Larry Warren and Joe Montaldo gossip on air, falsely accuse KGRA's Producer Race Hobbs of being a pedophile. Updated with sound file 14/1/18

Two days ago Warren went on UPRN radio to talk to Joe Montaldo about what a baddy I am and how he is repackaging the whole Rendlesham thing, owning it. Changing the face of it forever. Rewriting it.  You know, all those things he accuses everyone else of doing. Lets face it, he wasn't even on duty, he didn't participate, so this is really quite stunning isn't it? Read Left out at East Gate so you know how I know Warren's account is not true.

Well we get to 48 minutes on the show and Joe say's he wants to stop recording for the break, they messed up and got a 90 day YouTube ban for not cutting out the break on another show where they discussed pedophile dolls as he calls them.

So I am listening to the drivel, droning on and on, two bitter old men bragging lies, then Montaldo tells Warren some gossip....

"Race Hobbs, the producer of KGRA, is a convicted pedophile...."

"No"!!!!! Says Warren.

Sound File of comments

Then Montaldo goes onto explain how Race molested a 13 year old boy and that his show host Jeffry Pritchett discovered this. Well that just shows you how well Joe does his research, or even remembers what happened. Race is most definitely NOT a convicted pedophile.

In this blog there are a couple of photos of Peter Robbins and Warren where Peter is pretending to stab Warren and cut his head off. This was after I revealed a few things, Peter, loyal to his then co-author, refused to even look at my evidence. Those photographs were taken by Bill Forte. Warren knows all this. Didn't set the record straight did he? But he doesn't care, he thinks everyone at KGRA are cunts as he says in the clip below.

Warren accused ME of outing Bill for his crimes. I did no such thing. I was merely included in the email that Jeff Pritchett sent to everyone. Basically my email was one of many. Warren and Heidi Neil both spread the rumour it was me. Yet another stunning example of their fact checking and researching abilities. They all run on gossip.

It is also very ironic considering Warren's behaviour while he slept on our sofa for months while he was homeless. Watching porn in the living room while my fifteen year old daughter was in the room. Trying to engage her in conversation with him. He told her he would love to fuck a nun with big tits. Alas the police are not interested in an "Internet fall out between ex friends".

read here

So Warren knew full well it was not Race who has been convicted because Warren and Heidi Neil are such good friends. Heidi Loves KGRA, I can't help but wonder if she dropped her plastic wine glass and spilled white lightning all over her roll ups in shock.  She was sat in the chat room of UPRN with Joe. Thats it, just them two, for a show that he alleges 100,000 people listened.

Oh dear... Just think, according to Joe 100,000 people heard him say all that? The whole time he is thinking he is not recording, oh the irony!  I wonder what will happen in court when he has to provide that information. I dare say this will be going to court, I very much hope it does. The UFO conmanunity needs to understand that eventually, there will be consequences to it's egomaniacle actions.

The show has now been pulled from the site but not before a few of us managed to capture it.

Montaldo is now  on his page saying he offered to do a polygraph test on me... How is he going to do that? Online? An online polygraph??? Like the Voice Stress Analysis he said he did with Warren OVER SKYPE!! See how deluded he is...! How much of a blaggard he is?! He is in New Orleans, I am in Liverpool!, He is blatantly against me and thinks I'd agree to some sort of polygraph test and is makingsome big deal out of the fact I won't do it, like thats telling you something about my guilt, not his delusion that he can perform a bloody polygraph online!!! so he is trying to use that to make me look bad when it's an impossible, ridiculous idea anyway!  How the hell...? I can't even....

If you have followed Joe Montaldo's shows and never changing rhetoric at all, he often says how easy it is to beat these things and that he himself has 'beaten' up to thirteen polygraph tests! So.. thats one way of saying to everyone "Hey, I am a really good liar, believe me when I say my show gets hundreds of thousands of listeners all over the world, believe me when I tell you anything. I can pass multiple polygraphs"

You have to wonder how he ended up in the position of having that many, or did he conduct them on himself? I am trying to find some logic and reason in these brags, the only logic I can derive is that they are both liars and think they are good at it, just because they do it all the time, then troll anyone who challenges what they say or asks them for evidence while pretending they have been totally reasonable in all things.

A few years ago Guy Weddle and I were intermitently doing a radio show. Citizen Sane Radio. Montaldo coaxed us over to his "network" where we were regularly told we were getting between 400 and 900 thousand listeners every show. We never saw any proof of this and when all the show hosts wanted to see thier stats, a massive argument ensued and everyone left him. Nobody got to see ANY stats.

