'Skeptics' Ridiculous Explanations Of The Rendlesham Forest Events

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
Draft dodging and pseudo sceptic Joe Nickell came up with a doozy of wacky debunk attempt on some details of the Rendlesham case, one of which he claimed the equilateral impressions left by some object were nothing more than "rabbit diggings".

Ridiculous explanations like this come right out of the Blue Book debunk handbook.

👽🍺

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
Draft dodging and pseudo sceptic Joe Nickell came up with a doozy of wacky debunk attempt on some details of the Rendlesham case, one of which he claimed the equilateral impressions left by some object were nothing more than "rabbit diggings".

Ridiculous explanations like this come right out of the Blue Book debunk handbook.

The police were called to look at those marks. The letter from the police said "The marks were apparently of no depth and the officer atending thought they could have been made by an animal."

Some others observed the same thing so I don't know why you single out Joe Nickell, when the police said it first.

Even on Charles Halt's audio tape, he comments about how shallow the marks are:
"HALT: Where are the impressions? Is that all the bigger they are?"

You can also see photographs of the marks showing how shallow they were, in fact I have deeper animal diggings in my own yard.

from the dimensions (Halt) gives in his memo they are about the size of a hand and the depth of a thumb – suspiciously similar in size to rabbit diggings, and surely too small for the presumed landing gear of an object described by some witnesses as being ‘as big as a tank’.

According to the forester who was shown the marks,

three marks did not form a symmetrical triangle

and the letter from the police didn't seem impressed with any pattern of the marks, saying

An officer attended and the area involved did bear three marks of an indeterminate pattern.

Indeterminate pattern, according to the police, and they didn't form a symmetrical triangle according to the forester.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Colonel Halt himself said they WERE equal distances apart. He saw them. His further testimony in the video below totally debunks the debunkers claiming all the things you side with.

You can hear him say this in this interview many years later. As to what really happened, and all the resources spent on debunking the whole thing, I don't really care about, because I myself wasn't there to see for myself when it happened.
However, I'll take Colonel Halt's word as a base commander over a facility storing nuclear weapons any day, rather than listen to the dog piles of people claiming nothing at all happened. He speaks about the impressions just past the 8 minute mark in the below video. I must say at this point that this interview in the below video is the BEST I have ever seen about the Rendlesham incident.


Personally I don't care either way. But Colonel Halt is someone I would listen to and trust over anyone else.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
Personally I don't care either way. But Colonel Halt is someone I would listen to and trust over anyone else.

Col Halt is the third least reliable witness in the case, sometimes even contradicting his own statements and or evidence.

For example, Halt's tape and memo note that the object he was observing remained in the south. But the original story apparently wasn't exciting enough for Halt to sell his story so he dressed it up by claiming that contrary to what the tape and the memo say, the object didn't remain in the south but moved around to the north and fired a beam at the weapon storage area (WSA).

Col Halt - Rewriting history at Rendlesham

In Paragraph 9 Halt says that this same object moved back towards Bentwaters and sent down beams of light into the Weapons Storage Area. But according to his memo and tape the object he is referring to remained in the south, over Woodbridge, not Bentwaters to the north. This part of the affidavit is in clear contradiction of the facts. Halt should have checked what actually happened before committing himself to paper in a notarized document.

So how do you pick which story of Halt to believe? Or do you believe both stories, even though they absolutely contradict each other? Or do you choose to put less trust in Halt when it's clear he is contradicting facts of the case recorded on his tape in his re-rwiting of the history at Rendlesham? The latter would make the most sense.

Halt's own tape shows that he wasn't impressed at all with the "landing marks", so if he's not impressed by them, why would you be? Perhaps because again here, the audio tape records the original facts, and we see Halt later dresses up and exaggerates his story to sound more exciting since he said he wanted to sell it to put his daughter through college. You can see other examples of that in the link, where the number of objects got bigger and other exaggerations.

Jim Penniston and Larry Warren are even more unreliable as witnesses, as even many UFO buffs have come to admit.

But there were some reliable witnesses who didn't exaggerate the story because they weren't trying to sell it to put their daughter through college like Halt said he wanted to do, such as Chris Armold:

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.

That was the first night! Halt wasn't even there on the first night, but here we have a witness who actually was there saying there was nothing in the woods, just lights off in the distance, which is also what the local police said when the police were called (and they said the only lights they saw were from the lighthouse).

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

I think what the 'skeptics' try to do is to deliberately conflate the lights from the lighthouse with the events Halt and the others have described on numerous occasions. They described some extraordinary events and never mentioned anything remotely close to a....lighthouse! All this happened on purpose of course in an effort to 'debunk' the story and whatever truth is hidden within the story.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
Personally I don't care either way. But Colonel Halt is someone I would listen to and trust over anyone else.

Col Halt is the third least reliable witness in the case, sometimes even contradicting his own statements and or evidence.

For example, Halt's tape and memo note that the object he was observing remained in the south. But the original story apparently wasn't exciting enough for Halt to sell his story so he dressed it up by claiming that contrary to what the tape and the memo say, the object didn't remain in the south but moved around to the north and fired a beam at the weapon storage area (WSA).

Col Halt - Rewriting history at Rendlesham

In Paragraph 9 Halt says that this same object moved back towards Bentwaters and sent down beams of light into the Weapons Storage Area. But according to his memo and tape the object he is referring to remained in the south, over Woodbridge, not Bentwaters to the north. This part of the affidavit is in clear contradiction of the facts. Halt should have checked what actually happened before committing himself to paper in a notarized document.

So how do you pick which story of Halt to believe? Or do you believe both stories, even though they absolutely contradict each other? Or do you choose to put less trust in Halt when it's clear he is contradicting facts of the case recorded on his tape in his re-rwiting of the history at Rendlesham? The latter would make the most sense.

Halt's own tape shows that he wasn't impressed at all with the "landing marks", so if he's not impressed by them, why would you be? Perhaps because again here, the audio tape records the original facts, and we see Halt later dresses up and exaggerates his story to sound more exciting since he said he wanted to sell it to put his daughter through college. You can see other examples of that in the link, where the number of objects got bigger and other exaggerations.

Jim Penniston and Larry Warren are even more unreliable as witnesses, as even many UFO buffs have come to admit.

But there were some reliable witnesses who didn't exaggerate the story because they weren't trying to sell it to put their daughter through college like Halt said he wanted to do, such as Chris Armold:

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.

That was the first night! Halt wasn't even there on the first night, but here we have a witness who actually was there saying there was nothing in the woods, just lights off in the distance, which is also what the local police said when the police were called (and they said the only lights they saw were from the lighthouse).

And why you assert that Penniston and some other staff at the base are not reliable? Why is it that Chris Armold was the only reliable witness? Maybe because you agree with the version of the story you want to be true?

Sticking to the lighthouse explanation makes theses arguments even more ridiculous. None of the main characters of the Rendlesham Forest Event have ever made any reference to lighthouses or planets and other natural phenomena. Clearly what they described is something extraordinary and anyone who tries to bring the lighthouse into the explanation they are fooling themselves or doing it on purpose.

The difference between what has been described and lights from a lighthouse is chaotic! You are rather disingenuous when you are trying to describe what happened disregarding everything else such as the testimonies of several staff members, the audio tapes and the vertical beams of light emitted from the aircraft, the radar signals detected from the base and their confirmation from Heathrow Airport.

When you are moving in the woods when a lighthouse is at a distance and you can clearly see it then you will its lights 100% unless there is some fog or other conditions to prevent the light reaching you. Repeat the experiment and you will find that you see the lights from the lighthouse every time you are in the woods. But you won't see and describe what Halt and the others have described because these are transient events that happen only once or a few more times

originally posted by: Arquant
a reply to: Arbitrageur

This thing with the lighthouse cannot explain the incident even in the slightest and it's quite disingenuous to argue Halt and others described a lighthouse back then.

A much older video prior to the explosion of the internet era.

youtu.be...

