Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here UFOs | Paranormal | Area 51 People | Places | Random Top 100 | What's New Catalog | New Books Search... for keyword(s)   in Page Titles in Book Title/Author in Contents of Pages ---other searches--- Metacrawler Yahoo FAST Search Google Altavista Dogpile Inference Find Northern Light IWon.com MSN Search Las Vegas Sun Our Bookstore is OPEN Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1997 -> May -> Here

From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 18:55:45 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 01 May 1997 00:18:52 -0400
Subject: Re: Book: 'Left at East Gate'??

Regarding...

>Date: Sat, 26 Apr 1997 09:59:12 -0400
>From: Graham William Birdsall <106151.1150@compuserve.com>
>Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Book: 'Left at East Gate'??

Graham writes:

>There has always been a considerable amount of confusion relating to
>the dates of alleged UFO activity in or around RAF Woodbridge in
>December 1980.


Graham,

It might help if Colonel Halt would stop moving the goalposts!


>Things really began happening on 26 December when Halt was called
>from a Christmas Dinner Dance being held at RAF Woodbridge to
>check-out reports of lights being observed by security personnel off
>base.

If only it were so simple.

This is from an earlier interview (possibly from the "Unsolved
Mysteries" feature?):

"In 1980 I was assigned to RAF Bentwaters/Woodbridge. It was a
combination twin-base complex. I was assigned as the Deputy Base
Commander.

On the evening of the 29th December, we were having the Combat Support
Group Christmas party. We'd just finished dinner when the Lieutenant
on duty came in just white as a sheet and said, "I've got to talk to
you and the Base Commander, right now".

And he said, "It's back". We looked at each other and looked at him
and said, "What's back?" He said, "You know, the UFO, it's back".


Now the dinner party was on the 29th, a Monday, and the second event
therefore took place that night and the early morning of the 30th.


Halt has said elsewhere that it was a "belated" Christmas party. Maybe
the belated dinner party was actually on the Sunday - that would
perhaps be more traditional and generally suitable for everyone - and
the second incident took place on that evening and the morning of the
29th, as originally claimed in Halt's memo.

If the original incident took place during the early hours of the
26th, as apparently evidenced by the police records, then it would
have been three nights earlier.

Interestingly, Halt continues:

"We crossed Bentwaters and out the back gate to the Woodbridge base.
We proceeded on into the forest to the area where the supposed landing
had taken place several nights earlier".

"Several nights earlier" makes a difference to a number of aspects.

In this account, Halt again confirms that when he was told about the
"return" of the UFO, he was with the Base Commander, Wing-Commander
Gordon Williams.


>...what I found to be of particular interest in 'Left at East Gate'
>was this passage in Chapter 11:

[...]

>'According to Spiegel, Halt had told him that beings HAD been
>observed on the third night of UFO activity and that Gordon Williams
>had been involved that night. He also said that "a lot more" happened
>than people realised. Colonel Halt would only tell what he knew of
>the whole story if Congress subpoenaed him to testify.'

Do we know if Spiegel confirms this claim made by Larry Warren?

Bustinza has already refuted one of Warren's stories and others are
known to be unreliable.

In the early interview mentioned above, Halt also stated, "I never saw
anything as far as an alien being or anything that could be considered
human, humanoid, or anything of that nature, although I had a distinct
feeling, in fact I'm permanently convinced, the objects we saw were
under some type of intelligent control".

In the April 1994 OMNI interview, it's reported, "Halt says he has
been "harassed" by UFOlogists and fanatics. While half a dozen men
assisted Halt's investigation and dozen's of others were near the
scene, only a handful of witnesses have come forward. At least one of
them, Halt says, is spreading disinformation, consequently media
coverage has been inaccurate at best. For instance, he says, "The
stories about holographic like aliens emerging from their craft are
pure fiction"".


>On a further positive note: 'Left at East Gate' may result in new
>witnesses coming forward, especially US and UK military personnel who
>were stationed at RAF Woodbridge & RAF Bentwaters at the time.

Hopefully it will serve as a catalyst to help clarify some of the true
facts.


You also mention:

>Halt struck me as an entirely credible individual, but unlike Larry
>Warren, refrained from entering into any discussion about the nuclear
>capability of RAF Woodbridge.

Some time ago, I asked an acquaintance who lived near the twin bases
for an informed opinion on a couple of points; was it conceivable that
the beam from Orford Ness lighthouse could be seen in the forest and
is mistakenly referred to on the tape made by Halt, and was there any
security concerns at that time about the activities of the "Woman's
Peace Movement".

As I'm sure you recall, they were active in protests against the
deployment of nuclear weapons at US bases in England.


Just for information, this was Chris's response:

"I certainly share the view that nobody is likely to confuse Orford
lighthouse with anything else.

The beam of Orford light is indirectly visible all over this area
depending on the level of atmospheric moisture but a direct line of
sight to the light source is unlikely due to terrain and trees.

I have never tested the theory at the landing sight but the light
cannot be seen from nearby roads, only, occasionally, the
refracted/reflected beam as mentioned. This is very much weaker than
direct sight of the tower would give. NOBODY around here could ever
confuse Orford light with anything else, it is stationary, plain white
and flashes in a short, repeated pattern. The theory about the light
appearing to move when viewed through trees would, I believe, only
work with a bright point source fairly close by".


He investigated this further:

"Following my last mail I decided to go home via Rendlesham last night
to check the lighthouse thing. From the area between Woodbridge East
Gate and the area known as 'staging post' in the Butler/Street book
only the sky glow of Orford lighthouse can be seen not the light
source. From the far end of the site ie by the lane east of the farm
fields the glow itself is less visible due intervening terrain and
trees. I didn't check the middle of the forest as it is not the place
to walk without a torch but I am confident the light is not directly
visible at any point.

[...]

I have no recollection of there being any WPM activity at Bentwaters
or Woodbridge at any time. The bases were low profile on a national
scale so would be unlikely to attract much attention.

The weapons storage facility at Woodbridge probably included 'hot'
weapons while the bases operated the F4 but I'm sure these would have
been removed when the squadrons changed to the A10 which has no
nuclear weapons capability. Most WPM attention seemed to have focused
on deployment of the Tomahawk cruise missile - this was never part of
either F4 or A10 operations.

In summary, it's possible that WPM visited the bases briefly during
this period but there was no long-running 'vigil' that attracted my
attention or the local media".

The point about Orford Ness lighthouse is obviously of some interest.
Perhaps also worth pointing out that Chris made this trip on the 21st
December, when the conditions, particularly the amount of foliage on
the trees, would have been comparable.



James.
E-mail: pulsar@compuserve.com