May 2010 Transcript of Col Halt tape.

[John Burroughs]

Larry you interested on doing somthing on the forum Sunday night?

[Storm]

Well I am looking into the radiations readings. John you know what I am talking about. Its gojng to take a little time.

Meanwhile I have also been looking at the transcript and have a few theories. They will have to wait till tomorrow though because I have left them at home. lol. So sorry bout that. But I can safely say now it may well throw a few things in the mix lol. Which is helpful isnt it.

[larry warren]

Hi john, would love to ! Silver, can you or someone tell me how to do that ?
john will call on sat .
Further to garry H, john must have responded at the same time as me, and he is correct, but i have faith in garry that as hes been working on the script and learns more about the complex nature of the events, he will adjust the screenplay, as they are always a work in progress and john also is correct that there are many experiances to tell by many people,due to the "medling"
with me and others that would be a hard one to do! john and jims account is more compelling
than a streight OFFICIAL time line, and then you have to entertain your audience! not easy in the sex in the city world we live in! The idiot public syndrum rules at this time, sad news indeed.
later i will post my time line as i think i know it from gaurdmount to the forrest and then back to base, and hope you find some value in it.
Cheers

[Storm]

Starlite Scope - Star gazer etc...

AN/PVS-2

Specifications

Field of View 10.7 degrees
Magnification 4 x
Resolution 36 lp (typical)
Dioptre Adjustment +4 to -5 dioptre
Objective lens 95mm F/1.2
Focus range 20foot to infinity
Battery type (not known)
Battery life Approx 20 hrs at room temp
Weight w/batteries 7.5 lbs
Operating Temp Range -51 c to +52 c
Storage Temp range -51 c to +85 c
Reticle T Cross

Source - http://www.morovision.com/pdf/PVS-2_weaponsight.pdf

Interestingly this explains why Halt says on the tape "now your gonna have to go back bout 15 feet or more" Else it would not have been able to focus.

[Daniel]

I finally went through Storm's transcript and found it quite good to follow through with the audio. Here are some excerpts, from the transcript, refering to heat:

Code: Select all

LT COLONEL HALT: The indentations looks like something twisted as it drop.. you know... as it sat down on it, looks like something took something and sat it down and twisted it from side to side.
LT COLONEL HALT: Getting a definite heat reflection off the tree, about three to four feet off the ground?
LT COLONEL HALT: The same place where the spot is, we're getting a heat. .
LT COLONEL HALT: Three trees in the area immediately adjacent to the site within ten feet of the suspected landing site; we're picking up heat reflection off the trees.
LT COLONEL HALT: You're right there's a little white streak on the tree.
LT ENGLUND: Indicates er heat...

I'm sure the indentations would end up looking like 'rabbit scratchings' if there was enough heat to dry up the indentations, to form cracks, and then dew in the morning to re-soften the soil. Still it would be interesting to know how they were detecting heat.

[Storm]

EMAIL TO GARY HESELTINE - REPLY AS FOLLOWS.


(Hope this helps with that line of enquiry so Gary does not get inundated with everyone asking for the same thing.)


Craig,

Thank you for the email.

I have created a timeline but at this stage I will not release it as a public domain document. The reason is simple. I am in contact with HALT, PENNISTON, BURROUGHS AND WARREN and as my work continues, it is a work in progress.

I went onto the forum and read some of the messages.

There is a misconception I think with some of the responses.

Yes, I have been working with Halt primarily because in terms of trying to get this story made into a film I have always believed that its best chance of succeeding was having HALT and his senior rank as the main hook as it were.

I obviously have worked with him from his perspective and his recollections but the script wouldn't be complete without reference to Jim Penniston's and John Burroughs first night which is absolutely critical to the whole proceedings. Halt has has had little or no imput in this part of the script whatsoever.

In writing a coherent script that is based on a real incident I have to take account of all the principal events and pull it together. The difficulty with Rendlesham is that there is a great deal of confusion.

Before I began asking HALT things about the timeline I had to create the timeline in the first place which I did over a 4 month period. The true timeline begins before Xmas with a report of a UFO radar sighting a couple of weeks prior to the main events to the point where the MOD receive HALT'S memorandum.

What I tried to do was to create a timeline based on accepted facts and known corroborative testimony rather than just accepting everything that's been writen.

I would estimate that at the moment we have between 60-70% of the pieces of the jigsaw in place. I doubt we will ever reach beyond 80%.

What I can say is that based on what we have now we still have the finest case in Britain and one of the best in the world.

Unfortunately people have a hard time accepting that we will never know everything.

What I can tell you that the lighthouse theory has never stood up to scrutiny nor has the animal markings explanation.

I stood at the edge of the farmers field with Halt (and he said that the red ufo he had followed through the trees) and he made it clear to me that the object he saw was hovering approximately 15 feet from the ground and was the size of a car. Its glow was reflecting onto the windows of the farmhouse - to the left of the farmouse. He then pointed to the right of the farmhouse and to a small clearing way off on the horizon - the lighthouse! Two different places entirely. The lighthouse theory was and always has been ludicrous because it bears little or no resemblance to the corrobarated testimony of many of the keys players in the incident.

The script is in development at the moment and is still evolving. People will have to be patient.

I am more than happy for you to quote any or all of this email on the forum on my behalf.

Gary

[Deep Purple]

For what its worth my thoughts are :-

JB has done a great job at trying to understand what happened but also keeping the peace, hats off to him
I agree with China Racer-- lets start our own time line on this forum-- we have principal witnesses of our own, we dont need to necessarily fall into line with others. Maybe Admin could sort out a section where we could put this and be updated by recognised forum members?
Ian Ridpath should be included in our activities, he is polite, diligent and if we cant persuade him to change his mind then I dont think we have the truth.
I beleive as Obs said we were close to it at one stage but have be sidelined away. The number of witnesses that suddendly sprouted and could give all sorts of detail about everything but Rendlesham was suspicious
Beware of disinformation-- always think why are they saying that?
Regular members have had their computers messed with.
I'm not sure if it was a UFO event or man made--- but I am sure something HAPPENED
Im off on holiday for a week

[China_Racer_1]

So if Gary has done all the ground work on a time line then perhaps we are re-inventing the wheel to do it all again ourselves.

If john and Larry are working with him then they can help fill in the gaps a well as some of the other witnesses.

This guy sounds like he has his shit together well enough.

I mentioned to Someone that in any investigation you need to take all the witnesses stories. Put them all together and in the middle of it all is a close reflection of the truth.

As an ex auxiliary police officer, the son of a police chief, the brother of a police detective, and the nephew of a Sherriff departments captain, I know for sure if you have 3 people in the same place at the same time witnessing the same crime you will get 3 separate perspectives on the event. That's human nature.

So yo need to collect al statements and sort it out and find the truth.

T sounds like Gary is doing just that. The biggest piece that is missing are other witnesses.

Every open says 20 people were Involved but I only see a small representation of that who are active in this.

Without any more witnesses willing to come forward we will ultimately only come to one truth based off what we have. With more witnesses we can expand on that truth and fill in some gaps.

WE NEED MORE WITNESSES. Plain and simple. Otherwise we are banging our heads against the wall.


As far as who is "Allowed" to join in and make comments. hey a devils advocate is often needed to put a different perspective on things.

I have played this role even if I believe in a case. I have been the odd man out on purpose to question what other investigators have gathered and surmised.

To say we only need likeminded people on this case is ignorant of good investigative work. You need a balance even if it is the biggest debunker in the world. You need a balance to question the conclusions we come up with. Waste of time perhaps but a proper investigation can then no longer be put under the spotlight and said to be “ONE SIDED” if we collaborate with forces that do not agree with what we believe.

Time is important and wasting time is also a factor but having no cold eye review is counterproductive. When I plan and schedule a refinery shut down a panel of planners and project managers from a separate refinery are ALWYS flown in for a “Cold eye review” of what we have come up with to see if it is feasible. That's just good management and it helps mitigate any errors or potential errors to the plan.

We need to put our emotions to the side and look at this cold heartedly with an investigative mind that will save time right there in mitigating petty arguments. Facts are facts and we need to stick to the facts.

Just like Detective Friday always used to say in the show Dragnet. “Just stick to the Facts sir”

[Storm]

To say we only need likeminded people on this case is ignorant of good investigative work. You need a balance even if it is the biggest debunker in the world. You need a balance to question the conclusions we come up with. Waste of time perhaps but a proper investigation can then no longer be put under the spotlight and said to be “ONE SIDED” if we collaborate with forces that do not agree with what we believe.

Well clearly that was aimed at me so I will respond, apologies for the long post in advance.

I said that if you want to prove there is a god you do not ask an atheist to help you do so because they are coming from a place of non belief. And you have to waste time and resources trying to convince them to even believe you have a "point", before you can even get started on complete proof. So you choose a historian. Meaning you have to look at what you have objectively NOT from a point of non belief. That also implies you cannot be a staunch bible thumping zealot to have an effective input. An impartial historian can look at what you do have and come to the best conclusions.

However - they MUST have credibility as well. And you judge that on the measure of their work. On its accuracy. AND on its tone. Because tone gives you a clear indication of their perspective. After all if you are reading their work you want to know it is as accurate as it could be. This can be corroborated via source or credentials. And you want to ensure a neutral perspective so you remove the danger of bias in their conclusions. I mean your not going to legitimately argue against those points are you China, at the risk of showing extreme bias on your part.

Right, well moving on with this then, after looking at the "tone" of Mr Ridpaths website I was appalled at the mocking tone of it. For example Mr Ridpath is happy to (use Col Halt as a hook) I believe was the phrase used by Gary, in order to get people to look at the site (transcript Corroborated by Col Halt himself) and yet the comments throughout on Ian's part are biased, mocking, and despite what someone said yesterday the end result is rudeness. I don't think you could legitimately argue that point either. I mean if you did, someone I am sure will start cutting and pasting examples. There is always someone who does that on forums to shoot you down. As for his diligence "I got the information from the manufacturers of the instrument themselves", which is interesting because they ceased to trade in 1954. They were taken over but sell housewares now, but I am still waiting to hear back from them in case they may have a dusty cache of info. Well I say they, but that is is misleading. I refer to the makers of the AN/PDR-27/F - notice the F. Well ok what model was it. We don't know. A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S or T, Did he contact them all one wonders, because several models seem to have different makers. I know that was unkind though accurate. But when "you" or others raise someone up on a dias "I" have to make sure they deserve to sit there or I would just be a sheep following you, and I don't even know you. And if you take Ian's biased info as gospel then it has potential to lead you off on the wrong road. I don't think you would argue that point either.

Despite your comment of ignorance I hope I have shown you I am not ignorant of the obvious floor in your comment aimed at me.

As to the role of debunker, and your other comments I feel from "its" tone, that you are trying to show me something I have missed. lol. I'm not an idiot. Neither am I a UFO crazed zealot demanding Ian be hanged for daring to postulate another premise. A different perspective is essential. I was a member of a problem solving forum. However someone like Ian though not as closed minded nor superior, would always come in and rubbish all the hard work with silly theories. Mock everyone. It was tiresome at times and yes it did waste time. So the site organiser decided to create a section that only us like minded peeps could get into. The others could not even see it. It was so named The Inner Sanctum. Very exclusive you know. The trouble was once our knowledge base had been exhausted that was it. We had no one to bounce ideas off and doubt crept in. Because we could not be totally sure we were right. Had we covered all the angles.

So you need someone, credible, neutral ish, to look at everything and bounce ideas off. But the credibility I am afraid has to be sacrosanct. If someone omits facts to bolster their position of credibility and you support that, you are an idiot. Not you China, just someone who does do that.

Deep Purple I may as well have an opinion in your direction as well, I was going to leave it be but sorry dude:

Ian Ridpath should be included in our activities, he is polite, diligent and if we cant persuade him to change his mind then I dont think we have the truth.

so if we can't persuade Ian that what we are saying is correct, then we are wrong. LMAO WTF???

*

Debunking - I can do that - lets debunk Deep Purple.

If I were a government agent and my job was to steer people away from the truth so they never found out the truth what would I do . . . . think . . . think . . . oh yeah say the most staunch sceptic about the Rendlesham Forest Incident is the one we all need to convince and if he says its not right, then we are wrong. Then create unease by suggesting that everyone is a potential dis-informer who is new ish and not been around from the beginning. Then I would limit the input of info to the discussion by suggesting that only those that had been around for a while had anything credible to offer. That should do it I reckon.

Debunking is'nt very helpful is it.

A sceptical person who looks at ALL the facts and has nothing to lose is the best person to sit opposite someone who has a lot of facts but just does not know what they all may mean. But one fact is always overlooked by sceptics in this case. And that fact is this, you have many people all saying the same thing. Most are credible as credible goes in these things (by that I mean Airforce officer usually trumps Mavis the housewife from Trent). They say they saw a craft or crafts. Just ask yourself this, you asked them the questions, and yet you were not there, you dont like the answers, your missing a huge LUMP of evidence (your own person experience of the event) and yet your quite willing to have a totally self convincing opinion that they saw something else. LOL, sorry I trust someone as truthful until they are caught out in a lie, I dont try and make them look a liar to make my opinion a fact.

And finally I do not think I after this, the fact that I am bothering, and the fact that I freely posted my transcript instead of squirrelling it away where lesser academics will never see it, that I can have the accusation nor implication of Ignorance, dis-info agent or pro UFO zealot aimed in my direction again.

[larry warren]

Col Halt and his team were investigating a diffrent landing then the site of John Jim and eds
landing ! he was not investagating the first nights events , that craft left and then a number returned whilst all were in the forrest and diffrent parts of the field. why do people still seem to think that halt was investigating John, Jim, and Eds site 2 nights later? when that investigation
took place later in the morning after the first nights events. Good points steve! however moor
than 20 were out on the 3rd night.

[John Burroughs]

Larry
When Col halt went out into the Forrest he was taken to the site of our Incident by Lt England! They were working at our site when they had there encounter! I hope your Mom will be OK! John

[apt]

Well, this case seems destined to remain steeped in debate - even amongst the principal players! My thoughts are that perhaps the focus for any proposed meeting to mark the 30th anniversary should be to manifest a concrete time line amongst yourselves. To try and use this opportunity to best document the chronology of John's and subsequent nights in the interest of bringing to a conclusion any debate.

If Gary, understandably wishes to keep his version under wraps, then that is entirely his prerogative, but it need not necessarily mean that you guys cannot come together once and for all, 3 decades on and put down everything in an effort to create a solid record for the benefit not just of yourselves but ultimately greater disclosure on the subject as a whole.

My suggestion then would be to use this forum as a means to publish your version of events. Who was there, what they were doing, where they had come from, when they arrived, departed, etc. on each of the dates. Maybe I'm being too simplistic, but have you guys ever actually embarked upon such a task? Surely this could prove useful to all involved in uniting the various witnesses, corroborating the facts and bringing forth further witnesses.

Even an incomplete picture would be preferable to what we have at the moment. A general framework on which to base and fill in the details. It can only help, can't it to do such a thing? Again, I'm a relative newcomer to this case, so forgive me if this has already been done. But viewing from afar it would seem to be the best course of action to aim for if as the previous two posts would suggest there is still apparent confusion as to the fundamental sequence of events.

What do you guys think? John, Larry? I'm surprised if this has not already been done between you guys, but welcome the thought of seeing it all potentially unravel on this board if it hasn't.

apt

[tpreitzel]

My thoughts are that perhaps the focus for any proposed meeting to mark the 30th anniversary should be to manifest a concrete time line amongst yourselves.

My suggestion then would be to use this forum as a means to publish your version of events. Who was there, what they were doing, where they had come from, when they arrived, departed, etc. on each of the dates. Maybe I'm being too simplistic, but have you guys ever actually embarked upon such a task? Surely this could prove useful to all involved in uniting the various witnesses, corroborating the facts and bringing forth further witnesses.

Even an incomplete picture would be preferable to what we have at the moment. A general framework on which to base and fill in the details. It can only help, can't it to do such a thing? Again, I'm a relative newcomer to this case, so forgive me if this has already been done. But viewing from afar it would seem to be the best course of action to aim for if as the previous two posts would suggest there is still apparent confusion as to the fundamental sequence of events.

I agree. The personal witnesses to the RFI incident must gather among themselves and analyze their experiences into some comprehensible whole ... as much as possible. Personally, I suspect the witnesses will likely never be satisfied completely with their answers, but they should proceed regardless among themselves. I've long thought that seeking direct participation from the public in their search for truth simply decreases their prospect of consensus. As with a jury, no juror is truly objective as he brings external influences on his life with him in rendering a decision. So it will be with these men. Listen to others, but deliberate among yourselves.

[Storm]

Just a quick post. Just finshed roughing out a description of the radiation readings. Should be ready bout lunchtime tomorrow for anyone who's interested. Have a good evening.

[John Burroughs]

Folks
Steve and I are here steve trying to get ahold of Larry lets get this party started!!

[Storm]

Will post the transcript timings tomorrow. i.e. How long it takes each of them to say something. Once they say a time and then talk, we can say what time it was when they finished. It may prove useful.

[Storm]

Going to look at the map next and try and plot everything on it. I know Puddlepirate and others worked on this - I read the thread yesterday and it was fascinating. Should take about two weeks or maybe less.

[Storm]

There is clearly a dog barking at about 13 mins into the tape. The stomach grumble noise is heard but just before it a dog barking. A long way off but now that I can hear it, its very clear. Certainly a barnyard animal. Well here in Cornwall anyway. Virtually every farm has a dog or three round here.

[Daniel]

Sounds like three barks.

Edit: Maybe the fox again.

[Storm]

Sounds like three barks.

Edit: Maybe the fox again.

No deffinately a dog barking. I will even have a go at judging the distance as about quarter
of a mile away. I hear the same thing every night from the farm a quarter of a mile away. It's an alarm call warning off something. It would keep doing it till whatever it is, is gone or has made the dog realise it's inferior. It even sounds like the dog down the road which is a bull mastiff (I think that's it's breed).