He deliberately caused bad feeling between the hosts, they were all arguing in public in the chat room. What a mess... Stephanie Benetti and I had a big public fall out, fully encouraged by Montaldo. He loves a good fight because it is how he gets people's attention. Shame of the matter is, that involves a grown man getting his 'friends' together to troll me! He can say whatever he likes abpout what he has done and I am sure he will, he isn't trolling.. But he is... He allows a man to call me a fucking psychopath live on air and if I say anything I am to be publicly castigated. I'd expect nothing else from a misgynist, two of them together, how did they cope with all the testosterone after the show?! 

This man reckons he runs the biggest radio network, the biggest abductee research network, has a construction company etc... Has to do that to me? Why? Success doesn't need to troll. Success doesn't pay attention to 'nobodies'... so why pay attention to little old me?

Edit* His station clearly doesn't even exist.

Well, this is the only attention that man is getting from me. I will NEVER take a phony online polygraph test with a sold Warrenite. The mere suggestion is symptomatic of a deluded mind. What a joke! I mean seriously think about what he is saying!!!

Likely?

I'm having a technology head butt here... I will embed the video properly asap.

This will take you my google drive

This will take you to my facebook page

This is a link to my facebook post of his attempts at trolling me

The problem with these types of people is that if you ask them to show you the proof of their words, they fall into the foetal position and wait until everyone gathers around them, then they play the victim and everyone feels sorry for them and... well you know how the trolling goes. Most people do not need the slightest bit of evidence, that is why they gather those types around them. Willingly blind and reactive. So I blocked him. Obviously.


So to reiterate Race Hobbs is NOT a convicted pedophile but Warren and Montaldo are dangerous gossips.

Larry Warren Conference Talk. B.U.F.O.H Flying Saucers Have Landed, Filey 2015 is a Completely Different Story to his 2016 Toronto Talk. updated

This week David Young discovered a recording he had made of Larry Warren's talk at the Flying Saucers Have Landed Conference, staged by Russ Kellet for his group B.U.F.O.H in July 2015.

It's an astonishing romp through Larry Warren's imagination. Lots of changes and differences. For example; he says he was in Ipswich during the day and tested his new camera by taking a photo of the A10 in this talk. Yet just over a year later at the Earth Mystery News Conference in Toronto, he states he was in Germany that day and flew back that evening, he arrived back just in time to get ready for his shift.

Some of you may remember that he stated it was Sgt Ball, Adrian Bustinza and Lt Englund who collected him from his guard post that night. Well in this talk it was Steve Longero and Adrian Bustinza!! There is so much more in it which proves he is a liar. Two talks, one year apart, completely different to all the other different versions he has told over the years. Listen to how smoothly the lies and contradictions flow through his lips.

He makes references that as a Security Specialist he was 'SS' and that it was a good job there weren't any Jewish people around, because nobody thought that through did they?! Later he makes a quip that it was a time before Arabs brought buildings down! It's priceless.

Part one

Part 2

Then watch this Earth Mystery News interview where he skirts around answering questions, but states that he was in Germany having been chasing girls, not in Ipswich taking photos of A10s with faked UFO for company, as he states in the Filey talk. But! That photo hadn't been busted by then.

Earth Mystery News Interviews Larry Warren 2016

Over to you Ben for your Liarry Warren Controversy part 4598. Can't wait to see how you try and waffle him out of this one.

update.

Part 7 and 8 added to the list.

Warren mentions the CNN special assignment documentary and plays it during the course of his talk. Here is the actual video for you to watch.

Excerpt from Left At East Gate

The day before Christmas, I left for Germany with my friend Mark. We had met two German girls in London the previous week at Le Beat Route, a club on Greek Street. We had gotten along well at the time, and the girls had invited us to spend the holiday with them and their families near Frankfurt. We had a great time, despite a severe language barrier. However, I think the girls lost interest in Mark and me on the second night. We just sat around and stared at their parents and they at us, while the girls went out with their German boyfriends. On or about 27 December, we flew back to RAF Mildenhall to begin our shift the next night.
Robbins, Peter. Left at East Gate (Kindle Locations 1301-1305). Cosimo, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

Open Letter To The Music Memorabilia Industry

An Open Letter to the Music Memorabilia Industry

You may wish to be aware of the activities of Larry Warren, who sometimes uses the name Lawrence Warren. Warren is a US citizen who currently resides in Liverpool, in the UK. He has been involved in locating/selling various items of music memorabilia, including autographs, artwork, musical instruments and items of clothing.

Much of Warren's activity in this area is based on his claims of friendship with various celebrities, including John Lennon. The image below was produced by Warren as evidence of this friendship. He claims he was 19 at the time, when one can clearly see that he's around 40. Obviously, it’s a badly photoshopped fake.

The first mainstream media mention of Larry Warren and The Beatles is in a New York Times article dated March 1, 1987, where he describes himself as a Beatles fanatic. Only later did he start making his claims of friendship and connections with celebrities - almost exclusively ones who are deceased, making it difficult to evaluate his claims. An internet search for "Larry Warren" & "memorabilia" will turn up several media articles about items where questions have been raised about authenticity, and where items have been withdrawn from sale. Warren appears to have multiple online accounts on various auction sites, seems to use multiple identities, and may sometimes use friends and other third parties to sell material on his behalf.

Larry Warren is also notorious in the UFO community, claiming he was involved in the UK's best-known UFO case, the Rendlesham Forest incident. Warren has made numerous contradictory claims about this over the years, including how he witnessed a landed UFO, saw aliens, and was interrogated by sinister government ‘Men-in-Black’ when he tried to blow the whistle. Warren was very briefly in the United States Air Force at the time of this incident, but was discharged from service only a few weeks into his first posting. The Deputy Base Commander at the time of these UFO sightings, Colonel Charles Halt, describes Warren as a "wannabe" who picked up parts of his story from other witnesses and fabricated other parts.

In the summer of 2016 college authorities in the UK barred Larry Warren from a UFO conference held at the University of Glasgow, as a result of his threats of violence against a woman who he blames for exposing his story as bogus. In June 2017 Warren’s co-author formally disassociated himself from Warren, in a statement in which he cited a number of outright lies Warren had told him. Then in October 2017 Warren’s own publisher, Cosimo, announced they were suspending distribution of Warren’s book because of concerns over the veracity of its contents.

It will be for the police and the courts to determine Warren's guilt or innocence regarding the supply/sale of any specific items of memorabilia, but anyone involved in the music memorabilia industry will wish to be aware of Mr Warren and be exceptionally cautious about any items of memorabilia associated with him.


December 4, 2017  A Concerned Group of Genuine Music Fans

Left At East Gate Suspended By Publisher

Cosimo Announcement

"Cosimo is announcing that it is suspending the distribution of the book, Left at East Gate, by Larry Warren and Peter Robbins.

Left at East Gate had originally been published by Marlowe & Company in 1997 and had received widespread praise from UFO experts and others. This book describes what some have called the most significant military UFO incident in history, that took place at RAF Bentwaters, a NATO base in the United Kingdom in 1980.  Recently, however, it has been brought to our attention that some of the experiences described in this book may be inaccurate or embellished.

Cosimo is committed to publishing both new and out-of-print books that offer enduring value.  We, at Cosimo, will continue to do so in order to inform and inspire our readers. As part of our mission, we specialize in making rare and unique out-of-print books available again, as we did with Left at East Gate.  As an independent publisher, we look for quality books in a wide range of genres from public affairs and personal development to history, philosophy and niche subjects such as ufology, and then make a determination whether these books fit well within our catalog. At this moment, we cannot be certain that Left at East Gate still meets this standard. Consequently, we have decided to suspend the distribution of this book, until the situation surrounding it has been clarified to our satisfaction".

Theft at East Gate ~ By Nick pope

THEFT AT EAST GATE

By Nick Pope

On 12 June 2017, veteran UFO researcher and writer Peter Robbins posted a detailed and lengthy statement on Facebook, setting out what most of the rest of the UFO community already knew, namely that his “Left at East Gate” co-author, Larry Warren, had verifiably told Peter multiple falsehoods, appeared to have forged a number of documents relating to his various claims, and had made up stories concerning his supposed friendship with a number of famous musicians. Somewhat counter-intuitively, this latter revelation is actually the most serious, as Warren has been involved in selling items of music memorabilia, seemingly at least in part based on these claims of celebrity friendships. I’ll say little more about this aspect of the case, as this is a matter for the police and courts. Suffice to say that anyone who’s ever seen Warren’s comically badly-photoshopped image of him with John Lennon would never buy any music memorabilia from the man! Warren claims he was 19 in the photo, whereas he’s clearly around forty years of age.

Peter Robbins also called out Warren for his threats of violence against women. This doubtless reflects a deeper misogyny, as evidenced by his repeated references to various women as “witches”, “bitches” or “silly little girls”. As with the allegations of fraudulent selling of music memorabilia, the threats of violence against women are matters for the police and the courts, though it’s a matter of public record that Warren was barred from speaking at a UFO conference due to be held at University of Glasgow, after the university authorities were alerted to Warren’s violent threats against women. Sadly, a couple of UK-based ufologists, while well-aware of this behaviour, have refused to speak out against it. Shame on them.

With regard to the final unravelling of the Larry Warren story, the writing had been on the wall for a long time. “Left at East Gate” is, after all, the only UFO book that has a nickname: “Theft at East Gate”, due to the widely-held belief that Warren stole parts of his story from the genuine witnesses (and seems to have made up most of the rest of it). Peter Robbins may have made his statement much later than the UFO community would have preferred, but it was a detail-rich account, filled with specific, checkable examples of Warren’s deception. It was the final nail in the coffin for Warren’s credibility. Clearly when even his co-author – who’s worked with Warren for decades – calls him a liar, nobody else is going to believe him. And remember, Peter Robbins had nothing to gain and a lot to lose by making his statement. More about that later. The upshot of all this is that number of people who say they still believe Warren is down to single figures. These half dozen or so people are dishonestly trying to spin recent events as a falling out between Warren and Peter Robbins. Self-evidently it isn’t. It’s a detailed exposition of a decades-long fraud perpetrated on the UFO community. Similarly, these Warren supporters (essentially just friends and family trying to keep the story afloat) are trying to suggest that there’s still a debate to be had about all this, and that there are a large number of people out there who still believe Warren. There aren’t. This isn’t the sort of “controversy” or “split” that occasionally divides ufology. The matter is beyond debate in the same way as the Roswell Slides, the Hitler Diaries or Piltdown Man is beyond debate. It’s an exposed hoax. The case is absolutely watertight. In legal terms this isn’t “on the balance of probability”. It’s “beyond reasonable doubt”.

One thing I’ve noticed about the UFO community is that people often forget – or aren’t aware of – the history of their own subject. Warren was actually busted way back in 2000, by author and investigative journalist Georgina Bruni, in her book “You Can’t Tell The People”. Following publication of the book Warren hit back at Bruni with a furious list of questions in which he attempted to undermine her meticulous research. Warren’s attack backfired badly. In response to some of his questions, which asked where she’d sourced particular points, Bruni referred him back to specific pages in his own book! It wasn’t simply that Warren hadn’t got his story straight and was tripping himself up with contradictions – he’d clearly forgotten large chunks of it altogether! Warren got absolutely owned in the exchange, all of which is 100% checkable. Sadly, as I say, people either aren’t aware of this open source material, don’t check it, or – shamefully – choose to ignore it.

In the interests of fair play and accuracy it’s important to stress that a couple of parts of Warren’s story are verifiably true. In late 1980 he was indeed posted to the twin bases of Bentwaters and Woodbridge, after having completed his basic training. That said, while he plays the veteran card to the hilt (something that infuriates military personnel who’ve served in Iraq and Afghanistan), he was bundled out of the United States Air Force a few weeks later. The second part of Warren’s story that turns out to be true is that he was indeed one of the first whistleblowers on the case – though not the first, as he’s sometimes claimed.  

The statement from Peter Robbins is so meticulous and detailed that I don’t intend to analyse it any great detail. It speaks for itself, and those wanting to research specific areas of the Larry Warren fraud can follow the trail that Peter has laid out. What I will do is make some more general comments on the wider implications of the fraud. Before I do so, I should answer a question I’ve been asked about this situation, namely, why have I taken such a close, personal interest in this matter?

There are three reasons for my interest. Firstly, when I worked at the Ministry of Defence, I undertook what police would call a cold case review of the Rendlesham Forest incident. While the Rendlesham Forest incident itself took place before I joined the MoD, during my time on the MoD’s UFO project it was the incident on which we received most questions, from MPs and Peers, from the media, and from the public. Having been involved in this government work on the case, I feel a personal connection with the case, its witnesses, and those who claim to be witnesses. Secondly, I co-wrote a book (“Encounter in Rendlesham Forest”) on the incident with two of the genuine witnesses, John Burroughs and Jim Penniston. Thus, given that Warren seems to have appropriated parts of his story from the experiences of genuine witnesses, there’s a “stolen valour” issue here that I – and many others – find particularly offensive. Finally, having researched and investigated the UFO phenomenon for the government, the mainstream media invariably come to me for comments and quotes on UFO-related stories that they intend to run. I was duly quoted in a 30^th May Daily Mirror story which is, at least as I write these words, the only mainstream media story yet to have been written on the Larry Warren fraud.

Where do we go from here? What are the wider implications of this sorry affair for the credibility of the Rendlesham Forest incident, and indeed the credibility of ufology? What lessons can be learned? On the first part of this question, I’m aware from my UK government research and investigation into the UFO phenomenon that the Rendlesham Forest incident is a genuinely mysterious case that remains unexplained to this day. The Larry Warren fraud may damage the case in the short-term, but one swallow doesn't make a summer, and in the longer term, the testimony of the genuine witnesses and the story told by the declassified UK government documents on the incident will rightly be seen as more important than one man’s discredited stories. As for the wider reputation of various individuals in the UFO community, and indeed of ufology itself, there may be some short-term damage, but in the longer term the UFO community will be able to say with justifiable pride that lessons were learned from this experience, and that they weren't afraid to clean house. Because frankly, if ufology doesn’t police itself, nobody else will.

