'Skeptics' Ridiculous Explanations Of The Rendlesham Forest Events

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

I recon you are itching to say more things Ophi.

originally posted by: baablacksheep1
a reply to: Ophiuchus1

I recon you are itching to say more things Ophi.

I’ve taken the screenshot Arbi supplied to raise a point……

I’ve overlaid the following elements…a blinking eye (made by someone else) and light shine (made by someone else) over the light of the Lighthouse and at a roughly football/ball sized object Halt claimed he saw (in comparison to the gentleman in Arbi’s picture).

The blinking eye (not at the interval of the reported lighthouse synchronization, since I can’t change the frequency of the eye blink, that was done by someone else) is for the human naked eye sizing purposes of my point…

….and that is….what is more likely and makes sense…..that Halt saw a blinking eye object, the naked eye size of barely a walnut in the distance of the lighthouse light…or …..Halt saw a blinking eye object the rough size of a football/ball there floating in the field between him and the farm house?

Would you send your men on a wild goose chase towards the lighthouse 5.26 miles away…to figure out that a small walnut sized blinking eye light from where they were standing at the edge of the forest was nothing more than the lighthouse in the distance?

Based on the size of Halts naked eye observation..of the size of the blinking eye that of a football/ball ….the lighthouse walnut sized light to one’s naked eye at the distance of 5.26 miles…. doesn’t hold water for me……as a debunkers excuse for what Halt was seeing.



Another observation…..amazingly no other lights from homes, businesses, streetlights, outdoor lights in general and at night are not seen … with or in the surrounding farming areas between where the gentleman is standing and where you see the purported lighthouse light in Arbi’s screenshot….

In all of 5.29 miles of land between the farm house field and the purported lighthouse……and no one else or the municipality…has a light on, in the night?

I’m not buying any debunker’s Lighthouse excuse…plain and simple….imo

Bare in mind the following excerpt from Halt’s voice recorder verbatim from the night in question….



Now…I ask…..what Lighthouse light at the distance of 5.29 miles (the size of a walnut from the field) could be seen clearly with the naked eye….shooting out pieces (material) from it?

My answer….. None.

👽☕️☕️

It was 40 some years ago the area has changed.

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1
My contention is that the lighthouse couldn’t be seen, imo, at the distance of 5.29 miles.

And if it was seen as purported…..the light would have been seen by the naked eye as a small dot of light……not the approximate football size winking eye that Halt described.

So you say the lighthouse couldn't be seen at 5.29 miles, but the video with Vince Thurkettle shows it can, and it shows how big the light is, it's not a tiny dot as you suggest.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: Ophiuchus1
So, you haven't watched the Vince Thurkettle video yet?
Why not, because you want to keep denying facts based on your google street view search for a lighthouse that no longer exists?

That lighthouse was one of if not the most powerful lighthouses in the country in 1980, I think it was 5 million candela, and it also used a special lens to increase visibility. Here's a photo I had saved of the special lens it used, I don't remember the source, it's in my ATS saved photos:

I always wondered if the structure of that lens might give it an eye-like appearance, but to the naked eye I suspect not. However, Halt did say something about trying to view it through his star scope, and maybe through that he might see some effect from that somewhat "eye-like" lens.

More importantly you can see the lighthouse in the Vince Thurkettle interview at the distance where you doubt it can be seen. Tell me you can't see the light in this screengrab from that video:

I downloaded the longer video with Vince Thurkettle, from this link, it's about 20 MB. What didn't show up in the earlier screenshot with Vince Thurkettle, is that they also video the lighthouse under different lighting conditions without Thurkettle in the shot, and guess what? It shows the effect Halt described, looks sort of like an eye, with a dark spot in the middle, but it's probably like sunspots that aren't really dark, they just look that way in contrast to brighter surroundings. Look at the eye-like image the lighthouse makes, matches Halt's description that it looks like an eye, in this screenshot from 3:03 in the longer video:


Regarding the size, recall the moon illusion where the moon can look much larger on the horizon, but it's actually the same size as when it's higher in the sky. So we can note our judgement of sizes is not that great or consistent, since the same sized object like the moon can appear to be various sizes, and it can look huge when low on the horizon, and the lighthouse was low on the horizon. In fact that's one reason Thurkettle thought it was the lighthouse, since it never seemed to go very high, it was always near the ground level, like the lighthouse.

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Don’t need to watch the vid…..

You see….I find it hard to reconcile the following….

I won’t buy…that all the trees and shrubs (red arrows) just across a likely road, in front and on the East side of the front of this particular farmhouse, were removed for plantings the second field in front of the house.

OK let's recap here.
Ophi: the lighthouse couldn’t be seen, imo, at the distance of 5.29 miles.
Arbi: Watch the Thurkettle vid which shows it can be seen at that distance.
Ophi: I don't need to watch it because a farmer may or may not have cut down some trees some decades later.

Now Ophi, you are good at making memes, but you're not very good at logic, there's zero logic in that reason to not watch the Thurkettle vid. Your contention is the lighthouse can't be seen at that distance and the video shows it can be seen in 1983 when the video was made, from near the "landing site". Whether or not some trees were or were not cut down decades later or what farmhouse is shown in some other photo taken decades later has no effect on the 1983 video of the lighthouse, so you still need to watch that unless you're being willfully ignorant and don't want to know the truth, which it kinda seems like that's what you're doing by not watching the video. Also watch the part without Thurkettle where you can see the "eye" effect with the dark spot in the middle that Halt talked about, and remember the 5 second interval was also an exact match!

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1
Would you send your men on a wild goose chase towards the lighthouse 5.26 miles away…to figure out that a small walnut sized blinking eye light from where they were standing at the edge of the forest was nothing more than the lighthouse in the distance?

Most of the men didn't know about the lighthouse. Even Vince Thurkettle admits to being fooled by the lighthouse at one time, so people who say nobody would be fooled by the lighthouse haven't considered that. He lived only about 1 kilometer from the "landing site".

Based on the size of Halts naked eye observation..of the size of the blinking eye that of a football/ball ….the lighthouse walnut sized light to one’s naked eye at the distance of 5.26 miles…. doesn’t hold water for me……as a debunkers excuse for what Halt was seeing.

What does size of a football even mean? Close to my face it's huge, but at a long distance it's tiny, but in any case, the video you refuse to watch out of willful ignorenace shows how wrong you are on many fronts; it shows the lighthouse can be seen where you say it can't be seen, it shows the light is not a tiny dot, as you claim it would be, and it shows the eye-like dark sput in the middle in certain lighting conditions (when it's otherwise dark), which Halt described).

Now…I ask…..what Lighthouse light at the distance of 5.29 miles (the size of a walnut from the field) could be seen clearly with the naked eye….shooting out pieces (material) from it?

You are making a common mistake here, taking witness statements too literally instead of as interpretations of information their eyes sent to their brains. For example, they saw chunks of bark missing on the trees near the landing spot and said that looks like where the UFO was crashing into the trees in the tight spaces it was flying in through the forest. But that was an interpretation, you can't take that literally, since Thurkettle pointed out those were axe marks indicating which trees were to be felled, not damage from a UFO.

Likewise, look at photos and you'll see some trees lost their leaves and some trees were evergreen, still had green leaves. If one of the evergreens had shiny leaves, they could have seen the lighthouse light reflecting off the shiny leaves as it was sweeping and if it was dark they might not even know there was a tree there. Again watch the Thurkettle video which debunks so many of your claims, which might be why you say you "don't need to watch it", you dont' want your claims debunked, meaning you don't want to know the truth.

I'm not sure the lighthouse was the only light they saw, maybe they saw something else too, some of the witnesses felt that was the case, but the light house was definitely part of what they were seeing and they mostly didn't know about it.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I’ll watch the vid sometime during this next week and bounce it against Coulthart interview with Halt and Gary Heseltine’s book Non-Human….and then reply in kind.

👽🍿🤓

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I’ll watch the vid sometime during this next week and bounce it against Coulthart interview with Halt and Gary Heseltine’s book Non-Human….and then reply in kind.

👽🍿🤓

We are certainly getting a huge dose of 'Skeptics' Ridiculous Explanations Of The Rendlesham Forest Events!"

That one up above there a bit is a doozy.

They just must know so much better than all the witnesses and everyone else on the planet. (Because no one else can possibly be smarter.), (Or over think things down to the subatomic level)

Well Played!

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

This post made me chuckle.

@Ophi. I did tell you the light house can lead to madness.

Have fun.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Perhaps I missed it, in one of your replies……I’m not sure what your official stance is either way regarding the Lighthouse…

👽🧐☕️🍩

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Perhaps I missed it…..I’m not sure what your stance is either way regarding the Lighthouse…

👽🧐☕️🍩

My post was a jab at Arb's pretty comical "reasoning" in a post above.

In that Coulthart interview of Halt, Halt speaks quite a lot about the lighthouse. There was restaurant there at the lighthouse site that Halt and his wife often had dinner at, and so everyone knew exactly where it was, many officers and personnel knew the countryside well, and just like anyone, could tell north from east and south from west, etc.

Point being, everyone knew where they were in relation to all the points of interest of the area, they knew what they were seeing was not the lighthouse just as plain as anything simple like that. Halt said all of this, and was grilled by Coulthart about the lighthouse and everything else.

Colonel Halt was well trained in sciences and had the skills to deal with unexpected situations. I trust that what he says is factual, just like his superiors trusted him to manage a nuclear weapons base. He never got fired or ridiculed by his people afterwards, and stayed active there for three more years.

I have seen a ton of lighthouses myself and not once did I think any of them were UFO's. I have also seen a couple UFO's, one quite close, and I could easily tell they weren't a lighthouse.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

I agree…..in that the following dialogue from the Coulthart interview I previously posted is quite the elephant in the room …imo

RC- You're convinced that they were there that night.

CH- I'm firmly convinced there was something there that night.

RC- One thing I haven't put to you properly is the skeptics suggest that on your tape the audio of your description of the frequency of the light, there was a flashing light there on the object that you were seeing. Can you describe that flashing light?

CH- The flashing light was actually the object was I say winking, blinking, whatever. Now I can't say that Bruce Anglin is the one that says there's the light, there's the light or something. I can't say that at that point he wasn't looking at the lighthouse. I don't know what he was looking at. I was looking at a red object in front of the farmer's house.

RC- Okay, but let's talk about what you saw. Let's go with your first person knowledge. Did you see a flashing strobing light on the unexplained object?

CH- No, all I saw was equivalent of a winking as best I can describe. It's sort of like the center of the eye moved a little bit.

RC- Is it the case that the winking that you saw matched the frequency of the flashing of the lighthouse?

CH- I don't know because at that point I didn't…you know I was not correlating the flashing light at the lighthouse because I was ignoring the lighthouse. The lighthouse was a beam that was there.

RC- So let's just go back a bit. You had seen a winking on the object, the unexplained object. On the tape there is a voice where the voice reports seeing a flashing light.

CH- That would be Bruce Englund.

RC- That's not you.

I CH- No, that's not me.

RC- So is it possible that when Bruce Englund was describing a flashing light he was actually looking at the lighthouse?

CH- That's certainly possible. I don't know because I have no idea what he was looking at.

RC- So when the skeptics make much of the frequency of the light that's flashing matching the frequency of the lighthouse, that's not the light that you're describing?

CH- No, I was ignoring the lighthouse.

RC- You knew where the lighthouse was?

CH- Yes, I saw the lighthouse.

RC- There's no doubt in your mind.

CH- No, I used to go out to the pub in Orford. There's a very good pub that had fantastic food out there and with good prices. Used to go out there and have dinner from time to time. And I've been on Orford Island where the lighthouse is.

RC- So the lighthouse light flashing away separately was completely distinguishable from what you were seeing.

CH- That's correct.

RC- OK, let's go back to the post incident.

My argument is with the Lighthouse distance as you’ve been reading.

However based on the interview….I’ve yet to read any grilling of Bruce Englund…in other writings or q&a’s….who according to Halt may have been the one to look towards the lighthouse while Halt was looking a lights much closer to him.

👽☕️🍩

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed
Coulthart's interview is way too long after the event considering how much Halt has changed his story over the decades. I keep pointing out Halt's inconsistency and contradictions, and yet you keep avoiding them like refusing to answer my question about which of the two contradictory stories Halt told about the beams coming down you believe. Anyway the earlier you go, the closer to the truth you can get, though even if you go to Halt's original documentation, his letter to the MOD, it's got the wrong dates on it. But Halt's original audio tape is a great source. I wonder if he has more audio that he hasn't released.

The original witness statements are helpful, and Halt's audio tape is very helpful, that's what shows he was looking at the lighthouse at least part of the time, based on the matching frequency and the heading of the "UFO" from where he was. People that have any sense will put way more emphasis on Halt's audio tape than anything Halt said decades later when he changed his story. Halt said it was approximately east, and he thought he knew it wasn't the lighthouse because he "knew" the lighthouse was Southeast, not east. Unfortunately, he was confused, because of the twin bases, and it was southeast from the other base, but he was disoriented about the lighthouse location because he wasn't at the other base.

Ian Ridpath explains it:

What follows on this page requires some knowledge of the case to be fully appreciated. However, the main points can be summarized as follows:

Was the flashing light really the lighthouse?

The testimony of the main eyewitnesses on Night One and of Col Halt on Night Two confirm that the flashing light seen on both nights lay in the direction of the Orford Ness lighthouse.
Evidence from the audiotape made by Col Halt on Night Two shows that the light flashed at the same rate as the Orford Ness lighthouse. Later on the tape, Halt described the light as lying ‘clear off to the coast’.
Although Col Halt maintains he saw the Orford Ness lighthouse in the southeast, it is actually east of where he stood. Evidently Col. Halt confused it with another flashing light in the southeast, probably the more distant Shipwash lightship.
His mistake arose because he was used to seeing the Orford Ness lighthouse in the southeast from his home base of Bentwaters, which lies to the north of Woodbridge.

If you want the details, read on...

Halt was one of the few people involved who knew about the lighthouse, but as skeptics have pointed out, he was disoriented and confused about the direction it was. This is clear from his audio tape made at the time, even though Halt will try to say it wasn't the lighthouse he saw years later. Read all the details at the link if you're not convinced, or in some people's cases, they don't want to be convinced of the truth so they won't read the link for that reason.

As an entry to the ATS record (probably posted some time ago) …. here’s a copy of the 18 minute 12 sec audio tape from Halt’s recorder……1st hand accounts eyewitnesses speaking in real time as the events were unfolding.

It is said that Halt basically didn’t want to record continuously because of the limitation of how much tape he had left on the recorder and didn’t know what else was ahead in significance for which he may have needed more tape to record.

As Halt explained in an episode of The UFO Hunters first broadcast in 2008: ‘The tapes are 20 minutes in duration, so there’s no way I could have kept the tape running the whole time. I must have stopped that tape a hundred times. I was going click-click-click-click the whole time we were out there because I didn’t want to run out of tape.’

Colonel Charles Halt audio tape

First time I’m listening to the full 18min 12sec tape

Quite compelling putting yourself in their shoes and excitement…

Multiple lights…..up to five of them. IF ..the lighthouse (which is not mentioned and Halt knew where it was from subsequent statements) was in play….then it was 1 fixed rotating light with a half moon shield …and many other lights (Red) moving around in the night sky

All of this can not be pinned on a solitary Lighthouse.

That would be funny sci-fy wise…..the lighthouse lifted up and flew for miles approaching the team of men ….shooting down a beam (laser)….Really?

👽

As an entry to the ATS record (probably posted some time ago)….

The Lost Rendlesham CNN Special


Imo….

All of this can not be pinned on a solitary Lighthouse.

….by the explanation of the forrestor Thurkettle

A single white lighthouse light, is not multiple red lights…….

In any of Thurkettle’s appearance in vids….his explanation does not account for this, in relation to the Lighthouse……in the same detail as by the actual witnesses….

Simulation screenshot from another Sci-Fi presentation vid on RFI..


…..especially not accounting for those lights appearing at the north and south of where the men were.

👽☕️🍩

As for my argument that the lighthouse…..could not have possibly been seen by anyone….on this point alone…

I stand corrected

I based my assertion that the distance of 5.29 miles compounded with obstructions such as other forest trees patch, foliage, structures etc….on the land between the forest, farmhouse fields ..were in the way of anybody being able to see the lighthouse.

I based it falsely on the assumption that the topography land between the forest, farmhouse fields, and lighthouse was somewhat level horizontally.

I am now aware that the topography land from the forest, farmhouse fields to the lighthouse slopes downward making it easier to see the lighthouse and light at night.

In the later years….


My look at a distance of 5.29 miles between a lighthouse and a spot to view it from…..comes from my example below.

In San Diego there are two lighthouses roughly in the same location…..one which is not functional is high up on Cabrillo National Park point (not shown)……the other is lower and active.



Using Google Earth….I measured out a 5.29 miles distance on to the Silver Strand across the water from the light house.



The coordinates is were I landed the viewing point for Google Earth Street View..



At GE Street View …..and looking with a virtual naked eye at ground level and no obstructions on the level horizon ….I look and see no lighthouse where it is suppose to be.



Can you see the lighthouse in the 5.29 miles distance? ……I can’t.

That was pretty much the basis for my argument……for people not being able to see the lighthouse from the rendlesham forest…because for that case…I took into consideration…the obstructions I previously listed….and leveled horizontal topography.

Needless to say…..I’m done beating the dead horse of my point and argument.

👽🍺

a reply to: Ophiuchus1
It seems like you didn't read what I just posted for NoCorruption, so please read that, about Halt's knowledge of the lighthouse. Halt thought he knew where the lighthouse was, but as Mark Twain said:

“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so. “ – Mark Twain


I'm not as good at making memes as you so I just re-posted one I found, but that applies exactly to Halt's knowledge of the lighthouse. He was sure it was to the southeast, which, it was from his home base. But, he wasn't at his home base, so when he saw the flashing light to the east he didn't think that was the right direction for the lighthouse, but it was at the other base, they were "twin bases" but somewhat displaced so the direction of the lighthouse was different from the two bases.

Once you acknowldge the light that flashed at 5 second intervals in the direction of the lighthouse actually was the lighthouse, then we can start talking about the other lights they saw. The skeptic sites don't say the lighthouse explains everything; it doesn't explain the 3am fireball that started the whole thing nor does it explain the "starlike" objects that were probably stars because they moved like stars do considering the rotation of the earth and autokinesis.

Again from a witness who was there, he said there were other lights and I have no reason to doubt this account about lights other than the lighthouse:

Rendlesham Witness Statements

I met Burroughs at the East Gate of WB [Woodbridge]. We left our guns with the guy riding with Burroughs and drove to the end of the long access road. We left our vehicle and walked out there.

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). We also saw some strange colored lights in the distance but were unable to determine what they were.

Contrary to what some people assert, at the time almost none of us knew there was a lighthouse at Orford Ness. Remember, the vast majority of folks involved were young people, 19, 20, 25 years old. Consequently it wasn't something most of the troops were cognizant of. That's one reason the lights appeared interesting or out of the ordinary to some people.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I’m aware of the 5 second interval……it was explained and demonstrated in the vid I posted above “The Lost Rendlesham CNN Special”

I’m going to bet….that you won’t entertain that the 5 second light rotation in sync with the dialogue could be a matter of sheer coincidence. What a looney thought huh?

I suppose that that could have occurred……

So then ….we have them looking in the direction of the lighthouse……but then there’s the strange color lights that imo are not part of the lighthouse lighting.

Arbz ..You’ve stated…

I have no reason to doubt this account about lights other than the lighthouse

If I take that at face value….then we are in agreement. In another vid…even Truttle agrees that besides not mentioning the lighthouse…he thought that the events on the tape sounded “genuine” to him. I presume he’s in agreement with the other lights….if I understood him correctly. No one has successfully explained all the other lights of the evening that I’m aware of.

It seems you have an answer(s) to account for all of the other color lights…..perhaps not just the solely lighthouse singular white light…..

Then talk lights like you mentioned in your previous post. You did of course watch the entire “The Lost Rendlesham CNN Special” …vid I take it…..quite a bit of lights to explain away…….I’m all eyes..

Btw….there’s also this one from….MT…I suppose it could be applied somewhere in this whole RFI saga


👽

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1
Another observation…..amazingly no other lights from homes, businesses, streetlights, outdoor lights in general and at night are not seen … with or in the surrounding farming areas between where the gentleman is standing and where you see the purported lighthouse light in Arbi’s screenshot….

In all of 5.29 miles of land between the farm house field and the purported lighthouse……and no one else or the municipality…has a light on, in the night?

There are no streetlights or muncipalities in that part of the Suffolk countryside. The only buildings between the farmhouse/cottage at Capel Green and the Lighthouse are around Butley Abbey and Gargrave Hall. As a simple glance at a map would have told you. Neither places would necessarily have had any lights on in the early hours of the morning when everyone was asleep. Why would they?

a reply to: WaESN

I see from your avatar information block that you may be from Evesham, Worcs…..189+ miles inland from the coast of where the Orford Lighthouse used to be….

There are no streetlights or muncipalities in that part of the Suffolk countryside.

Unless you’ve been to the forest yourself at the dead of night and looked from the edge of the forest down the slope of the 5.29 mile countryside in the direction to where the lighthouse used to be and you are 100% sure, as a first hand witness at that point, that there is not a single light on, ….I can’t agree to your quote statement.

And if you do acknowledge that you indeed made all the efforts and preparation to go to the forest yourself at the dead of night to see for yourself that you too can see the countryside to the shore……then in your preparations, you should have included a camera to take on the trip…….did you take pictures for proof to you and anyone else? Can you post them?

Perhaps, not indoor lights of the inhabitants of the area, but I suspect sporadic outdoor lights are kept on as matter for security and or property land marking purposes.

If you’ve ever flown a red eye flight in the middle of the night like I have over a long period of time and distance….on the same flight route repeatedly…..you get to know the lights emanating from the ground and over time…you’d be able to distinguish lights from heavily populated areas, smaller sparsely rural communities and simple onesie twosie lights in what might be thought of as in the middle of nowhere.

My point being …… people do leave lights on in the dead of night.

So what your saying ….is that you are absolutely certain without a shadow of a doubt…..that all of these human made white lights, shown below, to the right of the lighthouse are turned off in the dead of night…..not even one or more of those lights are left on?

Local Game Warden Gordon Levitt, from the area whose well familiar with the RFI and disputes Truttle’s lighthouse theory..standing at Orford Quay…

👽☕️🍩

originally posted by: ARM19688
I’ve heard the lighthouse explanation several times. Seriously doesn’t hold water when you take the eyewitness accounts into consideration.

The light house was debunked you can't see it from their position it has a metal backing blocking the light in that direction that has always been there .

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1
a reply to: WaESN

I see from your avatar information block that you may be from Evesham, Worcs…..189+ miles inland from the coast of where the Orford Lighthouse used to be….

There are no streetlights or muncipalities in that part of the Suffolk countryside.

Unless you’ve been to the forest yourself at the dead of night and looked from the edge of the forest down the slope of the 5.29 mile countryside in the direction to where the lighthouse used to be and you are 100% sure, as a first hand witness at that point, that there is not a single light on, ….I can’t agree to your quote statement.

And if you do acknowledge that you indeed made all the efforts and preparation to go to the forest yourself at the dead of night to see for yourself that you too can see the countryside to the shore……then in your preparations, you should have included a camera to take on the trip…….did you take pictures for proof to you and anyone else? Can you post them?

Perhaps, not indoor lights of the inhabitants of the area, but I suspect sporadic outdoor lights are kept on as matter for security and or property land marking purposes.

If you’ve ever flown a red eye flight in the middle of the night like I have over a long period of time and distance….on the same flight route repeatedly…..you get to know the lights emanating from the ground and over time…you’d be able to distinguish lights from heavily populated areas, smaller sparsely rural communities and simple onesie twosie lights in what might be thought of as in the middle of nowhere.

My point being …… people do leave lights on in the dead of night.

So what your saying ….is that you are absolutely certain without a shadow of a doubt…..that all of these human made white lights, shown below, to the right of the lighthouse are turned off in the dead of night…..not even one or more of those lights are left on?

Local Game Warden Gordon Levitt, from the area whose well familiar with the RFI and disputes Truttle’s lighthouse theory..standing at Orford Quay…

👽☕️🍩

I used to live in Tunstall and often drank in the Butley Oyster (pub). I knew the area well back in the 1980s. It was a dark area. Unfortunately the incident only became known about some years after the events and after I had moved away so I never had the opportunity to check the exact location. But even a glimpse at the map shows there would be very few house lights visible in that direction, at any time.

Bearing in mind too that window lights tend not to glare out across the countryside in quite the same way a lighthouse does (I recall seeing the Cape Wrath lighthouse from Sandwood Bay a few years back ..... if you didn't know what it was )