Rendlesham Forest Authors Arguing

[Angel of Ioren]

It looks like the authors of the most famous book about the Rendelsham Forest incident are arguing. It seems as though one of the authors no longer believes the other about his account about what happened.

Take a look at the article. A few well known names are mentioned.

 

[ChrisJohnsen]

Not just arguing, Robbins has completely disavowed Larry Warren and now says he was duped by his longtime colleague and (former) friend. It was a long time coming, none of the other Rendelsham experiencers had anything good to say about Warren and all of them doubted his story.

Speaking of disavowing, Robbins is still a big Budd Hopkins supporter though. They were very close friends while Budd was alive. Maybe Robbins will come to his senses about his other old friend too some day...

 

[marduk]

I think Warren has basically destroyed the Rendlesham case.

It's a shame, too.

 

[Red]

I listened to the interview in question, Robbins doesn't get into the details. He does say that he will be going through the materials and writing a piece to address his allegations. On a side note, given that he calls Hopkins' work "scientific" in said interview, I'm not sure he'll be calling out Hopkins anytime soon.

 

[mike]

We might get more info out of this one.

Secret dossier dubbed 'Britain's X-Files' to be released after election - so what's supposed to be in them?

 

[kruggutter]

I listened to the interview in question, Robbins doesn't get into the details. He does say that he will be going through the materials and writing a piece to address his allegations. On a side note, given that he calls Hopkins' work "scientific" in said interview, I'm not sure he'll be calling out Hopkins anytime soon.

Just curious, on what evidence is it established that Hopkins' work is not quality work?

Many thanks,

Sean

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I went into this whole issue on my podcast last night in an episode that we'll be releasing in the next few weeks.
I always liked this case because it did involve some interesting observations, although nothing really points to anything to do with aliens. The account that does talk about anything paranormal seems to have become more and more conflated over the years.

 

[kruggutter]

I went into this whole issue on my podcast last night in an episode that we'll be releasing in the next few weeks.
I always liked this case because it did involve some interesting observations, although nothing really points to anything to do with aliens. The account that does talk about anything paranormal seems to have become more and more conflated over the years.

It's a very interesting development what has occurred. I look forward to perusing all available information on the matter.

Sincerely,

Sean

 

[marduk]

Just curious, on what evidence is it established that Hopkins' work is not quality work?

Many thanks,

Sean

How about we start with the fact that he wasn't a trained psychotherapist but he hypnotized subjects with wild abandon to 'recover memories.'

Although Hopkins had no formal psychological training,[49] he watched other professionals over an eight-year period and developed his own techniques.[15] In his opinion, these professionals, notably Robert Naiman, Aphrodite Clamar and Girard Franklin were quite skeptical of the reality of abduction claims, yet all uncovered detailed abduction scenarios from their patients.[60]

According to Hopkins, any feeling of uneasiness about a place, or any sense of lost time (that is often accounted for by daydreaming), could be attributed to alien abduction.[4] He believed aliens capable of blocking or submerging memories in the people they abducted.[34][49] Despite critics' warnings that practices such as the ones in which Hopkins engaged may cause serious psychological damage to the alleged abductees,[61] Hopkins insisted that regressive hypnosis[15] could unlock the experiences of his clients.[4][15] He gave little credence to experts such as psychologist Robert A. Baker, University of Kentucky,[61] whose scientific inquiries into the subject revealed that hypnosis can "transform a dream, a hallucination or fantasy into a seemingly-real event."[61] This transformation is known as the fabrication of spurious memories and is particularly common under hypnosis.

And end with this quote from his wikipedia page:

Hopkins, along with Dr. Elizabeth Slater who conducted psychological tests of abductees,[10] likened these experiences to rape,[42] specifically for the purpose of human reproductive capabilities.[40][43] In fact, Hopkins was inclined to dismiss his clients' conscious memory of abuse for more alien explanations.[40] He was an alarmist, rather than a spiritualist, in his approach to the alien visitations, believing the visitations to be apocalyptic[40] and that no good could come of these encounters.

Budd Hopkins - Wikipedia
(bolding mine)

 

[kruggutter]

How about we start with the fact that he wasn't a trained psychotherapist but he hypnotized subjects with wild abandon to 'recover memories.'



And end with this quote from his wikipedia page:


Budd Hopkins - Wikipedia
(bolding mine)

Thanks for your response. Are you thoroughly satisfied that the material you've presented from Wikipedia justifies the discreditation of
Budd Hopkins' work? Also, if there was material available that disproved the Wikipedia contentions you've cited, would you be personally
interested in learning of it and reviewing it?

Many thanks,

Sean

 

[marduk]

Thanks for your response. Are you thoroughly satisfied that the material you've presented from Wikipedia justifies the discreditation of
Budd Hopkins' work? Also, if there was material available that disproved the Wikipedia contentions you've cited, would you be personally
interested in learning of it and reviewing it?

Many thanks,

Sean

Let me put it this way.

I've read every one of his books.

They have all been put in the recycle bin.

It's garbage work. I believe he believed in what he was doing, and I believe he wanted to actually help people. I also believed he brought attention to the subject.

But at the end of the day I believe he likely harmed more people than he helped, added noise to the field, and discredited the whole thing.

His work is the definition of pseudoscience.

You can try to provide counterfactual arguments all you like, but there's no getting around the fact he used hypnotherapy when he was untrained and unlicensed to do so. In an attempt to recover memories that hypnotism doesn't generally help you recover.

And he came up with stories that literally no trained psychotherapist got. Including the late John Mack.

The inevitable conclusion was that he was a well-intentioned amateur that just confused people like me about their own experiences. And used them to drive his own agenda and ego.

 

[kruggutter]

Let me put it this way.

I've read every one of his books.

They have all been put in the recycle bin.

It's garbage work. I believe he believed in what he was doing, and I believe he wanted to actually help people. I also believed he brought attention to the subject.

But at the end of the day I believe he likely harmed more people than he helped, added noise to the field, and discredited the whole thing.

His work is the definition of pseudoscience.

You can try to provide counterfactual arguments all you like, but there's no getting around the fact he used hypnotherapy when he was untrained and unlicensed to do so. In an attempt to recover memories that hypnotism doesn't generally help you recover.

And he came up with stories that literally no trained psychotherapist got. Including the late John Mack.

The inevitable conclusion was that he was a well-intentioned amateur that just confused people like me about their own experiences. And used them to drive his own agenda and ego.

I appreciate your input. I hope you didn't mind my questions.

Thanks,

Sean

 

[Constance]

So is Robbins going to publish an evidential account of what he learned recently about falsifications of what Warren originally claimed in the book they coauthored? In the cited article Robbins says that what he has recently learned falsifies "in part" what Warren had described in 1980. What's the part that remains unfalsified?

I think Warren has basically destroyed the Rendlesham case.

I don't think so. He's only one of several witnesses to the three-day series of events at Rendelsham who have been willing to describe their experiences. There are obviously many other witnesses who won't do so for whatever reasons. We're never going to know the whole story of what happened there, but the complement of what has been reported (most of it consistent, and consistently maintained, over the years since those events) will continue to call for explanation.

 

[William Strathmann]

For anyone who has not heard Adrian Bustinza's interview with John Burroughs and Linda Howe. Skip to the 07.30 mark for Bustinza's interview, in which he gives his lengthy account without interruption. Bustinza corroborates Burroughs' account. Later in the show, former Sgt. Stacey Smith joins and also tells of seeing lights. For the last half-hour Warren joins, and Bustinza basically corroborates Warren's version. Bustinza sounds credible. Smith sounds credible.

So, I wonder if the problem between Robbins and Warren is less about events at Rendlesham, and more about Larry's personality?

In the opening segment, a recording of Burroughs' 1988 hypnotic regression is played, and the hypnotist asks an obvious leading question . . . For what it's worth . . .

 

[marduk]

The binary code stuff triggers my BS detector as well.

 

[ChrisJohnsen]

Any time Linda Moulton Howe is mentioned or involved triggers my BS detector.

 

[William Strathmann]

Any time Linda Moulton Howe is mentioned . . .

If LMH had been continually asking Bustinza questions I probably would ignore the interview. But Bustinza is basically given the floor to tell what he remembered, he seems reasonable and his account seems to line up with Burroughs, and with things that happened to Halt. So it seems to me that Bustinza adds to the general consensus that for a few days something very odd happened at Rendlesham involving lights and perhaps an object. But, yeah, the binary number download deal? Lot of muck seems to have surfaced along with the report of the strange lights. I don't think its the first time either.

 

[marduk]

The signal:noise ratio for Rendlesham is almost as bad as Roswell. What's the point in looking at it?

 

[Angel of Ioren]

The signal:noise ratio for Rendlesham is almost as bad as Roswell. What's the point in looking at it?

It was fun to look into and discuss on my podcast with a friend, and especially from a skeptical point of view. You're right though - the current mess of information that is available with this case is causing more harm than good. Its turning into Roswell, especially with all the lore that's been created around it.

 

[Constance]

For anyone who has not heard Adrian Bustinza's interview with John Burroughs and Linda Howe. Skip to the 07.30 mark for Bustinza's interview, in which he gives his lengthy account without interruption. Bustinza corroborates Burroughs' account. Later in the show, former Sgt. Stacey Smith joins and also tells of seeing lights. For the last half-hour Warren joins, and Bustinza basically corroborates Warren's version. Bustinza sounds credible. Smith sounds credible.

Thank you for linking this interview here, William. I did not know that Adrian Bustinza had finally broken his silence. Also glad to hear the testimony of Stacey Smith, who as I remember had commented publicly before. I agree with you that both Bustinza and Smith sound credible. I think they are indeed credible. Burroughs himself is immensely credible, and it appears that he himself has taken and maintained the lead in bringing out further testimony by people who were there in 1980 and will continue to do so. Re Warren, I think that it's now obvious that he was there in the thick of things on the third night. It's also clear that he has a personality problem -- an 'alpha male' tendency to want to control the conversation. He has, from the beginning, refused to be shut down by those attempting to cover up the events at Rendelsham-Bentwaters, and without his reporting early on we might never have known about this case. He obviously carries a lot of resentment toward Halt and others who attempted to discredit him, and who can blame him? This has gone on for years.[/quote]

So, I wonder if the problem between Robbins and Warren is less about events at Rendlesham, and more about Larry's personality?

That's probably a significant factor. But I also recall that Robbins published a further account of the Rendelsham events two or three years ago and received a great deal of flak over it on the internet. As I recall, Nick Pope got involved in that kerfuffle as well. I wonder what it must be like for Robbins to listen to Larry Warren talking into one of his ears and Nick Pope talking into the other. Anyone here know Robbins and the current state of his mind?

A few years ago there was a lengthy thread here about the Rendelsham-Bentwaters events on Don Ecker's forum, following an interview he had on his Darkmatters radio program. At that time additional information had been brought forward concerning the testimony of others at Rendelsham who had been working in two different observation towers during several of these night-time events. As I recall, one of these towers overlooked the weapons-storage area and someone in that tower reported seeing beams of light penetrating that location. The other tower, to my recollection, was a radar-equipped observation and communications tower, and one person working there had reported a brief visual sighting of an unidentified aerial object on one of the three nights. There was more referred to in Ecker's program and/or discussed in the thread concerning the removal two weeks after the major events of one or two nuclear weapons which, according to other reporting, were flown to an AFB/laboratory in the US. I'll try to find and post a link to that long discussion.

I just want to add that the Rendelsham-Bentwaters case fits hand in glove with the numerous similar ufo overflights and interferences with nuclear bases in the US {and in Russia} as reported by Robert Hastings in his book UFOs and Nukes, his further research into this subject continuing into the present.