Sean Elifritz
Administrator
As always Leslie Kean made for a good show as her approach is more restrained than quite a few others interested in the subject. But I can't say I was impressed by her answers to a few of my questions.
Jim Pennistion: Was left a little puzzled when she said she wouldn't include Penniston's latest claims if/when discussing the case in the future. Is it appropriate to dole out information you like and omit information you don't? Penniston's claims, all of them, are relevant because they go to the heart of his credibility or lack thereof. I got the impression (She never actually said as much though) that she doesn't really believe the binary code business but then went on to talk about his supposedly touching a landed craft as though her conviction about that hadn't been altered at all. Hello! If any of his testimony is questionable then it all needs to be tossed out. I'm of the impression that probably the only thing Jim Penniston saw that night was a light in the sky. Everything he has added to the story since then-the landed craft, the notebook nobody is permitted to examine but he talks about endlessly, the abduction, ALL OF IT-are likely fabrications.
Phoenix lights: First of all, the quick edit I did on that clip wasn't the best (I've thought about redoing it with some embedded text). I probably should have left in the part where he said the lights were totally silent. Kean made much of witnesses saying the object was silent but my impression is...big deal. Sure, jets are loud but are heard only when they fly low. When they're high you don't hear anything. Planes fly over my house all hours of the day and night and I don't hear a peep.
And it makes little sense to me to favor witness descriptions when you have a video that you can look at yourself. She acknowledged that the clip did look like jets in formation but then continued to bolster the witness descriptions of a solid V. Are we to believe that both were flying around Phoenix, that there was a V-formation of military jets and an extraterrestrial spacecraft sharing the same patch of sky at the same time? Or is it more reasonable to conclude that there was just one V consisting of jets flying in formation and quite a few people let their imaginations run wild?
We've seen the latter over and over again. Look at the thousands of UFO reports that have turned out to be Venus. Just a dot in the sky but there is no end to the reams of reports that have been collected over the decades where the witnesses grossly exaggerated what they were looking at.
I am reminded of a segment I saw in an old UFO documentary (Wish I had clips to link to for these examples but I failed to find anything when doing a quick search on youtube) where a researcher donned a UFO hat (Was a saucer-shaped thing with blinking lights on it) and then would walk around the periphery of woods lining roads. Doing it generated UFO reports and he was shocked by the way so many witnesses would exaggerate what they'd seen. They'd talk about motherships the size of football fields, of impossible speeds and maneuvers, the absurdities ran the gambit. But all it had been was a guy walking around with a lit-up hat on his head.
There was another more-recent documentary where researchers led a tour of people through woods and had staged a scene where they had some yellow police tape and a guard standing near it. They made sure to walk the people by it. Then later they asked the people what they had seen there and the witnesses exaggerated to no end and seemed to genuinely believe their memories despite them being dramatically embellished.
The video is something tangible. The stories people tell are just that...stories. For a while those stories were all we had (That clip has been around forever, however. But for whatever reason nobody made anything of it) and I was willing to give them the benefit of a doubt. But this video allows me to look at the Phoenix triangle myself, to not have to rely on witness interpretations, and it's clearly a V-formation of prosaic aircraft.
Jim Pennistion: Was left a little puzzled when she said she wouldn't include Penniston's latest claims if/when discussing the case in the future. Is it appropriate to dole out information you like and omit information you don't? Penniston's claims, all of them, are relevant because they go to the heart of his credibility or lack thereof. I got the impression (She never actually said as much though) that she doesn't really believe the binary code business but then went on to talk about his supposedly touching a landed craft as though her conviction about that hadn't been altered at all. Hello! If any of his testimony is questionable then it all needs to be tossed out. I'm of the impression that probably the only thing Jim Penniston saw that night was a light in the sky. Everything he has added to the story since then-the landed craft, the notebook nobody is permitted to examine but he talks about endlessly, the abduction, ALL OF IT-are likely fabrications.
Phoenix lights: First of all, the quick edit I did on that clip wasn't the best (I've thought about redoing it with some embedded text). I probably should have left in the part where he said the lights were totally silent. Kean made much of witnesses saying the object was silent but my impression is...big deal. Sure, jets are loud but are heard only when they fly low. When they're high you don't hear anything. Planes fly over my house all hours of the day and night and I don't hear a peep.
And it makes little sense to me to favor witness descriptions when you have a video that you can look at yourself. She acknowledged that the clip did look like jets in formation but then continued to bolster the witness descriptions of a solid V. Are we to believe that both were flying around Phoenix, that there was a V-formation of military jets and an extraterrestrial spacecraft sharing the same patch of sky at the same time? Or is it more reasonable to conclude that there was just one V consisting of jets flying in formation and quite a few people let their imaginations run wild?
We've seen the latter over and over again. Look at the thousands of UFO reports that have turned out to be Venus. Just a dot in the sky but there is no end to the reams of reports that have been collected over the decades where the witnesses grossly exaggerated what they were looking at.
I am reminded of a segment I saw in an old UFO documentary (Wish I had clips to link to for these examples but I failed to find anything when doing a quick search on youtube) where a researcher donned a UFO hat (Was a saucer-shaped thing with blinking lights on it) and then would walk around the periphery of woods lining roads. Doing it generated UFO reports and he was shocked by the way so many witnesses would exaggerate what they'd seen. They'd talk about motherships the size of football fields, of impossible speeds and maneuvers, the absurdities ran the gambit. But all it had been was a guy walking around with a lit-up hat on his head.
There was another more-recent documentary where researchers led a tour of people through woods and had staged a scene where they had some yellow police tape and a guard standing near it. They made sure to walk the people by it. Then later they asked the people what they had seen there and the witnesses exaggerated to no end and seemed to genuinely believe their memories despite them being dramatically embellished.
The video is something tangible. The stories people tell are just that...stories. For a while those stories were all we had (That clip has been around forever, however. But for whatever reason nobody made anything of it) and I was willing to give them the benefit of a doubt. But this video allows me to look at the Phoenix triangle myself, to not have to rely on witness interpretations, and it's clearly a V-formation of prosaic aircraft.
