• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.
I've wondered the same thing. With the exception of reports being submitted / forwarded by (presumably) the day shift personnel the whole affair seems to have been a matter engaged by the night shift alone.
Pope's version of events is rather different from those of Bruni and Randles. He doesn't mention any of the civilian reports of an object going into the forest. His account starts on 26 Dec. with Burroughs seeing unfamiliar red and blue lights, and him and Steffens driving out a short way to investigate. A third light, white, and moving closer to them, was then seen. They returned to base and reported, leading to Penniston being ordered to join them. Burroughs then briefed Penniston that he thought something must have crashed in the forest, but Steffens remarked, "It didn't crash. It landed." Then the incidents leading up to Penniston and Burroughs encountering the strange craft in the small clearing. Then the reports they made and early next day Halt finding out and ordering the reports to be put on the blotter (log). Then later discovering that both reports were missing. On the evening of the 27th both Halt and the base commander were at a function when news came that the lights had returned. Halt conferred with the commander Conrad who then decided he would stay at the function and ordered Halt to go out and investigate. Halt then put together a small team with the results that we know about. So it wasn't just a matter of the night shift going out, it was a rapid response to events.
 
I'm watching the second Halt video, and It is hard to believe they saw a beam from a lighthouse, and mistook it for the described.
This is immensely helpful...

It's film taken from the farmer's field at night, showing the farmer's house, proximity of Orford Ness lighthouse and its beacon as visible from that location.

Have to say, it's much more striking than I imagined!

The premis being made is that Halt has personally clarified the 2-3 foot red light, originally visible from within the forest trees and seeming to be within the farmer's field as they approached same, was to the left of the farmhouse, whereas the lighthouse is situated at the right-hand side.

Let's see if we can now clear this up as well.

In his recording, Halt is actually quite specific regarding the enigmatic light's location:

"There we go... about approximately four foot off the ground, at a compass heading of 110 degrees".

Subsequently:

"We're at the far side of the second farmer's field and made sighting again about 110 degrees. This looks like it's clear off to the coast. It's right on the horizon. Moves about a bit and flashes from time to time. Still steady or red in color".

Simple question then: from Halt's location, was the lighthouse and its beacon situated at a compass reading of 110 degrees?

 
To answer the above point, the actual magnetic bearing of the Orford Ness lighthouse at that time was 99 degrees, according to my calculations. In the circumstances, an error of around 10 degrees does not sound unreasonable. The lighthouse was by far the brightest object in the area at that time, and they could not have missed it. But Halt did not mention the lighthouse, just a UFO that coincidentally flashed at the same rate, every 5 seconds. Halt admits that he thought the lighthouse was in the southeast, off to the right, but from where he was standing it wasn’t. It was right in front of him, as a glance at a map will show. So, from his own words, we can tell that he misidentified the lighthouse.

I dealt with this point, among many others, in my analysis of Halt’s tape here
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/halttape-analysis2.html

For views of how the lighthouse lined up with the farmhouse see this page
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham2.html

Ian
 
To answer the above point, the actual magnetic bearing of the Orford Ness lighthouse at that time was 99 degrees, according to my calculations. In the circumstances, an error of around 10 degrees does not sound unreasonable. The lighthouse was by far the brightest object in the area at that time, and they could not have missed it. But Halt did not mention the lighthouse, just a UFO that coincidentally flashed at the same rate, every 5 seconds. Halt admits that he thought the lighthouse was in the southeast, off to the right, but from where he was standing it wasn’t. It was right in front of him, as a glance at a map will show. So, from his own words, we can tell that he misidentified the lighthouse.

I dealt with this point, among many others, in my analysis of Halt’s tape here
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/halttape-analysis2.html

For views of how the lighthouse lined up with the farmhouse see this page
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham2.html

Ian
Welcome aboard the crazy train :p
 
For those who are interested, a few years ago I retraced the steps of the witnesses on the first night from East Gate to the edge of the forest, using their own sketch map. It lasts only 3m 30s but if you can't take that much scroll to 2m 30 which is where I reach the forest edge, looking across the field to the farmhouse. This was the same spot that Halt reached
 
For those who are interested, a few years ago I retraced the steps of the witnesses on the first night from East Gate to the edge of the forest, using their own sketch map. It lasts only 3m 30s but if you can't take that much scroll to 2m 30 which is where I reach the forest edge, looking across the field to the farmhouse. This was the same spot that Halt reached
Nice to see you here in the muddy waters. Being an old guy, I was brought up with Rendlesham and the information that came out largely satisfied me that no alien craft was involved. I recently looked through your site and posted a lot of links here, idly thinking what I’d ask over a pint in the pub.

I suppose that would be a little clarification on the date of the meteor fall in relation to the confusion of Halt’s wrong dating of the incident. Did you get details of the magnitude and duration of this event?
 
Re your question about the fireball: According to the information in the British Astronomical Association’s Meteor Section Newsletter, the fireball was seen at 02.50 UT (± 5 minutes) on Boxing Day 1980 by four witnesses, locations not given but seemingly in southern England, all of whom estimated its brightness as comparable to the gibbous (i.e. three-quarter) Moon and of 3 to 4 seconds duration. More on this page
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham1d.html
including a description of the object as seen by a security guard at Bentwaters, Richard Bertolino, which strongly supports the fireball identification.

Pity we can’t meet for a pint, or not just yet, but I’ll try to answer any questions you might have.

Cheers,
Ian
 
Has anyone mentioned the flashing lights in relation to Christmas Decoration lights that would be around at that time? Some people have outdoor lit trees but I’d hazard a guess the wouldn’t be switched on overnight. Just a thought Re a hoax prop.
 
This is immensely helpful...

It's film taken from the farmer's field at night, showing the farmer's house, proximity of Orford Ness lighthouse and its beacon as visible from that location.

Have to say, it's much more striking than I imagined!

The premis being made is that Halt has personally clarified the 2-3 foot red light, originally visible from within the forest trees and seeming to be within the farmer's field as they approached same, was to the left of the farmhouse, whereas the lighthouse is situated at the right-hand side.

Let's see if we can now clear this up as well.

In his recording, Halt is actually quite specific regarding the enigmatic light's location:

"There we go... about approximately four foot off the ground, at a compass heading of 110 degrees".

Subsequently:

"We're at the far side of the second farmer's field and made sighting again about 110 degrees. This looks like it's clear off to the coast. It's right on the horizon. Moves about a bit and flashes from time to time. Still steady or red in color".

Simple question then: from Halt's location, was the lighthouse and its beacon situated at a compass reading of 110 degrees?

Of course, even if Halt subsequently mistook the lighthouse for the red ball that they had previously seen, this does not explain what was travelling in and out of the trees and shedding some kind of molten material. Had the ball become invisible to them (out of sight or turned itself off?) it would have been a natural mistake to confuse it with the lighthouse if it was last seen near that bearing.
 
The light was not “travelling in and out of the trees”. It receded in front of them as they moved, as any distant light would appear to do. Any motion of the light was simply due to the movement of the witnesses, not the light. There is nothing puzzling about this effect.

And of course there was no “dripping metal”, as Halt himself admitted in an interview back in 1997: “We went out into the field and tried to find any evidence, such as any burnt spots or anything of that nature. Couldn't find anything.”

See paragraph 3 under the subheading Night Two on this page:
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham2a.html
 
Has anyone mentioned the flashing lights in relation to Christmas Decoration lights that would be around at that time? Some people have outdoor lit trees but I’d hazard a guess the wouldn’t be switched on overnight. Just a thought Re a hoax prop.
Christmas decorations are indeed a possibility, but even if there were such lights I don't think they would have been significant contributors to the sightings as described by the witnesses.
 
Christmas decorations are indeed a possibility, but even if there were such lights I don't think they would have been significant contributors to the sightings as described by the witnesses.

They could be if flashing Xmas lights were inside the farmers house projecting through a window onto the glass of a car window parked next to the building.
I’m not saying that’s absolutely it but people do all sorts of things with xmas lights. I saw your pic of the farmhouse with the vehicle parked to the left and thought it a possibility.
 
Depends what you are trying to explain. Halt added his story about the UFO reflecting off the farmhouse windows years after the event, I assume in an attempt to avoid admitting that his UFO lay in the same direction as the lighthouse. Unfortunately, he had forgotten that he had given a compass bearing for the UFO, and his revised position contradicts the compass bearing. So the more he changes his story the more he ties himself into knots.
See the footnote here:
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham2a.html#footnote
 
Depends what you are trying to explain. Halt added his story about the UFO reflecting off the farmhouse windows years after the event, I assume in an attempt to avoid admitting that his UFO lay in the same direction as the lighthouse. Unfortunately, he had forgotten that he had given a compass bearing for the UFO, and his revised position contradicts the compass bearing. So the more he changes his story the more he ties himself into knots.
See the footnote here:
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham2a.html#footnote
Everything Halt adds seem to muddy the water even more.
 
Everything Halt adds seem to muddy the water even more.
That is indeed the problem -- or one of the problems, because the same is true of several other witnesses, particularly Penniston.
Halt has been elaborating his story, with the encouragement of the media and the UFO believers, ever since he left the Air Force and discovered he could be a UFO celebrity. What surprises me is that he hasn't even tried to remain consistent with what he said on the tape. His silly affidavit is a prime example. Fortunately we have the tape, the witness statements, and the police report (they said at the time that the flashing light was the lighthouse) so we can tell what happened. As long as he has a gullible audience to lap up his tall tales he will keep on at it.
 
Ian, hard to escape your conclusions! I am curious, as you have spent time looking into UFOs obviously, what do you think about the phenomenon, aside from the Rendlesham thing?
 
Like most people in the UFO field, I got into it in the expectation that there might be something to it. I was influenced by Hynek and his book The UFO Experience. Hynek was an astronomer, and his book seemed sensible, but as I learned more about the subject I realized that although he was well-meaning he was also naive. We now know a lot more about how witnesses misperceive things than we did in his day, particularly objects in the sky at night. Allan Hendry's UFO ‍Handbook ‍is an excellent textbook for researchers, but sadly most of them have never read it and continue to fall into the same traps. By the time the Rendlesham case came along I had become highly skeptical, and I have become even more so since then. This page sums up my views, should you be interested:
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/ufoindex.html
 
Like most people in the UFO field, I got into it in the expectation that there might be something to it. I was influenced by Hynek and his book The UFO Experience. Hynek was an astronomer, and his book seemed sensible, but as I learned more about the subject I realized that although he was well-meaning he was also naive. We now know a lot more about how witnesses misperceive things than we did in his day, particularly objects in the sky at night. Allan Hendry's UFO ‍Handbook ‍is an excellent textbook for researchers, but sadly most of them have never read it and continue to fall into the same traps. By the time the Rendlesham case came along I had become highly skeptical, and I have become even more so since then. This page sums up my views, should you be interested:
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/ufoindex.html
I knew I had heard your name before! :) Well, we are in for some interesting times --on that we can agree. I certainly understand your skepticism. I think you and Eburacum share very similar views about UFOs.
 
Like most people in the UFO field, I got into it in the expectation that there might be something to it. I was influenced by Hynek and his book The UFO Experience. Hynek was an astronomer, and his book seemed sensible, but as I learned more about the subject I realized that although he was well-meaning he was also naive. We now know a lot more about how witnesses misperceive things than we did in his day, particularly objects in the sky at night. Allan Hendry's UFO ‍Handbook ‍is an excellent textbook for researchers, but sadly most of them have never read it and continue to fall into the same traps. By the time the Rendlesham case came along I had become highly skeptical, and I have become even more so since then. This page sums up my views, should you be interested:
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/ufoindex.html

Now you’ve joined this site, I hope you’ll take the time to look around and add your views to other things we’ve been looking at here.
 
To answer the above point, the actual magnetic bearing of the Orford Ness lighthouse at that time was 99 degrees, according to my calculations.
Thank you!

I thought this must be the case and surely our biggest clue is his recorded observation:

"This looks like it's clear off to the coast. It's right on the horizon. Moves about a bit and flashes from time to time"...

So, no tiny, enigmatic red light exploding into five white lights and indeed nothing therein of any real mystery now?

At least, so far as that part of the night's adventures!
 
Being such a rare, perfectly clear night in these parts, it was quite coincidentally, my first stargazing for many a year.

From a location relatively free of light pollution, it was amazing...

Thought occurred whilst observing stars for a lengthy period, that I was not experiencing anything resembling autokenesis.

Doesn't it require a prolonged observation?

If so, how do we equate this with the following, from Halt's recording (Ian Ridpath's transcript):

HALT: 03:15. Now we’ve got an object about 10 degrees directly south, 10 degrees off the horizon.

NEVELS: ... to the left...

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

BACKGROUND VOICE: (indistinct, but includes ‘moving’)

NEVELS: Moving out fast.

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

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

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

SHOUT IN BACKGROUND: Colours! [?]
(End)


It all seemingly happens instantaneously?

I now keep going back to my post #703 and despite my initial scepticism, particularly given Halt refutes the suggestion, could it in fact be, 'choppers!' and not 'colors'...?

Does autokenesis really make sense with regard to these seemingly similar sightings, at the same time, as evidenced in Halt's recording?
 
Does autokenesis really make sense with regard to these seemingly similar sightings, at the same time, as evidenced in Halt's recording?
Just some thoughts, trying to recap and make some sense of the facts we have.

Extracts from Halt's recording (Ian's transcript):

HALT: 3:05. At about ten degrees, horizon, directly north, we’ve got two strange objects...

HALT: 03:15. Now we’ve got an object about 10 degrees directly south, 10 degrees off the horizon.

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

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

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

HALT: 03:30 and the objects are still in the sky, although the one to the south looks like it’s losing a little bit of altitude.

HALT: The object to the south is still beaming down lights to the ground.

HALT: 04:00 hours. One object still hovering over Woodbridge base at about five to ten degrees off the horizon, still moving erratic and similar lights and beaming down as earlier.
(End)


In summary: two objects directly north and one directly south.

Both objects to the north are moving away, the one to the south approaching and directing a beam of light downwards.

Some 15 minutes later, all three are still visible, the one to the south seemingly returns back, is beginning to lose altitude and still appears to be beaming down lights.

A further 30 minutes later, one object is reported as still being over RAF Woodbridge and beaming down as before. Presumably this is the same object to the south which was losing altitude, although RAF Woodbridge isn't actually to the south.

In Halt's memo, he writes:

"...three star-like objects were
noticed in the sky, two objects to the north and one to the south, all of which were about 10 degrees off the horizon".

(...)

The objects to the north remained in the sky for an hour or more. The object to the south was visible for two or three hours and beamed down a stream of light from time to time".

That seems consistent and the only reason to doubt these were stars, is their apparent movement and our southern object 'beaming down lights'.

However, all three would appear to have returned to their 'original positions'?

I can't see any hard evidence for helicopters being involved.

If the shout was, 'choppers', then they must all have been aware and Msgt Ball would not in due course express his bewilderment at what the objects were.

Also, our object to the south is still perceived to be 'beaming down', which it has been for some 45 minutes.

Obviously more questions than answers, central to which must surely be; if due to a perpetual optical aberration via the starscope, why only the southern object continually perceived to be doing so and not all three.

Not far behind, is the puzzling anomaly how our object to the south is beaming down lights whilst overhead RAF Woodbridge and presumably the source of Halt's later claims re this being reported by base personal over the radio, when RAF Woodbridge wasn't to the south of Halt's location.

In conclusion, I'm not sure this key component of our UFO case is ever going to make sense at all.

Any thoughts on same are most welcome!
 
...if due to a perpetual optical aberration via the starscope, why only the southern object continually perceived to be doing so and not all three.
A further thought... naturally, there has to be a reason for this.

Was there anything different about the "star-like" object to the south at that time - could it have been significantly brighter?

Note also in Halt's memo, a characteristic of the objects not mentioned in his recording:

"The objects moved rapidly in sharp angular movements and displayed red, green and blue lights".

Are these colours not absolutely typical of scintillating stars?
 
There is an additional, alternative, scenario.

Whilst not absolutely certain, I believe this might be previously unpublished case evidence.

It's going to be controversial and certainly needs some further contemplation.

Although I have obviously been aware of the following for many years, I was duly hesitant to mention same because the case was already complicated enough!

However, if we have exhausted all other possibilities, then I guess now is time.

Delighted, of course, Mr Ridpath has come on board!

I had suggested to Ian his sage contribution would be both immensely helpful and greatly appreciated and it's the deciding factor in going ahead with what might be something of a contentious proposition re a possible, at least part-explation, for those puzzling beams of light.

I simply don't know what to make of the following and Ian might.

It's from lengthy correspondence dating back to 2000, with local resident Robert McLean, who is immensely knowledgeable re our story and I have previously posted some of his helpful case material.

Robert explained:

"I have identified with certainty the location of Cabansag's "vantage point", which is the same as Col. Halt's "second farmer's field" and, have also identified the source of the "beaming down lights" Col Halt noticed to the south in this field. I had thought that the description of these lights was the most enigmatic, unusual and intriguing aspect of the "Halt tape", and would be difficult if not impossible to explain away.

You may be a bit incredulous at first, but the "beaming down lights" to the south are nothing more than yet another misidentified lighthouse! Or rather, lightship - in fact it's the Sunk lightship.

The Sunk lightship is not something out of the X-Files, beaming lights out of a watery grave, but a floating lightship about 20 miles due south of Orfordness lighthouse. I don't have the exact co-ordinates yet, but its location can be seen on the map at
http://www.trinityhouse.co.uk/ and clicking on the map for the south-east corner of England.

I phoned Trinity House in London this afternoon to verify from the colour of the light and pattern of flashes, that it is this lightship I saw, that there are no other possible candidates, and that the Sunk lightship was there in Dec. 1980. In fact, a lightship has been there since 1802.

Having arrived at the entrance to the "second farmer's field", and finally having located the beacon light again after a long walk across low lying land where it was not visible, I am sure that Col Halt would have set out across this field towards the light, as I did earlier this evening. This takes you almost directly towards the far Eastern corner of the field.

The land drops away towards this end of the field, and then just as you get near this far end (perhaps within 50 - 100 m), you can see the apparently irregular sporadic strobe-like pulses of light, directly to the south. Because the land is low here, and because there is a sea dike and the spit of the southern tip of Orford Ness about 1.5 km to the South, there is no direct view of the Sunk lightship beam (which is after all 20 miles away, it might even be below the horizon at sea level at this distance).

In fact, I had previously seen a direct view of the Sunk lightship beam from the top of Burrow Hill over a month ago, (at an elevation of about 15 m), but had not made the connection in my mind with Col Halt's "strobe-like flashes" until last night.

An important point is that the strobe-like flashes of the Sunk lightship are only visible towards the end of the second field - they are not visible at the entrance. The best view is near the far corner of the field, about 400 m diagonally opposite the entrance.

Col Halt recorded on tape at 2:44 am at the far end of the field. It may have taken 5 minutes to get there from the entrance. At 3:30 the object to the south was still beaming down lights as before. So they spent at least 50 minutes in the "second farmer's field".

Note that the "object to the south is still beaming lights down lights to the ground" after the point at which it has supposedly moved directly overhead and beamed down the "laser-like" white beam of light. So presumably, Col Halt could say that it moved back into position, but the tape contains no mention of this retreat. Of course, the Sunk lightship was there all along".
(End)

There's considerably more details re map locations and coordinates, etc.,

That will suffice though and perhaps we can resolve whether as, at least a partial resolution, this is sustainable.
 
In fact, I had previously seen a direct view of the Sunk lightship beam from the top of Burrow Hill over a month ago, (at an elevation of about 15 m), but had not made the connection in my mind with Col Halt's "strobe-like flashes" until last night.
To claify, from Halt's recording, this is the related connection:

HALT: 3:05. We see strange strobe-like flashes to the... rather sporadic, but there's definitely something there. Some kind of phenomenon.
 
I can also confidently rule out any kind of crash or other landing, either at Rendlesham or at Kecksburg. Nothing landed on either occasion anywhere near those two locations. Observers often mistake a distant meteor trajectory...
Obviously, any cover-up of a 'UFO' crash at Roswell has long since had any tenure, however, I wouldn't be so sure about Kecksburg - see seperate thread!

That would be:
https://forums.forteana.org/index.php?threads/the-kecksburg-pennsylvania-incident-1965.7280/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Sunk lightship is not something out of the X-Files, beaming lights out of a watery grave...
As @Coastaljames will tell you, we have to keep in mind here that the Suffolk coast has a rich history of seafarers and rumours abound about ghostly lights which can be seen on certain nights.

Especially around Christmas time.

Is that a sea shanty I hear on the radio...

2184997_resize_79.jpg
 
The Kecksburg UFO is better known as the Great Lakes Fireball, because that is exactly what it was
http://www.debunker.com/Kecksburg.html
http://www.astronomyufo.com/UFO/kecksburg.htm
Someone in an earlier post here mentioned similarities between Rendlesham and Kecksburg, and that is true -- they were both sparked off by a bright fireball, although the one at Kecksburg was brighter and nore widely seen. In the case of Rendlesham, it is what was seen after the fireball that has made the case what it is.
Either way, it's as well to remember that nothing landed in Rendlesham Forest.
 
Back
Top