Voyager Newsletter No. 15 CONTENTS 1. The Rendlesham Forest UFO Cover Up - My Part in its Downfall. 2. Rendlesham in Perspective - the Chris Armold Interview. O0O~O0O~O0O~O0O 1. The Rendlesham Forest UFO Cover Up - My Part in its Downfall. As 'UFO' researcher and historian, Jan Aldrich, recently and publicly confirmed, during September 1997, he obligingly sent to myself a copy of some voluminous, archive research material, held in the files of fellow American, Barry Greenwood. It was intended to assist with my own investigations into the celebrated UK 'Rendlesham forest' UFO case. The case concerned purported 'UFO' incidents over two separate nights in late December 1980 at the twin USAF complex of RAF Bentwaters and RAF Woodbridge - American bases situated in Britain - which were separated by part of Rendlesham forest. During the initial occurrence, in the early hours of 26th December, 1980, three members of the 81st Security Police Squadron [SPS] - Staff- Sergeant Jim Penniston, Airman First Class John Burroughs and Airman Ed Cabansag - investigated unfamiliar lights, believed to originate from within the forest itself. It was claimed they had encountered a 'UFO'. On the night of 27th December, the Deputy Base Commander, Lt. Col. Halt and five other servicemen also ventured into Rendlesham forest, to check out a report that the 'UFO' had been seen again. As a result of some recent, public comments, concerning what subsequently transpired when I received that archive case material, it might be helpful if I clarify the true background to exceptional events which then unfolded. On 24 September, 1997, I wrote to Jan: The material you kindly copied from Greenwood's files arrived this morning. I am indebted, this must have taken considerable time to put together. I've read through all of the papers and although I wasn't quite sure what to expect, I certainly didn't expect copies of official interview transcripts taken at the time. Where did these come from?!!! I presume Halt made copies of the documents. Do you know if they have ever been published? What now seems crystal clear, is that there are significant variances in the evidence and Penniston's _recent_ testimony doesn't seem to correspond with anyone else's claims. Worse still, it's a proven and significant alteration of his original statement. The affidavit from Burroughs is a key document and he tells a completely different story from Penniston's latest, also confirming that he never saw a structured object at all. [...] Overall, these accounts indicate that the [nearby Orford Ness] lighthouse was possibly a factor on that first night. Cabansag's further key testimony essentially says this. [...] As for Penniston, it's unfortunate we didn't realise before, that he first claimed, "When we got within a 50 meter distance...This is the closest point I was near the object at any point". A bit too far away, we might agree, to have touched the 'symbols'. None of this obviously bodes well for the case's credibility and on the face of it, Penniston's later stories are in the same league as Larry Warren's, although Warren conceivably believes in his 'regressed' memories. It seems to come down to whether Penniston can explain the anomalies, but it does look like this may be a difficult situation and needs to be carefully handled. As an aside, from these statements, the date of the initial incident was unquestionably the 26th and not the 27th as noted in Halt's memo [to the Ministry of Defence]. I'll try now to put together a summary of the problems with the evidence, maybe also a timeline of events that first night and show who claims to have been where and when. That might help, but some glaring discrepancies are already apparent and my thoughts are all we can do is discretely and confidentially highlight them and ask for explanations from Halt and Penniston at least. [...] Jan, it seems that Greenwood's files held vital evidence. If this proves to be the situation and such evidence wasn't previously made available, it might be a contentious issue. It could of course be that Halt didn't want this released, in which event, it could lead to some adverse criticism of Halt. Either way, perhaps something to keep in mind and to ourselves at present. You'll know best. Maybe there is an answer to all of the anomalies which have suddenly surfaced and if we can document them, let's see if they can be explained first of all. [END] On 23 October, 1997, I again wrote to Jan and setting out the new perspective evident from those five original witness statements, the existence of which was still a shock, asked: The question becomes, can Halt and Penniston resurrect faith, (at least my faith!) in the case. Are there some explanations which redress the balance? Can the above questions be put to Halt and Penniston with the request for a detailed response? [END] I also noted at this time: I've been discussing the case with Ian Ridpath and that's been to our reciprocal benefit. I wouldn't mention any of the developments arising from having seen the original witness testimonies. Ridpath would of course be joyous to learn that his lighthouse beacon theory was effectively proven to a significant extent and that it also explained some of the first night's events. [...] I had a lengthy talk with Nick Redfern earlier this week. Again avoiding mention of the evidence in the original testimonies, I spoke with him about the documentary evidence he had obtained all those years ago and how it was now proving to be significant. [...] [END] As I was anxious not to betray any assumed confidences, the existence of this ostensibly 'devastating' new evidence was therefore being handled cautiously. On 25 November, 1997, I further wrote to Jan: [...] There are obviously some things I would like to highlight about the Rendlesham case and find myself in a diplomatically sensitive position right now. The questions which have arisen require a response from Halt and Penniston and I know you've done all you can in this respect. [...] Jenny Randles also has a book on the case scheduled for publication early next year... If she was aware of all the evidence I have now acquired, I'm sure she would be horrified. I would like Jenny to be aware of that evidence. It does not only consist of the material you so kindly helped make available, but also the results of my discussions with Ian Ridpath, the original proponent of the 'lighthouse' theory, material from the 'Project: watchfire' investigations and key evidence from 'Left at East Gate'. Ideally, I would simply like to make all of this available for debate and people can then judge for themselves, but Halt's response, at least, is desirable. [...] Please let me know what you advise, Jan. [END] On 16 December, 1997, I again contacted Jan, informing: I had written at length to Jenny Randles, setting out some of the evidence (but not all) which led me to conclude the entire case had little, if any substance. I received a reply from Jenny this morning in which she acknowledges this evidence is of significant concern to her and necessitates a reassessment of the case as a 'UFO' event, perhaps conclusively so. 'UFO Crash Landing?', Jenny's latest book on the case, is due for imminent publication and from what Jenny says, although she still believes the book has much to offer, it would have been desirable if the evidence highlighted had been known to her. That's a practical problem, the evidence was still being acquired and evaluated as Jenny's book was being proof read and it's only now I'm sufficiently confident to disclose some of the material to Jenny. To place the evidence in perspective required Jenny's invaluable and experienced opinion and she has given that, also at length. [...] Burroughs' statement has apparently been available for some time and I note quotations from it in an article, "Bentwaters, Part III: The Testimony of John Burroughs", by Antonio Huneeus, published in Fate 46, No 9, September 1993, pp 70-7. In this article, Burroughs also confirms he witnessed, "a bank of lights, different coloured lights that threw off an image of a craft", but that "I never saw anything metallic or anything hard". This is important and having lately re-examined some of the earlier material in the case, it's now quite clear that it's only Penniston who offers any evidence of a structured object that first night. Penniston's claims are a mass of contradictions, anomalies and factual errors. [...] Although there are some aspects which can not be explained and these are noted for consideration, they are not in context consequentially so important as what can seemingly be explained, a fact which Jenny seems to recognise. Halt and Penniston's response remains lacking and I've done all I can to obtain this. [...] I have also asked Salley Rayl if she would like to take up some recent developments with Halt and Penniston, Salley maybe being the ideal person with access to both. I await [...] Salley's reply and if FUFOR wish to take this up with Halt directly, it's still open for them to do so. I fully appreciate that with other demands this is not so easy. Nevertheless, I must press on and under some pressure to publish the conclusions of my research, I'm not adverse to doing so without Halt or Penniston's reaction, as I have only those minuscule doubts that the case has any substance. I would have to say it's now patently obvious that it doesn't have. Let's see what transpires over the next week or so first. [END] I also noted at this point: [Deleted], your good self and I, at least realise we have to apply a stringent sceptical criteria as a filter, 'debunkers' though we may sometimes be tarnished! If the 'Rendlesham forest' case is mythology and witness unreliability at its finest, then that's what it is. Let's acknowledge the fact, recognise the repercussions and move on. [END] On 31 December, 1987 I wrote: I would like to express my thanks for your invaluable perspectives on the Rendlesham case and other things in general during recent months. As you know, one of the practical issues which exists is the imminent publication of Jenny's latest book on the Rendlesham case and I considered it essential she was aware of the conclusions of my research. Having brought Jenny 'up to speed', with somewhat difficult confidences understood, I received a letter from her this morning. With Jenny's book about to be published and she confirms 'media interviews' already scheduled, it's an awkward situation... Basically, Jenny wants me to tell her what does she do now and what _can_ she reveal publicly. In my opinion, she can now disclose whatever evidence I have discussed with her and I simply can't see how she could be asked to do otherwise. The problem, quite simply, is that the original witness testimonies unearthed place the entire case in an entirely different perspective. [...] I've hopefully done all I can to diplomatically clarify and resolve the issues we have seen develop. Jan, I welcome your own and ideally FUFOR's assessment of how we progress from here. I know you have passed on to FUFOR's representatives my opinion that the obvious conclusions were evident some time ago and that Halt/Penniston should be asked for a response. That's greatly appreciated - what more can we do. [END] On 27 January, 1998, I further wrote: A couple of weeks ago, I had a long talk with Jenny Randles about recent developments in the case and where we should go from here. Jenny had some imminent public appearances to promote her new book and I suggested that presently, she simply continue as previously intended. Jenny agreed and further suggested a sensible compromise would be for her to note, as necessary, that there were some new developments, the outcome of which was awaited, or something along those lines. We also agreed that a response from Halt and ideally also Penniston must be pursued. I thought the best way forward was perhaps to write a draft copy article summarising the background to the case, explaining recent developments and leaving no doubt what resulting conclusions seemed to follow as a consequence. If Halt could be made aware of this one document and the fact it was to form the basis of an article to be shortly published in the UK national press, a timely response might be forthcoming. Again, Jenny agreed this approach could take matters forward. As time allowed, it's taken those two weeks to finalise the draft copy and the document is attached. [...] It's appreciated that FUFOR have no obligation to become involved with this, however, they may prefer to have some input and I believed should be given that opportunity. Alternatively, if someone would care to pass on a contact address, telephone no. and fax no., if there is one, I will contact Halt directly. [...] This seems as much as I can do for the moment... The draft article is intended to hopefully encourage a response and I realise it sets out only to indicate why the case now appears to have a conceivable explanation. Any evidence to the contrary has to come from Halt and co. Otherwise, I'm satisfied the resolution is clearly self explanatory and have to proceed on that basis. Your thoughts, as always, welcome. Moving on to 27 January, 1998, I wrote to Jan: As you may have seen mentioned on the UpDates list, it is my intention to finally publish details of my recent research. During the past 4-5 months, I've asked a number of people if they could assist with my attempts to contact Halt and/or Penniston for a response to the research's conclusions. All such efforts have unfortunately proved to be abortive. [...] Interested parties can make of the report what they will and I'm pleased with the positive feedback received so far. Halt, Penniston at al are of course free to comment on the evidence at any time. Time to move onto other matters, although it's unlikely we've heard the last of this one! I had hoped to upload the report to my web site tonight and e-mail a copy to various folks, however, I've decided to expand the material and include further relevant background detail, which helps to place the entire story in perspective. It looks like this may run to some 25 x A4 pages now. I would like to announce on the PJ-47 list that the report is available on my web site and by simply requesting a copy. Although strictly not an early historical case, I'm sure the analysis will be of interest to many subscribers who will not automatically receive a copy by e-mail. If you have any objections, no doubt you will let me know. [END] With no objections [or approval] being stated, 'Rendlesham Unravelled' was published a further month later, on 1 March, 1998. It was announced as follows: During the past year, I have as time allows concentrated some attention on the 'Rendlesham Forest' case. It was my opinion that although significant material was available in US and UK publications or documentaries, much of the evidence was fragmented, with key witness statements only accessible on World Wide Web sites. By collating the various sources of information, I had hoped to focus attention on a more cohesive account. Whilst it was generally accepted that Colonel Halt's 'UFO' sightings could be attributed to the nearby Orford Ness lighthouse, there remained aspects which had never been explained. Central to these was the ostensibly credible testimonies of John Burroughs and Jim Penniston, who had seemingly encountered a small triangular-shaped craft in nearby Rendlesham forest, on the first of two documented night's events. As we know, the overall concern about the incidents resulted in Halt's official report to the Ministry of Defence. Regrettably, it became quite clear during my research that the case did not have the apparent substance we had been led to believe. I am today publishing a report detailing the results of this investigation and the consequential conclusions. I trust it's self explanatory and realise it reveals significant new evidence which may prove to be disappointing to many of you, as it was to me. During the last 4-5 months, several attempts have been made, via intermediaries, to contact Halt, Penniston and Burroughs. Although this has proved to be an abortive exercise, I remain hopeful that we might see a response, ideally from both Halt and Penniston, in due course. There are certainly some questions to which answers would be welcome. [END] These were the developments which led to 'Rendlesham Unravelled' and as Jan has publicly acknowledged he provided some of the related material, it's an explanation I can now present without infringing on any confidences. 'Rendlesham Unravelled', together with extensive, additional research material is available from my website at: http://www.ufoworld.co.uk/rendlshm.htm Regrettably, Jan recently charged that the conclusions I reached were hasty judgements, formed in 'less than a day'. As evidenced, it was only after extensive, additional research (much of which isn't referenced here), having spoken to those who had previously investigated the case and requesting assistance from others, that 'Rendlesham Unravelled' was published - almost 6 months later. Aside from anything else, as the entire contents of 'Rendlesham Unravelled' remain factual - primarily as the publication highlighted the central witnesses' own stories - then over three years later, any criticism of the contents should at least be able to cite some substantiating evidence. If there was in any way an imperative 'UFO' incident - this doesn't require the source to be from outer space - I've done all that I can to have it considered seriously and presented credibly. It was only a few months ago that I persuaded the UK's most respected national newspaper they might find a newsworthy story by contacting Halt and providing the UK forum Halt has stated he hoped to have one day. Although they did get in touch with Halt, so far as I'm aware he didn't accept this opportunity. An obstacle to overcome when highlighting evidence which threatens to, or obviously does, offer an explanation for a prominent 'UFO' case is the adverse reaction from those who have long believed it was conversely important evidence, if not 'proof', of contact by aliens. By default, it also impacts on the claimed 'inexplicable' nature of other UFO cases and that intrinsic belief in a government 'cover up'. Typically, the reaction is hostile, vehement and often dismissive of new evidence which hasn't even been studied. As one experienced 'ufologist' cautioned just prior to publication of 'Rendlesham Unravelled': "I hope you have your 'shit shelter' ready! Your report is a real service to serious ufology. Those of us who really care about the facts and the truths they embody/illuminate are in your debt. As the blizzard of brickbats falls around you, remember this admonition which Senator Barry Goldwater used to keep on the wall of his Washington office: Illegitimum non Carborundum". [END] And so it proved when 'Rendlesham Unravelled' was published: "In my opinion, the debunking of this incident is so laughable that I don't know where to begin to point out errors in it. The whole premise of the article is incorrect and it insults the intelligence of all those involved! Does anyone believe that Security Policemen with weapons and senior military officers, also with weapons, are given to mistaking lighthouses for other things?" [END] "Agreed. This is a debunking ploy that I've seen used over and over again. It's ludicrous to claim that someone saw a lighthouse, or Venus, or Mars, or anything else that was there the day before and will be there the day after; and the day after that, etc., etc." [END] "The 'they saw the lighthouse' theory is warmed over garbage. What some would like people to believe is that after years and years of operation in which the base security would have noticed and gotten used to--meaning the lighthouse would no longer be out of the ordinary and would not suddenly attract attention during a Dec night. Better said, it would be like a normal person that watches the news and reads the newspaper waking up today and saying "Shazam....Bill Clinton is President of the United States...why I just noticed...." The lighthouse theory is a broken bulb at best". [END] "If critics of Rendlesham have important new, unconsidered evidence to share, I wish they'd do it instead of replowing the same old ground. I spoke with Halt at length two days ago (27 February) by telephone and appraised him of the fact that Easton was promoting a soon-to- be-released monograph that ostensibly explained the complex of sightings as nothing more than the famous flying Orford Ness lighthouse (and lightship, perhaps). Halt is adamant that he didn't mistake the lighthouse for a UFO; he was well aware of its presence on the skyline. After all, he did have occasion to periodically walk about the base at night. Do these critics really believe that an AF lt.-col., deputy base commander was so disconnected from reality and his surrounding environment that he couldn't recognize a lighthouse's blinking beacon?" [END] Ad nauseam... Those latter comments were more significant though, they came from Robert Swiatek, a director of FUFOR [Fund for UFO Research]. On 4 March, Mr Swiatek had more to say: As a matter of fact I just downloaded Easton's article today (Tues.) and read it on my way home from work. In short, I was underwhelmed and feel it's a loopy article. I frankly expected a bit more new information than appears in the piece... In my opinion, Easton's reshuffled the same old 52-card deck and now somehow sees different cards. I don't have time to write pages and pages here, but will summarize some lowlights that really grated on me. None of the events that Halt describes sound anything like a bright fireball, which usually traverses the sky in a few seconds, or a re-entering satellite, which also flashes overhead quickly, occasionally spewing off parts of the rocket or satellite body. Yet it's obvious Easton believes this to be the explanation, hence the long diatribe about why Halt is "mistaken about the dates." They have to be wrong to fit with Easton's beliefs. Still, nothing new here; the date issue has been debated for years. Also funny how Easton plays the old my-sources-must-remain- confidential routine, while asking us to Trust me, I'm telling the truth about all this. Too much to hope for actual names, I suppose. And documents--he's seen only photocopies. Let the pro-MJ-12 proponents pull this tactic and you'd be all over them... Come on, enough's enough here: Come clean with everything--especially the anonymous sources--so we can judge for ourselves; otherwise don't waste our time. Notice how many weasel words are salted into his article. It would do Clinton proud. To wit: "a bright object may have produced this 'burn out' effect"; "Clearly, this seems to be the lighthouse beacon"; "lens' could have produced distorted images." Get the feeling Jim might be trying a bit too hard to convince us of his beliefs when the facts just aren't there to support them? It's especially rich when he throws notorious debunker Ridpath's opinion into our faces--a man who wasn't there on the scene--as though this somehow outweighs the testimony of on-site commander Halt who saw the lighthouse day in, day out for months on end". [END] So, following some six months of not inconsiderable efforts, Halt was finally contacted and the call made by a representative of FUFOR, Robert Swiatek. We might have anticipated that Halt would be asked if he could please answer some relevant questions, or at least comment on the two-mile chase of a lighthouse beacon, acknowledged in those original witness statements. Instead, on 27 February', Swiatek 'appraises' Halt of an impending article and affirms the lighthouse would never have fooled anyone. Astonishingly, Swiatek then states he hadn't actually read the extensive material in 'Rendlesham Unravelled' - which confirms how the participants admitted the initial UFO scare resulted in an abortive two mile pursuit of Orford Ness lighthouse - until 3 March! In retrospect, obviously I wish I had known earlier this was to be an outcome, however, it was an obligation to honour certain protocols. I see that I did reply to Swiatek: >In my opinion, Easton's reshuffled the same old 52-card deck and >now somehow sees different cards. You're not appreciating some pretty fundamental points. We never previously had all the cards laid on the table, possibly still don't, but published for the first time, were details from the original witness statements. These document how events unfolded and are the missing 'aces' in understanding the true perspective. It's now evident there are major discrepancies between later claims made by Jim Penniston and what was documented at the outset. It's also only now realised the lighthouse beacon was sufficiently unfamiliar in the forest setting that three security policemen followed a 'beacon light' for two miles before this was recognised. It's a fact had never been mentioned by either Burroughs, Penniston or Halt in any subsequent commentaries. >I don't have time to write pages and pages here, but will >summarize some lowlights that really grated on me. None of the >events that Halt describes sound anything like a bright fireball, >which usually traverses the sky in a few seconds, or a re-entering >satellite, which also flashes overhead quickly, occasionally >spewing off parts of the rocket or satellite body. You're confusing events from the two separate incidents. The 'bright fireball' relates to the first night's events, not Halt's adventures in the forest. >Yet it's obvious Easton believes this to be the explanation, >hence the long diatribe about why Halt is "mistaken about the >dates." They have to be wrong to fit with Easton's beliefs. >Still, nothing new here; the date issue has been debated for >years. It might help if you take time to consider the above pointers first of all. Then hopefully the clarification of the dates will be understood. There isn't any argument that the first date in Halt's memo is wrong - the original witness testimonies confirm the date and time as 26th December 1980, events commencing at approx. 