Thursday, February 23, 2017

X-Zone Broadcast Network - The Return of Charles Halt

For the first time, this week, I invited a guest back to discuss some of the things that we didn’t get to last time. Colonel Charles Halt, who was at Bentwaters, near the Rendlesham Forest, had wanted to discuss some of the misinformation or maybe more accurately, disinformation that had come out about the case. You can listen to both the Halt program here:

https://youtu.be/lQXAFe-8CpQ

and here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEp8htP6O_g 

First, though not necessarily first in the program, I wanted to make sure that Halt accepted the idea that what he had seen was not the lighthouse. He was quite
Charles Halt
clear about that point and also mentioned that the object (or objects) had been tracked on radar. He said that the tapes and other records from the control had been confiscated after the event… and that CIA agents had been to the base within hours of the first sighting.

Second, we talked about some of the problems with the tales told by Larry Warren. Although Warren had been give credit by some for breaking the story, Halt suggested that it was known in England before Warren talked with Barry Greenwood and Larry Fawcett about it. Had Warren not talked about it, they story would have gotten out, and it was already known to some researchers in England.

Third, according to Halt, Warren had appropriated the stories of two or three of the men who had actually been out in the forest on the nights of the incidents. Warren, at least according to Halt, had not been authorized to go into the field given that his training and certification had not been completed. Warren, rather than being in the field, was, in fact in the barracks (though he had told Russ Estes that he had been on a pass to Germany on two of the days that sightings had been made).

Finally, we talked about the interrogations that had gone on in the days that followed the event. This all provides an interesting contrast to some of what has been published in the last several years… and you learn Halt’s opinion on the various books that have been published.
Next week’s guest: Barry Greenwood

Topic: UFO History

19 comments:

David From AU said...

"Bentwaters", not "Bendwaters" (top paragraph).

The Typo Police.

Paul Young said...

Really enjoyed this interview, I just wished it could have gone on for a couple more hours.

A few points...According to Halt...
J D Engles,aka Steve Roberts, is supposedly the whistle blower...not Warren.
Warren was some Johnny-Come-Lately who plagiarised the Engles story?
But who is Engles? Who is he?? Where is he? How can you be a whistle blower if no one even knows you exist? Jenny Randles said she had never met him. She'd met Warren but not Engles (or is it Ingles) We know Warren is real...but is Engles/Roberts?

Halt keeps telling us that Warren wasn't a player...he had just regurgitated someone else's story.
At the same time, Halt admits that he believes Warren was one of those who went through that rather harrowing de-brief suffered by Penistone, Burroughs and others.

If Warren was not in the forest but was having a few beers in his mess, then why did the CIA want to interrogate him? (According to Halt, in this interview, CIA were on base within hours of the 1st night of the incident,)

You've got UFO's in the forest,shining lights onto a nuclear bunker...so the CIA want to waterboard some bloke having a few pints in his dormitory? Seriously??
Are we to believe that Engles was there but didn't get interrogated...and that Warren WASN'T there but DID get interrogated?


Halt confirms Warren wasn't in Germany...he was on the base in his dormitory,DRINKING...like that's a crime!
Strewth...It was Christmas/New Year...what else would a 21 year old American serviceman, thousands of miles from home be doing during "Chrimbo-time" if he wasn't having a beer or ten? (I know I would be!)
A cynic would ask ,"what was Halt doing at his mess-deck Christmas party, before being dragged away to investigate the latest UFO sighting in the forest! Drinking cups of tea?"

3mins 46 seconds...Halt goes into his "I have no ill feelings and feel very badly for him" routine...then later (48 mins 36 seconds)goes into (as I predicted in a previous thread on KR's blog) a character assassination that would make Ian Brady feel hard done by.

The more Halt's insistence that he hates being associated with the "Rendlesham Incident" the more convinced I am that he's making a secondary career out of it.
"Thou doth protest too much" races to mind.

He rubbishes everyone's view of the event except his own, even though he was only privy to ONE of the three nights of the incident. I believe that he reports the night of the incident that he was present at with absolute integrity...it's his high-handedness towards the other two thirds of the incident, that he was not privy to, that sticks in my craw

Nick Popes book, Georgina Bruni's book...a host of others...he slags them all off.
Halt wants Rendlesham to be "The Gospel according to Colonel Halt"...


Don't get me wrong...I totally understand why Warren is considered an unreliable witness to the sceptics, and a loose cannon to the ETH'rs (me being one of them)...but...whether, or not, his story is true, people are certainly going out of their way to undermine him.
Kevin Randle, himself, was under the impression that Warren was on station leave in Germany during two of the three nights of the incident. Who started that rumour? Why was that rumour started if not to discredit him?

KRandle said...

Paul Young -

To answer your last question first... Larry Warren started the rumor that he was in Germany. Russ Estes interviewed Warren on video tape, and I've seen the tape, on which Warren said that on the first two nights of the events, he was on a pass in Germany. These are Warren's words, so if the rumor was started to discredit him, it was Warren who started it.

Since Warren was claiming to have been involved, and those who came to the base later to interrogate those who were participants, and with Warren being assigned to the unit whose members were involved, then he would have been interrogated to learn what he might have seen or done.

The one point that I wanted to get at was if Warren hadn' come forward would we have ever heard of the event. The answer is yes and Halt explained how the information got out originally without help of Warren. Given that many didn't really want to talk about this, that first book about it would have contained errors as those on the outside were attempting to sort out exactly what happened. I didn't get the impression he was he "slags" off the other books with a single exception, and offers an alternative that is filled with documentation.

Finally, I'm not sure people are going out of their way to undermine Warren... he's done enough to ensure that by himself. I mentioned the one little incident of Warren claiming a voice stress analysis done by Larry Fawcett so I called Fawcett and asked him about it. Fawcett said that he hadn't done it.

To me Warren in like Frank Kaufmann... someone who injected himself into an event and then got carried away with the story.I believe nealy everyone now rejects Kaufmann as a reliable witness. We should do the same with Warren because we can arrive at the smae place in the Rendlesham tale by relying on those men and women who have been identified as actually being on site.

albert said...

@Paul,

I happened to catch an episode of 'Lost UFO Files', or some such, and the subject was Renslesham/Bentwaters. Halt, Warren, Pope, Bruni, etc. were all interviewed. Warren was and is definitely part of the story, but not a participant. He's got a book out, too. Of course the producers included Warren; he was talking about three 'little beings'.

Kevin is right, Warren injected himself into the story. I look at it this way: I was surprised how hard Halt came down on Warren in the interview. Here in the US, we have the best 'protected speech' laws, but even they don't protect speech that includes lies about a person. If Halt was lying about Warren, he would have opened himself to libel and slander suits. I don't think he's stupid enough to do that. Halt claims he has documentation. I believe him, and I'll bet Warren does too. All he can do is piss and moan about mistreatment. On the plus side, his book is cheaper than Halts.

Warren was a big talker. An investigator would surely be interested, after all, Warren was a 'witness'.

Halt reports on what -he- witnessed. Penniston and Burroughs give their own statements. Given what Penniston (and Warren) came up with later, I wouldn't want to embrace their accounts, either.

. .. . .. --- ....

delusion hunter said...

I don't believe Halt. His superior Colonel Ted Conrad, the base commander of Bentwaters, pretty much disavows Halt's character. Why should I believe Halt over Conrad?

Paul Kimball said...

This was a painful episode to listen to, I'm afraid. Halt has a longstanding habit of rambling on and on in a very pedantic manner, often focusing on petty details at the expense of the big picture. Not you fault, Kevin - I interviewed him for Best Evidence back in 2006 and I had trouble keeping him focused and concise as well. :-)

cda said...

Over at Robert Sheaffer's blog we hear how Halt spoke at a recent conference, saying that certain 'agents' descended on Rendlesham shortly after the event. These agents (CIA?) somehow drugged the witnesses and altered their memories.

If this is so, and considering that Halt himself was a witness, why should anyone believe a single thing these witnesses (including Halt) said or wrote about the case?

They obviously cannot, and never could, remember what happened. So be it.

