Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Still Waters

Rendlesham Forest UFO sighting 'new evidence'

95 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Still Waters

New evidence has been gathered to back up claims a UFO landed near a US airbase in Suffolk, a former deputy commander has claimed.

Col Charles Halt told the BBC he saw unidentified objects at Rendlesham Forest in December 1980.

He says he now has statements from radar operators at RAF Bentwaters and nearby Wattisham airfield that an unknown object was tracked at the time.

Col Halt claimed it was seen by himself and base security staff.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...uffolk-33447592

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quillius

thanks Still Waters,

just don't know if I have it in me at the moment to go at this again.

:tu:

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr.United_Nations

here we go again

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14

40 years on! Let's remember that most military retire around the 20-30 year mark so any operator would've left the military decades ago. Let's see the duty logs which woul dcertainly mention unknwns flitting about the area.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

Again??

Dead set, I reckon Halt has mental issues. As if a normal thinking person is going to believe his disjointed silly tale that almost everyone there "on that night" has their own version of and that which he changes every couple of years. He is just going to have to make do with the woo crowd.

I reckon the military should be investigated on this case, This man, and his dodgey mate Penniston are obviously attention seekers with self esteem issues. They do not appear to be fit for service - at least not mentally. I do not feel it is right that a country should have such weirdo's in an important position where lives may depend. Nor should taxpayer money be wasted on providing employment for such losers. There are people who want to work, and would do a half decent job. They should not ever have been defending that country.

Poster boys for the charge to re-evalute employment criteria for the defence forces IMHO. Embarrassing that such clowns were tasked with the defence of anything. If this is what is defending the country, recruitment has let us all down.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
badeskov

thanks Still Waters,

just don't know if I have it in me at the moment to go at this again.

:tu:

Yeah, likewise...

Cheers,

Badeskov

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
toast

I do not feel it is right that a country should have such weirdo's in an important position where lives may depend. Nor should taxpayer

money be wasted on providing employment for such losers.

Reminds me of this guy:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14

Again??

Dead set, I reckon Halt has mental issues. As if a normal thinking person is going to believe his disjointed silly tale that almost everyone there "on that night" has their own version of and that which he changes every couple of years. He is just going to have to make do with the woo crowd.

I reckon the military should be investigated on this case, This man, and his dodgey mate Penniston are obviously attention seekers with self esteem issues. They do not appear to be fit for service - at least not mentally. I do not feel it is right that a country should have such weirdo's in an important position where lives may depend. Nor should taxpayer money be wasted on providing employment for such losers. There are people who want to work, and would do a half decent job. They should not ever have been defending that country.

Poster boys for the charge to re-evalute employment criteria for the defence forces IMHO. Embarrassing that such clowns were tasked with the defence of anything. If this is what is defending the country, recruitment has let us all down.

Psyche, he has been retired for decades and was probably relatively stable while in service. I think he was overwhelmed by the publicity and notoriety this "event" afforded him and it became all-consuming and ultimately, very profitable, hence his desire to keep the money train rolling. Hell, Bentwaters itself was closed in 1993, the ending of the cold war having made it redundant.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

Psyche, he has been retired for decades and was probably relatively stable while in service. I think he was overwhelmed by the publicity and notoriety this "event" afforded him and it became all-consuming and ultimately, very profitable, hence his desire to keep the money train rolling. Hell, Bentwaters itself was closed in 1993, the ending of the cold war having made it redundant.

But he was an employee when he made the claim. There were many reports of drugs being rife on the site, maybe he cooked his brain, either way, he does not seem fit to defend any country at all. It indicates to me that the Psyche test failed.

The more I hear of these clowns, the more I wonder what the hell would happen if there was a serious altercation, I mean the evil creatures that ISIS has created would eat like a dozen Halts for breakfast. I am disgusted in him and Penniston. I feel sorry for Colonel Conrad having to put up with such incompetence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14

But he was an employee when he made the claim. There were many reports of drugs being rife on the site, maybe he cooked his brain, either way, he does not seem fit to defend any country at all. It indicates to me that the Psyche test failed.

The more I hear of these clowns, the more I wonder what the hell would happen if there was a serious altercation, I mean the evil creatures that ISIS has created would eat like a dozen Halts for breakfast. I am disgusted in him and Penniston. I feel sorry for Colonel Conrad having to put up with such incompetence.

If you are asking me to defend or understand Air Force guys then I refuse. Their aviators wore ascots for chrissakes. I remember we stole a general's.....nevermind but back in the day we didn't take the USAF boys very seriously, at least in my squadron.

Edited by Merc14
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kurzweil

I have to ask what exactly new evidence is too a case that has no evidence to begin with? This whole Rendlesham story is nothing but hearsay.

Makes for a great story though.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

If you are asking me to defend or understand Air Force guys then I refuse. Their aviators wore ascots for chrissakes. I remember we stole a general's.....nevermind but back in the day we didn't take the USAF boys very seriously, at least in my squadron.

