Rendlesham Forest 1980 Pt II - Will There Be An Answer?

a reply to: ConfusedBrit

I have a headache too. Sigh.

BTW looks like John and company are now leaving Facebook. Seemingly not by horse this time!

originally posted by: mirageman
I can't see there being a 4th night without serious rewriting of the timeline.

1- Halt's tape confirms Burroughs is present on it.

2-Burroughs claims he was only out that night and the first night

3-Warren claims he saw Burroughs out there on his night. Even though he was in Germany that night according to his book.

4-The radar call to Watton was also confirmed around 3am on 28th December.

In relation to your not unreasonable points MM:

1. Burroughs is mentioned once on Halt's tape. He is allegedly requesting to come up to the scene. He is noted only by an intermediary. Burroughs own voice is not heard. If the Halt Tape was created on the fourth night, to create confusion about the events of the night before, then one of the people significantly involved in the prior night would likely be mentioned. The function of the tape is to separate Burroughs from the immediate scene.

2. If the point I make in 1. holds, then Burroughs was out only on the first and third nights.

3. Again if 1. is true, then Warren was out on the night Burroughs was out. Burroughs own recollection was that it was 27th/28th. In "Left at East Gate" (1998), Warren reported that the incident took place on 28th/29th December, but he appears to have been influenced by the date in the Halt Memo. Warren recalls flying to Germany on Christmas Eve and spending two specific nights there (page 32). He then reports flying back on 27th December, making no mention of the third night in Germany (26th). His report of the events of 25th in Germany suggests that this is a clear (and confusing) gap. I suspect he only recalls flying back on 27th because he originally (influenced by the Memo) recalled that the incident followed this on 28th/29th. This was because the day after he returned to the UK, Warren recalls visiting a market in Ipswich prior to returning to the base at about 20:00 hours to start his shift with D Flight (the night of his incident). The 27th/28th is quite possible for the incident as the 27th was a Saturday and in the UK would have been a normal trading day. The 28th/29th would have been impossible, as the 28th was a Sunday and in the UK in 1980 the music shop would not have been open. The 29th/30th would have been possible, but takes us beyond the timeframe of the incidents. Bruni reported in 2000 that Warren was unsure about the date of the incident. He believed that it was the first night of his midnight shift with Flight D, which would normally have been 26th/27th December. However the flights were mixed up due to the Christmas holidays. It would seem quite possible that Warren travelled to Germany on 24th December, spent 2 nights there, and returned on 26th. He then visited Axe Music on 27th (when it would have been open) and his incident was 27th/28th (that involving Burroughs). Warren seems to accept that this was the date, now that Halt has moved the date of his tape to that night.

4. The radar call to Watton is an external validation of the date of an incident. Bruni quotes the reported logbook entry from RAF Watton at 03:25 hours on 28th December: “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.” However Bruni notes that this contact from RAF Bentwaters was some time after the onset of the incident, and also that at 03:30 hours Halt’s patrol was heading back to base. Bruni concluded, “either Halt’s patrol were out on a different night or they did not report the incident until they had completed their investigation.” It is equally likely that the incident reported on 28th was that involving Warren. It is interesting that Jenny Randles in 1982 reported that the USAF went to RAF Watton two days after the incident and took away the tapes of the radar tracking. This would have been within the time period that the Halt Memo was being compiled, when the date being reported was 29th. Very fishy.

On the balance, I think your points are valid MM, but only if we accept the Halt Tape as genuine. If it was a fabrication, to distract from the true events of 27th/28th (involving Warren and Burroughs) then the problem of the timeline is resolved.

a reply to: Sutekh

Also with regard to point 3. Warren in Left at East Gate (page 337) states "It was sometime after Christmas but before New Year's Eve 1980. I never knew the exact date. I was in Germany for two days, leading up to [the] three nights of events. I was not aware of the two previous."

