Rendlesham Forest UFO Incident

[John J.]

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

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

Maybe I should have said "start with a presumption of honesty", not "proceed".

We all know of UFO cases, and other extraordinary claims, which are deliberate hoaxes.
But most times, in the absence of any corroborating evidence, I feel we should be wary of claiming people are being dishonest or are deliberately misleading us.

At some point, I think it's fair- even in the absence of evidence- to question the objective truth of what a claimant might say; Penniston's binary code, a Baedeker of ancient mythological sites (at least one of which is wholly fictitious) crosses the line for me.
He might believe it's true; I can't prove it isn't but I don't find it believable.

Larry Warren's highly dramatic and detailed account is questioned by other witnesses, and contains some elements which lead me to think "...there's good reason to believe otherwise".

 

[Scaramanga]

Larry Warren's highly dramatic and detailed account is questioned by other witnesses, and contains some elements which lead me to think "...there's good reason to believe otherwise".

I've always found it ironic that Halt and Penniston regard Warren's claims as going too far, when their own claims stretch things somewhat as well. What does it matter if someone saw aliens, when the act of asserting that one saw a non-human craft is itself an assertion of aliens. Halt is quite happy to have a UFO hovering overhead shining down a beam of light....but heck, don't mention aliens.

 

[Scaramanga]

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

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

But I could equally turn it round the other way. An unknown craft lands in the woods just yards from the east gate....and no alarm is raised or alert set off ? Given that it could be a Soviet craft or some form of infiltration, the response seems absurdly lax. Send a few men to wander in the woods for a bit and then forget about it all. And then we have Halt, who at one point claims five craft in the sky and one flying right overhead, and casting down beams of light, alleged molten metal bits dropping off orbs, yada, yada.....and all of this is also being relayed back to base...yet no-one raises the alarm and no alerts go off. I mean...if that sort of activity doesn't warrant a raised alert...what does ??

So I conclude that no alerts went off because the base commander knew what was going on.

 

[John J.]

Halt is quite happy to have a UFO hovering overhead shining down a beam of light....but heck, don't mention aliens.

Well, he saw lights he couldn't identify, and describes beams of lights being sent down.
(We know from other UFO claims that planets/ stars are sometimes described as shining beams down, manoeuvring and changing colour.)
Halt didn't see aliens, and is not aware of anyone under his command (or anyone else, come to that) seeing aliens at the time, he doesn't recall Warren's presence, so he is sceptical of Warren's claim.

 

[John J.]

But I could equally turn it round the other way. An unknown craft lands in the woods just yards from the east gate....and no alarm is raised or alert set off ? Given that it could be a Soviet craft or some form of infiltration

There was an initial concern that there might have been a plane crash (presumably they were imagining a light aircraft), that's why the three airmen were sent into the forest.

There is absolutely no evidence that there was any serious consideration that it might be a Soviet aircraft. If there were, I agree that the response was lax; not in sending unarmed men out- it wasn't for the base personnel to unilaterally decide how to respond to a foreign aircraft landing in Britain. Remember, the USAF personnel were not responsible for defence outside of the twin bases. (I feel this point has been made several times; if anyone has evidence to the contrary, please share).
But the CSC doesn't contact the RAF or MOD with any security concerns.

This is pre-stealth aircraft, and helicopters have limited ranges. It's extremely unlikely that a Soviet/ WP plane or helicopter would get anywhere near the east coast of Britain without being detected. Long-range Soviet aircraft routinely probed UK air defences and were routinely intercepted.
WP ships in the North Sea would be shadowed.
A land-based helicopter, maybe a Mil-8 or Mil-24) from DDR could (hypothetically) have reached Woodbridge on a one-way flight; it would have to cross West Germany (or possibly Denmark). It would be noticed, and a cause of considerable concern.

UK air defences or the US/UK BMEWS site at RAF Fylingdales would have advised commanders at Woodbridge/ Bentwaters of any anticipated air threat.
(The twin bases were air force but not air defence bases, the A-10s are ground-attack aircraft, not interceptors or dogfighters. They don't carry radar, and in 1980 probably couldn't conduct operations at night).

...alleged molten metal bits dropping off orbs

You're paraphrasing. Halt made no mention of molten metal dripping off orbs

So I conclude that no alerts went off because the base commander knew what was going on.

Maybe, but perhaps not in the way you're implying.
The base commander, Colonel Ted Conrad, knew Halt. He knew of Halt's habit of riding with Security Police patrols, and had asked the SP CO if that was a problem (Halt was not an SP officer). On hearing Halt's reports of lights over the radio, Conrad went to have a look and saw nothing unusual.

There had been no air defence alert. There was no general heightened state of alert -as well as responding to local exigencies, military establishments have alert states determined by their overall chain of command and national governments, based on e.g. international tensions, intelligence reports.*
Unidentified lights in a nearby forest or in the sky might be of concern, but they do not mean you are under attack.
Conrad paid attention, and decided to do nothing, other than let Halt have his moment.
By not responding in a more dramatic manner, Conrad probably allowed thousands of his personnel and their families to enjoy Christmas and New Year instead of having a Stand To (or whatever the equivalent action would be), men called back to duty and following (often miserable) security drills and routines to the letter, wives and children at home, upset and maybe afraid.
He was right to do so.

Colonel Halt's increasingly conspiratorial take on the whole affair has been criticized by his commanding officer at Bentwaters, Colonel Ted Conrad:

For his part, in June 2010 Halt signed a notarised statement that included this paragraph:

"I believe the objects that I saw at close quarter were extraterrestrial in origin and that the security services of both the United States and the United Kingdom have attempted – both then and now – to subvert the significance of what occurred at Rendlesham forest and RAF Bentwaters by the use of well-practiced methods of disinformation."

When I asked Col Conrad to comment on Halt's statement, he responded:

"Col Halt can believe as he wishes. I've already disputed to some degree what he reported. However, he should be ashamed and embarrassed by his allegation that his country and England both conspired to deceive their citizens over this issue. He knows better."

Col Conrad told me he finds it very difficult to comment "given how huge the story has grown from its humble beginnings to the sensation it has now become". He adds that he wants to "avoid the appearance of validating any of the stories have sprung up in the years since (1980)."

-Article "Rendlesham Forest UFOs", from the blog Dr David Clarke Folklore and Journalism,
https://drdavidclarke.co.uk/rendlesham-forest-ufos/

*The US famously has the DEFCON system for overall readiness, and other alert state descriptions more suited to local conditions. In the 1980s UK alert levels were indicated by the "Bikini state", no idea why (ah, name chosen at random by a computer, thank you Wikipedia).

 

[Mendel]

But I could equally turn it round the other way. An unknown craft lands in the woods just yards from the east gate....and no alarm is raised or alert set off ? Given that it could be a Soviet craft or some form of infiltration, the response seems absurdly lax.

argument from incredulity

common sense would suggest that soviet craft does not reach the UK undetected, only to set down in a forest and do nothing

there was no actual threat in evidence, hence there was no alarm

there was a potential threat (we mentioned activists before, a threat that actually has precedent), so people were sent to investigate. this seems like a proper proportionate response to me.

 

[JJB]

But I could equally turn it round the other way. An unknown craft lands in the woods just yards from the east gate....and no alarm is raised or alert set off ? Given that it could be a Soviet craft or some form of infiltration, the response seems absurdly lax. Send a few men to wander in the woods for a bit and then forget about it all. And then we have Halt, who at one point claims five craft in the sky and one flying right overhead, and casting down beams of light, alleged molten metal bits dropping off orbs, yada, yada.....and all of this is also being relayed back to base...yet no-one raises the alarm and no alerts go off. I mean...if that sort of activity doesn't warrant a raised alert...what does ??

So I conclude that no alerts went off because the base commander knew what was going on.

Your logic runs backwards. If the activity was serious enough to be Soviet infiltration, multiple craft, beams, molten metal raining down, then alarms would have gone off automatically regardless of what any commander thought.

Alert states, security responses, radar logs, command notifications do not hinge on one man shrugging. The fact that nothing escalated tells you not that it was secretly known, but that nothing credible was actually happening.

Extraordinary threat claims followed by zero real world military response is exactly what you expect when the story grows after the fact, not when a base is under intrusion.

 

[Scaramanga]

You're paraphrasing. Halt made no mention of molten metal dripping off orbs

I see what you did there. The age old trick of ignoring any later testimony and forcing everything to be just the brief initial statements. And although I don't doubt that some later statements are embellished....we also get the pretence that all later statements are.

 

[Scaramanga]

Your logic runs backwards. If the activity was serious enough to be Soviet infiltration, multiple craft, beams, molten metal raining down, then alarms would have gone off automatically regardless of what any commander thought.

Alert states, security responses, radar logs, command notifications do not hinge on one man shrugging. The fact that nothing escalated tells you not that it was secretly known, but that nothing credible was actually happening.

Extraordinary threat claims followed by zero real world military response is exactly what you expect when the story grows after the fact, not when a base is under intrusion.

Huh ?

Halt comments ' this is weird'......'this is unreal'....'Piece are falling off' an unknown 'strange flashing red light'......and ' There's something very, very strange'.....there's an object shining 'a beam coming down to the ground'.....and later 'One object still hovering over Woodbridge base'.....

...and none of that real time commentary is 'serious enough' cause to raise the alarm ??

 

[Scaramanga]

Conrad paid attention, and decided to do nothing, other than let Halt have his moment.
By not responding in a more dramatic manner, Conrad probably allowed thousands of his personnel and their families to enjoy Christmas and New Year instead of having a Stand To (or whatever the equivalent action would be), men called back to duty and following (often miserable) security drills and routines to the letter, wives and children at home, upset and maybe afraid.
He was right to do so.

It reminds me of the Phoenix lights incident, where everyone pays attention to one person ( Mitch Stanley ) who comes up with a nice sanitised 'explanation'.....and ignores the numerous witnesses who saw something else. It just makes me think many people have already made up their mind and just grasp at whatever simplistic 'explanation' confirms their a priori beliefs.

Not that Conrad couldn't be right.....but I'd like to know by what rules of rationality his testimony outweighs all the others.

 

[John J.]

You're paraphrasing. Halt made no mention of molten metal dripping off orbs

I see what you did there. The age old trick of ignoring any later testimony and forcing everything to be just the brief initial statements. And although I don't doubt that some later statements are embellished....we also get the pretence that all later statements are.

What on Earth are you talking about?

You said

And then we have Halt, who at one point claims five craft in the sky and one flying right overhead, and casting down beams of light, alleged molten metal bits dropping off orbs,

When did Halt ever say he saw "molten metal bits dropping off orbs"?

I haven't followed all the interviews etc. given in more recent years, so if Halt said that, please post the quote, but he didn't use that phrase at around the time of his claimed sighting AFAIK.

 

[Scaramanga]

When did Halt ever say he saw "molten metal bits dropping off orbs"?

It's even in Ridpath's notes on the matter...

'Next Halt says: 'Pieces of it are shooting off'. In subsequent interviews, Halt has said that the object appeared to be 'dripping molten metal' but this phrase is not used on the tape.'

http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/halttape-analysis2.html

Why is Halt not allowed to make subsequent comments ? It's like those court cases where the prosecution refuses to allow new evidence because it might upset the verdict.

In the first place, subsequent information may be the very thing that itself debunks the case. But even if it doesn't, I object to the whole notion that we should force the narrative to be only the very initial statements.

 

[John J.]

In subsequent interviews, Halt has said that the object appeared to be 'dripping molten metal' but this phrase is not used on the tape.'

There you go, I was wrong. You were not paraphrasing, I apologise (though Halt doesn't mention "orbs").
But Halt did not describe anything dripping molten metal at the time, which you essentially said he did...

Halt, who at one point claims five craft in the sky and one flying right overhead, and casting down beams of light, alleged molten metal bits dropping off orbs .....and all of this is also being relayed back to base...yet no-one raises the alarm and no alerts go off. I mean...if that sort of activity doesn't warrant a raised alert...what does ??

...so using that description, which wasn't used at that time, as a reason for Conrad to raise an alarm doesn't make sense.

Conrad went to have a look, he didn't see anything "beaming down". Nor did anyone else out of the (probably) thousands of personnel/ dependents actually on-base at Woodbridge/ Bentwaters. There would have been some personnel awake, and not just the guys in the Weapons Storage Area, who saw nothing.
The beam onto the WSA is another later addition by Halt, which he didn't mention at the time. You'd think this would have been of high salience and worth reporting immediately, Halt doesn't do this.
Halt, deputy base commander, takes no measures to raise the level of alert or implement any security measures whatsoever. He clearly doesn't believe he is witnessing a possible Soviet incursion, and never has done.

Halt later confused the issue in various interviews by claiming that there were three objects in the sky to the north, not two, and that they sent down beams into the Weapons Storage Area (WSA) at Bentwaters. However, security policeman Tim Egercic, who was actually in the Bentwaters WSA at the time, has publicly refuted Halt's claim that any such beams came down into the WSA.

Rendlesham Forest UFO Case, Ian Ridpath http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham3.html

 

[JJB]

Huh ?

Halt comments ' this is weird'......'this is unreal'....'Piece are falling off' an unknown 'strange flashing red light'......and ' There's something very, very strange'.....there's an object shining 'a beam coming down to the ground'.....and later 'One object still hovering over Woodbridge base'.....

...and none of that real time commentary is 'serious enough' cause to raise the alarm ??

Rendlesham is a textbook case of why you stick to contemporary evidence and ignore the snowballing that comes decades later.

The original reports, written closest to the events, describe nothing exotic at all—lights, confusion, misidentification, and uncertainty. Every extraordinary detail was added years later through retellings, books, documentaries, and memory drift.

Once a story gets repeated for decades, it stops being evidence and turns into folklore.

If you want to know what actually happened at Rendlesham, the only place to look is the contemporary reports, not the inflated legend that grew long after the fact.

And the reason for no alarm is simple: nothing actually happened!

If there had been a genuine intrusion, threat, or extraordinary event, it would have been treated as such at the time. The fact that it was not tells you more than decades of hindsight ever could.

 

[Scaramanga]

Rendlesham is a textbook case of why you stick to contemporary evidence and ignore the snowballing that comes decades later.

The original reports, written closest to the events, describe nothing exotic at all—lights, confusion, misidentification, and uncertainty. Every extraordinary detail was added years later through retellings, books, documentaries, and memory drift.

Once a story gets repeated for decades, it stops being evidence and turns into folklore.

If you want to know what actually happened at Rendlesham, the only place to look is the contemporary reports, not the inflated legend that grew long after the fact.

Frankly that is absurd. To me its a textbook case of people wanting to stick to the 'contemporary' evidence only because it seems easier to explain away. The same reason people doggedly stick to Mitch Stanley's account for the Phoenix lights....and never mind what several hundred other witnesses saw.

I can think of numerous cases where people have been released from prison ( or sent to prison ) because new evidence emerged....sometimes years later. This makes clear that rather than being 'embellished' with new evidence, things can actually be clarified by such. And you can't just automatically assume one or the other. And if we are going to ignore later statements, shouldn't that include those by base commander Ted Conrad who claimed to see nothing ? Or are we going to selectively decide which bits are or are not 'embellished' ?

What's more, Halt has long made it clear that his original memo was deliberately scant on detail. It also seems to deliberately abbreviate time periods....for example the 'Immediately thereafter....' in the third paragraph is not actually immediately after but some 45 minutes or so later and there is a missing 45 minute period in the Halt tape. Also, his tape...which is only 18 minutes in duration....clearly does not record all of what transpired over a 3 hour period, especially during that missing time period.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Halt_Memorandum.jpg

The statements of Cabansag, Penniston, and Burroughs all clearly document an object with blue light...which nobody to this day has ever explained. The lighthouse does not have a visible blue light.

 

[John J.]

The statements of Cabansag, Penniston, and Burroughs all clearly document an object with blue light...which nobody to this day has ever explained. The lighthouse does not have a visible blue light.

As been said several times before, no-one is saying that the Orford Ness Lighthouse was the only source of lights seen.
Only Penniston described an object with lights.

I can think of numerous cases where people have been released from prison ( or sent to prison ) because new evidence emerged

This is of course correct, but Halt does not provide new testable evidence, he provides evolving accounts.
Penniston's new evidence consists of a binary code, which supposedly had been in his notebook for many years, which gives co-ordinates for ancient religious/ mythological sites and which implies that the message comes from time travellers. He received the message telepathically (for want of a better phrase) while touching the UFO/ time machine.

