It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Holt Memorandum

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 01:52 PM
link   
Department of the Air Force
Headquarter 81st Combat Support Group (USAFE)
APO NEW YORK DY735

13 Jan 81
Reply to Attn of: CD

Subject: Unexplained Lights

To: RAF/CC

1. Early in the morning of 27 Dec 80 (approximately 0300L), two USAF security police patrolmen saw unusual lights outside the back gate at RAF Woodbridge. Thinking an aircraft might have crashed or been forced down, they called for permission to go outside the gate to investigate. The on-duty flight chief responded and allowed three patrolmen to proceed on foot. The individuals reported seeing a strange glowing object in the forest. The Object was described as being metalic (sic) in appearance and triangular in shape, approximately two and three meters across the base and approximately two meters high. It illuminated the entire forest with a white light. The object itself had a pulsing red light on top and a bank(s) of blue lights underneath. the object was hovering or on legs. As the patrolmen approached the object, it manoeuvred though the trees and disappeared. At this time the animals on a nearby farm went into a frenzy. The object was briefly sighted approximately an hour later near the back gate.

2. The next day, three depressions 1 1/2" deep and 7" in diameter were found where the object had been sighted on the ground. The following night (29 Dec 80) the area was checked for radiation. Beta/gamma readings of 0.1 milliroentgens were recorded with peak readings in the three depressions and near the center of the triangle formed by the depressions. A nearby tree had moderate (.05 - .07) readings on the side of the tree toward the depressions.

3. Later in the night a red sun-like light was seen though the trees. It moved about and pulsed. At one point it appeared to throw off glowing particles and then broke into five separate white objects and then disappeared. Immediately thereafter, 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 moved rapidly in sharp angular movements and displayed red, green and blue lights. The objects to the north appeared to be elliptical through an 8-12 power lens. They then turned to full circles. 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. Numerous individuals, including the undersigned, witnessed the activities in paragraphs 2 and 3.

(Signed)
Charles I. Halt
Lt. Col. USAF
Deputy Base Commander

www.ufos-aliens.co.uk...

Is it not fair to say that ´something´ landed in Rendlesham forest in 1980?
There is radar evidence,ground trace evidence and highly credible circumstantial evidence in the form of sworn eyewitness testimony from trained Air Force professionals,not to mention two separate civilian eyewitness confirmations.
Here are some interesting questions asked about the incident in the House of Lords by the late,great former Admiral of the fleet,Lord Hill Norton:
twinbases.org.uk...
Cheers Karl


[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]




posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 02:13 PM
link   
"
Is it not fair to say that ´something´ landed in Rendlesham forest?
There is radar evidence,ground trace evidence and sworn eyewitness testimony from trained air force personnel,not to mention two separate civilian eyewitness confirmations.
"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, as far as I'm concerned, the radar evidence has never really been proven as radar was picking up allsorts of strange stuff some of which is thought to have been ships out at sea. The ground evidence? Afraid not. Vince Thurkettle who was the woodsmen/Gamekeeper etc, at the time of the landing was shown the so called landing marks and said that he'd seen similar markings before and that they were made by rabbits. The sworn military eye witness testimony doesn't really pan out either as they are just as likely to make an honest mistake as me and you when it comes to seeing unusual things out of context. For instance, the UFO chase through the woods. They were almost certainly seeing the Orford Ness lighthouse. Play Halts tape recordings of the sighting alongside video of the lighthouse and they match perfectly.
For me the proof that something weird and out of the ordinary happened in Rendlesham Forest comes from the civilian witnesses living near the base who saw the lights zig zagging over the trees before descending into the forest.
I believe everything else in this case is bogus and maybe part of a cover-up! Sorry.



posted on Nov, 25 2008 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
The ground evidence? Afraid not. Vince Thurkettle who was the woodsmen/Gamekeeper etc, at the time of the landing was shown the so called landing marks and said that he'd seen similar markings before and that they were made by rabbits.

For instance, the UFO chase through the woods. They were almost certainly seeing the Orford Ness lighthouse.



Rabbits,lighthouses?

The radiation at the alledged landing site was 10 times higher than it should have been and to suggest that trained soldiers and several (separately located) members of the public 'just saw a lighthouse' seems,to me,to be a bit cynicaly dismissive.

If you want a comprehensive account of the incident and the events leading up to it then 'You can't tell the people' by Georgina Bruni is a very interesting read-the title is derived from Magaret Thatcher's comments when asked about the Rendlesham incident.
Also,Lord Admiral Hill Norton's comments in British Parliament about the case are quite revealing - his high ranking status is the comparative equivalent of the (then) secretary of Defense Collin Powell stating to U.S. congress that UFOs are very real and deserving of scientific study.

Nick Pope has also done a great deal of objective work on this incident.
The only people I can find still clinging to the lighthouse theory are blatant UFO cynics like Ian Rankin who aren't particularly known for their impartiality or experience (and seem to always enjoy shoehorning in a good old nonsensical preconceived debunk).


[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]



posted on Nov, 26 2008 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 


"Rabbits,lighthouses?

The radiation at the alledged landing site was 10 times higher than it should have been and to suggest that trained soldiers and several (separately located) members of the public 'just saw a lighthouse' seems,to me,to be a bit cynicaly dismissive."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the Strange But True UFO Debate top scientists were able to push background radiation up by thousands just by introducing small rocks which lay all over the southern counties of England. Background radiation levels ten times normal means absuolutely nothing! And then theres the problem of the readings themselves. Pope says the levels were ten times normal but doesn't tell you how he came to such a conclusion. Its a bit like saying someone was speeding and in court saying the accussed was doing 20!!! Well, is it 20 miles an hour, is it 20 kmh, 20 mph over the recognised speed limit etc, etc. . . There's no time scale to his readings.
As for the rabbit scrapings! This is what Vince Thurkettle reckons the markings were and since he was the woodsman at the times I have to go along with his expertise.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not calling the time of death on the Rendlesham incident just trying to show its flaws.



posted on Nov, 26 2008 @ 01:31 PM
link   


The ground evidence? Afraid not. Vince Thurkettle who was the woodsmen/Gamekeeper etc, at the time of the landing was shown the so called landing marks and said that he'd seen similar markings before and that they were made by rabbits.


No, Vince visited the landing site six weeks after the incident. Rain alone would have washed most of the evidence away. Imagine how many people had been there and had a 'poke around' - it's no surprise that the landing site looked somewhat out of shape.

Ray Gulyas visited the alleged landing soon after the incident, and is convinced that the landing site was not created by rabbits, "all I can say is that they must have been very smart rabbits...very mathematical in nature, and I have never found a rabbit that smart. They were 12 foot from center to center; that's not normally found in nature, it was obviously something man made."

Anyway, back to the memo. John Burroughs, who witnessed both parts of the Rendlesham case, is convinced that the 'Halt memorandum' was not the 'original':



Who said Halt sent the memo. The fact that the MOD looked at the way they did. The fact that General Gabriel came down and collected information per the MOD documents that were released. The [Halt memo] was not the only document that went out. I was told on the phone that the memo that was realesed was not a true account of events and was only drafted before they realized how serious the event was.

After [Gordon] Williams stated he would never have approved Halts memo, I really believe it never was an official memo. Conrad and then Williams would have had to clear that memo before it was sent. Also a lot of the official documents disappeared from the base, which my bet was when [General] Gabriel paid a visit [from Ramstein AFB]. My bet was they came up with [the memo] if it blew up in their face.


Sorry, I realise that this post is becoming long and probably hard to digest, but I have some more information regarding Halt's memorandum.

This links back to my previous point: John Burroughs was witness to the first night of events (25/26 December). He feels that incorrect dates were entered in Halt's memorandum deliberately, "I don't feel the dates were entered wrongly by accident, but on purpose. Halt was a man of detail; he even stated he kept his recorder on him to keep track of things on a daily basis."

Why would Charles Halt do that? John Burroughs believes that Halt cannot "come out and say what he knows", in other words - he hasn't been telling the full story. Halt admitted that he would have preferred to burn the memo, which may confirm he wanted to sweep the Rendlesham case under the carpet.

[edit on 26-11-2008 by JH80]



posted on Nov, 26 2008 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by JH80
 


"No, Vince visited the landing site six weeks after the incident. Rain alone would have washed most of the evidence away. Imagine how many people had been there and had a 'poke around' - it's no surprise that the landing site looked somewhat out of shape."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Its worse than that I'm afraid. When Vince Thurkettle met Penniston and Halt in Rendlesham Forest for an American TV show it was revealed that where Thurkettle had been told by the police that the alleged craft landed was miles away from where Penniston had had his experience. Halt too was mystified because he had been told that the incident took place somewhere else... Thurkettle had also been told that the craft was thirty feet wide by the police and had replied by mocking the story saying that a thirty feet wide object couldn't maneouvre between the trees.
This is what I'm talking about when I say that the case is so full of holes and bull***t testimony that it's going to be incredibly hard to work out what exactly happened.




top topics
 
0

log in

join