UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1999 > Feb > Feb 3

Pulsar Newsletter - Issue No. 3

From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 21:59:03 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1999 16:13:24 -0500
Subject: Pulsar Newsletter - Issue No. 3


Pulsar Newsletter - Issue No. 3


Welcome to the third issue of the Pulsar newsletter.


CONTENTS

1. New Revelations in the 'Roswell alien autopsy' Affair.

2. Recovered Sea Wreckage Was Not From a 'UFO'.

3. Nick Pope's Time-Warp.

4. Aliens Invade Earth to Reclaim Crop Circles.

5. Report of 'UFO' Crash Near Holloman Air Force Base.

6. 'UFOs', Target Drones and UAVs.

7. Rendlesham - Ministry of Defence Responds.

8. Bookmarks.


~~~~~ >>>>> oo0oo <<<<< ~~~~~


1. New Revelations in the 'Roswell alien autopsy' Affair.

A centre of recent focus has been the 'tent footage', claimed
to form part of the archive film which Ray Santilli, a London
businessman involved in the entertainment industry, said he had
acquired in the US from an elderly, ex-military, cameraman, who
also sold him some rare, early concert footage of Elvis Presley.

The 'tent footage' was the first alleged 'Roswell' film which
Santilli made available in late December 1994/early January
1995.

Amongst those who saw a copy of the film on video were 'crop
circle' aficionados Reg Presley, Colin Andrews and George
Wingfield. Santilli also provided a copy of the video to Philip
Mantle from the British UFO Research Association (BUFORA).

Even at that early stage, there were some misgivings about the
authenticity of this film, with reports that it had a 'green
cast' and exhibited no signs of originating from old film stock.

A video showing part of the 'tent footage' was received in the
US by Robert Kiviat, producer of the Fox network's "Alien
Autopsy: Fact or Fiction", a televised documentary which became
a huge success when later itself released on video.

Although Mantle had confirmed that Santilli had a copy of the
film which was "crystal clear", Kiviat's video was poor quality,
with the faces of the 'medics' being, 'blackened out'.

Aside from these early showings, Santilli never released the
'tent footage' and as the main 'alien autopsy' took centre
stage, circa May 1995, began to distance himself from the first
film, claiming that neither himself or the 'cameraman' were
satisfied with its authenticity.

Stills from the 'tent footage' can be seen on Neil Morris's Web
site, at URL:

http://adm2.ph.man.ac.uk/tentft.htm


It wasn't until June, 1998, that there was published evidence
indicating the 'tent footage' to be a definite hoax.

Philip Mantle reported that on 30 March, l998, he had received
information from an unnamed source, who claimed to have taken
part in the filming.

Subsequently, Mantle and researcher Tim Matthews from the
Lancashire UFO Society, revealed the names of "those alleged to
have faked the tent footage", as Keith Bateman and Andy Price
Watts, from Milton Keynes, England.

The story was picked up by Robert Kiviat and on 28 December,
1998, it featured in a new Fox network documentary 'World's
Greatest Hoaxes: Secrets Finally Revealed'.

It was only in response to the recent Fox broadcast that
Santilli claimed to have been aware the footage was a "practical
joke" played on him, maintaining it didn't affect the
authenticity of the 'alien autopsy' film.

Further information, including Santilli's rebuttals, can be
found on Mark Center's informative Web site, at URL:

http://www.uforeport.com/kiviat1.html


Although the program included an interview with one of the
persons who had apparently participated in the 'tent footage',
he was not, as claimed in the Fox press release, "one of the
actors who took part in staging the alien autopsy ruse".

The 'alien autopsy' footage which had been broadcast world-wide
was a completely separate and vastly superior sequence of film.
As a hoax, none of the participants involved have been
identified.


Missing from the evidence was an interview with either Bateman
or Price-Watts. Nick Fielding, a journalist with the UK national
newspaper 'The Mail on Sunday' and who I had worked with
previously, was familiar with the complex and by no means
straightforward 'alien autopsy' history. Following these
developments, Nick contacted myself with the aim of finally
resolving the 'tent footage' claims.

Bateman and Price-Watts agreed to tell Nick Fielding the entire
story and on Saturday 16 January I published details of the
impending 'Mail on Sunday' article, together with some factual
background.

With permission from the 'Mail on Sunday', a transcript of the
full expose, published on 17 January, together with the images
from the article, can be found on my Web site at

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pulsar/mail_os.htm


Price-Watts confirmed that the 'tent footage' setting was "a
barn in the quiet village of Ridgmont, Bedfordshire". The
'alien' was his 12-year-old son. Elliot Willis, a technician and
Roger Baker, the local butcher, played the two medical staff.

During filming, the local farmer walked in and Bateman
recalled, "I suddenly thought we could use him".

"There was an old scarecrow in the corner of the barn and we
got the coat  from it, put it on him and he had a little cameo
role as President Truman. We could hardly stop ourselves
laughing as we shot the video, which took about an hour and a
half to complete".

Was this the original source of Santilli's later claims that
amongst the reels of 'Roswell' film there was footage of
President Truman?


In response, Ray Santilli told me that he stood by his last
rebuttal, that he was the innocent victim of a practical joke
and referring to Bateman and Price-Watts' assertions commented,
"Why not ask them who shot Kennedy?".


However, there seems to be further evidence which may
substantiate Keith Bateman and Alan Price-Watts' claims that Ray
Santilli knew the true origins of the 'tent footage'.

Researching the earliest background to this film, I discovered
an important commentary which appeared in Colin Andrews' 'Winter
1995' issue of his 'Circles Phenomenon Research International
Newsletter', published during June 1995.

Giving a detailed account of his initial involvement, Andrews
writes:

"During the first days of 1995, I received a telephone call in
the U.S. office from my close friend, Reg Presley in the U.K.
Many people know of Reg's interest in the crop circle phenomenon
and UFO's. He is the lead singer of the popular 60's rock group
'The Troggs' ('Wild Thing', 'Love Is All Around', etc.). Reg
told me that his manager had been talking with a business man in
London, Raymond Santilli, managing director and owner of Merlin
Productions, a mass media organization with close show biz
connections. He and Reg had business dealings some years ago and
were tying up loose ends. Santilli suggested to Reg's manager
that Reg should come to London and see some material Ray thought
he would be interested in. Ray claimed the material was the
original U.S. army film of the crashed UFO at Roswell".

[...]

I asked Santilli if he would permit me to take a copy of the
film back to America, where I could obtain a medical opinion on
the procedures being undertaken. Santilli agreed under the
condition that no one else would be permitted to view it.

Bound by this agreement, I returned to the U.S. and showed it
to Dr. Gale Ramsby, MD, professor of Radiology at the University
of Connecticut Health Center. It is the opinion of Dr. Ramsby
that the film may show a medical procedure rather than an
autopsy. Santilli verified that the photographer does indeed
claim that this was an emergency procedure carried out in a barn
at the crash site after discovering that one of the two aliens
was in fact still alive".


So how could Ray Santilli have known the film setting was a
barn?

The default answer must be that he was fully aware of the
film's true origins.

An alternative explanation would have to be that the
'cameraman' did confirm he had shot the film in a barn and it
documented an emergency medical procedure on one of the
'aliens'. Given what we no know about the true background, that
doesn't seem the least plausible.


Perhaps the overall conclusion is the one most evident; the
'barn footage' was always known to be fake and originally
promoted as a 'medical procedure' on an 'alien', claiming the
'cameraman' confirmed details of its authenticity.

Subsequently, the 'tent footage' was dropped as it had become
surplus to requirements, became something of a problem and most
importantly, detracted from the far superior 'alien autopsy'
footage.

Part of the 'tent footage' which Bob Kiviat acquired and which
had faces digitally masked, might have been a result of
maintaining its presence as 'Roswell' evidence, whilst ensuring
none of the actors were identified.

Thus the 'cameraman' subsequently became 'uncertain' about this
sequence of film...and so on.


I anticipate there will be further developments in the 'alien
autopsy' affair.


