Saturday, 3 June 2017

Georgina Bruni Did Tell The People.

The following is the transcript of a "conversation" in which Georgina Bruni responds to Larry Warren's accusation that Georgina's book "has over 400 mistakes."  Georgina has shared this with me for my interest but the decision to post it here is MY DECISION - I think it makes interesting reading.

You Can't Tell The People. Amazon

"Larry Warren has made a public statement claiming that there are "a staggering 407 problems" with my book "You Can't Tell The People" and has challenged me to respond to the following questions, stating: "Should she choose not to, that will be self evident as well." I am therefore left with no option but to answer these questions in the same manner that they were presented, which is publicly. However, I find it very odd that Larry has put forward only twenty-one questions and only ten of these concern the content of my book, the others have nothing whatsoever to do with the alleged errors.

Here then are Larry's questions and my answers:

Q#1 - Ms Bruni, Why does the fact that you edit an online "Gossip Magazine" entitled "Hot Gossip" not mentioned in the text of your book? Sure, your dust jacket states that you edit an "on-line magazine", but again I ask you, why is the keyword "Gossip" omitted from the jacket text, I mean, it is true right?

Answer: It is no secret that I am editor in chief of Hot Gossip UK. The reason the magazine is not mentioned in the text of my book is because it has nothing whatsoever to do with the content. The dust cover also mentions that I trained as a private investigator but it does not name the agency.

Q#2 - Ms Bruni, Did you read the book, "Left At East Gate"? If so, as a researcher "Trained In Investigation", did you note the on "Record interviews" with other witnesses circa 1984 and published in East Gate, and then compared the statements from that time with the alleged statements given to you during the course of your "Definitive Research" by those same individuals?

Answer: I did read the interviews in your book concerning the witnesses. However, I prefer, whenever possible to talk to the witnesses direct rather than work with second hand (in this instance third hand) information. I consider this to be the professional way to work. There are no "alleged" statements in my book they are all genuine.

Q#3 - Ms Bruni, On page 29, 2nd paragraph of the chapter, you title "American Pie", you write, "Both police squadrons carried weapons such as the M-16, and a weapon capable of shooting down a helicopter" end quote, my question is this, you claim to have interviewed numerous witnesses from 81st SPS cir 1980, myself included. You claim to be a trained investigative journalist as well, that said, in 1980 the 81st Security Police - was in fact made up of two separate disciplines. Law Enforcement Police carried a Colt 38, 6 shot revolver, a nightstick, a Motorola 4 band radio and hand cuffs. L.E. Did not carry an M-16 rifle, as you write in your book. My point is simple - you are claiming in your "Factual Book" that we were armed with "surface to air" weapons - as you now know, this is not true - Whom told you this "fact?" Who told you that L.E. Carried M-16's?
Answer: Actually, you are wrong. There were in fact three police units at RAF Bentwaters. Security Police, Security Police Investigations and Law Enforcement, and in my book I make it clear the duties of all three. I see Kevin Randle has already corrected you on your errors concerning the weapons. I did not write in my book that LE's carried M-16s, I actually wrote: 'Both police squadrons carried weapons _such as_ the M-16 and a weapon capable of shooting down a helicopter or small aircraft. So I did not specify who used what, but mentioned those weapons as an example. I think this is being very picky considering you allege there are so many problems concerning you personally. But I do admit I could have made it clearer that LE's carried hand guns. The fact that a 'weapon capable of shooting down a helicopter or small aircraft' was available, was stated by Colonel Charles I Halt (ret) during a lecture in the UK in 1994. A transcript taken from a recording of the lecture reads as follows:
'..and have on hand immediately available firepower way beyond that [machine gun] .something large enough to stop a tank or knock a helicopter out of the sky .'
If there is an error regarding this then I'm sure Halt or another member of the USAF would have corrected it. Obviously you did not have clearance for such a weapon; hence you might not have had access to this information. After all, not including your basic training period, you only served approximately six months in the USAF. It is therefore understandable that you would not have known much about how the military machine worked. It is for this reason that I pay more attention to the facts and to the people who have served in the service much longer than you. Of course Colonel Halt was the deputy base commander at RAF Bentwaters and Woodbridge.

Continuation of Q#3: As an investigative journalist did you do any background research on the security police and the jobs role in Europe circa 1980?

Answer: Yes, I did do background research on the security police, not just their role in Europe either. My book offers as much information as allows room for concerning the security police and their role at that time. You must realise that my book is not about the security police in Europe, but concerns the Rendlesham Forest incident and the people involved. I devoted a whole chapter (A Little Piece of American Pie) to the workings of the USAFE at RAF Bentwaters and Woodbridge and I laid out their role and named the commanders in charge and also interviewed the commanders of the 81st Security Police (something that you did not do for your book). I feel this was more than adequate.

Continuation of Q#3: Did you contact the USAF Security police Museum in San Antonio, Texas? One would think you would as it was Security Police whom are your primary witnesses to the UFO incident! Or as you like to say, was this information something you were told or something you knew?

Answer: My book is not about the history of the USAF Security Police. I did obtain and read USAF records, as mentioned in my book. As aforementioned, my concern was with the witnesses and those stationed at RAF Bentwaters and Woodbridge and, the people who knew more about that than anybody, were the witnesses and of course their commanders.

Q#4 - Ms Bruni, In the current issue of UFO Magazine (UK), I notice on the top of page 13 - the banner headline "MOD Warned America About UFO Book!" This refers only to the point that the MOD sent a rather bland memo to USAFE Mildenhall, Norfolk (Likely to public affairs) informing USAF to expect queries concerning your book - Of course this happened as far back as 1984 with the book "Skycrash" except at that time, memos of this nature would have gone to Bentwaters Public Affairs, Mildenhall is now the administrative centre for the USAF in Britain. I see nothing strange with this. So I ask you, is the banner headline simply hype and more creative marketing? Or do you really believe that you are the only person to publish a book on the case? And that America was really "warned" about your book? Books on this subject are NOT reviewed by the government before being published in America, as we have freedom of speech and expression.

Answer: Have you seen the memo you refer to? Because it has my name on it I am endeavouring to obtain a copy. The Answer in the Hansard is clearly little more than the standard attempt to downplay this subject. Surely you can see that this is just the MOD spinning the usual party line. I should think it is clear from the bibliography in my book that I am aware of other books on the subject. And who said anything about the American's reviewing my book? This entire question has nothing to do with the content of my book.

Q#5 - Ms Bruni, Is your book available in book stores in America?

Answer: Yes, but what has this to do with the content of my book.

Q#6 - Ms Bruni, of course you have shown the lighthouse theory to be the joke it always was - you are not the first to do so. Why did you not choose to vent some of your spite at the idiots (Like Easton and Ridpath, etc.) Who promote the lighthouse theory, instead of on some of the witnesses to the incident.

Answer: I feel my book does more than other books have done to prove the lighthouse theory is a joke. It offers proper evidence, not just theory. It features actual USAF pictures of the landing site and evidence of ground indentations that could not have been caused by animals. It also features Adrian Bustinza's testimony revealing that he was forced under pressure to say that it was the lighthouse. It also reveals that two other witnesses were not responsible for typing the alleged statements, which the sceptic's claim are proof that the lighthouse was responsible. I do cover the sceptic's theories including Ian Ridpath's, but I refuse to waste precious space on debunkers who have no case. I believe I have been very fair to the witnesses, there have been no complaints from them, in fact it is the opposite, they have congratulated me on my research. You are the only person to make complaints regarding your alleged involvement.

Continuation of Q#6: Did you ever visit the forest at night?
Answer: Yes, see page 270 - 272 in my book "You Can't Tell The People."

Continuation of Q#6: Or for that matter, Did you ever visit Caple Green?

Answer: Yes, I have visited Capel Green (and the farmer's field that you believe is called Capel Green) and, while on this subject I should mention that new evidence has recently come to my attention (thanks to a local researcher who supplied me with this information), which in my opinion questions your claims that the discoloured area in the farmer's field is evidence of a UFO landing in 1980. More information on this will emerge in the near future. As you know Larry, you are the only person who claims the UFO landed at this location.

