It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Rendlesham witness Halt "should be ashamed"

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 09:40 PM
I've had the sad misfortune of having to deal with a whole lot of Air Force Generals during my own Air Force flying career. 99% of them will do whatever is required to get their tickets punched. I've seen them lie and waste huge amounts of money just to guarantee their way into the Pentagon. It's really quite pathetic that they're so ego-driven with almost no interest in the welfare of their own troops. But I've seen it again and again.

If one General is told to refute what another General says in order to guarantee his own future, I can almost guarantee that he'll do it if it will get him near the inner rings of the Pentagon or the Oval Office. It's not about what is best for the Air Force, but what's best for the ego in question.

Fogleman is an example of a great Air Force General. McPeak is an example of a terrible General.

posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 10:19 PM
The way I read this is that Col. Halt upset the brass by being too public with a story that they would rather have not had so publicized. This happens all the time, and not only with UFO stories.

Obviously the Air Force has always been concerned with UFO reports over nuclear facilities going back to the 1940s and 1950s. I think they decided long ago that many of these reports were real and that there was not much they could do about it, although they certainly preferred that the subject be played down--especially in its more sensational aspects.

The UFOs go where they want and do what they want, and I'm doubtful that the governments concerned really have any control over it. Maybe they know something about their origins and purposes, but no one seems to have the complete story. Over the years, they have even turned to psychics and remote viewers to try to find out who they were and what they wanted. That has happened many times.

So I think they are still mad at Halt and some others like him for talking out of school about a sensitive subject that has always rankled the military and intelligence agencies--mainly because they don't know enough themselves and can't really do anything about it.

[edit on 3-9-2010 by witness63]

posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 05:34 AM
Fact is, something happened to those guys on that night. Im not gonna speculate that it was an ET visitation because I dont know. It could have been some sort of black project to test the guys at that base or something.....who knows?

But I think i'll rule out mass hallucination unless all of them got a hold of some really strong shrooms.

But something did happen.

posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 06:00 AM
Regarding this discussion I thought it could be interesting for some who are interested in this case but did not see those videos before.
One can see and listen to the people who were really on the scene in the Forest back then about what they experienced during and even after the events.

One can also see and listen to the sightings that several civilians had who were at those moments near and around the forested area where it all happened, so what they experienced during and even after the events.

One can also see and listen to others who not even were at the scene during those happenings themselves, who did not even have see a thing of it themselves but are despite that all convinced they seem to know what Lt Col Halt and all those other men must have witnessed back then.

Rendlesham - Bentwaters Part 1

Rendlesham - Bentwaters Part 2

Rendlesham - Bentwaters Part 3

Rendlesham - Bentwaters Part 4

Rendlesham - Bentwaters Part 5

Rendlesham - Bentwaters Part 6

[edit on 4/9/10 by spacevisitor]

posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 09:09 AM
Plausible deniablility preys on incredulity, it's easy for them to keep us disinformed. The bulk of unidentified aerial phenomenon witness reports continues to grow. For me a military source tends to be mistrusted, period. Even Philip Corso, it's safer to mistrust all information from an obviously military source. Even leaving military accounts out, there is still a huge amount of credible witness reports to investigate.

It is a fascinating story though. However If I were a military officer, within touching distance of an unidentified craft I would do everything in my power to make sure that thing didn'tt get back off the ground. At the very least get photographic evidence, tape recording his impressions didn't contribute much to his credibility.

posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 10:14 AM
"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 psych"


It was an ice cream lorry! Check the time lines yourself! Ice cream lorries were all over the British landscape at the time in question causing untold mischief.

Plus unlike stealth aircraft ice cream lorries have flashing lights, emit a variety of unusual noises including intermittent beeps (when backing) and would be perfectly capable of navigating in a forest.

So there you have it. It was an ice cream lorry! Pure and simple. All other BS is down to the usual sour English attempt to cover up their excessive fondness for frozen delights!

So be a good lad now and fetch me a snow cone and then be off with you!

posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 11:21 AM
Sorry, I could not resist, so I did go of topic here, so I did delete it.

[edit on 4/9/10 by spacevisitor]

posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 02:25 PM
FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE CONVINCED A GALACTIC ALIEN SPACESHIP was encountered by the Bentwaters SPs, AT LEAST spend a minute of your time viewing this forum.
This site tells about an alternative explanation.

posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 02:34 PM
reply to post by wonkamaniac

It is amazing how something mundane can appear more than under the right circumstances.

But you are right. Those in the military possess superhuman senses not subject to the failings of those of mere mortals

posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 02:46 PM
reply to post by DoomsdayRex

But you are right. Those in the military possess superhuman senses not subject to the failings of those of mere mortals

He didn't say that.

All he said was.. "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."

I'm not sure why you felt the need to be sarcastic like that and completely exaggerate what was truthfully said because he is in fact right. It is true that the people on and around the base would have been familiar with the lighthouse and how it looks from the base and in the forest. Sure there may have been new people on site who saw the light like Penniston for example but someone like Charles Halt Would have been fully familiar with how the lighthouse looks from the base and forest. More so than anyone else present on the 2 (possibly 3) nights perhaps.

He himself even says this about the lighthouse theory.

Charles Halt:

"The whole time this was going on, we could see the lighthouse, the lighthouse was about 33-35 degrees off where this object was this seen....A lighthouse doesn't move through the forest, the lighthouse doesn't go up and down, it doesn't explode, doesn't change shape, size, doesn't send down beams of light from the sky."

"I knew where the lighthouse was. This thing was not it. I saw the lighthouse as well but I never mentioned it [on the tape]. Why should I? Everybody present knew what that was!"

[edit on 4-9-2010 by Rising Against]

posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 03:51 PM
reply to post by Rising Against

Despite baseless fantasies that the base crew would have been experts on the terrain of the land around the base and whatever Holt may have lied about after the fact, the audio provided earlier in this thread. which you and others have blatantly ignored so that you can continue to lie about the facts of the case, proves without a doubt that Halt was seeing the lighthouse.

Why do you feel the need to ignore this and lie about the facts of the case? If anything the audio proves that Colonel Halt is nothing but a liar. And it shows how much UFO believers will lie to support the beliefs. Forget about the government lying about UFOs, the real liars are the believers.

[edit on 4-9-2010 by DoomsdayRex]

posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 03:59 PM
apologies if this has already been mentioned but i could swear Halt was promoted from deputy commander to commander of that base shortly after this incident.

posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 04:01 PM
I met Lt Col Halt some years ago, and from our discussion, I believe that what he saw was genuine. He is in no doubt that he saw something (pardon the pun from the tapes) weird.
I also managed to have a good look at the plastercast of the alledged landing indent, but TBH it's just a pointy bit of plastercast

posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 04:08 PM
reply to post by DoomsdayRex

Despite baseless fantasies that the base crew would have been experts on the terrain of the land around the base and whatever Holt may have lied about after the fact, the audio provided earlier in this thread. which you and others have blatantly ignored so that you can continue to lie about the facts of the case, proves without a doubt that Halt was seeing the lighthouse.


No one was an expert on the terrain and no one (as far as I’m away) has claimed this so why is that your conclusion?

Just because he (Halt) WOULD have known the terrain, that in no way would mean he is an expert and yes, I agree and am very much open to the possibility that mistakes could have been made given that this was a night-time pursuit.

But you seem to be forgetting that they could see the lighthouse at the same time as this strange object which was occurring DURING the audio tape. You say we’re ignoring facts but you seem to be ignoring this one.

Oh, and If you think I’ve ignored anything about this case maybe you should read my last thread on it.

I can assure you, I've ignored nothing at all. And why do you want to believe people are lying here?

Everything I'm saying is being said because I believe it to be the truth. That’s all.

There's no need to jump to such a silly conclusion based on no facts what so ever.

Why do you feel the need to ignore this and lie about the facts of the case?

If you want to believe I'm lying then go ahead, you’re wrong on that but believe it if you wish.

posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 04:46 PM
I feel that this one of those cases to take at face value.

posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 05:12 PM
reply to post by simonecharisse

Stop putting words in people's mouths... Galactic alien spaceship...? Seriously. Talk about patronising. Why does it matter to you?

I'll have a look at that site, but anyone who tries to tell me it was the lighthouse, or a re-entry of a satellite, or a mass hallucination (or anything equally pathetic) will get short shrift from me (and anyone with half an inclination to get to the truth of the matter).

Got the measure of you as someone who powers their disinfo by generating the fear of ridicule. Nice tactics.

[edit on 4-9-2010 by NoahTheSumerian]

posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 05:48 PM
reply to post by DoomsdayRex

Actually Col. Conrad is not, in my view, calling Lt. Col. Halt a liar.

He is stating that in his opinion, Halt should be ashamed and embarrassed for saying that the US and the UK are *deceiving* people (lying to us all iow) about the events that night...not ashamed or embarrassed about reporting the events themselves.

Big difference.

..he should be ashamed and embarrassed by his allegation that his country and England both conspired to deceive their citizens over this issue.

You see..not about reporting the sightings, but rather stating that our governments and military are lying their little faces off about UFO's. (paraphrasing of course)

[edit on 4/9/2010 by spikey]

posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 05:53 PM
reply to post by NoahTheSumerian

Hear hear Noah.

Ahh, the old 'Nah-nah na nah na' ridicule tactic..always a classic.

Human proclivity towards seeking peer praise and acceptance...always has been a weakness to be exploited by ptb on many an issue.

I agree with you 100% mate.

posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 06:43 PM
This is a classic Ufological thread. Why? Because the "believers" are discussing outrageous claims while ignoring the fact that this story has several major contradictions that need to be addressed before we can start making judgments about alien life. Unsurprisingly the most astonishing claims of the story (the supposed "craft") are the parts that are least credible.

I urge everyone to read this site made by someone who has obviously done much more research than any of us.

Everyone seems to be speculating so here is my own personal speculation of what I think happened:

Yes, they did see something in the woods that night. In my opinion this light was likely a misidentification of the lighthouse and/or a hoax being played on them. In the excitement of this, emotion clouded rational judgment and people began to imagine things as they were not happening.

After the event I believe some individuals (namely Col. Halt) perhaps realized that the light they had seen were merely the lighthouse and were, as we can imagine, embarrassed they had made such rash judgments that could have endangered their careers. Understanding this I believe they stuck by the "UFO" story in order to maintain the strangeness of the story, thus deflecting attention away from their judgment and the decisions they made that night.

Later when the story became more popular I believe certain individuals purposely embellished or outright invented wilder parts of the story in order to get their "15 minutes of fame" and/or to gain profit.

Unsurprisingly there seems to have been some involved persons who know the "UFO" story had no basis.

In addition to those who provided written witness statements, there was another significant participant in the events of Night One: Chris Armold, the USAF law enforcement officer who placed the call to the British police and later went out to see for himself what was happening. James Easton tracked him down in 1997. This is part of what Armold had to tell him:

“I met Burroughs at the East Gate of WB [Woodbridge]. We left our guns with the guy riding with Burroughs and drove to the end of the long access road. We left our vehicle and walked out there.
“There was absolutely nothing in the woods. We could see lights in the distance and it appeared unusual as it was a sweeping light, (we did not know about the lighthouse on the coast at the time). We also saw some strange colored lights in the distance but were unable to determine what they were.
“Contrary to what some people assert, at the time almost none of us knew there was a lighthouse at Orford Ness. Remember, the vast majority of folks involved were young people, 19, 20, 25 years old. Consequently it wasn't something most of the troops were cognizant of. That's one reason the lights appeared interesting or out of the ordinary to some people.”

posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 07:01 PM
Personally, I just don't have any problem with people who claim to have seen UFOs since I've seen one myself and cannot explain it any other way except that it was something "out of this world".

I never really believed the light house story in this case because that cannot explain how the lighthouse came in for a landing, left impressions on the ground and radioactive traces. Light houses just don't do that in my experience, so the better explanation is that the witnesses in the woods that night saw exactly what they claimed to have seen--strange craft flying all over the place, one of which actually landed for a short time and left some traces behind. It's happened before many times and no doubt will happen again.

I have no idea what it was or where it came from, but as I said, to me it's no big deal to accept that idea that it was not from this world.

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in