2000 Fall - IUR - Richard Hall and Jenny Randles

7/30/2019 2000 Fall - IUR - Richard Hall and Jenny Randles

1/10

IURlmenuuimwl UFO Repc>rter

Fa/12000Volume 25, Number 3

CIGAR-SHAPED UFO ATLAKE BACKSJON, SWEDEN,JULY 27, 1999


2/10

THE RENDLESHAM FoREST cAsE:PoiNT/coUNTERPOINT

BY JENNY R ANDLES Al'"D RJCI-IARD H ALL

Ediwr's nnte: This apparem crashlretrielal el'enf fromI 980 ha s led imestigotors nn nearly as mcmy 11rists andturnstis Rnsue/1. Briti.th t s t i ~ a t o r JenmRandles. comt-thor of The U ~ O That Never Were (2000), lm.\ heendehing inw the details nfthe case rom the Pery e ~ i n n i n g .and her ideasaholfl il have mhtdmertime. Richard Iht/1.an01/wr IUR tmuri/Jwing etlitor. ha s also followed Jill!C'OIItrmer.l) ' am i hus smne differing l'iews. Wt tltoiiJ:Itl itwouldbe interesting Jn have themdebate the iner pnims ino11r pages. Ra11dles stmu off ll'ith .mme ~ r m m d . thenHall ojJer.1 h i . ~ l'iell'poim,Jilllowedby Randle.\ 's .1'/(l(elllefll:the exclwnge ctmcfude.\ uith response.\ by bmh.U doubtcdly one or the m o ~ t celebrated UFOinciucnfsofall time, the so-called RcndleshamFore.!.t Cll.!.e wok rlace in a large Engli!th pineforest eight miles from the town of Ipswich.Suffolk. in thcduys immediately following h r i s t m a . ~ 1980.

There had. in fact. been a major UFO wave a c r o s ~eastern Britain that autumn. This includeu many interestingclose encounters, a r t i ~ : u l a r l ) in November. These includedan RAF jet radar-intercept case off the same coastline, andone of the u n t r y ~ ; most famous abductjons. whln polil:cofficer Alan Godfrey wus involved in a missing-time encounter :uTtH.Imorucn. W e ~ > ~ Yorkshire. Overnight:-.ur oilplatfonns in the North Sea were a l ~ o recorued.

The ~ u b ~ e q u e n events in Rendlesham Forest haveproved particularly memorable l'or ~ c v e r a l reasons. Therewere a numhcr of ucal n c o u n t e between late on ' h r i ~ tmas night until e


3/10

and alleged that he had been sent home from Bentwatcrsafler talking on the telephone to his mother about his role ina major .alien contact. . He told his story to urologists LanyFawceu and Barry G reenwood, then wri ting the book Clellrlmenr abo ut U.S. military encounter!>. Greenwood, hav ingread my more complete account in FSR, recognized the caseand used Warren's s tory to launch a Freedom of ln fonnation Act (FOIA) request for documen tation .

l-Ie was aided in Apri l 1983 by a shocking breakthro ugh in the U.K. Donald Mor eland. the British squadronleader who had supervisctl the U.S. tenancy of the twinbases. wa s retiring and chose to confirm the occurrence ofthe incident to a popular-sc ience journal. Omn i. Immediate ly af ter this happened. the MoD finally contim1ed to mein writing (a fter I ha d asked five times) that .. unidentifiedlights" had indeed been seen in December 1980 by USA Fpersonnel from the twin hascs and that no explanation . forthem h ad been forthcoming.

Th b wa:- an unprcccden1cd public statement by thedclence mintstry and stunned a highly sk eptica l BritishUFO community into fina lly listening to the three of us.

Armed with the Warren sta tement and this new amazing confirmation by the MoD. the group i t i : ~ AgainstUFO Secrecy (C AUS) quickly achieved fu rther stunningprog re:;s in June 1983 when the orticial report sent by Co l.Hall. endorsed by More land. and filed by the MoD. wa sreleased through the FOIA. The USAF claimed this copycam e from the British government. its own copy havingheen rou tine ly destroyed (even though the events were lessthan three years o ld ).

Six weeks later . in August 1983. we took what was sli IIa publicly undisc losed document in the U.K. to the MoD inLondon. We arrived unannounced anu were imcrrogatcuunde r armed g u ; ~ r d about how we came to possess it. Wewere prosecution under the Official Secrets Act byhaving this secret tile.

