has been much recent debate about the Rendlesham Forest incident, and some
interesting and well-researched articles have appeared.
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?
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
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.
Sadly, a number of sceptics do not seem to understand the way in which
the military operate.
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.
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.
brings us to the recent work done by independent researcher Georgina Bruni.
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.
sceptics have 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
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
sceptics clearly disagree, returning to the theory that all the UFO sightings
were misidentifications of the Orford Ness lighthouse or the Shipwash 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”.
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 of 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, while it's a neat soundbite to claim that the case is resolved, this would be a premature and naïve claim to make, and one that is clearly inconsistent with the facts. As Georgina Bruni has shown, there is still work to be done.