Rendlesham Forest Incident

[Comfortably Numb]

The Halt WSA Revelations

Burroughs wrote, explaining it was not in confidence because the story seemed to be, 'coming out', via documentaries of that era.

I don't believe this did though and revealed here for the first time:

"Halt also said that the Air Force sent a team in to check the weapons that were in the storage area because they were affected by the UFO. Halt did say beams of light went into the storage area and that it was checked out afterwards".

"This jarred a memory of Halt talking about a storage area within the weapons storage area. It came up when we were filming Strange but True. He stated he had all of the weapons checked inside the bunkers after the incident because of the beams of lights that went into the bunkers. He stated some were damaged and he said there was no damage done to a highly secret bunker".

(End of Part 3 of 3)

 

[Ian Ridpath]

Security ‍policeman ‍Tim ‍Egercic ‍was ‍actually ‍in ‍the ‍Bentwaters ‍WSA ‍when Halt was out in the forest, ‍and he has ‍publicly ‍refuted ‍the ‍claim ‍that beams ‍of light came ‍down ‍into ‍the ‍WSA. ‍He ‍‍told ‍author ‍Robert ‍Hastings:

>‍ The ‍night ‍Colonel ‍Halt ‍said ‍he ‍saw ‍a ‍UFO ‍beam ‍lights ‍down ‍into ‍the ‍Weapons ‍Storage ‍Area, ‍I ‍was ‍on ‍duty ‍at ‍the ‍alarm ‍monitor’s ‍building, ‍which ‍was ‍located ‍between ‍the ‍double ‍fence ‍that ‍surrounded ‍the ‍WSA. ‍I ‍never ‍saw ‍or ‍heard ‍about ‍a ‍UFO ‍at ‍the ‍WSA, ‍or ‍beams ‍of ‍light, ‍or ‍anything ‍like ‍that.
‍I ‍had ‍control ‍of ‍the ‍net. ‍All ‍security ‍transmissions ‍were ‍going ‍though ‍me. ‍Primary ‍Central ‍Security ‍Control ‍(CSC) ‍had ‍passed ‍responsibility ‍over ‍to ‍me, ‍which ‍they ‍would ‍usually ‍do ‍for ‍several ‍hours ‍early ‍in ‍the ‍2300hrs ‍– ‍0700hrs ‍shift. ‍I ‍had ‍the ‍radio ‍right ‍next ‍to ‍me, ‍and ‍I ‍never ‍heard ‍that ‍a ‍UFO ‍was ‍at ‍the ‍WSA. ‍… ‍Believe ‍me, ‍I ‍would ‍have ‍known ‍about ‍that, ‍if ‍it ‍had ‍happened. ‍My ‍responsibility ‍as ‍alarm ‍monitor ‍and ‍[temporary] ‍primary ‍CSC ‍would ‍have ‍been ‍to ‍up-channel ‍a ‍‘Helping ‍Hand’ ‍– ‍a ‍possible ‍security ‍violation ‍of ‍a ‍priority ‍resource ‍– ‍to ‍the ‍Wing ‍Command ‍Post ‍had ‍our ‍WSA ‍been ‍breached. ‍Any ‍beams ‍of ‍lights ‍from ‍an ‍unidentified ‍craft ‍onto ‍our ‍Hot ‍Row ‍might ‍have ‍constituted ‍a ‍‘Covered ‍Wagon’ ‍– ‍a ‍definite ‍breach ‍of ‍a ‍priority ‍resource. <

In ‍fact, ‍on ‍the ‍tape ‍and ‍in ‍his ‍memo ‍the ‍only ‍object ‍Halt ‍describes ‍as ‍sending ‍down ‍beams ‍is ‍the ‍one ‍over ‍Woodbridge, ‍not ‍the ‍ones ‍to ‍the ‍north, ‍over ‍Bentwaters. ‍So ‍Halt's claim about the beams of light shining into the Bentwaters WSA, which he made many years after the event, ‍seems ‍to ‍be ‍based ‍on ‍faulty ‍memory (as, of course, are many of the claims he now makes).

