UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2001 > Nov > Nov 21

Re: The Rendlesham Revelation! - Easton

From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 02:48:19 -0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 09:02:20 -0500
Subject: Re: The Rendlesham Revelation! - Easton


Regarding:

 >From: Tim Matthews <TMMatthews99@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 21:54:34 EST
 >Fwd Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 13:31:07 -0500
 >Subject: The Rendlesham Revelation!

Tim wrote:

 >Matthews said that he was convinced that many of the stories
 >regarding aliens and crashed craft that emerged in East Anglia
 >in January 1980, in some cases before the Halt Memorandum was
 >written, were part of a deliberate smokescreen put in place by
 >elements associated with both the nuclear industry (security)
 >and the MOD.

Tim,

This premise surely falls at several obstacles.

Firstly, there is that copious, documented evidence of those
perceived 'UFO' events which occurred during the early hours of
26th December and the night/early morning of 27th/28th.

These 'stories' were borne of experiences - five of which are
recorded in the statements Halt requested from Burroughs,
Cabansag, Penniston, Buran and Chandler at the beginning of
January 1981.

We also have numerous accounts from such as Chris Armold - his
26th December, approximately 0400 call to the local police is
documented on their records, as was Halt's query to Eastern
Radar at 0325 on 28 December, etc.

The 'UFO' perception existed at ground zero - it's long proven
this was never an added 'smokescreen' afterwards.

Secondly, how do we therefore equate the observations of
'strange lights' within Rendlesham forest, or Halt's ['two
nights' later] 'beams of light' being direct onto the base
complex for a couple of hours, etc. with a 'leak' at Sizewell?

This does seem to exemplify so many 'Rendlesham' claims - it's
announced that someone says 'x' happened, whilst another
declares 'y' occurred, then we have a new story from 'z', yet
there's no attempt to explain why none of these agree with the
previous evidence from 'a', 'b', 'c' and 'd'... which is
frequently the exact opposite.

Thirdly... the recently released MoD documentation proves there
was no 'cover up', in any respect.


 >Matthews particularly concentrated upon stories generated by a
 >"mystery" character, Steve Roberts, who contacted Rendlesham
 >researchers Dot Street and Brenda Butler at the time and was the
 >first to spread what proved to be disinformation of the worst
 >sort.

Presumably, you do know that 'Steve Roberts' is a pseudonym.

I'm not sure why he would be regarded as 'mysterious' - he was a
friend of Brenda's beforehand. The background is explained in
'Skycrash', by Jenny Randles, Brenda Butler and Dot Street.

According to Larry Warren, Steve's real name was Danny. During
discussions with Larry, I mentioned: "On 2 January 1981, an
airman friend of Brenda Butler's first broke the story of a UFO
which had crashed in Rendlesham Forest. In 'Skycrash', he was
given the pseudonym of 'Steve Roberts'."

Larry confirmed in response:

[some material deleted for now - James]

"But sadly, Danny was the A Flight Desk Sgt. for Law Enforcement
and did not witness the three night UFO incident".

Validating that Larry Warren did know 'Steve Roberts', this is
an extract from that pivotal May 13, 1997 'Microsoft Network'
online interview, under the auspices of 'Project: watchfire',
when Salley Rayl asked of Halt:

RAYL: Questions coming in about Larry Warren. What is your
opinion overall of Larry Warren's version of what happened as
written up in 'Left at Eastgate'?

HALT: Well, I felt kind of sad when I read the book. It's sort
of Larry Warren's, how shall I say, his life. A lot of
misfortune. I think Larry Warren has either relived a fantasy so
many times that he sincerely believes it or he's been meddled
with. By that, I mean hypnosis, drugs or whatever. I think he
may have been a lightening rod and drawn a lot of attention and
something may have happened to him. I don't know for a fact. And
he's admitted this to me. He and I have talked a couple of
times.

RAYL: We received an e-mail earlier in the day from a fellow by
the name of James Easton who lives in Scotland and apparently
has been researching this case during recent months. He said
that he had an almost two hour long trans-Atlantic phone
conversation with a new witness to some of the events. He said
he's not strictly a new witness. It's just that he's now come
forward. One thing that he mentioned and a question that I would
like to pass on to you is why have there been variances in the
dates given for both incidents? Your memo claims that the dates
were on the evening, early morning of the 26th, 27th and 28th,
29th of December, respectively. But elsewhere, you know, the
dates have been given as 25 to 26 and 29 to 30, he says. So why,
why are there differences in those dates?

HALT: Well, I tried to go back and recover the police blotter
and the security blotter think I mentioned to you earlier to re-
affirm the dates. Keep in mind, I wrote the memo several weeks
later. And it was not a really important memo. The date was not
critical. The critical portion was, you know, what happened and
are you interested? And how about getting involved and let's
investigate this. It's possible that I, I put the date down
wrong. But I don't believe so. I tried to verify later and the
police blotters had been taken from repository, probably by a,
how shall I say, curiosity seeker...

RAYL: Hmm.

HALT: ...but I don't know that for a fact.

[...]

RAYL: [...] He said that Warren was originally repeating stories
of alien contact that were circulating and were, which later
admitted by the source, a fellow, a pseudonym given, Steve
Robert...?

HALT: Uh huh.

RAYL: ...to have been a deliberate fabrication. So, apparently,
this fellow, Steve Roberts which is a pseudonym, went out and
told this story and then later said it was a complete
fabrication and now is saying that Larry Warren just picked up
the story. Do you know anything about that? Does that make sense
to you?

