Rendlesham Forest…, A Christmas Story from 1980 - Can We ‘Let it Be’?

a reply to: Shaqmeister

There is an old transmitting station on Orfordness called The Black Beacon. This was using a system named Loran (Long range navigation sending ground wave signals) Towards the end of 70's into 80's, this was been replaced with Loran C.

If for instance, IF the transmitter was sending signals/pulses of microwaves to Aldermaston AW(R)E or possibly towards the BT research station, would these pulses be seen, as well as other things in the forest?

originally posted by: Guest101
Halt could be right about the 30 degree angle between the lighthouse and the unidentified light.

He may have forgotten that a second light appeared to their left while they were investigating the one at 110-120 degrees. It’s on the Halt tape:

SGT BALL: Look to the left!
SGT NEVELS: Yeah, definitely moving. There's two...two lights. One light in front and one light to the left.

I think I'd have to question what you are inferring above. You propose that "a second light appeared to their left" (emphasis added), and this seems to be predicated on the fact that you have Ball say "Look to the left!" I only hear him say "To the left." This is an important difference, because with the word "Look" it implies "Turn your heads [at least a little] guys."

Everything about what they are reporting to be observing at this time indicates that they are looking at a very localised group of phenomena. Notice how the descriptions of 'pieces shooting off' are given with 'clock-face' directions for clarity - "At eleven o'clock" and, a bit later "at ?three o'clock." There's no similar clarifying bearing reading (absolute or relative) for the observance now of "Two lights," which you would expect if there was any distance between them.

SGT BALL: .. it just moved to the right... it moved off to the right.
LT COLONEL HALT: Yeah ... strange, whoohh.

The light at 110-120 degrees just moved off to the right.
Only the second light remains, which was to the left of the first light.
Now Halt also notices the light to their left.

Again, I think you need to narrow the field of vision in right here, and look at the language too. To emphasise the difference, Ball didn't just say "it 'moved off' ... to the right." What he says (as to meaning) is "it 'moved' ... off to the right." This is clear from him having started saying merely "it just moved to the right" (emphasis added). It didn't go anywhere.

Also - and I can't suggest this strongly enough - pay attention to the psychology of what's going on out there. And don't just assume that everyone's freaked by this time and characteristically impaired as witnesses (little 'observation', lots of 'inference' & 'bias'). Every(!) light that these guys are seeing - over in an area where there are (mundane) lights - is just being pulled into their expectations. Nothing is being clearly identified as an everyday phenomena, and this is crucial. There's no "there it is again, just to the right of those radio masts;" no "you see that vehicle there, coming down the road? Well...;" no "ignore the lighthouse. We're not looking at the lighthouse."

originally posted by: steveywonders
a reply to: Shaqmeister

There is an old transmitting station on Orfordness called The Black Beacon. This was using a system named Loran (Long range navigation sending ground wave signals) Towards the end of 70's into 80's, this was been replaced with Loran C.

If for instance, IF the transmitter was sending signals/pulses of microwaves to Aldermaston AW(R)E or possibly towards the BT research station, would these pulses be seen, as well as other things in the forest?

From my understanding, wasn't the 'Black Beacon' a radio transmitter used for the purposes of triangulation of location? You seem to be aware of this too, so I'm just wondering what you're asking with "would these pulses be seen" (emphasis added)?

originally posted by: Shaqmeister

Also - and I can't suggest this strongly enough - pay attention to the psychology of what's going on out there.

What about the psychology of listening to someone else’s audio tape?
This discussion shows that similar interpretation and cognitive bias mechanisms are involved as with chasing lights in a forest...

I just wanted to present an interpretation of Halt’s tape that complies with his later testimony in his first interview (the one with Sally Rayl):

“It [the light] shot over the field and then moved in a 20- to 30-degree horizontal arc.”

LT COLONEL HALT: The other one came to the left!
…
LT COLONEL HALT: OK we're looking at the thing, we're probably about two to three hundred yards away. It looks like an eye winking at you, it's still moving from side to side

The fact that Larry and Jim are exposed now does not automatically imply Halt is the same (another psychological pitfall)

originally posted by: Guest101
What about the psychology of listening to someone else’s audio tape?
This discussion shows that similar interpretation and cognitive bias mechanisms are involved as with chasing lights in a forest...

Sure, Guest101, historical reconstruction requires interpretation, and certainly cognitive bias mechanisms can come into play here also. But cognitive biases are not insidious. If they are recognised as such, they can be taken out of the equation. What do you think are the key biases that you notice over this discussion? - I'm guessing you mean the whole 138 pages of discussion. Or do you mean just this bit, what we're talking about now?

I just wanted to present an interpretation of Halt’s tape that complies with his later testimony in his first interview (the one with Sally Rayl)

There's an order of weighting in evaluating 'evidence'. It's not set in stone, but loosely - 'closer in time' over 'distant recollections'; 'internal evidence' over "this is what, in hindsight, I had meant to say," and so on. The 'story' is never the 'sum total' of all the evidence, it is always a smaller sub-set. Trying to fit everything together into one tidy, consistent whole is a red-herring in historical analysis. It's like gardening. You have to take out the weeds to make the flowers stand out neatly. Basically, what anyone is saying today, or at any time after the fact, is relatively very poor 'evidence', and should be treated as such. The fish gets bigger with each telling, and no-one who's ever spoken out about RFI shows immunity to this.

The fact that Larry and Jim are exposed now does not automatically imply Halt is the same (another psychological pitfall)

I don't think it's about exposing Halt, in any sense that we can do that with Warren and Penniston. There are two different things going on entirely. Both Penniston and Halt have made changes to their stories over time - Warren has never been able to stand consistently still for a second (see Bruni's exasperation in YCTtP). But I'd argue that the mechanism with Penniston has always, right from before the Halt Memo was written, been one of 'fabrication'. Halt, on the other hand, seems to have been prey to nothing more that 'confabulation'. Penniston is trying to get "us" to believe something. Halt is closer to just wanting to believe it for himself - that it was how he thought it was at the time (and Burroughs, more so, IMHO).

If I get time, I'll put something up to demonstrate how confabulation works in Halt's case.

originally posted by: Shaqmeister

originally posted by: Guest101
What about the psychology of listening to someone else’s audio tape?
This discussion shows that similar interpretation and cognitive bias mechanisms are involved as with chasing lights in a forest...

Sure, Guest101, historical reconstruction requires interpretation, and certainly cognitive bias mechanisms can come into play here also. But cognitive biases are not insidious. If they are recognised as such, they can be taken out of the equation. What do you think are the key biases that you notice over this discussion? - I'm guessing you mean the whole 138 pages of discussion. Or do you mean just this bit, what we're talking about now?

I just wanted to present an interpretation of Halt’s tape that complies with his later testimony in his first interview (the one with Sally Rayl)

There's an order of weighting in evaluating 'evidence'. It's not set in stone, but loosely - 'closer in time' over 'distant recollections'; 'internal evidence' over "this is what, in hindsight, I had meant to say," and so on. The 'story' is never the 'sum total' of all the evidence, it is always a smaller sub-set. Trying to fit everything together into one tidy, consistent whole is a red-herring in historical analysis. It's like gardening. You have to take out the weeds to make the flowers stand out neatly. Basically, what anyone is saying today, or at any time after the fact, is relatively very poor 'evidence', and should be treated as such. The fish gets bigger with each telling, and no-one who's ever spoken out about RFI shows immunity to this.

The fact that Larry and Jim are exposed now does not automatically imply Halt is the same (another psychological pitfall)

I don't think it's about exposing Halt, in any sense that we can do that with Warren and Penniston. There are two different things going on entirely. Both Penniston and Halt have made changes to their stories over time - Warren has never been able to stand consistently still for a second (see Bruni's exasperation in YCTtP). But I'd argue that the mechanism with Penniston has always, right from before the Halt Memo was written, been one of 'fabrication'. Halt, on the other hand, seems to have been prey to nothing more that 'confabulation'. Penniston is trying to get "us" to believe something. Halt is closer to just wanting to believe it for himself - that it was how he thought it was at the time (and Burroughs, more so, IMHO).

