Psychology of cover-ups

[Observer]

The argument of the alleged landing sites has been running now for many years, here's a tenner to say you will still be arguing about them in a years time and no nearer knowing.
Obs

[Observer]

The whole memo issue is very fishy and i don't believe you will ever get to the bottom of it.
The subject of the 'landing' site/s and the memo are in a way distracting and there is i'm sure more fruitful avenues to explore that might move us on.
Obs

[John Burroughs]

I agree observer that the memo is fishy. After Williams stated he would never have approved Halts memo I really beleive it never was a offical memo. Conrad and then Williams would have had to clear that memo before it was sent. Also allot of the offical documents disapered from the base which my bet was when Gabriel paid a vist. My bet was they came up with this if it blew up in there face. When CNN first looked into this the US stated they stood by Halt's memo on what took place. His memo had the dates wrong which for many years kept people from getting any information under the Freedom of information act. So unless Halt comes clean on why the dates were wrong and what really took place we will never know for sure. And one more question why did Lord Hill Norton not agree with the statement that no additional action was required it makes you wonder!!

[daveclarke]

To John:

re your question about Halt coming clean about why the dates in the memo were wrong; I was under the impression he had already done so. He has said (somewhere) that he did not type the memo himself, it was dictated to a secretary, and done from memory without referring to any specific blotter entries, hence the dates were entered wrongly. His explanation for why he was so careless was something along the lines of that it didn't matter, the purpose of the memo was purely to get the MoD to take an interest in the incident & that when they did and sent someone to interview him he would provide them with full details including dates & times etc.

Ironically, this bizarre tactic backfired as the MoD didn't follow the incident up, the wrong dates were entered in the record (and the wrong dates used to check the radar picture), hence the mess we have inherited today.

A typically British cock-up- comparable in its Ealing-esqueness to what happened when Halt went to see Moreland after the latter returned from hols. (paraphrasing Moreland): "oh, by the way Don while you were on Christmas holiday, guess what? The aliens landed, but I thought I'd wait two weeks until you got back to tell anyone about it."

Also, I have a question for you John: in a post way back on this list, when you were talking about the possibility that you might visit Rendlesham forest this summer, you said that one of the people you would like to meet was Nick Pope. Why?

What do you think Nick Pope can tell you about the Rendlesham incident that isn't in the public domain?

[John Burroughs]

I don't feel the dates were entered wrongley by accident but on purpose. Halt was a man of detail he even stated he kept his recorder on him to keep track of things on a dailey basis. And of cource the wrong dates caused all kinds of problems s to include the what would be reviewed. And again do you beleive that with americans running around in the British forrest 3 nights in a row seeing strange lights it would be handle so carelesly. And the fact Gabriel came down to the base again is that how things were handle between the British and Americans? Sure sounds like a good way to say nothing of defense nature happened on those days which by the way nothing did!! As far as Nick Pope goes have some dirrect questions I would like to ask him in person that can't be repeated on line. Like I said also he never has said much other than whats allready know but that does not mean he does not know more than he is saying and it would be nice to try and find out. allot of things have not been pushed or even asked. One other little tidbet Halt has now stated Penniston and he never stated Warren was brought in but backed up Warren claim that people were brought in and interagated and even put under truth sermon plus penniston stated DS8 was there do you really think he was not also questioned also? First by Williams and Conrad and then Gabriel and who knows from there!!!

[Wolf]

What do you think Nick Pope can tell you about the Rendlesham incident that isn't in the public domain?

My guess is absolutely nothing........ I'm sure he only has access to the same data as most people have access too, probably less in some cases.

Glad all over.......

Wolf

[Observer]

Question to Dave Clark
Why do you think that Jenny Randles is now saying Nothing of significance happened in Rendlesham Forest.

Surely you must all realise by now that Nick Pope has not helped this enquiry at all.
His comments on camera are the same every time, just stating what every body already knows and he gets paid for it. If he does know more than he is letting on then all i can say is put up or shut up.
Having said that its a pity Nick is not posting on this forum to defend himself, but i think he has a good reason not to.
Obs

[daveclarke]

To Observer:

I fully agree with your comments on Nick Pope, which is why I asked John Burroughs what he thought he would learn from the guy (not a lot).

The facts are these: Nick Pope served on the 'UFO desk' from 1991-1993, i.e. 11 years after the incident, by which time those who actually dealt with it had long moved on. He did not speak to any of those who actually dealt with the case (i.e. Simon Weeden, Pam Titchmarsh etc). All he saw was the file on the incident opened by one his predecessors in 1985, which actually contained less info than the file released following my Code of Practice application in 2001 (the MoD searched other files to locate relevant minutes, then added them to the file which Pope saw). From his public statements and the interview I had with him in 2001 before I became persona nongrata, it was clear he knows absolutely nothing more than anyone else. His rank (Higher Executive Officer) is a pretty lowly civil service grade. He shuffled papers, nothing more nothing less. No doubt bored by the tedium after leaving his post, he saw an opportunity to make a lot of money out of UFOlogy and, encouraged by his new found 'friends' in UFOlogy, took the route he is now following. Good luck to him - I would have done the same in his shoes - but we should, in light of this, take everything he says with a large pile of salt. Like many others, it's not in his interest to find an answer to Rendlesham mystery - turkeys don't tend to vote for Christmas. He is making a tidy living out of perpetuating the mystery.

Hence his promotion of total fallacies such as the so-called significance of the 'higher than normal' radiation readings at the Halt landing site (a claim which has been totally discredited by Ian Ridpath's work, yet Pope continues to promote it publicly).

Nick Pope is only interested in Nick Pope - his primary concern appears to be to get his face & name on TV and in the newspapers as often as he possibly can. His role in backing the current 'alien invasion' campaign promoted by the Sun newspaper has blown any remaining credibility he had, in my view.

Does that answer your question?

[daveclarke]

John Burroughs wrote:

>And again do you beleive that with americans running around in the British forrest 3 nights >in a row seeing strange lights it would be handle so carelesly.

But this is exactly what the contemporaneous evidence - the paper trail - reveals *did* happen!

Maybe it's just a smokescreen, as you appear to be suggesting, but if so where is the evidence? I mean evidence (in terms of documents, reliable sworn testimony, FOI results), not hearsay. All we seem to be getting is hearsay -and I'm afraid what someone said in a telephone conversation 20+ years ago - recalled from memory alone - isn't very convincing. It would not stand up to a minute's scrutiny in a courtroom. I hope the answer isn't going to be 'the evidence is there but it's been covered up by the CIA, NSA etc'; again thoroughly unconvincing.

I'd like to say here that I do think something strange ('supernatural'?) happened at Rendlesham; after being fascinated by the case since - as a teenager - I saw the News of the World headline 'UFO lands in Suffolk', I've watched the various claims and counter-claims unfold over the years. I have to say that - after watching a dozen silly US-made documentaries - I find Charles Halt and Jim Penniston's stories unconvincing and riddled with contradictions. The more they sell out to showbiz, the less credible their stories become.

On the other hand, I find John Burrough's story the most convincing of all, and I'm happy to accept he and others saw something very unusual (though I have a few ideas about what it could have been). But I've yet to see a full, detailed account, organised in chronological order with names, dates and places, that might allow some sense to be made out of this mess, from John's point of view.

Come on John - we're now heading for 30 years after the events - when are you going to tell us the *full* story?

[John Burroughs]

Of cource its a smoke screen and it was allowed to happen. With the dates being wrong on Halts memo people for over 30 years have been following a dead end. I read your interview with squardon leader and just like Williams he will not give a straight answer just does a great job of a spin to include the part of listening to Halts tape. The reason why you have never seen any documents because thet have all disapeared to include the Wing history for the month of December 1980. When I was TDY to Maxwell I went over to take a look and it was missing why? As far as FOI goes it released Halts memo but after that with the dates being wrong what were you going to receive. I had someone try and get a copy of my medical records they would not give them up without my signature so I did. They then said it was not my signature so I asked for them and guess what they stated they were lost just like the Blotters and 1569 went missing. I understand what you have to say about Halt and Penniston but they did go to Washington and speak before the national press club. What are your Ideas of what happened to me? I will tell the full story when I can back it up which is what I am working on. After all you stated it best you have to have proof to make it convincing!! The truth is out there you just have to be able to prove it!!! And explain what you mean by supernatural and what you have to back it up? John

[daveclarke]

Thanks John - a few comments in response;

* firstly, I return to my comments about evidence. Sqn Ldr Moreland's evidence corroborates Halt's
story about how and why the memo was written. Moreland has no axe to grind, he finds the whole
saga bemusing and has no interest whatsoever in perpetuating any smokescreen, quite the opposite.
I found him refreshingly honest in the interview (you only have a small portion of it). So we have
the testimony of Moreland, Halt and the paper trail that all mesh together nicely.
You're suggesting - if I have this correctly - that all three are a 'smoke screen' to hide something
more elaborate.
Where's the evidence for this? How long do we have to wait for it? Another 30 years?

* secondly, I have extensive experience researching military records in the UK and have encountered
numerous examples of the type you cite re missing records, in a variety of contexts. Often crucial
logbooks missing or destroyed, etc. It's easy to interpret that as evidence of a conspiracy. Sometimes
that may indeed be the case, but I suspect from my own frustrating experience that more often
than not, certainly in the UK, its simply policy to destroy records that were not considered of
historical value. The entire RAF file on the Lakenheath-Bentwaters UFO incident from 1956 was
destroyed in 1961 for this very reason; the policy at that time was to dispose of UFO records at
five yearly intervals because they were regarded as being of transitory interest. Conspiracy or
cock-up? All I can say from my experiences as a journalist, in the UK at least, in 99 percent of
cases its cock-up.

* as for my comments about 'supernatural', I define that word using the Oxford English Dictionary
as referring to phenomena currently beyond our natural laws. More specifically the Rendlesham
UFOs were in my view the type of light phenomena observed in numerous locations around
the world, and are part of the folklore of every culture and civilisation, see my webpage here
for examples (particularly the links):

http://www.drdavidclarke.co.uk/spooklights.htm

all the best -

[John Burroughs]

Dave
Lets talk about US records. The ones I am talking about disapeared right afterwards which would not happen. Halt stated some airmen must have taken it. That would not happen everthing is tracked and logged. The 1569 is a legal document that would be used in court and has to be maintained not destroyed. The Wing history for 1980 was there except of December I held the document in my hands. And talked to a G-11 who stated to me they do this to me all of the time and make me the Bad guy. When I pressed him on what he ment he stated he had no Idea why it was missing and it should not have been because there was no record for why it was removed and that he could not gave me a straight answer on what happened to it. The Halt memo sure has been a smoke screen and I don't beleive Squadron Moreland was part of it. And I beleive the Mod for years stated they had nothing and then Lord Hill Norton kept pushing and proved that wrong. And why would he not by off into what they were trying to sell I do beleive he was in a postion to know. There was a Sentor in the states that pushed this and after he got a briefing he all of a sudden backed off but would never say what he found out. Most of us will not be around in 30 years but I do feel this case can be broken wide open if nothing more than certain things could be happen in the next 4 years to better explain the what happened to us....

[daveclarke]

Hi John,

I do find it suspicious that so many of the crucial US records, even down to basic stuff like the blotter entry mentioned by Halt, have disappeared.
I wish you luck in your attempts to get to the bottom of this, but I think you won't get very far, particularly if someone has decided to destroy everything, which I suspect is what happened (an action which dosen't necessarily mean there was anything to hide, other than embarrassment perhaps?)
I sincerely hope you will be around for some years yet, and that you might be able to make sense of this hall of mirrors - at least for the benefit of the perplexed Brits on this list.
One final point - you seem to be labouring under the impression that Lord Hill-Norton played some major role in persuading the MoD to release its papers on this incident.
No doubt you have taken on board what Nick Pope and Georgina Bruni have claimed in that regard - unfortunately, it's just not true.
Although Hill-Norton did pester his former employers concerning the incident on and off from 1985 until his death in 2003, he never managed to get past the "no defence significance" mantra; see for example, the documents released here to Andy Roberts following a recent FOIA request:
http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/B4FFAB40 ... orton1.pdf
In point of fact - and despite Nick and Georgina's best efforts to sideline my role - it was in fact me who persuaded the MoD to come clean, via a request under the Code of Practice for Access to UK Government Information (our precursor to the FOIA) in February 2001, at the end of 18 months of correspondence with the UFO desk.
When Georgina got wind of the fact that the papers had been released to me, she contacted the MoD in July that year demanding she was sent a copy (her fax to Whitehall is among the documents released under FOIA).
Lord Hill-Norton played no role in this situation at all, even though Nick and Georgina told him that it was his influence that led to the release.
I have it in writing from the head of the MoD division that this is not the case.
Another example of why you should not believe everything you are told by certain people involved in the UFO industry.

best regards,

[John Burroughs]

Fair enough your right about not beleiving everthing you hear. But can you answer this why did Lord Hill Norton not by off on what was being stated and why was it so hard for the Mod to come clean on what they had. Is it not true they stated they had very little on the case at first and our they still not holding documents back? I know what was in those reports and there was nothing of embarrashment in them. What they did hold was who was involved who was posted where and what dates and time it happened. There is a tape out there of the radio traffic that was sent to Germaney. Since you got the the documents released could you find out if in fact was the MOD allowed to hear that tape. also did they receive any briefings from anyother source than Halts memo at Bentwaters. Plus did DS8 ever vist Bentwaters and did they work with OSI at all with exchange of documents or interviewing witness. And about Gabriel why did he show up and did they ever get briefed on what he found out or who he turned it over to?

[Observer]

Dave
Leaving asside this last topic for the moment and looking at the witness statements. you are now suggesting in not so many words that what those in the woods such as Penniston, described as a Pyramid shaped object, smooth like glass to the touch and warm with banks of lights on it is pure bunkum. The dripping 'molten' metal that Halt described is also pure fiction.
The lots of pipes and little boxes over one object that Larry described is another load of fiction.
The highly electrostatic atmosphere that many described is another load of fiction.
Do we all now discount these statements as they are lies?
I'm confused.
Perhaps you could help me understand this in relation to what you are saying.

Cheers
Obs

[IanR]

Leaving asside this last topic for the moment and looking at the witness statements. you are now suggesting in not so many words that what those in the woods such as Penniston, described as a Pyramid shaped object, smooth like glass to the touch and warm with banks of lights on it is pure bunkum. The dripping 'molten' metal that Halt described is also pure fiction

Penniston never described any such object in his witness statement. That story came later, along with the "contemporary" notebook which has the wrong date and time. During the incident, Penniston estimated that he got no closer than about 50 metres to the object and that every time he tried to approach it, it moved ahead of him. This was relayed at the time by radio to his supervisor, Master Sergeant Chandler, who confirms it in his own statement. At no time was anything seen to take off, despite more recent claims.

Similarly, Halt's "molten metal" comment was not made at the time (at least, it's not on his tape) but came in later interviews, along with the story of the "silent explosion".

The original documentary evidence should always be given far more weight than more recent statements which may well have been embellished for popular consumption.

As for the contents of the police blotter, Captain Bernard Donahue, who at the time of the incident was Area Defense Counsel (the defence lawyer for personnel charged with offences) told researcher James Easton some years ago: “Most of us on base were embarrassed by this ‘incident’. We didn’t believe the UFO hype for one minute. The next day, I personally read the Security Police Blotter describing the incident in detail. It seemed to document hysteria rather than hard facts.”

Ian

[daveclarke]

Hi Observer:

Re the witness statements - I assume you are referring to the ones obtained by James Easton and uploaded onto Ian Ridpath's website here:
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham2b.htm
if so there is no mention of 'pyramid shaped objects smooth like glass' etc, out of the five or so there is only one (Penniston) that refers to a mechanicla object.
Now John Burroughs accompanied Penniston for most of this adventure (is that right John) but from what John has said, all he saw were lights, not a definite mechanical object.
John is on the list so if I have misquoted him I stand to be corrected, but my understanding is that he does NOT describe seeing pyramid shaped objects with symbols etched on the side etc.
Only John can tell you whether this was 'pure bunkum' because he was there, I can only rely upon what he's been quoted as saying in his statements etc (hence my appeal for him to tell the full story!)
As for "The dripping 'molten' metal that Halt described is also pure fiction", I don't understand what you mean. That's what Halt described, it's his description of the way that an aerial phenomena he saw behaved in his perception. It does not mean what he saw was 'molten metal', only looked like it.
As for "The highly electrostatic atmosphere that many described is another load of fiction", far from it. If the UAPs seen were mainfestations of electromagnetic energy of some kind, plasmas or some form of super ball lightning this is exactly the sort of EM effect that would be expected to be felt in close proximity.
As for "discount these statements as they are lies?" I don't understand the question. Where have I said they were lies?
I'm doubting the interpretation of what was seen, not the fact that an experience happened.
It's a subtle distinction.

[John Burroughs]

Ian
I read those reports and they did not deal with Hysteria but what happened. Ie who was there what they saw and what and how we responded. At that time people had a much different view on UFO. And not only that to this day and even the way you come off it has to be ailiens nothing else. A UFO is nothing more than a unidentified flying object of unknown origin nothing more nothing less. And which day did he read the incident report it was a Holiday weekend which means it would not have been deleived until Monday mourning. That is why Halt when up to the desk on Friday Mourning. Also a little hint the blotter only dealt with the facts nothing more. The report went into more detail and he would not have had access to that for several days. And I would love to meet up with him and have him make that statement to my face.. Yes Jim story has changed and I have been one of the people who keeps harmering that fact. What I have been told is that after Hypnois that is when he changed his story. Also after strange but true he became close to Halt and that is when the dates changed which leads me back to why the dates not only in Halts memo but Penniston note book which he had no time to do when we were close to what ever it was. Also Halt if I am not mistaken still gave the wrong dates when he spoke to the national press clubin DC in Nov. But he was the one who helped show I was right when he gave out our staements when we were filming unsolved mysteries...

[daveclarke]

To John:

Just to echo one of the other comments, re:

"But can you answer this why did Lord Hill Norton not by off on what was being stated and why was it so hard for the Mod to come clean on what they had. Is it not true they stated they had very little on the case at first and our they still not holding documents back?"

Hill-Norton despite his background was heavily influenced by some of the more nutty elements of the UFO industry. I did not know he had been briefed by Greer, but it dosen't surprise me. What I do know is that he had some very bizarre beliefs, including that UFO occupants were demons disguising themselves as aliens (an idea he picked up from his friendship with fellow demonologists like Gordon Creighton and Paul Inglesby). This suggests that in his dotage his judgement on the company he kept wasn't very discerning, to say the least.

Just because he was a retired CDS and Admiral, doesn't mean he had any common sense when it came to UFOs. He told me categorically - and stated on the record - the subject had never crossed his desk during his service as CDS, so if it was the subject of a cover-up then how could he - who served in the highest office of the UK military - had no knowledge of it during his service in the 60s and 70s?

The reason he didn't buy the MOD's line was because he had been led to believe their version was a lie by the likes of Greer and Tim Good, under whose influence he had fallen in his old age. It's as simple as that.

You asked:

"Since you got the the documents released could you find out if in fact was the MOD allowed to hear that tape. also did they receive any briefings from anyother source than Halts memo at Bentwaters."

According to the MoD and senior RAF people I have interviewed, they neither heard nor requested to hear the tape. That fact is corroborated by contemporaneous paper trail in the MoD file.

"Plus did DS8 ever vist Bentwaters and did they work with OSI at all with exchange of documents or interviewing witness."

DS8 were desk bound, and were not authorised to speak to UFO witnesses, never mind make field visits to sighting locations. OSI would not liaise with DS8, they would deal with their RAF counterparts, the Provost & Security Services (PS&S), but no evidence they were even notified of the incident (this I believe has been stated in UK Parliament in reply to a question from Hill-Norton in the Lords).

"And about Gabriel why did he show up and did they ever get briefed on what he found out or who he turned it over to?"

To answer this, read the discussion based upon the MoD file on my webpage here:
http://www.uk-ufo.org/condign/rendanl3.htm

In addition, Halt himself has explained what happened with Gabriel in a talk he gave in 1997; Gabriel flew in to attend a pre-arranged 3rd Air Force staff meeting in Jan 1981 - not one called specifically because of the UFO incident. He took that opportunity to pay the tape, saying Wing Co Gordon Williams asked Halt if he could take it to the meeting, thus:

"He said 'May I take this to the 3rd air force, to the staff meeting?' I said: 'Certainly.' Well I couldn't tell him no. And he took it down and played it to the staff and the General [Gabriel] looked at the staff and said: 'Is he [Halt] a credible witness?' and the answer was, 'Yes.' So he turned to the staff and said, 'What do we do now?' and nobody knew what to do. So there was some chuckling in the room and I understand the comment was, 'Well, it's a British affair, let's give it to them' I was told when he [Williams] came back, he gave me the tape, thanked me and said: 'Get with Don Moreland. Let the British handle this.'"

And we know exactly what happened next. Halt turned up in Moreland's office, and the rest is history.

Now, this as I explained, meshes perfectly with:

a) the paper trail in the MOD file released in 2001
b) with what Sqn Ldr Moreland says in his interview
c) with what we know subsequently happened at MoD/DS8
d) what Halt has said

It's strong evidence for this chain of events being true, in my opinion. You have both contemporaneous evidence and strong testimony from all those directly involved.

What evidence is there to match this from the 'smoke screen'/conspiracy?

[IanR]

Also Halt if I am not mistaken still gave the wrong dates when he spoke to the national press clubin DC in Nov. But he was the one who helped show I was right when he gave out our staements when we were filming unsolved mysteries...

Yes, your statement gave the right date and time, which is confirmed by the log book of the local Suffolk police
http://www.suffolk.police.uk/NR/rdonlyr ... lights.pdf
Alas, the MoD did not check with the local police to find out if they knew anything. Even when I wrote and told the MoD that the Suffolk police records showed the dates in the memo were wrong, the MoD still never checked with the police, preferring to believe Halt's memo.

Perhaps the conspiracy theorists can explain why, if something serious had happened that needed to be covered up, the local police were called out at the time of the initial incident, again the following morning (to see the "landing site"), and again two nights later when Halt went out there. However, on this latter occasion they did not attend as they received an emergency call to a break-in at a Post Office at Otley, a village some miles away which they considered as a higher priority than “a recurrence of an earlier incident which was seen as somewhat frivolous”.
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/police.htm

Ian