• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.
I have wondered if it was conceivable, especially in relation to Halt's taped observation re the location of our star-like objects, when he said, "Woodbridge base", this was a 'generic' reference to the twin-base complex and not specifically RAF Woodbridge?

The last entries on his tape are as follows:
>>
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. ‍We’re ‍turning ‍around ‍and ‍heading ‍back ‍toward ‍the ‍base.
‍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.
<<
He is quite consistent that the object supposedly beaming down was to the south (actually the southwest if it was over Woodbridge), and not in the direction of Bentwaters.
When he says "still ‍hovering ‍over ‍Woodbridge ‍base ‍... ‍and ‍beaming ‍down ‍as ‍earlier" that seems to me a fair indication that it hadn't moved in all that time.
We know that his claim "The people over there [Bentwaters WSA] could actually see the beams of light too" is wrong, because they have gone on record as saying that nothing of the sort occurred. So we know Halt is making this bit up. You can decide for yourself what else he is making up.
What happened during the fifteen-minute gap on the tape between 3.15 and 3.30? Evidently he was asking central security control (CSC) to check on radar sightings. RAF Watton ‍took a ‍call‍ ‍from ‍Bentwaters ‍at ‍03.25 ‍am ‍asking if anything was seen on radar, but it wasn't. Presumably he had his hands full making this call and obviously didn't bother to tape this exchange.
 
He may have referred to it initially being 5-10 deg off the horizon, but it is clear from the tape that he is claiming that it came over them -- otherwise why link it with the beam of light that came down in front of them? ...
The light that they had seen in the south is now approaching from the south, coming towards them as he speaks, then they observe a beam coming down to the ground. I think that is the interpretation anyone with no prior knowledge of this case would place upon these words. In this context I don't think it fair to accuse Halt of changing his testimony when he described the event in more detail afterwards.
I strongly disagree. Halt never claims the light to the south was ever positioned overhead, nor does he clearly indicate he saw the beam on the ground.
HALT: 03:15. Now we’ve got an object about 10 degrees directly south, 10 degrees off the horizon.
...
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. We’re turning around and heading back toward the base.
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.
eburacum:
https://forums.forteana.org/index.php?threads/rendlesham-forest-incident.1914/post-2045975

There's not even anything to support the notion Halt could see where the apparent beam hit the ground. Between 0330 and 0400 he's still referring to it as "to the south" when it's apparently beaming lights downward.

At circa 0400 he's referring to an object hovering over Woodbridge and beaming downward at only 5 - 10 degrees off the horizon. At this point it's unclear whether he's referring to a different object versus implying the object from the south had moved to a position west of his position. Either way - there's nothing to even suggest the southern light was ever overhead or that he could see where the apparent beam(s) hit the ground.
 
"The best way I can describe the beam is a laser beam, because a light beam normally radiates out. This came down steady. And it was six to eight, or maybe nine inches in diameter and fell right at our feet.
This is what I'm trying to explain. The string of lens flares produced by the starlight scope looks just like a long, thin beam pointing directly towards the observer, depending on the exact angle at which the observer holds the scope. Here's a screenshot of the beam as it looks when pointing slightly to one side of the observer.

beam1.png

By moving the scope, this beam could be made to appear to 'sweep' directly across the observer's position, making it look as if he were being deliberately targetted.
 
The obvious question being, at which point did this:
"HALT: 04:00 hours. One object still hovering over Woodbridge base..".
....become RAF Bentwaters?

I have wondered if it was conceivable, especially in relation to Halt's taped observation re the location of our star-like objects, when he said, "Woodbridge base", this was a 'generic' reference to the twin-base complex and not specifically RAF Woodbridge?

If perhaps possible, it would make a whole lot of sense re other issues.

However, here we have Halt using the phrase, 'Bentwaters base' and it does seem quite clear.

There is one other alternative, he simply made an error on tape... would that work, or definitely not?

If he meant "Bentwaters" on the original tape it would mean:

(1) One of the northern objects had completely disappeared from view, leaving only one and / or
(2) Halt was completely disoriented as to his location and / or directions.

The first is nowhere evident on the tape, and the second undermines any attribution of solid details in anything he ever claimed.
 
This is what I'm trying to explain. The string of lens flares produced by the starlight scope looks just like a long, thin beam pointing directly towards the observer, depending on the exact angle at which the observer holds the scope. Here's a screenshot of the beam as it looks when pointing slightly to one side of the observer.

