UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Dec > Dec 16

Re: Penniston NP Conference & King

From: Richard Hall <dh12.nul>
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 18:35:12 -0500
Archived: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 09:06:09 -0500
Subject: Re: Penniston NP Conference & King

>From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 16:33:57 -0000
>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

>>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.


>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.

Okay, I had not read this when I responded at length to the
previous post, but you deserve a point by point response and I
will give it to you. But for openers, you have to look at all of
the "historical record", not just the first draft.

>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.

There you go again, to borrow an expression from Ronald Reagen.
Years after the event we often get a much clearer and more
accurate picture of what really happened. And here I speak as a
published historian.

>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.

Something I have observed over and over in your argumentation is
a tendency to make a series of assumptions (premises) and go
from there as if the premises were all true. I did not question
Penniston to satisfy myself of anything; I simply had an
opportunity to talk with him and took advantage of it. From
having talked with Col. Halt at great length I had no reason to
doubt pennistons honesty and integrity.

Secondly, when I spoke to him I was not even aware of an alleged
date discrepancy and am not sure how valid that allegation is.
The dates of the Bentwaters events have always been a little
confused, but that has never bothered me particularly. It would
be good to clear up that question and maybe Nick Pope could
offer something definitive about that.

I didn't know that Burroughs had denied that Penniston made
notes. That seems to me to be a bizarre claim which I will take
up with Penniston next time I am in touch with him. Definitely
requires clarification, but I strongly suspect that Burroughs is

>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

Where did I or anyone else say that the original documents were
"faked?" And there you go again with "new and exciting claims
made many years afterwards." You continue to falsely
characterize the sequence and timing of events.

>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.

Well, I won't even attempt to respond to this sort of lawyerly
spin doctoring, subjective argument.

>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:

See above. Aristotle would be proud of you for your either - or
reasoning amply loaded with false premises.

>>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

>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.

God, Martin, get real!

>>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.

Your reasoning is as convoluted as....a conspiracy theorist.

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

>If you say so.

I did say so and I will stand by what I said. it is based
collectively on many years direct field investigation and
interviewing of witnesses, personal knowledge of military
affairs, many years experience as a senior editor of
psychological and other human behavioral literature, oversight
of a national and international investigation network, and...
personal contact with two of the principal witnesses in this


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