UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Dec > Dec 15

Re: Penniston NP Conference & King

From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul>
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 16:33:57 -0000
Archived: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 16:12:26 -0500
Subject: Re: Penniston NP Conference & King


>From: Richard Hall <dh12.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 05:39:31 -0500
>Subject: Re: Penniston NP Conference & King

>Lan and Gerald,

>You are two people on this List whose views and opinions I
>always benefit from. Anyone who knows me knows how skeptical I
>am of people who engage in sensationalism, embellishment, or any
>of their cousins. I personally size up witnesses at every
>opportunity.

>During the recent National Press Club press conference I had
>occasion to talk at length with Jim Penniston, sat with him at
>meetings, and got to know him pretty well. He is a very
>conservative, thoughtful, dignified person who was and is
>highly
>professional about military matters. I heard his presentation
>which, up to that point, I had only second hand from Colonel
>Halt. No way is he embellishing or exaggerating anything.

Dick

I realise that you're not speaking to me but you will excuse
this intervention. I acknowledge your long experience in
speaking with witnesses and I have no reason to think you are
not amongst the best judges of character. However you will also
acknowledge that personal impressions cannot trump the evidence
in the historical record, so you will understand that my own
point of view is to note your opinion of the man's character but
to continue to place emphasis on the consistency of the written
and spoken evidence.

Which causes me to agree with Gerald that the latter contains
difficult and inconsistent issues that are not satisfactorily
resolved. These are all, so far as I can tell, introduced by
claims made years after the event. I would be first in the queue
to hear explanations.

Since you have recently questioned Penniston at length in order
to satisfy yourself that "no way is he embellishing or
exaggerating" I'm confident that you will be able to tell the
list how he explained to you the discrepant time and date on the
notebook which he claims to have written by the light of the UFO
in real time, but which Burroughs denies he ever wrote.

Of course if Penniston _has_ embellished his story that does not
mean the original event was not significant. That something
unexplained happened on Dec 26 appears clear, to me, from the
original documents. But I seem to be alone. The rest of you
appear bent upon totally devaluing those documents by promoting
the story that they were faked, which is the only way of
accommodating new and more exciting claims made years
afterwards.
The irony of this is devastating.

>Some people on this List seem unable to grasp the human factors
>aspects of close encounter UFO sightings, which generally scare
>the pants off of the astonished witnesses. In this country, at
>least, the ridicule factor is very powerful. So in the heat of
>the momemnt, fearing ridicule and/or loss of reputation,
>witnesses often (I repeat, often) are reluctant to come forth
>with the full details of their experiences. I know this as a
>fact, and know many highly placed witnesses who don't dare
>speak out.

They weren't thinking straight, not reacting rationally in the
heat of the moment. Yet Chandler's testimony indicates that they
had the presence of mind to make up a lie on the spot about not
getting closer than 50m and report this over the radio to CSC in
real time so that it would lend credence to what Penniston was
planning to claim.

Or else Chandler's statement and Buran's statement were
fabricated too, so that this 50m detail and the time-line in
which it is embedded was all carefully constructed at leisure
after the fact - even though neither Chandler nor Buran was a
witness and had nothing directly to gain by it, yet definitely
had something to lose by putting their signatures to lies on
official reports, as you point out:

>In the military this Ridicule Factor can be especially powerful.
>You do things by the book, and you are required to follow
>certain protocols, and you don't go around telling wild
>stories.

Yes of course in the military you know to do things by the book,
follow regs and don't purvey fantasies. So it's natural, I
suppose, for security police who are sticklers for protocol to
conspire to fabricate official statements and sign off on an
untrue wild story for fear of ridicule and to protect their
reputations. In fact it comes naturally to Buran and Chandler to
do this to protect someone else's reputations.

>So if you are a senior security policeman and see a rather
>unearthly metallic craft in the woods and touch it, you are in
>a quandary.

Are you in much less of a quandary if you only see it from 50m
away? Perhaps so, because you could then claim that you couldn't
honestly say if it was an unearthly machine or not. Yes, and you
could then, if you were a bit slow, totally subvert the point of
that strategem by claiming that you "positively identified" it
as an unearthly machine in any case. All you would have achieved
then is to make the same claim and expose yourself to all that
"ridicule and loss of reputation" whilst having hog-tied
yourself by watering down your own evidence for this "wild
story" which according to you military men just don't go around
telling. And what a shame when you had all those nice close-up
photographs too.

>The behavior of both Penniston and Halt in initially
>holding back the details about what they experienced is
>completely understandable.

If you say so.

Martin Shough



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

See:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/subscribers/


[ 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