Penniston on UFO UpDates [Re: BBC article]

[IanR]

Some interesting statements by Jim Penniston on UFO UpDates today, as follows:

“The answers to Rendlesham don't lay in the UK, they clearly lay
in the United States. This is re-enforced since all the MOD
documents have been released, none of them amounting much more
than UK Secret, I might add. The US, treated the MOD with
courtesy information only. After all they were the lease holders
for the base. This according to the USAF was clearly an American
issue, not British, the British did not think of it as a defense
issue anyway, how wrong could you get. Some British military
knew differently, such as Lord Hill-Norton. For every bit of
information that was shared with the MOD, on a good day, this
only amounted to 10 percent of the information about the
incident (an estimate).
“Rendlesham has always been an issue with the MOD, they did want
to be in charge, and to their embarrassment to the rest of the
world, they were not. Of course I am only basing this on the Top
Secret information I was privy to in my classified meetings
following the incident. Those meetings were only for US ears
only.”

Top Secret information in classified meetings, eh? Not something that Halt has ever mentioned. Perhaps he was not involved.

Penniston ends: “None of the witnesses who were in the
know [my italics], have ever claimed that alien UFO's were landed in the
forest adjacent the east gate.”

Halt, of course, has claimed that what he saw was an alien craft. Was he therefore not “in the know”?

Seems that Penniston feels he is a more important player in this than Col Halt.

For the full statement go to
http://ufoupdateslist.com/2010/aug/m13-012.shtml

[John Burroughs]

Ian
Your a gutless wonder! You were asked to appear on a radio show tonight which had both of us on it! You declined what a surprize!! And then you could have called in while it was on! You hide behind your computer and make statements you can't back up! Look what happened to your Radition piece you had on your Web site and how it was taken apart. The reporter even said in his article you have almost spent a career on Bentwaters. Why is it so important to you? Were you the little guy in school who got picked on all the time? Jim and I got brought into this by someone else you just hopped in and started running your mouth and never stopped ! The sad part is the BBC put you on with your expert opinion on what happened to us and you were not even there that night! You were sleeping soundly in your bed while the stupid Americans as you have called us were out there protecting your sorry a*s! I use to think they were a credible news organiztion now all they are is trash radio having someone come on who has no Idea what there talking about and wants there 5 minutes of fame! How about it IAN lest do a round table with you and the main witness! I know your just dying to be heard so why don't you do it man to man where someone gets to defend what you have to say. Jim and I will be comming over to England soon and would be happy to come face to face with you Or do you prefer to hide behind your computer and Bias news reporters who won't even give the other side a call! We gave you a call today and all we got was a busy signal what a surprise!! Go ahead and report this as a un civil offensive post but its kinda of funny thats what you have been doing for the last 25 years and everytime somebody stands up to what you have to say you and others love to fall back on that! Somthing smells and its not the guys who were out there doing there job making life safe for guys like you! I some times wonder why we do it!!

[jpenniston]

Oh my, the debunker can't even get the classified meetings right, he has been like a leech with Rendlesham (Stuck to it and bleeding it for everything he can) and misleading people for twenty five years. I wonder why he is still working on Light House theory after twenty-five years. To answer that, he is working with the limited knowledge he has about the Rendlesham Incident. That is obviouse, by his anal approach. So, I will be patient, and give you another thirty to work it out. Hopefully, the light bulb will go on for you.

All the debriefs and meetings that I attended, discussed information which was treated as Top Secret. (That means no-one in MOD or the United Kingdom knew the contents of those meetings) and only a very select few of base personnel, who held a Top Secret, BI/SCI, and here the kicker, and "the need to know" that information.

That is why we had containment of what happened. The memo caused a few problems, and so did all the scuddle butt going on base. After all, when a USAF base (an undetermine amount of people) observes landing of an object and take off, containment can be a slight problem. Unfortunately people not in the know embellished and added to a all ready sensational event. Unfortunately, causeing clueless people to go down the wrong path.

I am not no more important than any other witness. It is just that all my meetings were not with Colonel Halt, nor was he present at others I was at. Wouldn't you think the Base Commander, Wing Commander, Vice Wing Commander, AFOSI, and others would talk to me at meetings they arranged?? I would think a person who has been studying this case as a debunker and investigator for the last twenty-five years could figure that out. This is investigation 101, its not difficult.

Oh, and by the way, despite what I thought was a career ending experience, I always gave accurate and concise information. No matter how painfull and destructive to my career. I still did what was required of me. It's something you would not know about, like Duty, Honor, Country, those concepts are foriegn to you no doubt.

Additionally, if you understood a n y t h i n g about the USAF. You should know; that the men and women involved, John and I included, only reported the information and facts that we obtained from our investigation, and reported them on to command. It was there job to figure it out, not ours. Our job, was to accurately report the information for others to ponder. My focus after knowing it was not an aircraft crash, went to the security of the installation and her resources and people. A Helping Hand situation was called and terminated after I determine no apparent agression. Does this sound like your light house????? That is enough time to spend with you. I have wasted too much already. I also concur with Johns posting same subject.

[Storm]

****NO FAN OF IAN RIDPATHS SO CALLED INVESTIGATION TECHNIQUES****

That said he does at least do an investigation. However he uses only small parts of it to back up his theories, so lets get that accurate. He cherry picks in order to support his claims. And I have to say he is not the only one guilty of that. I do however feel that you lot forget he was working with what he had at the time. That was not his fault. Later on more information is issued drip feed style and here is where he goes wrong. He ignores most of it and only collects tiny snippets that support his theories and when they do not, he changes the context of the information by leaving out pertinent parts of it. Its obvious, unfortunate and we all can see he does it. Do we need to lose our rags about it.

John, frustrated by your rants now. Here is where it lies with you "witnesses". I came on here fresh, interested, hopefully unbiased. I would like it to be a UFO however I think perhaps not, knowing what I now know. HOWEVER, every time someone comes on who has a slightly different idea about what happened, you lot pile in giving it the big I am. THEN you divulge an important extra piece of info in order to back up your claims. OMG we say, where the foook did that come from well lets work with that now. Or like most who want to help, are interested, or have qualifications in the fields that you need them to, you drive them off with your bipolar nasty/nice guy approach. Not helpful to this case at all. Your statement is your statement. If you are not prepared to be specific when directly asked a question (LIKE STARFISH), say you cannot due to security reasons, or say you do not know. Stop being cagey. It just undermines your credibility.

Never slag off the British public "we were protecting your asses" lol. Oh John surely not. Really. You really believe that don't you. *shakes head*. In Iraq your protection techniques killed more British soldiers in the first few weeks than the people we went there to fight. We have a Navy which is second to none in the world. Yours may be larger, but we are far better. Our Airforce is second only to the Russian Mig pilots. And our army - fair point IMHO and limited experience of them which counts for nothing.

I have seen several people on here worship you lot like the second coming of Christ. "These men were members of the 81st" . . . . . AND . . . . . I served on Subs. My mates are in Iraq. Your countrymen carved out a hell of a life treading the swamps of Vietnam. Ours got decimated in the Falklands. I do not get it. You were soldiers, but thats all you were. And you were paid well for your work. Your not heroes because of this. Unless your going to start waving medals. The joke in the English Navy is that Americans get a medal for leaving the harbour wall. AND I DID MY TIME I HAVE A RIGHT TO SAY THAT THANKS. Please get over yourselves. Your attitude serves you no favours at all.

To be honest I cannot understand where you think this attacking business is going to get you. Oh sure "you came here to this site to help us poor numbskulls that cannot work stuff out oh yeah". Well if we get it wrong tell us. Don't rampage. If we make a mistake about info - correct us with the correct info. Do not claim some superior role above us. People come on here with a mixture of curiosity, with info to share, or expertise to bring into play. WHY . . . because that is the nature of people. Why are you here . . . because you want to know what happened to you. And yet every time someone says something you do not agree with - attack. You are not I am afraid all the card holders here gentlemen. Because if you had all the cards, you would not be here would you. Because you would know all you needed to know to move on with your lives. Any fool can see that. YOu may know more than us, which should be obvious. THEN FRIGGIN TELL US THEN. Concisely accurately but more important than anything else FULLY, FULLY, FULLY. Then we can use our collective knowledge to put it all together for you. If you cannot do that you need to admit that. Instead you try and hold back as much as possible for whatever reason. Career future in a film? Or maybe Linda has you in her pocket? Or maybe you are still under orders. Or maybe its just because you are scared. All of these are valid and understandable. You can tell us that these are the reasons. We are grown ups.

Gents its been a pleasure for the most part. I hope you get your answers I really do, but unless you change your tactics and your attitudes your going to be swinging round with your underpants over your heads in another 30 years with nothing further to progress with. I would love to help but until you do that, I do find it hard to be bothered any more. I know enough now to work out what happened and if anyone else wants to know I suggest you read the Cobra Mist thread fully. And then a thread called Radar Development. Then I suggest you start looking in the FOI files in America and line the two up. Specifically look at Anti-Ballistic Missile technologies. Once you have done that you can guess what could have happened. But you cannot know for sure. Jim P might if he was high enough up in the grand scheme of things. I doubt John Burroughs does. And Halt should know especially as he went on to become Base Commander. Judging by Nevels statement that he was part of a secret mission with Lt England and then says "Halt got all involved" it does tell a story though doesn't it. Specifically research the FOI files for "exotic technologies" held by the Russians. And the American summary which states - "although the Russians have explored a variety of exotic technologies (and previous to this they provide a very interesting and relevant list), they show limited imagination as to its application in a military platform" Implying the Americans did not show a limited imagination.

The big picture is this:

1. It was probably not the Russians that landed given what is detailed in the 130 or so files related to this type of technology.
2. IMO it is unlikely it was an American craft of the stealth origin.
3. It could be another nation or perhaps race

Oh and in case anyone doubts the resolve of the CIA specifically OSI and other similar organisations to keep things quiet take a look at a file called "research projects" created in 2/15/1952 as part of Project Artichoke under the Bluebird heading. Here is the proposal list from Bluebird specific to Artichoke techniques:

1) Can we condition by post H suggestion agency employees (or persons of interest to this agency) to prevent them from giving information to any unauthorized source for committing any act on behalf of a foreign or domestic enemy?

2) Can we in a matter of an hour, two hours, one day etc, induce an H condition in an unwilling subject to such an extent that he will perform an act for our benefit (long range)

3) Can we create by Post H control (note control not suggestion) an action contrary to an individuals basic moral pricnciples?

4) Could we seize a subject and in he space of an hour or two by post H control have him crash an airplane, wreck a train etc? (short immediate activity)

5) Can we use SI and H to force a subject (unwilling or otherwise) to travel long distances, commit specific acts and return to us or bring documents or materials? Can a person acting under post H control successfully travel long distances.

6) Can we use SI and H to combat fatigue, produce extreme mental effort?

7) Can we guarantee total amnesia under any and all conditions.

8 )Can we alter a persons personality? How long will it hold?

9) Can we design tests to determine whether or not an enemy agent has been conditioned by SI and H or any other method?

10) Can we detect SI and H by use of SI and H

11) Can we make a "conditioned" subject reveal by SI and H specifically how they were conditioned (drugs, torture, fatigue, hostage pressure techniques)?

12) Can we devise a system for making unwilling subjects into willing agents and then transfer that control to untrained agency agents in the field by use of codes or identifying signs or credentials?

13) How long can we sustain a post H suggestion unaided with reinforcement

14) What would be the fasted way to induce SI and H conditions - with drugs - without mechanical aids?

15) Can we devise a standard simple relatively fast technique for inducing SI and H conditions that can be used by untrained agents (with or without drugs)?

16) Is is possible to find a gas that can be used to gain SI control from a gas pencil, odourless, colourless one shot etc

17) What are the full details on "Sleep inducing machine"?

18) How can Sodium A or P (pentolthol) or any other sleep inducing agent be best concealed in a normal or commonplace item, such as a candy, cigarettes, liquor, wines, coffee, tea, beer, gum, water, aspirin tablets, common medicines, coke, tooth paste.

19) How effective can the "carotid artery technique" be made? Can it be used while subject is unconscious. ? Is it faster than other techniques?

20) Can we using SI and H extract complicated formula from scientists, engineers, etc, if unwilling? Can we extract details of gun emplacements, landing fields, factories, mines?

21) Can we while a subject s under Si and H control, show them a map and have them point out a specific item, locations, etc on the map. Can we also have them make detailed drawings, sketches, plans? Could any of the above be done under field conditions and in a very short space of time?


So anyone's jaw not dropped off yet? How about looking into Project Monarch. Same thing but using the pre mentioned torture to a whole new level. And in case anyone says "yeah but that was 1952 and is out of date" dont be absurd. Because these techniques were reported on in Feb of 2010 on captured POW from Iraq much to the American and British governments shame and there was a huge investigation launched. And in fact the results of this type of testing was inconclusive. And please read that again TESTS PRODUCED CONFUSING RESULTS - which meant that it was decided that these tests would be stopped. However a few months later there was a meeting held. And it was decided there that not only should this important research resume but that it should be broadened. FACTS gents, not opinions, facts. And that means someone had to be the guinea pigs. . . instead of saying pffffffffff 1952 how out of date the obvious conclusion is fack me that was 1952 what can they do now. What could they do in 1980.

Ah well hope that all helps. There is a lot more out there though. Just wish someone was energetic enough to keep off these forums long enough to read everything pertinent to this case that is within the FOI files of the American Intelligence Agency.

[IanR]

John, The producer of the programme you refer to, Robert Simcox, did email me on Friday to invite me on to his programme but didn’t mention your participation. I looked at the type of programme it was and decided it was not for me.

Despite the way it might appear, I haven’t spent large portions of my life on this. I think you’ll find there are more programmes on YouTube about this case than any other UFO incident. All feature Col Halt, many of them feature yourself, Jim and Larry. Very few have me!

During the 1990s the main investigators were James Easton and Georgina. I’ve come back into it more recently in reaction to the way the story has grown and now conflicts in many ways with the original documentary evidence. You yourself have been critical of Jim’s more recent claims of investigating a landed craft.

As you know, I have always regarded you as an honest witness and we have always had civil exchanges. I’m sorry if that is no longer the case.

> Go ahead and report this as a un civil offensive post

No, I’m going to leave it, but you can of course edit or remove it.

[Admin]

Here's a link to the Paranormal Cafe radio show where Jim and John respond to the BBC's article: http://rendlesham-incident.co.uk/news/b ... n-respond/

[stephan]

Penniston ends: “None of the witnesses who were in the
know [my italics], have ever claimed that alien UFO's were landed in the
forest adjacent the east gate.”

Halt, of course, has claimed that what he saw was an alien craft. Was he therefore not “in the know”?

I was wondering about that, too. Recently Halt said that quote ''USAF Col. Charles I. Halt (Ret.) Says 1980 RAF Bentwaters Lights and Craft Were “Extraterrestrial In Origin”'' (at least according to earthfiles.com). And what about Larry Warren ? He said that on the third night he even saw aliens, three of them. As far as I remember Adrian Bustinza also confirmed the alien presence. Jim also saw symbols on the craft which did not resemble any he knew and the craft moved at speeds that would be impossible to tolerate for a human being and without making any sound. That in fact DOES imply that what he saw was ET in origin - without actually saying it. There's absolutely NO indication that ''we'' possess a technology which would be capable of doing that.

on facebook Jim wrote:

Additionally, I am also perplexed and am not sure why he thinks Rendlesham is about alien UFO’s? Why would we call them a craft-of-unknown-origin?, that simply means we were unable to identify the craft based on our expertise with known aircraft at the time. So please debunkers, (I wonder what education it takes to be a debunker) don’t interject any false information, such as claiming these are alien UFO’s. None of the witnesses who were in the know, have ever claimed that

source: http://www.facebook.com/posted.php?id=1 ... 6898620894
(2nd comment, after Larry)

I know sometimes it may be better not to mention aliens when it comes to UFOs as that makes it even harder to believe. But to say that none of the witnesses have ever claimed that ... I don't know. Or does the term ''in the know'' mean something else, something like they knew it was alien in origin but never admitted it ? Would make sense in a way, i.e. if ''in the know'' means that they knew where the UFOs came from and what their intention was those witnesses may have chosen not to reveal that to the public.

As I said I'm just wondering. I think that Ian is one of those people who will never accept ANY story about aliens and extraterrestrial space-ships unless hard evidence can be provided or unless ET lands in front of the white house. I know such people myself, a relative of mine being one of them. And in some way I can understand their attitude because if they did not have an experience for themselves it may be impossible to accept the reality of it. Another issue is that from a strict scientific point of view the public (!) data available is simply not sufficient to say that aliens are here. But that fact should not hold people off to be brave enough to tell us what they have seen and experienced. Larry did so and - if true of course - that was very important. Otherwise it's like covering up things because of fear, ignorance or because of some sort of false motivation. We, i.e. mankind, NEED to know. We need to know if it's true that there's intelligent life out there and that it's visiting us. To withhold this truth - if it is true - would be a very bad thing to do IMO.

[Storm]

And what about Larry Warren ? He said that on the third night he even saw aliens, three of them. As far as I remember Adrian Bustinza also confirmed the alien presence.

Additionally you have Steve La Plumes statement on here which is quite interesting. First post of China_racer, depicting a very spectacular scenario again involving Halt and civilians.

Another issue is that from a strict scientific point of view the public (!) data available is simply not sufficient to say that aliens are here.

Of course we would need comparative data to exclude the presence of alien civilisations in the rest of the universe and there is equally little data. That fact is always overlooked. Moaning about vast distances and the speed of light being the fastest speed are always used as "the limt" of potential travel. Which is a typically all excluding scientific argument based only on human knowns and not taking into account the potential for any race to be vastly superior to us. Which is against a scientific principle in itself. That we are at the top of any civilisation chain.

[Frank]

Jim and I will be comming over to England soon and would be happy to come face to face with you

Why not discuss the facts of this case right here and right now on this forum? Why do we always have to wait until the next broadcast where the same story is repeated over and over, and the broadcast is ended by the time it gets interesting (if at all). It must be boring for you, too, to keep repeating the same story for thirty years.

On such shows there is never enough room to discuss this case in depth with people who studied it, often for many years. And we all know there are many gaps in this case to fill in!

So why not start an in-depth discussion with Ian and others on the facts of this case right here on this forum? In my opinion that is a far better way to get to the bottom of it.

Just like Storm I am getting a little tired of hearing the same stories over and over again without any attempt to resolve the huge inconsistensies between what different witnesses are telling. If discussing them is not possible for some reason, just tell us and the case can be left in its present unresolved state.

[Daniel]

The BBC can be quite insultive. I laughed how they claimed the Rendlesham incident to be solved back in 2003 when Kevin Conde came forward with James Easton claiming it was all a prank. There was no balance in this story. Evan Davies could of spent a night with Ian and another with a witness of the event itself. It's a really insultive piece with lack of any investigation in which to fully understand what may have happened almost 30 years ago. Oh well this article will soon fade away doing no harm to the Incident and in another 7 years they can bring out another peice where it was a burning lorry full of furtiliser.

Note to Evan: Try doing more research before going into the woods, in the middle of the night, with a skeptic and base your experience on an atmosphere and terrain that has been in the process of change for almost 30 years. There has even been plenty of changes since I lived on the bases, as a child, in the early 90s.

[John Burroughs]

Ian
I well aware of the fact he e-mailed you and asked you to go on and you declined and that in its self says alot about you! You have spent a large amount of time on this and feel you are quite the expert on what happened to us! But you were unwilling to go and and back up what you had to say with someone who would challange what you have said! The BBC piece gets under my skin not because they had you on but that they didnot give anybody else involved with the incident who was out there when it happened a chance to respond! I have exchanged E-mails back and forth with you but you lost me when you tried to explain away what was happeneing with Col Halt while he was making the tape as things were happening around him! All you want to do is try is to pick apart and destroy what the witness are trying to say happened! Witness who were remaining quite until they were hunted down like dogs and asked to tell what happened to them so guys like you can try and pick us apart! Its funny its ok for you to pick at what we say but its not Ok for people to Challange what you have to say! Your allowed to take pot shots at us over and over again and then sit back and enjoy what you have said about us . You have not even once given any of us a fair chance just jumped in and fired away at certain things that have been said by us! So here goes I will be comming over to England and I hereby go on the record as saying I will be Happy to go out into the Forrest at night and have you show me and the world how what we have described seeing can be the light house planets and stars! Bring along your BBC friend and any other press you would like and lets see what happens! Jim and I will be comming over between the 28-31st of December which would be the same time frame as the incident happened! I don't need one of your winded responces just yes or no will you please come out in the woods with us and set us and the world straight on what happened to us? As far as the forum goes I have enjoyed being on it and dicusiing the different things that have come up over the past 3 years! But its time to go face to face in the Forrest with what happened not spending countless hours going round and round on the same things! IAN you may feel in your arrogent way you have struck a nerve! Well you have its that I'm sick and tired of listening to your BS! Its time once and for all to go out there and put your theories to the public with the witness looking you straight in the eye with your buddy's at the BBC and let them decide!

Storm
Thanks for the lecture you might want to go back and take a look at what you said about Ian and others in some of your earlier post and follow some of your own advice! And I'm curious how me saying I don't know why I and others would try and protect people like Ian and give them the ability to take pot shots at us can be turned into who military is better! And if you look hard at what you posted about what could have happened to us I and others have talked about that way before you brought it up today! Jim and I are very frustrated with people like Ian who love to pick and us and duck behind cover of there computer! And by the by what ever happened to your claims of Nevils being tourtured! It seems like you were not very happy the way you were treated on that one were you!!

[Storm]

Erm I am a forum member unconnected with events other than here. It's not me who wants answers John. So if I have lambasted Ian it has been in defence of provable facts regarding radiation and basic maths.

As for short term memory "it was us protecting your sorry areses " so look in the mirror.

As for the transcript I could not care less about what happened to me.'what concerned me was your behaviour disgusting btw, as usual it seems, and how you were attacking everyone as usual, and the effect your bahavior amongst others driving serious investigative away from this site. I could not be part responsible for that. Don't even bother arguing that because you know me always have proof. Emails saying just that days before you kicked off. So drop it.

I hate to say it but you are being unpleasant. Frustration in past events makes you frustrated John it does not make you a prick.

Rep

[Storm]

Apprently I cannot edit the previous post. So ill say it here instead. On reflection I realise that there is no point in pursuing this further. I have found out what I needed to find out and that was my intention. I stayed because I found it interesting. That's become jaded now and is no longer a draw. You don't know why you and Jim the other witnesses bother John. I have no idea why we bother John. So I won't. Laters.

[John Burroughs]

Storm
Great if you don't want any answers to what happened to us don't worry about what I have had to say to IAN! Last time I checked I directed what I had to say to him and only him after he made a post about the incident and nothing was directed at you period! You jumped in and gave me a lecture on what I can and can't say! Don't like my behavior stay out of it! Its nice to know that you think I have that much power to drive serious investigators away from this site! I had a statement for IAN and after you jumped in I responded back to what you had to say! I'm truley shakeing about the proof you claim to have on me! You can stop protecting my A** I don't need or want your help in anyway shape or form! I did ask you to take what you have come up with which you felt was important and had spent time on looking into what IAN had to say on his site and go after IAN with it! It was nice to see someone look at what he has been reporting dig into it and counter it! Good Job on doing that and working on the Radition and Tape! Where you lost me and others was the part of Nevils being brutally tortured on the tape! I have been waiting for over a month for the tape analysis which has not happened! Oh and by the way Mr Nevils is on the record saying that didnot happen! I have said what I had to say to IAN and I'm waiting for his response not yours! I'm sure you will have more to say which is fine good luck but again you can stop protecting my a** I truley don't need that or want that from you! Good luck and Happy trails!!!

[Frank]

John, there still are a lot of unresolved issues and I was hoping Jim would join this forum too, to help us find the truth of what happened out there.

To name a few:
- So far there is no convincing answer why you and Jim were together all the time, while Jim remembers a 45 minute investigation of a landed craft and you just remember seeing lights for a short period of time.
- SSgt Monroe Nevels recently stated that an airman was abducted the first night, yet you and Jim never mentioned this. Were you aware of this abduction?
- In your hypnotic regression, on your way back to the base you do not seem to recall how you got where you were, and wonder whether the craft had transported you somehow. Did Jim have the same feeling?
- In the recent MOD files two completely different drawings of a craft came up. One is the familiar sketch by Jim of a triangular craft, the other shows a classic saucer-shaped craft. Who made this second drawing? Why is it so different from the first one?

The things you and Jim went through during and after the first night must have had a big impact, and I realize that some of these questions may be too intrusive. On the other hand, I find it difficult to comprehend that Jim and you have lived with two completely different accounts of what happened for 30 years, and have not made every possible effort to resolve this (at least not in the public domain). Maybe you or Jim have good reasons for that, in that case please let us know so we can back off and leave this case alone.

[John Burroughs]

Frank
Jim and I will be happy to answer all of yours and other question when we appear together in England the 28-31st of December! If you can't be there forword them to someone who can! Going back out into the forrest that night will help clear up allot of things!

[Frank]

Frank
Jim and I will be happy to answer all of yours and other question when we appear together in England the 28-31st of December! If you can't be there forword them to someone who can! Going back out into the forrest that night will help clear up allot of things!

OK, maybe Admin or Silvertop can set up a thread to collect these questions?
Would be nice if the BBC is also there!

[oOo]

Would be nice if the BBC is also there!

Ha, the BBC was never the same after the David Kelly debacle.

[IanR]

John,

Yes I’ll meet you if you are happy to do so. You’ll recall that Dave Clarke and I were looking forward to meeting you this summer, and Dave was even offering to help with your travel costs, but for whatever reason you never made it.

Are you paying your own way or is this for a programme of some kind? Where will you be staying? Presumably you are not coming over just to confront me.

Are you and Jim both willing to be interviewed on the record by Dave and me and quoted in anything we might write afterwards? Is Jim bringing his famous notebook and is he willing for it to be examined? I should add that Dave is not yet certain he can make it because of family commitments over Christmas and the New Year.

Finally, can I make an observation that may have escaped some of those here and on Facebook. As far as I’m aware, the Radio 4 Today piece was about UFO belief, using the Rendlesham case as an example, pegged on the release of Mark Pilkington’s new book Mirage Men.
http://miragemen.wordpress.com/
(I say “as far as I’m aware” because it wasn’t my piece and I haven’t listened to it.) But perhaps it was Evan’s blog that incensed more people than the original broadcast.

Mark’s book is about the way in which the US Air Force has fostered a belief in UFOs for its own purposes. The irony is that that belief is now coming back to bite them in cases like this one.

Ian

“I find it rather humorous that a grown man would spend so many of his nights in a forest” - James Penniston

“Will you please come out in the woods with us” - John Burroughs.

You guys really don’t get irony, do you?

[Admin]

OK, maybe Admin or Silvertop can set up a thread to collect these questions?

With John's permission, I would be happy too.

Would be nice if the BBC is also there!

That would be nice, but from past experience I doubt it will happen. The witnesses weren't even questioned when the BBC began pushing Kevin Conde's 'explanation'.

Here's another radio show for you to listen to:

Update: Last night, John Burroughs appeared on the ‘Eye To The Sky’ – another online UFO radio show. The full show can be downloaded from here.

John says: "I hope that when we go out there [to the forest], and [Ian] shows up, there are ten thousand people out there ..."