The Questions U.F.O. skeptics can't answer

Originally posted by polomontana
The lighthouse light does not travel through the forest dodging trees.

You're right. It doesn't.

However, human perception would make it appear like it does. The same way the moon doesn't move, but because of human perception, will appear to follow you at night.

Originally posted by polomontana
The lighthouse light is not so intense that it burns peoples eyes.

Rendlesham is only 8 miles from the lighthouse, which in 1980, produced a light that could be seen for 25 nautical miles (28.75 standard miles). At just 8 miles away, the light would be intense if you looked into it.

Originally posted by polomontana
The lighthouse light would have to been red.

It is red.* I provided this photo in my previous post.

And with this, you are finished. You have proven that you do not consider evidence that is contrary to your conclusions, so far as to outright ignore them. Despite your claims of us being "pseudoskeptics," you have proven yourself to be a "pseudoscientist" and not a rational actor.

You claim we are speculating; however, when you do not look at evidence and comment on it, you are the one doing the speculation.

Admit, right here and now, that you have not looked at any evidence that anyone else has provided. Or tell us why you ignored the evidence I provided.

Otherwise, you are finished, Polomontana. You will demonstrate that you are not a rational actor. Admit the truth.

And please withdraw your personal attacks on me, pretending to tell me what I believe and do not believe. And after this moment, never call any of us a pseudoskeptic or tell us what we believe. In fact, if you do, I will call in a moderator and I implore everyone to do the same, because you are doing nothing but personally attacking us, inflaming the conversation, and trying to distract from the discussion.

(*Up close, the lighthouse is white. However, from a distance, due to atmospheric conditions, it appears red, or kinda redish-orange or orangish-red.)


[edit on 18-8-2008 by SaviorComplex]

reply to post by polomontana


First off Montana, your are assuming that the events described were accurate. Let me give you an example of what happened to myself and a couple of my friends about 10 or more years ago.

My friends and I were at my freinds house for the night, we were all outside except for the guy who lived there, punk fell asleep early, between 1:30 AM and 3:30 AM. It was not foggy but there was some low cloud cover. There was an odd sound and an unusual looking light in the sky. We all saw this "UFO" and talked amongst ourselves. It hovered for about 10 muinutes above the clouds, actually it was quite abit above the clouds, and then moved in what we thought was an unconventional flight pattern. We were all prepared with stories of alien visitation and flying saucers. Then smaller lights seemed to seperate from the origianal craft If the cloud cove had not decipated we would still have thought we were witnessing an alien visitation of some sort. It turned out to be a hellicopter with some sort of noise dampening thingy, not an expert on aircraft. You see my friends house was near a military base and had my friend been awake he would have explained what we were seeing was just a typical flight test.

So you see if it not something you are used to seing, an ordinary event can turn into something extra ordinary. I don't doubt that they beleive what they saw, but visuals can be wrong.

As far as recreating the event using the Lighthouse, you would have to have the same exact atmospheric conditions, not just similar ones, which is pretty much impossible to do. So there is no way to 100% discount the Lighthouse theory.

Originally posted by AlienCarnage

First off Montana, your are assuming that the events described were accurate. Let me give you an example of what happened to myself and a couple of my friends about 10 or more years ago.

Don't bother. He has shown he is not considering or even looking at any evidence any one else has provided.

He has proven he is the one doing the speculating and the one starting from a pre-determined conclusion.


[edit on 18-8-2008 by SaviorComplex]

reply to post by SaviorComplex


Complex, you have just given evidence of a lighthouse in the distance. There is no evidence that the lighthouse travels through the woods and breaks into pieces. There's no evidence that the lighthouse light dodges trees and sends downs beams.

If you watch the scientific experiment, it shows that there's no way it could have been the lighthouse from the line of sight of the Colonel and his men near the farmhouse.

You would have to give me scientific evidence that the lighthouse can cause these effects. It has never happened except that night.

Again, you have to give me evidence that the lighthouse can do the things the Colonel and his men were describing from the line of sight of the Colonel and his men as recorded on the tape as the event occured.

It's impossible.

www.youtube.com...

From the line of sight of the Colonel and his men and the farmhouse they passed, how is it possible the lighthouse light caused this?

You can look at this scientifically and see the lighthouse is in the distance not dodging trees, breaking up into pieces and sending down beams of light.

Here's some more:

LT COLONEL HALT: 01.48. We're hearing some strange sounds out of the farmers...
SGT NEVILLES: Twenty eight... seven...
LT COLONEL HALT: ... barnyard animals. They're very very active and making an awful lot of noise.
SGT NEVILLES: ... definite pigmentation...
LT COLONEL HALT: You saw a light? Slow down. Where, where?
SGT NEVILLES: Right on this position here. Straight ahead in between the trees... [Adrian Bustinza pointed out that someone saw a light going through the trees] LT ENGLUND: There it is again... beginning of the gap... right there
SGT NEVILLES: It throw the hell off my flashlight there.
LT COLONEL HALT: Hey I see it too. What is it?
SGT NEVILLES: We don't know sir.
LT COLONEL HALT: OK, it's a strange small red light, looks to be out maybe a quarter - half mile, maybe further out. I'm gonna switch off for a...
(Break in tape)
LT COLONEL HALT: The light is gone now. It was approximately 120 degrees from the site.
SGT NEVILLES: It's back again.
LT COLONEL HALT: Is it back again?
SGT NEVILLES: Yes sir.
LT COLONEL HALT: Well douse flashlights then. Let's go back to the edge of the clearing then, so we can get a better look at it. See if you can get the starscope on it. The light's still there and all the barnyard animals have gotten quiet now. We're heading about 110 -120 degrees from the site, out through the clearing now. Still getting a reading on the meter about 2 clicks. Needles jumped 3-4 clicks getting stronger. [Bustinza said that when he returned with the light-all the patrol were in a clearing on the edge of the forest]
SGT NEVILLES: Now it's stopped. Now it's coming up. Hold on, here we go. Now it's coming up about approximately 4 foot off the ground. The compass has 110 degrees.

www.ufocasebook.com...

If you reconstruct the Colonels position near the farm and throughout the forest, the lighthouse is not a viable possibility.

As a skeptic you should want the truth. You should want to know how the lighthouse can do what the Colonel and his men were describing.

They would be out there every other night if the lighthouse light could do these things.

How is the lighthouse possible from the line of sight of the Colonel and his men? It doesn't flash through the forest dodging trees.

I agree, SaviorComplex. And, Polomontana, as much fun as it's been sharpening my debate skills against you, I fear I must bow out of this thread.

It is by now quite obvious to me, as it has been to several of your other "opponents" for some time, that you are unreasonably determined that the only probable explanation for UFOs and other anomalies is aliens from another planet, and that YOU are so convinced of this that you believe that anyone who doesn't agree with you must not be evaluating the evidence objectively.

The wisest man (or woman) is the one who knows how much they don't know. I know that there are UFOs and lots of other anomalies in the world, but I know that I don't know exactly what they are. You think you do, and that's your prerogative, but accusing other people of having "pre-existing beliefs" does not wash any longer. It is you who has the "pre-existing" belief," and you who limits the possible explanations for these things to one - extraterrestrials.

I'm glad your fang extraction went well and see you around the board. (just kidding about the fang dude!)

Originally posted by polomontana
Complex, you have just given evidence of a lighthouse in the distance...

And you're finished.

All you did was just post a truncated version of your earlier post. You did not answer the charges and once again ignored evidence. In doing so, you've proven my point.

reply to post by Heike


You said,

"The wisest man (or woman) is the one who knows how much they don't know. I know that there are UFOs and lots of other anomalies in the world, but I know that I don't know exactly what they are. You think you do, and that's your prerogative, but accusing other people of having "pre-existing beliefs" does not wash any longer. It is you who has the "pre-existing" belief," and you who limits the possible explanations for these things to one - extraterrestrials.

