Comfortably Numb
Antediluvian
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2018
- Messages
- 9,008
- Location
- Phone
This is the entire transcript, uploaded as a .pdf file:Col. Halt’s Seminar at St George’s Community College...
www.forteanmedia.com/Seminar.pdf
This is the entire transcript, uploaded as a .pdf file:Col. Halt’s Seminar at St George’s Community College...
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?
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.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.
eburacum: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.
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."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.
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?
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.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.
If it is conceivable, that is a dramatic difference in overall case evidence.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.
That's ever so slightly interesting.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....
From, 'Rendlesham Unraveled' an online article I published... in March 1998!Rings a bell... might I have something related on file about this very thing...
So, where does UA37 and FL370 come from?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"
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.So, where does UA37 and FL370 come from?
What is 37,000 feet in altitude about?
Unless I misunderstand this, the call was from Bentwaters Command Post, made on behalf of Col Halt, not from a radar station.but it sounds as if Bentwaters had detected something heading south overhead at 37,000 ft and wanted confirmation from a different radar station
Yes - for air traffic control communications altitude data is typically quoted in hundreds of feet. A reported altitude of "370" = 37,000 ft.FL370 sounds like 'Flight Level 370 hundred feet.' Just a guess. Obviously not metric yet.
That's a killer...The first is nowhere evident on the tape, and the second undermines any attribution of solid details in anything he ever claimed.
This is quite an admission, isn't it? What he is in fact admitting that there was nothing there beyond his imagination.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".
Another clarification coming back to light which is a severe blow to much further contemplation re, 'Anything In It'?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.
Revisiting this seismic documentation, I thought one thing stands out:This is quite an admission, isn't it?
I'm not clear about what it is you're implying here ...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'. ...
That is so enjoyable and interesting, thank you..Essential listening:
It's that perception from the outset, as Penniston highlighted in his aforenoted interview with AJS Rayl:I'm not clear about what it is you're implying here ...
"UFO" was the official / doctrinal USAF acronym for any flying....
Furthermore, thought occurs, is it not exemplified by Halt requesting a Geiger counter to take radiation readings...It's that perception from the outset...
Witnesses have said that of fairground balloons and Chinese lanterns, as well."The technology I felt was too advanced.. I still do to this day.. to be created by our government or a foreign government".
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!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.
I believe we can now resolve the origin of our puzzling drawing.
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?
This seems to be a misunderstanding, that I thought had been previously cleared up.There is also the obvious contradiction between the statement that radar did track something and the claim that nothing was detected on radar.
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!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.
Have you seen this sketch?"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.
I agree.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!
So, where does UA37 and FL370 come from?
What is 37,000 feet in altitude about?
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 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'.