Saturday 28 March 2020

Larry Warren's Discharge Papers

David Young has produced yet another video in his series of supposedly groundbreaking bombshells that prove Larry Warren was not involved with the Rendlesham Forest Incident. Most of the first few minutes of this thirteen minute video are him recapping his previous ones which I have already comprehensively discredited, see here for the previous one: In this segment David quotes another witness, Adrian Bustinza. It seems that everybody is currently claiming Bustinza as their own when the man himself has been through talkative and cagey moods, and has said many different things over the last few years, for example: David has repeated statements Bustinza made allegedly disproving Larry's involvement, but at other times the same witness has made statements indicating Larry was definitely present. Who knows what he might say next if he chooses to speak out again...? The issue of Left At East Gate is covered here: David claims Larry's defenders put all this down to a conspiracy involving all the other witnesses. No, we do not. Some people close to the RFI act suspiciously in my view, but most of them are either mistaken or they are biased against Larry because of a personal dislike of him.

In this video Donald and David focus on Larry Warren's discharge papers. Larry left the United States Air Force in May of 1981 just nine months after joining. Despite several years of claiming that Larry was dishonourably discharged from the service, in other words being sacked, or that he never was on active service at all and was dropped during phase one training; the trolls now admit that Larry did serve and that his discharge was honourable, but that it was on medical grounds. The code number on the form is "4M". This means that Larry was not eligible to reenlist. In Left At East Gate, Larry says that he did not understand what the letter "M" in the code meant and that it didn't exist in regulations to his knowledge. Donald and David explain how it does. However, this is a minor discrepancy and I would say has little bearing on the book's principle theme. Perhaps at the time Larry was in the recruiting office the codes were different. I don't think this can be used to claim Larry deliberately tried to mislead his readers; and the same goes for the next point. The document reads that Larry's medical discharge was because of a problem with his right arm; in Left At East Gate Larry talks about it being a burns on his eyes. Donald and David say that for this reason Larry would not have been issued a weapon, however he was on active duty and was passed as fit during training. What use would he be in the security police if he couldn't handle a gun? The covering letter of his discharge papers was written by a Col. Gordon Williams, but it has a mark on it that looks slightly like a fingerprint and no actual signature. However, it could be something other than a fingerprint; the quality is not good enough to tell. This is odd, but is it really anomalous with the practices of the USAF at that time? Is the signature hidden by the low resolution of the document's copying? As with all these accusations by the trolls, they are made by the analysis of copies, not original documents. Also, if Larry is supposedly so good at faking signatures why did he not do so this time? The trolls' case against Larry is loaded with contradictions like this. This reminds me of the storm in a teacup generated over Dr Paul Echols. It turns out that it had a perfectly obvious explanation and there was no need for Larry to fake anything, see: Indeed David and Donald bring this up again in the video when their point was thoroughly debunked back in 2017. Apparently nobody knows who Gordon Williams was; or to be precise, David and Donald don't know. Perhaps if they checked with the DoD Bureau of Personnel they would find out. Either way, it seems very far-fetched that Larry would make up an imaginary officer to authorize his papers without a signature. Source: Another contradiction the trolls commit is that at one point they will talk about Larry as if he is some kind of criminal mastermind and at others that he is an incompetent dullard. Which is it, because you can't have it both ways? I maintain that it is neither. The solution to the irregularities in Larry's paperwork might lie in the Rendlesham Forest Incident cover-up itself. A few years ago a court ruled in favour of John Burroughs when his medical records were classified, putting his life in danger when he fell ill, see: Perhaps Burroughs was not the only one affected.

No comments: