Glaring flaw in the `rendlesham forest` ufo

[Oppono Astos]

The lighthouse theory does make me laugh. Plausible but flawed for two reasons.

1, Nobody bothered to interview the lighthouse keeper till much after that was found to be the probable cause. The lighthouse was shielded from emitting light towards the base or the farmhouse by a metal cover. The cover had been there since it was built.

2. Even if light could be seen from it the base I we saying that this was the first time they ever saw it? Surely they would have been familiar with it at night?

The drunken soldiers flashing headlights. Plausible again, but RAF Bentwaters and RAF Woodbridge are surrounded by public roads (including an A road) right along its borders with normal traffic flow. Headlights would have been seen probably every night of the week. RAF Bentwaters/Woodbridge are not some secret installation like Dugway proving ground or Area 51 it was a working airfield with a housing estate just a stone throw away.

Doesn't mean little green men but I personally don't buy the explanations so far.

The lighthouse was automated in 1965 - so who exactly was the lighthouse keeper?

The direction of the Orford Ness lighthouse shielding has been discussed to death on other Rendlesham threads - the shielding was/is not in the direction of Woodbridge East gate or the gamekeeper's cottage at Capel Green.

[quillius]

The lighthouse was automated in 1965 - so who exactly was the lighthouse keeper?

The direction of the Orford Ness lighthouse shielding has been discussed to death on other Rendlesham threads - the shielding was/is not in the direction of Woodbridge East gate or the gamekeeper's cottage at Capel Green.

not that it matters, as the lighthouse couldnt be seen from the gate anyway.

[Oppono Astos]

not that it matters, as the lighthouse couldnt be seen from the gate anyway.

Visibility of the lighthouse in not the point of interest, but of indirect visibility of the lighthouse beam.

The lighthouse was visible at/from the forest towards and bordering Capel Green.

[quillius]

Visibility of the lighthouse in not the point of interest, but of indirect visibility of the lighthouse beam.

The lighthouse was visible at/from the forest towards and bordering Capel Green.

well yes, I thought the discussion, though phrased lighthouse, is actually discussing the beam.

The beam was not visible from the East gate, it was only visible through a gap in the trees once you are well into the forest. So what was it that the men first witnessed glowing above the trees whilst patrolling at the East gate?

The lighthouse is basically only visible through a certain gap and at a position in the forst that would have constituted the half way point of their 'chase'.

I guess before that though we still come back to the initial sightings that instigated chase, Ian Ridpath relies on the fireball which doesnt add up with the statements, so what was it?

[scowl]

What makes the lighthouse theory plausible to me is that on the audio tape, they report that the light from the supposed object appears and disappears in perfect synchronization with the rotation of the lighthouse beam. That's too much coincidence for me.

[Oppono Astos]

What makes the lighthouse theory plausible to me is that on the audio tape, they report that the light from the supposed object appears and disappears in perfect synchronization with the rotation of the lighthouse beam. That's too much coincidence for me.

Indeed, particularly when Halt acknowledged that he thought Orford and the lighthouse were further north than its actual bearing/position..

[quillius]

What makes the lighthouse theory plausible to me is that on the audio tape, they report that the light from the supposed object appears and disappears in perfect synchronization with the rotation of the lighthouse beam. That's too much coincidence for me.

the whole 5 second synchronization evolved form this one piece of commentary from Halts tape:

HALT: You just saw a light? Where? Wait a minute. Slow down. Where?

ENGLUND: Right on this position here. Straight ahead, in between the trees – there it is again. Watch – straight ahead, off my flashlight there, sir. There it is.

[iAN’S NOTE: The UFO at last! The time interval between “There it is again...there it is” is 5 seconds, the flash rate of the Orford Ness lighthouse

Hardly convincing, from all the transcript the only part that (may) fall in line with a 5 second rotation is the above. firstly what makes Ian think the light has dissapeared and appeared again...i.e. going from 'there it is again' to 'there it is'? and if this was the case who says that the comments were made exactly as it was seen?

why is there in the next few sentences talk of red light? two lights? etc etc nothing fitting to the 5 second cherry picked part suggesting synchronisation with a single beam from a lighthouse.

within a the next minute or two the following is said:

HALT: There is no doubt about it – there’s some type of strange flashing red light ahead.

ENGLUND: Sir, it’s yellow.

HALT: I saw a yellow tinge in it, too. Weird! It appears to be maybe moving a little bit this way? It’s brighter than it has been.

VOICE:Yellow

HALT: It’s coming this way. It is definitely coming this way.

VOICE: Pieces of it shooting off...

HALT: Pieces of it are shooting off.

VOICE: At eleven o’clock...

HALT: There is no doubt about it. This is weird!

VOICE (NEVELS?): To the left...

HALT:Definitely moving...

VOICE (NEVELS?):Two lights – one light just behind [?] and one light to the left

hmmm....so we have a moving, red and yellow tinged lighthouse emmitting two beams of light

edit to add: Scowl/Oppono, I wont be able to repsond until tomorrow now , should you pose any questions.

Edited January 9, 2014 by quillius

[scowl]

hmmm....so we have a moving, red and yellow tinged lighthouse emmitting two beams of light

Yes, we have a powerful source of periodic light nearby and a guy stumbling around in the dark who is totally freaked out has absolutely no clue what light he is seeing other than it appears and disappears. Therefore the source of light must be an extraterrestrial spacecraft and not the lighthouse.

I have also stumbled around in the dark and have been fooled by sources of light. I didn't find these confused and overexcited observations to be reliable enough to believe he was seeing anything other than the lighthouse.

[quillius]

Yes, we have a powerful source of periodic light nearby and a guy stumbling around in the dark who is totally freaked out has absolutely no clue what light he is seeing other than it appears and disappears.

It was not a single light but multiple lights

not a single confused freaked out guy stumbling around either (I assume you realise the sightings from two days before and the fact Halt was not alone right?)

As pointed out above with direct quotes from the transcript, its hardly a light that just dissapears and appears again.

Therefore the source of light must be an extraterrestrial spacecraft and not the lighthouse.

what a silly conclusion to jump to......who said it was ET? I thought you were much better than that Scowl, only the weaker debaters suuggest the only alternative is ET to enable them to ridicule the idea and take a perceived upper hand in the debate of the case.

I have also stumbled around in the dark and have been fooled by sources of light. I didn't find these confused and overexcited observations to be reliable enough to believe he was seeing anything other than the lighthouse.

ok if you choose to believe all those men chased a lighthouse (that could not be seen from the position of original sighting) then go right ahead, I would suggest you dont believe everything you are told.

edit to add: Happy new year.

Edited January 10, 2014 by quillius

[Sp3ctre]

I recommend you all to watch the Discovery Science documentary show "Alien Mysteries" on this case. It has a lot of evidence and summarizes it pretty well. Definitely worth a watch. I notice you haven't discussed the binary that one of the men had written down? Or their hypnosis? They also found radiation at the supposed landing sight and burnt trees and foliage etc. And when they both joined the army, they had a clean bill of health, since they left they had radiation and heart problems. It is a pretty strong case with lots of evidence. Very strange to say the least.

Edited January 10, 2014 by Sp3ctre

[dr no]

I recommend you all to watch the Discovery Science documentary show "Alien Mysteries" on this case. It has a lot of evidence and summarizes it pretty well. Definitely worth a watch. I notice you haven't discussed the binary that one of the men had written down? Or their hypnosis? They also found radiation at the supposed landing sight and burnt trees and foliage etc. And when they both joined the army, they had a clean bill of health, since they left they had radiation and heart problems. It is a pretty strong case with lots of evidence. Very strange to say the least.

All is not what it seems

As for the radiation detected at the “landing site” three independent scientific experts, including the makers of the Geiger counter, have since stated there was nothing unusual in the levels recorded by Halt’s team in the forest. They were simply background levels that would be expected in a pine forest. Doubts have also been raised about the suitability of the Geiger counter used by the USAF team in the forest, which was not designed to measure environmental radiation. The manufacturers of the equipment have confirmed the readings recorded were “of little or no significance.” This is consistent with the testimony of the MoD’s UFO desk officer, Simon Weeden, who told me that he understood that officials made their own inquiries about the reliability of the levels of radiation reported and reached the same conclusion. Col Conrad adds a further detail not mentioned in Halt’s report to the Ministry of Defence “…Sgt. Nevels, the Geiger counter operator, initially reported slightly elevated readings after his first visit to the location. However on a subsequent verbal report, he gave the radiation levels as equal to the normal background “noise”.”

http://drdavidclarke.co.uk/secret-files/secret-files-4/

Its worth going to read this piece,Rendlesham is interesting but theres a lot of stuff recorded as fact that isn't regarding the case

[scowl]

Well, I don't think the lighthouse would be capable of being overhead and shooting beams down at their feet.........I remember that testimony from Col. Halt from one of the video's on the topic.

Under some atmospheric conditions light can travel in unexpected ways. This is why Venus is a popular UFO.

Also the tape recording of the men sounds to me like they were borderline hysterical during their experience so I don't believe much of the stuff they said afterwards. They would never admit that they had been fooled by a lighthouse so they had every reason to fabricate details that would dismiss it.

[Oppono Astos]

Well....dream up all the wild probabilities you want, but the chances these guys mistook a lighthouse they were highly familiar with and saw every day: 0.0%.

I have a lot more faith in our military folks than that.

Halt didn't know the actual position/direction of the Orford Ness lighthouse, so they were clearly not that familiar with it.

[eddword]

Not everyone carries a camera around. Specialy back when this happened. And another point I might add is, If you were in a situation where you were witnessing something of this magnatude you would probably suffer from sensory over load. Seriously! And you might not think to go back to the base and find a camera and who could say that the object would still be there when you got back.. Too many variables in a situation like this. To put it in another perspective consider this; Put ten different people in this same situation and I would bet that you would get ten different reactions. I do beleive that there was something there. As far as what exactly it was is another story.UFO/space craft ,Time traveler , aparition? who knows!

It might have even been from this planet.. You also have to remember that these objects were also messing around with our nukes we had over there and taking them off line which to me is the scariest scenerio.. Because if they have the ability to turn them off they couild very well activate a launch! This is something I personaly do not take very lightly. As well as people who do not check all their facts.

[DBunker]

Lighthouse or not.... ET should be at the bottom of the list of possible explanations.... if on it at all.

[Just Dave]

There never is any evidence or proof of this sightings... Once there will be... Just imagine the impact of authentic video or picture of an ET creature on the world.

Beside even if there actually is a REAL picture of something ET based, it has probably been bombarded with false info and missinformation... Anything to make it look bad or fake...

Abit offtopic..

Last time i was thinking .. if mars had a civilization there are probably traces like artifacts or structures buried bellow the sands, and US sent 3 rovers there... i recently saw a picture HERE which was released with huge delay.. than i asked myself what else did they find and they dont want you to know? That is why i support Mars one project and their streaming show... whatever they will find or encounter entire world will know. Meanwhile NASA can just say dont release this or that, keep that classfied oh and that one too...

Yeah Great progress we are making here, Go rovers! Not that they are any good to us, buy hey at least NASA knows.

[DBunker]

Oh, it's on the list all right - but what happened there on those nights and what the real source was - maybe someday in the distant future we'll find out.

Like all the other UFO/ET tall tales this one will linger for ever and nothing new will ever come of it. It will remain a "mystery."

Wanna bet?!!

Edited January 11, 2014 by DBunker

[DONTEATUS]

que "Bungle in the Jungle"

[Hazzard]

Yep, probably linger for a long, long, time - but it sure as hell 'taint no "UFO tall tale". Something was out there.

Sure it is. As long as that "something" isnt identified, its a UFO,... and when some people speculate (insist really) that its an ET craft without a shred of credible evidence, guess what, then its a tall tale.

[Hazzard]

The only "tall tale" is you trying to make it that. Our military guys there on site at that time have credibility, you have none regarding this case.

Sounds like the old Appeal to authority. What makes you think that the guards has more experience identifying an alien starship than you or me? And from nothing more,... something as vague as a shining light!!? I dont care who claims ET is here. All Im interested in is the evidence and how good said evidence really is,... and in this case there is none.

All we have here is the usual slush of someone not being able to identify something in the air, and then the usual speculations about the origin. Nothing new here. UFOology is pretty much built on that premis. Opinions and belief. And people do like to believe.

If we ever get that final and conclusive exhibit A there will be no need to believe (or not) then we will know.

See the difference?

[DBunker]

Until we have the much desired "holy grail" moment, that's good enough for me.

Yep.... BELIEF is the very foundation of UFOology.

Edited January 12, 2014 by DBunker

[DONTEATUS]

Thats it ! we never asked Harrison Ford to Look for E.T He already ground THe Holy Grail !

[quillius]

lets hope some of the skeptics on this thread try and actually tackle some of the questions posed (or to rephrase 'the glaring flaws in the accepted debunk').....or will it just become another thread where the questions raised that challenge the lighthouse/meteor theory just get sidestepped and the thread takes on the common new direction of

'well it cant be ET blah blah blah'

'i dont want to know, I want to believe'

it seems that with Psyche absent we suddenly have a lack of debate from the other side of the fence...

[Hazzard]

lets hope some of the skeptics on this thread try and actually tackle some of the questions posed (or to rephrase 'the glaring flaws in the accepted debunk').....or will it just become another thread where the questions raised that challenge the lighthouse/meteor theory just get sidestepped and the thread takes on the common new direction of

'well it cant be ET blah blah blah'

'i dont want to know, I want to believe'

it seems that with Psyche absent we suddenly have a lack of debate from the other side of the fence...

Look at it this way,... In psyches absent here is your chance, quillius? Instead of telling other people how they should post maybe its time for you to put on the devils advocate shoes. See if you can do this the way I think it should be done, by trying your best to falsify a claim, if for nothing else than to see if it holds water?

The ETH believers seldomly (or never) seem to have an alternative explanation. They just point to a sighting, a story, or a youtube clip and think that as long as it doesnt get debunked (-where are all the skeptics?) its ET related,... and even if we get numerous theories more plausible that visiting Nordics they believers simply dont want to listen.

Maybe psyche felt he needed to take a break from all the Woo Woo,... no one can blame him for that.

Frustrating at times, to say the least.

[quillius]

Look at it this way,... In psyches absent here is your chance, quillius? Instead of telling other people how they should post maybe its time for you to put on the devils advocate shoes. See if you can do this the way I think it should be done, by trying your best to falsify a claim, if for nothing else than to see if it holds water?

that is exactly what I do, I try and falsify the most commonly accepted debunk/explanation. In this case the sighting is not restricted to one night so I started at the beginning....the beginning requires the fireball to have instigated a chase, I have posted why I think this falls down on a number of occasions....yet no answer and still the continued ramblings of 'it must have been a lighthouse'......but when the questions that challenge this theory are posed they are not answered.

do you fancy trying to answer the 'glaring flaw' in the fireball theory?

The ETH believers seldomly (or never) seem to have an alternative explanation. They just point to a sighting, a story, or a youtube clip and think that as long as it doesnt get debunked (-where are all the skeptics?) its ET related,... and even if we get numerous theories more plausible that visiting Nordics they believers simply dont want to listen.

well I can include myself as an ETH believer and actually the starting point is to look at the offcial explanation and falsify that before claiming it to be the solution, but often many of you jump on any bandwagon that doesnt involve ET and believe every word you are told without applying teh rigorous process that is constantly thrown around as being the standard MO for you guys...why is it not done for the official/prefered explanations?

Maybe psyche felt he needed to take a break from all the Woo Woo,... no one can blame him for that.

Frustrating at times, to say the least.

I wasnt blaming him for anything, I understand why he felt he needed a break, sadly he is one of teh few who would stand and argue the points rather than sticking to insults on every post.

and yes it is very frustrating when peopel keep claiming that a case is debunked when it is not. And any challenge to this is ignored......heads buried in the sand swings heavily both ways, this is apparent if reading threads thoroughly.

Edited January 13, 2014 by quillius