Originally posted by Thunda
Right, thanks for that, Firemoon. Seems like this guy really has an axe to grind. Ask for a bit of clarification as to who he's talking about, and
look what you get!
Yes I see what I get from you is no response to the question about whether Burrough's statement about seeing the
lighthouse and following the lighthouse proves your claim false about the shield blocking their view of the lighthouse.
If you don't really want to know the truth, I don't see any point in further discussion with you.
Originally posted by FireMoon
Arbitrageur simply copying and linking to one site run by a man with an agenda who has, several times proven to be "economical with the truth" does
not constitute research. Fine, you want to believe an "astronomer" as Ridpath calls himself, who thinks you can see Venus 30 degrees above the horizon
at 2 am in late October in Britain, then you are going to receive exactly what you deserve, half cocked biased tosh.
I did show some
photographs from Ridpath's site, as I believe them to show an accurate view of the farmhouse and the lighthouse.
I also linked to Ridpath's site for a transcript of Halt's recording, which as I stated is probably some of the best evidence we have in the case.
I never said anything about Venus. Indeed there may be some conclusions drawn on Ridpath's site which I may not agree with and I think even Ridpath
would admit some of the things on his site are more factual in nature and some things are more speculative. The photographs and the transcript I
believe are factual in nature.
But since you bring up Ridpath's explantion of Venus and the stars, don't you at least find it interesting that Halt himself called them "starlike
objects" in his "Unexplained Lights" memo and describes them as being there for hours? (If they were stars or planets he describes what is known as an
autokinesis effect where the object appears to keep the same general location in the sky yet has small movements as a result of imperfections in human
I would also like to know, if this thing was there for hours as Halt says, shooting down beams to the ground, and posed some kind of security threat
as later portrayed in documentaries, wouldn't a competent commander have rushed back to the base or radioed the base and requested some aircraft to be
scrambled to investigate? But what did Halt do? He basically takes no action, while this thing is shooting beams down to the ground for hours
according to him, and two weeks later writes about it in a memo. I can tell you if I was base commander, and I saw something for hours which I thought
represented a threat to security, I would have done more than wait two weeks to write a memo. I would have requested more immediate support to
investigate the security threat.
If on the other hand Halt thought what he called "starlike objects" were a little bit too starlike and might in fact be stars or planets, then he
might do just what he did, which was do nothing but stare at them for hours, and take no action to address any perceived security threat (like
scramble aircraft). So in light of the fact that Halt calls the objects "starlike" it's actually not the worst leap I've ever seen in UFOlogy to at
least pose the possibility that objects the witness describes as starlike might actually be stars. They may not have been stars or planets, but we'd
have a better idea about that if Halt had some aircraft investigate them instead of just staring at them for hours.
Originally posted by IsaacKoi
My one caveat is that I'd suggest starting by outlining the available existing sources of debate and information on an incident before getting into
discussions of specific points. Reinvention of the wheel within ufology is a pet peeve of mine.
Good point...I suppose there is too much
re-inventing the wheel as you put it.
Originally posted by ScientificUAPer
But in relation to Arb, don't attack the messenger instead of the message, I don't think you are being objective if you don't consider the very
real problems with this case.
Yes, the witnesses not agreeing with each other is a good point, and I appreciate the reminder to attack
the message rather than the messenger. However I often see this as a sign of desperation when the debater has nothing of substance to offer in
defending their message, so they attack the messenger. There is basically no defense of the claim the shield blocked the view of the lighthouse as
witness statements clearly contradict this, so if you can't attack the message, the messenger is all that's left. I take personal attacks in cases
like this as a compliment.
- Indentations in the ground that showed increased radioation levels. If these have not been 'debunked', the whole story would have to be a
deliberate hoax, or there must be something more to it, after all, no?
I know hoax theories have been proposed, but I haven't found any need to
subscribe to any hoax theory like the one involving the Apollo capsule used for retrieval training. I'd say the original witness statements and
especially Halt's recording are good evidence...but as people changed their stories later, I don't think hoax is the most appropriate word for that.
In some cases confabulation might apply (possibly with Halt's explosion which is not evidence in the audio and would almost certainly have been
recorded given his painstaking efforts to record every other detail on the recording) all the way to outright lying like Penniston's little
notebook...OK I guess I'd call Penniston's little notebook a hoax, if you believe Burroughs, who says Penniston is lying about that and several other
things like walking around the craft for 45 minutes. Even Penniston's own statement says he never got closer than 50 meters.
But I don't really see a hoax in Penniston's original witness statement. It's the same old story you see over and over again in UFOlogy where someone
sees a light at night and can't accurately estimate the distance of it, so they follow it, and yet it's always just a little further. This isn't a
hoax, it's due to a perceptual difficulty people have whereby they think they can estimate the distance of an unknown light at night, and they simply
can't. So I believe Penniston told the truth when he thought he got within 50 meters of the object, but I'm also convinced that he was never within 50
meters of the object. This type of thing happens over and over and over again in sighing unknown lights at night. It's completely impossible to
estimate the distance accurately.
Consistent with IsaacKoi's statement about re-inventing the wheel, I think you should research the existing sources about the radiation debate and the
other issues you mentioned, and yes, you missed some issues. Even if you finally conclude that Ridpath is an obsessed person who has no clue of the
truth as Firemoon apparently has, you could still start with his site as it does address some issues you missed. However, I will agree with Firemoon
it's biased, and to get the other side of the debate you will need to go to other sources, of which there are many.
One example of something Ridpath has documented that is often not brought up, are some facebook statements made by "Skip Buran" claiming he was the
the shift commander who sent Penniston and Burroughs out to investigate, who says Cabansag's witness statement gives the best description of the
lights. Even though I haven't verified Skip Buran's identity, Cabansag was definitely a key witness and his statement can be seen here:
Cabansag Witness Statement
I don't think the true believers want to believe Cabansag's witness statement, and when you find this statement posted by the OP, it even has
somebody's writing on it claiming they think it was cleaned up. It's hard to face the truth when you want to believe and the facts don't support your
belief, so I think that explains why it has the "cleaned up" comment in the OP version, though I have no idea who's writing that is.
Halt's commander, Col Conrad, has since spoken out too after many years of silence, but I give Cabansag's statement much more weight consistent with
my statement that contemporaneous evidence is the best evidence. However, Conrad does answer questions about radiation levels, why aircraft weren't
scrambled, what Penniston told him, etc here:
The Rendlesham Files
edit on 21-8-2012 by Arbitrageur because: