Upload
charlesfort
View
221
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/30/2019 2001 Fall IUR - Jenny Randles on Rendlesham File
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2001-fall-iur-jenny-randles-on-rendlesham-file 1/10
IURInternational UFO Reporter
Fall 2001
Volume 26, Number 3
AN ANALYSIS OF ANGEL HAIR
1947-2000
At 2:00 p.111. 011 October 22. 1973. in Sudbiuy, Massachuseus. a child ran inlll the hou.1·e calling to his
mother to cotne outside 10 see "the biggest spider11·eb in the 1m rld. ·· The mother di.,·co Fered in her yard a
sih •el:\·-lrhite 1reb-like material cm·ering hushes and hanging Jimn the trees. As she looked tmrard the sky,
she witnessed a shiny. silven ·. spherical object mo Ping o.f f o the west as m o r e < ~ { this web-like substc111ce
f ell.fi"om the skrfor another two hours. Th e 1\'itnes.\' took samples on construction paper and placed them
in a glass jar and into the reji-igerator wking them to a locallaborm01:r fo r examination. The material
was ll'hite and translucent and di111inishing mpidly. This is a microscopic photo of the substance.
(NJCAP, UFO lnl'estigator. March 1974)
7/30/2019 2001 Fall IUR - Jenny Randles on Rendlesham File
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2001-fall-iur-jenny-randles-on-rendlesham-file 2/10
INTERNATIONAL
UFO
REPORTER
Editors:
Jerome Clark
George M. Ebcrhan
Mark Rodcghier
Contr ibu ting Ed itor. :
Bi l l Chalker
Richard F. Hainc.\
Richard Hall
Kevin D. Randle
Jenny RandlesChris Ru tkowski
Web site :
www.curos.org
E-mail:
l nfocenter @cufos.org
Answering machine:
(773) 27 1-36 11 c / 4 ~ ~·Zl -1910-1986
TI·IF. L ocKHEE i l UFO CASE, 1953 IJy Joel Carpenter ............................................................................................. ............ . 3
A. \ M L\'SIS OF ,\.,\ICF.I. BAlK, 1947- 2000 by Brian Boldman .......................................................................................... . 10
R F.'IIli.ESI·IM I F Til E B RIT ISII MoD FILE by Jenny Randles ................................................................................... 21
L E'IT ERS ................... .. ................... .... ............................................................................. . ............. ........................... ........ ... . . .. 26
\-V IIAT UOES ,, IIAI.F-CE'ITLIH' OF 1-rr r. 'SE UFO I>ISI'LAY by Michael D. Swords .................................................. 27
OF INTERF-rr To CUFOS A s s o ................................. ........................ ......................................................................... 35
lntemational UFO Reporter (ISSN 0720-17-IX) is p u b l i ~ h c dquarterly h) 1he J. Allen Hynek Center for UFO t u d i 2-157
Wc\1 Avenue. Chicago. lllinob 60659. All
re'erved. Reproduction without p e n n i prohibited.
Copyrigh t © 2002 b) the J. Allen Hynel.. Center for UFO
d i e ~ . c i a ~ ' pn,tage paid at Chicago. l l i nm accepted for publ ication in
do not nece,sarily rc llect the viewpoints of the J. Allen Hynek
Center for UFO Studic, .
Addre' s ull artit:lc s ~ i o leiters to the editor. and
other editoria l corn:,pondencc to l11tematimwl UFO Nepon er.
Center for UFO Stud ies. 2457 West Peterson Avenue. Chil:ago.
60659. Addre's all suiN.:ription Clli'I'C!.pondence to
lntemmimwl UFO Reponer, 2457 W e ~ t Pcter,on A\enue.
Chicago. Illinois 60659.
The lmemlllional UFO Reporter i ' a bcneli t publica tion
mailed to Associates or tht: Center for a contribut ion of 525.00
more. Foreign Associates add 5.00 fur delivery. All
amnunb in U.S . funds . Other p u b l i c a abo available fo r
contrihuwrs or larger m For detail\. write 10 tht:
J. Al len Hynek Center fu r UFO t u d i 2457 West Peterson
Avenue. Chicago, Illinois 60659. USA. r•ostmastcr·: Send
Form 3579 to CUFOS. 2-+57 West Peterson Avenue. Chit:ago,
60fi59.
IUit + t' \1 1 :!00 1
7/30/2019 2001 Fall IUR - Jenny Randles on Rendlesham File
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2001-fall-iur-jenny-randles-on-rendlesham-file 3/10
RENDLESHAM FOREST:
THE BRITisH MoD FILEBY JENNY R ANDLES
Te strange events in Rendlesham Forest. Suf
folk. England. that too k place during late De
cembe r 1980 have gone down in UFO history as
one o f the most debated cases of all time. With
both civi lian and military perso nnel from the U.S. Air Force
bases at Woodbridge and Bent waters as witnesses. the case
has generated mo re discuss ion than any outside rhe United
Stares . Alread y there have bee n five books de vo ted e ntire ly
to the events- a record surpassed only by Roswell. And the
arguments rage as regards to what really took place. as
various artic les in this magazine have revea led over the
years (see fUR. Fa ll 2000. for example).
For many ufologists. the sighting or a we ll- lit object
above and ins ide the forest. plus the reputed radar track ings
made or it, strongly suppo rt UFO reality. That the witnesses
included the base deputy co mmander, Col. Charles Ha lt. as
we ll as phy ical ev idence in the form of photographs and
rad iat ion traces. undersc ores the significance.Yer the skep tics movement (which includes quire a few
British ufo log ists ) has been arguing s ince 1983 that there is
a simple an"wer. The witnesses were aU fooled by mundane
things , notably a bright me teor and the Orford Ness light
ho use shining through coastal mist. Other fac tors ro
complica te the case are the know n presence in the area of
experimental e lec tromagnetic radiation research that was
occurring on the Ness during the 1970s and, according to
locals, was generating both phys ical effects ( car-stops, TV
interference . etc. ) and strange glowi ng light as a by
product.
OFFICIAL VIEWS
Gi ven that we (UFO invest iga tor s in G rea t Britain) learned
of the Re ndlesham event soon after it occulTed. there has
been a 20-year searc h for governme nt documents to lea rn o f
the official pos ition on the case and. important ly. to under
stand what inves tigations were done by the U.S. and U.K.
Jenny Randles is an !UR contributing editor. awhoro fmany
books on UF0.1· and related subjects. 01/{l 011e o f he 1rorld's
most respected UFO investigators.
governments. I want to repon on these e fforts in thi s article
and the ex traordinary release this year o f the full U.K.
go vernment file on the case.
Despite the Re ndlesham events havi ng bee n intensely
debated by ufologists for about 20 years, the ofricial gov
e rnme nt position on both sides of the At lantic is no t easy to
define . There was no rapid public reve lation about the
inc idents on December 25/26 and 27/28: according ly. even
the loca l press ca rried no reports until UFO in vestigators
a le rted them almost a year later. Media at te ntion only really
took off in 19R2. when my first articles appeared in news
stand magaz ines. and in ear ly 1983 whe n the popu lar
sc ience journa l Omni carried a report c iting British Squad
ron Leader Donald Moreland.
Moreland se rved as a token U.K. prese nce on the bases,
acting as a landlo rd for the British MoD (Min istry of
Defence) and interfac ing betwee n them and the U.S. forces
that leased these twin bases fo r NATO duties. AlthoughMoreland was not a witness, he had endorsed the c redibility
or thos e who we re and forwarded a repon to the Mo D.
Even by the time he cam e forward (the first high
ranking officer to do so) . efforts had continued to pres sure
the MoD to re lease official co mment on the case . The
witness tes timo ny (mostly c iv il ians at this early stage)
suggested a major event o n fores try commission land and
surely, therefore, some sort of co operation with the USAF,
who suppos edly in vestiga ted as the event unfolded. The
MoD would have had to grant permission for America n
troops to conduc t an off-base inves tigation on British so il.
af ter all.
Le tters to the departmen t charged with UFO in vestiga
tion in the U.K. (the n known as Defence Sec re tariat-S and
more recently as Air Staff2A) had been fired ofT by myself
and locally ba. ed colleague Brenda Butler since six weeks
after the events wh en we bo th independently lea rned about
the case through mi litary contacts. But these req ues ts had
brought rep lies that simply ignored our ques tions about the
events. as if it we re a topic that the Mo D preferred not to ta lk
about.
In October 1982 I wo n a partial breakthrough- a
promise to re lease all MoD UFO files soon-and was given
IUR + F,,u 200 I
1 1
7/30/2019 2001 Fall IUR - Jenny Randles on Rendlesham File
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2001-fall-iur-jenny-randles-on-rendlesham-file 4/10
the so p of various recent cases from a January 1983 nap.
But my request for information on Rendlesham still fell on
of ficially deaf ea rs-until the 0 11111i art icle appea red. This
changed everything. On April 13, 1983. the MoD wrote to
me and finally acknowledged th at the case had occurred and
that "no explanation was forthcoming .. It is true to say thatthey probably had no option but to do so by this da te. A fter
all , one of their own officers had j ust admitted the same
thing in a newsstand magaz ine. Had that not occurred. it is
di fficul t to know whether the M oD would havc just gone on
refusing to o f fer commen t like before .
A t much the same time in th e US. the UFO political
action group CAUS-using a statement from witness Larry
Warren who had recently spo ken to Larry Fawcett and
Barry Greenwood about his role in the case-applied via
the Freedom of Information Ac t for case Ii les. They re
ceived a similar admission of th e incident from the USAF
about two weeks after my leucr from the MoD. and in May
1983 put in an o ff icial reques t for fi les to back it up. In June
1983 this turned up the one-page memo signed by Col. Halt
that summarized the case. Th is was the memo forwarded by
Sq uadron L eader Moreland to the MoD back in mid Janu
ary 198 1. about three weeks artcr the incidents.
However, the M oD stil l dec lined to release th is memo
to myse l f or an y other Brit ish cit izen due to the U.K.
Official Sec rets Ac t: a ra ther absurd pos i tion since the
USAFwere now stating th at they only got a copy to release
to Ameri ca n ci tizens owing to help from the MoD.
ln 1985 Ra y Boeche of M UFON Nebraska was able to
squeeze more documents from the USAF. although these
:.;;.,·:J.f· cu
.... R.U/ C(
I. '" !N' '10"" ' "9 of 11 tf ( ~ O)UOt.), l- " t.Ufe c Y r l l / PO.I .t Pttn:thwn U 1o1 \ l ' l i U t . ~ S lt'if!U c . . , o , , ~ tt-. 'i'l'f t
W l l t o c ~ r i O t j e fh in '-tn9 tn l i rcr &rt lt1qht t i n t cruh.a or filft111
Oo..,, t l l ~ t t C & l l tor ! Q f \ ta 90 ow ts 1dt t.he 9U t to H l ' l t H q . a ~ •T/'lr 0 1 ' 1 · fll9"1t c:,,., f't'lt'OnMd o ~ t ~ l ll ovtJJ ~ H r ~ 1
011 root tM ir,.:.hiO..ah r•POf1t<l U t\ 1'1 9 • Hrv•9f Qlo.ln9 obJ«:t
11'1 forc n . Tht GbJ •c t ... " ' c : r l t ~ d n :W1ng ne t. I it tn ""'frtrc:e
t n.o h n q u '" Utp t , t t>CI1'6"t N lioiJ t .. t o thr ee: •crou th e
ttu &1\d • COn:t . nu tl; , ~ ntUr-1 MIJfrl h tl lwnlnufd '""' tfltlf'r fc,..u• l ll'l t VOlt Z• l ttiH h· . Of)jt< t h l t lt 1\.14 1 £ t t . ~ h h u ; ru l t . ; Oft top •n d
! C.n\(' ) o f )l ue 11gt'th ¢ t l ' f t t U Jlt.c. G j c-tt "-11 '0 IIO•c, . lnt .,,. ~ h 9\ .'"\ t " ~ t Ott ro l nth t Q(Ir(ti Cntd tAt obJ« t . tt t : . t v . , t r u s r o w ~ ~ t"t tf'l'd
4 ~ r - U • " t 4 J.t t" H :l nt t flt ,JI'lt ,-..i s on • nr&ro1 f 1 m . . . , . ,1nu
1: : . : " ~ ; , J t c t "'U Of'1tf11' ~ ~ ~ t . l : > ~ r 4 <'1 t - . o h ttr 't .tr
l f i>C n11 1( dt)', tn , ., . O " ' \ I ) .'1 ' 4t t P en1 J ' '"' • ' l l l t l ~ r ""t f l'fO\Ma " ' ' l f ~ " t tflt ObJCc t , . , . ~ :.Ce" t l ~ h t f 4 on t» t ; ro lolt'·d The tollco-1n9fl19f)t (19 Ot:cC tc ) tfrlc .t.r•.t "'-1\ h r r&tHH t ()' ru ot n'f)
11l l l 't'Ot"l9tM .,ofrf retorC-•.:I .. 't" Pu • rcad"1 ' '" tt•• tl'tN't"' c.e·£tre n t (;'! \ ._u,. Htt ~ t e r o f t •• -,1 t "-f 4t-Preu tc:ta
: o : : ~ ~ · ~ : : : : i ' : ~ ~ J t t ( .05o- ?I I ~ l n ~ ) on tflt ~ I c e o "I t :r t t ·
Col. Halt's memo. Jwwary 13. 1981.
we re not ve ry illuminating. consisting of mos tl y in ternal
memos advising staff on how to answe r questions posed by
journal ists on the case. Several fi les were withheld for
sec urity reasons. On appea l one of these was released to
Boeche. It was a teletype message in which the operator had
drawn a line of little p a c e ~ and aliens on top, presumably as a joke. It seems likely thi s was the reason for the
initial dec ision to withhold the fil es as the message content
seems innocuous.
As for the MoD. they continued to ma intain a discrete
silence desp ite lots of pressure. In 1984 Ral ph oyes (a
reti red Unde r Sec retary who had been long assoc iated
with the MoD UFO study and whom I had persuaded that
there was a case to answer) and I succeeded in convincing
a crusad ing Member of Pari iament (David AI 'On) to de
mand answe rs from the government. A lthough exchanges
of information went on between A lton and the Defense
Minister, LordTrefgarne. the end result was that both A lton
and Noyes were give n ust as mu ch of a runaround as I wa s!
Nobody was wi lling to say anything beyond a repetit ive.
sheep-l ike comment that the MoD did not believe there
were any defense implication. behind this case.
Noyes and I argued with the MoD that such a sugges
ti on made no sense. If the UFO was rea l and unidentified
and it intrud ed into British ai r space, of course there were
defense implications. I f it was not rea l and senior USAF
officers in charge of aNATO base were thus see ing th ings
that didn't ex ist and chasing them across British so il . then
that, too, clearly was no inconsequential matter. But all thi s
proved to no avail.
THE BREAKTHROUGH
As with many aspec tsofBriti ·h government. whereofficial
sec recy is a way of l ife. things ha ve not chan ged rapid ly.
But, given the closer association w ith the European Com
munity in recent years and pressure from Brit ish cit izens
upset by what they see asold rash oned secrecy. th egovern
men t has mad e plans to introduce aFreedom of Information
Act that would allow documentation to be released .
At present. M oD Ii les are located at the Public Record
Office in Kew. but only opened up to the publ ic after 30
years has elapsed fo llow ing the last action take n on the file
(in the Rcndlesham case that would mean 30 years after1985). For well over a year the Bri tish government has been
pri va tely advising their intention to alter the pattern and
re lease UFO material well ahead of time owing to the
imminence of the Freedom of' Information Ac t ( li kely to be
passed in 2002). Although several British ufologists (my
se l f included) ha ve known this since late 1999. we had
decided not to talk openly about i t for fear or undermining
dec isions that had to yet to be transformed into ac tion.
There was good reason ror this, as we had run into
problems before. In 1982, I had tried (w i th ass i stance from
Bi ll Chalker who had recentl y bee n granted access to Ai r
Force fi les in his nat ive A ustralia) to persuade the MoD that
IUR + r-" 1. 2001
22
7/30/2019 2001 Fall IUR - Jenny Randles on Rendlesham File
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2001-fall-iur-jenny-randles-on-rendlesham-file 5/10
it made to make the fi les available. locating
them at a :.c ient i f ic in st it u te and rel i nqu i shing
respon!>ib il ity. Th is had won some suppor1 within the MoD
and. as mentioned above. during 1983 several Mo D files
were rcleused to me.
However. the remarkable publicity that followed the
revelation of the Halt me mo randum in October 1983 (i t was
the front page head line in Br itain's highest cin.:ulation
newspaper and ended up be ing deba ted by all the media and
even in TV political programs) worked aga inst the plan. By
the spr ing of 1984 it was obvious that the MoD we re
reneg ing on their promise -probably frightened off by the
furor they were invit ing. In fnrstration I handed data over to
Martin BaiIcy of he Obsenw newspaper (which had a high
readership among pol iticians) and he ca n·ied an excellen t
arti cle reporting the about-face. The MoD officiall y ci ted
lack of money and complex ity as the e a s o they could not
now release the data.
But it was clear a simi lar thi ng might happen aga in.
hence our dec ision to keep quiet on this .econd go-around.
Dr. David Clarke, whose academic background, skeptici),ll l
over UFO re<llity. years a. a professional journalist, and
long term w nwcts wi thin the Mo D made him attractive to
thei r stan ce. gent ly cult ivated the Mo D ro the point where
they ag reed to start releas ing data on Rendle),ham to him
ea rly in 200 I.
Thi !> produced the majo r breakthrough in May of the
of what the Mo D profess to be the en tire li le on
Rt::nd lesham Forest- 150 pages. far and away the most
derailed report on any case the Mo D has ever re leased.
Seven documents were wi thheld on grounds that they might
compromil.e national . ecurity operations in some way. That
decision has been appealed.It was decided to publ icly re lease this informat ion and
the documents through a Web site prepared during the
summer an d not to hold back this data from others
(www. ll yi ngsa ucery.com). But. of course. it was Clarke
who was se nt th e tile ancl l had to wait for him to put up his
Web site before I was free to talk.
In the mea l l l ime, word got through to jo urnali st
Georgina Bruni. whose book You Can't Tell the People
supports the UFO real ity behind the Rendle. ham case. and
she received a copy of rhe file. It is to be hoped that the
a r g u m already developing between Clarke and his
~ u p p o and Bruni and hers do not force the MoD into
anoth er U-turn that wi ll limit the re lease ofother UFO file .
THEMoD APPROACH To UFO cAsES
What. then. docs the f il e tell us about how the MoD
inves tigated what i. arguably Br ta in' s biggest UFO case?
First. a note of ca ution. The fi le is that of the A ir Staf f (i.e .
DS 8/Air Sta f f 2A). This is the depa rtment at wh ich Nick
Pope (now a no ted UFO writer) served during the early to
mid- 1990s. But it wise to reca ll what thi unit is. and what
it is not.
Thel.e Ai r Staff ex i t primari ly tO interact with the
public. answering our question. about UFOs (as a sma ll pan
of a wider brief of RAF -related matters). such they tend
to give ·rock answers that have been carefu ll y constructed
over man y years. The staiThavc a middle-rank civi l . ervant
at thehelm and are not reall y the eq ui va lent or. for example.
Project Blue Book where USAF were (at leas t
sometimes) work ing o n UFO cases in an effort to reso lve
them and in the process had some capabi li ty to fo llow up
leads all over the country.
The MoD A ir Staff has no comparable resources. The
work is all done i n the oflicc and of m inor conseq uence
(a few hours a week at mo t ). A personally interested
worker like Nick Pope (who W tb not at the MoD during the
Rendlesham case) might make a few phone ca lls to air ba es
and do some rudimentary check . But even he could never
lly off o the scene and invest igatea ca!.e. Indeed Nick often
liaised with inves tigators from my team at British UFO
Re ear-ch Associati on (BUFORAJ during the pe riod that he
worked for the Ai r Staff. In effec t. our team of investigator.
mad e site visits that Nick couldn' t make and Nick
from time to time spoke to base m a n d "ncl the like in
a way that we never cou ld.
So it was a profitable relationship. bur one t hat illus
trates the limitationsof the M oD Ai r Staff. h was no team
of government UFO v e s t charged with so lv ing big
mys teri e), on so me X-files-sized budget. It was there to
el iminate any obv ious defense threat behind a case: once
sati!>lied that was the true. they moved on to more important
matters.
To most incumbents at the Air Staf f. UFOs and the
madcap who wrote to them were a nuisance and
a publ ic-relations nightmare-
not anythingor
,igni fic.:ance.Indeed staff rotated ve ry freq uen tly . within two to
three yea rs-and few saw this as a great pos ting but ins tead
just a step en route to something better.
The A ir Staff could- and did if' they could be both
ered- liaise with other levels. of the MoD to pursue a
worthy case. The e other leve ls were typica lly de fen. e
intell igence units and the Department of Sc icnti fie and
Tec hnica l Intell igence (DSTI ) where MoD-cleared sc ien
tists and RAF inte ll igence staff work on intell igence claw .
Th is is nor to in fer that these groups bel ieve any case might
-;uggest an alien presence. but rather that some might
suggest a new tac tic by a foreign power or a new weapons
sys tem ·een during an il legal overflight. Contacts wi th theearly wa rning radar network were al. o clone !>Ometime .
just in ca.e UFO sight ings were evidence of. for instance.
unrecorded spy plane missions.
Since these other departments had a higher security
classification than the Air Stall i o n a r i e ~ had, the Air
Sta l l could only be told by. say. DSTI. what DSTI chose to
tell them or what the stall was clea red to be told. This was
not necessa ri ly everything. or indeed m necessar
i ly anything.
The role played by the Ai r Staff was (and is) one of a
I UR + F -111 1001
23
7/30/2019 2001 Fall IUR - Jenny Randles on Rendlesham File
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2001-fall-iur-jenny-randles-on-rendlesham-file 6/10
shop window whereby they arc vi. ible to the public and dea l
with inquiries and can offer official answers. But these
answers and <ny in depth study behind a report (wheneve r
thi s ra rely happens) are dictated from above in the chain of
command - which the Air Staff. naturally. trus t imp licit ly.
Consequentl y, i fa sighting occur!> and is reported to the A ir
Staff. they may end the member of he public a stock reply
("we inves tigate to es tab li h i f here are any defense impli
cations.'' and o on) and then may say nothing else . as Air
Staff prefer not to en ter the UFO minefi eld unless they have
no choice.
Air staff respon!>e!> to a witness who presl.es them wi ll
rarely be spec i fic. except in the nega ti ve. i.e . "we ha ve been
unable to identify any air exe rcises operat ing at the time:·
and rarely would they say what they said to me in April
1983-that a major case is considered to be un ex plained
since thi s invites the assumption that they are conti rming
tha t UFOs are real. Of course. in the str ict sense they arc
doing so . where by UFO we mean simply an unidentif ied
phenomenon. But since most people equate a UFO wi th analien spaceship. the MoD knows the risks with aying too
much.
For spec if ic answers the Air St<Lff will a l w a depend
upon the outcomeor an inves tiga rion by their assoc iate !>ta ft"
(such as DST I) and can only report what the DSTI choo. e
to tell them. It is likely that the DSTI would be circumspect
in what they reveal to these civil se rvams. Consequently.
you mu st always read between the lines ofcommunications
be twee n A ir Staff and the public and the ones from more
agencic!> and the A ir Staff they arc advising.
The A ir Staffhones tl y report what they consider is the
truth and i f sil ly ufologists start bleating about cover-ups
and real UFOs lurking behind cases . they can shake theirhead. at thi sev ident paranoia and say -w ithout ever need
ing to lie- that so far as the A ir Staffknow this u t isn' t the
case. Because as far as they know it isn' t. But they do not
necessaril y know all that there is to know abo ut a case.
THE R ENDLESHAM FILE
The UFO files of organiza tions li ke DST I are not often
~ e d . Some data- mos tl y communications from DSTI
or a defense in tell igence unit internally to the Air Staf f
in reply to que. tions- are contained within A ir Staff fil es
that do ge t re leased. But not the inrernal fi les of the intel li
gence agencies themse lves. which li kely would be more
revealing. In other words. any M oD file on UFO:-. is prob
ably ju st reporting one part of the story. The fi le. even so.
not without and can illuminate matters. but it may
not nece!>sari ly be the last word on gove rnmen t i n t e rAnd it iswi th Rcndlesham. We now have a lil e that
paints a fascinat ing pic ture of a team of civi l
lloundering wi th a UFO case that is clearly beyond their
remi t and of only minimal interest. at least pa rt ly because
they be l ieve their own pu blicity th at UFOs arc a
What we don' t necessarily have in the released fi le is the
HOD (f)SBa)
. [ I( .RAF UAJSON OFFICE ( ; :
Rcy>IA . I r - OenrNJton WOOdbrlclgo Sllltoll< I 12lRO
•-w- >m..,m 2257
0... . . . . ._. BE!iT/0 19/76
A!!-.,... I f l411•ary 1981
D E N T ! F I E D FLYING 08JF.CTS (U70 'a )
r e . ' : : - . : ~ e h a c o ~ · :e;"':'=: ! ~ . . a · n : : : o c e e i · : : ; , ~ ,_..,_the Deputy i!<lse CCCI::I4nder ot RAT Bentw&:ers ~ ~ ~ :ce:ninq some cysterlous s i ;h t inqs in the ~ n d l es h ~ ~ f o r o s ~ nea: RAFff:bridqe. ra per: is! o r ~ a r ~ a d !o r i . t l o ~ and action at con-sidered necessary.
