The Lighthouse Theory [MAIN THREAD] [Page Discussion]

[IanR]

On Sat May 19, 2007 7:18 pm Schooner said:

>I cannot accept that the Shipwash lighthouse was the culprit either.
>If we assume that the Orfordness light is almost 100 feet high
>on a ness that is 4 metres above sea level and viewed from the forest
>it just shows itself through a cutting in the woods at Gedgrave
> then the Shipwash lightship would need to be significantly higher than
>the lighthouse for it to be seen above the Suffolk landscape.

You miss the point! Go through it with me again:

Halt said he saw the Orford Ness lighthouse in the southeast. From where he was standing the lighthouse is not in the southeast, although the Shipwash lightship (now replaced by a buoy) was in that direction. So he probably mistook the “loom” of the lightship for the lighthouse. OK so far?

From where he was standing, the lighthouse was directly in front of him, across the field and almost in line with the farmhouse. However, Halt thought the lighthouse lay elsewhere (see above) and so he did not recognize the flashing light in front of him. Instead, he reported it as a UFO. Ergo, *from Halt’s own account*, UFO = lighthouse.

I’m not sure how much more clearly I can put it.

And, let’s face it, UFOs that flash every 5 seconds are exceedingly rare. What are the chances that one would line itself up with a lighthouse that flashed at the same rate, and return to the same place on more than one night?


Ian

[Observer]

OK, we seem to have picked this light house discussion to death.

Perhaps Halt and others did mistake the light house with its every 5 second flash as a UFO. May be the starscope that was used distorted the light causing them to think it some strange light penomena in the sky. How this is arrived at considering the light house was at a lower level than the forest or at least level with it i do not know.

Light house or not, none of the debate so far has explained or even tried to explain what many observers saw sitting on the forest floor and in the field?

I have my own theory but no, lets hear some body elses ideas?

Observer

[schooner]

I miss the point by choice. The raw evidence provided during that Christmas/New Year period is really all that can be relied on as base information. Within this base information, I have not seen it mentioned that Halt admitted he was following a light from the Lighthouse. Did not this come at a later point time and by suggestion. If so it is likely to be of error due to the lapse of memory and time. In my opinion it is therefore an error to rely soley on this evidence.

It was also clear from the tape recording that the light was not a 'loom' as you suggested.

There is a pattern to most things in this universe so why shouldn't a UFO flash its lights every 5 seconds. Would you prefer to pick a number?

Regards

Schooner

[IanR]

The raw evidence provided during that Christmas/New Year period is really all that can be relied on as base information. Within this base information, I have not seen it mentioned that Halt admitted he was following a light from the Lighthouse. Did not this come at a later point time and by suggestion.

He said in a 1997 online interview with Salley Rayl: “The lighthouse was visible the whole time...it was readily apparent, and it was 30 to 40 degrees off to our right. And if you were standing in the forest where we stood at the supposed landing site, or whatever you want to call it, you can see the farmer's house directly in front of us and the lighthouse was, like I say, 30 to 35 degrees off to the right and the object was close to the farmer's house.”

This description of the light lining up with the farmer's house allows us to draw another bead on it, independent of the compass reading. I have put photos on my website showing how the lighthouse lines up with the farmhouse when standing at the edge of the forest as Halt described.

It was Burroughs and Cabansag on night one who admitted in their witness statements that they "followed" the lighthouse for about two miles before realizing what it was.

It was also clear from the tape recording that the light was not a 'loom' as you suggested.

Actually I was agreeing with you here that the Shipwash lightship, which was off to the right, would not be directly visible. The lighthouse, which was straight in front of him, was directly visible through a gap in the distant tree line and is by far the brightest light in the vicinity – as you would expect, since that is the purpose of a lighthouse. It showed up very nicely on the original BBC interview I did with Vince back in 1983
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham1c.htm

why shouldn't a UFO flash its lights every 5 seconds.

I just find it kind of suspicious that Halt's UFO should lie in the same direction as the lighthouse, flash at the same rate as the lighthouse, and be described as lying "clear off to the coast". Or perhaps I'm too literal-minded.

Ian

[IanR]

It's worth remembering that there are different versions of the Halt tape. Some are quicker and others are slower. This was probably due to all of the copies which were made from the original, each time the audio can become slightly more out of sync.... This effect has the potential to change 4 seconds to 5 seconds, 5 seconds to 6 seconds etc.

