Rendlesham Forest 1980 Pt II - Will There Be An Answer?

By and large the article has the usual blah blah blah suspects. However I found this chart below to be interesting and certainly the book…I may have to get it.

Why Have There Been So Many UFO Sightings Near Nuclear Facilities?

Source: www.history.com...

…….”Nuclear-adjacent sightings go back decades, says Robert Hastings, a UFO researcher and author of the book UFOs and Nukes: Extraordinary Encounters at Nuclear Weapons Sites. Hastings says he’s interviewed more than 160 veterans who have witnessed strange things in the skies around nuclear sites.”…….

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1

Shhhhhhh …. I found this earlier today before posting www.teepublic.com...

My first post after what feels like centuries, but that made me howl with laughter, too.

They missed a trick during the section on product details... How it should have read:


Rendlesham Forest UFO Mug:

What Material Is This Item Made Of?

Unknown material, warm to the touch. Do not use in a microwave in case you short-circuit the entire electricity supply within the village of Rendlesham, Suffolk.


What USA Ship Methods Are Available?

Standard (6-8 Business Days) via a triangular-shaped ship or a traditional saucer-shaped craft. For the latter, a surcharge will be applied and credited to Mr A. Bustinza.


What Is The Return/Exchange Policy?

If you are not fully satisfied with the experience the mug provides, please return it to the 50th Century so that our future company can add further attractive embellishments for a reasonable fee adjusted for twenty-nine centuries of inflation.



I'd buy THAT for a dollar!

a reply to: Ophiuchus1
There's lots of reasons to be skeptical of Hasting's claims. Just look at Rendlesham forest incident for an example.

Lt Col Halt is one of Hastings star witnesses, but look at all the problems with just this case. The claims that something or someone was messing around with the nuclear weapons appear to be entirely fictitious. So I don't think anything was interacting with their nukes at Woodbridge base, but if you believe that it did happen, you would also have to conclude that their response of doing absolutely nothing about it was entirely inappropriate.

Halt's affidavit from around 2010 is featured on Hasting's website, but it's really a sadly inaccurate document because Halt apparently didn't check his own audio tapes, and his own letter that he wrote soon after the December 1980 incident, before writing contradicting information in his affidavit. Ian Ridpath has a page about the inaccuracies in Halt's affidavit:

Col Halt’s iffy affidavit - Rewriting history at Rendlesham

Unfortunately, this product of his 30-year-old memory differs so substantively from what he said and wrote at the time, on his tape recording and in his memo to the MoD, that it would be destroyed in a court of law.

Dr David Clarke wrote an article about why Halt seems to have little credibility with his nukes claims:

Halt’s story has grown over the years from a straightforward sighting of “unexplained lights” (his words) in the forest near RAF Woodbridge, Suffolk, into something that resembles a script for a science fiction film.

In the space of three decades “unexplained lights” have been transformed into intelligently controlled craft of ET origin whose occupants “directed laser-like beams of light down into or near” the nuclear weapons store at nearby RAF Bentwaters. Like Hastings, since retirement Halt has become convinced the US and UK governments – including his own former colleagues - are conspiring to hide The Truth from the public.

Again, this type of claim can sound convincing to those who are impressed by military ranks and titles. For those unfamiliar with the minutiae of the Rendlesham legend, or too lazy to critically examine the evidence it can be easier just to follow the herd and churn out another Flat Earth story. But anyone who puts the Rendlesham legend under the a critical microscope will realise that Halt’s claims simply do not stand up to scrutiny.

Like Salas, Halt’s testimony has grown and become more elaborate in the constant re-telling, encouraged by his UFOlogical minders. Like Hastings and the others, he is now part of the UFO Disclosure movement and appears to see every new development through the lens of his belief in a conspiracy to hide evidence of ET visits. For that reason, he cannot be described as a “credible witness".

Furthermore, as I have revealed in New Light on Rendlesham, Halt’s former boss, the RAF Bentwaters base commander Col Ted Conrad, has gone on record to say he was in direct radio contact with his deputy as Halt’s experience in the forest unfolded. Conrad says he had trained Security Police on patrol looking out for anything unusual. But despite “a sparkling, clear, fogless night with a good field of view in all directions” they saw nothing. Neither was anything unusual reported by RAF Air Defence radars. That led him to conclude there was no hard evidence that required further action.

Even worse, Halt’s own laconic official account of the events, set out in his famous memo to the British Ministry of Defence makes no mention any threat to base security or the nuclear weapons store. By his own account, after several hours spent pursuing UFOs through the forest he simply turned around and went home to bed, leaving lights still visible in the sky as dawn broke (which strongly suggests they were bright stars as identified by astronomer Ian Ridpath).

Having failed to persuade his own superior officers in the USAF chain of command to take his story seriously Halt waited a further two weeks, until the British base commander Don Moreland returned from Christmas holidays, before he informed the Ministry of Defence.

Halt’s memo was dated 13 January 1981 and described events that took place on 27/28 December the previous year. The memo contains no mention of UFO interest in the weapons store at Bentwaters, nor does it highlight any perceived threat to British sovereignty. For that very reason the British authorities chose to ignore it. Yet incredibly Halt is on record as expressing puzzlement as to why no higher authority, British or American, took the story seriously or instigated a full investigation.

Hastings makes a big deal of the fact that Halt waited until retirement from the USAF in 1991 before he revealed, on a US TV show, that he saw UFOs shining beams upon the weapons store at RAF Bentwaters. Apparently he was concerned about the impact this might have on his career.

So we are asked to believe that Halt, “an upstanding dry former military chief” neglected to mention a possible direct threat to a frontline NATO base either to his own superiors or the MoD, because he was concerned he would not be taken seriously.

But he then expects us to take him seriously when he reveals this same information on a TV programme 11 years after the event?

If the evidence for aliens interfering with nuclear weapons is so good – then why does Robert Hastings pick such poor examples to prove his case?

The bottom line is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In both the Malmstrom and RAF Woodbridge cases there is absolutely no evidence.

What we actually have is a mass of deeply conflicting and contradictory testimony concerning ambiguous events that happened decades ago. Testimony that is being filtered through the subjective and selective agenda of those who want us to believe in ETs and government cover-ups. None of these stories would stand up to the vigorous standards required of evidence presented in a courtroom.

NO EVIDENCE OF ET INTEREST IN NUKES

So is there really any credible evidence to support Hastings’s claims about alien interest in our nuclear weapons?

If the security and intelligence agencies really were concerned about UFO sightings in the vicinity of nuclear facilities, as Hastings claims, one would expect there to be some official, corroborating documentary evidence, either from the paper trail the events produced or through leaks from senior, credible sources within the military/intelligence community.

In pursuit of such evidence I found that one British intelligence agency has indeed examined the assertion “that UFOs are ‘spying’ on strategic installations such as power stations, airfields and nuclear facilities”.

But they concluded “there is no evidence whatsoever to substantiate this claim.”

This document, once classified “Secret – UK Eyes Only” was released under the UK Freedom of Information Act in 2006, yet there was no mention of this at the UFO-Nukes press conference.

Not only does the Rendlesham Forest incident nukes claim seem fictitious, but so do Hastings other claims. Clarke makes some comments about those cases at the same link.

I can give you a lot more links about Hastings lack of credibility. If you want them, just ask.

a reply to: Arbitrageur
I have seen this story several times. I have not researched it myself. So I will make no claims on if really happened or not. I will how ever point out some flaws in the debunker story.

Having failed to persuade his own superior officers in the USAF chain of command to take his story seriously Halt waited a further two weeks, until the British base commander Don Moreland returned from Christmas holidays, before he informed the Ministry of Defence.

Well what would you expect him to do? Keep shouting I seen a UFO and get put in a strait jacket? Anyone claiming to have seen a UFO is ridiculed that simple. In fact this guy is doing it. It tends to make a person reconsider talking about it. But debunkers can't understand that. Hey I am only calling you a stark raving mad, lying , hallucinating, can't tell a light house from a alien ship idiot. Why did you change your story or shut up?

So we are asked to believe that Halt, “an upstanding dry former military chief” neglected to mention a possible direct threat to a frontline NATO base either to his own superiors or the MoD, because he was concerned he would not be taken seriously. But he then expects us to take him seriously when he reveals this same information on a TV programme 11 years after the event?

Wow so reporting a unidentified aircraft flying around a nuclear armed base, is not reporting a direct threat?

Halt: I seen a UFO flying around the base. Commanding officer :Well nothing on radar, I don't believe you. Then BOOM part of the base blows up. Commanding Officer: Halt you neglected to mention the unidentified craft was armed.

Any unidentified aircraft around a nuclear armed base or any base, is going to be considered a threat. If it's not those idiots don't need to be in the military.


I like this part right here.

Testimony that is being filtered through the subjective and selective agenda of those who want us to believe in ETs and government cover-ups. None of these stories would stand up to the vigorous standards required of evidence presented in a courtroom.

Here the guy is making the assertion that government cover ups are preposterous. And actually more than one person is sitting in jail right now. Based on nothing more than eye witness testimony.

The bottom line is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In both the Malmstrom and RAF Woodbridge cases there is absolutely no evidence.

Reminds me of a cartoon I once seen. A fish is caught, then released. It swims back down to his buddies. Tells them there is something out side of the water, and it was abducted by it. Of course they do not believe him, he has no evidence and won't be getting any, since humans are far more intelligent then fish.

originally posted by: Uknownparadox
a reply to: Arbitrageur
I have seen this story several times. I have not researched it myself. So I will make no claims on if really happened or not. I will how ever point out some flaws in the debunker story.

You are merely pointing out the flaws in your understanding due to your failure to research this series of events.

Halt: I seen a UFO flying around the base. Commanding officer :Well nothing on radar, I don't believe you. Then BOOM part of the base blows up. Commanding Officer: Halt you neglected to mention the unidentified craft was armed.

The base commander Ted Conrad said the skies were clear and he and several other people were also looking at the skies, and they saw nothing. Halt described the lights he was seeing as "star-like objects" and an astronomer who researched the case thinks what Halt was seeing were in fact stars, which doesn't contradict the witness description of "star-like" objects. And nobody ever did anything about them, Halt just left the stars or whatever they were still sitting up in the sky and never even tried to shoot them down for hovering above the nukes.

Any unidentified aircraft around a nuclear armed base or any base, is going to be considered a threat. If it's not those idiots don't need to be in the military.

It's not unusual at all for UFOs to be later identified as astronomical objects such as stars, planets, meteors, etc. If the UFOs Halt was seeing were stars, his superior the base commander didn't see them as a threat, why should he?

Here the guy is making the assertion that government cover ups are preposterous. And actually more than one person is sitting in jail right now. Based on nothing more than eye witness testimony.

Court officers are well aware of the fallibility of eyewitnesses by now, so it's effectively impossible these days to obtain a conviction for any serious crime based on eyewitness testimony alone.

In the past, when eyewitness testimony may have been given more weight, innocent people were sent to jail based on eyewitness testimony, and they are still being released based on DNA evidence.

Mistaken Identifications are the Leading Factor In Wrongful Convictions

Mistaken eyewitness identifications contributed to approximately 69% of the more than 375 wrongful convictions in the United States overturned by post-conviction DNA evidence.

I posted this a few posts ago but since you haven't researched the case, read the comments from Jenny Randles who has, she wrote a book about it, "UFO Crash Landing? Friend or Foe?: The Full Story of the Rendlesham Forest Close Encounter. " (1998)

Jenny Randles did a lot of research on the case and she's not really sure if there was a UFO event anymore, but it's pretty obvious there were some misperceptions at the time of the event, and as David Clarke mentions, the story has grown to mythical proportions since then. People are inventing things that didn't actually happen, like Penniston's ridiculous "binary code":

Whilst suggesting that a UAP, an unidentified atmospheric phenomenon of unknown origin, might have caused parts of the case, she noted: "Whilst some puzzles remain, we can probably say that no unearthly craft were seen in Rendlesham Forest. We can also argue with confidence that the main focus of the events was a series of misperceptions of everyday things encountered in less than everyday circumstances."

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Well Arbi….after reading your post…….like Halts upcoming book, I’ll wait until Hastings book is a free online PDF! Of course I’ll enjoy the critiques of fellow members here who will probably buy the book. Gotta hand it to you…..you saved me some $$$ 😉



Hmmmmm I wonder if magic shrooms were picked from the forest and was served up as Wild Mushroom Soup in the mess hall on the days of “the event”….



In reference to H&H….No doubt, the older you get, the more your brain jello’s like Bidens!

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Regardless of who was involved if something was flying around that was not seen on radar and not seen by the men until after the radio call would make the base commanders statement true, from a certain point of view.


you think ANY nuclear power would admit to a hostile or pretend hostile force getting all the way to and possibly in the WSA?


I'm sure they had PAL links at that time but if you knew enough about the warheads you could at least cause a fizzle and wipe out the base or just blow the warheads with C4 and you got yourself a dirty bomb and no base.

if it was a training mission to see how they would react of course the commander isn't going to tell them about it as it would alert them to the surprise.

what burned that mans retinas/brain that night?

eyes are very sensitive to microwaves....Russians are famous for some of their DEW programs back than. they were some of the first people to make non nuclear EMP bombs and cruise missiles


Nuclear bases in the US have ALL sorts of nasty anti terror toys that are rather nasty.

The us filed BZ for quite some time and kept a stock pile of it, I'm not sure when we got rid of it all but the Russians gassed an entire hostage crisis with a fentanyl analogue and killed most of the hostages and hostage takers because they told no-one they were using an ultra potent opioid to knock them out

you don't think they would use an orbiting satellite to irradiate the ground with high power microwaves? maybe that's why that cosmos sat was shot down...I mean de orbited.


again the security around these weapons are no joke and the people guarding them will shoot you dead if you cross a certain line in the sand(so to speak).

i think it was an elaborate test or even an actual attack/incursion/spy mission.

for all we know what touched down was just an advanced space capsule to get special forces or spies across the world in less than 30 mins.

that would be quite the prize for American annalists

they are all liars and the federal government is paying a man for what happened to him that night for nothing? I know personally how hard it is to get the VA to say your disabled so SOMETHING odd happened to at least one of them



looks familiar

so does this


and this




inside a WSA




something strange happened and there is historical proof both sides are 100% willing to used incapsatating agents in serious situations even if people might get 'damaged'

A refresher of an upcoming and very long awaiting documentary…..the almost forgotten Capel Green

Release date? Who knows if ever….

a reply to: ConfusedBrit

That’s Highlarious!

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

Supposed to be 28th Dec 2021. But as we know Heseltine is now involved as vice president to ICER, not seen him mention Capel Green of late.

uk.linkedin.com...

I did notice he too is writing a book on it all .

Gary has undertaken a four-year reinvestigation of Britain’s most famous UFO event at Rendlesham Forest, Suffolk, close to the twin bases of RAF Woodbridge and RAF Bentwaters used at the time by the US Air Force. He is writing a book on it that will feature new military witness testimony that should significantly change the existing narrative.

I see ConfusedBrit is still full of fun😂.

*Note* the book is said to be a reinvestigation of it all.

Here is a little more on Heseltine's activities he is putting out, there is a mention of Capel Green and his pending book , so guess Capel Green is
still comming?

en.theufologyworldcongress.com...

a reply to: ConfusedBrit

LOL! Welcome back CB!

I won't be purchasing one of those after ordering this from "J.Penny Stone Pottery©



It cost me $50 plus shipping. And ships aren't cheap!!

Supposedly the original mug on Jimbo's table as he was writing up binary codes to his notebook in 2010 err 1980. I later found out that he hadn't been any closer than 50m to it.

Who's the bloody mug now?!!!

a reply to: mirageman

In Binary Alphabet the mug says DAD

Source: www.convertbinary.com...

D= 01000100
A= 01000001
D= 01000100

No, it says you are all mugs, love jim. a reply to: Ophiuchus1

I once suggested to ATS power’s that be, to have a ATS logo’d store….selling ATS hats, t-shirts, mugs, etc…..and how they don’t even have to have inventory…..there are fulfillment 3rd party’s that takes care of everything including warehousing….all ATS has to do is receive the customer orders at the ATS website storefront, extract their profit, then send the order to the Fulfillment center and they ship the product to the customer in the name of ATS……

All I got was ATS crickets and tumble weeds for a non-reply.

Oh welllllll

I’d buy some ATS logo’d stuff from ATS……for example

a reply to: Arbitrageur

You are merely pointing out the flaws in your understanding due to your failure to research this series of events.

Incorrect, I am pointing out you and the debunkers, possibly one in the same persons, no win situation.

The base commander Ted Conrad said the skies were clear and he and several other people were also looking at the skies, and they saw nothing.

None of that is relevant AT ALL. You're saying this because I pointed out your debunker lied. here is the quote.

we are asked to believe that Halt, “an upstanding dry former military chief” neglected to mention a possible direct threat to a frontline NATO base either to his own superiors or the MoD,

He did mention it. But your and the debunkers position is. Since the base commander didn't see anything. Then he did alert anyone to a threat.

Court officers are well aware of the fallibility of eyewitnesses by now, so it's effectively impossible these days to obtain a conviction for any serious crime based on eyewitness testimony alone.

Ask Ghislaine Maxwell. She is sitting in jail and has been for quite some time. On nothing but eye witness testimonial from years and years ago. Same way with Bill Cosby, he got off on a technical other wise he would still be sitting in jail right now on, you guessed it, eye witness testimony.

This is how debunkers work. Make certain none of your criteria for evidence can be met. If that don't work change the subject. That is not objective, it's subjective. The same thing they are claiming everyone else is when they believe in government conspiracies and cover ups. Never mind they have really happened.

Logically Halt would be taking a huge gamble to throw away his career in the military, in hopes of making money on UFO's. You have to admit.(well a objective person would) He was doing pretty good in the military. Deputy base commander of a nuclear armed base, probable not much more than a buck private. Making money off of his sighting isn't a crime either. It's what all Americans and probably most of the world does. If you see something figure out something, have a scientific discovery, people make money off of it.

I have personally seen a UFO or UAP. They exist and they are not military. I saw one in 1978 it's the only one I have ever hallucinated lol. It wasn't some odd light in the sky it was up close and personal. There was no mistaking it for some light house light, helicopter, plane, weather balloon, etcetera. What they are, where they come from, or what they are doing, I don't know.

Just curious do you spend as much effort debunking god? After all there is far more evidence supporting UFO's than there is god.

originally posted by: Uknownparadox
He did mention it. But your and the debunkers position is. Since the base commander didn't see anything. Then he did alert anyone to a threat.

You apparently don't follow what Dr. David Clarke is saying here:

web.archive.org...

Hastings makes a big deal of the fact that Halt waited until retirement from the USAF in 1991 before he revealed, on a US TV show, that he saw UFOs shining beams upon the weapons store at RAF Bentwaters. Apparently he was concerned about the impact this might have on his career.

So we are asked to believe that Halt, “an upstanding dry former military chief” neglected to mention a possible direct threat to a frontline NATO base either to his own superiors or the MoD, because he was concerned he would not be taken seriously.

But he then expects us to take him seriously when he reveals this same information on a TV programme 11 years after the event?

Halt didn't mention anything shining beams upon the weapons store at RAF Bentwaters in his famous memo to the RAF in January 1981. You're saying he did mention it. Not at the time when he wrote the memo in 1981, here is the memo, there's nothing about that. If he had mentioned that, someone might have taken the memo more seriously, instead of more or less ignoring it which is what the MOD apparently did, which shouldn't be too surprising since Halt didn't request any action or even ask any question.

ianridpath.com

this is the RFI Kung Fu temple


show some


01100111 01101111 01101111 01100100 00100000 01100100 01100001 01101110 01101101 00100000 01110010 01100101 01110011 01110000 01100101 01100011 01110100 00001010


we are the keepers of the holy texts and waders of ... 01110011 01101000 01101001 01110100

originally posted by: penroc3
this is the RFI Kung Fu temple


show some


01100111 01101111 01101111 01100100 00100000 01100100 01100001 01101110 01101101 00100000 01110010 01100101 01110011 01110000 01100101 01100011 01110100 00001010


we are the keepers of the holy texts and waders of ... 01110011 01101000 01101001 01110100

good damn respect ………$hit …….

(You missed spelled damn ..you got danm)

Btw .. a space in binary is 00100000
Source: www.intel.com...

a reply to: [post=26138288]wobbs62[/post

Actually while you are all busy buying mugs and alien booze bottles, a tid bit of info. Osborn is very much wanting serious ones to check over his findings re Jim's codes so I see out there.

Otherwise you all seem pretty jolly, it's not Xmas yet.

Pity Halts book 2 is so pricey maybe it will appear on Kindle?