Many UFO accounts have plausible prosaic explanations, but it's not uncommon for the claimants to disagree with the explanation.
Often, aspects of their claims (particularly those based on subjective impressions) are not fully explained by a proposed mundane cause.
This does not mean people forwarding a prosaic/ mundane explanation are necessarily selectively using evidence, are proposing a "simplistic" explanation, or are committed to one exact description of events to the exclusion of others.

There are possible prosaic explanations for the events of Rendlesham Forest, 26th and 28th December 1980, that do not include aliens or time travellers, or an accident with a nuclear weapon, a deliberate cover-up by Halt and the other claimants, or an actual or feared Soviet incursion into Suffolk.
It might be useful to consider possible non-prosaic explanations like those listed, but when no evidence can be found to support them, and circumstantial evidence makes those explanations unlikely, it isn't unreasonable to conclude that the more mundane explanation (or some variant of it) is probably more accurate.

 

[Bristolian]

I've seen it suggested that the blue lights were on one of the buildings at Orford Ness, along with red lights on the Cobra Mist antenna, and that together with the lighthouse this created the full effect - I'm not sure how likely it is that everything would have lined up so closely though.

We also have a few different descriptions of the lights; Armold says they were small and "primarily white", while Jerry Valdez described them as "red, blue and green".

 

[JJB]

What's more, Halt has long made it clear that his original memo was deliberately scant on detail. It also seems to deliberately abbreviate time periods....for example the 'Immediately thereafter....' in the third paragraph is not actually immediately after but some 45 minutes or so later and there is a missing 45 minute period in the Halt tape. Also, his tape...which is only 18 minutes in duration....clearly does not record all of what transpired over a 3 hour period, especially during that missing time period.

This is exremely backwards. A document being scant, abbreviated, and missing time is not evidence of something extraordinary, it is evidence of something unreliable.

Halt openly admitted the memo was brief and written days later from memory. That alone downgrades it to a rough summary, not a precise record. Stretching words like immediately thereafter to cover 45 minutes does not reveal hidden events, it shows sloppy narration after the fact.

The tape argument fails the same way. An 18 minute tape from a 3 hour night is not suspicious, it is normal. No one records continuously in the field, especially during a routine security response that quickly stopped being interesting. Gaps do not imply aliens, they imply nothing worth recording at the time.

The so called missing 45 minutes are missing because nothing happened that justified turning the recorder on.

What actually matters is that every concrete claim collapses when checked.

The lighthouse explains the flashing light. The stars seen through binocular optics explain the beams. The radiation readings were at background level and taken incorrectly. Other witnesses either contradict Halt or describe mundane lights and confusion.

No alarms. No hardware, no craft, no trace, no corroboration. Nothing extraordinary at all. Your constant focus on omissions and ambiguity is not investigation, it is faith shopping.

When nothing extraordinary is found at the time, and decades later all that remains is snowballed storytelling, you have absolutely nothing.

 

[JJB]

I've seen it suggested that the blue lights were on one of the buildings at Orford Ness, along with red lights on the Cobra Mist antenna, and that together with the lighthouse this created the full effect - I'm not sure how likely it is that everything would have lined up so closely though.

We also have a few different descriptions of the lights; Armold says they were small and "primarily white", while Jerry Valdez described them as "red, blue and green".

To me, these mixed colors and inconsistent descriptions do not strengthen the mystery. They point directly to misidentified, unrelated lights being combined into a narrative after the fact.

If there had been one real object in the woods, you would expect broadly consistent color, size, and behavior across witnesses. Instead, the accounts vary in ways that match known light sources in the area.

 

[John J.]

...along with red lights on the Cobra Mist antenna

There were red lights in the direction of the former Cobra Mist site in 1980. Cobra Mist underperformed; handed over to the USAF in February 1972 it was closed down in May 1973 having never achieved operational status.

When the system was first turned on it had noise problems that could not be identified, and the project was shut down in 1973.
The site and buildings were then occupied by a radio transmitting station used mainly for the UK Foreign Office and the BBC World Service until 2011.

Wikipedia, Cobra Mist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_Mist; under civil ownership the site was known as Orfordness Transmitting Station (Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orfordness_transmitting_station), though the spit it is located on is called Orford Ness.

The broadcast antennae used by the Foreign Office / BBC at Orfordness had red warning lights on them, and would probably have been visible at some times to Halt and co. (and possibly to Penniston, Cabansag, Burroughs).

The ‍Orford ‍Ness ‍lighthouse ‍is ‍the ‍bright ‍yellow-white ‍light ‍at ‍right ‍of ‍centre, ‍seen ‍between ‍trees. ‍Two ‍other ‍whitish ‍lights ‍left ‍of ‍centre ‍were ‍on ‍a ‍building ‍or ‍buildings ‍in ‍the ‍valley ‍(or ‍perhaps ‍even ‍streetlights), ‍which ‍I ‍did ‍not ‍identify ‍at ‍the ‍time. ‍At ‍far ‍left ‍are ‍two ‍red ‍lights ‍on ‍tall ‍aerials ‍on ‍Orford ‍Ness ‍itself.

Photo and description on Ian Ridpath's Rendlesham Forest UFO case website, http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham1a.html
Like the lighthouse, neither Halt or any of the SPs with him, describing the lights that they can see, identify the lights of the transmitting station.

 

[Scaramanga]

Only Penniston described an object with lights.

Anything with lights is by definition an object.

 

[Scaramanga]

This is exremely backwards. A document being scant, abbreviated, and missing time is not evidence of something extraordinary, it is evidence of something unreliable.

Halt openly admitted the memo was brief and written days later from memory. That alone downgrades it to a rough summary, not a precise record. Stretching words like immediately thereafter to cover 45 minutes does not reveal hidden events, it shows sloppy narration after the fact.

The tape argument fails the same way. An 18 minute tape from a 3 hour night is not suspicious, it is normal. No one records continuously in the field, especially during a routine security response that quickly stopped being interesting. Gaps do not imply aliens, they imply nothing worth recording at the time.

The so called missing 45 minutes are missing because nothing happened that justified turning the recorder on.

What actually matters is that every concrete claim collapses when checked.

The lighthouse explains the flashing light. The stars seen through binocular optics explain the beams. The radiation readings were at background level and taken incorrectly. Other witnesses either contradict Halt or describe mundane lights and confusion.

No alarms. No hardware, no craft, no trace, no corroboration. Nothing extraordinary at all. Your constant focus on omissions and ambiguity is not investigation, it is faith shopping.

When nothing extraordinary is found at the time, and decades later all that remains is snowballed storytelling, you have absolutely nothing.

This is all just the same sort of verbal gymnastics as my comment about the use of 'object'. You haven't actually answered a single point I raised, but have instead created the very 'backwards' of which you speak.

You are using the briefness of Halt's memo to assert that's all there is....rather than the reality Halt has himself stated many times, that its all he wanted to have to say. It is deliberately short.

I object to this entire stance of 'nothing more could have happened...because nobody said so at the time'. It is totally fallacious, and the reason I mentioned court cases is because it's precisely the tactic prosecutions use regarding new or amended evidence. Witnesses are forced to stick to original statements and not allowed to amend anything or add anything new....as the charge is then that evidence has been 'embellished'. Its a classic prosecution tactic used to cast doubt on the veracity of witnesses/defendants.

Of course....there are now literally hundreds of cases where new evidence or statements have completely overturned a verdict. So why are Halt and others not allowed to recall more details ? I don't doubt that some details may be mis-remembered or inaccurate...but it is fallacious to argue that every new detail or witness must by definition be in error.

Also, there's a degree of double standards in arguing that we have to stick to statements from 1980 for Halt, Penniston, etc....and yet allowing Ted Conrad's statements from 2009 ! How is it that Conrad's memory is just fine 29 years later...yet Halt's isn't ?

 

[purpleivan]

You are using the briefness of Halt's memo to assert that's all there is....rather than the reality Halt has himself stated many times, that its all he wanted to have to say. It is deliberately short.

But surely Halt would have included the most important events in his recording.

I object to this entire stance of 'nothing more could have happened...because nobody said so at the time'. It is totally fallacious, and the reason I mentioned court cases is because it's precisely the tactic prosecutions use regarding new or amended evidence. Witnesses are forced to stick to original statements and not allowed to amend anything or add anything new....as the charge is then that evidence has been 'embellished'. Its a classic prosecution tactic used to cast doubt on the veracity of witnesses/defendants.

Of course....there are now literally hundreds of cases where new evidence or statements have completely overturned a verdict. So why are Halt and others not allowed to recall more details ? I don't doubt that some details may be mis-remembered or inaccurate...but it is fallacious to argue that every new detail or witness must by definition be in error.

You state that court cases have been overturned due to "new evidence or statements", but in the case of new statements, these are normally statements given by new witnesses, not the same witness, changing or adding to their original statement. In fact, for a statement being changed by a witness, it would have to be explained why their statement has changes, for the new one to be credibile, for examples, the original being made under duress. Cases being overturned solely on the basis of an original witness, changing their statement, are not common.

Of course court cases have been overturned on new (physical) evidence, such as that provided by technicques not availble at the time (DNA evidence being the most well known), but this does not have the same credibility as additions to witness statements, such as Halt's embelishments to his over the years.

Why did you include the words "new evidence" in addition to "statements" regarding the overturning of court cases? What non-statement evidence regarding Rendlesham, has been produced, other than the "landing site" (rabbit holes).

It seems that simply saying "...there are now literally hundreds of cases where new statements have completely overturned a verdict." would be more applicable, as that is what is in question here; statements.

 

[JJB]

Anything with lights is by definition an object.

Not at all. You can have light without a solid object.

Sure. Lights can come from physical objects, like aircraft, drones, stars, or satellites.

But lights can also come from effects without a solid object, such as reflections, lens flares, sensor artifacts, atmospheric phenomena, plasma effects, or even electronic noise in a camera or radar system.

 

[JMartJr]

Two out of three lights here are not objects. More generally, the ratio probably skews towards objects, I suppose... but still...

 

[NorCal Dave]

hat's more, Halt has long made it clear that his original memo was deliberately scant on detail. It also seems to deliberately abbreviate time periods....for example the 'Immediately thereafter....' in the third paragraph is not actually immediately after but some 45 minutes or so later and there is a missing 45 minute period in the Halt tape. Also, his tape...which is only 18 minutes in duration....clearly does not record all of what transpired over a 3 hour period, especially during that missing time period.

Of course....there are now literally hundreds of cases where new evidence or statements have completely overturned a verdict. So why are Halt and others not allowed to recall more details ? I don't doubt that some details may be mis-remembered or inaccurate...but it is fallacious to argue that every new detail or witness must by definition be in error.