Continuation of Q#6: As a trained investigator, I'd have thought you would have addressed the debunkers by name and theory and then laid waste to them with your "Definitive Research"? Ignoring them is not balanced research is it?
Answer: I have already answered this question (see Q#5). The debunkers claims are based on wild speculation and theory and with the evidence I have presented for the case, these claims do not stand up. I have devoted a whole chapter to challenging the sceptics and I feel the book is very balanced. But I refuse to give the oxygen of publicity to debunkers who simply re-hash the theories of other sceptics.

Q#7 - Ms Bruni, On page 33 in the New UFO Magazine, we see you have been invited to speak at the 20th Leeds UFO Conference in September - I can tell you that I'm sure you will enjoy it! Baring another petrol strike.
Answer: Thank you, I'm sure I will enjoy it. What kind of question is this?

Continuation of Q#7: I notice that in your brief bio, you are identified as being a "Best Selling Author" Congratulations!!! That's super. Peter and myself were in the British Top 10 Best Sellers List in the summer of 1997, in fact two lists. (In Britain, one must sell over 5,000 Hard Back copies of ones book without returns, to get there!) Could you let me know on what list your book has qualified as a "Best Seller" or is the claim more hype and creative marketing?It is hard work to get a true best seller (A major book tour can help), but UFO books are not doing well these days and it would be insulting to authors that are Best Selling authors, to have authors who are not, saying that they are! What do you say? (In your defence, John Mack is NOT a "Former" Pulitzer Prize Winner, he is one!)

Answer: I should point out that "Best Selling Author" is not mentioned in my bio. This is something the media has taken to writing. However, my book went into second re-print before publication and a week later it went into third. I understand it is now in its fifth re-print. As of early January 2001 I understand it had sold approximately 6,000 hardback copies and that is not bad considering it is a UFO related book and was only published on 10 November. I do not have the latest figures but no books have been returned and it is still selling very well. For somebody who claims to have identified 407 problems with my book, I am somewhat surprised that this, as with many of your "questions" do not relate to the substance of my book at all. It seems to me that you are trying to score points here and not debate any of the data in my book.

Q#8 - Ms Bruni, In your book you state that I "more than once contemplated suicide" Based on what source do you conclude this? First it is bull****, second, it is legally actionable, and third, - Did you read East Gate? Had you done so, why did you not report accurately what happened to me 14 years ago and why? Why was it necessary to write this inaccurate and slanderous statement at all? Please don't tell me that I told you that! Because I will then ask you to produce the audio tape of me doing so, OK! So please answer why you tried to create such an inaccurate and unstable picture of Larry Warren? In fact, you put more effort into slandering me then resolving the case, Why?

Answer: There is no need to produce further evidence because I did read your book, but did you? Turn to page 490 (index) in Left at East Gate and read:
Warren, suicide attempt, 279. A paragraph on your attempted suicide in 1988, which concludes with, "I couldn't even kill myself properly." Then turn to page 82, referring to the year 1981: "Drinking was a constant in my life and some moments I thought about ending it all." Now turn to page 289, where your co-author Peter Robbins is discussing your problems in 1988 and had learnt that, "...he [Larry] had come pretty close to killing himself the month before."

Q#9 - Ms Bruni, During our 5 or 6 telephone conversations from March 1999 to the late Spring of 2000, you often asked me if I was recording you? You also stated more than once that you NEVER recorded your interviews! In the State Of Vermont, one can record any telephone call without The other party knowing it, for legal purposes and for the record. When we did speak, I was living in Vermont, and I did in fact record all of your phone calls, (For legal purposes) as it was my right to do so. However you eventually told my wife that you reordered all of your conversations and did not admit as much to the people you spoke too. "As A Professional Trained Researcher", Why did not have the professional courtesy to ask for permission to record your "sources" all good researchers do, why not you?

Answer: So if you have recorded our conversations, why are you asking these questions?