~~~~~ >>>>> oo0oo <<<<< ~~~~~


2. Recovered Sea Wreckage Was Not From a 'UFO'.

On 17 December, 1998, Iain Maciver, a freelance journalist from
Stornoway on the Isle of Lewis in Scotland, published a news
report which read:

PART of a military helicopter has been dragged up in nets by a
trawler off the Western Isles of Scotland.

Yet, incredibly, none has been reported missing.

There was speculation last night (WED) that the amazing find,
reported by a French trawler, could explain the UFO seen
plunging into the sea off the Isle of Lewis by several witnesses
two years ago.

The RAF confirmed it had launched an investigation after the
find of a helicopter rotor head with four blades, and part of a
gearbox.

The cluster was dredged up from a depth of 1,000 feet in a
position about 80 miles west of the Butt of Lewis.

It has emerged that the trawler, the Albert Granet, was last
night believed to be making for Stornoway with what could be
part of a Westland helicopter.

Only last month, part of the BBC1 programme Mysteries with
Carol Vorderman was devoted to dramatic accounts from witnesses
of the sightings of the plummeting, smoking UFO north-west of
the Butt of Lewis.

The RAF last night insisted: "None of our aircraft is missing."
No helicopters have been reported lost or missing in the area
for decades.

RAF spokesman Craig Lindsay did, however, confirm that serial
numbers from the recovered cluster indicate that it may be from
a helicopter made by Westland.

The twin-engined Westland Lynx, used by many worldwide forces,
is often used in maritime reconnaissance and operates well from
aircraft carriers. It also has four rotor blades.

The RAF spokesman stressed: "We eliminated all aircraft from UK
forces at the time. We even investigated the possibility of
secret testing but we drew a blank."

However, the French trawler's find is bound to add to
speculation that the military know more than they are saying
about the mysterious incident involving the UFO on Saturday,
October 26, 1996, off Ness in the north of Lewis.

Flashes and explosions in the sky were reported by a number of
credible witnesses. There was a large scale military exercise
going on in the sea off Lewis and there were even claims that a
rogue missile had been deliberately destroyed.

A sea and air search covering 1,000 square miles was launched
after the witnesses reported seeing flashes, smoke and hearing
two explosions off the west coast something apparently plunged
into the sea.

It was initially thought obvious that an aircraft had crashed
and police, coastguards and ambulance crews rushed to Ness in
case there were casualties.

An RAF Nimrod aircraft was launched as was Stornoway
Coastguard's helicopter, and an RAF Sea King helicopter from
Lossiemouth. Searches began by a coastguard tug and the
Stornoway lifeboat.

UFO watchers had a field day with astronomers also joining in
claiming there was unusual meteorite activity over the Atlantic
and other parts of the globe. Western Isles MP Calum Macdonald,
now a Scottish Office minister, tabled Parliamentary Questions
to the then Defence Secretary, Michael Portillo.

He demanded to know if the military was responsible for the
incident which sparked off a major air and sea search reported
to have cost in excess of 200,000 pounds.

Mr Portillo said there was no evidence the military was in any
way involved. The Royal Artillery Range in Benbecula confirmed
that they had not carried out any test firing that Saturday.

Comparisons were later drawn between the events and the TV
series The X Files.

The RAF at Kinloss assumed responsibility for the incident
which was initially handled by Stornoway Coastguard.

A coastguard insider confirmed the extent and effort put into
the search after the UFO sighting was 'very unusual'. He said
the buzz was that a missile had gone seriously wrong and was
brought down by the military.

"The intensive search was not so much to discover wreckage but
to ensure nothing was ever found," said the source.

Witnesses reported seeing a vapour trail high in the sky and at
least 15 to 20 miles out to the west of the Butt of Lewis. No
wreckage or tell-tale oil spills were ever found.

