Doo Doo hits the fan [Dave Clarke article/Conrad]

[AdrianF]

In case anybody hasn't seen this already, here is Ted Conrad's take on events, followed with a report on the case by Dave Clarke..
http://drdavidclarke.blogspot.com/p/rendlesham-files.html

[stephan]

so whom to believe ? The base commander whose information is based on second hand statements or his deputy who was actually present when it happened ? Does rank equal degree of wisdom ? Just because he looked up in the sky and he saw nothing does that mean that there actually was nothing ? Just a few questions that spontaneously come to my mind ...

btw T. Conrad's remark ''comments in square brackets are my own'', I could swear I've read that on the forum here before ... if so ... maybe he's going undercover

[Admin]

so whom to believe ? The Base Commander whose information is based on second hand statements or his deputy who was actually present when it happened ?

Exactly. As interesting as the interview is, Conrad wasn't with Halt during the incident and I don't see how he can "challenge" Halt's account (of the UFO sighting) in any way.

[Ignis Fatuus]

“Lt Col Halt’s report of more lights both on the ground and in the sky brought quite a few people out of their houses at Woodbridge to see what was there. These people included myself, my wife, Lt Col Sawyer (the Director of Personnel), his wife, and several others listening to my radio and looking for the lights Halt was describing. Despite a sparkling, clear, cloudless, fogless night with a good field of view in all directions, we saw nothing that resembled Lt Col Halt’s descriptions either in the sky or on the ground. This episode ended in the early morning hours of [28 December 1980].

[stephan]

Ignis Fatuus, there were also other witnesses (like Jerry Harris) who stepped out of their house and who DID make observations. Do we know how far they were away from the scene ? Visibility could simply be a question of distance. In the latter the objects maybe looked like stars but when you were close enough you could see more. Furthermore most of the events took place on the ground: Penniston's landed craft, Warren's materialized craft and as far as I remember the objects sending beams of light down to the WSA were not very high in the sky. I don't remember exactly - I'd have to look that up - but I think some objects were first mistaken for natural/ terrestrial phenomena (like stars, electrical lights etc) before people actually got a closer look.

[AdrianF]

Amin, thanks for updating my slightly daft thread title.

so whom to believe ?

I don't think anybody after 30 years, can have an absolute perfect recollection of events. Conrad himself makes the point that his recollection is slightly hazy and if I try and remember very important parts of my own life, some of the details are difficult to recall. The important point here, is that the more statements there are from those involved, the clearer the picture will become on what went down over the 3 day period across the 2 bases, though I suppose it could also be argued that it will muddy the waters further.

His material has really deteriorated since the early days 8>)

Hey, a nice bit of music trivia. Dave Clark started out his career as a stuntman on films

[AdrianF]

Ignis Fatuus, there were also other witnesses (like Jerry Harris) who stepped out of their house and who DID make observations.

I think Gerry Harris's sighting took place on Christmas night 25/26th if I'm not mistaken. Though I'm not sure if he is very clear on this himself.

[Ignis Fatuus]

This bit at the end has me puzzled:

Credits:
Thanks to all those who have contributed to this research, particularly Ted Conrad, Don Moreland, Simon Weeden, Neil Colvin, Derek Coumbe, Ian Ridpath, Vince Thurkettle and Nick Pope. Special thanks must go to John Burroughs and John Rackham for encouragement and motivation.

couldn't decide if it was sarcastic or genuine thanks.

[stephan]

@ AdrianF,

yes, that could be true, my point was that distance could have played a major role in regard to visibility in any of the nights. If Conrad etc. were too far away and if the main activity was on the ground they may have missed it.

btw, I meant Clarke's remark, not Conrad's remark in my first post

[Daniel]

Even though I'm not a big fan of David Clarke his article was interesting but didn't focus on any new information, such as the details brought forward by Sgt. Nevels. Dave used information based on the Memo which is already well known to misreport bits and peices of the incident e.g. Dates. Second hand information has a chance of being erroneous and passing it on again increases that chance. It does appear Col. Conrad wasn't fully aware what was going on and could be passing on his opinions based on the information he was given.

I can agree with Dave that it's highly unlikely that we'll fully know what happened on those three nights in December of 1980.

[Frank]

It's always interesting to see how skeptics use accounts of other skeptics who did not witness the events to prove their point. And each time a skeptic becomes a primary witness he suddenly realizes he has been wrong al along (both Penniston and Halt were very skeptical about UFO's before they became a primary UFO witness, like many others before and after them). But apparently that's the way the world turns ..


There are some interesting fragments that indicate that the primary witnesses did water down their statements, and this means that the written witness statements recovered by CAUS - that are so often used by skeptics to imply nothing of interest happened - can not be taken as accurate accounts of what happened!

"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."

"One other significant thing happened on 28 December 1980. Maj Zickler finally convinced Sgt [James] Penniston to answer some questions for me. After a sincere guarantee that his report would have no ill effects on his career, Penniston reluctantly told his story."


Jim's account contains some interesting information:

"With a quick glance over the shoulder we saw the thing again back at the hill,this time coming toward us. We ran to get away, but within two seconds it was up and gone.-------(end of narrative)…”

They ran to get away while the thing was coming toward them. And Nevels was told by Englund only hours later that an airman was abducted. That makes me wonder: Did Jim really tell the whole story to Conrad, the skeptical Base Commader ..?

PLUS: Within two seconds it was up and gone

And Dr David Clarke thinks this all has a simple, mundane explanation. I can imagine he is primarlily interested in UFO folklore, since folklore was his Ph.D. subject. But there is also a hard, physical side to the subject and many scientists and engineers are truly puzzled by it, and clueless in trying to explain it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pw13F7ahjY)

[Deep Purple]

Step back a little people, and look again.
Conrad does not come up with an explnation and skates around the whole issue--- so he is either involved in the cover up or doesnt know what happened.
If you were the head of a US Airbase that could launch ground attack aricraft into a a third world war scenario wouldnt you want to know what was exactly going on?
Wouldnt you drill down until you were satisified what the strange lights were.
Wouldnt you say if you beleived it was a mistake--- the security got confused with a Russian Satelite/ Orford Ness Lighthouse house/ A freak occurence of the Northern Lights/ Ground staff playing tricks

The interview is quite damming I think--- what do people think?

[puddlepirate]

D P is absolutely correct. As commanding officer responsible for two major, front line USAF bases in Europe, at the height of the Cold War, with tension rising in Poland and US hostages held in Tehran and not to mention CND, the IRA etc, Conrad could not afford to ignore anything that suggested the security of his command was being compromised. Likewise, those reporting to him - his deputy base commanders et al - would not feed him misinformation. The consequences of doing so would be dire.

What Conrad appears to be doing is distancing himself from the recent comments attributed to Col Halt. Dec this year marks the 30th anniversary of the RFI and as a consequence of that, it is very likely there will be a renewed media interest in the incident. To be seen to be in any way supporting or aligned to the recent statement(s) made by Col Halt could prove embarrassing once the media circus embarks on its usual frenzy of sensationalist nonsense.

Whilst obviously I cannot speak for Col Conrad, nor would I want to put words in his mouth, as the base commander at the time of the RFI, I suspect Col Conrad would be concerned to protect his integrity and to that end would want to ensure his views are made very clear. What he said, in this context at least, is not as important as why he said it.

Finally, I prefer the term 'cover story' to 'cover up' and there is no doubt that situations involving the military of any nation sometimes require a cover story, be it to divert attention from a black op, a black project or an event that the civilian population have no need to know about for reasons of national security. National security can cover anything from revealing classified information to the enemy to prompting civil disturbance by admitting to a serious mishap. Frustrating as it might be, there are times when no matter how earnestly we might want to know, we simply have no need to know......

[Frank]

The interview is quite damming I think--- what do people think?

I can entirely imagine Conrad acting as he did given the situation. It was a shocking event to the witnesses (Jim even called it "life-changing") but it was also something you would not want to share with others. And since there was no apparent security thread, Conrad's actions were entirely logical given his position, his skeptical attitude, and the situation at hand. So the entire story sounds logical to me, but does indicate that the witnesses all saw something very unusual they were reluctant to share.

The same is true for the way the MOD handled this - I can imagine such a story being handled this way by the MOD desk officers.

This interview with Conrad of course can never prove or disprove there was a cover up. If there was a cover up and Conrad was involved he simply wouldn't tell. If there was no cover up (or there was one but Conrad did not know) the resulting interview would be the same. So this interview will not help to get an answer.

Some interesting things that could point to an investigation by some agency that worked completely separated from the rest:

1. Vince Thurkettle claims, that only a few days after the incident took place, he was at the forest chopping wood when a black car pulled up, two young Englishmen got out, say 25 years old, in suits, and asked questions about the UFO incident. The fact is, Colonel Halt had not even written his memo to the British Ministry of Defence at that time.

2. Richard Bertolino saw how the three witnesses were taken away for debriefing right after their shift, by individuals looking like intelligence officers (http://www.earthfiles333.com/earthfiles/audio/mp3/EarthFilesEpisode57_high.mp3, scroll to 14:00).

Is it possible that Conrad was not informed about these investigations? Apart from OSI other intelligence branches were also active at the base. Moreover, Conrad himself said that OSI had their own chain of command.

Concerning DS8, we read that it was “inappropriate” for DS8 desk officers to conduct interviews with UFO witnesses - why were desk officers discouraged to perform these interviews, and were there others who did perform them?

So was the interview damming? I think not when you consider what Conrad tells about the accounts of the witnesses. They corroborate what is in the public domain. Maybe it is damming concerning the alledged cover up. The problem is, you can never disprove a cover up and proving it is very hard ..

[Ignis Fatuus]

Haha the old call everybody a sceptic defence..hysterical. Like as if it's a crime.

Where is the scepticism when it comes to the ever evolving witness statements? I can't be sure whether Penniston got a 100ft, 50ft, 30ft, 10ft or actually touched anything. He's been inching ever closer to it for the last 30 years.

Find it hard not to be sceptical when one guy only sees lights and the other guy who's only a few feet from him, not only touches a wedge of a flying glassy disco dance floor, but sketches a three view of it.

If you're pushing the ET wagon, it seems perfectly acceptable to remember new memories at the same time as suffering from the faded passage of time recollections whenever a condratiction arrises.

If you squint your eyes a little you might see a clue you missed. Whatever Halt and his posse were observing, it wasn't visible to Conrad and his group from their perspective.
Doesn't mean Halt's group saw nothing...Maybe it's not what they saw...but the way they saw it and the conditions they saw it in.

Have a look back through time at newspaper articles describing similar nocturnal sightings. They were smart back then, they pretty much had a handle on it 300 years ago.
You'll see how the Lantern Man has been leading people off the beaten path in the dead of night for hundreds of years.

But that's being kind. I'm starting to think that the real carreer ending event would be the admission that the Air Force's finest were chasing the lighthouse and beacons. So it became a UFO.

The fact that only a few people back the lighthouse & beacons is another thing to think about as it wouldn't be the first instance that the truth was hated in its own time.

Which brings me back to the content of Dr Dave's article(s) and the appearance of John Burroughs in the credits. Whats that all about? To those that use the word 'skeptic' like its a term of derision - does it not raise your eyebrows that one of the RFI poster boys recieves a shout out from Dr Dave in his article of scepticism?

[stephan]

I think the problem with sceptics is that they never really deal with certain details, i.e. details which they CANNOT explain. They simply ignore that. Also they never say that the witnesses are liars - if at all they say they only misinterpreted things. I wonder why that is ? Do they take the possibility into consideration that they (the sceptics) could be wrong ? I mean if they were right there's no doubt that the witnesses would be liars. So what's the problem. Don't they have the guts to say it or is it that they thereby admit not to consider said certain details. I remember a CNN interview in which the sceptic (James McGaha) was asked if he would call the witnesses liars, here you can see his reaction (time index 0:48):

[puddlepirate]

re the vid clip posted by Stephan.

Interesting that at min 4:56 Halt states that the Office of Special Investigations (OSI - presumably the USAF OSI) did investigate the incident. That's the first time I've heard firm confirmation of OSI involvement. If the OSI investigated, then they would have interviewed witnesses and others. Also, once the OSI had finished their investigation they would have compiled a report and that OSI report might still be filed somewhere.

Just a personal comment but I thought it worth mentioning: If someone says something he or she truly believes to be true, then they are not lying. Only when it can be proven that someone deliberately says something they know to be untrue with the intention of misleading others for whatever purpose, can they be accused of lying. There are variations to this when it comes to the military. There are situations in the military where telling a lie becomes imperative. Probably better known as deception rather than lying, there are many, many reasons why deception is sometimes needed. Anyone who has ever served their country will understand this. Those who have not will never grasp the concept because there is a belief in many quarters of the civilian world that nothing must ever be secret and governments must disclose everything to everyone, regardless of the consequences. I firmly believe it is important to consider this difference within the context of the RFI, particularly so when a truth might be revealed that could seriously embarrass a friendly nation.

[Admin]

I can't be sure whether Penniston got a 100ft, 50ft, 30ft, 10ft or actually touched anything. He's been inching ever closer to it for the last 30 years.

The first time Penniston spoke openly about the incident was on LWT's ‘Stange But True?’ documentary in 1994. Although he makes no mention of touching the craft, he was apparently close enough to be able to describe the craft's symbols:

It was about the size of a tank, it was triangular in shape. Underneath the craft was a high intensity white light emanating out of it and it was bordered by red and blue lighting, alternating. On the upper left side of the craft was an inscription. It measured six inches high of symbols. They looked familiar, but I couldn’t ascertain why. It slowly started moving back, weaving in and around the trees. It got about 40 feet away, then it raised up into the air and it shot off as fast as you could blink.

I believe that the documentary was produced before Penniston's hypnosis session in 1994. Penniston's 45-minute examination of the craft was, I believe, 'recalled' during his hypnosis session. Still, Penniston's account - even from the intial USAF witness statements - has always described a 'mechanical', triangular craft.

I think the problem with sceptics is that they never really deal with certain details, i.e. details which they CANNOT explain.

Let's try to stay on topic here - the skeptics (or 'debunkers') vs. 'believers' argument never ends well. In fact, I thought that Dave's article was fair (i.e - not dismissive). Conrad even closed his letter by saying "the Rendlesham Forest lights remain unexplained".

Halt has long alleged (or implied) that there was foul play after the incident occurred - witnesses were "messed with", evidence disappeared etc. I assume that Conrad is standing by the USAF and trying to maintain his integrity. By speaking out and working against the grain, Halt has probably caused quite a stir. I have no doubt that Conrad would have preferred Halt to keep quiet.

[Ignis Fatuus]

There are situations in the military where telling a lie becomes imperative. Probably better known as deception rather than lying, there are many, many reasons why deception is sometimes needed. Anyone who has ever served their country will understand this. Those who have not will never grasp the concept because there is a belief in many quarters of the civilian world that nothing must ever be secret and governments must disclose everything to everyone, regardless of the consequences.

Mmm another trusted old mechanism, invocation of Honor & Duty.
So when military personnel start seeding UFO stories, is that deception or the inability to keep a secret?
Who played the part of loose lips Archer soon after the event?

Halt has long alleged (or implied) that there was foul play after the incident occurred - witnesses were "messed with", evidence disappeared etc.

Haha the witnesses were messed with during the events
Old Hobbe got 'em real good.

[puddlepirate]

Well, if the need for deception is doubted then I suppose some would believe we should tell the Taliban in Afghanistan that we know where they are and we will be waiting at position so and so at 0800 ready to attack their position. We will be wearing uniform and waving the union flag. There will be fifty of us and we will arrive in armoured vehicles painted in a light shade of khaki. We will be carrying SA80s and using 5.56mm ammunition.....you can't possibly miss us so we look forward to seeing you. And of course the Taliban will oblige us by turning up on time, in lesser numbers and wait to be shot at. Or, perhaps, they might lay an ambush. NO! Surely not! But we told them the truth!! There are some things that need to be kept secret - it doesn't matter that we don't know why. If we had a need to know we would be told.

The UK thirty years ago is light years away from the UK today. Back then we were at the height of the Cold War, tensions were building, a new US President was due to take office, US diplomats were being held hostage in Tehran, PM Thatcher was in close league with the US, stealth was due to come into service.... all kinds of stuff. What should the USAF have done? Sent a full report to the Kremlin detailing absolutely everything they were doing or intended to do? Ditto MoD? Should the MoD have had cosy chats with the Politburo/KGB to keep them fully informed of all our secrets? Or should they /we have kept their /our mouths firmly shut about certain things they / we didn't want others to know about?

The RFI was a military issue. It involved military personnel therefore it was run in accordance with military rules - including Personal Security Pledges for US personnel and the OSA(1911) for any Brits involved. Thinking like a civvy and approaching this from the civvy angle instead of thinking like the military and viewing it from the military standpoint will serve no purpose. It will simply throw up false barriers through a lack of understanding.

Also, anyone too young to have been around during the Cold War will have problems understanding how things were back then.