The Larry Warren Fraud. Rendleshame Fake Witness.

a reply to: pigsy2400

What landed? Nobody saw anything land.

The blog I posted isn't about any of that anyway.

Ok you're not interested, understandable but if you don't know what I've said in the blog why bother commenting?

2,095 comments on the can't we just let it be says otherwise. Just because you're not interested doesn't mean that's the opinion of everyone.

Here's a tip. If you are not interested, don't comment.

I've always wondered about something about the people involved with the whole RFI. Was any of the people involved (you know the ones that are the loudest about it) under investigation back then in either the UK or by DoD? I'm not saying that it didn't happen, but I will say that I don't think it happened the way the main characters say it happened.

We have a core group of people that should have more concerned about the security of the Nuclear weapons storage sending out a team to investigate "mystery lights"

then we have the first claim that the object was seen by someone who should have been in the rear coordinating the troops

years later this same guy keeps adding to his story about what was and what wasn't there at the time

finally we have an absence of people making statements about what was going on.

There was a whole base being effected by this event, we have people living outside the base that should have seen something (yes I know all about Pope's "retired RAF guy that saw it all" ) Then we have the lighthouse, if it was manned at the time shouldn't their nigh watchman have seen the commotion over at the base?

I hate the Roswell event, since all the information we have on it comes from vague news reports at the time, and one eye witness that really didn't know anything. Oddly it wasn't until most of the people died and the story was basically lost that we started to get "new" information about it. It was oddly around the same time that A-51 also started to have more tests flying about. The whole thing smelled to me. The RFI seems to following along those line, but since we still have most of the people that were there alive, people in the UFO community should be hitting this story hard and from every angle. Oddly every time people do dig in to it, Pope pops up and starts pushing dead ends, the retired Col telling "new" things he remembers, and zero information outside of that. There's a lot there to dig in to if people are willing to do the foot work, and there's a lot to expose if this was a HOAX (as some have suggested)

a reply to: infomaniachousewife

I never said anything Landed, you clearly haven't seen my posts in the rfi thread.

I am well aware of who you are and have read most of your blogs in regards to evidence you have presented regarding Larry Warren and you may be surprised that I agree with most of what you presented.

Here's a tip, don't tell other people what to do or think...I am simply stating my current position after many years of interest in the case but have been put off by the amount of utter nonsense from those involved, which I am sure you are aware of, probably more than most here.

originally posted by: infomaniachousewife
a reply to: pigsy2400

2,095 comments on the can't we just let it be says otherwise. Just because you're not interested doesn't mean that's the opinion of everyone.

Here's a tip. If you are not interested, don't comment.

To be fair to Pigsy, he has performed some great research and regularly taken part in the two main Rendlesham threads ('Can We Let It Be/ Will There Be An Answer') since 2013, originally approaching the case with an open mind and obviously leaving it as a frustrating dead-end, especially with the constant embellishments that have clouded the entire picture.

I'm thankful for the grand work both you (regarding Warren's position) and Pigsy have contributed to this case. Sadly, from being a Believer in possible ET contact at Rendlesham (and an initial admirer, like yourself, of Warren and Robbins' 1997 'East Gate' opus), I'm now at the point where I believe Ian Ridpath was most likely right all the way back in 1985 - at a time when embellishments were nil and even the original statements were not made public until 1997. Ironically, they only strengthened Ian's case and seemingly caused one witness to panic and resort to claims of 'statement manipulation', especially since he'd already laid the foundations for a far more intimate and prolonged encounter, contradicted in 1997 by the official statements, including his own.

As for Larry running with Bustinza's original story (only more watered down, ie no element of the USAF considering repairs to a landed 'saucer', and the craft being left in a field for two days!), it's ironic that Bustinza himself has remained free of criticism despite his account being even wilder than Larry's and completely uncorroborated by any other personnel. Then again, Bustinza has never arrogantly swaggered his way across ufology, preferring to remain a shy, quiet guy in the background despite giving four interviews since 1984, each a more diluted version of events until in 2015 his story was comparatively mild, his interactions with Burroughs ultimately more interesting than the Halt trek itself.

Bustinza remains the eternal RFI enigma for me, so it's also ironic that his original story lives on in Warren's borrowed account, even though Capel Green does not form part of Bustinza's encounter - which was in a forest clearing rather than a 'field'. If we can finally understand Bustinza and his original motives (if any) as he understood them, we may be able to lay much of that evening to rest. In the meantime, Warren is virtually irrelevant.

As for your blog, it is such a toxic, highly unpleasant situation that I would actually feel extremely uncomfortable commenting about it at all. All I can do is sincerely wish you well, and hope for a peaceful resolution that eventually satisfies everybody concerned.

With a rubbish movie based on his lies and frauds coming out soon it's a timely reminder, thanks for posting

You guys are all pretty cool so we can let people make what threads they want and people can post or ignore.

Cheers Z

I read the 1986 interview between Warren and Fawcett (that Sacha kindly provided a transcript for), and it is mind-boggling in many respects.

Larry's claim that Bustinza described seeing a very tall figure in the forest wearing a cape is news to me, as well as the story of Bustinza threatening Lieutenant Bonnie Tamplin (witness to a blue light on Night Two) with a knife!

Most mind-boggling of all was Warren's very lengthy account of Bustinza's knowledge about the 'real story' behind the UFO mystery - which seemed to incorporate almost every kooky UFO conspiracy theory in existence, from alien underground bases being the true Masters of Earth to humanoid aliens being actively involved in politics. Oh, and the Pope was in on the secret, too.

I'd recently felt that the RFI was pretty much dead in the water. Bustinza was the remaining enigma. If any aspect of Bustinza's extreme beliefs is true (ie if Warren isn't lying about ALL of them), I can probably give the case a decent burial at last.

so , reading through the posts on here the RFI story is as follows,
In the beginning it was just larry Warren telling lies, now all of the main witnesses are telling lies.
Ian ridpath was right all along, it was just the pesky orford ness lighthouse.
The whole thing has become a joke and a very toxic one at that, I wouldn't blame any genuine witnesses to the events (military or civilian) from ever coming forward because it has become such a mess, but then maybe that was the alphabet agencys plan all along. a reply to: ConfusedBrit

how can you be sure

hell yeah bro