Above photo from Simon Leatherdale / Supposed UFO landing site - Rendlesham Forest / CC BY-SA 2.0
Welcome to Part 3 of our alien investigation!
Last week, we took a peek at some of the evidence collected from Lieutenant Colonel Halt. Now we'll be diving into more evidence of the encounter.
Evidence: Witness Statements Collected In 1980
Scottish researcher James Easton was able to uncover some of the original witness testimonies in 1997.
Ed Cabansag said, "we figured the lights were coming from past the forest since nothing was visible when we passed through the woody forest. We would see a glowing near the beacon light, but as we got closer we found it to be a lit-up farmhouse. We got to a vantage point where we could determine that what we were chasing was only a beacon light off in the distance."
John Burroughs recalled, "we could see a beacon going around so we went towards it. We followed it for about two miles [3 km] before we could [see] it was coming from a lighthouse."
Burroughs also said they heard a noise "like a woman was screaming," and that "you could hear the farm animals making a lot of noises."
Lieutenant Colonel Halt reported hearing the same sounds two nights later while investigating the first sighting.
Evidence: The Halt Affidavit
In 2010, Lieutenant Colonel Halt signed a notarized affidavit. The affidavit included both a summary of the events of December 1980, and a statement he believed the events were extraterrestrial and the United States and the U.K. worked together to cover it up.
There are several important details that differ in the affidavit when compared to his original memo and recollection of the events. Quite a few of these can be attributed to Halt's memory, as Halt was over 70 years old when the affidavit was created, and it was 30 years after the events actually occurred.
Evidence: Colonel Conrad's Interview
After Halt's affidavit was released, Colonel Ted Conrad, who was Halt's superior in 1980, came out against it. Conrad said, "we saw nothing that resembled Lieutenant Colonel Halt's descriptions either in the sky or on the ground." He also claimed that he tried to have people corroborate Halt's story but they could not. He also commented that "[Halt] should be ashamed and embarrassed by his allegation that his country and Britain both conspired to deceive their citizens over this issue. He knows better."
However Colonel Conrad had a very different story when he was interviewed for a 1983 article by Omni Magazine, and his interview directly contradicts those 2010 statements. The article says:
"Colonel Ted Conrad the base commander... recalls five Air Force policemen spotted lights from what they thought was a small plane descending into the forest. Two of the men tracked the object on foot and came upon a large tripod-mounted craft. It had no windows but was studded with brilliant red and blue lights. Each time the men came within 50 yards of the ship, Conrad relates, it levitated six feet in the air and backed away. They followed it for almost an hour through the woods and across a field until it took off at 'phenomenal speed.' Acting on the reports made by his men, Colonel Conrad began a brief investigation of the incident in the morning. He went into the forest and located a triangular pattern ostensibly made by the tripod legs."
Conrad also said he interviewed several eyewitnesses, and he concluded that:
”
Those lads saw something, but I don't know what it was.
Colonel Ted Conrad // Omni Magazine, 1983
So which is it?
Did the Air Force policemen report seeing strange lights to Colonel Conrad or not?
Did Colonel Conrad see the same impressions in the dirt Lt. Colonel Halt did?
Wouldn't the five Air Force policemen be able to corroborate each other's stories as well as Lt. Colonel Halt's?
Is it possible Conrad was pressured by both governments to denounce Halt after he had written and signed a notarized, legally-binding affidavit? It sure seems like it.
