The Disaster Preparedness Tech instructor at the nuclear-armed USAF facility in Rendlesham Forest, SSgt. Monroe Nevels, who measured radiation levels at a UFO landing site as recorded on Col. Halt’s famous audio tape, reached out to us today and revealed some extremely important new information concerning this aspect of the case.

For four decades, our knowledge of the Rendlesham Forest Incident (RFI) has been limited, and filtered through the orthodox RFI narrative presented by the three most famous witnesses. I, together with many other researchers, have been eager to hear from other key witnesses, particularly Sgt. Adrian Bustinza (who witnessed two separate nights during the main RFI events) and SSgt. Nevels (who attended a landing site twice, the second time famously measuring radiation from three ovoid indentations on the ground and notably also the surrounding trees).

Today, Nevels reached out to me directly on Facebook (screenshot below for the record) adding some extremely important details to the public domain for the first time (02 Sep 19). We believe it is important to ensure that this information is reported and analysed, to add to our collective understanding of the important events of the RFI.

We know very little about what happened at the landing site attended by Col. Halt — which is probably because the information was officially classified “Top-Secret” as SSgt Nevels was earnestly cautioned by 2d Lt. Bruce Englund when first briefed on the mission that night.

We have established that that the UFO landing site investigated by Halt and Nevels was definitely NOT the same landing site where Jim Penniston says he had his well-documented experience — contrary to the assumption among witnesses in this highly-compartmentalised story, and notwithstanding the resulting popular misconception that Halt and Penniston are talking about the same site.

QUESTION: What, exactly happened at the second UFO landing site, at the location investigated by Halt and Nevels? Despite the truth being classified as Top Secret, four decades later we need to know, and we’re still working hard on that so stay tuned…

The first important information confirmed to me by Nevels on Facebook today is that in 1980 at the second landing site he measured beta radiation levels of 7 mR/h. When converted to modern radiometric units, that’s a source measurement of 70 µSv/h. (This is a substantial reading, representing a peak that would, within one hour of exposure, exceed the maximum dose considered safe during an entire year here in the UK.)

The second important information confirmed by Nevels today is that this anomalous reading was approx. 100x the background level. That would mean his background measurement was 0.7 µSv (0.07 mR/h).

We have confirmed that the correct background radiation level in that part of the forest is in fact 0.023 µSv/h (0.0023 mR/h). This is a very accurate background mean air radiation dose rate, with a minimal standard deviation (±0.005), established using modern calibrated instruments (e.g. a FLIR R400+) at randomised control measurement locations.

Conclusion 1: the background level reported by Nevels is 30 times too high. Note that background radiation in this forest and throughout most of Suffolk is exceptionally low, and very consistent, due to regional geology.

If we assume that Nevels is reporting these measurements correctly, which is a reasonable assumption given his role at the twin base complex, then I hypothesise that his equipment was not calibrated at the time. (A crude 1980s radiation survey instrument like the one he used needs regular calibration, e.g. to account for changes in temperature.)

Conclusion 2: we can now accurately revise Nevel’s measurements, adjusting to correct the background basline — and thus accurately report, here and now, for the first time ever, after years of debate, the definitive correct radiation reading that Nevel’s was reading at the landing site: 2.333••• µSv/h.

Conclusion 3: Nevels reports his route to the landing site that he investigated as “left at east gate” and “50-75yds” to the right of the forestry track. That is a definitely not Jim Penniston’s landing site (about half a mile away) and it’s a completely different route to what Jim Penniston put in his latest book, Engima — a book Nevels contributed to and has been actively promoting online. It’s also not the same landing site that Halt is adamant about with reference to landmarks such as two oak trees that still stand today. MN’s new testimony invalidates the “staging area” pinpointed by Halt, which is on a completely different road half a mile away. (Penniston’s new book maps his route  including the staging area, which is less far along the road than Halt puts it, and in exactly the same place that Larry Warren has consistently put it with reference to surviving landmarks such as a distinctive original Corsican pine tree.)

Important notes:

  • It’s evident that MN does not realise the landing site he investigated is NOT the same landing site JP pinpoints in his new book. It is not the location where Jim now says he had his famous experience (Jim has changed his location over the years). Presumably MN was informed that somebody witnessed something significant at that location and, when JP broke his silence years later, like other witnesses MN had assumed it was Jim’s site he’d investigated.
  • MN reveals an extremely strong opinion about Halt, stating, that “He [Halt] makes up stories. He copies others’ observations as his own…”
  • UPDATE – 03 Sep 19: In a new Facebook comment on a link to the present article I’d posted (screenshot below) MN said the instrument he used in 1980 was a USAF issue AN/PDR-47E, manufactured by Nucor. Jim’s new book reports that MN used a Radiacmeter AN/PDR-27 Radiac Set radiation survey meter, manufactured by Nuclear Research Corporation, which is a very different radiac device having a different model numbers. Details like this are extremely important when trying to understanding historical measurements. Jim’s book is probably on the right track, despite the ambiguity that makes it difficult to be certain, because the PDR-47 series dosimeter is not designed to detect beta radiation, which Jim’s book reports formed the majority of the radiation detected by MN. The PDR-47 is a neutron detector, using the proton-recoil component. It is a neutron survey meter, not a Geiger counter. When people think of ionising radiation, usually they mean alpha, beta, gamma, and x — because neutron radiation is completely different, a very rare type of ionising radiation usually only detected in a nuclear reactor or during a nuclear detonation. The PDR-47 series is undoubtedly, specifically, a fast neutron doserate reading instrument, employing a proton recoil counter component. The proceedings document from the USAF’s Sanitary & Industrial Hygiene Engineering Symposium, 3-6 Oct 1961, informs us of the radiation types and energy ranges the PDR-27 series is capable of detecting: “in the AN/PDR-27, beta-particles having energies greater than 50 keV are detected, and alpha particles having energies greater than 5jMe are detected.” The same document also tells us: “in the AN/PDR-43, this G-M radiacmeter does not saturate and read zero in high radiation fields. It employs the same ‘pulsed’ (time-controlled) non-jamming circuitry principle as the AN/PDR-43A. Here’s a picture of the wonderful vintage PDR-27T 1980s analog Geiger counter, probably what MN used in 1980. (The single letter “T” suffix is the minor version number, reflecting incremental improvements with A being version 1.0, B being 1.2, etc.) Here’s an informative link to the device’s operation manual. Note that the user is instructed to turn the range selector dial clockwise, which multiplies the sensitivity by 10 with each click — from 500, to 50, to 5, and finally 0.5 — until a level of 10% is obtained.

  • Update 4 Sep: there won’t be any more updates, because “Monroe is now staying off the internet and is not doing interviews or inquiries by phone or email.” I was contacted privately on Messenger today by a Jim’s co-author, Gary Osborn, warning me me: “Jim has been on the phone with Monroe” and he’s “angry.” Osborn then cautioned me that a friend of Jim’s near me in the UK, David Young, is also “angry.” And it gets weirder. Then, somebody in my family (let’s call her E) messaged me on WhatsApp saying Young had contacted her (btw E does not even know Young) and that Young asked her to warn me because Jim is “furious” about me posting a screenshot of what MN wrote. Osborn also wrote publicly today that I’m a “charlatan” over all this, in a comment to Jim’s former girlfriend. Wtf? You could not make this stuff up. Such is the RFI circus. Folks call them the UFOlogy mafia.

    There is a dark and very serious side to this, because it’s further evidence (on top of this fb post as well as this fb post and this fb post and countless other sources) that the narrative is being censored and controlled by a small clique of very influential players within the UFOlogy/RFI pantheon. Facts and truth are being actively suppressed. Ever wondered why the “other” witnesses stay so silent?

    Witnesses and researchers, and their families, are being bullied, attacked and undermined. This is unacceptable, and all who care about truth, free speech and fair conduct must stand up to the agents of disinformation.

    Note the coordination in this campaign against the truth. Researchers must follow and report the facts, even if we don’t like where they lead. Certain people are working very hard to deprive YOU of FACTS that are inconvenient to the narrative they’re trying to sell. In fact, for some, like Young and one of his closest associates we’ll call “S” it is literally a full-time job. If you know who S is, it’s because the cap fits.

    Why are Jim and Y both so “angry” about me posting a screenshot showing exactly what MN wrote, publicly, in comments on my own Facebook posts?? Everything MN wrote is presented above, in full and in context, for the reader to make up their own mind about whether or not the landing site MN investigated is the same one as Jim pinpointed in his book. Any reasonable person following this will see that what Jim and Y are angry about here is the TRUTH. Now, why would Jim and Dave be angry about the truth?

    It is evident that MN assumed (as Halt did until recently) that the site they investigated was Jim’s. It’s also self-evident that this assumption was wrong. But apparently Jim does not want you to hear, uncensored, what other witnesses have to say.

    To the trolls: don’t shoot the messenger. I accurately presented EXACTLY what was written by a rarely-heard primary witness. How can I be “twisting” a witness’s words (as alleged today by all 3 angry men, Jim, Gary and Dave) by posting a screenshot showing the full text of EXACTLY what he wrote? Why is the truth a problem for Jim and friends?

I look forward to attending Halt’s conference this Sunday. Bizzarely, I’ve been banned and unbanned from it repeatedly, both publicly and privately, by the event organiser who is part of a very… let’s say “passionate” clique of individuals who hold very particular opinions. We were supposed to be performing isotope identification on the plaster cast Halt retained from one of the indentations, essential analysis of important physical evidence with potentially momentous significance to humanity — but this research was cancelled because the dude organising the conference is angry at me for refusing to shun the director of an upcoming documentary, Capel Green. I’m an independent, neutral researcher. I just follow and report the data, and I will not be bullied by the UFOlogy mafia of its entourage of online trolls.

Screenshot 1 – Monroe Nevels reached out to me on Facebook today (2 Sep) to give a very rare personal insight:

Monroe Nevels - Facebook 02-Sep-2019

Screenshot 2 (update) – on 3 Sep (the day after I posted this article) MN reached out to me again (link) to respond to the present article:


Author: Tim Acheson