Peter Robbins: Rendlesham Controversy

Peter Robbins was on the show for his third appearance to discuss the psychological warfare theory of the Rendlesham Incident. His and Larry Warren’s 1997 book Left At East Gate is considered the standard account, and while he does think that there may have been psychological warfare aspects to the story, they definitely do not explain everything, particularly the main encounters of December 26th and December 28, 1980, when Air Force security personnel apparently encountered two strange objects.

In early February, British researcher Sacha Christie claimed that the whole affair was a psychological test or exercise to test the security of the nuclear weapons at Bentwaters Air Force Base. She referred to a document which seemed to indicate that the technology to produce all the reported events and effects were available in 1980. I can’t seem to find any specific references to the Rendlesham events or Bentwaters in the document, but that doesn’t mean that there isn’t a connection or that Christie is wrong. She has been invited to the Rendlesham conference this year, to talk about her abduction research and her own UFO experiences. Peter talked about why he seriously doubts Christie’s conclusions.

I believe that we covered all the questions sent in by listeners and even discussed Peter’s work with abduction researcher Budd Hopkins. Peter has always been an intelligent, thoughtful researcher who is honest about his work, motivations, and the fact that his opinions are open for discussion.

Peter’s Wilhelm Reich papers referenced in the program:
Wilhelm Reich and UFOs Pt.1

Wilhelm Reich and UFOs Pt.2

Wilhelm Reich, Orgone Energy, and UFOs


This entry was posted in abductions, conferences. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Peter Robbins: Rendlesham Controversy

  1. Seems like the “Questions for Peter Robbins” post got abducted by aliens 😉

    • Greg says:

      I took it off the page, since the show already happened. I kept it in the site archive though for the information that people so helpfully gave me on live broadcasting.

  2. James says:

    Thanks for including my question about the Reich / Cloud Buster connection. I would love to see you take Peter up on his offer to do another show about it sometime, since its very interesting and he makes it sound like there’s a lot more to that story.. Great show!

    I’d also really like to read that research material he mentioned posting online

    • Greg says:

      I’m glad you enjoyed it. We’ll do another show just on Reich. Maybe I can get Kenn Thomas on for it as well.

  3. Thanks for asking my question, BTW 🙂

  4. Andy Banham says:

    Thanks for asking my question about the code in the notebook Greg. As suspected the answer seems to be about filthy lucre rather than the truth. Rendlesham the movie anyone? Peter was an absolute gentleman as usual and I look forward to seeing him at the Rendlesham conference in June. I too am fascinated with the Reich / Cloud Buster connection. I remember the great storm of 1987 in the UK. What I remember the most was the seemingly unatural sound of the storm. Many people remarked at the time of the supernatural sounding scream of the wind. I have certainly not heard anything like it since. We have a lot of American bases in Suffolk. It would not surprise me at all if they have tested technology from time to time.

  5. JT says:

    Great interview, lucid and informative. I particularly loved the Reich connection/discussion, and do hope you’ll have the opportunity to talk about this at more length with Peter.

    Bringing up Reich always makes me think of Trevor James Constable and his theories of his plasma-based amoeba-like ‘critters’ he found in the infra-red range, floating in the upper atmosphere. He used Reichian cloudbusters to draw them in and had interesting theories… I remember he mentioned somewhere that he’d moved on from cloudbusters to using geometric shapes to draw in the organisms. Completely left-field and almost Lovecraftian, but just crazy enough to have some possible discoveries in the mix.

    Greg, did you ever get to talk to him?

    • Greg says:

      Sorry about the long delay in reply.

      No, I never spoke to Constable. As far as I know, he’s still alive. Would be a great interview if someone could locate him.

  6. John Randall says:

    Hi Greg , maybe I’m the only one who didn’t enjoy this conversation. Mr Robbins ,who I thought did some great work on some of the Rendlesham case and Wilhelm Reich, but in regards to the Hopkins book ” Sight Unseen ” dropped the ball. Has he read any of George Hansen’s ( and his colleagues) analysis of the Linda Cortile case? Not to mention all the problems with hypnosis? Just wondering.

    • Greg says:


      I don’t know if he’s read any of the analyses on hypnosis. I have a friend who is a trained hypnotherapist and his opinion is that suggestibility is high during hypnosis, as well as a subconscious desire to work with the hypnotist on an outcome that is mutually acceptable. This can mean anything from wish fulfillment to an honest desire to get to the root of a problem, whatever it happens to be. To me, this makes it a tool in the box, but not necessarily the only one and not reliable enough of the time to make it a yardstick for recall of events.

      Peter Robbins saw hypnotic recall bolstered with what he felt was objective proof. I cannot comment on the accuracy of his perceptions, and as I point out in the show, I might have a different opinion had I been involved as he was with Hopkins. I am not convinced, but I reserve judgment (as with most things in the paranormal realm.)

      • John Randall says:

        Hi Greg, thanks for responding. I agree that hypnosis is not a useful tool. But also thought it was odd that in the Hopkin’s book
        the subject in question’s experiences parallel almost exactly a book that came out a year before her claims. The paper Stefula, Butler , and Hansen have written is very compelling IMO.
        Thanks again ,really enjoy the podcast.

  7. John Randall says:

    Here’s the link for anyone is interested :

  8. James says:

    Thanks so much for hosting the Reich docs!

  9. Sean Meers says:

    For the actual facts about Linda’s case:

Leave a Reply

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