Q#10 - Ms Bruni, On Page 71, You state that "Busty Bustinza" cannot recall the names of the men he picked up that night, (3rd UFO Incident) I ask again, have you read his previous interviews by Larry Faucett, Ray Bouche, Chuck Decaro, etc. If so, then why did you not question the man, because he knew whom he had picked up in 1984 when he was first interviewed, What is your agenda?

Answer: I read the interviews to Adrian Bustinza and asked him more than once if he had picked you up that night but he said he could not recall doing so. In these interviews he does not name you as being with the patrol. When Fawcett asked the questions he constantly mentioned your name - but not Bustinza. Apart from the officers, he mentioned a Polish man whose name he cannot recall, yet he does not recall you being in the truck. I think I was trying to be kind to you by omitting that information, but that's the way it was. As you know, Bustinza says it was Colonel Halt not Colonel Williams who was with his patrol, and he states it was Halt in Fawcett's interview that you feature in Left at East Gate too. I had to go with what Bustinza told me and I never led him. I have to ask why you did not interview Bustinza personally, or indeed any of the witnesses for Left at East Gate?

Q#11 - Ms Bruni, Did you tell researcher, Brenda Butler that Larry Warren and Peter Robbins "made up" the other witness supportive statements in "Left At East Gate", and that we made up the supportive statements from witnesses that came after our books publication. Ref: P. Robbins lecture at Leeds 1998 Ref: Info that was offered to you by me and Peter that you had no interest in? Brenda said this to more than just myself.

Answer: I was surprised to hear this because I never said any such thing. As you know, when you realised I had discovered certain errors with your story, you wrote to me demanding that I not use any of your material. So it was not as if I did not have any interest. I contacted Brenda about your accusations and she told me that I had been the topic of conversation during your visit to Rendlesham Forest but that at no time did she repeat what you have stated here. From what I gather your statement is distorted and you might be interested to know that Brenda filmed the occasion, so she has it on video.

Q#12 - Ms Bruni, On page 72 of your book, you write "Larry Warren claims to have seen three aeronaut entities communicating with Gordon Williams." Please show me where in the last 20 years - That I have used the term "Aeronaut" to describe the phenomena we observed, I mean you say that I "claim" that. What is your source?
Answer: This was not a direct quote. For your information the word aeronaut means 'one who sails or floats in the air'. 'Floating' is a term that you have used many times when describing the entities.

Continuation of Q#12: On communication with Williams, I've never once said that definite communication took place with Williams, I say it could have - Please explain yourself?
Answer: Please see your book Left at East Gate, page 414, where Peter Robbins states: "Warren is certain that it was Williams who stepped through the circle of airmen and faced off with the life forms".
Also see page 47 in Left at East Gate where you quote at the end of the paragraph, " I don't think there was any communication in the traditional sense, but I believe they were communicating." Also see your video interview with Anthony James entitled "The Bentwaters Incident", you state: "Gordon Williams had interaction with another life form."

Continuation of Q#12:Your book clearly places Williams on site, but with so many agendas going on at once, you might have missed it?
Answer: My book does not place Williams at the site (see my chapter on Williams) and according to all witness testimonies and all available evidence, Williams was not on site. You are the only person so far to claim that he was.

Q#13 - Ms Bruni, Why do you write that I saw a "huge machine land"? I've never said that, and it wasn't "huge", I also never saw the machine land! So what is your purpose for attributing that description to me as if you are quoting me?

Answer: This is not a direct quote: On page 45 of your book Left at East Gate, you say there was an explosion and then you saw a machine on the ground, it was big and almost the shape of a pyramid. On page 46 you say as you stood in front of the thing, you walked ten paces to the left and ten paces to the right and could see your shadows in it. Now please turn to page 385 in your book, where you are quoted as saying: "There was a burst of intense bright light. After that, a massive structured object could be seen on the ground where the fog had been." In your video interview (as above) with Anthony James you stated that the object was 30 feet across and rose to 25 feet at a sharp angle. Now, was that big or not, and did you see it land or not?

Continuation of Q#13: Again, I ask did you really read "Left At East Gate"?

