UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Dec > Dec 13

Re: Penniston NP Conference & King

From: Lan Fleming <lfleming5.nul>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 22:08:05 -0600
Archived: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 04:12:25 -0500
Subject: Re: Penniston NP Conference & King

>From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 22:24:20 -0000
>Subject: Re: Penniston NP Conference & King

>>From: Lan Fleming <lfleming5.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 13:29:21 -0600
>>Subject: Re: Penniston NP Conference & King


>>I haven't been following the ins and outs of this discussion,

>Fair enough, but you're missing the point.

But I think you're missing _my_ point. You said the witnesses'
statements were will-o-the-wispy, which they were. But someone
gave a considerably more detailed description of the object in
Halt's memo that could not be reasonably described as a will o'
the wisp. The description of a metallic object did not come from
any of the written statements. It appears the witnesses may have
tailored their descriptions from the very beginning, perhaps
depending on the audience.

It would be interesting to hear from Halt exactly who told him
that the object was metallic and triangular in shape, and if it
was Penniston, whether he said anything about  actually touching
the object to anyone else at the time. I don't think anyone has
ever asked Halt that question.

>The claim now is that they "left out" the detail of actually
>touching it because they feared for their careers and so all
>conspired to claim falsely that 50 meters was as close as they
>got. But the difference, in terms of career damage, between
>reporting that you have "positively identified" an object as a
>mechanical device "out of the realm of explanation" from 50
>meters away, and reporting that you have so identified it from 1
>meter away, seems to me to be an overly sophistical one that
>could never reasonably have been expected to serve as a sensible

Penniston later said that he had touched the object and that
there was some sort of writing on it. I don't think it's out of
the question that he might have been a little uncomfortable
saying that, especially if he felt that his interrogators didn't
want to hear that kind of crazy talk. It wasn't necessarily a
coldly logical calculation about career advancement.

In another case that comes to mind, Lonnie Zomora originally
said that he saw two people in coveralls near the UFO in the
Soccoro incident. After being ridiculed for seeing little people
in UFOs, he later omitted the "people" from his description and
said only that he had seen two pairs of coveralls near the
object. It apparently didn't occur to him that the image of two
pairs of empty pants standing by a UFO was even more ridiculous
that that of two little people, with or without pants. I don't
think that proves Zamorra was lying; UFO witnesses sometimes
seem to change their stories in ways that don't make a lot of
sense when they're under pressure. Maybe Penniston was lying,
but I think the evidence of that so far as I'm aware is less
than conclusive.

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