John Burroughs wrote:Sgt Obrian was the Desk Sgt and was typing up the report and the blooter entry on the incident. she did not see dead bodies but was freaked out by the beams of light that lit up her vehicle and the blue lights that and i quate the report that passed threw her vehicle and caused her vehicle to shut down. They also lost radio contact with her for over 10 min.... Andy less get this straight I thought I made myself very clear in my last post. Halt was out there on the third night not the second.....
John Burroughs wrote:Halt saw somthing land which is why there are 2 sights. Remember Bustina was not out there with me on the first night but was with Halt and me on the third night. I was told by Halt when I ment up with them that somthing landed the third night and by Bustina also. The problem I have with Penniston and Halt is they had to know from the begining there were 2 different sites. Halt even talks about the plaster cast Penniston took so he knew where are site was. It looks like Halt is trying to confused the 2 sites and what was seen just like his memo did with the dates
John Burroughs wrote:Sgt Obrian was the Desk Sgt and was typing up the report and the blooter entry on the incident. she did not see dead bodies but was freaked out by the beams of light that lit up her vehicle and the blue lights that and i quate the report that passed threw her vehicle and caused her vehicle to shut down. They also lost radio contact with her for over 10 min.... Andy less get this straight I thought I made myself very clear in my last post. Halt was out there on the third night not the second.....
IanR wrote:AdrianF wrote:John Burroughs might be able to confirm if the Halt team were investigating the same site that he and Jim Penniston had witnessed, or whether this was a landing site witnessed/found by somebody else?
If Halt wasn't investigating the 'real' site, then so much of what this case is based on - the radiation readings, the landing marks and the tree damage - is rendered meaningless. This is what I meant in an earlier post about the cover-up theorists throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
How Nick P and Georgina B squared their opposing beliefs on this I have never fathomed. Nick P has always espoused the radiation readings and the landing marks at the Halt site as the strongest evidence in favour of something unusual, while Georgina was dismissive of Halt and supported Penniston's entirely different landing site (as Andy has remarked in a previous post).
So if the two strongest proponents of this case cannot agree on a basic issue such as this, who needs an official cover-up? Or are Georgina and the Pope really the disinformation agents??
Ian
John Burroughs wrote:Andy
First of all no disrespect taken but I did make it clear in my post which you posted with your question which night was which. I also did not say light house beams but beams of Light which came from the sky not a lighthouse. It has taken me so many years to show the dates were wrong in Halts memo plus that there was three nights. As far as Halt goes I stated that is what he told me when we ment up on the third night. He never said what landed just somthing landed he then pointed up in the sky and showed me the Blue lights that were flying around. As we watched them thats when we saw one of them beam lights inside the storage area and the radio trafffic went nuts. After that somthing then appeared in the distance which is what Bustina and I went after. Georgni Bruni did allot of hard work and came up with allot of information with the help of Lord Hill Norton. As far as Nick Pope goes what has he ever really stated other than what is allready know. People go to him because of his Title he has never as far as i know stated anything that was earth shattering has he?
puddlepirate wrote:Sgt Obrain told me they had a incident he told me the Shift commander went out into the woods and was so upset she had to be releived of duty and sent home.
Was that the person being comforted in the forest when Lt Englund and his men arrived?
Given the apparent confusion over the precise location of the landing site - aren't we simply looking at three different sites, not one?
Three sites (apparently), scorch marks, area fenced off and guarded (secured by any other name) by USAF personnel and one person being comforted? That suggests something serious happened and for the airwoman to see something so upsetting that she had to be taken off duty and sent home indicates she might have seen bodies but not regular undamaged dead bodies but very badly wounded or mutilated bodies, or worse still, bits of bodies.
John Burroughs wrote:I didnot get to go down. I was suppose to but they delayed going down a day and I had to go back, Halt and Penniston did get to go and that it why it puzzle me that they didnot come up with the 2 different sites then. Penniston was suppose to take them out to our site! I am sure if i come back I could retrace my steps!
Return to The Rendlesham forest incident
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest