This has to be one of the most significant ufo sightings ever. I would like to have peoples thoughts on the rendleshem forest incident.

Latest News



Project Condign - MOD UFO Study (New! Added 10 May 2006)

The Ministry of Defence has revealed details of a formerly secret UFO study. Codenamed 'Project Condign', the report is the most highly classified UFO document ever to have been released under the UK's Freedom of Information Act. Although I was involved in the discussions that led to the commissioning of this report, I had left the MOD's UFO Project by the time the study was undertaken and was not involved. I am certainly not the author, as has been suggested by various UFO researchers and journalists. The report runs to over 400 pages and delves into some fairly controversial areas, theorising about electrically-charged atmospheric plasmas, and temporal lobe disorders. The difficulty with this is that there's no scientific consensus on such matters, and as a rule of thumb, one shouldn't try to explain one unknown phenomenon by citing evidence of another! That said, the release of this report should be welcomed by all those with an interest in the UFO mystery, be they sceptics or believers. It will further the debate on this issue and demonstrates the MOD's ongoing commitment to releasing as much UFO documentation as possible, under the Freedom of Information Act. The media are having a field day with this story, and I've been doing numerous TV and radio interviews. The UFO mystery is back in the spotlight and the release of this report shows that there were those of us in the MOD who believed that the UFO phenomenon was worthy of serious, in-depth study. The full report will be released on the MOD's website on or before 15 May.




Rendlesham Forest UFO Article in MOD Magazine



I recently sought and obtained a commission from the Ministry of Defence's magazine Focus, to write a feature on UFOs. In particular, I wanted to get across to the military and civil service readership some information about the Rendlesham Forest UFO incident of 1980. Dubbed 'Britain's Roswell', this is the UK's most significant UFO event but has sometimes been misrepresented as the sighting of lights. In fact, as the United States Air Force witness statements make clear, the security police personnel saw a metallic craft with strange symbols on the hull. The article ran in the March issue of Focus with only very minor editorial changes:



The Ministry of Defence’s UFO Project has its roots in a study commissioned in 1950 by the MOD’s then Chief Scientific Adviser, the great radar scientist Sir Henry Tizard. As a result of his insistence that UFO sightings should not be dismissed without some form of proper scientific study, the Department set up arguably the most marvellously-named committee in the history of the civil service, the Flying Saucer Working Party. The committee’s conclusions were sceptical; UFO sightings were misidentifications of ordinary objects, or hoaxes. They recommended no further action. But in 1952 there was a series of high-profile events where UFOs were tracked on radar and seen by RAF pilots, and this forced the MOD to think again. UFO sightings were to be collated and sent to the Department for investigation, so that a determination could be made as to whether anything of any defence significance might have occurred. Since then, over 10,000 UFO reports have been received. From 1991 to 1994 I worked in the department responsible for this bizarre subject. It was among the most fascinating of my postings in 20 years in the Department.



Most UFO sightings received by the MOD had prosaic explanations: aircraft lights, weather balloons, meteors, airships, etc. But in all of this, a small percentage looked more interesting and one case in particular stood out. This was the so-called Rendlesham Forest incident. Last December saw the 25th anniversary of what is universally accepted as Britain’s most famous UFO sighting. There was extensive media coverage of this bizarre anniversary, a commemorative Boxing Day event organised by the Forestry Commission at the site of their ‘UFO Trail’, and several unofficial ‘skywatches’ where UFO enthusiasts came together to mark the event, swap stories, and generally stand around getting extremely cold. So why the interest? What happened in the forest all those years ago and why is it still generating so much interest?



Rendlesham Forest lies between the twin bases of RAF Ben****ers and RAF Woodbridge in Suffolk. In 1980 both facilities were operated by the United States Air Force (USAF). The Cold War was still decidedly frosty. The Solidarity Movement was taking hold in Poland and Soviet forces were building up on the border. It was against this background that a strange series of incidents occurred.



In the early hours of 26 December 1980 military personnel at the twin bases saw strange lights in the forest. At first they thought an aircraft might have crashed, so they went out to investigate. What they found was not a crashed aircraft, but what they could only categorise as a UFO. Nearby farm animals were going into a frenzy. One of the security police officers got close enough to touch the side of the object. He and another of the airmen present attached a sketch of the craft to their official USAF witness statements. One of these sketches even details the strange symbols seen on the craft’s hull, which the witness likened to Egyptian hieroglyphs. "I wish I’d had my weapon, because I felt totally defenceless," one of the young airmen, John Burroughs, subsequently remarked.



Two nights later the UFO returned. The Deputy Base Commander, Lieutenant Colonel Charles Halt, was informed and went out into the forest to investigate. He too saw the UFO, which at one point fired beams of light down at his party and at the Woodbridge facility. "Here I am, a senior official who routinely denies this sort of thing and diligently works to debunk them, and I'm involved in the middle of something I can't explain", he subsequently commented.



The MOD’s investigation included an inconclusive search for radar evidence that might have corroborated what was seen. Of far more interest, however, was an assessment of radiation readings that had been taken from the landing site with a Geiger counter. The readings had peaked in three holes in the ground which formed the shape of an equilateral triangle, as if the UFO had landed on a tripod of some sort. The Defence Intelligence Staff stated that the readings seemed “significantly higher than the average background”. Their report suggested that the radiation level was around seven times what would have been expected for the area concerned.



There are various sceptical theories for what was seen, the most prevalent one being that the various witnesses were somehow misled by the beam from Orfordness lighthouse, shining through the trees. "If the USAF really are capable of hallucinations induced by a lighthouse which must surely be familiar to them, then I shudder for that powerful finger which lies upon so many triggers," remarked Ralph Noyes, a former MOD Under Secretary who took a close interest in the case after his retirement. Charles Halt’s reaction to the theory was blunter. “Lighthouses don’t fly,” he said. Ralph Noyes was not the only senior figure to take an interest in the case. Former Chief of the Defence Staff Lord Hill-Norton corresponded with the Department extensively about the incident, and tabled a number of Parliamentary Questions in the House of Lords.



Many UFO researchers believe that information about UFOs is being covered up. They see a vast conspiracy to keep the truth from the public. Nothing could be further from the truth. Requests concerning UFOs are among the most frequently submitted under the Freedom of Information Act and the MOD has made great efforts to be as helpful as possible. Information has been made available under the Publication Scheme, in the FOI ‘Reading Room’ and at the National Archives in Kew. The entire file of the Rendlesham Forest incident has been scanned in and is available on the MOD’s website.



The official position is that these events were of no defence significance, but the Rendlesham Forest UFO incident remains unexplained to this date. I hope that we have some answers before the 50th anniversary of one of the most extraordinary incidents ever investigated by the MOD.






Rendlesham Forest UFO Incident - 25th Anniversary

26 December 2005 sees the 25th anniversary of Britain's most famous UFO sighting, the Rendlesham Forest incident. There's been significant media interest in this and I've given a number of interviews which have appeared on TV, radio and in the newspapers. The Forestry Commission will be holding a commemorative event on 26 December and ufologists are planning to hold a skywatch on 27 December.

When I ran the British Government's UFO Project at the Ministry of Defence, this was universally regarded as the most convincing case that the Department had on its files.

The Daily Express recently commissioned me to write a major feature on the case. The article was published as a double page spread on 19 November. It's not available online, but differed in only very minor ways from the original text that I submitted, which appears below:


On 21 May 1997 a former Prime Minister made an enigmatic comment that appeared to confirm the reality of Britain's most famous UFO incident. The casual remark hinted at darker secrets and led to much debate among conspiracy theorists. The politician concerned was Baroness Thatcher and the implications of what she said are extraordinary.

The remark was made at a charity function. London based socialite and author Georgina Bruni had for some time been researching the Rendlesham Forest UFO incident, intrigued by hints dropped by various diplomatic, military and political friends. She had been sceptical about the whole UFO mystery and had initially thought that the subject was awash with cultists and crackpots. But Rendlesham was different and so, when she met Baroness Thatcher at the dinner, Bruni took the opportunity to put the former PM on the spot. Was there any truth to the extraordinary rumours concerning what happened in Rendlesham Forest? What did the government really know about UFOs? Was it a serious issue or just pie in the sky? Bruni was expecting a bland dismissal of the story. The official position of the Ministry of Defence, after all, was that no evidence existed to suggest that UFOs were extraterrestrial in origin. Then the former PM dropped her bombshell. "UFOs?" she said. "You can't tell the people". Bruni was astounded and pressed her point. What did she mean? Baroness Thatcher calmly repeated her remark, before departing.

I wasn't at the dinner, but heard about the conversation very shortly afterwards. The reason I heard about it so quickly was that Georgina Bruni decided to call me at 2am to tell me what had happened. She called me because I used to run the British Government's UFO Project, based at the Ministry of Defence, a position I'd held from 1991 to 1994. Georgina Bruni had interviewed me in the course of her research into UFOs and we bumped into each other from time to time at various social functions. Once I got over my sense of humour failure at having been called at 2am, I quickly grasped the significance of what I was told. I got up, went to my study and began to make some notes, all the time quizzing Georgina about every nuance of her brief encounter with the former PM. For me, this was a revelation, because out of all the thousands of UFO sightings investigated by the Ministry of Defence over the years, the Rendlesham Forest incident was the one that stood out. It was the case that we couldn't ignore, despite best efforts to find some conventional explanation for what happened. This case was the Holy Grail and Baroness Thatcher's remark put the events into a new light.

So what actually happened at Rendlesham Forest and what is it that makes this event the most extraordinary UFO encounter ever to have taken place in the UK? As we approach the 25th anniversary of Britain's closest encounter, it's time to re-open the MOD's spookiest X-File.

Late on Christmas night 1980 and in the early hours of Boxing Day, strange lights were seen in Rendlesham Forest. This might not sound particularly significant. People see UFOs all the time and when I was running the UFO Project I used to receive between two and three hundred reports each year, most of which could be explained as misidentifications of aircraft lights, meteors, weather balloons and suchlike. What made this sighting interesting was the fact that the witnesses were United States Air Force personnel based at RAF Ben****ers and RAF Woodbridge in Suffolk. Rendlesham Forest lies between the twin bases and as the Cold War was still decidedly frosty, a UFO sighting at two of the nation's most sensitive military sites was most decidedly of interest. In the early hours of 26 December, duty personnel reported lights so bright, they feared an aircraft had crashed. They sought and obtained permission to go off-base and investigate. They didn't find a crashed aircraft - they found a UFO.

The three man patrol from the 81st Security Police Squadron - Jim Penniston, John Burroughs and Ed Cabansag - saw a small metallic craft, moving through the trees. At one point it appeared to land in a small clearing. They approached cautiously and Penniston got close enough to see strange markings on the side of the craft, which he likened to Egyptian hieroglyphs. He made some rapid sketches in his police notebook. Later on, because of the complicated legal and jurisdictional position of United States Air Force bases in the UK, police from Suffolk Constabulary were called out to the site where the object had apparently landed. They conducted a brief but inconclusive examination and then left. But three indentations were vis ible in the clearing and when mapped, they formed the shape of an equilateral triangle. A Geiger counter was used to check the site and the readings peaked markedly in the depressions where the object - possibly on legs of some sort - had briefly come to earth.

News of the UFO encounter spread quickly around the bases and came to the attention of the Deputy Base Commander, Lieutenant Colonel Charles Halt. He was sceptical, but had the witnesses write up official reports, including sketches of what they had seen. The following evening Halt was at a social function when a young airman burst in and ran up to the colonel. "Sir," he stammered, "It's back". Halt looked confused. "What?" he retorted, "What's back?". "The UFO, Sir - the UFO's back". Halt remained sceptical but gathered together a small team and went out into the forest to investigate. He subsequently stated that he went out with no expectation of seeing anything. In his own words, he said that his intention was to "debunk" the whole affair. But he didn't debunk it because he too encountered the UFO, becoming one of the highest ranking military officers ever to go on the record about a UFO sighting. As he and his men tracked the UFO, their radios began to malfunction and powerful mobile 'light-alls', taken to illuminate the forest, mysteriously began to cut out.

One piece of equipment that didn't malfunction was the hand-held tape recorder that the colonel took with him to document his investigation. The tape recording still survives and one can hear the rising tension in Halt's voice and the voices of his men, as the UFO approaches:

"I see it too ... it's back again ... it's coming this way ...there's no doubt about it ...this is weird ...it looks like an eye winking at you ... it almost burns your eyes ...he's coming toward us now ... now we're observing what appears to be a beam coming down to the ground ... one object still hovering over Woodbridge base ... beaming down".

At one point the tension in their voices almost seems to become panic as the UFO makes a close approach and fires light beams down on Halt and his men.

Following these events, Charles Halt wrote an official report of the incident and sent it to the Ministry of Defence. Although somewhat innocuously entitled "Unexplained Lights", his report described the first night's UFO as being "metallic in appearance and triangular in shape ... a pulsing red light on top and a bank of blue lights underneath ... the animals on a nearby farm went into a frenzy". He went on to detail the radiation readings taken from the landing site and set out the details of his own sighting.

Halt sent his report to the Ministry of Defence, to the section where, a little over ten years later, I would spend three years researching and investigating UFO sightings. The report went to my predecessors, who begun an investigation. But they were hampered by a critical mistake that was to have dire consequences. For whatever reason - and it may have been nothing more than a simple typographical error - Charles Halt's report gave incorrect dates for the incident. So when the MOD checked the radar tapes, they were looking at the wrong days. Looking at radar evidence is a critical part of any UFO investigation. There have been plenty of spectacular UFO sightings over the years, many correlated by radar. The MOD's comprehensive UFO files detail several such cases, including ones where RAF pilots encountered UFOs and gave chase. Unsuccessfully, I might add.

In the absence of any radar data that might confirm the presence of the Rendlesham Forest UFOs, the investigation petered out. Yet, as I was to discover years later, the UFO had been tracked, after all. I spoke to a former RAF radar operator called Nigel Kerr. He had been stationed at RAF Watton at Christmas 1980 and had received a call from somebody at RAF Ben****ers. They wanted to know if there was anything unusual on his radar screen. He looked and for three or four sweeps, something did show up, directly over the base. But it faded away and no official report was ever made. It was only years later that Kerr even heard of the Rendlesham Forest incident and realised he might have a missing piece of the puzzle.

In the apparent absence of radar data to verify the presence of the UFO, arguably the most critical piece of evidence was never followed up. The Defence Intelligence Staff had assessed the radiation readings taken at the landing site and judged them to be "significantly higher than the average background". In fact, they were about seven times what would have been expected for the area concerned.

So what are we to make of all this? UFO believers are convinced that the sightings involved an extraterrestrial spacecraft. They still hold skywatches in the forest and claim to see UFOs on a regular basis. The sceptical theories are almost as bizarre, with people variously suggesting that the highly trained military witnesses actually saw the lights of a police car, or the beam from the local lighthouse. "Lighthouses don't fly", Charles Halt observed, incredulously. More rational sceptical theories include the testing of some sort of prototype aircraft, but the bottom line is that while at any given time there are things being developed that you won't see at the Farnborough airshow for 10 or 15 years, we know where we fly our own hardware. The 'black projects' theory doesn't fly.

The initial United States Air Force report to the MOD was obtained by American UFO researchers in 1983, under the Freedom of Information Act. But it was not until 2001 that the rest of the file came to light. Georgina Bruni had requested a number of documents on the incident under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information - the forerunner to Britain's Freedom of Information Act. She had also enlisted the help of former Chief of the Defence Staff Lord Hill-Norton - himself a firm believer in UFOs. The MOD, despite what conspiracy theorists allege, is committed to open government and was happy to release the file. It can now be viewed in entirety on the MOD website. In the league tables of FOI requests, questions about UFOs are near the top. The MOD and the National Archives are bombarded with requests about UFOs but have a rolling programme of disclosure. These are the real X-Files and they are being released.

come on people. Surly you know this one? Even the good old de-bunkers are welcome:)

I am familiar with the Rendlesham UFO incidents of 1980. My assistant and other compatriots of mine were stationed at Ben****ers and they confirmed the incidents.

The lighthouse theory was a joke to say the least because how long has that lighthouse been there before the UFOs appeared in the skies yet no UFO report? In 1956, one of the most spectacular UFO incidents on record happened at Lakenheath, which is not very far from Ben****ers. Even the Condon team was impressed with that UFO case file. There was one skeptic who had claimed that the lighthouse was responsible for the UFO in the forest and in the sky but when he went to Ben****ers to check for himself he had found that it would have been impossible for the lighthouse to have been responsible for any of the UFOs sighted.

The guy who claimed that the UFO in the forest was the lights of his police car, later admitted that his car was not responsible. There were also claims that the incident was caused by a Russian satellite, which was ridicules because of the duration on multiple days and the nature of the UFO sightings.

Never mind, figured out why the word Bent......ers is stared. LOL doh!

Anyway, I've watched various shows on this Rendlesham case. I know that there is an audio tape during the event that took place.. and I am sure there are genuine pictures or possibly film of this incident as well. That would be very interesting to see if true or possible.

You can go to this website and listen to the tape.

THE UFO INVASION AT RENDLESHAM

"In late December 1980, in Rendlesham Forest, England, numerous U.S. military personnel witnessed what has come to be regarded as the most significant military-UFO incident in the history of Great Britain."

More on this story including the tape recording.

http://www.scifi.com/rendlesham/

yep--it's a pretty famous case--

It is an amazing case, with alot of witnesses who were trained to know the difference between a ufo or a light house. Something def did happen, and it was very strange indeed. Maybe an alien craft, maybe some secret us or uk craft. The audio is very interesting too. The one thing that i find annoying is some of the skeptic theories. I even feel that the de-bunkers on here also find the light house and the police car theory ridiculous:)

I really want to hear the views on this one, even the de-bumkers. Come on people!!!!!!!

Skeptics have claimed that the lighthouse was reponsible for the Rendlesham UFO incidents but the following fact on that lighthouse is what a compatriot of mine had confirmed to me personally.

Pictorial Guide to the 1980
Rendlesham UFO Incident Area

Rendlesham UFO? The Orford Ness lighthouse, about 6 miles and almost due east of Woodbridge base, has been the favorite primary skeptical "explanation" for the incident for a number of years. Supposedly airmen at the base saw the main lighthouse beam through the trees and triggered the whole thing. The main problem with this theory is that although the beam can be seen indirectly above the trees, it is not possible to directly see the lighthouse or beam from the base through the trees, being blocked by a mile of forest and other terrain.


http://www.roswellproof.com/rendlesham_pictorial.html



The Memo The British MoD Initially Denied

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1f/Haltmemo.jpg



And, About Those Police Lights
Kevin Conde, Exposed!

Conde Exposed Interestingly, Kevin Conde had decided that his prank wasn't responsible for the incident long before he was interviewed by BBC INSIDE OUT or the Daily Mail newspaper. In an I nternet debunking newsletter he told the editor: "This incident [hoax] occurred right after Christmas. For reasons that are hard to explain it is my impression that I pulled my stunt during an exercise. We would not have had an exercise during the Christmas holiday. That is a strong indication that my stunt is not the source of this specific incident". The editor could not accept the fact that Conde had decided his hoax was not responsible.

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/update...l/m14-003.shtml

http://www.ufologie.net/press/eastangliand...mes8sep2003.htm

Listening to the tape right now, really intresting.

Gotta say personally, this all seems very real. I would agree that something landed there, something not from our world.

In this case we can rule out Uk craft because Nick Pope is interested in this case.
If it had been a black budget project.I'm sure Nick pope would've know about or been told and then hint it's ours- ie no need to further investigate.

Could it have been a US project? Doubtful because in 1993 this happened-

Nick Pope -A case that I investigated involving a sighting that took place on the 31st of March, 1993 - a UFO flew directly over two air force bases in England. The object was the size of a jumbo jet, emitted a low-frequency humming sound, and fired a narrow beam of light at the ground. It flew very slowly over the bases, before shooting off at several times the speed of an air force jet.
This object was nothing in our own terrestrial inventory, and it, therefore, seems entirely reasonable to conclude that it was the product of another, extraterrestrial, civilization.

How can we rule US black budget project? Because the Americans asked us (Uk) if it was one of our black budget projects.
A side from the notion that, as sky eagle has pointed out many times before- you just don't test black projects in this manner.

Yes, its a very interesting case, and one that should be held in high regards. Its funny though that the de-bunkers on here are staying well away from this one lol:) I want to hear what they have to say. Even they must find it hard to copy and paste the lighthouse excuse:) so i want their views on it.

Right! it very much seems to me, and very much answers my question that de-bunkers will not talk about something they dont understand and dont have an answer. So many times on here, if its photos, videos or whatever, the de-bunkers will come along with there ideas of what something could be, most prob from some another professional skeptics view . But if something comes along that they dont know the answer too then they are not interested, why!!. Why dont they study it and come to there own conclusion. Sadly this is the case on here. I put a perfectly good ufo case on here, but all the de-bunkers are worried about is not what could be real, but what is not real, at the same time still saying there is no evidence. I find this so annoying!!!!!!!!

The Rendlesham Incident really interests me i think its nearly a larger UFO event than the Roswell crash of 1947. The testimony is just brilliant i mean here we have some military officials who are extremely credible reporting an absoluteley facinating series of events.

Many de-bunkers still even now go with the theory that it was the "Light House" that caused the incident which is obviously utter rubbish. I visited the Rendlesham Forest back in April of this year and i visited the main points were the UFO incidents occur and you cannot even see the Light House from the forest nevermind mistake it for a UFO. It is absoluteley impossible that the light house caused the UFO events it just does not fit. Below is a photograph of me at the start of the UFO Trail at the Rendlesham Forest -



I also believe that when Halt along with others travelled into the forest they took photographs of the ground and also the UFO. I just hope that someday those photographs are released.

Sam.

Thats so cool you went there. Maybe you should go there at night:) Its just annoying because i wanted the believers and the de-bunkers to have a good disscussion about this, but the de-bumkers wont touch it!!!!!

Well, I'm not exactly a *debunker*, but I am an empiricist. As I see it several people certainly saw something. Exactly what this something was, however, seems to differ depending upon who you ask. There doesn't seem to be any real consistent accounting. I don't think any of the hypotheses put forth really have enough evidence to consider supporting any of them very well. A great deal of what people say *really happened* seems to depend upon what scenario one chooses to believe in the first place!

My opinion: Unknown at this time.

Thank you for writing your views. I feel, and what i have read and seen in interviews. The main witnesses saw the same thing. People in the village near the where it happened saw something strange in the sky too. Also it has come to light that something was on radar too. Also with the evidence of strong radiation where the craft landed. There was def something happening out there which cannot be explained. The only thing that annoys me is someone puts a photo on here of a ufo and the de-bunkers are straight on it, But something like this, most wont even go near. What does that tell you, it tells me alot. I feel they only want to discuss something that has already been de-bunked, or they have read some skeptics view and put it on here. They have most prob read this then searched the web looking for what some de-bunkers have said. Realized that the police car and and the lighthouse theory is a joke so they wont use that, so they quietly put it to one side and pretend they never opened it.

Why is it necessary to be either a believer or a debunker on this one? As Lilly correctly comments, the 'reality' of what may or may not have happened that night depends on which witness account you choose to believe; none of the published accounts corroborate each other. Depending on who you belive there are at least 5 different locations for the night one events (including the failed soft landing of a capsule from a spy satellite...), and Halt's claims and tape have discrepancies - so what is the 'truth' we are supposed to be believing or debunking?

Those people who visit the area now and state that you can't see the lighthouse are missing the very simple point that the surrounding forest today bears no relationship to what it looked like in 1980, mainly courtesy of the October Storm of 1987; the treeline was higher and denser in 1980, so the lighthouse excuse (I won't qualify it as a theory!) was even less of a logical explanation; the density of the forest at the time would also make the Conde excuse even more unlikely.

The UFO event(s) occurred at a time when the Cold War couldn't have been much colder (also at a time when the Belgian Wave of FT sightings was at its peak, which strangely enough also didn't register very high as a perceived threat by NATO); this was a time when the British government were preparing British subjects for nuclear war (and Home Secretary William Whitelaw's TV gaffe ".. of course people are going to die when we have a nuclear war")!
A supposedly unidentified aerial object and/or crashed aircraft was seen over and between two nuclear-enabled USAAF airbases; so what was the response, send out a 3-man patrol to investigate, and with no subsequent action - somehow the response doesn't match the supposed events, particularly when Pennsiton claims to have seen and touched a craft on night one. Two nights later another similar UFO event occurs, this time a bigger team go out at night into a forest area (a forest area with which they are not familiar) and allegedly the main events of the grounded craft and encounter with aliens may have occurred.
There are elements of the Halt tape that suggest that his excursion occured several nights later than claimed, but it is also very clear that the lights being described by Halt match the position of bright stars and planets very closely; much later Halt has derided suggestions that they were watching the lighthouse by saying it was visible - so why not refer to it in the tape when describing the position of their UFOs?
Regardless of the legalities of armed USAAF personnel conducting excursions off-base, why was no field investigation done in daylight after either night's UFO events; again, these were apparent incursions over and between two nuclear-enabled USAAF airbases when nuclear war was imminent; some accounts suggest the UFO overflew and played lightbeams down into some of the weapons storage bunkers at Ben****ers - why was this not a perceived as a major incursion or threat by unknowns?

The certainties are:
1] There are various accounts which do not corroborate, this reduces the impact of the claimed evidence;
2] The information that has come into the public domain so far is strewn with disinformation! This includes information coming from MoD employees such as Pope - who was and is bound by the OSA;
3] In common with the Belgian Wave events, the apparent lack of response by the USAAF, MOD and/or NATO suggests that somewhere within the chain of command that the UFO(s) were a known non-WARPAC threat.

I guess its apt for this case that in terms of facts, its difficult to see the woods for the trees

There are some very valid and interesting opinions i am seeing here in this thread. I have always thought that the Rendlesham Incident was Extraterrestrial i have always placed my trust in the witnesses involved and i think that maybe Halt's superiors knew were the UFO's were coming from. Maybe they knew it was alien contact and knew it was no threat? Obviously that it only if the Rendlesham incident was extraterrestrial and i could be wrong about that but its just my personal view.

Another thing that suggests Halt's superiors knew were the UFO's were coming from comes from testimony that two strange men or Men in Black interviewed some of the witnesses (possibly all of them) and at one stage threaned with the following - "Bullets are cheap" there is no evidence that it was even said but a few of the witnesses have come forward and claimed this.

Wouldn't it be a lot easier if we had the photographs that Halt and his team took of the UFO?



No way would i go there at night it was errie enough during the day nevermind at nightime....LOL

Sam.

Hi Sam and everyone else,

I would say that the Rendlesham Forest Incident is a very interesting case, and it may have certain problems (like most other UFO cases), but in my opinion it still remains a solid case.



None!? Could you please give us an example of this? There are slight differences in what some of the witnesses are claiming to have seen, and some of that would be down to interpretation, but there is a clear trend.

The lighthouse theory does not explain the Rendlesham Forest Incident. No way. You've got this whole case, possibly three nights long and we're supposed to believe it was just a little flashing light six miles away?

Kevin Conde's story is even weaker, especially as he claims to have driven in a policecar rigged with multi-coloured lights on the 'taxiway' (the flightline). No one has claimed to have seen lights/a UFO on the flightline - all the men were in the forest!


After the first [25/26 Dec] UFO event, when Sgt. Jim Penniston, Amn. Ed Cabansag and A1C John Burroughs were sent into the forest to investigate a possible downed aircraft, the supposed landing site was investigated.

There are photos showing the alleged landing site, police from Martlesham Police Station were called afterwards. PC Brian Creswell and PC Dave King were present. Apparently the marks were all 12ft apart and formed a triangle.

Here is one of the photos, unfortunately I have only been given permission to reproduce it on my website; no where else (so I can't use [img] tags)...
Captain Mike Verrano is shown staring at the landing indentations:
http://www.rendlesham-incident.co.uk/images/2222.JPG

Sgt. Jim Penniston also took three plaster casts, two of which dissapeared, but he still has one. I have put together an image showing one of these casts, I understand it to be accurate as it is based on the real thing (which was shown on Sc-Fi Channels "UFO Invasion At Rendlesham"). The yellow pattern at the base is just a lighting effect which I have not bothered to remove.



I am not quite certain when Sgt. Ray Gulyas became involved, but to the best of my knowledge he investigated and photographed the landing site after the 27/28 event (with Lt. Colonel Halt and others). He said:




This seems to be so. Initially (in 1983, I think) the MoD claimed they had nothing relating to the Rendlesham Forest Incident. They then released the 'Halt Memo', which they supposedly never had. The FOIA files released a few years back show that the MoD had 'defensive press lines' which would be used with the Rendlesham Incident.

In my opinion, we cannot be sure whether there was 'extraterrestrial contact'. A few witnesses have spoken about 'beings' which were directly associated with the craft; Charles Halt (who was Deputy Base Commander of the complex at the time) says that a few people were 'messed with' - can we assume he is talking about CIA, NSA or AFOSI intervention?

