Welcome, Peter Robbins

[Admin]

Hello everyone,

I am pleased to announce that Peter Robbins has just joined our forum. Welcome, Peter!

---------------------------------------------------------------

Peter Robbins has been involved in UFO studies for more than twenty-five years, as a researcher, investigator, writer, lecturer, activist and author. He has appeared as a guest on, and been consultant to numerous television shows and documentaries, and is on the Advisory Board of Budd Hopkins' Intruders Foundation. Peter is co-author of the British best-seller, "Left at East Gate: A First-Hand Account of the Rendlesham Forest UFO Incident, Its Cover-Up and Investigation" and has written for numerous UFO related publications and websites.

Robbins has lectured extensively both in the States and abroad including dozens of talks throughout the United Kingdom. These have included local, national and international conferences as well as presentations for organizations, seminars, public, private and secondary schools, universities, libraries, scientific organizations, educational foundations and at Cambridge Hospital in Boston under the sponsorship of the late Pulitzer Prize winner Dr. John Mack. Peter’s lecture topics have included, but not been limited to, the United Kingdom’s Rendlesham Forest UFO incident; the suppression of UFO information by the American and British Governments; James Vincent Forrestal, first Secretary of Defense and early casualty of UFO secrecy; Dr. Wilhelm Reich and UFOs; the UFO abduction phenomenon; the crop circle phenomenon; UFOs and alien imagery in advertising; the media and UFOs; stress and UFO studies, and the 1950s: golden age of UFO literature.

Past venues have included the International UFO Congress, Laughlin, NV; Annual UFO Organization of Japan (OUR-J) National Conference, Tokyo; The ‘X-Conference,’ Washington, D.C.; Annual Crash Retrieval Conferences, Las Vegas NV; McMinnville Oregon UFO Festivals; National Mutual UFO Network (MUFON) National Conferences and numerous regional affiliates; Leeds International UFO Conferences, UK; BUFORA National Symposium, UK, Fifteen-city Left At East Gate speaking tour, UK; Intruders Foundation (IF) Conferences and seminars, NYC; Cornell University Department of Sociology; University of Arkansas; Summerhill School, Suffolk, UK; Roswell UFO Festival and Conference, Roswell, NM; Main Branch, Philadelphia Free Library; Roswell Public Library; Centre For Fortean Zoology Conference, Devon UK; Bay Area UFO Expo, Santa Clara, CA; Scientific Bureau of Investigation (SBI) Conference, NYC; Atlantic Paranormal Society Conference (TAPSCON), Clearwater, FL; Omega Conference, North Haven, CT; Fifth International Conference on the Life and Work of Wilhelm Reich, Niece, France.

Other credits include UFO Magazine’s “Webwatch” columnist (1999-2003) and their “On Assignment” columnist (2002-05); Event Coordinator for the SCI FI Channel’s ‘The Alien Abduction Phenomenon: A Symposium,’ held at New York City’s Regency Hotel and organized to promote the Steven Spielberg miniseries ‘Taken’ (2002); Writer, planner, researcher and commentator, “Ultimate Crop Circles” DVD (2002). From 1999 until 2004 he was the Director of The UFO Media Group, a division of the Manhattan based multi media corporation, Central Park Media. He founded and was Editor-In-Chief of the award winning website, UFOcity.com from1998 to 2004. Under its auspices he organized, wrote and directed "Campaign Watch 2000," an all-out, eight-month effort to get American presidential candidates to comment on the excessive secrecy surrounding the subject of UFOs; Writer, planner and commentator on "Ultimate UFO," a 2-DVD set of UFO footage and commentary (2000). He was Executive Assistant to Budd Hopkins for more than ten years and a founding member of Hopkins’ Intruders Foundation (IF). Peter is a member of the foundation’s Advisory Board and is a regular contributor to the IF Bulletin. He is currently Public Relations Representative and Speakers Conference Coordinator for the City of Roswell, New Mexico.

Peter was Research Assistant on the United Nations Secretary General's 1978 Report “for the establishment of a UN-UFO Department" and Editorial Assistant on [requested] "Blue Memorandum" for Parliament’s House of Lords 1980 Debate on UFOs. He also served as Art Director and investigator for the New York City-based Scientific Bureau of Investigation (SBI), a national police officer’s UFO research organization. He created and produced "The Question of UFO's," a six-part series for Manhattan Public Access TV. He is currently working for the City of Roswell, NM as Speaker Coordinator and Media Liaison for the 2008 Roswell UFO Conference and Festival.

Television appearances include consultant and participant to The SCI FI Channel’s feature documentary, “UFO Invasion At Rendlesham,” and The History Channel’s “Britain’s Roswell.” He’s been a guest on "Unsolved Mysteries," "A Current Affair," "Good Day New York," “The O’Reilly Factor,” “People Are Talking (Philadelphia),” “Philly Live,” "The Geraldo Show," "Borderline," "The SciZone, "Unexplained," "L'Odyssee De L'Etrange" (France), "Network First: UFO" (UK), “Paranormal Witness” (Horizon UK), "Lifetime" (Canada), “The New Yorkers” (NYC), "Digital Café" (Discovery International), Chilean National TV, Norwegian National Television, French-Canadian television, and numerous BBC TV affiliates.

Radio interviews and commentary include appearances on “Coast to Coast” (CA), "The Art Bell Show" (Nevada), “Hieronimus & Company” (Baltimore), “Wake Up U.S.A.” (New Orleans), "Strange Daze," (Los Angeles), "Sightings On the Radio with Jeff Rense” (Los Angeles), “The James Whale Show” (London), “The Alan Colmes Show” (NYC), "The Laura Lee Show” (Oregon), “Radio Mysterioso” (LA), "The Mike Jarmus Show," "Deminski & Doyle" and “We Are Not Alone” (MI), “Now That’s Weird” (Somerset UK), “Eye To the Sky” (AZ), “Beyond Reality" (RI), Stein Online" (Compuserve), "The Enigma Connection," "Strange" (BBC World Service - Iran), Columbia University Radio (NYC), WBAI-NY's "UFO Desk," "Strange Days Indeed with Errol Bruce-Knapp” (Toronto), “The Jerry Pippin Show,” “Ufonaut Radio” (LA CA), "UFO's - Fact, Fiction or Fantasy?" (BBC World Service), “The James Hunt Hour” (KGNC TX), “The Head Room” (London), “The Tazz and Paula Show” (CA), “Through the Keyhole” (Rochester, NY); “The Truth Files;” and numerous BBC Radio affiliates.

Peter is a native New Yorker and can be reached at 607-351-6537, or by email at .

The revised and updated edition of Left at East Gate: A First-Hand Account of the Rendlesham Forest UFO Incident, Its Cover-Up and Investigation by Larry Warren and Peter Robbins is published by Cosimo Books, NYC and can be ordered from any online book source.

[PRinNY]

Thanks for your welcome Jan. Larry Warren, my good friend and co-author on "Left At East Gate" encouraged me to visit your website and become involved. Considering the depth and length of my involvement in this case, I have not been much for participating is forums or online discussions on Rendlesham, but this site is the best one I've seen dedicated to it. I'm something of a novice at this, but look forward to being a part of this dialogue and in particular will do my best to address any questions from readers of Left At East Gate (in its original 1997 edition published by Michael O'Mara Books, London, or in the updated edition published by Cosimo Press in New York City).
PRinNY 8-25-08

[AdrianF]

Hi Peter,

Glad you've joined the site and look forward to your input.

Cheers

Adrian

[PRinNY]

Thank you Adrian, and glad to be on board. Its funny, but in more than 30 years in this field, I've continued to observe this case seems to have the greatest longevity. By example, I was asked to speak about it last month in Roswell, will be doing so in October at a conference in New Jersey, in November in Italy (I think), In NYC in December, and next March in New Mexico, and the conference organizers who've invited me have had their choice of a variety of topics..

[Observer]

Hi Peter and welcome
Just two small points that need clearing up concerning nuclear weapons at Bentwaters and stealth aircraft.
Firstly, the HOT ROW system in the WSA at Bentwaters to house Nukes was built by MOD contractors for the USAF thus making their existance to the British Government fact. These weapons were small tactical theatre weapons ranging in power fro 1/2 KT to around 5 KT. There may have been others of a more powerful nature but the vast majority were in that range and were small enough to be carried by the F-16 & F-15 fighters. The A-10 was not nuclear capable. RAF Woosbridge did not have a HOT ROW system enstalled so had no NW weapons stored there.

If you are referring to the F-117 fighter bomber, it was a subsonic aircraft and its flight envelope was limited to subsonic missions because its airframe was considered not robust enough to with stand the sonic shock wave plus it was not that efficiant in its 'area rule' for supersonic flight.
Observer

[PRinNY]

Hello Observer, and thank you for your thoughtful posting. We civilians may likely never know the absolute specifics surrounding the nuclear presence in Suffolk, but I think all of the tech specifics you cite are accurate. At the time Larry and I were investigating this subject, I was not sure if RAF Woodbridge had nuclear storage facilities similar to those at Bentwaters. And while we can agree that elements within the MoD (as well as the specific contractors involved in its construction) were aware of the existence of the HOT Row storage capacities, we do not know for sure if they were aware - or to what degree they may have been aware - that actual nuclear ordinance were stored there during the time in question.
Peter

[Observer]

Hi Peter
Thanks for your reply and i take note of your remarks on this.
I was in the RAF/ROC [Royal Observer Corps] during most of the cold war period and we were fully aware of the NW weapons stored at Bentwaters. It had become public knowledge that RAF bomber stations in Norfolk and Lincolnshire that had 'V' bombers at these bases were Nuke carriers. These were the big ones, Thermo nuclear megaton weapons, either free fall or stand off. We were not allowed under the OSA to talk about these bases including USAF bases or what weapons were stored there. The USAF were dependant on GB for the security of information concerning their roles in the UK.
The British Government were fearful of the public finding out about NW at US bases in the UK as there could well be demonstrations by CND etc which would disrupt the smooth running of very important front line bases. Sadly this did happen at RAF/USAF Greenham Common which made international news.
No HOT ROW was enstalled at RAF Woodbridge. If you pose the question to the MOD today, they would simply say that they have no comment to make.
It was the public who were kept in the dark by the authorities and one reason was that they did not want the Soviets to find out as it would then become a major target.
Obs

[PRinNY]

Hi Observer.
I appreciate your sharing this information with us and do not know anyone else who was in the ROC during this period. Some of your observations are as fascinating as they are chilling. How particularly unnerving to think that, had these facts been exposed during this period in the Cold War, Suffolk and its surroundings would have been a number one target priority by the Soviets. Considering all of the military installations in place there at the time, it was no doubt already an area of ranking concern.
Best,
Peter

[PRinNY]

Hi John,

Apologies for the delay in responding to this post. Over the years I think I've heard about every theory and explanation and considered a number of them myself. First let's quickly go over the things which, in my opinion, the RFI was NOT:
A meteor shower
The Orford Ness Lighthouse
Some sort of well executed hoax
The misinterpreted lights of a police or military vehicle
A re-entered satellite which crashed in Suffolk
A crashed aircraft
A crashed UFO
Law Enforcement and/or Security Police hallucinating as a result of on-duty recreational drug use (how infuriatingly insulting this one was!)
You know that at one time or another each of these explanations have been put forward by one 'researcher' or another.

I also dismiss the notion that the operative factor here was demons and minions of the devil as predicted in the Book of Revelations and related Biblical prophecy. I would distinguish this explanation from the others as my personal belief; I know that there are numerous people out there who believe that this is the explanation for all UFO related activity.

For me there are a handful of explanations worthy of serious consideration, no matter how unlikely they may seem to the unstudied. First and least likely, that the incident(s) were a black-ops project or some sort of 'official' psy-ops operation, sponsored by the Air Force, The MoD, the Dod, the NSA, MI6, etc. and/or a combination of these groups, the purpose bing to study how military personnel might react if such an incursion/series of events were actually to occur. Given the amount and variety of actual physical evidences which Larry Warren and I found, vetted and presented in Left At East Gate, I have to dismiss this one as a serious possibility.

An extraterrestrial intervention of some sort. Sure, possibly, but who knows? In a way this is the most conservative of the extraordinary explanations. While I cannot 'prove' this is the real deal here, I do tend to lean toward it.

Some sort of visitation by 'inter-dimensional' intelligences, for lack of a more description. Again, I can't say but feel this is worth considering.

The possibility that the beings were time travelers from our future. Given the Pandora's box-nature of the phenomenon we are faced with, this possibility cannot be dismissed anymore than the ET hypothesis can, and in fact is the one that my co-author leans toward.

When all is said and done though, my opinion is just that: I am clear that I do not know for sure what was behind the extraordinary events of December 1980, even given my years of intensive investigation and many return visits to Suffolk in search of additional evidence and witnesses. Hey, I've only been involved in UFO related studies for 30+ years and can still only make educated deductions about the underlying realities we face. Perhaps if I were able to channel ancient Martians or received messages from the Galactic Command I'd have an edge, but alas, this is not the case. Hope these thoughts help some..

Peter

[Observer]

Peter
Thank you for that intelligent and honest synopsis of the RFI. it has in a way put a certain perspective to some of the theories that this forum has presented, i for one being guilty of some of them.
It seems that our human nature tends to guide us to the most science 'fiction' of explanations and we have done a few of them. Our imaginations have run wild, and there's nothing wrong in that but we do on occasions need to be brought down to earth and reality.
I will end by by quoting a remark made [about 2 years after the event] to me by an old friend who was a crew chief in the ARRS on a HH-53 helicopter during that period. He said [ and he obviously knew the score] "If i told you what happened you wouldn't believe me any way and i value my stripes too much". This was interestingly said with a broad grin. So i guess he could see a funny side to it yet a serious one as well.

That surely must put some sort of perspective onto the RFI?
Obs

[PRinNY]

Hi Observer,
Good to hear back from you. I think its important to remember that whatever happened in Suffolk over the three nights in question is confounding to even the most open and informed minds, and the tendency to want to grab on to a single explanation and hold on to it to the exclusion of all the others is nothing if not human. I've tried to hold Conan Doyle's deductive reasoning close in sorting through the layers of this onion - begin with the most mundane possibilities and make your way to the more phenomenal only after fully vetting every aspect of each explanation put forward. Its so romantic to herald the dramatic, dark and controversial, especially these days. Maybe together we can figure this out. One thing is certain to me, when personal disagreements and vendettas are considered more important to some of the involved personnel than engaging in an open, honest exchange, we are all the losers.
Peter

[Observer]

Hi Peter
We have all had our arguments and disagreements from time to time on this forum.
I was not aware of vendettas as such and who it was between.
There are those who stick to one theory and have had to take a 'beating' because of it, but they have every right to put forward that theory and they have every right to defend it.
There is a wealth of expertise amongst our forum membership and this can be seen in some of the posts we read.
Our US witnesses such as Larry Warren and John Burroughs have been such a bonus to our investigations and we have all welcomed their input and ideas.
I reached a rather negative conclusion some time ago and that was we may never find out what really happened unless some one comes clean and tells us. I wonder who that could be?

This brings me to two of the main players who are not forum members, Lt Col C Halt Ret. and Sergeant Jim Penniston Ret. In particular, Halt has recently said that he has a whole lot more information but he is keeping it quiet as an insurance. I can't quite make out what he means by that.

I'm also surprised that some are not talking to each other and that in its self suggests that there are some disassociations going on because each are now telling slightly different accounts of the event.
There are so many contradictions and gaping holes in this mystery that it is in reality no more nearer the truth than when we started.
Personally i have in my humble estimation and with the help of a mate got this incident into the right ball park, but it is very early days to offer up any assumptions.
Obs

[PRinNY]

You've called me on an important point. I am glad that you have both Larry Warren and John Burroughs as contributors to this forum as well. I'm a lot more familiar with Larry's experiences than with John's but do have some sense of his as well. These United States Air Force veterans enlisted to serve their country and suffered in numerous ways for this privilege I think I can say the same about Jim Penniston, though we've never met or spoken.

Charles Halt should be respected for his service to his country and anyone who says otherwise is simply wrong. He has seen his career suffer as a result of having had his name associated with the event, but in my opinion is both a victim and a part of the secret keeping establishment here. But there is another dimension to his involvement. I was not there on any of the nights in question, but almost a decade of investigating this incident to the exclusion of all else and an additional dozen years of staying with the case, does give me the right to say that I am convinced Charles Halt has gone out of his way to marginalize Larry Warren's event related involvement, credibility and perceptions. I have witnessed or been made aware of several examples of this type of behavior. More, I am convinced that he has also worked to turn honorable witnesses like Jim Penniston against Larry. Why? There is no doubt more than one reason, but I'm convinced that a central one is Larry was THE - not a whistleblower on this incident. It was Larry's direct action which caused the release of the January 1981 'Halt document' and the now famous segment of Halt's audio recording of his and his men's reactions to the UFO they were observing in the Rendlesham Forest. In fact it is not out of the question that this seminal story may never have broken if it were not for his courage, anger and pain.

When the story did beak in October 1983, it was Charles Halt's name that was front and center in the press coverage, not Larry's or Jim's or John's. Halt was a Lt. Col when the event took place. He was a full Colonel when he retired a dozen years later. Its an understatement to say that this association was NOT an asset for Lt. Col Halt, nor was being referred to as the 'UFO Col.' behind his back. In so many words, Larry Warren outed Charles Halt, and a good number of the other men involved in the RFI. And if Charles Halt wish or Jim Penniston wish to take issue with me on this, I am not hard to find. Where do we go from here? I know that I would like to see all of the witnesses, or as many of them as is realistically as possible, be brought together to talk this out among themselves. I know I'd pay good money to see that..

Peter

[Observer]

Thanks Peter, i take on board what you say, i too would love to get everybody together for a chat and see where that goes.
You may have noticed that 90% of the posts on this forum are connected to theories that this incident was a man made event. Very few delve into the not from here theory.
There is a strong belief amongst some members that this incident was simply a cover up of an accident that involved a nuclear or chemical weapon that they did not want the British Government to find out about.

There is quite a bit of evidence to support this theory but it is a long way from being conclusive.
Every theory we have come up with has some evidence that fits, but all have gaping holes that seem impossible to fill. Using Conan Doyle's idea that the evidence must form the theory rather than finding theories to fit the evidence is proving harder to achieve than i first thought.
Thanks again for your continued interest and i hope you will keep contributing.

Obs

[PRinNY]

Hi Observer. While I have surfed some of the commentary and exchanges on this website, I must admit I've just been too busy to do in any truly in depth manner. With all due respect to the theorists and the military cover-up variety of theories which see to dominate here, I have to take exception. I'll put my and Larry Warren's investigation, research and conclusions up against anyone's. All we ask is that anyone who wants to call us on any of our opinions (which do not always agree) of findings, at least read "Left At East Gate" First..
Peter

[Observer]

Hi Peter
I have always thought that Larry told us how he saw it and with your help put it down as script for the book Left at East Gate which i have read.
There are one or two 'American' witnesses who queried if Larry was actually there on specific nights but i don't wish to get involved in those arguments. I wasn't there so my comment would be totally academic.
Larry is also the only witness to have claimed to have seen more objects with descriptions and 'entities'.
Jim describes an object in the forest along with his sketches which he re draws at a later date. One wonders how he managed to describe the top surface of this 'craft' that according to him was at least 3m high, did he have a ladder? Why did he re do his sketches of the craft which ended up not that similar to the first sketches?
John Burroughs said he only ever saw lights and Halt never actually said he saw an object rather he saw lights maneuvering amongst the trees.
Most of the witnesses agreed on the light spectacular in the air and the electrostatic atmosphere, but apart from that their stories are all slightly different. I can understand that they each had their own perspective on what they saw which is quite understandable, but they are now beginning to question each other as to who has told the most accurate account.

I think there is a bit of truth in all the statements but along with that there is also some embellishment going on. Charles Halt has changed his story over time and you can prove that by reading his early accounts and then listen to more recent interviews.
I just wish that JP and CH would come on the forum but they obviously have their reasons not to.
Regards
Obs

[PRinNY]

Hi Observer -

Forgive the shortened response. Packing for a travel related job and will not be in regular contact for a bit. A number of other personnel involved have confirmed privately that they also observed the beings in Capel Green on the third night but have made it clear they do not want to go on the public record as saying so. I can't blame them - look at what the skeptics (as well as members of the UFO research community) have taken Larry apart over the years for having had the courage to put himself on the record in this respect. By the way, and I'm working from memory on this, another eye witness (face obscured) confirmed Larry's observation in CNN's 1984 2 part Special Investigation (the networks' very first) hosted by their respected investigative reporter Chuck DeCaro. You might want to review the interview we did with him that appears in Left At East Gate.

I don't know what to say about Jim Penniston's account, though, like you, I would welcome the opportunity to discuss the matter with him. I do not feel comfortable commenting here on John's stated memory of the first night's events, and I'm not sure he is either. Again, considering how viciously Larry Warren has been attacked for so long by so many, I don't blame John in the least. Yes, I agree, Halt has adjusted his account over the years; something he has accused Larry of on a number of occasions. All the more reason I'd also like to see Mr. Halt and Mr. Penniston on line here.

Peter



There are one or two 'American' witnesses who queried if Larry was actually there on specific nights but i don't wish to get involved in those arguments. I wasn't there so my comment would be totally academic.
Larry is also the only witness to have claimed to have seen more objects with descriptions and 'entities'.
Jim describes an object in the forest along with his sketches which he re draws at a later date. One wonders how he managed to describe the top surface of this 'craft' that according to him was at least 3m high, did he have a ladder? Why did he re do his sketches of the craft which ended up not that similar to the first sketches?
John Burroughs said he only ever saw lights and Halt never actually said he saw an object rather he saw lights maneuvering amongst the trees.
Most of the witnesses agreed on the light spectacular in the air and the electrostatic atmosphere, but apart from that their stories are all slightly different. I can understand that they each had their own perspective on what they saw which is quite understandable, but they are now beginning to question each other as to who has told the most accurate account.

I think there is a bit of truth in all the statements but along with that there is also some embellishment going on. Charles Halt has changed his story over time and you can prove that by reading his early accounts and then listen to more recent interviews.
I just wish that JP and CH would come on the forum but they obviously have their reasons not to.
Regards
Obs

[robert]

With all due respect to the theorists and the military cover-up variety of theories which see to dominate here, I have to take exception.

Peter,
Welcome to the forum.
Re your above quote. please don't be worried about anyones theory dominating the Rendlesham incident.
If you want to put a new string out that is not black ops or of a military related source then I for one will welcome such a contribution.

We are all interested in finding a solution ,or should be!, and any new theory that may fit in with each of our witnesses perpectives is most welcome.

We have, however, many questions still unanswered on all theories put forward by our witnesses in particular as I am sure you are well aware and I think we have to view these as a priority. The fact that our witnesses each have their own,sometimes differing, theories is a complication that needs to be addressed.
The added complication is that the experiences took place over three nights which makes it very difficult to coordinate a mutually agreed sighting or experience.

I agree by the way that Col. Charles Halt and Jim Penniston would be of enormous benifit to the Forum as would any new or fresh face that was an actual witness to these events.


Cheers for now.

Robert

[Observer]

Larry Warren and John Burroughs have been absolute stars on this forum and have contributed greatly in our search for the truth. One thing is certain, they are amongst friends and to my knowledge no one has tried to take Larry or John apart. Yes, some of our questions have been 'robust' at times especially when frustration rears its ugly head which is par for the course considering the subject.

Totally agree, that over 90% of our enquiries have been in the 'man made' area and very few have looked at the 'not from here' subject. Trouble with the latter is just where do you start and there probably will never be a bottom line to it. This is why the former is easier to follow as we have lots of things to go on.

At the moment all we seem to be doing is Gap Filling on man made scenarios which is quite frankly not currently achieving much.
It really would be great if more first hand witnesses came forward and joined in with us.
Obs

[PRinNY]

Yes, forum members see to appreciate Larry and John for who they are and what they ahvwe been through. I hope they will come to be seen as role models among other men and women who were involved to one degree or another, and that more former (and active?) USAF personnel find their way to the forum and add their voices, experience and thoughts to this uniquely important dialogue.
Peter