From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 15:09:59 +0100
Fwd Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 11:21:26 -0400
Subject: BBC Suffolk Hoaxed By Conde?  


BBC - Victim Of A Hoax?
Hoaxer admitted he was not responsible for incident

Listmembers, I realise I have posted some of this information
previously, but here it is intact, and permission is granted to
use it freely.

The BBC recently went to the expense of making a TV documentary
about the famous Rendlesham Forest mystery, producing  witness
Kevin Conde who claimed to have hoaxed the incident. They had no
evidence to support his claims, so why didn't they do their
research?

There's no doubt that Britain's Rendlesham Forest incident is
now firmly established as one of the most famous cases in UFO
history, second only to the famous Roswell incident. But as with
Roswell, Rendlesham has its fair share of debunkers.

The Evidence Rendlesham is a truly fascinating case involving
UFO encounters that took place in Suffolk during Christmas week
1980, on the perimeter of RAF Woodbridge. Along with its sister
base, RAF Bentwaters, Woodbridge was one of a number of British
military sites that were leased to the USAF during the Cold War.

Witnesses to the UFO events include both military and civilian,
and there is an abundance of evidence to suggest that something
`unidentified' landed in the forest during that week. This
evidence includes an official USAF memorandum (dated January
1981) by the then Deputy Base Commander Lt Colonel Charles Halt,
which was dispatched to the Ministry of Defence  (MOD). It makes
fascinating reading, describing the incidents and UFOs in some
detail. There's also Halt's audio tape recording of his own
encounter, made on thenight he went out to the forest to
investigate the UFOs.

There are several USAF witness statements made in January 1981,
which include detailed sketches of the location and the UFOs,
and USAF photographs of the initial landing site, which show
three ground depressions formed in a triangular pattern. Add to
this the numerous witness testimonies, and the fact that Admiral
of the Fleet Lord Hill-Norton put 16 Questions to the House
Lords (see Hansard) and more recently the release of the MOD's
own file on the case, and it's plain to see that this is no
ordinary UFO case.

The Facts v The Critics Over the years critics have offered
various theories for what could have happened during that week,
the most irritating being `the lighthouse theory'. For almost
twenty years the sceptics insisted that the UFOs were nothing
more than the beam from the Orfordness lighthouse, situated five
miles in the distance, and the marks on the ground (reported by
the witnesses) were mere animal scratches. Then there was the
lightship theory pertaining to the Shipwash lightship some miles
out at sea.

However, these theories were squashed when recently uncovered
USAF photographs taken the morning after the initial incident,
were discovered. These amazing photographs feature the landing
site with three ground indentations formed in a triangular
pattern, as well as the scuffed up area just off centre, which
was measured and described in Colonel Halt's tape recording. One
photograph in particular features a USAF captain and a British
police officer actually examining the landing site.

Until this evidence surfaced, debunkers, and indeed sceptics had
dismissed the testimony of military witnesses, insisting there
was no proof that something had landed in the forest. Although
most of the sceptics quietly and shyly withdrew, debunkers
refused to acknowledge this newfound evidence and persisted in
believing the lighthouse was still responsible. Some even tried
to find more mundane theories. So what happened? Well, there was
the theory that the lights were coming from a tractor. But who
would normally operate such a vehicle in the early hours of the
morning? When believers in this case are accused of being
cranky, my argument is that at least we don't believe in science
fiction.

Serious researchers take the case as a whole, examine all the
evidence, interview witnesses, go after paper trails and pester
officials. But debunkers generally prefer to take one or two
pieces of a case, those which suit their theories, and like a
Scrooge, cling onto it, dismissing first hand witness accounts,
debunking Halt's official memorandum and audio recording, and
ignoring recently discovered USAF photographs. In fact they have
problems with any material that contradicts their cause.

So the USAF photographs which of course destroys all theories
that it was anything to do with a lighthouse, lightship or
tractor, are never mentioned. They simply do not exist! The
reason for this blackout is because if they were forced to pay
attention to this vital evidence it would make their theories
appear even more ridiculous. I admit I'm sceptical of their
theories. I mean, who would believe that a tractor, lighthouse
or lightship could travel across the sky and land in the middle
of a dense forest, fooling trained USAF personnel into believing
they were seeing a UFO.

And what about the ground indentations, which are shown to be
exactly as the witnesses described all those years ago? Three
indentations several feet apart in a perfectly formed triangular
pattern, far too big to be animal paw prints and too well formed
to be animal scratchings. I believe we are not alone in the
universe, but I certainly don't believe that Dr Who style
lighthouses and giant mythological creatures with three feet are
responsible for the Rendlesham UFO case. And I imagine that
Colonel Halt and all the military witnesses, as well as MOD
Intelligence Staff, and countless others, are of the same
opinion.

Kevin Conde's Testimony But now the debunkers have found a new
hero who could have come straight out of a Boy's Own comic. They
are no longer following the lighthouse trail, but instead have
turned their attention to a battered police car. Their hero has
been encouraged to go public with an even more incredible story
than we have ever heard before. This latest attempt to discredit
the Rendlesham Forest case comes in the form of a practical joke
allegedly played by former US airman Kevin Conde, who claims he
was stationed at RAF Bentwaters/Woodbridge in 1980. According to
Conde, who retired as a Technical Sergeant, he was bored one
evening and decided to play on prank on one of his colleagues.

Conde's story was recently featured in a documentary made for
INSIDE OUT, a Suffolk BBC TV station. Michael Hanlon of the
Daily Mail newspaper then picked up the story. Hanlon
interviewed Conde, who told the journalist that the incident was
nothing more than a practical joke on his part. This is quite a
statement!

Considering I spent three years investigating the incident,
interviewed hundreds of people involved, and wrote a book about
the case, I was, as I told the journalist, 'Amazed,' pointing
out the evidence for the case, which he duly printed. And as
Nick Pope states in the article, "Frankly, there are a lot of
people retrospectively trying to write themselves into the
story."

Conde's claim to fame is that he drove a battered 1979 Plymouth
Volare standard issue American police car down the taxiway,
where he stuck red and green lenses on the spotlights, switched
on his PA loudspeaker, and proceeded to drive the vehicle around
in circles on the taxiway (runway) in the fog whilst at the same
time flashing his car lights. He claims this was the basis of
the famous 1980 Rendlesham Forest UFO incident.

But let's examine these outrageous claims.

1. Conde can't recall the date of his alleged prank. If this is
so then how can he possibly claim he was responsible for the
December 1980 incident? Surely knowing the exact date is
important in the first instance!

2. Conde says there was fog on the night in question, but there
was no fog during any of the events. Of course several witnesses
reported that there was a green ground mist around the UFOs, but
there was no natural fog on the runway or surrounding the base.

3. Conde says he played his loudspeaker, but doesn't define what
he played, and of course the UFOs were completely silent.

4. The car he used for the prank was a 'battered 1979 Plymouth
Volare'. But the incident took place in 1980, which means the
so-called battered police vehicle would have been less than a
year old at the time. Are we to believe that the USAF would
allow the security police to use a battered car?  And if so, why
was a fairly new car so battered?

Is this just embellishment? And if so, what does it tell us
about the rest of Conde's story?

5. Conde claims he played the prank on the taxiway [runway]. The
incident did NOT take place on or near the runway, but inside
the forest. And let us not forget that the UFO was first seen
falling into the forest, which prompted those at the East Gate,
John Burroughs and his sergeant, Bud Steffans, to think it was a
downed aircraft. The lights, of course, were not going up into
the sky, but were falling down from the sky.

6. Conde says he was unaware of the Rendlesham mystery until he
looked up his old base on a US military website. If this is the
case then how could he claim that as far as he was aware they
found nothing above background [radiation] levels?

7. When asked about the metallic spacecraft and [ground]
depressions Conde pointed out that a large helicopter had landed
the previous night, apparently with three landing skids. Conde
obviously hasn't seen or heard about the USAF photographs of the
landing site showing the three ground indentations being
examined by a British police officer and a USAF Captain. Was
there really a 'large helicopter' capable of forming three
depressions in a triangular pattern? And if so, then why would
the USAF alert the local constabulary to the landing site?
Surely a USAF captain would know if these indentations were
formed by one of their own helicopters. And why would a 'large'
helicopter land smack in the middle of the forest? But even more
incredible, how was 'a large helicopter' able to land amongst
the trees?

Kevin Conde, a part-time police officer in Sacramento, says,
"I was amazed. I had no idea about all this nonsense."

What nonsense?

He then goes on to say: "I hate to be cynical, but when I see
people making money out of this, I have to ask myself if they
are not nuts, what are they?"

I wonder if Conde has any idea how much it costs in time, effort
and money to do investigative work, and furthermore, does he
have any idea of the sacrifice, stress, frustration and God
knows what else, that the witnesses have had to endure these
past twenty three years.

Conde Exposed

Interestingly, Kevin Conde had decided that his prank wasn't
responsible for the incident long before he was interviewed by
BBC INSIDE OUT or the Daily Mail newspaper. In an I nternet
debunking newsletter he told the editor:

"This incident [hoax] occurred right after Christmas. For
reasons that are hard to explain it is my impression that I
pulled my stunt during an exercise. We would not have had an
exercise during the Christmas holiday. That is a strong
indication that my stunt is not the source of this specific
incident".

The editor could not accept the fact that Conde had decided
his hoax was not responsible.

"My personal conclusion about Kevin's prank remains unaltered;
if his hoax, or a copycat exercise, wasn't responsible for those
'beams of light', it would be an exceptional coincidence.

It was this same debunker/editor who set about promoting Conde's
story to the media, knowing only too well that it was
irresponsible.

If Conde persists in supporting his story he will need to prove
himself. And I for one am only too eager to challenge him. But
so far he has failed to respond to my questions.

For instance, what proof does Conde offer other than his own
verbal testimony? Who was the witness he claims was in the car
with him during this prank.

A glance at the BBC website INSIDE OUT reveals how most people
feel about Conde's claims. BBC Suffolk, which was the first to
feature Conde's story, should be criticised for being so naive.
For in an attempt to get an exclusive hoax story, the producers
and researchers may themselves now be victims of a prank. For
one thing is certain, Conde's story has nothing to do with
solving the Rendlesham Forest UFO case.

The contents of this e-mail may be freely used.

Georgina Bruni

georgina@easynet.co.uk
Author of You Can't Tell The People, The Definitive Account
of the Rendlesham Forest UFO Incident.
Published by Pan Macmillan