UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Dec > Dec 23

Re: Penniston NP Conference & King

From: Lan Fleming <lfleming5.nul>
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:13:38 -0600
Archived: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 20:09:52 -0500
Subject: Re: Penniston NP Conference & King

>From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 17:37:25 -0000
>Subject: Re: Penniston NP Conference & King

>>From: Lan Fleming <lfleming5.nul>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 13:45:02 -0600
>>Subject: Re: Penniston NP Conference & King

>>>From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul>
>>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>>Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 18:53:47 -0000
>>>Subject: Re: Penniston NP Conference & King


>>>Did you really just put the words "descriptions of a mere will
>>>o'the wisp" into my mouth for the second time? I'm rapidly
>>>realising the futility of talking about this since you persist
>>>in failing even to even read accurately. In fact this more than
>>>a failure, it is a perverse and wilfull misrepresentation
>>>peddled a second time after I explicitly and with precise
>>>quotation as evidence proved to you that this was neither what
>>>I said nor what any rational reader could have conceived that I

>>Your original statement was:

>>>They saw some wierd display of
>>>blue and red lights that behaved in an apparent will-o'-the-
>>>whisp fashion and vanished before they got nearer than 50m. At
>>>that distance Penniston (at least) was "positive" they were
>>>attached to an unknown mechanical device. Fine. The problem is
>>>with the emergence of a new narrative which claims that they
>>>got right up close and actually touched this thing.

>>A weird display of lights that behaves like a will o' the wisp
>>is, as far as I can tell, the description of something very
>>similar to, and something that just might be, a _will_o'_the_
>>_wisp_. You are the one who put those words into your own

>>Don't blame me for it.

>Well the entire force of that paragarph turns on the phrase "as
>far as I can tell", which frankly is not far. You misinterpreted
>me innocently once, but after having refused to listen to my
>explanation of what I meant you have now persisted in
>_deliberately_ misrepresenting me twice. Your credibility
>balance is now in negative figures.

I just quoted you verbatim, and I am not misinterpreting you at

I understood that you were describing the apparently elusive
motion of "weird lights" that may have seemed to have structure.
I even agreed with your characterization of the written
descriptions as having a will-o-the-wisp quality to them.

My point, which I obviously think is more important than you do
is that the omission of the triangular shape from their written
statements was a significant omission, proving that they weren't
writing down everything they knew in those statemetns, and
therefore giving some support to their claim that they were
being reticent with their interrogators. You can rant all you
want, but I am not convinced the evidence is overwhelming that
Pennistion's later story is a lie, and neither are a lot of
other reasonable people.

BTW: There's an unwritten debating rule that whoever compares
the opponent to Hitler loses. The same goes for Bin Laden.

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