The linking of brain activity to UAP events, where the witness is presumably within near field influences, is currently only partially understood, since assumptions must be made as to the type of fields being encountered. Within the UKADR these close encounters occur only a very few times each year. The well-reported Rendlesham Forest/Bentwaters event is an example where it might be postulated that several observers were probably exposed to UAP radiation for longer than normal UAP sighting periods. There may be other cases that remain unreported..........
...Col. Halt we know was personally a witness to the third night. He conducted his own investigations in the aftermath. He wrote the memo for the record that tried to reduce the entire event to some lights in the forest on the wrong dates. He has made two statements I find interesting. In an interview with Lee Spiegel who now writes for the Huffington Post, Halt is quoted as saying that if the full truth were to come out, "it would completely change the way people look at reality."
In another statement, Halt has declared that he would 'only tell the truth of the matter' when forced to raise his right hand and swear to it at a government inquest of some nature.
What is really interesting is that at the same time has urged me to drop the effort to put together a law suit that would require him to do exactly that: Raise his hand and go on oath in a court of law.
Why were the dates wrong?
Halt claims that he drew the memo up from the witness reports and other documentation. My written statement along with those of Lt. Buran, Sgt. Chandler and Airman Cabansag all clearly state the correct dates. If Halt was indeed using witness statements as his source, either he is guilty of sloppy journalism or saw fit to change the dates of the event for a reason. One reason would be that future FOIA information requests for documentation would more likely fail because of the incorrect date.
Interestingly, Sgt Penniston's written statement is NOT dated. Rather an odd omission for such an important statement after such a phenomenal event. And why is his the only one not dated?
Why did the erroneous Halt memo get transmitted up the official traffic channels, not to be heard of again for years, when all pertinent official records of the incident were whisked away to Ramstein in the custody of Gen Gabriel?
This first inner interpretation is a mildly intriguing scenario. Just a simple deception, cover-your-ass memo with a few induced errors that were designed to make it trackable, and deflect potential FOIA requests with a wrong date. No big deal, put it in the record and forget it.
Peel away yet another layer of innocence, however and a new, much more interesting set of questions present themselves:
According to Rendlesham Forester Thurkettle, a pair young British men in suits interviewed him shortly after the incidents. Between this and other accounts we can see that the British authorities were well aware of the incident almost immediately after it happened......
Technically, however, the MOD was first formally notified on or after the date of the Halt Memo. How did the British know to investigate the events if they had not been officially informed until mid January?
Why did Larry Warren know the 'wrong' dates to tell when, in principle, he would not have seen Lt. Col. Halt's memo until it was obtained via FOIA, over the personal objection of Col. Halt? Was he briefed, (or chemically debriefed) to present a version of the story with little green men in flying saucers along with inaccurate dates as part of a much more sophisticated pre-emptive disinformation plan? Or is it just the case that all Larry Warren knows came from the Halt Memo in the first place?
Why did Jim written statement of the events not have the same accurate date as the other witness statements?
And here is where it gets particularly intriguing. In Penniston's notebook, his dates, allegedly recorded during or immediately after the incident have the same erroneous dates as Halt's memo.
This raises the spectre that Penniston's chemical debriefing was more rigorous than has been imagined, with the story he was assigned to tell implanted via hypnosis, drugs or a combination of the two. That would imply that some form of cover story was developed almost immediately and fed to Penniston and perhaps others which would match the narrative of the eventual 'official' memorandum of 'Unexplained Lights'.
This is speculative, of course, but the pieces seem to fit. British authorities were informally informed, a higher group of US Security personnel took charge of the formal documentation and finally a carefully erroneous memo was sent to be placed in the archives.
Pry one more layer of interpretation off of whatever core truth there may be, and you have to wonder about this: What did Gen Gordon Williams mean when he told film maker James Fox that, in regards to the memo "the cat got out of the bag" and once that happened, that you "could not put humpty dumpty back together again?"
Source : John Burroughs Facebook Feed
originally posted by: HUMBLEONE
Penniston reports that during the download of information from the vehicle, he was told that "they" are "us" from the future. I observed a UFO during the 90's, during which in my mind I asked the question, "who are you"? ...the answer which popped into my head was "we are anthropologist 's". For years , that never made sense to me, Pennistons statement was for me a long awaited epiphany.
DELIBERATE DECEPTION: A CASE FOR DISINFORMATION IN THE UFO RESEARCH COMMUNITY - PDF FILES PART 1 - 7.
The documents represent a thorough and yet a fairly conducted in-depth investigation, which is surprisingly objective and at the same time, it has the all the precision of a surgical procedure. We believe that “Deliberate Deception: “A Case of Disinformation in the UFO Research Community” has huge implications, not only for the Rendlesham Forest incident but Ufology in general.
Steve Mera: Phenomena Magazine - Managing Editor & Brian Allan: Phenomena Magazine - Editor.