Rendlesham Forest UFO

Rendlesham Forest UFO case

Rendlesham Forest Incident

Rendlesham Forest UFO incident

Rendlesham Forest UFO sighting

Britain’s Roswell

Site map

The Rendlesham Forest UFO Case

Ian Ridpath

“UFO hunters will continue to believe that an alien spaceship landed in Rendlesham Forest that night. But I know that the first sighting coincided with the burn-up in the atmosphere of an exceptionally bright meteor, and that the airmen who saw the flashing UFO between the pine trees were looking straight at the Orford Ness lighthouse.”

Introduction

THE Rendlesham Forest UFO case has taken on the mantle of the ‘British Roswell’, but in truth it is a far more significant event than Roswell.

There is scarcely any other UFO case anywhere which can boast such a large number of apparently highly credible witnesses on two separate nights, or such a wide variety of supporting evidence that includes supposed physical traces, an official memo confirming the events written by a high-ranking USAF officer, a real-time tape recording made during the second night of the sighting by the same USAF officer, a report by local police officers who were called to the scene on two separate occasions, and written statements made by the military witnesses to the first night’s events. There are more TV programmes to be found posted on YouTube about this one case than any other, and it regularly appears on lists of ‘best ever’ UFO sightings.

Yet much of the popular discussion of the case has centred not on the well-substantiated primary evidence mentioned above, but instead on various tales of doubtful provenance that emerged many years later once the Rendlesham mythology had become well-entrenched.

I was the first journalist to investigate the Rendlesham incident after it hit the headlines in 1983 and I have been following it ever since. On these pages you can see my original BBC TV report about it from October that year and read the first article I wrote about it, published early in 1985. Although old, the article remains valid because it demonstrates where the case stood shortly after it became public knowledge; hence it is a good place for newcomers to begin. The article highlights the main elements of the case and offers explanations for each in turn (see the Summary and explanation below). Over the years, further evidence has emerged that has strengthened these explanations. The bulk of this website is devoted to examining the explanations and the evidence for them.

My article first appeared in The Guardian, a highbrow English newspaper, on 1985 January 5 under the title A Flashlight in the Forest. In this web version I have included a few bracketed asides to clarify and update various points, added some explanations to make various references more comprehensible to non-English readers, and included several illustrations.

The Guardian article was written before the release of the tape-recording made by Lt Colonel Charles Halt describing the events of the second night as he witnessed them. I have placed on this website my own transcript of that tape, compiled with the help of Col Halt himself, which corrects many errors contained in various other versions found in print and online. I have also added a detailed analysis of the events on the tape.

Other than Col Halt’s tape recording, the most significant evidence to emerge since my original article appeared was the witness statements made by the participants on the first night of sightings. These statements were unearthed by British researcher James Easton in 1997, whose findings converted him from a believer in the case to an outspoken skeptic. Also of great significance are government documents released since 2001, initially obtained by fellow researcher Dr David Clarke, which confirm that the UK’s Ministry of Defence (MoD) never considered the case worthy of a serious investigation, and we now also know why. In short, despite allegations to the contrary, there was no cover-up because there was nothing to be covered up.

I hope you will find the contents of this site a suitable balance to some of the more fanciful treatments of this case now in circulation. This remains the only full, rational explanation for the events of those nights back in December 1980.

Summary and explanation

Although the overall case is complex, the five main aspects can be summarized as follows:

1.  Security guards saw bright lights apparently descending into Rendlesham Forest around 3 a.m on 1980 December 26. A bright fireball burned up over southern England at the same time. Nothing actually landed in the forest.

2.  The guards went out into the forest and saw a flashing light between the trees, which they followed until they realized it was coming from a lighthouse (Orford Ness).

3.  After daybreak, indentations in the ground and marks on the trees were found in a clearing. Local police and a forester identified these as rabbit scrapings and cuts made by foresters.

4.  Two nights later the deputy base commander, Lt Col Charles Halt, investigated the area. He took radiation readings, which were background levels. He also saw a flashing light in the direction of Orford Ness but was unable to identify it.

5.  Col Halt reported seeing starlike objects that twinkled and hovered for hours, like stars. The brightest of these, which at times appeared to send down beams of light, was in the direction of Sirius, the brightest star in the sky.

At its most basic, the case comes down to the misinterpretation of a series of nocturnal lights – a fireball, a lighthouse, and some stars. Such misidentifications are standard fare for UFOlogy. It is only the concatenation of three different stimuli that makes it exceptional. Those unfamiliar with the ways in which nocturnal lights can be misidentified should read my article on astronomical causes of UFOs.

The links at the left will take you to more detailed discussion of the above issues. These links are repeated at the end of the newspaper article that first explained the case, which follows on the next page.  »

CLICK HERE TO GO TO THE NEWSPAPER ARTICLE THAT FIRST EXPLAINED THE CASE

« Return to Ian Ridpath’s Home page

Go to the article that first explained the case »