All sorts of alternative theories were put forward ranging from
lightning, to meteorites and plummeting space junk.

[...]

[End]


I followed up the story and Ian informed he had subsequently
released this news report:

ROTOR blades and engine parts found in a trawler's nets are
from a Royal Navy which ditched 16 years ago while shadowing a
Soviet submarine.

Rear Admiral Iain Henderson, the Flag Officer, Naval Aviation,
based at Naval Air Command in Yeovilton, ordered that it should
be confirmed to halt speculation that the bits were from a UFO
seen falling into the sea off the Western Isles of Scotland two
years ago.

The four blades and various attached pieces including a
gearbox, were found 80 miles north-west of the Butt of Lewis by
a French trawler.

The Rear Admiral confirmed it was from a Westland Lynx HAS
(Helicopter Anti-Submarine) Mk2 which went down during a mission
on September 30, 1982.

His spokesman, Anthony Worren, added: "There was a fire in the
roof of the cabin of the Lynx, registration XZ 247. The three
crew tried unsuccessfully to put the fire out. "After
transmitting a Mayday on an emergency frequency, the aircraft
captain made a controlled ditching at a point near where the
French trawler recovered the piece of wreckage. "The helicopter
sank within one minute and it was an hour and a quarter before
rescuers arrived at the scene. "We can confirm the survivors
were Lieutenant Al Bucknell, Lt Philip Henry and Acting LAEM F
Parker."

The ditched aircraft was fitted for an anti-submarine role and
was searching for "a target", understood to be a Soviet
submarine, at the time of the emergency.

"No parts of the Lynx have ever been recovered as far as we
know until now. "I cannot say if it was fitted with weapons. I
do not have that information," said the spokesman for the
Scots-born Rear Admiral.

The confirmation came after a winchman from another helicopter
was lowered onto the Lorient-registered trawler, Albert Granet.
A description of the recovered parts and a statement from the
trawler captain, Patrick Lebronze, was flashed back to the
Ministry of Defence at Whitehall.

The Flag Officer's statement has put paid to speculation that
the wreckage could explain the UFO seen plunging into the sea
off the Isle of Lewis by several witnesses two years ago.

[...]

[End]

My thanks to Ian for his assistance and some fine journalism.


~~~~~ >>>>> oo0oo <<<<< ~~~~~


3. Nick Pope's Time-Warp.

Unfortunately that can't be said for former Ministry of Defence
'UFO Desk' incumbent Nick Pope's recent comments on my research
into the 'Rendlesham forest' case.

In the 'weird world' column he writes for a woman's Internet
magazine, 'Hot Gossip', Pope appropriately bitched in the
January 1999:issue:

"Researcher James Easton has done some interesting research on
the Rendlesham Forest case. That said, he's been a little
naughty, and anyone would think - judging from his recent
Internet posts - that he was the only person ever to have
investigated the case".

"Easton's Internet posts are full of references to his own
papers on the subject, but mysteriously fail to mention any
dissenting views. I wonder why. For those who'd like some
balance, check out Jenny Randles' paper Seeing the Forest for
the Trees (IUR, Summer Edition)...".


A consummate embarrassment for Pope is that Jenny's
'International UFO Reporter' was not only referenced, it was
discussed in detail within my own paper, 'Resolving Rendlesham:
New Insights and Past Claims Examined', which began:

I was pleased to read the recent article "Seeing the Forest for
the Trees: New Twists in the Bentwaters Case", written by Jenny
Randles.[1]

Jenny has researched the extraordinary 'Rendlesham forest'
story since early 1981 and her latest book, 'UFO Crash
Landing?', is an invaluable summary of the case history.

The critical new evidence I had published earlier this year in
'Rendlesham Unravelled' was a challenge to convictions,
including my own, that the case had any substance at all, let
alone the purported contact with an extraterrestrial
civilisation.

Her public response is therefore welcome as it raises issues
which need to be addressed and in doing so, the evidence
presented in this document will hopefully result in further
unravelling and understanding a complex series of events.

[...]

Reference:

[1] 'Seeing the Forest for the Trees: New Twists in the
Bentwaters Case', by Jenny Randles International UFO Reporter
(IUR), Summer 1998, pp 16-19 & 28, 30

http://www.cufos.org/IUR_article2.html [End]


Why in January 1999 was Nick Pope making accusations of such
naughtiness when the very article he suggests as a
countermeasure was not only fully referenced, I addressed it
within 'Resolving Rendlesham', which was published in August
1998.


Although he might be forgiven such poor research, a question he
may care to ponder is why a not-so-hot 'Gossip' woman's magazine
published such baloney when the editor, Georgina Bruni, was not
only aware of the 'Resolving Rendlesham' paper I had published
in August 1998 and that it encompassed Jenny's article, the said
Ms Bruni had later participated in some related discussions.


It leaves me speechless.

Well, almost.


~~~~~ >>>>> oo0oo <<<<< ~~~~~


4. Aliens Invade Earth to Reclaim Crop Circles.

"Aliens are invading the Earth! But they aren't such bad guys
after all. They are just trying to get back the crop circles
they left accidentally".

No, it's not Nick Pope's latest column.

This is the description of a new computer game, 'Crop Circles',
published by 'Zero Entertainment'. In the game's second level,
you can "harvest earth bovines" (that's cows to us!) to
replenish the dwindling fuel supply. Press and hold the space
bar to pick up a cow with the tractor beam...".

Hold on though. This isn't just a 'shoot 'em up' based on 'UFO
folklore', it's a game designed for young children.

A trial copy can be downloaded from 'Kids Domain', at:

http://www.kidsdomain.com/down/pc/cropcircles.html


Whatever happened to 'guide Winnie the Pooh through the maze to
collect the honey jars'.

Good news for 'ufologists' is that the game was designed for
'Age 8 and Up'!

Last heard, Nick Pope was stuck on level one, looking for the
entrance to an underground alien base.


~~~~~ >>>>> oo0oo <<<<< ~~~~~


5. Report of 'UFO' Crash Near Holloman Air Force Base.

>From Susan Farnsworth's 'Encounters' feature, could the
following be the genuine account of a largely unknown 'UFO'
incident?

Susan states, "I got this story from a Staff Sargent from
Holloman AFB, New Mexico":

I was working the flight line at Holloman one evening. Because
I was near an  active runway I had to keep in contact with the
tower at all times. When we were working, we would monitor the
tower for a hint as to when we would be required to move out of
the way of an incoming aircraft.

Just prior to quitting time I picked up on a strange
conversation between the tower and a C141 cargo plane. It seems
the plane was just passing over Alamogordo when a craft of some
type flew by nearly hitting the plane. The craft was nothing
like he had ever seen before. It had no wings, but appeared to
have some type of legs which must have been landing gear of
somesort. There were no wheels on the legs. Just pads. It had
landed just outside of town on the north side. There was a fire
and lots of dust. The pilot couldn't tell if the craft had
landed or crashed.

I recognized the location because I been there before. It was a
clearing overlooking the town about a mile from the KMart on
the highway. I decided to see this for my self.

I raced for my car and exited the base in a hurry. My wife was
expecting me to pick her up to go out for the evening, and she
was right on the way. A few minutes later we were both speeding
down the highway headed for the far side of town.

We reached the turnoff, and there was no signs of anyone to
block the entry. We raced up the dirt road to the clearing. We
had to slow down a bit due to the roughness in the road, and my
station wagon was having troubles bottoming out on some of the
low spots. However, we made it there in record time.

We were the first on the site. The craft had taken off, but it
left a lot of evidence. The clearing was nearly fifty yards
across. The top of a pine tree was burned. The bottom of the
tree was fine. It was if something very hot had passed over the
top if it.

On the far side of the clearing I found prints. They reminded
me of tennis shoe prints, but these were about two feet across.
It definitely looked as if the craft had landed on some type of
legs which had groved pads on the bottoms of the landing gear.
Several of the nearby bushes were still smouldering from the
heat. I assumed it was from some kind of rocket plume.

It was at this time I realized I had forgot my camera. I was
kicking myself all the way back to the car. Both my wife and I
decided it would be a good thing to get out of there before the
local authorities arrived. We did so.

Infact, we never did see anyone from the town show up at the
site. The next day the place was put off limits by the military,
and no one was allowed access for several weeks. We went back
much later. Funny how the tree was missing, and so were the
burnt bushes. The tracks were destroyed. The local news accepted
the military's explanation without question. It was a target
drone which had gone off course and crashed in the desert. [End]


Susan's full presentation is at URL:

http://members.aol.com/susanfarns/encount.html


The Web site has several hand-drawn location maps and two
sketches, one of which is said to be based on the pilot's
descriptions (it's not clear if in fact both are claimed to be).
The detailed second-hand depiction is consistent with a possible
UAV, although interestingly, the 'top view' as reportedly seen
by the pilot, shows a triangular-shaped object.

Without knowing the date of this alleged incident, little can
be added for now, however, some further enquiries have been
made.

If the object did leave trace evidence which covered a sizeable
area and included burnt foliage, it certainly doesn't seem
consistent with a UAV.

This account has similarities with the 'classic' Socorro 'UFO
landing' case from April 1964, when local Police officer Lonnie
Zamora reportedly encountered a 'UFO' which departed leaving
ground traces and "burning brush".

However, I concur with those who conclude that Zamora may have
witnessed a hot-air balloon - not a common sight in 1964. That
he was in radio contact during the incident and in his official
report mentions describing the enigmatic object to a colleague
by saying, "It looks like a balloon", may have been closer to
the truth than he realised.

Typically, there is evidence which can be cited from both sides
as to whether Zamora's 'UFO' may, or could not, have been a
hot-air balloon and the results of my own ongoing quest for
conclusive evidence, either way, will be published in due
course.

For the moment, the point is, it should be noted that any
comparisons may be specious.


~~~~~ >>>>> oo0oo <<<<< ~~~~~


6. 'UFOs', Target Drones and UAVs.

On the general subject of target drones, or an Unmanned Aerial
Vehicle (UAV), could one theoretical candidate, obviously
dependent on the story's authenticity and dating, etc., be
Sikorsky's 'CYPHER' UAV?

Details can be found at URL:

http://www. sikorsky.com/programs/cypher/index.html


Some related photographs can be seen in the 'Robotics Image
Library' of the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center, San
Diego, at URL:

http://www.nosc.mil/robots/images/UAVIdx.html


Particularly striking are images from UAV demonstratio ns at Ft.
McClelland, AL and Ft. Benning, GA.


Co-incidentally, on a recent UK TV program I caught the last
minute of some footage which appeared to show a delta, or
triangular-shaped, "target drone" being used for target practice
by enthusiastic - to say the least - private gun owners. The
drone was stated to be "remote controlled".

The weapons used seemed to be a variety of machine-guns, some
being truck mounted and apparently firing 'tracer bullets'; the
location may have been desert terrain, I presume in the US.

I'm interested in identifying the source of any such delta
shaped drone - what is it, where can it be purchased, etc.
Specifically, I would like to determine how common they are and
for how long they've been available.

Any relevant information would be appreciated.


An interesting report of a 'small flying triangle' can be read
at URL:

http://www.ufobc.org/yukon/trianglemain.htm

Entitled, 'Is Exotic Propulsion Technology Being Tested In
Canada's North?', the report details a claimed sighting, "over
Lake Laberge, Yukon - June 18, 1997".


I documented in detail a comparative report, also from Canada,
although ten years previous, and it can be seen on my Web site
at:

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pulsar/jackie.htm


Another detailed account is "Miniature stealth-like plane over
Lake Vattern, Sweden, 20 June 1992", which Mikael Sjoberg the
Webmaster of UFO-Sweden tells me is now on their Web site at the
new URL:

http://www.ufo.se/english/brandstorp.html


Any connection between these reported sightings and 'target
drones' may be unlikely, however, it's a possibility which
merits investigating further.


~~~~~ >>>>> oo0oo <<<<< ~~~~~


7. Rendlesham - Ministry of Defence Responds

In the last newsletter, I wrote:

"In view of all that's become clear in this case during the
past 12 months and preceding charges of a 'cover-up' by the
Ministry of Defence (MoD), it's hoped to have a reaction from
Gaynor South, the MoD's 'UFO' spokesperson, in the next
newsletter".

I had sent Gaynor a copy of 'Rendlesham Unravelled', 'Resolving
Rendlesham: New Insights and Past Claims Examined', and the
first two issues of this newsletter, which added significant
material.

These publications are available on my Web site at URL:

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pulsar/


I have duly received a reply from Gaynor South, at
Secretariat(Air Staff)2a1a and Gaynor writes:

"The content of your letter, 'Pulsar' newsletters and
'Rendlesham' papers have been noted and placed on a Departmental
file".


For the first time, the MoD now have on record, copies of those
original witness statements from Airman First Class John
Burroughs, Airman Edward N. Cabansag, Master-Sergeant J. D.
Chandler, Staff-Sergeant Jim Penniston and Fred A Buran, all of
which confirm it was known and documented that an abortive two
mile chase of illusive, unidentified lights led straight to a
local "beacon light" landmark.

The MoD presumably also now appreciates how it can be proven,
with science write Ian Ridpath's recent photographic evidence
most helpful, that Col. Halt's confirmed bearing for the 'UFO'
he witnessed was exactly where Orfordness lighthouse stood and
that he placed the lighthouse where in fact the beam from
Shipwash lightship could be seen.

Furthermore, they are now aware that the central 'UFO landing'
accounts of Staff-Sergeant Jim Penniston can unequivocally be
demonstrated to have 'grown in the telling', do not equate with
what was documented by all other participants and claims that
'radiation levels' peaked at the 'landing site' are proven to
have no substance whatsoever.


Next time the MoD are asked to comment on the Rendlesham
'cover-up' and claims there was an 'alien landing' and
'underground alien base' at the adjoining RAF Bentwaters/RAF
Woodbridge complex, they will hopefully be able to evaluate the
more sensible accusations against a detailed, factual case
background and respond with the aid of considerable evidence now
at their disposal.

Perhaps they might suggest that the questions asked of Halt and
Penniston and which remain unanswered are tackled by 'alien
proponents' first of all and then we can see what substance, if
any, remains.


~~~~~ >>>>> oo0oo <<<<< ~~~~~


8. Bookmarks.

DELTAWEB

Site sur les phenomenes aerospatiaux non identifies et leurs
implications:

http://www.multimania.com/deltaweb/DWfmnetsca.html

English language site:

http://www.multimania.com/deltaweb/DWus/DWus.html


The U.F.O. archive.

Located in Holland, this Web site has a large collection of
video footage:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~pro/umovie.htm


UFO Sighting, 5:40am March 22 1996, Phoenix AZ.

Concluded to be "a missile test at White Sands Missile Range.
The test involved a target drone and an anti-missile missile
which shot down the drone":

http://trojan.neta.com/~dodson/ufo.html


The decoding of ALIEN Typefaces.

Nicholas Fabian's challenging competition - "If you E-Mail back
a correctly decoded English text, you will receive a personal
copy of the font. Note: You may require multilingual as well as
crypto-analytic skills to complete this project":

http://webcom.net/~nfhome/aliens.html


The first ever depiction of a 'flying saucer'?

I have put this on-line (all copyrights acknowledged) for those
who haven't seen it and may find it interesting. It's from the
front cover of 'Science Wonder Stories' and dates from 1929!:

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/3310/Wonder.jpg



~~~~~ >>>>> oo0oo <<<<< ~~~~~


(c) James Easton February 1999

[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com