reprinted with permission
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.
[Thanks to Georgina Bruni for sending us this article.--Eds.]