Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here Our Bookstore is OPEN Over 5000 new & used titles, competitively priced! Topics: UFOs - Paranormal - Area 51 - Ghosts - Forteana - Conspiracy - History - Biography - Psychology - Religion - Crime - Health - Geography - Maps - Science - Money - Language - Recreation - Technology - Fiction - Other - New 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 Location: Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1998 -> Aug -> Rendlesham - The Unresolved Mystery

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 21:52:58 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 02:12:14 -0400
Subject: Rendlesham - The Unresolved Mystery

Rendlesham - The Unresolved Mystery
By Nick Pope

There has been much recent debate about the Rendlesham Forest
incident, and some interesting and well-researched articles have
appeared.  These include "Seeing the Forest for the Trees", a
detailed analysis from Jenny Randles, which appeared in the
Summer edition of International UFO Reporter. There have been
two articles by James Easton, entitled "Rendlesham Unravelled"
and "Resolving Rendlesham", together with a piece by Georgina
Bruni, entitled "Rendlesham Unravelled - NOT". How are we to
make sense of the various conflicting views? Has the case really
been resolved, or is there more work to be done before we can
make such a claim?

As many readers of this statement will be aware, I work for the
Ministry of Defence, and between 1991 and 1994 was responsible
for researching and investigating the UFO phenomenon for the
British Government.  As such, while my involvement with the
Rendlesham Forest case came long after the events concerned, I
had an advantage over other researchers in that I was
approaching the case from a unique angle, having access to the
official government file on the incident, and being able to call
upon official resources and expertise.

Various accounts of the Rendlesham Forest incident have appeared
in numerous books, magazines and articles, many of which take a
radically different view. I have summarised the case in my first
book, "Open Skies, Closed Minds". More detailed accounts appear
in "Left At East Gate" by Larry Warren and Peter Robbins, and
"UFO Crash Landing" by Jenny Randles. I shall not attempt to
rehash any of this material, but shall instead focus on the
areas that have sparked the recent controversy.

The first of these areas concerns the original witness
statements made by Penniston, Burroughs, Cabansag and Chandler.
James Easton makes much of the fact that these statements are
fairly bland, and points out that some of the witnesses seem to
have added to their stories over the years.  However, based on
my own official investigations of other cases I can tell people
that this is entirely consistent with the way in which junior
military personnel report UFOs. They do so tentatively if at
all, as they are unsure on official policy and unclear as to
what ramifications there may be for their careers.  They will be
more forthcoming in telephone conversations and face to face
meetings, and much more inclined to speak out once they have
left the service. Having met a number of the military witnesses,
Jenny Randles is clearly aware of this factor. Sadly, a number
of the sceptics do not seem to have the same understanding of
the way in which the military operate.

Bearing in mind the above point, the key document is still
Charles Halt's memo, and its mention of a "strange glowing
object" which was "metallic in appearance and triangular in
shape, approximately two to three metres across the base and
approximately two metres high". As a senior officer he had no
qualms about being more forthcoming, because he was clearly
aware of policy, and knew that there was a requirement to report
details of any UFO sighting to the Ministry of Defence.

What then are we to make of inconsistencies between the accounts
of different witnesses, and in particular the testimony of Larry
Warren? Taking the first point, it is well-known to any police
officer that different people perceive the same event in
different ways. This has been demonstrated in a number of
studies, and is something that I was briefed about as part of my
official duties at the MOD. With regard to Larry Warren, he and
Peter Robbins stayed with me for several days while they were
promoting "Left At East Gate", and we had numerous, in-depth
conversations about the case.  I am personally convinced that he
was present, and was a witness to some quite extraordinary
activity.  But it was abundantly clear that the activity he
witnessed was not that referred to in Halt's memo.

This brings me to the recent work done by independent researcher
Georgina Bruni, editor of the Internet magazine "Hot Gossip UK"
@ www.hotgossip.co.uk. Georgina is a good friend of mine, and in
recent months she has re-interviewed many of the well-known
witnesses, and uncovered and spoken to several new ones. She
will be publishing this material in due course, although she
will be unable to do so in the immediate future, due to the
pressure of other business commitments.

Let us now turn to the physical evidence. This consists of the
damage to the trees in the clearing where the metallic craft was
seen on the first night of activity, the indentations at the
point it apparently landed, and the radiation readings taken
from these trees and indentations.  In "Open Skies, Closed
Minds" I revealed the results of the first and only official
investigaton into this aspect of the case, detailing my
enquiries with the Defence Radiological Protection Service. The
official assessment was that the radiation readings recorded
were ten times what they should have been for the area, although
I should stress that the radiation was low level, and would not
have posed any danger to those present.

Ian Ridpath has highlighted some legitimate doubts about the
suitability of the equipment used to record the radiation
levels, and further suggests that Halt may even have misread the
dial on the Geiger counter.  Whilst I accept these points, I
should explain that any official investigation can only be based
on the data received by the Ministry, and not on such
speculation - intriguing though it may be.  But one can actually
set aside any debate about the precise level of the readings, on
the basis that the readings can only be considered in their
proper context.  In other words, we need to consider the events
collectively, not individually.  We have a sighting of a UFO,
coupled with tree damage and indentations in the very same
clearing in which the UFO was seen.  Then we have radiation
readings which, irrespective of how high they were, just
happened to peak where the trees were damaged and in the very
centre of the indentations.  We should also remember the fact
that Halt's memo explains how "the animals on a nearby farm went
into a frenzy" when the object was seen. While none of this
proves that the UFO was of extraterrestrial origin, it seems
clear that there was an object of some sort involved, which had
an effect on the surrounding environment.

The sceptics clearly disagree, returning to the theory that all
the UFO sightings were misidentifications of the Orford Ness
lighthouse or the Shiplake Lightship, or even of stars, and that
the indentations in the clearing were caused by burrowing
rabbits! When I met Charles Halt he was dismissive of this, and
confirmed that he and other witnesses were familiar with the
lighthouse, which was indeed visible as an entirely separate
object for some time during his actual UFO sighting.
Furthermore, as he explained on the "Strange But True"
documentary on the case, "A lighthouse doesn't move through the
forest; the lighthouse doesn't go up and down, it doesn't
explode, doesn't change shape, size - doesn't send down beams of
light from the sky".

Long after the events concerned, questions are still being asked
about this case in parliament, both in the House of Commons and
the House of Lords, by MPs and Peers who are clearly alive to
the defence and national security implications of the incident.
When seeking expert analysis on a case such as this, one really
cannot obtain a more authoritative view than that of Admiral of
the Fleet The Lord Hill-Norton, a former Chief of the Defence
Staff and Chairman of the NATO Military Committee.  With the
greatest respect to the sceptics, Lord Hill-Norton is
considerably better qualified to analyse  an incident such as
this. Commenting on the case he has said "It seems to me that
something physical took place; I have no doubt that something
landed....either large numbers of people....were hallucinating,
and for an American Air Force nuclear base this is extremely
dangerous, or what they say happened did happen, and in either
of those circumstances there can only be one answer, and that is
that it was of extreme defence interest.........."

In summary, James Easton and Ian Ridpath should be commended for
highlighting some intriguing new material and for stimulating
constructive debate on this case. But while it's a neat
soundbite to claim that the case is resolved, this would be a
premature and naive claim to make, and one that is clearly
inconsistent with the facts. As Georgina Bruni and Jenny Randles
have shown, there is still work to be done here.



Nick Pope
London
27th August 1998