Wednesday, 21 June 2017

New statement from Gary Heseltine regarding Peter Robbins statement about Warren's lies. Warren is innocent, Peter is weak minded, Barry Greenwood a forgetful old man, Sacha Christie and Col Charles Halt are liars.


He has now and here is the treat;


·
Gary Heseltine's Facebook Post 

Truth and Lies: Peter Robbins final public statement on Larry Warren and a look at the words of Colonel Charles Halt
After a year of fallout, Peter Robbins has finally declared his hand in the ongoing Larry Warren debate.
It would seem that over the years he has admitted to not doing due diligence on some of the documents/research that Larry Warren had provided to him when they began their collaboration. He readily acknowledges this in his long and well considered response to my prompting article ‘A Chance Remark’.
I wrote that piece hoping that it would prompt Peter into finally declaring his position on Larry Warren after stating online several months ago that that he was severing ties with him on a professional and personal level. My prompting appears to have worked because within days of my piece he has finally revealed all.
What is clear in his response that he is still immensely proud of the book Left at East Gate, co-authored with Larry Warren. I agree, in my opinion it is still the best book written to date about the Rendlesham Forest incident.
Peter’s continued support for the book may come as a surprise to some but this tells me quite a lot about his feelings. I think he still believes that Larry was there and that much of the book is factually correct despite the fact that their personal relationship has broken down so badly.
Indeed, he discloses that a lucrative film/documentary was still on the cards in 2016 had Larry opted to contact the producer in Canada when he gave a lecture in Toronto last year.
Whilst pure speculation on my part it does make you wonder what would have happened if that documentary/film had come to fruition.
Would the posse of people that have sought to destroy Larry Warren’s reputation over the 18 months had had such an effect on Peter’s mindset in those circumstances? I wonder.
In Peter’s final response he speaks actually very little about Larry’s alleged Rendlesham lies. After the posse (that ardent band of level headed diligent researchers and truthseekers) had declared that an original LW military document had been forged/tampered with Peter had reluctantly come to the same conclusion after 29 years! If he really thought it was a fabrication why did it take 29 years for him to realise that?
Could it be that there was a degree of pressure brought to bare?
Whatever the reasons involved it is sad to see two people who I have known for many years at loggerheads in such a public way.
I think both of them will have regrets about the way things have turned out but it is now done and dusted between them and they both have to move on with their respective lives.

**********************************************************
I think some people who have been following the sad demise of Peter’s and Larry’s relationship will wonder if any undue pressure was brought to bare on Peter?
After all the mud has really been flying Larry’s way since late 2014 when Colonel Halt began to make, what appeared to me unsubstantiated personal remarks about Larry Warren. Soon, someone else came out of the woodwork, a woman, a former friend of Larry Warren called Sacha Christie who denounced LW be a conman and a liar.
It was circa 2015 that I ended my seven year association with Colonel Halt because he twice made public lecture appearances berating the character of Larry Warren, each time without providing the necessary corroboration to back up his claims.
It was a shame our collaboration had ended because for much of that time we had enjoyed a good rapport with one another however I felt it was my integrity at stake so decided to end it as I couldn’t support his views.
Now given that Colonel Halt lived in the US and I in England it was inevitable that we exchanged many emails with each other over that seven year period. I have them all as I am sure he does too.
Whilst never a fan of Larry Warren, Colonel Halt had reluctantly accepted that Warren might have been involved in the background and that his mind had been ‘messed’ with. According to Halt, Larry had been ‘implanted’ with false memories i.e. the Capel Green scenario. Indeed, it was the central premise of the film script I wrote in collaboration with him.
So, what changed Halt’s mind and made him decide to go after Larry Warren in such a big way?
In the months before our association ended he began to tell me that he had finally received the evidence to discredit Larry Warren once and for all but he did not tell me who the source was.
I said to him that if there was real evidence of wrongdoing on Larry’s part that he should produce it because ‘the evidence will fall where it falls’.
So, it begs the question - who was the source and what damning evidence did ‘she’ have against LW?
In addition it appeared that the posse had proved beyond all doubt that numerous military documents belonging to LW were either forgeries or had been manipulated in some way.
The only problem was in police evidential terms they had proved nothing.
Has Larry ever been arrested for forging false music memorabilia? No.
Has Larry ever been convicted of being a fraud, conman and a liar? No.
Had the handwriting analysis done by James Francis Welsh (not a recognised police handwriting expert) yielded conclusive forensic evidence of Larry’s guilt? No.
As a former detective who had dealt with several cases where handwriting analysis was required to prove guilt I knew that the posse would need original documents at least for any lab/handwriting expert to assess properly.
Then the posse launched a ‘Go Fund Me’ campaign on FB to raise sufficient money to conduct forensic handwriting analysis. They told people – ‘give us the money and we will be able to finally reveal the ‘truth’.
Their campaign was based on the premise that they were only ‘truth-seekers’.
Members of the public, swayed by this sincere ‘search for the truth’ duly contributed money and within days the amount sought was achieved and their dream of success was within their grasp. In a matter of days/weeks the truth would be known… at last.
There was only one problem – they lied to the public, they didn’t have the original documents for comparison and no lab/handwriting expert would go near the case on that basis.
The days passed, the weeks passed and there was still no news on the handwriting analysis. Suddenly the posse went very quiet before one or two of the contributors began to ask what had happened to the money and the promised analysis.
Their response was to admit that they had been unable to obtain the forensic handwriting analysis because ‘Larry Warren’ would not help them with their quest and had not given them any original documents to help prove their case against him!
But they were just unbiased truthseekers weren’t they? – NOT TRUE!
They had already said he was a conman, liar, fraud long before they ever mentioned the ‘Go Fund Campaign.’
It was unbelievable, they had a go at Larry Warren for not helping them to discredit him! You couldn’t make it up!
No, it wasn’t quite how the way real evidence gathering is done.
Now unless I’ve missed something the law of this land states that a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, however this bastion of English Law seemingly means nothing to the posse.
Despite everything stated by the posse and as confirmed by Peter himself, the letter written to Larry’s mother just days after the 3rd night of activity, was and is authentic according to Peter Robbins. I agree Peter.
Peter had pointed out to me in his final statement that the account contained within the letter was not Larry’s version of events and indeed it is not. Peter, I think you will find I have never said it is Larry’s account.
To me it clearly points to the first night involving John and Jim. When questioned about that distinction he said he had been told about their experience during his de-briefing and he was being careful especially after the telephone call he had made to his mother within hours of his involvement in the 3rd night had been cut off by the base!
What I have said evidentially is that the letter contains the first mention the acronym ‘UFO’ and is the first original document to give an account of the incident.
So, for that reason alone and much to the annoyance of Larry Warren’s detractors, that letter will be forever be a part of the history of the Rendlesham Forest incident.
As much as the posse and others want to edit him completely out of the case I believe history will always have to recognise that fact.
In addition and much to the chagrin of the posse Larry Warren still is the first named military witness to go on camera using his real name (after initially being given the name Art Wallace and thus is the original military witness whistleblower for the RFI.
I readily accept that LW’s Capel Green scenario has always been controversial because it differed from many of the leading witness accounts (note at various times Bustinza and Longero have publicly stated that LW was involved in the 3rd night) however it still forms a part of the history of the case and it should not be edited out of history just because some people don’t  it or it doesn’t seem to fit.
It is simply a strange piece of the RFI jig-saw.
It’s inconvenient, it’s a bugger but whether Larry lied about his involvement or not these facts remain and people should accept these facts and move on.
