Chris Armold's comments on Facebook

[Daniel]

Thanks for the link Silvertop. Is Raf Lakenheath a typo? That's at least 1hr 30mins away, or 60ish miles. Maybe I'm reading it all wrong.

[Frank]

Yep, interesting link, Silvertop!

It seems he went out on the first night after the events happened, and he went out in the woods with Halt on the second night, i.e. 27/28 December.

We know from Clarke's website that Ted Conrad remembers Halt going out to the forest on the evening of December 27, and according to Conrad nothing of significance happened that evening. It seems Halt took Armold along. The night of Halt's tape, however, was the night after that, 28/29 December (as we all know of courrse ..). Armold probably was not there that night ..

Case solved!

[puddlepirate]

I've read statements and seen sketches. I've listened to tapes and viewed umpteen TV programmes. I've been to the forest many times and have searched archives and read books on the event but I've not seen one shred of hard evidence - no photographs, no videos, no official statements other then the Halt memo, nothing from the RAF Liaison Officer, the MoD or DoD, that provides any solid evidence to back up what has been said about a craft weaving through trees, taking off etc etc. All we really know is that some lights were seen and that's about it. What I have seen and photographed are 3"dia (approx) conical impressions in the forest floor surrounded by animal droppings. Such depressions can be found almost anywhere in the forest. Other than that - nothing. In itself the lack of evidence doesn't mean it didn't happen only that it cannot be proved it happened. Therefore, until hard evidence comes to light to support either case I give just as much credence to what Chris Arnold has to say as I do to what anyone else says. That said, as it stands at the moment, because of the lack of such evidence the cards are stacked in favour of Arnold.

[Frank]

Halt night was 27/28 - Saturday night. You wouldn't have a party on a Sunday night.

Sorry, made a mistake in the dates (that's how fast this happens ).

What I meant was:

25/26 First night - Armold arrives after the fact.
26/27 Second night - Armold in the woods with Halt and others, nothing of significance happens.
27/28 Third night - Night of Halt's tape


From Ted Conrad's interview on Clarke's weblog, we learn that Halt went out to the forest twice. On the evening/night of 26/27 and on the night of 27/28.

26/27:
Sometime between 2100 and 2200 on [26 December 1980] members of the Woodbridge SP shift appeared at a Christmas party at the O’Club where Lt Col Halt and myself were in attendance. They reported the events of the previous night and thinking there might be a recurrence, Halt decided to ride along with the shift leader, which he did. Aside from that, nothing unusual happened.

27/28:
By the morning of [27 December 1980] I contacted Maj Zickler for information of the alleged sighting. His information was all second hand and sketchy. Those with first hand accounts were citing career concerns as justification for remaining silent. (...) We decided that a brief in-house investigation was in order. (...) The rest of [27 December 1980] saw Lt Col Halt assemble our meagre assets. These were a Geiger counter, starlight scope (night vision device) and trained SP investigators out at the site in Rendlesham Forest. The investigation lasted until late evening where the site was starlight scoped, after which all went home except Lt Col Halt and some unknown SP’s. This was the night of Halt’s famous audiotape. He also had a two-way communication radio, which allowed me, and the SP’s to monitor his reports.

Just to reiterate, if Penniston's encounter on day 1 was at approximately 0300 hrs. the notification at the party was 18 hours later at approx. 9:00 PM, also on day 1. Penniston's interview occurred the morning of day 2, and shortly there after we decided to investigate. Halt spent most of that day with the investigators, the starlight scope and Geiger counter. After sundown he went back to the forest with his tape recorder, and reported seeing lights that night. This was actually early morning of day 3 and approximately 48 hours after Penniston's encounter. Take your pick for day 1,either 0300 26 Dec. or 27 Dec.

Halt always told that his night started unexpected at the Christmas party, with the announcement that 'it was back'. Nevels, however, told that the third night started with a top secret investigation. Now Conrad confirms Nevels' story.

[AgentAppleseed]

The cards are stacked in favor of Arnold

What absolute rubbish!

[puddlepirate]

So because my personal opinion doesn't fit with yours, it's rubbish is it? Explain....

[AgentAppleseed]

No PuddlePirate, with you, its the other way around actually! Are you trying to tell me that Arnold comes along and all of a sudden this incident is turned on its head?? Wheres the evidence??

[puddlepirate]

No. It is not with me to prove anything. If you have evidence of a craft moving through the trees and taking off, then please share it with us. Better still, book a slot as a speaker on the 28th and give a presentation. I stand by what I say, in my opinion there is no hard evidence to support the claim that a craft of any kind landed in the forest or that said craft moved through the trees then took off. Therefore, on that basis I am more inclinded to believe there was no craft.

[puddlepirate]

Here's a photo of Rendlesham forest with no UFO in sight.... http://www.flickr.com/photos/powfoto/3826122638/ now show us a photo of the forest with a UFO.......

[AgentAppleseed]

Well thats quite different to claiming Arnold to be proof of anything, is it not?!

[Admin]

...and all his posts have now gone.

[puddlepirate]

Not at all. I said that because there was no proof, no hard evidence, the cards were stacked in favour of Arnold. Now, show us the proof - the hard evidence - that contradicts that. From all the fuss you've made that must be easy enough surely? Over to you. Anything will do. A photo or video clip. Corroboration from RAF Watton, ATC at Heathrow, something from the US DoD or the UK MoD - pretty much anything will do as long as it official and verifiable.

[AgentAppleseed]

So your trying to tell me Arnold has all the evidence that proves none of this happened, and the evidence, the witnesses have, proves nothing at all? WTF are you talking about Puddlepirate?????! Get a grip!!!

[puddlepirate]

No, I'm asking you to provide the hard evidence that it did happen. To prove Arnold wrong. The problem is the witnesses don't have any evidence. Sure, they have made statements but there is no evidence to back up those statements and that is what I am asking you to provide. The witnesses themselves are seeking that evidence and that is the whole point of this forum.

[AgentAppleseed]

Theres more proof it did happen, than there is it didntl. Even the lighthouse theory was put together to explain what did happen. Youve got a pretty unique way of arguing a point PP. I dont think Ive ever seen it done the way you just did mate.

[Admin]

I assume Puddle is pointing out that there is no hard, physical proof to show that an extraordinary event took place. This I agree. Proof is not interpreted - it is physical and measurable.

However, there is a lot of evidence and some of it is particularly strong. People interpret evidence in different ways, which I suppose is why we have juries. In a court of law, the testimony of multiple credible, military witnesses (along with the other bits and pieces) would not simply be thrown out of the window - however it is not my area or place to say so.

After all of this, the fact remains that everyone who was there, in the forest, at the time saw 'it' and confirms 'it' - some saw lights, some saw a craft. Armold visits the forest afterwards, sees nothing and dismisses the mens' stories... so what?

[puddlepirate]

There isn't proof... there are only statements. Anyone can say anything in a statement. Statements have to be verified, supported by evidence and that is the problem, there isn't any evidence. The witnesses are seeking evidence to support their statements. That is why this forum exists - to help them find that evidence. Until then the balance of probability is that no craft landed in the forest, no craft moved through the trees and no craft suddently took off. So, please, instead of waffling show us the evidence that you have that this did happen as described and that Arnold is wrong when he says that it didn't happen.

Arnold doesn't have to prove it didn't happen because there is no evidence that it did. The lighthouse theory supports the view that it didn't happen and what was seen was the lighthouse. Adrian F has video evidence of a flashing light visible from the farmer's field, therefore there is some evidence of flashing lights being present - but only in the distance, not in the forest. This is evidence not simply a statement. The fact that I don't agree with the lighthouse theory is immaterial in this context.

[AgentAppleseed]

The cards are not stacked in favor of Arnold. Thats what PuddlePirate was trying to say and I believe hes wrong

[puddlepirate]

Then show us hard, verifiable evidence that Arnold is wrong - something that would stand up to scrutiny. You keep saying I'm wrong and Arnold is wrong but you've not come up with one shred of hard evidence. Until you come up with that evidence then the cards have to be stacked in favour of Arnold and others who question the witnesses claim to have seen a craft landing in the forest, moving through the trees and taking off. Nobody is saying anyone is lying - all that is required is the evidence to support their claims which, apparently, you have in abundance so let's see it.

[AgentAppleseed]

There are numerous witnesses, witness statements, two or three books written about it, numerous documentaries, trace evidence of a landed craft including soil samples, plaster casts made at the site, radiation readings with letters from the M.O.D which say that the radiation levels were above background levels. In my opinion, theres enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the incident did indeed occur! Thats my point! Chris Arnold has not shown me anything to prove it didnt happen. All he did was make some statements which he has now removed and call people names.