I ve watched this video sometime ago and I recommend it as the staff members were straight forward explaining with detail whet they think happened and make reference to the radar signals picked up at the base which were confirmed by Heathrow airport. Clearly lighthouses can't do it. As the matter of fact is absolutely ridiculous to claim they can do ior argue they were somehow connected to these events.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Perhaps you need to get accustomed with what you are likely to see when you walk in the woods with a nearby lighthouse at a relatively close distance to the base. The most likely scenario is to be able to see the grass, the trees, the stars in a clear night with no clouds, and the lights from the lighthouse or the lighthouse itself if you are in a given position. You could also observe foxes, rabbits, and plenty of birds.

What you won't see and observe are the events described by Halt and his colleagues.

It's really mind boggling when 'skeptics' are trying to 'debunk' a potentially true story coming up with ridiculous explanations such as planets Mars and Jupiter, hallucinations from swamp gas and the magical lighthouses.

originally posted by: Area53
And why you assert that Penniston and some other staff at the base are not reliable? Why is it that Chris Armold was the only reliable witness? Maybe because you agree with the version of the story you want to be true?

Chris Armold is not the only reliable witness. A somewhat coherent story emerges from the testimony of multiple eyewitnesses who were there at the time or actively involved in events at the time like Penniston's supervisor who was communicating with them over the radio, getting updates on what they were seeing. Penniston never reported being closer than 50 meters to the source of any lights to his supervisor, and Burroughs was with him and also affirms that Penniston did not walk around any craft as he claims. Not only that, but Penniston's story later evolved to epic proportions with the addition of the binary code and so on, so that's why Penniston is not reliable, because all the other eyewitnesses contradict what he says, including Burroughs who was with him. How can you not know this unless you haven't researched the case?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Ask yourself this: If the witness statements were all part of some grand cover-up, why did John make the following statements on the old rendlesham forum?
“Penniston did not have time to do what he said he did unless all of us were in some kind of different dimension. 2 of the 3 felt it was there and gone only Jim said it took 45 min.”
“Yes Jim story has changed and I have been one of the people who keeps hammering that fact. What I have been told is that after hypnosis that is when he changed his story.”
“Cabansag was with us when we first came upon the lights and it only lasted a couple of min not over 45 like Penniston has stated. Jim went under hypnosis and that has changed his story allot.”
“We came upon whatever it was and only were close to it briefly. Jim did say he felt it was some kind of object. His statement also stated how close we got to it. His story has changed and I am not sure why. He has told me since he went under hypnosis his memory of the event has changed. Whatever we came upon departed as we got close to it “

Do you think Penniston is reliable after reading about how Burroughs says Penniston changed his story?

What about this account from Penniston's supervisor, Fred Buran, the Shift commander?

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. ”

In the light of all this, why should you believe non-falsifiable statements about dreams and binary codes from anyone?

Especially from someone who copied coordinates from the internet and made you believe he got them via other 'channels'.

Did you know the coordinates in Penniston's "binary code" were copied from the internet? So I don't know why you would believe Penniston beyond his initial witness statement which says he didn't really get close to any object.

Regarding Halt's unreliability, I noticed you didn't de-conflict his conflicting accounts. How can he be reliable telling opposing versions of events?

Halt didn't even get the dates right on his famous memo to the MOD! A pretty significant error.

OK Google Earth has a marker for the landing site . Where is the lighthouse and what color was the light?

Thanks

a reply to: Arbitrageur

What about this account from Penniston's supervisor, Fred Buran, the Shift commander?

Actually there was something odd re Penniston and Buran on their Facebook at the time. Penniston put out a photo of a young girl. I recall Buran going quiet.

As far as the binary goes. Ill say no more on that matter.

originally posted by: mikell
OK Google Earth has a marker for the landing site . Where is the lighthouse and what color was the light?

Thanks

From wiki…..Orford Ness Lighthouse

In 1887 the low light was again lost to erosion; this time it was not replaced (though Southwold Lighthouse, some 24 nautical miles (44 km; 28 mi) to the north, was established shortly afterwards "in lieu thereof"). Instead, in 1888, red and green sectors were added to the high light, which was made occulting (with the light being eclipsed for three seconds in every forty). A subsidiary white light was also introduced, shining "north-eastward from a window 60 feet below the high light, visible over an arc of about 25°, covering Aldborough ridge, and to assist vessels in rounding Orfordness".

The lighthouse was further modernized in 1914: a new revolving optic was installed (which remained in use for 99 years), and a new additional light was installed along with fixed lenses at a level below the lantern, so the sector lights now shone from windows on the tower. The lighthouse was electrified in 1959, and in 1964 it became the first lighthouse to be monitored by telemetry from Harwich, ushering in a process of lighthouse automation which continued around England over the next 35 years. The keepers were withdrawn from Orfordness the following year.

What the color of the “additional light” is not mentioned….

I suppose you can get more in-depth historical particulars, like the color of the “additional light”, by contacting directly….

Orfordness Lighthouse Trust



Digest it as you will….

👽

a reply to: Ernestc

radar experiments and special aircraft and forces playing a red team with EW

a reply to: Crepon

but what did that lady see fly thru het truck window that spooked her so bad she left the military and a post like that would have been prestigious.

RADAR induced plasma and RF interference of her front lobes like the so called god helmet and she saw a blue ball of energy pass right Infront of her.

and thats if you assume no drugs were used or any mind control or memory manipulation with heavy interrogation under likely benzodiazepine stupor to fog memories of airmen to close and to high in rank to discredit.

remember this is national security

In My Opinion…….

The Lighthouse should not even be part of the conversation…..or lore.

Below a series of Google Earth screenshots to explain why…..reference the compass (bottom right hand corner throughout the screenshots) ..I’m looking in an eastern direction…

Overall view from the Rendlesham Forest to the Lighthouse



Measurements from Rendlesham Forest to the Lighthouse …. 5.29 miles




Standing on the ground facing in the easterly direction from the nearest road to the purported incident area that’s on Google Earth Street View




At ground level….looking easterly in the direction of the Lighthouse….and that’s a generous opened view…..considering that the Rendlesham Forest trees were tightly compacted at close distances from each other.



Can you see the Lighthouse? (a rhetorical question)

It’s a human impossibility, imo, with the wooded patches and uneven farm fields and farm houses…barns, etc..topography between the Rendlesham Forest and the Lighthouse at a distance of 5.29 miles… to see the lights of the Lighthouse…while standing or walking on the ground….seeing the Lighthouse lights could not have happened…let alone in any detail…no matter who say’s they saw them…imo.

Orfordness Lighthouse was a lighthouse on Orford Ness, in Suffolk, England. The 30 metres (98 ft) tower was completed in 1792.

Even if the topography from the base to the lighthouse was leveled flat desert and you had sharp eyes with hand held binoculars at ground level, you may, hypothetically, just barely make out a pinhead sized light.

The Lighthouse is a Red Herring ….imo.

👽🤓🧐

a reply to: Ophiuchus1
Your research is lacking. You can see the lighthouse in this photo right where Col Halt said the UFO was, in line with the farmhouse more or less. And you can also see the shield that some people say blocks the lighthouse light, but it's blocking light going to the left, not blocking light from the direction of the photo, where Halt was standing.

Was the flashing light really the lighthouse?

I took this photograph in 2005 April from the forest edge, looking east across the neighbouring field towards the lighthouse with the farmhouse in the foreground. I think that it shows us a daylight version of the view that Col. Halt had when he looked from Rendlesham Forest across the field towards the ‘winking eye’ UFO.

Local resident Tony Nelson of Wickham Market has sent me a super-telephoto view of the top of the lighthouse peeking over the distant ridge, taken by him in December 2006.

So there's the lighthouse right where Halt said he said he saw the flashing light UFO, sort of in line with the farmhouse, that had a 5 second frequency just like the orfordness lighthouse. So not only is the lighthouse right where Halt said he saw the flashing light, but the frequency matches, so it's ridiculous to claim it wasn't the lighthouse.

Now maybe he saw some other light too, not explained by the lighthouse, but the light flashing at the same frequency of the lighthouse, and in the same location as the lighthouse in these photos, had to be the lighthouse, for anybody with any sense.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

You wouldn’t be Arbi if you weren’t colorful in your replies to anyone 😉


Tell me Arbz …because I could be in the wrong spot all together in my previous post.

Looking down at the following….in your discerning opinion…which number structure is the farmhouse in your posted pics?

1,2,3,4 or neither?






If neither…then kindly supply a top view of the area where you think the farmhouse is.

One reason is not to fully rely on someone else’s pics….but what your own research finds…if you have the means to cross check and verify someone else’s pics….using online tools at your disposal….in this case Google Earth.

👽🍺

a reply to: Arbitrageur

what do you think the plasma balls were?

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

You do know that light house talk can send one into the deps of madness.

a reply to: Ophiuchus1
Your research is even worse than I feared, if you won't even check the link I provided with the photos, as it seems to have precisely what you asked for too, several overhead views.

Did you follow the link I provided? Here's the same link again:
Was the flashing light really the lighthouse?

In addition to the photos, it also shows an overhead photo of the landing site, the farm house, and the "second field" Halt mentioned. Beyond that you can see Butley Abbey, on the right.

(I) have labelled the landing site, the farmer’s field and the farmhouse; the Orford Ness lighthouse lies off to the right. After walking across the field and past the farmhouse towards the flashing light, Halt mentioned crossing a second farmer’s field. This would seem to be the next field in line past the farmhouse which I have labelled accordingly. Comparison with the Ordnance Survey map shows this field is bordered by a brook which is apparently the ‘creek’ which Halt, on his tape, reports crossing. (He and his men apparently fell into it, too.)

That site links to a larger overhead view, which is far too wide to show legibly on the narrow 600px limit on ATS:

www.ianridpath.com...

That same approximate area is also shown on a map if you have trouble finding it:

www.ianridpath.com...

Those maps all have north at the top which by convention is the way I normally see maps in the Northern hemisphere displayed. I don't know why you have north in some other direction, it's not helping, especially since Halt gave the direction of the flashing light as approximately east, and rotating North on your maps makes it harder to orient the direction of the lighthouse from Halt's perspective. But I see your image of what looks like the farmhouse as #3 is dated 2023, so don't forget the trees are not the same in 2023 as they were in 1980, since you made some comment about trees in your prior post. Ian Ridpath, the amateur astronomer, and Vince Thurkettle, the forester, were actually there, on-site in 1983 when the story broke, looking at the so-called "landing site", and they could see the lighthouse from that area so your claim they couldn't see it is a ridiculous contradiction of evidence showing that they could, this link even shows a video of it, from back in 1983:

Vince Thurkettle – the original interview

Above is a still from my interview for BBC TV’s Breakfast Time programme with forester Vince Thurkettle, who was the first to propose that the flashing light seen between the trees by the US airmen was the Orford Ness lighthouse. The interview was broadcast on the morning of 1983 October 7, five days after the story first hit the headlines in the News of the World. It shows the Orford Ness lighthouse flashing as seen from near the eastern edge of the forest, in the same direction that the US airmen saw their flashing UFO. You can download a movie file of the interview by clicking on the picture above, or see the entire report by clicking here. Copyright remains with the BBC.

The interview

We filmed the interview in the area where Vince had been shown the supposed ‘landing marks’ on the forest floor some weeks after the event. By the time of my visit in 1983, though, the trees in the area had been cleared and any sign of the landing site was long gone. A daytime view of this area as it appeared in 1983 can be seen here.

The interview starts with Vince’s voice played over a direct shot of the lighthouse flashing. The darkness between flashes was edited out for televisual reasons, but once he is in shot the flash rate is unedited. This is a transcript of Vince’s words as broadcast:

VINCE (out of vision): ‘It is a pulsing white light that illuminates the forest…’

Vince then appears in shot with the lighthouse flashing over his shoulder at its true rate of once every 5 seconds.

VINCE: (in vision) ‘…and if that wasn’t the light they saw then what they’re saying is that within their line of vision there were two pulsing white lights illuminating the forest.’