UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Dec > Dec 29

Re: Penniston NP Conference & King

From: Brad Sparks <RB47x.nul>
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 09:24:38 EST
Archived: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 10:25:22 -0500
Subject: Re: Penniston NP Conference & King

>From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 20:11:36 -0000
>Subject: Re: Penniston NP Conference & King

>>From: Brad Sparks <RB47x.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 23:52:31 EST
>>Subject: Re: Penniston NP Conference & King


>>First, I must insist on a methodological rule. Certainties must
>>control over uncertainties. Only facts that are certain and
>>conclusive can resolve contradictions, discrepancies and
>>confusion caused by a plethora of uncertain claims or
>>"uncertain facts" (actually, if it is uncertain then it really
>>cannot be a "fact"). No matter how many uncertain points
>>are adduced they cannot add up to a certainty.

>Agreed. Certainties control over uncertainties.


>>Here is a conclusive, hard fact: It is an absolute
>>physical impossibility for anyone to have seen and
>>"chased" the Orfordness (or Orford Ness, ON for short)
>>lighthouse for 2 miles east of the east end of the
>>Woodridge base back in 1980, because the beacon is
>>only visible at one tiny area where it is high enough
>>to see it and it is unobstructed by trees. As one
>>progresses eastward from this small spot the land
>>slopes downward till it reaches sea level only 0.4 mile
>>to the east. The view of the ON lighthouse is blocked
>>by a ridge on the east banks of the Butley river,
>>around Gedgrave Hall.

>I generally agree.

Hi Martin,

Since we agree on fundamental methodology, I don't want to lose
focus on what I wanted to accomplish here. I wanted to use
absolutely certain facts about the non-visibility of the Orford
Ness lighthouse over 1.9 miles of the alleged 2-mile lighthouse
chase to invalidate key portions of the statements of Cabansag
and Burroughs that claimed such a 2-mile lighthouse chase, and
therefore by implication invalidate key portions of the
Penniston statement that has been subject of much controversy on
this thread.

My interpretation of the reason for the clearly false statements
of a 2-mile lighthouse chase is a separate matter from the fact
that those statements are false. We must not confuse the falsity
with the interpretation of the reason for the falsity. They are
at differing levels of confidence. The falsity is certain, the
exact reason or cause of the falsity is less certain.

My interpretation is that the Halt 2-mile chase has been back-
projected into the earlier reporting of the Penniston-
Burroughs-Cabansag (PBC) trio, who did not have any such 2-mile
chase of their own, whether of a UFO or of a lighthouse. My
contention is that Halt's 2-mile UFO chase has been artificially
injected into the Cabansag and Burroughs statements by whatever

Please hold off at this point on discussion of the exact modes
by which this forced insertion of Halt's 2-mile chase into the
PBC reporting might have been carried out, it is not directly
relevant at this point in the discussion but will be considered
in later postings. (However I will note that Cabansag later told
Georgina Bruni that on return to base he was immediately
pressured by higher ranking AF personnel to dismiss the whole
experience as due to the lighthouse and that he should accept
influences he would receive to inject the lighthouse into his
story. Bruni p. 195.)

It is for these reasons that I want to return now to the
Cabansag and Burroughs false statements, respectively:

"But we ran and walked a good 2 miles past our the vehicle,
until we got to a vantage point where we could determine that
what we were chasing was only a beacon light off in the
distance. Our route through the forrest [sic] and field was a
direct one, straight towards the light. We informed CSC [Central
Security Control by radio] that the light beacon was farther
than we thought, so CSC terminated our investigation."

"Once we reached the farmer's house we could see a beacon going
around, so we went toward it. We followed it for about 2 miles
before we could see it was coming from a lighthouse."

The false Cabansag and Burroughs statements (above) lead to the
following conclusions based on the physical impossibility of
seeing the Orford Ness Lighthouse for 1.9 miles of any 2-mile
path that PBC could have taken:

(a) They clearly say they "chased" and "followed" the alleged
"lighthouse" for "2 miles" on a "direct" and "straight" line
"straight towards the light," regardless of exactly how the 2-
 mile distance is defined (see below for that issue), and thus
they claim they observed the lighthouse _continuously_, which is
an absolute lie by someone (see more on the physical
impossibility proven by skeptic Robert McLean's investigations
as well as by Ordnance Survey maps, etc.). The 2 miles also
cannot be a roundtrip distance because the return trip would
face the wrong direction from heading towards the ON lighthouse.

(b) The definition of how or where the 2 mile distance is
counted from is not a relevant issue here at this particular
point because they could not possibly have seen the ON
Lighthouse for 1.9 miles of any such alleged 2-mile path however
counted, in any case.

(c) They could not simply have lost sight of the Orford Ness
Lighthouse then regained sight of it again from "the vantage
point" (actually this is the place reached at the end of
_Halt's_ 2-mile trek, not at the end of PBC's alleged and
impossible 2-mile trek): Why?

What would they have been "chasing" and "following" for 2 miles
on a "straight" line "straight towards the light" if they
couldn't see anything at all for 1.9 miles? What would keep them
on a "straight" line route if they couldn't see anything after
the tiny 0.1 mile area of visibility of the ON Lighthouse? Why
would they have plunged into the darkened fields and trees when
they saw nothing to spur them on? If this alleged pursuit lasted
some 45-50 minutes why would they just plunge ahead in the dark
for 45 minutes, seeing nothing after the first few minutes?

(d) Since Halt's "vantage point" at Burrow Hill was indeed 2
miles from the beginning of the farmer's field and clearing, and
there is nothing else in the near-sea-level depression past the
farmhouses at Green Farm/Capel Green that could possibly serve
as a "vantage point" to the PBC trio (or to anyone), then the 2-
mile figure is not merely an exaggeration or poor estimate of
distance. It is the correct distance to the only possible
"vantage point," at Burrow Hill.

(e) The statements do not actually conflict as to where the 2-
mile distance was to be counted. The Cabansag statement say they
walked and ran "a good 2 miles past our the vehicle," which
seems to be a colloquial way of saying "at least" 2 miles.
Whereas the Burroughs statement refers to "about 2 miles" from
the farmer's house, meaning 1.5 to 2.5 miles. In fact, the
distance from their vehicle to the "vantage point" at Burrow
Hill would be about 2.5 miles and the distance from the Capel
Green (owner David Boast) farmhouse to Burrow Hill would be
about 1.5 miles, both distances well consistent with each other.

Local skeptic Robert McLean visited the Rendlesham forest area
at night and in the day in the summer of 2000 and measured the
only area from which the Orford Ness lighthouse was visible. He
found that the ON lighthouse was only visible from about 100
meters within the forest's east edge at a certain spot and then
for about 126 meters out into the open field as he walked
towards the farmhouse (Capel Green owned by David Boast). The
field slopes downward towards the river and a heavily forested
ridgeline a few miles away obstructs the view of the ON
lighthouse 5 miles to the east.


From McLean's Aug. 26, 2000, message:

I have this summer measured late at night the area of the field
where this [the Orford Ness lighthouse beacon] can be seen,
again by pacing off distances. It is a roughly rectangular area
that extends in the field east-west only about 126 m (because of
the sharp drop off in elevation as you walk east).... In 1980,
the lighthouse would have been visible well into the forest as
the ground slopes gradually up towards the west.... In fact, I
know of nowhere else where the lighthouse is visible in the
forest in the summertime....

At the position of Ian Ridpath's photo, the lighthouse beacon is
at the left hand side of a small notch in the skyline just to
the right of the farmer's house. If you go a couple of feet
north (i.e. to the left as seen in the photo) of this location,
the lighthouse beacon disappears, even at night.

On Aug. 28, 2000, McLean wrote:

Because it is only possible to walk about 126 m into the field
immediately to the east of the accepted landing site before the
lighthouse beam disapears behind the ridge 4 km to the east, the
lighthouse beam could never be seen in proximity with Butley

Even allowing a further 50 m to 100 m further depth inside the
forest, it is difficult to see what the lighhouse can line up
with (at least when leaves are still on the trees).

McLean wrote on Sept. 4, 2000:

Along the East bank of the Butley River is a ridge of land that
rises to between 15 m and 20 m high. It is this ridge of land
that completely blocks the Orfordness lighthouse beam when you
have walked no more than about 136 m [typo for 126 m] into the
farmer's field....

If you look at the OS map to locate possible high points of land
roughly East of the accepted landing site and roughly 2 miles
away, the first thing that is apparent is that there is no point
in heading a bit North of East as you still have that ridge of
land in the way, much of which is forested by Gedgrave Broom.
But if you head a bit South of East, then there are two
possibilities. The first is Burrow Hill, which rises to 15 m....
The second possibility is the rise in the land 1 km South-West
of Burrow Hill ... - and the field at this location is Col
Halt's "second farmer's field".

McLean wrote on Sept. 5, 2000:

What seems clear, is that Col Halt and men then went the very
short distance, say 100 m, to the edge of the forest to find out
what the pulsating red light was, and then out into the open
farmer's field. The elevation of the field drops away quite
quickly as you walk towards the light, and at night, the
lighthouse beacon soon disappears behind the ridge 4 km away
south-west of Orford. In the summer, the lighthouse beacon is
visisble only in a very small rectangular portion of this field.
I have measured this at night by pacing off the distance and the
area is ... about 126 m east-west. It is possible this area
might be wider in the winter, as trees on the ridge 4 km away
which in summer block out the lighthouse might let some light
through. But the distance of 126 m into the field will be the
same, because it is the ridge itself which blocks the beam as
your elevation drops while you walk towards the farmhouse.

After the direct view of the beacon disappears, it is a further
200 m before you reach the farmhouse....

Adding up these distances, following this path from the accepted
landing site to the "second farmer's field" gives a distance of
3326 m (or 2.07 miles [sic]), during which the lighthouse beacon
was directly visisble for only the first 226 m [consisting of
100 meters within the forest then 126 meters in the open field].

On Sept. 10, 2000, McLean wrote:

If you start off at the "accepted" landing site and walk towards
the "accepted" farmer's house, you have a direct view of the
Orfordness beacon up until about 126 m into the field, and then
it disappears behind the ridge 4 km away, and you don't see it
again until the end of the two mile trek to the "vantage point"
or "second farmer's field"....


>I'm not aware of any evidence or persuasive argument that what
>was initially seen in the trees on Dec 26 was the lighthouse.
>There's no way that this could be visible through well over 1/2
>mile of dense plantation from the base or near the E gate access

Agreed. More on this below.

>So I can imagine that they began seeing the lighthouse when still
>well within the forest and were not sure of its identity until
>they'd emerged and started down the field towards the farm house.
>But this cannot extend the distance to anything like 2 miles,
>which remains a gross exaggeration.

As mentioned above, Robert McLean checked onsite and found that
the Orford Ness lighthouse was visible only about 100 meters
within the forest just before the clearing and only for about
126 meters further.

Simple calculations verify McLean's firsthand observations. The
Jan 1981 Bustinza photo of the forest from Woodbridge base's
East Gate shows a dense grove of trees at the end of the east-
 west road leading from the gate. Rough photogrammetry based on
scaling from the approximately 15-foot wide road (as measured on
satellite/aerial photos) yields trees roughly 50 feet high and
about 15 feet apart on average and about 2 feet in diameter on

Thus the average space between trees would be about 13 ft, and
would be filled by about 6.5 trees. Given the average spacing
this means about a 6.5 x 15 = 97.5 ft (round off to 100 ft)
depth of trees would fill up all spaces for light to pass. To
account for deviations in average spacing and diameter double or
triple this 100 ft depth to say 300 ft (100 meters) thus in
agreement with McLean's empirical determination of what depth of
forest is opaque to the Orford Ness lighthouse.

To sum up, the 2-mile lighthouse chase in the Cabansag and
Burroughs statements is a fabrication (absolute certainty),
which appears to be derived from Halt's actual 2-mile UFO chase
two nights later (high probability), which I interpret as due to
a coercive influence that has caused or influenced C and B to
alter their testimony and/or alter their written statements with
the purpose of undermining the Halt story using the artificially
inserted and false 2-mile "lighthouse chase" (inferential).

The conclusive falsity of the invalidated portions of the C and
B statements leads to questioning similar apparent insertions
into the Penniston statement and calls into question his claimed
close encounter details that go far beyond what he radioed to
CSC at the base as the events unfolded (inferential).

One non-sensational detail in the Penniston statement that seems
utterly bogus is the claim that when he arrived at the base's
East Gate he could see a large yellow light about 1-1/2 miles
directly to the east. No one could possibly determine such a
distance that exactly (the word "about" does not rescue the
absurd exactitude, which would have been more appropriate if
stated as, say, "about" 1 to 2 miles or some such).

In fact, the 1-1/2-mile distance appears to be designed to put
the alleged lighthouse beacon directly behind the farmhouse
(which was at 1.1 miles), but close enough to justify the
security policemen going out to investigate. The farmhouse of
course was not visible at all from East Gate, the view being
completely blocked by a half mile of dense forest.

If official disinformation agents had suggested or inserted the
actual 5-mile distance to Orford Ness' lighthouse instead of the
1-1/2 miles, in putting words in Penniston's mouth (or pen), it
would have been too obviously absurd and would not explain why
PBC thought it was close enough to go out there. Other more
reliable statements contradict the 1-1/2 mile distance (not
reported anywhere else even by Penniston) including the radio
reports from Penniston as the events transpired.

Lt Fred Buran at base security control reported that Penniston
radioed that the unidentified "lights appeared to be no further
than 100 yards from the road east of the [base] runway."  This
would be about 1/3 mile not 1-1/2 miles from the East Gate.
Chandler's statement likewise reports that Burroughs radioed
that "he was observing strange lights in the wooded area just
beyond the access road leading from the east gate."


Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast



[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com