There’s an interesting parallel to be drawn between the Larry Warren fraud and the Roswell Slides fiasco – which I briefly mentioned earlier. In both cases, the wider UFO community seemed quite polarized by the debate until a small and disparate group of researchers came together to investigate the situation and expose the falsehood. In both cases, once the truth was revealed it was blindingly obvious, but the point is that it needed somebody to step up to the plate. With the Roswell Slides fiasco it was the Roswell Slides Research Group. With the Larry Warren fraud it was Sacha Christie, Alyson Dunlop, David Young and James Welsh – though many others contributed research too. In both cases the researchers had little in common, had very different takes on the wider subject, and in both cases some of those involved ended up changing their minds on the situation after having reviewed the evidence. If ufology could learn just a single lesson from this sorry affair, it should be the value of this sort of critical thinking, where people take an evidence-based approach and aren’t afraid to change their position when new facts emerge. Those who simply dig in and defend a position based on belief, irrespective of the facts, end up looking foolish and irrelevant.

The above comments about not being afraid to change one’s mind bring us neatly back to Peter Robbins. As mentioned before, Peter has everything to lose and nothing to gain by speaking out, but he did so anyway. Why? The answer is simple: his honesty and integrity. Peter knew he’d be accused of not having done his due diligence, and though it saddens me to say so, there’s clearly a good deal of truth in that. Indeed, his courageous statement acknowledges this very point. His reputation as a researcher and as an investigative writer has undeniably been dented though, in fairness, Warren can spin a good tale, and found in Peter someone who epitomized The X-Files catchphrase “I want to believe”.

What about the books? Peter Robbins is in a difficult position. "Left at East Gate", (and his two more recent, self-published works, "Deliberate Deception" and "Halt in Woodbridge") have at their heart Warren's story. Peter Robbins now realises that much of this story is false. He could take immediate, unilateral action to withdraw his two self-published books. With regard to "Left at East Gate", Peter has said that he’ll bring the deception to the attention of his publisher, Cosimo. It’s not clear whether he intends to leave the matter entirely to them (turkeys don’t vote for Christmas, so I suspect it’s unlikely the publisher would take the book out of print), or whether he’ll make a recommendation to them, based on whether or not he feels a false narrative should continue to be promoted. There are some potentially bizarre-sounding possibilities here. For example, Peter might decide to have his name taken off the cover but let Warren continue to market it – though in strictly legal terms the book might have to be reclassified as a work of science fiction as opposed to non-fiction. As an interesting aside, while I haven't seen their Cosimo contract, most such literary contracts have an "author's warranty and indemnity" section, where the author warrants that the material isn't plagiarized, doesn't misrepresent anything about the author's background or life story, and doesn't contain material inaccuracies. Given what we now know about Warren and his story, any such clause in their “Left at East Gate” contract would certainly be relevant, and might even invalidate the entire contract. In extremis, Warren might be liable for the return of any monies he's ever obtained from the work.

What of Warren himself? Motivations for hoaxing vary, and are often more complex than people realise. They can include the hope for financial gain, but it usually goes beyond this and often has its roots in attention-seeking, or simply the personal satisfaction of ‘putting one over’ on a group of people you despise and whom you regard as inferior and gullible. I feel genuinely sorry for Peter Robbins and the UFO community. They were played. Warren took their beliefs and exploited them, which is a real shame, given how passionate people are about ufology, and how much they care about their subject. If Warren had any self-respect he’d admit the deception, apologise, and move on: “I fooled you because I could. I’m sorry for the offence I’ve caused and the harm I’ve done”. He’d still be the bad guy in the story, but there’d probably be a sort of grudging respect that he’d put one over on so many people for so long, as well as an acknowledgement that he was man enough to fess up when he was exposed. I doubt this will happen, but perhaps it will when he looks at the two possible ways this will play out. Being hated (and perhaps even grudgingly admired by some) might be a more attractive prospect for him than his current situation. What is his current situation? I now work as a journalist and broadcaster, and with my finger on the pulse of ufology in both the UK and the US, it’s very clear what the current view is. When Warren is mentioned at all (which is happening less and less, incidentally) all people can think about is the comically-photoshopped picture of him and John Lennon, along with his plaintive cry “The pic is real Pete”. And you know what? People don’t hate him at all. They’re laughing at him.

Steve LaPlume Issues Statement, His Time at Bentwaters. UPDATED 15.7.17 with Warren's Response

#682 March 12 "Open Lines on the Rendlesham Forest Incident" with Paul & Ben Eno and Steve Laplume. ©Ben Eno

RAF Bentwaters/Woodbridge
My Final words on the matter
by A1C Seven Robert LaPlume
July 10th 2017

The following are a few thoughts I want to get out of my head before I die.  I want to put them in print for others to read and draw their own conclusions.  Before I go into details of all this though I feel pressed to explain a few things about my time at Bentwaters and also my reasons for writing this.
First things first.  I am NOT on anyone's side or beholden to anyone involved in this case.  I do not like anyone involved more than another I am not in any "camp" and could honestly give two shits about the whole case anymore.  I am so put off by all the back biting and bullshit going on.  The men in black won for sure.  They only needed to toss in a spoiler and let human nature destroy the case all by itself.  Genius!
Over the years I see people going from being friends and colleagues to hating each other and teaming up with various researchers who seem to hold on and never want to let go or share their pet project with anyone.  The whole thing well and truly sickens me.  The people involved are being used for other’s agendas and such.  I am not sure why my fellow airmen cannot see this but then I tend to see things a bit different than others.  Perhaps they have no choice, as a researcher is needed to get their word out in a community they once knew nothing about.
Which brings me to a bit about myself and why I am doing this.  I have a high IQ.  Not bragging, just stating fact.  I was tested in the 2nd and 5th grade and I have a 147 IQ. I also have hyperthymesia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperthymesia and according to the Myers-Briggs personality system I am an ISFJ Personality.  If you go Google that and read it then you will understand my train of thought may be very different than yours.
So, couple all that together and what you get is a person who would prefer to remain outside of society.  I honestly have a lot of distain for my fellow humans and when people say "Oh that's thinking outside the box."  I chuckle because I think so outside the box all the time said box is about six blocks down from where my brain lives.
I wrote this paper to clarify a few things, to talk about Larry Warren and my relationship with him over the years and my thoughts about him and his involvement in this case.
Please understand I have no ill will toward Larry and do not wish to undermine his credibility though if anything I may say here does, it is not out of hate or anything like that.  I have fond memories of Larry and I partying our brains out and having a great time after we got out of the service.  So with that said, I plan on just laying out what I know to be true with no speculation or embellishment.  Just the facts and let the facts fall where they may.  I have nothing at all to gain by doing this other than not having this in the back of my head for the rest of my life.
So regarding all the characters in this case.  I have only communicated with a few people which I will lay out so you can see how little involvement I’ve had over the past 35 years.
John Burroughs - I met John on two separate occasions over the years and have corresponded with him mostly when I was living in China.  He had asked me to check out a coordinate from the 0111010101011 stuff Jim Peniston laid out.  The location in question was the most holy mountain in China.  Not sure of the significance of that with the case but, whatever.
Jim Peniston and I have talked over the internet a few times and it was more of a "hey how you doing" sort of correspondence.
Col Halt and I have talked back in 2000 or so and it was basically me asking him what to do about all the people calling me about the case.  He told me the USAF had no position and I could talk to whomever I wanted.
OK, so here is a clarification or something I want to explain regarding Col Halt and I recently communicating and a past communication.
Apparently I had sent an email to him saying I would help him "...fucking get Larry..." or something to that effect.  I asked him for a copy of the email but he never sent it to me.  He had kind of a smug attitude and was like "Hey maybe your memory is not as good as you think. Deal with it." attitude.  I guess publishing emails and publicly embarrassing people is how he rolls .  I have no memory of the email but I am sure it is real.  I went through a divorce and got pretty lit and wrote a few regrettable emails in that time of my life, so who knows.   I just thought it a bit chicken shit of him to publish an email from me to him without first letting me know.
But again, whatever rocks his socks and gets him through the day.  I tried recently to meet with him but I could not swing my schedule to go see him.  But now I am fine with the fact we never met because I got this thing about constantly being the person initiating a conversation or call or email. If people can't reply or wait for me to call back or whatever and never take the initiative to reply or call back then I have no use for them as I feel its disrespectful and I am not chasing after anyone.  I am still waiting for him to let me know his son set up his Skype so we can talk over it.  That was months ago.
Larry Warren and I have kept pretty much in contact over the years. More than anyone else, that's for sure.  I also seemed to have trailed him for a number of years trying to get in touch with him after a decade or so of not contacting each other.  I was a step behind him for a while but it gave me a bit of insight on what he was going through and how he affected others in his path.
I will say I have always felt sad for Larry because I thought and still think to a different degree that Larry was fucked with the worst of all the others.  But in a way I also feel he kind of brought it all on himself as he openly admitted when he "came out" about the case.
Larry had said once if you take him out of this case there is still a case.  I am here to urge anyone looking into this case to do just that,  take Larry off the table, remove him and all his testimony from the case, then take a look at it.
