Rendlesham Forest UFO expert now says co-author deceived him with untrue account

John Jeffay
UK MIrror
Tue, 30 May 2017 19:07 UTC

© Facebook/Peter Robbins

A UFO expert has become embroiled in a bitter feud with his co-author and one-time friend after accusing him of 'deceiving' him with his 'false' account of the infamous Rendlesham Forest incident.

Peter Robbins and Larry Warren co-authored 'Left at East Gate: A First-Hand Account of the Bentwater-Woodbridge UFO Incident, its Cover-Up, and Investigation' 30 years ago, but are now at loggerheads.

US researcher Robbins sparked the row when he accused Warren, a former member of the US Air Force Security Police who now lives in Liverpool, of 'deceiving' him during a radio interview.

Warren, in turn, blasted Nick Pope, former head of the British government's 'UFO desk', for siding with Robbins. He hit back Pope on Facebook for branding him a liar in an online rant.

American Warren claims he witnessed a UFO land near RAF Bentwaters, Suffolk, while stationed there with the US Air Force in December 1980.

He blew the whistle on the so-called Rendlesham Forest incident in 1983 in a News of the World interview and went on to co-write the best-selling book with Robbins, which was published in 1997.

However, Robbins has now cast serious doubts over the validity of Warren's account.

Speaking on the Inception Radio Network, Robbins said: "Over the past year, even a bit more, highly specific information has been brought to my attention that has disturbed me tremendously.

"The encompassed picture is the subjective account of my co-author's story of the events that he was involved in, the events surrounding him, things that don't directly relate to the story but to his life, were not only not accurate but that they were not true.

"Having worked with him for decades, for having spent several intense years at the beginning we're talking 30 years ago next month when we shook hands, that I would assist him in writing this book. I have a long history with Larry Warren and I felt that after doing the research that he was absolutely good on his word."

He added: "I felt I had proved enough to myself of Larry's account and details surrounding it that he was telling the truth. And I feel now that in part that was not the case and there was an intent to deceive. To say this has tore me up over the last year is an understatement."

The Rendlesham incident took place in December 1980 over a series of three nights.

On December 26, 1980, military personnel at the twin bases of RAF Bentwaters and RAF Woodbridge saw a strange light in Rendlesham Forest, which lies between the two bases.

Three airmen were sent out to investigate where two of them encountered a small, triangular shaped craft.

One of them, Jim Penniston, got close enough to touch the side of the object. He and another of the airmen present, John Burroughs, made sketches of the craft for witness statements.

Two nights later, Deputy Base Commander Lieutenant Colonel Charles Halt and his team then encountered the UFO.

He said later: "Here I am, a senior official who routinely denies this sort of thing and diligently works to debunk them, and I'm involved in the middle of something I can't explain."

Despite an MOD investigation the Rendlesham Forest incident remains unexplained, despite theories it was a lighthouse, a meteor shower or a satellite re-entering the Earth's atmosphere and burning up.

Warren's account differs as he maintains the UFO landed in a farmer's field and was seen by dozens of military personnel including the Base Commander General Gordon Williams.

He also claims small entities could be seen floating underneath the strange craft, which shone beams of light into the nuclear bunkers at the NATO base at the height of the Cold War.

Nick Pope, who ran the Ministry of Defence's Secretariat (Airstaff) 2a - dubbed the 'UFO desk', which investigated military sightings but was closed in 2009 due to budget cuts - has backed Robbins' claims.

In a post to his 4,980 friends and 13,852 followers on Facebook, he praised Robbins for "having the courage and integrity to make what was clearly a difficult and painful admission that he'd been taken in by Warren's lies."

He ended his post by saying: "The verdict from the wider UFO community is clear: the Larry Warren story is officially dead."

But Warren slammed the ex-MOD man, who now lives in Tucson, Arizona, for "whoring himself out" in a 20-minute Facebook rant.

He fumed: "I'm aware of your posts on your page, your slander, defamation, whatever you want to call it. You've been out of the UK a long time, you're not really respected here brother. You don't speak for Ufology brother, I can tell you that, you just whore yourself out for just about whatever you can do, that's fine. Works for you."

He added: "I wrote all my parts in my book and I remain proud of them. I stand by them."

© cascadenews.co.uk

Warren has engaged in a war of words with Nick Pope on Facebook

Warren also accuses Pope of "abject jealousy" and offers to hand over a UFO courage award he received from UFO Truth Magazine, edited by former police detective Gary Heseltine, at a conference in Holmfirth, Yorkshire, last September.

He tells Pope: "Your books tanked after months, my book's been in print 20 years and will be print another 100 probably. I've been around longer than you in this and I've seen it all for years."

Comment: This right here is a big part of why "ufology" is the way it is: most of the "ufologists" involved are actually petulant, egoistic 4-year-olds.

Warren challenges Pope to take it off him, saying: "You can have it if you can take it from me. I'll even bring the gift box. You seem to want it because I don't deserve it.

"You stuck your nose into Rendlesham years ago to the point some morons out there think you were working the MOD desk when they happened - I think you were being beat up on the school yard at that time. So that's impossible but you don't stop that myth."

He ends his video by saying: "The book is my story, 100 per cent. I've done stuff that you could never do and seen things you'll never see and I'll still be standing tall when you go cock a doodle do ... You were never in the military, you wore a tie somewhere."

Comment: Robbins has posted part one of a detailed account of the controversy on Kevin Randle's blog (here). Some notable excerpts follow:

...If only I had paid more attention to the doubts that had nagged at me back then.
...
Reporter John Jeffay obviously made the decision to ignore the specifics and complexities I discussed in the radio interview which sparked the writing of this piece, and which he mined for selective information, this with no interest in actually speaking with me. Then again, why would he have bothered? It was only a 'UFO story' and the Mirror is not known for its high journalistic standards. In publishing his well-off-the-mark and highly generalized version of things he insulted both me and Larry. In my case by putting words in my mouth that made it appear that I had "..sparked a war of words after revealing he now believes that former US airman Larry Warren's account of the incident near RAF Bentwaters, Suffolk, in 1980, was "not true."

The story of course hurt Larry more for obvious reasons. Small consolation, but in the interests of accuracy I stated that I am convinced that parts of Larry's account are not accurate or faithful to the truth. And the Mirror being the Mirror, you should also know that no journalist or reporter by the name of John Jeffay is employed by the Mirror. There is little question that this story was brought to the attention of the Mirror's editors by someone outside the newspaper's staff. I can make an educated guess as to who it may have been, but cannot say for sure.

[Warren] loaned me copies of some of his assorted military paperwork, all of which he told me he had made copies of during his out-processing from the Air Force ... A thought that never occurred to me at the time - or in fact at any time since then, until earlier this year when I finally bothered to actually read some of the findings that had been posted online. Call me naïve, but I just don't think that way. The paperwork he loaned me was almost entirely Xerox copies, but there were a few originals, which were returned to him several years later. If he (or anyone else) had altered any part of any of them it would amount to a betrayal of the highest order, certainly for me as his co-writer, but more importantly, to any reader who had ever served or was currently serving in the military, American or otherwise. Such an offense is simply not forgivable. I'm sorrier than I can say that I now know this to be the case regarding at least several of these documents, but before damning Larry with such an awful accusation, there is one other alternate theory you need to consider, and consider seriously. ...

Robbins included a letter he sent Warren back in October where he laid some things out:

Yes, I again ignored your most recent Skype request. The reason, I still didn't want to talk to you. The reason I don't want to talk to you, because you lied to me, to my face in Glasgow, and in FB messages beforehand. You may consider them minor lies, but they were major to me, in fact they were life-changing. Early in June, and for a number of reasons having to do with you, I began thinking more and more about the future of our friendship and professional relationship, both of which are in real trouble as far as I'm concerned. As such, we need to get a few things understood between us. ... As the 'X-Files' poster says, I want to believe, and as your coauthor, co-speaker and limited business partner, I wanted to believe that you were 100% honest with me in matters relating to us. Increasingly these past few months I have been struggling to resolve, if resolution were even possible, my growing number of differences with you, but it's almost like you have gone out of your way to make this all as difficult as possible for me, if not impossible.

Our friendship was built on decades of working together through thick and thin, during which time I thought we more than earned each other's respect. But as far as I'm concerned your respect for me went out the window this summer, a most troubling part being that you don't even seem to realize it. I am really worried about you. You will always have my respect for the courage, commitment, and single-minded dedication you've shown in bringing the RFI to public attention. And while I love you my friend, I do not even like the person at least part of you seems to have become, that being the part who lies to his friends, fakes things, threatens violence and extreme violence, and blames others for events and circumstances they brought on themselves or were otherwise you responsible for. {Note: The final part of the last sentence was meant to have read, "...and blames others for events and circumstances that you brought on yourself or were otherwise responsible for." My tiredness was showing here.}

As you know, I took your threatening, ultra-paranoid ultimatum of July 14 as seriously as a heart attack. Yes, I know that you wish you had never sent it, but you did and it still has me fuming. If I'd have sent it to you, I think you'd feel the way I do, "to be honest it aintv very good mate ! im not happy nor is my family with youre folks tell john mooore to piss offDONT EVEN CONTACT ME AGAIN..........................................PETER I MEAN IT PISS OFF !ATRE YOU RVEN ALIVE ?pete ......you let me die.................for yer own ends.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,who knows what that was ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,but pete the only contact you n me will have is with lawyers..........dont send me shit and stop showim MY shit ! we are OVER

After all I've done for you and all we have been through together, that you would go off on me like this, that you would dare accuse me of such things still amazes me. I never did anything to deserve this kind of treatment from you and I'm certainly not going to put myself in the position where you can ever pull anything like that on me again. The level your normally violent temper has risen to, your often completely irrational paranoia toward me and others, these things never really made sense to me except as an indication of some deeper problems. Whatever their causes may be, I am tired of dealing with them and do not want to have to ever again.

The thing that seems to have set you off on your July 14 rant was imagining, and I stress the word "imagining" here, that John and I were somehow out to get you or to fuck you over in the making of the documentary he had intended to produce, for what purpose or what aim I have no idea. ... You and your paranoia were responsible for torpedoing this great project and not John or me. All I can add is that it's a damn shame.

In past when I've asked what you thought my 'agenda' was, you've always gone quiet. You said in a July message that I never really 'got you,' and I guess that's proved to be something of an understatement. I did 'get' some of you, but looking back I don't seem to have been nearly as good an investigator as I thought I was a quarter century ago. But I have always had 'an agenda.' Corny as it may sound, it has always been to follow the evidence wherever it leads you, then to tell the truth about it as best I'm able. This even when evidence takes you to places you would rather not go. It's the reason I choose to correct my errors in public, be they mistakes I discovered after the fact or ones brought to my attention by others. Maybe most important, there has never been a clause excluding truths that might prove embarrassing to me, or for that matter, to you, and that's what this has all come down to.