CIA using us

[IanR]

the RAF liaison officer Squad Ldr Moreland helped Halt in his memo compilation and i think he knows a lot more about this incident?

As it happens, Dave Clarke and Andy Roberts interviewed Moreland back in 2002. I have Dave's permission to quote from that interview.

The situation was that Moreland had gone off for two weeks’ leave over Christmas and New Year 1980–81, leaving an underling to cover for him. When Moreland came back in January Halt told him about the UFO sighting and asked him what he should do. (Moreland says that Halt had not mentioned the event to Moreland’s temporary stand-in.) Moreland directed Halt to make a written report, which is the now-famous memo, but didn’t expect to get one “thinking he had been pulling my leg”. It did turn up and Moreland sent it off on January 15 1981 to DS8. Moreland’s covering letter is folio 1 in the MoD Rendlesham file available online.

Moreland explained what happened next to Dave and Andy: “Eventually I was told they had checked with the defence radars and nothing significant was seen. As far as MOD was concerned if there was no defence interest [then] that was the end of the matter..someone had seen some flashing lights and some unexplained thing happening but there was no defence interest in it, there was nothing on the defence radars, there was nothing logged, no one else had seen anything...
“As far as I was aware there were no MOD police, there were no RAF police, none of the security services were involved in it to the best of my knowledge.
“A bit later on [1981] I was told it could have been the lights from the Orfordness lighthouse which seemed to me, because one could see them flashing through the trees, so it seemed to me to be a rational explanation for it.”

Dave Clarke will be posting the entire interview on his own website in due course
http://www.uk-ufo.org/condign/
but having read all of it I can vouch that it provides no support for any of the conspiracy theories aired here or elsewhere.

Hope this answers some of your questions,
Ian

[pupil88]

“ ... Our study would be conducted almost exclusively by non-believers who, though they couldn’t possibly prove a negative result, could and probably would add an impressive body of evidence that there is no reality to the observations. The trick would be, I think, to describe the project so that, to the public, it would appear a totally objective study, but, to the scientific community, would present the image of a group of non- believers trying their best to be objective, but having an almost zero expectation of finding a saucer. One way to do this would be to stress investigations, not of the physical phenomena, but rather of the people who do the observing- psychology and sociology of persons and groups who report seeing UFOs. If the emphasis were put here, rather than on examination of the old question of the physical reality of the saucer, I think the scientific community would quickly get the message... I’m inclined to feel at this early stage that, if we set up the thing right and take pains to get the proper people involved and have success in presenting the image we want to present to the scientific community, we could carry the job off to our benefit...”

Condon Report - Wikipedia


Before the contract with the Air Force was signed, the Low memorandum sought the deliberate perversion of the truth...literally, contempt for the subject of UFOs, not unlike the fantasies being offered. Not one image of recollection from a memory to the contrary ;
in fact, nor a bonafide perception offered. In the United States, the Disclosure Project headed by Dr. Greer, had petitioned Congress to offer immunity to thousands, including astronauts, pilots, and members of all branches of the military so they would offer information on UFOs and their Occupants.

[puddlepirate]

Hi Ian

Many thanks. I fully agree with your comment that there is nothing to support any of the theories put forward on this forum. None at all. Many eminent researchers such as yourself have spent hours conducting in-depth analyses and interviews, writing to the MoD, researching the National Archives etc. but all that effort appears to have produced absolutely nothing to support any cover up or indeed, that any incident occured at all. The only hard 'evidence' is the Halt memo and perhaps something in the yet to be released files still held by MoD.

However, what remains is the Halt memo and the witness statements put forward by the USAF personnel. I can only assume that neither they nor their senior officers are idiots. Why on earth would several of them have claimed to have seen something when they must have known that such claims would only serve to make them and by default the USAF, look foolish? Neither USAF officers nor those of other nations, get promoted for making themselves and their service look foolish. That is for certain. The contradiction here is that Halt was promoted.

The theories put forward on this forum are just that, they are theories. Irrespective of the apparent viability of a particular theory, each and every one is valid as a topic for discussion. One post contained a reference to Russian aircraft - the US had a department that specialised in flying, reverse engineering and obtaining parts for Soviet aircraft brought over to the west by defecting pilots - but we've not discussed that one yet. The notion that the incident might have something to do with a defector might well prove to be utter BS but it's still worth a debate.

If we are to believe that what was seen was simply the lighthouse or the Cosmos re-entry, then Halt and his men saw nothing of any consequence and they have indeed made themselves look daft, big time! But personally I have a little more faith in the US military and therefore not so readily convinced by the lighthouse or Cosmos explanations.

Obviously I can only speak for myself but I find this forum is an excellent place for an open exhange of views to challenge the 'official' line - but with the caveat that any information given to support a particular view does not contravene the OSA (1911).

[puddlepirate]

Hi Pupil88

This makes for some very interesting reading re Low, Condon and the University of Colorado UFO study. The word 'trick' in the Low memorandum was, apparently, used in the British sense, i.e. the knack of doing something and not a trick in order to mislead - which is the American understanding. The controversey over the use of the word 'trick' totally discredited the study and the resulting report.

http://www.project1947.com/shg/articles/siklass.html

It just goes to show how controversial the whole UFO thing is. Virtually nobody who wants to retain any credibility will go near it, which makes the Halt memo and his subsequent promotion even more remarkable.

[IanR]

The contradiction here is that Halt was promoted.

Not really a contradiction. In the military as in the Civil Service, promotions tend to come in the fullness of time and you have to do something pretty catastrophic to be passed over. Halt’s promotion was probably already in the works when this event happened. He followed procedure by sending a memo about it to the British side, and it was then off his hands. End of story. He only started to speak out after he had left the USAF. Much of what people think they “know” about the case comes from interviews on TV programmes made years after the event (which reminds me - what happened to those amazing new revelations we were promised on the History Channel on December 26?).

Look at it another way. If Halt really believed there were alien craft, of whatever origin, flitting about in his air space and apparently scanning the weapons storage area with laser beams, shouldn’t he have done something about it?

What he did do, as he told journalist Salley Rayl in an interview published in the 1994 April issue of Omni, was: “I called the command post, asked them to call Eastern Radar [i.e. RAF Watton], responsible for air defense of that sector. Twice they reported that they didn't see anything.” That was all.

Near the end of his tape, he says: “03:30 and the objects are still in the sky, although the one to the south looks like it’s losing a little bit of altitude. We’re turning around and heading back toward the base.”

Halt confirmed this in his interview with Salley Rayl: “After an hour or so, I finally made the call to go in. We left those things out there.”

What?? His base is under surveillance by unknown craft and he just went home? Had there really been anything to it the man should have been court martialled for negligence! Now *that's* the contradiction.

Ian

[Wolf]

Just out of interest I have checked the listed phone #s in the RAF Bentwaters/Woodbridge telephone directory from 1991 and the only British positions listed in it are the RAF Commander, Station Warden Officer, British Staff Admin Office and HM C & E. I'll see if I can dig up any older ones and see if the British positions match up.

It would be interesting to to track down who ever was in the EA cell in the Wing Operations building on the night and see if they received any messages.

Best wishes for 2008

Wolf

[puddlepirate]

True...keep your nose clean and you will get promoted in the fullness of time - but as you go up the ladder the vacancies become less and appointments more competitive. There is a general rule (certainly in the RN) that if you reach the rank of commander but then get passed over for promotion three times, you might as well leave because you ain't going no further (I think this happened to Prince Andrew). I believe this also applies to majors in the Army and wing commanders in the RAF but I'm sure someone will correct me. Therefore, promotion is not absolutely assured.

Reporting 'odd lights', wandering around a forest in the middle of the night, writing a memo to the RAF instead of a report to his CO, making a tape with commentary that claims UFO activity - all of that - is hardly a recommend for promotion. More like a ticket to the funny farm and an early retirement.

And as you said yourself, if Halt thought 'UFO's' were flying around over the twin bases and threatening the WSA, then he or whoever was responsible for base security would have ordered a full alert....every man and his dog would have been scrambled. Heck, I was at Fleet HQ Northwood circa 1985 when around 2300Z on Wednesday night a couple of drunken matelots returning back on board tried to smuggle a crate of lager into the base. They thought it would be a good idea to force it under the fence and in so doing they triggered the intruder alert. All hell broke loose with sirens wailing. Total closedown. Armed RM guards mustered. Duty watch closed up. Nobody could leave, everyone had to remain in whatever building or office or operational cell they were in and every person present had to be identified and vouched for (as luck would have it myself and my colleagues were in the junior rates bar and had to stay there but that's another story) until the All Clear was given. And that didn't happen until 0115Z the following morning. All that for a crate of lager. Trust me, if odd lights were flying over the base at Northwood, they'd have scrambled the RAF and shot the bastards down!