So his recollection of two nights in Germany, and being involved on the third night of sightings, are consistent with each other and the timeline I have suggested. It was the Halt Memo which blind-sighted his recollection. Memory is like that. I don't see any need to invoke fabrication on Warren's part.

a reply to: ConfusedBrit

Yes, RFI can certainly give you a headache, I know the fourth night was discussed by Burroughs and dugdale, I think it was more down to ronnie believing that there was a fourth night.
We have all been led a merry dance over the years with the false information that's gone around, halt being the main source of it when he keeps changing parts of the story, dates, names ect.
I don't know if capel green is going with a fourth night scenario I'm just interested to see what new information (if any) comes to light.

a reply to: wobbs62

We have all been led a merry dance over the years

A very merry dance!

a reply to: ConfusedBrit

There is a nagging, headache-inducing paradox in Bustinza’s 1984 interview.

On one hand he describes technology that is clearly beyond human capability (“it went up and, like, took off at about a forty-five-degree angle, and if you would have blinked, you would have missed it”), while on the other hand he seems to hear Halt ordering spare parts from a Centralized Repair Facility (“and I do remember him saying he would contact the electronics division, which would be CRF, I think it was, the call letters for the group, and they would possibly have to get the part from another world”).

Bustinza himself is clearly aware of the paradox:
“What I thought afterward was that these supposedly UFOs, with beings and stuff, they’re far more intelligent supposedly than we are, how is the air force going to help them fix the machine?”

There is a straightforward solution to this paradox:
The USAF did have a ‘part from another world’ in its possession, but not as a standard issue spare part: They found it in the woods after the first night.
This was the reason why the mysterious objects returned a second and third (maybe even a fourth) night, trying to persuade the USAF to give it back.

Nevels (etc.) radiation figures discussion: is this (definitely helpful) discussion the best we have ?
ufowaves.org...

Woah! It got busy in here again all of a sudden!

originally posted by: Sutekh

1. ... Burroughs own voice is not heard. If the Halt Tape was created on the fourth night, to create confusion about the events of the night before, then one of the people significantly involved in the prior night would likely be mentioned. The function of the tape is to separate Burroughs from the immediate scene.

2. If the point I make in 1. holds, then Burroughs was out only on the first and third nights.

Isn't that a conspiracy theory too far, and beyond the wit of Halt and his merry men? It's an unanswerable proposal with nothing to support or deny it, so I think it best if we keep things tidy and accept the tape wasn't faked.

3. Again if 1. is true, then Warren was out on the night Burroughs was out.

As mentioned before, since Warren's story is Bustinza's (albeit ironically not as fantastic), why do we care when Warren was out? Bustinza is basically Warren's shadow (or vice-versa) for that alleged landing in the field, although he insists Halt was there, not Williams. Heaven knows why Warren still clings to the Williams claim.

4. The radar call to Watton is an external validation of the date of an incident.

Again, a conspiracy theory too far? Sometimes we have to take some facts as set in stone - and the 0325 call, without dodgy strings attached, is one of those pillars. Otherwise, our imagination will run riot and get us absolutely nowhere.

On the balance, I think your points are valid MM, but only if we accept the Halt Tape as genuine. If it was a fabrication, to distract from the true events of 27th/28th (involving Warren and Burroughs) then the problem of the timeline is resolved.

One of the most accepted facts by a large margin is that the tape is genuine. (I'd still like to listen to Halt's original tape, though, devoid of irrelevant background noises during the crude copying process - just to confirm there were no edits made. That item, however, remains elusive.)

Of course, such proposals will have their fans, I can't dispute that. Mainly because it's an entertaining twist worthy of the current 'Project Blue Book' series scripts that are 'inspired' by true events.

originally posted by: Guest101
a reply to: ConfusedBrit

There is a nagging, headache-inducing paradox in Bustinza’s 1984 interview.

On one hand he describes technology that is clearly beyond human capability (“it went up and, like, took off at about a forty-five-degree angle, and if you would have blinked, you would have missed it”)

Which must refer to the point in Halt's tape when the object or light appeared in the forest clearing before moving into the field whereupon Halt and Nevels claim it simply split into three as soon as they climbed a fence. So not a take-off as such.

However, remember the the other paradox in which Bustinza claimed the 'craft' was left in the field overnight, rather than taking off - before being collected by vehicles and personnel on another day, an op for which he was charge of security on his last day before Leave.

