Ian was right

[stephan]

okay, I have checked a number of things in regard to Ian Ridpath's and Vince Thurkettle's lighthouse theory. Unfortunately and against my expectations I found out that what Halt and his team saw on Capel Green must have been indeed the lighthouse. The first thing that puzzled me was the striking similarity between the lighthouse light and the words said by Halt on the tape, as you can watch here:



Then I took a look at Ian's website again to find out if their line-of-sight was pointing to the lighthouse: positive. It was exactly the direction they were looking at as can be seen in this video (time index 4:40):



you can check this with Google Earth. The location of the team (Capel Green, edge of the forest), the farmer's house, the Orford Ness lighthouse ... all on one line:



Thus, as for that specific location they were in at that point I'd be very surprised if what they had observed (at least at that point) was not the lighthouse. This ''discovery'' does not necessarily discount what the other witnesses observed on the first and the third night. Larry's observation of the landed craft (also on Capel Green) for example was - as I understand it - made in the exact opposite direction (towards the oak tree), i.e. to the west. It also does not discount other witness statements about other objects either in the sky or on the ground. But it does discount that particular observation made by Halt unless the UFO had a striking similarity to the appearance of the lighthouse light and unless it was located in the same line-of-sight.

Please bear with me guys ... I know the lighthouse theory has had not many supporters so far. Just take a look and decide for yourselves.

[John Burroughs]

Stephen
Before you pee yourself the east gate was located on woodbridge not Bentwaters. And with the trees that were there at the time you could not see the Lighthouse from the gate...

[stephan]

Stephen
Before you pee yourself the east gate was located on woodbridge not Bentwaters. And with the trees that were there at the time you could not see the Lighthouse from the gate...

John you beat me to it. I just noticed it, too. I have already corrected it. Sorry

but the similarity and the direction ... John, it's hard to imagine it wasn't the lighthouse

[John Burroughs]

Stephen
Start with Halt combat controller in Vietnam then there Nevils combat Marine before coming into the AirForce MSgt Ball D-Flight Chief Lt England Combat Marine before going into the Air Force all out in the Forrest together on tape. Now the Light House been there for how long? Never once before called in as a UFO. And the fact they were out there for more than a few min how long do you think they would have needed to be out there before if thats what it was they would put two and two together and go back in and report that what it was. Halt went out there to find a logical explanation which would have been the Light House not what he reported. Then there's that beam of light coming down at his feet...

[ncf1]

I truly, truly feel sorry for John et al for having to prove themselves against such a sad, single-dimensioned hypothesis that has been beaten and beaten some more to death. They literally cannot see the forest for the trees.

[Ignis Fatuus]

[puddlepirate]

Stephan

The problem is the high ground on the horizon beyond the farmer's field, at approx 1/3 the distance to the light. This blocks the line of sight from the edge of the farmer's field to the lighthouse. Also, from the edge of the field the lighthouse is approximately 5.5 miles away (approx 9km). The light is 28m above sea level but the lighthouse itself is not at sea level. It is a couple of metres above so the light is only around 26m above ground level. It simply is not possible to see a light that is only about 26m above ground level from 5.5 miles away when there is 19m high ground between the observer and the light. If it were possible, then from where I live in Hertfordshire where the highest ground is 805m above sea level I should be able to see the lighthouse at Calais harbour on the north French coast - around 110 miles away. I can't. It's not only a matter of line of sight, it's what lies between the observer and the object and how far the observer is from the object. There is an image taken at the edge of the farmer's field at the location marked on your Google Earth capture amongst these images (some I took this year, others were taken earlier): http://www.flickr.com/photos/powfoto/se ... 052588878/

[stephan]

John, exactly. Those were the points I've also mentioned before. They definitely should have known the lighthouse. On the other hand, had they ever been in that location before or afterwards ? Perhaps the lighthouse appeared and ''behaved'' different from what it was like on the bases or the base tower. Would you completely dismiss the similarity (winking eye with pupil) and the fact that the lighthouse is located in the same direction as the UFO ?

running risk of being wrong again about the History Channel, I think I found a little ''flaw'' this time:

I think they edited the audio tape (unless I have an edited version):

their version says (time index 5:20):

and the flash is so bright that, er, it almost burns your eye

while my version says:

and the flash is so bright to the starscope, er, it almost burns your eye

so which one is the correct version ? There's a difference between naked eye vision and looking through a starscope which will intensify the light...

[AgentAppleseed]

I agree completely ncf1. I dont know why he bothers sometimes, I really dont! It seems as if no one listens to what he says. The guy has gone out of his way to drop hints all over this board and if people would just listen to stuff hes been saying, they might find themselves if not on the absolute correct path, then at least on the same page. But then again, people will say just about anything when they want a particular thing to be true!

[stephan]

Stephan

The problem is the high ground on the horizon beyond the farmer's field, at approx 1/3 the distance to the light. This blocks the line of sight from the edge of the farmer's field to the lighthouse. Also, from the edge of the field the lighthouse is approximately 5.5 miles away (approx 9km). The light is 28m above sea level but the lighthouse itself is not at sea level. It is a couple of metres above so the light is only around 26m above ground level. It simply is not possible to see a light that is only about 26m above ground level from 5.5 miles away when there is 19m high ground between the observer and the light. If it were possible, then from where I live in Hertfordshire where the highest ground is 805m above sea level I should be able to see the lighthouse at Calais harbour on the north French coast - around 110 miles away. I can't. It's not only a matter of line of sight, it's what lies between the observer and the object and how far the observer is from the object. There is an image taken at the edge of the farmer's field at the location marked on your Google Earth capture amongst these images (some I took this year, others were taken earlier): http://www.flickr.com/photos/powfoto/se ... 052588878/

I would have thought that, too that the lighthouse would be too low to be seen from that location. However, the photo on Ian's website

http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham2.htm

shows it appears relatively high above the tree lines. Plus it's really the direction they looked at as you can see in the History Channel vid. Comparison of Ian's pic with the one in the vid:

[IanR]

so which one is the correct version ? There's a difference between naked eye vision and looking through a starscope which will intensify the light...

Yes, you're right – the UFO Hunters edited the tape to leave out the reference to the fact that Halt was looking at the light through the starscope at the time. Well spotted! The starscope they were using was an early generation version that amplified light about a thousand times. We decided in an earlier discussion on this Forum that it was an AN/PVS-2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_visi ... 28GEN_I.29

You also note that they referred to the East Gate as being at Bentwaters, rather than Woodbridge, which I think is just a slip, but building a model with the lighthouse in the wrong place wasn't an accident!

Ian

[John Burroughs]

Ian
If they left somthing out they learned that from the master.. I beleive Bill explained his stance on the show we did last week and again he was out there and did not by your bill of goods and again he went out there! So has numerous other shows and not one of them other than your buddy at the BBC. Come on out on the 28th and less settle this once and for all!!

[stephan]

to be honest ... if it was the lighthouse ... I think that admitting it would be nothing to be ashamed of as I know what it's like to mistake things for UFOs. A couple of years ago when I was not familiar with the strong luminosity of Venus when it is close to Earth I thought it was an UFO. Also, I know a couple of people who recently mistook Jupiter which has been quite bright the last couple of months for an UFO. And only last year when I filmed Saturn right next to the sun with my camcorder I thought it was an UFO, too as I'd never have expected a planet to be visible at sunset that close to the sun.

John, and if it was not the lighthouse and if I was Halt I'd just lay back and laugh about the people who try to explain the unexplainable. I'm still convinced that something unusual happened on those nights. If some things were mistaken for UFOs while they were not then perhaps other things were UFOs (i.e. alien spacecraft or black projects). And - even if unlikely - ET may have wanted to appear like the lighthouse in order to enjoy watching us debate the issue

[John Burroughs]

Good for you we didnot mistake the light house for anything and I'm tired of trying to get you to understand that!!

[Ignis Fatuus]

Did you see the fireball that Bertolino and Sgt Hall saw?

Bertolino reported that he was on duty on the morning of 1980 December 26 when he and his driver Sergeant Hall saw what he described as “a very bright falling star. It had a blue-green luminescence, sparkle [sic] tail to it.” He said their immediate feeling was that it was close to them and was “falling between the two bases”.

This is a classic description of a fireball. Shortly thereafter Bertolino says he heard someone on the radio yelling “There’s a UFO out here!”. In the interview Bertolino estimates the time as about 1 a.m., but it is clear from the context that what he saw was actually the 3 a.m. fireball seen by the guards at East Gate of Woodbridge. His testimony leaves little doubt that this fireball sparked off the whole UFO chase in the woods.

http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham1d.htm

[John Burroughs]

Ok, we beaten up the light house pretty hard now so less go back to the fireball then the planets and stars! And I know Ian said he can't recreate the fireball which I never saw but I sure did seen somthing in the woods and got very close to it! It then lifted up into the sky I never seen a fireball do that before have you? Unless it was the spook lights you had your encounter with that you described for Dave Clarke in the story he wrote. Nothing like Ridpath and Clarke calling in there friends for help is there...

[Daniel]

Not sure if you seen this Stefan, but take a read also: http://rendlesham-incident.co.uk/old/th ... theory.php

Honestly it would be difficult for something like this to create a 29(+) year mystery. You'd also have to ignore a majority of the tape, and witness statements to come to this conclusion. Where do you go next?

[Admin]

The first thing that puzzled me was the striking similarity between the lighthouse light and the words said by Halt on the tape, as you can watch here:

These words alone mean little in my opinion. Listening to Halt's tape, how does the lighthouse "move from side to side" or "move off to the right"? What would cause Halt and Ball to exclaim "pieces of it are shooting off"?

What about the object separating into five white lights? Ian may remind us that this particular event is not captured on Halt's tape, implying that it did 'not' happen. However, Halt's memo, written about two weeks after the incident mentions it - we cannot dismiss this claim: "At one point it appeared to throw off glowing particles and then broke into five separate white objects and disappeared."

Regarding the 'hollow centre', looking at any bright light through the star-light scope could have caused a hollow-centre effect. Try taking a photograph of the sun using your mobile phone or a webcam - most are overwhelmed by the intensity of the light and produce a black spot instead:

Plus it's really the direction they looked at as you can see in the History Channel vid. Comparison of Ian's pic with the one in the vid

The lighthouse can be seen from a certain area at the edge of the forest, as shown in Ian's photo. However, it is a small area.

Stephan, watch the video linked below. Unlike the BBC's misleadingly zoomed and cropped footage of the lighthouse, this footage is unedited. The lighthouse would have been brighter in 1980, but other than that, this is what you'll see if you go to the forest at night.

[arvd]

Jim penniston touched it, so this is all a load of crap

[Gordy]

If it was the lighthouse tell me why did'nt I see what Halt describes in the tape ie strange red lights, multiple sightings of upto five lights in the sky, on the night of Friday 5th Novemeber 2010 when I took a walk out to ground zero?. In fact, in theory if it was the lighthouse every time I go out there I would see the same things he saw right? I've been out there many times over the years, I'm local it's a "walk in the park" for me and my hounds but never have I seen what Halt describes on that tape or for that matter any of the lights other eye witnesses saw Dec 1980.