Old scraps of info - do they mean anything more now?

[IanR]

Joe McGonagle recently posted on UFOlogyinuk a summary of his investigations into a couple of aspects of the Rendlesham case. I forward it here without further comment:

>>
From: Joe (uk-ufo) McGonagle <joe@uk-ufo.org>
Date: Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 8:39 PM
Subject: Re: [ufologyinuk] Orford Ness Lighthouse
To: ufologyinuk@uk-ufo.org


Rendlesham in it's entirety is a bag of worms for various
reasons. For a good sceptical article about many of the aspects,
I recommend a visit to:
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham.htm

To date, there are only two specific areas which I have
personally looked into in regards to the case, including at least
half-a-dozen visits to the area at all hours and different
seasons - the lighthouse and the radiation.

Based on what I discovered, I am certain that the lighthouse
_did_ play a role in _part_ of _one_ of the reports. I am also
certain that the supposed radiation reading are an irrelevance to
the case other than the fact that they were deemed to be
significant at the time, which is in itself a symptom of the
competency and mind-set of those who thought (and still think) it
was a significant factor.

In December 2000, I was in touch with Trinity House, the people
who administer the lighthouses in the UK. I had already
established from other sources that the lighthouse had been
automated since 1965 (meaning that it was unmanned after that
time, so the nature of the 'lighthouse keeper's' participation
needs to be clarified). The following is an extract from an email
sent to me from Trinity House:

"According to our records in December 1980 , Orfordness had a
3,000 watt lamp with a range of 30 miles. The 1,000 watt lamp was
not installed until October 1991. The station has recently been
modernised again with the installation of 70 watt metal halide
lamps. The range of the light is now 20 miles. As far as our
records show, the flash pattern remains the same as 1980 (one
white flash every five seconds). As the station was unmanned
there will not be a log book covering December 1980."

Important things to note are the fact that the output from the
lighthouse is significantly less now than in it was in 1980, and
the confirmation that the station was unmanned in December 1980.
Also the confirmation of the flash interval, which is expanded on
and compared to Halt's tape by Ian Ridpath at:
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham2a.htm

Where he writes:
"Halt's tape also contains a clue to the flash rate of the light,
as first noted by Phil Klass. On the tape, we can hear an
unidentified airman call out: "There it is again...there it is."
The interval is 5 seconds, the same rate at which the Orford Ness
lighthouse flashes."

Another thing to remember is that the forest was significantly
more mature in 1980, with the trees being taller than they are
now. I spoke to Jan Warnock, landlady of 'The Old House' B&B very
close to the forest (less than two miles), who told me that in
certain conditions she could see the sweep of the lighthouse
catching the top of the trees at around the time of the events.

As it is now, there is only a tiny area of the forest where you
can still see the lighthouse from, but significantly, this small
area is viable as part of Halt's original route through the forest.

This is only one small aspect of one of the forest excursions
associated with the case, so it doesn't destroy the case
entirely. When other factors are taken into account though such
as the earlier satellite re-entry and reports of a bolide, the
significance of the case is diminished. That is before closely
examining the (changing) testimony of some of the key witnesses
over the years - the accounts generally seem to be converging
towards that given by Larry Warren, which was initially ridiculed
by the other key players.

On the matter of the radiation readings, it would be most
expedient for me to simply paste an earlier post which was sent
to the then current ufologyinuk list and UFO UpDates, but I am
having difficulty finding them - they were sent in October 2001,
if anyone can lay their hands on them, the UpDates one was
entitled 'Rendlesham Radiation' as I recall. For some reason I
don't appear to have the current password for the UpDates archive.

Joe
<<

[Observer]

IanR

Its nice from your point of view when you get some body else to more or less support your light house theory. In fact there are several people who support this view although they and you remain the minority. Perhaps you could explain why this is. What says you are right and the majority are wrong? Are we all thick and you are the only brains on this case?

Whatever power the light house was then i think is irrelevant. I used to go shooting with a friend in those woods at night, this was in the late 70's so i guess it was when the light house was at its higher power. Even on a clear night, [and we walked round most of the forest with our guns] we never ever saw the beam shine into or onto the forest canopy let alone play funny light tricks. Yes, when we were at the eastern edge of the forest near the field we just saw the light house 'blink' in the distance, but that's all it was a blink, not a beam shining into the woods.

I aggree with you re the radiation readings, those radiac survey meters were not designed to take accurate readings below a whole unit of Reontgen. They were designed to give RPH from nuclear fall out and other high contamination. I know because i used them in anger when i was in the ROC. We had very similar meters to the USAF and were trained to use them. So i don't put too much credence on those reports.

What i and a few others are saying is that although some of the witnesses may have described the flashing light house [every 5 seconds] and we don't disbelieve them, something else happened in that forest that was nothing to do with the light house. It was coincidental.

This is the bit you seem unable to grasp or probably don't want to.

Obs