'New' Landing site

[Shearwater]

Webplodder: don't lose site of the fact that IanR has his own rabidly anti-UFO agenda: for years he has promoted his exaggerated and distorted version of the RFI.
He doesn't accept the reality of ANY UFO reports, even those identified as inexplicable by various governmental investgations around the globe.
Now he is attacking the credibility of a Lt Col in the USAF! I'd love to see him do it face to face!
He reminds me a little of Sir Patrick Moore, who once announced the discovery of a bridge on the Moon and (reportedly) was the pseudonyminous author of a book about a contact with the occupants of a 'Flying Saucer from Mars'. As his public profile heightened he did a complete about face and became, like IR, rabidly anti-UFO.

[webplodder]

Shearwater, I'm assuming Ian has investigated the RFI as objectively and as impartially as humanly possible. No?

[Shearwater]

That is, of course, a matter of opinion. Most of the serious investigators I know would beg to differ. IMHO, he has consistently distorted the evidence, been very selective in his choice of 'witnesses' and ignored reliable, credible witnesses. His 'Lighthouse Theory' is a joke, as anyone who knows the Forest will agree.

[Ignis Fatuus]

Webplodder
His 'Lighthouse Theory' is a joke, as anyone who knows the Forest will agree.

Ususal fodder Plodder. Keeps the myth alive that the Lighthouse alone caused all the confusion, when you know full well that the Lighthouse is just one component in a sequence of events. All started by the fireball. I'd be interested to know if those who saw the fireball, and identified it as such, took the piss out of those who believed a UFO had landed. Maybe the person who doctored the blotter found out about the Falling Star with the sparkle tail.

If the LH theory is a joke, then so are the witness statements as they describe the pursuit of the LH in the SPs' own words. The Suffolk Police, Chris Armold and Vince Thurkettle must also be in on the joke.

But hey - It's very easy to give Ian the bash, but extremely difficult to provide a single shred of evidence that supports your case - eh Webplodder.

Lt Cols are only Human.

[David Bryant]

'Lt Cols are only Human'

Whereas foresters and A1Cs are superhuman? The thing to ALWAYS remember is that, while some of the witnesses may have been mistaken or may have misinterpreted what they saw, Mr Ridpath has intentionally misled people about:

a) The power of the lighthouse beam
b) How visible the lighthouse tower and beam are from the forest

These two factors are critical to IR's argument: if you can't see the lighthouse from the East Gate, the woods or anywhere else until you reach Capel Green, then something must have landed in the woods. The ' inconvenient truth' is that you can't!
You have to assume that he sees the whole thing as an amusing intellectual exercise or perhaps that he is part of some wider disinformation scheme. Or just possibly you may feel that Mr R has done his career as a very minor Astronomy pundit no harm at all by taking the popular (and more comfortable ) stance of the cynical 'expert'.

I suppose the fundamental point here is whether or not you believe that UFOs are a genuine phenomenon, the details of which are kept secret from we 'ordinary humans'. Supposing extraterrestrial hardware has occasionally been recovered: do you reckon the details would be published in the Sun? To me it seems far more likely that most governments would conceal the evidence, as they always have done with embarrassing, politically sensitive - or scary - data. If you dispute that, well that is your right (Although I'm not sure why so many sceptics feel the need to post on a forum created, maintained and enjoyed by more open-minded researchers!) However, by denying completely the reality of the phenomenon, you are ignoring the testimonies of a huge number of highly credible witnesses, including many police officers, pilots, military personnel and astronomers....

[Observer]

I think some of the later "embellished" descriptions by Halt such as the light breaking up into several lights and hovering in the sky were taken from the movie Close Encounters Of The Kind which was a scene in the movie.

In fact there are several scenes in the movie almost identical to some of the anecdotes and statements by our witnesses.

If you watch the movie again [It was playing on the Ipswich cinemas over that Christmas] a lot will become much clearer. Its uncanny how some of the scenes are the same.
The beams shining down to ground as described by Halt as if there was some thing doing a grid pattern search over the base is a good example. The light ball flying almost through a vehicle is another. I don't think these similarities were a coincidence, it was deliberate and there has to be a reason.
Obs

[Shearwater]

Hmmmmm.....
'Yogi's First Christmas' was also playing, but Halt's account doesn't include Vince Thirkettle being outwitted by a bear in a hat!
Do you not consider it possible that the similarities between the RFI descriptions and CE3K are because they relate to similar phenomena?

[Observer]

Anythings possible.

[webplodder]

If Ian's hypothesis is correct and the only lights present on the 28th. December 1980 originated from The Orford Ness lighthouse and stars then we are left with the conclusion that trained USAF personnel were either stupid enough to misinterpret what they saw as UFOs or simply made the whole thing up. There is no way a star could send down a beam of light to the ground unless it was a mass-hallucination or a fabrication. The object that noiselessly 'exploded' into several parts in the farmer's field is also either a fabrication or did happen since it seems inconceivable to me that any serious observer could have made such a huge misinterpretation of the event. Ian says it is only Halt that maintains these observations occurred but what about the other witnesses present at the time? Have they been questioned? Have we any other servicemen that were with Halt at the time who supports his version of what happened?

Ian said people went out on other nights around the same time slot to see if the events could be replicated but it appears not yet the lighthouse light and the same stars would have present (assuming clear nights, of course) so what was it about that particular night (28th. December, 1980) that caused the servicemen to see what they or, at least, Col Halt claimed to have seen?

[David Bryant]

100%, Webplodder: you have totally highlighted the flaws in IR's criticisms of Col Halt's account!
THe ONLY unusual celestial objects at the time were Jupiter & Saturn in conjunction: they were there night after night!

[webplodder]

I think some of the later "embellished" descriptions by Halt such as the light breaking up into several lights and hovering in the sky were taken from the movie Close Encounters Of The Kind which was a scene in the movie.

In fact there are several scenes in the movie almost identical to some of the anecdotes and statements by our witnesses.

But then would you not have thought that a deputy base commander during the height of the Cold War and, therefore, in an extremely sensitive position would not have wanted to re-check what he saw, or at least what he thought he saw before submitting a report to higher authorities? In other words, would he not have wanted to go out again and re-evaluate what he saw in terms of the lighthouse light and perhaps stars, etc? To report UFOs while serving in the forces is not a good career move apparently because it calls into question your judgement.

[webplodder]

100%, Webplodder: you have totally highlighted the flaws in IR's criticisms of Col Halt's account!
THe ONLY unusual celestial objects at the time were Jupiter & Saturn in conjunction: they were there night after night!

I know stars twinkle and can seem to be changing shape to some people but how would that explain moving objects from the north and the beam one of them sent down at their feet? Was it all just an elaborate story?

[Observer]

You are probably all right and my ideas are rubbish.

Right or wrong Ian Ridpath has every right as we all do to put a theory forward and to defend that theory. If you think he is wrong then put a good alternative up to counteract it, but please keep posts pleasant and friendly. I'm only partly convinced of the light house theory. I think it became an ingrediant of the RFI along with other light phenonema mainly from Halt's own testimony but there was some thing else going on as well that we have not yet discovered and I think Halt is holding back a lot more info.

Obs

[Ignis Fatuus]

[IanR]

I'm only partly convinced of the light house theory.

Obs, you raised the question a while back of how easy it would be to mistake the lighthouse beam for something else in the forest. Let me quote to you an email I had not long ago from Vince Thurkettle, recalling his own reaction when he first saw it:

"You say the beam was 'startling' - and yes it was. I will have told you that my first sight of the beam in the forest at night was a shock as I thought we had deer poachers out 'lamping' deer. A brilliant light amongst the trees, which came and went. It took me a few minutes hiding, in case they shot at me, wondering why I couldn't hear the engine of the poacher's vehicle before I suddenly figured it was the lighthouse - I then felt a fool and was glad I had not gone to get the Head Forester for help with the poachers as I had thought to do!"

So we learn that he, too, hid for a while, just like B, P and C tell us they did, because he, too, mistook the light for a "mechanical object" among the trees -- in this case a poachers' car. Being a forester, Vince was thinking in terms of poachers. The airmen, though, had seen the 3 am fireball and thought something had descended into the forest so they went out there expecting to find a craft. Taking into account their mind set and expectations, it is not too surprising that they jumped to the wrong conclusion when they saw a bright flashing light between the trees.

Similarly with Halt. As he has told us repeatedly, he expected to see the lighthouse in the southeast, so he didn't recognize it when it appeared in front of him. Not too difficult for a seasoned investigator to work out, I would have thought.

Ian

[Observer]

Ian

The light house definately features in the RFI but to what extent i'm not sure. I don't think it is the entire cause of the RFI.

I too went poaching [roosting Pheasant] with a mate in Rendlesham forest. We had air rifles and a powerfull quartz halogen spot light that gave a pencil beam, it was as powerful as a car head light to pick the pheasants up in the trees. This was in the 80's. I can vaguely remember a light scanning high up across the forest canopy every so often and I wondered if that could have been the light house, it was pretty eerie. Would the light house beam be able to do that back in 1980, I am no expert on such matters. We also 'lamped' Rabbits in the forest.

I can also remember talking to a couple of SP's through the perimeter fence near East Gate about our shooting and we swapped fags. They seemed pretty pissed off but friendlly to us Brits.

Obs

[Shearwater]

Oh give it a rest, Ian! You can't say on one hand that the flashing red light seen distantly by Halt was the lighthouse and then accept Thirkettle's ludicrous tale of a bright beam sweeping across the forest like a searchlight! I've been visiting the area for over twenty five years and categorically refute this suggestion. And, before the 'hurricane' the Forest was made up of higher, more mature trees.

[IanR]

I too went poaching [roosting Pheasant] with a mate in Rendlesham forest. We had air rifles and a powerfull quartz halogen spot light that gave a pencil beam, it was as powerful as a car head light to pick the pheasants up in the trees. This was in the 80's. I can vaguely remember a light scanning high up across the forest canopy every so often and I wondered if that could have been the light house, it was pretty eerie. Would the light house beam be able to do that back in 1980, I am no expert on such matters.

No need to take my word for it. Recall what the local police inspector told Georgina back in 1999:
“The immediate area was swept by powerful light beams from a landing beacon at RAF Bentwaters and the Orfordness lighthouse. I know from personal experience that at night, in certain weather and cloud conditions, these beams were very pronounced and certainly caused strange visual effects."
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/police.htm

I can also remember talking to a couple of SP's through the perimeter fence near East Gate about our shooting and we swapped fags. They seemed pretty pissed off but friendlly to us Brits.

I guess guarding parked aircraft was a pretty dull number.

Ian

[IanR]

Oh give it a rest, Ian

Perhaps, SW (whoever you may really be), you and your like-minded colleagues should spend your time putting together a coherent and well-reasoned alternative explanation of the case, which accords with the facts as established at the time (rather than you would like them to be 30 years later), and submit it here for consideration.

Ian

[Observer]

Ian

I'm very interested in finding out a bit more about the powerful light beam that 'swept' an area around Bentwaters Air Field. The only bright lights I can remember seeing were the Strobe landing lights at BW. Woody never had them.
There were up to 21 high intensity lights that created a sequential strobing flash pattern that rolls towards the runway threshold thus aiding the landing aircrafts glide path. I cannot see these as the light mentioned by the Suffolk Police.
Were they even switched on over Christmas.

Obs