Was the poor lad simply hallucinating? Or is a damaged experimental military vehicle really at the centre of the story? If Bustinza, like Warren, was a smart-mouthed, swaggering ego running amok for 39 years, I'd probably dismiss his entire story, but he isn't egocentric in the slightest. Far from it.

I need to switch off again from the RFI for a while - it's headache-inducing and we never get anywhere, but still nice to occasionally dip into.

originally posted by: pigsy2400
Woah! It got busy in here again all of a sudden!

Always does when there's product to sell or minds to influence. The low post count, single thread guys suddenly appear or reappear. I think the best policy is to assume that the primary storytellers in this case are at best economic with the truth. Let them have their say and have their day. They make mistakes.

How's your web programming and SQL knowledge Pigs?

originally posted by: ConfusedBrit

Isn't that a conspiracy theory too far, and beyond the wit of Halt and his merry men? It's an unanswerable proposal with nothing to support or deny it, so I think it best if we keep things tidy and accept the tape wasn't faked.

Not really. The evidence surrounding the RFI does not add up into a single coherent narrative. There is substantial evidence of inconsistency in reports of primary witnesses. Halt has been a consistent sower of contrary information. On that basis we do need to question the genuineness of all the evidence and consider how much hinges on each piece. All I am saying here is that a lot depends on the genuineness of the tape. There is much about the tape which cannot be verified. You say yourself that the original has not been made available. So how has the tape been assured as genuine. If it is a fake re-enactment, then those on the tape would know that it was such. Are they likely to say so?

originally posted by: Sutekh

If it is a fake re-enactment, then those on the tape would know that it was such. Are they likely to say so?

originally posted by: ConfusedBrit

Was the poor lad simply hallucinating? Or is a damaged experimental military vehicle really at the centre of the story? If Bustinza, like Warren, was a smart-mouthed, swaggering ego running amok for 39 years, I'd probably dismiss his entire story, but he isn't egocentric in the slightest. Far from it.

It's not out of the realm of feasibility that it's both fake and "real" at the same time. Halt's "unreal" comment almost sounds like tapes I've heard from "recovered memory" hypnosis sessions. I'm convinced these guys have had their heads tinkered with. Some of them have even said as much and other evidence exists to support that theory/angle. That would explain a lot of the dichotomies in the various testimonies too.

a reply to: ConfusedBrit

I need to switch off again from the RFI for a while - it's headache-inducing and we never get anywhere, but still nice to occasionally dip into.

 

Sounds like you need a break.

Enjoy your time off.😁

Would like to obtain a WAV at least of the Halt tape, for forensic analysis (would report here). Have the “best” copy but only as an mp3. Only “wav” so far located on web turned out to be a wav container with an mp3 inside. Anything better anywhere?

a reply to: chinabull

The only sure way to do this would be to get the original source tape and convert it to a digital WAV file. The Sony dictaphone was fairly new in 1980 and amplified the frequencies in the human vocal range. So the dynamic range is somewhat restricted anyway and recording at high bitrates would not necessarily improve the quality.

Ridpath claims his mp3 version is good quality. But that's at a measly 16kbps/16khz. Even though I know his overall theory is not popular with some people you could email him and ask him if he as a better quality copy?

a reply to: The GUT

G bruni had a master copy of the halt tape which she gave to some chaps to enhance, which they did and its a very clear copy, they also told her that the tape had been heavily edited.

a reply to: wobbs62

The recording of the incident is of course discontinuous. The tape is only 20 minutes long each side. It was a Dictaphone. Halt clearly activated it when he wanted to record significant events. It apparently has sporadic voice overs, later recordings made intermittently. Sure, over-record on the tape. But if you do so, it should be contiguous. Sporadic over-recording suggests deliberate erasure of certain segments. The whole tape smells of fish.

a reply to: Sutekh

Cough.

originally posted by: chinabull
Would like to obtain a WAV at least of the Halt tape, for forensic analysis (would report here). Have the “best” copy but only as an mp3. Only “wav” so far located on web turned out to be a wav container with an mp3 inside. Anything better anywhere?

www.konsulting.com...