Rendlesham Forest…, A Christmas Story from 1980 - Can We ‘Let it Be’?

a reply to: FireMoon
Oh, dear. And there I was thinking what a civilized discussion we were having without that chap whose main debating technique is to hurl insults at everyone. Thought you’d been banned.

Happy ranting in 2017,
Ian

originally posted by: ianrid
a reply to: FireMoon
Oh, dear. And there I was thinking what a civilized discussion we were having without that chap whose main debating technique is to hurl insults at everyone. Thought you’d been banned.

Happy ranting in 2017,
Ian

Oh most amusing Ridpath,, maybe you'd care to tell the forum who gave you the whole story about the lighthouse being mistaken for "UFOs" and why you seem loathe to also include that they also now claim that, members of the British security services went house to house in the area in the days following the incidents asking did any local see anything strange over those three nights? Why is it that, as far as documentaries go and on here, you always give the impression it was your idea about the lighthouse when it wasn't was it? If they are telling a whoppa about the security services then surely, it suggests that they were also telling a porky about the lighthouse does it not? Why do you leave that out of self congratulatory site? The truth is Ridpath, you weren't there and it was a long time before you even visited the site if you ever actually have. Be that as it may, you totally untrained in the military in any sense of the word, are quite happy to tell a ranking officer what he did and didn't see that night.

You also along with your close ally Clarke the folklore specialist, who never actually talks about folklore, neglect to mention that, the whole area around the base has a long history of "high strangeness" going back to before written records. That for instance, the long vanished pool in the forest was meant to have been home to mermaid, before mermaids became the figures of modern myth only associated with the sea and that, locals believed it was portal to the "other world". In other words, people have seen strange things that they cannot explain in the area for thousands of years and still do, not just over those three, now infamous nights. If you had the slightest true knowledge of the subject of UFOs you would understand how key that is in trying to interpret what people claim to have seen that Xmas however, you don't because the truth is, you don't actually know much about UFOs and their history in relation to other strange phenomena at all.

See do you? Not one mention of aliens, just a true attempt at understanding a phenomenon that has a history as long as mankind has been around. Unlike you , I'm happy to say, I don't know, I can have a stab at a couple of theories that fit the known facts, not suppositions based on your own cognitive bias, far better than the tosh you spout as "fact" though.

While you're at it maybe you'd like to explain the other "Landing sightings" reported directly to me and one corroborated on this very site by a completely separate witness in the Midlands in November and December 1980, as being the Orfordness Lighthouse? The truth is Ridpath your "research" only stretches as far are you own rigid belief system and anything outside of that you ignore and pretend doesn't exist. That's not science as you actually well know, that's just dogma.

And no sooner does FireMoon pop up again on here than Tim Printy’s latest issue of SUNlite appears with a lead article on ‘cruel UFOlogy’.
www.astronomyufo.com...
The story is about a much-admired British researcher, Isaac Koi, who has been forced to step down by trolls for fear of having his professional business affected. Seems the UFOlogists concerned thought it more important to attack him than consider the evidence he produced for them.

Meanwhile, the circus goes on and no one learns anything.

a reply to: ianrid

Isaac Koi has huge support in this site (from people with wildly differing views on the UFO topic) for his diligence and work in getting information out there and there is a thread here concerning that sordid episode. These personal attacks are not big and are certainly not clever.

I think it's fair to say that your views and Firemoon's are at polar opposites on this topic. But hopefully we can continue this conversation in a civil and courteous manner.

So to bring the topic back on to the Rendlesham case :

Firemoon - I believe Ian has already confirmed Vince Thurkettle as suggesting the 'lighthouse theory' in this very thread back in 2014.

.....Regarding attribution for the lighthouse explanation, I have always given local forester Vince Thurkettle credit for pointing out the lighthouse as the likely source of the flashing light to the east and I am happy to reiterate that......

See : link

However I have not heard any specific mention by Vince of ;

......members of the British security services went house to house in the area in the days following the incidents asking did any local see anything strange over those three nights

Can someone clarify if Vince ever claimed this with a reference? Or have I misunderstood?

a reply to: mirageman

I believe the theory originated elsewhere. I seem to remember Chuck talking about this theory being offered to him whilst making his CNN special.

a reply to: FireMoon

Have you perchance noticed that "UFOlogy" often brings out the worst in people?

FYI, your comment that JV opined that Rendhesham was a psyop test is what was written in one of his books, and he also told me that in person when i met him face to face in 2013 (I haven't seen him in person since then).

He didn't tell me who in the military told him that however.

As i recall that conversation from 3+ years ago, I told him that I had no problem with his analysis in this case, but that IMHO the "test got out of control" and "summoned" something else.

I've had that conversation with various people..that when organizations fake UFOs, that it's not unusual that "the little people" to use a metaphor, sometimes can't resist but to play too.

I can't prove that of course.

Kev

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Two USA MIC agent's told Ray Boeche this years ago as well, before Jaques I believe.

originally posted by: ctj83
a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Two USA MIC agent's told Ray Boeche this years ago as well, before Jaques I believe.

"MIC agents" ?

That sounds quite dramatic and conspiratorial.

;-)

Of course exactly nobody is trustworthy when it comes to so-called national secrets.

Kev

From Nick Redfern.

When I interviewed Boeche about this in 2007, he told me with respect to his DoD informants: “I found it interesting that they would mention Rendlesham at the meeting. They said there was a sense that this was maybe, in some sense, staged. Or that some of the senior people there were more concerned with the reaction of the men – how they responded to the situation, rather than what was actually going on. That this was some sort of psychotronic device, a hologram, to see what sort of havoc they can wreak with people. But even if it was a type of hologram, they said it could interact with the environment. The tree marks and the pod marks at the landing site were indications of that. But how can you have a projected thing like a hologram that also has material, physical capabilities? They wouldn’t elaborate on this.”

Yeah, this is what the UFO field needs. More insults and ragging on people....

a reply to: ctj83

That's an interesting quote alright.

originally posted by: Springer
a reply to: ianrid

I corrected the the italics issue. Thanks for the excellent information Ian.

Thanks for fixing that!

originally posted by: FireMoon
Personally, i have a lot of time for all the witnesses as they were party to something that their training did not take into account and it;s my firm belief that, virtually all of those involved believe what happened to therm was real.

Virtually all of them? Does that include Lieutenant Fred A. Buran?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And if Buran was forced to sign a false statement, why would he bother to join that same forum and make the following statements there:

“I am dismayed that the story seems to have taken on dimensions never initially reported and very often assumes facts not shown by all the investigations. ”

“Folks, there was nothing in the forest that night but the lights (which have been explained) and maybe some SPs goofing around. But I fully understand that I can change no one's beliefs about this. ”

“I wish I had denied permission to even send anyone out there, and would have, except for the possibility that an aircraft crash may have occurred.
Then we wouldn't have had some strange, probably misidentified, lights becoming a UFO with beings on board, strange symbols and the AFOSI interrogating active service members in secret underground areas, which to my knowledge, DO NOT exist at RAF Bentwaters.
What rubbish. It gets better as time goes on, which means more prevarication occurs as time goes on. ”

“Had a crash been the case, we would have notified the appropriate civil authority to handle and offered assistance. As it turned out, we were just chasing lights. ”

“I never saw the need to talk to anyone about us wasting time and manpower chasing lights in the forest. ”

“Oh, and I never talked to anyone until Georgina Bruni contacted me because.....no one ever asked me.
And, unfortunately, I still feel that chasing lights in the forest has gotten way out of hand, to the point that good people's reputations may be harmed because the story as presented is not believed.
Once and for all, there was nothing in the forest that night. Too many would have reported it had there been anything to it. ”

“Just can't waste my time on this rubbish anymore guys. And I have been away on, in fact, several trips, I have job commitments above and beyond non-existent UFOs.
Have fun. I'm done. ”

I don't see much conflict between the claims of this eyewitness and what Ian Ridpath says. Some of the other witnesses deviate from Ian's story as you say, but you should also note that their stories have not remained consistent over the years, which has been the subject of considerable discussion already in this thread.

We don't tolerate personal attacks on ATS.

Any further such slams will be met with post bannings.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Buran: "And, unfortunately, I still feel that chasing lights in the forest has gotten way out of hand, to the point that good people's reputations may be harmed because the story as presented is not believed."

Note that Buran was not on the base on the second and third night.

“Chasing lights” seems to be an accurate description of the RFI (unfortunately it has now transformed into “chasing the spotlights” …).

But these lights were not stationary, and there was more than one.
Though the lighthouse and even scintillating stars may have become part of the phenomena in the eye witnesses’ minds, there are a lot of clues that strange lights were actually moving around:

LT COLONEL HALT: It's coming this way.
LT COLONAL HALT: It is definitely coming this way.
…
SGT BALL: Look to the left!
SGT NEVELS: Yeah, definitely moving. There's two...two lights. One light to the front and one light to the left.
….
SGT BALL: .. it just moved to the right... it moved off to the right.
LT COLONEL HALT: Yeah ... strange, whoohh.
…
LT COLONEL HALT: Ten degrees off the horizon, and the ones to the north are moving, one's moving away from us.
SGT BALL: Movin forward!
SGT NEVELS: It's moving out fast!
LT COLONEL HALT: They're moving out fast.
SGT BALL: This one on the right's heading away too.
LT COLONEL HALT: Yeah, they're both heading north. Ok hey, here he comes from the south, he's coming in toward us now.
SGT BALL: Holy s**t!

Notice the similarity between the last tape fragment (two lights moving out fast and one coming in towards the men) and the description of civilian Gerry Harris at 1:30 in the video below.
Gerry clearly also saw lights moving about, which do not fit the lighthouse or stars in any way.

a reply to: mirageman

My first impression would be that fog (or humidity) would 'blur out/refract' the light making it impossible to see the source.

As for the optical illusion part, I think it's possible but for some reason I find it unlikely. Then again, the mind can play dirty tricks when seeing something it cannot determine what it is.

Your post also reminded me of news.nationalgeographic.com...

Edit: Sorry cause I presume this has allready been discussed extensively. Also not aware of the meteo data from back then.

a reply to: Guest101

But these lights were not stationary, and there was more than one.

Just because they seemed to move does not mean they actually did. Human perception, or rather misperception, of nocturnal lights is at the basis of many similar UFO reports.

I have given explanations of the apparent movements of the starlike objects on this page
www.ianridpath.com...
under the heading “Moving and beaming”, and in even more detail here
www.ianridpath.com...
See, in particular, Points 13, 15 and 16.

I appreciate that this part of the sighting is the most difficult to understand for non-astronomers, but it is neither unexplained nor inexplicable in known terms.

In her book UFO Crash Landing (1998) Jenny Randles says Halt told her that when he was back at base, “the objects were still in the sky – however, it was getting light and they were getting faint”. Jenny adds: “I suspect that this is the final clue that demonstrates that these star-like lights to the north were, indeed, just stars.”

a reply to: ianrid

Even astronomers would have trouble attributing the fast 30 degree horizontal and vertical movements gestured by Gerry to the subtle effects that you bring up as explanation, Ian. Nor would they be able to explain why these subtle effects would cause such a response from the military.

I can imagine that after the departure of these lights the men, in their excitement, mistook scintillating stars for UFO’s. But in my opinion the RFI was more than mere scintillating stars and a lighthouse preluded by a fireball streaking by for a few seconds two nights earlier.

a reply to: Guest101

Trouble is, we don’t even know for sure the date and time of Gerry Harris’s sighting, so we have no idea whether he was describing the same thing(s). And we don’t have a real-time tape against which to check his story, which may well have grown in the re-telling, as has Halt’s story.

But you are of course entitled to your opinion.

a reply to: mirageman

So, in your opinion, "why can't we let it be?"

In "Forbidden Science Volume 3", JV mentions that RFI incident is such a mess, that it's not a good incident to research.

Kev