UFO Lands in Suffolk and That’s Official – The Halt Tape
Late in 1984, more than a year after the Halt Memorandum had been made public via the U.S. Freedom of Information Act, the officer who succeeded Halt in the chain of command at Bentwaters/Woodbridge, Col . Sam Morgan, released a copy of a tape-recording which he said had been made by Halt during the events of December 29/30, 1980 and which had subsequently come into his (Morgan’s) possession. Morgan chose to send this tape to a ufologist-Manchester solicitor Harry Harris-who had, from time to time, associated himself with the investigations made by the authors of Sky crash. Harry Harris, in tum, made this tape-recording avail able to the public. Copies of it have been on open sale ever since. The publicly obtainable copy is of poor audio quality, but a written transcript of it, made by Ian Ridpath and Harry Harris, is also on sale.
There has been much speculation about this tape, including, inevitably, many guesses about the possible motives and reliability of the several hands through which it has passed. Those who are doubtful about its authenticity have tended to adopt one of two theories. The first, favored by those who regard the Halt Memorandum itself as deliberate disinformation designed to divert attention from a military mishap, tends to argue that the tape is “more of the same kind”, that is, that it has been put into circulation by Defense authorities, using as their channel the relatively low-level (and therefore, if necessary, disavow able) Sam Morgan, together with a ufologist who could be counted upon to give it further currency among ufological colleagues. The second (somewhat scurrilous) view is that a person or persons unnamed saw some possible gain to themselves in disseminating this irresistibly interesting electronic article.
Both of these views imply, of course, that the tape is a fake. And any serious commentator would be failing in his duty if he neglected this possibility. I, personally, dismiss the ”disinformation” theory on much the same grounds which persuade me that Halt’s Memorandum was not intended as a cover-up. By the time of the tape’s re lease into the public domain the events of December 1980 were already nearly four years past. The British MoD, the Pentagon and the USAF had weathered without difficulty the minor rumpus attending the publication of Halt’s Memorandum in mid- 1983. Who in their senses on the official side-whatever the motives-would have wanted to risk stirring up a renewed row in late 1984 by putting into public circulation a sensational new piece of information, whether faked or not? The theory strikes me as simply absurd.
Excluding the Defense authorities on these grounds, did somebody else fake the tape? Ufology (like psychical re search and, indeed, many other fields) is open, alas, to the depredations of practical jokers, of a wholly terrestrial kind, even when monetary gain is not in question. We know, for example, thanks to the diligent researches of Jenny Randles and others, that a reputable astronomer chortled quietly in his study for three decades after putting into circulation under a pseudonym an account of a close encounter in Scotland which fazed quite a number of ufologists. We also know that whoever faked the remnants of the Piltdown Man went to his grave with nothing more to reward him than whatever perverse satisfaction he may have felt at diddling the paleontological establishment. We need not look for monetary gain in suspecting a possible hoax; human nature is quite enough to be going on with.
It is far from ridiculous to wonder whether somebody, somewhere, faked the ‘ ‘Halt Tape‘ ‘ ; and the fact that some small profit may have been made by selling the alleged copies has understandably reinforced the critical observations of at least some commentators.
In the circumstances, the best we can do with the “Halt Tape’ ‘ is to use the well-tried methods of research historians and investigative journalists, that is, to ask ourselves two questions: first, is the tape internally consistent? ; second, how does it relate to any primary document (in this case the Halt Memorandum)?
As for internal consistency, two points must immediately be stressed. The first is that the tape made available to us on public sale cannot possibly be a full recording of any original. It runs for only about eighteen minutes whereas the events it describes-on the time-readings which it distinctly records-extend over several hours. The second, somewhat daunting, fact is that the tape is interrupted by two short passages, one of piano music (!) and one of a voice uttering (as far as I can judge) the cryptic words, ‘ ‘He took this long to dock, ‘ ‘ both of which differ greatly in their acoustic quality from the rest of the re cording. I can understand the position of anybody who considers that these points are sufficient grounds for dis missing the tape from further consideration.
My own view, however, is that the second of them is, if anything, paradoxical evidence that the tape is genuine: any committed faker could easily have eliminated these traces that the tape he was using for reproducing Halt’s original had been employed earlier for other purposes (including the recording of some favorite piece of piano music!). The first point-the abbreviation of the tape-could well be explained by some understandable decision on the part of those who released it that there is a limit to what listeners will put up with! My own suspicion, however, is that the abbreviation was made, possibly by Halt himself, to exclude material which, though honestly perceived (not only by Halt but by other witnesses), was far too bizarre to be left on record (and I shall return to this point). But which ever of these views you take, the abbreviation does not in itself discredit the tape.
As for compatibility with the primary document, Halt’s Memorandum, the tape seems to me to stand up to any test one cares to apply: it covers about the same time-span (taking the time-readings it contains) ; it deals with the same events; and it describes them in _the same sequence.
It has the kind of messy, half-audible quality which one might expect from the ‘ ‘electronic notebook’ ‘ which any sensible officer takes with him to the scene of an incident on which he may later have to make a written report (and which he never expects will be listened to by anybody except himself). And-apart from the two brief interruptions discussed above-it has what BBC engineers de scribe as ‘ ‘exterior acoustic, ‘ ‘ that is, it was manifestly made in the open air (together with a large supporting cast). Those who wish to regard it as a fake will have to envisage a very elaborate piece of deception and to explain why they think it was undertaken.
Having exercised the caution due to evidence which lacks the official stamp given to Halt’s Memorandum, I personally accept the tape as authentic. It adds useful de tails to our knowledge of the events of December 29/30, 1980, and it puts beyond reasonable doubt that Halt was following up occurrences which had been reported to him from the night of December 26/27. My only reservation is that I suspect the tape has been deliberately abbreviated to exclude the weirdest part of the encounter.