BBC Radio Suffolk promises "new evidence"

[IanR]

There’s been a lot of reaction on the Justice for the 81st fan club page on Facebook to this story from BBC Radio Suffolk which promises to reveal “new evidence” about the Rendlesham case:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/suffolk/hi/ ... 140524.stm

No, I don’t know what this supposed new evidence is, either.

Penniston says on the Facebook page: “they contacted us awhile back and both John and I declined interviews.... Then they wanted to do a taped one, we also declined that.... We don't want anything to do with the BBC, they make stuff up!”

I smiled at this. (Americans just don’t get irony, do they?)

Jim also says: “Chuck Halt will be there.... I also think Nick Pope will be there too.”

Interesting that Radio Suffolk should time this the week before Jim and John are due to arrive in the UK to make their own statement about Rendlesham.

Remember that this is BBC local radio and they don’t have any money so I don’t see Halt being there in person unless someone else is paying for him to come over. If he and Pope are involved I would surmise that they will go for the ET hypothesis. Let’s hope the “new” evidence is something better than Halt’s “iffy affidavit” released for the UFOs and nukes press conference
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/Halt_affidavit.htm

I have written before about the rivalry brewing between Halt and Jim/John as to who are the real star witnesses in this case and it looks as though the rivalry is now going public.

[John Burroughs]

Hi Ian
Just wanted to drop in and say hi! We missed you yesterday on the Paul Eno show we had a nice talk about flying lighthouses! Its to bad you would not come on and stick up for what you have been pushing all these years! Bill had alot of fun talking about you! Anyway nothing is going on between Halt and Jim and I! I doubt Halt will be there he just will be doing it over the phone! They asked us if we were going to be over there if we would do it in the studio if not over the phone! Jim and I have no interest in doing anything with the BBC! Halt will be over this week doing somthing for Philiph Mantle so maybe you should drop in and say hi! Your still welcome to meet us in the Forrest on the 28th and show the world how lighthouses fly! Take care and I'm sorry to let you down on the big fight thats not going on! And thanks for joining the Justice site on Face Book I didn't know you cared that much! All the best John Burroughs

[IanR]

Hi Ian
Just wanted to drop in and say hi! We missed you yesterday on the Paul Eno show we had a nice talk about flying lighthouses!

Well thank you! As you know, I have always argued that the lighthouse is right where it’s always been, i.e. in line with the farmhouse, where you and Halt saw it. It’s Halt who has been flying it around, first of all saying it was 40 degrees off to the right (it isn’t) and then moving it back again while shifting the UFO off to the left instead:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdRKLaPZe4c

Bill Birnes fell for this in the UFO Hunters by building a model that rearranged the Suffolk countryside so the lighthouse was no longer in the line of sight. Any skeptic would quite rightly have been completely discredited had they tried such a trick.

Jim and I have no interest in doing anything with the BBC!

I guess it’s not your constituency...

Were not trying to upset the people who feel its ET! We just can't say thats what it was for sure!

And that’s what you’re coming over here to tell us in December??

Yrs skeptically,
Ian

[ncf1]

I personally don't believe the "lighthouse theory". Although its a brilliant, considered, incredibly well and deeply thought-out, well-balanced theory mindful of all testimonies, and coming from a man who dons contrasting striped coat jackets with magnificently bright yellow polo tops, I believe that indeed I have come up with the real answer as to what happened on those fateful nights - I believe I have finally solved the riddle of the Rendlesham forest incident. I will keep my reasons for finally disclosing the truth close to my chest but I promise it has nothing to do with attention-seeking nor wanting my name thrown about all around the popular news rags just for the sake of being heard, and desperately wanting to be seen on television wearing unbelievably tragic, clashing attire and thick-rimmed glasses. Indeed, behold - the truth.

What happened that fateful night, well it lasted a few nights, was a huge cowpat - an absolutely massive mound of not manure but .... HASH. That's right. Me and my mates were out there that night and we, quite frankly, had nothing better to do and so we emptied out our pockets and to our surprise and amazement found that what resulted was a huge pile of weed, and then some other mates came around and joined in the fun and before long blokes were playing with their lighters around it and of course the whole thing set on fire. It lit up not only the entire forest but houses all around could see it and were lit up and this thick, hazy mist kind of thing wafted all around and it hit our eyes so hard. Then suddenly as we inhaled it felt like everything was going slow around us and some guys even thought the big mound was moving about and tried grabbing onto it and even reported later on saying that they went for a ride! This one guy who we call The Colonel, well he really flipped out and started mumbling to himself, actually talking to the mound and making had gestures as if he was shaking some unseen entity's hand or something. Needless to say the army nearby came around to see what the hell was going on, nearby residents, cops, and well the rest is history. They were just so all confused and embarrassed that from then on nobody really knew what to say or do about it, but we knew the real story all along.. and so finally we present it to you, unadulterated. Because we are sick and tired of hearing all these other nonsense theories and wanted to set the damn record straight.

I apologise for holding back this information for so long. What started out as a simple prank just grew and grew into... a monster. And to this day if you look carefully, you can even see the slightly darker patch in the grass where the mound was burning. I think there's a photo of it somewhere actually, have to see if i can find it..

[John Burroughs]

Ian
Here is the sad truth about you and the BBC! Jim and I have asked you several times to go on a show with us! The last show in question you were asked and declined! We have asked you to meet in the forrest on the 28th and again you declined! Stateting your own country men would turn it into a circus! While the BBC does a hit and run with you and put it's out with out even contacting one of us! You also love to hide behind your web site and print things that are not truthful! Your just a sad little man and if I was not mistaken I would have to say you can't take the fact you have spent your entire life looking and have never seen anything like we have! The fact you would even say Col Halt was fooled by a star when he said it was now over head beaming down a light at there feet sums up what your all about! The fact you won't meet us in the Forrest on the 28th but will hide behind your computer is just sad! Jim and i will have plenty to say on the 28th for anyone who would like to show up!

[IanR]

Jim and I have asked you several times to go on a show with us! The last show in question you were asked and declined!

And you still can't see the irony of your refusal to talk to the BBC?

You also love to hide behind your web site and print things that are not truthful!

If there is anything incorrect on my website I will be happy to correct it.

Jim and i will have plenty to say on the 28th for anyone who would like to show up!

Well I hope by then the two of you can decide what it is you are going to say, as right now I'm sure I'm not the only one who is confused by the statements coming from the two of you.

[ncf1]

There would only be irony that John refused to talk to the BBC if you too were a witness to what he experienced, Ian.

In actual fact, you're really only making a true fool out of yourself by clinging onto such a hopless hypothesis some decades on. Your theories encompass such a small percentage of the witness testimonies that at best they warrant a hearty laugh. Yet you continue to allow yourself to be made a fool of, which really is just incomprehensible.

[John Burroughs]

Ian
After talking to Jim tonight we decided that if the BBc reporter would like to join us in the Forrest on the night of the 28th we would be happy to show him around! We even told him to bring his new witness! Lets see if he will join us we all know your afraid to show up but maybe he can find the time! I stated before what you have put on your web site that is not truthful but I'm sure you confused about that just like everthing else! RIP Ian your time is up!!!

[IanR]

Thanks, guys, for underlining why there's no point trying to have a rational discussion with you.

[ncf1]

Wow, awesome response - take the high road, jump onto the SS lighthouse and fly off into the sunset without actually having done anything whatsoever but be smug!

[puddlepirate]

Judging by some of the responses now appearing on this forum it's like trying to hold a reasoned debate with kids from 5C....... Whilst many of us might disagree with IanR regarding the lighthouse, it needs to be remembered that he is perfectly entitled to give his view without being ridiculed. He is a respected astronomer after all.

[Observer]

The Rendlesham Forest incident was a culmination of several incidents over 3 nights. The light house beacon and possibly very bright stars were part of this incident and perhaps wrongly identified. Another incident took place that was probably nothing to do with the light house and stars, but all have been lumped together rightly or wrongly as one incident.

My own personal belief is there was more than one incident over those 3 nights but they were not necessarily related.

Obs

[stephan]

Ian, I think that ncf1 has a good point when saying that the lighthouse theory

encompass[es] such a small percentage of the witness testimonies

. If you ignore a lot of statements made by the witnesses then yes, the lighthouse would have been their UFO.

But imo there's also another flaw in the theory. The lighthouse was supposedly there not only during but also before and after the events. But those sightings only took place on an alleged three nights. If it was the lighthouse then it initiated the hole thing when Penniston and his men were first alarmed by what they thought was a crashed airplane. I know there's also a theory that Kevin Conde with his police car was responsible for this but this first event was the basis of the 2nd night investigation led by Halt. So on the second night again it must have been the lighthouse that fooled Halt and his men this time. Finally we have Larry Warren and others who allegedly witnessed a landed craft with beings. Again the lighthouse ? But after those three nights the lighthouse was never able to fool trained observers again (except for one or two nights perhaps; Steve LaPlume for example tells us about his sighting that took place weeks later). So - like Admiral Hill Norton once said - they were either hallucinating those nights or they made it all up but why in the world should they do that ?

I think that they had PLENTY of time (some three years or so) to find out that what they had seen was the lighthouse. Thus, when L. Warren came up with his story why in the world didn't they just say: it was the lighthouse! Why were they unable to realize that during those three years ?

[ncf1]

Precisely, Stephan. It's such a one-dimensional theory, it arrogantly ignores the majority of witness testimony, and its primary presumption is one of the highly skilled and trained airman being utterly and grossly incompetent to the point where they might as well not have been serving their country and a bunch of schoolchildren might have well done just as well a job. It might have been a theory at the time to "throw out there" - and then be quickly discarded some days later - but to hold on to such a theory decades later is so utterly absurb in my opinion that it deems further investigation as to what exactly the perpetrator is up to in expressing such an obvious throwaway of a conclusion.

