posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 03:36 PM
Let's look at you intellectual dishonesty Ian. You are touted as an "astronomer" on the documentaries you appear in and yet, you have had weeks to
divvy up your relevant job experience and qualifications to prove this and as yet, nothing.
You constantly bleat about "scientific knowledge and method" and yet, at its' most basic, you fail to adhere to your own creed. Science is about
precedents and repeatable results. Ergo, when discussing Rendlesham one has to start with the question. "Is there any precedent for this sighting?"
and the answer is yes and then some. One of the very few sightings that the Condon Report simply shook it's collective head and said.."Nah mate,
haven't a clue on that one"; occurred in the area of Bentwaters in 1956 and there was a similar sighting in the same year at the very same base.
These are the incidents that have been reported in public, anyone who has actually asked around of people who served at either base can add a few more
anecdotal sightings to those as well. That's leaving out the whole slew of what one might term "general weirdness", that surrounded both airbases,
popular pilots suddenly an inexplicably committing suicide, frequent stories of ground crew's reluctance to work in certain hangers after the hours
So let's look at historical precedence. Ah yes, even in a country rich with mythology and folk tales, this area has a history that stands out. Now,
to anyone who actually studies the subject of UFOs that's a key point and something that bares investigating further. You however Ian, try to take
everything out of context, which is not only wholly unscientific, it's actually intelectually dishonest. You try to talk about Rendlesham as if it
was something that was an isolated incident when it wasn't in fact, it has been clearly shown a similar "UFO" to that people claim they saw at
Rendelsham was sighted twice in the weeks leading up to incident. On both occasions, it was in the English Midlands and both times seemingly landed.
Even someone with such a tenuous hold on the truth as you Ian, would have problem blaming those sightings on a Lighthouse, given they both occurred
about as far from the coast as you can manage in England. You also fail to inform people via you site that, locals in the area, had several multiple
witness sightings of UFOs up until and around the same period of the main incident. Locals who are well versed in the comings and going around an
airbase, locals who saw something "decidedly strange".
Then there's yet more intellectual dishonesty surrounding the Halt tape. Until it was pointed out by a professional in the recording field, you
hadn't even considered the problems with using it for timing and your response was at best laughable, at worst, simply a lie. The truth is Ian,, it
fitted your own agenda so you were not about to admit there might be a basic flaw in your argument as there is , still as yet, a genuine unknown
factor with regards to Halt's tape. You see Ian, if you really were the "scientist" you purport to be, you'd have made damn sure about your facts
and actually called in audio experts to check up on this. Only you're not a scientist, you're a writer, with an agenda, exactly the same as those
people you spend half your life criticising and calling "unreliable" for the very same thing. So, intellectually dishonest and a hypocrite.
So let's turn to the little matter of the witnesses to the various happening that Xmas period. In the intervening years not one witness who was
present and viewed the happenings, has come out and agreed with your analysis. This is something you scrupulously avoid mentioning anywhere on your
site. Why is that Ian? Why is it you are so sure that you know the answer that you are quite obviously afraid to admit this fact? See Ian, those who
actually have a true background in the subject rather than, just spout about it, would point to how, in the intervening years, there have been several
attempts to "explain it" touted in the national press and yet, on the most cursory of investigations, they all turn out to be bunkum. One of them,
from a convicted fraudster, printed in the British national press only weeks after Halt's speech in 97 saying he was convinced it was a non human
craft they saw. To the seasoned Ufologist these lame explanations would strongly suggest the following. The Lighthouse explanation simply doesn't
stand up, the MOD know it doesn't and they know the actual witnesses who were there, dismiss this explanation to a person. So, when are you going to
admit in public that, you are in a club of one with regards to this? That every last witness no matter what they might think the object was or was
not, has told you, you are wrong?
Earlier in this thread you made a claim that "The MOD had released all it's files" and in doing so attempted to give people the idea that these
files were somehow secret. That's another falsehood, 99% of the MOD files released were marked "confidential" so far, I believe a total of 1
"Secret, for British eyes only" file, has been released. Ergo, the idea you like to foster that "all the files are now available" is not only
laughable, it's also another example of your intellectual dishonesty. I have been personally told by two ex military people that, sightings they gave
evidence to the MOD about, the files released DO NOT contain the evidence/statements they gave to the MOD. Where are the detailed files pertaining to
Operation Mainbrace, not just the isolated sighting over British airspace rather, the whole files covering the complete exercise? From Mick Swiney and
Air Commodore before he retired... about a UFO sighting he had... “If it was generally the case that before 1967 all UFO report files were
destroyed after five years, how was it that I actually saw and read it in about 1974, some seventeen years later, when serving at the MoD?”. In
short, the MOD lies habitually and I am fast coming to the same conclusion about you Ian.
Thurkettle the man you owe almost your whole you explanation to, has since come out and and admitted he was visited by an unknown Male English couple,
before Halt had even typed his memo and asked; "Have you seen any strange red lights" in the forest of late? Where are those files then about
Rendlesham and as I've shown, I can provide an independent witness from the security services who openly admits they knew about the incident. If
Thurkettle is now lying about being visited then surely it follows that his explanation about the lighthouse is also seriously in question and his
credibility as any sort of witness to the events is dubious to say the least? Then again, it was you Ian who twisted Jenny Randle's words about "it
not being a sighting as we normally know it", to somehow supporting your analysis, when she has said nothing of the sort.
The truth is Ian, if you ever held a paid position as a scientist, its over 30 years ago since you last did, you're a writer and man with some well
dodgy colleagues, who has failed time and time again to admit that you alone, although you weren't there, believe they mistook the Lighthouse for a
UFO over three nights of activity. I don't profess to know what they saw those nights. Part of me says, it bares all the hallmarks of a deliberate
black op exercise and yet, there's those two other sightings , within weeks, from different parts of the country that say, it just might have been
something non human.
Be that as it may, I and many like me are frankly, sick and tired of you trotting out the same old lame and flawed methodology and then having the
temerity to claim you are the "rationalist". You're anything bar that, you are every much as bit as believer as Billy Meier and every bit as
untrustworthy as him as a source of independent and free thinking scientific knowledge. As for your lame excuse avbout "not having time", you really
have only ever dealt with ONE UFO incident and you have had 30 years to do so and the truth be told apart from name calling, in those thirty years,
you haven't done anything new at all. Mirage Man has done more work on the sighting in six weeks than you've managed in 30 years. It would seem that
, in reality Ian, the only thing you don't have time for is, anything that might cast doubt on your glib, flawed methodology and conclusions.