Cobra Mist

[Deep Purple]

Thanks Silvertop for your post.
This helps confirm that there has been a disinformation campaign, as I've said before.
People need to be very aware that they may not be fed the truth, even on this forum.
But it also confirms that something significant happened.
Forum members need perhaps to step back and think whats being said and why?
This adds a whole new dimension to the investigation I Know but everyone posting here should consider this .

[Daniel]

Thanks for the link Silvertop. Trying to listen to the prerecorded interview with JB, although the left channel (interviewer) and right channel (JB) setup is a little annoying, yet understandable.

[Frank]

Interesting link! The paracast interview with John is even more elaborate, you can find it at:
http://www.theparacast.com/podcast/now-playing-june-21-2009-john-burroughs-and-peter-robbins/
(By the way, I am new on this forum - you can find more info on me in the "introduce yourself" section)

At 13:10 in the paracast recording you can hear John explain how the three men had a brief encounter and after that encounter they left Ed Cabansag as a radio relay. This seems interesting to me because Jim's story has always started after he left Cabansag behind. Could it be that John and Jim are talking about different encounters and Jim's encouter took place later that night?
A further clue is in the official witness statement of Ed Cabansag:
" .. CSC terminated our investigation. A.I.C. Burroughs and I took a road, while SSgt Penniston walked straight back from where we came".
This seems to indicate that Jim was separated from John on their way back and Jim headed back through the forest. Maybe the message from CSC did not reach Jim due to radio interference so he was not aware that the other two were on their way back and the investigation was terminated. What if Jim's encounter took place while he was alone but was under the impression that John was some distance behind him? That would certainly explain the fact that their stories differ a lot.

.. just a theory, maybe someone who was actually there could comment on that ..?

[Frank]

OK, thanks!
I just downloaded them an will have a listen during the weekend.

By the way, maybe this interview with Halt is unknown on this forum, since it was broadcasted via a Dutch station in 2008:
http://www.ufoplaza.nl/downloads.php?view=detail&id=70
(enter the code below the frame and press download next to it - the green arrow does not work).

Just ignore the interviewer who was not well-prepared and does not seem very interested.. Halt is giving a pretty complete picture of what happened the third night though, including some details I did not hear anywhere else.

[pupil88]

Hiho Silvertop,

Col. Halt mentioned all the agencies usually associated with investigating and blurring information. There was one he did not acknowledge. ...NSA... They have Larry Warren's records.

[pupil88]

Listened to podcast from Earthfiles.

According to John Burroughs, Jim Penniston thought JB was armed. JB said he did not carry a weapon. As they were getting close to the craft, JB said JP told him to "fire on it." Ed Cavanasac said when JB drew his weapon, he and JB went 'BLANK'.
From that moment,EC and JB had no recollection of events until the ending, which was when the craft(light) lifted up and took off. From the moment JB pulled his gun on the light(craft) he was suffering from amnesia.The missing time line became the middle (MEAT) of the event. See Sally Rayl's account dealing with J. Penniston.

JB denied EC's story that there were four men who went out into the forest to investigate the lights. In LAEG, you will find EC's account of what happened. Also, in LAEG, there is a letter from former Capt. Mike Verrano to Larry Warren. He wrote,"he(Col. Williams)had two canisters of 32mm footage with him, bagged in a T.S.(Top Secret) satchel.He told me directly that it was actual footage of the UFOs etc on the ground"... JB denied that happened. Mike Verrano continues,"There were definitely three nights of UFO incidents." He said "D Flight's logbook of plans and blotters were missing. C Flight's blotters still exist. and the incident involving B,P,C and D is noted. I've seen that log(entry)"...

Were JB and JP protecting D's identity because he went missing for a protacted period of time? Does JB remember D? I believe JP placed D at the road to monitor the radio. C, B, and P proceeded into the forest. C and B went BLANK while P continued a repetive investigative procedure that left its mark for others to follow.

[IanR]

Were JB and JP protecting D's identity because he went missing for a protacted period of time? Does JB remember D? I believe JP placed D at the road to monitor the radio. C, B, and P proceeded into the forest. C and B went BLANK while P continued a repetive investigative procedure that left its mark for others to follow.

Surely there is no mystery about the identity of the fourth person. It was Master Sergeant Chandler, and his witness statement (no.4 on this page)
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham2c.htm
confirms the original timeline, which does not involve Penniston spending 45 minutes examining a landed craft.

Ian

[Frank]

True, Ian, there even is no mention of a craft whatsoever.

Halt's memo, however, does contain a rather detailed description of the craft, including size estimates. Only one person could have reported this to Halt: Jim Penniston. The description in Halt's memo is consistent with Jim's description. Also interesting is the fact that your website shows that Jim's notebook seems to contain the wrong date (dec 27th). To me, the fact that this same mistake is in Halt's memo confirms that Jim is the source of the craft's description (he may even have shown Halt his notebook which caused Halt to copy the wrong date) and hence the source of the wrong date.

Why is the craft not in any of the witness statements? My theory is that Jim encountered the craft after the men split up (which was shortly after they discovered they were chasing a lighthouse in their excitement). Ed Cabansaq's witness statement is the only one that gives any details about their way back and indicates that Ed and John took a road back while Jim went back through the forest. The witness statements also indicate that the walk back took some time (Jim: "after a 45 min walk", Ed: "finally we made it back to our vehicle") - plenty of time for Jim to have his encounter. Also note that Ed and John informed the PC's on their way back, so this channel would also indicate nothing of interest happened.

To Ed and John their way back was calm and there was no need to report anything about it in their witness statements, but Jim must have had his encounter. Evidence of his encounter is the detailed description of the craft in Halt's memo. Also, Buran's statement reads: "I am convinced that he saw something out of the realm of explanation for him at that time."

Jim told that he "watered down" his witness statement. If the above is true he has summarized it as "After a 45 min walk arrived at our vehicle." - which is a pretty watered-down version .. I can imagine he would do this to protect his career. Apparently he entrusted Halt with a more complete version of what happened that night.

[IanR]

Also interesting is the fact that your website shows that Jim's notebook seems to contain the wrong date (dec 27th). To me, the fact that this same mistake is in Halt's memo confirms that Jim is the source of the craft's description (he may even have shown Halt his notebook which caused Halt to copy the wrong date) and hence the source of the wrong date.

Given the inconsistencies in Penniston's account of the date, time and location of the alleged encounter, it would be premature to take the notebook at face value. As far as I am aware (and I am open to correction on this) the notebook did not surface until after Jim's hypnosis sessions. I wonder if any of the TV crews he has shown it to have looked through the whole notebook rather than just the pages he has chosen to show us.
Ian

[Frank]

Ian wrote:

Given the inconsistencies in Penniston's account of the date, time and location of the alleged encounter, it would be premature to take the notebook at face value. As far as I am aware (and I am open to correction on this) the notebook did not surface until after Jim's hypnosis sessions. I wonder if any of the TV crews he has shown it to have looked through the whole notebook rather than just the pages he has chosen to show us.

Ian, this sounds almost like you are accusing Jim of fabricating false evidence. This would be an extraordinary claim given Jim's credentials and the way he comes across in several interviews.

Can you be more specific on the inconsistencies you are referring to?

In my view Jim's account of his encounter with the craft has been very consistent over the years. I only know of three major inconsistencies that can all be solved with the timeline I proposed above (remember I prefer the "Sherlock Holmes approach", see my earlier post above):

The first inconsistency is the difference between Jim's account and that of John Burroughs. This is explained by the fact that two encounters took place on the first night. The first one was witnessed by all three men when they approached the lights at the site where these lights were initially spotted. This bank of lights took off before they were very close by, as described by John. After this encounter and some further exploration which involved the lighthouse, the men split up (as described in Ed Cabansaq's original witness statement), Jim went back through the forest where he had his close encounter, while the other two men took the road back. This timeline resolves the first inconsistency.

The second inconsistency is the fact that in the SciFi documentary Jim identified a different (second) landing site from where Halt thought the site was. According to other posts in this forum, this site is deeper into the woods, to the west of the clearing where the three men initially saw the lights on the first night. This is completely consistent with the proposed timeline, which would indeed involve a second landing site along the route back through the woods that Jim took on his own. So the proposed timeline also resolves this second inconsistency.

The third inconsistency is the date in Jim's notebook. See my earlier post: This was probably a mistake by Jim which, in retrospect, is evidence that the notebook is genuine and played a part in writing Halt's memo (which contains the same error in the date and a description of the craft that is consistent with that of Jim).

So there seems to be a timeline that resolves the major inconsistencies without the need for extraordinary claims like lying witnesses (what would be their motivation?), missing time, spooky experiments with EM fields or even erased or implanted memories. (I'm very curious whether this timeline make sense to the original witnesses!)

[FMG]

First rule of the mindset debunker, if you can't attack the data attack the person.

[Frank]

I mentioned the "Sherlock Holmes approach" in my post above and referred to an "earlier post above" thinking is was in this same topic, but it was somewhere else. To avoid any confusion I'll repeat my view on the "Sherlock Holmes approach" here:

In such complex cases you can expect that the witness statements do not match exactly. The question is, what do you conclude from that?
1. The "it just can't be true approach": Each mismatch indicates that they exaggerate, suffer from hallucinations or even lie.
2. The "Sherlock Holmes approach": The witnesses do not have photographic memories but somehow there is a scenario that matches their statements to a large extend.

I would try 2 first before jumping to 1.

[IanR]

Can you be more specific on the inconsistencies you are referring to?

Wrong date. Wrong time. Wrong place. I thought everyone was aware of this.

Ian

[IanR]

First rule of the mindset debunker, if you can't attack the data attack the person.

First rule of any investigator is to verify the evidence. Until the authenticity of that notebook has been verified we should all be skeptical of it. It's not exactly CSI.

Ian

[AdrianF]

The first inconsistency is the difference between Jim's account and that of John Burroughs. This is explained by the fact that two encounters took place on the first night. The first one was witnessed by all three men when they approached the lights at the site where these lights were initially spotted. This bank of lights took off before they were very close by, as described by John. After this encounter and some further exploration which involved the lighthouse, the men split up (as described in Ed Cabansaq's original witness statement), Jim went back through the forest where he had his close encounter, while the other two men took the road back. This timeline resolves the first inconsistency.

Hi Frank

I considered this possibility a while ago, but find a major problem with this scenario.. it would require a major change in Jim Pennistons account of events. If you go back to all the witness statements, including JP's you will see that a point of positive ID was made in the clearing. This is also backed up by Fred Burans statement, who was in contact with them in the forest via Sgt. Coffey. He asked if Penniston had mistaken the lighthouse for the lights they had seen. Penniston replied that if he had seen the other lights he wouldn't be mistaken. I'm paraphrasing here, but check the statements and you'll see what I mean.

At no point, as far as I'm aware, has JP reported that he had another encounter on the way back to base. I believe that John B saw a blue light briefly on the way back to base.

[IanR]

Picking up on Adrian’s thoughtful comment above, there’s another reason why that scenario doesn’t work. We are told that the UFO left the area after the initial sighting. From what was said at the time, and what John B still says, it moved ahead of them between the trees before disappearing, apparently towards the coast. The police never saw anything when they turned up an hour or so later. If Jim P had been having his 45-minute encounter near the western forest edge (close to the road), they’d have seen it, as would USAF law enforcement officer Chris Armold who also went out to see what was going on. James Easton tracked down Armold, and this is what he had to say:
“I met Burroughs at the East Gate of WB. We left our guns with the guy riding with Burroughs and drove to the end of the long access road. We left our vehicle and walked out there. There was absolutely nothing in the woods. We could see lights in the distance and it appeared unusual as it was a sweeping light, (we did not know about the lighthouse on the coast at the time). We also saw some strange colored lights in the distance but were unable to determine what they were.
  “Contrary to what some people assert, at the time almost none of us knew there was a lighthouse at Orford Ness. Remember, the vast majority of folks involved were young people, 19, 20, 25 years old. Consequently it wasn't something most of the troops were cognizant of. That's one reason the lights appeared interesting or out of the ordinary to some people.”

No, if Penniston's account is to be taken at face value it must apply to an entirely separate event the following night.

Ian

[Frank]

Ian wrote:

Wrong date. Wrong time. Wrong place. I thought everyone was aware of this.

OK, I did not overlook anything in my previous post then ..

AdrianF wrote:

I considered this possibility a while ago, but find a major problem with this scenario.. it would require a major change in Jim Pennistons account of events. If you go back to all the witness statements, including JP's you will see that a point of positive ID was made in the clearing. This is also backed up by Fred Burans statement, who was in contact with them in the forest via Sgt. Coffey. He asked if Penniston had mistaken the lighthouse for the lights they had seen. Penniston replied that if he had seen the other lights he wouldn't be mistaken. I'm paraphrasing here, but check the statements and you'll see what I mean. At no point, as far as I'm aware, has JP reported that he had another encounter on the way back to base. I believe that John B saw a blue light briefly on the way back to base.

I would assume that Jim's witness statement contains only the part up to the first encounter, which did took place in the clearing. He did not share his real close encounter with anyone, only with Halt (compared to his real encounter the brief moment in the clearing was a non-event to Jim).

Ian wrote:

No, if Penniston's account is to be taken at face value it must apply to an entirely separate event the following night.

That certainly is another possibility.

[puddlepirate]

Getting into the realms of fantasy now, surely!

The only undisputed facts are that (a) a number of USAF personnel went off base, apparently to search for something (b) three personnel went off base on night one and a larger group, including several officers, on night two (c) Halt wrote a memo

What they were looking for, whether the statements detailed facts or were simply part of a cover story or whether Halt's memo was written long after the actual event, also as part of a cover story once researchers started sniffing around, is something we will never know. The only persons who know what really went on are those who were there and primarily those in command.

The problem is that junior ranks, if ordered to do something by superior officers, have no option but comply. Serving in the USAF would have been (is) no different to any other service. It wasn't (isn't) a discussion group where everyone has a say in what to do. Once given an order the serviceman or woman either obeys it or suffers the consequences. Therefore (I am not saying this is actually what happened as I have no evidence to support such a claim) if an order was issued through the chain of command to the effect that a cover story was to be created and those involved were to contribute to elements of it, then there would be no option. A junior rank would not tell a senior officer to get lost. He (or she) would put pen to paper......

It is because of this and because of the way the witness statements have changed over the last thirty years, the only facts that really matter are those stated previously. Everything else could be - is? - very misleading indeed.

[Deep Purple]

I think Puddlepirate speaks wise words.
What you are dealing with here is an event where the truth must have been contaminated at some stage by some body--- this is why I say think what people do and not say.
Also witness statements in some respects are not reliable necessarily, people see and interpret the same facts very differently, also peoples minds have a tendency to join up the gaps in things they cant remember to make a picture that they can sort of understand.
Drilling down too much on witnesses will not solve this mystery.
Also wittnesses may be prepared to say much more later on after the fear of the event has passed.
Think about murder investigations--- some cases are solved years later when new evidence comes forward.
I think the way ahead would be to try and work out who was actually there at the time and try and distill elements of thier statements for common threads.
But also follow the approach of the sadly late Georgini Bruni and looking who else was around on the base at the time, what were the rumours? what did they see unusual after the event, for example she says there was a huge increase in " Flash" message traffic after the event, which had very hi priority-- have we anyway of verifying this?
This would be a telltale of something starnge happening

[AdrianF]

He did not share his real close encounter with anyone, only with Halt (compared to his real encounter the brief moment in the clearing was a non-event to Jim).

But that would mean that he has so far kept this fact back for all this time. Or is there a chance that you can point to any interview from the last 30 years where Jim Penniston has said that he had a second encounter on the way back to base?