Th e Mo D contirmeclthe document was rea l , acceptedth:lt its public release cou ld not be prevented. hut categorically denied tl1ey hall supplied it to the USAr m, had beenalleged. Within two months. the British med ia had discovered (courtesy fa UFO conference where it wa s discussed)the e x i ~ t e f th is ama7ing dossier. A huge public furoretupteu. Th i!> provoked front-page headlines in Britain':.top-selling new!>paperThe News oj'rlle World. which claimedthat it was ofliciully confirmed that a UFO had landed inSuffolk.

Within 24 hours, BBC television and establishmentnewspapers such as the Times were shoo ting down the case,alleging that it had now been shown to be a sim plemispcrception of a lighthouse. and Lhatthe physical traceshad easy explanations ns we ll. Th e British government hu


4/10

O t P 4 . H - " l : ~ i l 0 ' 10\ M:l IOilCt.. .fl()l,oottt U It l tCfO HI.......,.,..I U . . . . . oA_..f.&IV_. .. ot .,,,,

1. ar1y tl'l thlt *Ot"ftli!CJ o f Z1 Occ DO ("PCM"'t.l- , t i t OlOOI.J , bt o USAF~ t t ~ r t y csoltce p d r o '" unu\u41 liljl'lts ouuide- the gte tRAf' U o o d l l r ' d ~ t . ft.lnlmO '" ircr .ft if.loht hvt' c.rn ht-d or been forceddooofn. thc:y u11ed for P t , . . . ' ~ " o " to 90 o ~ . t t S H ~ t the to II"'YCH !91:le.

: ~ " r ! ! t i C ~ : : ! ~ : ! ~ ! , ; ! ! t t ' ~ ~ : ~ / ! ! ~ ~ . _ ~ ; ! r : : ~ n ; ! ~ tIn r o ~ c . fh c obj.t "t. .u bt ln9 roet1 1c l 3 IPp('trf-ftcend trfn9Uif-r In s.Npe. t&JPt'OxiNtt:l1 two to three - e u r ~ o ..acro u tMbU nd HroJif- .u e l t two tors; ~ l . ; l h . h t ll.,.fn nt d tl'lt t f l lH"t for t \ l"''ll whtu 1 'IJt'lt . The objec:t Hu ' f tl4d puhtnt rtd l !tJil o top OO t H " ~ ( \ ) of t.1ue l19hU unliSt'mt t h Tl'* O ~ J t c t _..., I'IOvtrtng 01" 01 1 l.t:'9'\ .A1 the- p..tro11111('n ooro ched Ute o l t j ~ c t , h. .. ..ntu vt 'nd u u o u q ~ l , t tl"fl:sf i \J CIIUPOtatd. -.t th h tl '"''""h Oft f n u ~ Y . h ,_ IAto i .....lt ll\0 obJtCt. vU brttll)' 'IO,_tto IIPPI'O&\MU t11 61\ ht t r Mi t 'tl)e g.ate .l . nu t cJfy, three del>rt-nfcM I I I ( ' " 4n P illod 1 In 41. - t t rfo...nd ..... ,. . t.tlt OOJKt. t11J Han \ i ~ t t d on the g ~ C I ll'lt to1towtntIU O:c 80) Ute , ,. u c t ~ . t < o e - d to r udh t iOo':l .. O t t i ~ "tff'"'?"of 0. 1 f 1 1 1 1 " 0 1 ! n t g e t ~ S vtore rtcor(l:f'd 111 1 th rcwtf'"ts 1n thret depression.i ntr the Ctl\tt'r or tb t trlffUJh forned by the ~ p r t o u . o n s .A h4d .odtt'ltt (.os .. 7) r t l d i n ~ on thf: side of the tre-etOIII I"d ll'lf' OtPr*:n Qtt.t.) . tAte,. In the nh;ht rltd t lMIIU l ight wd tl'lt"O\IC)b tM ' tl'ffS.h . o ~ e ~ S .etout ,nd "' ' ue1. At Cfte p o ~ M it ppur4 to throw of f 9lo . 11gPtrl\Cie t ._.., tn.tn ro\t '"'o ftt UPArf-tt .mtu obJHU . .. - thf1' '' ""'

~ r t e l IM1tdi1U l y t"-t1"1Ufl tr . tflt'el! UAf' l h .l! 611jftU wre PIOt1U4fn. th t i . . y . two obJtctt to the ~ ' " l " nd ont: to tM s o t ~ t h . 11 or -"'ch~ 1bovt 100 ot t horll:on. objects l'Oved ri1Hd1r 1ft ~ h I ' P lt\9'fl r-.:twf'4fltllt\ 1\4 dhiUI)' td rd . gr un Ad bh,,. H t,JI\\\ . lh t ot.IJcu to lh tnort" t ~ P t t r t d to M t11 n fu l t1tr01;9n ., , 1 1l power l t n ~ ll'loy '" '"t " '"1} I(' lull ( t J " ( II'\ TM ftbJ rn It) lh., Mrtl \ l ' t l t ft tl \ ltor., . ho1.1r or r. 1ltc obJct to VIIC: W Y \ . wn ~ b 1 for ttiiO or tflrtehout;. 111'14 b c t ~ a t d . . . . . , . st,., . or l ti)ht (t"f t i ~ J t lo tlllltl: . llul:ctrot..\ i n ~ i v t

f " . . : ~ o c ~ . . S : ~ d e r > l t "''""''d t!ot octlvltoo p,,.,,., .j j ( ~ l t Col , USAfOc-puty On e Co'""t114ef"

Col. Halt's memoofJwmm:l' /J . 1981.possession of an American UFO group for many years bu thad never been openly discussed until Enston revealedthem to a largely unaware UFO community. The implications arc discussed in "Seeing thi! Forest ror the T r e e ~ o : : fUR. Summer 1998. pp. 16-19, 29-30.

I ~ t v c :.tlso written a major r c a s s c s ~ r n c n t or the case.taking into account the latest J:ikcptical argumenLo;. andevaluating. thc:.c in a more l':wurable light than I hadoriginally planned. This a p p e a r ~ as a lengthy chapter(''Rcndlc Shame Fo rest") in The UFOs That Never Were(with David Clarke and Andy Roberts. 2000).

As lime has gone by. new wilnesses-espccially USAFpersonnel wh() were stationed at the twin bases in 1980-havc come forward. often arter leaving the service. and thusfeeling free tn talk. Many of these. nmably Col. Halt andtwo of the Lhn.:t: 1.ccurity patrol ufliccr:. whu had a clo:.eencounter in the rorc!>t in the ettrly hours orDecember 26(SSgt. Jim PcnniMon and AIC John Burrough:.). have goneon camera to tell their story firsthttnd.

In November 1994. three appeared together forthe first time in a British TV documentary ("Strange ButTrue'?") about the case and jointly put together by TVproducer David Alpin and rny:.clf. h became the mostwatched factualTV show about UFOs in r i t i ~ b history and

viewed by a quarter of the entire population on its firsttransmission. UFO Cmsh umding'! based on theresearch done for this production.

There have been persistent rumors that Halt intends towrite a book teUing hi. own story. but this has yet to be

conlirmed. Claims about the existence of physical evidence(such as fuzzy h o t o g r a p h ~ of the UFO.!>) often ~ u r f a c e andarc believed to be genu ine. Halt has - and o c c a ~ i o n a l lshows to select audiences-plaster casts of the landingtraces. A tape recorded by Halt imo an office dictaphonewhile the second night ':. events un folded was long nunoredto exist anti appeared unexpectedly in 1984 when a copywas sent to the UFO community by one of hi s formerco lleagues (then a base commttndcr in Tcxa.;).Now Internet gossip columnist Georgina Bruni haspuhli)\hed her tal..e on the events (including new witncs!>interviews and a complete demolition of the l>keptic!>urguments) in her book You Can'1Tri l lhe Pea11le, relea:-;edin Britain in November 2000.

It would now seem the appropriate moment to examinewhere we stand two decades on. After all. this remarkableepisode may be the one case in UFO history to seriouslychallenge Roswell for both longevity and notoriety. And.just lil..e Roswe ll. it divides the believer'> and the skepticsinto very polarized camps. We should try to understand whythis is - Jenny RandlesRENDLESHAM FO RESTBy Richard H. 1/a/1On two nights between C r n a ~ and New Year's Day inDecember 1980. UFOs were observed by U.S. Air Forceortlcen; and enlisted men outside the gates of BentwatersAFB. England. Numerous personnel positioned in variouslocalion. ;tlso repbrleJ lights in Llie sky Lh;\l M dtlUbtincluded some IFOs, as is comm()n in complex multi

w i t n e ~ s c u ~ c : . . My contribution f o c u s e . ~ > on the ~ i g . h t i n g ~made by officer:. and men who left the base and went intothe forest to irlvestigatc odd light!..I have had extensive interviews with Col. Charles I.Halt and have studh:d the packet of u m e n t from theCit izens Against UFO Secrecy (Barry Greenwood) f i l ewhich seem to have confused some of the British in ve aboutthe encounters in the wood:.. guided by Hull.1 do not claim {0 be an ..expert" on this case or ru;thoroughly versed in its myriad detaib as Jenny Randles.What I am convinced of is that the factl> of the encounter:.in Lhe woods establish this as ttn extremely strong andconvincing case, quite independently of what other witnesses may or may not have seen and whether or not thelighthouse momentarily fooled some people. Furthermore.the ca-.c a strong patte rn of military-base intrusion a l > C ~that can be traced back at least to 1966 at the ICBM missilesite b a s e ~ in Nonh Dul..ota and Montana.In outline form, the details of the forest encounters asconfirmed by Halt ure these. At approximately 3:00a.m. onthe morning of eitherDecember 27 (Hal t) or December 28.unless it was a separate incident (RAF letter to Nicholas

IUR +Fi\lt :200010


5/10

Redfern, a British UFO researcher), a UFO wm. sighted atBcmwaters AFB and RAF Woodbridge. Halt' originalmemo to the Ministry of Defence (MoD), which he hassince publicly described as deliberately over implilied,reported that two US AF security police had left the backgate at RAF Woodbridge to investigate a strange glowingobjectin the wood .These menwere SSgt. JamesPcnnistonand AIC John Burroughs, who were accompanied by EdCabansng.Cabansag. according. to Halt, was stationed at the gateto serve as a radio reluy si nce they wereexperiencing radiotransmission problems . (They also reported wildlife actingin a frenzied manner.) When Penniston and Burrough!)entered lhe woods. they encountered a metallic. roughlytriangltlarobjccl on 1heground, !>iOlS in the ground where theobject had been. Scintillation counter readings registeredunusual levels at the site.Someof the British invcstigalors arc bothered by whatthey pcrccivc to be ..contradiction -... between the ori ginalslatcment made by Penniston and his public comm entsmany years later wh en hegave more detail.These arceas ilyexplainah!e. Halt himself acknowledged und erstating hisexperiences, since they all feared for their reputations andpossible damage to their careers. Penniston did the same.Halt gave me a very positive character and reliabilityread ing on Penniston.We have highly credible witnesses reporting incredible things. What they report fits cxuc.;tly wi th decades ofother rcporLs by credible witnesse:.. down to details ofbrilliant luminosity, pulsa ting body lights. EM effects,animal reactions. radioactivity. landing-gear-like imprintsin the ground . . . and an apparent radarconlirmmion. A ve rystrong case indeed!About two nights later the encounters personally involving Col. Hall occurred. Halt was notified about I0:30p.m. that there was another glow'' in the woods whichsome people were interpreting as a return of "he UFO.""Determined to get to the bottom of th is. Hall pcrl.ona!ly ledthe investigation party into thewoods. along with Lt. BruceEnglund. the ~ c c u r police shift commander. This timethey took Light-Ails tportab!e lighting devices). radiationcounters. a night scope, and other equipment. They experienced power problems wirh the Light-Ails and interferencewith radio transmi sions. This trek through the woodsresulted in the now famous audiotape recorded by Halt asthe party progressed and began seeing unusual things.

l f the glow was from "the UFO'' again, they did notimmediately sec it . After gathering evidence at the apparentlanding site they were leaving the woods and entering aclearing when Halt saw the red sun-like light . . . [thatl

moved about and pulsed . . . appeared to throw offglowingparticles andthen broke into five separate white objects andthen disappeared ."" The lighthouse? I think not ! Immedi ately after this, three star-like lights appeared movingrapidly and making sharp angular tums. displaying bodylights. and appearing elliptical and then circular. All ve rytypical UFO features. The lighthouse? T hink not! Two ofthe objects were to the north and one to the south. They wereall about 10 above the horizon as well.

In 1994. Ha lt reponed that during these sightings oneof he objects suddenly flew directly overhead and beameda thin. pencil-like light down to the ground about I 0 feet infront of them. l ie also hc.ard challer on the radio about thebeams coming down into the weapons area of the base. AsHall described it: we jusl stood there in awe wonderingwhether it was


6/10

witness testimony that suggests an unearthly object hovered low or landed inside a clearing in the forest. Variousother lights were seen at different points on tbc two nights,but the reports involving the large conical object on bothnights are the key incidents.Unfortunately.aswithall multi wi tness casesthatemergefrom decades of memory, the data are not sufficiently welldelined to allow a straightforward choice. For a long time.I argued vocirerously against the lighthouse. When thetheory-that these airmen had mistaken its coastal glowwh ile disoriented within a woodland selling- lirst appeared in 1983. I checked it out onsite and di smissed it.because first-hand ob.ervation and study of avai lable witness testimony determined thjs answer to be wholly inadequate for the evidence that it had to explain. I think someskeptics simply know" that UFOs cannot exist and so anyanswer. provided that you dismiss uwkwardly intrusivecounterpoints, is more acceptable than the horrorofconsidering the case to ben real UFO.

Ido not foll ow th is pructice. Yet I huve become moretolemnt of the IFO possibilities. not les!- so. for th is case.New fac ts that have come to light require su


7/10

can be reflected inland off low cloud as 1 have seen formyself. Another light source was the lights on buildings ata covert research site that up until the mid-1970s had beenhome to an "Over tJ1e HoriLon" radar research facilitythat- locals cla im- interfered with TV reception. Thisfacility generated waves of electromagnetic energy and(many suspected) was a factor in the creation of greenenergy balls seen to emerge from UJe sea at this point onseveral occasions.Indeed. one such Calle was described in Flying SuucerRe1 iew before the Rendlcsham Forest events happened.Thi l> "green firebull'" (similar to those that appeared in andaround Los Alamos in the late 1940s) was witnessed inFebruary 1975-two years after the experimental radar(code named Cobra Mist) was supposedly shut down. Thegreen ball was seen at close quarters on the beach near the

S i ~ o e w e l l power station by a po!-tman and his dsible effects of an energy field tied to secretcxperimcnll! i:-only informed :;peculation. But we iSt t l l h UPO wa:,. nn t lighthottsc ( lind Rurmugh!-.told me that he Wlls very familiar with Lhi:; beacon becausehe had picnic!> in the o o d . ~ ) . But they l w < ~ fail to say theysaw the lighthouse near to. but separate from.the UFO at thesame 1imc.Although in my nocturnal visits to the fo rest thisbeacon was never prominent or in any way describable asa crafl of any sort (a key reason why I have struggled 10Hcccptthis misperception theory). it wuscertainly in view.Of course, it is possible that the UFO"s lights swamped thelighthouse. Just as it is possible that the initial UFOwn:,alsoseen at the same time as the meteor now suspected ofdragging the men into the forest in the first place. But ifso -a UFO appearing at the same time as a meteor. a lighthouse

in much the same place a a second UFOsubsequently seenwhen inside the forest-these arc worrying coincidencesthat any seasoned investigator would beware.The oflicial reports signed by IJJcse men soon after theevents do indicate a rather confused story. One man seemsto say they only saw lights lhat they later identified as alighthouse (a story never reponed ina11y interview given bythese men before these statements were revealed by Jame!>

E a ~ t o n in 1997). Another docs not mention thi smisperception at all and just describes the UFO. The thirdsays they saw strange lights and then got fooled by alighthouse beacon that they pursued for some distancebefore identifying it!. origin. It is p < > ~ s i b l c these accountsimply lhal they saw both ilie lighthouse and the UFOtogether. But even this interpretation fails to answer whyBurroughs and Penniston in several lengthy i n t e r v i e w ~during the 1990s never once said: ''Well.actually. we knowthe UFO wasn't the lighthouse becausewe saw that too. andwhile we hriclly did not recognit.c identity we soQnrealized whut it was and it wa:. definitel y not 1hc UrO."'Such a devastating rejoinder would have demolishedthe lighthouse theory. but the fact that il was never used bythese witnesses is a se1ous concern. I have heard it suggested that the story of the lighthouse mispcrception wasimposed onto the t a t e m e n t to play downthcca:-e. But whywere Burroughs and Penniston willing to openly answerlluc:- tions about the beacon while not reporting what was intheir signed statements?Statements they had to know couldemerge at an y time.Indeed. if this suggestion is true it brings us right bilckto the old argument as to whether Lhey actually saw Lhclighthouse after all. because if the mispcrceivcd beaconreported in their statement!- was fabricated for some rea.-;onthen that light becomes a pOtential !o.OUrcc of a bona fidemisperccption since there is now no evidence that theyactually saw and recognized it on the same night.

m n i ~ . : a l l y lu:rc . their :;i encc compounds the rule of thelighthouse. whereas an open admission of their originalsigned statements would effectively kill it off. Indeed.official fabricalionor the lighthouse chase hardly damagesthe primary l{ighling: in fac t. used effectively it proves thereal UFO was not the lighthouse. So it seems hard tocomp rehend any re.a_-:on why il wmtld he i n v c n l ~ t l tt) propup wrillen statement!- from 1981 on order. from above butthen denied for 17 years.

There is. of course, far more to this caJ>c than thi s shortreport can indicate. Each of my bO(lks has told its ownupdatedversionof hestory as bit bybit. witness by witness.new pieces have been added to the unraveling threads of hisvery complicated mystery.It is clear to me that seri


8/10

testimony, we have 10 let them try co explain.Equally. it is very hard fo r me to see how a modest,distant pulsing lighthouse (which is all this source everappears as fTom the forest) could have become an image ofa transparent. smoky object that lit up the area as bright a.day. Ihave considered all of possibilities. for instance.that experiments on the Ness created a misperceplion orhallucination via generated EM waves. Or. more mundancty.chactocalit.ed mrsc(there wal> some around ncar chccoast) could have yellowed and diffused the lighthouseglow enough to create a m mirage effect. But the. earc guesstimates. and not wichout their own significantd ifficulties. I am first to :1dm it.

II is very hard to reconcile the tingcrs of evidencepointing at the lighthouse with the sheer improbability thatsuch a gross misperception could have caused such panic.Ye s. witnesses do misperceivc. Yes. environment and sugges ti bility cancreate difficult conditions that turn mundanethings into cx lraorrlinn ry pcrccprions. I hav 1 SCI n a ldhonea this group's feet.TogetherthesestronglyJUR . . FALL 1000

14


9/10

enhance the case. The skeptical approach has largely nottried to meet the challenge of the civi lian witnesses. Butthey are vital to any honest understanding of it.1have said in The UF0.1That NeverWere U1at perhaps.given recent chitllenging revelations about thi s case. it isnow in need of a doc10r. But reports of its demise arepremature. However. the skeptics do have a case and, likeit or not. there arc reasons to pay allcntion to what they say.

In ufology one important truth is that no case, howeverimpressive, is immune to the possibility of resolution. Wemust not get carried away with the belief that this is such asignificant encounter that it cannot. like other cases havebcfme it, turn from UFO to IFO.

Unfortunately. it very well could.

Ri('/wrd Hall l' 1994 talk iu Maryland and my c o l l ~ u g u c s and 1studiedthem and took measurements. Each was circular, about 8inches in diameter. and about 2\l:z- 3 inches deep. AI whatwould have been the bouom. they tapered into a round orblunt point about Vz inch in diameter. A scale drawing of avertical cross-section shows an isosceles triangle about theproportionsofa funnel. The cast. by the way. containssomeembedded pine needles.

ller descripi ionof heobjectseen by SSgt. Penniston asbeing a "transparent smoky object" makes it sound ephemeral. Translucent probably is a better word. since it seemedto be illuminated from within by the red and blue pulsating

l i g h t ~ Clearly it w ~ a solid object with a surface r t : ~ e m -bling opaque. black glass. Penniston touched it and traced

his fingers over the "etched" markings on its surface.Otherwise. I wholeheartedly agree with her thaL manyquestions need robe asked of he witnesses and the physicalevidence aspects need robe clarified. As it stands. we haveneither the complete evidence (photographs and samples)nor any analysis reports. But I fail to sec how the physical

evidence is any more or less "substantive" than it ever hao;bcen. l !>uspcct thatCol. Halt's book will clarify manyof theloose ends.Unless someone can demonstrate convincingly thatPenniston's tes timony is fa lse. he actually touched a typica l. craft-like UFO. If everythmg else rcportcd by ll alt andthe others weremisidentificationsofprosaic th ings (whichI sec no convincing evidence for), we still have this nonlighthouse. non-meteor event of very great potcntiaJ significance. Furthermore. I repeatthut the details of his eventand all of its altendant supporting evidence fit strongly

c ~ t a b patterns in many decades ofaccumulated data.Seldom is all of he relevant informati(ln available forany :;ingle UFO report. Ultimately the case for UFO:; orextraordinaryorigin is based pn of the totul hodyof

r e p o r t ~ . their credibility, theirconsistency, and the a t t e r n ~they display. On that is, I consider the RendleshamForest case to be highly significant.

knny Randles responds:In reply to Dick Hall 's cogent summary and his reasonsfor consitlcring this case good evidence for an out-of-thisworld phenomenon, I should add a few cautions. This is anopinion 1have held formany years and il may be correct.But I do think that we must not underestimate the importance of certain rc.,crvations.First. I fear it is very relevant whether the lighthousewas or was not misperccived during the events. The lighthouse was located just where the UFO was desc ribed asbeing seen and. a ~ i d c from a few n:fcrencc:o: to a strange.smoky. triangular craft. the UFO was mostly described interms of glows und lights. John Burroughs. in fuct, told mehecould not really describe i ta


10/10

R ENDLESHAM-colllinued i"OJ11 page 15the cvclll!t. a!t reported in his m ~ r n o to the MoD and asrepeated by Dick. The date was. I am nearly certain,December 26. not 27. We know thi !t not simply becauseother witnesses say so, but because every piece of documentation other than the Hall memo confirms it. Thatmeans. for example. the Suffolk police records that logwhen they were called out to sec the landing site and therecords of RAF Watton (Eastern Radar) contacted by Hallduring his sighting. Burroughs also has logical reasons fordating the first night to December 25126 oased on his ownmovement!., and thel!e were established some year1> ago andseem solid. Moreover. Halt conlirms he dated the event.from memory when writing the belated report to the MoD.This suggests that Halt got a key fact about this case wrongand this is inevitably discouraging since it confounded

u r o l o g i for years.Given this. we have.: to wonder about llalt's othermemories orevent:-.. i n c i ( h ! n tAnother problem I discern is the risk of acceptingwitness t c ~ t i m o n y at face value. While rstronglyagree thatoneshould not accuse witnesses of deception without verygood reasons (that I do not M!c present hen.:). the question ofhow witnesses observe UFOs is notoriously complex. Mundane l>Ources arc regularly mispcrcdvcd hy even experienced and well-qualilled observers in terms that make themseem much more craft-like than they actually are. r haveseen this happen too often not to be wary if a witness saystheysaw an aliencraft. Ycs, he or shemay have doneso. Bmit is ibly thecaul-cofall of them. And to be fair to theskeptil:S.thcy haven ~ : v c r sugge-sto.:d that it was. They believe that case il> amixture of numerous misperceptionl> joined together byexpectation. disorientation and the foibles of witness perception. As I argued. a bright meteor wal' a likely startingpoint. And some of the lights seen over the forest by Haltsu rely mu st be stars. Any experienced investigator willrecognize a description of winkling lights moving in smallbox -like patterns and more or less staying in the same partof sky for many hours only to d i ~ a p p e a r as dawn ap

p r o J c h c S . aclassic descriptionofstars.with the suppo:;cdmovement caused by au tokinesis.Certainly there arc aspects to this case much less easyto resolve. Again I do make that clcur. The "laser beams"

fired at the ground arc one. llowcvcr. there was a lot elsegoing on around the forest at. that time. Just to cite threet h i n g ~ There were the gas-powered scnrchlights then )(1-catcd elsewhere in the woods (the Light-Ails). There was aBritish navul exerci !;e underway orr the coast. And therewere light associated with radar ant! telecommunicationsbuildings on the N e s ~ which may. or may not. have heeninvolved in coven experimental tests.It docs notmaucr which. if any. of the:sc things couldhave been mispcrccivcd. The point is that there were manyunrelated happenings amidst a complex and confused situation that are at least partly involved in a full understandingofwhat went on that n i ~ h t . So, even if the lighthouse wastotally irTelcvant (although .I doubt it was), there are somany potential lFO sources around that thi s case cannot beas imprcs ivc a. it has for so long appeared.Yes. it mny prove to be a genuine UFO encounter. ButI think it is difficult tojustify thedegreeor certainty that WConce may have had. The deeper we dig. the more problemswe discern. That. to me. i:. the real lesson of Rendleshamand why caution needs to be applied. +

IUR FAlL :woo

2000 Fall - IUR - Richard Hall and Jenny Randles

Documents

Transcript of 2000 Fall - IUR - Richard Hall and Jenny Randles