The 'Lighthouse Theory' - OLD THREAD - PLEASE SEE NEW ONE

[schooner]

I cannot find any reference to any statements made by officers in the Control Tower at the times of the sightings. It seems odd that there is so much information from witnesses 'on site' but little from the officer end at the Control Tower and Central Control, other than reference to radio transmissions.

I take it that if the lighthouse was visible from the Control Tower and given what Georgina Bruni said - The forest was visible from the tower - then an overall perspective of the incident may have been visible?

Is it your understanding that Staff Sergeant John Coffey was the officer coordinating operations during the sightings?

[Observer]

Just a thought, but as there was no flying from both Bentwaters and Woodbridge over the Christmas break, would there have been any body manning the control towers? I can understand that there may have been a duty crew on in the tower's ops room but i doubt any body would have been in the 'observation' section.

[schooner]

You've just reminded me of something when you stated that the view count had reached 111.

I have an Ordnance Survey Explorer Map No.212. which covers the Woodbridge area including the forest and lighthouse at Orfordness. I visited the forest and walked the trail and mapped out the route.

According to the Halt tape they observed several lights while in the Capel Green area.

If you draw a line on the map between Capel Green and the lighthouse and measure the angle you get approximately 92 to 94 degrees from north.

Halts tape clearly identifies several sightings at 110 to 120 degrees. Assuming that they were using compass settings and if you consider that magnetic north is 6 degrees west of the grid north based on the 1999 edition of the map - this would give an angle of 96 to 98 degrees from magnetic north for the lighthouse, then the lights seen could not have been the lighthouse.

There is of course the possibility that the magnetic north in 1980 was significantly different to that of 1999, I dont know.

There is also a possibility that:

Halt and the others were 2 to 2.5 Km North of where they said they were, which is highly unlikely.

The compass/instrument/s were faulty or being affected by an unknow force, a possibility.

Sgt Nevilles was unable to read the compass properly for whatever reason most unlikely given his rank and specialist vocation.

[schooner]

I have not read much of Mr Ridpaths comments. In away I am glad. His statement about the lighthouse and the lights 'an error of some 11 degrees does not seem bad'. Who decided its an error!

The guys way off course with this.

The use of such opinion just muddys the water and to suggest that the tape recorder may be to blame. If it was strong enough to effect the compass would it not have wiped the tape clean! Does not the Halt tape indicate that Sgt Nevilles was reading the compass. Col Halt talked about the readings but I assumed he was getting them from his Sgt. I suppose you could say that the radiation detector was affecting Sgt Nevilles compass as well as the tape recorder. Come on, these people know their job and equipment.

From what you indicate in your reply I take it that he has ignored alot of the other evidence provided by the witnesses.

Schooner

[Alienationsam]

I do not agree with this theory of the lighthouse it is impossible that what was seen by these military personel were lights from a lighthouse. I don't think they would have went into the woods if they thought it was a light from a lighthouse. To date no theory to try and explain Rendlesham has convinced me in my eyes i think this was a visit from life millions of light years away from us.

Sam,

[Guest]

The light house emmisions have changed significantly sice the 1980 sighting in both power and bulb type so comparison is difficult.
If you use a night vision on the lighthouse it changes the carecteristics of the beam hugely, i'm not saying he was but if you take the time to go there at night and use one it looks very different and he had some form of nightvision with him that night (starscope).

Quote from the halt tape:
"And when you put the Starscope on it, it?s like(?) a hollow centre, a dark centre, 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".

The star scope is now usless as the brightness has burnt it out (and yes i ruined my nightvision looking at the lighthouse). anything veiwed through the scope after this point is totaly useless as evidence of what was actually being veiwed

Was Halt using the damaged starscop to veiw the objects in the sky?
because if he was i can say with all certainty that veiwing a star through a damaged nightvision creates all sorts of distortions and "beam like" sprays from the light source, and costs you a new night vision

On the subject of the starscope it's claimed it picked up heat signitures from the marks on the trees?
Is it not more likey have just picked up the infa red reflected by the tree sap in the damaged areas of the tree, (does a starscop use an infa red emitter like night vision) yes i've tried it, in rendlesham last year, you can also pick up the infa red light being reflected off of flys (especialy if your standing in a big ole pile of dog poop)
Only thing i noticed was in the cold wether it take a good few hours for the sap to flow into the cuts, quicker in the summer (when the saps rising).

so that 1 night vision and a pair of trainers that little trip cost me

[DoRayEgon]

Last month I took another visit to Rendlesham Forest. If you look at the area where the lighthouse is visible, you will see it is very small.
In other words, there is lots of trees in the way of the lighthouse, so there is only about a 10m patch/circle where the lighthouse is visible from.

See the video here:
http://rendlesham-incident.co.uk/video_lighthouse.htm


(zoomed in/enlarged almost 40 times)

Download the video in high quality here: {select, copy and paste into address bar}

Code: Select all

Link Dead : Removed

There may well be lots of trees in the way NOW, but back in 80's the forest was a managed one, the trees where all planted in lines giving a much clearer veiw through them.
Go to wales to a managed forest and you will find that from inside the forest you can see a great distance (hundreds af yards) due to the regularity of the planting (all nicley in rows with furrows between).
Now the forest is a mishmash of planting with the trees growning all over the place hindering any veiw of more tha 20 feet or so.

[Guest]

The use of such opinion just muddys the water and to suggest that the tape recorder may be to blame. If it was strong enough to effect the compass would it not have wiped the tape clean!
Schooner

No it wouldn't, if you'd botherd to try a simple experiment out with a tape a magnet and and a compass you'd know that the level of magnitism required to deflect a compass needle is WAY too small to have any effect on a tape, if it were the motor that winds the tape would also wipe it!

[Andy]

Listen here. Go to Rendlesham in the dark and look at that pathetic glow (for want of a better word) from the lighthouse! Convince me, that was the light that shed all the way to East Gate??! Sorry, not convinced. Also, Mr Thurkettle. What was the site he showed Georgina Bruni? Find it for yourself, (second path on the left on route 12, at the end, in the opposite tree line) but rest assured, stand there and then look for the lighthouse behind you a few inches from your shoulder as shown in Ridpath's video? I could say more, but don't want to get sued, even though i have no doubt what i know is probably right. Why does this lighthouse theory persist to this day? It's absolute bo**oks!

[Andy]

I think we spend too much time 'analysing' here. Whatever happened to being an intelligent indivudal with common sense? Yes, there has been a lot of mis-information, but why? If it was that simple, why go to so much trouble? But as said, we're intelligent and therefore can see through any c**p. For me, what was those five orange balls of light hovering over the forest? Why was the forest guarded in the days after (as my father drove by)? why would someone suddenly become deranged and claim to have seen a craft, then forced to sign an official secrets act etc, etc?

[IanR]

I have not read much of Mr Ridpaths comments. In away I am glad. His statement about the lighthouse and the lights 'an error of some 11 degrees does not seem bad'. Who decided its an error!

OK, let's assume that the UFO really was at a bearing of 110 degrees. In that case, the lighthouse would have been some 11 degrees to its left. However, Halt tells us that "the lighthouse was...30 to 35 degrees off to the right". Cleary, what he thought was the lighthouse cannot have been the lighthouse, although what he saw could have been the more distant Shipwash lightship.

So now who is in error?

For more on this see
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham2a.htm

Ian

[schooner]

HI Ian,

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.

Regards

Schooner

[DoRayEgon]

Yep, that's right Andy - I have seen the lighthouse's beam myself - quite dissapointing. The way some people talk, I was expecting a massive multicoloured light show, and some "trippy" illusions, but obviously not... it was just a little light on the horizon.

By the way, there's a new page about the lighthouse theory coming very soon. It's in-depth and is already looking really good.

It does if you look at it through a night scope , also the light has changed a lot since the 80's new bulbs ect, just look at the difference between different car headlight systems, chalk and cheese and that makes comparison difficult if not impossable.

[IanR]

I discovered that the meteor which was said to be over Suffolk on the 26th December 1980 would have been visible for only six seconds!
I doubt you'll see this mentioned on a debunking website.

No one knows how long the December 26 meteor lasted, so any proposed duration would be only a guess. However, fireballs commonly last a few seconds, which is long enough for many of them to be seen and reported as objects crashing to Earth. Six seconds is in fact quite long for a fireball and one of such duration would be an exceptionally spectacular sight.

Ian