Cooy to :
SRAE'LO, RAP Hilc!onhall
D H XOIU:LAN DSq1ladron Lea<1erRAr Comnando r
J I'('(
.. -.. .._
r•; /Ac l (, .... , 1
- · " ' · • . \ .. , ......(...._.. ..
Moreland's cm·er nole. January 15. /981.
whole story. although whether we arc only missing a few
minor pieces <>r a major pa rt of the pun h: revolve), around
how we interpret some of the that the c l c a ~ e d lile
mu st cause us to ask.
Th e starting point. Chronologically the fi le onJanuary 15. 1981. with the cover note sent by Squad ron
Leade r Moreland to accompany Halt's report to the MoD .
This is 2 1clays af'ter the f irst sighting- the alleged landing
witnessed by three USAF personnel inside the fores t. Ac-
cording to the fi le it is the fi rst time that the MoD were even
made aware o f the case. But wa. it? This is the big
that we must face.
Among other things. the Rendlesham events involve
poss ible ir radiation of the area by a landed UFO. thi s in an
area of a Bri tish forest used by man y dog walkers and
picnickers. It is irrelevant as to whether it actually was
irradiated to any sign itican t degree. The report shows this
conclusion was made by Halt and hi!> orticers taking read
ings wi th Geiger u m sample!>. etc . activities we ll
beyond their jurisdiction. (It seems unlikely they could
have done this without M oD approval.) They do th is -IX
hours after the fi rst incident and yet o s e d l y only bother
to ofl ieially report i t to London by letter three wee ks later.
Thi s is odd.
One mu t wonder how man y British i t i ; wa ndered
through a fores t thought to be irradiated during thi s period.
suffering potential conseq uences? Even if . as later events
sugges t. they were at no real risk. that had to be a clear
R +- F\U ~ 0 ( 1 12-1
7/30/2019 2001 Fall IUR - Jenny Randles on Rendlesham File
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2001-fall-iur-jenny-randles-on-rendlesham-file 7/10
po sib il it y in the im med iate aftermath and it m incon
ce i vable that nobody acted to protect the public. Thi' could
have been done w ithout re vea ling the alleged UFO incident
(e.g . under a pretext that the area was temporarily l u ~ e d so
to be a y e d with dangerous chemical:-.). To do noth
ing- as the report n t e n d s - either ext raordinary
comp lace ncy or even negligence that would righlly lead to
all so rts of pubI c conce rns that are largely ir relevant to the
issue of what th e UFO was. or even how serious th e radia
tion threa t eventually proved to be. I f abnormal of
radiation were be lieved to exist. then surely public ~ a f e t yhad to become an issue we ll before three weeks later?
The alternative. of coun.e. is that the fi rst memo in this
now rclea!>ed Mo D ti le is nut the first comact that the Mo D
had with c a ~ e . For my part. I am preny sure that th e
MoD knew be fore M oreland·s lel ler plopped on their mat.
I am certai n becau!.c forestry workers and farmers told me
of men in with British accents who arrived and <hked
questions about the case in the area on January I . This is 14
days before the documents indicate the MoD even knewabout the case . Yet on that date no other British suurce knew
about the events. The f irst inkling any urologist had was
late r th at week. No reporters knew abou t the case umil
months later. Therefore. the most probab le idemity or these
men in :-.u i ts i. government ofticia ls making an early fact
finding mi ss ion to check out the area. But i f so, the M oD
was invo lved inthi !> case far ea rl ier than its newly rl!icased
ti le shows.
A new revelation. The Ii les f irst major new revelation
i). from a memo elated January 28. 1981 . Signed by Squad
ron Leader J. D. Badcock at RAF openuion:-. it a ~ k ~ other
a g e n c to express any i nteres t in the Ben twaters
(Rend lesham) case now rece ived at the MoD in the form ofthe Halt memo. It !>ay:-. ··we would pa rt icularly li ke to know
whether the reading!"> of adioactivity are unusual or whether
they are wi thin the normal background ran ge to be ex -
·r ' j ; ;: J:ll1r.:
• I l l ~ C;o(GE)10/ J _ . -
.2L.n
~ ~ J C ~ ) ( ; U F )
2t·· 61~ : ~
,-!1 . . . . . .
<>·t(v .)': ~ . . . : " J' :!I 7:- !::l
t.·• ;t \ h e J.i:- r _.:'CO lat'!C:" '"$ J::; 0 ,
Badcock .1 llle/1/o. Jmwcuy 28. /981.
pec ted:· This reveals how the radiation was singled out as
the key issue right m the start and further u g g e s t ~ to me that
this was something theMoD would not have been happy to
si t on for weeks in case it led to any public hea lth isl>ues.
Just the fact that an MoD agency ask ing the above
question of rhe ir imclligence one month after the area
in ques tionhad
poss ibly been irrudiated. but whi le the
Bri tish public stil l had unrestri cted Ltccess intow l ignorance
of these events. is itse lf of conce rn.
Amazingly. on February 16. Badcock reports ·'J have
had no response." Nobody at any age ncy was interes ted.
But this memo does add three important new pieces of data.
First. that the MoD was seeking r a d < ~ r conlirrnat ion. but
checking the night of December 29, 1980. for th i daw as it
was misleadingly thought from the Halt memo to be th edare
of the events. We now know Hah apparemly misda ted the
events. Consequently. the MoD e f f o r t ~ to conlirm radar
presence of the obj ec t via RAF Neati5.head were botched
unt il it too late and the fi lms had been des troyed.
