Search results

Only third-hand at the moment, reporting indirectly what the family said. But if I find a better one I'll post it. For what it is worth, here is an article that mentions Barker, Carey and Kerr, but it has few details...

I won't give more than a passing mention to the account of the local gamekeeper David Boast, who never gave an account in his lifetime, but members of his family have recounted second-hand stories that he is said to have told them about the event. Or the radar witnesses found by Robert...

Halt. (sorry- I'm not asking you to stop; just pointing out that Halt's name is Halt, not Holt). Carry on.

The reason I mention the 'loom' (the light cast by an invisible lighthouse on the sky) is that it affords another possible explanation for the 'beams' described by Halt on the tape. If the beams were not an artifact of the Starscope, perhaps the beams cast by the lighthouse in the sky may have...

Even Halt hadn't been at Rendlesham very long, and he does not seem to have been in that part of the forest at night before.

Burroughs and Cabansag were looking at the lighthouse on the 26th. Halt was looking at the lighthouse on the 28th, somewhere between midnight and 02:44 am. This was a completely different location from where they started to observe various stars and planets at 03:15 am - as far as I can tell...

I speculate that Penniston saw some distant vehicle through the trees at some point; as a relatively new arrival in the UK he may not have been familiar with British agricultural vehicles, or maybe some other vehicle (Ridpath suggests a police car). But Penniston's later descriptions seem to...

And I have always also assumed that Halt and his associates were periodically using the Starscope, an instrument that can create a wide range of artifacts through internal reflections and refractions. This may be the cause of the 'beams' he reported. A similar light-intensifier was responsible...

Hmm. Halt started seeing the 'beams' at 03:15, while the star was quite a bit higher, and at 04:00 Halt says he thought the star was 5-10 degrees off the horizon; quite accurate for Sirius at 04:00. The mere fact that these witnesses saw the phenomenon for at least three quarters of an hour...

Burroughs said in his original witness statement; Cabansag said; http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham2c.html

Sirius would have moved further west over time; curiously Halt did the same thing, assuming he eventually returned to Woodbridge at the end of the night. So the witness, and the star, would both have converged on the base.

The SpaceX launch from Canaveral occurred on May 3, at 02.37 GMT. https://newsroomin.eu/en/ufo-sighting-explained-as-spacexs-falcon-9-rocket/ This translates to 19.37 Pacific time on May 2. Would this launch cause a report at 21.15 Pacific time? Perhaps the second stage de-orbiting after one orbit?

I'm fairly sure that bright stars and planets can appear to 'wander' due to contrast effects, even when the observer is relatively motionless. This is probably a kind of autokinesis effect, coupled with the different sensitivities of the rods and cones in the human eye.

My tentative thesis about the 'beams' coming down is that these were artifacts of the Starscope that they were using, a photomultiplier system that can create some beam-like phenomena (as shown in my earlier .gif.) Halt and company were not particularly competent with the Geiger counter, it...

The Starscope might explain this. It does create strange artifacts that resemble 'beams coming down to the ground'. Most likely caused by internally refracted or reflected moonlight, but a very striking effect. I should perhaps point out that (if they were caused by moonlight) these 'beam'...

Nice. You may have something there. Jupiter and Saturn in a conjunction would have been quite remarkable objects. They may have been too close to the Moon to be easily visible, but that may just make them stranger objects to the untrained eye. A relatively recent conjunction between Jupiter...

Oops; Sirius, not Venus (in the Rendlesham sky). I'm sure Ridpath knows the difference; he is an astronomer, after all.

We should move discussion of the Rendlesham event to another thread, although that may result in yet another prolonged fruitless discussion. But Ridpath discusses the later part of Halt's tape in some detail, and it seems quite obvious that Halt is talking about a celestial object here, almost...

No, you totally misunderstand why Stanley's observation is more reliable as a way of estimating the height. Stanley was the only observer who positively identified the formation as small, distant planes, thereby ruling out the estimates of height at one or two thousand feet. I assume that all...

Ian Ridpath's analysis of the event does not ignore any of the features; you are correct to say that the lighthouse does not explain everything, but there are good explanations for every aspect of the case. Some events appear to have a sequence of fairly unlikely events happening in a...