New evidence from radar operators at Wattisham airfield confirms RAF Bentwaters sighting

originally posted by: CJCrawley
a reply to: gortex

Wasn't there a Russian satellite hurtling through the skies of southern England at the time?

This if I recall happened before the incident (it was actually a booster rocket not a satellite) but was also followed by a bright meteor shower at around 2-3am on the initial night of the incident. It was far too high for radar though it may have triggered the responses at Bentwaters.

Colonel Halt was not a first hand witness on that night though. I'd have to verify my facts on that though so let me come back to this tomorrow when I'm not as tired.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: mirageman

These guys are reportedly from Wattisham airfield,are they the same people ?
I've forgotten a lot of what I used to know about the case but wasn't there a problem with the Bentwaters radar at the time ? , perhaps they were using Wattisham as a cover.

Just re-read the article , he has statements from both RAF Bentwaters and nearby Wattisham airfield with Wattisham being the latest addition.

Changed title to reflect.

Until the full details are revealed I can't confirm for definite if these are the same guys from Bentwaters. As far as I know radar operation Nigel Kerr was based at RAF Watton, not Wattisham so it may be an entirely different witness. I suppose the fact that written testimony is now being proffered makes it 'news'. Plus Halt has been speaking at Woodbridge on the case 35 years approx. after the incident.

If you listen to and watch interviews from the past though you will notice many witnesses mention Heathrow Tower picking up odd radar contacts over Rendlesham Forest. No one, to my knowledge, ever pursued any investigations that way. I do not know why.

a reply to: gortex

Thanks for this update

Halt is one of the few whom I am willing to listen to concerning this case.
As for Peniston and co, they should be taken with a very large pinch of salt! They are the reason so many people have trouble believing anything happened.

Objects were seen both in the sky and in the forest, and witnessed by many people, and the story got out! So, along comes PENIStone and his buddies and introduce the BS about binary in his brain and little green men. By doing so they moved what was a believable account of a ufo sighting/landing, into the realm of fantasy. I believe that was their intention!

It's currently on the BBC News website most read list (8th) and is on the front page...

BBC News Article Link

I can't remember the last time I saw a 'conspiracy' based story placed that prominantly before.

For what it's worth, the guy sounds a bit mad to me but the story itself has always been intriguing. I doubt we'll ever really know what happened.

originally posted by: eightfold

For what it's worth, the guy sounds a bit mad to me

Like to say why?
Out of all those involved he sounds the most genuine, it was many years before he started talking publicly about what happened.

From your bbc link.

And that is just typical of the bbc. With any story like this they always add something to inject doubt. Notice they dont even include sources for ANY of those comments.

originally posted by: Foundryman
Arrrggghh MORE stuff added to his narrative?? Every few years he adds something else. I stopped paying attention with his sudden "remembering" of that fake binary code stuff. Somehow I feel there's going to be a book or a new round of paid conferences.

By "narrative" I take it that you mean made up bunk that pads pockets.

=But keep in mind that this is one of the top five sightings of all time. -And I'm not sure if the "binary stuff" was confirmed by Halt, I thought it was another witness.

~If I were in the same position, and this story were actually true, do you honestly think that I'd keep my mouth shut in fear of skeptics thinking that I was padding my pockets?

I get the impression that any news, credible or not, regarding this event will be met by you with doubt.
-But that's what this forum is all about.

originally posted by: Foundryman
Arrrggghh MORE stuff added to his narrative?? Every few years he adds something else. I stopped paying attention with his sudden "remembering" of that fake binary code stuff. Somehow I feel there's going to be a book or a new round of paid conferences.

Arrrrggghh ! Wrong dude.
That was Sgt James Pennison, and no one
knows if the story is fake or not but him.

What is often forgotten amongst all the bickering is that, there are least 2 dozen other witnesses from the base to the events that holiday season, who have never said a word about it. As to why that might be is open to speculation however, it is fascinating that, 30+ years down the line not one member of personnel serving there and present on those nights has ever come out and said it was all a "huge mistake". One could argue Halt's commander did however, it has been conclusively shown he changed his own story and did a complete volte face on what he earlier had said, so whether they can be trusted at all. is very much a moot point.

Ok, here I'm going to retract my retraction I made earlier,
as I found a written source for my reference, not just a
verbal one.

What Vallee said about the Rendlesham Incident

Here is the excerpt from that article:

"The two most stunning cases of faked UFO events that Vallee has uncovered occurred rather recently in the history of saucer sightings. In 1980, a strange object purportedly "crashed" in England's Rendlesham Forest, a few miles away from an American Air Force Base. Dozens of military personnel were dispatched into the forest, without weapons, before the supposed crash of a luminous object. After the incident conflicting stories leaked to the press and to civilian investigators, some of the leaks apparently originating from the front office of the military base. Vallee's conclusion--controversial among UFO believers who insist that aliens touched down in Rendlesham Forest--is that "the event had all the earmarks of being staged for the benefit of the witnesses, perhaps so that their psychological reactions could be studied." "

Now, on top of this, I have as indicated, also discussed the
whole concept of dual deception, regarding both this incident
and a whole host of other incidents.

There WAS high energy plasma research being done nearby..
now it's difficult to ascertain what came first, the chicken
or the egg -- If indeed, this was all staged using "project
palladium" and plasma / induced UAP technology, or
whether the 'natural' UAP phenomenon I posit is the ultimate
and not the proximate inducer of much of this craziness.
or both.

Now for those who haven't followed Vallee; the good
doctor has documented thousands of cases that he
views are 'real' whatever that means, many with
both 'high strangeness' and physical-like evidence.

So he's hardly a debunker type skeptic.. he's a healthy
skeptic. He cries foul whenever things look genuinely
foul.

Kev

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Ok, here I'm going to retract my retraction I made earlier,
as I found a written source for my reference, not just a
verbal one.

an entire military squad waiting, with video cameras, in a position to tape the 'sighting' well before the 'sighting occurred'.

i can't see any corroboration for your story in the link you gave

i think you should retract you retraction of your retraction

a reply to: aynock

Those are Vallee's beliefs but they are just his beliefs , he presents no evidence that I'm aware of to support his belief.
Here it is from the man himself.

a reply to: gortex

thanks - i've been a big fan of vallee's since reading 'passport to magonia' 25 years ago

his views on rendlesham seem to be 'suspicions' based on 'hints'

a reply to: aynock

The question in my mind is if it was a plasma experiment what was responsible for the reported radar returns , I'm no expert on plasma but I thought it absorbed radar signals but didn't returned them , hence plasma stealth experiments , if that is the case then there is a mismatch in his theory.

a reply to: gortex

In the old days, if it emitted light it was assumed to be "fire".

I wonder if we now do the same for Plasma?
Even though there are multiple different types of plasma and constant additions to our knowledge of what makes up things we can detect, we still always seem to assume it is a generic Plasma.

For all we know these "Plasma's" are actually clouds of pentaquarks manifested by colliding high energy radar with Radon in the atmosphere- these then only occur when a weakly interacting massive particle randomly transitions the locality.

It might look like plasma but it would have fundamentally different causation and properties so I'd rather spend a few hours debating whether the tripod marks were equilateral using MS paint than relying on on one badly understood area to explain another.

It was a Russian Spy balloon full of Swamp gas to make it float. That is all. US/UK too embarrassed to admit Russia flew a UAV balloon onto a Nuclear Ammunition dump.

There I said it!

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: aynock

The question in my mind is if it was a plasma experiment what was responsible for the reported radar returns , I'm no expert on plasma but I thought it absorbed radar signals but didn't returned them , hence plasma stealth experiments , if that is the case then there is a mismatch in his theory.

To make it clear, the plasma angle is something I discuss a lot
obviously, and something that Vallee only mentions sometimes.

I will agree that the 'plasma bandwagon' is prime for abuse
as well, and it's not a very well understood area that needs
research.

Yes, there are plasma envelopes to absorb radars.. but there
are dozens of other types of configurations, including the
actual generation of 'ball lightening like' blobs that are
visible and/or are seen on radar.

We are just at the beginning of understanding more about
plasmas, and that's just the 4% composed of normal
matter/energy. We don't know what 96% of the Universe
is composed of.

I know I'm rather bristly on the ETH and not very nice about
it.. I suppose i should post on that subject and let people
take shots at me about it.. to be fair.

Kev

a reply to: aynock

Read this more carefully,

"Dozens of military personnel were dispatched into the forest, without weapons, before the supposed crash of a luminous object. After the incident conflicting stories leaked to the press and to civilian investigators, some of the leaks apparently originating from the front office of the military base."

Jacques is an acquaintance of mine and I think extremely highly of him and his work.

Kev

a reply to: gortex

I'm skeptical to say the least.

When you have someone making money out of their story the way he does, it really lowers the credibility. I'll bet those supporting statements will be from people unable to be found, or with names redacted, or even people who have passed on.

I actually do believe that the events themselves happened, or a version of them. But, that doesn't mean aliens, and it more likely means enemy tech being used or a secret project gone awry.

There is still nothing about the entire UFO history we have which tells me this is anything more than Human technological advancement being either mistakenly or deliberately framed as being "alien".

Whatever happens with this story, I have no doubt that it won't actually answer anything, and there'll be plenty of opportunity to debunk whatever comes up. There is no smoking gun, there is no concrete evidence, and I don't think any of that will be delivered regarding alien visitation until an actual alien life form arrives on this planet in front of world media.

a reply to: Rocker2013

I'm skeptical to say the least.

Yep , me too.
But there are a few cases that we (me) cling to in the hope that at least one was ET popping in for a cuppa , any new information is welcome but likely not to add a great deal to existing knowledge.

I don't begrudge Col Halt making a few quid , I believe he and his men had an experience of some kind which later turned out to be big news , if he wants to travel the world telling his story to those who want to hear it then fine , at least he's not a hoaxer like some in the field.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Read this more carefully,

"Dozens of military personnel were dispatched into the forest, without weapons, before the supposed crash of a luminous object. After the incident conflicting stories leaked to the press and to civilian investigators, some of the leaks apparently originating from the front office of the military base."

Jacques is an acquaintance of mine and I think extremely highly of him and his work.

Kev

how would jacques be in a position to know this? i'm assuming he wasn't part of the operation

if he wasn't part of the operation what's his source?