UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Dec > Dec 9

Re: Penniston NP Conference & King

From: Nick Pope <contact.nul>
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 14:48:13 -0000
Archived: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 11:42:51 -0500
Subject: Re: Penniston NP Conference & King

>From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 16:49:55 -0000
>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


>>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.

>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.


Some issues concerning the original witness statements are
examined in You Can't Tell The People. To give one example of
the problems with them, Edward Cabansag told Georgina Bruni that
he signed his statement without looking at it.

Other issues that may have had a bearing on all this include
concern as to whether any USAF personnel had undertaken actions
contrary to the Status of Forces Agreement and concerns about
the fact that light beams were seen striking a certain area -
one of several details Charles Halt left out of his memo to the

The various witnesses saw and experienced different things and
reacted to them in different ways. This, together with
variations in the subsequent debriefings (and the way in which
those concerned reacted to these debriefings), will also have
had a bearing on what went into the statements and what was left

I've discussed the Rendlesham Forest incident twice with Charles
Halt in the last month. It's clear to me that a decision was
taken to sanitize some of the accounts, with a view to raising
the more sensitive issues in the subsequent investigation, once
some indication of official reaction had been received. This
strategy was undermined by the fundamentally flawed nature of
the MoD's investigation.

I don't have any definitive answers here, but the full story of
the incident and what happened afterwards has yet to emerge.

Best wishes,

Nick Pope


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



[ Next 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