May 2010 Transcript of Col Halt tape.

General discussion about the Rendlesham forest incident

May 2010 Transcript of Col Halt tape.

Postby Storm » Wed May 26, 2010 9:43 am

I have removed my transcript because although I believed it was accurate it was missing something very important. It was missing the ambient sounds. Listening to these I realised I had missed a great deal of background info. The new transcript which includes what I believe is the interrogation of SGT NEVILLES can be found here:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=751

And the extra parts of the transcript confirm I believe my findings about the radiation readings which can be found here:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=742

Last edited by Storm on Fri Jul 02, 2010 10:04 am, edited 12 times in total.
Storm
 
Posts: 75
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 7:46 pm

Re: May 2010 Transcript of Col Halt tape.

Postby John Burroughs » Wed May 26, 2010 4:48 pm

Storm
Wow!! Great job I would like to hear more on the Radition!!! Thanks John
John Burroughs
 
Posts: 964
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2008 9:16 pm

Re: May 2010 Transcript of Col Halt tape.

Postby Frank » Wed May 26, 2010 7:38 pm

Great job, Storm! That must have taken a lot of time!

This recording has been released through unofficial Air Force channels (according to Bruni's book) and that makes me a bit suspicious about it. I often wondered whether the order of the recorded fragments was manipulated.
Some points that seem to suggest this:
1. If you listen carefully, you hear different "agitation levels" in Col Halt's voice in different sections of the recording. These "agitation levels" vary a lot and do not seem to be in a natural order.
2. Halt's memo mentions a silent explosion into several objects. This is not found anywhere on the tape.
2. The tape ends in a peculiar way. While objects are still beaming lights down, Col Halt and his men decide to return and that's the end of the story.. (as if they were going for a cup of coffee).

My theory is (and I admit I do not have much evidence to back it up ..) that the part between "We’ve just scoped the first light where we've seen" and "Let's approach the edge of the woods up there. Can we do without lights? Let's do it carefully, come on.." belongs after the part at the end of the tape, as if they re-encountered the light on their way back. This may have been the start of the close encounter as described by Adrian Bustinza.

According to your transcript Col Halt says at the beginning of this section: We’ve just scoped the first light where we've seen. I listened to this part very often and to me it sounds like We've just found the first light where we've seen it. Maybe you can listen to this specific part again just to make sure?

At one point in this same episode Sgt Nevilles says There's two lights. One light to the right and one light to the left.
To me this fragment sounds like There's two lights. One light in front and one light to the left. Maybe you can check this one out too? (It's a minor point, but now we have such a good transcript we should all try to make it 100% accurate.)
Frank
 
Posts: 325
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 1:04 pm

Re: May 2010 Transcript of Col Halt tape.

Postby Frank » Wed May 26, 2010 7:50 pm

John Burroughs wrote:I would like to hear more on the Radition!!!


John, maybe this is of some help: There is a book written by Paul Hill, a well-respected NASA scientist that had a private interest in UFO’s. He was not allowed to speak on the subject as a NASA employee, but wrote his book after his retirement. The book was published after his death. He was a UFO witness himself.
The book is called “Unconventional Flying Objects – a scientific analysis” (ISBN 1-57174-027-9). Paul scientifically investigated UFO's and according to his investigations, UFO's are "highly radioactive" but their radiation does not have a high enough frequency to make their environment radioactive as well. This means that no significant residual radiation is to be expected. What does happen is that their radiation penetrates the soil beneath the UFO and leaves residual heat. Note that this was written years before the RFI ..
Frank
 
Posts: 325
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 1:04 pm

Re: May 2010 Transcript of Col Halt tape.

Postby Andrew Pike » Wed May 26, 2010 10:04 pm

I know that must have taken a long time to plough through and compile.

At the back of my book there is a detailed transcript I made from a second generation copy, it took me and others hours upon hours to work out what was being said and by whom.

As anybody who knows my writings on the subject will know, I come from a show biz background, my father was a sound engineer and record producer, so I had access to some fancy equipment to compile my version, we did just about everything possible with sound to squeeze the tape dry of its secrets!!

As an aside to the show biz bit, my brother was a director with Thames Television and Carlton TV when many of the Rendlesham programmes were being made (Strange but True in more ways than one!). That's one of the people who sit in the gallery talking down earpieces and "running VT".Boy are there some stories there to come out! He didn't work on the programmes but his work pals did. I refused to take part in the farce!

