Re: Attn: Patrick, other spOOks, updates on the UFO Invasion At Rendlesham

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 06:26:19 GMT, Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers
�.S.�. <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote:

Cut n Pasted from Nick Pope by Flaffer.

Halt and Penniston disagreed over the location of the landing
site, and then concluded that two separate locations were
involved. Forester Vince Thurkettle (the original proponent of
the lighthouse theory) confirmed that the lighthouse would not
have been visible from this second site. That said, I wondered
whether Halt or Penniston could really be certain about the
locations so long after the event, given that the forest has
changed significantly, most notably as a result of tree loss
during the so-called Great Storm of 1987, and subsequent
replanting.


This is a problem. Anyone who remembers the storm of 87 (as I do),
will know what changes it brought to the landscape. If they weren't
sure of the location before it would have great problems after it.

The inability to nail down the exact location makes it impossible to
rule out the lighthouse theory, but it makes it hard to evaluate
exactly what really happened in this part of the Rendlesham incident.

Halt went further than I've heard him go before in public on
promoting the idea that some aggressive debriefings were carried
out using chemicals and/or hypnosis, and that disinformation
techniques were used.

Penniston recalled (albeit under regression hypnosis) that two
people he described as agents of either C8 or DS8 had been
present during a debriefing involving an injection of Sodium
Pentothal. I was then filmed explaining that Defence Secretariat
8 had been the Ministry of Defence's lead department on the UFO
issue at the time. This division evolved into Secretariat(Air
Staff), where I worked, so I was a little unhappy at the
potential implication that my predecessors had engaged in such
an activity. I should point out that it was public knowledge
that the departmental lead for investigating UFO sightings lay
with DS8.


Nick Pope is rightly very dubious of any information retrieved under
regression hypnosis. As has been shown repeatedly, regression hypnosis
is less likely to uncover hidden memories and much more likely to
generate false ones.

So this is what Nick Pope thought of the documentary, but what does
Flaffer think of the Rendlesham Incident? He refuses to post any of
his evidence ever so we'll never know the answer.


David Patrick