I'm glad your fang extraction went well and see you around the board. (just kidding about the fang dude!)"

No, the wisest men or women are the ones that are willing to accept that there are things beyond are 3-dimensional perception of reality.

I could go on and on throwing out possibilities because I'm looking for a terrestrial explanation where there isn't one that fits the evidence as reported and investigated.

Of course I look at different possibilities. That's why I posted this thread earlier.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It was titled:
Do 4-dimensional beings live right here on earth?

These would be beings that exist in 4 dimensions of space. I think we extendend into a 4th dimension of space so we see these higher dimensional objects and beings from a 3 dimensional point of view. So we might call some of these things ufo's or paranormal events.

Originally posted by polomontana
No, the wisest men or women are the ones that are willing to accept that there are things beyond are 3-dimensional perception of reality.

No. There is no proof of these 4-dimensional things, so they don't need to accept this--they just have to accept that they don't know.

Why do we keep going in circles regarding this type of logic? You want us to accept your pre-existing beliefs--that aliens exist or that extradimensional beings exist--yet you balk at simply accepting that we honestly don't know.

What I don't understand is why you think admitting you don't know something--which logically includes the possibilities you want us to accept--is somehow more narrow-minded and indicative of having any sort of belief than summarily concluding that because it's unknown, it must be your possibilities.

reply to post by SaviorComplex


What????

When did I ever claim that you couldn't see the lighthouse from the forest?

I said the lighthouse light does not flash through the forest dodging trees and sending down beams of light.

What are you talking about?

Of course you can see the lighthouse but that's just evidence that a lighthouse is there not that it can cause all of the things the Colonel and his men described as the event occured.

What are you talking about?

Do you understand how a scientific experiment works? You can test to see if it's possible for the lighthouse light to do the things the Colonel and his men described and you can also rule it out.

The skeptic scientist conducted the experiment and from the line of sight of the Colonel and his men it doesn't even come into play.

Give me some evidence that rebutts this.

Originally posted by polomontana
It's impossible.

I noticed you have not only ignored the evidence I provided, but the very testimony the eye-witnesses, when it does not support your conclusion. In his testimony, Burroughs admits they were chasing the lighthouse, for about two miles. It also ignores the testimony of Chris Armold.

Originally posted by polomontana
When did I ever claim that you couldn't see the lighthouse from the forest?

That is the claim of UFO Hunters.

Originally posted by polomontana
Do you understand how a scientific experiment works?

And all this time, I thought we weren't discussing science...

Originally posted by polomontana
Now how many times have I said I'm not making a scientific argument? How many times have I mentioned that I was making a scientific argument?

There are a lot of those. Shall I post more of them? It'll take me a while, but I can.

Originally posted by polomontana
The skeptic scientist conducted the experiment and from the line of sight of the Colonel and his men it doesn't even come into play.

Give me some evidence that rebutts this.

I provided this evidence, you ignored it. The testimony of the witnesses shows that the conclusions of UFO Hunters' experiment were wrong. They could see the lighthouse, it was in their line of sight, and it was confusing enough for them to chase it (as shown in the eye-witness testimony). Further proving you have not bothered examining the chase, or any evidence outside of a YouTube video.

Once again, I remind you that you have not admited that you did not examine the evidence:

Originally posted by polomontana
The lighthouse light would have to been red.

It is red.


[edit on 18-8-2008 by SaviorComplex]

reply to post by SaviorComplex


First, Burroughs wasn't with Halt and his team. He was with Penniston the night before. They recognized the lighthouse as seperate from the U.F.O. because they were used to seeing the lighthouse lights. There not idiots.

This is from one of the sights you posted.

"In my opinion, the debunking of this incident is so laughable that
I don't know where to begin to point out errors in it. The whole
premise of the article is incorrect and it insults the intelligence
of all those involved! Does anyone believe that Security Policemen
with weapons and senior military officers, also with weapons, are
given to mistaking lighthouses for other things?"
[END]

"Agreed. This is a debunking ploy that I've seen used over and over
again. It's ludicrous to claim that someone saw a lighthouse, or
Venus, or Mars, or anything else that was there the day before and
will be there the day after; and the day after that, etc., etc."
[END]

"The 'they saw the lighthouse' theory is warmed over garbage. What
some would like people to believe is that after years and years of
operation in which the base security would have noticed and gotten
used to--meaning the lighthouse would no longer be out of the
ordinary and would not suddenly attract attention during a Dec
night. Better said, it would be like a normal person that watches
the news and reads the newspaper waking up today and saying
"Shazam....Bill Clinton is President of the United States...why I
just noticed...." The lighthouse theory is a broken bulb at best".
[END]

web.archive.org...

They have seen the lighthouse and they know the difference between lighthouse lights and what they saw. There not idiots.

You did know that Burroughs and Penniston were a seperate incident that happened over a couple of nights? Burroughs joined Halt later and the lighthouse was not in the line of sight of Burroughs, Halt and others.

Burroughs also said this:

Penniston and Burroughs claim they came close to an object that was like nothing they had ever seen before. As Airman (later Sergeant) John Burroughs insisted 'I do not now whether this was some kind of machine under intelligent control or a fantastic natural phenomenon - some rare kind of energy. What I do know is that it was nothing mundane. There are no words that can adequately describe the wonder of what we saw'

www.ufoevidence.org...

You would have to assume that these servicemen got excited about a lighthouse light that they see everynight.

From Halt's line of sight and his men the lighthouse doesn't even come into play as to what they described on the tape as the event occured. You would have to show me through science how this is possible.

It's very simple to do and the lighthouse could not have caused these things.

The skeptic showed in the experiment why the lighthouse isn't plausible. He doesn't think they were extraterrestrials but he can see through science that the lighthouse doesn't make sense.

[edit on 18-8-2008 by polomontana]

There was then a silent explosion of light, causing the airmen to throw themselves to the ground in a defence. The object disappeared towards the coast and “was gone like a blur”. However, the three men began to follow a light that had appeared in the distance. Only after pursuing this for some minutes through the forest did they discover that they were chasing the glow from the lighthouse situated on Orford Ness. They do not believe this was what they had witnessed earlier at close quarters.

www.ufoevidence.org...

Burroughs saw the lighthouse light with Penniston not with Halt.

They saw the craft land and the lights. The lights took off and an explosion occured and they fell to the ground. They got up and begin to gollow a light in the distance and realized it was the lighthouse.

The light in the distance didn't send down beams and break into pieces or travel through the forest.

Originally posted by polomontana
This is from one of the sights you posted.

Wow...Polomontana, you posted those quoted completely out of context, which is tantamount to lying. Why do you feel the need to lie to prove your point?

Here is the context of your quotes...

An obstacle to overcome when highlighting evidence which threatens
to, or obviously does, offer an explanation for a prominent 'UFO'
case is the adverse reaction from those who have long believed it
was conversely important evidence, if not 'proof', of contact by
aliens.By default, it also impacts on the claimed 'inexplicable'
nature of other UFO cases and that intrinsic belief in a government
'cover up'.

Typically, the reaction is hostile, vehement and often dismissive
of new evidence which hasn't even been studied. As one experienced
'ufologist' cautioned just prior to publication of 'Rendlesham
Unravelled':

"I hope you have your '**** shelter' ready!

Your report is a real service to serious ufology. Those of us who
really care about the facts and the truths they embody/illuminate
are in your debt.

As the blizzard of brickbats falls around you, remember this
admonition which Senator Barry Goldwater used to keep on the wall
of his Washington office: Illegitimum non Carborundum".

And so it proved when 'Rendlesham Unravelled' was published...

Pay particular attention to the first two paragraphs, Polomontana. I bolded the significant points. They are discussing people like you, Polomontana. People who are dismissive of any evidence that does not fit their pre-determined conclusion.

On further thought, I should maybe give you a chance to explain yourself. So, did you purposefully post those quotes out of context or did you not know the context and cherry-pick some information you thought agreed with you?

[edit on 18-8-2008 by SaviorComplex]

Originally posted by polomontana
www.ufoevidence.org...

By the By...this link you have posted was written by Jenny Randles, who as you already know (because you read all of the evidence I presented, right?) has dismissed the Randlesham incident in a book, The UFOs That Never Were, in an article titled, "Randle Sham Forest."

Originally posted by polomontana
They saw the craft land and the lights. The lights took off and an explosion occured and they fell to the ground. They got up and begin to gollow a light in the distance and realized it was the lighthouse.

You are contradicting yourself. First you say that the lighthouse was not in their line of sight. Then you post a quote saying it was, enough to scare them.

Which is it Polomontana?

Montana i hope you take onboard all the work other ufologists have done into the rendlesham forrest case.

Its disapointing when you find out but now you have you must face the reality that nothing out of the ordinary happened. The question is are you willing to be objective and reach that conclusion. Like many other ufologists have.?

these people who keep promoting these myths are charlatans and con artists, unfortunately the ufo scene today is full of them feeding you bunk.Its quite sad theres no respectable poeple left in the field

[edit on 19-8-2008 by yeti101]

reply to post by polomontana


Montana, I have given you an example of how I myself have misjudged what I thought I saw and heard, yeah sure I shortened the story a little by leaving out every detail, but it gives you the jist of my personal experience. My story of my own experience shows that peoples imaginations run away with them at the sight and/or sound of something that is different from their norm. Hell if it hadn't been for our final realization of what we were realy looking at was, we might have ended up being one of those groups of people who repeatedly told their story even after it being explained to us what realy happened and refusing to believe it. -------> By the way this is the main reason I am a skeptic today, if I couldn't believe my own eye witness testemony how could I believe others who most likely just possibly saw something ordinary that looked extraordinary.

There are people that report what they think they have seen, and when it is found to be something else entirely, they don't wish to look like fools so the keep up the sherade adding to the story, and if there is more than one person involved they would more than likely play along to keep themselves to from looking fooloish, even though in the end they end up looking much, much worse.

I am not saying that these people kept the sharade going in order to inflame their own ego, maybe they truly believe what they saw, even though they might have been in erro with what they say, but I wouldn't throw out the possibility that after realizing what they had seen was nothing out of the ordinary, and not wanting to look foolish amongst their peers, they embelished on the story.

While I enjoyed reading the discussion on the Rendlesham Forest Case I'd rather discuss the UFO phenomenon as a whole.

The Rendlesham case is insignificant in my opinion because it cannot be verified as authentic. There are other cases that cannot be so easily refuted.

In the end I think we can all agree that Unidentified craft that have amazing performance envelopes are tracked in Earth's atmosphere. This raises alot of highly interesting questions and attempting to answer these questions will bring us closer to the truth in my opinion.

reply to post by Fastwalker81

I'd rather discuss the UFO phenomenon as a whole.

this is a classic ufology tactic and its completely flawed in a scientific sense. Nobody has any idea if one ufo phenomena is related to another You must take each case individually on its merits alone .

These craft you speak of with amazing performance. What data are you looking at? i'd like to investigate.

Originally posted by yeti101
this is a classic ufology tactic and its completely flawed in a scientific sense. Nobody has any idea if one ufo phenomena is related to another You must take each case individually on its merits alone .

Trying to look at a big picture serves only to cloud the issue and overwhelm, camouflaging details that may be otherwise inconvienent. Which is why Polomontana tried forbidding us from examining the evidence on a case-by-case basis.