Answer: Yes, I really did read it but did not necessarily take everything in it at face value. Would you like a list of errors from that book Larry?

Q#14 - Ms Bruni, Have you watched the 3 part CNN broadcast from 1985? If so, why did you mention it only in passing in your book, and on top of this describe it inaccurately. Example, "Capt Mike Verrano doesn't just "claim" to have driven Williams to a jet with film of the UFO," He did!

Answer: I did not just mention it in passing, please re-read my book. Yes, I have seen a copy of that film and Verrano's face is clearly blacked out and his name is not used in that segment. You are wrong about Verrano mentioning Williams, he does not. Only De Caro mentions the "base commander" The base commander was Colonel Ted Conrad, Gordon Williams was the Wing Commander, there is a big difference. Isn't it time you got your facts right!

Continuation Q#14: You also write that Larry Warren was "surprised to recognise Verrano on the show," How do you conclude this? I worked with Chuck Decaro from beginning to end on that program and had spoken to most of the participants before it was broadcast in February 1985. Why the surprise? I was the first person interviewed by CNN in September 1984 as well.

Answer: I did not use the word "surprised". What I wrote on page 72, is as follows:
'In Left at East Gate he [Larry] refers to the CNN documentary, stating that although the faces of the witnesses were blacked out he recognised Captain Mike Verrano.'
Now, please turn to page 178 of Left at East Gate where it reads as follows:
'Though their faces were obscured and, in one case, a voice disguised, I recognised Master Sergeant Ball, Sergeant Gulias and Captain Verrano'. Who exactly did you speak to? I ask this because according to De Caro, these witnesses were interviewed separately and discretely and did not want to be named. In fact, all their faces are blacked out on the film. Isn't it true that you did not speak to most of the participants? After all, two of them were NCOs and one was a captain. All were still serving in the service and I doubt they would have wanted to talk to you at that time. Besides, De Caro would not even reveal their names 20 years later because he gave them his word.

Q#15 - Ms Bruni, On page 74 you write that I was "upset" and "paranoid" after the UFO incident and that Bustinza tried to "calm me down." You also write that Bustinza remembers walking down the hall while I wonder if cameras where watching us? In reality, Bustinza asked to talk to me! Why did he not paint me as a paranoid in 1984, your information is false.

Answer: My information is not false. Are you questioning Bustinza's testimony? Why did you not interview Bustinza for your book, I wonder.
Continuation Q#15: You also state that Larry Warren was talking to "everyone about the UFO", again, not true! Cookie (Belinda) Vaughn was my girlfriend at that time, as you know, from speaking to her yourself! I never told her about it! You have your facts ass backwards again! And you seem to be hell-bent to create an untrue picture of me. Please explain your research methods of this issue? Check out Cookie's recollection's from that time on your own website, or have you removed it? Because it's another contradiction? Let me add, that Cookie was not a security police woman.
Answer: Bustinza said that in January 1981 you wanted to tell everybody about what happened and that you wanted to write a book about it. When I informed you of the latter, you got very upset, so I omitted that piece from my book, which I should not have done. By calling my information false, you are calling Bustinza's information false. I respect his testimony and I think he has been very kind to you under the circumstances. Cookie was not mentioned in the book because you suggested that this information was not necessary and although I had to agree, I did think of adding it. However, I had to make room for the extra work (the photo saga) that you threw at me late in the day. Cookie was surprised that you had not mentioned the incident to her, but explained that it was something of a fleeting romance. If I recall correctly, she was not your girlfriend at the time of the actual incident, but soon after.
Also, please check your book Left at East Gate, chapter 4 entitled, We Have To Tell Someone!. Jim Penniston pulled you up for talking about the incident with personnel. You talked to Bustinza and others, you talked to La Plume, you talked about the incident with the guys in the supply office, you talked to Mark Reese, you talked to Battram and called your mother on the base telephone.

