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

[John Burroughs]

To All
I would like to take the time to clear the air on a few things. First of all I have been aware of Col Conrads letter since early Feb. Dave Clarke who I have been in contact with over the past months brought my attention to the fact he had received a letter from Conrad he didnot release the whole letter to me but did sumerize what Conrad had stated! The thing I find interesting is that he asked me not to talk about it because he didnot have Conrads permission to publish it! I honored that request! What did happen was Ian Ridpath who is a friend of Mr Clarke started posting bits and pieces of that letter on the forum and his web page and as usual tilting it in his and Mr clarke favor! Mr Clarke is correct in saying I was the one who suggested he contact Col Conrad which he did and as you can see he did get a responce back! As you can also see Col Halt
and Robert Hasting had a exchange with Mr Clarke and Col Halt challanged General Williams and Col Conrad to respond to what Col Halt has gone on record saying happened at Bentwaters. At that pointe Mr Clarke choose to publish Col Conrads letter without Col Conrads permission! Well Col Halt and Robert Hastings now have somthing they can respond back to and Jim and I are waiting for that responce! Jim and i will respond to what Dr Clarke has to say but we feel that Hasting and Halt should have the first crack! I have been following with great interest the threads that have started up after Dave Clarke article and I hope you continue on with them! The difference between Ian Ridpath,Dr Clarke and I is I honor all request by people who I come in contact with who provide me information that for what ever reason expect it to remain confidental unless they give me permission otherwise! It will also be interseting to see if Hasting and Halt respond back now that there is somthing to respond to I know I would!

[AgentAppleseed]

It would seem I got here late, and certain issues have been cleared up but heres my two cents.

LOL! That`s the spirit Silvertop. Clarke is most definitely a bits and pieces man. . A cut and paste man. A collage artist!

As Sherlock might say-"The game is most definitely afoot", and this latest round began when Nevels came out with his testimony. People are getting nervous, and I for one am delighted!!! By my estimation, Its about time they should be getting nervous. Its about time, they started losing some sleep.

[DC]-"Col Conrad’s story puts a completely different perspective on the case and directly challenges the story of his deputy, Charles Halt."
Clarke begins, as per usual, with a totally sensationalistic comment, designed to throw the reader off kilter while meanwhile allowing Clarke, to quickly move in, and begin pumping air into his new piece, while laying his "golden egg" in the minds of the reader while they recover from the shock. Not until later, upon the completion of the first read through, does the old familiar farting sound begin to reach our ears, of air escaping from out the ass of this latest pumped up, and over inflated attack on the witnesses credulity and the cases validity in general. Minus Conrad`s statement, its all been said before. How many times can Clarke re-arrange and repackage the same piece over and over until he realizes he`s got zippo.

[Ted Conrad]:- “Col Halt can believe as he wishes. I’ve already disputed to some degree what he reported. However, he should be ashamed and embarrassed by his allegation that his country and England both conspired to deceive their citizens over this issue. He knows better.”

Well, if Conrad knows better, maybe he should start doing some talking. If I`m not mistaken, Its long past high time!! And when I say he needs to start doing some talking, I`m not talking about hiding behind David Clarke and having him do it for him either.

[DC]- Col Conrad told me he finds it very difficult to comment “given how huge the story has grown from its humble beginnings to the sensation it has now become”. He adds that he wants to “avoid the appearance of validating any of the stories have sprung up in the years since (1980).”

The statement above is typical of Clarkes tendency to quote selectively while leaving hugely ambiguous gaps in order to keep the reader guessing as to what exactly is meant by the underlined. Note also, that he has quoted twice here. I believe that the first quote is entirely unrelated to the second. Those two quotes were never meant to be joined together in the unholy matrimony that has given birth to the context Clarke has delivered them unto, here. What is meant by "any of the stories". Clarke, like Ridpath before him, is playing with the matches again.

[Ted Conrad]: - Three security SP’s were dispatched to investigate. They returned after more than an hour and went off duty at their shift change early that morning, at around 0700
Now..., I remember..., some time ago, Clarke and Ripath kicked up a huge stink, about how people just couldn`t have been out in the forest for the length of time they were claimed to have been out there. Subsequently I don`t recall Clarke ever having acknowledged the fact he has been proven to be wrong about that either. Anyway, he conveniently sidesteps around the issue here.

[Ted Conrad]: -“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].

Taken at face value, and in the context Clarke wants us to believe the statement was made, it would be fair to say that what is being suggested here, is that Conrad`s statement contradicts Halts. However, this is yet again another shining example of Clarkes cutting and pasting. A totally ambiguous statement, with no reference to hour of the day or night, which is meant to lead the reader to the conclusion that Conrad is stating that all of the above was happening as Col Halt was having his encounter. There are no details, such as what direction Conrad was facing, where he was looking etc. Was Conrad in a position suitable enough to have allowed him a visual perspective on either Halts position, or that of the object in question? You know....the usual iddy biddy details like those, that Clarke would usually crucify somebody over. Col Conrad needs to come out and speak with the people directly involved! My advice-Unless you hear it from Conrad`s mouth, don`t believe a word of it!!

[Ted Conrad]: -1.At the end of the session, I asked him to draw a picture of the object he had seen, which he did freehand." 2.-"Jim Penniston is the only first-hand observer I was able to interview"

1.-Just goes to show that Penniston has been drawing pictures of the damned thing for years, and Clarke and Ridpath have known it all along!! But for the sake of Jim Pennistons artistic aesthetic, the drawings have always been of a triangular object just like what he describes, both now and then.
2.-Hmmm, that`s interesting, I wonder why? Does Conrad mean the only witness he ever interviewed, or at a particular time?

[Ted Conrad]: -“As mentioned above, we had people in position to validate Halt’s narrative, but none of them could…"
Well now, that`s quite strange considering there seems to be quite a few who can validate Halt`s narrative.
Again, in light of the strange nature of this comment, its more likely, that this quote, has been taken out of context, and Conrad was referring to being unable to validate Halts claims at a particular point in time.
Also, the use of the word narrative is interesting, considering the word narrative is usually used, when referring to something that is written down, ie, a report, or a written story, (narrative being a written description of events in the order they are supposed to have happened).
Now take note of the following:-The previous three paragraphs, are made up of quotations from Conrad. Clarke presents these three paragraphs as though Conrad were describing one long continuous series of events, as they happened, and, in the order they happened. However, in the beginning of the fourth paragraph Conrad uses the word narrative and this gives me a clue that Conrad is referring to a written report. If so, this calls into question the idea that the three previous paragraphs were ever meant to be chained together in one long continuous statement by their original author, and most certainly calls into question, the idea that the quote above was meant to be taken in the same context as the previous paragraphs. This re-arranging of words, paragraphs and whole statements is typical of Clarkes treatment of witness testimony.


[Ted Conrad]: -There were no conspiracies, no secret operation, no missile accident, and no harsh interrogations by OSI [Office of Special Investigations, USAF]. I was in a position to know about the OSI. It was a special organisation with a special mission. They had their own chain of command, but in practice the OSI commander kept me informed of any ongoing investigations they had. Someone reporting unexplained lights would not normally have been subject to OSI attention. They were after serious lawbreakers, including drug traffickers, security risk, and the like.
Interestingly, Conrad seems to deny the incident could have been caused by any secret military activities at all. He seems to be adamant about it too! I don`t buy it! Although I agree that the incident was not a military exercise of some sort I would question any claims made to a certainty from people who were not directly involved at close quarters with the phenomenon itself.

[Ted Conrad]: - They had their own chain of command, but in practice the OSI commander kept me informed of any ongoing investigations they had
This is conjecture on Conrad`s part. Maybe his ego would like him to think he knew about everything that went on. Even "Need to know"? Personally, Id take that with a grain of salt, however, that doesn`t mean I don`t think its a fair statement for Conrad to have made. I don`t dispute anything Conrad says! I dispute that Clarke can be trusted in any way at all, to deliver any of Conrad`s statements in the same context they were intended, based on prior experience.

[DC]-“In the final analysis, the Rendlesham Forest lights remain unexplained. I think they are explainable, but not with the information we have been able to gather…
They certainly wont be explained by David Clarke anyway, not when he continues to intervene in events surrounding the release of information about this event in the most strangest manner, and when he quotes, misquotes, cuts, copies and pastes his way to whatever collage of truth, he.., like Ridpath before him, ...would like to be remembered for!

Question 1-[DC]: Can you confirm Halt's story about the airman interrupting the party saying "It's back"
[Ted Conrad]: The comment "it's back" was relayed to me by Lt. Col. Halt. I don't know who told him that or why. There were no claimed sightings that night. The statement might have been simply an "attention getter".
We all know there were sightings that night. It was Englund who said "Its back" or "The UFO is back" or something to that effect. Of course it would be easier for Clarke, if it were true that Col Halt was lying and nobody made that statement at all. Something which; I hasten to add he cant prove. The words "attention getter" remind me of how Halt described his report to the M.O.D when he explained that the report was intended to try and hook the M.O.D into opening an investigation into the incident.
Question 2-[DC]: Was any of the radio chatter from Halt's team that you overheard recorded?
[Ted Conrad]: None of Lt. Col. Halt's radio comments were recorded to my knowledge. There were recordings made on an audio tape machine that he was carrying at the time.
The other witnesses claim security control recorded the nights proceedings . Cant wait to hear those particular tapes!Conrads response is boilerplate
Question 3-[DC]: Why did it take almost 3 weeks for you to report the incident to the MoD?
[Ted Conrad]: I thought my previous narrative covered the timing of our report fairly well. It took us a few days to sum it all up and get it to Moreland's office. I can't speak for the timing after that.
Clarke implies, as he has done for years, that the incident was dealt with, in a lackadaisical fashion, which to him, suggests the entire matter was treated as a non-issue or a matter of very low priority. By the way, he`d expects you to believe it too! All of the reasons for this have already been explained.
Question 4-[DC]: In your letter you say you think the incident is "explainable"; what explanation do think might apply?
[Ted Conrad]: The search for an explanation could go many places including the perpetration of a clever hoax. Natural phenomenon such as the very clear cold air having a theoretical ability to guide and reflect light across great distances or even the presence of an alien spacecraft. If someone had the time, money and technical resources to determine the exact cause of the reported Rendlesham Forest lights, I think it could be done. I also think the odds are way high against there being an ET spacecraft involved, and almost equally high against it being an intrusion of hostile earthly craft.
While being drunk, blind, and having a hell of an imagination to boot, maybe, just maybe then, I might think very clear cold air and reflected light could look like an alien spacecraft!! Lets have an investigation then, lets open it all up and see what really went on, that`s what everybody wants, isnt it?
Question 5-[DC]: Why do you think the incident has been sensationalised?
[Ted Conrad]: Dr. Clarke, I think you are best qualified to answer this question. There are many reasons for the exponential expansion of UFO stories. All media need news to sell. When news is short, more gets invented. People want to be important to the extent they help make up some news.
Clarke and Ridpath have sensationalized the most flimsiest evidence imaginable, to suit their personal theories!
[DC]: Col Halt is on record (2009) as saying the UFOs were ET craft and the event has been covered up by the US and UK governments etc, what's your comment on that?
Question 6-[Ted Conrad]: Col Halt can believe as he wishes. I've already disputed to some degree what he reported. However, he should be ashamed and embarrassed by his allegation that his Country and England both conspired to deceive their citizens over this issue. He knows better.
I cant wait to hear Conrad justify that statement in his own words, on his own terms, in an arena where there are no agendas. Clarke, running out of questions for which he can gain no satisfactory answers, decides to continue by repeating himself.
Question 7-[DC]: Can you comment on the ground traces and alleged higher radiation readings detected in the forest?
[Ted Conrad]: Sgt. Nevels, the Geiger counter operator, initially reported slightly elevated readings. after his first visit to the location. However on a subsequent verbal report, he gave the radiation levels as equal to the normal background "noise". As a matter of fact any evidence at the alleged landing site (if any) was so unremarkable that some people eventually became unsure as to the exact landing site.
Those pesky verbal reports, you just never can track em down when they are needed.
Question 8-[DC]: Do you recall what Penniston told you and what became of his sketch?
[Ted Conrad]: I do recall Penniston's story and he did leave me with a sketch of an object he claimed to have seen. I left the sketch in my desk drawer and the story was summarized in Halt's letter
You know something? If Id been making as much fuss for all these years as Clarke and Ridpath have, around this particular issue, let alone balance an entire illusion precariously around a half assed claim that Penniston had only started talking about a structured object, after a hypnosis session, only to have my ass torpedoed out of the water, and my entire theory along with it, Id do the decent thing and just admit I was wrong.

Clarke and Conrad then go on to discuss the constabulary coming to the scene, all of which is nothing new, and which to Clarke would seem to back up his claim of nothing having happened because the police were unimpressed by the landing site. Does any of that really matter?. Clarke is going over old ground which doesn`t impress me at this stage of the game.

Constable-Only lights visible in this area was from Orford light house. Search made of area – negative.”
Good enough boys, job well done, must`a been the lighthouse again! Come on back to the station for some coffee and donuts!
None of the above is enough to balance an entire lighthouse theory on. Just because there`s a lighthouse in the area doesn`t mean a lighthouse was responsible for the objects seen. This is the most conceited rubbish ever shat on this entire scenario and my heart goes out to the guys for having to put up with the absolute idiots this case has been mauled by, and who have spouted this kind of rubbish for the last 30 odd!

[DC]- What should we make of these mutual contradictions and inconsistencies? Col Conrad sums it up as follows:
“As we have seen, there were many embellishments to the story during the 1981 and subsequent years. Most of us had to put this aside and move on with our lives, jobs and careers.”
Clarke implies Conrad is accusing Penniston, Burroughs, and Halt, of embellishing their accounts. Let Conrad come out from behind David Clarke, (a man who has proven time and time again, that nothing he says can be trusted as far as presenting fair, unbiased reproductions of third party statements, and a man who has used witnesses to further his own particular agenda) and speak directly to the witnesses themselves, or on face-book, or on this website, where there are NO agendas, and people can speak their minds in an open and honest fashion. After this, I`m sure Conrad will be haunted by the decision he made to allow himself to be interviewed by Clarke for years to come!

[DC]-[/b]"However, his(Conrad`s) clear testimony concerning the events of 27/28 December stand in stark contrast to those of his deputy, Charles Halt. Conrad’s recall of Sgt Penniston’s account of his experience on the “first night” also directly contradicts his subsequent account of having approached and touched a landed object, which he was able to sketch and photograph. In turn Penniston’s account is inconsistent with that of his colleague John Burroughs, who says he only saw lights.

Conrad is perfectly entitled to disagree with Col Halt if he so wishes. However, Clarke would have it, that Conrad disagrees that Penniston got close enough to touch a landed object which he was then able to sketch and photograph. Is this meant to mean it didn`t happen? Or does it mean Conrad says it didn`t happen? Why didn`t Clarke ask Conrad about the Photographs? He dodges this subject skillfully. Why didn`t Clarke ask Conrad about the symbols? Maybe he did, but didn`t like the answer he got. And Ill tell you why: Quite simply, there`s no way on Gods green earth Jim Penniston came up with those symbols himself, on his own, out of his own imagination. Clarke and Ridpath KNOW this, they`ve always had a problem explaining this particular aspect, because they know Penniston, and they know what those symbols are about, and they are stumped!! The only way out is to claim that those symbols appeared after a hypnosis session, as Ridpath has claimed in the past, an origin as he has also attributed to the the drawing of the craft, if I`m not mistaken.

Clarke continues huffing and puffing, and inflating his balloon to a size it was never meant to surpass, with quotes from other people who were far on the periphery, uninvolved, and who all skillfully dodge around the real issues as they did back in 1980, in order to protect themselves from scrutiny by the OSI and any other parties put on their tails, from those higher up the chain of command than themselves.

[b]Lord David Trefgarne-"...it is highly unlikely that any violation of UK airspace would be heralded by such a display of lights. I think it equally unlikely that any reconnaissance or spying activity would be announced in this way. We believe that the fact Col Halt did not report these occurrences to MoD for almost two weeks after the event, together with the low key manner in which he handled the matter are indicative of the degree of importance in defence terms which should be attached to the incident." (DEFE 24/1924/1)

I agree. Military operations would certainly not have been heralded in such an obvious fashion. Perhaps this statement was made in that particular context as it certainly sounds like it was. This misquote would be in keeping with Clarkes track record too.
The reasons for the delay in reporting the incident, have already been established. It is certainly not a smoking gun for the skeptics. All of the witnesses, as verified by Conrad feared for their reputations and their careers, because they themselves, were left with no physical proof of what happened, and because of the very nature of what had occurred. Conrad makes his opinion on this known, but he himself agreed earlier on, in the statement attributed to him, that he too, feared to continue the investigation beyond a certain point saying: -"further investigation would likely gain us nothing but notoriety"
Clarke has absolutely NO excuse to repeat himself over and over the way he does. Let me make it clear that I don`t object to him repeating them, It simply re-enforces what I mean when I ask-Is this the best you can do Mr. Clarke? Of course, its obvious that this is all intended simply to raise old issues, dust them off, and present them as though they were new. Its also aimed at people who aren`t already thoroughly familiar with the event, and is probably enough to put off newcomers who would attempt to delve deeper into the subject. These are issues which have already been addressed and simply cause confusion and doubt in the minds of people interested in the subject, and who are vulnerable to doubt and confusion because of their misperception that this entire subject is all about what to believe and who to believe, instead of how to act.
Conrad makes his opinion on this known, but he himself agreed earlier on, in the statement attributed to him, that he too feared to continue the investigation beyond a certain point saying: -"further investigation would likely gain us nothing but notoriety". . These are issues which have caused confusion and doubt in the minds of people interested in the subject, people who are vulnerable to doubt and confusion because of their indecision.

Clarke has obviously had Conrad`s statement for quite some time now, he`s been keeping it for a rainy day, and unfortunately for him, that rainy day is now upon him. With the latest witness testimony from Monroe Nevels, it is getting harder and harder to maintain the position Clarke and others have enjoyed up until now. I don`t think Clarke fully appreciates the weight of Nevel`s testimony in light of all the facts, and everything we now know. It is my opinion that Clarke has misquoted Conrad wholesale here, as he has done repeatedly in the past with others. He has used what witnesses like John Burroughs have had to say and twisted it, in an attempt to suit it, to his own particular agenda.
Being skeptical is about filtering information. It should be part and parcel of a normal persons psychological make up. When someone feels the need to advertise themselves, and label themselves as being a skeptic, its time to question what it means: "to be a Skeptic". If it means blanket denial, on the basis of information being too hard to believe you`ve got a serious problem. If you know your Skeptics, as I like to think I do, having nurtured a skeptical streak myself, albeit an honest one, for a long period of time, and having studied what the published skeptics have had to say on these matters, over the years, then you, like me, will know by now, that most of them have an agenda, and by that, I mean that, even without claims of ties to the intelligence agencies or other shady organizations, it is apparent that these skeptics have agendas of their own, and those agendas, revolve around the pursuit of certain ideals, and those ideals etc are in my opinion, bizarre in the extreme. On the other hand, the intelligence agencies do not have ideals. Intelligence agencies have a job to do, and goals to accomplish. It is interesting to note that the intelligence agencies, and the skeptics share similar methods to achieve goals and ideals as and when they might relate to each other.

[DC]-"As was the case with the original Roswell incident, there is a great difference between the few certain facts that can be established from contemporary records and the elaborate legend that has grown up around the Rendlesham UFOs. The legend has been nurtured by tabloid headlines and sensational TV documentaries and today is so well known that the Forestry Commission have set up a “UFO trail” in the forest for pilgrims who wish to relive the story in their imagination. As the decades pass attempts to separate fact from fiction become increasingly difficult. All that can be said with certainty is that it is unlikely we will ever know what really happened in Rendlesham forest in December 1980."
The statement above, is all smoke and mirrors. Clarke generalizes wholesale, and does so, for effect. He is as guilty of sensationalizing evidence, as any of the myth making t.v shows he mentions. If the witness testimony is taken on its own, without t.v shows, without the sensationalism of tabloid journalism etc, we are still presented with a sequence of events, which if even half true, are sensational enough in their own right. The witness testimony speaks for itself. Take all the rest away and you`ve still got an event of considerable magnitude. Take out aliens, people from the future, and whatever else you choose too, you`ve still got a large group of people involved in something none of them could understand or relate too, and which made a considerable impression upon each of them.

In closing I just like to say that I agree with everything that has been said about what should happen next. Kudos to Robert Hastings, you said it all mate, the rest of us just mop up whats left, after youve been on a roll my friend!

[John Burroughs]

A couple of more tibits! Ignis Fatuus you sure sound alot like Ian Ridpath not saying you are but if you were I beleive that would be a violation of this forum would it not! Dave Clarke statement will be responded to by Jim and I after Halt and Hastings do! The interesting thing is Jim and I are comming over in December to answer all question and bring a time line also! We tried to do a conferance in London that Philiph Mantle agreed upon and then droped out of! So were still looking for someone other than Sacha Christie to help with that! We also will be down in the forrest on the 28th of December willing to do a speaking engagement before our walk in the Forrest answering all Question! We invited Ian Ridpath and Dr Clarke to join us but Ian pulled out saying the people who showed up for this event could not be trusted and would turn this into a circus! Dr Clarke responce to Robert Hasting challange broke a true balance of trust between the exchange of information between two parties involved in a open disscusion of events that was off the record! Col Conrad was not aware that these exchanges would be published and trusted Dr Clarke! I was made aware of what was going on and was working hard behind the scenes trying to get answers from Col Conrad on what he had stated and seeing if he would be willing to make a statement on the record! I'm afraid that Dr Clarke has ruined any chance of that happening now! The ball now has been throwen in Halts and Hasting court on Conrad letter Halt has been speaking on the record and Jim and I are waiting for his responce!

[Ignis Fatuus]

Negative..forum integrity intact. I'm not the Lighthouse Keeper.
The way I see it, as long as the event is an unknown, Ridpath and Thurkettles' theory is as good as any of the better rational theories. If you think about it, the lighthouse plays the same role in the RFI narrative as it does in real life and the story would be the poorer without it.

I don't think it fooled you all the time, but it did fool you some of the time. And there was no shortage of stimulus to be fooled by at any given moment.

Am I wrong to think that Halt was more eager to get in on the action than the ho hum 'lets put this to bed' demeanour he assumes in his retellings?
Did he lose his bearings because of his over enthusiasm?
Did face need to be saved?
Why did he have a beef with your involvement? Was it because your account makes no mention of a structured object?
What was in the punch at the party?

Why does Jim go radio silent when quizzed about the notebook?

My own opinion is you have a better chance in making a deeper connection with what you experienced by looking at similar accounts as yours, that happened hundreds of years before modern technology and Steven Spielberg. Some of them are almost word for word as your puzzlement in the forest. The superstition of the time believed that if you encountered such a phenom you should go prone immediately. Ha, you guys did that without even thinking about it. I know I'll never look at a Jack O Lantern the same way again.

[John Burroughs]

Ignis Fatuus
Fair enough then please Identify who you are and why the interest in Bentwaters! And for the record and if you have not read my statement read it I was never fooled by the Lighthouse! After the encounter we saw a becon which we did ID as the light house! Could this be James Easton who all but dispeared under very interesting circumstances a few years ago?

I would also like to add one more thing about my statement about Dave Clarke posting Col Conrads letter with out his permission! I have the E-mails that he and I exchanged about this matter with him telling me about what was in the letter in April! I was aware that he was going to contact him the first of the year and was informed by him on what was said in April! In the E-mail I was asked to keep this Confidental because he didnot have Conrads permission to post the letter! If DR Clarke wishes to deny this I will post these E-Mails for all to see!

[ramsrc]

One part of the article struck me as extremely interesting - it concerns this:

“I can only speculate what went on in the SP squadron during the day [that followed, i.e. 26 December]. There must have been some concern over what to do about the sighting in terms of investigation and reporting. I believe the SP’s decided to keep everything low key, this being indicated by a change to the blotter entry concerning that early morning time frame. In any event, no notification or report was made to anyone above Major Malcolm Zickler, SP Squadron Commander, until late that evening.

“Sometime between 2100 and 2200 on [26 December?] 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.

I find this very odd, it is fair enough that they decided to keep things low key - but surely, even if the decision had been taken at some point during the day that the incident should be reported, is it not a little strange that they decided to report it by "appearing at a Christmas party"?

I am not in the postion to comment on this either way - but this was one statement in the article that really stood out.

[AdrianF]

Taken at face value, and in the context Clarke wants us to believe the statement was made, it would be fair to say that what is being suggested here, is that Conrad`s statement contradicts Halts. However, this is yet again another shining example of Clarkes cutting and pasting. A totally ambiguous statement, with no reference to hour of the day or night, which is meant to lead the reader to the conclusion that Conrad is stating that all of the above was happening as Col Halt was having his encounter.

Well the previous paragraph, read as follows:

“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.”

I took this to mean that Conrad was referring to Halts encounter, ie; somewhere between late evening and early hours of the morning on the 28th?

[AdrianF]

I find this very odd, it is fair enough that they decided to keep things low key - but surely, even if the decision had been taken at some point during the day that the incident should be reported, is it not a little strange that they decided to report it by "appearing at a Christmas party"?

It does seem at bit strange, but it is one of the events that everybody seems in agreement on. It might be that this was the only way of communicating discreetly with the CO's?

[AgentAppleseed]

Ignus Fatuus, I sense a certain sarcasm and cynicism in your statements, however you have brought up one or two interesting things that have been asked before and although it may not win me any new friends, I feel it necessary to chime in.
Understand this is not an attack on you, however you may take it whatever way you wish. Basically I have used what you said to highlight some important factors.

"Haha the old call everybody a sceptic defence..hysterical. Like as if it's a crime."
Its not a crime to be skeptical. Its a crime to misquote and misrepresent people and to take what they say and twist it around to mean something entirely different! Do it in a court of law, see how far you get.

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.

Evolving witness testimony, to any competent investigator does not necessarily point to deception on the part of the witness. Those who would claim that this is not so, have demonstrated themselves to be entirely incompetent when it comes to investigating this incident at the level of professionalism and talent that is required. Besides all that, its reasonable to assume that given the nature of what went on, and the fashion that the witnesses have been treated in since, that some people may be more inclined to be careful about what they say, and when they say it. You assume that t.v shows and certain people play straight. They don`t, its that simple. There are more factors involved here, than you are aware! No matter what the witnesses have said or what reasons they have quoted for their actions, they have been lambasted, anyway.

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.
You are assuming this means someone`s lieing. As I have already said, inconsistency does not necessarily point to dishonesty. In order to come to the conclusion you have, it would be necessary to put aside the fact that besides Cabansag, Penniston, and Burroughs, there were no other parties present, at, or near the landing site. We do not know that. The witnesses have accounted for their actions, a fourth party introduced into the equation would have a serious influence on the outcome of that situation. No investigator worth his socks would automatically assume that there was no fourth party involved when all the witness testimony points to the fact there was indeed a fourth party present, whose actions have yet to be fully accounted for. The only people who would dismiss that notion are the ones who have agendas to push, and/or, are completely incompetent, and out of their depth, when it comes to proper investigative technique, and these people have inadvertently exposed themselves to those with the eyes to see, as a direct result of their bungling and similar mistakes, they have made, along the way. Unfortunately this always needs to be pointed out, and people are too quick to jump in on the side of these people while at the same time failing to realize, that in actual fact, the wool has been pulled over their eyes, and they have been led to believe that this entire incident should be dealt with, from start to finish, as being all about "who to believe" and "what to believe" as opposed to "how to act"!! Again, its amateur hour at the expense of the truth and the R.F.I.

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.
A contradiction is merely a contradiction until it is explained otherwise.-See above

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.
Would that refer to Ridpaths description of looking up at a star at night, and squinting your eyes, and using your imagination, and how that star just might look like there are laser beams coming out of every side? Do you realize how absurd that sounds? Do you really believe a large group of professionals, would all make that same mistake, at exactly the same time and continue to make it for hours after? Now remember, this whole concept requires that the professionalism of the people involved be called into question, aswell as the clarity of their perceptions, and the level of their intelligence. Now, consider the fact that the group of people involved, far outweighs the number of people who came along afterward making claims about stars, not to mention the logic involved that led these people to the conclusions they have come too. The result of all of this, added to all of the other mistakes, would force any reasonably intelligent person to ask whether questions of professionalism, perception, and intelligence should be laid at the door of the people involved in the investigation, instead of the people involved in the incident. The net results smacks of complete and utter incompetence on the part of these so called investigators. That much is undeniable.

If everything that happened had merely been the result of mistaking something ordinary, for something extraordinary, then the entire incident would have soon been completely forgotten about. Remember, in the aftermath, the incident was treated in a low key fashion, as far as reporting the affair, and it would have been easy, at that time in particular, to dismiss and quash the entire matter as a mistake, joke, and move on. No UFO needed!!

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.
The Lantern man hasn`t gone anywhere, he`s still very much alive and well and going by a new handle-skeptic! You said it all my friend, no need to go there again.

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.
You really thought that one through, before you came out with it, didn`t you? See above

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?
Ill tell you what that`s about, If I may, seeing as you don`t know. Some time ago, John Burroughs, having absolutely nothing to hide at all, thought it might be a good idea, to go and meet David Clarke, in an effort to show, that he had nothing to hide and that he would gladly answer any of the skeptics questions in an open and honest manner. Shortly thereafter, Clarke, being Clarke, published the resulting interview, having twisted the thing to fit his own agenda. Unfortunately for John Burroughs, your damned if you do, damned if you don`t!
This brings us nicely round to recent events. Apparently, Clarke was granted an interview with Conrad, on the condition he didn`t publish it. Of course, Clarke has dispensed with the trust he was granted, and shown his true colors yet again, proving once and for all even to the die-hards, that he intends to use this case as a platform to keep himself in the public eye, following the shining example of his mentor. Clarke thanks Burroughs as he should, because, it was Burroughs who laid the groundwork that enabled him to get the interview in the first place. Of course now, thanks to Clarke publishing that interview, he`s just blown any chance they had of getting Conrad to comment in public. Clarke published the interview in order to get the scoop and "one up" Robert Hastings and everyone else, while proving to me at least what Ive been saying all along; Clarke`s in it, for what he can get out of it, and that is basically all there is to it!!! Judge a man by his actions! And Ill stand by that statement, until It has been proven otherwise! Clarkes not interested in getting to the truth, he`s interested in one upmanship as he has proved time and time again! Is it any wonder skeptic is a dirty word around here?

[AgentAppleseed]

Hail to the thief! This ones dedicated to all the sceptics!

[Ignis Fatuus]

In order to come to the conclusion you have, it would be necessary to put aside the fact that besides Cabansag, Penniston, and Burroughs, there were no other parties present, at, or near the landing site.

Have you read Cabansags statement?

What about Burans? There is a passage in it where you can almost sense Pennistons military career flashing before his eyes.

The Lantern Man is just a myth to make sense of something that would be very cool to see.
Different centuries...different myths.

Thanks for recapping the soap opera, but I've seen every episode.

[Frank]

Concerning the investigations by AFOSI: A whole chapter has been dedicated to this topic in Bruni's book.

1. Maj. Malcolm Zickler told her that AFOSI did investigate the case but found insufficient hard evidence.

2. Bruni got hold of the name of one of the AFOSI officers. She visited him and his wife at their house. The AFOSI officer (now retired) told her he did not know of any investigation and that he was not at the base on the nights the incidents took place.
BUT: Bruni was clever enough to talk with his wife. She told her that a young AFOSI officer visited them after her husband's retirement. When she asked him if he knew anything about the incident he replied he was involved in the investigation and that the results were "buried in Washington". He did not want to talk about it any further.

[John Burroughs]

This is where I saw the statement that OSI was involved! Ignis Fatuus you have not posted for a couple of days and you never said who you were! I have enjoyed some of your post and I would like to know who I'm exchanging ideas with! One of your statements sounds somewhat like another person who post on here!