UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Dec > Dec 29

Re: Penniston NP Conference & King

From: Lan Fleming <lfleming5.nul>
Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 20:47:16 -0600
Archived: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 09:27:14 -0500
Subject: Re: Penniston NP Conference & King

>From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 00:07:26 -0000
>Subject: Re: Penniston NP Conference & King

>>From: Lan Fleming <lfleming5.nul>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:13:38 -0600
>>Subject: Re: Penniston NP Conference & King


>>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,

>The argument that Penniston's report can't be the source of
>Halt's adjective "triangular" obviously rests on the fact that
>Penniston does not describe anything triangular. This, for you,
>is a "significant omission" proving the statement is rigged.

Whooah there, cowboy! I never said anything about something
"proving" the statement was rigged. I said what Halt's memo
proved was that there were details about the case that were not
reported in the written descriptions of any of the witnesses. I
don't see how I could have made that any clearer. And you're the
one making assinine attacks on my "credibility" for supposedly
misinterpreting you.

>For me, it means there is no documentary evidence that Penniston
>explicitly reported a triangular device. This point of view
>receives support from Penniston's own contemporaneous drawing,
>which shows a rectangular device.

If Penniston was being reticent in his written statement, then
the drawing of the small boxy thing could well have gone along
with his minimalist description of a machine composed of some
conventional more conventional appearance than what he described
in the OMNI interview.

>Burroughs however does draw a triangular shape of lights, and
>such a shape is _implicit_ in the descriptions - i.e., broad
>base of lights, cone of white light, narrowing to red light on
>top. Is there "overwhelming evidence" here (to borrow your
>phrase) that Halt could not have got his "triangular" from here?

Maybe, but the notations on Burroughs' drawing indicate that the
triangular shape was intended to depict a conical beam of light,
not of an object. And where did the estimate (2 to 3 meters at
the base and 2 meters high) of the size comer from? I haven't
seen anything in any of the written statements about the
dimensions of the object, and only Penniston's statement
suggested that anything solid was seen that could _have_

>There is an allegation that something
>other than what was reported was seen and suppressed, but that
>allegation is the very thing that's in question so it would be
>circular to rely on this as evidence.

Nobody has made such a stupid cirucular argument, so why do you
bother to bring it up?

>You can cite Penniston's notebook containing triangular drawings
>as "contemporaneous" evidence, but then you need to explain why
>it also bears the same wrong Dec 27 date as appeared in Halt's

The explanation might be that the incorrect date in Halt's memo
was _taken_ from Penniston's notebook and that Pennieston wrote
down the wrong date at the time of the incident. If he were
faking his notebook entry somewhere around 2003 for the
documentary in which the notebook appeared, he had 22 years to
find out that it had been generally agreed upon years ago that
the date in the Halt memo was wrong. That seems more plausible
than the notion that Penniston just mindlessly copied the date
from the Halt memo just so that his "fraudulent" notebook would
match it, but didn't bother to parrot the description of the
object as "metallic" in the Halt memo and instead said it was
composed of a bizzare translucent glassy material.

As for the time discrepancy, you apparently are too intent on
discrediting Penniston to notice the odd similarity between the
statements Chandler and Buran. They both use the exact same
phrase: "at approximately 0300 hrs, 26 December 1980". Saying
exactly the same thing might be an indication that their stories
were coordinated. Stories told by different people in which some
elements seem too similar may be more cause for suspicion than
stories freely told that have descrepancies that may be due to
faulty memory or discomfort about what is being described.
Penniston was the eye witness to what was obviously a remarkable
event, and he might be expected to notice the time more
accurately than Buran and Chandler, who saw nothing and who gave
their own statements seven days later.

>Consider also that, according to the above writers, Penniston
>(as Jim Archer) told them in 1983 that he had _not_ touched the
>object, that he did not _try_ to touch the object, that he
>thought _Burroughs_ was _going_ to try to touch it when they got
>close at one point, but that the object jumped away from them
>before he could do so.

>Consider that this is an anonymous "deep-throat" account given
>not to AF superiors, to whom Penniston's might have had reason
>to play down a 45-minute tactile inspection, but to highly
>receptive ufologists.

>He told them in 1983 that the object was "off-white" in colour,
>and "dirty" looking - not a "black, smooth, glasslike surface"
>as he has told us and shown in his notebook.

Even under a pseudonym, he might still have been too
uncomfortable talking about it to give all the details. Not
having read that It's interesting that the subject of touching
the object came up at this early date. To me, that anyone would
actually want ot touch such a thing is what seemed most
suspicious. This description suggests an object constructed of a
more conventional material than the glassy material he first
described in the OMNI interview.

>He also said that the first alert about the lights coming down
>was at 2:00AM. That at least does not follow Halt. But it also
>doesn't follow his own notebook, where he has the time as 20
>minutes past midnight - "I remember that distinctly" he remarked
>in his 1996 OMNI interview, although everyone else's original
>statement says 0300.

>Note that in his recent press conference statement he now says
>that the incident happened on Dec 26, apparently deferring to
>this date in preference to the date of Dec 27 written in his
>contemporaneous notebook.

>(In 1996 he wasn't sure which date it was: ""There is some
>confusion about the date. There are two duty rosters, both of
>which are dated December 26th, but it was either that night, the
>26th, or the 27th." I don't understand the reference to duty
>rosters when he is quoting during this interview from his own
>real-time notes, which begin: "27 Dec 80. 12:20. Response notes.
>A/C crash".

>(BTW, re the photos: I just noticed that in this recent NP
>conference statement he said, "The photos we retrieved from the
>base lab were apparently over exposed." But in 1996 he said he'd
>did _not_ retrieve his photos from the lab: "I never got them
>back. I never saw them. I was just told that they didn't turn
>out. I didn't understand that but was not in a position to push
>the issue.")

>>therefore giving some support to their claim that they were
>>being reticent with their interrogators.

>The story is that these statements were collected by Halt
>personally for his own use and were considered by him to be
>private papers. They were not made for those interrogators.

I don't know what story you're talking about here, since you
give no source or quotations. You seem to be jumping to the
conclusion that kind old Col. Halt was interviewing his pal
Penniston directly, but I've seen no indication that any of the
witnesses talked directly with Halt at the time or that they
even Penniston knew Halt. In the OMNI interview, Penniston did
not say he told anyone about touching the object at the time
andsaid he only discussed the incident with Halt "much later."

>Penniston's own story is true then they do constitute evidence
>of disingenuousness. But this cannot be not merely "reticence",
>and not merely a sin of omission either. It has to be a
>coordinated sin of commission, ...

The Pope, perhaps should be left to judge of the gravity of
these "sins." It seems to me that Penniston may have just
attributed more conventional features to the object rather than
the bizarre things he later says he witnessed later because he
was uncomfortable talking about it regardless of whether the
interrogator was a UFO researcher or an Air Force officer.

>>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.

>I don't think anyone needs to be "overwhelmingly convinced" of
>it to take the possibility seriously. Have I ever said that I
>am? But if specific negative evidence is not dealt with
>conscientiously then it will remain an attractive theory and
>that does not help anyone to get serious attention for claims
>they make about the case, or for ufology in general.

>There are serious holes in this one.

That's your conclusion. There are explanations for the "holes"
that are equally or more plausible than the thoery that
Penniston, Cabansag, Burroughs, and Halt were all delusion
and/or lying.

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

>There is a super-rule which trumps that one: It says that people
>who falsely accuse their debating opponents of dishonourable
>statements which not only were _not_made_by_them_ (I have never
>made any mention whatsoever of Bin Laden or Hitler in any post)
>but which, furthermore, were not even made by _anybody_ (it's
>hard to imagine how a "reasonable person" could interpret Joe's
>figure of speech in such a ludicrous way) risks making
>themselves look a bit of a twit

It was you who dragged the discussion down into the toilet with
your assinine attack on my "credibility," just because I
_correctly_ pointed out that the spin you were giving the
incident did not jibe with the details of the Halt memo.
McGonagle apparently wanted to play follow the leader, after his
nonsensical Greek chorus praising unspecified merits of your
arguments, by comparing the persistence of dissent from your
revealed wisdom with the fanaticism of Osama Bin Laden. You make
yourself look ridiculous and dishonest by pretending this would
not be deeply offensive (kind of like using the word "twit").
Only a seriously disturbed sociopath could honestly claim that
such a slur was _not_ offensive.

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