There are so many other factors that are extremely interesting, other parts of the witness testimonies that should continue to be looked at and are far more vital to the overall "solution".

[puddlepirate]

With that in mind, the lighthouse - were it possible to see it from east gate in the first place - must have been seen by many of those assigned to the east gate sentry post over how ever many years the USAF were at Woodbridge. It would be well known and any newbie just arrived at the base and tasked with taking post down there would almost certainly have been told. Ditto any other permanent features of the area that could mislead sentries into making unnecessary reports to the CSC. Even if they weren't told before taking post, if they called the CSC because they weren't sure of what they were seeing, wouldn't it be reasonable to expect the CSC to know and respond accordingly? I fail to see how trained SP/LE personnel or any other airman assigned to guard duty at the east gate, could be misled by what must surely have been a well known feature of the landscape

[larry warren]

Infamous rock manager Peter Grant is at a music industry party in LA, see Bob Dylan across the room, walks over to Dylan
and extends his hand, saying, hello ! im Peter Grant manager of Led Zepplin ! Dylan looks at grant and says, HEY MAN, I DONT COME TO YOU WITH MY PROBLEMS !

[IanR]

I fail to see how trained SP/LE personnel or any other airman assigned to guard duty at the east gate, could be misled by what must surely have been a well known feature of the landscape

I have dealt with this in the sidebar at top right of this page:
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham2.htm

In addition to the statements from the witnesses on the first night, Chris Armold, the USAF security policeman who called out the British police on the first night, went out to the site with Burroughs to see for himself what the fuss was about. As he told James Easton many years ago: “There was absolutely nothing in the woods. We could see lights in the distance and it appeared unusual as it was a sweeping light. We did not know about the lighthouse on the coast at the time.”

[stephan]

Ian, whenever I strongly believe something to be true and when I consider it an important fact that has to be made public I always try to use all my means to prove my claim. What if you took your camcorder (if you have one), install it on that field and ask the owner/ company of the light house to turn latter on at night. Now you will fine-tune the settings and film the lighthouse exactly like you imagine it would have appeared to Halt and his team. When finished you put that video on YT and show it to the world. Then let people decide for themselves if your theory as to what Halt and his men saw in that particular moment is correct and if it could really have been the lighthouse. Sometimes a picture (or film in this case) is worth a thousand words. How about that ?

[IanR]

What if you took your camcorder (if you have one), install it on that field and ask the owner/ company of the light house to turn latter on at night. Now you will fine-tune the settings and film the lighthouse exactly like you imagine it would have appeared to Halt and his team. When finished you put that video on YT and show it to the world. Then let people decide for themselves if your theory as to what Halt and his men saw in that particular moment is correct and if it could really have been the lighthouse. Sometimes a picture (or film in this case) is worth a thousand words. How about that ?

I thought I had already done that
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham1c.htm

The video was taken back in 1983, when the lighthouse looked just as it did in December 1980 (it's been through a couple of changes of bulb since then). I went back to the site a few weeks later with some friends. I recall standing there and we agreed the light was obviously only a few hundred yards away among the trees.

I know what I saw! (And so did Evan Davies and Mark Pilkington this summer, even though the light isn't now as bright as it was in the 1980s.)

Amid all the claim and counter-claim, one basic point gets lost: the local forester and the local police both thought the lighthouse was the flashing light the airmen saw, and they knew the area better than the USAF. John B tells us the light was seen on three successive nights, not two as we originally thought, and there are anecdotal stories that people kept going out there for days or weeks afterwards and seeing it. When something is seen repeatedly in this way, it's a fair bet that it's a fixture.

You'll recall that Halt moved towards the light but said in the end that it was "clear off to the coast". Now, what lies on the coast and flashes?

.

[stephan]

yep, I have seen this video in your link. But all you can see is the light going on and off (over Thurkettle's shoulder). But it would be very helpful to see other details, too, e.g. the farmhouse and the silhouette of the forest so that one gets an impression if the whole scene can be misinterpreted as a UFO. This could be done by adjusting the exposure level or by filming at late dusk. In the video above you can also see something that looks like a ''dark center'' which might be the reflector of the lighthouse. The rotation and appearance of the device could be described this way: ''Looks like an eye winking at you. Still moving from side to side'' (as it's audible in on the Halt tape). I also understand that while moving through the wood which has an uneven floor a distant fixed light appears as if bopping up and down and to the side. But once you stop moving you should be able to easily identify the light as stationary. Coincidentally at the end of your video you (?) mention that it remains a mystery why UFO researchers did not spot the lighthouse explanation. But it wouldn't only have been UFO researchers who failed to do so but first and foremost the witnesses and that is even more unlikely as they were familiar with the lighthouse before and after the events.

Ian, I've mentioned this before in another thread and I don't know if you noticed it. But the only reason why I would think that it was the lighthouse would be that the Halt tape (and only the Halt tape) might have been made as a ''post-production'' to mislead people and to make them interpret those things being said on the tape as stars and as the lighthouse. To me it does not sound very ''UFOish'' anyway.