See here for essential
background: https://hpanwo-tv.blogspot.com/2025/07/capel-green-premiere.html.
Dr David Clarke has written a review of Capel Green. He was not at the premiere, but must have gone along to one of the other Stowmarket screenings. He gives an overview of the incident which is basically factual, but then starts criticizing the story in a manner that is obtuse and very unoriginal. He cites somebody who should have been immediately consigned to ridicule and obscurity forty-two years ago, but even today keeps repeating on UFOlogy like a bad curry. Dr Ian Ridpath is an astronomer who claimed that the experience reported by these high level security experts trained to protect our most deadly weapons can be explained away as a meteor shower and the beam of the Orford Ness lighthouse, see here for details: https://hpanwo-tv.blogspot.com/2024/03/rfi-brand-new-info.html and: https://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.com/2018/02/ian-ridpath-at-fortean-london.html. The patronizing has-been then adds: "UFO believers have no interest in solutions" and thatRendlesham Forest
is a "modern myth". Clarke also brings up Jim Penniston's 2010
supposed bombshell about time travellers leaving binary code messages. As I've
explained before, this was clearly an attempt at disinformation, as is the
denouncement of Halt and Larry by Col. Ted Conrad, former Bentwaters-Woodbridge
base commander. Clarke also reminds us of the deceit of Peter Robbins and the
strange fact that Nick Pope latched onto the anti-Larry Warren trolls for some
reason. Why are such trivial spats not beneath him, see: https://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.com/2019/10/sacha-christie-woodbridge-presentation.html?
If Clarke finds this suspicious he does not say so. The Mail Online article is behind a paywall, but somebody sent me a
copy and Dr Clarke has offered to share it with anybody who contacts him
privately. You can do so on Facebook or at his website: https://drdavidclarke.co.uk. I would
honestly welcome a genuine groundbreaking new criticism of the RFI and this new
documentary made about it. I would be invigorated by the challenge of innovative
information and explanations for what happened that Christmas all those years
ago, but there's nothing like that here. Clarke has literally written a poor
transcription of every shallow, illogical and deceptive piece of rhetoric that
has been continuously tossed around the media for decades. What pains me the
most is that Dr David Clarke actually won my admiration and support a couple of
years ago for his excellent revival of the Calvine incident, see: https://hpanwo-tv.blogspot.com/2022/08/ufo-disclosure-2022-why-now.html
and: https://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.com/2024/06/would-real-kevin-russell-please-stand-up.html.
I was really hoping he had seen the light and turned a corner. Unfortunately
not it seems.
Dr David Clarke has written a review of Capel Green. He was not at the premiere, but must have gone along to one of the other Stowmarket screenings. He gives an overview of the incident which is basically factual, but then starts criticizing the story in a manner that is obtuse and very unoriginal. He cites somebody who should have been immediately consigned to ridicule and obscurity forty-two years ago, but even today keeps repeating on UFOlogy like a bad curry. Dr Ian Ridpath is an astronomer who claimed that the experience reported by these high level security experts trained to protect our most deadly weapons can be explained away as a meteor shower and the beam of the Orford Ness lighthouse, see here for details: https://hpanwo-tv.blogspot.com/2024/03/rfi-brand-new-info.html and: https://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.com/2018/02/ian-ridpath-at-fortean-london.html. The patronizing has-been then adds: "UFO believers have no interest in solutions" and that
5 comments:
LOL...this is a matter you obviously have very strong feelings about!
On a more serious note, and having only seen the trailer, current cinematographic technology has produced a stark and breathtaking aesthetic experience that allows the viewer to get closer than ever to the realities of the incident. Making it seem more real also makes it even harder to refute in terms of conventional phenomena.
I suppose the critics feel they have nowhere to hide. All they can do is rehash and double down on old explanations whilst keeping their fingers crossed that many people will never watch the film out of 'UFO fatigue'.
UPDATE. According to somebody I know, Dr Clarke has NOT seen the film yet. When rereading the article it gives the impression he has, but he does not say so specifically.
Quite so, MT. I do recommend watching the whole movie when you get the chance. There will be more opportunities. Bookmark the website for updates.
In which case the article is just a measure of how arrogant and dismissive he is, and not much else.
He certainly comes across that way here. It's sad cos he was so good over the Calvine UFO. Maybe if he does see the movie he'll change his position again.
Post a Comment