0300. The evidence confirming the correct date of the second night's events has been set out and is now agreed by those who know the historical case well, for example, Jenny Randles and Ian Ridpath. I'm not aware of anyone who contends, with opposing evidence, otherwise. >Also funny how Easton plays the old my-sources-must-remain- >confidential routine, while asking us to Trust me, I'm telling >the truth about all this. Before I saw a copy of these specific documents, their origin was already proven to some of the prominent list members here. It isn't an issue, although you have every right to query this further. The only reason I didn't mention the source, is simply that I strictly didn't have permission to yet. If you had read the article in more detail, you might also have noticed the following reference: [7] 'Bentwaters, Part III: The Testimony of John Burroughs', by Antonio Huneeus, Fate 46, No 9, September 1993, pp 70-71. Note: This article contains a quotation which is the beginning of Burroughs' testimony, now obtained in full. {End} So at least part of Burroughs' testimony had previously been known about over four years ago. As you are in touch with Colonel Halt, why not simply ask him to confirm these affidavits are those he stated were obtained at the beginning of January 1981? >It's especially rich when he throws notorious debunker Ridpath's >opinion into our faces--a man who wasn't there on the scene--as >though this somehow outweighs the testimony of on-site commander >Halt who saw the lighthouse day in, day out for months on end. Ridpath has however researched the scene of the crimes and can therefore offer an informed opinion. This similarly applies to Jenny Randles, who's description of the terrain I provided to illustrate it's deceptive nature. Again, if you had taken more time to study this case further, it was being determined that Halt would not necessarily have been familiar with the lighthouse as seen at tree-level, in the sloping forest. All that's visible from the base is the distant lighthouse beam sweeping the horizon, not the pulsating light which can seen from within the forest, which was outwith the jurisdiction of the USAF. Do we detect traces of a possible lack of objectivity, Rob. I don't mind clarifying some issues, but only within reason. Hopefully this still can be applied and you can accept it is reasonable to ask if many of your misgivings are perhaps in need of a rethink. What would be of invaluable assistance, is if you could ask Col. Halt to comment on some relevant questions. [END] Francis Ridge added his views: I have to admit I'm more up-to-speed on older cases, so when it comes to cases such as these I know who to contact. I have spoken with several and will be talking to others who are also eminently qualified to comment on this case. It appears at the very outset that you have apparently gone off half-cocked regarding this matter and really don't know the subject as well as you thought. It also appears that you have illustrated poor judgement, been leaping to conclusions, and simply listening to the wrong people. But you're the one that brought it up. We'll see how it plays out. Richard Hall is sending me some updates based on Halt's latest comments. [END] I had replied: [...] Not only is it an objectionable 'knee-jerk' reaction, if you were familiar with the background it would be recognised I had previously been a staunch supporter that the case might have some substance, see, for example: 'The Unopened Files', (a 'sister' publication to 'UFO Magazine' (UK)), issue 'Autumn 1997': 'Rendlesham 1997: New Testimonies Suggest UFO Encounters Very Real', by James Easton, pp 62-69 and 78-79. [...] What anyone believes is consummately irrelevant. It's only the facts which are of consequence and only facts were highlighted. [...] Perhaps you haven't fully digested the evidence and that it confirms, beyond any debate, the central witnesses from the first night's events were deceived by the lighthouse beacon. It's not clear why this isn't understood, the point was explained and documented. It might help if I substantiate this further: "We got up to a fence that separated the trees from the open field and you could see the lights down by a farmers house. We climbed over the fence and started heading towards the red and blue lights and they just disappeared. Once we reached the farmer's house we could see a beacon going around so we went towards it. We followed it for about 2 miles before we could see it was coming from a lighthouse". Extract: original statement from Airman First Class John Burroughs. "Only the beacon light was still blinking. We figured the lights were coming from past the forest, since nothing was visible as we passed through the woody forest. We could see a glowing near the beacon light, but as we got closer we found it to be a lit-up farmhouse. After we had passed through the forest, we thought it had to be an aircraft accident. So did CSC [Central Security Control] as well. But we ran and walked a good 2 miles past our vehicle, until we got to a vantage point where we could determine that what we were chasing was only a beacon light off in the distance. Our route through the forest and field was a direct one, straight towards the light". Extract: original statement from Airman Ed Cabansag. Is this now sufficient to establish that the lighthouse beacon wasn't recognised as such? The description of the location from Jenny Randles was included for a reason; to illustrate how deceptive nearby landmarks could be, given the sloping terrain. That, plus the above witness statements, are facts. [...] I have explained, via the previously unpublished witness statements, how it was originally reported and that neither Halt, Burroughs or Penniston ever publicly disclosed the abortive two mile 'beacon' chase that first night. Nothing said by yourself or any respondents on this list, at the time of writing, amounts to more than an adverse reaction. Perhaps in future, some of the evidence might actually be addressed. [END] And so it goes. Many of those who believe in 'UFOs' and all which that encompasses, do so with a religious conviction. Richard Hall, Chairman of FUFOR, then directly offered his opinions: [...] Cabansag did not go into the woods with Burroughs and Penniston. [...] Halt's TESTIMONY is full, complete, on the record, and highly credible. His information anchors the entire case. Again, no need to stay focused on CREDIBLE witnesses. [John Stepkowski wrote:] >James tried for months to get in touch with various people, >including Halt, to ask them questions prior to publication. Now >that it's out in the open, maybe some of these questions will be >answered. > >I hope so. But there _are_ questions for Halt to answer and if >he's willing to answer them, we're all the richer for it. All >this "debunker" stuff and personal insults just doesn't belong on >a serious list. Let's wait to see what happens and whether, >finally, Halt will address some of the questions James has been >trying to get him to answer for months. To a considerable degree, he has answered the questions - and will be doing more so. Halt does not necessarily respond to ill-informed questions from hostile-sounding people. I don't blame him, given the track record of UFO "investigators". Richard Hall [END] Hall voiced some further comments - posted on his behalf by Swiatek, which, on 10 March, 1998, I replied to as follows: Robert, It's regrettable to hear that Richard Hall and colleagues in communication with Col. Halt do not intend to provide any assistance in resolving the questions which now undermine the 'Rendlesham Forest' case and seem to have no desire to address them at all. I know that many others with an objective interest anticipated hearing why Halt maintains that the Orford Ness lighthouse would never have deceived the base personnel, even in it's various guises from unfamiliar locations, such as inside the forest. Obviously, this seems to be somewhat at odds with original witness statements now available, which report that the beacon was a major factor in the 'strange lights' perceived. A factor to the extent that during the possible aircraft crash investigated by Burroughs, Cabansag and Penniston, the patrol ventured into the forest for some two miles before recognising that a 'beacon light' originated from that same lighthouse! The quite considerable anomalies now evident from former Staff Sergeant Jim Penniston's more recent claims versus the facts documented at the time, we also eagerly awaited Halt's comments on and trusted he might possibly be able ask Penniston for an explanation, lest the case should proceed any further as 'Rendleshambles'. As regards the pending publication of Hall's book - could this already be beyond amendment and updating - it was appreciated he was in a similarly awkward position which Jenny Randles accepted facing when made aware of the recently expansive evidence. To her great credit, even whilst promoting her latest [and recommended] book on the case, 'UFO Crash Retrieval?' (note the question mark!), Jenny displayed commendable integrity by publicly expressing her fears that developments did not auger well for a sustained belief in a less than prosaic resolution. [...] Of most importance, Hall states: "My forthcoming account of the case in 'THE UFO EVIDENCE: II' is based on direct communications with Colonel Halt, who has been very helpful and cooperative, and on the same set of documents from the CAUS files that others are talking about". If nothing else, can we please confirm where CAUS obtained copies of the witness statements and how long the startling revelations about the lighthouse has been known about? [END] Richard Hall's insistence that Ed Cabansag didn't accompany Burroughs and Penniston into the forest that first night is of course completely mistaken. I'm not sure why it was ever debatable if Hall had access to the same material. Ed Cabansag's testimony is an account of his travels through the forest and beyond, 'in search of the light'. It was never anyone else's responsibility to assist with endeavours, or help attain answers to the fundamental questions and issues brought to awareness. A number of people did though and I expressed appreciation in the subsequent 'Resolving Rendlesham: New Insights and Past Claims Examined', published in August 1998. Ultimately, my objective was to ensure that previously unknown, crucial evidence - not only from the CAUS files - was made available and this was achieved, albeit under trying circumstances. One question which remains unanswered is what would have happened otherwise. Would the key evidence contained in those five, early witness statements never have been known about, outwith the few who were aware these documents existed? Without access to those earliest testimonies, it would surely have proved absolutely impossible to ever make sense of this case. Was there really a 'cover up', fearing that if the proven, documented misperception of Orford Ness lighthouse as a 'UFO' was disclosed, then this would naturally undermine the story's entire credibility? No, not that I can see and even the premise is unlikely. More probable is that the significance of these documents and a need to make other case researchers aware of their contents simply wasn't realised or given due consideration. If there's another explanation, many people with an interest in the 'Rendlesham' affair would sure like to hear it. Particularly disappointing is that journalist Salley Rayl - who did understand the case and had written about it for OMNI magazine - wasn't appraised of the full facts when it was announced Halt and Penniston had agreed to be interviewed by Salley for 'Project: watchfire', hosted by the Microsoft Network, in 1997. Although those detailed interviews resulted in new information and claims, the story now being told, especially by Penniston, was hugely contrary to evidence documented in those written affidavits. If Salley had known about this, those landmark interviews could have confronted the many inconsistencies and so much more might have been clarified at that time. Still, it's only a UFO story and an exercise in attempting to solve a complex puzzle. It's been a revealing exercise, in many respects. When it was recognised that the evidence presented in 'Rendlesham Unravelled' was rock-solid, had been thoroughly researched and verified, it gradually became accepted there was no escaping the facts revealed. In a more conciliatory atmosphere, Francis Ridge wrote: "What is important, I just wanted to tell you that we all appreciate your research efforts (even if we don't always agree) and wish you the very best". [END] Some wise words came from elsewhere: "Let me add my name to the growing number who appreciate the efforts of James Easton to unravel the Rendlesham matter. He has added immeasurably to our knowledge as to what really happened there. And, though it may be disappointing to many (including myself), if the truth really is that nothing of note took place in the Rendlesham Forest in late December 1980, then we must accept it. Otherwise, we would be only fooling ourselves. The real mystery then, is how such a false picture of events was allowed to take hold. The answer could be most instructive. Too much garbage is proliferating in this field. We need to know why, and to put a stop to it. Between the myth-makers, and the True Believers, this field is in serious trouble. It's time for a major clean-up". [END] Even Jerome Clark was almost positive: "I hold no particular brief for Rendlesham, and I commend Mr. Easton. [...] As we wait, I plan not to join the rush to judgement, which is not to say that I fail to appreciate and admire your efforts in trying to untangle the knot that is Rendlesham". Although , he did add a note of warning: "Incidentally, I was amused to read, in an earlier posting, of the sudden interest of the Bloviation Squad -- Klass, Oberg, and their ilk -- in your efforts. If you were making a positive case, you can be sure these clowns would have no interest whatever, except possibly in making you look like an idiot or worse. I hope you're not under the mistaken impression that you've made some new friends". [END] 'The terror of the skeptics'... indeed. In truth, like many others who had taken an interest in the subject of 'UFOs', I know that Phil Klass, James Oberg and 'their ilk' have contributed significantly to our understanding. It certainly hasn't been my experience that it's principally the so-called 'skeptics'... in this perennial battle of good against evil... who react adversely when faced with hard facts opposed to their beliefs. Whatever our convictions, it is only those facts which declare the truth and I trust that by explaining and documenting this extraordinary background to the breakthroughs in unravelling 'Rendlesham', the facts will speak for themselves. O0O~O0O~O0O~O0O 2. Rendlesham in Perspective - the Chris Armold Interview. In 'Rendlesham Unravelled', I stated: An inauspicious start is that the dates in Halt's memo [to the Ministry of Defence] are incorrect. Whilst he reported that the incidents occurred "Early in the morning of 27 Dec 80 (approximately 0300L)" and during the evening/early morning of 29/30 December, they actually took place on the morning of the 26th and during 27/28 December respectively. From witness statements, it's proven that the first night's events began around 0300 hours on the morning of 26 December 1980. Also, a letter dated 27 October 1988, to UK researcher Nick Redfern from the Suffolk Constabulary confirms that "shortly after 4 a.m. on 26th December 1980", they received a call about "unusual lights being seen in the sky near R.A.F. Woodbridge". In 'Above Top Secret', by Timothy Good, he wrote: "Chuck de Caro of Cable News Network was shown the logbook at Woodbridge Police Station which shows that on the night of 25/26 December, Airman Armald from the Woodbridge base law enforcement desk called the Woodbridge police concerning 'lights in the woods'". It appears that the person who made the call was in fact Airman Chris Armold, who has recently provided me with a statement in which he confirms: "In fact I then called the Martlesham Heath branch of the Suffolk Constabulary and asked if they had any info about downed aircraft. There is a book which references my call but they butchered my last name". [END] During July 1997, Armold commented on the 'non-events' which had subsequently been proclaimed as 'UFO' sightings: "...those of us working were having some fun as we actually were playing music over one of the Police Frequencies. It was very quiet and since it was the holiday season, not much was happening. Things were pretty laid back. In any case, we were playing music on the Security Frequency and the Law Enforcement freq was being used in case someone had an emergency or actual work related transmission to make. After midnight, John Burroughs radioed the LE desk and reported he had seen strange lights outside the East Gate on RAF Woodbridge. I was actually on RAF Lakenheath hanging out at the Law Enforcement Desk at the time. [...] We called the Control Tower and I even called the local Constabulary (I can't remember the town the constabulary was in, but I do know it was outside of Ipswich and I think it used to be an air base during WWII, I believe the control tower was restored in the 80's). In any case, after getting a negative reply from the British Cops, my flight chief asked me if I wanted to head out to Woodbridge to meet up with Burroughs and see what was up. I grabbed the back gate keys and took the back way to RAF W/B. I met Burroughs at the East Gate of WB. We left our guns with the guy riding with Burroughs and drove to the end of the long access road. We left our vehicle and walked out there. There was absolutely nothing in the woods. We could see lights in the distance and it appeared unusual as it was a sweeping light, (we did not know about the lighthouse on the coast at the time). We also saw some strange colored lights in the distance but were unable to determine what they were. [...] [END] Aside from Armold, only Burroughs (directly involved in the first night's events and apparently with Armold and others in the forest that second night) and Master-Sergeant Chandler (stationed as a radio relay the first night and a member of Halt's team the second night) participated in both incidents. Armold is therefore an immensely important witness. As a result of recent, lengthy correspondence with Chris Armold, he has provided invaluable, additional insight and a first-hand perspective of the Rendlesham forest 'UFO' excitement. Although he was extremely averse to become involved any further in this matter, I'm pleased to say it has been permitted that I may publish his more detailed recollections. As a summary of our overall discussions, we both agree that the following is an accurate, almost verbatim, synopsis: EASTON: The police log timed the incoming call (which they said was from Bentwaters) at 4.11 am and the officers went out immediately. Were the local police with John Burroughs and yourself when you ventured into the forest? ARMOLD: No, the British Police did not accompany us into the forest. If I remember correctly, and this is hazy so forgive me, I believe we (Burroughs and I) met up with two constables who drove up in a small marked vehicle on the main road that connects to the East Gate access. I have to believe the conversation we had with them was of little consequence as I don't recall re-entering the woods with them or spending much time chit-chatting about the issue. Remember, I called specifically to inquire about any aircraft incidents or crashes, not to report or ask about any supposed UFO activity. EASTON: As your call was apparently logged after 4.00 a.m., this must have been subsequent to Burroughs having any 'close encounter'. In Flight (Shift) Commander Fred Buran's statement, he wrote: "At approximately 0354 hours, I terminated the investigation and ordered all units back to their normal duties". According to this timeline, you must have driven to see Burroughs after he had returned to duty and was back at 'east gate'. ARMOLD: Yes, I remember the call was rather late in the shift and I'm certain the decision to call the local constabulary was one that was made late in the morning and with hesitation. You see no one was particularly eager to call the local police and ask silly questions about UFO's. However one also must cover all the bases so we made the decisions to call and ask if they had any reports of aircraft accidents or similar phenomenon. I'm quite certain the word UFO wasn't a part of the conversation. It was after that time that I scooted out to RAF Woodbridge and met up with Burroughs and yes, we did indeed stomp around the forest a bit more. EASTON: Who suggested that you go back to the logging road? If it was Burroughs, did he still think that 'strange lights' were visible? Even if it was your suggestion to return, can you recall if he indicated in any way that 'something' was still 'out there'? ARMOLD: I'm quite certain it was a mutual thing, I cruised out to Woodbridge after my Flight Chief said it would be okay to check it out. I suppose he wanted a second opinion or something, but no, we saw no evidence of lights, ships, creatures, aliens or the like. He had no idea what he saw. He related he saw lights but that was it. Period. EASTON: Significantly, in July 1997, you mentioned there were 'some strange lights' in the distance, whose origin could not be determined. Can you recall what those lights looked like - indeed, anything about them at all - colour, size, whether they were flashing or moved, etc. ARMOLD: Yes, there were what we initially interpreted as 'strange lights' and in my opinion and contrary to what some people assert, at the time almost none of us knew there was a lighthouse at Orford Ness. Remember, the vast majority of folks involved were young people, 19, 20, 25 years old. Consequently it wasn't something most of the troops were cognizant of. That's one reason the lights appeared interesting or out of the ordinary to some people. After it was discovered that a lighthouse was out there the 'strangeness' of the lights evaporated. The lights were primarily white and were very small, far off in the distance. Occasionally one would see a shade of blue or red but I attribute that to refraction from stained glass windows in a local church in addition to the fog and weather at the time. The lights did not move in erratic fashions nor did they move towards us or act in any manner which violated the laws of known physics. EASTON: When you had met up with Burroughs that first night, went back to the logging/access road with him and observed those unfamiliar red and blue lights in the distance, can we refute any suggestions these might have been connected to the local police who had been called out? For example, could the red and blue lights have been from the police car or torches they were using? ARMOLD: The lights were not from police cars, nor torches, nor alien space ships. You can bank on that. EASTON: When you were in the forest that second night, or at any time afterwards, were those red and blue lights also visible then? ARMOLD: According to my recollections, there were some lights but they seem to me to have primarily been a neutral color. I'm certain there could have been tints of blue or red but nothing striking and nothing spectacular. EASTON: Can you recall what Burroughs told you about their pursuit of these lights through Rendlesham forest? How did he rationalise that the red and blue lights - which in truth they couldn't locate the source of - were still there? ARMOLD: Now remember, I was with Burroughs and Bustinza out in the woods the second night. I too saw the lights but while interesting initially, we never thought much about them (Once I realized there was a lighthouse at Orford Ness, things became a bit clearer). As for rationalizing the lights, it never was an issue. EASTON: When you went into the forest with Burroughs, you must have ended up in that same clearing - it's where the ground marks were and you recall Burroughs showing them to you. Appreciating this was 20 years ago, is it possible you are mistaken about the ground marks having been identified so early? There are, typically, different accounts - Burroughs has said the 'indentations' were found next morning, in the daylight, when they went back to look for evidence; Penniston claims the indentations were discovered that same night and before they all returned to duty. ARMOLD: I'm quite confident that Burroughs pointed out these marks before daylight. My opinion was that they looked