Even at Christmas, with the twin bases virtually at a standstill and with most personnel on Christmas leave, there must still have been part of the 81st Tactical Fighter Wing and the 67th ARRS maintained at a state of readiness. The joke prevalent in the later years of the Cold War was that NATO stood for 'Not After Two O'clock' because everyone went on weekend leave around 1200Z on Fridays......but there would always be cover - comms, security, fire and emergency parties, reduced duty watch and so forth. As it appears no air cover was scrambled for the Rendlesham incident (as the 'threat' was to a USAF base in the UK then perhaps this would have been a joint RAF/USAF responsibility), I believe those in command were fully aware of what was going on and knew there was no need.

From the information currently in the public domain, there are many inconsistencies. Some say the RAF, MoD and civilian Police were involved. Some say they weren't. Some say there were many USAF personnel in the forest, some say they were only a few. It has been suggested that HMP Hallesley was placed on evacuation alert, that a piece of the Cosmos craft came down in east Anglia, that sea mist or other atmospherics could have distorted the lighthouse beam, that it could have been the lightship, that it was a hoax perpetrated by the ARRS - but one thing appears certain. Something happened over three separate nights and whatever it was, it was of sufficient concern that Halt took his men into the forest to find out what was going on but not of enough concern to mobilise whatever base defence plan was in place - despite the fact that shafts of light from some 'unknown' source were beaming down onto secure areas.

Halt did a good job and that's why his promotion went through. Quite what job he did is another matter - and the reason for the continuing debate.

[Deep Purple]

Would Halt have really sent the memo if he were just covering a big practical joke?
I dont think so, I'm sure he would have tried to explain as a practical joke and adding the the parties involved were being disciplined. If he didnt know who was invovled he surely would have stated he beleived it to be a prank involving flash lights or something similar , but the persons were unknown
Re the light house, The securtiy personnel involved would have been used to wandering around the base at night and known the light house. I am not aware of any unusual atmospheric conditions at the time, it was just a cold december night. Having spent many nights sea fishing I've never seen anything funny happen to known light sources in the area. You tend to learn the look of the lights so you know where you are at night.

[puddlepirate]

Hi Deep Purple

I agree with you. If it were a hoax, Halt would have had no need to send the memo. It would have been an internal disciplinary matter and an official response would have been prepared by the base press office just in case anyone asked about activity in the forest. Why go to the lengths of creating a scenario based on some extreme event that didn't happen, when there was absolutely no need to do so? That would be utter nonsense.

My posts are generally overly long and I suspect most readers find them to be either totally ludicrous or utterly tedious but most of what has been published or 'revealed' to date re Rendlesham, leans towards UFO's, alien craft and govt 'cover up'. Mention UFO's and many immediately think of weirdness involving little green men, so for professional people in science or aviation (certainly it 1980), it is a topic to be avoided at all costs unless you want to ruin your career. Halt chose to mention 'odd lights' and strange happenings in a memo, his men, including at least one senior NCO, provided written statements describing a craft emitting light, completing astounding aerobatics and displaying strange symbols. Hardly career enhancing. Halt and his NCO's were career men or if not career men as such, they had still put in many years service. There is talk, even now, of them protecting their pensions. Are we really to believe these guys would write such stuff without a very good reason indeed? Please.....

Also, when seeking information much depends on the question asked, e.g. ask someone 'Were you in Rendlesham forest on the night of 26/27th Dec' and they will probably give only one of two answers, i.e. they will answer either yes or no. But ask them 'Where were you on the night of 26/27th Dec?' they cannot answer with only yes or no, they have to give more info - or decline to answer the question at all. Whether the answer they give is true or not is another matter. The point here, is that to me at least, almost every question asked to date has been directed towards either seeking information on a UFO or disclosing a cover up. It seems there have been very few questions about the bigger picture. We should not be asking 'what happened on in Rendlesham forest in Dec 1980?' because we'll only get the answer 'nothing happened'. We should ask instead 'What was of most concern to those in command of USAF bases in east Anglia during Dec 1980?' . Ask that question and we'll get a completely different answer. Ask that same question of MoD and we might get a different answer again.

