UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Dec > Dec 26

Re: Penniston NP Conference & King

From: Brad Sparks <RB47x.nul>
Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 23:52:31 EST
Archived: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 09:49:54 -0500
Subject: Re: Penniston NP Conference & King


>From: Gerald O'Connell <gac.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 00:30:58 +0000
>Subject: Re: Penniston NP Conference & King

>>From: Joe McGonagle <joe.mcgonagle.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 12:51:38 +0000
>>Subject: Re: Penniston NP Conference & King

<snip>

>Joe, here's another way to look at what has happened to date on
>this particular thread:

>1. Martin raised some legitimate concerns about inconsistencies
>over time in Penniston's Rendlesham story.

>2. There was a lively discussion around the possible reasons for
>these inconsistencies, with particular reference as to whether
>they discredit Penniston's original testimony, subsequent
>testimony, both, or neither.

>3. A subtle shift then occurred as the focus drifted away from
>discussion of the primary evidence towards a dispute as to the
>quality of advocacy of the respective protagonists'
>interpretation of that evidence.

>4. To varying degrees, the protagonists have lost patience with
>each other's conduct of that secondary dispute and are now at
>loggerheads.

>5. Despite this, the central question remains as to why
>Penniston's story should have changed, and what is the
>significance of this change.

>6. Of the central protagonists, Dick is the only one who has put
>forward an unambiguous view as to why Penniston's story should
>have changed, and has actually offered some evidence (albeit of
>a 'character witness' status) for his view.

>7. The central protagonists are now so annoyed with each other
>(and very possibly themselves for becoming so annoyed) that the
>thread is probably at, or close to, its useful end.

This is a fair summary of the controversy to date. I have an
explanation that resolves the confounding issues. I examined
this case in great detail around 1999-2002 and was in extensive
contact with a number of researchers, skeptics and debunkers. I
poured over the Ordnance Survey maps at great length and
obtained technical details about the lighthouses in the region.

First, I must insist on a methodological rule. Certainties must
control over uncertainties. Only facts that are certain and
conclusive can resolve contradictions, discrepancies and
confusion caused by a plethora of uncertain claims or "uncertain
facts" (actually, if it is uncertain then it really cannot be a
"fact"). No matter how many uncertain points are adduced they
cannot add up to a certainty.

If you cannot accept this basic principle of epistemology and
the scientific method then you don't belong in a scientific
discussion, and I won't engage in what will prove to be a
fruitless dialogue based on a hopelessly false principle. I do
not see how anything can ever be resolved based on dubious or
uncertain points. If you believe in the use of political or
other force to "win," or that "might makes right," or "truth is
determined by vote," then don't bother me with your pointless
and unscientific arguments.

Here is a conclusive, hard fact: It is an absolute physical
impossibility for anyone to have seen and "chased" the
Orfordness (or Orford Ness, ON for short) lighthouse for 2 miles
east of the east end of the Woodridge base back in 1980, because
the beacon is only visible at one tiny area where it is high
enough to see it and it is unobstructed by trees. As one
progresses eastward from this small spot the land slopes
downward till it reaches sea level only 0.4 mile to the east.
The view of the ON lighthouse is blocked by a ridge on the east
banks of the Butley river, around Gedgrave Hall.

The area where the ON lighthouse is visible is less than 1/10th
mile in size at the beginning of the forest clearing that opens
onto the farmer's field at Green Farm and Capel Green. This is
obvious from the OS maps I've examined in great detail and from
simple calculations and it was confirmed by local skeptic Robert
McLean who went out there at night around 2000 (who told me he
couldn't see anything except at that one spot), and by Dave
Rudiak in the daytime in April 2002. See Dave's webpage:

http://www.roswellproof.com/Rendlesham_pictorial.html

No skeptics or debunkers have ever been able to do the simple
scientific experiment and take a video camera out to Rendlesham
forest and photograph the ON lighthouse, to prove that it can be
seen in the woods and followed for 2 miles. Various film crews
reporting on the Rendlesham incident have likewise never been
able to prove the ON lighthouse was visible for a 2-mile
"chase," not even the caustically anti-UFO BBC.

Moreover, as nautical charts show and as Rudiak proved with his
closeup photo of the ON lighthouse, the blinding light is
"masked" to the west. Skeptics and debunkers have claimed it was
the blinding light of the ON lighthouse that dazzled the USAF
witnesses, when in fact no such blinding light was ever beamed
in their direction. It is a simple fact that the hundreds of
thousands of residents in SE England do not want to be blinded
every frikkin night by a lighthouse beaming into their houses
and bedrooms, so that direction is blocked and only a tiny
amount of light leaks out by backscattering from mist in front
of the eastward beam.

So when the statements of USAF Security Police airmen Cabansag
and Burroughs allege that they all had conducted a foolish 2-
mile chase of the lighthouse through the woods and an "open
field" near a "farmer's house," this was an absolute physical
impossibility and a total lie. In fact, the 2-mile trek through
the open field near the farmhouse was what Col. Halt's group did
two nights later, _not_ Penniston, Cabansag, Burroughs trio
("PBC" for short).. How did this 2-mile Halt trek get inserted
into the statements of Cabansag and Burroughs (and is also in
Penniston's by implication)?

But there is more inserted than just a purported 2-mile hike in
the Rendlesham forest at night, but also the almost snide
comments about how they were purportedly just foolishly pursuing
a lighthouse beacon. There is no possible innocent explanation
here. A hypothetical secretarial slipup with drafting statements
for both Halt and the PBC group (but Burroughs' statement is
handwritten) could hypothetically have gotten Halt's 2-mile hike
inserted into PBC's statements but it would not have resulted in
the creation of an utterly fictitious and impossible lighthouse
chase which didn't come from Halt.

Halt's team did not pursue the ON lighthouse and their magnetic
compass readings prove it, as recorded on audio tape right while
they were in the pursuit (their readings were about 110- 120
degrees, whereas the ON lighthouse was at 98 degs Magnetic,
after correcting for 1980 declination of 5.2 degs and 2.7 degs
for "grid north"; the OS maps show that about 110 Mag was the
only possible route Halt and his men could have followed without
running into walls or more forest and it fits their real time
descriptions on the tape). Needless to say, there was and is no
lighthouse or beacon light out at about 110-120 Magnetic.

Here are the lying statements from the Cabansag and Burroughs
documents. First from Cabansag, right after admitting that
"nothing was visible" when they were passing "through the woody
forrest [forest]" (correct from the standpoint of a lighthouse,
not correct from the standpoint of a UFO maneuvering through the
trees) and it was only after getting through the woods into the
clearing that they could see any lights, namely the "lit up farm
house."

Then Cabansag's false statement alleges:

"But we ran and walked a good 2 miles past our the vehicle,
until we got to a vantage point where we could determine that
what we were chasing was only a beacon light off in the
distance. Our route through the forrest [sic] and field was a
direct one, straight towards the light. We informed CSC [Central
Security Control by radio] that the light beacon was farther
than we thought, so CSC terminated our investigation."

This statement if it had been true would have been extremely
damaging, not to Cabansag but to _Halt_. Here was a lowly airman
on his first or second day on the job who makes a a
laughingstock out of a Lt Colonel who evidently cannot tell a
lighthouse from a UFO! Even though on different dates, a
lighthouse has to be visible every night that is relatively
clear, so the "fact" that the "same lighthouse" was seen on
"multiple nights," as debunkers would claim, would ruin Halt and
his UFO observation. The fact there were some odd date
discrepancies could have been used to muddy the waters even
further, enabling a propaganda innuendo that these were even one
and the same incident.

But a handwritten note at the bottom of the Cabansag statement,
signed by "H" (possibly Halt) says: "I'm convinced that this is
a 'cleaned up' version of what happened. I talked with Amn
[Airman] Cabansag + can say he was shook up to the point he
didn't want to talk."

Georgina Bruni interviewed Cabansag and he "denied he walked a
distance of two miles or anything close to it. He also denies
that he mistook the lighthouse for the UFO" (p. 192).

In fact Cabansag says he saw BOTH the UFO and the lighthouse
at the same time (p. 193):

"It wasn't the lighthouse. I saw the lighthouse, this wasn't it,
it was to the right of the lighthouse."

We have a very similar situation with Burroughs' alleged
statement:

"Once we reached the farmer's house we could see a beacon going
around, so we went toward it. We followed it for about 2 miles
before we could see it was coming from a lighthouse."

