• SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY A PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Use the coupon code ufo20 to receive a 20% discount on five-year or lifetime subscriptions. And PayPal now accepts cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin, in payment. We also offer a second payment method for major credit or debit cards (which also includes Apple Pay and Google Pay), so act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Col. Conrad


Skilled Investigator
I was wondering what ye Paracasters think of this guy coming forward. From the article link, I quote this text.
" Col Conrad, who had gone home convinced he had seen nothing unusual, has remained silent. Now he has provided a series of statements about the sightings to Dr David Clarke, a Sheffield Hallam University academic and the UFO adviser to the National Archives - which this week will release some Ministry of Defence files relating to the incident.
"We saw nothing that resembled Lt Col Halt's descriptions either in the sky or on the ground," Col Conrad said.
In a damning indictment of his former deputy, Col Conrad added: "We had people in position to validate Halt's narrative, but none of them could."

From 'The Telegraph'. (By Jasper Copping 06 August 2011)

Robert Hastings

Skilled Investigator





As noted earlier, during his 1991 on-camera statement for Unsolved Mysteries, Halt mentioned that his former boss, Col. Conrad, watched one of the UFOs directing beams of light down into various areas of the Bentwaters base, while standing on the front lawn at his home in nearby RAF Woodbridge. The fact that Conrad himself has never publicly admitted his own sighting probably had to do with the subsequent appearance of American and British intelligence agents at Bentwaters and the ensuing cover-up of the events there. The fact that Clarke takes Conrad at his word, when the colonel denied that any UFO-related reports had been sent to USAF higher headquarters, only demonstrates the professor's naïveté about all of this.

I recently asked Col. Halt in an email, "Has Conrad or [former 81st Tactical Fighter Wing Commander, now-retired Gen. Gordon] Williams ever publicly challenged you or contradicted any of your post-USAF statements about the incident?" Halt responded, "Both have said things from time to time but, at the time, they didn't want to be involved in any way. I would dare either of them to come forward. I am more than willing to confront either publicly. They left me out to dry and know it!"

(Moreover, after Clarke published the 2010 letter he had received from Conrad, in which the retired colonel says no UFOs were present at Bentwaters, Halt dared Conrad to show up at my UFOs and Nukes press conference and publicly challenge his own testimony. Conrad wisely avoided appearing at the event.) <O:p</O:p


Skilled Investigator
Well I was actually wondering why this Conrad guy is surfacing now, as debunkee. It's a curiosity to me.
Otherwise, I have no belief stance on the Bentwaters case, I follow everything that comes out about it, with an open mind. Bob, what do you make of this "explanation" which had surfaced, that these neighboring military guys of the 67th ARRS, said they used a space capsule to go over there and hoax everyone?

Robert Hastings

Skilled Investigator
No biggie, but I go by "Robert".

Respectfully, if you keep up on everything that comes out about the issues involved in the Rendlesham case, but have not yet read my articles--especially "Beams of Light"--then you need to do so. Links to those appear in my first post on this thread.

I have interviewed several guards at the RAF Bentwaters nuclear Weapons Storage Area (WSA) who report UFOs in the air, near the depot, which was located adjacent to the forest. I have also interviewed both RAF Bentwaters USAF air traffic controllers who tracked at least one of those objects on radar, doing amazing things that no aircraft from Earth can do. In short, there are plenty of witnesses on the record, in taped interviews, who confirm a bona fide UFO presence at Rendlesham/Bentwaters that week. Persons claiming that the whole thing was a hoax are either uninformed, hopelessly biased, or engaging in disinformation.


Skilled Investigator
It's no surprise a person like Col. Conrad would want to disassociate himself from this case. When first confronted with something as bizarre as a possible UFO landing on the base, he probably would not know how to react. Then, with no actual aliens staring him in the face and a quick investigation on his own not showing anything obviously 'strange', it's easy enough to go into denial mode. Far more convenient, from a career prespective, to assume nothing happened and the explanation was a either a hoax or a lighthouse.


Foolish Earthling
Thinking back on the Belgiun triangle photo and someone coming forward about it's fakery, I'm wondering if we are going to see a flurry of so-called "witnesses" suddenly come forward and claim hoax or they saw nothing in the UFO field.

Why did Col.Conrad pick this particular time to deny UFO involvement? Was it due to being interviewed by Dr.David Clarke?


Paranormal Adept
Given the high stakes and steadfast insistence of major players at Rendlesham, I can't see how it can be brushed off as so much "swamp gas". Maybe someone with a military background can weigh in here. It's my understanding that security police and deputy base commanders at key installations, like Rendlesham in the 1980's, are not prone to mass hallucination.

It would seem more rational for Col. Conrad to deny knowledge of strange events that for people like Halt and Penniston to imagine them.

Sean Elifritz

Doesn't matter to me at this point what Conrad is saying as he's kicking a dead horse. Jim Penniston's ever-changing story has effectively destroyed any credibility the Rendlesham events might have had. If that guy isn't an outright liar then I'm Bill Gates.


Paranormally Disenchanted
Doesn't matter to me at this point what Conrad is saying as he's kicking a dead horse. Jim Penniston's ever-changing story has effectively destroyed any credibility the Rendlesham events might have had. If that guy isn't an outright liar then I'm Bill Gates.

I'm hesitant to throw the entirety of the Rendlesham incident out because of the new binary code business but I can understand why people would.The presence of the binary code and talk about time travelers makes no sense to me whatsoever and only serves to undermine the case.

Sean Elifritz

I'm hesitant to throw the entirety of the Rendlesham incident out because of the new binary code business but I can understand why people would.The presence of the binary code and talk about time travelers makes no sense to me whatsoever and only serves to undermine the case.

That's just the latest example. Penniston has been "updating" his account for years. It started off with just some lights in the sky. Then the story evolved to him touching a landed craft, scribbling things into a notebook, symbols, yadda-yadda-yadda...it goes on and on. Eventually he might tell us Elvis Presley was on-board.

Ron Collins

Curiously Confused
Does anyone have a timeline for the Penniston claims? I have often heard that his story evolved, but I have never seen hard evidence of it. The Binary junk is disturbing and bothers me greatly. I once thought Penniston was a great witness. Now, like so many others, he has dropped into that "are you frakin' kiddin' me?" bucket.

Still, the case itself is intriguing. That reminds me, I never posted my photos from my trip there. I need to find them and do that.


Paranormal Adept
Since Penniston admitted from the outset that he had been subjected to some degree of psychic trauma by both the phenomenon and intelligence operatives, a personality change over time doesn't seem surprising. This wouldn't be the first time a wittiness's reality filter was damaged by a close encounter and subsequent events. I don't see Penniston's binary code revelation as either objectively credible, or as damaging to the high strangeness validity of Rendlesham.

Robert Hastings

Skilled Investigator
Col. Halt just forwarded this to me:

From: Halt@xxx.com
To: jasper.copping@telegraph.co.uk
Subject: Re: Press query, sunday telegraph, london, uk
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 09:40:52 -0400 (EDT)


I will have to assume you're looking to print the truth, not "sell" a
sensational story. Ted Conrad is either having memory problems, has his
head in the sand or continuing the cover up. Even his son has admitted to
family talk substantiating the incident. Let's start with his
investigation. I interviewed the witnesses, collected their statements (I
still have them) and then took the witnesses to Conrad to tell their
account. I took Conrad and his family to the site in the forest and showed
him the depressions.

When I talked with Gordon Williams neither he nor
Conrad wanted their name mentioned with the incident. Thus, I was
directed to get with Don Moreland (RAF) and see what he wanted as it was
to become a British affair. I did so and he asked for a memo. I wrote it
and it was typed by Conrad's secretary. Conrad read it, showed it to
Williams and both approved. It was never meant for public dissemination.

Conrad has his chronology mixed up but that's understandable. Thru the
years Conrad has made conflicting statements about the events. First he
stated he never went out to look in the sky. Then stated he never saw
anything. Apparently he doesn't remember talking to me on his radio [about
seeing a UFO sending down beams of light onto the base].

He and you need to read Robert Hastings book "UFO's and Nukes”. Hastings
has gotten confirmation from the Air Traffic Controllers on duty that saw
the object flash by and go into the forest and even observed it on their
scope, He's gotten statements from SPs as well as a Communications man
working in the WSA stating their sightings. He's even dug up the RAF
Controller that picked up something on his scope.

Remind Conrad of his article in the OMNI Magazine dated March 1983. It's
on page 115 and titled UFO Update. In the article he describes the first
incident in detail and concludes "those lads saw something, but I don't
know what it was". Now he's smearing those involved. It's pretty clear
there was a very intense confrontation with something in the forest. Does
Conrad want to talk about how the airmen were then subjected to mind
control efforts using drugs and hypnosis by British and American
authorities? Yes, Burroughs and Penniston have issues that relate to the
events. Who wouldn't! A Wannabe was even drug into the event and messed
with. There are a lot more details substantiating the event but I'm not
going to bore you.

I suppose having to look for details or the truth is less important than
the "story". It's sad but I've come to understand how the main stream
press works. Truth gives way to the "Story". Prove me wrong!


RH: Col Halt was mistaken about one thing--the object tracked on radar
actually briefly hovered near the water tower on base before leaving the
vicinity. However, both controllers told me of receiving calls from
persons in the woods (via some security person at the command post, no doubt)
asking whether the tower was tracking a UFO. They also told me that they saw
a glow emanating from the forest, from something on the ground, not in the air.
Moreover, this occurred the night that Halt and his team were in the woods, not the
first night when Penniston reported seeing the triangular-shaped craft.



<!-- end of AOLMsgPart_0_90620207-62ec-4718-90f2-8add79b7efa5 --><STYLE>.AOLWebSuite .AOLPicturesFullSizeLink { height: 1px; width: 1px; overflow: hidden; } .AOLWebSuite a {color:blue; text-decoration: underline; cursor: pointer} .AOLWebSuite a.hsSig {cursor: default}</STYLE><LINK href="http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/34007/css/microformat.css" type=text/css rel=stylesheet>