Voyager Newsletter No. 16 CONTENTS 1. Rendlesham: The Absurdity of 'Cover Up' Claims. 2. Rendlesham: Research Update. 3. Rendlesham: The 'UFO' Returns. Or does it... 4. Rendlesham and 'UFO' Encounters: The Symptoms of Fear. 5. Rendlesham: An Historic Revelation - USAF Attacked Landed 'UFO'! 6. Rendlesham: The Ice Melts. 7. Nick Pope Abducted by Aliens: We 'Probe' the Truth. 8. Ball Lightning and 'UFOs' - Remarkable Evidence. 9. The Reliability of Witness Testimony. 10. Triangular 'UFO' Sighting Solved - The 'Silent Vulcan'. O0O~O0O~O0O~O0O 1. Rendlesham: The Absurdity of 'Cover Up' Claims. A new book about the celebrated 'Rendlesham forest UFO' incidents has recently been published, entitled, 'You Can't Tell the People', by Georgina Bruni. It claims to prove an alien spaceship landed in the forest and how this had been 'covered up' by Her Majesty's government, etc. Pretty much standard 'UFO conspiracy' fare and, it goes without saying, recognised as such by the mainstream media and scientific community. It is however unusual for a book which promises to 'reveal the UFO cover up truth' that even 'UFO believers' realised how specious the proclaimed evidence was. Where was any, as in any, substance behind all the hype? An exceptional, informed book review by Jenny Randles is published on the 'Fortean Times' web site at URL: http://www.forteantimes.com/artic/rendlesham/rendlesham.html The case presented by Bruni is essentially that: (1). Col. Halt did see an alien spacecraft. (2). There's more to the 'Halt tape' than he has ever disclosed and he can't release the 'secret' part because the world isn't ready for it. (3). The original witnesses statements which I publicly revealed are fabricated. (4). The 'lighthouse pursuit' documented therein definitely never happened and was added by the MIB. (5). Her Majesty's government, aided by it's nefarious US allies, is covering-up the knowledge that ET landed in Rendlesham forest, etc. Let's resolutely debunk this nonsense for evermore and replace it with some facts of real substance: (1). Col. Halt did see an alien spacecraft. Halt has been quite specific that he never, ever, witnessed a craft. As he explained to American journalist Salley Rayl, in landmark interviews during 1997: "It would be more interesting I suppose if there had been some alien beings, but I never saw any," he says. "I never personally saw even a definite shaped craft. I wish I had". [...] RAYL: Is there any aircraft today similar to what you saw on that day? In other words, now that we're 16 years on... HALT: Well, I didn't see an aircraft. All I saw were lights. So I really, I really don't know. [End] (2). There's more to the 'Halt tape' than he has ever disclosed and he can't release the 'secret' part because the world isn't ready for it. This purported missing portion of the 'Halt tape' is evidently yet another myth. Again, Halt explained the background to Salley Rayl: RAYL: You had a, you made a copy. You had the copy of the micro- cassette recording that you made that night and that also found its way into the UFO community when the story broke publicly with the release of the memo. We have already gotten a question tonight, and I'm not really sure what the source of this was, but somebody said that the micro-cassette recording was actually two hours long and it's always been my understanding from you that it was closer to twenty minutes. HALT: It's closer to twenty minutes. I've never timed it. RAYL: Okay. So, there... HALT: Because I turn the machine off when I wasn't actually talking... RAYL: Right. HALT: ...In fact, some times I talked and I didn't record. You know, I only recorded what I thought was pertinent. RAYL: Okay. So when you had something to say, you'd hit the record button and speak into it. HALT: Keep in mind, this is the recorder I use when I traveled around the base to record things I saw that needed [to be] fixed or whatever, and I would normally just when I went around in a staff car you know, make a recording. Talk from time to time. Flick it on and off and then go back and thread the tape to the secretary and say, "Here, put it on your dictating machine. Type it up and we'll mark it for who the pertinent staff agency is that should take action on these items." That's basically what I did. RAYL: Okay. HALT: It was very common to carry the tape recorder with me. Sure beats taking notes. RAYL: Sure does. And how did that get released into the UFO community? I think a lot of people would be interested in that. HALT: I made a copy for my boss then, Ted Conrad. He wanted a copy of it so I made a copy and when he rotated and was re- assigned, he left it in the desk unbeknownst to me, and Sam Morgan came in to replace him. Sam Morgan found it and asked me what it was. I played it for him and he thought it was hilarious and he gave a copy to a British solicitor in the UFO community named Harry Harris who, in turn, sold, distributed, gave away, etc., copies until they're all over the world. [End of extract] The duration of a microcassette tape is typically 30 or 60 minutes. Back in 1980, maybe even 30 minutes was the maximum. Unless Halt had taken one or more spare tapes with him, highly unlikely as his stated intention was simply to debunk the 'UFO' stories, then the maximum duration of any recording would be limited by the length of the one tape he did have, less anything already on it which he didn't want to record over. His explanation to Salley seems to confirm Halt only recorded comments when he considered it necessary, that's the full recording he gave a copy of to his base commander and it's the same one which Harry Harris made available and everyone is familiar with. (3). The original witnesses statements which I publicly revealed are fabricated. These early testimonies were central to any understanding of the full picture as they astonishingly documented how the initial 'UFO' incident, which was the catalyst for all that followed, involved the pursuit of a nearby 'lighthouse' beacon, misidentified as a 'UFO'. During 1994, (if I recall correctly), the now defunct 'Omni' magazine published an article by Salley Rayl, in which she interviewed Halt and he confirmed: "Around New Year's Eve, I took statements and interviewed the men who had taken part in the initial incident". This is the origin of those early testimonies, dated 2 January 1981. As the copies in existence were provided to a 'UFO' researcher/organisation by Halt many years ago and all contain his hand-written notes, there was never any issue whether they were genuine. Furthermore, I'm aware that one of the actual participants interviewed by Halt verifies being familiar with these documents and that copies were made available by Halt when the US media first took a serious interest in the story. (4). The 'lighthouse pursuit' documented therein definitely never happened and was added by the MIB. Fundamentally substantiating it's indisputable why those inaugural, pivotal witness statements are authentic, one of the main participants has very recently acknowledged that the abortive lighthouse pursuit did indeed occur. Although my discussions with this central witness must remain confidential at present, I can say he confirms the sequence of events took place as documented. When the three man patrol - Burroughs, Cabansag and Penniston [BC&P] - investigated those unusual lights within Rendlesham forest, yes, they came across a 'beacon light' and didn't know what it was. All three security policeman proceeded through Rendlesham forest and beyond until they could eventually see that the beacon originated from a lighthouse. They were entirely unfamiliar with this local landmark. However, it was not believed to be the source of those 'unfamiliar lights' first noticed from 'east gate' sentry point and subsequently within Rendlesham forest - which is exactly what those early statements tell us. There's substantially more to the issue of those enigmatic lights in the early hours of 26 December, 1980 and subscribers to the UFO Research List [UFORL] will appreciate the lengthy, hugely productive discussions which have taken place there and how these have positively narrowed down the probabilities for a final resolution. (5). Her Majesty's government, aided by it's nefarious US allies, is covering-up the knowledge that ET landed in Rendlesham forest, etc. As the notion is so farcical, it's not really deserving of further comment. However, our man at the Ministry, Nick Pope, former incumbent of the 'UFO desk', which it turns out was actually more of a 'diplomatic clearance for military flights abroad' desk, has set this in context, as I explained in an open letter to Pope - see 'Voyager Newsletter No. 8': On the question of any 'cover-up', you helpfully confirmed and have maintained this had no substance whatsoever. Typical of your response was the one given to Michael Lindemann, editor of 'CNI News', on November 17, 1996, during a 'UFO conference' at Blackpool. Lindemann asked, "This seemingly irrational denial of significant UFO events could be interpreted as evidence of a deliberate cover-up. What are your views on that?". To which you replied, "I found no evidence to support a cover-up in Britain. I think, without trying to sound too arrogant, that I would have gotten a few hints in three years if there had been someone doing my job but on a covert basis, not least because the one thing they would have needed beyond anything else was access to the raw data of the witnesses, and never once in three years had any witness complained that I had sent someone around to the house". From your experiences, the Ministry of Defence's opinion on the subject was emphasised in the 'UFO Magazine' interview. Asked, "One gets the impression that the Ministry of Defence [MoD] consider the UFO phenomenon totally irrelevant?", you accepted, "That's correct". Naturally, this included the 1980 'Rendlesham forest' case, where it's now proven from the original witness testimonies I obtained, that the 'UFO' sightings involved a two mile pursuit of a light which turned out to be the Orford Ness (or Orfordness) lighthouse beacon. Your assessment on the MoD's reaction to Col. Halt's 'UFO' report was again perhaps best clarified in that pivotal 'UFO Magazine' interview: "My best assessment of what happened next is - absolutely nothing! The report was written on the 13th January and when it arrived at Whitehall, whoever was doing the job didn't have the faintest idea what to do with it, probably took one look at it and said, what am I supposed to do? I am afraid to say it simply ended up in a file". Also from that interview: UFO Magazine: Was there a cover-up? Nick Pope: No. Not in the MoD - I think the MoD's response was just ineffective. UFO Magazine: That's a very big statement? Nick Pope: Yes, but if something of that magnitude was reported and simply placed on file, then what else can you say? [...] There is not some great mysterious organisation which is actually getting on with the bread and butter of investigation, whilst I sent out standard letters". [End of extract] The contentions in Bruni's book seem diametrically opposed to Pope's above comments and I also publicly asked of Pope, in the aforementioned October 1999 newsletter: As you may know, there will be a book published on the 'Rendlesham' case next year, with the stated intention of exposing a grandiose cover-up, witnessed threatened, etc. We trust your 'inside knowledge' is a more reliable appraisal and you can be called on to testify to same, although it has been stated you will be writing the foreword to this book, which seems difficult to equate. Does that imply you maybe didn't have access to the 'secret' information after all, or is it simply that any cover-up didn't involve the MoD? [End] As Pope has indeed written the forward for Bruni's 'MIB UFO cover up', perhaps this has more to do with their shared publicists et al, than regard for anything else. There can't be many 'MIB UFO conspiracy' books where the claims can be so easily, factually, demolished and that have blatantly ignored the revealing, factual, in-depth case research which already existed. Not since the last one, anyway. And not until the next one. O0O~O0O~O0O~O0O 2. Rendlesham: Research Update. To recap on some key facts and with the intention of updating research breakthroughs - BC&P first thought those 'strange lights' were located in a 'clearing', just within the forest, due east of east gate. Given permission to investigate, they reached the clearing. What happened next is the essence of any 'UFO' encounter and at present the available participants' accounts are contradictory and problematical. That's an issue on its own and can be left aside for the purpose of summarising events. Whether those lights perceived to be in the clearing 'took off' or were never actually located there at all, the witness accounts document that those same lights were next visible near a 'farmhouse' beyond, still heading due east and in the direction of Orford Ness lighthouse. As Burroughs wrote: "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". When on the night of 27th December, Col. Halt and his team investigated a report that the 'UFO was back', Halt hadn't yet interviewed the three participants involved in this preceding 'UFO' scare. Therefore, it seems likely he would be equally unfamiliar with the 'beacon light' and where it originated. We also know from the 'Halt tape' he was in that same clearing, the supposed 'landing site', when one of his team - who, we must remember, were searching for 'UFOs' - suddenly observed a 'strange flashing light', near the farmhouse, where the 'beacon light' had previously proved to be from a lighthouse. As Halt related to Salley Rayl: "...suddenly the Lieutenant pointed off to the, toward, the farmer's field, said, 'Look over here'." "We saw a glowing red object, best I can describe it. It was, it looked almost like a red eye with a black pupil and it was sort of winking and dripping what appeared to be the equivalent of molten metal. And we just stood there in awe and watched for several minutes probably, and decided to try and approach it. At that time, it started moving through the forest. We could see it moving between the trees. It was moving in a horizontal plane and moved probably 25, 30 maybe 40 degrees in between the trees and back around. It was obviously moving and sort of approached us a bit at one time and then it receded out into the farmer's field. And, as we approached the fenceline to the field, it literally exploded, only silently, and it broke into multi-white objects. Just prior to that, we had also noticed that the farmer's house appeared to be glowing, as though there were a fire inside. All the windows were bright red and sort of flickering and I was quite concerned for the occupants of the house. And we stood there and watched for quite awhile and the object, as it exploded and broke into the multi-objects, disappeared". We know from Ed Cabansag's written statements that the beacon appeared to be yellow: "The beacon light turned out to be the yellow light". On the Halt tape we hear: HALT: There is no doubt about it - there is some type of strange flashing red light ahead. VOICE: There! It's yellow. HALT: I saw a yellow tinge in it, too. Weird! [End] Halt was frequently using a 'starlight scope' image intensifier. It's intended for night use and to amplify available light, not for viewing a bright light at night! The saturation and 'burn out' which would result is consistent with Halt's observations, as recorded on tape: "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". Well, yes. It would do. As I've highlighted before, Halt's recollections that the light eventually exploded and broke into multiple white objects (in his memo to the MoD he states there were five) is erroneous, as can easily be proven from his tape recorded documentation that night: HALT: 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] No explosion, the white lights are an entirely separate observation and then the light which has supposedly divided into smaller lights is actually seen again: 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] This 'second coming' of the 'UFO' - clear off to the coast - is a sighting Halt has never mentioned in any of his accounts. It seems this facet of the Rendlesham forest 'UFO' scares is consummately resolved. Those five white lights were almost certainly the lights atop five tall radio masts, visible from where Halt was at the time he made that observation. Thanks to the diligent and exceptionally detailed on-site investigations carried out during recent months by local researcher Robert McLean, we can now understand even more of Halt's misperceptions. Incredibly, the 'house on fire' and 'strobe-like flashes' witnessed "at the far side of the second farmer's field" can still be seen today. I'll leave the explanations aside - Robert may wish to publish the story of his remarkable, ongoing, research. O0O~O0O~O0O~O0O 3. Rendlesham: The 'UFO' Returns. Or does it... The Lieutenant who drew Halt's attention to the flashing light was Bruce Englund. Earlier that evening, Halt was attending a belated officer's Christmas party when his festivities were interrupted by Englund, who informed Halt the 'UFO was back'. Why Englund believed the 'UFO' had returned, has recently become much clearer. The foundation was an incident which involved Airman Greg Battram and his patrol. As we shall see, Battram is about to be revealed as playing not only a major role in the 'Rendlesham' story, it seems he merits recognition for an action which would be one of the most monumental incidents in the history of 'UFOs'. After all, it's not every day the United States Air Force attacks what is feared to be an alien spaceship... Battram publicly come forward as a witness for the February, 1985 CNN special feature, presented by Chuck DeCaro. I have acquired a transcript and Battram, at that time given anonymity as 'Airman Greg', testified: DeCaro: Airman Greg is a former Air Force security policeman who says he was a witness to the second of the two UFO landings within days of each other outside the USAF air base in Woodbridge, England -- events documented in this official USAF report released under The Freedom of Information Act. According to the report, in the first encounter, before daybreak, three security policemen saw a luminous metallic object and followed it through the forest as it manoeuvred through the trees and then disappeared... The following night, a four-man perimeter patrol near the back gate of Woodbridge saw the UFO again. Airman Greg was a member of the patrol. Airman Greg: We were about halfway into the shift, I guess, when we noticed some lights in the sky that, uh, didn't seem to follow any pattern of aircraft we'd seen. And, uh, we, uh, watched them for a while and they disappeared. And the next thing we saw was, uh, the lights in the forest...in a clearing off the end of the runway. And, uh, we called Central Security Control to tell them we'd like to investigate it, and they gave us permission to go on out. As we got in there, you could see into the clearing and see a series of lights in there surrounded by a ground fog. And when we got closer, you began to feel the hair on your arms, and back of your heard, under your hat even, stand on end. Like there was a real big static charge in the air. DeCaro: Were you carrying a weapon? Airman Greg: Yes, an M-16. DeCaro: Loaded? Airman Greg: Yes, we didn't know what we were dealing with. And about that time, we decided that we'd better get the heck out of there 'cause we were getting a little scared to stand around... DeCaro: Bentwaters-Woodbridge air base complex in east England, Christmas Week, 1980. Three U.S. airmen claim an encounter with a UFO at close range. About a day later, this man, who asked not to be identified, was on perimeter patrol at Woodbridge airbase. Airman Greg: The four of us saw...the object. We didn't know what it was...we got panicky. When we got close enough to feel our hair stand on end...ran back for our vehicle... [END] Battram retold a similar account which was published in 'Left at East Gate', co-authored by Larry Warren and Peter Robbins, published in 1997. The interview with Battram was actually undertaken on 7 February 1984 by 'UFO' researcher and author Larry Fawcett and describing the 'strange lights', Battram recalled they seemed to be "alternating, mostly between oranges, red, blues and whites". His story is almost a replay of events from that first night and the scenario being posed is how 'something' returned to the same clearing. It's extremely unlikely and infinitely more probable 'something' was simply still visible. As revealed in newsletter No. 4, long after BC&P had gone to investigate the 'red and blue' lights, Jerry Valdez and others could still see 'strange lights' from east gate - 'red, blue and green'. Also, in the interview with Chris Armold, published last newsletter, he confirms some red and blue lights were still visible from this clearing, after BC&P had returned. Battram states his patrol then met up with Lt. Bruce Englund and told him about the forest apparition. Presumably, this was the report which led Englund to inform Halt that the 'UFO' had returned. When Halt then assembled a "team of specialists" to investigate, he included Englund [Duty Flight Lieutenant], along with Sergeant Monroe Nevilles [Disaster Preparedness NCO], Master Sergeant Bobby Ball [Shift Commander] and Master Sergeant Chandler [Flight Chief], plus one other. Arriving at the clearing, they didn't find anything unusual until Englund noticed a distant, flashing light... which they did eventually discover - although absent from any later retellings - was 'clear off to the coast'. This brings us full circle and appears to set most of the 'UFO' events from that night in their true context. O0O~O0O~O0O~O0O 4. Rendlesham and 'UFO' Encounters: The Symptoms of Fear. Recent research successes include identifying the almost certain source of screams which had so alarmed BC&P. As revealed in the preceding newsletter: From productive discussions on UFORL, Robert McLean, 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 of Keith's comments] 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. [End of newsletter extract] Could the participants' palpable fear and alarm also perhaps account for other 'phenomena' they reported? Specifically, this relates to the following: Burroughs: Everything seemed like it was different when we were in that clearing... the sky didn't seem the same... it was like a weird feeling, like everything seemed slower than you were actually doing; and all of a sudden when the object was gone, everything was like normal again. Penniston: The air was filled with electricity. You could feel it on your skin as we approached the object. Burroughs: You felt like you were moving in slow motion, your hair on the back of your head was standing up, you felt like you had very little control over your body. [End] Consider also Battram's comments: As we got in there, you could see into the clearing and see a series of lights in there surrounded by a ground fog. And when we got closer, you began to feel the hair on your arms, and back of your heard, under your hat even, stand on end. Like there was a real big static charge in the air. [End] Although we all appreciate fear can cause the reported 'hair standing on the back of your head' symptoms, is there any evidence it can also result in time apparently slowing down? Recently, on UFORL, I draw attention to the following commentary about 'the symptoms of fear': 'Adrenaline and Its Effects' When you are frightened, the adrenal glands secrete adrenaline into the bloodstream. The effect of the adrenaline boost is for fight or flight, the effects of this are; Blood is sent to the major muscles and organs (the reason for a pale face - the blood draining to more important areas) -this provides the muscles with more energy reserves to draw from: - Increased strength - Increased heart rate - Increased breathing rate - Heightened vision, hearing and sense of smell (but the eyes suffer from tunnel vision. This enhances visual concentration, but a negative by - product is the blinking of your peripheral vision) - Time distortion - everything seems to go into slow-motion (due to the brain processing everything a lot faster)... [End] I was initially surprised to discover this last characteristic, however, when some UFORL subscribers described 'time distortion' they had experienced during traumatic car accidents and cited similar documented occurrences, it was a reminder that indeed, time can dramatically 'slow down' when fear, panic and/or adrenaline [the generic/biological name is epinephrine] are factors. Another typical symptom is muscle tension and I wonder if this has any correlation with a further reference from Penniston. In the 'Strange But True?' book which accompanied the UK TV series, he recalls how there was "a slowness with time...and it took much effort for us to even walk those last 20 feet up to the object". All we can say with certainty is that BC&P were in the midst of a dark, dense forest, faced with 'eerie lights', there was movement from 'something' in the trees and then out of this otherwise black silence came some piercing screams. It was, quite understandably, sufficiently alarming for even three security police to 'hit the deck' and not come up for a while. According to Burroughs, they waited 'a minute or two'. However, he adds how during this time they perceived that whatever was in the clearing began to move away and towards the farmhouse: "All three of us hit the ground and whatever it was started moving back towards the open field and after a min or 2 we got up and moved into the open field". It's a hugely different version of events from Penniston's increasingly more elaborate tales of examining a landed craft in the clearing for some 20 minutes. There are underlying problems with Penniston's claims. In his original written statement he confirmed never having been closer than 50 metres to the perceived 'object'. Suggestions he was 'playing down' what truly happened must be viewed in the context that he was a senior security policeman; his responsibility was to provide a fully detailed account of events which could have been a threat to base security. The reliability of his current 'recollections' is compounded by the so-called 'regressive hypnosis' he later underwent. Burroughs, like Col. Halt, remains adamant he never witnessed a 'structured craft', only puzzling lights. This also applies to Battram, who depicts a comparative scenario, which was arguably even scarier. Not only were these security police now aware of the previous 'UFO encounter', the lights seemed to be surrounded by a 'ground fog'. It's no surprise they steadily became "panicky" and fled in terror. Perhaps we should keep in mind some invaluable insight from the Chris Armold interview: "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". Science writer Ian Ridpath, who first correctly suggested Orford Ness lighthouse had been mistaken for a 'UFO', has a copy of the base weather logs, which record 'ground fog' was present on the night of 27 December. O0O~O0O~O0O~O0O 5. Rendlesham: An Historic Revelation - USAF Attacked Landed 'UFO'! Just how scary, terrifying and alarming a peak was reached would be evidenced if the following claim is true. I'm unaware of any reason to doubt it. In the 'Left at East Gate' transcript of Fawcett's interview with Battram, the dialogue is published as follows. GB: We couldn't really see a distinct shape, but there were alternating colours in it and the whole bit. It was really strange. The closer we got, the worse the static electricity feeling got, and we just said, "Fuck", and we turned around and took off. LF: Did you have weapons with you? GB: Yes. LF: You did? GB: Yes. Guaranteed. I didn't know what the fuck was in there, and I was not taking any chances. [End] However, I have acquired a copy of the original transcript and this contains an astounding statement by Battram, which for some reason is omitted in the published version. The original transcript reads: Greg: We couldn't really see a distinct shape, but there were alternating colours in it and the whole bit. It was really strange. The closer we got, the worse the static electricity feeling got, and we just said _ _ _ this. And we turned around and took off. Larry: Did you have weapons with you? Greg: Yes. Larry: Did you throw a round in at anytime? Greg: Yes. Larry: You did? GB: Yes. Guaranteed, I didn't know what the _ _ _ was in there and I was not taking any chances. [End] Doubtless the only likely casualty would have been an innocent pine tree, although we can surmise what might have happened... "Police are searching for the callous killers of a deer in Rendlesham forest. 'It was a cold-blooded, motiveless shooting and obviously the work of a deranged individual' said a police spokesman". It might be worth checking the local papers... Of course, if there had been as believed a 'UFO', we can only hope it wasn't the reconnaissance craft from a far distant, hostile, ET race and that they're not still sufficiently miffed to be coming back with battlecruisers for a spot of retribution. O0O~O0O~O0O~O0O 6. Rendlesham: The Ice Melts. There's one other significant testimony within that CNN transcript and it comes from an anonymous Master Sergeant who visited the 'landing site' on the morning after BC&P's adventures. Both local forester Vince Thurkettle and the British police concluded that the three ground indentations, claimed to be 'landing marks', were merely rabbit diggings. Thurkettle added that the holes appeared old and were covered with a 'light coating' of pine needles, fallen from the pine trees. Naturally disputing this assertion, Penniston has cited as substantiating evidence how the ground was frozen and explained to Salley Rayl: "The interesting thing about the impressions, or something worthy of note, anyway, is that the ground temperature at the time was such that our vehicles didn't even make impressions on the ground because it was so cold or frozen, so whatever the craft was, it had to be heavy". We should perhaps note that if the 'craft' was so small as Penniston alleges, it would have been about the same size as a jeep, which isn't itself exactly a lightweight vehicle. However, more important is that the Master Sergeant told CNN: "...and in the location of this alleged craft landing, in the wooded area, I found what appeared to be three depressions on the ground. The ground was rather soft at that time...". More sensational Rendlesham revelations in the next newsletter...! O0O~O0O~O0O~O0O 7. Nick Pope Abducted by Aliens: We 'Probe' the Truth. A truly 'Unsolved Mystery' is Nick Pope's own alleged abduction by ET. The tale of his kidnap and who knows what else... let's not go there... was reportedly contained in a draft copy of Pope's book about 'alien abductions'. As I also publicly queried of Pope: It would be remiss not to take this opportunity to attempt one final elucidation. In the 'Narkontakt' article, it's noted: "Nick Pope is now completing the manuscript of his next book. The theme is 'abduction'. And we have information that the crescendo of the book will be Nick Pope's own abduction. The previous defence-expert suspects that he as well as his girlfriend was taken aboard a spaceship when the passed a car-toll some years ago". The transcript of an on-line question and answer conference dated 23 May 1998, records that that your response to the question 'why did you think you had been abducted by aliens', was, "I don't recall ever claiming that I had been!" Apparently _someone_ claimed you had been and the story was included in the draft manuscript for your 'alien abductions' book. As you can imagine, a number of people are confused by this paradox. Is there an emphatic denial that this story was ever in the draft manuscript? [End of extract] Was this a fictitious tale, included because resultant publicity could be guaranteed to increase book sales, and was it then decided this was all 'too risky'? Pope hasn't denied his own 'abduction' story was in the manuscript and presumably can't, because it was seen. We can only assume that this seeming reticence to explain the truth, one hesitates to call it a 'cover-up', exists because, for some reason... you can't tell the people. O0O~O0O~O0O~O0O 8. Ball Lightning and 'UFOs' - Remarkable Evidence. Some people who have revealed their claimed experiences are witnesses to 'ball lightning' and the following web site provides an abundance of data: http://www.amasci.com/weird/unusual/bl.html There are extraordinary experiences reported and which perhaps aren't unrelated to a number of 'UFO' sightings. Highly recommended research data. O0O~O0O~O0O~O0O 9. The Reliability of Witness Testimony. As with accounts of 'ball lightning', the reliability of testimony is a recurring theme in 'ufology'. A classic example, perhaps not well-known, illustrates the extremity of how even a dramatic 'UFO' encounter, with multiple witnesses who were 'trained observers', can have the most nonsensical origin. The. 'Louisville Courier-Journal' of March 4, 1993 apparently reported: Police Chopper Attacked By UFO In Kentucky! "Two helicopter policemen patrolling the sky over Louisville KY., said they were fired on during a harrowing, two minute dogfight - with a pear-shaped UFO. The strange craft reportedly shot three fireballs during the encounter that also was witnessed by two other officers who monitored the situation from their positions on the ground below. The cops involved have been tight-lipped, declining interview requests, but official reports, which are a matter of public record and available for any citizen to see, clearly suggest that the airborne officers were lucky to have escaped with their lives. 'I know what we saw and we were not hallucinating', Kenny Graham, who was piloting the helicopter, said in his report. 'I was afraid the UFO was going to collide with us', he continued, 'then it turned at the last second and roared away at a speed I've never seen before'. Graham, 39, an 11 year police veteran, and Kenny Downs, 39, a five year police veteran who was operating the chopper's spotlight, were on routine patrol when they saw what looked like a fire off to their left. Downs instinctively aimed his spotlight on the object which was shaped like a pear and drifting back and forth like a balloon on a string. Without warning, the object sped toward the helicopter and circled it several times before zooming off in the opposite direction, Downs said. Then the UFO turned and headed straight for the chopper, shooting fireballs that by luck or design fizzled out before they hit, according to Graham. Afraid the UFO would ram the helicopter's tail rotor, Graham pushed his speed to more than 100 m.p.h. Far from being outrun, the UFO shot past the chopper, instantly climbing hundreds of feet. It descended again momentarily, but when Graham steered toward the craft for a closer look, it flew into the distance and disappeared. The amazing aerial manoeuvring of the UFO didn't go unnoticed on the ground. Officer Mike Smith saw the object for about a minute. He confirmed it fired three fireballs and disappeared. Officer Joe Smolenski said he tried for more than minute to catch up to the UFO in his patrol car. 'I've been looking for UFOs for 14 years and I guess this is the closest I've come to something I can't explain', Smolenski said. A lieutenant described the two helicopter officers as solid guys and good cops. Downs said: 'Kenny and I both go to church every week. After this, I might start going twice a week'." [End] Quite some story - a 'UFO' which could manoeuvre at 'fantastic' speed, could easily outrun a helicopter, seemed to fire three times at the helicopter and all of this was observed by multiple witnesses, who were highly experienced police officers. How could this be explained? Surely it couldn't be misidentified stars or natural phenomena such as a meteor, nor birds, not even fire-breathing pelicans, or temperature inversions, mirages, a 'fire balloon', space debris, 'black project' technology, etc. It would rate as a foremost 'UFO' case - maybe even 'best evidence'... except for one thing... [If you don't know the answer and would like to see if can figure it out, then look away now!] ...incredibly, this astonishing 'UFO' _was_ in fact simply a 'fire balloon', launched as a 'UFO' hoax. The explanation was published in Paul Fuller's excellent 'Crop Watcher' magazine - see:. http://www.overflite.com/news11.html From subsequent discussions on UFORL, I was advised: "It seems the incident occurred on February 26, 1993 and the story first published by the Louisville Courier-Journal on March 4, 1993. The Louisville Courier-Journal ran a follow-up on March 6th and discovered the source of the fire balloon was that of Scott and Conchys Heacock. They had made it out of a dry cleaning bag, balsa wood, and a dozen birthday candles". I understand it also featured in 'UFO Invasion', by Joe Nickell and an article in the 'Skeptical Inquirer' (#18 - Fall 1993). Apparently, that article notes: "'UFO Fires on Louisville, Ky. Police Chopper' was the Headline on the Weekly World News's May 4 cover story, complete with fanciful illustration". [...] "The encounter was a comedy of errors and misperceptions. Likened to a cat chasing its tail, the helicopter was actually pushing the light-weight device around with its prop wash. In fact, as indicated by the officers own account, the UFO zoomed away in a response to the helicopter's sudden propulsion - behaviour consistent with a lightweight object. As to the 'fireballs', they may have been melting, flaming gobs of plastic or candles that became dislodged and fell, or some other effect. (Heacock says he used the novelty 'relighting' type of birthday candles as a safeguard against the wind snuffing them out. Such candles may sputter, then abruptly reflame.)" "...a television reporter asked Scott Heacock how certain he was that his balloon was the reported UFO. Since he witnessed the encounter and kept the balloon in sight until it was caught in the police spotlight, he replied: 'I'd bet my life on it'." [End] If the question is; are 'UFO' witnesses reliable, especially trained observers, we seem to have one answer. Conversely, many 'UFO' reports are resolved because the witness accounts were relatively/entirely accurate and provided the evidence which led to a confirmed answer. Witness reliability? It covers the entire spectrum. O0O~O0O~O0O~O0O 10. Triangular 'UFO' Sighting Solved - The 'Silent Vulcan'. In July, 1997, I published an intriguing 'UFO' account which I was researching: The following story is absolutely true and describes my only "close encounter". As a Chartered Accountant, I often have to oversee audit assignments with a strict timetable. This leads to the need to work long hours. In March 1978, I was working on such an assignment in my home county of Lincolnshire, UK. One Thursday night, I finished work at about 10.30pm and drove a colleague home to the village of Alford. In general, the coastal areas of Lincolnshire are very flat. However, Alford lies on the edge of gently rolling countryside - the Lincolnshire Wolds. My route home took me up a hill on the A1104 towards Ulceby Cross. Part way up the hill, at around 11:00 p.m., I was dazzled by what I took to be the undipped headlights of an oncoming car. I flashed my own headlights and slowed. To my astonishment, the oncoming lights slowly "took off" from the road and gracefully flew to my right. Excitedly, I stopped my car, wound down the driver's side window and peered out. The sight that greeted me will stay in my memory forever. I saw that the lights were coming from a massive, beautiful aircraft which had now turned, was flying at a height of about 50 feet and was now heading towards the coast directly over my car! The craft was shaped like a delta, very similar to the Vulcan bombers based in Lincolnshire at the time. However, it was about four times the size of a Vulcan, flew extremely slowly and was absolutely silent! All leading edges of the delta were beautifully rounded - there were no sharp protuberances such as a tailplane. The underside of the craft was coloured sky blue. It just glided over me and headed towards the coast - no noise, no smoke, no vibrations, no smell - just an aircraft of sheer gargantuan beauty. It was very real; from the A16 I was able to watch this craft making its slow, majestic way south towards Boston until I lost sight of it just past Spilsby. I'd love to know what it was. It seemed too real to be extraterrestrial. However, its immense size, its low speed and above all, the sheer silence made it unlike any aircraft known to me! Paul H Hanmer FCA [End] Although the most likely identification was a Vulcan bomber - its profile matched and they were stationed nearby - as anyone who knows these aircraft can testify, the last thing they could be described as is silent! That possibility seemingly ruled out, the answer would doubtless have forever remained a mystery if it hadn't been for a UFORL subscriber's experienced knowledge of military aviation and a chance meeting he had with a Squadron Leader (Rtd.) who flew Vulcans for most of his RAF career. I was duly informed: "A favourite trick of the Vulcan pilots was to reduce power and use its massive wing area to glide for some miles before applying power again, to conserve fuel. It was not officially sanctioned and was never put on record as the public might have kicked up a fuss (would you want a several tons of bomber gliding over your town!!)". So, incredibly, the 'Silent Vulcan' does exist! Although Paul believed its size was much larger, that's understandable under the circumstances outlined and another corroborative factor is that Vulcans did employ a grey/light-blue camouflage which was sometimes, although not always, 'plain' underneath - see, for example the photograph at: http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/mongsoft/vulcan.htm Once again, what appeared to be a 'UFO' case which defied explanation is found to have a probable, typically mundane solution and the witness was mistaken about some observational aspect, this time the object's size being perceived as four times larger than it was. However, resolving this sighting only proved possible because of a sincere, objective, detailed account which was in the main reliable and highlighted important features, particularly local knowledge. We can only wonder how many other 'inexplicable UFO sightings' have an incredibly simple explanation which has been dismissed because, to our knowledge, it seems implausible - as with a Vulcan bomber which can fly silently. Moreso, what percentage 'don't make sense' because we're not aware the witness testimony contains a elementary, yet significant, observational error. For example, Kenneth Arnold's evident mistake that the objects he was observing momentarily passed behind a distant peak and were therefore far away, large and extremely fast. However, to have seen them as he described, they absolutely must have passed in front of that peak and were consequently of an undetermined distance, size and speed. The latter would be something of a momentous miscalculation - it give rise to the presumed 'secret jets' which Arnold first excitedly told other pilots about, later believing that because they were far, distant objects appearing to travel between two mountains, he could accurately calculate their astonishing airspeed. It was that development which attracted concern and of course when Arnold described how those undulating, fluttering and gliding objects flew like 'saucers skipping across water', this was completely misconstrued in the media frenzy and instead resulted in popularised objects which resembled 'flying saucers'. Otherwise, would we ever have had any sightings of objects which *looked like* 'flying saucers' at all! Such a chain-reaction of misunderstandings has an equivalence in the complex cocktail of misperceptions, confusion and fear which characterises the Rendlesham forest case, where each 'strange' experience had the potential to affect and perpetuate belief in the 'unworldly' nature of others. Welcome to our planet, gentle space travellers from another world. We hope you come in peace. Unfortunately, Greg 'Die Alien Scum' Battram is coming with a loaded M-16... 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 Editor: James Easton E-mail: voyager@ufoworld.co.uk www.ufoworld.co.uk (c) James Easton December 2000 This newsletter may be freely distributed provided the above information and copyright notice are included.