Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Still Waters

Rendlesham Forest UFO sighting 'new evidence'

95 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Merc14
12 minutes ago, quillius said:

wow, I think I have just demolished my own angle.....

the word 'watch' goes against a continuous light.....he would have said 'look' rather than 'watch' if a continuous light...

 

sigh.....although it is still based on one '5 second' interval which is still flimsy...but granted not as flimsy as before, at least now I am quite sure the light could not be seen in between the two phrases.

I promised myself I wouldn't do this!

I believe "Watch." means keep looking at where the bright light is and when it sweeps (blinks :rolleyes:) they say "There it is." and 5 seconds later say "There its is again!". so two sweeps but actually three if you count when the trooper started talking to the colonel and described where he saw the light initially.

Edited by Merc14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
quillius
Just now, Merc14 said:

I believe "Watch." means keep looking at where the bright light is and when it sweeps (blinks :rolleyes:) they say "There it is." and 5 seconds later say "There its is again!". so two sweeps but actually three if you count when the trooper started talking to the colonel and described where he saw the light initially.

yes I know, that is what I am saying, if a continuous light he would use the term 'look' rather than 'watch'....

however it is the other way round, he doesnt say 'there it is' then 'there it is again'......he says 'there it is again' then 'there it is'.

 

with regards third sweep. This doesn't help in any way as there isn't another 5 second gap? from when he starting talking to the colonel to 'there it is again' is not 5 seconds....so that would blwo the 5 second theory, although to be fair it would be impossible to pinpoint the time of seeing light just from the initial conversation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
16 minutes ago, quillius said:

yes I know, that is what I am saying, if a continuous light he would use the term 'look' rather than 'watch'....

however it is the other way round, he doesnt say 'there it is' then 'there it is again'......he says 'there it is again' then 'there it is'.

My bad, I typed it wrong, sorry, working on another thread as well.

Quote

with regards third sweep. This doesn't help in any way as there isn't another 5 second gap? from when he starting talking to the colonel to 'there it is again' is not 5 seconds....so that would blwo the 5 second theory, although to be fair it would be impossible to pinpoint the time of seeing light just from the initial conversation

The third sweep is when the kid says "I just saw a light at the very beginning of the recording, 5 seconds later "There it is again." and 5 seconds after that, "There it is."  Seems obvious to me that the light is sweeping into view at the same interval the lighthouse sweeps but if not obvious to you then fine, people can make up their own minds.  

My MO on these things is take the evidence and see if there is an acceptable explanation that is not fantastical.  In this case teh bright blinking light can be easily explained by the lighthouse sweeping at a 5 second interval.  Some people will refuse to accept that and choose the fantastical as LTCOL Halt did

Check out Ian Redpath's first rebuttal of halt';s story here where images of the lighthouse light from the same area as Halt explored are.  http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham1a.htm

Also here http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham1c.htm 

Edited by Merc14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quillius
4 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

My bad, I typed it wrong, sorry, working on another thread as well.

The third sweep is when the kid says "I just saw a light at the very beginning of the recording, 5 seconds later "There it is again." and 5 seconds after that, "There it is."  Seems obvious to me that the light is sweeping into view at the same interval the lighthouse sweeps but if not obvious to you then fine, people can make up their own minds.  

My MO on these things is take the evidence and see if there is an acceptable explanation that is not fantastical.  In this case teh bright blinking light can be easily explained by the lighthouse sweeping at a 5 second interval.  Some people will refuse to accept that and choose the fantastical as LTCOL Halt did

Check out Ian Redpath's first rebuttal of halt';s story here where images of the lighthouse light from the same area as Halt explored are.  http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham1a.htm

I have looked at Ridpaths analysis in quite a bit of detail. I will have to look at the first 5 second gap again from when he says I just saw a light.  Although not sure if you are understanding what I am saying, I am basically now saying that what I previously thought could not be conclusive as a 5 second gap now seems to be just that...all because of the word 'watch'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quillius
25 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

My bad, I typed it wrong, sorry, working on another thread as well.

The third sweep is when the kid says "I just saw a light at the very beginning of the recording, 5 seconds later "There it is again." and 5 seconds after that, "There it is."  Seems obvious to me that the light is sweeping into view at the same interval the lighthouse sweeps but if not obvious to you then fine, people can make up their own minds.  

 

Also here http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham1c.htm 

From Ridpaths analysis:

Quote

 

6. Englund points out a light between the trees. Presumably this is the same light that Englund had seen earlier, before he called Halt out with the words “it’s back”. Why has it taken so long for them to point it out to him?
 
7. Englund says: “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.” As has been pointed out many times, the interval between “there it is again” and “there it is” is 5 seconds, the flash rate of the Orford Ness lighthouse. Chuck DeCaro of CNN was the first to play this tape over footage of the lighthouse flashing and it matched exactly – see his report on YouTube (scroll to 12:20 for the bit about the lighthouse). Since then others have done the same and found the same match.

 

 

not sure where you get the five seconds from when the kid first saw it to when he says 'there it is again' if anything this took ages rather than five seconds, even Ridpath asks why it took so long

so we only have one five second interval. the one between 'there it is again' and 'there it is'....unless I am missing something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
18 minutes ago, quillius said:

From Ridpaths analysis:

 

not sure where you get the five seconds from when the kid first saw it to when he says 'there it is again' if anything this took ages rather than five seconds, even Ridpath asks why it took so long

so we only have one five second interval. the one between 'there it is again' and 'there it is'....unless I am missing something?

Yeah, you are missing something but that is a you problem Quill, not a me problem.  As I said, i'll leave it to folks to listen themselves and come to their own conclusions. about the source of the blinking light.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quillius
10 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

Yeah, you are missing something but that is a you problem Quill, not a me problem.  As I said, i'll leave it to folks to listen themselves and come to their own conclusions. about the source of the blinking light.

you have lost me.

You claim there are two intervals- as per this -  'kid says he sees light'.......... 5 second gap..........'there it is again'.......5 second gap...........'there it is' 

I see the the 2nd 5 second gap between 'there it is again' and 'there it is' but I do not see the first as it doesnt seem to exist.

I posted Ridpaths analysis which supports my conclusion of the first 5 second gap does not exist.

So since you are the one that claimed there are two 5 second gaps- now both the recording along with Ridpaths analysis of the same does not agree with your assertion....

so not really my problem, you seem to be wrong about there being two five second gaps.

with regards your last comment about people coming to their own conclusions about the source...this is simply a strawman as we are not talking about the source but whether there are two 5 second intervals or one.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
2 minutes ago, quillius said:

you have lost me.

You claim there are two intervals- as per this -  'kid says he sees light'.......... 5 second gap..........'there it is again'.......5 second gap...........'there it is' 

I see the the 2nd 5 second gap between 'there it is again' and 'there it is' but I do not see the first as it doesnt seem to exist.

I posted Ridpaths analysis which supports my conclusion of the first 5 second gap does not exist.

So since you are the one that claimed there are two 5 second gaps- now both the recording along with Ridpaths analysis of the same does not agree with your assertion....

so not really my problem, you seem to be wrong about there being two five second gaps.

with regards your last comment about people coming to their own conclusions about the source...this is simply a strawman as we are not talking about the source but whether there are two 5 second intervals or one.

No worries, the first is debatable, as long as you say there are two flashes with a 5 second gap you have no argument from me.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quillius
2 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

No worries, the first is debatable, as long as you say there are two flashes with a 5 second gap you have no argument from me.  

no, the first is not debatable its simply not 5 seconds......even Ridpath makes the point in as far as how long it took

6. Englund points out a light between the trees. Presumably this is the same light that Englund had seen earlier, before he called Halt out with the words “it’s back”. Why has it taken so long for them to point it out to him?
 
but agreed there is five seconds between 'there it is again' and 'there it is', as per below.
 
7. Englund says: “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.” As has been pointed out many times, the interval between “there it is again” and “there it is” is 5 seconds
 
so only one flash with five second gap. However more than one flash, with nothing to suggest the first flash had a five second interval

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
10 hours ago, Fila said:

I literally see one almost every single night when I'm outside. Soldiers spend many hours taking it turns on night watch. We are also trained on how to navigate via stars and the sun. How to tell the time via the sun even, really cool things to learn. We would spend nights being shown constellations by our CO, how to remember them, and how to use them just like sailors did. We need to know this stuff in case our technology fails. Same how pilots need to learn the basics, just in case computers fail.

Trust me.., these guys know what stars are.., and what a meteorite looks like. And I'm damn sure they knew about the lighthouse being nearby.., just as much as they knew about the farmhouse. Its their job to know these things. Ya'll treating them like city slickers on their first camping trip.

It would depend. If someone says no beams.., we would need to ask where they were. If they were not with Halt when they saw a beam of light.., then that's fair enough.

If they were beside Halt when he saw a beam of light.., and said nah. Can't see it. Then that would be quite interesting indeed. 

MASTER SGT BALL: Look at the colors (referring to the beam of light)

 

Just a small point, but you keep saying meteorite when you mean to say meteor. Just trying to be helpful here. I'm glad to chat with someone who has so much appreciation of the night sky. :tu:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fila
On 20/01/2018 at 1:24 AM, Merc14 said:

And amazingly people see UFO's where stars and planets are ALL the time.  

Yes. But when a witness recounts an object the size of a star.., on the horizon, stationary, multiple colours flashing.., we can easily identify this as scintillation.

But when a desription does not match characteristics of any known object.., then that is of interest.

On 20/01/2018 at 1:24 AM, Merc14 said:

 Retired military here, naval aviator and never trained in celestial navigation.   P-3 aviators were but not we fighter pukes so don't use your experience to define the experience of others in the military.     Halt seems to be a very confused and excitable man who has pedaled a story only one of the other witnesses agrees with and that other fellow traveler has changed his story so radically over the years that he has lost all credibility.

Oh wow.., really? I guess its not a priority for pilots. Surely you had night familiarisation training?

NAVY ships, I would assume yes. They would need to know how to navigate via the stars. Us rifleman used to make fun of you "fly boys" all safe and protected up there, while we spend most of our time learning to survive, and navigate without relying on equipment.., including using celestial navigation.

To say Halt, Penniston,. Burrown, Ball, Nevilles, Bustinza, etc don't know what stars are.., is a weak argument.., especially considering the objects do not match the description of stars.

On 20/01/2018 at 1:24 AM, Merc14 said:

Blinking is the same as a lighthouse sweeping from the observer's perspective.  If you need me to explain further I will.

I live 50kms from a lighthouse.., and STILL see it sweeping. Not blinking. It is a huge light beam spinning.., you can see what direction it is facing at all times.

Also.., even when I am 1km away from the lighthouse.., I still cannot see it through the forest. The trees are so thick.., that light cannot pass through. Ifanyone has ever been outside, in the bush at night time.., you would understand that light cannot travel through forest.

On 20/01/2018 at 1:24 AM, Merc14 said:

Obviously you have very, very little knowledge re. this subject.  The UFO incident happened on December 25th, when multiple people saw lights in the sky (meteor shower, reentering Soviet rocket stage) and the three enlisted and one officer entered the forest east of the base in the early hours of December 26th.  This is also the supposed time of the radar track. 

Nah, I'm familiar with this. Just confused when you said "The tape was made two days AFTER the search party entered the forest".., all G.

On 20/01/2018 at 1:24 AM, Merc14 said:

The red lights align with the 5 transmitter antennas that are also east of the Woodbridge base.

From the tape transcript: 

4 feet off the ground, about a 110 degrees, getting the reading of about 4 clicks.., red with a a yellow tinge.., getting brighter, changing direction, moving closer., Pieces shooting off..,  Now it's stopped. Now it's coming up. Hold on, here we go. Now it's coming up about approximately 4 foot off the ground. The compass has 110 degrees. 

This does not match the description of a lighthouse.., not antenna lights, or missile, rocket etc. Even if there was multiple events occurring that night.., the description still does not match any of the known events.

On 20/01/2018 at 1:24 AM, Merc14 said:

None of the troops were aware of the lighthouse but Halt was. 

Really? After being stationed there.., they never researched the area? Never saw the lighthouse before.., or after? Can you provide a source to back this up? Thanks

On 20/01/2018 at 1:24 AM, Merc14 said:

His reason for dismissing it as the source of the sweeping (blinking) is that the lighthouse was to the south east but that is only true at Rendlesham, his home base, which is to the north, this event happened at Woodbridge.  Go to Google maps and type in Orford Uk and orient yourself to teh geography and then read the link I gave to Quillis

I dismiss it due to the colour being red (lighthouses are not red).., and that lighthouses lights do "sweep".., and you can see the beam clearly.., even from 50kms away. Here is a small lighthouse.., and you can still see the beams clearly.

Red blinking light?

Edited by Fila

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fila
On 20/01/2018 at 1:24 AM, quillius said:

wow, I think I have just demolished my own angle.....

the word 'watch' goes against a continuous light.....he would have said 'look' rather than 'watch' if a continuous light...

I can only find 2 instances of the word "watch" in the transcript. http://www.ufocasebook.com/Halt.html.., none referring to a light.

On 20/01/2018 at 1:24 AM, quillius said:

I promised myself I wouldn't do this!

Yea, you and me both. I gotta stop debating individual cases from the past.; Not the way forward. Best case scenario.., its just gonna be inconclusive.

Edited by Fila

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fila
On 20/01/2018 at 1:55 AM, Merc14 said:

Check out Ian Redpath's first rebuttal of halt';s story here where images of the lighthouse light from the same area as Halt explored are.  http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham1a.htm

Also here http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham1c.htm 

He even calls the lighthouse a beam of yellow light. From my understanding, loggers mark trees with paint. 

They were also getting a "definite heat reflection off the tree" marks. http://www.ufocasebook.com/Halt.html

Edited by Fila

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fila
On 20/01/2018 at 2:45 AM, Merc14 said:

Yeah, you are missing something but that is a you problem Quill, not a me problem.  As I said, i'll leave it to folks to listen themselves and come to their own conclusions. about the source of the blinking light.

Maybe you can help explain why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Essan
40 minutes ago, Fila said:

Really? After being stationed there.., they never researched the area?

 

Why would they?  The lighthouse was on the coast.  Most servicemen never left the base.  And it would have been seen through gaps in the trees, maybe only visible from certain spots

For those who have lived there, it remains a plausible explanation (though not saying it is the explanation)

(My parents ran the nearest pub to Bentwaters, the Green Man at Tunstall, taking over in 1982.   I was a teenager then.   I only heard of the supposed UFO years later .....  It has always intrigued me that no-one local ever knew nor talked about the event.  I knew the forest well and frequented all the local pubs)

Edited by Essan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fila
On 20/01/2018 at 8:52 AM, Essan said:

Why would they?  The lighthouse was on the coast.  Most servicemen never left the base.  And it would have been seen through gaps in the trees, maybe only visible from certain spots

Its just something that we do. When moving to any new area.., we study maps and look at surrounding objects. They were aware of the farmhouse for example.., and can use these as reference points (which they did). Its possible they didn't do this regarding th lighthouse.., I just wonder why. And doubt they wouldn't have known personally.

Are you sure it would have been seen through gaps in the trees?

This photo shows the lights from the edge of the forest, which had been cleared.

AtNightsmall.jpg

Now look how thick the bush really is.

Rendlesham3.jpg

Anyone who has been in the forest at night time can tell you, that light is blocked by trees. Even entire cities are not visible a few hundred meters in.

Its strange that no one ever saw the lighthouse before.., or after. Just doesn't make sense.

There is a lighthouse 50kms from my house. I can clearly see the beams spinning around. Not red blinking. Even when I am less than 1km.., and enter the forest. I lose sight of the light within meters. 

Edited by Fila

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
1 hour ago, Fila said:

Oh wow.., really? I guess its not a priority for pilots. Surely you had night familiarisation training?

I had far more night traps than I wanted. :D

1 hour ago, Fila said:

NAVY ships, I would assume yes. They would need to know how to navigate via the stars. Us rifleman used to make fun of you "fly boys" all safe and protected up there, while we spend most of our time learning to survive, and navigate without relying on equipment.., including using celestial navigation.

Don't forget the warm bed every night and three squares a day.  :D

1 hour ago, Fila said:

To say Halt, Penniston,. Burrown, Ball, Nevilles, Bustinza, etc don't know what stars are.., is a weak argument.., especially considering the objects do not match the description of stars.

I never said that, I said they may have confused them, easy to do looking through the trees.

1 hour ago, Fila said:

I live 50kms from a lighthouse.., and STILL see it sweeping. Not blinking. It is a huge light beam spinning.., you can see what direction it is facing at all times.

Ian Redpath and the BBC recorded the lighthouse at night, you can watch the video at the linked site. 

1 hour ago, Fila said:

Also.., even when I am 1km away from the lighthouse.., I still cannot see it through the forest. The trees are so thick.., that light cannot pass through. Ifanyone has ever been outside, in the bush at night time.., you would understand that light cannot travel through forest.

See the video from the same position the troops saw it

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr.United_Nations

Well lighthouse or not something did happen that night. You'd thought the airmen knew about the lighthouse as a visual marker for aircraft

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
2 minutes ago, Mr.United_Nations said:

Well lighthouse or not something did happen that night. You'd thought the airmen knew about the lighthouse as a visual marker for aircraft

They weren't aviators, they were enlisted guys working in a missile base and they didn't know about the lighthouse according to A1C Chris Arnold:

There was absolutely nothing in the woods. We could see lights in the distance and it appeared unusual as it was a sweeping light, (we did not know about the lighthouse on the coast at the time). We also saw some strange colored lights in the distance but were unable to determine what they were... Contrary to what some people assert, at the time almost none of us knew there was a lighthouse at Orford Ness. Remember, the vast majority of folks involved were young people, 19, 20, 25 years old. Consequently it wasn't something most of the troops were cognizant of. That's one reason the lights appeared interesting or out of the ordinary to some people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fila
On 20/01/2018 at 9:31 AM, Merc14 said:

I had far more night traps than I wanted. :D

Don't forget the warm bed every night and three squares a day.  :D\

O rly? No rat packs for you? Damn, you missed out on Army chocolate that gives you diarrhoea, but can be balanced out with Army cheese that makes you constipated, lol. Fun times...

On 20/01/2018 at 9:31 AM, Merc14 said:

Ian Redpath and the BBC recorded the lighthouse at night, you can watch the video at the linked site. 

Yea, I saw that. It is not a red light. As for the beams of light.., I am talking about real life experience seeing a lighthouse 50kms away, and still see the sweeping. Not a red blinking light.
if I recorded it with my camera.., I'm sure that it would not pick up the sweeping beams I see with my naked eye, because they are too faint for the camera sensor to pick up.

On 20/01/2018 at 9:31 AM, Merc14 said:

See the video from the same position the troops saw it

After the forest was cleared by this time according to Ian Ridpath. http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham1a.htm

Edited by Fila

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.