[Observer]

Hi all

Reading through some of the posts has prompted me to drag up some old debate from last year [2007] where a couple of forum members including admin decided to have a look at the light house from the forest at appriximate alleged landing sites. All aggreed that the light house could not have done what was described by the witnesses. We put the light house theory to bed after extensive investigation and at least one light house theorist has never even visited Rendlesham forest or seen the light house. I have and no way could the light house do what was described. It may however have been what we call a supplementory sighting that was quickly discarded by those in the forest.
I used to shoot in those woods at night and never saw any light house beams shining amongst the foliage.

From some of the comment in recent posts, do we now say that Jim Penniston and others statements about the object in the forest is pure fiction? Are his sketches in his note book just fabrication?
Is Lt Col Halt's tape recordings just made up? Are light beams shining down to ground just fiction? Are lights in the sky just conjecture,

Did the duty crew in the Bentwaters control tower just make up their observation of lights hanging over the forest?

Although there were many witnesses who all basically said the same thing with a few discrepancies, i dont disbeleive Penniiston or Halt.

I do believe that Penniston's description is pretty accurate as to the size and shape of the object. Why did he describe that particular shape or size, because thats what he saw.

Observer

[Observer]

Hi puddlepirate

The MOD Police remit especially when posted to US air bases and other NATO establishments was primarily to observe any suspicious activity in and around the airfield boundary. Air craft spotters were a big bug bare. They were also looking for infriltration by CND Etc. which did occurr such as Greenham Common.

They also had the power of arrest and confiscate cameras. There usual MO was to pass arrested persons over to the local civilian Police.

The biggest fear if thats the right word of any base commander of that era was war, followed [especially in the UK] of Soviet block spies who were known to be resident in the UK and active. The MOD Police would have been very aware of this.

A known hot bed of Soviet spying activity was the Skoda cars importer in Kings Lynn, Norfolk. We had lectures on all this stuff and worked closely with the MOD and RAF.

One of the theories put forward some time ago, connected this incident with Soviet espionage?

Observer

[IanR]

To correct an earlier point, Halt's promotion came not long after the story hit the headlines in late 1983, not shortly after the event itself. I agree that if the story had come out sooner then someone might have had second thoughts about recommending him for promotion.

I believe those in command were fully aware of what was going on and knew there was no need.

The wing commander (Gordon Williams) would be the one to authorize sending aircraft up. But, as we know, that never happened and apparently was never considered.

Consider this: if unknown objects had indeed been hovering at a few thousand feet for several hours over East Anglia they would have been seen by plenty more people than just an over-excited bunch of US airmen. The A12 between Ipswich and Lowestoft runs not far away but no one travelling on that road saw anything as far as I'm aware. Neither did any of the numerous amateur astronomers in East Anglia, and they spend more time looking at the sky than anyone.

Ian

[puddlepirate]

Hi Observer

I think that is what I was trying to get across in my last post. The bigger picture. There was a lot of stuff going on in eastern Europe at that time. NATO wanted to know what the Soviets were up to and in turn, the Soviets would have wanted to know what NATO and particular the US/UK were up to and what response we and our NATO allies might have made should there be a Soviet invasion of Poland. The Soviets had got away with it twice before (Hungary and Czecholslovakia) but times were different then. In 1980 we might well have assisted Poland. In addition to what might best be described as routine espionage, Soviet espionage activity around the USAF bases, on Orfordness, at the key radar installations, RAF stations and so forth would have been high. Gaining info from anyone who had a connection with any of those would have been a priority, as would monitoring aircraft activity - the type of aircraft flown, number of sorties, duration of sortie etc etc.. I joined the RNR in August 1981 and our very first lecture after having been security vetted, was a lengthy security brief about the dangers of revealing info about our work, no matter how insiginficant it might seem, or speaking about such matters in public. I was reminded of this just after the Falklands War whilst in Plymouth. A group of us (RN/RNR) were in a public place, just talking quietly between ourselves when an RN officer whom we recognised came up to our group and told us in no uncertain terms to 'shut the f**k up'. To this day, when my colleagues and I meet up at mess dinners or for a beer or two, nobody talks about the job or their specific roles, only the laughs and social activity.

That's why I persist in saying that Halt must have had a damn good reason for writing that memo and why Penniston et al wrote their reports. Either they really did see an alien craft and were willing to risk their careers reporting it or what happened was of such importance (but not of defence signifigance per se) that an exceptional cover story was required.

Security is based on 'need to know' and at that time, there was simply no need for anyone not directly involved, to know what actually took place in Rendlesham forest in 1980. I doubt there was (or is) a cover up as such, simply proactive diversionary measures to maintain security integrity and (always assuming it was not an alien craft) given what Halt and his men came up with, there must have been a need for a very high level of security.

After all if these measures weren't in place MoD might as well have taken a two page spread in Pravda to keep the Soviets fully informed and save them the cost of putting agents on the ground! But I digress....

[Observer]

Hi puddlepirate

Most of what you say re security was the same for us in the Royal Observer Corps/RAF.

Halt's memo, was very light on detail, it was deliberately worded so as to exclude any mention of UFO's or alien space craft. So were the statements by many others. Only Larry Warren came close to saying that it was possibly a UFO and then he went on to describe 'alien' entities. Apparently, Halt is now saying the same thing but i may be wrong.

Another point on the MOD Police, whenever i went on site at Bentwaters to the rod & gun club, i hade to check through the guard room and there was often an MOD Copper on duty in the guard room along with the USAF securiy Police.

Trying to some up some sort of logical interim report on this incident is difficult, but are we now all saying that Jim Penniston's description and scetches in his note pad is all fiction, and Halt made up the tape for deception purposes? I don't think so.

Observer

[IanR]

Reading through some of the posts has prompted me to drag up some old debate from last year [2007] where a couple of forum members including admin decided to have a look at the light house from the forest at appriximate alleged landing sites. All aggreed that the light house could not have done what was described by the witnesses. ... no way could the light house do what was described.

Of course, it depends what you think the lighthouse is supposed to have done. What Halt described his flashing light as doing was to move back through the trees as they moved towards it - of course, that apparent movement could have simply been due to their movement, as we see with static objects such as the Moon. Then he described it as being "like an eye winking at you" with a burned-out dark centre when seen through the Starscope (an image intensifier, which would burn out when looking at something as bright as a lighthouse). On the tape, we hear an airman call out "there it is...there it is again" with a time interval of 5 seconds, which exactly matches the flash rate of the lighthouse.

In subsequent interviews he said that the flashing light lay almost in line with the farmhouse at Capel Green which they could see across the field at the forest edge. That's where the lighthouse lies, if you look care to look at a picture:
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham2.htm

Halt and his men tried to approach the light but it seemed to move away in front of them. He finally described it as lying "off to the coast". So, to summarize - we have a flashing light that lies in the direction of the lighthouse, flashes at the same rate as the lighthouse and lies "off to the coast". Hmm...

Oh, I know that Col Halt now says he saw the lighthouse at the same time, and that it lay off to the right, in the southeast. Unfortunately this is not where the lighthouse lies as seen from where he was - probably he was seeing the more distant Shipwash lightship, now removed. So if he thought the lighthouse was somewhere else doesn't that make it more likely that he misidentified the light that was right in front of him?

As for the other lights, I have a page for you here:
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham3.htm

From some of the comment in recent posts, do we now say that Jim Penniston and others statements about the object in the forest is pure fiction? Are his sketches in his note book just fabrication?

Well, I have queried why he has the wrong date and time in his notebook. Everyone agrees that he never said anything about touching the object at the time, let along examining and sketching it. It's also been queried how his reported 45-minute examination can fit into the known timescale of events on Night One, which doesn't allow him anything like that length of time on his own. In addition, he is the only witness who speaks of a craft. So, yes, you would be right to be skeptical of his more recent claims.

Is Lt Col Halt's tape recordings just made up?

Not in my view, although ironically some UFO believers have suggested it is edited or faked. They have also suggested the same about the witness statements on Night One, but again I am happy to take them at face value.

Someone also raised again the old chestnut that the airmen would be familiar with the lighthouse. Of course they weren't. Normally they never went out there at night and many of them were new on base. Why else do you think Burroughs and Cabansag chased a light for two miles (their estimate) before realizing it was a lighthouse? Halt knew about the lighthouse but he was conditioned to seeing it in the southeast, which is where it appeared from his base at Bentwaters. Hence he didn't recognize it when it popped up straight in front of him in the forest east of Woodbridge.

Sorry this has been along post but it seems that there's still a lot of misapprehension about this case. I'll just shut up and refer you to my website.

Ian
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham.htm

[puddlepirate]

Hi Observer

I just don't buy the lighthouse theory. You would never be able to see the lighthouse from east gate - I've visited both east gate and Capel Green and have stood at the edge of the field described in Warren's book. Only the very top of the lighthouse is visible just above a dip in the horizon if one stands at the edge of the farmer's field - and even then part of it is shielded. Given the distance from the road at the bottom of the east gate service road and the thickness of the forest in 1980, it simply would not have been possible to see the light at ground level, between the trees from that far away and it was the SP patrol at east gate that, allegedly, first saw the lights. Also, given that lighthouses are static constructions, I can't see that the Orford light would hover above the trees and be observed from the control tower at Bentwaters. Further to that, lighthouses frequently show a different coloured light depending on where you are in relation to it. Approach from one angle and you might see red, approach from another and you might see white or green. This is to show shipping that they are either in a danger zone and need to alter course (red) or in safe water (white or green) - but only one colour is visible in any given sector, not all three. Orford light shows red from the shore to 210deg and this is almost certainly the only part of the light visible from Capel Green. Therefore, even from the edge of the field all that would be seen is a red light flashing once every five seconds (flashing means the periods of light are shorther than the periods of dark. Occulting lights are the opposite). This would not change - the light would do one thing only. It would flash once every five seconds for as long as the light was lit. The position of the light would not vary. It would remain at a height of 28m from sea level. This can be checked by referring to any navigational chart and/or Reed's Nautical Almanac.

As for Halt's memo, Penniston's report plus the other witness statements, I have an open mind on the Halt memo but I strongly suspect that the reports from the NCO's, whilst based on what they had seen, were exaggerated in case a cover story should be required (which it wasn't until some time later). The junior airmen, several of whom were recently arrived at the twin bases and relatively inexperienced, simply described exactly what they had seen.

This takes us back to square one - and the need to analyse the bigger picture in its entirety. If it had been an alien craft and not something known, they why the secrecy, even after all this time? Surely it would have been a fantastic event of interest to the entire world and the scientific community in particular.

The US has been running the SETI project for years and have found nothing. There are literally thousands upon thousands of amateur astronomers around the globe and none of them have presented any hard evidence of alien craft. Ditto professional astronomers, pilots and the like. Lots of sightings of course, but no hard evidence. If it had been a alien craft at Rendlesham, we'd have known by now. Therefore, I'd put my money on something known....no idea what (other than what I have already proposed) but it was something from this planet.

[Observer]

Hi puddlepirate.

I have thought this incident was man made for some time now and as one ex ARRS pilot said to me, we should read between the lines and all will be revealed. Easier said than done.

I and many others including admin have discounted the light house theory. Some of us have been to the forest and tried to see the 5 second flash which is just a a pin prick on the horizon. It does not light up the forest as some suggest and it is not visible from the places that witnesses said the object was seen. However, Halt is alleged to have looked at it, obviously from a place in the woods where it can be seen through a star scope. This would no doubt make it look wierd and spooky. What i do believe, is that although a few people saw the light house flashing every 5 seconds [and to those not knowing about it thought it 'wierd'] it was supplementory to the other phenomena going on in the forest. The two being unrelated.

Lights hanging over the forest observed by the Bentwaters tower is not a light house.
There is too much evidence pointing us away from the light house theory.
There are of course some people who have very narrow objectives in this mystery and refuse to look at other senarios. Me, i'm perhaps more open minded but at the same time i'm not easily persuaded until i see solid evidence, which i'm sorry to say does not exist yet for any of the theories.

Observer

[Observer]

I forgot to say

Vince Thirkettle withdrew his light house theory on a recent documentory.

[Deep Purple]

Hi Puddle Pirate,
Dont worry about length of posts etc its nice to see you getting stuck in , thinking about what happened and actively engaging in sensible debate about the incident.

[IanR]

I forgot to say

Vince Thirkettle withdrew his light house theory on a recent documentory.

Oh no he didn't, although it might have been edited to seem that way. What he agreed was that *if* the landing site had been where Penniston said it was, then the lighthouse would not have been visible. But Penniston had identified an entirely different site from the one investigated by Halt. Penniston's site was on the western side of the forest, whereas Halt's site was on the eastern side of the forest - see the aerial photo towards the bottom of this page:
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham2.htm

So Penniston not only gave the wrong date and wrong time, but also the wrong location...

Ian

PS: And what happened to that amazing new information that was going to prove this was a "real UFO', according to Gary Heseltine?