Rendlesham Forest…, A Christmas Story from 1980 - Can We ‘Let it Be’?

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

I Know that if we met (probably at a bar) that we'd get along great.

In or out of a bar.

You know I love you, Man.

You're a singular Dude.



ETA: Wait! Before I descend in to histrionic expressions of Brotherly Love: You honestly have to stop that J. Parsons #.

Seriously, Man, we dismantled all that # way back about when you logged on (and I had already been here 3 years).

I'm sorry that we don't have an ATS "Lessons Learned Log", but we don't.

I can shred that JP/LAM # in no time flat. Not because I'm cool, but because survival at ATS has required it.

I'm almost tempted to take this thread through those hoops just to polish my licks.

Understood?

originally posted by: Bybyots
a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

I Know that if we met (probably at a bar) that we'd get along great.

In or out of a bar.

You know I love you, Man.

You're a singular Dude.

I'd love to unbind that mound of crazy creative intelligence you keep inside yourself;
so I grudgingly agree to a similar sentiment. But it's true that we don't communicate
well on ATS; that should be obvious.

Kev

a reply to: Tulpa

Yet another bit of doubt. It sounds kind if plausible to a degree....So, he's lying but he isn't, if you know what I mean?

Reading Bruni's book you get the impression that she was very frustrated with Larry. He seemed unable to keep his story straight with her. A lot of details are minutiae but this is where he often seemed to trip up and then 'adapt' the story as he went along. Georgina Bruni eventually felt she'd wasted too much time trying to work his story out and moved on.

Still he's only human and we do forget and confuse things all the time. Although I get the impression that Larry Warren would sound convincing whatever he was telling you.

I'm sure you've noticed but looking back at the earlier sighting of a large craft that hovered overhead but was only seen by the two guards. They saw a ball of red light that split into three etc etc...

Do you mean Lori Rehfeldt's sighting? Or Steve La Plume's or someone else?

originally posted by: Tulpa
I'm sure you've noticed but looking back at the earlier sighting of a large craft that hovered overhead but was only seen by the two guards.
They saw a ball of red light that split into three etc etc...

Are you talking about the Cosmos rocket launcher? That definitely fragmented, but more than just two guards saw it.

What a night

a reply to: mirageman

Sorry, the big craft I was referring to was the one seen by Steve La Plume.
The red ball was the main event but I was connecting the whole lot.
Not everyone at Hudson saw a red ball and some saw two leave an object, go separate ways, then one returned alone.
Belgium I think only one was seen.
Wythville I need to return to but there's definitely one, at least.
Its another tenuous link.

I was getting a little frustrated trying to make sense of tape and photo stuff.
Once upon a time, a photo and a tape would've seemed like certain proof but in this case its really not helping much is it.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

I try not to presume too much.
I'm trying to use witnesses own descriptions of these objects, whatever they are.
I'm not sure if they are "crafts" or "orbs" but that seems like the general terminology.

I have some suspicions but that's about all.

a reply to: Bybyots

Jack Parsons

I really don't know what there is to argue about..the first paragraph of his bio says
rocket scientist and Thelemite occultist.

The only reason I even mentioned him, is as a way to avoid talking about JV or one of the other acquaintances I've made, whose privacy I won't break.

I could have picked from a list of any of a number of people.. but Jack is safely dead!

I care about the story.. there are usually many examples that can be used.

But if I misquoted something.. sure.. keep me honest.

PS: as I stated, I saw a 'creature' that looked quite a lot like "LAM" in 1981
in the company of a self-described "conjurer", so perhaps I'm biased that
such a creature was seen by other self-described conjurers.

Kev

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

The only reason I even mentioned him, is as a way to avoid talking about JV

oh well - better luck next time

originally posted by: aynock
a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

The only reason I even mentioned him, is as a way to avoid talking about JV

oh well - better luck next time

You avoided the other words in that sentence you quoted:

"The only reason I even mentioned him, is as a way to avoid talking about JV or one of the other acquaintances I've made, whose privacy I won't break. ".

As I didn't break any privacy, no harm no foul.

Using partial quotes like that however... what did that accomplish in terms of the thread?

Kev

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Using partial quotes like that however... what did that accomplish in terms of the thread?

i quoted the specific words that were relevant to the point i was making

it was an expression of mild amusement on my part rather than an attempt to accomplish anything

i met bobby ball once (but i don't like to talk about it)

a reply to: mirageman

If the photo is genuinely from pre 2000, I'm fairly sure I could recognise a fake in terms of model work or early cgi. Or just scratching the negative.

The underground photo is interesting also. Decent copies of both would be great.

My feeling is that each of the parties are losing patience with the other.

Does anyone know if Ronnie Dugdale is also planning a book?

originally posted by: mirageman

Reading Bruni's book you get the impression that she was very frustrated with Larry. He seemed unable to keep his story straight with her. A lot of details are minutiae but this is where he often seemed to trip up and then 'adapt' the story as he went along. Georgina Bruni eventually felt she'd wasted too much time trying to work his story out and moved on.

Still he's only human and we do forget and confuse things all the time. Although I get the impression that Larry Warren would sound convincing whatever he was telling you.

Larry sent one photograph to Georgina Bruni back in 1998/1999. This is how she describes it:

Then Larry sent me one of the photographs. It was a glossy black picture with a group of coloured lights in the shape of a triangle and a few other coloured balls of light scattered throughout. I eventually had the photograph blown up and lightened and was amazed to find what appeared to be a distorted forest with a tringle of lights hovering above a clearing. Beneath the lights was an azure mist and at ground level there appeared to be a strange yellow mist rising up a few feet off the ground.

It certainly looked interesting and, as promised, I sent a blown-up copy back to Larry.

I am aware that the photograph could easily be a hoax. However, until it had been enlarged several times and lightened there was nothing to see except blackness and a few lights, so that in itself is interesting.

I asked Larry if it were possible that someone might be trying to set him up, but he was adamant that the source was genuine.
Someone has read the reviews of ‘Left At East Gate’ on the Internet and has sent the photographs to him.

Georgina Bruni in ‘You can’t tell the people’ (1999)

The azure colour sounds interesting, the same colour is abundant in the photographs presented by Larry.
Maybe he is even showing the public the blown-up and lightened copy that Bruni sent to him back in 1999.

When Bruni wanted to get in contact with the person who sent him the photographs, Larry changed his story and told her he himself operated the camera. Apparently to protect the original source, as he explains in his presentation.

a reply to: Guest101

I'd say that it's almost certainly the same photo. Larry refers to the fact that the craft doesn't 'white out' the detail as would normally happen. Apparently this is due to the type of film used. He mentions this whilst showing the photo.

This would fit in perfectly with Georgia's description of lightening the film, as it must have been a very sensitive film with a large tonal range. Something that couldn't happen today with digital.

Obviously, we are seeing the photo through many layers of compression and distortion but I think if we saw the zoomed out, I cropped version it would match well.

Great share!

I think it would be great if Larry shared this image in some way.

a reply to: ctj83

I think it would be great if Larry shared this image in some way.

Seems rather odd that he's happy to blow it up on Power Point Presentations at conferences but it's not available elsewhere.

Actually I'll check if there is anything in Peter Robbins Deliberate Deception booklets. I know the A10 with the UFO above it photo was in there.
ETA : Nope it's not in the Deliberate Deception booklets.

a reply to: mirageman

Its available for money (if you buy a ticket for his dog and pony show). I can imagine it wouldn't be sold on the Internet in a digital format...it could be properly analyzed then.

a reply to: mirageman

From what I read in YCTTP, Peter felt betrayed that the photo hadn't been introduced in LEAG. However, since then he seems to have gotten over it.

After reading a little more, I'm convinced that this PowerPoint photo is the one mentioned by LEAG.

Going on what I can say and what Bruni describes...

I'd struggle to believe that Larry would have had access to the equipment and technical skills to create the necessary background plate of the woods, warp it then the optical composite and acetate painting and then to know how to rephotography it so that it would be underexposed but not crushed.

Get the exposure of the optical printing wrong and there would be nothing to get back. Or, you would be able to see everything in the initial photo. No mystery.

Adds a lot to the authenticity to discover the mist and blue Candyfloss surely?

My point is that the photo was too early (effects wise) to have been digitally created by almost anyone other than an Sfx due to the dynamic range / exposure requirements.

For it to be fake, I think it would more likely have been a celluloid based optical composite.

Larry didn't have the skills or the time, and I doubt anyone else 'none professional' did. See the gulf breeze photos for bad effects work.

Yet - Larry hasn't shown this photo much. Nor has Garry.

There has to be a reason and it really doesn't make the photo seem genuine.

Fingers crossed you find it somewhere so I can properly figure out if it's a composite.

a reply to: ctj83

I agree that Larry probably didn't have the skills. That of course does not mean he did not know someone with the required skills. Georgina Bruni only saw the one B&W photo.



(The larger version of this one)

All we know is this appeared after Left at East Gate was published (1997) and before You Can't Tell the People (2000). And I get the feeling that the 'coloured' ones may have been generated from that one photo. Of course I can't prove it as we don't even have a reasonable copy of these coloured photos.

Now according to the history of Photoshop it was up to version 5.0 by 1998 and I remember using PaintShop Pro back in the latter years of the 20th century too which was shareware at the time. So fairly inexpensive software was available to mess around with photos even back then. In fact I am not even sure when the coloured photos appear. Which means even more people could have access to messing around with them with photo software.

Doesn't mean that was the case of course but it would have been possible. All I have is a hunch. But that is because these photos are not exactly well known and do not appear to be available in the public domain.

a reply to: mirageman

Perosnally, I can rule out photoshop etc for Bruni's photo, with almost certainty as the colour depth of 8bits per channel back then had nothing on the dynamic range of film. With a standard photo it would have maybe worked but not with the brightening Bruni did,there would have been terrible banding artifacts giving away its digital nature.

Try darkening a non HDR photo so most of the landscape is near black. Print it out on glossy paper then try and brighten it to reveal details in the shadows. It will look very banded (posterized) and digital. That's why I think if it's a fake it's an optical composite using film, painted on a little like the blue light around the Delorean in back to the future.

a reply to: ctj83

Sorry I didn't make myself clear.

I am not disputing that the "original" photo was on film stock and probably a genuine photo.

I am suggesting that the 'colour photo' in the presentation and possibly others that Larry mentions may have been coloured with photo software.

In other words this one.

a reply to: mirageman

Ah! I see what your saying. I was more focussed on the nature of the candy floss. In terms of the colour, guess it could have been added?

It would have to have been added for the photo print for Bruni.

I can see only three options:

- The photo was taken by Larry as he told Bruni
- The photo was taken by Mark and is genuine (as Larry states he messed with Bruni for trying to uncover Mark- I think)
- FAKE: The photo was created by a one of the interested parties and passed to Mark
- FAKE: The photo was created by a lone hoaxer

Regardless of which is true - the following questions really need answering:
- Did Garry have any concerns over the provenance of the photo?
- Has the photo has any sort of verification before being presented at a paid event?
- Why hasn't it been circulated in public apart from a brief showing in a power point?