Rendlesham Forest incident - Britian's Roswell

[epo333]

I don't think we had this posted anywhere, so here it is. Col Halt starts at 02:55

[CasperParks]

epo333,

Thanks for sharing that video.

Anyone know when this was recorded?

[Doc]

epo333,

Thanks for sharing that video.

Anyone know when this was recorded?

Another clip was uploaded April 26, 2010

[AdverseCamber]

I know of three mentions of radar returns concerning Rendlesham

If you can get hold of a copy of Robert Hastings book UFO’s and Nukes there is a whole chapter in there dedicated to the Brentwater’s case.
What is astounding about Hastings is the number of new witnesses he managed to find.
It’s Chapter 21 – Beams of Light. This is proper nuts and bolts research Hastings traced these people down and interviewed them himself.

Rick Bobo was Security Policeman who stationed there at the time
“I heard some of the radio transmissions, not all of them, you understand, because there were different frequencies. I heard over the radio that London had spotted something on their radar. I heard some of the radio transmissions from some of the men who were out there….. There was lots of chatter on the radio. I think I heard that Heathrow [Airport] had it on radar. I’m surprised no one scrambled a fighter.
He was also interviewed in Georgina Bruni ‘You can’t tell the people’

Ah yes, Hastings.

Firstly regarding the ‘new witnesses’ what you perceive as astounding I perceive with apprehension & suspicion but that’s just me. Regarding Rick Bobo, he was as you stated interviewed by Bruni so his claim isn’t new and apparently neither is it accurate. Firstly this is at best hearsay because he didn’t actually see any evidence for his claim. Additionally it is widely regarded that the only relevance Heathrow has ever had is that there was a sighting of a UFO by a civil aircraft heading over Essex and this was reported to the CAA at Heathrow.

Jenny Randles wrote that:

“In retrospect it is fairly apparent that this was most likely to be a sighting of the Cosmos re-entry at just after 9 pm on Christmas Night - that is six hours before the main event in Rendlesham. When Bentwaters checked for radar reports (just as did Watton) it is not a surprise that they were told something like - 'actually its been a busy night we had a sighting made at Heathrow too' - even if this is not directly tied to the events at 3 am.

I checked with both Watton and the MoD and both deny any records showing that any radar base - let alone Heathrow - tracked the object seen at 3 am inside the forest. They may be lying, of course, but we cannot assume that. Its equally likely - surely - that any radar tracking made were found not to connect into the Rendlesham case.

And staying with Randles she also wrote over at www.ufoevidence.org that:

The Suffolk police established that there were several UFO reports during the previous night, including sightings on radar screens at Heathrow Airport near London. It is likely that much of this activity referred to an incident just after 9:00 p.m. on 25 December, when the booster from a Soviet space probe had burned up on re-entry over South East England and fell into the North Sea. This trail of debris brought a flood of sightings into BUFORA (the British UFO Research Association) as well as to the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), because some witnesses thought that this was an aircraft exploding in mid-air.

The MoD file reveals no evidence that the British government believed this case to be solved, but still regarded it as having no defence significance. The lack of any unidentified radar targets that correlated with the UFO sightings was one key reason.

Two USAF air traffic controllers James H. Carey and Ivan ‘Ike’ Barker who admitted to tracking an unidentified target on radar sometime between 26th Dec and 1st Jan 1981
Jim Carey : “At the time, I was a tech sergeant, an air traffic controller with the 2164th Communications Squadron. The other controller was named Ike Barker. A major named --- ----- was also there. I think the incident happened between 10 and 12 o’clock, if I remember right. Ike and I usually worked 6 p.m. to midnight, but it was during the holidays, when we might have to work eight or nine hours. But as I recall, it happened before midnight.”

Carey continued, “What I remember is seeing was a very fast object on the radar we had in the tower. The scope was variable—it had a zoom as far as its [displayed] range, between five and 60-miles radius, but I think it was at set at a 60-miles when the object appeared. It came in from the east, went straight west across the scope and disappeared off the left side. It took maybe four sweeps—each sweep was two or three seconds—to cross it entirely. So it covered 120-miles in [approximately eight to twelve] seconds. In the 15 years I was an air traffic controller, I’d never seen anything travel across the scope that fast. A few seconds later, it came back on the scope, retracing its course, west to east, at the same speed. Then—I think it was maybe half or three-quarters of the way across—it did an immediate right-angle turn and headed south, off the bottom of the screen. I mean, it turned just like that, instantly. We couldn’t believe it! I told Ike, ‘Okay, that was not one of ours!’”

Hastings opens with:

James H. Carey and Ivan "Ike" R. Barker, now belatedly admit to tracking an unidentified target on radar at the Bentwaters Air Traffic Control Tower one night-sometime between December 26, 1980, and January 1, 1981-as they worked an extended holiday schedule.

Just to clarify the term ‘belatedly’ we’re talking 28 years after the event!

Their accounts were unknown prior to Hastings’ Nukes-book (2008), and not only that but they’re massively inconsistent both with each other and also with currently documented and generally accepted fact. For example:

I think the incident happened between 10 and 12 o'clock, if I remember right. Ike and I usually worked 6 p.m. to midnight, but it was during the holidays, when we might have to work eight or nine hours. But as I recall, it happened before midnight."

Obviously both of the witnesses state it was before 12am which is some three-to-four hours prior to the actual time, a fact which is beyond reproach owing to the following also from Hastings:

Barker later told me that he or Carey had also called a British radar unit known as Eastern Radar, to report the tracking. British researcher Dr. David Clarke has interviewed the RAF Commander who was at Eastern Radar in 1980-81, Derek Coumbe, who confirms receiving a call from the Bentwaters tower. According to Clarke, "[Coumbe] was on duty when the UFO report was received in the early hours of 28 December. He said he received a direct call patched through from the Bentwaters tower reporting a 'flashing light' over Rendlesham Forest." Coumbe logged the call, noting that although he had the duty controller attempt to verify the track, "nothing was observed."

And from Clarke’s (uk-ufo.org) website:

In 1989 Nick Redfern wrote to Eastern Radar asking for confirmation of the radar story. Squadron Leader Eric Webster, on behalf of the base CO, told Redfern that all tape recordings from the period in question, both sound and radar, had been routinely disposed of “as was procedure. Webster was able to provide a transcript of the single relevant entry from the base log, which confirmed the correct date of the "second night”. The call to Eastern Radar was timed at 0325 GMT on 28 December 1980.

[...]

Squadron Leader Derek Coumbe, who was the RAF Commander at Eastern Radar in 1980-81, confirmed in interviews with David Clarke in 2001 and 2003 that he was on duty when the UFO report was received in the early hours of 28 December. He said he received a direct call patched through from the Bentwaters tower reporting a “flashing light” over Rendlesham Forest. The MoD file contains a note from Coumbe which confirms a check was made by the duty controller but “nothing was observed...the facts are recorded in our log book of that night.”

(Continued Below)

[AdverseCamber]

(Continued From Above)

All of the above even prompted the author Hastings to highlight (unusually) what can only be considered as glaring inconsistencies, inconsistencies which in my opinion diminishes to the point of irrelevance what must already be considered as spurious and highly suspicious accounts (28 years after the fact):

This account raises a number of questions about the radar tracking mentioned by Barker and Carey. Both recall it having occurred sometime before midnight, probably on the night of December 27th, however, the British log entry about the call was made on the 28th at 0325 GMT (3:25 a.m.). Further, Coumbe remembers the caller making reference to a flashing light over the woods, however, Barker only recalls seeing a round, non-flashing object near the base water tower, while Carey does not recall a visual on the object at all.

Are Barker and Carey wrong about the timing of the tracking?

Barker recalls having Carey call the Woodbridge tower immediately afterward, via a patch from the Ground Control Approach radar unit, to find out whether the controllers there also tracked the UFO. According to Barker, the Woodbridge tower usually closed down each night around midnight, therefore, it would seem that the radar tracking reported to me had to have occurred hours earlier than 3:25 a.m. If that was the case, it appears there was a second tracking at Bentwaters. If so, why do Barker and Carey not remember it, or recall reporting a flashing light over the forest? Both recall seeing a glow coming from the woods, but nothing in the air above them. I asked Barker these questions but he was as puzzled as I.

Another obvious question is why only one or two UFOs left radar signatures when Halt reported seeing at least four of them low in the sky-about "10-degrees" above the horizon-while he was in the farmer's field. I asked Barker to explain this discrepancy but he told me he didn't know why there weren't more anomalous tracks that night, adding, "We would have tracked anything down to 500-feet [in altitude]."

For what it's worth then I’m firmly of the belief that when Hastings suggests there’s reason to doubt witness testimony he’s personally collected then in my experience it’s best to forget it completely.

The third mention is this:
In Leslie Kean’s new book Nick Pope writes about Rendlesham as well.p169 (or p126 in paperback)
He mentions another witness a RAF radar operator Nigel Kerr who was stationed at RAF Watton Xmas 1980.
Someone at Brentwaters called him to ask him if he could see anything on his radar.
For three or four sweeps something did show up directly over the base.

Way back in 2001 just prior to the MoD release of Rendlesham files Clarke & Roberts wrote the following:

The retired Squadron Leader told us: "I recall the incident well [as] I was on duty at the time it occurred. I can confirm that the call came from Bentwaters RAPcom. They requested that we scan the radars for any radar targets in their area; there were NONE. They reported flashing lights in the Rendlesham Forest area, outside the airfield runway [and that] the base police were investigating the incident."

The officer was on duty on the same night as a civilian radar operator Nigel Kerr who claims he saw a "blip" on his screen above the base runway coincident with the report from Bentwaters. The blip disappeared after several sweeps of the radar. Kerr's CO dismisses this claim, saying that no such observation was reported to his Controller at the time, who oversaw the ATC screens at the joint military/civilian facility.

This is a fact confirmed by the CO in contemporary note in the MOD file, dated 26 February 1981 that reads:

"On the night of the reported sighting our controller on duty was requested to view the radar; nothing was observed. The facts are recorded in our log book of that night."

He added that the T84 analogue radars at Watton frequently detected spurious echoes that behaved exactly as Kerr described.

The lack of radar corroboration was confirmed by Halt in a 1997 interview when he said:

" called the command post, asked them to call Eastern Radar, responsible for air defence of the sector.. twice they reported that they didn't see anything.."

The Watton CO also confirmed that he personally ordered that all radar tapes - both from 27/28 December and surrounding dates - should be impounded for examination. This was not unusual but entirely consistent with MOD procedure following reports of unusual sightings.

And all of this is corroborated by an earlier article by James Easton (Rendlesham Unravelled) dating back to May 1998 (not long after the Halt/Rayl interview) and so removes the possibility that Clarke et al are engaging in any perpetuating any kind of sanctioned disinformation.

Epo posted this in another thread but it's relevant here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...v=Sev01assDB0#!

At 29.35 Col Halt mentions that 'Eastern Radar' had the object on scope , but some one confiscated the tape.

That's one more mention of Radar evidence at Rendlesham.

Not necessarily. I'm assuming its Kimball's "Best Evidence" that the now broken link pointed to?

If so then this was released in 2007 whereas I've just detailed above that 10 years prior Halt was claiming different:

The lack of radar corroboration was confirmed by Halt in a 1997 interview when he said:

" called the command post, asked them to call Eastern Radar, responsible for air defence of the sector.. twice they reported that they didn't see anything.."

So which Halt do we believe, the somewhat naive 1997 model or the media-savvy (soon to be author) 2007 version?

Fool me once, fool on you.
Fool me twice...

Either way though I’m sure you’d agree that the four examples you posted are essentially hearsay and are not, and never have been, backed up in any way, shape or form by any documentation that has ever been proved to exist, which was sort of my original point…

[majicbar]

In all this "debate' over supposed points of testimony over the incident there are things which have been ignored, seemingly out of ignorance of the history of the phenomena to which this incident would belong.

1. Not all UFOs show up on radar, UFOs can selectively cloak themselves from radar. Thus, UFOs sometimes are able to disappear and sometimes present visual sighting while remaining invisible on radar. This has been true in both ground and air reports of UFOs.

2. There were several days of sightings, memories could become confused or conflated over the length of time between the sightings and the various reports and interviews.

3. The USAF is not about any time to open their files if they can get away with it, so it is not a valid point to try and say there is no documentation to confirm various points, even when there are British reports that do indicate something happened.

[AdverseCamber]

In all this "debate' over supposed points of testimony over the incident there are things which have been ignored, seemingly out of ignorance of the history of the phenomena to which this incident would belong.

1. Not all UFOs show up on radar, UFOs can selectively cloak themselves from radar. Thus, UFOs sometimes are able to disappear and sometimes present visual sighting while remaining invisible on radar. This has been true in both ground and air reports of UFOs.

2. There were several days of sightings, memories could become confused or conflated over the length of time between the sightings and the various reports and interviews.

3. The USAF is not about any time to open their files if they can get away with it, so it is not a valid point to try and say there is no documentation to confirm various points, even when there are British reports that do indicate something happened.

In your comment you have seemingly ignored the only point I was discussing, and as for ignorance of the phenomena, yeah, whatever.

Seemingly you are just ignorant otherwise why would you claim others are ignorant to the phenomena when we are specifically discussing radar returns? Why don’t you go and chastise someone who cares about your boastful knowledge of the history of the phenomena and try to impress them with your baseless insults.

You’re wasting your time with me.

[A99]

@AdverseCamber, There is ZERO indication at all that majicbar has directed any "baseless insults" toward you so I think that accusation is completely unwarranted. By directing such a missive like that towards someone, you are bullying him and when people resort to such underhanded tactics like that in any kind of debate, it indicates that they are on the defense because they know that their side of the argument is massively flawed and is much weaker than the opposing viewpoints presented by the person whom they are bullying.

In your comment you have seemingly ignored the only point I was discussing, and as for ignorance of the phenomena, yeah, whatever.

Seemingly you are just ignorant otherwise why would you claim others are ignorant to the phenomena when we are specifically discussing radar returns? Why don’t you go and chastise someone who cares about your boastful knowledge of the history of the phenomena and try to impress them with your baseless insults.

You’re wasting your time with me.

[AdverseCamber]

@AdverseCamber, There is ZERO indication at all that majicbar has directed any "baseless insults" toward you so I think that accusation is completely unwarranted. By directing such a missive like that towards someone, you are bullying him and when people resort to such underhanded tactics like that in any kind of debate, it indicates that they are on the defense because they know that their side of the argument is massively flawed and is much weaker than the opposing viewpoints presented by the person whom they are bullying.

For all I simply rephrased what he said?

In all this "debate' over supposed points of testimony over the incident there are things which have been ignored, seemingly out of ignorance of the history of the phenomena to which this incident would belong.

But if you say so, then my bad I guess as I’m apparently ignoring things due to my obvious of ignorance of the history of the phenomena and it definitely wasn’t an insult.

[Garuda]

MODERATION NOTE

This is one of those cases where the quirks of language may be playing tricks on us, and where the subtle differences between the English that is spoken on both sides of the Atlantic are causing misunderstandings.

The case in point: in North-American English, the expression 'ignorant' is often used where in British English 'unaware' would be more appropriate because the word 'ignorant' is British English carries a different 'load' and is considered more offensive.

@AdverseCamber: knowing majicbar's style of posting I'm pretty sure no offense was intended and that the expression 'ignorant of the history' was used in the meaning of 'unaware of' or 'unfamilar with'.

@majicbar and A99: I can perfectly understand AdverseCamber's reaction. The first time I was told that I was 'ignorant' of something, it came across as an insult. To those of us speaking British English, it comes across as 'You don't know what you're talking about.'
So, see it from AC's point of view: here he provides a detailed account of arguments (which you may or may not agree with), and the reaction seems to be 'you don't know what you're talking about' ...

So, in short, I'm pretty sure this is a misunderstanding.

Shall we stick to the debate?

And know that with topics like this, people will always disagree because they are using different data sets from which they draw different conclusions.
So, in order to keep the debate civil, it may be necessary to agree to disagree.

Thanks for your cooperation.