Merged Advanced Aviation Threat Identification Program UFO'S

[Cosmic Yak]

No I don't, but a video is not needed considering the terrain and thckness of the forest. Remember, the lighthouse is miles away and the forest created an ultra dense barrier between the East Gate and the lighthouse.

Yes, a video is needed. You need to show that the light from the lighthouse is not visible at night from that position.

Endlessly posting the same photos over and over again does not prove your point.
If you have no evidence, then you can't prove anything.

The forest was much thicker back then, which is why I posted a photo taken shortly after the events in December 1980.

Which still does not answer my point.
Why was the forest thicker in the past than it is now? What happened to the trees? Thus far, this is just a bare assertion.
Do you have any then-and-now photos for comparison, so we can see the difference?

 

[Matthew Ellard]

Let's take a look here.

Yes. You got caught lying, knowing you were lying.

The only person who said Dana White confirmed that Luis Elizondo was manager of the AATIP was Bryan Bender. Dana White was sacked from the Pentagon for misconduct and Bryan Bender became an employee of Luis Elizondo at "To the Stars Academy" to appear in UFO videos.

You already knew that as Bryan Bender then appeared on Luis Elizondo's UFO fan show "Unidentified".
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10016814/fullcredits?ref_=tt_ql_1

Secondly, the actual spokesperson from the Pentagon made this clear statement. "Christopher Sherwood told me that he “cannot confirm” White’s statement."

and "There is no discernible evidence that he (Luis Elizondo) ever worked for a government UFO program, much less led one."

"Yes, AATIP existed, and it “did pursue research and investigation into unidentified aerial phenomena,” Pentagon spokesperson Christopher Sherwood told me. However, he added: “Mr. Elizondo had no responsibilities with regard to the AATIP program while he worked in OUSDI [the Office of Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence], up until the time he resigned effective 10/4/2017.”

Luis Elizondo never ran any UFO program at the Pentagon. Luis Elizondo is a small time con artist trying to raise $30,000,000 from UFO fan idiots with Tom Delonge.
https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...903/TTSA_Reg+A+#2_Offering+Circular_FINAL.pdf

 

[Matthew Ellard]

Sorry, but the landing site was not faked and there were valid reasons why the Air Force took those light-alls and set them up outside the area with their lights facing the nearby road.

You are lying again.

1) The police met with the security guards at the location and issued a formal report saying they could only see the light from the light house and that the landing indentations were rabbit scrapings. Here is the official police report
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/police.htm

2) The BBC then proved the landing site was fake by going to the same location and filming the same light from the lighthouse. You refuse to watch the video as it proves you are a liar.

BBC: 3 minute documentary proving landing site was fake.
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendleshamreport_ridpath.mov

3) You claim to be a "radiation" expert and claimed the landing site was radioactive. However there was and is no radiation anywhere near the fake landing site. You refuse to answer that basic problem with your BS story and keep running away.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

Why was the forest thicker in the past than it is now? What happened to the trees?

The BBC documentary showing the lighthouse, was filmed back then in the 80s. It is the exact same forest.

Ian Ridpath who debunked this story in the 1980's, was the BBC's astronomer at the time and used Redlesham as a an example on how to debunk UFO stories.

Skyeagle only reads UFO fan books that edit out Ian Ridpath's facts and evidence.

 

[skyeagle409]

Yes, a video is needed. You need to show that the light from the lighthouse is not visible at night from that position.

The forest and terrain would have made it impossible. Is a video needed to prove that a flashlight cannot shine a beam of light through a solid wall of steel?

 

[skyeagle409]

Yes. You got caught lying, knowing you were lying.

Sorry, but facts are facts and you just have to accept them as they are.

 

[skyeagle409]

You are lying again.

1) The police met with the security guards at the location and issued a formal report saying they could only see the light from the light house and that the landing indentations were rabbit scrapings. Here is the official police report
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/police.htm

They were not at the East Gate, they were already in the forest, just as Col. Halt and the rest of the team were. This is what Col. Halt had said when they were in the forest, not at the East Gate.

Halt Affidavit
The Halt Affidavit notarized June 2010


In June 2010, retired Colonel Charles Halt signed a notarized affidavit, in which he again summarized what had happened, then stated he believed the event to be extraterrestrial and it had been covered up by both the US and UK:

"I believe the objects that I saw at close quarter were extraterrestrial in origin and that the security services of both the United States and the United Kingdom have attempted—both then and now—to subvert the significance of what occurred at Rendlesham Forest and RAF Bentwaters by the use of well-practiced methods of disinformation."

Halt also dismissed claims that he and his men had confused a UFO with a lighthouse beam:

"While in Rendlesham Forest, our security team observed a light that looked like a large eye, red in color, moving through the trees. After a few minutes this object began dripping something that looked like molten metal. A short while later it broke into several smaller, white-colored objects which flew away in all directions. Claims by skeptics that this was merely a sweeping beam from a distant lighthouse are unfounded; we could see the unknown light and the lighthouse simultaneously. The latter was 35 to 40-degrees off where all of this was happening."

BBC: 3 minute documentary proving landing site was fake.
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendleshamreport_ridpath.mov

The landing site was not faked. Sounds like the folks who took Kevin Corde at his word when he claimed he faked the event in the forest until he admitted he lied.

3) You claim to be a "radiation" expert and claimed the landing site was radioactive. However there was and is no radiation anywhere near the fake landing site. You refuse to answer that basic problem with your BS story and keep running away.

Let's take a look here.

A radiation survey of Rendlesham Forest identifying hotspots at sites of reported UFO activity in 1980

Data was captured by a calibrated GMC-600 digital Geiger counter radiation monitor manufactured by GQ Electronics, Seattle, USA. The radiation detection component was a Russian SBT-11 (СБТ-11) Geiger-Müller pancake type tube. GPS positions were determined using a Samsung Galaxy S6 smartphone.

Results

The mean background level of radiation at Rendlesham Forest was established at 0.09 µSv (26 CPM), providing a baseline measurement for this study. This is much lower than the national average background level, mainly due of the lack of naturally-occurring radionuclides in the regional geology. The count measured at randomised control locations ranged from 7 CPM minimum to 37 CPM maximum, following a standard Gaussian distribution curve with a very low frequency of measurements occurring at the extreme ends of the observed range.

The data reveal radiation hotspots with elevated radiation levels at multiples of the background level coinciding with the locations (Map 1) where UFO activity in 1980 has been reported (Table 1).

Summary

In summary, we have shown that, even 37 years after a UFO incident, it is possible to detect new evidence and uncover new information with the potential to answer unresolved questions and lead to novel theories.

This study supports historical claims of elevated radiation levels associated with UFO activity during the Incident, constituting physical evidence of the UFO activity, together with radar observations during the incident[19], plaster casts of landing marks and damage to trees. In addition to physical evidence the UFO hypothesis is supported by numerous expert military eye-witnesses and also several civilian witnesses[20] who live locally.

https://theanalysis.net/2018/02/24/radiation-survey-of-rendlesham-forest/

 

[Matthew Ellard]

They were not at the East Gate, they were already in the forest, just as Col. Halt and the rest of the team were. This is what Col. Halt had said when they were in the forest, not at the East Gate.

Let us systematically work through your lies

1) Halt called the police. The police turned up and identified that the light was from the lighthouse and the three rabbit holes were just rabbit holes and not "landing marks". Halt and the other security guards all went home. Here is the police report.
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/police.htm

2) The radiation was background radiation and not unusual. If there was unusually radiation the three rabbit holes would still be radioactive today, which they are not.
"Confirmation that this was only background radiation comes from the fact that the same levels were also recorded over half a mile away from the supposed landing site, after they had crossed two fields beyond the forest (read the transcript here)."
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham4.htm

3) Because the lighthouse was still running every night, the BBC went to the same location and filmed it and proved Halt only saw the light from the lighthouse through the trees. Here is the BBC's debunking video.
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendleshamreport_ridpath.mov

4) The police checked the local air-traffic towers and none had reported any radar readings. Thirty year later, Halt claimed he had obtained statements from the radar operators saying they saw bogies but was unable to name the operators or produce the statements.
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/police.htm

5) Ian Ridpath noted the rabbit holes could not be "landing marks" as the tree canopy remained in place an no vehicle could have landed anyway without breaking the tree branches.

