Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: I know what I saw « previous next »
Page: 1 2 3 4

ufojoe

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 28958
Offline
#45 : July 07, 2009, 12:36:12 AM

Halt may be holding out on more info. You'll hear about it in that podcast.

I think something odd happened that night. Maybe military experiment gone wrong?

One well known skeptic (James McGahee. Probably one of Dal's heroes) says the guys saw a meteor on night one. That does not fit with what they reported. McGahee once claimed that UFO witnesses had seen the planet Venus. Unfortunately for him, Venus hadn't come up over the horizon yet.

dalbuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 21581
Offline
#46 : July 07, 2009, 08:07:51 AM

There was a spaceship reentry that likely started the whole mess. They saw a light in the sky, went out into the woods to find that light and saw the lighthouse. Again, if the witnesses never saw the lighthouse then there's something wrong with their story because it is easy to see.

All posts are opinions in case you are too stupid to figure that out on your own without me saying it over and over.

ufojoe

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 28958
Offline
#47 : July 07, 2009, 12:56:19 PM


Again, the witnesses talk about the lighthouse and how it's not the only thing they saw over a three night period.

The skeptics talk about a lighthouse, a spaceship entry and a meteor. Last I checked, none of those can fly around and repeatedly beam a spotlight on the ground or look like a blue orb that flies through a truck.

dalbuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 21581
Offline
#48 : July 07, 2009, 02:39:48 PM


Again, the witnesses talk about the lighthouse and how it's not the only thing they saw over a three night period.

The skeptics talk about a lighthouse, a spaceship entry and a meteor. Last I checked, none of those can fly around and repeatedly beam a spotlight on the ground or look like a blue orb that flies through a truck.


Last I checked none of that happened until the stories got bigger years later.

All posts are opinions in case you are too stupid to figure that out on your own without me saying it over and over.

ufojoe

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 28958
Offline
#49 : July 07, 2009, 03:44:07 PM


Again, the witnesses talk about the lighthouse and how it's not the only thing they saw over a three night period.

The skeptics talk about a lighthouse, a spaceship entry and a meteor. Last I checked, none of those can fly around and repeatedly beam a spotlight on the ground or look like a blue orb that flies through a truck.


Last I checked none of that happened until the stories got bigger years later.

You didn't check the Halt memo? Are you kidding? The light beaming down is in there. You're wrong and as usual, uninformed about the case and ignore anything that doesn't fit a prosaic explanation. Halt, Burroughs and others talked about it. It just doesn't fit the lighthouse theory so you HAVE to find a way to discount it.

From the original Halt memo that Bay posted above. Guess you missed that.

* * * * * * * * * *

3. Later in the night a red sun-like object was seen through the trees. It moved about and pulsed. At one point it appeared to throw off glowing particles and then broke into five separate white objects and disappeared. Immediately thereafter, three star like objects were noticed in the sky, two objects to the north and one to the south, all of which were about 10 degrees off of the horizon. The objects moved rapidly in sharp, angular movements and displayed red, green and blue lights. The objects to the north appeared to be elliptical through 8-10 power lens. They then turned to full circles. The objects in the north remained in the sky for an hour or more.

The object to the south was visible for two to three hours and beamed down a stream of light from time to time. Numerous individuals, including the undersigned, witnessed the activities in paragraphs 2 and 3.


* * * * * * * * *

So, tell me how a lighthouse did that?

The blue orb was covered in 1991 on the Unsolved Mysteries show. I don't know when it was first spoken about or when it was first written down in eyewitness testimony logs. I'm sure Bay or myself can look for that info. later on today.

* * * * * * * * * *

One other thing...

From Nick Pope, who worked the UFO desk at the Ministry of Defense...

http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc642.htm

The Radar Evidence

The second area where I want to offer some views based on my personal MOD experience relates to the radar data. Radar is not infallible, and in chapter 4 of Open Skies, Closed Minds I explained some of the reasons why a blip on a radar screen does not necessarily indicate the presence of an object. As examples, problems can occur in certain meteorological conditions and when two radar systems interfere with each other; and as with most technology, some bits of kit are more temperamental than others! Georgina Bruni's interview with former RAF radar operator Nigel Kerr (see pages 39 and 40 of You Can't Tell The People) covered what happened when personnel in the Bentwaters tower contacted Eastern Radar at RAF Watton, explaining that they could see unidentified lights over the base. On checking his radar screen Kerr noticed a blip that stayed for three or four sweeps before disappearing. Such returns are not uncommon, and in themselves mean nothing. But again, the sceptics miss the point, which is that the return was seen at exactly the same time and in exactly the same location as the unidentified light seen in the sky by military personnel at Bentwaters.




dalbuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 21581
Offline
#50 : July 07, 2009, 04:11:30 PM


You didn't check the Halt memo? Are you kidding? The light beaming down is in there. You're wrong and as usual, uninformed about the case and ignore anything that doesn't fit a prosaic explanation. Halt, Burroughs and others talked about it. It just doesn't fit the lighthouse theory so you HAVE to find a way to discount it.


You of course aren't paying much attention...Hall wasn't out on the first night it is only on night two that Hall starts adding his bit and his transcript is allot more prosaic than the memo.

Hall is, to be blunt, not much of a leader. You listen to the tape and he's sort of lost it. He's brought a geiger counter but has no idea how to read it so everytime it ticks he gets weird. He sees a light, says it strobes and has a black center like an eye and moving side to side - this does exactly describe the lighthouse light.  He keeps talking about the main light moving off to the north and then returning to the south which pretty much covers the rotation of the light in the lighthouse. He does spot some other lights that could be the radio tower lights and/or stars in the sky based on his positions and description of size and color. He never mentions a second strobing light so again, either the UFO dressed up a lighthouse for the night or he was looking at a rotating, flashing, yellow light from the lighthouse.

BTW, the UK MOD says there was never any radar contact and that has been confirmed by the RAF man in charge that evening when Hall was calling in.

All posts are opinions in case you are too stupid to figure that out on your own without me saying it over and over.

ufojoe

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 28958
Offline
#51 : July 07, 2009, 05:50:14 PM


Halt saw the light on the night he was out there. I could care less if he was there on the 1st night since that's not when the spotlight shone done on the ground.

Try to keep up.

Time to get desperate and attack Halt. Not much of a leader? LOL.

dalbuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 21581
Offline
#52 : July 07, 2009, 06:05:16 PM

Time to get desperate and attack Halt. Not much of a leader? LOL.

Have you listened to tape? Plus you sadly ignore all the actual arguments. You accept blindly and with no critical thought anyone's eyewitness testimony -- as long as they say they saw a UFO. I notice the guys who think they saw a lighthouse, well they're just silly. Thanks, once again the UFO crowd shows their total lack of reason and immense gullibility.

All posts are opinions in case you are too stupid to figure that out on your own without me saying it over and over.

Bayfisher

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 4630
Offline
#53 : July 07, 2009, 06:16:31 PM

Have you listened to tape? Plus you sadly ignore all the actual arguments. You accept blindly and with no critical thought anyone's eyewitness testimony -- as long as they say they saw a UFO. I notice the guys who think they saw a lighthouse, well they're just silly. Thanks, once again the UFO crowd shows their total lack of reason and immense gullibility.
DB, you are also using eyewitness testimony to confirm your belief.  How do we know for certain who is right? Where does ridicule play into this?  Some may not be as quick to say they saw something strange for advancement purposes.

Bayfisher

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 4630
Offline
#54 : July 07, 2009, 06:46:32 PM

After looking at the videos and listening to the podcast from Burroughs, some things need to be brought up.   I can see valid points in both sides of the argument.  I can also see why this is still a mystery.

There is obviously dissension between Halt and his crew.  Burroughs along with a few others say that Halt has been keeping them out of the loop.  Basically, Halt kept the others from being involved with the Sci-Fi episode and won't do interviews with them all together. Why would Halt do this?  I am more inclined to believe Halt's older testimony than I am his newer.   He appears to have liked the spotlight too much.  I don't exactly know how much of Halt's story has changed but we do know that Penniston's has changed for sure.

Burroughs claims there was a object.  He now claims in the podcast that all three of the them on the first night were less than 10 feet from the object.  Burroughs claims the object was there for one minute while Penniston's story now has it at 45 minutes.  Someone is embellishing the story somewhere.  Burroughs also claims there was another object in the sky that streaked off.  Burroughs says the tower could also see the lights in their direction during radio communication.  If it was a lighthouse,  how could the tower not recognize something that is always there? 

I will post some more in a bit.


ufojoe

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 28958
Offline
#55 : July 07, 2009, 07:19:30 PM

After looking at the videos and listening to the podcast from Burroughs, some things need to be brought up.   I can see valid points in both sides of the argument.  I can also see why this is still a mystery.

There is obviously dissension between Halt and his crew.  Burroughs along with a few others say that Halt has been keeping them out of the loop.  Basically, Halt kept the others from being involved with the Sci-Fi episode and won't do interviews with them all together. Why would Halt do this?  I am more inclined to believe Halt's older testimony than I am his newer.   He appears to have liked the spotlight too much.  I don't exactly know how much of Halt's story has changed but we do know that Penniston's has changed for sure.

Burroughs claims there was a object.  He now claims in the podcast that all three of the them on the first night were less than 10 feet from the object.  Burroughs claims the object was there for one minute while Penniston's story now has it at 45 minutes.  Someone is embellishing the story somewhere.  Burroughs also claims there was another object in the sky that streaked off.  Burroughs says the tower could also see the lights in their direction during radio communication.  If it was a lighthouse,  how could the tower not recognize something that is always there? 

I will post some more in a bit.

Those guys at the Paracast dropped the ball on that interview. They're usually a lot tougher and sometime downright rude. I was disappointed that they didn't push Burroughs on the inconsistencies.

IMO, Halt is withholding stuff that is more than just lights in the sky and woods.

Dal uses eyewitness testimony when it serves his purpose.

Penniston has never disputed that he changed his story. He and Burroughs say they sanitized the original version in order to avoid ridicule.

Bayfisher

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 4630
Offline
#56 : July 08, 2009, 04:32:02 PM

Here is another incident that happened there. 
Lakenheath-Bentwaters incident
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakenheath-Bentwaters_incident
Page: 1 2 3 4
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: I know what I saw « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools