For quite a while now Richard D Hall, the presenter of
Richplanet TV, has been hinting that he has some breaking new information on
the Rendlesham Forest UFO incident of December 1980. He has now published this
information in a video series that he uploaded on Christmas Day. I don't know
if there was a specific reason why he chose Christmas Day to do that, or maybe
it is just where it happened to fit into his schedule; but the effect of that
is there has been a delay in response from his viewers because obviously on
Christmas Day most of us have been celebrating with our families and watching
Christmas movies on TV etc. Maybe it's because it was the thirty-ninth anniversary. It was Boxing Day lunchtime when I first noticed
that the programme was available, plus several tags and inboxes from people who
had seen it and were asking me for a comment. The programme is called
Rendlesham UFO, Forty Years of Lies. The
RFI is one of the best researched UFO events in history, but it is also
probably the most controversial. Richard intends to shed some light on some of
the doubts by bringing in the statement analyst Peter Hyatt, an expert in forensic
psychology whose speciality is detecting deception in language; an essential
part of police and intelligence work, see:
https://www.hyattanalysis.com. Hyatt
has already provided very revealing and suspicious information for Richplanet from
studying the words of Kate and Gerry McCann, see:
https://www.richplanet.net/store/series-dvds/DF018
and Neil Armstrong, see:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKJOcUFIvFw.
Now Peter Hyatt has done the same to three of the witnesses to the RFI, Jim
Penniston, Charles Halt and Larry Warren. He has also done the same with Peter
Robbins; Larry's co-author and former supporter. Seeing as all four of these
men have been accused of deceit, Richard hopes Hyatt will clear up the
confusion and work out what the truth is. This is a far more difficult
assignment because, unlike Neil Armstrong, the three nominated RFI witnesses
have spoken extensively to the media. Their statements are therefore
"contaminated by time and repeated re-telling"; the recordings may
have been edited and the witnesses are not necessarily speaking in the
"free editing process". The samples chosen for analysis are all very
old, possibly to reduce the contamination as much as possible.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSVfPDkiwrs.
At the end of the analysis session it turns out that, in Peter Hyatt's view,
all four of the people interviewed were lying. They all employed
"distancing language" like overuse of the passive voice instead of
the active voice; for example: "the craft was touched by me" instead of
"I touched the craft". They sometimes used the wrong verb tenses and
even mixed them up in a single sentence, a grammatical error, such as: "I
enter the office and spoke to the staff sergeant". They use collective instead
of singular pronouns; "we" when it would be more proper to say
"I". They also mix up the proximal pronouns, saying "this"
when they should say "that" and vice versa. Jim Penniston was doing
an investigation rather than being a direct witness in the way he claims. Hyatt
also reckons that the interviewer of Penniston, George Noory, knows more than
he is saying and is leading the witness on (Another name for the list!)
Col.
Halt is probably hiding information as a result of his secrecy oaths. Larry
Warren was on the periphery of the incident rather than being actively involved
himself. Peter Robbins does not have a good relationship with his co-author. Of
course, he certainly doesn't now. In fact he has publicly denounced Larry in
the strongest possible terms (He has also done the same to me, see:
https://hpanwo.blogspot.com/2019/02/the-robbinsic-12-document.html),
but according to Hyatt, when he was interviewed in the 1993 TV show used, he
was even back then antagonistic towards Larry and was a reluctant participant
in their project.
Of course, it is no surprise to me that some witnesses to
the
Rendlesham Forest
incident are lying. In fact there has been an active disinformation project to
discredit the event, operating continuously in one form or another, ever since the RFI
happened. I don't think I am qualified to comment on the veracity of three of
those witnesses; but I think I am with one of them, Larry Warren. The reason is
because he is a close personal friend of mine and I have been carrying out my
own much focused investigation into his case. There are background links to my extensive
publications on the matter at the bottom. There is also a new professionally
produced documentary film shortly to be released called
Capel Green which provides a huge amount of new information, as
well as strongly supporting Larry Warren's account of the story, see:
https://www.capelgreen.co.uk. It has
already been revealed that Larry passes a top level polygraph test with flying
colours and this is covered in detail in the movie. The already nebulous
history of the RFI has been further thrown into turmoil by a more recent spate
of attacks against Larry from Sacha Christie. She is not a disinformation agent
working for the government, but merely a former friend of his who has fabricated
a completely bogus exposé of Larry in order to avenge herself over a purely
personal dispute with him, see:
https://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.com/2019/10/sacha-christie-woodbridge-presentation.html.
Peter Hyatt's work on the RFI witnesses is relevant to
researchers, but his conclusions directly contradict my own findings about one
of the four subjects. Not just my own, but also Gary Heseltine of UFO Truth Magazine and researcher for
Capel Green, see:
https://www.ufotruthmagazine.co.uk.
Either we are wrong or Hyatt is wrong and I honestly don't believe we are
wrong. I'm keen to find out what is the status of Peter Hyatt's testimony under
law. Is his word alone enough to convict somebody in court? Have any control studies
been done with truthful people? Richard D Hall then gives us his own commentary
about what he has learned. He does think Jim Penniston was involved with
something unusual that December night, possibly as part of a military exercise.
Col. Halt also
was involved with something significant in the woods during this period, but it
was something to do with radiation and the risk that it might cause a public
relations disaster. Larry Warren does not believe his own account about seeing
a UFO and alien beings and people should ignore everything he says, but he does
believe the government is lying to the people and this alone concerns him. He
feels a lot of patriotic sentiments towards his nation of origin, the
United
States of America. Seeing as Larry Warren
was the original whistleblower, Richard suspects that he had some kind of link
to
US
intelligence. It is highly unoriginal of Richard to make this assertion. He is
certainly correct in several cases of psyops that he has covered, but in most
he is not; and I have no doubt that he is incorrect in this case for reasons I
detail in the background links below. Peter Robbins also disbelieves Larry's
account and regrets being an accomplice to it from the very beginning. Richard
believes this might mean that Peter is party to whatever plot Larry was sucked
into. I don't know Peter as well as I do Larry, but I have met him a few times
and spent some time with him. I have fallen out with Peter and consider him a
deeply distasteful person, but I doubt if he is connected to any covert
government cover-up. Of course I can't prove that, but neither can Richard; it
doesn't stop him saying it though and it also won't stop me. What's more I am
privy to some confidential information on this matter as well that will
hopefully be freely available soon that also discounts Richard's notion of a Halt-Robbins-Warren
spy ring. The public reasons that I think Peter did a sudden about-face with
Larry are detailed in the background links below. Obviously, as I have
explained, I think Richard is wrong about Larry; as for the others, I'm not
sure. Richard believes something strange happened in the forest outside the
bases that night. He doesn't know exactly what it was and simply calls it
"the sensitive thing". He thinks that it is likely that officials at
the base had some idea of what the sensitive thing was otherwise there would
have been a far more intense government response. That is possible, but
alternatively it might have been an eventuality for which the local commanding
officers had no contingency plan. Richard thinks Penniston had a need-to-know,
but Halt didn't. Despite his status as a senior officer, Halt was kept out of
the loop and more junior staff were employed operating through a separate chain
of command. This is a familiar situation, see:
https://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.com/2019/06/the-wilson-notes.html.
Richard than brings up the possibility that the extraterrestrial explanation we're
all familiar with, thanks to the Halt memo, was staged deliberately as
disinformation to protect the secrecy of the sensitive thing. Halt and Larry
were encouraged to spread the story of aliens in the woods far and wide in the
hope that this would bury the true nature of the sensitive thing under a layer
of confusion. As I've said in the past, the idea that the UFO phenomenon itself
is, in whole or in part, a piece of engineered modern mythology designed by the
intelligence services to launder their more down-to-earth secret operations is
quite a fashionable one. However in most instances it doesn't make sense. It's
a very risky gambit to draw somebody's attention towards something with the
ultimate objective of deflecting it away. It could backfire in any number of
ways, see here for details:
http://hpanwo.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/mirage-men-by-mark-pilkington.html.
I can't see how dazzling the public with exotic stories about little green men
landing in the middle of a forest in
Suffolk could contribute to maintaining the secrecy of the sensitive thing, whatever it
might be. It would actually turn people's attention towards the sensitive
thing, and sooner or later somebody would work out what it really was.