6) You directly lied, forged evidence and claimed the lighthouse was blocked from shining on the forest. In reality the lighthouse was only blocked from shining on the local town of Orford. You even stole a photo from a website that explained this and you added fake east west arrows. Here is the evidence that the lighthouse was always shining light on Rendlesham forest.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gP0lpGLQKQo

7) You forgot to mention that the first guard, on the first night, Jim Penniston, first published a book, eighteen years later, and claimed he touched hieroglyphs on the "spaceship" and aliens started to beam binary codes into his head in the following weeks. However the other guards with him didn't see any spaceship at all. Even funnier, Penniston wrote the wrong date on the note book as he made the story up for his book eighteen years after he saw the lighthouse light.
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/pennistonnotebook.htm
http://www.therendleshamforestincident.com/Notebook.html

The landing site was not faked.

Three rabbit holes in a forest with thousands of rabbit holes is not a landing site is it?

Here is a photo, by the police, of the police investigating and confirming it was only rabbit holes and the local lighthouse, to Colonel Halt before they all went home.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

Sorry, but facts are facts and you just have to accept them as they are.

Would that be your forged photo of the lighthouse's block to the town of Orford or the magical disappearing radiation from the three rabbit holes?

 

[Matthew Ellard]

The Halt Affidavit notarized June 2010

".....we could see the unknown light and the lighthouse simultaneously"

You have just spent four days saying they couldn't see the lighthouse at all. You can't get your lies to match up can you? Once the police told Halt he was looking at the lighthouse and rabbit holes....they all went home.

(Also Halt is lying in 2010, as he does not mention the lighthouse at all in his recording he made at the actual time in 1980. Didn't you work that out on your own?)

 

[Cosmic Yak]

The light-blocking shield faces the East Gate, and even then, the lighthouse cannot be seen miles away from the East Gate through the thick forest.

As I've said, you cannot see the lighthouse from the East Gate because it was impossible due to the forest, which has been confirmed by those who were there and supported by photos they and I, posted.

Yes, a video is needed. You need to show that the light from the lighthouse is not visible at night from that position.

You have just spent four days saying they couldn't see the lighthouse at all. You can't get your lies to match up can you? Once the police told Halt he was looking at the lighthouse and rabbit holes....they all went home.

(Also Halt is lying in 2010, as he does not mention the lighthouse at all in his recording he made at the actual time in 1980. Didn't you work that out on your own?)

Good catch, Matthew Ellard.
skyeagle409: You need to explain the obvious contradiction here.
One more point: if the forest was too thick to see a lighthouse beam through it, how come it was possible to see other bright lights through it?

 

[steenkh]

Affidavit of Charles I Halt

It is very possible that Charles Halt, who believes in UFOs really thinks he saw a UFO, but I fail to see how this can be evidence of UFOs?

 

[Matthew Ellard]

Good catch, Matthew Ellard.

It wasn't hard. Skyeagle also promotes 9/11 conspiracies using forged evidence. It's his standard modus operandi.

It is a really stupid UFO story
If you think about it, the whole UFO story is really stupid. It claims aliens landed in a spaceship the size of a Volkswagen, in the middle of an English forest to inspect rabbits and trees. The aliens were so excited they came back a day later and inspected the same rabbits and trees again and landed in exactly on the same three rabbit holes. .....it's hardly "Independence Day"

 

[skyeagle409]

Let us systematically work through your lies

1) Halt called the police. The police turned up and identified that the light was from the lighthouse and the three rabbit holes were just rabbit holes and not "landing marks". Halt and the other security guards all went home. Here is the police report.
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/police.htm

The lighthouse was never confused at the East Gate because the lighthouse cannot be seen from the East Gate. I think you had better check where the landing site was and where Col. Halt and his team were when they stated they could see the lighthouse, which was 35 to 40 degrees off from where the lights they observed. In other words, the lighthouse was identified by Col. Halt when they were near the eastern section of the forest, which was some distance from the East Gate.

And, I might add, triangular marks were not holes, they were impressions, which is a big difference between the two, not to mention the distance between the three impressions were precised.

2) The radiation was background radiation and not unusual. If there was unusually radiation the three rabbit holes would still be radioactive today, which they are not.
"Confirmation that this was only background radiation comes from the fact that the same levels were also recorded over half a mile away from the supposed landing site, after they had crossed two fields beyond the forest (read the transcript here)."
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham4.htm

Let's take a look here.

