Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Saru

Col. Charles Halt claims US UFO coverup

199 posts in this topic

Opps, didn't see that my first post was saved. My bad.

Edited by regeneratia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Making money of the gullible has never been a problem,... UFOology is practically built on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Making money of the gullible has never been a problem,... UFOology is practically built on it.

Honey, the very last thing I am is gullible.

An example of gullible is in believing that your government is telling you the truth, and in believing the news the mainstream media puts out.

Governments lie all the time, ALL the time. Sometimes I think they even lie to themselves, like in the horrible Bush years.

I don't believe in UFOs because there are people like Halt out there. I KNOW of my own experiences, and those experiences lead me to KNOW that UFOs are here.

As I have said before, the evidence is overwhelming in favor of what you call gullible belief.

Only people no longer believe but KNOW that they are here. It is a difference in mind-set. Believing is one thing. KNOWING is entirely different and more profound.

Edited by regeneratia
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with boon.

Modern science and new technology for analyzing sleep patterns, dreams, and sleep paralysis has shed a negative light on many ET and abduction experiences. Those who claim that a UFO = ET may believe in their own stories, but without hard evidence to support this claim that is all they are, stories.

In this case, then, what about all of the broken tree branches and the depressions made by the craft's landing gear?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In this case, then, what about all of the broken tree branches and the depressions made by the craft's landing gear?

They'll try to tell you it was done by gophers and chipmunks. Of course, it doesn't matter at all what they say since they weren't there and saw nothing. Only the witnesses really count, not the various silly "explanations" after the fact that explain nothing.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look what just turned up:

“I, Steven Robert LaPlume, on this third day of February 2005, wish to declare the following as true regarding the events on and at RAF Bentwaters from December 26th, 1980 to January 30th, 1981.

I witnessed members from another flight entering the day room at about 10:00 a.m., three hours after their shift ended. They were very distraught when asked about their encounter with a UFO the shift before.

Also, Larry Warren related to me the events of a few nights, which entailed the sighting of a UFO, the fact that the lights were not working properly and also that he witnessed a craft, three beings, and a Colonel communicating with the beings. He also mentioned that there was film documentation and that parts were flown in from Germany to help fix the downed craft. This was in early January of 1981.

I had a subsequent sighting which brought out a mass of high-ranking officials, one of which brought his wife and teenaged son to: “Hopefully get to see one this time!” (Quote by the Lt. Colonel's wife.) The base commander, Colonel Gordon Williams, (promoted by Congress the day before to General), was also present and I advised him my post was then “safe and secure,” as instructed by my shift commander, Lt. Englund.

After Larry Warren came up missing for a few days and told me of his “interrogation procedure” and I confirmed I was being followed by still-unknown (to me) agents, I felt it in my best interest to trash my career, loose face with my father, a military man since World War II, and leave the base and the US Air Force for my own personal safety. I felt so strongly of this, I faked a suicide attempt and cut open my own stomach to prove my point and receive a discharge, which I did. I have no regrets over this action.

My personal thoughts are that if there was something, it was a threat to the ordinance we housed at the base. If there was nothing, then there was mass hysteria and the entire squadron of Security Police was mentally unfit to be in the position of responsibility we were charged with. If there was nothing, then why would the Assistant Base Commander of Woodbridge bring his family out to take pictures of a UFO, if there was nothing there to begin with? And why would a recently-promoted General Williams get out of bed at midnight to come investigate as well?”

There's more here:

http://eyewitnessrad...last-interview/

On the Air Tonight, 9/27/2012, Royce and I will have the distinct pleasure of interviewing for the last time one of the most interesting men involved in the Bentwaters Incident back in 1980/81, and for the last time…

Don’t miss this interview tonight, ‘ONLY’ on the Global Radio Alliance!

SOURCE: http://www.paolaharris.com/home.htm

Edited by archernyc
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In this case, then, what about all of the broken tree branches and the depressions made by the craft's landing gear?

Assumed craft, not factual. As for the ground marks I'll take the opinion of the local forester every time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assumed craft, not factual. As for the ground marks I'll take the opinion of the local forester every time.

The witnesses who saw the UFO are the ones who matter, not somebody who was not even there.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The witnesses who saw the UFO are the ones who matter, not somebody who was not even there.

You should make this your signature.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The witnesses who saw the UFO are the ones who matter, not somebody who was not even there.

Absolutely.

Convince others we never will. What I am standing up for is the truth and the people that have tried to convey this to us over the years. That's partly what I am fighting for. Also I am fighting against the awful denial and blandness that exists in some people regarding anything that is out of the ordinary. As long as I live a sense of mystery will survive in this world for those that have a sense of wonder, that serves to remind people that there are things beyond the realms of school science lessons. I live to champion the thought that humans as emancipated as they are by modern technology that there is far more to be won if only we would open our minds to it.

That's what I live for.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too bad WikiLeaks didn't uncover something interesting on this whole subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the problem when someone claims something extraordinary without solid evidence: It could be true. It could not be true.

Basically, we're back to a stalemate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another glowing lighthouse in the forest that showed up on radar, more than one of them in fact. Most peculiar. LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was sure some crappy video. Which of you jokers separated the pictures from the documents, anyway?

10-trees.jpg

And no, that was not a picture of Sergeant B!

Edited by TheMacGuffin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brings to mind the old T.V. series the "Invaders" Ehwee so very,scary!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brings to mind the old T.V. series the "Invaders" Ehwee so very,scary!

You sure scare easily. LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You sure scare easily. LOL

YEah ! ITs the Thick Texas Air we all have to suck up here in Big-D ! kind makes the grey matter spook easy ! :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

YEah ! ITs the Thick Texas Air we all have to suck up here in Big-D ! kind makes the grey matter spook easy ! :tu:

I would have expected no less. I spent some time there when I was in the military and recall 100-degree temperatures and 100% humidity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just think you are just living in some make believe world.

Holy cow Zoser.

Are you serious? That is quite a statement coming from you. I always felt your nick should be Peter Pan.

These are men of integrity, honour and who pride themselves in carrying out their duty to the highest standards. Making up a tale or misrepresenting something as blatant as this is not the style of people like this.

That is not the story. The personell were at a Christmas Party. One does not have to be an alcoholic or a drug addict to be under the weather at a social gathering marked by an annual holiday of celebration. That's the point, 90% of the UK was probably also a bit drunk. There were reports of drugs on base, we hear that about every military installation at one time or another. It happens, and we all know it does, these brave people are in fact people, and do things people do. This is not disrespectful of the heroes who cover our backsides with their own lives, it means they have a social life, like most people on the planet.

If we were dealing with drug addicts, crooks, alcoholics, mischief making bums, I would totally agree with you. Not military men of rank and honour. Somewhere along the line one has to stand up for these people and the testimonies they relate, or quality dealings between people become a joke. To me there are people who still uphold the truth in this world that can be trusted, and this case refers to such folk.

But you are picking one testimony over another. And I do not think a single person on this board would wonder why you made the choice you did. There are mountains of inconsistency associated with the claims, how is that reconciled? You appear to be consulting faith.

It was a multiple witness sighting, documented, and consistently described. That's it. It is not a unique example of unknown objects interfering with nuclear installations. It has happened multiple times before. There is a pattern; I'm sure you know the cases.

The consistency is very much overstated.

It is clear that some people were aware of these statements and their contents but chose not to present them publicly. I !nd it a bit hypocritical that a group that was supposed to be “Against UFO secrecy” had sat on these documents for some time, and several authors apparently had access to them (or parts of them) prior to Easton’s revelations. Jenny Randles included part of Burroughs sketch in her book UFO Crash Landing. Did she have access to the entire document or did she get fed only the pieces that Halt or others decided for her? Inquiring minds would like to know because the reason these documents were hidden from public view became clear when Easton presented them. Some of the major items revealed in these documents were:

1. Penniston is the only person that mentions a “craft” of any kind and then mentions that they only got within 50 meters. His sketch does not show a triangular shape.

2. Both Burroughs and Cabansag (the third member of the group) report seeing a “beacon light” and pursuing it for some distance (they estimated 2 miles) before realizing that it was a lighthouse. Rendlesham dogma was that everybody knew about the lighthouse. These statements demonstrate this was not the case.

3. Msgt Chandler acted as a relay station for the three team members as they proceeded into the woods but did not report seeing any craft even though Penniston indicated the craft was not that far into the woods and was seen by various base personnel as it departed.

4. Lt. Buran stated he monitored what transpired on the radio and ordered a recall of the airmen at 0354, less than one hour after the events started. He makes no mention of any of the stories later told by Penniston concerning the craft and inspection.

Considering the time line with much of what transpired, this makes Penniston’’s account (and his notebook) suspect. If one throws in the account of a pursuit through the woods towards the “beacon light” described by Burroughs/Cabansag, it is extremely di#cult to believe that Penniston’s version of events is accurate. Both LT. Buran and MSGT Chandler state the events started around 0300, which demonstrates Penniston’s claim of the events starting at midnight is false. Penniston and Burroughs have claimed they did not tell the whole story in their statements. However, Buran and Chandler had no reason to lie about the time the event started and the omission of any details relayed by Penniston. Instead, their statements pretty much con!rm what Burroughs and Cabansag described.

Charles Halt in the Strange but True Liveepisode in 1997, made the following statement regarding these documents (which had not been made public at the time):

The story, so to speak, as far as the size and shape has not changed through the years.

I took original statements from the three people that actually approached the object and did it the day afterwards and they all said the same thing when they were independently interviewed and they all said

it was approximately 9 feet on a side and it was triangular.

Looking at the documents, we now know that his statement is false on several accounts:

1. He took the statements on the 2nd of January as indicated by the dates on several of the reports. He con!rmed this to AJS Rayl in an article called Ba$ed at Bentwaters. This was not the “day afterwards”.

2. None of the statements made by Penniston, Burroughs, or Cabansag ever indicated a distinct “triangular craft” of any kind and none gave a dimension of nine feet. Penniston’s original story in Out of the blue gave dimensions that did not include the number of nine.

It appears that Colonel Halt was less than accurate and, apparently, less than honest when he spoke on that program and since. His failure to reveal the statements by Burroughs and Cabansag about the lighthouse pursuit, demonstrates a desire to conceal facts from the public in order to make his story sound credible. Can one really trust a man that chooses to conceal information from others in order to perpetuate his own version of events?

Halt’s recent accusations that the governments of Britain and the US are “covering up” the case sound hypocritical in light of this information.

LINK

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do they expect the government to do? Tell the truth? If they have alien technology, they certainly aren't going to share it with the public. About the

only application that would immediately come to mind for such technology would be military and space endeavors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The witnesses who saw the UFO are the ones who matter, not somebody who was not even there.

Not witnesses with inconsistent accounts over more than one night, accounts (and the location of events) which in the case of Penniston have changed and been embellished over the years. Not a party in the forest unfamiliar with the location and surroundings who misidentified a lighthouse - Halt didn't even know where Orford was from Capel Green.

If we are to accept accounts from servicemen as true then Kevin Conde is also telling the truth.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do they expect the government to do? Tell the truth? If they have alien technology, they certainly aren't going to share it with the public. About the

only application that would immediately come to mind for such technology would be military and space endeavors.

So why would the Middle East not say Boo about a spaceship landing at Orford Ness? Do you really think they, North Korea, Vietnam, Russia and China would just sit by and go wow? And do you really think something like this would get past them all if any?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have expected no less. I spent some time there when I was in the military and recall 100-degree temperatures and 100% humidity.

I was in Dallas in the summer of '98. IIRC for something like 35 days, the temperature at even at night hovered around 95.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.