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

reply to post by foxbarking

Thanks for the insightful comments. Studying memory issues is a hobby that interests me but I've never studied it in a serious or rigorous way so I find your comments interesting. I've put more effort into studying perception, and that's quite the mind field even before we add the memory issues.

reply to post by ZetaRediculian

While it may be distorted by perception issues, at least the Halt audio recording is not distorted by memory issues, because, it's an audio recording made live during the event.

He was out for something like 4 hours and I think the recording was about 18 minutes, so he was switching the record mode on and off, but Halt's explanation of why the frequency of the flashing phenomenon being observed exactly matches the frequency of the lighthouse that it's due to the recording being switched on and off makes no sense. What makes more sense to me is that he seems to be in some kind of denial about the correlation he wants to deny. Later, he even went so far as to change his story about the direction he was looking when he saw the flashing, because that too, indicated he was observing the lighthouse.

This change in his story is something I've seen before. The witness later realizes the story they told is inconsistent with some other idea they have or some other idea they want other people to have, so they change the story to match the idea. This same thing happened on the BOAC UFO incident; the pilot changed his story when he later realized the earliest and probably most accurate account he gave didn't support some idea he had. I'm not sure if this is really faulty memory exactly or alteration through confabulation/wishful thinking.

I would love to know the inner workings of Halt's mind, and whether his inner mind even realizes how inconsistent his story sounds when he changes it, and whether he actually suspects it may have been the lighthouse he saw. I know he's saying it wasn't, but I find it hard to believe him now that he's changed his story, because now even if you wanted to believe him, which version of his story would you believe? The one before, or after he changed it?

foxbarking
I actually find this very interesting because it gives me a chance to do something I haven't done before. I am not familiar at all with this story. So my comments below are only involving reliability of memory as I have observed it in studies. So I'll put my beliefs about the reliability of memory, than go back and read the thread and keep my observations consistent with what I say here. and I am not egotistical enough to think that I am "right" but it may be interesting to be forced to keep my argument consistent in this way.

I think I get it:

Your theory seems to be:
'People telling the truth' implies: Inconsistencies between their stories.
'People telling a (coordinated) lie' implies: Hardly any inconsistencies between their stories.

I can say up front that the stories of different witnesses are full of inconsistencies, both if you compare different witnesses and if you compare stories of the same witness over time. Some inconsistencies are small, others are huge. But of course feel free to study this case yourself; Mirageman has done a great job collecting all the sources of information.

Your observation will probably be: Inconsistencies between their stories.

The logical conclusion from this observation will be: No coordinated lie. So no coordinated hoax or coordinated cover-up.

But what I really would like to know: Who is telling the truth?
The small inconsistencies I can live with. They can be explained as normal memory ‘noise’. But the huge inconsistencies are simply too big.

If several people witness a car crash, they will tell different stories about the color of the car, the direction from which it came, etc. But if some witnesses say they saw a plane crash, well, this is above the ‘memory noise floor’ in my opinion. Something else must be going on.

I wonder what your opinion is after studying the material of this case.

To get a better idea of the timeline, this link is of great value:
bentwaters1980.proboards.com...
Scroll down to find further links to all used references.

Please study the original material in full as much as possible. Snippets posted on this forum are often cherry-picked to support certain beliefs.

Given your background, you might be interested in an article of one of your peers who intensively studied the UFO phenomenon. It starts on page 217 of this pdf:
nicap.org...

The article is by Roger N. Shepard, who then was professor of psychology at Stanford University.
He, too, addresses the problems with eye witness testimony, but also comes with some interesting observations and suggestions.

You can also find a statement of Dr. Robert L. Hall, who then was head of the department of sociology at the Universtity of Illinois. It is on page 95 of the pdf.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

While it may be distorted by perception issues, at least the Halt audio recording is not distorted by memory issues, because, it's an audio recording made live during the event.

yes, that was my original point

memory and perception are interesting and go hand in hand. Not only are our perceptions shaped by our experiences and memories, we can only have memories if we perceived them...or not. Memories can be of something we never perceived. False memories are probably more common than we realize.

mirageman
It is all down to whether Gerry Harris' testimony matches what you want to believe happened. He is on record from the early 1980s so he has not jumped on any bandwagon. His statements are as awkward to the de-bunkers as the lighthouse at Orfordness is to believers.

At 1:55 in the video below is another local resident who witnessed the lights: Gordon Levitt.
He compares his sighting to the lighthouse (look carefully, the lighthouse is blinking to his left).
This documentary was filmed in 1984.

Arbitrageur
While it may be distorted by perception issues, at least the Halt audio recording is not distorted by memory issues, because, it's an audio recording made live during the event.

Be aware that there can be serious perception issues at the side of the listener to this audio recording, too.

The image that emerges in your mind when you are listening to the recording is distorted by your own personal bias.

Take this tape fragment for example (time stamps between square brackets):

LT COL HALT: [13:20] You just saw a light?
LT ENGLUND: Yeah.
LT COL HALT: Where. .wai. .wai . . wait a. .slow down. Where?
LT ENGLUND: Right on this position here straight ahead in between the tre. . . .[13:27] there it is again, watch, straight ahead off my flashlight there Sir, [13:32] there it is.
LT COL HALT: Hey I see it too. What is it?
LT ENGLUND: We don't know Sir.
LT COL HALT: Yeah it's a strange small red light, looks to be out maybe a quarter to half mile, maybe further out. I'm gonna switch off...

Now take your perception when listening to this fragment:

“the frequency of the flashing phenomenon being observed exactly matches the frequency of the lighthouse“

The image in your mind already contains the following perception biases that are not on that particular tape fragment:
- The phenomenon was flashing at that moment
- It was flashing with a fixed frequency, the 5 second frequency of the lighthouse

All we can deduce from the tape is that
1. The phenomenon was not seen by Englund and Halt during at least 8 seconds (from before 13:20 till 13:27)
2. It was perceived by Halt as a ‘strange small red light’.
We cannot conclude it was flashing at that moment, let alone that it was flashing with a fixed frequency of 5 seconds.

By adding images of the small white blinking lighthouse light to this tape fragment, the accompanying perception biases are further enhanced and you totally convince yourself they were looking at the lighthouse.

I think the right thing to do here is to check objectively whether the tape recording matches the later report to the MOD, i.e., to check whether the data from various sources (the tape and Halt’s memory) is consistent.

The Halt memo states:

“a red sun-like light was seen through the trees. It moved about and pulsed.”

There is no inconsistency between that statement and the tape fragment.

reply to post by Guest101


Bias works both ways... this is important and should not be left out.

HALT: There is no doubt about it – there’s some type of strange flashing red light ahead.
ENGLUND: Sir, it’s yellow.

www.ianridpath.com...

You make some interesting points but synching the tape with the actual lighthouse pulse makes the lighthouse a pretty obvious choice. The dialogue follows naturally with the lighthouse pulse. Location and direction all match the light house. Bias is pretty much eliminated when the ambiguity is eliminated. Halts "memory" adds back the ambiguity.

Guest101
The image that emerges in your mind when you are listening to the recording is distorted by your own personal bias.

Take this tape fragment for example (time stamps between square brackets):

LT COL HALT: [13:20] You just saw a light?
LT ENGLUND: Yeah.
LT COL HALT: Where. .wai. .wai . . wait a. .slow down. Where?
LT ENGLUND: Right on this position here straight ahead in between the tre. . . .[13:27] there it is again, watch, straight ahead off my flashlight there Sir, [13:32] there it is.
LT COL HALT: Hey I see it too. What is it?
LT ENGLUND: We don't know Sir.
LT COL HALT: Yeah it's a strange small red light, looks to be out maybe a quarter to half mile, maybe further out. I'm gonna switch off...

It's funny you should cite that passage, as someone has added 5 second beep intervals to the audio so we can compare it. Go to this link:

The Rendlesham Forest UFO

Every lighthouse has a published interval at which it flashes. This is how sea captains are able to identify which light they're seeing. The Orfordness lighthouse has an interval of 5 seconds. Now listen to the same exchange again; I've added a beep at exactly five second intervals:

I can't embed the audio here so find that passage at that link and listen to the audio with and without the 5-second beeps added. It's a match.

I find the argument that the interval from 13:20 to 13:32 is significantly different from two five second intervals to be non-sequitur when you consider the transcription doesn't reflect precise times and flow of words, and there is some delay between seeing and speaking, which is variable.

If instead of looking at the transcript you listen to the tape while looking at a stopwatch (or add beeps) and take these variables into account, there is nothing in the timing of the tape that indicates it's not the 5 second frequency of the lighthouse flashing. All you've pointed out is that the transcript is less than perfect as most are, and that there are other variables, none of which contradict the lighthouse.

Match that up with the fact that Halt's first version of his story reports that the direction he saw the flashing was the direction of the lighthouse and it's no longer a speculative timing match. Later note that Halt changes his story because he realizes he was looking at the lighthouse, to make it sound like he wasn't looking at the lighthouse, and I believed him the first time, and believe his change of story shows he now realizes he was looking at the lighthouse.

ZetaRediculian
Bias works both ways... this is important and should not be left out.

HALT: There is no doubt about it – there’s some type of strange flashing red light ahead.
ENGLUND: Sir, it’s yellow.

Yes it was perceived differently by people, and cameras too. There are some links regarding different colors photographed in this passage from the same link above:

Although several times during the tape Col. Halt calls the light red, he is contradicted by his men who say it's yellow. In photographs of the 1980 light taken before it was replaced, it did indeed look orange. Even the new light, which is mercury vapor discharge and therefore whiter and bluer than the original incandescent, appears distinctly red in photographs and video when viewed from Rendlesham forest.

reply to post by Guest101

I've already addressed this 8 second gap Guest101 in a post several pages back. You need to listen to the tape again. You're wrong in your assesment.

You are beginning this 8 second (actually 7 second) gap at 12:52 when Halt asks if he saw a light. In reality, Neville brings Halt to the spot where he sees the light because Halt can't see it from where he is. You can hear him moving to postion with Halt, then Neville says "Right in this position here... straight ahead, in between the trees" and points out the position where he can see it at 12:56/7. Not when Halt asks if he saw a light beginning at 12:52. For this to fit into your 7/8 seconds, you have to start the stopwatch at the beginning of Halt's question asking if Neville saw a light. That's ridiculous seeing as the point of Neville at that point is positioning Halt where the light is in the first place so he can see it. You're once again attempting to force fit this to fit your belief.

HALT TAPE

12:52-12:58

Halt- "You just saw a light? Where.. slow down... where?"
Nevilles- "Right in this position here... straight ahead, in between the trees..." (brings Halt to the spot he saw the light- AT 12:56)

12:59

Nevilles- "... There it is again"

That's a 3 second time span between positioning to see the light with Halt and first direct acknowledgement of the light on the tape. 12:56-12:59 = 3 seconds. Not 8
-----------------------------------

12:59

Nevilles- (continuation from exchange above) "Watch straight off the end of my flashlight there..

13:04

Nevilles ... There it is"
Halt "I see it too"

That's a 5 second time span between the first direct acknowledgement and second of the light. 12:59-13:04 = 5 seconds
================================================

You would have to believe it's just an incredible coincidence that there's a lighthouse in their vicinity that happens to be flashing at the exact same rate as this UFO. Seriously, what are the chances of that?

You've done absolutely nothing to eliminate the lighthouse from this section of his sighting. Don't run off and say "I'm not discussing this anymore" like you've already done in this thread several times. Listen to the tape again and address my points.

reply to post by IsaacKoi


It seems Andrew Pike is asking questions! Emails are going around because the book Isaac Koi has PDF'd is a fake! He is not amused and is taking it very seriously. Seems word got to him and on investigation of the souce seems it is not the first bit of dodgy doings by them in his name. The book is being rereleased next year for the 35th anniversary if a publisher can be found.

ZetaRediculian, Arbitrageur, Ectoplasm8:
I don’t see anything in your posts that contradicts mine.

ZetaRediculian takes a tape fragment where the object is much closer to the men and brightens up. He conveniently leaves out the part where there are two objects, one went off to the right, the other came to the left and appears to shoot off pieces.

Arbitrageur only repeats his arguments and thereby reconfirms the perception bias I pointed out earlier. He also has the direction of the lighthouse wrong (it’s at 97-98 degrees, not 110-120 degrees). He, too, conveniently skips the parts where there are two objects, one went off to the right, the other came to the left and appears to shoot off pieces.

Ectoplasm8 shows he has the strongest perception bias of all, by somehow perceiving a flash that isn’t on the tape (after ‘in between the trees’). Force-fitting the data in that way only underlines my earlier observations. And, again, the part is skipped where there are two objects, one went off to the right, the other came to the left and appears to shoot off pieces.

I see three posters that are blind to their own biased interpretation of the tape but look down on the observational skills of trained and educated USAF officers and war veterans. Like I said earlier, discussions based on these grounds are useless. This overbearing manner is not even remotely related to science and rationalism.

The description that Halt gives of the object matches the tape. It’s as simple as that. The most logical and obvious conclusion is: He’s telling the truth.

A red sun-like light was seen through the trees. It moved about and pulsed. At one point it appeared to throw off glowing particles.

That’s clearly not the small blinking white light of the lighthouse at a 1980 compass heading of 97-98 degrees. And that’s my final word on the lighthouse. I tackled the other ‘pro-lighthouse arguments’ earlier in this thread.

SkywatcherUK
It seems Andrew Pike is asking questions! Emails are going around because the book Isaac Koi has PDF'd is a fake! He is not amused and is taking it very seriously. Seems word got to him and on investigation of the souce seems it is not the first bit of dodgy doings by them in his name.

Very strange.

Incredible even (in the sense of appearing to lack credibility...).

Are you sure the above is accurate SkywatcherUK?

I haven't heard anything about this (despite it being rather easy to contact me, including at my email address - which as many people know is simply my username at gmail.com - or here on ATS, Facebook or elsewhere).

I can't imagine why anyone would bother producing a "fake" book (particularly in the name of Andrew Pike) to send to me for scanning and potential posting to a free file storage website, if I managed to get permission from Andrew Pike.

Writing a book would take a fair bit of time and effort so I have difficulty with the concept of someone having produced this as a "fake" - particularly as I'd always made it clear that I would not be posting any scan of that book unless and until Andrew Pike gave his permission.

(Perhaps SkywatcherUK means that the copy I scanned isn't the final/latest version or something, rather than being a complete "fake"???? I'm not even sure how Andrew Pike knows what I've scanned, since I haven't posted it online because I haven't had time to write to him seeking his permission yet).

By the way, I'll quote below a message I posted for Andrew Pike on ATS and several other forums about 2 years ago (which I also sent to quite a few of the researchers involved in the Rendlesham saga). I never heard from him but obtained a copy of his book (or what I was told was his book and looks like it...) from another source.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

IsaacKoi
Is anyone on ATS still in touch with Andrew Pike, author of the book “The Rendlesham File : Britain’s Roswell”?

If so, could you let me have an email address or simply forward the email below and ask him to send any response to me at [email protected].