Second. the memo notes thilt the MoD knew from th isvery early stage that the events in th e forest had been tape
recorded (the infamous Halt tape in 1984). But
th ird. the memo reveals what had happened to thi s lllpe.
noting. ·' Jhave spoken with Sqn Ld rMoreland at Bentwaters
and he the deputy commander IHalt] a so und
source. I asked i f the incident had been reported on the
USAF net and l was aclvi!>ed that tape recorder · I ic I of the
evidence had bee n handed to General Gabriel who hap
pened to be vis it ing the station ."
Clearly this news is important a!. it t il..!s in with n long
told story about the case in wh ich official evidence was
supposedly nown out of Beniwater.. and onto Ramstein A ir
Force base in Germany just days after the event This storyhn never been veri fied but now it has so me t r o n g . backing.
So perhap. a US FOIA req uest for the of Genera l
Gabriel" :-. oft ice and his e a s o for being at Bent waters in
late December 1980 should be mounted.
Intelligence replies. Even tual ly. on March 9. Badcock
confirmed that two MoD intelligence unit:-. (0 1 55 and Dl
52) had respond ed - better late than never (after all . only
British ci t ize ns' hea lth through radiation poisoning was
potentially at stake)- and Dl 52 had even made ..an offer to
pursue:' Dl 55. on March 2. ex plained they had ..ca nvassed
DST! for thoughts·· but ··can not offer any explana tion for
the phenomena.··
So they had not by this :-.tage. for instance. found
evidence for conventional explana tions :..uch as RAF air
craft a bright meteor. or rea lit.ed that the Orford Ness
lighthouse might ha ve been ~ p e r c e i v e These MoD
:..c icntists and intelligence :-.taff were app<trently as non
plussed a:.. ufologists and the witnesses. This is an important
point in the ongoing debate abolll the true nawre of the
Rendlesham sight ing .
However. we don"t have the DSTI f iles themselves .
only w hat Dl 55 to ld the Air Staff, so we have no idea how
(continued rm page 30)
lUl l+ F\11 2001
.25
7/30/2019 2001 Fall IUR - Jenny Randles on Rendlesham File
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2001-fall-iur-jenny-randles-on-rendlesham-file 8/10
R ENDLESHAM-continuedfrom page 25
extensive were the ir efforts to solve this riddle. Did it
include checks with astro nomers, meteorologists or what
ever '? Or was it ju st two sta ff from the Ministry chatting for
five minutes ove r a pot of tea about the lates t id iotic UFO
s tory?
Dl 52 o n Feb ruary 23 con curred with a . light caveat ,
say ing .. DI 52 do not know ofany se rious explanation'' (not
indicating what a '·non seriou s . explanation might be). It
did add that the background radiation va ries a lot a nd
indica ted that the readings suggest ed 0. 1 mi ll irad wa s
detec ted in the fores t as opposed to the expected 0. 0 15 to
0.03 millirad, mea ning that Dl 52 was suggesting a reading
1 . ~ . , / ..V I , J
~ l ~ ~ ~ ~ ' · o~ " \ ' I -
PISS< ~ , to::;on
S:of\ .:3:!ca: h o - · / 1 r / 1
! ~ D c z ! ' ; ! ~ s ; ; , ~ ~ \ . ~ l::o.o-.1 or e.7 :.er1o 4:: o:;..l.::.r.;.t!c.: 1:.· .cr -.s·.
'· I r !'0'.1 \ . 1 . : ~ '!o :,ur::v.o U·.1D f l . . r t . ~ 1 co.-:.L:. t..:.b c.::f,..,!..-1< -"1 :.a :o : ' \ ~ '....r;;.t
hcl.,:....-;,4-' !n u lL 1.!l ~ . : . t " " ' ~ . ~ : : . ' ! . '1.-:.:.J t ,. ¢ W :-r.;e:-t !,..; .. H ~ < " . - : . . : Y " c rl · ~ - - . . ! U 0. 1 ~ . o • · uc.e """'-.:a1.· ti:.:.:l t=.-7 ex:;-:eh.:..
Me111o ji·om Dl 52. Februarv 23. 198/.
that was maybe five or six times the ex pec ted level. How
ever. their offe r to pursue this was to ..make enquiries as to
natural background levels in the area ..
Although they did not ge t asked by Air Staff to pursue
things . in so fa r as the fi le indicates. I did myself as soon as
I sa w the Hall me mo two years later. From a plan t biologist
! learned how pine need les in a forest ca n accumulate higher
level of radiat ion . Th is impl ies that the level reported by Dl
52 was not a mazingly high and that the radiatio n wa
probab ly not the major issue it has long been argued to be.
But as these now released memo. indicate. as late a.
Ma rch 198 1 the U.K. governme nt did not know if the
radiat ion recorded in a public forest was or was not a risk to
hea lth. Th ey did not know before this bu t ev iden tly ju st
ga mbled on the heal th a nd safety o f its c itizens by presum
ing that thi s UFO ta le was of no importance.
Radar checks. Chec ks with the radar at RAF Watton
(Eastern Radnr)- long a bone ofco nte ntion over this case
are also revealed by th is f ile. I spoke with a radar operator
at Watton in late January 198 1-my first know ledge of the
case- after he had initially spoken to a mutual co ntact (Paul
Begg) in a pub. He advised that Watton did track something
and that their films were late r taken away by USAF inte lli
gence officers for study. During that visit Wa tton staff had
been told about the UFO land ing in de tail.
At the time Wa tton was silent on th is. leav ing the tory
as ju . t a rumor to ld by a man no t willing to publ ic ly back hi s
c lai ms for fear of vio lati ng the Offici al Secrets Ac t. But
what does the Mo D file reveal? On February 26 . 198 1.
Squad ron Leader Coum be. commander o f Walton. re
poned that they had checked f ilm "on the days prior to and
a fter the reported pheno mena'· and that ··reg rettab ly both
l'ilms we re also faulty .·· Moreover. '"the film of the reported
sighting [i.e.,on the date in the Halt me mo Iwas at fault. . The
Walton conrro ller on duty ""was req ues ted to view the radar .
and ''nothing was observed ..
T hi s response is curious for several reasons. First. the re
is no reference to thi s blanket fault in the letter sent to UFOwriter Nick Redfern when the then Watton co mmander
co nfirmed a sigh t ing o n December 28 . 1980. And the
appare nt failure of all the film SUJTOLmding these events
leaves one wonde ring why in te lligence office rs wo uld later
need to exami ne i t -as Watton now con firms they did.
Moreover. if you look at the account of the case reported to
me by the Watton radar officer in earl y 198 1 (the on e
supposedly given to him by USAF intell igence ofti cers
while taking the ti lm from the base). it is remarkably
accurate and fu ll of details ve ritied on ly yea r. later (such as
Halt go ing out from a base Christmas party to tape record
the events) . So why wou ld thi s Wa rton office r be truthful
and correc t about thi s ma in part o f the story and ye t appar
e ntly lie that Watton did see something on their radar?
However, the MoD file seems to suggest that Walton
saw nothing on radar . . . except when yo u read between the
lines. Then it actually says that the controller at Walton saw
nothing "o n the night of the re ported sighting... This may
we ll be true because the night reported in the Halt me mo is
in fact not the night when the UFO was seen. Thus this
statement from Watton may be tec hnica lly true but does not
necessarily mea n that something was no t detec ted o n radar
on the night when even ts really took place! See what ! mean
about reading between the lines?
Moreland's concems. Much of the res t o ft he MoD fi le
conce rns co mmun ica tions from ufologist. (inc luding sev
eral from myself) and artempts by the powers-that-be to
dec ide how best to reply to them. Grea t co nce rn is ex
pressed by my arguments in 1982-83 that an acciden t
invo lving a nuclear weapon might have occurred and been
covered up by the invention of a UFO story. The file even
co ntains an an notated copy of the fi rst artic le I wro te o n the
case in 1982. l t was sent to the Mo D by Moreland, who
asked for advice o n how to res pond to the ··flood of
enquiries'' he now expected on the until the n well concealed
inc ide nt. He noted that week (October 1982) that ''Eric
Mishara . had ca lled him and wanted the basecommander's
IUR + F,,u 200 t
)( )
7/30/2019 2001 Fall IUR - Jenny Randles on Rendlesham File
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2001-fall-iur-jenny-randles-on-rendlesham-file 9/10
comments on my article . I went on to publish the Omni
art icle tha t appeared three months later.
T his period (October 1982 to Janu ary 1983) coincided
exactly with the period when the Mo D was w ri ting to me to
tell me that they planned to e a ~ e UFO ti les . and then over
the nex t fi ve months sent me vari ous recent case files as
swee teners. Whether this is coinciden ce is not certain.
The MoD res ponded to the sq uad ron leaders <.:Once rns
and told M oreland to stick to a standard reply with detail ed
ad vice on stock answers that the Ai r Staff would send out.
The precise wording suggested to use was. " I understand
that M oD did receive a report from base personnel of a UFO
sighting near RA F Ben twatcrs on 27 Dece mber 1980. The
report was dea lt with in accordance with normal proce
dures : it was not considered to indicate an ything of defence
interes t. T here was no quest ion of any contact with ·alien
beings ...
A ll fair enough. except that on the strength of the
evidence in released fi le. it becomes rather difficult to
ju st ify that the case had no defense interest when this ad vice
was be ing given to M oreland. The " ev idence' ' for no
defense interest boil s dow n to the A ir Sta f f sending ou t a
memo in January 198 1asking intell igence staf f fo r advice.
getting precious little back. being told by their relevant
radar base that their fi lm was use less. then be ing advised
that higher than normal radiation seemed to ha ve been
recorded in the woods by a senior o ff ice r but then not
actually pursuing thi s matter to the point of veri fy ing i f his
posed any threat to local cit izens.
In other wo rds. at bes t the released documents disc lose
a sloppy. diso rganized attempt to disprove that there were
defense impli ca tions. A ll the MoD staff did was talk to
DS TI and Dl 55 and get told that they didn' t have a cluewhat had bee n seen. Whether in the process these sc ienti tic
intell igence staff did eliminate defense poss ibi l ities (li ke a
terrorist reconn aissance mi ss ion). and i f so how they did it.
must presumably be locked in the fi les of DST I and ce r
tainl y is not re vea led in the Rendlesham fi le ju st released .
Thus. Ai r Sta ll assured the RAF commander at
Bentwaters that he should tell the British public there wa
no defense threat from th is case because nobody had told
them that . uch a defense threat did ex ist. But in truth all th ey
had been told is that no or intell ige nce o ff icer had
a clue what had taken place. Oh. and by the way. the
rad iation li gures looked a bi t high.
Nuclear issues. One wonderful piece of commentary iscontained in a letter dated November 9. 1982, from the Ai r
Staff to Squad ron Leader Mo reland. As noted he was a bi t
conce rn ed by rny raisi ng o f the nuclear accident theo ry
so mething I do not today regard as li kely. but that was a
viable candidate in 1982. That Moreland was more both
ered by th i. than by the UFO story is itse lfin teresr ing but not
surprising. In 1982 the USAF was tryi ng to bring crui se
miss iles into Britain and facing a major peace campaign
aga inst them. And Bentwaters had nuclear weapons but
local people hadn 't been to ld.
M IMS7RY OF DEFENCE
M.-. Bw'a.no h : t " ~ lor.OOtl SW1A 2MB
lo...,._ tf.;. • 2 6 3 8 1 ~ n . l ' ...... .11 t eoeo '"" '. _ . . ,
g"M'fJi5/2· rt+
q ~ ~ < " O 1962
'(),"""- si....1..... L;,....ri. J . c . ~ L ()'0\1 ror TOV.: l •:tr,:- l ' t ~ 9 / 1 . 6 / o .. 25 tk t obt .n1: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ; . . r ; ; o ; . t r ; ~ t ~ ~ K ' , b i n o d (th ~ t } " . o r - ~ a c : r ,
i) . !.X>:Pz: line on VPO•c a ae ! ollO'd'o1 .
t; Cur :solo 1ntorn t 1:-. tbo vro • t . e ' b :-e-orted .. , 112 tct h o e ~ fththo:- ~ ! ' ; hcv r . l ! . r ~ \ ' n ! l . n.'lr d e o f • ~ r e of
Letterfi'OIII MoD 10 Moreland. Nol'emher 9. 1982.
In rep ly to More land' s concern s Peter Watkins ( the
Nick Pope equivalent in 1982) told the commander that I
was one of hi regulars. Then he sugges ted th at Mo reland
should in reply to any journalists eire a parl iamentary
written answer given on Jan uary 28. 198 1. that " no accidents have occur red involving ... damage to nuclear
weapons containi ng fiss ile material on U .K. tetTitory. . . . . .
Th e Air Staf f added that i f someone ment io ns "t he
Lakcnhea th incident " (as I had. where a ri re at this base in
July 1956 cau sed a near disaster to a we apons storage area).
then to reassure that duri ng thi s event "no nuclear materia ls
we re invol ved' ' -as th e U.S. authori ties had assured the
M oD was true.
But, in awell -tempered perspect iveonufology. W atkins
concluded. " I wou ld not expect ufologists to pursue either
IUR + F AI. I. 2001
31
7/30/2019 2001 Fall IUR - Jenny Randles on Rendlesham File
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2001-fall-iur-jenny-randles-on-rendlesham-file 10/10
of these angles any further-i f they do I suggest you refer
them to u:-:· And he wryly notes. ··1hope thi :- i:- helpful to
you and that Bentwaters does not become Eas t Angl in' :.
an . wer to Warminster . (a locale notor ious in Britain for
UFO sightings. many of dubious or igin ).
CONCLUSION
The M oD fi le on Rendlesham will keep me bu sy for so me
time assess ing its hidden ramification!>. Wi thout doubt it s
re lease is an importan t event- by rar the larges t official file
and on one of Britain·s most contentiou cases. But it te ll s
us much more about the M oD than it doe. about the events
in Rcndlcs ham Forest.
It reveals an Air Staff barely taki ng the ca).C seriously
and pursuing it on a fa ir ly tr ivial level. never seem ing to ask
questions about public sa fety issues or trying to fi nd rea li s
ti c so lution to what happened as any ufologist might do.
Indeed. we sec more imerested in finding the right
words to U>e to answer awkward questions than in finding
proper answers to these awkward questions in the fi rst
place! To me that is the overriding lesson robe taken from
th is file. Of course. it reveals no smok ing gun about the
case. But i t would never been re leased i f it had.
It al so demonstrates that the Air Staf f ha ve always
truth full y reported their perspec ti ve on this case . I have
never doubted thm. To them it was a minor un so lved
irritation. one that they ne ver properly n v e ~ a t e d thanks
to their disin teres t in UFOs and because they re lied on
mi . lead ing in rormation. mos t importantly about the date.
T he lack of any true sp irit of scientil ic inquir y is
unsurprising to me but also worrying. The MoD knew the
Halt tape exL Led less than two m after the sighti ngll.yet never made any effort to suggest to their own Squadron
Leade r with an o fl icc just yard s away from where rhat tapc
sat that he bOLher to go take a listen and report back. There
i, no interest at all expressed in ecur ing photos or so il
samples that were taken on the night in ques tion. Overall. it
is a catalog of mi ssed opportunities. Too little is done
because the case is never regarded as a scientilic or an
in tell ec tu al challenge but rather as a chore to be gotten out
of th e way.
Indeed. better still. so long as nobody asked qu es tions
about it hccause the whole thing was s u c c e ~ s f hidden
for as long as po. sible. then th e matter could be quiet ly
bur ied. The fact tha t about 85o/ of the fi le cover:-. the period
after the case went public and very li tt le o f any meaningful
substance happened whi le the incident was out of publ ic
sight speak for itself .
But. of cou rse. be hind al l t b i ~ the rea l question:
whether anything else off icially happened that i!. not in thi :
report. I must concl ude it did. We know th at because some
file are admittedly held back. even though it is unlikely
they are of any grea t import. We know also becau, e th e
internal ri les of DSTI , Df 55, Dl 52 are not included and
must be ab le to add something to the case in ves tiga tion.
This poses many How did these departments
discuss the case and decide it had no defense impl ications?
How did they conclude there was no explanation? Was this
guesswork. or research? And can we really be ce rtain tha t
until the Halt memo wa. sent to the MoD in mid-January
1981 there was no investigat ion of any so rt? But i f so. how
worryi ng is that?
Even i f thi s time there rea ll y was no de fense threat. next
tim e there might be. A nd f inding out about a defense threat
and an irradiated fo rest three weeks afterwards hardly
suggests a defense and intell igence orga ni7ation that is well
on top of things .
Disappointingly. the fi le in no way helps us to know
whether the Rendlesham case should be considered more
li kely to be resolved one way orthcother. Frankly. ufologists
have clone much more- both from the pro and skeptical
side of the fence- in trying to learn the tru th about thi s
complex case than the MoD evidently did. The MoD are left
exposed by th is fi le a!. adrift in tenm of serious efforts to
find out what happened. and then in the end rather feebly
left to claim that they just don' t know.
To me. thi s rile makes me face one worrying question
above all others. Is fear of th e public relations headache that
UFOs retlect compromising other more salient issues when
defen se authorities gel involved? A fter all. it does not
matter in the contex t o f na tional security whether th e
Rendlesham UFO was amispercep tion. some kind oratmo
p h e r i energy or a rea l UFO (whatever one of tho!>e might
be). M ore importan t is what might have been true and what
senior pe rsonnel thought wa . true.
Whatever the truth about Rcndlesham. thi11 rile sug
gests th at the MoD dropped the ba ll and got away wi th the
fu mble. Next time they might not escape. So this fi le shouldbe considered a wa rning to the author itic that UFOs (and
ufologists) may indeed be apa in in the neck that they would
much rather have nothing to do wi th. but i f they intend to
continue to pursue them then they must try ha rder. +
MULTIPLE GENESIS
Ea rth may have survived several early impacts from
large r o i d ca using l i fe to disappear and reap pear
seve ral tim es according to a th eory pu t forth rece ntly.
The ea rl y Earth may ha ve been an interrupted Ede n-a
plane t where l i fe repeatedly evolved and divcrsil'ied .
only to be back to sq uare one by a!>teroid. I0 or 20times wider than the one that h a ~ t e n e d the dinosaurs·
demise. When the surface of the Eanh fi nally became
inhabitab le again. thousands of yea rs after each impacr.
the emerged from hid ing places and spread
acros!'> the planet- unti l another a ~ t e r o i d hit and the
cycle w repeated. . .We know that large a ~ t e r o i im
pacts <.:an steril ize or partially steril i1.e planets:· said
Norman Sleep. professor of geophysics at Sta nford who
presen ted the theory at the fall mee ting of th l.! American
Geophys ical Union in San Francisco Dece mber 14 .
l UI {+ l-\11 200t