Has Larry changed his story sometimes, yes, and when this has been put to him he has admitted that.
For example, when some US ufologists told him in the 90s to not mention having seen ‘aliens’ because it was too far out for them to handle! He’d already publicly stated it to some, now he was being urged not the mention that fact!
So, do those ‘changes of story’ constitute him to be a compulsive liar i.e. once a liar, always a liar etc?
I put it to you that most people in his position and especially given his age would have probably done the same in similar circumstances.
In my police experience of being and advanced interviewer of witnesses and suspects the old saying, ‘once a liar, always a liar’ is nothing more than a clever phrase. In reality, people lie for many reasons and many of those reasons are plausible.
For example, if you live next to a notorious criminal and the police ask you to provide information to convict that person most people will lie because they put fear of retribution ahead of telling the truth.
Things have always got to be seen in their true context and especially in relation to Larry Warren.
Larry was only 19 years old when he became embroiled in an absolutely bizarre incident.
Fresh out of training, only days onto a shift. Many of the people on his shift would have been slow to welcome him into the ‘shift’ culture. Some people are accepted straight away, for others it takes longer. In addition it was Christmas, that meant the normal shifts tended to get mixed up with people off other shifts to allow many of the married men to have time at home with their kids over the Xmas period. I know this as fact as I worked with nuclear weapons on two bases, RAF Honington and RAF Laarbruch for three of my six years RAF Police service between 1983-1989.
The fact that he was just onto a shift should not be under estimated. It is now wonder that Halt cannot remember him, that John couldn’t remember him however turn it around and LW would ly know who the Deputy Base Commander was and in John’ case, at 6’ 8 inches in height you’re not going to forget him in a hurry, though you may forget the name etc.
In those circumstances few of the people on shift would easily remember his face or name. That’s why it is virtually impossible to ask people now, i.e. 37 years after the event if they can remember Larry Warren being there.
But what is fact is that within hours of whatever his involvement was, Larry was calling his mother in the States and telling her of having seen a UFO and of aliens!
Note: for those that actually want to look at the evidence, I recently conducted a FB messenger conversation with an elderly lady called Sue Hickerson who confirmed that she had been present when Larry’s mother had received the call from LW in the UK. That account was published in a recent issue of UFO Truth Magazine.
Now let’s step back a bit and think logically.
How could a green, 19 year old airman have had the foresight to know that the case was going to become one of the most famous UFO cases in history?
When the case broke publicly in the mainstream press in October 1983 it was Larry’s drawing of a UFO that was used, his account, albeit under a false name (and apparently not of his choosing).
In 1983, how could a then 22 year old know that he was going to be thrust into the glare of the world’s media?
How would media view the case? How would the media world view him?
Again, consider the context if you are to look at how someone of that age might act and what they might say.
What is a fact and not a piece of fiction is that whatever the provenance of his account Larry Warren was the first named military face of the RFI dealing with the media for around 10 years largely on his own.
It should also be remembered that he wasn’t given an easy ride by some of the established ufologists of the time, some of whom were highly sceptical of the RFI and Larry’s account in particular.
No, it was not an easy ride.
Truth and Lies
Ok, let’s go back to the posse, to Colonel Halt and latterly to Nick Pope who has recently labelled Larry Warren a liar and a fraud.
It begs the question, are these people capable of lying themselves and if a lie is proven, should they too become a target for a posse!
Dare one ask - what about Colonel Halt? Has he lied about anything to do with the RFI?
Colonel Charles Halt
When I first met Colonel Halt in December 2007 we went together to the top of the Weapons Storage Area high tower whilst the film crew for the UFO Hunters program were at the bottom. What at the top of the Tower I asked him to tell me about WSA witnesses. This was filmed on my video recorder. This video was uploaded onto Youtube in 2013 and can be found on the UFO Truth Magazine Youtube channel. Here is the link to it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KQdhPApJhY
This is the pertinent section of what was said in that video interview. It is verbatim.
ME: … Now I’ve always maintained that there was another witness.
COL. HALT: Yes, there definitely was another witness, actually there were many witnesses, (FILM CREW INTERRUPTION FROM THE GROUND BELOW) the tower operator, I’ve been in contact with, actually he initiated it, and he has told me in no uncertain terms that he saw the beams of light coming down into the Storage Area and the crew on the ground, the security personnel on the ground, did see the beams too.
ME: Brilliant. Thank you.
So, there you have it in clear and unambiguous language that he confirmed that the airman in the WSA tower saw beams coming down into the WEAPONS STORAGE AREA and not only that, at least two other security personnel walking on the ground inside the WSA saw them too.
Wow! Three new witnesses. Nothing vague in that I hear you saying. It is surely a breakthrough moment. Not so.
Now, let’s take a jump in time to 2016 and the publication of Halt’s long awaited book on the RFI, The Halt Perspective, published by John Hanson and Dawn Holloway.
It is only recently that I obtained a copy and I was obviously keen to see what he had written about the WSA video conversation we had in 2007. However, in the book (running to almost 800 pages) I could not find any reference to it whatsoever?
The only section I could find about the WSA and the beams of light was found on page 224.
I quote:
“We probably watched them for twenty, thirty minutes, and suddenly, we noticed an object to the South. Contrary to what has been alleged I never told anybody any structure was penetrated by beams. I was several miles away. I don’t know for a fact that the beams landed there. I know they were in the area. I was too far away but relied on the radio chatter, which indicated the beams landed there.”
Does anyone see the problem here?
‘Contrary to what has been alleged I never told anybody any structure was penetrated by beams’ – yes you did in that video. Clear, concise therefore this statement can only be described as a lie.
‘I don’t know for a fact that the beams landed there.’
Yes, you do, you said clearly in the video, in fact you said that you had been told in ‘no uncertain terms’ that the beams had been shone into the WSA – this statement can only be described as a lie.
Why didn’t he mention the conversation made on video to me in December 2007 in The Halt Perspective book?
Why did he not mention the WSA Tower Operator that initiated contact with him? Surely that person is a major witness. In policing terms this is a lie by omission.
Why didn’t he mention the other security personnel that he explicitly referred to in the video, who were on the ground inside the WSA, who saw the beams too? This again is evidence of lying by omission.
So, by anyone’s definition Colonel Halt has lied on at least two occasions in his book and deliberately omitted other facts that he was certainly aware of.
Now, let’s look at another RFI witness, John Burroughs, who has publicly stated on numerous occasions that Halt has changed his story about certain things that relate to him.
John has argued for many years that Halt knew that he and Bustinza did get forward, ahead of Halt’s team on the third night, however, Halt denied that repeatedly for many years. It was only 18 months/two years ago that he finally confirmed Burroughs claims as being true.
I have already proved that Colonel Halt has lied about his comments on the video made to me in 2007 and it is clear that HALT has lied/misled the public for many years with his comments about the level of John’s third night involvement.
Now some of you may remember a UK mainstream newspaper report in 2016 where I claimed that Colonel Halt had said in front of my wife and I that ‘there were more nuclear weapons in the WSA at Bentwaters than anywhere else in Europe’.
My wife remembered his comment specifically because he was ridiculing the women peace protesters at Greenham Common and laughing that they were at the wrong base! That’s why she remembers it so well.
The comment was said whilst Col Halt and I walked through the forest area in 2010.
Unsurprisingly Colonel Halt flatly denied that he had said that despite the case being that my wife and I would be willing to give statements, on oath, to that effect.
So, let’s review some things I’ve established about Colonel Halt:
He lied about comments involving what he said in the video he made with me in the WSA tower in December 2007.
He lied for years about the true extent of John Burroughs third night involvement.
So why can’t he be lying about the nuclear weapons comment?
Now what no-one has known until now is that I took a notebook down to the forest on the first occasion I met Colonel Halt in December 2007. What he didn’t realise that I also made a series of notes and sketches in it about my time with him and the filming in the forest. I was excited, it was my first visit to Rendlesham Forest, my first actual involvement in the case and I naturally wanted to remember as much as I could about the experience.
The notebook contained a number of entries relating to that particular filming/visit in December 2007.
For example, it contains sketches made of the Weapons Storage Area where we made the video at the top of the WSA tower.
To prove this I have attached several photos of things from the notebook.
A picture of the plain black cover of the notebook, a sketch of the East Gate area dated 02/12/2007, a sketch plan of the WSA and finally and pertinently a page of handwritten notes after meeting Halt for the first time.
One paragraph of that page reads:
‘Told me there was more US nuclear weapons ordinance in that WSA than in any other site in entire UK’.
It goes on:
‘He could never admit to their being nuclear weapons there because the Brit Gov were not supposed to have US nukes there.’
I would be happy to submit it to an independent Forensic Lab for testing of the paper and ink. I would also be willing to give a statement to that effect.
So, now you should realise the Colonel Halt is capable of lying as well, when it suits him. However, do I think he lies about everything? Of course not.
Interestingly and despite these lies I see no posse going after Colonel Halt, nor for that matter would I want anyone to do so because they are abhorrent but I state these things simply to highlight the inconsistencies involved and what is happening to Larry Warren is a part of a concerted campaign to discredit him and he alone.
Perhaps it is because of Colonel Halt’s high rank that no-one questions him?
Perhaps it is because Larry Warren was just a 19 year old ‘mouthy’ kid, new onto shift and was of low rank?
Now, in closing, let’s go back to the central question I posed about Colonel Halt earlier.
What had made him change his mind and decide to discredit Larry Warren in a big way?
If you remember it went back to his ‘source’ – a source he never revealed to me.
He had stated that it was a woman.
Two years on I believe his source was none other than a lady called Sacha Christie…….
Gary Heseltine



If  yesterdays conversation is anything to go by, we can tell that Gary doesn't check his facts. John Burroughs stated that warren has left the UK. A conversation ensued, the rumour rolled. Nick Pope repeated what he had heard on a thread on John Burroughs Facebook page and Gary chimed in telling Nick to check his facts. Well he needs to be telling John Burroughs to check his facts because that is who said it in the first place. 

This is obviously utter rubbish. Gary has chosen not to look objectively, instead he has chosen to choose his investment over the truth. He simply MUST have a connection to Rendlesham after all the work he has done. 

All i have done is repeated what has already been said by Warren to many many people over the past three decades./This information was all already out there. I haven't done this. Warren has with his inconsistent storytelling

Blame Georgina Bruni, Blame Barry Greenwood, Larry Fawcett, Linda Moulton Howe, Dot Street, Brenda Butler, the list goes on. You can blame a lot of people Gary but you can't blame me for REPEATING YEARS OLD INFORMATION and putting it in chronological order. Aside from the memorabilia, everything about him was already out there. I just pieced it together and credited every piece of information to the author. 

The tippexed Echols medical sheet was sent to me as it is, annotations included, by someone who will remain nameless. 

Check THE FACTS Gary Heseltine.

More to come from me in another blog. 

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.