If I get time, I'll put something up to demonstrate how confabulation works in Halt's case.

Absolutely hilarious
Thanks for my daily dose of laughter

a reply to: Shaqmeister

The KGRA show mentions fiber optics being part of this. Fiber optics carry signals by pulse. Would this been seen as pulses from the black beacon transmitting tower at night? If they were strong signals say?

Gary Osborn is an intelligent researcher and author. The books he has written are exceptional. You should read them !!! This guy is a brilliant author ...

a reply to: Sedonabird

Thank you for that information.

a reply to: ctj83

a reply to: Shaqmeister

What exactly is the end result of all of this?

Halt's 'confabulation' over time.

Between the Halt Tape (December 1980) and the Halt Affidavit (2010) a number of crucial details have been added that weren't there originally. In the interim time - in fact, significantly closer to the earlier date - we, of course, had the 'misidentication hypothesis'. Comparison of the two sources shows that the later additions are far from random, but are just enough to permit Halt to claim - on a point-by-point basis - that the misidentification hypothesis is wrong. This could be deliberate deception, of course. However, there is an argument that this could just as readily be the result of confabulation, were it to be supposed that Halt is genuine in having trouble accepting that he could have been that fooled.

Quotes are from the Halt Affidavit (HA); each 'Explanation' is what the 'misidentification hypothesis' would say about the reports as they were made on the Halt Tape; each 'Implication' looks at how the added details - had they been there all along - would have made the 'misidentification' untenable.

Sometime after 01:48 hrs, Halt apparently responds to something Englund has said with "You just saw a light? Where? ..." He describes it as "...a strange, small red light, looks to be maybe a quarter to half a mile, maybe further out." Note: distant, not in the trees. They then proceed "back to the edge of the clearing so we can get a better look at it." No talk of any movement at all, as yet, and then they're "out through to the clearing now." Now that they are out of the trees, in a clearing, Halt again calls it "red," but Englund disagrees, and we get the first mention of possible movement of the light "I saw a yellow tinge in it, too. Weird! It appears to be maybe moving a little bit this way? It's brighter than it has been."

Explanation: Halt and his men are merely observing the the Orford Ness Lighthouse from a clearing beyond the trees. Halt sees what he believes to be a change in brightness and infers motion towards them as observers. This inference is unnecessary and unwarranted.

"While in Rendlesham Forest, our security team observed a light that looked like a large eye, red in color, moving through the trees." (HA, par. 6)

Added detail: the light was in the trees and (actually) moving.
Implication: lighthouses can't do that. It wasn't the lighthouse.

Someone then refers to "pieces of it shooting off" and Halt merely repeats this. It happens again later.

Explanation: Probably an atmospheric light-refraction effect, or some such illusion. The reference is only to "pieces of it," with no other quality description to imply that these "pieces" are other than a light-phenomena.

"After a few minutes this object began dripping something that looked like molten metal." (HA, par. 6)

Added detail: the "pieces shooting off" were actually dripping (although how something can drip "at eleven o'clock" is ignored) and, in quality, like molten metal.
Implication: Being metal and dripping, it was not merely a light phenomena.

A little later, on the Halt Tape, he says: "We've passed the farmer's house and are crossing the next field and now we have multiple sightings of up to five lights with a similar shape and all, but they seem to be steady now..." This is followed by "0244. We're at the far side of the farmer's... the second farmer's field and made sighting again... This looks like it's clear off to the coast. It's right on the horizon."

Explanation: Halt was looking at the five mast lights of the Orford Ness Transmitter Station. Attention was then turned back to the lighthouse, with a more realistic perception of its distance at this point. (Note: the original object is "sighted again" after the "five lights with a similar shape" were seen.