Thanks, Isaac

www.abovetopsecret.com...
[Email for Andrew Pike begins]

Hi Andrew,

I am writing to you about your book "The Rendlesham File : Britain's Roswell" which -as you know - is out of print and very difficult to obtain. Indeed, detailed information about its contents is not easy to obtain. The most detailed comments I’ve seen in relation to your book are fairly short reviews on Amazon and also UFO DATA’s review of that book in Issue 5 at page 38 at the link below:
www.ufo-data.co.uk...


I am a barrister in England with an interest in various issues relating to reports of "UFOs" and have written various items online about such issues, including the following:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...


When reading through about 1,000 UFO books a few years ago, I made notes of references to discussions of various UFO events, documents and personalities which I cross-references in a 2,000 page document. The relevant list of references in relation to the Rendlesham Forest Incident(s) is available online at the link below (in a table of references to 89 relevant books, which can be sorted by title, author or date by clicking on the top of the relevant column):
www.isaackoi.com...


That table does not include a reference to your book on Rendlesham, since I do not currently own a copy of it.

I know from your posts on the old forum at Rendlesham-Incident.co.uk in a thread entitled “Bustinza phone interview,20 april 1984” and another thread entitled “May 2010 Transcript of Col Halt tape “ that you sold your book at a loss at best (and gave some copies away, including to Sacha Christie) due to the costs of self-publishing and the cost of your research. You also said that “to avoid any further smear of being a money maker on the back of this subject, I am going to withdraw rights from the publisher in an email this morning. It's dead and gone! And so am I, that's it!” - so I will not ask if you have any plans to have the second edition printed and sold commercially.

However, if you want, assuming you are the copyright holder, it would be relatively simple to make your book available as a PDF via a free file storage website.

In this way, you could make your work available to those interested without anyone having any grounds whatsoever for suggesting you are seeking to profit from your work (not that I personally see anything wrong with seeking to recover the costs you incurred or even make a profit on them).

Provided you give your permission for your book to be made for free in this way, I'm sure I can sort things out for you so you would not have to lift a finger. I recently did something similar in relation to another UFO book (Willy Smith's "On pilots and UFOs") which his widow decided she would like to make available free of charge to the UFO community - as I discussed at the thread below:
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Given the time and effort you must have put into your book, it would be a shame if it continued to be unavailable to those interested in reading it.

I look forward to hearing from you.

All the best,

Isaac

If anyone can now forward the above email to Andrew Pike, it would need to be updated to refer to the "book" I obtained and scanned, in preparation for (hopefully) getting his permission to upload it to a free file storage website. I would also want to add, by way of some background, in the last few years I have sought to assist various UFO researchers to put their out-of-print work online when there was no realistic prospect of a commercial republication. For example:

(1) with the permission (and, indeed, enthusiastic support) of the widow of Willy Smith I put his out-of-print self-published book on a free file storage website,

(2) with the permission of the author, I put a self-published UFO book by C B Scott Jones on a free file storage website,

(3) with the permission of the editor/publisher of the defunct British UFO magazine "The Probe Report", I uploaded complete scans of that publication to a free file storage website,

(4) with the permission of CSICOP (which in turn had previously had permission from Phil Klass), I helped get a complete set of a UFO newsletter written by Phil Klass online.

I have also made available on free file storage websites UFO documents released by the governments of Canada, Australia and New Zealand (with the permission of the governments of Canada, Australia and New Zealand).

This may be just a minor point but can some one confirm whether the lighthouse could or could not be seen from the East gate of the base back in 1980/81?

If it could then that sort of throws a slightly different perspective on things.

Steve La Plume confirmed it could be seen blinking on and off earlier in the post

Yes you can see the light house from that area. Maybe not deep in the forest but at the East gate on a clear night you can see it blinking off in the back ground, sure.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

However Ian Ridpath says not :

Note that the Orford Ness lighthouse cannot be seen directly from East Gate; it becomes apparent once you get further into the forest and the land begins to fall away to the east.





www.ianridpath.com...


Courtesy of Mr Ridpath's own website.

mirageman
Steve La Plume confirmed it could be seen blinking on and off earlier in the post

Yes you can see the light house from that area. Maybe not deep in the forest but at the East gate on a clear night you can see it blinking off in the back ground, sure.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Jenny Randles stood at the east gate, winter 1983. She could not see the lighthouse light directly, but:

What one could see – very clearly – was the beam from the Orford Ness lighthouse. This swept in an approximate five second cycle, creating what looked like a bright white glow above the tree tops.
As the rest of the area is dark forest and the base lights are to the rear, it was impossible to miss this beam from this spot.

Maybe this is what Steve LaPlume is referring to.

This means that every single night, the lighthouse beam was prominently visible and the guards must have been familiar with it.

Jenny Randles also retraced the steps of the first night, and finally stood eye-to-eye with the lighthouse light, on the approximate spot where the three men had their encounter on the first night (emphasis mine):

Penniston’s account [his original witness account] describes what the men now saw: “The object was producing red and blue light. The blue light was steady and projecting under the object. It was lighting up an area directly under extending a meter or two out.”

Could this be the lighthouse with its sweeping beam? If so, I never saw it display any colors.
It was just a small white light.
(…) the lighthouse never seemed bright enough to me to affect the retina.

...

reply to post by Guest101


It's a small detail but it's interesting because Halt's memo clearly states that the "object" was sighted "....an hour later near the back gate".

1. Early in the morning of 27 Dec 80 (approximately 0300L) two USAF security police patrolmen saw unusual lights outside the back gate at RAF Woodbridge. Thinking an aircraft might have crashed or been forced down, they called for permission to go outside the gate to investigate. The on-duty flight chief responded and allowed three patrolmen to proceed on foot. The individuals reported seeing a strange glowing object in the forest. The object was described as being metallic in appearance and triangular in shape, approximately two to three meters across the base and approximately two meters high. It illuminated the entire forest with a white light. The object itself had a pulsing red light on top and a bank(s) of blue lights underneath. The object was hovering or on legs. As the patrolmen approached the object, it maneuvered through the trees and disappeared. At this time the animals on a nearby farm went into a frenzy. The object was briefly sighted approximately an hour later near the back gate.......

What exactly did Halt mean?

That the object was sighted by personnel near the back gate or that the object was physically located near the back gate when it was seen again.

reply to post by SkywatcherUK


This is a most peculiar development. Are you 100% certain about all of this?

reply to post by mirageman


Yes. Emails have been flying around all day. He is trying to find out who Isaac Koi is because that is not his real name. It is easy to know if the genuine item was handed over : is it A5 780 pages with a white cover and. a black triangle flying out of a yellow mist. If no, it is a fake. Simple! That is not what Koi received according the information Andrew received .That is all I know.

reply to post by Guest101

I see three posters that are blind to their own biased interpretation of the tape but look down on the observational skills of trained and educated USAF officers and war veterans.

You mean people? Nothing in any of their training makes their minds work any different than the rest of us.
As far as my "bias". The only bias I have is towards people being people. People can misperceive and misinterpret things. This especially true if there is a little excitement. Unfortunately "the observational skills of trained and educated USAF officers and war veterans" didn't help in any friendly fire incident ever. I wish it did.

You seem to think its impossible for military PEOPLE to get spooked in the woods. Personally I have been in the woods in the middle of the night where lighthouses are. All up and down coastal Maine.
Here is one I visited a number of times in the middle of the night. 500px.com...
They look weird and alien like. That people can get spooked by some lights and disoriented in the woods in the middle of the night seems kind of matter of fact to me. Can I explain every light? Nope. And I don't care or even need to. Many many earthly things are sources of light. Can I explain every perception they had? Nope. and I don't need to. I know that lights look weird in the woods and that what they described could simply be lights in the woods.

The bourdon of proof is not mine since I am only claiming what seems to be common knowledge. There is absolutely no basis for the claim that military personnel are beyond misidentification in a situation like this or any other situation. None. Zero. You would actually have to show some kind of study that shows this. Bias is ignoring whole branches of study in the areas of perception and memory and not seeing how that fits in here. Bias is making baseless statements that military are too well trained to be subjected to common misperceptions. Essentially you are making stuff up in order for it to fit into some notion you have. That's what I see.

reply to post by Guest101

Guest101
Ectoplasm8 shows he has the strongest perception bias of all, by somehow perceiving a flash that isn’t on the tape (after ‘in between the trees’).

What do you mean perceiving a flash that isn't there after "in between the trees"? Nevilles says, "There it is" at 12:59 clearly indicating the flash. Then he does the same 5 seconds later at 13:04. What do you think he's pointing out at 12:59 and then again at 13:04? Halt himself describes it as a flash on the tape.

I see three posters that are blind to their own biased interpretation of the tape but look down on the observational skills of trained and educated USAF officers and war veterans.

"Observational skills of trained and educated USAF officers"? Trained and educated at identifying UFOs in the sky and ground? Explain how their training adds any more credibility to this story? Has anyone argued what they saw was an aircraft? If that was the case, you'd have a good point and argument considering these were men in the Air Force. No one is claiming that though. They are not immune to misidentifying objects by some super human observational power. They can be mistaken as anyone else can be. You place them on this pedestal which is part of your problem.

You've provided very little in the way of successful counter arguments. You again ignored my comment about this 8 second span. It should be simply and easily debated by you if I'm so wrong. What I get is a one sentence reply with very little deep thought provided. Zero challenge. If you found I was in fact correct, I doubt very seriously you'd concede. That way you would have to admit something is flawed in this case and not how you actually belief it was. That's just not going to happen.

Like I said earlier, discussions based on these grounds are useless. This overbearing manner is not even remotely related to science and rationalism.

Discussions based on the grounds of facts? You call believing a landing spaceship from the future or our galaxy a scientific conclusion and rational thought? Those are based on a belief and not a fact. With help from Ian Ridpath's website, I've provided photographs, videos, and quotes to back up realistic grounded conclusions to some claims. Tree marks, indentations, lighthouse position, flash frequency, red hue of light, 8 second time span, etc. All of which you have to purposely ignore to follow this UFO story.

You in fact are one of the most biased posters in this thread. You refuse to accept anything anyone else suggests outside of your own belief. You forgo rational for fantasy.

mirageman
reply to post by Guest101

 

It's a small detail but it's interesting because Halt's memo clearly states that the "object" was sighted "....an hour later near the back gate".


What exactly did Halt mean?

That the object was sighted by personnel near the back gate or that the object was physically located near the back gate when it was seen again.

The solution to that one (and many other questions) is in the timeline you posted earlier:
bentwaters1980.proboards.com...

Halt’s memo to the MOD mentions a sighting of the object near the back gate (East Gate) about an hour after Penniston, Burroughs, and Cabansag were send out to investigate:
“The object was briefly sighted approximately an hour later near the back gate.“ [Halt, official memo to MOD]
Jerry Valdez, who joined a team that went to East Gate to check out the situation, remembers seeing the object near the East Gate:
“I could clearly see the lights from the gate, just outside the back gate [east gate]. It was next to the road. They were intermittent lights, very bright, 15-20 feet above the ground. They were pulsating and from what I recall there were 3 lights, red green and blue. It made no noise, but it defied gravity. It was really weird and scary. We all knew what we were looking at, but no one really came out and said it.” [Valdez, James Easton interview]

SkywatcherUK
Yes. Emails have been flying around all day.

Well, I still haven't received any of them (despite referring to my email address above and in the email I posted online for Andrew Pike's attention on various forums 2 years ago and brought to the attention of most of the researchers still active in relation to the Rendlesham incident).

Can I impose on you SkywatcherUK to ensure that Andrew Pike has a link to my post above? That link is:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thanks.