Q#16 - Ms Bruni, After two letters and verbal requests for you to return my photographs and documents, you finally did, via your "man servant" Nick Pope, at last Septembers Leeds Conference. Thank you, however you seem to have forgotten to enclose that yellow piece paper from Bustinza's girlfriend, Cindy Schultz, telling me that Busty wanted to talk! You must remember that one? It had text from Bentwaters all-ranks club on the reverse and a picture of a mule. As you know, that is the actual note that Busty had slipped under my door that initiated our first discussions about our experiences. You can read the true version in "Left At East Gate" if you like. I do have a copy of the note, I sent you the original (Silly Me) and it kind of blows your version of events out of the water that I refer to in question 15. You know you have it, why did you not explore, "if indeed he was accurately quoted by you" this fact with Bustinza. Please explain, and please return the note, sweetie, ta!

Answer: I only ever received one letter demanding that I not use any of the photographs or copies of documents etc and requesting that I return them. I intended to send them back as soon as I had collected them from my publisher. I was about to send them, when Peter Robbins asked Nick Pope if he could pick them up because you would be meeting each other at the Leeds conference. I don't recall that piece of paper, it was not with the other material, however, I will search my files. Regarding the note that you claim Bustinza put under your door which proves your first meeting with him to discuss your experiences. The meeting Bustinza was describing to me was a separate issue and was indeed the first meeting after the incident. The one you are referring to is at a much later date. Please turn to page 73-74 in your book Left at East Gate. It is now April and you have found a note under your door from Bustinza, who wanted to talk to you "to have some facts" because you would soon be getting out of the Air force.

Q#17 - Ms Bruni, on page 73 of your book, you write that "I was convinced Gordon Williams communicated with the crew of an "Alien Spaceship"" Again on page 73, you state that "No one else puts Williams at the landing sites" You naughty girl!!! On the first point, (Again) I've never in 20 years described the phenomena we saw as one "Alien" nor have I ever described the machine we saw on Capel Green, as a "Spaceship"! (I mean, how would I know?) If you had read "Left At East Gate" you would have noticed that I do not believe the object came from "Space" at all. I believe it was from the future! I also expressed this opinion to you on the phone as well (Check your "research tapes") on the first point again, I never said that "definite" communication with the "crew" (Another description I've never ever used!) Took place with Williams, I say, Some form of communication could have taken place, with Williams. Once again, please describe your research methods on these points, if any were used?

Answer: Larry please note that these are not direct quotes. Turn to page 490 (index) in Left at East Gate, where it states: Warren, communication with alien entity, page 61-62. Now, am I correct in saying that the alleged alien contact in the underground was connected with the incident that took place earlier? On page 47 of your book you state, "They had large heads with catlike eyes. I could not see other facial features. They were not human at all, but I was not frightened." So, you think that those from the future are not human? Well, if they are not human, then they must be alien! You only ever told me that you thought they were from our future after I told you that other witnesses were of this opinion. You ask how would you know it was a spacecraft. Why don't you turn to page 52 of your book where you say that a Naval officer told you the day after the incident that what you had seen in the forest represented a technology far advanced to our own and that numerous civilisations visit this planet from time to time. And recall you told Anthony James that Williams had interaction with another life form. Anyway, we've already covered the Williams saga.
Continuation Q17: As for others placing Williams on site, you write that "no one else does!" Halt has, the interviews with participants conducted by Ray Bouche confirms that "fact" as well, and was published in a MUFON journal and "Left At East Gate! Your book goes to great lengths to remove Williams from the incident, however your writing, and the mans own actions and words indite him as having been involved.

Answer: Ray did not confirm that fact. During a conversation I had with him, he explained that Halt had told him that Williams had taken the film canister to a waiting aircraft. That does not mean it was that night, in fact the canister was taken to the aircraft a few days later and according to all the people I have interviewed, Williams was not involved. Halt has denied he said that to Ray Bouche and claims there was a misunderstanding. This is confirmed in a tape recorded interview that Peter Robbins did with Halt, which is included in your book and is available on your website at

Continuation Q#17: PS He was!

Answer: Then why are you the only person to say so?

This is a bit more complex then the previous questions, but do give it the old college try. I will simplify it, why did you ignore established facts? (And Please, No Spin!)
Answer: I did not ignore them, I investigated them and found many of the so-called established facts to be erroneous. This is what has bruised so many egos.

Q#18 - Ms Bruni, In your book you claim the following (false) information. Larry Warren was never cleared to work in the WSA "Did you really and truly read my book?" Did you review my existing military records, (published in the appendix) or did we make these records up as well? Had you done so, you knew before you published your book, that on 11th Dec '80, I was posted to D flight with my security clearance (intact), on the 15th Dec '80, I received my (PRP) which is clearance to work with nuclear weapons, (in the WSA). I did so twice before the UFO incident. I believe that you knew that too!

Answer: According to my military sources and those who actually worked in the weapons storage area, you had to have special clearance to guard nuclear weapons. You claim in your video interview with Anthony James that you had "Secret clearance to work around nuclear weapons", but you had only been on guard duty for approximately one month at Bentwaters, so I am not convinced that you would you have had this clearance. Apart from a couple of TDYs you spent the remainder of your service in the supply hut waiting for your discharge. It stands to reason that a newbie would not be put in charge of guarding nuclear weapons. I would be very surprised if the Air Force allowed this. The records you produced are standard training procedure. One day training for the WSA does not guarantee that you would have guarded nuclear weapons. You might have been on guard on the perimeter fence but I am not convinced you would have been inside, unless of course you can prove otherwise. Please read page 31 in your own book, as follows: 'I was now assigned to D Flight and spent the first week in the weapons storage area, mainly checking access badges - not very exciting work.' The nuclear weapons area was a separate area, I know because I had access to it when I visited the installation after its closure. I also have the DOE map of Bentwaters. You would have only been on the gate checking badges at the entrance to the weapons (not nuclear) area and not inside the gates.

Continuation Q#18 Lady, from where I stand, I don't see a hint of "investigative journalism" skills on your part!" Please explain why you make blanket statements that are clearly false.

Answer: I believe my answers prove otherwise and now you need to prove everything you are claiming because so far I have not had that proof. Therefore as an investigative journalist I have to go by factual information and information supplied by those who are qualified and not by somebody who had only served a short time in the service, and most of that period waiting for a release.

Q#19 - Ms Bruni, On page 77 in your book you tell the "hopefully" true account of a Bruce Tyler, whom describes a similar film to the one we were shown within hours of the UFO incident! You then write that this film was, quote "probably the exact same film that Larry and the other witnesses were shown" end quote. Perhaps it was? Big deal, why in one sentence do you back up events that did happen to me and in the next write falsehoods and slander about me. That is a tactic you seem to use throughout your book, why?
Answer: This is a very strange question. I tried as much as possible to back up your story as my book proves. Whenever, I came upon information that was in your favour I would include it, but it has to work both ways.

Q#20 - Ms Bruni, In a recent issue of UFO Magazine (UK) you know, the one with your interview and the masked howls of hate, i.e. Pain you direct at me. Well in that issue, it was announced that we had sold the option for a film treatment of "Left At East Gate", this may or may not. Pan out, but that's show biz right! (Although things do look good folks) Ms Bruni you claim to have extensive background in public relations (I do) and are now an author right, so please explain your reasons for contacting "Fast Carrier Pictures" President Steve Rubin, (The man who bought the film option on Left At East Gate) (Smart Guy!) And then trying to flog your book to him, (as if the company would drop us) First I suggest that you get your own dramatic literary agent, (you need one, as the movie business does not accept unsolicited material.) As a PR you should have known this! Lastly, stay the hell off my coat tails and be original for once. What is your version of this "fact", because your actions seem rather sleazy, but wait, I would expect that from a gossip writer.

Answer: Your name was never mentioned in my interview with UFO magazine and the so-called "masked howls of hate" is in your imagination. I did not read the piece where it states that you had a film deal with Fast Carrier Pictures. There was no intended malice for me contacting Steve Rubin. In fact, this was a standard e-mail sent to several media companies. It was only when I received a reply from Rubin that I learnt he was interested in your story. I immediately replied, apologising for the intrusion and I also wrote to Peter Robbins explaining the situation. So before making accusations you should be sure to check your information.

Q#21 - A bonus question should you be up for it? (I can't resist) Ms Bruni, In your book you refer to a conversation with researcher Brenda Butler, you write that at some point Brenda offered me false information (Perhaps back in 1983?) "And he (Me) took the bait!" A load of old s**t girlfriend. But worse you write that you ask me about the aforementioned crap and then attribute a false quote, by me in response as if I am a stuttering idiot! Look, you know, that I know, that you know, I never said what you wrote, and further, the inflection and style of speech is not mine. Perhaps yours? If you have it on tape, produce it! Brenda tells me that you misquoted her? So either you or she speaks with forked tongue?

Answer: I did not write, "you took the bait". When I read your chapter to you, you were asked to comment. The comment is a direct quote from you. I spoke to Brenda and she stands by her story and says I did not misquote her.

Larry: Well sweetie, if you do well with these I have another 385 for you!

Answer: Actually that's 395 questions because you only asked 12 that referred to your complaints concerning material in my book that you allege are erroneous.

Larry: Of those we can discuss the "pictures" and many other "fun facts"

Answer: You might think this is fun but I have far better things to do, so if you have any more objections please keep to the content of the book and don't waste my time on trivia.

Larry: To all that have read this, I'm not the sort that likes to put people on the spot, nor do I like to be perceived as a bully. Ms.Bruni has chosen to include information in her book that she knows is false, she also spun statements about me to fit her agenda, never in 20 years has anyone done this, (Not even the debunkers!) I wanted to take legal action but reminded myself that the many thousands of intelligent people the world over, who have read my book, will find the problems that I have with Ms. Bruni's book to be self evident. Read her book by all means, but you won't find anything to be "Definitive" or with regard to Larry Warren, "True" at all.

Answer: I think what you mean Larry, is that in 20 years nobody has dug deep enough with regard to your claims. In fact, when anybody tried to, you had a fall out with them or became very defensive, as you did with me. I know Peter Robbins did his best and I respect his research and it could not have been easy working with you. As I explain in my book, I only worked on a chapter of the Larry Warren story and it completely drained me. I know you liked the attention but there had to be a cut off point because the book concerned the Rendlesham Forest incident and although you were a player, there was much more work to do and more witnesses to interview. I was very thorough when it came to investigating the incident and all those who claim to have been involved.
I am confident that my book and indeed these answers show who is telling the truth.

Larry: I hope she answers these questions, as I'm a major focus of her Warren Commission style take on the Bentwaters case. Should she choose not too, that will be self evident as well. It's a lousy position to be in. As I've fought hard for twenty years to get this case into the wider public eye and she has put great effort in confusing it rather then resolving it. You be the judge! A lengthy overview of her book is on the way, and many "issues and facts" in Bruni's book need to be addressed.

Answer: I think what you are trying to say is that you have fought hard for twenty years to get _yourself_ into a wider public eye. Unfortunately, you have not helped this case in recent years and that is regrettable because it really is genuine in my opinion. Rather than confusing the case, "You Can't Tell The People" has blown it open and has uncovered a good deal of myth and nonsense and for the first time in twenty years it has told the truth about what happened that week. Of course there is more to come out and more witnesses to come forward. It has not been too difficult to answer your questions and although there is other evidence available, it was not necessary to include this because many of the answers can be found in your own book, which is really strange that you did not see this.
With regard to the private e-mail I sent to Peter Robbins in September 1998. At that time I was sure that you were there, but was not sure that you were with the patrol at the site. I have to say that I strongly object to people posting private e-mails in the public domain without permission of the original sender. It is such bad taste. I find it very difficult to believe that Peter, who I consider a friend, was aware of this and would be shocked to learn otherwise. My message to all researchers and witnesses, please be careful and make sure you use the word CONFIDENTIAL in all your private e-mail.
Despite what you may think Larry, I bear you no ill and you may well have been involved in the incident, but as you know, I do have genuine problems with your various claims.

No comments:

Post a comment