Kean rebuttal UK case

Email from Leslie Kean to Art Levine regarding UK Rendlesham case, excerpted, sent February 2nd,
2022.

Art,
This is from the New Yorker story which I think inspired your question to me about this case: 

A tendency to discount or overlook inconvenient facts is a thing debunkers and believers have in
common. One dogged British researcher has convincingly shown that the Rendlesham case, or
Britain’s Roswell, probably consisted of a concatenation of a meteor, a lighthouse perceived
through woods and fog, and the uncanny sounds made by a muntjac deer. Eyewitness reports are
subject to considerable embroidery over time, and strings of improbable coincidences can easily
be rendered into an occult pattern by a human mind prone to misapprehension and eager for
meaning. The researcher had exhaustively demystified the case, and I was perturbed to learn
that Kean seemed unfazed by his verdict.  When I asked her about it, she did little more than
shrug, as though to suggest that such fluky accounts violated Occam’s razor.
Please see below my response to what was said in the New Yorker:

RESPONSE: The British researcher has NOT "exhaustively demystified the case” and he is not
convincing to astute researchers with knowledge of the case, and to those who were there.  Why
was I unfazed? Because I have talked to Halt and others, studied data on the case, and I’m aware
that it is clearly not explained. More has been learned since my book came out. Should the
fog/lighthouse argument have been fact-checked?

Nick Pope did a “cold case review” when he was at the MOD and has remained one of the
principle investigators. He has considered carefully all the skeptical arguments.  He wrote in
2016 that every factor on the list of characteristics of the case is compelling and well-evidenced
and enables one to draw the conclusion that it was a UFO sighting. That does not mean it’s ET!
Maybe it was earthly technology. But arguments about lighthouse beams, fog and deer are not
persuasive. 

Halt and the others lived with the lighthouse every day and they knew what the beam looked
like.  This is similar to saying that what aviation experts saw at O’Hare was lights reflecting off a
cloud or a hole punch cloud.

Here are the key characteristics:

• A series of close encounters that took place over several hours on three consecutive
nights (some reported on audio tape)
• Dozens of witnesses, many of whom were on duty USAF personnel
• The very fast UFO was tracked on radar and was not a meteor
• There was a landing which left physical trace evidence: indentations in the frozen
ground, burn and scorch marks on the trees, radiation levels that the MOD‘s defense intelligence
staff assessed as being “significantly higher than the average background“
 • All of these points are verified in the MOD‘s case file

 Colonel Charles Halt is probably the highest ranking US military officer ever to see and report a
UFO while on duty. He did everything he could to prevent the story from coming out.
He documented objects and lights in the sky, as well as a red orb floating near the ground in his
tape recording, when he was with a group of others from the base. A beam of light came down
very close to this group.

In 2015, Halt announced that he had obtained written statements from radar operators at RAF
Bentwaters and nearby Wattisham airfield that an unknown object was, in fact, tracked at the
time of the incident. The operators had not wanted to come forward until after retiring from their
military roles.

"I have confirmation that (Bentwaters radar operators)... saw the object go across their 60 mile
(96km) scope in two or three seconds, thousands of miles an hour, he came back across their
scope again, stopped near the water tower, they watched it and observed it go into the forest
where we were," said Col. Halt.