Now I do not say this lightly.  I say this because when I first talked to Larry back in Connecticut in the early 1980s he mentioned Omni magazine and such and how he talked to them.  He even took me to the local newsstand and showed me the copy his story was in.  We talked a bit about the case and his story was just as he said to me in my dorm in Bentwaters, nothing had changed.
As the years went by I would stop by and visit Larry at his home in Connecticut on my way to a Mercenary training camp I was involved with in Alabama.  He would talk about different things and one time he called and mentioned Larry Fawcett helping him with a possible book as well as letting me know I could meet Larry Fawcett when I came down to his (Larry Warrens) wedding.  I went to his reception, met Larry Fawcett and gave him a few things I had as evidence such as my DD214 which proved I was on Base during the time period I said I was. I never saw that material again.
The years went on and finally Larry and Peter’s book was published. When I read it I had to bite my tongue a little. This is why I relate what follows in a chronological order of events.
Larry first approached me about all this UFO stuff after I had my sighting in 1981 at the East gate of RAF Woodbridge.  Larry came into my room and turned and closed the door and locked it.  I was sitting on my bunk and he stood by the door the whole time he related to me his story about the two nights he was involved in the UFO incident.
I had heard about it of course but I did not know there were two or three nights involved I thought it was all one night.  It was kept quiet so I never heard a thing, really.
I will go into as much detail as possible as I think details are needed and wanted by any researcher worth their salt.  So you know when I do this I am typing what I am seeing and hearing in a video I can pause, fast forward, etc.  It's in my head but I can see it on the left side of my vision if that makes any sense at all.
Larry confided to me that he also was involved in the sighting and went on to lay it out.  Now right off the bat his story did not seem to jive with what he has been saying.
Larry told me initially he and a friend were walking back from a night out of drinking and such and they were on a road near Woodbridge village.  He said as they walked they saw something in the sky that was odd.  He told me of balls of light how they split and became three and soon after the sighting a person whom he said was AFOSI or from the intel community approached them on the road after they started to continue the journey home.  Larry told me the spook told them both to keep shut about what they saw.  He mentioned the other person did not want to be known.  He then went on to say a few nights later, while on duty, he was told to fuel up the light-alls and take them out by the East gate so he and others did just that.  Larry also mentioned the fuel pump was not working right and the equipment eventually did not work right when it was on location either.
Larry said they were forced to give up their weapons because of our agreement with the UK and he was told to enter the forest.  He said as he did so he saw an airman with his head on his forearm against a tree crying and that animals seemed to be leaving the area.  He mentioned seeing a deer fleeing.  Larry then told me he saw a high ranking official but never mentioned who it was.  He said the officer approached the craft which was out in a small field or clearing.  I remember him saying clearing not field.  But it is a gray memory and not sharp enough for me to be positive.  He said it was hovering off the ground and also that the officer slipped and fell in the mud and he got a chuckle out of it.  He said the officer got to the craft where three beings he described as looking like "kids in snow suits" were at and that they also were hovering above the ground.  He said while he knew they were communicating he could not see how because they were no outright talking.  Larry mentioned other airmen in the area and how it seemed they were sent there as witnesses of some sort.  He then told me parts were flown in from Germany to fix the craft which was put in a sand pit of some sort.  He said there were people filming video of the encounter as well and that film was flown to Germany.
Larry then went on to tell me about his cut off call to his mom when he was talking to her about the incident, being taken in a dark vehicle, sprayed with something to make him ultra groggy then taken and was underground.  He mentioned how there was a being behind a screen and how the person giving him and others orders also gave a talk about the whole UFO phenomena and showed related videos.  Larry said this person was not military but intel.  He also mentioned a vast underground facility.  Larry stated that he was shown where the craft went under the base and were housed.  He said the UFO's would go out and come up under the North Sea where they would emerge from to take flight.
He mentioned they said bullets were cheap as well and how he felt when they were being shown the films and such to make them understand what they saw but that they were also sworn to secrecy.  At the time I remember thinking none of this made sense at all.  Why let them know the truth then tell them to keep quiet?
Larry said he was returned and came up through the photography building.
So fast forward-I was now getting into the Mercenary part of my life pretty heavily and other than a few fun drunken nights out while passing through Connecticut I lost contact with Larry for a number of years.
Oddly enough I had talked to a fellow Merc about the UFO thing once and sure enough when we were in Florida waiting to jump off on a mission in Central America that week CNN ran the Bentwaters story with Chuck DeCaro .  My buddy got a kick out of it and I chuckled at the not so great graphics and artist renditions of the event.
Somewhere in the middle of my Merc career Larry did contact me about a Japanese film crew wanting to talk to me.  This was the first time I ever heard the Halt tape.