Before I retire for good at the end of this year, [pause for anybody to say thank god] I must dig out my copy of the transcript and compare it with this one, I have a feeling we found things not in this version (I'll give it a more detailed read later to be sure of that). Some of them about the radiation and about a possible edit! (have a look at a copy of the book if you have it). I can recall from memory that some bits are independently confirmed here and from a scientific point of view that is good, just goes to show how different techniques can combine to give the bigger picture.

It is interesting that in the MoD file on this point their scientists thought nothing could be gained by getting a copy of the tape from the Americans and listening to it! Brilliant scientific work from the MoD!!!

Anyway well done Storm.

Before I go my way and retire, I might give a final view on the Rendlesham science, I am the last of the scientists who were in our team to go! There are several options in the pipeline I am working on. For example, I might do this through a new newsstand mag launched in July in the UK by Philip Mantle, I have been meaning to email him to see if he is interested. If he is, get a copy, I am now a grumpy old man who does not give a shit about who thinks what and depending on how far I can go......!
No longer active in ufology or the RFI. I retired on 17 December 2010.
Andrew Pike
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 12:57 pm
Location: UK

Re: May 2010 Transcript of Col Halt tape

Postby Andrew Pike » Wed May 26, 2010 11:54 pm

Just had another quick read while I'm waiting for some data to come through here at work.

This might also be of interest to John.

Storm, you have some interesting bits I don't have in my version which I'm going to follow up on (although I haven't got my version here I have a good memory so much of this is going to be straight off the top of my head!).

Interesting that you also have Nevilles saying half a millirem or something similar. I clearly hear this as half a milliroentgen with my version. Also the value seven-tenths (0.7 in decimal form) is interesting. These suggest the values, as I have maintained for years, in the Halt memo should be 0.5 and 0.7 not .05 and .07. It seems the typist typed the 0 and . the wrong way around. There is much more on this in chapter five of my book, as well as the 0.1 milliroentgen value.

I also have Nevilles and Halt talking about the reading being steady. Where they confim to each other 'staying' steady, I have as 'saying' steady, you're saying steady...... Now if they are doing this it also, as I have said over the years, shows the claims of Frank Cross and others that the readings mean nothing unless steady can be blown out of the water as can their claims that the .05 reading is too low, if it is really meant to be 0.5 milliroentgens. My view is Nevilles and Halt knew the importance of steady readings and as I hear it they are checking this with each other.

I took background reading in the forest and got 0.012 miliroentgens (MoD have 0.015) so a bit of maths suggests levels may have been 80+ times higher than background depending on which figures are used. Again I go into all this in the book in detail.

I know the debunkers will continue to have a field day over the radiation details regardless of what is place in front of them, but, as I say, I'm a grumpy old man now who dosen't care, I'm happy I know what the details are and that is all that matters!

Anyway just a few initial thoughts based on this version and what I believe is on the tape.

Andrew
No longer active in ufology or the RFI. I retired on 17 December 2010.
Andrew Pike
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 12:57 pm
Location: UK

Re: May 2010 Transcript of Col Halt tape.

Postby Storm » Thu May 27, 2010 9:47 am

I'll respond to each point in turn as people posted but FIRST I have edited the above version. Thanks to Frank for that lol. Sorry about that. I have noticed that there is a radio com when Bustinza is asking for a light all with gas. This bit here has a new passage and I can work out the possible words but, the context eludes me so I have left it as this:

SGT BUSTINZA: [on a radio] ...Sergeant Bustinza to security control...
LT COLONEL HALT: We're still getting clicks
SGT NEVILLES:. . . .getting clicks.
RADIO: Job/Drop to focus.
SGT BUSTINZA: We're outta gas, could you make your way, east gate..
LT COLONEL HALT: Can you read that on the scale?

Job/drop to focus. It may be that the job/drop bit is the end of a word that was lost. I have also changed very slightly a couple of Halt's phrases but they really are minor and do not change the context of the whole.
Finally there is a slight change at the end where I notice Nevilles tell someone to relax and I can now hear the tape break. Its here

LT COLONEL HALT: Almost sporadic, but there's definitely something there, some kind of phenomena.
SGT NEVILLES: Relax. .
(BREAK IN TAPE)
LT COLONEL HALT: 3.05: At about err... 10 degrees

Sorry about the edits if anyone printed it off but I guess its a fluid thing isn't it as you listen more you hear more.

