It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Thank you for your insightful comments and I feel the same way. In the JAL 1628 case, I remember that no translators were on hand to interrogate the 747 crew about the UFO they saw at the time the incident happened, which is unfortunate because that would have been their best recollection of the event. They did interview the captain (and maybe the rest of the crew) a couple of weeks later, and by that time the captain was relating the sequence of events on what maneuvers the plane took to avoid collision with the UFO. I'm as sure as I can be that he had no incentive to lie about that, but when his statement was compared with the radar data it showed that the captain already misremembered the sequence of events after less than a month.
originally posted by: mirageman
I don't think he's telling lies. I just think it's a case of trying to remember things from 36 years ago.
Exactly and I didn't want to sound like too much of a negative Nelly by saying that myself but since you already said it, I can certainly agree with that 100%, and not just in this case but I'd say in any case where a witness makes their first statement about an event which has been in the public eye for the last 36 years. It's only human to have difficulty separating 36 year old personal memories from the barrage of other information about the same events we've been exposed to, and I suspect at least some degree of confabulation is inevitable even in the best of us, which means mis-remembering something without any intent to deceive.
I can remember the exact moment when I found out John Lennon had been murdered 36 years ago but I don't remember what I ate for dinner that day. I think Steve Longero's memories are probably also influenced by what he's seen and heard about the incident in the time that has passed. Unfortunately his account adds nothing much of interest to the case.
Does that relate to Butler, street and randles witness in an MOD house that then vanished? If so that is documented multiple times by the authors.
I did notice two repeated statements from Halt, as if he was trying to overemphasis a mundane fact for a reason he couldn't quite say or didn't believe personally. - An A-10 flew a package to Rammenstein. Halt states it was a review report for a promotional board to see...
....tape recorders of the evidence had been handed to General Gabriel who happened to be visiting the station. Perhaps it would be reasonable to ask if we could have tape recordings as well
- Much of what Warren has created seems to be a forgery. Yet he was the first to break the story. Why ??
originally posted by: ctj83
a reply to: mirageman
After Sacha's latest expose of the original A-10 photo, I wonder if there is any other 'evidence' that might also be suspect?
Regardless, this latest update poses a very interesting question:
We know that Penniston was present and involved in the RFI, yet we also know from an ATS member that the binary coordinates cannot be genuine. Is it possible or probable that there is a link between the source or motivation to create the binary code coordinates and the photo 'evidence' presented by Warren?
Or should we view the less solid evidence from both Penniston and Warren as being unrelated?
My hunch is that the same situation that supplied the coordinates to Penniston is, at least in some way, connected to some of the materials that I believe were supplied to Warren.
The two English gentlemen who questioned Vince Thurkettle about lights in the sky days after the incident must have been part of the MOD investigation