Rendlesham witness Halt "should be ashamed" , page 1

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 36 times

Topic started on 3-9-2010 @ 06:51 AM by IsaacKoi

Dr David Clarke (a skeptical academic in the UK that acts as a consultant to the National Archives in relation to the releases of UFO documents, and author of several UFO books) has written an article on his blog providing information/views from one of the more senior officials involved in the Rendlesham incident(s) in December 1980.

The relevant input comes from Col Conrad. Conrad was "the Bentwaters/Woodbridge base commander, and Lt Col Charles Halt was his deputy" and Dr Clarke reports Col Conrad's recollections and views about claims made by others - including the following:

When I asked Col Conrad to comment on Halt’s statement, he responded:

“Col Halt can believe as he wishes. I’ve already disputed to some degree what he reported. However, he should be ashamed and embarrassed by his allegation that his country and England both conspired to deceive their citizens over this issue. He knows better.”

Col Conrad told me he finds it very difficult to comment “given how huge the story has grown from its humble beginnings to the sensation it has now become”. He adds that he wants to “avoid the appearance of validating any of the stories have sprung up in the years since (1980).”

although Conrad also said:

“In the final analysis, the Rendlesham Forest lights remain unexplained. I think they are explainable, but not with the information we have been able to gather…

drdavidclarke.blogspot.com...

All the best,

Isaac

reply posted on 3-9-2010 @ 07:21 AM by Nightaudit

Hmm, interesting. I have read quite a bit about the Rendelsham incident, and I think the commonly used Lighthouse theory does not work.

I don´t know what happened in that forest, but it definately was something extraordinary.

To me this is one of the most intruiging cases in ufology especially because of the credibility of the witnesses. If you haven´t heard it yet, check out the halt tape. You can listen to the actual radio communication between the witnesses that night. It gave me goosebumps hehe.

Sorry for being to lazy to find the link to the recording right now, but google, as allways, is your friend.

I am interested to hear a theory besides the lighthouse that would explain what happened there.

reply posted on 3-9-2010 @ 07:23 AM by wcitizen

reply to post by IsaacKoi

Well, secrecy breeds mistrust. How many things are kept from the public, allegedly for the official reason that it is 'in the public interest', when the truth is nothing of the sort. More often than not it's to protect corrupt politicians and/or greedy corporations.

I wonder how the Government puports to know how the public might have reacted to the truth? They usually get it wrong, so they probably did in this case too. How dare they treat a nation of adults as if they are children. How dare they abuse the 'public interest' laws to hide facts to which the public have every right.

It's long overdue the Government remembers it is there to serve and ASNWER TO the public, and not the other way round.

The Colonel's reply was obsure and said nothing, really, except defend the government 'party line'. I'm wondering why on earth you posted this.

To me, it smacks of more propaganda.

[edit on 3-9-2010 by wcitizen]

reply posted on 3-9-2010 @ 07:25 AM by Maybe...maybe not

reply to post by IsaacKoi

IsaacKoi.....

Thank you for posting that very interesting report.

It seems we are in our usual "place" with such things.....

.....contradiction.....obfuscation.....& no "stable ground".

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

reply posted on 3-9-2010 @ 07:31 AM by theMegaladon

Hmmm i have to say i agree with Halt. The UK is lying and deceiving the people in regards to the incident and UFO's in general. Does that make me a traitor? Should i be ashamed? Luckily i do not live in the UK, i live in the United States. Where my government does not lie and cover up UFO's and always tells the truth.

So thankful

reply posted on 3-9-2010 @ 07:53 AM by Arbitrageur

Thanks Isaac, I found that quite interesting.

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
It seems we are in our usual "place" with such things.....

.....contradiction.....obfuscation.....& no "stable ground".

The most important witnesses were the eyewitnesses Penniston and Burroughs and even they couldn't agree on what happened, their stories are completely different. So yes this adds more apparent contradiction to the existing contradiction.

What surprises me about this interview, is Col Conrad was also an eyewitness of sorts to at least something (from the OP link):

Conrad’s 2010 statement which continues: “Lt Col Halt’s report of more lights both on the ground and in the sky brought quite a few people out of their houses at Woodbridge to see what was there. These people included myself, my wife, Lt Col Sawyer (the Director of Personnel), his wife, and several others listening to my radio and looking for the lights Halt was describing. Despite a sparkling, clear, cloudless, fogless night with a good field of view in all directions, we saw nothing that resembled Lt Col Halt’s descriptions either in the sky or on the ground.

Conrad was listening to Halt's live radio as it happened, so this would have been a concurrent observation the way he tells it.

I know some people will say he's lying but personally I don't have any reason to believe either he or Halt is lying, it's perfectly possible they both reported what they saw and it wasn't the same thing, happens all the time.

(However, Penniston's story seemed to morph over time).

Originally posted by Nightaudit
Sorry for being to lazy to find the link to the recording right now, but google, as allways, is your friend.

I am interested to hear a theory besides the lighthouse that would explain what happened there.

Here's part of Halt's recording with beeps added at 5 second intervals, just like the lighthouse.

files.abovetopsecret.com...

Anyone writing that off as coincidence should at least reconsider the lighthouse as a possibility for that 5 second interval. There were other lights besides the lighthouse too though, but that part of the recording sure sounds like the lighthouse.

Mod Edit - edited out autoplaying audio - let people choose if they wish to hear things please

[edit on 3/9/10 by neformore]

reply posted on 3-9-2010 @ 07:54 AM by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by theMegaladon
Hmmm i have to say i agree with Halt. The UK is lying and deceiving the people in regards to the incident and UFO's in general. Does that make me a traitor? Should i be ashamed?

Not to put word in the good Colonel's mouth, I do not think he is calling Mr. Holt a traitor, but rather saying he should be ashamed for lying.

reply posted on 3-9-2010 @ 08:02 AM by theMegaladon

@Arbitrageur

Could you please not post those autoplay audios of the halt tape? It makes my computer crash and"beeep beeep beeep" go crazy on me. Every time that gets posted the same thing happens.

Thanks

@doomsdayrex

Perhaps traitor is overkill

reply posted on 3-9-2010 @ 11:16 AM by Mclaneinc

Rendlesham is one of my fave stories but what alarms me so much is that all the leading people involved can't agree on what they saw, one touched it, others say no, one say an item in front of them, others saw lights in the tree's.

All very odd..

reply posted on 3-9-2010 @ 11:23 AM by InfaRedMan

reply to post by Arbitrageur

Is that just an excerpt, or does the recording with the synchronised beeps last longer than that? It would be more compelling if it was... otherwise it's possible that it's just coincidental and/or cherry picked.

IRM

reply posted on 3-9-2010 @ 11:54 AM by stirling

People report subjectively their own interpretations of their own perceptions at the time and place.....
I would EXPECT every story to be somewhat different and every experience to be separate and individual.
The mistake is to gather all the stories and try to make sense"
of a completely "alien" situational experience....
There will always be differing versions of these events till they are more acceptable to the human mind.
I am sure nobody is lying....just that they all had a different experience and thats normal.
The only liars seem to be the goverments involved.

reply posted on 3-9-2010 @ 01:05 PM by Kandinsky

Colonel Conrad shares the same views as Dr Clarke and feels Halt's claims represent an insult to the nation. I think a lot of us can recognise and appreciate what loyalty to our companies, colleagues and countries can mean. External criticism is challenged or condemned. I'm guilty of the same reaction in my own sphere.

In this light, Col. Conrad's complaints are as understandable as Clarke's. Notwithstanding Halt's suggestion of a cover-up, the bare bones of the incident remain intriguing. Halt's testimony remains compelling in my opinion. The details of Penniston's and Burroughs' accounts are similarly fascinating.

I tend to believe the witness accounts, for all the good that achieves. Various sides seek to argue their cases without realising how little it matters. Whether we believe there was a genuine UFO and possible craft sighting or believe they were all mistaken...it doesn't really change anything.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The respective witnesses have been interviewed recently at The Paranormal Cafe. The Halt interview is interesting and candid.

reply posted on 3-9-2010 @ 03:46 PM by wonkamaniac

reply to post by stirling

Here here! I agree totally, sir. Our minds don't work the same in times of "fight or flight". The evidence seems to point towards something very unusual happening on those nights. Witnesses perceive things differently? Wow, that is a stretch...

Was it an alien craft from another world? How the hell would I know, I wasn't there. The fact remains that something odd happened that night that shocked a few well-trained military observers. RisingAgainst did a very nice, well documented thread on this... here... www.abovetopsecret.com...

Does this prove that extraterrestrials are real and have visited us? Hell, no, although I personally believe they have... Does this suggest that some really odd occurrences happened during those 3 nights that no one can quite explain? Hell yes.

So, the witnesses cannot agree on what happened... Guess what? The same can be applied to a bar shootout... During times of extreme stress, no one can agree on what they saw. Does this make the event invalid? Not a chance. Something happened for sure.

reply posted on 3-9-2010 @ 03:58 PM by Turiddu

As I said in the other topic we currently have about this subject:

We should recognize the fact that the "object" story is the most controversial and least credible part of the story. For example, we know that Jim Penniston's notebook was likely not drawn on the night of the incident.

www.ianridpath.com...

Also, there is a major discrepancy regarding how long they observed the supposed "craft". Burroughs claims they hit the ground when seeing the "craft" while Penniston claims they examined it for nearly a full hour.

Yes the confusion and excitement can account for minor discrepancies but the Penniston/Burrough issue is a major obstacle to believing this story involved a supposed "alien craft".

[edit on 3-9-2010 by Turiddu]

reply posted on 3-9-2010 @ 04:25 PM by crichton13

This was probably a chance sighting of what was then a UFO (check the Oxford English Dictionary for the REAL meaning of UFO).

What they more than likely actually saw was an F117a Stealth fighter. And at the time, there was NOTHING more of a UFO that that.

Check back with the timelines. Also, that part of the UK was used regularly as a stop off for Yank aircraft as a matter of routine.

It's a stealth fighter or one of it's prototypes.

All the other BS is down to the usual over exagerations of the sensationalist american psyche.

reply posted on 3-9-2010 @ 04:26 PM by wonkamaniac

reply to post by Turiddu

I agree, sir... Some aspects of this seem "hinky"...
But witness testimonials never come close to each other in times of extreme duress. I saw a news report on 60 minutes, or dateline, or one of those shows... They gathered 20 people in a room for a boring lecture. At one point, someone bursts into the room and hits the man giving the lecture and quickly runs out.
They pulled each person aside to describe what and whom they saw...
The accounts varied widely from person to person...
Some described a black man as the attacker, others a tall white man...
It was all over the board, and totally inconsistent.
I wish I could find that report, but no luck so far.
The reports varied wildly, not many consistencies at all.
The whole idea was that people in this nation are being convicted and sentenced to many years in prison for eyewitness testimony. The fact is that eyewitness testimony is probably the most unreliable kind that exists, since we all perceive thing differently. If I find it, I will send it to you, as it really opened my eyes.
The differences were not small and insignificant... They were large and totally unreliable.

reply posted on 3-9-2010 @ 04:47 PM by spacevisitor

Originally posted by IsaacKoi
Rendlesham witness Halt "should be ashamed"

I am not surprised at all by this IsaacKoi, but I am only curious what your personal opinion is about this.

Here is mine in a nutshell.

Lt Col Halt said;

“I believe the objects that I saw at close quarter were extraterrestrial in origin”

drdavidclarke.blogspot.com...

It’s in my opinion important to notice that Lt Col Halt was personally at the scene during those sightings/happenings back then and Col Conrad was not.

So Lt Col Halt was an eye witness on the spot.

Lt Col Halt said also;

“and that the security services of both the United States and the United Kingdom have attempted – both then and now – to subvert the significance of what occurred at Rendlesham forest and RAF Bentwaters by the use of well-practiced methods of disinformation.”

drdavidclarke.blogspot.com...

Regarding Lt Col Halt’s saying there it is quite interesting to listen to what Former NATO head Lord Hill Norton says about this case and his explanation for why he think there is indeed a coverup.

Lord Hill Norton Former NATO Head Tells the UFO reality (Audio Only)

YouTube Link

www.youtube.com...

Col Conrad said;

“Col Halt can believe as he wishes. I’ve already disputed to some degree what he reported. However, he should be ashamed and embarrassed by his allegation that his country and England both conspired to deceive their citizens over this issue. He knows better.”

It’s obvious to me that Col Halt knows better and therefore he made that statement.

And it’s my opinion after reading quite a bit about this case and so many others that it is not Lt Col Halt that should be ashamed and embarrassed, but Col Conrad himself.

reply posted on 3-9-2010 @ 06:24 PM by wonkamaniac

reply to post by spacevisitor

I have to say... "here here"!
This is actually one of the more well documented cases in UFOlogy...
These are trained military people... not noob idiots somewhere in the boonies.
They know the difference between a lighthouse light and something weird going on.
After about 2 days, you would get very used to that lighthouse, and would know the difference between that and something odd...
The lighthouse theory makes no sense...
Something odd happened that night, these people would not risk their military careers if they didn't truly believe that.

reply posted on 3-9-2010 @ 07:03 PM by CheapShotArtist

Ive read about this incident many times and ive never once thought that Halt was lying or being untruthful.

The light house theory in general just makes me lol at how absurd it is.

reply posted on 3-9-2010 @ 07:11 PM by Bob Down Under

“Col Halt can believe as he wishes. I’ve already disputed to some degree what he reported. However, he should be ashamed and embarrassed by his allegation that his country and England both conspired to deceive their citizens over this issue. He knows better.”

That comment alone makes me smell a Rat!

"I’ve already disputed to some degree what he reported" Yes to SOME degree in fact very little.

"He knows better" In otherwords not to rattle the USA/Uk Military cage.

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >> ^^TOP^^