(and Ian Ridpath's Workup on it)

Jerry Cohen

Electron Microscope


The following links will work best on a PC or later versions of Safari


Initial Examination of Ian's Presentation

1) The testimony Halt made in the 1997 Salley Rahl interview is inadmissible since it was made almost 20 years after the incident. By Ridpath's own thinking, Halt's inaccurate memory-over-time should also prohibit Ridpath from using information from that interview to say where Halt was standing back in 1980.

2) Pre-supposing the source of the incident and over-focusing on the lighthouse seems to have caused Ridpath and Thurkettle to miss a critically important light that the airmen had originally followed into the forest.

3) When examined today, Thurkettle's thought *it was almost impossible for an object to be able to navigate among those tightly spaced trees* does not seem nearly as impossible as it did back then.

4) The thickness of the forest and . . . the distance from the lighthouse to East Gate Road are important issues to be considered.

5) We all agreed the distance was too great, there were too many tree trunks in the way and the light from the lighthouse could not have reached East Gate Road. Then where did the beam come from that the airmen originally followed into the forest on December 26th? (This last URL links into Burroughs' testimony)

6) Where is the "beam" in Thurkettle's video? This researcher sees a pulsing/flashing light, not a "beam."

7) To make any definitive statements regarding witness sighting events using photographic evidence, we must know exactly where the witnesses were standing during their sighting events, in which exact part of the forest the photographer was standing when taking pictures, what lens he was using at the time and, of equal importance, how any one of those pictures directly relate, or not, to the specific place(s) those witnesses were standing during each sighting event.


What we learned from the juxtapositioning of the
available testimonies from the first night's incident

1) Cabansag's testimony informs us that Penniston separated from the group on the way back. It is possible this may be when he observed the object he drew in one of his sketches.

2) Burroughs also drew an object he saw. . . It did not exactly match Penniston's object but had similar colors.

3) A close examination of the drawings made by the two airmen seems to indicate something other than the lighthouse. (See URLs immediately above in #2.)

4) Question: If the two airmen were in together on a combined hoax, why did they choose to draw two different objects? (See URLs above in #2.)

5) At least two of the beams mentioned by the two men were solid rather than pulsing or blinking . . . Also, some of the blinking lights seen were not white or yellow-orange. (These two facts would seem to eliminate the lighthouse as their source.)

6) At least one color observed (blue) was not indigenous to the forest or general lighthouse area. Where did this come from?

7) As shown in Thurkettle's video, the lighthouse was flashing at approximately a five second rate. (See: video) Even if the initial light seen by the airmen could have been from the lighthouse (which we have all agreed it couldn't), flashing of the white or yellow light would likely have been noted initially and commented upon by the airmen. This did not occur.

8) The non-flashing/non-pulsing white light which was followed by the airmen, was seen over a much greater time frame than the four seconds the meteor was in view on that first night. Therefore the meteor could not have been directly responsible for those portions of the sightings.

9) At one point, the light seen by the airmen appeared to stop in a large bunch of trees. Since lighthouse lights do not stop but rather flash continually, the lighthouse light could not have been responsible for this. (Burroughs testimony)

10) In several instances, the light was seen moving while the airmen were in a fixed position. This directly contradicts Thurkettle's video-taped comment regarding same. He said it was their movement that caused them to think the light was moving. (Please see end of Thurkettle video clip)

11) After looking closely at all the airmen's testimonies from the first night, we discover that another Thurkettle comment is apparently much less significant than he originally thought. His comment was only partially correct in that he was looking for a second pulsing white light. As previously pointed out, the steady white light and other lights noted by the airmen, and overlooked by both Ridpath and Thurkettle, were actually more important.

12) Buran and Chandler's statements were basically accurate to many statements Penniston made and also appear to lend support to portions of Burroughs' testimony as well.


Examining the December 26th meteor

1) Thirteen questions which, at the minimum, should be answered before we can consider the meteor as a possible catalyst to the sightings.

2) What the airmen drew does not look anything like the meteor. (or lighthouse)

3) Most meteors have a flaming tail, including those used as samples by Ridpath. It is interesting that none of the witnesses mentioned the flaming tail of *the meteor.*


Integrating Halt's Testimony concerning
what he saw two nights later

1) In the transcript of his tape, Halt said two times (and additionally implied a third) he saw a beam coming down to the ground. The words "to the ground" are not the same as "towards the ground."

2) Halt did not say the stars were simply twinkling, flaring, or vibrating in the sky. He said the objects moved with "sharp, angular movements." Others present witnessed this same movement.

3) It most likely wasn't cloud movement that caused that movement. Clouds generally only move in one direction, more smoothly, and at a limited speed. Yet, Halt and others were observing the objects, going away, coming towards them and moving to the side .

4) Although one would like to simply accept Ian's "star" explanation, I found I was forced to examine it very carefully against Halt's testimony and tape since Ian's own words have demonstrated how far he would go to assign a witnessed object to either Venus or stars.

5) It is important for one to realize, when juxtaposed with the airmen's testimonies, Halt's statements regarding the three "star-like" objects seen on December 28th have the potential of explaining how Burroughs and Penniston could have submitted drawings of two different objects during their December 26th incident.

6) It is interesting to observe, . . . items from Halt's original testimony and the combined witness testimonies still support his claim even after any possible "story-building," which Ian noted had built up over the years, has been eliminated.

7) . . . and one must also be aware there is a statement concerning an observed, hovering craft found within testimony given to author Georgina Bruni by Rick Bobo. His observation tends to support the flying objects hypothesis, and further explains why people in the area may not have been easily aware of same. It also suggests that what was seen was most likely not a star.


Closely Examining Thurkettle's Thoughts
Regarding Rabbit Scratchings

1) There is a possible problem with Thurkettle's *rabbit scratchings* explanation when Penniston's apparently symmetrical plaster cast is closely examined. Penniston's cast appears rather smooth where the rabbit(s?) should have scratched it.

2) If the above is correct, and rabbits did not scratch out the hole that Penniston's cast was made from, did Thurkettle actually see the original landings site? Did Ridpath? Halt, in a memo to U.K.'s Ministry of Defense, told us they didn't mark the original site the night of the incident.


Other case-related, possibly important issues

1) Regarding the lack of radar contact and the MoD: This does not prove that what Halt has testified to didn't happen. We have other well-investigated cases where a UFO was thoroughly verified as being seen, but demonstrated as not having shown up on Radar in the process; Example - the November 7, 2006 O'Hare International Airport (USA) Incident

2) Ian has dismissed military policeman Conde's claim he was responsible for what the airmen saw. He has given specific reasons for same.

3) How well did the police actually investigate the case? Not very well since they didn't believe anything was ever there.

4) Was the type investigation, juxtaposing the witness testimonies as accomplished here, ever accomplished by the police at the time of the incidents? From what the police have stated, and by viewing their logs, it would appear not. Therefore, what has been accomplished in this electronic paper you are reading could possibly be important.

5) Were movies a catalyst to the sightings? A skeptic's study says probably not.

6) Were the sightings caused by Russian Cosmos 749? Ridpath says no.


Necessary Responses to Anecdotal Comments
Used in Ian's Workup

Vince Thurkettle - "no one here believes anything strange happened . . . "

David Boast - "They come out regularly at night to investigate lights . . "

Jenny Randles and Ian Ridpath - "If a UFO case like Rendlesham falls, then none is safe . . . "

Ridpath's use of a commentator's concluding comment on the "Breakfast Time" Thurkettle video. - "For Vince Thurkettle, the only mystery remaining is why UFO researchers, in two and a half years of investigation, failed to spot this most obvious of explanations."


Several other well-documented cases
having similarities to the UFOs seen
in the 1980 Rendlesham events

1) Colors seen associated with a UFO seen by police in Trumbull County, Ohio, December 1994 were very similar to those seen by Colonel Halt.

2) UFO's seen in grouping of three's were seen at Edwards AFB in 1965. Documentation shown on UFO Hunter episode, case #65102 Code Red. Thanks to Sam Sherman and Bill Burns (UFO Magazine).

3) UFO's seen in Michigan in 1966. Police documentation provided by Dr. Harry Willnus, a prime investigator of same.


Back to: Critique of Ian Ridpath's Rendlesham Case - Jerry Cohen


Page from the website of:

Website Master Index