BBC Radio Suffolk promises "new evidence"

[jpenniston]

BBC
Just a few comments.... I question the BBC, because, they can not seem to get the information right... the latest is this new evidence which came out.... It was the Halt tape, which had been out for twenty-five years. Does that sound like a newsagency that does research before they publish? Of course there are many more examples of poor journalism which could be said.... but, I will leave it at that. I suppose the December 17th, show will be more of the same.... Of course Colonel Halt will shake a few people up, I am sure.... a wonderful officer and a man of integrity, he surely is...

THE LIGHTHOUSE MYTH....
I am awaiting for Ian to come out on the 28th of December at landing site one, adjacent to the East gate, and show us his light house theory... He has made a career with this, speaks on it all the time... Of course this theory of his is over, on December 28th.... It will be put to bed for good.... I see he does presentations labled the "Rendlesham Myth" well, I must agree, the lighthouse theory is the biggest myth to come out of all the skeptics.... and to think he has been promoting a theory since the 1980s, that will end on December 28th.... In the US Air force, we call this a "Crash and Burn", it is apparent, he is in a tail spin at the moment. Maybe that is the reason he does not want to come out to Rendlesham on the 28th, and show the interested citizens of the U.K., (whom have a right to know answers involving incidents of defense significance), his chance to solve the Rendlesham Forrest Mystery, by showing the citizens of Britton, that all that happen, was a lighthouse..... This is your big chance, so act on it, and we will be seeing you out there.

I am also going to start taking one liners that you say Ian, out of context and start using them as you do.... what a quaint way to put your own spin on things... as a matter of fact, the spins are so out there, they very seldem ever resemble the original meanings of what was actually said.... Actually, by me doing this, I might improve what you are saying...

[IanR]

I am awaiting for Ian to come out on the 28th of December at landing site one, adjacent to the East gate, and show us his light house theory...

Ah, I was wondering whether you were intending to take everyone to the ‘traditional’ site investigated by Halt on the far side of the forest, or your ‘alternative’ site on the side nearest East Gate. Seems the latter. That should confuse everyone. Good start.

I see you call it 'landing site one'. Can you tell us when you investigated this site, please. Was it before or after you, Burroughs and Cabansag had driven into the forest in search of the lights? Was it before or after Buran had called you back because you hadn't found anything?

Colonel Halt will shake a few people up, I am sure.... a wonderful officer and a man of integrity, he surely is...

So when he says it was ET, we can believe that? And when he says you’re wrong about the landing site, we can believe that too?

Ian

[ncf1]

Ian - why not be a man who backs his own convictions and front up to the major RFI congregation in the last 30 years? How could you NOT front up after making money off the back of these guys and trying to make fools out of them for so long when really, you DONT empirically know what happened?? Who gives you the right to be so arrogant?

[jpenniston]

Ian, so are you going to accept my inventation for the fifth time, to meet us out at the East Gate area, so we may put this waffle to bed? Will see you there on the 28th of December.

[AgentAppleseed]

WELCOME TO THE CIRCUS!

Mr Ridpath, you have succeeded in creating the circus you predicted would arrive on the 28th December in Rendlesham Forest. Well, its here early, and all down to your best efforts. So enjoy!

Ian wrote:-

The point where Penniston reports they had gone past the (non-existent) object "and were looking a a marker beacon that was in the same direction as the other lights" was where he realized his mistake. From that moment the fix was in, as they say in the US, and we are still dealing with the consequences.

This hypothesis does not fit the basic facts at all, nor does it explain how the witnesses acted, or reported the events in the aftermath. Those particular facts have already been reported, and the hypothesis above has absolutely no basis in those facts.

Stephen said-.

-... and now it seems that Mr. Penniston accuses the UFO community of misinterpreting his alleged sighting of the object:

I wont collaborate a UFO either.... it is the "I want to believe" people out there that cause the most damage to this incident... so it is best to stay away from waffle..

Ian replied-

It's another dig at the ETHers, isn't it.

I love this guy's chutzpah. On Facebook he says " I know it will change the world...".

Well, we can be sure it won't be ET. But we can guess it will be this

But will the fan club buy it?

It's another dig at the ETHers, isn't it.

I doubt any of the "UFO believers" or "UFO Maniacs" will fall for the fun and games Ian and crew are currently enjoying! Last time I checked, the UFO community wanted to get to the bottom of this particular mystery. The UFO community has nothing to loose, either does the "fanclub". On the other hand, they have everything to gain when the whole story and the absolute truth does finally emerge.
Ian, your past record, as to your opinion on "E.T believers" is not something any of the E.T theorists will identify with, so as far as that particular GAME is concerned, your are only hanging yourself! If I was you, Id stop patronizing the UFO community Mr Ridpath. Those people arent as stupid as you would like to believe they are! And they are certainly not stupid enough to buy into anything you, or anyone else has to say about Jim Pennistons attitude towards them, or E.T for that matter. Dont believe me? Why dont you check out the FB comments on you, and your theory. And another thing, I know for a fact that those people on there wont take too kindly to being used as pawns in a game to discredit witnesses by using smoke and mirrors, which consist of a deliberate attempt on your part to derail this case by deconstructing the argument down too; a basic debate which runs round in circles, between those that feel the UFOs were E.T and those who dont. All of it, is designed to distract attention away from the basic facts of this case. Facts which are still undeniable to all but the most feeble minded among us. Everyone is wise to what amounts to the skeptics equivalent of an "Old Jedi Mind Trick", ie; waffle, and absolute B.S

[ncf1]

I think you've got it in one AgentAppleseed. By means of not showing up, not responding to witnesses, playing the game on his own terms shows a need to control; a need for things to fit neatly inside his own box and therefore comfort zone. But that's not what it's about - its not about self-aggrandization and egotism, nor casting a spell over those less knowledgable, its about getting to the bottom of the mystery, finding out what the truth is, thats the whole point of the meeting, its not about individualism and who plays the better card game.

The lighthouse theory has run its course - but it really is embarrassing that it is still being played out to this day. Its a dead horse that keeps being beaten - the poor thing aint gonna wake up!

Really I think if Ian doesn't make a show then it should be put to rest, moved over to one side, and some over theories be properly looked at, its just plain absurd that it is still being considered.

[IanR]

Ian, so are you going to accept my inventation for the fifth time, to meet us out at the East Gate area, so we may put this waffle to bed? Will see you there on the 28th of December.

Jim,

You attach too much importance to yourself. How many people do you think seriously believe that what you have to say in Woodbridge in December “will change the world”, to quote your Facebook page.

I note that you also promised to make a note of my one-liners and quote them out of context. Well start with these:

* Nothing came down in Rendlesham Forest.
* You did not encounter any “craft of unknown origin” in Rendlesham Forest.
* The airspace of the twin bases was not invaded for several hours by brightly lit craft of unknown origin that scanned the WSA with beams.
* There was no unusual radiation in Rendlesham Forest.
* If this is one of the greatest UFO cases ever, what does that say about the rest?

Why should I go all the way to Rendlesham Forest to watch you doing the UFOlogical equivalent of the three-card trick on a bunch of unsuspecting dupes? Although of course someone at the BBC might want to do an expose...

Ian

PS: I see that Halt’s promoter Hastings is peddling his old UFOs and nukes stuff in Oxford next week
http://www.pressdispensary.co.uk/releases/c992853.php

[jpenniston]

Ian, so are you going to accept my inventation for the Sixth time, to meet us out at the East Gate area, so we may put this waffle to bed? Will see you there on the 28th of December.

[puddlepirate]

C'mon Ian.. I'm only going to put your lighthouse theory to the test - not to prove you wrong but in light of Adrian F's videos to prove myself wrong and if necessary, to offer you and Adrian an apology and if I'm wrong the drinks will be on me. Also, although I am not in the public eye as you are, I'm a serious investigator of UFOs and by UFOs I mean UFOs in the true sense, i.e. seeking to identify that which is unidentified by the rational, unbiased evaluation of witness statements, evidence, weather phenomena, location, military activity, air routes etc etc etc... consequently, I'm keen to meet and ask questions of those from the USAF who were involved in ALL nights of the RFI, not only night one.

[stephan]

@ AgentAppleseed,

without the UFO community this case would be only half as popular as it is today imo. If there were no ''I want to believe'' people out there who else would support them ? People who believe in government conspiracies perhaps. I was invited - as were many others - to the fb site by another UFO ''maniac'' if you will. You know the TV series ''UFO hunters'' ? You know the UFO conferences, the UFOs and nukes conference ? Where would the case stand if there were no UFO maniacs ... the ''I want to believe'' people ... just wondering

[AgentAppleseed]

Stephen, I support certain sections of the UFO community. I dont support people who feel a "need" to believe in UFOs. I support the people who are looking for the facts.
I also object when people interested in UFOs are called crazy, just for the sake of it. To me, Its a little bit like calling homosexuals queers or faggots, when the word is used in a derogatory sense. Also, I take an intense dislike to people who play games. My post is very clear!

[IanR]

Ian if you are worried about security I can organise a security guard to come along. If I were you I would bring two big details just in case things got nasty with the UFO Rollers. I would imagine they'd been throwing rotten fruit and shouting "Burn the Witch" !!

Actually I had visions of being tied to a tree and surrounded by burning crosses...

Sorry mate. I loved the Kids books you wrote when I was a little scamp !!

Gosh, that does make me seem old...

No worries. As you know this is just an entertaining sideline for me, but one or two others seem to take it a little bit too seriously...

Cheers, mate.
Ian

[ncf1]

this is just an entertaining sideline for me

Why not specifically state that then when you make your formal presentations or go on debates on national tv about the Incident? This little entertaining sideline has an effect on people's lives, so you're either a truth-seeker or a pot-stirrer in my opinion; there's no middle ground.

[IanR]

Why not specifically state that then when you make your formal presentations or go on debates on national tv about the Incident? This little entertaining sideline has an effect on people's lives

Well I hope you didn't think I made a living out of this. I have an interest in how people misidentify celestial objects and other nocturnal lights (Chinese lanterns being the popular culprits these days), which stems from my interest in astronomy. A glance at the clips on YouTube that purport to show UFOs demonstrates how easily people are fooled by easily explicable lights. You're right that these things do have an effect on people, and the saddest thing is that even when you tell them what they saw, many still prefer to believe it was a UFO.

Ian

[jpenniston]

Ian, so are you going to accept my inventation for the seventh time, to meet us out at the East Gate area, so we may put this waffle to bed? Will see you there on the 28th of December. Otherwise you should just fade away, if you can't face things like an adult.. That is the offer, I am starting to get very board with you... I tried to give you a face-to-face chance, to prove your theory... you are not worth wasting anymore time with....

[IanR]

C'mon Ian.. I'm only going to put your lighthouse theory to the test - not to prove you wrong but in light of Adrian F's videos to prove myself wrong and if necessary, to offer you and Adrian an apology and if I'm wrong the drinks will be on me. Also, although I am not in the public eye as you are, I'm a serious investigator of UFOs and by UFOs I mean UFOs in the true sense, i.e. seeking to identify that which is unidentified by the rational, unbiased evaluation of witness statements, evidence, weather phenomena, location, military activity, air routes etc etc etc... consequently, I'm keen to meet and ask questions of those from the USAF who were involved in ALL nights of the RFI, not only night one.

I know you're a BUFORA investigator. As a matter of interest, the first presentation I gave on Rendlesham was at a BUFORA meeting in 1984, arranged by Harris Harris, with Jenny, Dot and the reporter from the News of the World all present and speaking. (Halt was supposed to turn up but ducked out.) As I recall, afterwards the Believers went off to the Quality Inn and were Very Serious. The Magonia bunch, including myself and Philip Taylor (who was a BUFORA investigator at the time), went off to the pub and had a laugh. The NoW reporter, as I recall, went off with Brenda...

Despite what some people would have you believe, I've only given one other presentation on Rendlesham, and that was at the Fortean Times UnCon a few weeks back. That was because of the impending 30th anniversary. I had thought the case was dead back in 1997 thanks to the work of James Easton, after which even Jenny Randles lost the faith, but like Roswell it keeps being "improved".

Adrian and I are both puzzled that you managed to go to the forest and miss the lighthouse. It is the most prominent flashing light for miles around, you know! He is up there fairly frequently, as he is a local, so you might be better off going with him. Also, he has no axe to grind on this so you might consider him a more neutral guide.

Cheers for now,
Ian

PS: I see that Jim is still ranting on, having evidently not bothered to read my answer. Not the sort of person one can have a rational debate with, you might think.
.

[AgentAppleseed]

Hey Silvertop. I only said it was a little bit like that! OK? Just a "little", maybe?!
Not everyone is born believing in E.T, but then again some are born believing they ARE; E.T!

I dont take that particular issue too seriously, Silvertop!

[puddlepirate]

Hi Ian

That's one of the reasons for going up there on the 28th. I've been to the field many times. I've stood and have taken photos from the same location, give or take a couple of yards, where you and Adrian stood yet I have not seen the lighthouse, not even the light never mind the lighthouse itself. What puzzles me even more is when standing on the jetty at Orford the light is a small white light just off the distant horizon. Unbelievably small - it has to be seen to realise just how small and low it is. Even more puzzling is the fact that the BBC World service masts are over 90m high and even those couldn't be seen from the field. So if masts over 90m high can't be seen yet a 28m light can be, then something must be amiss...

It's one of the prinicples of BUFORA investigations that conclusions are drawn from a careful examination of witness statements and an assessment of evidence. Of the several cases I have investigated the majority have been attibutable to Chinese lanterns, close proximity to a busy airport or a military installation where aircraft are known to operate or miltary exercises are known to take place - including SAR ops or special ops. Where it has not been possible to make a positive identification it is usually because the witness has been uable to provide sufficient information to take the investigation forward. Photographs are invariably blurred and/or lacking in sufficient detail so are rarely of any real use.

My interest in the RFI is purely personal it is not related to BUFORA in any official sense. I am particularly interested in night two because of the several verified actions, e.g the request to view the radar film at RAF Watton and allegations such as the increase in flash over-ride voice traffic on the Autovon system. The problem is, nobody wants to talk about night two and beyond, only night one. As an investigator that strikes me as slightly odd, particularly as there is evidence of actions on the following night(s). External factors are also of interest - the US hostages in Tehran, the Iran/Iraq war, the situation in Poland, Det 4 at Mildenhall, COSMOS re-entry - there are many external factors that could have influenced what MIGHT have occurred in Dec 80.

I was interviewed by the BBC Inside Out team a while ago but, apparently, I wasn't weird enough for them as I was in collar and tie and refused to be drawn into nonsense about aliens, so my piece was dropped and replaced with a piece about a guy who videos UFOs over London on a daily basis. If the Inside Out team appear at Woodbridge, beware. They'll be looking for the sensational angle, not reasoned debate or intelligent comment.

Hopefully Adrian will be there on the 28th because I've got a feeling I'm going to be on my own.

[IanR]

I've been to the field many times. I've stood and have taken photos from the same location, give or take a couple of yards, where you and Adrian stood yet I have not seen the lighthouse, not even the light never mind the lighthouse itself. .. something must be amiss...

Must be your eyes, mate. Seriously, weather conditions do affect the visibility but I can assure you that no fakery is involved in any of the video or stills you have seen. Tony Nelson of Wickham Market even sent me this pic taken from the same location
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/OrfordNess1a.jpg

What puzzles me even more is when standing on the jetty at Orford the light is a small white light just off the distant horizon. Unbelievably small - it has to be seen to realise just how small and low it is.

One reason could be that the beam goes over your head once you get that close. The point about being at the forest edge of that you're almost at the same height as the lamp, so it shines right into your eyes. Recall also that the shield is designed to block the light from Orford itself (although not the forest); when on the Quay you are at the point where its effect becomes noticeable. Even though the lamp isn't as bright now as it used to be it was still pretty impressive when I went there in the summer with Evan Davies and Mark Pilkington. As Mark said: "I know what I saw!"

I was interviewed by the BBC Inside Out team a while ago but, apparently, I wasn't weird enough for them as I was in collar and tie and refused to be drawn into nonsense about aliens, so my piece was dropped and replaced with a piece about a guy who videos UFOs over London on a daily basis.

Do you mean Chris Martin? Graham Birdsall used to sell his videos.

If the Inside Out team appear at Woodbridge, beware. They'll be looking for the sensational angle, not reasoned debate or intelligent comment.

That's odd - people keep telling me the BBC don't want to hear about aliens. But you're right - they'll play it for laughs.

Hopefully Adrian will be there on the 28th because I've got a feeling I'm going to be on my own.

I expect there will be lots of locals eager to talk about unexplained things they saw but can't quite remember when. I wonder if Brenda B will turn out?
Pity I can't be there to show you the 'real' landing site. Since B&P don't know the forest I expect they would get lost if they tried to find it. Safer to stay on the near side.

Ian

[AdrianF]

Hopefully Adrian will be there on the 28th because I've got a feeling I'm going to be on my own.

Yeah, I'll be going. Will probably head over there earlier in the day, so we can meet up if you want? I'll have a Guiness