Rendlesham Forest UFO Incident

[deirdre]

I am playing devil's advocate.

i see it more as "advancing alternative theories". Kinda like happened 4000 times in the Calvine UFO threads. some of the theories attached to Calvine were ridiculously complicated but people seemed ok with honestly considering them! I think they just dont like you.

 

[John J.]

you are twisting his meanings

I'm not aware that I am. It is possible that I am misconstruing his meanings, but I don't think so. If so, it is due to incomprehension on my part.

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask Scaramanga, who from Sept. 26 (OK, arguably not a few posts ago, but not long ago) was arguing that there were no lights in the forest and all the witnesses were part of a cover-up, why he now states the three airmen accurately reported red and blue lights.
If it's just poor phrasing, which we all do from time to time, he can clarify it.

 

[Mendel]

I'm simply attacking any and every loophole I see. To me that is the method of getting to the truth.

It's not. Because that method cannot explain anything.

So it's totally, utterly, irrelevant that there is an electricity pylon, complete with insulators, etc, directly below the lighthouse ? Couldn't possibly be the cause of any of what was seen...such as Halt seeing sparks falling to the ground ?

Yes, it is, and yes, it couldn't.

 

[Scaramanga]

I'm not aware that I am. It is possible that I am misconstruing his meanings, but I don't think so. If so, it is due to incomprehension on my part.

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask Scaramanga, who from Sept. 26 (OK, arguably not a few posts ago, but not long ago) was arguing that there were no lights in the forest and all the witnesses were part of a cover-up, why he now states the three airmen accurately reported red and blue lights.
If it's just poor phrasing, which we all do from time to time, he can clarify it.

And you are assuming they 'accurately' reported the lighthouse that the entire lighthouse theory depends on ? You can't have it both ways. If their reporting is inaccurate then there goes the lighthouse theory.

Which is it ?

 

[deirdre]

why he now states the three airmen accurately reported red and blue lights.

that use of accurately (in context) meant they ALL at least reported the same color lights. meaning that did match in the reports. if one guy had reported green lights then the reports wouldnt match up accurately.

but it can still be a cover story that would use some details of real life. for example we know the police came out that night. so there would have likely been lights somewhere at some point. even if i made up a cover story for something else i would likely add in the lights (obviously i would have talked to my friends before writing our statements...which is why it is well known in police circles that getting statements from officers IMMEDIATELY is imperative and now adays they get a repeat statement several days later to see if more details are remembered or details change)


either way, if you want to think your theory (ies) matches everything in the statements thats fine. im not gonna argue the point.

 

[Scaramanga]

that use of accurately (in context) meant they ALL at least reported the same color lights. meaning that did match in the reports. if one guy had reported green lights then the reports wouldnt match up accurately.

Well its not just the fact that all three agree on red and blue lights that is 'accurate' ( or 'matching' )....but that we surely can't argue that they inaccurately saw those but they accurately saw the lighthouse. You can't jump on the lighthouse as if...ah yes....that's being accurately reported and that's what they saw....and then argue in the same breath that the red and blue lights that all three saw are inaccurate. If the red and blue lights are inaccurate...then one also has to question the lighthouse. That was more my point.

 

[deirdre]

That was more my point.

i know. outside readers understand your points just fine i think. i do. sometimes when people are too close to a situation, ie personal arguing.. they have trouble seeing the forest for the trees. < thats a lighthouse "pun", get it?

 

[Mendel]

If their reporting is inaccurate then there goes the lighthouse theory.

Not really, because the lighthouse was undeniably there and operating.
It's one of the few things we know with certainty.

 

[John J.]

And you are assuming they 'accurately' reported the lighthouse that the entire lighthouse theory depends on ?

I think the witness statements of Buran, Burroughs, Cabansag and Chandler indicate that they were pursuing lights.
I don't think many people who have read about the case doubt this. There is no indication, as claimed (and insisted upon) earlier, that the account of airmen investigating unidentified lights was all fabricated by the witnesses and others as part of a cover-up.

It is clear that one of the lights they followed turned out to be a lighthouse.

Buran:

SSgt Penniston reported getting near the "object" and then all of a sudden said they had gone past it and were looking at a marker beacon that was in the same general direction as the other lights.

Burroughs:

...the red + blue lights & they just disappeared once we reached the farmer's house [N.B., no mention of arcing cables etc. at the farmhouse] we could see a beacon going around so we went towards it. We followed it for about 2 miles before we could it was coming from a lighthouse.

(I have trouble reading Burrough's handwriting, so might have made errors. It looks like the word "see" or similar was omitted between "could" and "it".)
Cabansag:

As we entered the forrest, the blue and red lights were not visible anymore. Only the beacon light, was still blinking. We figured the lights were coming from past the forrest, since nothing was visible when we past through the woody forrest. We would see a glowing near the beacon light, but as we got closer we found it to be a lit up farmhouse. [No mention of arcing power cables etc.] ...we got to a vantage point where we could determine that what we were chasing was only a beacon light off in the distance.

Chandler:

Each time Penniston gave me the indication that he was about to reach the area where the lights were, he would give an extended estimated location. He eventually arrived at a "beacon light", however, he stated this was not the light or lights he had originally observed.

The Orford Ness lighthouse was probably seen but not identified by Halt on the 28th.

Even though Halt and his men were looking in the direction of Orford Ness, and the lighthouse would have been easily visible to them from where they were standing, they never mentioned the lighthouse, only a flashing UFO. ...Vince [Thurkettle, local forestry worker who first suggested the airmen had misidentified the lighthouse] has confirmed for me in writing that he, too, had once been fooled by the lighthouse: 'You say the beam was "startling" – and yes it was. I will have told you that my first sight of the beam in the forest at night was a shock as I thought we had deer poachers out "lamping" deer. A brilliant light amongst the trees, which came and went.

"Rendlesham Forest UFO Case" website, Ian Ridpath http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham1c.html

The misidentification of the lighthouse clearly doesn't explain everything that was reported by the witnesses, but I'm not aware of anyone claiming that. There is no "official version" or any comprehensive, demonstrable explanation.
But it is likely that misidentification of the Orford Ness lighthouse is partly responsible for the events of 26th and 28th December.

We do know that, following lights, the airmen ended up at a lit farmhouse, so that was another initially misidentified lightsource.
-And it was lit up; perhaps the occupants had been out and about doing whatever farmers do, perhaps with torches (speculation, I know).
Maybe there were other extraneous lights. The farmhouse is by a narrow roadway, and while it's probably a quiet location, it's just a part of the Suffolk countryside that happens to be near an airbase. There's nothing to stop anyone walking, cycling or driving around (while accepting that there probably wasn't much going on at 03:00 on 26th December- but we know the farmhouse lights were on).

Other threads here, and examples given in this thread, show that people who think they are seeing something unusual often make perceptual errors and/ or give accounts of their observations that do not match what was objectively there to be seen.
Human perception, and recall, is fallible.

The description in Halt's memo of the whole forest being lit up appears to be based on a discussion with Penniston to which Burroughs and Cabansag were not party

I'd be asked for a link to this discussion.

Fair comment, and on checking I can't find evidence to support my statement above; it can be disregarded. Apologies.
I think I misremembered

Col Ted Conrad, Halt's superior officer, debriefed Penniston in the days after the event

(also from Ian Ridpath's website) and confused Conrad with Halt.
I think it is still safe to say that Halt's description, based on the observations of Burroughs, Cabansag and Penniston,

...It illuminated the entire forest with a white light

...is not based on their witness statements. So why did Halt say this?

 

[Mendel]

The process we're using is to figure out what was certainly or likely there (lighthouse, deer, axe marks, stars, geography, ...), and then see how much of the witness statements we can explain with that and our knowledge of human cognition and psychology. Some things are less certain than others, but there's nothing I'd say is unexplainable.

That is Occam's razor in action. Assuming lost ordnance, or electrical arcing, introduces additional elements, and actually explains less than before. That's why these kinds of "what if"s get pushback. They don't contribute anything; if they did, you could cite evidence that supports them but not the existing explanations.



The process of "let's make up something they can't disprove" is a detraction on the path to truth, and generally prohibited on Metabunk via the requirement that claims must have evidence. Which, as you may remember, I observed the lack of early on.

 

[JJB]

To be honest, I'm not sure Conde's story is likely to be part of the explanation for the Rendlesham Forest events.
But if it were, perhaps the easiest possible "field modification" he might have performed (lighting mounts allowing) would be to tip back a lightbar/ beacons 90 degrees so their beams rotate in the vertical, not horizontal plane.
Hey presto, lights go up and down in the mist. -Admittedly speculation on my part.

Pretty much all cars have a hazard light function, where all the (amber, orange) indicators flash simultaneously.

Some US police cars have red, blue and orange lightbars, don't know if this applied to any USAF SP cars in 1980.

View attachment 84757
(IIRC there are others in red-white-and-blue with much shorter amber lights at each end).

Again, I don't know what US SP cars might have routinely carried; I do know that 1980s British service police vehicles often (depending on role) carried a few battery-powered amber beacons a bit like (not the same as) this, which could be set to flash.
View attachment 84758
(Edited to add; British service police vehicles also sometimes carried Bardic lamps, with a rapidly-switchable red-green filter; wouldn't be surprised if USAF SPs had similar. Or perhaps some fancy attachment for their Maglites).


Well, they can't all be completely accurate, can they?
If it's a cover story, it's crap.
Instead, it reads like the recollections of people who had seen quite difficult-to-discern lights, and who tried to make out their colours (if any).

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

@JMartJr gave an excellent example (post #412) of three policemen and a magistrate describing a sizeable (not a point) light in the sky, one describing it as rectangular. Other witnesses said it shined down on them. It was Venus.
Jimmy Carter probably saw Venus.

It was big, it was very bright, it changed colors and it was about the size of the full moon. ...seemed to move towards us from a distance, stop, move partially away return then depart."

Post #407 has examples of police officers in Georgia and England pursuing Venus- in the latter case it was sort of cross-shaped, radiated beams of light, stopped in a field and acted as if it knew it was being chased.

I don't believe any of those witnesses were lying. I doubt if any of them were inherently unreliable witnesses.
It is possible that all, in each case, gave as honest and accurate account as possible.
But all were very likely mistaken, and the descriptions they provided probably do not describe what was objectively visible.
For whatever reason, all interpreted something reasonably mundane as something unusual.

*Penniston told Chandler that the lighthouse was not what he had seen in the forest. Even if he believed that, omitting the lighthouse from his (Penniston's) statement must be highly questionable, and perhaps an early red flag. They had gone out to investigate lights, and ended up looking at a lighthouse. That fact is pertinent, even if Penniston didn't like it. Instead, it looks (to me) like Penniston didn't document the lighthouse because he didn't like the conclusions that others might have drawn from that information.

Conde didn't just talk about emergency lights - he also mentioned modifying flashlights with colored lenses as part of the prank. He said they used green, and maybe amber lights, which were rolled up in the car windows and pointed upward. They weren't as bright as the red, blue, and white emergency lights, but they still contributed to the overall effect.


One of the car's spotlights was aimed upwards too - and that's no small light. It throws a focused beam a long distance. Add in the light fog, which Conde said was "the key to the joke's success," and suddenly you've got multiple colored beams cutting through mist and appearing to move - especially when the car was circling slowly.


This wasn't just headlights and a siren - it was a deliberately staged light show using modified gear, carefully positioned lights, and fog to create a surreal visual effect. It absolutely could have confused someone seeing it at a distance in the woods, especially at night.

I find it possible that this is what got Halt and his boys out into the woods that night..

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

Sarah remembers, "Three bands of light appeared over the woods to the side of the runway". She adds, "But the oddest thing was the colour changes, blue, green, yellow and so on". Jenny also notes that on the same night, a local garage owner, Gerry Harris, reportedly observed, near the east gate, "three separate lights" which sometimes "moved around in circles".

https://www.skeptic.org.uk/2006/04/from-the-archive-the-truth-about-rendlesham/

 

[Greene]

Conde didn't just talk about emergency lights - he also mentioned modifying flashlights with colored lenses as part of the prank. He said they used green, and maybe amber lights, which were rolled up in the car windows and pointed upward. They weren't as bright as the red, blue, and white emergency lights, but they still contributed to the overall effect.

Just to help people visualize what JJB is referring to, this was the standard issue flashlight to the US military at that time...

The colored filters were stored in the cap at the bottom.

 

[Scaramanga]

Not really, because the lighthouse was undeniably there and operating.
It's one of the few things we know with certainty.

Again missing the point. If we know with certainty that the lighthouse was there, and that they cannot help but have seen it...then by definition we know they accurately reported it as there...whatever they identified it as. Identification is entirely another matter. We know they accurately reported what they saw.

You can't have it both ways, however hard you try. The undeniability of the lighthouse actually establishes that they are reporting what they actually see. That logic surely has to then also apply to the red and blue lights...unless double standards are to be applied.

 

[Scaramanga]

That is Occam's razor in action. Assuming lost ordnance, or electrical arcing, introduces additional elements, and actually explains less than before. That's why these kinds of "what if"s get pushback. They don't contribute anything; if they did, you could cite evidence that supports them but not the existing explanations.

There's Occam's razor....and then there's a pretence at Occam's razor.

I could pick a totally random spot in the night sky, and the chances would be good that there's a 'bright star' not too far from it.

Halt describes his UFOs in the sky as 'directly north' and 'directly south'. The trouble is....Vega was not directly north at the time, and Sirius was not directly south. Sirius was almost 45 degrees away from directly south. It was in the south west.

Now, you either have to assume that Halt was using a compass in which case his object was directly south and can't have been Sirius, or you have to assume he was not using a compass in which case he actually has no idea what direction directly south actually is. But equally, if he had no idea what direction directly south actually is...how do you know he's actually looking south west ?

It is totally getting the cart before the horse to assume he's looking at Sirius and thus 'must' be looking south west. That is ass backwards logic.

You can only actually say ' you saw XYZ object' if the person is giving the correct bearings ( that's how we know Jimmy Carter's UFO was Venus ) . If the person is potentially off by a massive 45 degrees then the scope for hitting upon a 'bright star' purely by chance is massively increased.

 

[Scaramanga]

..is not based on their witness statements. So why did Halt say this?

I think its absurd to demand that the witness statements contain every little detail of what happened...and equally that anything not in them can't have happened. I was watching a documentary only last night on the infamous Railway Murders in London, and some of the witnesses had originally given only a one page or less statement to the police....yet when interviewed again 20 years later they gave statements of 20 or 30 pages ( which were helpful in getting the culprit convicted ). They hadn't invented more in that period. They were simply intimidated by the original experience and kept it minimal. Better interview techniques in 20 years brought out more.

My point being that given the culture at the time, it does not surprise me at all that the Penniston, Burroughs, and Cabansag kept their statements short and minimal. Reporting a UFO was not exactly career enhancing.

 

[Mendel]

We know they accurately reported what they saw.

No, we do not know that.
Few witnesses do.

But equally, if he had no idea what direction directly south actually is...how do you know he's actually looking south west ?

By the landmarks, e.g. reference to the base.

Again, your objections have no explanatory power.

 

[Mendel]

Reporting a UFO was not exactly career enhancing.

claim with no evidence

 

[Mendel]

I think its absurd to demand that the witness statements contain every little detail of what happened...and equally that anything not in them can't have happened. I was watching a documentary only last night on the infamous Railway Murders in London, and some of the witnesses had originally given only a one page or less statement to the police....yet when interviewed again 20 years later they gave statements of 20 or 30 pages ( which were helpful in getting the culprit convicted ). They hadn't invented more in that period. They were simply intimidated by the original experience and kept it minimal. Better interview techniques in 20 years brought out more.

if referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Duffy_and_David_Mulcahy , it wasn't 20 years, and the main vehicles for Mulcahy's conviction were Duffy's confession and DNA evidence.

Apart from that, an UFO sighting is not as traumatizing as what the witnesses underwent.

Please use proper evidence, not paraphrase of something you saw last night. You're just proving the inaccuracy of witness recall.

Please work with sources, don't just write what pops into your mind.

 

[Andreas]

They hadn't invented more in that period. They were simply intimidated by the original experience and kept it minimal. Better interview techniques in 20 years brought out more.

I respectfully disagree with you here. Psychological research on eyewitness memory suggests that initial statements, taken soon after an event, are typically the most accurate, while later accounts can be influenced by external factors like media coverage, discussions, or memory reconstruction. Research shows that memory is not a perfect recording but a reconstructive process. Over time, details can fade, and witnesses may unconsciously fill in gaps with information from media, conversations, or their own expectations. This is known as the misinformation effect, demonstrated by Elizabeth Loftus in her seminal work (Loftus & Palmer, 1974).

For example, in their study, leading questions altered witnesses' memories of a car accident shortly after the event, showing how quickly distortions can occur. Additionally, studies like Yuille & Cutshall (1986) on real-world crimes found that while initial accounts were relatively accurate, later retellings often included inconsistencies due to external influences. The longer the time gap, the more opportunity to shape memories.

Regarding the Railway Murders example, it's interesting that witnesses provided more details 20 years later, but without specifics on the case, it's hard to assess. In general, research suggests that "new" details emerging long after an event are often less reliable due to memory decay or contamination. While better interview techniques can elicit more information, they can also inadvertently introduce suggestions that distort memories (Wells & Bradfield, 1998).

In the context of Rendlesham, where UFO-related media and public interest have been intense, later statements should therefore be approached cautiously. Demanding every detail in initial statements isn't the goal; rather, it's about recognizing that those early accounts are less likely to be contaminated.

 

[Dave51c]

Psychological research on eyewitness memory suggests that initial statements, taken soon after an event, are typically the most accurate, while later accounts can be influenced by external factors like media coverage, discussions, or memory reconstruction.

I was thinking the same thing. There must be a sweet spot period where the witness is not heavily influenced by adrenalin and fight or flight responses soon after an event and where other, perhaps third party, information can sway a persons memory or act as an influence to change the original statement to be more aligned with group think or hierarchal pressure.

So wonder what time the research puts on "soon after"? I expect it is very context dependent. I don't know enough about this topic, but I'd have thought there must be some merit in those later accounts (factoring in any external influences as part of the re-evaluation) as some memories will become clearer once trauma has subsided, but it must be difficult for the investigator to classify the quality of any new information. But, again, what quantity is "later".

 

[Andreas]

I was thinking the same thing. There must be a sweet spot period where the witness is not heavily influenced by adrenalin and fight or flight responses soon after an event and where other, perhaps third party, information can sway a persons memory or act as an influence to change the original statement to be more aligned with group think or hierarchal pressure.

So wonder what time the research puts on "soon after"? I expect it is very context dependent. I don't know enough about this topic, but I'd have thought there must be some merit in those later accounts (factoring in any external influences as part of the re-evaluation) as some memories will become clearer once trauma has subsided, but it must be difficult for the investigator to classify the quality of any new information. But, again, what quantity is "later".

Soon after is indeed context-dependent, but the key point is that memory is reconstructed and influenced over time. Interestingly, Loftus and Palmer's (1974) study showed that eyewitness memory can be altered almost immediately after an event, demonstrating that distortion can occur within minutes. While we often rely on eyewitness testimonies, we must understand how human memory works and why even a trustworthy witness's early account may reflect their recollection of the event rather than what actually occurred.

 

[Scaramanga]

Apart from that, an UFO sighting is not as traumatizing as what the witnesses underwent.

How is it I'm not allowed to make claims without reference or evidence....but everyone else is ? It depends entirely on the nature of the sighting. Some claimed cases have been pretty harrowing, so you can't just generalise.

 

[Scaramanga]

There must be a sweet spot period where the witness is not heavily influenced by adrenalin and fight or flight responses soon after an event and where other, perhaps third party, information can sway a persons memory or act as an influence to change the original statement to be more aligned with group think or hierarchal pressure.

'Must be' ? Your evidence for this is ?

 

[Mendel]

Some claimed cases have been pretty harrowing, so you can't just generalise.

I'd call that an abduction, not a sighting.

 

[Mendel]

'Must be' ? Your evidence for this is ?

...as good as yours

 

[Scaramanga]

claim with no evidence

If you were fully familiar with the Rendlesham case, you would know that there are literally hundreds of examples of Colonel Halt referring to the event as 'not being career enhancing'. I'd assumed it was common knowledge, that phrase has been used by him so often.

But here is just one example....from a Halt interview...

"Halt's boss decided "It happened off the base it's a British affair." When the British liaison officer returned from his holidays, Halt wrote him a memo, the carbon copy of which "disappeared." Then "nothing happened… I was relieved this was going to go away… this is not career enhancing."

https://mattsalusbury.blogspot.com/2020/01/colonel-charles-halt-returns-to.html

 

[Scaramanga]

By the landmarks, e.g. reference to the base.

But he was in the middle of a field and could not see the base. This is ( yet another ) example of people trying to have things both ways. As I have already shown in this thread..

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/rendlesham-forest-ufo-incident.13457/post-315257

...the base was not south west of where Halt was, therefore he cannot have been seeing Sirius shining down beams over the base. QED.

It's really pointless having any sort of 'debate' when everything one says is nay-sayed just for the sake of it. It's gotten to the point with some where if I said the Sun was a hot yellow thing in the sky I'd be asked for links and witness statements by people who themselves have no problem not doing so.

 

[Mendel]

examples of Colonel Halt referring to the event as 'not being career enhancing'.

that's a claim without evidence

Halt was only a Lieutenant Colonel at the time of the incident. That means his role in it did not prevent his promotion.

 

[Mendel]

But he was in the middle of a field and could not see the base.

are you saying he didn't know which direction the base was in because he couldn't see it?

 

[Scaramanga]

that's a claim without evidence

Halt was only a Lieutenant Colonel at the time of the incident. That means his role in it did not prevent his promotion.

Oh for God's sake. Seriously, I'm out of this if such absurd level of deliberate nit picking is what its descended to. You have reached the point of targeting the person....and no longer their arguments.

I have better things to do.

 

[deirdre]

if referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Duffy_and_David_Mulcahy , it wasn't 20 years

where in your link does it say some witnesses weren't interviewed 20 years later?

If you were fully familiar with the Rendlesham case, you would know that there are literally hundreds of examples of Colonel Halt referring to the event as 'not being career enhancing'.

this has been covered on MB too, in fact the U.S. government wrote up all new protocols -after the NYTimes articles 5 years or so ago- so pilots etc can report UFOs without being stigmatized.

ai summary:

 

[Dave51c]

'Must be' ? Your evidence for this is ?

"Is there" would have been a better choice of words, but in the moment I wrote a conjecture instead.

1. Opinion or judgment based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence; guesswork.
2. An opinion or conclusion based on guesswork.
   "The commentators made various conjectures about the outcome of the next election."
3. An opinion, or judgment, formed on defective or presumptive evidence; probable inference; surmise; guess; suspicion.

I don't have any of my own evidence to back it up. I accept that and I also accept that there may be evidence backed opinion which supports or refutes my conjecture, or there is no definitive opinion. I'm not here for a fight.

 

[Mendel]

absurd level of deliberate nit picking i

Scaramanga: claims that reporting UFOs is bad for the career
Mendel: you didn't give any evidence for that
Scaramanga: cites Halt's claim that reporting UFOs is bad for the career
Mendel: Halt got promoted anyway, so where's the evidence?
Scaramanga: leaves in a huff

I don't see any nit-picking on my part.
My opinion is that the "victim card" gets liberally played by UFOlogists and other conspiracy theorists, with precious few instances where it's actually supported.
That's why I'm asking for evidence, not quotes of these "victims'" opinions.

 

[Scaramanga]

Scaramanga: claims that reporting UFOs is bad for the career
Mendel: you didn't give any evidence for that
Scaramanga: cites Halt's claim that reporting UFOs is bad for the career
Mendel: Halt got promoted anyway, so where's the evidence?

Sigh. And where in this process doesn't it occur to you that Halt is speaking retrospectively about how he felt at the time ? To the best of my knowledge he did not possess a Delorean.

 

[John J.]

Hi again @Scaramanga, you posted

I think its absurd to demand that the witness statements contain every little detail of what happened...and equally that anything not in them can't have happened.

in response to

...It illuminated the entire forest with a white light

...is not based on their witness statements. So why did Halt say this?

The point is, Halt's description, of the whole forest being lit up, was not in the witness statements. And Halt was not present at the time.
So it looks like Halt's invention (perhaps based on his imagining/ interpretation of the events described by the witnesses).
Unless one of the airmen said this to Halt but didn't include it in their statement.

The whole forest being illuminated by a white light is not a "little detail", I don't think, and we might expect all three airmen (Penniston, Burroughs, Cabansag) to have mentioned this, or words to a similar effect, in their statements if it were accurate.
Halt chose to use it in his memo to the Ministry of Defence.

Edited to add: Halt also wrote in his memo (recounting the patrolmen's sightings)

The object was hovering or on legs

-Which must surely mean they couldn't clearly see the lower part of whatever they were looking at.
It might have had legs. I might not. It might have been hovering. It might not.

 

[Mendel]

where in your link does it say some witnesses weren't interviewed 20 years later?

where in the world do they take witness statements years after the offenders have been convicted

also, not my claim, burden of proof is on the side claiming these statements exist

 

[Mendel]

Sigh. And where in this process doesn't it occur to you that Halt is speaking retrospectively about how he felt at the time ? To the best of my knowledge he did not possess a Delorean.

I accept that's how Halt felt, but it's not evidence.
I want to know if something happened to his career that justified these feelings.

 

[Scaramanga]

"Is there" would have been a better choice of words, but in the moment I wrote a conjecture instead.

Probably, but I was making the point that if everything anyone said required definitive linked proof then it would be impossible to post. Common sense surely has to prevail at some point. If I mention Australia I don't expect to have to provide links proving Australia exists. It is common knowledge that it does. If a person is commenting on the Rendlesham incident, surely it is incumbent upon them to be familiar with the full story...including all the later claims, etc.

I guess its a case of what can be defined as 'common knowledge'. Certainly, where that bar is placed can be argued, but the lower you place it, the more you end up having to re-explain the entire story every time anyone posts.

 

[Mendel]

Probably, but I was making the point that if everything anyone said required definitive linked proof then it would be impossible to post.

Making it badly, because you quoted a logical argument, not something that requires a source.

Common sense surely has to prevail at some point. If I mention Australia I don't expect to have to provide links proving Australia exists.

But you could, if asked.

My problem is when people make factual claims without giving much thought to whether they can be supported or not—and then blaming the other side when they turn out to be hard to support.

 

[Scaramanga]

I accept that's how Halt felt, but it's not evidence.
I want to know if something happened to his career that justified these feelings.

That's getting the cart before the horse...yet again. How would his later promotion affect his feeling in 1980 ? The fact that he may have been wrong to feel that way does not alter the fact that he did feel that way....which you yourself concede.