December 7, 2014 — Peter Robbins

[Gene Steinberg]

In what is likely the most talked about episode of The Paracast ever, author and UFO researcher Peter Robbins accuses Nick Pope, who formerly ran the UFO desk at the UK Ministry of Defense, of being a disinformation agent. Robbins makes the claims in his new free seven-part eBook, "Deliberate Deception: A Case of Disinformation in the UFO Research Community," published by Phenomena Magazine.

You may download a copy of the book from here: "Deliberate Deception."

In response, Pope has issued the following statement to The Paracast:

"This certainly isn't the first time that I've been accused of generating disinformation. The theory that I'm still secretly working for the government is popular with many people in the UFO community. In view of my former government service, and the fact that John Burroughs and Jim Penniston served in the USAF, the manuscript for "Encounter in Rendlesham Forest" did need security clearance from both the DOD and the UK MoD. However, this doesn't mean that our book is part of some sinister government plot to undermine the UFO community and to discredit ufology more generally. Peter's central objection seems to be that Larry Warren isn't given much coverage or credit in "Encounter in Rendlesham Forest". But our book isn't about Larry Warren. It's the story of the Rendlesham Forest incident as seen through the eyes of John Burroughs and Jim Penniston. Peter's secondary objection is that "Left at East Gate" isn't cited as a source. While I understand that every author wants their own book to get a plug, as a journalist who has written for most of the UK's national newspapers, I know the importance of quoting primary sources. Thus, for example, when referring to questions about the Rendlesham Forest incident that were raised in the UK's parliament, we quote Hansard (the official record of UK parliamentary proceedings) and not a UFO book. The final criticism is that "Encounter in Rendlesham Forest" lacks footnotes and references. However, all the key documents and other information are either in our book's appendices, or are referred to in the main body of the text in such a way that they can be quickly and easily located by any readers who want to see them. Finally, despite the demonstrably false allegations that have been made against me, I wish Peter and Larry well."

We also discuss this episode and its ramifications in the latest edition of After The Paracast, which is available as an exclusive feature to subscribers of our premium service: Introducing The Paracast+ | The Paracast — The Gold Standard of Paranormal Radio

 

[wwkirk]

I assume he provides more evidence for Nick being a disinformation agent in the book than during the episode.
Gene, you seemed to buy Peter's claims. Nick may want to withdraw his promo for the show.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

That's pushing it; but Chris is more in favor of the idea as you might notice in the After The Paracast episode. I really have no final opinion, but certainly calling someone a disinfo agent is a harsh accusation. It's best for you to read the book. The actual text is short; most of it is appendix and citations. But remember that the issues involved are extremely complicated. There may be legitimate differences of opinion, but whether that rises to the level of disinformation I don't know.

As you see from Pope's comments, above, he denies the accusation yet still admits that he had to support his manuscript to the authorities before publication for reasons he explains. But that could just be a formality that he has to do. It doesn't indicate any existing connection with his "former" employers.

Still Robbins is clearly stung by the state of affairs, and he may have legitimate reason for his suspicions.

 

[Constance]

That's pushing it; but Chris is more in favor of the idea as you might notice in the After The Paracast episode. I really have no final opinion, but certainly calling someone a disinfo agent is a harsh accusation. It's best for you to read the book. The actual text is short; most of it is appendix and citations. But remember that the issues involved are extremely complicated. There may be legitimate differences of opinion, but whether that rises to the level of disinformation I don't know.

As you see from Pope's comments, above, he denies the accusation yet still admits that he had to support his manuscript to the authorities before publication for reasons he explains. But that could just be a formality that he has to do. It doesn't indicate any existing connection with his "former" employers.

Still Robbins is clearly stung by the state of affairs, and he may have legitimate reason for his suspicions.

Having read part of Robbins's 7-part ebook at this point, I think he does indeed have legitimate reasons for his complaints against Pope. I've found Pope to be generally useless to the development of ufo research. Partial information is not enough given the broad sweep of the cover-up of ufo information in his country and ours. Pope writes:

"The theory that I'm still secretly working for the government is popular with many people in the UFO community. In view of my former government service, and the fact that John Burroughs and Jim Penniston served in the USAF, the manuscript for "Encounter in Rendlesham Forest" did need security clearance from both the DOD and the UK MoD."

The fact is that Pope is indeed "still working for the government" whether he is presently being paid for his services or not. He's owned by his government to the considerable extent that he must have its permission to publish what he writes. This is not just 'a formality'. The PTB for whom Pope still works no doubt made it clear to him early on that he would be permitted no acknowledgement of Larry Warren's experiences as reported in Robbins's book. (Or else, and even worse, Pope censored himself from the beginning, knowing what to expect from his censors.)

You wrote "calling someone a disinfo agent is a harsh accusation." Too bad; disinformation is a harsh and suffocating reality.

 

[phoenixlightsrules]

i have been listening to this show for 4 years and never felt the need to sign up so i can comment on something, but tonight i did sign up cuz this guy is a nonstop talker blowhard, he is the definition, i've heard podcasts where he talks about the beautiful vacations he's had while on his ufo tour, he talks as if he is reading and he never stops talking, i for some reason cannot stand this guy, maybe we have conflicting star signs or some new age stuff like that, he never stops talking, if you don't stop him he will talk for one hour straight while forcing in his supposed credentials as he goes, god damn: does anyone agree with me? I haven't even listened to the episode yet and don't know if i will cuz this dud just irks me to the core of my being

 

[Gene Steinberg]

So you really don't know what he said. You just don't like him. At least you put your cards on the table.

 

[mosherj]

I did listen to Robbins and found him to be an interesting guest with thought provoking points of view. Yes, he did talk a lot but that's what he was there to do. No point in having a guest who says very little, that would be some bad radio..!!!!
I've read just about everything available about the Rendlesham Incident, I've even visited the site of the alleged encounter (as far as anyone can remember the exact location), and my problem with the many and various literate offerings, is that the facts are now suffering from what I call 'Roswell Syndrome'. People who were there have given conflicting accounts, not out of intentional subterfuge but simply because their memory of events looses its accuracy over time. (Can you say with absolute accuracy what were you doing precisely 22 days ago, never mind this time 10 years ago?). People who were almost certainly NOT there have jumped on the bandwagon and confused the whole issue with their own 'money-making' fictitious accounts. No doubt there has been some disinformation and 'fact fudging' from the officialdom of the USAF and RAF.
I personally don't think Nick Pope has anything to gain by disinforming anyone about Rendlesham; if he has, then Jon Burroughs and Jim Penniston must also be 'on the payroll', and I certainly don't think either of them are telling anything but the truth as far as they remember it.
I do have a problem with the account of Larry Warren/Art Wallace. I personally believe that he has extensively embellished his account of his own involvement in order to gain higher kudos. There is no doubt he was on active service at Bentwaters but considerable doubt as to whether he actually took part in the event.

 

[DaveM]

I did listen to Robbins and found him to be an interesting guest with thought provoking points of view. Yes, he did talk a lot but that's what he was there to do. No point in having a guest who says very little, that would be some bad radio..!!!!
I've read just about everything available about the Rendlesham Incident, I've even visited the site of the alleged encounter (as far as anyone can remember the exact location), and my problem with the many and various literate offerings, is that the facts are now suffering from what I call 'Roswell Syndrome'. People who were there have given conflicting accounts, not out of intentional subterfuge but simply because their memory of events looses its accuracy over time. (Can you say with absolute accuracy what were you doing precisely 22 days ago, never mind this time 10 years ago?). People who were almost certainly NOT there have jumped on the bandwagon and confused the whole issue with their own 'money-making' fictitious accounts. No doubt there has been some disinformation and 'fact fudging' from the officialdom of the USAF and RAF.
I personally don't think Nick Pope has anything to gain by disinforming anyone about Rendlesham; if he has, then Jon Burroughs and Jim Penniston must also be 'on the payroll', and I certainly don't think either of them are telling anything but the truth as far as they remember it.
I do have a problem with the account of Larry Warren/Art Wallace. I personally believe that he has extensively embellished his account of his own involvement in order to gain higher kudos. There is no doubt he was on active service at Bentwaters but considerable doubt as to whether he actually took part in the event.

Your points are all valid. The water has been muddied. I just don't see the point in discussing Rendlesham or Roswell. After all these years nothing has been proved without a shadow of a doubt. I believe those who want to keep those cases in the public view do so for strictly monetary reasons.

 

[Burnt State]

Both of you make good points. In some ways Robbins attack goes a long way to keep the case alive through controversy, and this increases sales for all concerned. Robbins' new text is not really that meaty at all, for all his talk of the 700 hours that went into it I was just baffled by all his vacation and family photos - relevance?

If anything I found Peter's discussion to be loaded with his own embellishments, especially his adamant stance that Pope would die for queen and country, before his own family, and all peppered with many platitudes for Pope at the same time? Bizarre.

What I heard Robbins say is that there is nothing new at all in Pope's book not talked about in his own Left At East Gate. And if there is nothing new and his primary complaint is truncated quotes and a lack of mention & citation then this whole discussion sounds more like sour grapes than anything convincing. I failed to hear or read anything in his discussion or book that amounts to the heavy charge of disinformation agent. It's all just spin as far as I could tell.

 

[Constance]

Both of you make good points. In some ways Robbins attack goes a long way to keep the case alive through controversy, and this increases sales for all concerned. Robbins' new text is not really that meaty at all, for all his talk of the 700 hours that went into it I was just baffled by all his vacation and family photos - relevance?

If anything I found Peter's discussion to be loaded with his own embellishments, especially his adamant stance that Pope would die for queen and country, before his own family, and all peppered with many platitudes for Pope at the same time? Bizarre.

What I heard Robbins say is that there is nothing new at all in Pope's book not talked about in his own Left At East Gate. And if there is nothing new and his primary complaint is truncated quotes and a lack of mention & citation then this whole discussion sounds more like sour grapes than anything convincing. I failed to hear or read anything in his discussion or book that amounts to the heavy charge of disinformation agent. It's all just spin as far as I could tell.

The issue seems to be that the effect of Pope's totally ignoring Warren's experiences at Rendelsham, including what he saw and heard among his close associates afterward, is to water down the available testimony concerning the three nights encompassed by the case. We're getting a highly contained, compliantly 'official' version of what happened at Rendelsham in this new book by Pope. Is that really worth the paper it's printed on and the purchase price you're charged for it? The effort to suppress the Robbins-Warren book is so studied that its title is mentioned nowhere in Pope's book even though Pope has included material from it. That's pretty blatant, and we should wonder why.

 

[Burnt State]

It seems to me that what Rendlesham shakes down to is two specific camps of witnesses, each with their own proponents, differing versions of reality and we are just watching some of the canon fodder. Each author wants to make their claim on the story. I'm sure in years to come, after all this dust settles and new binary codes are announced and reinterpreted, we will get the Bentwaters Dream Team and they will bicker over the last jars of landing site dirt and whether or not anything happened there at all.

Of course this infighting is just a microcosm of the larger pieces of ufology that also seems to enjoy tearing itself apart through competing versions, competing testimonies, out of thin air inventions and the many interpretations of the event. Just give it a bit of time and this whole thing will get chalked up to the nazis.

 

[mike]

Whether hes right about Nick or not, there is no denying Peter wants to be on the right side of history where UFO's are concerned. I cant fault his enthusiasm for that

I enjoyed the show and the after show discussion.

As ive said i never had a problem with the ads, but there is no doubt the ad free version which costs sweet bugger all, has a great flow and rhythm.

5 bucks gets you what ? 4 episodes ?

Try it, i'm sure you'll like it and want to take advantage of the value a years subscription represents

 

[Muadib]

Yeah, I'm with Burnt, seems like more of a case of hurt feelings and a difference of opinion than a case of government sponsored disinfo. Peters' objection seems to be that Nick is peddling his own brand of truth about the Bentwaters incident, but who in the hell in this field isn't? Should Nick Redfern be charged with spreading disinfo for writing Body Snatchers in the Desert? That book disagrees heavily with accepted UFO gospel on the Roswell incident, and all but ignores and discards the conclusions of several prominent researchers of Roswell, yet I don't think I've ever heard anyone seriously posit that Nick is a disinfo agent.

Honestly, after all of the conflicting accounts and evolving stories from the main witnesses, I don't know how anyone can say with a straight face that this is still one of the landmark cases in the field. It seemed very promising at one time, and certain aspects do still seem highly anomalous and unexplained, but with all the shenanigans and specious, after the fact stories that have since emerged, combined with the major discrepancies and holes in the individual accounts, imo it's time to put this one to bed and move on. I have to agree that much like Roswell, we're never going to get the full story, and even if we did, I have a sneaking suspicion that most of us wouldn't buy it unless it confirmed what we think we already know.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

The following email from Peter Robbins responds to Nick Pope's statement, quoted in the opening message in our thread. It is reprinted here with permission:

Hi Gene,

Thank you for cc’ing me on Nick's email to you and Chris and my apologies the delayed response. While cordial and seemingly straightforward in its wording, my old friend does here in microcosm what he repeatedly does throughout his narrative in Encounter In Rendlesham Forest, that is, state something as factual when in reality it is not. Should you wish, I will respond with point-by-point examples, but they are already all laid out in detail in Deliberate Deception, a text-only version of which is attached [see the next message]. I continue to feel however that the appropriate forum for such an undertaking would be in a respectful, moderated discussion of our differing points of view in a public forum, either face to face or under the auspices of a respected radio program like The Paracast, something which Nick has repeatedly demurred. But, to my issues with Nick’s response to you.

He begins with a reference to allegations of his having generating disinformation. I for one never – as in “never,” alleged anything of the sort at any time in either written or spoken form in all the years I’ve known him, at least not until I read his book in March and April. If we go by Websters definition of the word ‘disinformation,’ “false information that is given to people in order to make them believe something or to hide the truth,” then he is indeed guilty of same throughout his, Jim and John’s book, at least in regard to Larry Warren’s longstanding account of his involvement in the RFI and our book, Left At East Gate.

Nick states that my “central objection seems to be that Larry Warren isn't given much coverage or credit in 'Encounter in Rendlesham Forest'". This is not only incorrect, it is absurd, and if Nick chooses to maintain such a position, I’d like him to point out to us where in my book I make any such objection. In fact Larry’s account and claims are given significant attention in Encounter In Rendlesham. Unfortunately the overwhelming number of them are inaccurate, nonsensical or complete fabrications. Again, I am glad to back this most serious allegation up in a follow-up email although I have already done so in the most specific terms throughout Deliberate Deception.

Nick states that a “secondary objection (of mine) is that "Left at East Gate" isn't cited as a source.” In fact it isn’t, given the numerous times he takes his information directly from it, with a single, unavoidable exception. And let me be clear here: my objections have absolutely nothing to do with his disingenuous statement that “every author wants their own book to get a plug.” He tells us that “as a journalist who has written for most of the UK's national newspapers, I know the importance of quoting primary sources.” Despite this, specific references to sources are completely absent in key references throughout his book. Yes, Hansard is noted as such, though Nick repeatedly evades the fact that Lord Hill-Norton – who put such references on the record in the first place- first learned of them only through his reading of Left At East Gate.

In referring to my criticism that Encounter in Rendlesham Forest lacks footnotes and references, he notes that “all the key documents and other information are either in our book's appendices, or are referred to in the main body of the text in such a way that they can be quickly and easily located by any readers who want to see them.” This claim is simply false in regard to information that could have only been drawn from Left At East Gate.”

Finally, despite Nick’s continuing evasions, attempts to misdirect your attention away from the hard facts, and the overt and covert dictionary definition disinformation I cite throughout my book. I also wish him well, as I know does Larry. I will always value the memories of the good and true friendship that existed between us for many years and the many memories I have of it. In the end however our friendship proved to be not as important to him as his deliberate and repeated attempts to undermine the credibility and reputation of a truly courageous eyewitness to a most significant aspect of the Rendlesham Forest UFO incident and the years of research and investigation which went into backing them up. Both Larry and I will always appreciate Nick’s courageous and genuine support for our book and his direct assistance in helping to make it the bestselling book it was when first published in the United Kingdom. To quote Nick: “Larry Warren and Peter Robbins have done an excellent job in blowing the lid off a UFO case that could be bigger and more sinister than Roswell. There is much in this book that will make you angry, and rightly so. It raises serious questions about just how far certain people will go to prevent the truth about UFOs ever becoming public knowledge. This book is meticulously researched, gripping, provocative, and will undoubtedly lead to some long overdue questions being asked at the highest levels. This is a sensational book, and no matter what the skeptics and debunkers may try, this story is not going to go away.”

I am also happy for you to quote from this email, should you wish.

With best wishes,
Peter

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Peter also sent a copy of the text-only version of "Deliberate Deception" for us to post here:

 

[PISTOL_STAR]

I feel like Robbins is being sincere. I mean he called out Pope to debate this out anywhere anytime. Pope responds with nothing.

I think it's silly to say he has no connection to those people, but still has to submit his book for approval? That's a shady deal.

 

[Burnt State]

Robbins posted back a whole lotta nothing in that email up above. There is no specific point addressed at all outside of the fact that he felt his own book should have been cited as a source. I just don't see why the concept of "disinformation agent" was watered down so much for the sake of his argument. It almost feels like a constructed charade of some sort, as normally Peter is just the nicest guy going with never an unkind word for anyone, so this whole exercise is more than a little weird. I suppose this isn't the future of ufology but merely an ongoing implosion where people openly attack each other's claims, sell their books, hate on each other etc. almost remind me of the WWF back in the day. Unfortunately Nick Pope just does not make a strong enough Iron Sheik to hate on. Perhaps the real disclosure we need is to understand just what are these ufoologists up to in their circus of wonders?

 

[mosherj]

The reason Pope has to submit his manuscripts to the M.o.D is simply because he signed the official secrets act. This doesn't become void when you leave the government service. This also applies, as I'm sure most of you will already know, to the U.S military and intelligence services, a major reason why so many witnesses to crash/retrievals don't come forward until either documents pertaining to the case are released through FOI or the old soldiers just become frustrated that they are running out of time to tell someone their great secret due to old age.
As has already been said, Rendlesham is starting to suffer from 'Roswell Syndrome', but I've no doubt that in 60 years people will still be discussing it and that a raft of witnesses, as yet unheard of, will be claiming to have been there as young servicemen and women.

Many thanks to Peter Robbins for allowing Deliberate Deception to be downloaded from here. I couldn't get it from the link on his site.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

But unless they find ways for humans to live many years longer between now and then I won't be around to witness the debate. Well at least from this plane of existence.

 

[Pigsinzen]

This episode showcased Ufologists doing what Ufologists do..