KRandle said...

CDA -

Halt brought up those agents but wouldn't give names. He did confirm that they had been CIA... or rather, that was what he said.

You point about the men having undergone chemical regressions and other types of interrogation, your point about their memories is also well taken.

cda said...

We would need to know exactly when these mystery agents came and purged the witnesses' memories. If you think about it, it is becoming like one of those 'logic problems' you see in puzzle books.

UFO witnesses having their memories altered? This idea hits a new low in ufology. How much of the recall is genuine and how much is phony?

Col. Halt has (unwittingly?) introduced a new and exciting concept into the whole Rendlesham affair. Maybe it is time to call a halt (ha!) on it.





Paul Young said...

Though I understand certain aspects of KR's comparison of Warren with Kaufmann, as in both come over as Walter Mitty type characters, it must be pointed out that Kaufmann came onto the scene decades after the original event, and a good few years after Marcel Snr bought the story back to life again in 1978.
So Kaufmann had ample time to prepare himself and get his lies straight...and ample time to organise his bogus paperwork, etc. But Warren, like it or not, was involved with RI from at least as early as the interrogation.
Now, if Halt is correct in what he said in KR's second interview, that the CIA were on the base within hours of the 1st night...then it's possible (maybe even probable) that the debrief/interrogation started almost right away. Unlike Kaufmann, Warren was in the thick of it very early on.

KR is spot on that Warren has said some things that suggest he is all over the place mentally. The big question is, was he always like this...or did he really see 3 beings and that messed him up, not to mention being chemically tampered with by the interrorgaters? Warren isn't the only one who appears to be as stable as a box of frogs.
Pennistone, Burroughs and Halt himself have changed the story over the years. (Though I understand why Halt might have wanted to play the event down, at least in the early years...and probably still is doing.)

Warren came out with the most outrageous story very early on making him look a complete nutter. The others started with a sanitised version of their outlook...then increased the strangeness over the years (no one more so that Penniston)

In a lot of ways, Warren's original tale is the one that has changed the least!

I'm still intrigued to know exactly who this Roberts/Engles character is... This is the guy that supposedly gave Brenda Butler the original heads up on the RI...and the guy that Warren supposedly plagiarised the story from. Roberts/Engles (if he even exists) is the whistleblower who from his first conversation mentioned the 3 beings.

Jenny Randles discussing Brenda Butler's conversation with Roberts/Engles...

"According to Roberts he was one of a security patrol that went out into the forest in response to a UFO that had “crashed” there. Once in the woods he saw a landed craft with strange little child-like beings suspended in beams of light. The overall wing commander – Brigadier General Gordon Williams – was out there in the woods and communicated with these beings using sign language as the USAF guarded the damaged craft. This was eventually repaired by the aliens and took off again."
(taken from...http://magonia.haaan.com/2009/eastgate/ ...)

Now I understand KR's point that Warren might well have got himself dragged into the debrief ONLY because he was shouting his mouth off and not because he was a witness...but it seems strange, to me at least, that Warren got interrogated...but Engles seems to have avoided it and kept quiet (in fact invisible) ever since.

Paul Young said...

Albert writes..."If Halt was lying about Warren, he would have opened himself to libel and slander suits.

I expect Warren's dilemma is that when you are saying you saw three aliens floating around a space ship...and a Colonel tells everyone that you are a liar and a nutcase...then if you take that Colonel to court for slander, you have a bloody good chance of losing.

Warren, bless his cotton socks, would be laughed out of court. Halt can say Warren is crazy until the cows come home, and Warren can't do a damned thing about it.

Albert..."Given what Penniston (and Warren) came up with later, I wouldn't want to embrace their accounts, either.

Agreed. Everyone's account is all over the place. I put it down to the brutal de-brief they experienced. Seems that they were all badly mentally damaged by it.

It's ironic. The Rendlesham Incident is hurt by lots of witnessess saying different things.
The opposite to the Zamora Incident which is hurt by there being only one witness.

KRandle said...

All -

The truth is an absolute defense... or in other words, if Warren lied about some aspect of this and that can be demonstrated, such a Warren saying that Larry Fawcett administered a voice stress analysis and Fawcett said he didn't, then case for libel is significantly reduced. If there are other aspects of this such as documentation showing something different than Warren claimed, then the case is reduced. In other words, if it is shown that Warren lied, then the case is dismissed...

albert said...

@Paul,

For most folks, Warrens 'three little beings' report wouldn't require anyone to question his truthfulness :)

Let's separate fact from opinion. This is important in US law. If I say 'you are crazy', that's an opinion. If I said: 'you were convicted of fraud', then that is actionable only if you have -not- been, and you'd have a helluva case. Halt needs documentation to prove his statements of fact are true. He claims to have it. He needs no rationale for his opinions (although not having any would relegate his status to that of a name-caller). IIRC, Halt cited some of Warrens actual criminal acts. If those assertions were false, Warren would have an iron-clad case for slander (interview), or libel (print).

@Kevin,

Actually, no. Warren can lie 'till the cows come home. We can certainly ignore is testimony on that basis. But if Halt cited even one aspect of Warrens behavior that was false (again, as fact rather than opinion), then Warren has a case. If that cited behavior was a criminal act, a serious felony, for example, then it's almost a slam-dunk.

All of that said, I don't think that Warren is a reliable witness, and I can sympathize with Halt for coming down hard on him. It doesn't help that Warren has his band of followers as well.

I'm not crazy about Pennistons account, either.

It kinda makes sense that the CIA would be very interested in the RI incident. This was a nuclear weapon airbase, very close to Russia. The last thing the US needed back then was UFOs flying around USAF bases in Europe. I can see why they would use drugs for the same reason. And don't rule out hypnotism, either. Easy to do to someone under the influence, so to speak.

It's interesting that Halt wasn't interrogated, or at least claims such. Do we really know?

. .. . .. --- ....

Adriana Pacheco said...

I have never believed this incident fir various reasons.

William Strathman said...

@Albert

"It kinda makes sense that the CIA would be very interested in the RI incident. This was a nuclear weapon airbase, very close to Russia. The last thing the US needed back then was UFOs flying around USAF bases in Europe. I can see why they would use drugs for the same reason. And don't rule out hypnotism, either. Easy to do to someone under the influence, so to speak."

And wasn't the US nuclear presence an "under the table" operation, i.e. the US nuclear weapons were there on English soil unlawfully? If that is the case, then it is not surprising in the least that spooks got involved, PRONTO, to seal up leaks, whether it was a UFO incident, or faerie folk, or bigfoot, or a drunken row by Arsenal fans.

John's Space said...

Col. Halt is very credible in these interviews. He cleans up a lot of misinformation that has been put out. It is the misinformation from other sources that has caused many to be dismissive.

One thing is clear is that my contention that there an interagency working group within the intel community to investigate and cover up UFO incidents is strongly supported by Col. Halt's testimony.

Neal Foy said...

Here is a somewhat rare interview with Adrian Bustinza.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ni-Z5tniKbs

Just in case some of you want to hear his story. Honestly, I'm more confused than ever.

I think that either by design or by accident the waters have been extremely muddied.

He claims that government agents were staking out his parents house. If that is true then some spook or another thought this was a big deal.

Paul Young said...

@ Neal Foy... Yes, Adrian Bustinza was confirmed by Halt to have been present along with himself on the night of the third event.
Bustinza says that when the light-all's failed, he was sent back to the base to get more.
Bustinza then says that on the way back to Halts group, Warren came back with him.

So we actually do have a witness that Halt confirms was there confirming that Warren was there.

It bugs a lot of people, especially Halt...but Warren's original story is much more consistent than Halts or Penistons original stories.

Along with Albert who commented above, I too wonder why all the main players went through a mind warping interrorgation...but Halt managed to avoid it?

BF said...

Great Interview L.t Col (Rte) Kevin Randle and appreciate Col (Rte) Halt's service on British Mainland during the Cold War and all the United States Servicemen and Women who stood on the frontline protecting the free World. Lest We Forget.

Hope you interview Col Halt again in the near future.