Richard doesn't state in this broadcast what exactly the
sensitive thing is and only lists a few possibilities, but he has voiced his suspicions
on a previous programme that it was some kind of highly secretive experimental
aircraft using an esoteric propulsion system and/or power-plant, see:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAMSYlergYc.
Richard invited into the studio his regular collaborator Andrew Johnson and
they entered into the subject of
Rendlesham
Forest through the secret space
programme. This is an unusual but not entirely unique gateway. A lot of the
information they subsequently raised is also addressed by Andrew Pike in his
doorstep of a volume,
The Rendlesham
File- Britain's Roswell? which I reviewed for UFO Truth
Magazine in Issue 28, see:
https://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.com/2018/01/ufo-truth-magazine-issue-28.html.
They bring up Mark McCandlish, a very interesting military contractor who has
spoken publicly about sophisticated aircraft designs based on back-engineered
extraterrestrial vehicles. He took part in Dr Steven Greer's Disclosure
Project. Richard and Andrew then state that they have changed their position
somewhat and now think that there are some UFO cases that they previously
called as extraterrestrial in nature that are more likely to be the result of
man-made classified technological projects, even if they are based on captured
ET designs. For instance a lot of the UFO's that are triangular in shape are
likely to be the TR3B, an antigravity spacecraft developed by a covert
engineering project by the
USA
in Area 51, see here for details:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKcIO_Qmr9I.
There is good reason to believe that this craft exists and it might explain the
Belgium flap of
1990 and the
Sheffield incident of 1997. In my view it
does not explain all flying triangle encounters; for example the Pentyrch
incident is probably ET, see:
https://hpanwo-tv.blogspot.com/2018/11/pentyrch-ufo.html.
Also at
Sheffield an RAF jet was lost. If this was
secret Government Issue then was the crash a result of an accident, or war
between the overt and covert state? Another fascinating piece of information
refers to an aviation device known as "the Dart". It looks like an
aeroplane with a blister cockpit, but it has no wings and is much smaller than
a normal single or double-seater jet. It is shaped like an arrowhead with a
hull of flat panels rather like the F117 stealth fighter, possibly for the same
reason. It is powered by three spherical antigravity generators embedded into
the underside at each corner like ball-casters. According to the story from
McCandlish, the Dart crashed in
Germany
in 1989. This was in old
East Germany
just before the Berlin Wall came down. The spheres that produced the propulsion
were about the size of a beach ball. One popped out and started flying around
randomly and had to be caught in a rather comical scene. It's interesting to
consider the observations of many flying triangle craft reported that they have
glowing lights near the corners. Richard suggests that the
Berwyn
Mountains UFO, see:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxW7HnLfnxE,
might by a detached gravity generator too. If that is the case then the sphere
is thirty feet across so it must come from a vehicle of some considerable size.
The Dart bears a resemblance to the UFO that landed in
Rendlesham
Forest in Christmas 1980, according
to the first night's witnesses. Could the object seen by Penniston and
Burroughs actually be an unmanned version of one of these craft; an antigravity
drone? Also Col. Halt took a plaster-cast of the indentations left by the
object and their shape makes them appear to be made by a section of a sphere or
ovoid. Then again it could be a shallow cone; it's hard to tell for sure based
on the cast. The witnesses describe feeling static electricity in the air
surrounding the object; their hair standing on end etc. This could be caused by
the electrogravitic drive of the craft... Then again, maybe real aliens landed
and everything Richard has described is an elaborate double-bluff.
Rendlesham UFO, Forty Years of Lies is
worth your time to watch, like all Richplanet shows are, but it has totally failed
to clear up the uncertainty that Richard riles against at the start of the
programme. It actually contributes little or nothing to research into this, the
greatest of British UFO cases. In forming his opinion of Larry Warren, Richard
has relied entirely on Peter Hyatt's analysis and his own cogitation. He has
not consulted with either of the two principle investigators into Larry's case,
Gary Heseltine and myself. We are not shy people and we have no problem
corresponding with total strangers when we're on the trail of a good story, but
in this case Richard doesn't need to. He already knows us. He meets with us
regularly at conferences and his own tours. At any time he could have asked for
our input into his investigation, but he did not. Of course he is not obliged
to do that, but if he had done so then this episode of Richplanet would probably
have been a far better one.
