• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Clueless article on "Rendlesham Forest"

Free episodes:

The article was an outright stinker. There wasn't even a reason for posting it that I could see. It's the same old Ridpath approach (like a diluted Menzel) and who'd expect any less. What pissed me off was Davies bragging that he'd never read about UFOs and wasn't about to. So Ridpath tells him it was hoaxes, misidentifications and lighthouses...and that's good enough for Davies. Some great journalism and reporting there buddy! Hearsay and BS is all the article represents.

There's plenty of genuine discussion on Rendlesham and none of it was suggested in the crap article.

I posted a diplomatic and reasonable comment on the site and they haven't published any of the comments at all.
 
The article was an outright stinker. There wasn't even a reason for posting it that I could see. It's the same old Ridpath approach (like a diluted Menzel) and who'd expect any less. What pissed me off was Davies bragging that he'd never read about UFOs and wasn't about to. So Ridpath tells him it was hoaxes, misidentifications and lighthouses...and that's good enough for Davies. Some great journalism and reporting there buddy! Hearsay and BS is all the article represents.

There's plenty of genuine discussion on Rendlesham and none of it was suggested in the crap article.

I posted a diplomatic and reasonable comment on the site and they haven't published any of the comments at all.

http://www.facebook.com/?sk=2361831622#!/group.php?gid=118776534810576

That is a facebook group were this is being discussed.
 
From that very same facebook group:

Ian Ridpath has accepted are invitation to join us in the Forrest on the night of December 28th. Were also working to have a conference in London with the help of Nick Pope and Phillip Mantle which Jim and I would both would like to have Larry Warren join us! As far as having a reunion we would like to invite anybody w...ho live's in England and anybody else who would like to come over between the 28-31st of December to meet up with us!

John Burroughs quote!
 
I thought the article was fine. Those servicemen probably did see something that night, and the explanation of the light house makes sense. However, that's not all that was up in the sky that night - apparently there were a few bright meteors that night, as well as a Russian rocket launching a satellite.

What frustrates me is that the reports have grown with time from being only lights when they were first reported to full blown aircraft in later interviews.

How can you take someone's word when the event keeps changing?
As usual, Brian Dunning did a good job discussing the case in a better and more thorough manner than the article in the OP.

The Rendlesham Forest UFO

He seems to have actually researched it as opposed to just going out for a walk in the woods. You can chose to disagree with Dunning's assessment, but it makes a lot of sense, and is way more plausible than what some will have you believe.
 
I thought the article was fine. Those servicemen probably did see something that night, and the explanation of the light house makes sense.

The laziness and forgetfulness of people amazes me. It has already been proven that it is IMPOSSIBLE for it to have been a lighthouse beam. That lighthouse has never emitted a beam into the forest throughout its entire history. There is a metal plate that prevents it from doing so. It shines out only to sea. Think about it. Why in God's name would it beam through the forest anyway? That would drive the people living around there nuts! Name me one lighthouse that beams its spotlight over land that isn't on an island. This is common sense! James Magaha is chiefly responsible for spreading this nonsense around but it is a product of his own deluded little mind and lazy thinkers have adopted it as gospel without taking even a moment to consider whether it is actually true or not. Since the day that lighthouse went operational a metal plate has always prevented the beam from shining anywhere but out to sea. Personnel at the lighthouse have confirmed this! Anyone saying this sighting or anything else for that matter was a product of this fictional lighthouse beam through the woods is woefully misinformed, a propagandist, an idiot, or a liar. At this point it seems pretty clear that the employees of that lighthouse could do an international press conference pleading with the world, "Quit blaming us for UFOs! Our lighthouse has never and will never shine a beam over land." and zealots masquerading as skeptics would continue to blame them for the Rendlesham incident anyway.
 
The laziness and forgetfulness of people amazes me. It has already been proven that it is IMPOSSIBLE for it to have been a lighthouse beam. That lighthouse has never emitted a beam into the forest throughout its entire history. There is a metal plate that prevents it from doing so. It shines out only to sea. Think about it. Why in God's name would it beam through the forest anyway? That would drive the people living around there nuts! Name me one lighthouse that beams its spotlight over land that isn't on an island. This is common sense! James Magaha is chiefly responsible for spreading this nonsense around but it is a product of his own deluded little mind and lazy thinkers have adopted it as gospel without taking even a moment to consider whether it is actually true or not. Since the day that lighthouse went operational a metal plate has always prevented the beam from shining anywhere but out to sea. Personnel at the lighthouse have confirmed this! Anyone saying this sighting or anything else for that matter was a product of this fictional lighthouse beam through the woods is woefully misinformed, a propagandist, an idiot, or a liar. At this point it seems pretty clear that the employees of that lighthouse could do an international press conference pleading with the world, "Quit blaming us for UFOs! Our lighthouse has never and will never shine a beam over land." and zealots masquerading as skeptics would continue to blame them for the Rendlesham incident anyway.

Did you read the article I posted? It broken down very clearly and he brings up really good points.
Also, from what I understand, the lighthouse's metal plate was not in place at the time of the incident.
 
It has always been in place. Always! The lighthouse employees have confirmed this.

Okay, I'll take your word for it, I had heard otherwise, but I don't know for sure.
Here's another interesting take on the light house explaining how they saw the light:
Rendlesham Forest UFO the flashing light


However, since Ian Ridpath seems to be reviled in this thread, well, I don't know what the thoughts will be. Still, I think he makes a good case. It's at least an excellent possible explanation for what was seen.
 
also, from what i understand, the lighthouse's metal plate was not in place at the time of the incident.

Memorandum regarding the Woodbridge/Rendlesham forest incident by Charles I. Halt, Lt Col, USAF, Deputy Base Commander of the joint United States and United Kingdom airbase at Woodbridge in Suffolk, England. The memorandum was released via the Freedom of Information Act in the United States in June 1983.

department of the air force

headquarters 81st combat support group (usafe)

apo new york 09755


reply to 13 jan 81
attn of: Cd


subject: Unexplained lights.


To: Raf/cc
1. early in the morning of 27 dec 80 (approximately 0300l), two usaf security police patrolmen saw unusual lights outside the back gate at raf woodbridge. Thinking an aircraft might have crashed or been forced down, they called for permission to go outside the gate to investigate. The on-duty flight chief responded and allowed three patrolmen to proceed on foot. The individuals reported seeing a strange glowing object in the forest. The object was described as being metallic in appearance and triangular in shape, approximately two to three meters across the base and approximately two meters high. It illuminated the entire forest with a white light. The object itself had a pulsing red light on top and a bank(s) of blue lights underneath. The object was hovering or on legs. As the patrolmen approached the object, it maneuvered through the trees and disappeared. At this time the animals on the nearby farm went into a frenzy. The object was briefly sighted approximately an hour later near the back gate.

2. the next day, three depressions 1 1/2" deep an 7" in diameter were found where the object had been sighted on the ground. The following night (29 dec 80) the area was checked for radiation. Beta/gamma readings of 0.1 milliroentgens were recorded with peak readings in the three depressions and near the center of the triangle formed by the depressions. A nearby tree had moderate (.05-.07) readings on the side of the tree toward the depressions.

3. later in the night a red sun-like light was seen through the trees. It moved about and pulsed. At one point it appeared to throw off glowing particles and then broke into five separate white objects and then disappeared. Immediately thereafter, three star-like objects were noticed in the sky, two objects to the north and one to the south, all objects were about 10' off the horizon. The objects moved rapidly in sharp angular movements and displayed red, green and blue lights. The objects to the north appeared to be elliptical through an 8-12 power lens. They then turned to full circles. The objects to the north remained in the sky for an hour or more. The object to the south was visible for two or three hours and beamed down a stream of light from time to time. Numerous individuals, including the undersigned, witnessed the activity in paragraphs 2 and 3.

charles i. Halt, lt col, usaf

deputy base commander
what lighthouse ???
 
Memorandum regarding the Woodbridge/Rendlesham forest incident by Charles I. Halt, Lt Col, USAF, Deputy Base Commander of the joint United States and United Kingdom airbase at Woodbridge in Suffolk, England. The memorandum was released via the Freedom of Information Act in the United States in June 1983.

what lighthouse ???

The lighthouse that they seem to have mistaken for an aircraft.
 
Okay, I'll take your word for it, I had heard otherwise, but I don't know for sure.
Here's another interesting take on the light house explaining how they saw the light:
Rendlesham Forest UFO the flashing light


However, since Ian Ridpath seems to be reviled in this thread, well, I don't know what the thoughts will be. Still, I think he makes a good case. It's at least an excellent possible explanation for what was seen.

It's been mentioned in a few books but the easiest way for you to confirm that the lighthouse staff has said it is to simply search youtube or google video for the Rendlesham episode of UFO Hunters. They interview the lighthouse employees on camera.
 
It's been mentioned in a few books but the easiest way for you to confirm that the lighthouse staff has said it is to simply search youtube or google video for the Rendlesham episode of UFO Hunters. They interview the lighthouse employees on camera.

I did. But the same google search also pointed me to the article I posted which shows that they would have seen the light, and the other article I posted goes into great detail by showing how the light they saw was perfectly synchronized with the lighthouse. You read it, right?
 
The lighthouse that they seem to have mistaken for an aircraft.

Lol, still won't give up on it, eh? I know, the truth sucks. :( The lighthouse can be seen from a few miles away but all it's going to be is a flash as the beam strikes the plate. Magaha's beam through the trees exists only in his imagination and other scoffers have simply quoted him without bothering to check into whether it was accurate or not.
 
Lol, still won't give up on it, eh? I know, the truth sucks. :( The lighthouse can be seen from a few miles away but all it's going to be is a flash as the beam strikes the plate. Magaha's beam through the trees exists only in his imagination and other scoffers have simply quoted him without bothering to check into whether it was accurate or not.

I'm not talking about Magaha - I don't like that guy very much.
Please do me a favour and at least read the Brian Dunning article I posted. He brings up excellent points.
 
I'm not talking about Magaha - I don't like that guy very much.
Please do me a favour and at least read the Brian Dunning article I posted. He brings up excellent points.

If you're referring to the skeptoid article I already did. It was nothing but drivel collected from other debunker pieces. That guy's website is one of the more humorous scoffer efforts out there. He should change the name to , "Every mystery of the world solved in a single page."

---------- Post added at 03:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:19 PM ----------

I'm not talking about Magaha - I don't like that guy very much.
Please do me a favour and at least read the Brian Dunning article I posted. He brings up excellent points.

Well, it's impossible to discuss the lighthouse myth accurately without mentioning him. He is the chief proponent of it. Most of the others have just followed his lead.
 
If you're referring to the skeptoid article I already did. It was nothing but drivel collected from other debunker pieces. That guy's website is one of the more humorous scoffer efforts out there. He should change the name to , "Every mystery of the world solved in a single page."

---------- Post added at 03:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:19 PM ----------



Well, it's impossible to discuss the lighthouse myth accurately without mentioning him. He is the chief proponent of it. Most of the others have just followed his lead.

Oh well, if you think that about Brian Dunning, we're not even close to being in the same mindset. You've made up your mind about what happened in this case and you're unwilling to look at other, more plausible explanations. I guess we'll just leave it at that.
 
Hello. As I remember it there was trace landing evidence. And it was recorded and photographed by a military team during the course of the three days of sightings. I've seen some of the photographs, they're in the excellent book on the Rendlesham incident. One of the three service men who approached the craft touched it. He observed markings. They observed increased levels of radiation (again recorded by the military) at the scene the next day. On the last night a team observed lights above the field they were in away from the woods of the previous night. I don't know what was behind the phenomenon but it wasn't a light house. And yes I've been there to check the lighthouse at night to see what I thought.
 
Anyway I don't see what a lighthouse has to do with what Lt Col Charles I. Halt reported in his memorandum. Have you read it ?

It is one of the most ridiculous debunking hypothesis ever, that shows that debunkers really are fanatics.
 
Anyway I don't see what a lighthouse has to do with what Lt Col Charles I. Halt reported in his memorandum. Have you read it ?

It is one of the most ridiculous debunking hypothesis ever, that shows that debunkers really are fanatics.

Oh yeah, it's definitely more ridiculous than aliens being responsible for an aircraft landing there, as seems to be insinuated by the witnesses (The Rendlesham Forest Incident). So, the lighthouse may or may not be the culprit, but at least we know for a fact that there was a light house in the area that night, along with a couple of meteors and a Russian rocket.
All I'm saying, as with all these types of events, why must we create a solution (aliens or unknown aerial phenomena) , when there are many possible solutions available known to exist in the physical world.
That's it - I'm not trying to debunk (although there's nothing wrong with that), but to show that other explanations are possible.
 
Back
Top