:tu: Sounds like a wise practise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HereToday

I read all these comments and what strikes me is how everything now reported along these lines must be commented as crazy... because it's PC to say so...and safe to find others that share your misinformed thoughts. The goof that said it's all hearsay. First of all it's not hearsay when a person describes the event in first person...i.e. they were there... You were not. I won't be back...but I couldn't help but comment on this. And how pathetic it really is to live in a bubble of stupidity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Reilly.

Everyone is ragging on this (and that's fair enough, that's their prerogative) but the fact the radar operator has come forward to confirm this should be taken seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
toast

Everyone is ragging on this (and that's fair enough, that's their prerogative) but the fact the radar operator has come forward

to confirm this should be taken seriously.

For yr pleasure : http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=211667&hl=%20rendlesham&st=0

... and some other threads as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14

I read all these comments and what strikes me is how everything now reported along these lines must be commented as crazy... because it's PC to say so...and safe to find others that share your misinformed thoughts. The goof that said it's all hearsay. First of all it's not hearsay when a person describes the event in first person...i.e. they were there... You were not. I won't be back...but I couldn't help but comment on this. And how pathetic it really is to live in a bubble of stupidity.

If you're going to leave just one comment on a forum and then leave forever, you should try and make it memorable, profound and insightful. HereToday didn't accomplish even one of those objectives. Sad and funny at the same time. See ya HereTodayGoneToday. :w00t:

Edited by Merc14
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zalmoxis

So uh, I'm new to this whole story but it's abundantly clear that whoever he is his story is shaky and his "proof" is word-of-mouth accounts to corroborate his already greatly doubted story far too late. Even with certified word-of-mouth confirmation from the radar operators I don't believe him.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

I read all these comments and what strikes me is how everything now reported along these lines must be commented as crazy... because it's PC to say so...and safe to find others that share your misinformed thoughts. The goof that said it's all hearsay. First of all it's not hearsay when a person describes the event in first person...i.e. they were there... You were not. I won't be back...but I couldn't help but comment on this. And how pathetic it really is to live in a bubble of stupidity.

PC??? WTF???

How do you come to that conclusion??? You seem to have that one backwards.

Not hearsay? Alright then, was Penniston or Halt Right? Future Humans or Aliens from another planet? The two disagree on that rather prominent aspect, or why do all the staff that were asked to confirm his story unable to? And why does his claim keep changing?

PC???? People say the darndest things don't they!! How does PC even apply here????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

Everyone is ragging on this (and that's fair enough, that's their prerogative) but the fact the radar operator has come forward to confirm this should be taken seriously.

It would take more than a RADAR operator's statement to reconcile the discrepancies between the two major witnesses!! One thing at a time hey!!

Was it supposed to be future humans or aliens?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats

PC???? People say the darndest things don't they!! How does PC even apply here????

Well quite, Im posting on a iPad after all....

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Reilly.

It would take more than a RADAR operator's statement to reconcile the discrepancies between the two major witnesses!! One thing at a time hey!!

Was it supposed to be future humans or aliens?

It means that there are official radar records and we'll be able to claim them on an information request. It means we'd have official military data on a UFO moving at thousands of miles per hours, it doesn't matter what the stories are. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

Well quite, Im posting on a iPad after all....

See that's not a PC, Windows is sooo passe.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

It means that there are official radar records and we'll be able to claim them on an information request. It means we'd have official military data on a UFO moving at thousands of miles per hours, it doesn't matter what the stories are. :lol:

Even though there was a spectacular meteor shower that night with impressive bolides reported by the British Astronomical Society??

Don't think so. Meteors are notorious for moving at thousand of miles an hour.

Why do I get the feeling that the "evidence" will be verbal with "no possible way" to confirm it??

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Reilly.

Even though there was a spectacular meteor shower that night with impressive bolides reported by the British Astronomical Society??

Don't think so. Meteors are notorious for moving at thousand of miles an hour.

Why do I get the feeling that the "evidence" will be verbal with "no possible way" to confirm it??

You're thinking so small man, do you not see it.

Yes, we have meteors but meteors leave impacts. They leave trails. They also cannot make turns and move as if under intelligent control. Lets pretend for a minute there is no eye-witnesses. Lets just pretend that you know nothing about the case and are handed radar data showing a craft moving at thousands of miles per hour that appears to be under intelligent control, and then you can see it going down (landing in) in the woods. That's all your basing the case off. Forget everything else.

Its very easy to investigate this. Something moving at that speeds which collided with the earth would leave an impact, would leave evidence. A true skeptic would be out in the woods finding the impact site... and if they di, I'd agree. I'd accept that Rendlesham was b******s.

However, if we have documented records of this and there is NO CRASH SITE and NO IMPACT than we have to consider an alternative.

Edited by Reilly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
toast

Its very easy to investigate this. Something moving at that speeds which collided with the earth would leave an impact,

would leave evidence.

This is an incorrect statement. To leave an impact, a meteor or bigger parts of it must reach the Earth surface and thats

not always the case. Secondly, a meteor that impact into the sea, does not leave an impact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.