The Object ..

[Observer]

Adrian

At the onset of this forum a few years ago, the little green men from mars was high on the agenda amongst many members but gradually other more sensible explanations were looked at as more and more people joined. A hard core of believers developed and remain today but as far as the membership goes, they are a small minority.

I'm one of those people who would love it to have been ET and all the excitment that goes with that, but sadly there is not one scrap of evidence to say it was.

Peter

[Frank]

just to point out - the lighthouse was 750 000 candelas bightness, it is now 635 000.

If you believe Trinity House's own figures, the light was 5 million candelas back in 1980 – see the right sidebar on this page
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham2.htm

That’s a huge difference. Are you sure you’re not comparing apples and oranges, i.e., the power of the light ‘bulb’ and the power of the lighthouse beam? The candela’s of the light ‘bulb’ are boosted enormously by the lens that creates the beam.

Maybe Bignos can shed some light on this ..?

[IanR]

You can see an original bulb on display in the Jolly Sailor pub here
http://www.orfordpiece.com/html/orfordn ... house.html
The label confirms it was a 3kW 100V filament lamp. The one on the right of picture which replaced it is a 1KW 240V Mercury Vapour Discharge lamp, which was itself replaced in 2000.

Of course, these are just figures on paper and what we are interested in is the perceived brightness. I can tell you that when I saw it with some chums in 1983, we agreed that it appeared to be obviously only a couple of hundreds yards away between the trees - even though we knew it wasn't really. So I have no difficulty in understanding how it could have been misperceived by the unwary back in 1980.

Believers are of course fond of showing video of the lighthouse as it appears today and claiming it could not possibly have been mistaken for a landed craft, but they are the ones comparing apples and oranges.

Ian

[Frank]

Believers are of course fond of showing video of the lighthouse as it appears today and claiming it could not possibly have been mistaken for a landed craft, but they are the ones comparing apples and oranges.

.
Well, let’s compare apples and apples then.

My source is this article: http://www.einlightred.tue.nl/lightsources/history/light_history.pdf from the Applied Physics department of the Eindhoven University of Technology.
In contains a graph with the ‘luminous efficacy’ of different types of light sources over the years.

In 1980, an incandescent (or: filament) lamp had a ‘luminous efficacy’ of about 20 lm/W. This means that it produced about 20 candela per steradian per Watt (a steradian is a unit for a 3D angle – a complete sphere is 4 pi steradians which is about 12 steradians).

A high pressure Mercury lamp has a ‘luminous efficacy’ of about 60 lm/W. This means that it produces about 60 candela per steradian per Watt.

So according to the article:
- The 1980 3 kW filament lamp would produce in the order of 60.000 candela per steradian (3.000x20).
- The current 1 kW Mercury lamp would also produce in the order of 60.000 candela per steradian (1.000x60).

A complete sphere is 12 steradians. So if the lamps emit light uniformly in all directions their total brightness would be in the order of 12x60.000 = 720.000 candela. This is very close to the numbers Bignos gave.

So I can only conclude that they simply replaced a filament lamp by a mercury vapor lamp of about the same brightness.
Now if you focus a considerable part of this emitted light over a small angle, you might reach 5.000.000 candela in the beam, but of course this is true for both lamps.

Does this logical and factual line of reasoning make me a believer? In that case I’m proud to be one.

Of course, these are just figures on paper and what we are interested in is the perceived brightness.

It sure seems that the light back then was about as bright as it was now:

- Jenny Randles saw it from the forest in 1983: “I never saw it display any colours. It was just a small white light.”
- Chris Armold saw it from the forest in 1980: “The lights were primarily white and were very small, far off in the distance.”
- Vince Thurkettle once mistook it for a poacher’s flashlight – which is not very bright either. Here you can see him with the lighthouse light next to him in 1983 (zoomed in?): http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham1c.htm.

I can tell you that when I saw it with some chums in 1983, we agreed that it appeared to be obviously only a couple of hundreds yards away between the trees - even though we knew it wasn't really.

Maybe, but I bet it still looked like a small white light. I bet you did not see a triangular object with multi-colored flashing lights, and it did not look anything like what's in the original drawings by John and Jim.

It is a lighthouse, Ian, not a magic lantern…

[IanR]

Does this logical and factual line of reasoning make me a believer? In that case I’m proud to be one.

Well, if you're happy to believe that the lighthouse could easily have been interpreted as something within a couple of hundred yards between the trees, as I saw it back in 1983, then point made.

Ian

[John Burroughs]

Does this logical and factual line of reasoning make me a believer? In that case I’m proud to be one.

Well, if you're happy to believe that the lighthouse could easily have been interpreted as something within a couple of hundred yards between the trees, as I saw it back in 1983, then point made.

Ian just wondering about this staement Well, if you're happy to believe that the lighthouse could easily have been interpreted as something within a couple of hundred yards between the trees, as I saw it back in 1983, then point made.
We went out there because we were on duty doing our job! your questioning what we saw and went out there to challenge what we saw . So after you saw this and you had plently of time because you lived there and claim you found out what happened to us you did not film this to show the world. You went back out there after the forrest was taken down with a camera taking that hokey shot standing on the road trying to show you can see the light house through the few strands of trees still standing by the east gate but you never filmed what you claimed you saw in 83. You attack us say we were fooled say you can't recreate it today because the light has changed but you never filmed it back then when you could have. H mmm.... Also on that photo you showed with the lighthouse in it you have to be directly in front on the farmers house at the edge of the field or to the left to get a good look at it and you can't see it from the forrest. The farm house with the animals is right of the house that has the picture of the lighthouse in it follow the finger in the field its behind it farther up and closer to the road..

[IanR]

So according to the article:
- The 1980 3 kW filament lamp would produce in the order of 60.000 candela per steradian (3.000x20).
- The current 1 kW Mercury lamp would also produce in the order of 60.000 candela per steradian (1.000x60).

The 1 kW mercury lamp was replaced by a 70 W metal halide lamp in 2000. From the useful graph you linked us to, for which I thank you, it looks as though this would have a luminous efficiency of about 100 lm/W. So, following your own line of calculation, the current brightness would be around 70 x 100 = 7,000. That’s significantly fainter than your pre-2000 figure of 60,000.

Of course, these theoretical figures do not really tell us how bright the light would appear to an observer at the forest edge. Fortunately I have my own impressions to go by. On all my early visits, including the very first time when we taped it for BBC TV, it was very much brighter than I have seen it since 2000. The one anomaly is that on my last visit, with Evan Davies and Mark Pilkington last summer, it seemed brighter again, although not back to 1980s levels. Hence it may be that the biggest variable is the atmospheric transparency. Anyone seeing the current light under condition of poor transparency would, I am sure, not get the same impression as I did on my visits pre 2000.

I bet you did not see a triangular object with multi-colored flashing lights, and it did not look anything like what's in the original drawings by John and Jim.

No, of course not, because I knew in advance what it was. If I had gone into that forest expecting to find a downed craft, who knows what I could have imagined? Normal objects seen under abnormal circumstances are at the root of the UFO problem, and I do not see that this case is any different.

[Frank]

The 1 kW mercury lamp was replaced by a 70 W metal halide lamp in 2000.

The website of the lighthouse (http://www.trinityhouse.co.uk/lighthouses/lighthouse_list/orfordness.html) does not say this.

In the text it clearly states: Recently new equipment has been installed and the lamp is now a 1KW 240V Mercury Vapour Discharge lamp. I had a quick look at the past of the Trinity House website and the first year this piece of text appears is 2000.
The table on that same page, however, specifies a 70W CDMT Metal Halide lamp. This discrepancy between text and table has been present since the first time this table was added to the text. So what is it ..? Is the new light about 85% of the old intensity (as Bignos stated), or is it only about 12% of the old intensity (as Ian suggests)?

I don’t think we have to climb the lighthouse for the answer:
The table on the lighthouse website specifies a range of 25 nautical miles.
The official document referred to on Ian’s website (http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/orford1980.jpg) specifies the range of the lighthouse back in 1980 as 30 sea miles (a sea mile is a nautical mile).

So the difference in range does not suggest a huge difference in intensity.

I bet you did not see a triangular object with multi-colored flashing lights, and it did not look anything like what's in the original drawings by John and Jim.

No, of course not, because I knew in advance what it was. If I had gone into that forest expecting to find a downed craft, who knows what I could have imagined?

That's the trouble with the lighthouse theory. It is based on a small white light and a lot of imagination.

[Deep Purple]

May be the answer would be for next November or December to get a group of use to go to the site and go along the supposed routes and see what we can see. Perhaps if some one could map the GPS coordinates we could make sure we are on the right path and see how bright etc the light house looks etc.
I spent years winter beach fishing in the 70s & 80s in the solent and The Needles lighthouse, always looked like a lighthouse. I never saw any strange beam effects etc. It was there every night blinking away.
But perhaps if we did this --- it could put one myth to bed or otherwise

[IanR]

The table on that same page, however, specifies a 70W CDMT Metal Halide lamp. This discrepancy between text and table has been present since the first time this table was added to the text. So what is it ..? Is the new light about 85% of the old intensity (as Bignos stated), or is it only about 12% of the old intensity (as Ian suggests)?

Yes, there's an inconsistency on the Trinity House page., I told them about it ages ago but they still haven't updated the text. The figure in the sidebar is correct - I spoke to the lighthouse keeper. You can easily check online
http://www.bbc.co.uk/suffolk/content/ar ... ture.shtml

Ian

[John Burroughs]

Just wanted to repost this report. Ian has tried to say we now put our landing site in the field not true. Also would like to hear what people think about the picture that were taken. http://www.earthfiles.com/news.php?ID=1 ... nvironment

[AdrianF]

Just wanted to repost this report. Ian has tried to say we now put our landing site in the field not true. Also would like to hear what people think about the picture that were taken. http://www.earthfiles.com/news.php?ID=1 ... nvironment

Okay John, if I understand correctly from this article, the spot where you had your encounter is back in the forest, west of the field? I've marked the area on the map that Linda has made, which is roughly where I had always presumed this had happened. Would you say this is more or less correct, or at least ball park?

[John Burroughs]

Just wanted to repost this report. Ian has tried to say we now put our landing site in the field not true. Also would like to hear what people think about the picture that were taken. http://www.earthfiles.com/news.php?ID=1 ... nvironment

Okay John, if I understand correctly from this article, the spot where you had your encounter is back in the forest, west of the field? I've marked the area on the map that Linda has made, which is roughly where I had always presumed this had happened. Would you say this is more or less correct, or at least ball park?

Nope over by the finger!

[IanR]

Adrian, it says in that article that the White dot represents a third farmhouse. I'm fairly sure there are just trees here. Can anyone confirm its existence?

The white dot is supposed to be what John tells us is the other farmhouse with animals, but there's nothing there. Have a look at maps, satellite photos, Google street view... nothing.

Ian

[Wolf]

Hey ST

Maybe it was your top reflecting the lighthouse.....

I concur with IanR on this one, never seen a house in that copse, and there is no evidence on the maps I have access to. I can check back further on some old historical maps to see if there ever was buildings there.

V/R

Wolf

[bignos]

I had a look round and tried to identify the 'Encounter' from the photos and description from earthfiles and it seemed like it was where i have put the green dot



This is a 1979 O/S map of the area, there is no house at the suspected location, however if you follow the line of sight it takes you to Butley Abbey. I then 'street viewed it and you can even see animals! (cows i think) - See pic below


Could this be the house and animals you saw john? is the encounter (green dot) in the correct place?

here is the google earth link for street view
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&sourc ... 74,,1,1.81

[Frank]

The blue and red lights were initially seen in the forest east of the runway. Wouldn't that point to a direction more towards the north side of the farmer's field?
I remember John posting somewhere that the lighthouse was to the left of the farmhouse, which also points to a location towards the north side of the farmer's field. (Ian's picture shows the ligthouse to the right of the farmhouse, and it would seem to move along to the left of it when you walk to the north.)

Jim's drawing also suggests they went to the North from the logging road, after leaving their vehicle.

Another piece of info: The location of the landing site reported to the Suffolk police was 2 miles east of East Gate. That if much further than the edge of the farmer's field.. The hand written notes on the police log repeat that: 2 miles due East from East Gate. That would bring you in the area where Bignos saw the cows.

[John Burroughs]

Frank its all about angles of the pictures. The light house is just to the right of the farm house. You can see it dead center from the edge of the forrest. But you do get a better view from just to the left of the farm house. The area we were in was to the right of the farm house. We also were able to see the farm house as Halt described it to the Rt by the finger. Bignos I'm working on getting the picture together we took both night and day and will try to post them. It will all so include the picture of all the structure that were taken durning the daylight.

[bignos]

sounds good, i dont mind driving down (its a day out) and taking some shots if it helps anyone, the lighthouse is only really visible from the oposite the farmhouse, i could take some photos/video walking down the edge of the field if it helps anyone? if the lighthouse is shutting down its worth getting some shots/video now from all angles. i tried last time but the lighthouse didnt even show up on the film it was that faint (and it was dark before anyone comments!)

[larry warren]

it blows my mind that certain brass on our base said nothing happened where ive said it happened for 30 years , now every thing happened in that area of the field ! whats that about..................did you fellas on this website know where ive always said i saw what i saw ? if not check it out cheers