So, what new evidence has Halt introduced over the years since his "scant on details" memo and recording? Are they, like Penniston's new evidence, UFO related? If so, then according to your overarching theory, if I understand it right, Halt is still involved in a cover-up of something. IF in later interviews Halt described "molten" slag dripping from the lighted object in the air, are we supposed to take that as a new detail about a real event, or more of the fake UFO story that never happened?

The "pieces are shooting off it" comment by Halt appears to be in the later 1/2 of the recording. The section of the recording you claim was likely faked:

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

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

Because your theory is that:

I think something embarrassing happened in the woods. Sufficiently so that a vague UFO cover story was invented...possibly even using the lighthouse to fool some members. I think 'look at these silly airmen chasing lighthouses' was considerably less embarrassing for those concerned than whatever really took place.

You're going around in circles. You've maintained that "there was never any UFO", and all talk of a UFO is part of a cover-up for something. Then you insist that subsequent statements made by Holt or anyone else involved that concerns a UFO should be taken seriously. By your own theory, any talk of a UFO is a lie about a fake UFO story.

Why should we take anything Halt and others said at a later time as reliable? It's all part of the cover-up, right? ANY new evidence that concerns the UFO is, according to you, part of a cover-up.

You're convinced that something happened, not because there is any evidence of anything happening, but because the conventional UFO explanation fails to adequately answer all your questions. As a result, you end up with contradictory notions like Holt should be allowed to refine and add new details to his statements even though those statements are unreliable and part of a cover-up. He was lying, but we should take his subsequent clarifications about those lies as believable.

There is no evidence for anything like a secret plane crash, a Broken Arrow, a Soviet infiltration or anything necessitating a convoluted UFO cover story.

 

[John J.]

So why are Halt and others not allowed to recall more details ?

They are allowed, and they have added more details.
Extraordinary claims have been made, so others are allowed to assess whether those additional details are likely to be accurate recollections or not.

I think it's unlikely that Penniston's binary message has anything to do with an accurate recall of events of 26th December 1980.

Halt said, years after the event, that he saw beams shone down onto the Weapons Storage Area. This might be considered something that would be of high salience to the deputy base commander at that time, and information that it would be imperative for him to share at that time. He didn't. He didn't mention it in his memo to the UK Ministry of Defence, who were responsible for the air defence of the twin bases.*

The Security Police accompanying Halt had the primary role of ground defence of key points at the two airbases, such as the WSA.
None of those with Halt seem to have been concerned about beams onto the WSA. Neither they, nor Halt, ask for Security Police on base (i.e. the vast majority, perhaps something over 200 personnel) to send more men to the WSA, nor do they ask those SPs at the WSA what they can see (nothing unusual, according to SP Tim Egercic who was actually there); they don't even ask after their colleague's wellbeing.
I don't think it is unreasonable to question whether Halt's later claims are entirely accurate; if they are, it's not unreasonable to ask why he didn't appear to do anything about -or even mention- beams onto the WSA at the time it was happening.

Also, there's a degree of double standards in arguing that we have to stick to statements from 1980 for Halt, Penniston, etc....and yet allowing Ted Conrad's statements from 2009 ! How is it that Conrad's memory is just fine 29 years later...yet Halt's isn't ?

Conrad's account hasn't substantially changed (AFAIK) and he hasn't added significant new details. He hasn't made any extraordinary claims.


*I don't know if 81st Security Police Squadron had a Redeye or Stinger shoulder-launched SAM detachment, probably not. They might have had some 0.5" M2 machine guns which might be used for point air defence. If 81 SP Sqn. had any of these capabilities, there is no evidence that Halt, or anyone else, thought to alert them, which if Halt's later claims are accurate seems odd.
USAF bases in England received Rapier missile sets for close-in air defence, manned by RAF Regiment crew, from 1981.

 

[Scaramanga]

You're going around in circles. You've maintained that "there was never any UFO", and all talk of a UFO is part of a cover-up for something. Then you insist that subsequent statements made by Holt or anyone else involved that concerns a UFO should be taken seriously. By your own theory, any talk of a UFO is a lie about a fake UFO story.

Why should we take anything Halt and others said at a later time as reliable? It's all part of the cover-up, right? ANY new evidence that concerns the UFO is, according to you, part of a cover-up.

No, I'm simply pointing out the double standards whereby people are quite happy to accept Base Commander Conrad's statements 10 years or so after the event......they somehow aren't fudged or embellished or manipulated in any way.

 

[Scaramanga]

Conrad's account hasn't substantially changed (AFAIK) and he hasn't added significant new details. He hasn't made any extraordinary claims.

Well, one could as well argue that Conrad IS making an extraordinary claim ( that nothing much happened ), given the number of witnesses who have subsequently claimed that odd stuff did happen. Now I must find that video where Halt is in the Rendlesham woods again some years later with Englund or Nevels, I forget which one, and they confirm the 'beam of light'.....just one example ( Nevels is on the Halt tape....so you'd expect him to see whatever Halt saw ). In recent years we've had all manner of additional 'witnesses'. Some are due to appear on Capel Green ( which I still have yet to see ). Are all these people just jumping on the bandwaggon ? At what point does the witness testimony outweigh Conrad's solo ' nothing to see here ' ?

 

[Scaramanga]

So, what new evidence has Halt introduced over the years since his "scant on details" memo and recording? Are they, like Penniston's new evidence, UFO related? If so, then according to your overarching theory, if I understand it right, Halt is still involved in a cover-up of something. IF in later interviews Halt described "molten" slag dripping from the lighted object in the air, are we supposed to take that as a new detail about a real event, or more of the fake UFO story that never happened?

The "pieces are shooting off it" comment by Halt appears to be in the later 1/2 of the recording. The section of the recording you claim was likely faked:

You keep trying to tie me down to a particular theory, when in fact I have proposed several and I don't really care if they are mutually exclusive as my primary point has been that something beyond just the standard 'clueless US servicemen mistake lighthouse for UFO' almost certainly occurred. That something ranges all the way from nothing happening and the entire story being made up, to a hoax, to 'broken arrow' incident, to something genuinely weird. I have no idea what the something is...but I would argue resolutely that dismissing the whole thing as a bunch of hillbillies who've never seen stars before and forgot there was a lighthouse there even though it was clearly visible on the road between the two bases...is to me sillier than genuine aliens.

 

[GM4AJK]

beyond just the standard 'clueless US servicemen mistake lighthouse for UFO'

Remember when the word "exegesis" turned up and turned something boring into something special? The lighthouse could well have been followed by something equally boring in the woods that night, but the two together gave the appearance of something greater than its parts. The brain does weird things.

[edit: and no, I'm not following you around MB, I just like to use the "What's New" feature ]

 

[JMartJr]

but I would argue resolutely that dismissing the whole thing as a bunch of hillbillies who've never seen stars before and forgot there was a lighthouse there even though it was clearly visible on the road between the two bases...is to me sillier than genuine aliens.

Sorry, but that is putting words in mouths and thoughts in heads of those skeptics who take the position that the report was likely generated, at its core, by nothing much, and was based on misperceived normal objects and lights. Nothing about that position implies any derogatory beliefs about witnesses.

We KNOW that extraordinary reports can be generated by ordinary events. Normal people make this sort of mistake fairly frequently (at least it show up frequently for those who look into UFO reporting and allied "I saw something mysterious" stories where we see it repeatedly.)

"The witness reports are grossly in error" does not imply that the witnesses are stupid, or lying, or "hillbillies," or "clueless." Of course they MIGHT be, some people are. Or they might be hoaxers/liars, some people are. But unless somebody states that as their belief, it is unfair to imply that they believe that just because they think yet another extraordinary story has been set in motion by ordinary events.

A really weird story does not necessarily indicate that anything weird happened, and a weird story turning out to have nothing weird behind it does not say anything at all about the witnesses, other than they are human and so subject to making the sorts of mistakes that humans make.

 

[debunkerdave]

"The witness reports are grossly in error" does not imply that the witnesses are stupid, or lying, or "hillbillies," or "clueless." Of course they MIGHT be, some people are. Or they might be hoaxers/liars, some people are. But unless somebody states that as their belief, it is unfair to imply that they believe that just because they think yet another extraordinary story has been set in motion by ordinary events.

It's not a sign of stupidity or intelligence to be mistaken. Anyone and everyone is at some point. It's simply part of being human. I've been mistaken before thinking Venus was another plane and I have an IQ of 140 and held a CPL(A) at the time (well I mean obviously, I couldn't fly commercially without one lol). Every pilot has done this at some point, an Air Canada 767 took evasive action over the Atlantic thinking Venus was another plane headed for them causing multiple injuries.

 

[John J.]

At what point does the witness testimony outweigh Conrad's solo ' nothing to see here ' ?

Thousands of servicemen and dependents at the twin bases did not see anything unusual. Security Police on duty at the WSA saw nothing unusual.
There would have been SPs, probably other personnel on duty at other key points, not least protecting the aircraft of 1 ARRS and 6 A-10 squadrons, probably well over 100 aircraft. They saw nothing unusual.
AFAIK, almost all the witnesses (bar Halt) were members of the 81st SP squadron. No sightings by pilots or by the many hundreds of groundcrew who worked directly with aircraft.

...and forgot there was a lighthouse there

As discussed, one USAF Security Policeman said not many of his colleagues knew about the lighthouse.

There was absolutely nothing in the woods. We could see lights in the distance and it appeared unusual as it was a sweeping light, (we did not know about the lighthouse on the coast at the time). We also saw some strange colored lights in the distance but were unable to determine what they were.
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.

Chris Armold, interviewed by James Easton, Ian Ridpath Rendlesham Forest UFO Case website http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham2b.html

Penniston, Cabansag and Burroughs pursued a light until they realised it was a lighthouse. They either didn't know it was there, or they knew it was there but were disorientated (in the literal sense) and didn't realise they were looking in the direction of the lighthouse and didn't consider that the flashing light, with the same yellowish colour and flashing at the same rate as the lighthouse they were familiar with, might be the lighthouse until they had walked at least a mile toward it.

From Burrough's statement (statements from Ian Ridpath's website http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/sitemap.html):

...once we [word I can't read] the farmers house we could see a beacon going around so we went towards it. We followed it for about 2 miles before we could [missing word?] it was coming from a lighthouse.

Cabansag:

We figured the lights were coming from past the forrest, since nothing was visible as we past through the woody forrest. We could see a glowing near the beacon light, but as we got closer we found it to be a lit up farm house. After we had passed through the forrest, we thought it had to be an aircraft accident. So did CSC as well. But we ran and walked a good 2 miles past our vehicle, until we got to a vantage point where we could determine what we were chasing was only a beacon light off in the distance.

Halt's observations have also been discussed. He/ his team describe a yellowish light with a darker centre, the same as the lighthouse, comments on the tape indicate it flashes every 5 seconds, same as the lighthouse. Though looking in the general direction of the lighthouse they at no point identify it.
No-one comments on the remarkable coincidence that the mystery light blinks at the same rate, and has a similar appearance, as the lighthouse in the same field of view.

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.

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

 

[Mendel]

Every pilot has done this at some point, an Air Canada 767 took evasive action over the Atlantic thinking Venus was another plane headed for them causing multiple injuries.

While I agree with your general point, and it is true that the PF misidentified Venus, the evasive action mistake happened as a reaction to seeing the actual aircraft. See https://www.metabunk.org/threads/ho...isinterpret-things-they-see.13341/post-310502

 

[NorCal Dave]

I have no idea what the something is...but I would argue resolutely that dismissing the whole thing as a bunch of hillbillies who've never seen stars before and forgot there was a lighthouse there even though it was clearly visible on the road between the two bases...is to me sillier than genuine aliens.

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:

Losing trained and experienced personnel was bad enough, but the late 1970s also saw a drop in the quality of new recruits. Figure 3 shows a general decline in the number of recruits with high school diplomas. Quality also declined in terms of Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT) scores. The AFQT classifies recruits on a scale of trainability—Category I being the highest, Category IV the lowest. Figure 4 shows the percentage distribution over the period. The numbers of Category IV trainees peaked at nine percent in 1979 and 1980.

Almost certainly because of recruiting woes, disciplinary problems rose during the hollow force period and in its immediate aftermath. Figure 5 shows overall USAF rates for administrative punishments and courts-martial. After decreasing until 1977, both rates rose rapidly, peaking in the early 1980s.

General personnel problems addressed earlier, such as a lack of good-quality recruits, low reenlistment rates, and disciplinary problems, affect the quality of aircraft maintenance and should be seen as a backdrop to high NMCM rates. Lack of experience can also make a difference. Data from the late 1970s and early 1980s show a drop in the experience of enlisted maintenance Air Force Specialty Codes (AFSCs).

https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/0494hollow/

The military in general pushed the idea of the GI Bill, money for collage after service, assuming one could qualify for collage. The Air Force also pushed the technical training one could acquire while serving. One could leave the Air Force having learned to work on jet engines or avionics, skills that could translate into well paid jobs out of the military. The guys in the Rendlesham situation weren't doing technical stuff, they ended up pulling guard duty, in what looks like a rather quiet part of England.

Again, not saying they're dumb hillbillys, but they may not have had the same interest in celestial bodies and the surrounding countryside as people here on the forum might. As I noted up-thread, they may have been perfectly content to spend a day off with a pack of smokes and a girly magazine before trying to take each other's money at the pool table. They may have rarely, if ever ventured off base. Like a lot of people even now, they may have known the Big Dipper or Orion's belt and maybe Venus, but that's about it. They don't have telescopes and star charts. They're not looking up like you, and seeing Jupiter and Betelgeuse and all kinds of constellations. They saw a star or something that peeked their interest, for whatever reason, and ignored the rest.

These are a couple of guys that decided joining the Air Force was their best bet in life and they ended up as guards in rural England where I'm sure they took their duties seriously. One night they get called out for some lights or something. They run around in the dark in unfamiliar surroundings and see some lights. Realizing that several US MPs are running around in farmer Ted's fields, where they do NOT belong, someone calls the local constables to cover their ass. One of them thinks he sees a UFO and seems to spread that story back at base. Later they write up a number of sloppy, contradictory reports and even then some did know about the lighthouse. After hearing the story, some guys go check it out the next day. A gung-ho Colonel leaves a party late at night to cosplay with the MPs and gets equally confused. Records part of his escapades and then writes up an equally sloppy report. This is completely in keeping with the poor state of the USAF at the time. This gets picked up as a UFO story and gets blown up into what we have today.

 

[DarkLight]

After watching the Witnesses of the Rendlesham Forest Incident video, my main take away that this was a bunch of stories related by some overexcited people who saw some lights in the woods at night, and that the stories bear an interesting resemblance to scenes pulled straight out of Close Encounters of the Third Kind.

Sunburned faces, lost time, implanted images, dazed behavior, little lights darting around and then zipping off are all variations on scenes from that movie-a film that just happened to have had a major theatrical re-release that year in a special edition.

Perhaps the movie and the Rendlesham incident participants were all just pulling memes from the same well, or maybe the stories were simply converging around a shared media experience.

I gave the video 2 out of 5 sport models.

 

[NorCal Dave]

Sunburned faces, lost time, implanted images, dazed behavior, little lights darting around and then zipping off are all variations on scenes from that movie-a film that just happened to have had a major theatrical re-release that year in a special edition.

The question would be, were things like the sunburn, lost time and implanted images reported at the time or added at later dates? I'd have to go back and look, but I think most of the original reports were rather mundane, if a bit confusing. Certainly not what came later with lost time and pages of binary codes. Often the problem is separating what's become the canonical versions of these stories and what was actually reported back in the day.

Not to say CE3K didn't play a part in some of the ensuing stories.

 

[JJB]

The question would be, were things like the sunburn, lost time and implanted images reported at the time or added at later dates? I'd have to go back and look, but I think most of the original reports were rather mundane, if a bit confusing. Certainly not what came later with lost time and pages of binary codes. Often the problem is separating what's become the canonical versions of these stories and what was actually reported back in the day.

Not to say CE3K didn't play a part in some of the ensuing stories.

True. The earliest reports are usually brief, mundane, and confused, not dramatic. Nothing like the polished, sensational versions that circulate later. This goes for all the big UFO legends like The Phoenix Lights, Roswell, Tic Tac, and so on. Over time, details get added, stories get dramatized, and speculation solidifies into "fact," so what people end up debating decades later is more the legend than what was actually reported.

 

[Todd Feinman]

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.