This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Anglia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of East Anglia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.East AngliaWikipedia:WikiProject East AngliaTemplate:WikiProject East AngliaEast Anglia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
I have reworded the intro in the light of Dr Fil’s latest criticisms. My explanations are as follows:
1, As far as I am aware it was not an atomic bomber base in 1980 - it was a fighter wing. 2, The fact that the MoD files are consistent with earlier MoD statements is not a matter of opinion, it is clear fact.
3, “Col Halt and others continue to disagree...”. Well of course they do, but this is weasel waffle that attempts to smokescreen the criticism of the case and adds nothing factual. And “principles” should have been “principals”.
This whole article is completely biased and totally inaccurate. The book written by Nick Pope (who worked for the MOD investigating UFO sightings) and John Burroughs, entitled Encounter in Rendlesham Forest, has not even been cited. I suggest you also look at the tapes of the Citizens Hearing of April 30th on the Rendlesham Forest incident, where John Burroughs, Jim Penniston and Nick Pope gave evidence to congress on the events surrounding the incident. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-urjOw99LY
It should also be mentioned that John Burroughs has just been awarded a medical payout by the veterans association because of health problems caused by radiation he was exposed to during the incident.https://vimeo.com/123783338. What is written here is a mish mash of hearsay and unverified and inaccurate information. The whole thing needs to be completely rewritten from start to finish in a much more balanced and unbiased format, and also updated with the latest information. Eiblhin (talk) 00:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ABSOLUTELY AGREE! This Wiki article on this incident is a beautiful expression of any and all skeptics, while skewing the actual FACTS as to what occurred. This article is b.s. I try in vain on every UFO allegation to explain it logically, i.e. Travis Walton is a fraud, however Phoenix Lights is actually true as a aerial phenom from wherever. However, here, I BELIEVE the witnesses Burroughs et al. after using my own common sense as to what to believe. - TRM May 20, 2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.160.18 (talk) 19:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deputy commander Halt at Bentwaters now has statements from radar operators[edit]
Col Charles Halt told the BBC he saw unidentified objects at Rendlesham Forest in December 1980. He says he now has statements from radar operators at RAF Bentwaters and nearby Wattisham airfield that an unknown object was tracked at the time. Col Halt claimed it was seen by himself and base security staff. The 75-year-old, who was deputy commander at the Bentwaters base and now lives in the US state of Virginia, said some former service people had not wanted to speak until they retired but had now provided written statements to him.
He said: "I have confirmation that (Bentwaters radar operators)... saw the object go across their 60 mile (96km) scope in two or three seconds, thousands of miles an hour, he came back across their scope again, stopped near the water tower, they watched it and observed it go into the forest where we were.
"At Wattisham, they picked up what they called a 'bogie' and lost it near Rendlesham Forest.
"Radar" is not currently a word found in the article. Maybe someone can add it? I don't have the time for serious editing of the article. I prefer to bring references here for more patient writers. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RAF Wattisham was a major RAF front line operational fighter base during the Cold War, post 1976 - responsible for air defence and interception of USSR intruder aircraft over the southern North Sea. It was exclusively operated by the RAF and had NOT been shared with the USAF/USAAF since WW2. Referring to it as an 'airfield' and not as a major airbase is absurd and since Col. Halt MUST have been aware of its existence, somewhat suspicious of attempted weasel words. Is the suggestion that this little old 'airfield' must have lacked decent radar and therefore that their 'lost bogie' report can be interpreted pretty much any way - like 'proving' the existence of a UFO?. There are further claimed 'reports' from 'Wattisham radar operators' - in some of Col Halt's later ravings, IIRC - that American Air Force personnel arrived at Wattisham and with zero explanation 'confiscated' the radar record tapes. Frankly, it's vanishingly unlikely that USAAF personnel would even have been allowed entry to a sensitive operational RAF facility like this (except under close supervision) and frankly ludicrous that they'd 'confiscate' anything and be allowed to leave. The Rendlesham saga is full of absurdities like this. 86.149.56.160 (talk) 23:23, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another factor to consider is that a typical airfield surveillance radar rotates at around 12 rpm meaning that the radar data on the screen is refreshed every 5 seconds. So it is not credible to claim that an object was observed making manoeuvres in 2 or 3 seconds. So either Halt and his sources don’t know what they are talking about, or they hope that we don’t. Skeptic2 (talk) 12:05, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the most knowledgeable guy when it comes to this incident.....but just about every time I've seen these guys recount their story....something in it changes. I was watching Unidentified: Inside America's UFO Investigation (Season 1 Ep 5: "The Atomic Connection") today on the History Channel, and one of them (John Burroughs) started talking about his missing time and illnesses and so on since then. I've seen him interviewed before and he didn't mention any of that. On Unsolved Mysteries, in 1991, he didn't mention that.
I'm not the only one who has noticed this....a BBC article mentions this sort of thing as well: [1]
Just read David Clarkes blog post linked to this section - he calls the hoax claim false after interviewing SAS/Base Commander, this section instead sounds like it was pushed by him. Heads up to the folks that edit this artile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:643:8800:6DC0:14C3:75C9:A030:357 (talk) 06:32, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
