Thursday 26 December 2019

Richplanet on Rendlesham

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: Hyatt has already provided very revealing and suspicious information for Richplanet from studying the words of Kate and Gerry McCann, see: and Neil Armstrong, see: 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: 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:, 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: 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:
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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:, 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.


Anonymous said...

Made perfect Boxing Day viewing, however it troubles me that John Burroughs wasnt included Ben? it left more questions than answers for me..-Mark Hollingsworth

Ben Emlyn-Jones said...

Hi Mark. I'm not sure why Richard didn't also include JB. He's one of the most interesting because of his legal case. I've thought though about why Richard posted the video on Christmas Day, because it's the 39th anniversary.

Anonymous said...

Yup the anniversary makes sense. Interesting analysis of Peter's initial meeting with Larry. Not having facebook myself im interested to hear Gary H's take on it if you'd be good enough to upload it here - Mark H.

Anonymous said...

Hello Ben,

Thanks for the post; I found it interesting. I haven't followed much of the Rendlesham Forest Incident over the last 8-9 years. I've yet to watch Richard's video, but I'm not surprised of the findings. I'm sure a lot of information is being held back, either due to patriotic/national security reasons, or not sharing because they think others aren't sharing.

Was happy a while back when you mentioned Andrew Pike had re-released his book. It meant I could stop my search of it. Was hoping he was going to do it around the time of the 30th Anniversary, but I think he changed his mind after heated discussions with John Burroughs.

Just need Col. Halt to make a copy of the master tape recording and I'll be pleased.



Anonymous said...

Watched the (very lengthy) RP episode, and I have to say that I think Richard is bang on right about being suspicious about the Rendlesham case. I do now consider that the whole UFO incident was a staged or made up story, as Richard speculates, to conceal something that was happening on the base. Richard is certainly not a fool.

I do agree with you Ben that why invent a story of a UFO landing on a military base to conceal something when it would likely attract more attention to the place than detract.

Ben Emlyn-Jones said...

Hi Daniel.
The RFI has been corrupted and what Andrew Johnson calls "muddled up" endlessly and continuously since it happened. When it comes to pointing the finger of blame, I don't hold back from naming Nick Pope. The enigma of the Halt Tape is like that of the Zapruder Film. Apart from that, I'm as nonplussed as everybody else. However Larry Warren is one of the honest characters in this tale and his detractors have always been the least convincing, and this now includes RDH.
I was surprised that Mantle withdrew Andrew Pike's new book. I heard it was the author's request. It's an interesting read, even though it makes many mistakes.
Happy New Year.

Ben Emlyn-Jones said...

Hi Anon. It's beyond naive to look at the RFI with anything other than suspicion. I think Richard has made an error over the nature of it though.
Happy New Year.

Anonymous said...

Sorry but I can't give Peter Hyatt any credence at all. Statement Analysis is a pseudoscience at best and like polygraph evidence, there's a reason why it is inadmissible in court proceedings. For starters, what's the baseline truth? It seems to me people like Hyatt start from the default position that what he is reading is lies. Any reputable study on statement analysis that has been done has concluded that the method 'cannot distinguish between truthful and fabricated accounts of a negative event' (see Frontiers in Psychology,

I used to like Richard's shows a lot, but since he's hitched his wagon to Hyatt, my respect for him has gone way down.