 

[Comfortably Numb]

Halt's claim about the beams of light shining into the Bentwaters WSA, which he made many years after the event, ‍seems ‍to ‍be ‍based ‍on ‍faulty ‍memory (as, of course, are many of the claims he now makes).

The problem we have is seemingly Halt's enormously more extraordinary claims about said beams actually penetrating the WSA defences.

Aside from Burroughs confirming this is what Halt had told him, I also asked Larry Warren and Peter Robbins if both were certain about identical claims they made re Halt.

It was reiterated that Halt revealed, 'off the record', this had occurred.

Burroughs further explained to myself:

"....what went on inside these Bunkers all we did was secure the Topside not what was underground. And maybe you should check around some more trust me when I tell you Halt was not the only one who stated this happened. There were others!!".

"And I say again I wish the Tapes that were made of the radio traffic that night would surface they would show what happened over the storage area".

I never once brought up the subject of Halt's much later assertion that our 'beams' were being reported over the radio net.

I clearly wasn't even aware of this at the time, otherwise I most certainly would have!

That radio traffic is surely what Burroughs is emphasising the crucial significance of?

If, as stated, he also witnessed those 'beams' himself, then do we not seem to be far removed from a simple one-off misinterpretation of a solitary, 'light beam', which is actually a star apparently moving rapidly towards him, by Halt?

 

[Comfortably Numb]

In fact, ‍on ‍the ‍tape ‍and ‍in ‍his ‍memo...

Going back to our earliest case material, any help with this?

Burroughs wrote:

"Also Jenny Randles once told me there were British ships off the coast and someone told her that they were involved in a Secret operation over that weekend".

I have tried to contact Jenny, without success (last time we were in touch, her health wasn't great, which is a concern).

 

[Ian Ridpath]

Burroughs wrote:
"Also Jenny Randles once told me there were British ships off the coast and someone told her that they were involved in a Secret operation over that weekend".

I think it was Dave Clarke who looked into this, and it turned out to be complete nonsense. More Rendlesham mythology, I'm afraid, and again traceable to the Jenny/Dot/Brenda triad.

 

[eburacum]

Halt was not near the Weapons Storage area, so he could not have seen any beams causing damage. If he found damage later (that is a big if) that damage could have had a mundane cause.

If, as stated, he also witnessed those 'beams' himself, then do we not seem to be far removed from a simple one-off misinterpretation of a solitary, 'light beam', which is actually a star apparently moving rapidly towards him, by Halt?

The star concerned didn't 'move rapidly towards him'. It was stationary, and any apparent movement was caused by autokinesis and/or by faulty observations through a starlight scope or monocular. These guys had a tape recorder, a Geiger counter, a Starlight scope and (probably) a monocular 'magnifier', and they were trying to juggle all those pieces of equipment in the dark, despite not being particularly familiar with their use.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

I think it was Dave Clarke who looked into this, and it turned out to be complete nonsense. More Rendlesham mythology, I'm afraid...

Sorry, what mythol...

I have a compilation of various early sketches, from various early witnesses, showing various recollections of how various senior base personel met various entities from various shaped, 'flying saucers', under various circumstances...

So, we have this foundation that Penniston, alone, claims to have studied a small aeriel vehicle, from which he has given various accounts - from originally not being closer than 50 metres, to a narrative of examining it in great detail, followed by various drawings of same. The variance from Penniston's first - attached with his written testimony, only a week afterwards - and his subsequent, is profound.

Also at variance is the fact that Burroughs does not support Penniston's claims re ever being so close to the light source.

Furthermore, despite Penniston's allegations of being involved with the incident resulted in a debriefing by, 'intelligence agencies who were part of a cover-up regarding alien contact', Burroughs expressed surprise as this, as nobody had ever bothered to contact him at all.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

The star concerned wasn't a star, and it didn't 'move rapidly towards him'. It was stationary, and any apparent movement was caused by autokinesis and/or by faulty observations through a starlight scope or monocular.

You are quoting my question re Burroughs corroborating observing, 'beams of light', whilst offering an opinion about Halt's entirely separate, albeit more infamous recorded documentation!

What is the explanation for Burroughs testimony?

 

[Ian Ridpath]

And at the risk of going over old ground again, these documents from the UK UFO files explain why the MoD never investigated the Rendlesham Forest case in any depth.
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/trefgarne.html
Some years ago, Dave Clarke tracked down the MoD desk officer who dealt with the Halt memo, Simon Weeden. He told Dave: ‘Those around at the time were not unduly alarmed and did not see this as an incident of great importance.’ Go to this page on Clarke’s website and search on the name ‘Weeden’.
So no briefings by intelligence agencies, no cover-ups of alien contact, or indeed cover-ups of anything. No one took it seriously enough.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

And the shaggy dog continues to chase its own tail.

Bet you secretly have a couple of gerbils who do that, probably called them, 'lightbeam' and 'laser'...

:fslap:

 

[Comfortably Numb]

...these documents from the UK UFO files explain why the MoD never investigated the Rendlesham Forest case in any depth.

Precisely, which brings up a crucially related aspect I would now like to resolve.

When I published those original statements, there was a response from Georgina Bruni along the lines that Penniston claimed they were fraudulent and part of the cover-up, plus Cabansag had no recollection of making a statement and couldn't even type.

Anyone maybe please help to trace this?

 

[Carl Grove]

The problem we have is seemingly Halt's enormously more extraordinary claims about said beams actually penetrating the WSA defences.

Aside from Burroughs confirming this is what Halt had told him, I also asked Larry Warren and Peter Robbins if both were certain about identical claims they made re Halt.

It was reiterated that Halt revealed, 'off the record', this had occurred.

Burroughs further explained to myself:

"....what went on inside these Bunkers all we did was secure the Topside not what was underground. And maybe you should check around some more trust me when I tell you Halt was not the only one who stated this happened. There were others!!".

"And I say again I wish the Tapes that were made of the radio traffic that night would surface they would show what happened over the storage area".

I never once brought up the subject of Halt's much later assertion that our 'beams' were being reported over the radio net.

I clearly wasn't even aware of this at the time, otherwise I most certainly would have!

That radio traffic is surely what Burroughs is emphasising the crucial significance of?

If, as stated, he also witnessed those 'beams' himself, then do we not seem to be far removed from a simple one-off misinterpretation of a solitary, 'light beam', which is actually a star apparently moving rapidly towards him, by Halt?

I have felt all along that whatever other errors Halt might have made in his observations of strange lights that night, however many stars or lighthouse lights he might have misidentified, a light that flies to an overhead position, stops, then fires light beams down to the ground at the witnesses' feet, can't be so easily accounted for. This does not of course tell us what it was. It could have been one of these drones that we now know to have been developed prior to that period, which of course would support the "black project disinformation" theory, or indeed a bone fide UFO.

 

[Ian Ridpath]

a light that flies to an overhead position, stops, then fires light beams down to the ground at the witnesses' feet, can't be so easily accounted for.

Since Halt never described that amazing event happening on his tape, but added it to his story many years later (along with much else), there is nothing to be accounted for.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

Since Halt never described that amazing event happening on his tape, but added it to his story many years later (along with much else), there is nothing to be accounted for.

Except the fact he did document the amazing event of a beam being directed downwards, irrespective of how close?

Plus the fact John Burroughs has testified witnessing similar?

 

[Ian Ridpath]

Except the fact he did document the amazing event of a beam being directed downwards, irrespective of how close?

Carl Grove was referring to Halt's later claim that the object moved overhead, stopped, and sent down a beam near their feet. No such amazing event is recorded on the tape. He only ever refers to the object as hovering over Woodbridge. (And he later said it was hovering over Bentwaters, not Woodbridge, so another change of story.) I wish people would go back and check these things.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

The most recent version of Penniston's story is in Nick Pope, and there it describes a glow in the clearing turning into a huge explosion of light and the machine appearing as the light faded.

Now I understand your reference to the light exploding and 'it' suddenly being there - thank you.

A new find... Burroughs explaining:

"As far as the Fireball I was aware of it and that a Satellite also burnt up".

"When Penniston came down he could also see the woods were lit up and called CSC. After the shift commander LT Buran who had CSC call a RAF Base and Heathrow tower who stated there was a object over Bentwaters and disappeared off radar authorized us to go off base and see if a plane went down.

And we did come up on something and it did lift off the ground over the trees and disappeared towards the coast".

That's the only ever mention of our light source seemingly heading, 'towards the coast'.

Which reminds of something... need to locate an old email from a local resident (doubtless unconnected!).

 

[Comfortably Numb]

Carl Grove was referring to Halt's later claim that the object moved overhead, stopped, and sent down a beam near their feet. No such amazing event is recorded on the tape.

Of course, my point being Halt did actually record such an amazing event.

We surely can't take this as nothing of account, simply because years afterwards he mentions it came down nearby?

As for Burroughs confirming he also witnessed similar, how is that rationalised?

 

[Ian Ridpath]

Of course, my point being Halt did actually record such an amazing event.

No he didn't. He only referred to something hovering low over Woodbridge for hours, and gradually losing altitude (or 'setting' as we astronomers say). If you remember what he said in his interview with Sally Rayl: 'After ‍an ‍hour ‍or ‍so, ‍I ‍finally ‍made ‍the ‍call ‍to ‍go ‍in. ‍We ‍left ‍those ‍things ‍out ‍there.’
‍Jenny ‍Randles ‍added ‍another ‍telling ‍quote ‍on ‍pp. ‍123–4 ‍of ‍her ‍book ‍‍UFO ‍Crash‍ ‍Landing‍ ‍(1998). ‍She ‍says ‍Halt ‍told ‍her ‍that ‍when ‍he ‍was ‍back ‍at ‍base, ‍‘the ‍objects ‍were ‍still ‍in ‍the ‍sky ‍– ‍however, ‍it ‍was ‍getting ‍light ‍and ‍they ‍were ‍getting ‍faint’. ‍Jenny ‍adds: ‍‘I ‍suspect ‍that ‍this ‍is ‍the ‍final ‍clue ‍that ‍demonstrates ‍that ‍these ‍star-like ‍lights ‍to ‍the ‍north ‍were, ‍indeed, ‍just ‍stars.’

 

[eburacum]

As for Burroughs confirming he also witnessed similar, how is that rationalised?

Better repeat exactly what Burroughs said, and when. Where was Burroughs when Halt saw these 'beams'? Did he (Burroughs) see them as well, and from where?

 

[Ian Ridpath]

After the shift commander LT Buran who had CSC call a RAF Base and Heathrow tower who stated there was a object over Bentwaters and disappeared off radar authorized us to go off base and see if a plane went down.

Sorry, but the MoD files confirm that there were no radar sightings on any of the days the UFOs were seen. Burroughs seems to be repeating what he has heard from others.
He is, though, right about the actions taken by Buran, who elaborated on his involvement in this spirited exchange with Penniston on Facebook back in 2010:
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/Buran and Conde Facebook.pdf

 

[eburacum]

Actually, I've found Burroughs statements now. Thanks.

Burroughs; Yes I was there when that happened - there also were beams of lights being sent into the WSA at Bentwaters".

Curious- he says he was there when that happened, but doesn't say he saw it. And he doesn't say he was there when the beams were 'being sent into the WSA at Bentwaters'- that sounds more like hearsay, perhaps repeating Halt's account.

Burroughs: "...he was standing by the light alls when one of the objects Halt and the LT who got him from the party pointed out to me in the Sky came at us went over our heads headed straight at the light-alls...the object went through the truck (its open window - James)...".

Now we have a tiny object that went through the windows of the truck - which is not consistent at all with Halt's description of the object as being hundreds of feet up in the air. This sounds like a completely different phenomenon.

 

[eburacum]

It may be that Burroughs managed to get a look through the starlight scope - and saw one of these odd lens-flare effects that seems to create a narrow beam that extended towards the truck, possibly even shining into, or near, the windows. That's why I'm curious about his exact location when this occurred.

I don't suppose we'll ever know for sure, now. Burrough's memories (or anyone else's) are not really reliable after all this time.

 

[eburacum]

As I understand it, the light-alls are some kind of floodlight they were using to illuminate the so-called 'landing site'. These would have been significant sources of light themselves, and may have been the source of some of the lens flares. Another source of flaring could have been the Moon, which few of the witnesses even seem to have noticed.

 

[Ian Ridpath]

And he doesn't say he was there when the beams were 'being sent into the WSA at Bentwaters'- that sounds more like hearsay, perhaps repeating Halt's account.

Yes, sadly so much of what passes as 'evidence' is really only hearsay. But, hey, that's UFO research!

 

[Ian Ridpath]

As I understand it, the light-alls are some kind of floodlight they were using to illuminate the so-called 'landing site'.

Correct.
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/lightall.html
They're just older versions of the type of illumination you get at night for roadworks, open-air concerts and the like.
The Americans refer to them as 'gas' powered, but that's gasoline, not Calor gas!

 

[Carl Grove]

Of course, my point being Halt did actually record such an amazing event.

We surely can't take this as nothing of account, simply because years afterwards he mentions it came down nearby?

As for Burroughs confirming he also witnessed similar, how is that rationalised?

From Pope's transcript of the tape:

Halt: Now 3.15. Now we've got an object about 10 degrees directly south.

Unknown: Wait a minute to the left.

Halt: 10 degrees off the horizon.

Nevels: To the left.

Halt: And the ones to the north are moving--one's moving away from us.

Unknown: Moving.

Nevels: Moving out fast.

Unknown: 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 towards us now!

Unknown: Weird.

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

Unknown: Colours!

Halt: This is unreal.

To me this is about as certain as you can hope for that Halt's tape does mention 1. An object to the south, which 2. Moves north towards them; and 3. sends down a beam.

If his later accounts add more detail, whether that detail is accurate in all respects or not, whether it is an elaboration or the result of various memory processes, it can't be denied that the basic event is described live on the tape.

 

[eburacum]

My contention is that the movements in both cases are illusory. This is borne out by the fact that the object in the south remains in the south, and the two objects in the north remain in the north; despite all this apparent movement, they never go anywhere.

 

[Ian Ridpath]

My contention is that the movements in both cases are illusory.

With which I agree, and have explained extensively, although CarlGrove does not seem to have read any of it.

 

[Carl Grove]

My contention is that the movements in both cases are illusory. This is borne out by the fact that the object in the south remains in the south, and the two objects in the north remain in the north; despite all this apparent movement, they never go anywhere.

No, it is clear that the object moves from the south and is coming towards them. All that is missing from the tape is the assertion that the object was actually overhead when the beam appeared. Now it may be that a star may appear to move slightly through autokinesis or some such factor but we are now talking about an apparent movement from a position (say) 10 degrees above the horizon to roughly overhead -- i.e. a movement through around 80 degrees. This is an order of magnitude larger than any possible autokinetic effect. Sorry, I don't buy the idea that this particular event was illusory. If the tape is genuine -- and nobody here has seriously doubted that -- we have to accept that as a fair description of what happened.

 

[eburacum]

Because these people also had a starscope and probably a monocular, the apparent movement may also be explained by misuse of these two instruments, both of which were hand-held and both of which magnified the involuntary arm movements of the people using them. The starlight scope was designed to look at objects on the ground, not in the air.