HALT: That individual I'd rather not reveal his name since he
doesn't want it revealed worked in the back office with Larry
Warren in the security police squadron and was closely
associated with him. I know who that person is.

RAYL: And did he tell you that he had deliberately fabricated
stories and that Larry picked up on them?

HALT: No. He didn't tell me that personally. I heard that
second- hand.

RAYL: Okay. But you have heard this before. This is not a...

HALT: Oh, my yes. It's no surprise.

RAYL: ...this is not new news to you?

HALT: I've listened to many of Larry Warren's tapes. He goes
around the country. He's on the, how shall I say, the talk
circuit? And, and I, I've, I have half a dozen of them and I've
listened to them several times and the story changes. It keeps
getting embellished and, and the book is even different. So,
what can I say? [END OF EXTRACT]


This also contains Halt's critical insight, replying to my
question, why the dates in his memo to the MoD might be wrong.

They are of course now proven to be and we further realise from
the MoD's recently released 'Rendlesham file' how they were
oblivious to the correct dates until Ian Ridpath informed them
years later.


 >Tim also called into question the role of Jenny Randles who, it
 >emerged, wrote letters to the MOD in 1983 and 1984, now in his
 >possession...

Isn't it true that in Jenny's 1987 publication, 'UFO Conspiracy'
[pages 197-9], the contents of these letters were detailed some
14 years ago?

 >...offering to assist the MOD in terms of its "public relations
 >position", to help educate the public that there was "no UFO
 >cover up" and much, much more besides.

Clearly Jenny was, as such evidence reiterates, ahead of some
colleagues in perceiving the true perspective.

How many years later before Nick Pope, commenting in what is a
recent, fundamentally revealing internal memo, implored the MoD
should do exactly the same?

As Jenny didn't have the benefit of Pope's 'inside knowledge',
she must have been an astute judge. And she is also of course
now proven to have been absolutely correct.


 >Her private letters to the MOD and public statements were, he
 >said, seriously at odds with each other. He said he intended to
 >publish the Randles letters, in their entirety, at some point
 >next week.

The material 'in your possession' is readily available, and
freely so from Jenny herself. As it has been before now, perhaps
worth contemplating why there hasn't been a rush to publish.

Perhaps, outwith those who have historically 'crossed swords'
with Jenny, it's palpable this was of underwhelming interest and
zero relevance.

Whatever this reflects on, it certainly won't be Jenny Randles,
or the standards in 'ufology' which she accomplished, over so
many years, more than anyone.

Regrettably, it's increasingly evident that was ufology's zenith
and it's all been rapidly downhill since.

By the way, I understand that Max Burns, having served his time
for those drug dealing charges, is the featured speaker at
BUFORA's December lecture.


 >Tim added that an unusual, albeit genuine looking "hoax"
 >document, revealing information on a claimed "contact" scenario
 >involving alien beings "of 1 1/2 metres in height" and US Air
 >Force personnel, written on headed Ministry of Defence
 >notepaper, had made its way into the 150 page Rendlesham File
 >recently released to BUFOSC and others. The MOD, it emerged,
 >"had no idea" where the document came from, despite the fact
 >that it seems to have been internally generated.

This blatant hoax - are you sure it could be considered as being
on what seriously resembled 'headed Ministry of Defence
notepaper'?

A copy of this letter has been available for several years and I
recall the MoD ridiculed it as a hoax long time ago.

It's surprising you believe this resembles something that "seems
to have been internally generated".


 >Was this document used to mislead UFO researchers back in the
 >early 1980s or was the information contained therein a template
 >for subsequent disinformation? It would seem so...

No, you might want to check the facts about this again. I don't
think you'll find anyone was fooled by it, at the time.


 >All in all, there is much to research and many new leads to
 >follow. Tim Matthews is not claiming to have anything like all
 >the answers but this new information requires us to reconsider
 >the events of December 1980.'

There is evidently nothing therein which isn't unsubstantiated or
perhaps requires some further examination of available facts.


On the point that we do have to explain why pieces of the puzzle
fit together and equally rationalise if they don't, a classic
example pertaining to any 'UFO' case is in fact 'Rendlesham' and
the typically wild tales which primarily emerge when a claimed
witness is 'hypnotised'. In Rendlesham, one setting for these is
a supposed, secret underground base complex where the *real*
gummit are in cahoots with aliens.

Great story, but no surprise that even Col. Halt refutes there
was an underground site. Check out the CD-ROM [available from
FUFOR's web site] of his lecture at Prince Georges Community
College, in August 1997. Halt explains that he would definitely
have known about an underground complex and it simply didn't
exist.

How many also realise the USAF did in fact, many years ago, put
in writing that there were no underground facilities at either
RAF Bentwaters, or, RAF Woodbridge [in a written reply to Mark
Birdsall, of 'UFO Magazine' (UK)].

Fair enough, solving this part of the puzzle is child's play.
The 'UFO cover up' evidence doesn't get much more incongruous or
absurd; how can we have the AFOSI, witnesses being terrorised,
MJ-12, aliens and spaceships all located in a place which didn't
actually exist...!


James Easton.
E-mail: voyager@ufoworld.co.uk
www.ufoworld.co.uk

Join the 'UFO Research List' or read discussions at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/UFORL







UFO UpDates - Toronto - ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
A UFO & Related Phenomena E-Mail List operated by
Errol Bruce-Knapp

UFO UpDates Archives are available at:
http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates

'Strange Days...Indeed' - available 'live' via
Windows Media Player 10:00 Eastern, Saturday nights at:
http://cfrb.com/

Coming soon..... The Virtually Strange Nework





[ 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