Cobra Mist

[puddlepirate]

I am not going to go over old ground but there had to have been something else going on. Something that, if revealed today, would still have the same implications for the USAF that it would have had in Dec 80. As DP says.. consider the other activity. The Autovon system was handling a considerable number of flash over-ride calls. As I understand it, flash over-ride was (is?) reserved only for the very highest precedence voice traffic carried by the USAF telephone network between the highest levels of command, including calls to the US President and possibly also PM Thatcher. So if flash over-ride was being used, those calls were very important indeed.

One of the protocols for NOT releasing information is if the release of that information 'would cause embarrassment to a friendly nation'. If MoD are holding anything back, then that is almost certainly the reason why.

It is also worthwhile considering the implications of the wider political / defence situation at that time:

The Cold War was in full swing
Soviets threatening to invade Poland but being warned off by the US President
NATO on increased alert as a consequence of that threat
Iran holding US hostages in Tehran
There had been a failed rescue attempt to free the hostages early in the year and a second attempt was planned. The second attempt was to use modified C130 aircraft fitted with jet engines. This second attempt was, allegedly, aborted
PM Thatcher took office in 1979
President Reagan elected to office in Nov 80
Iraq invades Iran in Sept 80
US supports Iraq
US has, allegedly being supplying BZ and mustard gas to Saddam Hussein since circa 1977
A recent British TV documentary investigating night flights of USAF aircraft from RAF Lakenheath suggested these aircraft could be flying false flag ops under Israeli colours - if true, then was something similar happening in Dec 80?
In July 80, Rt Hon Francis Pym, the then Defence Secretary grants the US permission to site Cruise missiles in the UK
Anti-nuclear protests in London and at RAF Bentwaters as a result
Allegedly, there was a major drugs bust at the twin bases just before Christmas. It is rumoured that some LE/SP personnel were involved. Several personnel were sent back to the States and other personnel, some apparently just out of training, were drafted in as replacements
HMG chooses its words very carefully. When HMG stated 'it was of no defence significance' then it was because they knew what it was. If they did not know, then they would not have used those words because if HMG had been wrong they would have been called upon to explain that statement and no government. least of all that of Margaret Thatcher, would have risked placing itself in that situation..

Further to all of that, much of what was highly classified in 1980 is now in the public domain so what could possibly link Dec 80 to today and why does whatever that might be have to remain secret?

Answer that and you've solved the mystery of the RFI

[IanR]

Another forum member has reminded me of an additional inconsistency in Penniston's evidence: the drawing Penniston subsequently produced of the triangular-shaped UFO is quite different from the boxy shaped UFO in his original witness statement. I regret to say that I do not know when and where this later diagram of a triangular UFO surfaced. It was not part of the original witness statement, although the impression is sometimes given that it was. James Easton also noted this discrepancy in an article published in Fortean Times in November 2001: "Penniston's account changed radically after he underwent 'regressive hypnosis'. Contrary to his earlier testimony, he began to claim the 'object' was 'triangular-shaped'."

Ian

[tpreitzel]

As I understand it, flash over-ride was (is?) reserved only for the very highest precedence voice traffic carried by the USAF telephone network between the highest levels of command, including calls to the US President and possibly also PM Thatcher. So if flash over-ride was being used, those calls were very important indeed.

Correct. I should know.

[Frank]

I found an interesting site where the theory that there were two encounters the first night is shortly discussed:
http://ufoupdateslist.com/2007/dec/
Read the "Re: Penniston NP Conference & King" messages.

Quote from Martin Shough in these messages (dec 2007):
Maybe there were two sightings and possibly two objects? It's true that Penniston now claims he had his closer encounter when separated from the other two (not by a great distance) on the way back through the trees. He says that he (and others with cameras and instruments whose exact origin and movements I'm not sure about) spent 45 minutes examining the object.