like an impression made by a 3 pound US coffee can. EASTON: If Burroughs and the others located these marks earlier that night, how did they do so in a dark forest, where the ground must have had numerous small pits/divots, etc? What did Burroughs suggest had made these particular marks? Presumably he must have thought it was an object of some kind? Did he explain where he thought it had gone!? ARMOLD: Well James, that's a very good point, I suggest you ask Burroughs because in my opinion it would have been very difficult to have found them. What he said at the time was that he saw something that 'landed' in the forest at that position. I found this to be quite unrealistic as there were no destroyed trees, scorch marks or the like. I found it and still find it very fishy. James this entire episode has been a farce since the beginning. I again go to my recurring theme that one can't prove that something didn't happen. The British UFO enthusiast community need to put the onus on Burroughs, Penniston and Halt to substantiate their side of the story. Why is it that these three men claim to have observed the same phenomenon, yet it seems the events continually change as time passes. From what I understand, their stories are often radically different from each other. I'm very disappointed at how silly this makes 81st SPS appear. It was a good squadron with very competent people who worked hard. That's a good point to consider as well that on a base of several thousand Americans, why are these few individuals who can't get a story straight, the only ones whose story is taken as gospel? Lt Col Halt... that guy telephoned me in around 1992 asking me to jump on his bandwagon and confirm his contentions. I declined to participate in this charade as did several other individuals to include then Lt Bruce Englund. EASTON: I'm interested to hear that Halt contacted you in 1992 and how Bruce Englund also refused to become involved. Can I ask how you knew that Englund had turned him down and are you aware why? It's relevant as Halt states that Englund was the person who contacted him that second night, at the belated officers Christmas dinner, to advise Halt of reports that 'the UFO was back'. Englund was then one of the team which accompanied Halt to investigate what turned out to be... 'strange lights' in the forest. ARMOLD: It's very simple to explain how I knew Englund refused. You see at the time I was stationed at Kirtland AFB assigned to the Security Police Squadron. Bruce Englund was assigned to a Headquarters unit of the [deleted] which was stationed at [deleted]. I visited his office a few times because of the friendship we developed at RAF Bentwaters. You see, I was one of the first people than Lt Englund ever went on patrol with when he became a shift commander. I think I taught him a few things and he was quite a good officer. He was patient and listened to the Airmen and the NCOs. Simply put, he was a good guy. The reason I know he turned Halt down was because he told me. [I have deleted information which I would prefer to have Englund's permission before publishing - James]. I strongly encourage you and your friends to shift the burden of proof. I absolutely can not prove that something didn't happen, it isn't possible. Nor can other folks who staunchly deny any incident or subsequent cover-up. Consequently, Burroughs, Penniston, Halt and anyone else who asserts that there was a close encounter with little green men should bear that burden. [END] It should be noted that the 'ground indentations' were identified by a local forester as merely 'rabbit scrapings', apparently because they had rabbit droppings in them! Armold also confirmed there were no 'beams of light' visible that second night from 'star-like' objects and such an memorable occurrence was never mentioned as a 'mass-sighting' on base at any time afterwards. This is of course contrary to Halt's assertions that 'light-beams' were being seen by '30 and 40 people stationed around the dual Bentwaters-Woodbridge base'. Placing this in context, I recently also highlighted the following, previously unpublished, material during discussions on the non- public UFO Research List [UFORL]. It was in reply to a subscriber's comments and questions about the 'second' UFO episode involving Lt. Col. Halt, asking why there had been no alert status and a military response called for if the base, especially the Weapons Storage Area [which did contain nuclear ordnance] was perceived to be under threat. I wrote: As we know, Halt recorded that the beams of light were visible for an incredulous 45 minutes. However, the duration of this supposed occurrence was presumably even longer, for, as Salley Rayl confirmed with Halt: At around 4:30 a.m., Halt called the investigation off. "It was a cold winter night," he says. "The wind was blowing, we were wet, and I just ordered everybody back to the base. I saw no reason to stay out there any longer. We left those objects up there." {End} It's an overall scenario which simply defies belief. The base is being bombarded with laser-like beams from unidentified aircraft and Halt just shrugs it off. It seems they all simply went to bed! What were Halt's responsibilities as deputy base commander? I can clarify this, as Bernard Donahue, then a Captain on base, told me in 1998: I was stationed at Bentwaters at the time of this "incident." I was the Area Defense Counsel, the lawyer charged with defending personnel charged with criminal offenses or facing adverse personnel actions. At the time, I was a Captain. Most of us on base were embarrassed by this "incident." We didn't believe the UFO hype for one minute. The next day, I personally read the "Security Police Blotter" describing the incident in detail. It seemed to document hysteria rather than hard facts. [...] The "Deputy Base Commander" title is misleading. The senior officer on base is the Wing Commander, who had several subordinate commanders, i.e., A-10 squadron commanders, etc. The "Base Commander" was one of these subordinate commanders, charged with overseeing the housekeeping operations on the base, e.g., security, housing, personnel, etc. [...] {End} Another reason we can be grateful the Spetznaz commandos weren't masquerading as UFOs and attacking the weapons area is that the security police there apparently only had one pair of binoculars! Sergeant Randy Smith assured me that was the situation when colleagues and himself were "jammed" into the observation tower on 'UFO alert' and watching those twinkling, "star-like" UFOs. Maybe through these outward-angled glass windows, someone was also seeing 'beams', with the aid of the binoculars... As Halt states the security police radio channels were open, perhaps that's why he thinks 'beams of light' were also being reported in the weapons storage area. Didn't anybody ever check out this security threat? Apparently not and according to Sgt Smith, next day it was business as usual! Incidentally, as Halt's [microcassette] recording indicates he was later watching the "star-like" object and its 'beams' from a considerable distance, how could he possibly have seen _'pencil thin'_ streams of light from so far away without some kind of visual aid? [...] [END] AS UFORL subscribers will understand, I have edited out some of Donahue's more 'personal' comments. A related question is that in his memo to the Ministry of Defence, Halt notes the 'star-like' objects, which subsequently faded in the twilight, were at some points being viewed, "through an 8-12 power lens". Halt's microcassette recording confirms he was frequently using a 'Starlight scope' [Starscope] image intensifier: "OK, we're looking at the thing, we're probably about two to three hundred yards away. It looks like an eye winking at you. Still moving from side to side. And when you put the Starscope on it, it sorta has a hollow center, a dark center, it's like a pupil of an eye looking at you, winking. And it flashes so bright to the Starscope that it almost burns your eye". At this time, he's focusing on a small, distant, brilliant light, "at a compass heading of 110 degrees", in the direction of Orford Ness lighthouse. Whether the "8-12 power lens" being used to view those 'star-like' objects was, appropriately, the 'Starlight scope', or another visual aid, is currently unknown. A significant new contribution to our understanding comes from local researcher Robert McLean. Using the information contained in those witness statements and