UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Dec > Dec 4

Re: Penniston NP Conference & King

From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul>
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 16:49:55 -0000
Archived: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 10:58:09 -0500
Subject: Re: Penniston NP Conference & King

>From: Nick Pope <contact.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 11:11:47 -0000
>Subject: Re: Penniston NP Conference & King

>>From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 19:52:44 -0000
>>Subject: Re: Penniston NP Conference & King

>>>From: Richard Hall <dh12.nul>
>>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>>Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 08:58:35 -0500
>>>Subject: Re: Penniston NP Conference & King


>>>The statement by Penniston quoted above is absolutely correct.
>>>I heard his presentation at the recent press conference and
>>>talked with him at length. He has never said otherwise, and
>>>anyone who says he did is either lying or badly confused.

>>Excuse me for butting in re. a case of which I know little, but
>>this appears to be incorrect if the scan of a typed statement by
>>Penniston is to be believed. This statement appears not to be
>>dated, and it isn't signed either, so I suppose its provenance
>>may be in question? However I don't believe I am confused about
>>this: It does indeed say that he got to within 50 meters and
>>that this was "the closest I was near the object at any point".

>Penniston has confirmed (see page 183 of Georgina Bruni's book
>You Can't Tell The People) that this typed statement "seems
>original in content", though he said that his original statement
>was handwritten. Halt told me on Saturday that he didn't know
>who typed up the statement.

>Penniston left many details out of his statement in the same
>way as Halt left details out of his memo. The reasons for this
>included concern at the official reaction and concern for their
>careers. Reference to this is made on page 220 of You Can't
>Tell The People.

Thankyou Nick.

So if I have this right, Penniston confirmed that in his
original statement he did say 50 meters was "the closest I got
at any point", but now claims that he just "left out some
details"? I find this difficult to square with the believably
consistent picture painted by the original statements of all
five people involved. That picture doesn't seem to me to be a
result of just passively "leaving out details". These accounts
imply a conspiracy to actively invent an interlocking false
story - and one done in a very subtle fashion. Perhaps they were
subtle people. But if they did this for the purpose of
suppressing the embarrassing fact that they really saw a
mechanical device at close quarters, why did Penniston shoot
them all in the foot by claiming to have "positively identified"
the lights as a mechanical device? I find it much easier to
believe that these original statements are ingenuous. If there
are good reasons not to think this, can you summarise what they
are (other than Penniston's changed story I mean)? The relevant
passages are quoted below for reference.

Martin Shough


"Sgt Penniston reported getting near the 'object' and then all
of a sudden said they had gone past it and were looking at a
marker beacon that was in the same general area as the other
lights. I asked him, through Sgt Coffey, if he could have been
mistaken, to which Penniston replied that had I seen the other
lights I would know the difference."


"When I arrived, Ssgt Penniston, A1C Burroughs and Amn Cabansang
had entered the wooded area... On one occasion Penniston relayed
that he was close enough to the object to determine that it was
deffently [sic] a mechanical object. He stated that he was
within approximately 50 meters... Each time Penniston gave me
the indication that he was about to reach the area where the
lights were, he would give an extended estimated location. He
eventually arrived at a 'beacon light', however, he stated this
was not the light or lights that he had originally observed."


"We got up to a fence that separated the trees from the open
field and you could see the lights down by a farmer's house. We
climbed over the fence and started walking towards the red and
blue lights and they just disappeared. Once we reached the
farmer's house we could see a beacon going around so we went
towards it."


"While we walked each one of us would see the lights. Blue, red,
white and yellow. The beckon [sic] light turned out to be the
yellow light. We could see them periodically, but not in a
specific pattern. As we approached the lights would seem to be
at the edge of the forrest [sic]... As we entered the forrest
the blue and red lights were not visible anymore. Only the
beacon light was still blinking. We figured the lights were
coming from past the forrest, since nothing was visible when we
past [sic] through the woody forrest. We could see a glowing
near the beacon light, but as we got closer we found it to be a
lit up farm house."


"The area in front of us was lighting up a 30 meter area. When
we got within a 50 meter distance. The object was producing red
and blue light... At this point of positive identification I
relayed... that it was defidently [sic] mechaniclal [sic] in
nature. This is the closest point that I was near the object at
any point. We then proceeded after it."

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