Established connection between UAP/UFOs and radiation

There is a well-established connection between UFO activity and nuclear weapons.

A recently declassified official scientific report published by the UK’s Ministry of Defence acknowledges that UFOs are associated with radiation exposure, referencing animal studies, and citing the Rendlesham Forest Incident as a case study for the harmful effects of radiation from UFOs[21]:

“The well-reported Rendlesham Forest/Bentwaters event is an example where it might be postulated that several observers were probably exposed to UAP [Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon] radiation for longer than normal UAP sighting periods.”

Source: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena in the UK Air Defence Region: Executive Summary, Scientific & Technical Memorandum. No. 55/2/00. DI55, Defence Intelligence Service, Page F-4, Annex F, Vol. 2. (Ministry of Defence, December 2000.)

https://theanalysis.net/2018/02/24/radiation-survey-of-rendlesham-forest/

An American airman has received compensation after suffering radiation poisoning during the encounter.

It's one of Britain's best known UFO cases and one that still remains unexplained more than twenty years later.

The incident occurred in December 1980 at Rendlesham Forest, England where a strange object appeared over multiple nights and was witnessed by several members of the military including Lt. Col. Charles Halt who famously recorded what was happening on audio tape while he and his men were investigating the craft.

One of the airmen who was there at the time however, John Burroughs, was exposed to so much radiation that he later developed a heart problem and had to undergo surgery.

Now after being denied compensation for years the US Veteran's Association has finally agreed to pay for his treatment, a move that has been hailed as an admission that UFOs can cause harm.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/technology-science/science/british-ufo-encounter-gave-heart-5266589

Conclusions

A relationship was found (t-test: p < 0.0001) between radiation levels in Rendlesham Forest and sites where UAP activity occurred in 1980.

This finding may suggest that that either (1) the UAP activity somehow resulted in elevated radiation levels at the hotspots identified, or conversely (2) pre-existing radioactive contamination at these locations somehow resulted in the UAP activity at these locations. At this time there are insufficient data to discriminate conclusively between these two alternate hypotheses. However, there is currently no information available that can explain the highly localised radiation hotspots found in this rural area, unless they were caused by the UAP activity reported at these sites. Thus, it is reasonable to postulate that the radiation hotspots did indeed result from the UAP activity of 1980, and this will remain a valid working hypothesis unless an alternative explanation is proven.

3) Because the lighthouse was still running every night, the BBC went to the same location and filmed it and proved Halt only saw the light from the lighthouse through the trees. Here is the BBC's debunking video.
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendleshamreport_ridpath.mov

The lighthouse was running every night, and keeping in mind the UFO event was first reported on December, 26, 1980, so the question is;

* Did the guards report such activity on December 25, 1980? If not, there's a problem.

* Did the guards report such activity on December 24, 1980? If not, there's a problem.

* Did the guards report such activity the week prior to December 26, 1980? If not, there's a problem.

* Did the guards report such activity the month before December 26, 1980? If not, there's a problem.

* Did the guards report such activity in the years before December 26, 1980? If not, there's a problem.

In other words, prior to the December 26, 1980 event, the guards had not reported such activity in the Rendlesham forest, which in effect, confirms that at no time did they confuse the lighthouse as a UFO in the forest. Only after the team ventured near the eastern section of the forest, the section that faces the lighthouse, did they identify the lighthouse, which was 35 to 40 degrees off-line from the lights of the UFO the team was observing.

Rendlesham Forest UFO sighting 'new evidence' claim

New evidence has been gathered to back up claims a UFO landed near a US airbase in Suffolk, a former deputy commander has claimed.
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.

"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," said Col Halt.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-suffolk-33447592

 

[skyeagle409]

You have just spent four days saying they couldn't see the lighthouse at all. You can't get your lies to match up can you? Once the police told Halt he was looking at the lighthouse and rabbit holes....they all went home.

(Also Halt is lying in 2010, as he does not mention the lighthouse at all in his recording he made at the actual time in 1980. Didn't you work that out on your own?)

Let's take a look here and read #6.

 

[skyeagle409]

It is very possible that Charles Halt, who believes in UFOs really thinks he saw a UFO, but I fail to see how this can be evidence of UFOs?

I know airmen who were there and they have confirmed to me the events as well. One became my assistant after his retirement from the Air Force as we worked on an Air Force contract during employment with Raytheon.

There is much more that I know about UFOs and have ATC recordings and transcripts, declassified government documents, testimonies, and yes, even my former base, Hill AFB, Utah, was involved in investigations that centered around flying saucers that dismantled our Minuteman missiles in the field. One of the officers who wrote a letter regarding one of the UFO incidents at Malmstrom AFB was Lt. Col. Lewis Chase, who was the pilot of an RB-47 that was chased by a UFO over multiple states.

My first experience with UFOs occurred in the Spring of 1968 in Vietnam when one of the objects passed over our base. After my tour, I was sent to Hill AFB where they had just concluded their investigation into UFOs over Malmstrom AFB in March 1967. The Boeing tech rep based at Hill AFB stated that the incident was to be reported as a UFO incident. Our missiles went off-line and it was determined from the investigation that the missiles went down due to an EMP pulse from outside the shielded cables. At that time, a saucer was reported hovering over the area by the guards as the missiles went off-line. I might add the Soviets also reported a flying saucer interfering with their missiles.

Currently, the government is declassifying its UFO files, which are now available under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The government knew the objects were not of this world, which the Air Force acknowledged in its 1948 EOTS report, ATIC, Wright-Patterson AFB, that the objects were "Interplanetary Spaceships." The Air Force confirmed once again in its 1952 intelligence report that objects were not of this world, which was around the time frame when the Air Force ordered its pilots to shoot down flying saucers.

People go to bed not knowing what is going on in the real world involving UFOs. Malmstrom AFB has been involved in multiple incidents since 1967 and here is another case.

24th NORAD Region Senior Director’s Log (Malmstrom AFB, MT):

7 Nov 75 (1035Z) Received a call from the 341st Strategic Air Command Post (SAC CP), saying that the following missile locations reported seeing a large red to orange to yellow object: M-1, L-3, LIMA, and L-6...Commander and Deputy for Operations (DO) informed.

7 Nov 75 (1203Z) SAC advised that the LCF at Harlowton, Montana, observed an object which emitted a light which illuminated the site driveway.

7 Nov 75 (1319Z) SAC advised K-1 says very bright object to their east is now southeast of them and they are looking at it with 10x50 binoculars. Object seems to have lights (several) on it, but no distinct pattern. The orange/gold object overhead also seems to have lights on it. SAC also advised female civilian reports having seen an object bearing south of her position six miles west of Lewistown.

(Note that all of these reports refer to the observation of aerial “objects”. Apparently, the Security Alert Teams could not identify them as either military or civilian aircraft.)

7 Nov 75 (1327Z) L-1 reports that the object to their northeast seems to be issuing a black object from it, tubular in shape. In all this time, surveillance has not been able to detect any sort of track except for known traffic.

(In other words, when these sightings were first reported by SATs, “surveillance”—that is, radar personnel—at Malmstrom AFB and Great Falls International Airport could not detect any unknown aerial objects near the missile sites. As we shall see, radar contact with the UFOs was finally established as the sighting reports continued to unfold.)

7 Nov 75 (1355Z) K-1 and L-1 report that as the sun rises, so do the objects they have visual.

7 Nov 75 (1429) From SAC CP: As the sun rose, the UFOs disappeared. Commander and DO notified.

8 Nov 75 (0635Z) A security camper team at K-4 reported UFO with white lights, one red light 50 yards behind white light. Personnel at K-1 seeing same object.

8 Nov 75 (0645Z) Height personnel picked up objects 10-13,000 feet. Track J330, EKLB 0649, 18 knots, 9,500 feet. Objects as many as seven, as few as two A/C.

(Height-finding radar finally confirmed that UFOs were present, varying over time between two and seven in number.)

8 Nov 75 (0753Z) J330 unknown 0753. Stationary/seven knots/12,000...two F-106...NCOC notified.

(Radar confirmed that one UFO, at an altitude of 12,000 feet, had hovered—that is, was “stationary”—before resuming flight at a leisurely 7 knots, or 9 mph. Shortly thereafter, two F-106s were scrambled to intercept it.)

8 Nov 75 (0905Z) From SAC CP: L-sites had fighters and objects; fighters did not get down to objects.

8 Nov 75 (0915Z) From SAC CP: From four different points: Observed objects and fighters; when fighters arrived in the area, the lights went out; when fighters departed, the lights came back on; To NCOC.

(As SAT personnel at four different locations watched, the UFOs played cat-and-mouse with the F-106s, extinguishing their illumination as the jets approached their position and re-illuminating themselves after the fighters returned to base. The NORAD Combat Operations Center—NCOC—in Colorado Springs, was immediately informed of this incident.)

8 Nov 75 (1105Z) From SAC CP: L-5 reported object increased in speed — high velocity, raised in altitude and now cannot tell the object from stars. To NCOC.

9 Nov 75 (0305Z) SAC CP called and advised SAC crews at Sites L-1, L-6, and M-1 observing UFO. Object yellowish bright round light 20 miles north of Harlowton, 2 to 4,000 feet.

9 Nov 75 (0320Z) SAC CP reports UFO southeast of Lewistown, orange white disc object. 24th NORAD Region surveillance checking area. Surveillance unable to get height check.

(Note the reference to the UFO having a “disc” or saucer shape. Several more log entries from November 9th and 10th confirm that UFOs continued to be reported by SAT teams positioned near various missile silos.)

END OF LOG ENTRIES

 

[skyeagle409]

Good catch, Matthew Ellard.
skyeagle409: You need to explain the obvious contradiction here.
One more point: if the forest was too thick to see a lighthouse beam through it, how come it was possible to see other bright lights through it?

Col. Halt was at the eastern section of the Rendlesham forest when they visually observed the light beam from the lighthouse, the section of the forest facing the lighthouse and nowhere near the East Gate, which was located at the opposite side of the forest some distance away from where they were.

Let's do a recap on how the event began.

26 December

Around 3:00 a.m. on 26 December 1980 (reported as the 27th by Halt in his memo to the UK Ministry of Defence – see below) a security patrol near the east gate of RAF Woodbridge saw lights apparently descending into nearby Rendlesham Forest.

After daybreak on the morning of 26 December, servicemen returned to a small clearing near the eastern edge of the forest and found three small impressions on the ground in a triangular pattern, as well as burn marks and broken branches on nearby trees.

As I've said before, at no time have guards misidentified lights in the forest prior to the December 26, 1980 event and yet, we are being led to believe they misidentified lights from the lighthouse through the forest as a UFO on that date.

The lighthouse had been there for centuries and yet, no such UFO report on the level of the UFO event prior to December 26, 1980.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

You have just spent four days saying they couldn't see the lighthouse at all. You can't get your lies to match up can you? Once the police told Halt he was looking at the lighthouse and rabbit holes....they all went home.

(Also Halt is lying in 2010, as he does not mention the lighthouse at all in his recording he made at the actual time in 1980. Didn't you work that out on your own?)

Let's take a look here and read #6.

You are an idiot. You spent four days lying and claiming the lighthouse could not be seen by Colonel Halt and the guards and then you posted Colonel's 2010 affidavit saying he could see the lighthouse light.

You even forged a photo of the lighthouse adding fake east west arrows to the photo to keep pushing your lies.

You have no credibility left on this forum....go away.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

I know airmen who were there and they have confirmed to me the events as well.

You don't know anyone there at all. You didn't even know that Colonel Hart clearly said he could see the lighthouse. You simply made up a whole lot of crap to push your "UFOs are real" fantasy.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

.Halt Affidavit
The Halt Affidavit notarized June 2010
"While in Rendlesham Forest, our security team observed a light that looked like a large eye, red in color, moving through the trees.

Here is a 1982 photo of exactly what Colonel Halt saw at the three rabbit holes "landing site". It is the lighthouse. Skyeagle is lying again, as Halt, in 1980, recorded his visit to the "landing site" and only mentioned the one light.

Watch Halt's recording, matched to the lighthouse light rotating as filmed by the BBC in 1982. Note how Skyeagle is lying through his teeth when he falsely claimed the lighthouse light could not be seen at the three rabbit hole landing site.

BBC three minute debunk / includes lighthouse flashing at "landing site"
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendleshamreport_ridpath.mov

Lighthouse and Halt's recording
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0r59u1IqZmQ