But it was an absolute physical impossibility to see the ON
lighthouse from the vicinity of the Green Farm farmhouse, which
is at the 5-meter elevation level about sea level, in a
depression in the terrain, as noted before. From the one spot
where the ON lighthouse was actually visible a course straight
towards the lighthouse would have run the PBC group into the
walled property of the Butley Abbey after 0.5 mile into the
alleged 2-mile chase, something none of them reported seeing or
running into.

Burroughs also later denied the lighthouse theory. He told
Antonio Huneeus that they saw the UFO then when it disappeared
they then saw the evidently much less prominent lighthouse.

We must use certainties to resolve uncertainties. It is certain
that the ON lighthouse could not be seen and followed for 2
miles east from the Woodbridge base perimeter road or from the
start of the clearing leading to the Green Farm. It is therefore
certain that the statements in the Cabansag and Burroughs
documents claiming to have done so (and evidently repudiated by
them later) are absolute lies. Then the question is who put
those lies into their statements?

The notion that a nineteen-year-old airman after only a few days
on the job could have concocted the elaborate lying scenario of
chasing a lighthouse beacon 2 miles through forest and glen is
highly improbable. Cabansag's later testimony to Bruni has the
ring of simple observational truth: "It couldn't have been two miles;
it was cold out there." (p. 193)

My interpretation of the situation is that AFOSI deliberately
falsified the statements of Cabansag and Burroughs (and probably
that of Penniston as well but to a much lesser degree) in order
to discredit Col. Halt, not them, and that it only incidentally
had the effect also desirable to AFOSI of discrediting the PBC
trio too.

The most threatening testimony to the AF coverup of UFO's was
clearly Col. Halt's, with his multiple channels of evidence,
including real-time taped witness narrative, compass readings,
radioactivity readings, radio communications tied in with radar
tracking, over a dozen witnesses in the group, and Halt's
observations of UFO maneuvering near the Bentwaters AFB nuclear
waepons storage area (WSA), certainly one of the most disturbing
observations of all.

By inserting false material into the PBC statements suggestive of
Col. Halt's 2-mile trek two nights later, AFOSI apparently intended
to insinuate that Halt had chased the Orfordness (or Orford Ness
or ON for short) lighthouse over the 2 miles. Since Halt had
followed magnetic compass bearings that clearly proved they
were _not_ heading towards the ON lighthouse, it was easier to
fraudulently suggest instead that PBC had followed the lighthouse
(they apparently did not use a compass) and then try to confuse
the Halt and PBC incidents so they appeared to be one and the
same. The date discrepancies helped the intentional confusion
of the two incidents as one incident.

The PBC trio never had a 2-mile trek into the Rendlesham woods.
They never crossed the "open field" and passed a "farmer's
house" (the Green Farm and Capel Green) -- that was what Halt
did two nights later. The statements of Lt Buran and Sgt
Chandler both indicate that Penniston told them by radio that
the unidentified lights were just beyond the end of the access
road leading from the base's East Gate by no more than about 100
meters. That would have been the approximate location of the
Penniston close encounter.

Penniston's interview with Bruni indicates that after his close
encounter with the landed object he headed farther east perhaps
about 1/2 mile (p. 175). This is in fact the correct distance
through the woods from that 100-meter point to the clearing into
the open field and the only point in the entire area where the
ON lighthouse can in fact be seen. This last spot is where they
saw the ON lighthouse, nowhere else. Then they turned back to
base.

Once these absolutely certain facts have been established we can
then move on to less certain facts and issues with more
confidence and with some keys to interpreting truth and
falsehood and accuracy and inaccuracy.

Brad Sparks

This 2-mile journey from the Halt incident has been falsely
inserted into the Cabansag and Burroughs statements, along with
explicit assertions of "chasing a lighthouse" (my paraphrase)
that they later denied ever making. Some parts of their
statements were in fact their own so they later had difficulty
understanding the problems with the statements. Since they were
the junior members of the security team they were more
susceptible to AFOSI pressure and threats, and S/Sgt Penniston
as the senior member was the least susceptible. Cabansag had
only been on duty at the base a day or two and was the least
experienced.


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