He does not mention the source of this information (and the cameras and instruments seem strange, maybe they come from Larry's account), but rejects this theory based on the fact that Jim in several interviews claims that John was with him.

To me the scenario where Jim had a second encounter while he was alone is the one that best fits the data (I'll explain why below). Let's call this scenario A.

Either he had this encounter on dec 26 on his way back, or he had it on dec 27 (possibly exploring the woods on his own). This would put him in a difficult position. If he reported it, this would surely destroy his career. On the other hand he now was the only one who had some unique information about the craft. I think Jim is the kind of person who has a sense of duty that would urge him to somehow convey this information to his superiors. The only way he could do that without destroying his career is by mixing in this information with the encounter he had together with John. That is how the size estimates of the craft and possibly the wrong date entered Halt's memo.

Why does scenario A fit the data better than scenario B where Jim fabricates false evidence in the form of a notebook? Simply because it has more logical motives and it better fits Jim's personality. Fabricating false evidence simply does not match Jim's credentials and the way he comes across in interviews and to most people who have met him. What does fit is the intelligence to protect his career and the urge to still report as much details on what he saw as possible.

Will we ever be sure? Only if we get help from the original witnesses.
John? Jim? Where are you ..?

By the way, I also found a nice map indicating the different sites:
http://roswellproof.homestead.com/files/REND_map2.gif

Also interesting is the following sentence in Halt's memo:
"The object was briefly sighted approximately an hour later near the back gate."
Did Jim tell Halt something about the second landing but not everything ..?

[AdrianF]

I found an interesting site where the theory that there were two encounters the first night is shortly discussed:
http://ufoupdateslist.com/2007/dec/
Read the "Re: Penniston NP Conference & King" messages.

I hadn't read this before, very interesting. I do think though, that trying to create a new scenario when all the previous testimony says otherwise, will simply make it that much more difficult to find an answer. As Deep Purple said earlier, drilling down on the witnesses isn't going to achieve a great deal. As there are still people coming forward who were involved ( e.g see Silvertops link to the Earthfiles blog ), I think more can be gained by building up a bigger picture from these reports.

[Frank]

Well, AdrianF, you may be right (an I sure hope you are) but evidence and witness statements that were collected shortly after the incident are more reliable than those of a later date. The core elements of a stressfull event are remembered very vividly (our brain chemistry ensures this, which can even lead to PTSS), but details like who was there, at what distance, when did they enter or leave the scene, tend to get lost in memory. That is why I am especially interested in evidence that was collected long ago and have much less trust in what witnesses recollect from memory 30 years later.

To me it is very important to know whether Jim's notebook is real evidence or not. If it is real and made at-the-spot, it is undisputable proof that Jim witnessed extra-terrestrial technology (see my introduction on this forum).

Now if it was a notebook of a retarded boy-scout who watches too many star-trek movies it would be simple. But Jim is exacly the opposite of this, and is why I am compelled to believe his description of the core event (the actual close encounter) is accurate and he even has a notebook to back it up.

The evidence so far is inconclusive, so I'll keep an eye on anything that will get us closer to the truth about this notebook!

[Robert8982007]

Frank, I agree with your approach to this case and am too looking forward to what new developments may come along, especially from new witnesses coming forward in the future.

I checked your link earlier in this string and found a very interesting quote from an author (Richard Hall) which I copied from this link: http://ufoupdateslist.com/2007/dec/m14-002.shtml His observations seem to be very reasonable as far as characterizing Penniston's veracity and setting forth the most likely explanation for his testimony having become somewhat clouded over time.

"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.

I know Charles Halt even better. Several years ago I interviewed
him at length for the account of the Rendlesham Forest affair
that was published in my book The UFO Evidence, Volume II.
After that I have talked with him many times, attended meetings
with him, exchanged communications and information with him
regularly, and advised him on media affairs. He is as honest and
direct as the day is long. And it is significant that he
finished his Air Force career in the Pentagon as a highly placed
officer in the Inspector General's office.

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.

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

Another important point in regard to character is this:

Here we are 27 years later and Colonel Halt absolutely trusts
and respects Jim Penniston. They have remained in close touch;
they were together at the press conference and more or less gave
a joint presentation. Obviously, what happened in the woods in
England was a life-altering experience for both of them and
still is having a profound effect on them."

[FMG]

This is probably a silly question but here goes. It is probably one for Ian Ridpath as he brought up the name. Chris Arnold and evidence for his part, paper work, people who saw him, worked with him, etc. Is there any and if it is just his word why is he not getting the same grilling afforded to others?

[Frank]

Hi FMG,

You can find this story here:
http://web.archive.org/web/20021210083709/www.ufoworld.co.uk/v15.txt
Scroll to about 2/3 of the document or search for "the Chris Armold Interview" and you'll find the story.

Some interesting things:
- Chris talks about meeting John after 4:00 the first night but Jim is not mentioned. Apparently Jim was not there at that moment..
- Chris describes the light from the lighthouse as "very small, far off in the distance".
- Chris' story seems to confirm that John did see lights but did not have a close encounter like the one Jim describes.
- Chris confirms that John showed him the landing marks that night. He also confirms that John saw something that landed in the forest at that position.
- Chris is very sceptical about the whole story, as were many others on the base. He talks about little green men, hysteria, and how silly this makes 81st SPS appear. He thinks the landing marks could be impressions of a coffee can. That makes you wonder: If you had a close encounter in such a work environment, how much would you reveal to you colleagues and superiors and what would you report?

[Vortex]

Hi Ian,

I have a couple of questions for you regarding points made earlier in this thread and would be very interested in hearing your opinions.

James Easton also noted this discrepancy in an article published in Fortean Times in November 2001: "Penniston's account changed radically after he underwent 'regressive hypnosis'. Contrary to his earlier testimony, he began to claim the 'object' was 'triangular-shaped'."

Firstly, with regards to the above point, there is one piece of evidence that seems to contradict the idea that Jim Penniston only began claiming that the UFO he had encountered was 'triangular-shaped' after he had undergone regressive hypnosis. This piece of evidence is the famous Halt memo itself, where it's stated that: “The object was described as being metallic in appearance and triangular in shape”

Who described the object in this way to Halt? I would suggest that it must have been Penniston for the following reasons: 1. This section of the memo is referring specifcally to the first night's encounter in which Penniston was involved ; 2. Penniston was the only witness to go as far as to report sighting a definite, mechnical object in their witness statement (Fred Buran's statement also backs up Penniston on this point).

Although I can't dispute the inconsistencies between some of Jim Penniston's diagrams of the object, does the above not suggest that he did indeed report seeing a triangular-shaped object from day one (i.e. in private, to Halt), but chose to leave this information out of his statement (perhaps in order to 'sanitise' it, i.e. just reporting an 'object', as opposed to a black, glass-like, triangular UFO)?

Following on from above, if Penniston did go as far as to report seeing a definite, mechnical object, triangular in appearance, what is your explanation for this sighting? I'm well aquainted with your theories regarding other aspects of the RFI, but so far, I can't say I've heard anything that convincingly 'explains' this particular sighting. Do you think that the lighthouse was also the culprit in this instance? Or that Penniston mistakenly perceived that he had witnessed an 'object', when in fact all he had seen was lights? I personally struggle to accept the idea that he could of been duped into believing that he was looking at a definite, mechnical object, when in reality, all he was looking at was a lighthouse beam or stars etc.

Any thoughts? By the way, although I don't agree with all your theories, I respect your scientfic approach and attention to the available data. Sceptics, believers or 'sitting on the fencers', I think we all have something to contribute!

Vortex

[Deep Purple]

Vortex--- its nice to see someone disagreeing , but asking questions in a polite manner-- you get a thumbs up for this.
Thinking a little more about what Puddle Pirate said, HMG said it was " of no defence significance"--- this kind of implies they new what it was and it didnt threaten our security.
HMG did not lie in those days, but were perhaps economic with the truth in carefully written statements

It would be nice if some of the witnesses or people around the base could confirm whether or not there were a huge increase in Flash messages just after the event? Anyone out there know about this?
A huge increase would inidcate soemthing did happen, but equally if soviets where conducting exercises near Polish border perhaps this would explain it, What do our Military personnel think who served in this cold war period?
Whilst we may attribute this event to ET and a strange alien triangular craft, we at all times have to consider more earthly explanations to do justice to this mystery..
I think maybe we have to think that HMG knew what it was, it was of no defence significance, but none the less was of extreme embarassment and warranted very high level conversation bewtween the UK & US in mIlitary terms.
An ET event would be of defence significance, unless they knew who they were. So I kind of think its more likely a secret weapon got lost, possibly with a chemical agent-- BZ? or even A10 DU rounds as previusly mentioned before. I still dont rule out the event being some sort of distraction event/ hoax to cover the arrival of the triangular f117a. I no doubt the witnesses could have been subject to drugs or other chemical agents causing hallucinations

[Frank]

I agree with Deep Purple that we should keep both feet on the ground at all times. To me this also means doing things in the right order.

The first step is to get the facts and to get them right, without speculating too much about what it could have been.
The second step is to form theories that fit all the facts. Theories that only fit part of the facts are to be rejected.
The third step (if there is more than one theory left) is to pick the most logical theory. Often this is the simplest theory (a principle known as Occam’s Razor).

I think one of the reasons we still do not have an acceptable explanation is the fact that we all tend to skip the first step, jump right to step 2 and 3 and then try to fit in the facts instead of just getting them right. Very often Occam’s Razor is misused to defend theories that should have been rejected in the second step since they do not convincingly explain all the facts.

I very much regret this happened in this case, because the result is that the primary witnesses feel insulted by theories that imply they are not able to identify a star or a lighthouse when they see one, even after several hours of investigation. This is one of the reasons they backed off and why we are in the dark right now.

I hope we are not going to jump to explanations in this thread (me included), but instead can work out the facts and put them in some logical sequence of events that does justice to the honest attempts of the witnesses to accurately remember and convey something that they themselves cannot explain.

[IanR]

... there is one piece of evidence that seems to contradict the idea that Jim Penniston only began claiming that the UFO he had encountered was 'triangular-shaped' after he had undergone regressive hypnosis. This piece of evidence is the famous Halt memo itself, where it's stated that: “The object was described as being metallic in appearance and triangular in shape”
Who described the object in this way to Halt?

Good question. It's not at all clear where Halt got this description from. Burroughs' diagram with his witness statement shows something of triangular shape, although Penniston's doesn't. None of the written statements mention any shape at all. Possibly the idea it was triangular arose after the discovery of the three supposed landing marks in a triangle.

I wouldn't dispute that the flashing beacon light they saw was mechanical in nature!

Ian

[Observer]

I was one of the original members of this forum almost from day one.
Over those years I and many other members offered up theories, We all discussed them and all did research on them. Many got thrown out for lack of evidence.
We ended up with 3 or 4 theories all of which had supporting evidence, some more than others. I was very careful not to manipulate the evidence to fit some of these theories which sadly was happening from certain members. It was easy to jump to conclusions with some of these theories and i'm afraid that is still going on.
I have 2 'favourite' theories with supporting evidence and those who know me from past posts will know what I mean. However, even my 2 favourite theories do not have 'conclusive' evidence even though they are very compelling, I will not manipulate evidence to make these conclusive. Puddlepirate will know what i'm talking about.
You must also consider that Ian Ridpaths light house theory does play a part in this incident in as much that it was seen and misidentified. Several things were going on in that forest and Halt and co just lumped every thing they saw together as part and parcel of the same incident.