View attachment 39136
By moving the scope, this beam could be made to appear to 'sweep' directly across the observer's position, making it look as if he were being deliberately targetted.
I can understand why you think this might explain Halt's observation, but the thin rather irregular lens flare indicated doesn't really match the laser-like qualities that Halt claims for it. We don't even know if or when Halt was using the image intensifier device during the taped periods. So I remain rather unconvinced.
 
Given that they were in what must have seemed a bizarre and scary situation, I would imagine that the odd verbal error might not be unexpected.
If it is conceivable, that is a dramatic difference in overall case evidence.

Alternatively, we have a scenario where Halt has altered the perception fundamentally.

Why might that occur?

Either, his recollection is categorically mistaken and it was RAF Woodbridge, or he intentionally switched the location?

Neither seems to make sense...

Unless the story having involved the WSA/nukes at Bentwaters was more, 'commercial'?

He absolutely was not and could not - that idea is actually put to rest in the transcript:

"Was that a special weapons, uh, facility"?

Halt: "I can’t comment".

"Oh, come on. Come on. Col. Halt".

Halt: "I don’t care what you... I can’t comment".
 
RAF Watton ‍took a ‍call‍ ‍from ‍Bentwaters ‍at ‍03.25 ‍am ‍asking if anything was seen on radar, but it wasn't. Presumably he had his hands full making this call....
That's ever so slightly interesting.

Rings a bell... might I have something related on file about this very thing and shall duly delve forthwith!
 
Rings a bell... might I have something related on file about this very thing...
From, 'Rendlesham Unraveled' an online article I published... in March 1998!

"Nick Redfern also wrote to the Royal Air Force, Eastern Radar, Watton and on 25 October 1988 they replied, "Our log book for the period does indeed say that a UFO was reported to us by RAF Bentwaters at 0325 GMT on 28 December 1980 but that is all the information we have.

All radio and radar recordings from the time have long since been disposed of, consequently we can provide no more information".

In a response to Nick's request for further clarification, on 16 January, 1989, RAF Watton elaborated:

"The entry is timed at 0325 on 28 December 1980 and states:

'Bentwaters Command Post contacted Eastern Radar and requested information of aircraft in the area - UA37 traffic southbound FL370 - UFO sightings at Bentwaters. They are taking reporting action'.

'UA37' means the Upper Air Route Upper Amber 37.... 'FL370' means 37,000 feet in altitude".

We can make a significant connection here. The April 1994 edition of 'OMNI' magazine carried an article entitled, 'Baffled at Bentwaters', written by A.J.S. Rayl (Salley Rayl) and which includes the following remarks from Col. Halt:

"Just after Christmas, about 5:30 a.m., December 26, 1980, I walked into police headquarters and the desk sergeant started to laugh. He said a couple of the guys had
been out chasing UFOs.

Nothing, however, was in the blotter. I told him to put it in.

When our base commander came in, we both chuckled. Neither of us believed in UFOs, but we did decide to look into it. Before we had the chance, two nights later, the duty flight commander for the security
police unit rushed in to a belated Christmas party white as a sheet. The UFO is back, he said".

"We went to the end of the farmer's property to get a different perspective. In the north, maybe 20 degrees off the horizon, we saw three white objects - elliptical, like a quarter moon but a little larger - with blue, green, and red lights on them, making sharp, angular movements. The objects eventually turned from elliptical to round.

I called the command post, asked them to call Eastern Radar, responsible for air defense of the sector. Twice they reported that they didn't see anything".

During the second night's events, Halt had made a microcassette recording - the 'Halt tape' - which documented proceedings. In the recording, Halt times the unidentified aerial objects at 0305 and 0315. The call which Eastern Radar took was at 0325.
(End)
 
The entry is timed at 0325 on 28 December 1980 and states:

'Bentwaters Command Post contacted Eastern Radar and requested information of aircraft in the area - UA37 traffic southbound FL370 - UFO sightings at Bentwaters. They are taking reporting action'.

'UA37' means the Upper Air Route Upper Amber 37.... 'FL370' means 37,000 feet in altitude"
So, where does UA37 and FL370 come from?

What is 37,000 feet in altitude about?
 
So, where does UA37 and FL370 come from?

What is 37,000 feet in altitude about?
I think your guess is probably better than mine but it sounds as if Bentwaters had detected something heading south overhead at 37,000 ft and wanted confirmation from a different radar station. This doesn't correlate with any of the goings-on on the ground or at low altitude. It could fit in with any of the theories about Rendlesham, given a bit of imagination.
 
FL370 sounds like 'Flight Level 370 hundred feet.' Just a guess. Obviously not metric yet.
 
but it sounds as if Bentwaters had detected something heading south overhead at 37,000 ft and wanted confirmation from a different radar station
Unless I misunderstand this, the call was from Bentwaters Command Post, made on behalf of Col Halt, not from a radar station.
 
FL370 sounds like 'Flight Level 370 hundred feet.' Just a guess. Obviously not metric yet.
Yes - for air traffic control communications altitude data is typically quoted in hundreds of feet. A reported altitude of "370" = 37,000 ft.
 
I called the command post, asked them to call Eastern Radar, responsible for air defense of the sector. Twice they reported that they didn't see anything".
This is quite an admission, isn't it? What he is in fact admitting that there was nothing there beyond his imagination.
That was why the MoD investigators never took it any further.
 
RAF Watton ‍took a ‍call‍ ‍from ‍Bentwaters ‍at ‍03.25 ‍am ‍asking if anything was seen on radar, but it wasn't. Presumably he had his hands full making this call and obviously didn't bother to tape this exchange.
Another clarification coming back to light which is a severe blow to much further contemplation re, 'Anything In It'?
 
This is quite an admission, isn't it?
Revisiting this seismic documentation, I thought one thing stands out:

"...traffic southbound... UFO sightings at Bentwaters"...

It was all about a, 'probable alien encounter' from this moment:

"As far as Penniston goes from the moment it happened... One of the first thing's he stated after the light's lifted off and went up into the air and disapeared is
we just saw a UFO".

The initial incident alerted to the Suffolk Constabulary was both reported as and documented as a UFO, Halt statedly set out to investigate Lt Bruce Englund's urgent report that, 'the UFO was back' and Halt subsequently wrote to the MoD which under the heading "Unexplained Lights', was effectively his report of UFO activity.

All along, the connotation was 'extraterrestrial'.

This was at the height of the late 1980s cold war, with fears of a Soviet/Eastern block first strike, to an extent the bases' A-10 'tankbusters' had been forward deployed.

At no point, whatsoever, do we find related concerns arising from what had occurred.

Perhaps that is, overall, the most telling perspective.
 
Revisiting this seismic documentation, I thought one thing stands out:

"...traffic southbound... UFO sightings at Bentwaters"...
It was all about a, 'probable alien encounter' from this moment:
"As far as Penniston goes from the moment it happened... One of the first thing's he stated after the light's lifted off and went up into the air and disapeared is
we just saw a UFO".
The initial incident alerted to the Suffolk Constabulary was both reported as and documented as a UFO, Halt statedly set out to investigate Lt Bruce Englund's urgent report that, 'the UFO was back' and Halt subsequently wrote to the MoD which under the heading "Unexplained Lights', was effectively his report of UFO activity.
All along, the connotation was 'extraterrestrial'. ...
I'm not clear about what it is you're implying here ...

"UFO" was the official / doctrinal USAF acronym for any flying object or craft that wasn't or couldn't be identified. It was part of the formal lexicon, and it was listed in the relevant glossaries of the period. It was the prescribed terminology in any official communication or writing at the time, and it in no way suggested or implied any extraterrestrial connection (in contrast to the popular / non-military usage of the acronym).
 
Essential listening:
That is so enjoyable and interesting, thank you..

Conclusion...

John Burroughs claims:

"And then you have another factor, there was a guy named Andrew Pike who was working on the study of UAP and was deep into this and he told me a couple of things that were very interesting.

The fact of the matter is...'not proud of this'...'we were using the tunnels to blast EM'...".

I am presuming the tunnels referred to are the following:

"The remaining Halifax crashed into the sea off the Lincolnshire coast. The net outcome of this night of tragedy was that the visibility of the runway needed to be improved in bad weather and this was achieved by the installation of ‘Fog Investigation and Dispersal Operation’ otherwise known as FIDO.

A typical FIDO installation comprised of pipelines running either side and each end of the runway into which petrol was injected under pressure. The petrol was ejected through small holes in the pipe and then ignited by burners fitted at certain intervals along its length. The resultant fire produced heat so intense that it literally burned the fog away from the vicinity of the runway. Woodbridge was one of fifteen airfields in England to be equipped with FIDO".

(...)

"FIDO was used operationally for the first time at Woodbridge on 23rd June 1944...".

https://www.bentwaters-as.org.uk/history/raf-woodbridge/

Fascinating theory, yet no factual substance?
 
I'm not clear about what it is you're implying here ...

"UFO" was the official / doctrinal USAF acronym for any flying....
It's that perception from the outset, as Penniston highlighted in his aforenoted interview with AJS Rayl:

"The technology I felt was too advanced.. I still do to this day.. to be created by our government or a foreign government".
 
This is quite an admission, isn't it? What he is in fact admitting that there was nothing there beyond his imagination.
That was why the MoD investigators never took it any further.
It doesn't really say anything about his imagination. If the light that he said came overhead (afterwards that is what he claimed), that tells us nothing about its altitude. If, which I suspect, it was actually one of the drones that we know about, it may have been at too low a height to be picked up on radar, and would certainly have nothing to do with the 37,000ft contact that we have heard about. There is also the obvious contradiction between the statement that radar did track something and the claim that nothing was detected on radar. Again I don't think we can make any certain deductions from this -- it just increases the confusion!
 
Screenshot_20210428-110332.jpg


So, where was the sketch first published and is a better quality copy available.

Could it have been in AJS Rayl's 1997 OMNI article and perhaps never anywhere else?
I believe we can now resolve the origin of our puzzling drawing.

I have located a post I made about this to my old, 'UFO Research List', back in 1999:

"Of greater consequence are sketches Penniston claims to have made during the incident. To my knowledge, these were first revealed when he was interviewed by Salley Rayl for the 1997 Microsoft Network ‘project: watchfire’ online ‘UFO’ feature.

Copies were published in a related article I resultantly wrote for ‘UFO Magazine’ (UK).

The point then emphasised still applies; either the sketches - claimed to be originals from his notebook - are ‘on-site’ evidence, or actually date from later, possibly years afterwards.

How he was able to make such detailed illustrations, in the midst of a pitch black forest, is a critical question.

In his latter sketch, we can only note those precise straight lines and circles when documenting ‘strange markings’ on the ‘craft’.

As for our triangular-shaped UFO, it evidently bears little resemblance to the object Penniston did portray in the diagram which accompanied his official affidavit.

Why would Penniston not alert the USAF that he held meticulous drawings of an unidentified, triangular-shaped, aerial vehicle which credibly posed a threat to base security and instead report an object which was indistinctly box-shaped?

On closer inspection, consider:

@http://web.ukonline.co.uk/voyager/jpdraw2.jpg

We can see that Penniston initially outlines the ‘UFO’. However, his next illustration is seemingly those subsequently perceived triangulation of ‘landing marks’, which were not discerned in a forest clearing [at Capel Green] until daylight.

As we know, local forester, Vince Thurkettle, had visited the site and declared those ground markings to be old ‘scrapings’, made by rabbits. If I recall, one further clue was that the indentations contained accumulated pine needles, signifying they had some age.

Although we will doubtless never resolve this aspect, it’s perhaps worth keeping in mind that the forest clearings at Capel Green were used by HH-53 ‘Jolly Green Giant’ helicopters from the 67th Aerospace Rescue and Recovery Squadron, based at RAF Bentwaters.

These helicopters participated in war games with the local Territorial Army [TA] and dropped off TA personnel, who tested defences within the Weapons Storage Area [WSA] at RAF Woodbridge [‘hot’ weapons were stored up the road, in the WSA at RAF Bentwaters].

There was one such major exercise during April 1980 and seemingly another on a smaller scale during November, 1980. As can be seen from the following April 1980 photograph, published in the base’s ‘Phantom Forum’ magazine, the HH-53s had a triangular undercarriage:

@http://web.ukonline.co.uk/voyager/ftp/wargame9.jpg

That aside, it’s unfortunately difficult to decipher all of Penniston’s notes on this drawing. At the bottom left- hand corner, it looks like he writes, “LIGHT HOUSE VISIBLE”, although not clear what this is intended to clarify.

It could be that this is, overall, an early drawing by Penniston, perhaps within days of events.

The quality is nowhere so detailed as his three-view sketch, which I note seems to be dated ‘27 Dec 80’. That was the date reported in Halt’s memo, however, Penniston’s involvement was in fact in the early hours of 26 December".
(End)

Obviously, those old links no longer apply, however you can see my then abovenoted website URL in the sketch attached to my letter to the MoD, which is the source of the drawing held in their files.

Although 20 years later and my eyesight perhaps not so sharp, "LIGHT HOUSE VISIBLE" does seem to work.
 
There is also the obvious contradiction between the statement that radar did track something and the claim that nothing was detected on radar.
This seems to be a misunderstanding, that I thought had been previously cleared up.

Nothing was seen on radar, but Halt asked the Bentwaters Command Post to contact the radar station to make sure. This call was logged at 03.35. Bentwaters Command post was asking for information on behalf of Col Halt, they were not reporting a radar track.
 
This seems to be a misunderstanding, that I thought had been previously cleared up.

Nothing was seen on radar, but Halt asked the Bentwaters Command Post to contact the radar station to make sure. This call was logged at 03.35. Bentwaters Command post was asking for information on behalf of Col Halt, they were not reporting a radar track.
Fair enough, I can understand Halt asking if anything had been seen on radar, but why the very specific reference to a certain height? He had no idea of the height of the light that he said was overhead, so why would he have requested info on something "at 37,000 feet?" More puzzling details!
 
"Of greater consequence are sketches Penniston claims to have made during the incident. To my knowledge, these were first revealed when he was interviewed by Salley Rayl for the 1997 Microsoft Network ‘project: watchfire’ online ‘UFO’ feature.
The point then emphasised still applies; either the sketches - claimed to be originals from his notebook - are ‘on-site’ evidence, or actually date from later, possibly years afterwards.
Have you seen this sketch?
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/Penniston_sketch.jpg
This is clearly not from his notebook, as the page size is different and the paper is not lined.
I never was able to find out when and where this was made, but it must have been some time after the incident.
The date at the bottom looks as though it could be 29 December, rather than 27, and he gives his home address, all of which suggests that he drew it at home after the event, or intended to give the impression that he had done so.
 
Last edited:
He had no idea of the height of the light that he said was overhead, so why would he have requested info on something "at 37,000 feet?" More puzzling details!
I agree.
Maybe the request was for returns up to 37,000 feet; it was request made at second hand, so someone in the chain might have got it garbled.
 
So, where does UA37 and FL370 come from?
What is 37,000 feet in altitude about?

I was hoping to avoid getting into the messy concept of "flight level." Altimeters derive their readings barometrically (i.e., from air pressure) and calculating an altitude based on the difference between the local (airplane's) reading and air pressure at sea level. There are two complicating factors:

- the altimeters have to be correctly / precisely calibrated for the readings to be trustworthy and ...
- air pressure varies with weather, even at sea level.

Owing to either or both these factors two aircraft may have different altimeter readings but actually be flying at the same altitude (and therefore in danger of possible collision).

'Flight level' is an abstracted analogue or substitute for precise altitude calculated using a standard baseline value for air pressure at sea level (regardless of local conditions). For the gory details see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_level

FL370 = A standardized abstraction of relative altitude connoting approximately 37,000 feet.

UA37 (Upper Air Route 37; Upper Amber 37) is (or was ... ) a pre-defined ATC north / south route or corridor circa 40 miles east of Bentwaters and used for routing civilian air traffic (by ATC).

Now, having said that ...

I'm pretty confident there's actually no ambiguity in the Watton log entry:
'Bentwaters Command Post contacted Eastern Radar and requested information of aircraft in the area - UA37 traffic southbound FL370 - UFO sightings at Bentwaters. They are taking reporting action'.
Bearing in mind this is a log entry made at the station receiving a request for information the straightforward and most probable interpretation goes as follows:

- Bentwaters asked for info on aircraft aloft in the area.
- We show southbound traffic on corridor UA37 @ FL370 (i.e., noting the answer, as one does in light of an RFI).
- Bentwaters indicates they've had a UFO sighting (rationale for asking about aircraft in the area).
- Bentwaters is dealing with the sighting (i.e., no further action on our part necessary).
 
Back
Top