Frank I've listened through for the last two hours and its "scoped". The way I do it is by learning the beat that they are talking at. At first I was using Ridpaths transcript. So he had "we've just bumped into the first night bird we've seen". Which seemed odd to me and very random. So that gave me the idea to learn the beats of the syllables of each word at the tempo they speak so i.e Da da da da da da da da daaaaaaa. The "scoped" was the hardest. Then its a case of emulating their accent. Then slurring the words. So that bit turned into we juz bomped thafast light thaweseeeeeeeeeeeen. Rememebr at Halts speaking tempo. Doing that made me realise there was not enough time for "we've just bumped into the first night bird we've seen". The word "into" could not fit only the "to" bit. So that made the sentence make no sense. Halt is good at talking so that meant it had to be another phrase. I also noticed that he pronounced it ope, ope, so I went through many words - doped, groped hoped stoped until I came up with a few that were right ish. One of which was spooked. But still the oooo is wrong it was definitely o as in hope. Which left scoped. Then you have to see if your word fits in context, which scoped would. And as he has said later he was using a lens to view the object it made it into my final draft. I hope that explains. Re: "one light to the front/right, one light to the left" you are correct. I did the same here and the sound he makes is rooooooo not riiiiiiiii so I have edited it for you and for us lol. Please don't find any more lol.

ANDREW PIKE

Hello Andrew Pike and thank you very much for what you have said.

RE: Millirem Milliroentgen its millirem. There is not enough time as per the method above for him to say Milliroentgen but its not a biggy because the Millioentgen became the millirem.

With regard to what you said about the readings. The thing to remember is he says 7 tenths on the 0.5 scale. Now where did the tenths come from. The front of the dial is where. The dial is divided up into 10. So seven tenths is 70% of the scale. On the 0.5 scale this means roughly 0.3 to 0.4. The fact that you can hear the scale change dial, clicking though, says to me he was checking to see if it would read on the next scale up. 0.5 to 5.0 - so it must have been full scale deflecting at times on the 0 to 0.5 scale. That said if you convert 0.4 millirem/milliroentgens to sieverts you get 0.13(roughly), sieverts and thats not small. But I will start a new thread explaining this in more detail when I am more sure of my facts. When I am done with that bit I hope the debunkers will be more enlightened. But only if I am right lol.

Thank you for your comments.
Storm
 
Posts: 75
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 7:46 pm

Re: May 2010 Transcript of Col Halt tape

Postby IanR » Thu May 27, 2010 9:57 am

Andrew Pike wrote:Interesting that you also have Nevilles saying half a millirem or something similar. I clearly hear this as half a milliroentgen with my version. Also the value seven-tenths (0.7 in decimal form) is interesting. These suggest the values, as I have maintained for years, in the Halt memo should be 0.5 and 0.7 not .05 and .07. It seems the typist typed the 0 and . the wrong way around. There is much more on this in chapter five of my book, as well as the 0.1 milliroentgen value.

Not really. On the "point five scale", as they call it, the markings on the dial are 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 and 0.5 -- see the bottom picture in the sequence of dial faces on this page
http://www.alpharubicon.com/basicnbc/anpdr27ser.htm
Hence "seven tenths" would be seven tenths of 0.1, i.e. 0.07 as stated. "Half a millirem" would be 0.05, and their "three to four clicks max" would be 0.03 to 0.04. In other words, barely registering even though they were on the most sensitive scale.

Ian

PS: Didn't Halt type the memo himself?
IanR
 
Posts: 388
Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 12:13 pm

Re: May 2010 Transcript of Col Halt tape.

Postby Andrew Pike » Thu May 27, 2010 10:37 am

I am aware of all the point this scale, point that scale and how the maths works out, blah, blah, blah, blah, round and round in ever decreasing circles. God! There are pages of that in my book and I have repeated al the above and much more in various articles over the year. The point missed is on my copy Nevilles does say half a milliroentgen.

Anyway, sorry I spoke. I'll shut up now. Thank God I retire soon!
No longer active in ufology or the RFI. I retired on 17 December 2010.
Andrew Pike
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 12:57 pm
Location: UK

Re: May 2010 Transcript of Col Halt tape.

Postby Storm » Thu May 27, 2010 12:24 pm

I should have looked at your picture of the meter more closely before I dismissed it. You see it here as in the link you provided.

http://www.alpharubicon.com/basicnbc/anpdr27ser.htm

I know you have a problem Ian with the values in the radiation readings. And I think I have found the obvious answer.

It is the wording Nevilles uses to quantify the reading isn't it? That's what the whole problem is.

I say that the dial is divided up into 10. So therefore if I read the dial and use Nevilles readings I see 0.3 - 0.4 Milliroentgens. 7 tenths of the 1 to 10 scale. This means the readings matter. However you say no no no when Nevilles is reading it he reads it as, 7 of the first section of 10. So that would make the reading 0.07.

Here is where you I think you have made your error Ian. It may well be that the 1 to 10 scale is further divided up into 10 each section. But that gives a total of 100. 10 for each section of the larger 1 to 10 on the dial. We dont ever say 70 tenths or 7 tens (we people that use meters like this). We do however say 7 tenths and Nevilles does say that. He says 7 tenths, 7 out of the 10 available. It would have to be out of 10. Not as you would have it - 100. That would have to be said - 7 hundredths out of the 1 hundred available.
Storm
 
Posts: 75
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 7:46 pm

Re: May 2010 Transcript of Col Halt tape.

Postby IanR » Thu May 27, 2010 1:14 pm

Storm wrote:I say that the dial is divided up into 10.

But it isn't. It's divided into 5 as the picture shows. Each step is 0.1 mR and is further divided into 10. So seven tenths is 0.07. Halt tried to clarify when he said "Or seven units, let’s call it, on the point five scale".

BTW, good job on the new transcript. I'll try to find time to go through and listen again. If anyone isn't familiar with my own version, it's here
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/halttape.htm
Halt has seen and commented on it, and he didn't contest the "night bird" reading.

Ian
IanR
 
Posts: 388
Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 12:13 pm

Re: May 2010 Transcript of Col Halt tape.

Postby Storm » Thu May 27, 2010 1:30 pm

IanR wrote:
Storm wrote:I say that the dial is divided up into 10.

But it isn't. It's divided into 5 as the picture shows. Each step is 0.1 mR and is further divided into 10. So seven tenths is 0.07. Halt tried to clarify when he said "Or seven units, let’s call it, on the point five scale".

BTW, good job on the new transcript. I'll try to find time to go through and listen again. If anyone isn't familiar with my own version, it's here
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/halttape.htm
Halt has seen and commented on it, and he didn't contest the "night bird" reading.

Ian


NO Ian, the dial has three scales on it be fair. It has 1 to 10 markings just like a ruler, then these are further divided up into smaller divisions, 1 to 10. That makes the scale have a value of 100 small and 10 large calibrations.

Below that is the comparison scale that you are talking about. The reason it is below is because THAT value changes when you move the value knob through the different ranges. If you tried to incorporate that into the dial as well it would be one hell of a mess. And that dial does not even go up to 10 so how can you have a tenth of its value, you would have to guestimate a tenth of its value which would NOT be done under any circumstances.

And to further prove my point you have Nevilles saying "we're getting right at half a millirem" and Ian thats using the scale your talking about - meaning it was full scale deflecting on the 0 to 0.5 of a milliroentgen selection. Come on lol I am showing you high readings on whatever scale you want to use.
Storm
 
Posts: 75
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 7:46 pm

Re: May 2010 Transcript of Col Halt tape.

Postby IanR » Thu May 27, 2010 1:57 pm

Storm wrote:NO Ian, the dial has three scales on it be fair. It has 1 to 10 markings just like a ruler, then these are further divided up into smaller divisions, 1 to 10. That makes the scale have a value of 100 small and 10 large calibrations.

You must be looking at a different dial. The one shown here
http://www.alpharubicon.com/basicnbc/anpdr27ser.htm
has 50 small divisions. Every tenth one has a figure against it, and the figures run from 0.1 to 0.5. Turning the knob at left gives different sensitivities, which are calibrated 0-500, 0-50 and 0-5. In each case it's 50 small hatch marks on the dial, not 100, and there are five large divisions, not 10. Is this where our confusion arises?