"A short while later it broke into several smaller, white-colored objects which flew away in all directions." (HA, par. 6)

Added detail: The original object broke up, the "five lights" are now vague in number and are no longer stationary.
Implication: The lighthouse is still there, so it wasn't the lighthouse. The smaller lights were flying all over the place, so they couldn't have been the mast lights.

At 03:05 hrs, Halt starts noticing other lights around him: "At about ten degrees, horizon, directly north, we've got two strange objects... At, er, guess to be about five to ten miles out."

Explanation: At that time and from Halt's location, there were two bright stars within 10 degrees of the horizon and just east of north.

"Upon leaving the forest, our team crossed a farmer's field. As we did so, someone pointed out three objects in the northern sky." (HA, par. 7)

Added detail: A third object to the north has been added to the originally reported two.
Implication: As there were only two bright stars around the northern horizon at about 10 degrees, it wasn't the stars.

There is then talk of the ones to the north "moving away from us." Note, this is again a line-of-sight motion that can only be inferred from a change in brightness.

Explanation: Atmospheric or meteorological dimming effect.

"They were stationary for awhile and then they started to move at high speed in sharp angular patterns as though they were doing a grid search." (HA, par. 7)

Added detail: No longer line-of-sight motions, but "sharp angular patterns" and "grid search[ing]."
Implication: Stars don't move like that. It wasn't the stars.

On the Halt Tape, it is Halt who then notes the appearance of a similar object on the opposite horizon: "03:15. Now we've got an object about 10 degrees directly south, 10 degrees off the horizon."

"At about the same time, someone noticed a similar object in the southern sky." (HA, par. 8)

Explanation: This is Sirius, the brightest star visible from the northern hemisphere.

Then: "Hey, here he comes from the south, he's coming toward us now." Note, again, only line-of-sight motion.

Explanation: Atmospheric or meteorological brightening effect.

"It was round and, at one point, it came towards us at very high speed. It stopped overhead..." (HA, par. 8)

Added detail: it approached at very high speed and got to right overhead, where it stopped.
Implication: Sirius can't do that. It wasn't Sirius.

And on it goes, such that more would be superfluous. You see the 'theme'.

a reply to: Shaqmeister

The KGRA show mentions fiber optics being part of this. Fiber optics carry signals by pulse. Would this been seen as pulses from the black beacon transmitting tower at night? If they were strong signals say?

I get that ET was checking out the nuke storehouse, but what was his little scout ship doing in the trees? Was it simply there for distraction?

a reply to: Shaqmeister

As I wrote earlier, it’s all a matter of interpretation.

"While in Rendlesham Forest, our security team observed a light that looked like a large eye, red in color, moving through the trees." (HA, par. 6)

SGT NEVELS: Yeah, definitely moving. There's two...two lights. One light in front and one light to the left.
SGT BALL: .. it just moved to the right... it moved off to the right.
LT COLONEL HALT: The other one came to the left!

So the light was moving, and since they were in a forest it could very well be moving through the trees.

"After a few minutes this object began dripping something that looked like molten metal." (HA, par. 6)

LT COLONEL HALT: Pieces are falling off it again.

So pieces did fall off…again (which means it happened earlier at least once).

"A short while later it broke into several smaller, white-colored objects which flew away in all directions." (HA, par. 6)

LT COLONEL HALT: We've passed the farmer's house and are crossing the next field and we now have multiple sightings of up to five lights with a similar shape and all, but they seem to be steady now rather than pulsating a glow with a red flash.

They see “multiple” lights, “up to five” (so not exactly five all the time), with a steady light intensity (the steadiness refers to the intensity of the lights: “rather than pulsating a glow with a red flash”).

"Upon leaving the forest, our team crossed a farmer's field. As we did so, someone pointed out three objects in the northern sky." (HA, par. 7)
"They were stationary for a while and then they started to move at high speed in sharp angular patterns as though they were doing a grid search." (HA, par. 7)

LT COLONEL HALT: Three-o-five : At about err... 10 degrees horizon err directly north, we've got two strange objects, err ...half moon shape, dancing about with colored lights on 'em.

Yes, there were two instead of three, at least at that time on the tape. But he refers to them as “strange objects, half moon shape with colored lights on them”, not lights or blinking lights.
And I don’t know what your interpretation of “dancing about” is, but it could mean much more than just auto-kinesis.

There is then talk of the ones to the north "moving away from us." Note, this is again a line-of-sight motion that can only be inferred from a change in brightness.

LT COLONEL HALT: and the ones to the north are moving, one's moving away from us.
SGT BALL: Movin forward!
SGT NEVELS: It's moving out fast!
LT COLONEL HALT: They're moving out fast.
SGT BALL: This one on the right's heading away too.
LT COLONEL HALT: Yeah, they're both heading north.

This was at 3:15. Ten minutes later a logbook entry was made at RAF Watton:

“Bentwaters Command Post contacted Eastern Radar and request information of aircraft in the area – UA37 traffic southbound FL370 – UFO sightings at Bentwaters. They are taking reporting action.”

UA37 was the code for an air corridor used by civilian aircraft which ran north/south approximately 40 miles east of Bentwaters.

A move to the North by an object to their right (‘this one on the right’s heading away to’) would correspond to this corridor East of Bentwaters. But it would hardly be a line-of-sight movement…

"At about the same time, someone noticed a similar object in the southern sky." (HA, par. 8)
"It was round and, at one point, it came towards us at very high speed. It stopped overhead..." (HA, par. 8)

LT COLONEL HALT: Three-a.m.-fifteen: Now we've got an object about ten degrees directly south...
…
LT COLONEL HALT: Yeah, they're both heading north. Ok hey, here he comes from the south, he's coming in toward us now.
SGT BALL: Holy sh*t!
LT COLONEL HALT: Now we’re observing what appears to be a beam coming down to the ground.
SGT BALL: Look at the colours... sh*t

‘Coming in’ in a military context means something serious. It really means that it appears to be on its way to hit you (like a missile of projectile coming in). That is why Ball cries out “Holy sh*t!”

So is it really Halt’s confabulation? Or is it your confirmation bias? We're all human ...

There are certain things can be gleaned to a keen observer. Oh and there's only 23 days to go until the release of the the ebook.

a reply to: mirageman

Even less days now. You are very brave to even consider producing a book "BEFORE" the actual binary book of Penniston comes out, I can only surmise you are pretty sure of your research and findings.

However, inconsistencies' would not necessarily mean "fraud", "hoaxing", or "lies", does it?

Can we expect an um..... bombshell ?

a reply to: Baablacksheep

The fact the codes are of human origin from a specific map-set in 2000s is irrefutable.

Until that question is directly addressed, how can anything else be considered?

The presence, here, of those that could answer but choose not to is disappointing.
I predict that we will never see this central question addressed as there is no answer that will allow this to continue.

a reply to: Baablacksheep

If Penniston has always told the truth then he has absolutely nothing to worry about. He will find it a 'hilarious' read from cover to cover, as his voice on here keeps telling us. If not well...we could speculate on what might happen.

I don't have anything else to add as everything being discussed has been discussed before.

If Penniston has always told the truth then he has absolutely nothing to worry about.

a reply to: mirageman

Now that's the real question. Has he?

originally posted by: Guest101
a reply to: Shaqmeister

As I wrote earlier, it’s all a matter of interpretation.

I do hear what you're saying. And I wonder if you're also saying that all 'interpretations' are equal? No way to choose between them (e.g., parsimony, falsifiability)?

BTW, I'm not hearing all of the things you do in your transcribing of Halt. Do you maybe have a cleaned up version?

a reply to: Baablacksheep

Proof may be around the corner Baa . From nursery rhymes to diversions I think something is about to give.
Really, I look forward to the e-book. It's clear that some have already cottoned onto the ground breaking revelation.
Above all else, the swamping of noise on here is a desperate attempt to stifle the ebook, it seems.
Not much more to say until after the ebook, although as you noted, I redacted some things as the time isn't right.
Knowledge of the codes origin, one way or the other will decide this I guess.

Just over two weeks to go. Or is 14 days, i don't Know Enymore.