Rendlesham witness Halt "should be ashamed"

I really do not get why some folks think that nothing out of the ordinary happened during this "encounter"

It is quite evident that something did happen. I think that we can rule out mass hallucination unless these fine Military gentlemen were on '___' or shrooms (unlikely) With that said, I am not saying ET gave them a visit, however, something real happened here. I'll stray away from the appeal to authority aspects by saying that these men were trained observers. Perhaps what happened was some sort of deep black testing project to see how these men would react to a weird extraordinary circumstance. An experiment of sorts. These things do happen.

Or...........

Maybe it was an ET visitation.

They saw something. These guys are not lying and nor should Mr Halt be ashamed of anything. If anything, someone else is lying for knowing the truth as to what really happened and keeping the experiencers in the dark about it.

Originally posted by Turiddu
Well you certainly wrote much but you did nothing to discredit or offer compelling reasons not to believe what he has written on his site

I, however, offered several reasons to question the sceptics' "explanations", however you have not yet responded to my post. Did the sceptics' "forget" to mention the photographic and audio evidence I referred you to? It would not be the first time...

Originally posted by Turiddu
Yes Jim Penniston, the same Jim Penniston who claimed to have examined the "craft" for 45 minutes whilst others deny that happened.

The "others" you mention is actually a single person - John Burroughs - who has never said, or even implied, that Jim Penniston is a liar. John Burroughs recently said (I'm quoting a post from another forum): "Jim was the closest to what ever it was."

Jim Penniston's initial witness statement, made in January 1981, describes a definite "mechanical" object. Sceptics choose to ignore this fact. The object's measurements given in Halt's memo would have been passed on by Penniston too.

Originally posted by Turiddu
The same witness who claimed to have carried a notebook with him drawing the "craft" when he clearly did not.

Jim Penniston was in fact carrying a notebook, as confirmed by Richard Bertolino who saw Penniston shortly after the incident occurred. In an interview with Linda Moulton Howe in September 2009, Bertolino said:

"[Jim] pulled out his little notebook, which he used to write incidents in. If he was called to an incident, he always kept notes. He pulls out his notebook and he diagrams what he saw out there. It was kind of diamond shaped with tripod legs".

[edit on 7/9/10 by JH80]

rendlesham-incident.co.uk...

rendlesham-incident.co.uk...

rendlesham-incident.co.uk...

Get it?

[edit on 7-9-2010 by simonecharisse]

Originally posted by spacevisitor
So, are you willing to give me your personal opinion and view about Col Conrad's reaction on Lt Col Halt’s statement?

Sorry about the delay in getting back to you, but I wanted to check a few things first.

The short answer is that I think Col Conrad reaction is strongly-worded but basically reasonable. I think that Ian Ridpath has recently made a number of relevant and valid points in a new item on his website (which he helpfully drew to my attention after I started this thread a few days ago - so Ian seems to be following this thread, even if he has not participated so far) about Halt's relatively recent affidavit about Rendlesham:
www.ianridpath.com...

The long answer would involve expressing my views on many of the issues relating to Rendlesham, which I simply do not have time to do at the moment. Researching and writing a reasonably detailed article on Rendlesham is on my "to do" list at some point, but I have quite a few ufological projects that rank above that task.

All the best,

Isaac

Originally posted by IsaacKoi

Originally posted by spacevisitor
So, are you willing to give me your personal opinion and view about Col Conrad's reaction on Lt Col Halt’s statement?

Sorry about the delay in getting back to you, but I wanted to check a few things first.

No problem whatsoever Isaac, I really appreciate your work in this and that you where so kind to took the time to answer my question.

But to be honest with you, I have to admit on the forehand that I am a bit surprised by your “short answer”, and it's not because it is short of course.

Originally posted by IsaacKoi

The short answer is that I think Col Conrad reaction is strongly-worded but basically reasonable. I think that Ian Ridpath has recently made a number of relevant and valid points in a new item on his website (which he helpfully drew to my attention after I started this thread a few days ago - so Ian seems to be following this thread, even if he has not participated so far) about Halt's relatively recent affidavit about Rendlesham:

But be assured that I do respect it.

I will really take more time to read about what Ian Ridpath say about it all and especially regarding as you say, his relevant and valid points about the matter despite he was not personally at the scene back then so to say.

Thanks again and all the best

spacevisitor

Originally posted by IsaacKoi
I think that Ian Ridpath has recently made a number of relevant and valid points in a new item on his website
www.ianridpath.com...

Originally posted by spacevisitor
I will really take more time to read about what Ian Ridpath say about it all and especially regarding as you say, his relevant and valid points about the matter despite he was not personally at the scene back then so to say.

Thanks Isaac, I had spent some time reviewing Ridpath's site but I hadn't run across that particular page yet. He does have quite a bit of good material.

Spacevisitor, I think you'll find Ridpath has done a tremendous job of pulling together lots of good information on his website. Even if you don't agree with his conclusions, the evidence is informative. I learned some things from his site I didn't know, one specific example I've seen debated elsewhere was whether or not the lighthouse light was visible from land because there was a shield in place that blocked the light from being seen from land. The photographs Ian Ridpath has on his site show how how the light is actually blocked from being viewed from land but only at certain angles, so it can be seen from land from other angles. So actually both sides of that debate were both right and wrong, and now I think I know what the real story is from looking at the photographic evidence Ridpath presented.

Regarding Halt's statements, Ridpath declares "If the purpose of this affidavit was to add credibility to the events of the Rendlesham Forest Incident, its effect is almost certain to be the opposite.". But like you said he wasn't there, so can you trust that conclusion? You don't have to, as he points out the reasons he came to that conclusion. You can see the facts he's presented and come to your own conclusion. For example, when Halt describes beams of light coming down to the ground, and other men saw them, Ridpath gives us the names of people that WERE there, like airman Tim Egercic, who denied that any such beams came down, as well as his superior, Conrad. I've seen people claim that Conrad is just part of the official conspiracy because he was the highest ranking official, but how does this explain Tim Egercic's denial of the beams of light coming down?

The inconsistency of Halt's statement with even his own, earlier statement is pointed out by Ridpath but I don't think this would surprise anyone who studies human memory and the subject of confabulation in particular. I don't think this necessarily makes Halt a liar, but rather, human.

I find this to be a common theme in the field of Ufology that later recollections of events don't match earlier recollections of events, the recollections morph over time. Because of this, when I research a case I always give the highest credibility to the information documented at the time of the event, or immediately after the event, and the credibility goes downhill from there. In the JL1628 case the pilot was already confusing key details of the event in direct contradiction to the Air traffic control transcript a few weeks after the event, so they really should have debriefed him immediately but they didn't have a translator. So my point is, the fact that Halt's recollection differs after decades from his earlier recollection should surprise nobody. And as Ridpath says, maybe Halt realized how wrong his earlier claim was about the direction of the lighthouse and the UFO, and that's why he changed his story in 2009:

www.ianridpath.com...

But we are still stuck with the compass heading in his recording, he can't go back and change that.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
For example, when Halt describes beams of light coming down to the ground, and other men saw them, Ridpath gives us the names of people that WERE there, like airman Tim Egercic, who denied that any such beams came down, as well as his superior, Conrad.

Egercic and Conrad, were however not with Halt. For the record, Egercic was posted near RAF Bentwaters' WSA. Ridpath absolutely ignores the witnesses who were with Halt in the forest, and who do corroborate his story. Sgt. Bobby Ball, for example, said "to me it looked like a grid search, like they were boxing off an area and looking for something. That was the thought that hit me right away and it has stayed with me over the years."

Additionally, John Burroughs returned to the forest when Halt was out there. You can hear Burroughs' name mentioned on Halt's tape. Burroughs recently said: "I heard them talking about the beams on the radio from the WSA. But the guys on duty there all say they fell outside the [Weapons Storage] area."

Not only this, but Halt's tape recording records the occurrence as it happens: "Now we're observing what appears to be a beam coming down to the ground." And later on: "[The objects are still] hovering over Woodbridge base, beaming down as earlier."

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I've seen people claim that Conrad is just part of the official conspiracy because he was the highest ranking official, but how does this explain Tim Egercic's denial of the beams of light coming down?

Perhaps the beams of light were not directed into his area? Perhaps his view was limited? If I remember correctly, Egercic was standing on top of sandbags in order to gain a better view of the sky.

The witnesses who were on the scene - I have only skimmed over a few of them - corroborate Halt's story and there's the tape too, which as you say was documented at the time of the event. Why is it the Rendlesham sceptics continue to "cherry pick" evidence in an attempt to bolster their theory?

* As a side note, I recalled who was in RAF Bentwaters' WSA tower at the time of Halt's sighting - Sgt. Randy Smith. He claims to have seen "three triangular craft with lights" hovering in the sky. Here's an interview with the Sergeant: web.archive.org...

reply to post by IsaacKoi


---

Hi Op.

Horse#. I'll carry-on here as ATS has rules on such things as one word answers or comments. When you get around to researching the Rendlesham case, re-write your thoughts as I really don't believe you have said much, if anything, to refer Ret. Col Halt should be ashamed.

Not that I believe he's left a few dozen things out of his publicly voiced statements since 12/80. But seems to me he too has a Pension to be a wee-bit concerned about and may wish not to stray too far outside his written statement to MoD or his recording. Though he's now collaborating on a possible Movie re the events.

Decoy

reply to post by IsaacKoi


Perhaps I might be allowed to butt in, since it’s my Rendlesham investigation that’s being discussed here.

In a posting on this page, JH80 notes that Egercic and Conrad were not with Halt. All the better! They were independent witnesses and they were in a position to know whether there were really any light beams coming down on the base, which Halt wasn’t as he was miles away.

Where did the light beams supposedly come down? As JH80 notes, on his tape Halt refers to the beams coming down on Woodbridge. Conrad was at Woodbridge. Conrad and other senior officers went outside at the time but saw no beams, no craft, nothing unusual. Had they done so one hopes Conrad would have taken more action than Halt, who simply went home.

Oh, but now Halt says the beams were coming down not on Woodbridge, as he said at the time, but Bentwaters, to the north. (Notice the change of story?) Bentwaters is where the nukes supposedly were which makes it sexier. But Tim Egercic was at the weapons storage area at Bentwaters and he specifically denies that any such beams came down. Had such a thing happened, one hopes he and his fellow security guards would have called a major alert.

Other witnesses at Bentwaters report seeing only starlike lights hovering low over the forest to the south for several hours and twinkling. If you can’t guess what those sound like I’ve gone into it in rather nauseating detail here
www.ianridpath.com...
Randy Smith, incidentally, was in the Bentwaters tower looking out through those thick, angled glass windows so his view was distorted by refraction in the glass as well as refraction in the atmosphere.


In another posting, Decoy suggests that Halt has his pension to protect. Is that why Halt now says that what he saw were ET craft and alleges that the US and UK governments are conspiring to cover up the secret? Sounds a strange way to protect your pension, particularly when your former commanding officer flat out contradicts you in public.

Decoy also says that Halt “may wish not to stray too far outside his written statement to MoD or his recording”. Anyone who has read the history of this case will know that since he left the Air Force Halt has strayed well outside what he said on the memo and on the tape to such an extent that it’s quite clear he’s long forgotten what did actually happen.

Halt and Penniston now have an interesting difference of opinion over what they claim to have encountered, but that’s a topic for another posting. Either way, they can’t both claim “I know what I saw!”

Ian

reply to post by IsaacKoi


Having lived in the immediate vicinity, and having worked at the Rendlesham airbase sight, I have, naturally, taken a deep interest in this 'sighting', and have read a most of the books relating to it over the years. (In fact, the incident sparked my lifelong interest in the subject).
For what its worth, here a few rarely discussed aspects to the case that may be an explanation for some of what occurred.

Conrad is just being a 'good soldier' in trying to defuse anything inflammatory that Halt has said.
Its possible that Conrad is/was privy to information that Halt was not, and knows perfectly well what happened in the forest.

As far as differing testimony is concerned, the very nature of the incident would have stressed anyone involved significantly, but beyond that, there is a very real possibility that the phenomena witnessed were DESIGNED to confuse.

There is far to much history to discuss here, but in synopsis, during the 1970's and early 80's both RAF Bawdsey and a top secret installation sighted on Orford island were involved in experimental OTH (Over the horizon), trying to spy on the Russians.
Cold witness and Cobra mist were joint US and UK projects, and in the end, it appears they were experimenting with much more than just radar.The installation on the island was pretty much a precursor to HAARP, and it appears that this was where the potential of such an array was first realised.
Effects attributed to this type of equipment include entrainment through modulated microwaves, as well as being able to place thoughts and voices into minds remotely, through ELF (originally for use in communication with submarines), The ability to interfere with orbital courses of terrestrial satellites, Ionoshperic heating - actually pretty much what is claimed, nowadays for Haarp.

At this time (during the cold war) there was a great deal of interest in psychoactive weapons of all kinds - drugs, hypnosis, and of course, radio frequency (many think these techniques are now perfected and used routinely - of course the US army 'microwave weapon' and subsonic cannons are a matter of record). Its probable that this weapon had these type of capabilities.

If you consider the proximity of RAF Rendlesham to these other experimental sights (And additionally the GPO experimental establishment), then it would seem an ideal spot to 'try out' the technology on human subjects. (There is plenty of reports of this being the case with other weapon systems). Equally plausable is the hypothesis that the weapon was being used to interfere with a soviet satellite (possibly a weapons platform), or even, yes, a UFO, to knock it out of the sky and bring it to earth in a controlled descent. (there were transport aircraft and G men all over Rendlesham in the immediate aftermath of this incident - Suspected links to the Cash Landrum case should be examined).

So, imagine a field of RF, possibly triangulated, certainly focused, that produces powerful RF capable of who knows what, and that can have side effects on consciousness once an individual is within a certain range. Consider it a psychedelic experience - no two people will report the same effects, because their minds will place a different interpretation on what they witness.

That's about all I wanted to say here. I feel my case has been poorly put, but I have no certainties to offer, merely speculation - think outside the box, this may not have been a 'simple' UFO incident, though it may well be that TPTB are quite happy to let it appear to have been one.
I realise this is a strange tale I have told, and certainly not original to me, but I would recommend anyone genuinely interested in this sighting to look into the facts I have asserted here for themselves - there are many other aspects to the story, and connections made, I haven't mentioned, and many different interpretations can be made from them.

Finally, although there are many, many books on the Rendelsham 'UFO', the one that I, personally, have found the most interesting, is a fictional novel written by Sir Ralph Noyes, called 'A secret property'. I would humbly suggest it is almost impossible to understand the possible implications of this incident without reading this book. Probably out of print, but copies are available if you look, and a good read it is too.

It was written shortly after his retirement from the MOD, published in 1985. Noyes was of the rank of undersecretary of state, had been with the air ministry since 1949, and was pretty much Nick Popes predecessor - although at a level Pope never came near to attaining.
Noyes himself claimed the book was 'faction' - make of that what you will.
Subsequently he was involved in the investigation and publication of works on crop circles, and was Secretary to the Society for Psychical Research. He was also a founding member of the Centre for Crop Circle Studies.
His view of the UFO phenomena echos that of Jaques Vallee and John Keel. (If you don't know what that means, you really need to do some reading).

You can read an interview with him, from 1995, here
www.martinshough.com...

Hope I haven't bored everyone to death.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

Thanks for the kind words and support, Arbitrageur.

The visibility of the lighthouse from the forest is indeed one of the most poorly understood aspects of this case, and perhaps I have not explained it as clearly as I should. However, the first thing I did in my investigation back in 1983 was to go with a BBC TV camera crew and film the lighthouse flashing as seen from the area of the supposed landing site. This, I would have thought, should have made the point clearly enough, but even today I still come across people arguing that you can’t see the lighthouse from the forest.

If you want to relive this piece of UFOlogical history, see here
www.ianridpath.com...

Neither I nor Vince the forester could have imagined that this case would still be going 27 years later.


Ian

John Burroughs and Jim Penniston have finally made a joint statement about Rendlesham on their Facebook page
www.facebook.com...

Although it's posted by Penniston the style of writing looks more like that of Burroughs.

Seems that they intend to give us "full disclosure" in London in December. They emphasize again that the incident was "not ET-related".*

Their statement makes the following major claim: "It is known to us that the full brunt of the investigation from the base itself, was handled by then Chief, Security Police, Major Malcolm Zickler and another unknown (to date) agency. Be sure we will release the information. It will answer a lot of questions and even some discrepancies."

They go on: "We also understand that this information will not be in the best interest of the United States Government, nor the British Government, this release will require them to do a lot of explaining. It will be interesting when they also try to justify the lies through-out the years".

Serious-sounding stuff, although of course Georgina Bruni promised much the same a decade ago and failed to deliver. I am sure that believers and skeptics alike await the release of any such information with interest.

Ian


* Since Penniston's regression hypnosis in 1994 he has claimed that what he encountered were actually time travellers from our future. What he recalled under hypnosis sounds much like this 1993 film, Official Denial:
www.ianridpath.com...
Could Penniston's story really be a false memory of this film?

reply to post by ianrid


Ianrid.....

Many thanks for your update!

I await the "next installment" with bated breath.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

Originally posted by ianrid
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Thanks for the kind words and support, Arbitrageur.

The visibility of the lighthouse from the forest is indeed one of the most poorly understood aspects of this case, and perhaps I have not explained it as clearly as I should.

You're welcome and the compliment on your site is well-deserved, I hope even the people that don't agree with your conclusions will agree you have a lot of excellent information collected there about the case. I think you explained it well enough but even the TV show "UFO Hunters" perpetuated the myth that there's no way Halt could have seen the lighthouse because of the shield, and a lot of people saw that show so I fault the producers of that show and not you.

Originally posted by ianrid
* Since Penniston's regression hypnosis in 1994 he has claimed that what he encountered were actually time travellers from our future. What he recalled under hypnosis sounds much like this 1993 film, Official Denial:
www.ianridpath.com...
Could Penniston's story really be a false memory of this film?

I've seen so many documentaries on this incident I don't remember which one it was, but I remember seeing Penniston interviewed in one of them when he talked about his debrief by the "unknown agency", I can't find the video but I found something similar from Omni:

Into the Night: For the First Time Ever, A Prime Military Witness Speaks Out About the Enduring Mystery at Bentwaters by A.J.S. Rayl

Hypnosis:
In 1994, after much contemplation, Penniston says, he agreed to undergo two hypnosis sessions at the urging of several colleagues with whom he was working to uncover any information on the identity of the craft at Bentwaters, the plan being to co-author a book.

The first of two hypnotic regressions -- both of which were videotaped -- took place in September 1994. In that session, Penniston recounted the same events that he remembered consciously. Nothing new surfaced.

During the second hypnotic regression, the psychologist takes Penniston back to the debriefing by two Office of Special Investigation (OSI) agents, ...In a dramatic and striking scene on the videotape, Penniston lifts his arm for a shot of sodium penthathol and the agents question him repeatedly about the trajectory of the craft, its speed and approach. Penniston calmly repeats over and over that he did not see any of that, that the craft was already on the ground when he saw it.
Under hypnosis, Penniston describes the alien visitors, saying that they are "travelers from our future."

But here's the most interesting part to me:

"The problem here," says Penniston to Rayl after the videotape ends, "is I don't know if this information is real in any sense, if it's been planted in my mind or if any of it is actually rooted in truth as we know it."

At the time I thought he might just be saying that in response to some of the inconsistencies in his story that may have been pointed out to him, but that was just my speculation for why he might claim that. But if Penniston himself doesn't know if these are real memories or not, and now he's watched video of himself recalling these, it's easy to understand how he could be confused about what memories are real.

I will say that I think we are all capable of confabulating memories without the help of a mind-control debriefing agent, But in Penniston's case where he has watched video of himself recalling things that he's not sure are real or planted, it's even more understandable. So "Could Penniston's story really be a false memory of this film?" Penniston himself admits he's not sure if the memory is real or "planted" so even Penniston seems to say it could be a false memory, right?

The promise by Penniston and Burroughs to reveal something to us in the future is another "disclosure" topic. I would take a wild guess there are over 1000 threads on ATS about disclosure that's "going to happen" but never does, so we can add this to that pile. I wish people would stop saying what they're going to tell me at some future date, and either just tell me now, or keep quiet about it until they are ready to tell what they want to tell. But if they actually do follow through with their "disclosure" unlike all the others who haven't, it should be interesting. But I'm not holding my breath!

even the TV show "UFO Hunters" perpetuated the myth that there's no way Halt could have seen the lighthouse because of the shield, and a lot of people saw that show so I fault the producers of that show and not you.