I relocated to the West Coast but my father had taken ill and I returned to the East Coast in the later 80's.  I had been racing superbike motorcycles and was working on sponsorship for the upcoming season.  I had linked up with Larry and spent a few days with him up in Lake George NY and asked him since I was a racer not a business man and he was more of a suit and tie guy then if he could manage me and help with sponsorship retention.
I told him I had approached the Very Fine Beverage company and they seemed receptive.  Larry took it from there and got me a sponsorship package or at a minimum he had things set up and I just needed to close the deal because he was relocating and was unable to continue helping me.
The issue I had here hit me like a ton of bricks. Once I called Very Fine and talked to my contact she did not remember me as we had only spoken briefly before Larry took over.  The woman who was in charge of promotions for the company assured me she had no idea who Larry Warren was, who I was and had never talked to anyone about a motorcycle sponsorship and that she would have remembered such a request.  Larry had never contacted the company and it completely fucked up my racing career that year.  I believed I had a sponsor but with none I was sunk for the season.  I had no way of recovering and got out of racing as a result.  I would not race again for about 10 years until I moved to China where I eventually became an instructor at a superbike school.  So after claiming to be a friend he flat out lied to my face and fucked up things for me.
So do I know Larry Warren to be a bullshit artist?  Oh hell yeah.  This aside, a few issues have come up recently that I want to state my thoughts about.
Issue #1 Larry had told me when he was getting discharged that it was a medical discharge for an issue he had with his hand/wrist and that the USAF should have caught it upon enlisting but they did not so they were letting him out of his contract.  I do know he was not under anything disciplinary or he would be next to me cleaning toilets on Major Zigler’s shame patrol.  If he is saying he got out because of anything else I would question that.
The reason he got out and his reenlistment code and all that is on his DD214.  It will tell all.
Issue #2 Larry and his benefits. I was told recently that even though there were no longer medical records of Larry Warren in the VA he still got his benefits.  I do not understand what that's about.  The VA only needs your DD214 and an ID to see if your eligible.  If Larry got out on a medical he is eligible for something automatically.  When I went to the VA finally a few years ago they did not have any medical records of mine nor did they seem to care. They only wanted to know what was up with me and what could they do for me.
Issue #3 Larry and his claim to have met so many famous people like Stevie Ray Vaughn. - I can say this that back in the later 80's I met Larry at his place in Lake George and he showed me photos of him and SRV as well as Yoko Ono and they were Polaroid's if I remember right but either way it was long before digital cameras and such and Photoshop so I have to say I believe he was there and met these two people.  How much he was friends with any of them is beyond me.  The pics of him with Yoko and SRV were taken at the same spot at a particular event though as it was the same background so maybe he could have known them or maybe he was just a security guard or had a backstage pass.  He did mention he had something to do with promotions for a label when he lived in New York City.  I never got into details with him about that.
Issue #4 Larry had asked me to lie once for him when Georgian Bruni was interviewing him.  He called me and talked to me about some film he had asked me to hold when we were at Bentwaters.  Only thing was I have no memory at all about him ever asking me to hold onto or hide film for him and I told Georgina just that.  Larry's exact words were "I just need you to tell her I asked you to hold onto some film canisters for me and that you did."
Issue #5 Larry's time line does not jive.  He told me about the craft splitting and such and said it was when he was on the road back from a night out.  But everyone else says this all happened when Halt was out there with the tape recorder.  Something here is really, really off kilter.
That's pretty much all I have to say regarding Larry Warren other than to say I still have zero ill feelings toward him.  Even though he screwed me over on the sponsorship thing.  That's in the past and I do not hold a grudge over that.  Mostly because I personally feel like the intel guys worked him over.  I truly believe they somehow put false memories in to his head and he is a spoiler for lack of a better term.
I think perhaps a person told Larry stuff and he adopted it as his own.  He talked too much and he got picked up and worked over as a result.   What a great way to destabilize a case or make it go away.  Just toss a spoiler like Larry who is convinced, through whatever means, that he saw beings.  Instant conflicting stories and the case goes South.  Toss in human nature and over the years the case is a total mess of conflicting stories hatred among the actors discontent etc.. the Men in Black really won this battle for sure.
That is what I have to say about the case.  I mean it.  I want zero people contacting me and asking me about it the rest of my life.  You all can just go pound sand and leave me alone.  If I see an email from a researcher or one of the actors in the case I will quickly delete it without opening it.  Just let me be!
I have no use for any of the people involved in this case save a few friends who are on the outside looking in and have an IQ high enough that I can carry on a conversation with them.  I don't mean to be mean spirited here I just don’t not know these people.  I met them for a few months when I was a young man of 18 and was dealing with my own issues like immaturity and such.  Make no mistake, I know what a screw up I was back then but I grew up and matured since then.
So that's it for me you all have a good time with this and have fun biting each other's heads off.
Good Luck
Seven R. LaPlume

Good luck me Ol' China.
Sacha x

Add caption

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.