7/30/2019 1987 Winter - Skeptical Inquirer - Steuart
Campbell
2/2
Suffolk 'UFO' lightsIan Ridpath's specious response (Sf,
Letters, Summer 1987) to my letter about"The Suffolk 'UFO' Lights"
should notgo unchallenged (If only to show that thefirst skeptical
explanation that comes tomind for a UFO report is not
necessarilycorrect).Readers may wonder why it is "un-derstandable"
that Ridpath's identification has been challenged (apparently
areference to my challenge). In fact themost understandable
challenge (lacedwith ridicuie) has come from UFO buffs.My
challenge, which applies only to theidentification of lights, is
made with regret; Ridpath and I agree on the generalapproach to UFO
reports. Consequentlymy challenge should have been surprising,not
"understandable."Ridpath's quotation from Col. Halt'stape is
correct as far as it goes. But hefails to mention that, 15 seconds
later,Halt asked, "Is it (the light) back again?"Clearly the light
had disappeared for awhile. A little later Halt was told
(first)that the light was "coming up" (on 110)and (iater) that
"it's dying"! This behavioris inconsistent with the Orford Ness
light(regular flashes at 5-second intervals).However it is
consistent with the Shipwash light vessel (not "lighthouse").
Itproduces three regular flashes every 20seconds, the interval
between flashesbeing 2.5 seconds. Thus not only is therea 5-second
(if the second flash is missedor not mentioned) but there is a
15-second eclipse as recorded in the tape!I did not ask Ridpath to
explain "thesecond light"; I asked him to explain (Iquote from the
tape) "Two lights! Onelight to the right and one light to left!"
Icould also have asked why two lightstogether were not seen before
or afterthis point. I f the two lights were OrfordNess and Shipwash
they should have beenseen continuously together (although oneis ten
times more powerful than theother). But since the two beacons are
15apart it is unlikely that this is the correctexplanation. The
implication of the tapeis that the lights were close together
(asthey would need to be if seen throughbinoculars).220
I t is not clear that "the first andbrightest flashing light"
was seen fromwell inside the forest. Is Ridpath nowreferring to the
light seen on December26? The light seen on December 29 wasnot
bright; it was "a strange, small redlight." At the time, Halt and
his teamwere near the edge of Rendlesham Forestand able to see out
to sea. The alleged"landing site" is not deep in the forest,
asRidpath implies.Halt's bearings are admitted to beimprecise; he
gave them as "approxi-mately 120 degrees," "about 110, 120degrees,"
and "about i i 0 degrees," ai-: though at one point he gave a
"bearing, of 110" (all magnetic). But these bearings average ll5
magnetic (110 true),the precise bearing of Shipwash. An errorof
plus or minus 5 is to be expected inthe circumstances. Ridpath has
no rightto assume that the bearings were taken"on the move" or
"weaving between thetrees"; this is special pleading!
Steuart Campbel1Edinburgh, Scotland
Hamlet as psi researcherGwyneth Evans ("Pseudoscience
andChildren's Fantasies," S/, Summer 1987)remarks that a belief in
witches is notnecessary to the enjoyment or understanding of
Macbeth. . . .A much better Shakespearean rolemodel for psi
research is provided byHamlet. This noble hero shows the
trueskeptical and undogmatic spirit by alwaysmaking allowance for
his own bias.Though inclined to believe in the paranormal ("There
are more things in heavenand earth, Horatio, than are dreamt ofin
your philosophy"), he compares observations with the scientifically
inclinedHoratio, who had refused to believe inthe apparition until
he saw it with hisown eyes, and even then reported toHamlet only
that "I think I saw himyesternight." Even after conversing withthe
ghost, Hamlet is still open to thepossibility that the message
about hisfather's murder may be a creation of his
THE SKEPTiCAL iNQUiRER, Vol. 12