That was shameful indeed. You might recall that the UFO Hunters programme built a little model of Halt’s view across the field to the farmhouse in which they deliberately moved the lighthouse way off to the right so that it was no longer in the same line of sight. Imagine the stink if a skeptic had deliberately rearranged the geography of the Suffolk countryside in an attempt to create a false impression. Talk about flying lighthouses...

Penniston himself admits he's not sure if the memory is real or "planted" so even Penniston seems to say it could be a false memory, right?

Yes, but that was back in 1996 or so. Now he seems much more certain that it was all real!

BTW, I’m talking about Rendlesham at the Fortean Times Unconvention at the end of October, if anyone’s able to make it. I can't promise any amazing "disclosures", though.

Ian

This is a short but interesting video in my opinion.

Listen to what Nick Pope said regarding his view on the object in Rendlesham forest.

A report on Nightline on ABC last night about the recently declassified documents in Britain.

"I have no explanation for the Rendlesham forest incident, it suggest that this object, whatever it was, was unusual in nature.

Something was physically present in that clearing"

www.disclose.tv...

And I personally assume it wasn’t the lighthouse.

Originally posted by ianrid
That was shameful indeed. You might recall that the UFO Hunters programme built a little model of Halt’s view across the field to the farmhouse in which they deliberately moved the lighthouse way off to the right so that it was no longer in the same line of sight. Imagine the stink if a skeptic had deliberately rearranged the geography of the Suffolk countryside in an attempt to create a false impression. Talk about flying lighthouses...

I vaguely recalled the model when you mentioned that but I couldn't recall the details. However I made a note to follow up on your comment and go back and look at the model.

It's just as bad as you said, and worse. In the photo you took of Halt's view (which I cropped out some of the sky etc) the lighthouse is just above the right side of the farmhouse:

www.ianridpath.com...
www.ianridpath.com...
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/558a01cc8d09.jpg[/atsimg]

Just as you said, UFO hunters moved the lighthouse way off to the right:

Here's the model they made at 3:47
www.youtube.com...
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/588a9159cb37.jpg[/atsimg]
Not only did they move the lighthouse way off to the right as you said, but they also put up pictures behind the farmhouse just to make doubly sure there's no way the lighthouse light could light up the farmhouse windows. I don't see anything in the topography of your photo which would have prevented the lighthouse light from hitting the farmhouse, though it looks like one tree probably blocks the light from hitting rightmost edge of the farmhouse.

Wow! It's not even close. Yes, that's pretty shameful.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur: Just as you said, UFO hunters moved the lighthouse way off to the right:

And they also bought Halt's change of story about the UFO reflecting off the farmhouse windows, which was a new detail I hadn't heard before their programme. In earlier interviews, Halt had said that "the farmer's house appeared to be glowing, as though there were a fire inside". But now we hear no more about the farmhouse being on fire. Instead he tells us the UFO was reflecting off its windows and the fire isn’t mentioned. So this is another change of story by Halt, but of course the ace sleuths of the UFO Hunters never noticed, just as they never noticed that the lighthouse isn't really 30–40 degrees off to the right as Halt told them.

More about the lighthouse here
www.ianridpath.com...

This story has resurfaced in an article on The Telegraph's website:

www.telegraph.co.uk... tml

Rendlesham Incident: US commander speaks for the first time about the 'Suffolk UFO'

The senior US military official who led the investigation into the supposed landing of a UFO in a Suffolk forest has spoken of the incident for the first time in three decades.

...

Col Conrad is scathing about his former deputy.

"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," he said.

This post should be flushed down the toilet, have you lost your mind? Track back to the this incident, why would serving military personnel say stuff like this? Not just here but ever? Classic disinformation that stinks, do me a favour and disappear.

If you think that the whole UFO/alien thing is just made up then get a life. You think that people say these things to be able to laugh at others? It's a joke? This stuff doesn't appear from nowhere.