from Halt's taped recording of proceedings, Robert has recently retraced the route both parties took through the forest. This has again substantiated that the small, distant lighthouse beacon is visible where a 'UFO' was observed. Robert has also identified the source of the following strobe-like 'phenomenon', which Halt reports in his microcassette recording: HALT: 2:44. We're at the far side of the second farmer's field and made sighting again about 110 degrees. This looks like it's clear off to the coast. It's right on the horizon. Moves about a bit and flashes from time to time. Still steady or red in color. HALT: 3:05. We see strange strobe-like flashes to the... rather sporadic, but there's definitely something there. Some kind of phenomenon. [END] The flashing light which is now seen to be 'clear off to the coast' and 'right on the horizon' and in the compass heading of Orford Ness lighthouse, was the 'UFO' which Halt believed he too had encountered. Aside from the fact it was documented as occurring, Halt has always omitted this second sighting of the 'UFO', claiming it had instead exploded into five white lights after it was first seen. The five lights were in fact a separate observation, as noted on his tape recording: We've passed the farmer's house and are crossing the next field and now we have multiple sightings of up to five lights with a similar shape and all but they seem to be steady now rather than a pulsating or glow with a red flash. [END] It's believed these may have been lights stationed atop the five, tall masts which in 1980 held the 'Cobra Mist' radio antennas. These are a prominent local landmark on the coast. The 'strange strobe-like flashes' which Robert has now identified are a 'phenomenon' that can still be seen in the same place as twenty years ago. I hope to say more about this in due course. From productive discussions on UFORL, Robert, myself and other subscribers seem to be in agreement that we may have solved another of the Rendlesham forest mysteries. It relates to the following, as recalled in Burroughs' statement: "We crossed a small open field that led into the trees where the lights were coming from and as we were coming into the trees there were strange noises, like a woman was screaming. Also the woods lit up and you could hear the farm animals making a lot of noise and there was a lot of movement in the woods. All three of us hit the ground...". It would appear that the source of those 'screams' was probably the forest's Muntjac deer, also known as the 'barking deer', which "click when alarmed and also squeak and scream when frightened". It seems the three man patrol were 'spooked' at this point and 'ate dirt' for no other reason. The light which 'lit up the woods', later described as a white light, could have been the sweeping beam from Orford Ness lighthouse, which was intermittently visible in this extraordinarily deceptive terrain. Keith Seaman, responsible for maintenance of the automated Orford Ness lighthouse and familiar with the UFO stories, told me: ...when you get right into the forest, the beam actually traverses through the forest... ...you're getting well down [towards the coast] then, because as I pointed out at the time, the lighthouse beam does not go any further inland than the coast; the coast curves, it doesn't follow a dead straight line and you obviously get a little bit of overthrow from the beam. [...] The lighthouse is blanked off to a certain area, it's not a completely visible light all the way round the 360 degrees, it's blanked off towards the land. And that's when the light disappears, because it's screened off. [END] Or it could have been headlights from a passing car or farm vehicle on one of the nearby roads or farms, etc. The 'screams' however, almost certainly came from Muntjac deer, presumably alarmed by three men bearing down on them with torches. Doubtless the deer were correspondingly spooked by these approaching 'strange lights' and sweeping beams in the forest. There is much more to Robert's exceptional local research and the aspects it has helped to explain. I'm sure we'll hear about this in future. Most significantly, those 'red and blue' lights which perplexed Burroughs, Cabansag and Penniston and resulted in the initial 'UFO', were, according to Penniston, lights originating from a 'craft' that he examined at his leisure, before it 'took off'. Yet, apparently, unidentified, red and blue lights were still visible in the distance when Chris Armold later returned to the vicinity of that same UFO encounter. A consequential question, which can perhaps one day be answered, is why, of the three participants in that early 26th December, 'UFO' encounter, only Burroughs and Penniston seem to have experienced perceptions of a 'UFO'. Airman Cabansag's account is merely about the pursuit of 'lights' and the eventual realisation they had identified a nearby 'beacon'. As he testified: "After we had passed through the forest, we thought it had to be an aircraft accident. So did CSC [Central Security Control] as well. But we ran and walked a good 2 miles past our vehicle, until we got to a vantage point where we could determine that what we were chasing was only a beacon light off in the distance. Our route through the forest and field was a direct one, straight towards the light". Could the answer be, as local 'UFO' researcher Brenda Butler wrote, in her report of a lecture which Halt gave in the UK many years ago: "Within about ten minutes of the lecture Col. Halt had given the date of the incident as the 25th December 1980, but later changed the date to the 27th/28th/29th. He also says Sgt. Boroughs [Burroughs - James] and a Staff Sgt. [Penniston - James] were suffering from having been up a long time and having a 'very good Xmas day' can we assume they were drowsy or merry?" Perhaps one of many questions to be answered by 'UFO' claimants, before the Rendlesham forest Christmas story - three men follow yonder star - can remotely be seriously considered as remarkable evidence of 'alien contact'. Gaynor South, current incumbent at the Ministry of Defence's 'UFO desk' has been aware of the progress in solving our 'classic' British UFO case during this past couple of years and is a recipient of this newsletter. It was Gaynor who formally confirmed that Nick Pope's term at the 'UFO desk' did not encompass 'investigating alien abductions, cattle mutilations and crop circles' on behalf of Her Majesty's government, as Pope asserted - see: http://www.ufoworld.co.uk/ftp/mod_pope.jpg It was another, incredible, 'UFO' related claim that research was able to factually resolve, which appears to have caused some resentment. If the MoD are asked to comment on the 'Bentwaters UFO alien landing cover up', they are however now also 'up to speed' and can do so from an informed basis, rather than their absence of any conversant response being seized upon as tantamount to evidence of some ridiculous conspiracy. I'm grateful to Chris Armold for taking so much time to help us appreciate matters in context - especially the bigger picture. O0O~O0O~O0O~O0O The 'UFO Research List' (UFORL) is a moderated discussion forum for related topics which can be evidenced to have a _scientific_ foundation, encompassing 'black projects'. There are currently around 100 subscribers. To join UFORL, you can sign up from UFO World's home page or by sending a blank e-mail, with a blank subject line, to: UFORL-subscribe@listbot.com You will then be sent a verification message and a copy of the list 'housekeeping rules'. O0O~O0O~O0O~O0O Coming up in the next Voyager newsletters... 'Kenneth Arnold and the Flying Saucer Mythology' - an update on the controversial, yet increasingly evidenced, explanation for the world's most famous UFO sighting. Plus, with the much revered, 'absolutely best evidence ever', Trent photographs now having been exposed as yet another in a long list of 'flying saucer' hoaxes, isn't it time for 'saucer believers' to accept the glaringly obvious and give it up...? Very close encounters with anomalous, hovering, triangular-shaped craft. Why can't these numerous, consistent, reports be explained. They make little sense as 'black project' aircraft harassing hapless citizens, so what's going on? Are they from another world, or could they be from another time... Also, the RAF's 'silent Vulcan' does exist - we have the proof! James Easton, Editor. E-mail: voyager@ufoworld.co.uk www.ufoworld.co.uk (c) James Easton October 2000