posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 11:07 AM
New member here and everything, thoroughly enjoyed reading this, thank you. I initially found out about this case around a year ago but wrote it off
due to the seemingly conflicting statements given by the different parties involved. Additionally, at the time I think the two men claiming to be the
"hoaxers" had just come forward (which sealed the deal for the newspapers...lazy journalism and everything). I recently read Nick Pope's views on
the incident and it led me here...I'm glad it did.
I can't honestly subscribe to the lighthouse theory - surely, at a later date, the men involved would have seen such "strange lights" (as well as
there being further reports of a similar nature by others). Obviously, it's difficult to rule out a terrestrial explanation, but to me it doesn't
seem to fit all the evidence.
The witnesses intrigue me - I suspect that someone there isn't telling the truth (other than Larry Warren, that part of the story just seems weird to
me). I don't know, it all seems very strange to me that Penniston, Burroughs and Cabansag didn't exactly write witness reports which corroborated
each other - surely they were talking about it on the way back from the site? It's also very strange that both Halt and Penniston have elaborated
further on their respective stories many years later with details which - you would have thought - would have been racing through their minds straight
after the event and that they would have stated in the witness report; I'd be very interested in a full psychological evaluation of the main
witnesses - I know one of the witnesses above vouches for Penniston being of sound mind and the fact that Halt was a high ranking, credible man, but
it'd be nice to have "official" confirmation of this. It's bizarre that Penniston has this notebook which the others have categorically stated
that he did not have at the time - why forge it and produce it later when the others know that it wasn't there at the time? It doesn't add up.
I've toyed with the idea of OSI intervention in tampering with the witnesses. It's perfectly possible and, judging by the US's handling of such
cases, I'm sure that they would want to try and reduce the credibility of this case, and what better way than altering the stories that the main
witnesses recall so that they don't tally with each other? Speculative, yes, but it's not a ridiculous suggestion.
Anyway, there's so much information on this case, it's hard to keep track of everything, and it's frustrating that there's almost certainly more
evidence around which is classified. Thanks again for putting everything we have in one place!