From: Jason Gammon <boyinthemachine.nul> Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 14:22:12 -0400 Archived: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 14:22:12 -0400 Subject: Re: Rendlesham Was Not ET Says Prime Witness >From: Dave Haith <visions1.nul> >To: UFO UpDates <post.nul> >Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 18:55:42 +0100 >Subject: Rendlesham Was Not ET Says Prime Witness >I am unsure of the rules of Facebook... if somebody pastes >something on a page, is it in the public domain? >Gambling that it's OK, on my Facebook page's Newsfeed appeared a >current discussion about life in the universe and whether we >might be the first. >Presumably it originated on Jim Penniston's Facebook page... to >be honest I can't fathom a lot of this techno stuff. >Jim, who claims to have actually touched the landed craft, >commented "But why can't we be the first - there is no evidence >to show other than that for right now" >One of Jim's friends replies " I think it is possible that we >could be the first. There had to be a first at one time. But >given the size and age of our galaxy I find it very unlikely >that we are the first. Not to mention the posibility of >migration from other galaxies. I have a great deal of respect >for you and what you have done. Given your experiences, It >surprises me that you would think that. Do you think the thing >that you experienced was something other than ET?" >Jim answers: "Yes" >Friend responds: "Wow, I did not know that. Very interesting. >Not to put you on the spot, but what is your theory? Us from the >future? Interdimensional? >"I sure don't claim to know for sure, but given the knowledge >that I have at this point in my life ET's ...seem the most >likely to me, but I'm always open to new evidence." >Jim replies: "Yes, that is what John (Burroughs) and I will >disclose in detail in December... In thirty years since the >incident at Rendlesham, at no time whatsoever have we said it >was ET... Only the media have... and recently Halt, and I am >not sure if he has said that because of the technology involved >or what. And it is his only rational explaination... But, John >and I are the only witnesses who had contact... :) Oh yes, our >beliefs are not a theory, but, are based on the facts... :)" >I will leave it to Listers to wonder what exactly he thinks >landed at the base that day..... >The event he refers to in December is a reunion at Rendlesham. Penniston has already made comments on this before. It is his opinion that the visitors are time-travelers and he reportedly believes he received telepathic communication. As David Jacobs points out, the problem with telepathy is that since it is mind-to-mind it may be hard to distinguish the message from the noise in our heads. Personally, I find it fascinating that Penniston hasn't yet to publicly acknowledge that he believed he communicated with an machine. The craft he claimed he witnessed had no crew compartment. It was only about 9ft long and the assumption is that it was a highly advanced example of a UAV, be it from here or not. Now, the question I have is whether or not the craft was somehow controlled by an organic race from elsewhere or was in fact a representation of an advanced, intelligent machine, the kind that most futurists and transhumanists believe will dominate the future. -Jason Gammon Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp