.
RENDLESHAM - Another Perspective
(Did Ian Ridpath Get It Completely Right? - - Maybe not)
by Jerry Cohen
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(12/19/2011)
* click on it, to go to it *
a. Preamble and Introduction
Preamble
Introduction
(How and why I got involved researching this)The main thrust of Ian Ridpath research concerning Rendlesham
Well, I understood Ian's view, but where do I begin ?
(I'm going to begin directly with the testimonies, but first . . . )
I. INITIAL OBSERVATIONS & DISCOVERIESMy first impressions of Ian's workup
But, isn't what's good for the goose, good for the gander?
(You can't say one thing and do another)Issue #1 - On not learning from one's own discoveries
Issue #2 - Ian's "most significant question" actually fell a bit shortThe lighthouse and forest area
Ian's video of Vince Thurkettle
Ian's Times article
In regard to the claimed object not being able to navigate through the forest
"It would have taken a fair feat of navigation to get among that lot."
Science trip - a bat
How impossible is all this?
New spy device
Automatic cars and planes
Sometimes things aren't quite as impossible as we think
The forest edge was a bit more dense than we see in Ian's picture
Ian informs us his "Night light" picture wasn't really totally accurate
to the night the airmen had their experience.
Formulating three questionsAnswering a Few Questions
and Formulating Some OthersCould the light from the lighthouse
reached all the way to East Gate ?Understanding the distance from the lighthouse to East Gate
Three more questions
A look at one of Ian's pictures (taken three years after the incident)
Viewing two of his other pictures
1) The importance of knowing the lensing the photographer was using
2) Do we really know the perspective?
3) What does the lighthouse look like from a distance?
4) How far through the forest could it's light actually reach?
5) What do Thurkettle and Ridpath tell us about it
Was there more forest behind us? How much?
Figuring it out
How far is the Orford Ness lighthouse from East Gate?
Can the light from the lighthouse make it all the way through
the foliage back to East Gate?What Have We Learned From All This?
(Something Really Important)So we all agree . . . the light from the lighthouse
could not reach East Gate
Then, what was the light they first followed into the forest?
I seem to be finding a number of little things in Ian's workup
that are not resolving.
Thurkettle's Video - Where's the Beam?Back to Thurkettle's video: What else does Ian say
it is supposed to show us?
I'm not trying to be picky, I just don't see
a "beam" - pulsing light, yes . . beam, no.Something Else Not Quite Apparent From Ian's Presentation?
One more thought concerning the size of the forest:
The use of the word forest implies a large area.
To make meaningful comments regarding the
forest we have to get very specific.
Whatever the light was that the airmen followed
into the forest, it wasn't the lighthouse.
Exactly where was that video taken?
What is the lensing used on the camera?Realizing that the Case Needs Review
Realizing I have cause to dig a little deeper into the case
(Almost to the testimonies folks)
My research so far has definitely prompted me to look further.
It is probably time to examine the witness descriptions.
Preparing to Examine the Witness DescriptionsPreparation
(Most of my witness information was taken from Ian's website.)
Where I got the descriptions
How I approached my analysis of the testimonies.
A couple of the witnesses drew pictures of what they saw.
Let's juxtapose everything everyone has said and drawn.
II. EXAMINING WITNESS DESCRIPTIONSTHE DESCRIPTIONS
(From Dec. 26th - in total)III. SUMMATING WITNESS DESCRIPTIONS
IV. THE DESCRIPTIONS MAKE US REALIZE
A THURKETTLE COMMENT IS VERY WEAKHaving looked at all the airmen's testimonies, we realize
a Thurkettle comment is only partially correct and
is apparently much less significant than both he
and Ridpath originally thought
Comment from Thurkettle
But when we review the airmen's testimonies
to determine the actual importance of Thurkettle's comment
V. FURTHER ANALYSIS OF THE DEC. 26th EVENTS
EXAMINING THE METEOR THEORY
How well do the airmen's drawings actually fit
with the proposed meteor hypothesis?
A few questions which should probably be answered before Ian's hypothesis
The Meteor Had Suggested the UFO might be considered definitive
Why I asked about the flaming tail
VI. COLONEL HALT'S EXPERIENCE
(Two nights later - December 28th)Preparing To Examine Colonel Halt's Testimony
IS HALT'S TESTIMONY IN ANY WAY CONGRUENT WITH
THE REPORTS FROM THE Dec. 26th WITNESSES?
(Color - Sharp Angular Movement - Beaming)
The colors blue and red in Dec 26th testimonies are also found
in Halt's Dec 28th testimony
Beam coming down to the groundAccidentally Discovering Something
About Ian's Approach to Solving CasesA necessary observation regarding Ian's approach to solving cases,
before we continue regarding Halt
a) Parts of Halt's tape support what was said in his memo
b) Quote From Ian
c) Spain case
d) Ian's method of explaining some cases
e) Making sure this isn't happening in his Rendlesham analysisContinuing to Analyze Halt's Tape and Memo
Continuing with Halt's "Beam Coming Down to the Ground
and UFO Movement CommentsExamine Some Of Halt's Taped Comments For Yourself
Extracted statements from tape
Specific statements which do not seem to describe the lighthouse, etc.
The above previously negated portion of Halt's testimony may explain
why Penniston and Burroughs Drew Two Dissimilar ObjectsJuxtaposing Halt's Testimony with the other Airmen's
Their testimonies juxtaposed
Support from a later testimony
Total SUMMATION Regarding Halt
VII. OTHER CASE RELATED ISSUES
1) Briefly regarding Elliptical vs. Circular images seen
(of lesser importance)
2) One slight problem with Thurkettle's rabbit scratchings
(of greater importance)
2a) Did Thurkettle really see the actual landing site?
2b) Did Ridpath see the original landing site?3) The Lack of radar contact at the time of Halt's sighting
(also of greater importance)
3a) Lack of radar contact and the MoD dismissing the case
3b) On the MoD not taking the Rendlesham sighting seriously
VIII. CASE RELATED SECONDARY TESTIMONIES
4) Proof from Ridpath the case wasn't a prank by Kevin Conde
4a) Claim by a military policeman
4b) Ian negated Conde's role in it
4c) Ian says someone else could have pulled the prank . . . but
4d) The denseness of the forest tends to counter this suggestionNon-Witness Testimonies
5) Regarding the use of non-witnesses to
attempt to disqualify or disprove a sighting6) The Police
6a) Using the police to prove there was no UFO
6b) Confirmation the police never came to investigate Halt's 12/28 sighting
6c) Summation of police investigation into Rendlesham
6d) The importance of this CohenUFO analysisAnother Important Witness
7) Rick Bobo Testimony to Georgina Bruni
7a) Begin testimony
7b) Summation of above testimonySome Things We Learn From Bobo's Testimony
8) Other quotes taken from Ian Ridpath's website relating to
Halt and Bobo
8a) Quote 1
8b) jc question for astronomers re: quote 1
8c) Quote 2
8d) Quote 3
8e) CohenUFO comments regarding quotes 2 & 3
8f) Sample Case: a witnessed ufo that was apparently radar-invisible
IX. MOVIES AND RUSSIAN COSMOS 7499) Regarding speculation that movies caused the sightings
10) Research Paper by UFO skeptic Martin Kottmeyer
11) Russian Cosmos 749 - Randles vs. Ridpath
X. NECESSARY RESPONSES TO A COUPLE OF INAPPROPRIATE ANECDOTAL COMMENTS
12a) Thurkettle regarding the Rendlesham sighting
12b) Questions raised by Thurkettle comment13) Ian's use of a character smear of the airmen (David Boast)
14a)) Jenny Randles smear of the entire UFO community
14b) Response to Ian's use of that particular Jenny Randles quote
15) Response to another interesting Ridpath quote regarding Jenny Randles16) A fair response to commentator's concluding comment on
Ian's *Breakfast Time* Thurkettle video
XI. OTHER COINCIDENTAL CASES