Just a few interesting photos

Aerial Photos Of Rendlesham Forest and RAF Woodbridge taken from private aircraft
WSA and observation tower: http://rendlesham-incident.co.uk/gallery/d...ge.php?pos=-123
Concrete bunkers and Forest: http://rendlesham-incident.co.uk/gallery/d...ge.php?pos=-124

Larry Warren's alleged landing site: http://rendlesham-incident.co.uk/gallery/d...ge.php?pos=-109
Huge panoramic stitch of the Capel Green area: http://rendlesham-incident.co.uk/gallery/d...age.php?pos=-79
RAF Information Info. Board (in timeline, mentions UFO): http://rendlesham-incident.co.uk/gallery/d...ge.php?pos=-108

Hello J-H.

Its good to see you here at Unexplained-Mysteries thank you for sharing the above information as usual a top notch reply!

I have a few questions -

Was I right in saying above that some of the witnesses reported being threatened by two men?

Was i correct when i said above that Halt and his team took photographs of the UFO?

I think i am accurate because i was watching a program called the UFO Files on the History Channel and it featured a short segment about Rendlesham. It was a long time ago so the details may have appeared very vague in my above post. I just want to make sure i am correct.

Sam.

To the best of my knowledge, Sam, some of the witnesses do indeed claim to have been debriefed by mysterious official-looking men. It's something I haven't really looked into to be honest, it's rather messy as some of the witnesses have been rather affected by it, it seems.

Steven R. La Plume claims to have been debriefed. In a letter to Larry Warren and Peter Robbins (authors of 'Left At East Gate') he said:


Adrian Bustinza (Sergeant at time) claims to have been debriefed, but he has said numerous times in interviews that 'he would rather not talk about it'. He has confided in some researchers, such as Georgina Bruni author of "You Can't Tell The People". He said he was told something along the lines of 'You saw the ligthhouse nothing else, is that true?', Bustinza said 'No, no it was not the lighthouse', the men said "bullets are cheap", it was then that Bustinza said 'OK, it was the lighthouse.'

In another letter to LW and PR, Edward Cabansag (Amn. at time) said:


James Penniston (Sergeant at time) claims to have been debriefed also, it seems he was injected with sodium penthanol which is basically truth serum.



Halt never took any photos, or he has never claimed to. Although Sgt. Munroe Nevilles who was part of the group (and a keen photographer) did have a camera with him and apparently took many photos. Albeit, they all came out fogged.

J-H Thanks for all that information. I hopr thats answered your questions Shadow_Wolf:) I hope to be seeing more of you on this site J-H:)

Thank you for answering my questions J-H.

iT SURE WAS:) at least i know the de-bunkers on here will not touch this case on here now:). They dont like it whe someone shuts them up lol:)

If probability or the odds are in favor for the believer, the skeptics up the tempo and probability no longer becomes an option.

I'm laughing at my former self.

No, questions have not been answered!

Again, remember this was supposed to be a sighting of an unknown landed craft and/or crash between two nuclear-enabled airbases; I do not think two local policeman subsequently wandering round the site with a few USAFE personnel to be a suitable response to the claimed event; why didn't Halt (or other officer) take an investigative team out in daylight the next day, why wait until during or after another sighting two nights later? On night one itself Penniston, Burroughs and Cabansag report some sort of strange unidentified vehicle in the forest between these two bases, and on night two (possibly both nights) there were claims of possible intrusions over the Ben****ers WSA's, but what was the response? The event(s) and/or vehicle(s) could have been WARPAC weapons or ELINT platforms, or some sort of recon vehicles. Someone in the NATO chain of command knew there was no real intrusion or threat, indeed was there any change to normal flight operations on the nights in question?

Regarding the photograph, which of the claimed night-one landing sites is this, information suggests this is not the site claimed by Penniston in the most recent documentaries I've seen. Also J-H, why is it necessary to publish an 'enhanced' - ie doctored - version of the photograph to try and emphasise a believed detail? The photo does not concur with claims that the marks were 12' apart. Vince Thirkettle was/is a local person infinitely more familiar with the forest than the USAFE officers and airmen, therefore his opinion and explanation is equally if not more valid - why ignore this because it doesn't fit with a desired belief?

How can the accounts corroborate when many have been written by people who according to Halt were never present for the alleged main/night two events at Capel Green? Which of the claimed witnesses should be believed; the tape confirms that Halt is spreading disinformation on some aspects of his claims over who was and was not present - should we then discount all of Halt's account and claims? Halt seems to have elaborated his account of version of events in recent years, but how much of this elaboration is actual clarification of facts?

As I pointed out in my previous post, some of the UFOs described by Halt in the tape may have a logical explanation. Don't forget many of the observations were being made thru night-vision/image intensifiers; even Nevilles' account makes little sense, they were apparently looking at a glowing/illuminated object with the naked eye (under moonlight?), but which thru NVG was somehow dark and the NVG allowed them to see surface detail?? These were sightings made by people in unfamiliar surroundings, and there are ambiguities in accounts that may or may not be answered in the material that is not, and never will be, in the public domain. Even many of the comments and statements made on night two may be unrelated to any unknown lights or other phenomena; some of the people have commented that both wild and farm animals were agitated and spooked - might that be something to do with having a number of people blundering through the woods and undergrowth at night shining lights all over the place, making all manner of noise in doing so and probably talking and/or shouting? In fact not too dissimilar to some groups that go there at night now...

I have no doubt that some very strange things were seen over those nights in 1980 (inlcuding civilian sightings in the area at the same time), but the reactions and responses do not obviously square with the claimed events when viewed against the international, political and military situation at the time, and there is nothing to demonstrate or prove an ET involvement or connection.
Don't forget the various roles carried out by the 67th ARRS based at Woodbridge at the time; this is very relevant to the possible failed recovery of capsule from a spy satellite on night one (and the crash site seen by the gamekeeper?), and a possible subsequent recovery and indeed cover-up operation.
Many of the witnesses (in fact I think all of the non-officers?) claim to have been subjected to psychological conditioning and persuasion, but at what point in the whole scenario did this start?


The MOD-I (Ministry of Dis-Information) will ensure ufologists/researchers continue to look in the wrong direction

First post....Hi all (shout outs to J & H)

Two questions that seem oddly unanswered. May be they have been, which is why I'll ask them again here.

I recall watching Col. Halt mention that there was no further response from the military after he submitted his report/memo. Normally, one would expect some prosaic explanation from the higher ups, but other than the Halt memo and reports from those who where there, nothing "official" was ever offered up in response. Does this remain the case? And if so, why was there never any further 'official' comment/rebuttal on this case? It's possible my second question bears on the answers to the first.

As I recall, there were reports of the object at Rendlesham hovering over what were described as 'Weapons Storage Areas'. The only other times I have heard this type of inquisitiveness described is when there were reports of UFO's hovering over 'Nuclear' weapons storage areas in the US (Malmstrom silo's, Kirkland AFB etc, etc). It is also my understanding that at that time, it was against treaty to have Nuclear weapons stored at Rendlesham/Bentw*ters. Rumor has it that we did it anyway (against treaty) and that this may be the reason that the military kept very quiet about this case, with no official response to the Halt memo forthcoming. It would certainly explain their interest at Rendlesham and the silence that followed the Halt memo. I'm hoping J-H or someone else can add to (or correct) my understanding.

Nice to be here...

~C

Hey.. welcome.

Thanks R7...

Thought I would give some links to other "Weapons Storage Facilities" sightings in an attempt to connect some dots here...

Bruce Maccabee's report on Kirtland AFB

Nuclear Connection Project

Malmstrom AFB Minuteman Silo Event

The 509th Bombardment Wing

The 509th was stationed at Roswell in 1947 at the time of the Roswell event. Best known for delivering Atomic Weapons to both Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the 509th was transferred to Pease AFB in August 1958. Several years later, Betty and Barney Hill encountered their UFO and a UFO was confirmed to be in the same general area by Pease AFB. While conjectural, the relationship between the 509th, nuclear weapons and UFO sightings should not be easily dismissed.

The point here is simply that there are few, if any, accounts of UFO hovering over Weapons Storage Facilities that are -not- somehow related to the storage of Nuclear Weapons. The question becomes, was the Rendlesham event an anomaly in this respect or simply more of the same?

In the end it is the repetitive nature of these accounts, a 'modus operandi' if you will, related to interest in all things Nuclear, that lends credence and strength to the UFO hypothesis and this case in particular. Of course, we may never know if this -was- the case at Rendlesham -if- the US was in violation of treaty....however if so, would this really surprise anyone?

~C

I lost a large chunk of my post, so shall try to say some more on this thread later on.

Hi again,

What we've all got to remember is that the USAF had no set procedure to follow when dealing with UFOs, especially an alleged UFO landing. After the UFO had departed what else could they do but investigate the supposed landing site? I agree that a lot more should have been done, and some might say that they were far from prepared for an enemy attack.



In my opinion, Thurkettle's opinion on the supposed landing indentations (to anyone that doesn't know; he said they looked like 'rabbit scratchings') is not as valid as the actual witnesses' opinions. I say this for one reason in particular, although there are others, he visited the alleged landing site six weeks after the incident had occurred.

Six weeks would have allowed for wind, rain and other weather conditions to destroy the landing site, and that's forgetting that plenty of other people had probably been 'poking around'. No wonder Vince was disappointed with what he found.



If the look at the original/untouched photograph you can see these marks. All I have done is highlight them. Besides, each indentation has a visible wooden stake next to it.
I linked to that particular image because it was the only one I had already uploaded.


True. I'll see if I can find anything else out about this.



I assume you are referring to Larry Warren? It's no surprise that Halt denies Warren being there; something similar happened with another witness (see below).

He previously claimed that Sgt. Adrian Bustinza was not present, but his voice can clearly be heard at the beginning of Halt's tape requesting replacement light-alls. ('Sgt. Bustinza to security control... we're at East Gate etc.'). I recall that Halt then admitted that Adrian Bustinza must have been present, but why did he say the opposite in the first place? Maybe because Adrian Bustinza backs up Larry Warren's story?



In my opinion Halt is a pretty reliable witness. I have not seen or noticed him exaggerating any part of his story. There is a problem though; it seems that he has something to hide regarding the whole incident. He has even admitted to knowing more than he is telling.

Hi there CC, it's good to see you here.


The MoD was carrying out a small investigation behind the scenes, but they didn't really get anywhere. The Air Force denied everything, while the MoD replied to information requesting letters with the usual 'we don't know anything' line. The Rendlesham Incident has demonstrated how unorganised and inefficient some government departments were at the time.
The USAF personnel did not know how to handle a case where an unknown object was involved, a memorandum detailing the events was sent to the MoD who didn't know what to do and didn't even reply. The USAF personnel also carried weapons off base, which they should not have done and stored nuclear weapons at the bases which was against the treaty.

Great post J-H

Cowbell and J-H are still treading around a significant point in this whole incident. Regardless of the actual/true and still unresolved nature of the 'UFO' - and I mean this in its widest term (at the time no-one had established that it was not a WARPAC vehicle or other device); at the time of a high state of readiness across NATO airbases why was an unknown aerial vehicle (or vehicles) allowed to intrude over a base (and allegedly overfly and even compromise nuclear WSA's, without some form of due response at the time? Are we really supposed to believe senior officers and their higher chain of command were all standing around muttering "I wonder what that is?" Did they really take the chance that the UFOs and beams playing down into the WSA's were not going to either trigger the nuclear devices stored within (as you correctly point out illegally), or perhaps render them useless ahead of a first strike by WARPAC by dawn's early light the following day? A simple analogy is that of any one of us sitting in our home; an intruder wanders in off the street, going into every room, looking at our posessions etc.; what would we be doing while this was going on - I suggest it would not be sitting idly by watching and wondering who the intruder was.

J-H, I would suggest that Halt has enhanced aspects of his account; like belatedly and grudgingly acknowledging Bustinza was present - just how did this simple 'fact' change after many years of refute? At what point might he acknowledge that Warren was present, and from that are Warren's claims of contact with enitities then also true? It is only recently that Halt has (at times annoyingly) referred to the team clearly observing the lighthouse beam; why couldn't he have made such a statement many years ago when challenged about this - it seems an awfully long time to wait to refute the skeptics. As you say, he is still witholding information for reasons unknown to us, but where does information end and disinformation begin (or vice-versa)?

Equally Penniston has changed the location of where he states night-one occurred; OK, its 'only' around 700m different (neither is the crash site claimed by the gamekeeper), but the access to the sites off the metalled road and/or logging tracks is quite different. As we are agreeing, claimed measurements of the 'landing marks' are not confirmed by the photo of the same alleged site.

Oh dear, the name Nick Pope has been mentioned....so all credibility lost

Nick Pope wasn't responsible for the Rendlesham UFO incidents.

itsnotoutthere, please!!, if you are going to say something like that, then please back it up. Believe in this subject or not, nick pope has been a very important part of it. Someone who does not easily believe!!, so please, tell us how you came to this conclusion???

Well, at the end of the day, they went out there and saw something, that much we do know, as it was traced on rader on one of the nights

The Radar Evidence
The second area where I want to offer some views based on my personal MOD experience relates to the radar data. Radar is not infallible, and in chapter 4 of Open Skies, Closed Minds I explained some of the reasons why a blip on a radar screen does not necessarily indicate the presence of an object. As examples, problems can occur in certain meteorological conditions and when two radar systems interfere with each other; and as with most technology, some bits of kit are more temperamental than others! Georgina Bruni’s interview with former RAF radar operator Nigel Kerr (see pages 39 and 40 of You Can’t Tell The People) covered what happened when personnel in the Ben****ers tower contacted Eastern Radar at RAF Watton, explaining that they could see unidentified lights over the base. On checking his radar screen Kerr noticed a blip that stayed for three or four sweeps before disappearing. Such returns are not uncommon, and in themselves mean nothing. But again, the sceptics miss the point, which is that the return was seen at exactly the same time and in exactly the same location as the unidentified light seen in the sky by military personnel at Ben****ers.

The Radiation Readings
I want now to offer some views on two key aspects of the case that have been further highlighted by the released documents. The first is the issue of the radiation readings taken at the landing site by Staff Sergeant Munro Nevilles, on the orders of Charles Halt. When I re-opened the investigation into the Rendlesham Forest incident in 1994 I contacted Giles Cowling at the Defence Radiological Protection Service (DRPS) and asked that he provide Sec(AS) with an assessment of the radiation readings recorded in Halt’s memo. This assessment was that the readings were ten times what would be expected for the area concerned. As I was subsequently to discover, this assessment was broadly similar to the original assessment from the DIS, which I hadn’t seen at the time. Writing on 23 February 1981 R C Horscroft, ADI/DI52 said “The value of 0.1 milliroentgens (mr), I assume that this is per hour, seems significantly higher than the average background of about 0.015 mr”.

Some questions have been raised about the readings in Halt’s memo. Maybe the dial was misread, and maybe the needle was waving around so much that an accurate measurement was impossible. Well, all I can say to that is “maybe”. But any official assessment has to be based on the data received. It’s also been pointed out that the equipment used was not designed for the task. Short of suggesting that the USAF have a piece of kit designed specifically to measure radiation from UFOs, I’m not sure how to deal with such comments. Of course the equipment wasn’t designed for such a task, so of course it wasn’t ideal. But one can only use the equipment available, so again, we can only analyse the data we have, not the data we’d like to have.

I’ve previously assured people that the radiation at the landing site would have posed no danger to Halt and his team, or to those who subsequently visited the location. Various sceptics have tried to spin this comment into my saying that the radiation readings were low. What I actually said is that they were comparatively low and therefore harmless. They are, however, as both the DIS and DRPS assessments make clear, significantly higher than would have expected. But as I’ve patiently explained to the likes of Ian Ridpath and Professor Frank Close, even this is not the key point. The key point is that the readings peaked in the three depressions in the ground, in the centre of the triangle formed by these depressions, and on the side of one of the trees facing the landing site. In any proper analysis of this, one has to go back to the raw data, and that means looking again at Halt’s memo and the new transcript of Halt’s tape that Georgina Bruni includes in her book, You Can’t Tell The People. On this latter point, another interesting question is what happened to the various soil and sap samples that Halt had his team collect?

I feel something did happen, the evidence is there that something happend. There is no reason for them to lie, plus you have witneses in the radar tower, plus some in the town. I still think this is one of the best cases, and no matter what the skeptics say, there is still enough evidence for a strong case here

Someone asked for responses to the Renlesheim thread. These are my observations after seeing a presentation about it that aired on The History Channel here in the States on 11/27/06. The show never alluded to or suggested any of the things that I am offering as a possibility. I am just using some of the information they presented to offer some rather bizarre possibilities.......

1. the orginal written report on the siting was erroneously dated as December 27th when it was actually December 25th

2. the observers repeatedly emphasized the brightness of the event and how 'eerily calm' it was.

3. an observer to the immediate rear of the frontline observers swears to see 3 humanoid figures in discussion with the frontline observers(the frontline observers later described they were disoriented from the occurrence)

As these 3 points coalesced in my mind, I thought of Christmas night......the song Silent NIght(all is calm, all is bright) and the 3 humanoids(the wise men ?). Funny the possibilities the mind can conjure.........

hhhmmmm!

Hmmmmm?

Soundls like me when I read that a lighthouse was responsible for the UFO in the forest. I guess those who've made the claim never understood the facts surrounding those incidents otherwise they would have known the lighthouse can't been seen from the base nor were they aware of the back-shield that sat between the base and on the lighthouse itself. Hmmmmmm!