That's a big difference, which would be very noticeable in the tone of voice. I think you are simply trying to wriggle here.

The thing is that we don't even know if the UFO was 'flashing'

We do know, because Halt tells us: “It looks like an eye _winking_ at you ... it’s like a pupil of an eye looking at you, _winking_. And the _flash_ is so bright to the Starscope that it almost burns your eye.” This was from the forest edge, where they had an unobstructed view across the field.

Sgt. Nevilles: “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.” Notice this covers much more than five seconds.

This refers to the geiger counter reading, not the light. Listen to the tape or read the transcript again.

Anyway, this only happens twice: "We're getting it again" *~5 seconds gap* "there it is" which leaves us with very little data indeed.

True enough, but it's entirely consistent with the flash rate of the lighthouse. The directional information, of course, is even more compelling. Or do you think it's just a coincidence?

Ian
...

[Andy]

I would like to know if Ian Ridpath paid Vince Thurkettle any money? I was told that he allegedly did. Also Vince Thurkettle was allegedly made to sign the official secrets act. What i also find interesting is that at the site he showed Georgina Bruni you would not be able to see the lighthouse beam, yet in that video of him the lighthouse beam appears just a few inches from his left shoulder, and he's supposed to be standing at the site. Impossible.

[Observer]

Wow Andy

That's the first time i've heard about both these allegations.

Admin may know more about this than me, but it would be even better if Ian could throw some light on it by either refuting the allegation or confirming it. If he does confirm it, the question then is why?

As for Vince Thirkettle signing the OSA, that does ring a distant bell but i thought it was never confirmed. One wonders why he was asked to sign if he did?
This is a big question if true?
Again perhaps Admin can enlighten us if he knows. Or better still Vince himself.

We must all be carefull with any allegation, and i know i've made a few myself in past posts. I don't see these 2 as that serious but tread carefully as British law especially on libel is a very thin line.

Observer

[Andy]

I only said 'allegedly'

[Andy]

However, that being the case, Observer, i would just insist that the jury accompany me to Rendlesham in the dark, go to the site which Georgina Bruni clearly shows in her book that Vince Thurkettle showed her and ask them 'Video me standing here, and show me where the lighthouse's pathetic glow is just a few inches from my left shoulder' ?? Case dismissed.

[Observer]

Hi Andy

I'm totally with you on this one, the light house theory really should be put to bed. No end of analysis on this theory has made it less and less likely as the main cause of the UFO. Even Vince withdrew his light house theory statement in a more recent TV documentory.
We need to move on as they say.

Have you any idea why Ian Ridpath 'allegedly' paid Vince Thirkettle and for what?

Regards

Observer

[schooner]

Hi Observer/Andy,

I dont want to 'harp on' about the lighthouse theory and I'm of the same mind as yourselves.

However, has anyone ever carried out or considered doing an experiment during the season/similar dates/times/locations and weather conditions to see if the lighthouse could cause the witnesses to become confused?

There is really good evidence from the witnesses relating to the conditions during the period of the incident. Surely it could be re-enacted.

I've seen footage from Ian and Admin in relation to the theory but I'm unsure when the video evidence was gathered. Having seen these videos and frequented coastal areas many times, I am in no doubt that I would have soon distinguised the lighthouse from other lights moving about in the woods and to be honest if I were to see these lights and events unfold in front of me, I would have been petrified!

It would be good evidence to dismiss the theory fully or dare I say it open up the line of enquiry!

Regards

Schooner

[Observer]

Hi Schooner

Its an interesting thought and i'm sure worth carrying out. However, it will be difficult to find conditions that are close to those that were evident during the incident.
Admin's videos of the light house do in a way make you think that no way could the light house have caused the lights in the woods.

As you said, there are many witness statements from that time that would give us a reasonable set of criteria for another investigation.

From what i gather it was a cold clear night with fairly good visibility.
Humidity was very low as it would be at that time of year and there was little wind. Temperatures were hovering around freezing and there was a bit of ground frost in more exposed places such as logging tracks.

Inside the forest was pretty much frost free.

I'm not sure if there was any frost on the forest canopy but if there was this could open up a whole new scenario due to light refraction from the frost laden branches and canopy. Perhaps admin can help us out on the weather conditions on those nights in question.
Although this could make an interesting line of enquiry, i still feel that the light house is a non runner.

Regards

Observer