Facts and fiction

[Observer]

Hi All

I recently read and old Sherlock Holmes [Sir Arthur Conan Doyle] book, "A Scandal in Bohemia". In the book Holmes warns Watson not to twist facts to suit theories but rather find a theory that suits the facts.

He goes on to say that the theory should not be established until the facts are indisputable. I guess we are all some what guilty of jumping to conclusions or making more of what the facts indicate.

May be we should all take a step back and apply this sensible logic.

Observer

[Observer]

Hi Admin

Your section of the draft makes some interesting observation. It seems that Lt Col Halt was the main source of the light beams coming down to ground statement. May be it was because of his star scope.

I have never really gone along with the light house theory.
Were you aware of Vince Thirkettle's light house theory retraction?

As you know a UFO can be any thing that is seen flying in our air space but cannot be identified by an onlooker. It thus becomes a UFO. Some times the object becomes identifiable after long scrutiny and thus the UFO tag ends. On other occasions the object cannot be identified even after long observation so the UFO tag remains in place.

A simple helium filled party balloon flying high in the sky is a UFO only because you cannot prove it is untill you catch hold of it to prove it. Yes we can guess it is a balloon, but it remains guess work untill its in your hand, if you see the point i'm making.

I was cought out by this simple object years ago because it was a balloon coated in a chrome finish. It was a late evening low sun and the dazzling reflections [mostly yellows/reds and oranges] were playing all sorts of optical tricks on my eyes.

Regards

Observer

[Observer]

Hi Admin

The light beams shining down to the ground and exhibiting some sort of search pattern [boxing] is hard to explain especially if we don't know what was shining them in the first place. However, there is one thing that was designed to do this and was equipped with [ironically] downward facing search lights. A HH53 Jolly Green Giant helicopter.

Part of the ARRS training operations was searching for downed pilots in jungle and forests where a search grid pattern with spot lights [at night] was the way of locating the pilot or F-111 escape capsule.

Some times marker balloons were sent up tethered to lines by the downed crew. All these techniques were developed during the Vietnam war including SKYHOOK which i have a feeling played a part in this mystery.

Observer

[Observer]

Hi Admin

Georgina Bruni was quite right in that statement and i think we all need to adopt her ethos.

Yes, you do make a valid point concerning the lazer thin light beams and as you say no helicopter is going to manouvre like those balls of light did.

Unless of course they are all telling 'fibs'. You can't prove it one way or the other!

Observer

[IanR]

It has been argued... the beams of light were infact just image noise caused by Halt looking at a bright star through the group's nightvision scope.

Argued by who, and where? It's quite clear from the tape, at least to me, that Halt was observing the starlike objects with the naked eye and I don't know anyone who has suggested otherwise.

If he was looking at a star, what would cause the beam to land at his feet?

The beams rate a brief mention right at the end of the tape. All Halt says is "Now we’re observing what appears to be a beam coming down to the ground" and, a little later, "The object to the south is still beaming down lights to the ground". That's all. See the very end of the transcript:
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/halttape3.htm

There is nothing on the tape about a "laser beam" landing at their feet. This detail was added by Halt much later and has been incorporated in imaginative TV reconstructions, which is unfortunately where most people have got their "information" about this case. Had the experience been as remarkable as these dramatizations depict, one would have expected that to be apparent from the tape - unless, as Georgie B claims, the tape has been edited, which Halt himself denies.

As you say, " I don't think it's necessary to make-up information and treat it as a fact." This case has already attracted enough mythology.

Ian

[IanR]

Hi Ian, it's nice to see you on the forum. Welcome.

Thank you. It's a very professional-looking website.

As you have said, Halt does mention a beam coming down to the GROUND - how does the lighthouse theory account for this? Whether it was near his foot or metres away makes little difference, but there's no reason to doubt this particular claim.

Halt said the beam(s) were coming down from the starlike object to the south (actually the southwest, since it was described as hovering "over Woodbridge base"). This was not the same as the flashing UFO to the east, and it's important to distinguish between the two.

The starlike lights remained in the sky as Halt returned to base and his reaction to them seems to have been remarkably low-key. As he told Salley Rayl in a 1994 interview: "“After an hour or so, I finally made the call to go in. We left those things out there.”
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham3.htm

Ian

[IanR]

If you are referring to the Unsolved Mysteries coverage of the "Bentwaters incident", where a small beam is clearly shown landing only a metre or two from Halt's feet, I recall that Halt sat down with the effect's producer and made sure that the reconstructions looked as accurate as possible.

Like I said, it is a later elaboration, as is the story about the light "exploding". See if you can find mention of either of these remarkable events on Halt's real-time tape.

Ian