Upcoming shows for February

I must have turned around again, because Nick Redfern has a new book out. Nick will be on the show February 19th to discuss Keep Out!: Top Secret Places Governments Don’t Want You to Know About. We’ll most certainly get into the Dulce Base controversy during our conversation.

I will post a previously unavailable, archived show or two during the two-week hiatus until then.

Audience question: should I have Peter Robbins on to talk about the new Rendlesham Incident controversy?

This entry was posted in upcoming shows. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to Upcoming shows for February

  1. Sagacious says:

    In my opinion having Robbins on about the new controversy could be worthwhile. It will be if he will have formulated a response to it.

  2. Having Peter on the show is always a great experience, controversy or not 🙂

    But yes, I’m interested in hearing his opinion re. this ‘new’ development. I use the marks because it is not the first time Rendlesham was considered some kind of test or false flag UFO event. Jacques Vallee proposed the same thing in Revelations.

    The problem I have with Vallee, and keep having in Sacha’s new findings, is that they fail to mention the heated political context in which the incident occurred. Left At Est Gate explains how NATO bases were on high alert because the Russians were reading shock troops on the Polish border, ready to stop Lech Walessa and his plans for Democracy.

    Conducting PsyOps games right on the middle of a conflict that could have potentially escalated into WW3?

    Another thing Sacha doesn’t mention was the briefing the guards had with what appeared to be Navy & NSA officials, where they were shown alleged pictures of strange craft taken in several different theaters of war, including one that appeared to have been taken on the surface of the Moon by an Apollo astronaut. Shouldn’t that have been the perfect moment to come clean and say to those shaken boys “it was all a test fellas”?

  3. Andy Banham says:

    I would be very interested to hear this other angle on Bentwaters. I grew up in a town not far from Bentwaters called Bury St Edmunds. During 1980-81 my family and I experienced regular sleep paralysis, poltergeist activity and light orbs in the family home. I was assaulted by some sort of entity, which resulted with me sleeping with the lights on until I was 16 years old. Some of my family experienced assaults as well. I also have a clear memory of what appeared to me to be a slow moving fireball flying low over our house during this time in my childhood. These experiences greatly changed my perception of reality. This has always been thought of as a haunting by my family, but as I got older I noticed many similarities with the abduction experience. Now I’m not so sure.
    We also lived close to the Lakenheath and Mildenhall air bases, and my parents had many friends who worked on the base when they had a brief flirtation with the Mormon faith during this time period. I have sometimes wondered in my later years if all this was somehow connected to the airbases in my county, as we seem to have a lot of bases for such a small region.
    The whole psy-ops theory is quite a new one to me, but it would make sense and seems more probable to me than UFOs or ghosts.

    • Greg says:

      Hello Andy,

      Thanks for commenting on the site.

      I am encouraged by your comments as they seem to support the idea that paranormal events often cannot be pigeonholed into neat categories.

      See my overall answer about the psy-ops angle to Bentwaters.

  4. Matt McKenzie says:

    There’s also the question of provenance and authenticity of the documents.

    After all, isn’t it just as likely that the government would create a false paper trail to make a truly unexplained event look like a psy-ops exercise? And wouldn’t the government be more likely to muddy the waters in this manner when the incident calls into question their ability to protect and control a nuclear weapons storage facility?

    At the very least, declaring the documents to be a “solution” strikes me as terribly naive.

  5. Is the controversy that this was a staged event for psychological purposes? This is hardly a “controversy” – I mean – the whole dang thing is a controversy – isn’t it.

    Here’s a question, when Peter Robbins visited the area of the sighting for the first time while researching the book, he was with Larry Warren, and they BOTH SAW UFOs IN THE SKY.

    This implies that the team of secret spy-ops guys would have needed to stage that too. They would need to be waiting for a decade until Peter and Larry left their quaint little British inn and strolled around the farmland near the base.

    And this must mean Col. Halt is in on it somehow. He lied to Peter Robbins when he claimed that the nuclear ordinance was “adversely” effected.

    What was shooting those blue beams down into the nuclear bunker? This was witnessed by men in the watch tower.

    The base was on a heightened state of alert because of the tensions with Poland durn one of the hottest moments in the cold war. This seems an odd time to run a drill. I mean, this was a big air base loaded with weapons. I wouldn’t wanna be hiding in the woods controlling a fake ufo with a bunch of terrified airmen with guns!

    just a thought.
    Mike C!

    • Greg says:

      RPJ, Mike, Matt and BF,

      I was thinking of these issues as well (at least some of them) and I think it comes down, as Matt wrote, to the provenance of the document(s).

      Specifically, did this supposed psychology conference take place? Are the authors around to verify their work? Are the technologies mentioned in their paper actually in existence? Unless all of these issues (and any other claims contained in the document) are satisfied, the issue remains open. If any are proved to be false (not just unproved, but false) then the whole document can be ignored. I believe that conjecture about what would or would not have been appropriate at the base at the time or second guessing without any other information is subservient to this issue.

      Bentwaters has not been proven to be anything specific. It was apparently a strange and highly unusual series of events that appear to stem from an extraordinary source. There’s not much beyond that, at least until we can prove beyond any doubt that the events were caused by a non-human agency, which may never happen. If the psy-ops angle can be proven, so be it. The preceding is my opinion only, of course.

      I will give Peter a yell this week.

    • Matthew McKenzie says:

      The more I think about this, the less sense it makes. As Mike and others pointed out, this was an incredibly dangerous time. Pulling a stunt like this within spitting distance of a nuclear weapons storage area would have made a mockery of the Air Force’s Human Reliability Program, compromised the personnel charged with protecting and maintaining those weapons, and interfered with the base’s ability to respond to mission orders that might have come through at ANY time during that period.

      The bottom line: Choosing this setting for a psy-ops exercise would have been insane, and it almost certainly would have been halted at the highest levels of the military. Under the circumstances, alien visitation actually sounds like a rational and sober possibility by comparison. There’s no way it went down like that.

  6. BF says:

    Spot on Mr Celland and all involved would be rolled over the coals by US & NATO if it was a so called spy-ops because all the N stations would go one high alert rather think its maybe a hoax. Unless there was no N there in first place? Also insults the Cold War Servicemen credible eyewitness testimonies.

  7. You boiled it down to the essentials, Greg. Following the paper trail is definitely the 1st step to take.

  8. pete says:

    Another yes to hear a show about the latest developments in the Rendlesham incident with Peter Robbins.

    Also love the idea of RA Wilson show as I don’t know anything about him.

    Be great to hear about other fringe cultural topics that interest you that aren’t necessarily UFO related, maybe… The Diggers, Gurdjieff, Cults, Church of Subgenius, etc, whatever intrigues you.

  9. Jim Parks says:

    Robbins gave a basic breakdown of the Rendlesham Forest incident in his interview on BoA. But later, I read some other reports that either contradicted or omitted parts of Robbins’ version. One issue seems to be whether Larry Warren is a reliable witness — or was even there at all. I would just like to get the story straight — or as straight as possible. Who was involved? And for how many nights. The last night that Robbins discussed involved the MPs being ordered to — for some reason — surround a smallish hovering craft and observe it and somehow interact with it. This is the part where my skeptical spidey senses really tingled. The sub-tingle of “too good to be true”, to be specific. I guess if it was all some military psy-ops experiment, then maybe the shadowy figures behind it would have wanted to know how these MPs would repsond. But it all starts to get very damned complicated!

  10. Sagacious says:

    Plausibility issues do not apply only to the traditional Rendlesham account. There is a lot to be questioned with regard to Sacha Christie’s revisionist story. A realistic holographic display augmented by electromagnetic waves which directly influenced the minds of the military personnel. Really. Is such technology available? And was it available back then? Where else has it been used since it purportedly works so well. Of course, allegations about Operation Bluebeam would suggest that she could be right. But I don’t believe the Bluebeam story has ever been definitively proven.

  11. Greg says:

    Perhaps Earthly explanations, even though implausible, should be given 51% over the believability median, since I do not currently think that the ETH has been sufficiently proven.

    However, as I mentioned before, documentable paper trail or it didn’t happen.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *