disagreement there is between the participants over what happened. Not even Penniston and Burroughs, who were allegedly only meters apart, agree on their story. In fact they disagree wildly. Base commander Conrad totally refutes a good deal of Halt's claims. Its like no two people have a consistent story......and that is often a classic sign that the entire story is made up. People cannot 'accurately' remember stuff that never actually happened.

 

[JMartJr]

There is definitely a clip out there from a few years back ( not the one I show in post #191 ) where Halt claims he could see the UFO 'and' the lighthouse and I recall he stated whether the UFO was to the left or the right of the lighthouse. It was probably one of the most detailed descriptions Halt has given, but I'm largely going by memory of it and I'd have to find it to be sure. Point being that if he claimed then that the UFO was to the left of the lighthouse then we'd have proof the 110 degrees was nonsense.

I'm not trying to be snide here, but that's an odd combination of saying that your own memory of what you saw (the video) is unclear but also being willing to accept Halt's memory as definitive.

Not trying to pick on you -- upstream in this thread is my own moment of misremembering something about this same case!

We have no thread on Rendlesham

An excellent example, then, of how witness memories are unreliable, as I'd have stated with absolute confidence that we did, and that I'd read it!

Apparently I've read about the event somewhere else, and in the intervening time have attached that memory to reading old threads here, which I do from time to time.

Heck, mine is "worse" than yours, you're merely unsure of a detail, I misremembered the existence of an entire thread here!

We can all do it, human memory is fallible -- including Halt's.

 

[deirdre]

I'm trying to find a short 'documentary' video clip, if anyone else can find it first let me know, but I am certain it exists as I have seen it. There is definitely a clip out there from a few years back ( not the one I show in post #191 ) where Halt claims he could see the UFO 'and' the lighthouse and I recall he stated whether the UFO was to the left or the right of the lighthouse. It was probably one of the most detailed descriptions Halt has given, but I'm largely going by memory of it and I'd have to find it to be sure. Point being that if he claimed then that the UFO was to the left of the lighthouse then we'd have proof the 110 degrees was nonsense.

?

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdRKLaPZe4c

Article:

sixth Mysteries of Space and Sky UFO/paranormal conference

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTWd3I1npJo

 

[Bristolian]

I had a theory, a few years back, that the entire Rendlesham incident was a cover for something else. That some embarrassing incident occurred, maybe a nuclear weapon fell off a plane into the forest ( see how close the 'landing site' is to the flight path onto the runway ) and Halt and a few others were the 'fall guys' charged with falling on their swords over some bogus UFO cover story.

One does have to ask....why did the men on the base spend so long wandering about the forest after the 'initial incident'. Why were there already a whole bunch of people there with floodlights when Halt arrived for the 'they're back' incident ? What were they looking for ? According to Halt himself people had been in the forest all day. Why ?

And why did Halt take a geiger counter to 'debunk' a UFO ?

And just look at how much sheer disagreement there is between the participants over what happened. Not even Penniston and Burroughs, who were allegedly only meters apart, agree on their story. In fact they disagree wildly. Base commander Conrad totally refutes a good deal of Halt's claims. Its like no two people have a consistent story......and that is often a classic sign that the entire story is made up. People cannot 'accurately' remember stuff that never actually happened.

Halt's own account, via a lecture at a conference, of why there were already people out in the forest with lightalls suggests that this was down to Englund, who had gone out for a look after someone (Battram?) had seen lights off the end of the runway again.

Lieutenant Englund came in, about 8 o'clock...

He said, 'Somebody saw some lights at the East Gate again and he went out to take a look.' He took several lightalls out. Lightalls are motor generators, on trailers. They're small gasoline engines, something a little larger than a lawn mower engine, directly coupled to a generator, with two big adjustable lights on top. You can bathe an area with light from them. We use them for security; we use them for maintenance people to work at night, any time we need a lot of illumination, we use them.

The Security Police had about a dozen assigned directly to them. They're almost foolproof. If there's a problem, someone would go out and put the fuel in, normally petrol. He said, 'The lightalls wouldn't work. We got starlight scopes out.'

Courtesy of James Easton again, at https://forums.forteana.org/index.php?threads/rendlesham-forest-incident.1914/page-44#post-2068972

 

[Bristolian]

And just look at how much sheer disagreement there is between the participants over what happened. Not even Penniston and Burroughs, who were allegedly only meters apart, agree on their story. In fact they disagree wildly. Base commander Conrad totally refutes a good deal of Halt's claims. Its like no two people have a consistent story......and that is often a classic sign that the entire story is made up. People cannot 'accurately' remember stuff that never actually happened.

Most participants' stories have also changed substantially over the years when compared with the statements given at the time: Penniston and Burroughs in particular, though even Cabansag, whose statement suggests the men simply ended up following the lighthouse, later told Georgina Bruni he'd actually seen an egg-shaped "craft".

 

[Ann K]

Halt claims he could see the UFO 'and' the lighthouse and I recall he stated whether the UFO was to the left or the right of the lighthouse. It was probably one of the most detailed descriptions Halt has given, but I'm largely going by memory of it and I'd have to find it to be sure. Point being that if he claimed then that the UFO was to the left of the lighthouse then we'd have proof the 110 degrees was nonsense.

One problem with your conclusion is that I think there may be two lights visible at any given moment from the lighthouse itself, a light visible at the source at the top of the lighthouse and a light visible where the beam impacts the ground, trees, or other objects. And as the beam is rotating, that beam impact can be visible on either side of the structure, depending on the line of sight from the observer.

 

[Scaramanga]

One problem with your conclusion is that I think there may be two lights visible at any given moment from the lighthouse itself, a light visible at the source at the top of the lighthouse and a light visible where the beam impacts the ground, trees, or other objects. And as the beam is rotating, that beam impact can be visible on either side of the structure, depending on the line of sight from the observer.

Halt has always maintained that a 'beam of light' was shone down from directly above. This is the aspect that always confounds me....and the 'this is unreal' comment on the tape. I can fully understand people getting confused over a lighthouse...but to get SO confused that you think the phenomenon is 'unreal' ? And how does a lighthouse beam get to shine down from above....

See 2.25 here on this clip..
Source: https://youtu.be/NTaQbnCJDJY?t=145

 

[John J.]

I had a theory, a few years back, that the entire Rendlesham incident was a cover for something else. That some embarrassing incident occurred, maybe a nuclear weapon fell off a plane into the forest

I had wondered about that for some time. I think it is unlikely.

Why were there already a whole bunch of people there with floodlights when Halt arrived for the 'they're back' incident ? What were they looking for ? According to Halt himself people had been in the forest all day.

(1) Not mentioned in his tape or his memo to the MoD, January 13.
(2) If Halt's recall of this is accurate, why was he bimbling about in the forest? Why not head towards an obvious source of light? Did he check to see if the Security Police at East Gate were actually seeing these lights? (Nope).
(3) A store is lost from an aircraft, but the deputy base commander of the nearest airbase is unaware?
(4) Again, if Halt's recall is accurate, he either knew that people had been there "all day" (and didn't send anyone to have a look, or contact the local police for a quick check) or those personnel (I'm assuming Halt stated they were US airmen) told him when he turned up. Halt, deputy commander of a nearby airbase, doesn't ask what they're doing or why uniformed airmen are congregating in a forest without his knowledge or authorisation, or to what unit they belong.

Even relying on his own accounts, some of Halt's decisions and actions regarding "the incident" might be questionable.
Remember, he states that lights remained in the sky until dawn made it difficult to see them. Quite a few hours.

(timings from the site Sunrise Sunset Calendars.)
There would have been local farmers / ag. workers and perhaps a few others up and about well before dawn; no-one reported anything.

And why did Halt take a geiger counter to 'debunk' a UFO ?

A Geiger counter whose readings he couldn't interpret properly.
Maybe he thought an alien spacecraft would leave radiation.
On a Cold War airbase within reach of Warsaw Pact frontal aviation (and SS-20s), close to a number of other airbases and not that far from London, it would be strange if there weren't at least a couple of qualified NBC instructors (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) to check respirator fits and to maintain skills. But Halt didn't ask for someone who would know how to use a Geiger counter (and know its applications and limitations).

The A-10s at Bentwaters/ Woodbridge were dedicated close air support aircraft (CAS), designed and built to, e.g., engage small concentrations of Soviet armour on the battlefield (hence the enormous 30mm rotary cannon).
Wikipedia article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II .
They were highly specialised, and would have been an invaluable asset if called upon. But A-10s are relatively slow, and as @Duke has told us, initially lacked a night/ adverse weather capability.

I'm not aware of A-10s ever being nuclear-tasked. Flying at medium or high altitude in the daytime over established Warsaw Pact territory would be near-suicidal; a low-level attack and the aircraft's ability to avoid the effects of its own weapon must be dubious. The USAF had many aircraft which could deliver nukes in Europe in 1980, not least the F-111s at RAF Lakenheath (also in Suffolk) and Upper Heyford, F-4 Phantoms, from c.1980 F-16s.
However, there weren't any other aircraft that could undertake the vital CAS mission and survive the level of damage that an A-10 could (remains true of crewed jets in 2024 AFAIK).

Can't see an A-10 being tasked to make a flight at night with a live nuclear weapon while the base CO and 2IC are at a party.
(Apart from the "night" bit, same applies for any visiting aircraft with canned sunshine).

Planes crash, and external stores are sometimes lost.
I would guess a USAF base, and pilots, would have protocols for this sort of thing, which probably doesn't include waiting for two days in the hope that the base 2IC goes for a ramble after a Christmas party.
It probably would include notifying the host nation and deploying base firefighting services and appropriately skilled technicians/ armourers, as well as Security Police to establish a cordon until local police etc. arrived (a good reason to deploy SPs off-base).

No restrictions were placed on public access to Rendlesham forest at any time. No locals reported unusual movements of military vehicles in the forest or thereabouts (unlike the low-loader at Kecksburg!)
Already mentioned, the 67th Air Rescue and Recovery Squadron was based at RAF Woodbridge, Wikipedia article:

The 67th Air Rescue and Recovery Squadron (ARRS) moved to RAF Woodbridge from Morón Air Base, Spain, on 15 January 1970. The 67th ARRS operated Lockheed HC-130H/N/P Hercules fixed wing aircraft, and heavy duty HH-53 Jolly Green Giant helicopters, and was assigned an air rescue and special operations mission.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Woodbridge,

my italics; 67th ARRS personnel (and an HH-53) might have been ideal for this task.

But they're never mentioned in relation to "the incident".

Consider the context; Margaret Thatcher's Conservative government was pro-US foreign policy, and had backed the NATO plan one year earlier to have US ground-launched intermediate range nuclear missiles based in the UK and other European countries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_Double-Track_Decision. It is unlikely they would have chosen to do anything other than assist US recovery efforts (and respect "US Eyes Only" for handling the item- speculation on my part).

If an interesting payload had been dropped in Rendlesham Forest, all the USAF would have to do is own up that something had fallen from an aircraft; no-one had been hurt and no property damaged but in the interests of public safety, it was decided to temporarily cordon off the area until UK authorities had arrived, and it was firmly established that the item was of no risk.
Had a clean-up been required (it wasn't), point out US aircraft routinely use drop-tanks and one lost after a freak accident on take-off might rupture, contaminating the soil. Or there was a concern the item had an asbestos lining internally, but thankfully the manufacturer confirms that hadn't been the case since 1972; that sort of thing.

A better plan than some UFO story that gets local 'investigators' etc. sniffing about in an area where you can't control access.

 

[Ann K]

Halt has always maintained that a 'beam of light' was shone down from directly above. This is the aspect that always confounds me....and the 'this is unreal' comment on the tape. I can fully understand people getting confused over a lighthouse...but to get SO confused that you think the phenomenon is 'unreal' ? And how does a lighthouse beam get to shine down from above....

See 2.25 here on this clip..
Source: https://youtu.be/NTaQbnCJDJY?t=145

Yes, I know this is years later, but in this post he never says "directly above". You've misquoted his printed words before, and now you've misquoted his spoken words.

 

[Mendel]

And why did Halt take a geiger counter to 'debunk' a UFO ?

Because it was available, I expect. Remember, these kinds of rumors work better if they come with a sense of danger.

Spoiler: The Machine That Goes "Bing"

Source: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wshyX6Hw52I

 

[Bristolian]

If Halt's recall of this is accurate, why was he bimbling about in the forest? Why not head towards an obvious source of light? Did he check to see if the Security Police at East Gate were actually seeing these lights? (Nope).

Again, I think this is all reasonably explained by interviews or lectures Halt has given elsewhere. His "bimbling about" was, ironically enough, an attempt to put the "UFO" stories to bed since they'd been taking up the resources of the base security staff over the previous 48 hours.

Following the initial 'sighting' by Burroughs, Penniston and Cabansag, there seems to have been at least one, and possibly two, incidents of "strange lights" being seen at the back gate by personnel who had perhaps already heard the "UFO" rumours (not surprising, as the lights were probably environmental and therefore always present). This led Lt Englund to take 'lightalls' and additional staff out into the forest on the evening preceding Halt's excursion. Englund told Halt, and Halt at this point seems to have decided enough time had been wasted on it. Of course, by going out himself he ended up making it a far bigger and more potentially embarrassing issue than it already was.

Another thing that might have been a factor is that I recall another witness describing Halt as a "cop buff" - he took a particular interest in the base security staff, went out with them on duty, etc. As the "UFO" stuff had up to this point largely involved the security staff, this might have influenced him to get involved.

 

[FatPhil]

Yes, I know this is years later, but in this post he never says "directly above". You've misquoted his printed words before, and now you've misquoted his spoken words.

He does say "overhead" and a "beam" coming "down" from it, which has a weak implication of directly above. However, he also says it's travelling at a high speed. Which means that if it was directly above, it was only there instantaneously, and most of the time it wasn't directly overhead. And the beam coming down wouldn't be at his feet longer than instantaneously either, unless it was not beaming "down", but beaming towards him specifically. But he said it was beaming down. He seems to be describing something both stationary and moving quickly at the same time. He doesn't seem disingenuous, but he doesn't seem to be making much sense either.

 

[JMartJr]

He seems to be describing something both stationary and moving quickly at the same time. He doesn't seem disingenuous, but he doesn't seem to be making much sense either.

That would seem a reasonable consequence of trying to describe something perceived but not understood, something novel and strange. Trying to describe conflicting impressions and odd perceptions which you can't slot into known phenomena to aid you in describing what you saw.

Which could describe seeing a scout ship from Omicron Perseii 8, trans-dimensional entities, or a lighthouse that was not recognized for what it was. It would NOT describe seeing a lighthouse that was recognized as a lighthouse, which would not be novel and strange and which most folks could describe fairly easily -- and which would also not get reported as a UFO, so would not be presented on MetaBunk.