Its a good bet that the simpler the explanation, the nearer the truth you will be.

Observer

[Frank]

Good question. It's not at all clear where Halt got this description from. Burroughs' diagram with his witness statement shows something of triangular shape, although Penniston's doesn't. None of the written statements mention any shape at all. Possibly the idea it was triangular arose after the discovery of the three supposed landing marks in a triangle.

Even more interesting are the size estimates in Halt's memo. Two to three meters across the base and two meters high. In a later interview, Jim told he initially estimated it to be three meters across the base and three meters high. But if you look at his drawing of the triangular craft (the one that also indicates the location of the symbols he copied in his notebook), you can see the craft is larger at the base than it is in height. This seems to indicate that Halt combined both Jim's size estimates and the width/hight ratios of the craft in the drawing to make a more accurate estimate of its size (there aren't any size estimates in the drawing so he must have gotten them verbally from Jim or from Jim's notebook).

Interesting detail: Both Jim's notebook and this drawing are dated dec 27

The alternatives Ian proposes do not seem to fit the data:
If Burroughs' drawing was the source, the height/width ratio is wrong. Moreover, John never mentions or draws a craft nor any sizes, just lights.
If the indentiations were the source how could Halt make an estimate of the height of the craft?

[IanR]

Even more interesting are the size estimates in Halt's memo. Two to three meters across the base and two meters high. In a later interview, Jim told he initially estimated it to be three meters across the base and three meters high. But if you look at his drawing of the triangular craft (the one that also indicates the location of the symbols he copied in his notebook), you can see the craft is larger at the base than it is in height. This seems to indicate that Halt combined both Jim's size estimates and the width/hight ratios of the craft in the drawing to make a more accurate estimate of its size (there aren't any size estimates in the drawing so he must have gotten them verbally from Jim or from Jim's notebook).

A bit of digging has unearthed the following. Back in 1997 James Easton put a long post (they were always long!) on UFO UpDates.
http://www.hyper.net/ufo/vs/m30-034.html
James quotes from the interview with Penniston on Strange but True, which was done in summer 1994 before his hypnosis. In that interview Penniston described the object he saw as triangular, so that description does predate the hypnosis. However, he also described it as "about the size of a tank”, which is considerably bigger than the size given in Halt’s memo. So either Penniston’s story had grown, or he was not the source of the dimensions given in Halt’s memo.

Easton goes on to quote a later interview with Penniston conducted by Salley Rayl - date uncertain but I think would have been 1997. It is in this interview that the famous notebook gets what might be its first mention:
>>
I had my notebook and camera while I was out there, so I began taking notes. This is what I wrote:
'Triangular in shape. The top portion is producing mainly white light, which encompasses most of the upper section of the craft. A small amount of white light peers out the bottom. At the left side centre is a bluish light, and on the other side, red. The lights seem to be moulded as part of the exterior of the structure, smooth, slowly fading into the rest of the outside of the structure, gradually moulding into the fabric of the craft'.
<<

However, Penniston also told Rayl:
“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.”

Now, why would he be uncertain about the date if it was written in the notebook he had just quoted from? Hmmm...

Penniston told Rayl he was called to East Gate at “about 12:02 am - I remember that distinctly”. This “distinct” memory is of course different from the time given in Halt’s memo, and indeed in everybody else’s account, although it is consistent with the time of 12.20 given in his notebook for the supposed encounter.

[puddlepirate]

It should be remembered the RFI - from the initial witness statements submitted by Penniston, Burroughs, Cabansag et al, to the subsequent activity in the forest and later, the Halt memorandum - was a military activity and needs to be considered in that light. From what I've seen of the recent posts the event is being evaluated from civilian viewpoint. The two are vastly different..... poles apart. The civilian perspective is biased toward a train of thought that tends to overlook or even completely ignore actions which are absolutely essential from the military standpoint. The RFI happened at the height of the Cold War and at at time of increased tension between east / west and the US/Iran. It would be most unwise to dismiss those facts as irrelevant.

It should also be remembered that RAF Police (NB RAF Police, NOT the local constabulary) were frequently embedded within the SP/LE. This was most definitely the case at Greenham Common and probably also at Lakenheath and Mildenhall - and thus by default, given the importance of the twin bases, also at Bentwaters/Woodbridge. Whenever USAF personnel had a need to go off base onto UK soil, Brits would be part of the detachment and even if only a single Brit was involved, that person would act as OIC. Somewhere along the line - was it LW who said something about this in LAEG? - it was mentioned that Brit accents were heard.

To get bogged down in the minutiae of witness statements is to miss the bigger picture.

[Frank]

Look very similar to the 'deep throat' sketch on Page 183 of Skycrash:

Wow, that is a striking similarity, Silvertop. Is there any information on identity of this "deep throat" source?

In that interview Penniston described the object he saw as triangular, so that description does predate the hypnosis. However, he also described it as "about the size of a tank”, which is considerably bigger than the size given in Halt’s memo. So either Penniston’s story had grown, or he was not the source of the dimensions given in Halt’s memo.

Some American tanks from this period and their sizes:
M1 Abrams:
Length: 32.25ft (9.83m)
Width:11.98ft (3.65m)
Height: 9.45ft (2.88m)

M2 Bradley:
Length: 21.33ft (6.50m)
Width:10.76ft (3.28m)
Height: 11.09ft (3.38m)

M901 MITV
Length: 15.98ft (4.87m)
Width:8.79ft (2.68m)
Height: 8.17ft (2.49m)

I think Jim's estimate "about the size of a tank" was pretty accurate if you consider the width and height of a tank - a tank is only considerably bigger in length. His story certainly did not grow and apparently neither did his size estimates. Both have remained consistent over time.

“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.”

Now, why would he be uncertain about the date if it was written in the notebook he had just quoted from? Hmmm...

Simply because he was being honest. He wrote dec 27 in his notebook and at the time of the interview he knew that others were stating dec 26 as the date. Therefore he had become uncertain whether the date in his notebook was a mistake he made or not. Remember this was 17 years after the incident.

It is becoming pretty obvious that Penniston can be the only source for the description of the first night in Halt's memo. Who else can it be? No other witness gives a similar description of a craft (in fact no other source describes a craft at all). The fact that both Halt's memo and Jim's notebook contain the (possibly wrong) date of dec 27 tells me that they are strongly related. I've never heard any convincing reason why the date in Halt's memo was wrong, but now it seems we have found one.

Now either Jim made up his notebook and based it on Halt's memo, or Jim's notebook is what he tells it to be and was the basis for Halt's memo. This is the moment to use Occam's Razor. The first scenario needs a highly regarded witness that fabricates false evidence without a logical motive. The second scenario is much simpler, it just contains a logical sequence of events that matches the available data. Basic logical reasoning tells us to pick the simplest scenario and to accept Jim's notebook as a genuine piece of evidence.

[IanR]

Basic logical reasoning tells us to pick the simplest scenario and to accept Jim's notebook as a genuine piece of evidence.

So - even though he has the wrong date and time and none of the other USAF or local police personnel saw the supposed craft during his 45-minute examination there is no reason to doubt his word, right?

Ian

[John Burroughs]

Ian
I have been staying out of this because you all have been talking again and will continue to stay in the background. But in Buren statement and from the time we were out there Jim has said when he called it in and to me it was Mechanical in nature. As far as the notebook Buren told him to write it all down after we met with him in the Am. He proably put the date he was writing it all down! I don't understand why the time was written down wrong!!! The picture silvertop posted is from my statement. How do you explain that as the lighthouse, planets or stars? Or that I misunderstood what I saw? And yes I have always said I saw lights not a craft and that is what the drawing showed and it is from my original statement and has not changed over the years!