The Truth On Rendlesham?

[Darrell]

Originally Posted by orangekea

Well you guys, within topic context isn't it true that this topic shows there are plenty of earthly explanations (some mutually exclusive) creating the illusion/fantasy that Rendlesham has been debunked.

Yet when you study them in detail, the debunk fails, and Rendlesham remains unexplained. (This makes it a good case, who cares if it is old.)


orangekea

I don't feel that Rendlesham has been reasonably debunked. Like you point out, the debunk itself fails (starting with the light house that just happens to have a built-in shade -- preventing light from shining into the forest, which was in place at the time of the event). When a debunker has to assemble a whole set of unrelated coincidences that then fail to confirm the testimony of multiple witnesses or match known facts, the debunker should do a check of his/her own sanity.

I feel that Rendlesham meets my requirement for some credible witnesses, credible circumstances and somewhat credible documentation. I also feel that the whole story smells with official debunk tampering; which then naturally leads to all the confusion surrounding the incident(s). The story exhibits several instances of extraordinariness which separates it from otherwise "rational alternate explanations."

But the story is old; and one grows weary of rehashing old stories. Time for some new meat to chew!

[dejarma]

Originally Posted by orangekea

Yet when you study them in detail, the debunk fails, and Rendlesham remains unexplained. (This makes it a good case, who cares if it is old.)

If you're suggesting that the lighthouse debunk is ridiculous then yeah, I agree! if not then what other details are you referring to? just out of interest

dej...

[Carol Nistri]

(now doesnt anyone consider it odd that those that keep the Lighthouse or kept it since its now closed but doesnt anyone consider that the people that actually live in the area should have come forward and say that the lighthouse does not shine its light into the Rendlesham forest and never has.But they didnt do that did they? They could have and put the lighthouse theory to rest immediately,but they didnt,why?)

[orangekea]

Originally Posted by dejarma

If you're suggesting that the lighthouse debunk is ridiculous then yeah, I agree! if not then what other details are you referring to? just out of interest

dej...

Hi dejarma, I am referring to any and all details of the debunking attempts I've read, loosely of course since I cannot pretend to have read everything written on the Rendlesham Incident.

To be precise, I don't think for instance that the lighthouse debunk is ridiculous, just that it fails to account for Colonel Halt's report of hours of lights in the sky, plus Larry Warren's bizarre claim of drug assisted debriefs (etc. etc.).

Ian Ridpath almost solved it by stringing a whole lot of such explanations together, but the question becomes why all these things happened together. It's like getting shot by a bankrobber, hit by lightning and vaporized by a burning asteroid landing on your head simultaneously. Physically possible, but too much of a coincidence.

In this topic, as you already argued, it is the military test explanation which seems to fall short. Fail-detail: these tests are routinely done within the US, for security reasons. Another fail: the participants were not monitored (human observers/strap-on cams/forest camera system etc.) during the 'test', making it worthless to the presumptive testers.


orangekea

[Darrell]

Originally Posted by orangekea

To be precise, I don't think for instance that the lighthouse debunk is ridiculous, ... orangekea

No? Why not? If the shade on the lamp has always prevented it from illuminating Rendlesham forest, how does light from the lighthouse explain the light which was claimed by witnesses to shine down on them from the craft (inside the forest)? This happens to be a class 1A debunk of the lighthouse debunk!

[Carol Nistri]

lets not forget that the "light" that was shot to the feet of these men was blue incolor,they all agree on that.The light from a light house does NOT shine behind it,it shines out to sea to warn ships away.

[orangekea]

Originally Posted by Darrell

No? Why not? If the shade on the lamp has always prevented it from illuminating Rendlesham forest, how does light from the lighthouse explain the light which was claimed by witnesses to shine down on them from the craft (inside the forest)? This happens to be a class 1A debunk of the lighthouse debunk!

I am sure you are technically correct, Darrell (I trust you on this). However this is a matter of personal attitude: I tend to take an opposing argument seriously, even if it turns out flat out wrong.

[Darrell]

Originally Posted by orangekea

I am sure you are technically correct, Darrell (I trust you on this). However this is a matter of personal attitude: I tend to take an opposing argument seriously, even if it turns out flat out wrong.

I'm different. When someone relates a story of some extraordinary event, I consider it worthy of evaluation if it has credible witnesses, credible documentation and credible circumstances. Of course any tangible evidence is like gold (and usually just as rare).

What I find usually happens next is a bunch of self appointed intellectual types attacking the story from all aspects, rationalizing all sorts of alternate non-extraordinary explanations in a rabid exercise of debunking, motivated by the fact that they happen to disbelieve (prejudge) in the possibility that the story might be true. They usually go so far as to outright ignore even testing or investigating the data presented. And some of the alternate explanations they come up with are so outrageous as to be downright laughable; and the so called skeptics that come up with such debunking attempts should be literally laughed out of the community. There should be consequences for incompetence!

So ... I expect even more from the skeptics than I do from the story originators. I expect them to first show that they are aware of what the relevant data is and have all their facts straight before they attempt to debunk it. I also expect them to have credibility as debunkers, to pose reasonable counter arguments and to consider the combined probability of all their ifs, ands and buts adding up to a more likely explanation than that offered by the story originator. As you might imagine, many skeptics disappoint me.

In other words, I require more of the person that calls another a liar or a fool than I do of the story originator. You will often find that skeptics play a game of dodge ball in this regard. They try to make the logic claim that the onus is upon the teller of extraordinary events to provide all the evidence of confirmation and that they have no requirements upon them to do likewise when attempting debunking. But is that actually reasonable? I don't think so.

It is a legal maxim that what can be uttered without proof can also be denied without proof; and I agree. But I also think its reasonable for all parties to do their best to arrive at the truth, which ever side happens to be right. And for debunking to be reasonable, it must have all its facts straight, it must conform to what the witnesses observed and it must account for all known circumstances surrounding the event in a way that a reasonable person could conceive of as most probable.

[DrDil]

Originally Posted by Darrell

I don't feel that Rendlesham has been reasonably debunked. Like you point out, the debunk itself fails (starting with the light house that just happens to have a built-in shade -- preventing light from shining into the forest, which was in place at the time of the event). When a debunker has to assemble a whole set of unrelated coincidences that then fail to confirm the testimony of multiple witnesses or match known facts, the debunker should do a check of his/her own sanity.

<snip>

Looking across the field

The farmhouse in my picture, at Capel Green, is identified in Jenny Randles’ books as Victor Boast’s house. The houses to the north of it (off the left of my pictures), Green Farm, are lower and among trees. The ground falls towards Butley River, two miles to the east. Beyond the river the ground rises again to a fairly flat ridge, with a gap between two stands of trees through which the white top of Orford Ness lighthouse can be seen. Although a shield blocks the beam of the lighthouse from the town of Orford itself, it does not extend far enough to block the beam from this part of the forest, as may be clear from my enlarged picture.

[dejarma]

Originally Posted by Darrell

There should be consequences for incompetence!

What?? The fact that for 70 years no one ( with all their so called intelligence, thousands of hours of study, ground work, book after book after book) has managed to at least take this subject out of the phenomenon category!!?!? Yeah, I agree