Ian
Last edited by IanR on Fri May 28, 2010 7:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
IanR
 
Posts: 388
Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 12:13 pm

Re: May 2010 Transcript of Col Halt tape.

Postby Storm » Thu May 27, 2010 2:37 pm

I used this one

http://www.orau.org/ptp/collection/radiac/pdr27.htm

because the statement you made on your site was that the info was, it was a clumsy tool. For high radiation readings only. Since the picture on this site shows it being used for casualty clearance it proves it was not a clumsy tool. I am an expert in contamination and casualty clearance and you don't use a clumsy tool to clear a casualty. You would run the risk of sending someone back into an evacuated populace covered in contamination because the meter would be too clumsy to detect contamination.

However that said although the dial has 10 major section on the bit that looks like ruler, these are divided into 5 not 10 as I stated. So that has a total of 50 smaller markings. So Nevilles would have to have said 7, 50ths not hundredths. But that still does not change the fact that the only 10ths reference he could have made refers to the 10 divisions on the dial. In fact it strengthens the case for halt being confused. I assumed that each one was 10 when in fact they are 5. Halt could have seen what I missed using my poor quality close up of the dial. Seeing your dial I can see that it would confuse. I think its perfectly reasonable to assume that I am right.

If they were to read the ruler type scale and then try and convert it across on the 0 to 0.5 section below it, Halt would have said 7 units meaning whole sections, then thought no wait - are they divided into 10 as well, no they arn't, so I cant call it easily 10's of those units. So what do I call it, at which point he backs off to leave it to Nevilles.

However that all said an done - the only Tenths reference you can get from the instrument is of you look at the scale as divided mainly into 10, each of which is divided into 5, because if you use the smaller markings you would have to say 1 of 50, a 50th. I mean thats just obvious.
Storm
 
Posts: 75
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 7:46 pm

Re: May 2010 Transcript of Col Halt tape.

Postby Frank » Thu May 27, 2010 6:23 pm

Storm wrote:The "scoped" was the hardest. (....) Then you have to see if your word fits in context, which scoped would. And as he has said later he was using a lens to view the object it made it into my final draft.

Hi Storm,

I'm familiar with Audacity (the tool you have been using). It has many features under the "effect" menu, like noise cancelling and tempo adjustment. I've worked on this one sentence with these effects and now you can clearly hear Col Halt say:
"We just found the first light that we've seen". You can hear it for yourself if you goto http://drop.io/pa2lg8n and download halt-fragment.wav. (It also works with IE6, despite the possible warning, the files should stay on this site for about a year).

Now why would Col Halt call it "the first light" if there had not been other lights yet? Maybe because this fragment belongs somewhere else. I used some "artistic freedom" and changed the order of the fragments a bit to generate an alternative scenario. This can be found on the same site, file halt-edited.wav. Just a theory without much evidence, except the fact that it seems to fit Adrian Bustinza's story a little better. (Another possibility why he calls it the first light is because it disappeared earlier, so maybe I'm completely wrong ..).

(Concerning the radiation readings: IMHO they do not make or break this case, and get far too much attention. I think the heat radiation is more significant.)

Adrian's testimony to Ray Boeche (1984: (source: http://www.stealthskater.com/Documents/Woodbridge_01.pdf)
We started to search. … One individual had said that he had spotted the object -- like sitting on the ground. We proceeded to look and in the process found kind of like triangular tripods … burned into the [ground] at 3 different standpoints. … They were like it was a heavy object. They took radiation readings of the holes. And they got a radiation reading as I recall. Then I recall that we were walking through the woods and came upon the lights again. And that's when I first saw the object … We got -- I think it was the flight chief [Sergeant Ball] and I believe another individual officer. We kept searching the area -- kind of like trying to follow the object. And it was moving through the trees. And in the process, we came upon a yellow mist about 2-or-3 feet off the ground. It was like dew, but it ws yellow … like nothing I've ever seen before. … We kind of like ignored it. We were worried about the [other] object … to see if we could locate it again or catch up to it again …

We did see the object again. It was hovering low, like moving up-and-down anywhere from 10-to-20 feet -- back up, back down, back up. There was a red light on top and there were several blue lights on the bottom. But there was also like [a prism] … rainbow lights on top [and] several other colors of light. … It was a tremendous size. It even surprised me that it was able to fit into the clearing. A tremendous size -- and I use the word 'tremendous' carefully. It was a round, circular shape. I hate to say like a "plate", but it was thicker at the center than it was at the edge.
Frank
 
Posts: 325
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 1:04 pm

Re: May 2010 Transcript of Col Halt tape.

Postby IanR » Thu May 27, 2010 6:58 pm

Storm wrote:the only Tenths reference you can get from the instrument is of you look at the scale as divided mainly into 10, each of which is divided into 5, because if you use the smaller markings you would have to say 1 of 50, a 50th. I mean thats just obvious.

I must admit that your interpretation is an imaginative one, as I would have thought it obvious that the tenths they were referring to were the ten divisions of each 0.1, particularly given the overall context of ”minor clicks”, “a little pulse”, “three to four clicks” and “four clicks max” as we hear on the tape. But the real danger it seems to me is that you are trying to rewrite Halt’s evidence. Frank on this forum would appreciate this quote from his hero Sherlock: “It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.” This applies also to any attempt to “rearrange” the chronology of Halt’s tape to fit an assumed scenario.

A couple of points of information: it was Englund who made the “seven tenths” call, not Nevels. And the opinions I quote about the readings and the radiation meter come from the manufacturers of the instrument and the National Radiological Protection Board, not Professor Frank Close [sic].

Ian
IanR
 
Posts: 388
Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 12:13 pm

Re: May 2010 Transcript of Col Halt tape.

Postby Frank » Thu May 27, 2010 8:48 pm

Just to lighten things up a bit:

Did you know the Dutch have invented a great device to detect alien life?
I wish Col Halt had one with him ..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neoUi4poCXI
(and be careful with your comments .. I'm Dutch :)

And Ian, even without radiation levels (and also without rearranging Halt's tape), this case to me still stands as unexplained. I have not heard a convincing explanation of what's on the tape so far (let alone for the case as-a-whole), unless one is willing to violate Holme's law you stated earlier. I think you can agree on that, otherwise I can not understand why you are still this active on the forum.

That's what connects us all here - a fascination for a fascinating case. Let's not forget that.
Frank
 
Posts: 325
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 1:04 pm

Re: May 2010 Transcript of Col Halt tape.

Postby Andrew Pike » Thu May 27, 2010 9:31 pm

I said I was going to shut up, however!

Let us be blunt Ian, if you do not believe there is anything to this case, or indeed you believe all UFOs can be explained by astronomical events and similar natural phenomena, why are you still here? Because it is only here, i.e. this site, isn't it?

You only come on this UFO site. I am on all the major UFO sites yet I only ever encounter you here! Why is that? Unless you hide behind a username on the other sites which seems an unlikely assumption. So why? Why keep on with this ridiculous farce?

Sorry but I just don't understand it. Your profile says you are an 'Explainer' but be honest are you really? Not in my opinion, you come across as exactly the opposite to me.
No longer active in ufology or the RFI. I retired on 17 December 2010.
Andrew Pike
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 12:57 pm
Location: UK

Re: May 2010 Transcript of Col Halt tape.

Postby IanR » Fri May 28, 2010 12:18 am

Silvertop wrote:I've often wondered just how much radiation there as you can hear the geiger counter on the tape going crackers.

I think you'll find that's a sound effect put on by the TV company. They were pretty imaginative with their 'reconstruction', but hey, that's show business.

Ian
IanR
 
Posts: 388
Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 12:13 pm

Re: May 2010 Transcript of Col Halt tape.

Postby IanR » Fri May 28, 2010 12:39 am

Andrew Pike wrote:Let us be blunt Ian, if you do not believe there is anything to this case, or indeed you believe all UFOs can be explained by astronomical events and similar natural phenomena, why are you still here? Because it is only here, i.e. this site, isn't it.

As you know, I am interested in the way in which people misidentify various natural and man-made objects as UFOs, particularly astronomical objects. I don't spend time on other UFO sites, but I do keep an eye on developments on this case because I've been involved with it for so long and I'm always happy to explain my own research on it.

I'm happy to confirm to our other posters that I don't need a primer in radioactive decay. But I must admit that I'm not an expert on alien propulsion systems and I was simply wondering what sort of fuel they use for their leaky reactors.

Ian
IanR
 
Posts: 388
Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 12:13 pm

Next

Return to The Rendlesham forest incident

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests