All Episodes
Previous Next
July 9, 2019 - The Unexplained - Howard Hughes
01:10:07
Edition 402 - Gary Heseltine

British UFO investigator Gary Heseltine on new information in his Rendlesham Forest documentary "Capel Green"...

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Across the UK, across continental North America and around the world on the internet, by webcast and by podcast, my name is Howard Hughes and this is The Unexplained.
Recording this on a beautiful sunny day here in the UK, temperatures today are going to be, they tell us, 25 degrees Fahrenheit to 25 Celsius, so that's pretty good.
Recently, Europe, of course, had a major heat wave.
France endured temperatures into the 40s Celsius, I think 44, 45, well into the 100s.
Here in the UK, we had one day of extreme heat, and it's been pretty nice since then.
So I'm not going to complain about that.
Going to be doing some shout-outs very soon.
If you want to send me a message to the show with a guest suggestion, any thoughts at all, then you can go to my website, theunexplained.tv.
Follow the link for messages, and you can send me guest suggestions and thoughts about the show there.
Theunexplained.tv and the website designed by Adam from Creative Hotspot in Liverpool.
And Adam, thank you for your work on the website.
You know, I am grateful for it.
Also, if you'd like to leave a donation for the show, you can do that by going to the website theunexplained.tv.
If you have left a donation recently, thank you very, very much for doing that.
Your donation's vital for the continuation of this show.
The topic for conversation on this edition of The Unexplained, Edition 402, is Britain's Roswell, which is, as you know, Rendlesham Forest.
Now, this happened in 1980, three nights, possibly four nights, of bizarre happenings in between a US and UK military base, an air base, in Suffolk, in the far southeast corner of England.
Now, people are still debating what happened, and there are various, as you may know if you're listening to this, there are various accounts of what happened, some of those disputed.
Gary Heseltine, leading UFO investigator, believes that his documentary, Capel Green, has the full story, and some people who've never spoken before will be on it.
So an important conversation this.
The documentary, I think, is due out around September, but keep checking, and we'll let you know when that will be.
But Gary's work has taken him two back-breaking years of putting it together, and it seems to be a very important and very, very good production.
So Gary coming very soon.
Shout-outs.
Thank you, Sue Brooke.
Nice to hear from you.
Longtime listener.
Apparently, I inspired you to go out and see the Apollo 11 movie.
I hope you enjoyed it.
I think you did.
Tom, thank you for your comments.
Very much appreciated.
Richie in Dublin.
Darren in Australia.
Thank you for the guest suggestion, Darren.
Dawn in Derbyshire.
Thank you for being there, Dawn in the High Peak.
Nice to know that you're listening.
Craig, good to know that you're there.
Paul, thank you for telling me about your trip to North Wales.
I've just come back from a place called Port Marion.
I spent one wonderful, wonderful night there.
It was the place where they made the prisoner.
And signs of that are all over Port Marion.
If you can possibly visit there for a day or even stay there for a night as I did, then I definitely recommend it.
Pramod, thank you for your thoughts.
Darren, thank you for the guest suggestion.
Chaim in Texas, thank you very much for the two UFO videos that you shot in Australia.
I don't know what to make of those objects, but I wonder, have you reported those sightings?
Maybe you should.
Maybe Mufon would want to hear about that.
Mark and Tracy in Bedford, Mark says for the past few years, my wife and I have become awakened after we saw triangular lights near the port of Felix Stowe in the UK.
Interesting.
Would like to know more about that.
Mark and Tracy, nice to know that you're there.
Those are the shout outs for this edition.
If you want to get in touch with me and ask me anything, then go to my website, theunexplained.tv, and please tell me who you are, where you are, and how you use this show.
We're going to be talking now about the Capel Green documentary to do with Rendlesham Forest by Gary Heseltine.
It is a big production.
There is already online a trailer for it.
Here's a little bit of that trail.
The red, orange, glowing ball object was about approximately two feet off the ground.
I cocked and locked the M60 machine gun.
I was scared to death.
I didn't know what that was.
I didn't know if it was going to hurt me.
Yeah, the airman jumped the fence and went out towards it.
And if it had done anything to try to harm him, I was fully prepared to open fire on him.
When it broke into three pieces, the whole thing just blew us away.
I mean, there's no aircraft that could do that.
The movements, no aircraft can even do that today.
It was like a thick beam that was scanning the whole WSA like it was looking for something.
And the documentary is called Capel Green.
We're about to speak with the man who created that documentary due out, I think, around September.
We'll get some clarification on that from Gary Hesseltime.
Gary, thank you very much for coming back on my show.
You're welcome.
It's always a pleasure, never a chore.
So what's going on with you, Gary?
We've known each other for a good number of years.
You've got UFO Truth magazine rocking.
You've got the conferences going.
And apparently earlier this year, you were in Russia.
Well, last year, last October, I think it was, in Russia, which was a marvelous experience, something that I never anticipated.
But for somebody of my generation, it was a fantastic place to visit, full of history, and it was stunningly beautiful.
And what about the way that they look at UFOs?
Because we're only just beginning to learn, really, in the last 10, 20 years, that they had their own experiences and their own cases, but they didn't talk about them in the way that we did.
Well, I think that is still a big area that we really don't know about because of the Cold War.
But it's clear that I think what was happening in the United States, especially around UFOs and nuclear weapons, I think was exactly the same in Russia or the Soviet Union as was.
There is a clear correlation of UFOs to nuclear facilities going all the way back, I think, to 1947 and the Roswell and the first atomic bomb squadron.
You don't have to be rocket science to work out why they're interested and why they show up in New Mexico.
But is there the same appetite and interest in getting what we call disclosure here?
Do they have the same kind of keenness to do that?
I can't say that I met enough people to know that.
The ones I did meet were certainly interested because it was part of a joint Chinese-Russian conference that was set up for this, what was called the Chinese initiative.
That's still ongoing.
There has been a delay and it should have happened by now that we should have had a follow-up meeting in China.
But it would seem that the city that was originally chosen to house this new world body once it was created has changed venue because there was some kind of military mining disaster and the city was, some of the city officials were held liable, as it were, and they've decided to take it to a different city, which has delayed the schedule.
But we're hopeful that something will emerge in the next few months, and hopefully we'll be headed off to China to see where this leads us.
And in Russia and China, do you get the impression that there were the kind of people that we've always had here, certainly in living memory?
People who are interested in investigating these things, people who want to get the truth out, your Stanton Friedmans, your Steve Bassett's, all of those people.
Do they have equivalent in the old communist bloc?
I can't say I know enough of them to really know that, but the Chinese people that I did meet were clearly of an ilk.
They were in their mid-60s, and they clearly had many years from the Chinese perspective of investigating UFOs.
So I suspect that there will be a lot of correlations between what we already know.
Okay, well, keep us posted on that.
And when you return, and if you go to China, I think you're going to find that from every possible aspect amazingly interesting.
I studied China when I was doing my A-level geography, and I've always had a fascination in the way that they do things there, and everything that was predicted about China, and the fact that it would become such a powerhouse, all of those things came true.
All right, I want to talk with you for all of this conversation about the documentary which you've called Capel Green.
Now, explain to people who perhaps don't understand the locations too well, what is Capel Green in relation to REF Bentwaters and Rendlesham Forest, the twin air bases there?
Right, I think most people are familiar with the fact that the Rendlesham Forest incident occurs in Suffolk between in an area of forest between two bases, as you say, Arif Bentwaters and Arif Woodbridge, which are approximately two, two and a half miles away from each other, separated by a large forest that we now know as Rendellsham Forest.
Capool Green is a field, is what's known as a farmer's field, the name of a farmer's field, on some of the old maps.
So this is relevant to an event that occurs in this farmer's field.
And on the maps, it says the farmer's field is called Capricorn Green.
So hence why the film got called Capric Green with the strapline of Capricorn Green, the truth behind the Reynolds and Forest Incident.
But obviously most people are just referring to it now as Capricorn Green.
But that's the story on that.
Right.
And that was the place that was really the place that was the zenith of the experiences.
Now, people's accounts differ as to what exactly happened over those nights.
And there were three nights of activity there.
It wasn't just the one night.
Why do you think there is so much variety and so much dispute over the accounts, Gary?
I think that's not a simple answer.
And I think that's down to a number of reasons.
Having worked on two nuclear bases myself during my period in the RAF police between 1983 and 1989, I first served at RAF Huntington in Suffolk, which is not a million miles away from Rendlesham, and guarded tactical nuclear weapons for tornado aircraft, doing exactly the same job as the people involved in this.
So I have a slight unique insight into how nuclear weapons protection goes and the amount of people involved, the locations, the layout of the bunkers, the hot roads, etc., the security involved.
And what I would say is that the Rendlesham incident was really a series of incidents.
And what you had was at Christmas time, that was the only one time when shifts got mixed up.
And what I mean by that is, if you were a single guy and probably 70% of the people who were doing the security were single, all the married guys with children and who lived on quarters either on the bases or off in the local villages, they tended to get Christmas off so they could spend time with their kids.
So what you'd find is if you were on D shift, you might suddenly on B shift for a couple of days for a married guy.
Now, this is never really talked about, but it's the only time the shifts got changed around at Christmas so that the married guys could get time off.
So that is one aspect.
The other aspect is that there are not just, as people believe, one incident on one night, another incident on another night.
I would say over three, potentially four nights, we maybe have something like 15 or 20 different incidents.
Now, that will probably come as a big surprise to some of you, your listeners, but that's what my investigation has revealed.
Many of these are known.
Many of these were talked about infrequently, never really publicly.
But when you've drilled down into it and talked to the people involved, I would say you're looking at between 15 and 20 incidents over at least three successive nights, possibly four successive nights.
You mentioned, and I think we need to clear this up, that one of the factors that played into all of this was the fact that different people would be working shifts or the shifts would be jumbled up.
And the guys who were single, didn't have families, would perhaps do a few more shifts, but things were not working as they would normally work.
Why is that important?
That's important because obviously, if you think about the Rendlesham case, it was clearly never meant for public consumption.
The Holt memo was never meant to get out.
In fact, if Holt could have pulled it, he would have.
He knew that it would change his life, and of course it did.
It was never meant to get out.
So that didn't become public until October of 1983.
So by then, you've already lost three years of active investigation from the days of the incident.
With every day that passes, obviously memories fade a little, except for when you are involved in something truly extraordinary.
And of course, when we're talking about if you were a witness to seeing a UFO, and that's what we're talking about, we're not talking about an East German or a Soviet downed experimental craft, as some people would speculate.
It can't be any of those things because there are so many incidents.
For example, what crops up quite common in these incidents is a small red beach ball size object that's got a dark center, like an eye winking at you.
And that is seen on multiple occasions.
And in fact, one of the things that Capo Green will do for the first time is it will show that UFOs, as in strange, unidentified craft objects, whatever you want to call them, were being seen regularly in the run-up to those December events.
And Capo Green will show three what I call precursor cases that occurred in February, June and November leading up to the late December 1987.
And they're all very relevant, especially when they are seen in close proximity, as in one of the cases or two of the cases, to the weapon storage area, the nuclear weapon storage area, which I think was why the event happened in the first place.
And you say that there were other events as precursor events before the main attraction.
Did those events involve local people or were they all military personnel?
No, these are three military cases involving military personnel who have never gone on camera before.
And if you see in the International Movie Database trailer that I gave you the link to, which you've said you've watched and you thought was very slick, I think you will see two of those people on camera briefly there, along with some of the special effects that surround that.
What we're doing a little bit different with Capric Green, or a lot different, is that because it's independent and nobody has got an agenda, i.e.
through a TV bias and money bias, we're making the program, we'll tell you what to do, kind of thing.
It gives me as the co-writer and the lead researcher the opportunity to get material out that I think is relevant to the public and should be in the public domain.
And when you look at it in that, then there is so much material that I have found going right back from day one after the incidents that should have been in the documentaries, the 50 or 60 documentaries made to date, but for whatever reason, they've not been shown.
And a lot of this new information, I think as a former detective, I think is real relevance to the case.
And I think, again, this is an opportunity to give people more information than they've ever had before.
And that's what I've said on many, many shows.
In fact, I've said it on your show several times, that that is my aim, is to give you more information than you've ever had before.
And let's be fair about it.
It is so controversial and there is such a thirst and appetite for more information that that's exactly what the public want.
And that's a reason why this documentary, I think, is likely to be a big success.
How did you find these new accounts and this new information, Gary?
Like I say, many of the people were known about and had maybe been on social media, but they'd never really attracted any attention.
One or two had said that, you know, posted things on their own page, but they'd never been on any shows or anything like that.
And really, what you get is a domino effect.
And I used to find this early on with my police UFO research, is that you get a sighting with a police officer and they get to know you, they find that you're okay, and then they tell their mates who's had a sighting, and suddenly you get a phone call or number for somebody else to call.
Yeah, he had a sighting.
And it's like it begins a bit of a domino effect.
Well, that happens, has happened with Rendlesham.
Although I would still say there are...
If we were to hazard a guess at the number of US security police personnel, including law enforcement, who witnessed some of these events over the three, four nights of activity, I would hazard a guess that that's 100 plus just on the security police side and the law enforcement side.
Now, of that, we probably may know 25, 30 of those names who have ever spoken publicly, which is really not many.
So the vast majority who have got information, relevant information, because I think of the way that the politics have played out, especially over the last 10 or 15 years, and this is what has become a recurrent theme when I've talked to the witnesses who are coming forward, is that many didn't want to get involved because they saw what was going on as a misrepresentation of actually what they witnessed.
And when you say a misrepresentation, what did they feel was being done to the story?
Well, essentially, if you were to, if you were since the mid-1990s, essentially every documentary that's ever made has just focused primarily on three people, Lieutenant Colonel Holt, Charles Holt, the deputy base commander, John Burroughs, and Jim Penniston.
There have been the three, and occasionally, some of the documentaries featured Larry Warren, which was a much more controversial story and a standalone story, or that's how people would like you to believe that it's a standalone story when it's not.
But essentially, those three people are what people associate with Randlesham Forest.
And I think a lot of the witnesses that will come on screen during this are now going to say we're coming forward.
Like, for example, last year I brought over Steve Longero, who is this new witness, who is absolutely an absolute gold miner as a witness in the sense of he has a very similar policing background to me, i.e.
six years in the US Air Force Police, security police, guarding nuclear weapons, and then he had a 24-year sheriff's police career.
So he had a law enforcement 30 years, same as mine as an equivalent.
And this guy, who I did not know, I ended up having a transatlantic phone call for about three and a half hours whilst he was at the gymnasium, believe it or not.
But he got so into it that he just sat in the locker room and he never really told his story properly.
And he had given a previous brief interview to Philip Mantle, another British researcher.
But when Philip had called him, he'd called him at 6.30 in the morning, literally as he was in bed and he wasn't fully with it.
And it didn't really go into any depth.
And after I saw that article in the newspaper, I asked Philip for his email and he kindly gave me it.
And then I went back to Steve and said, look, here's my background.
I'm just trying to research for the truth.
I was an advanced interviewer of suspects and witnesses in the British police.
I'd like to try something with you.
And it's called the Enhanced Cognitive Model, which is a method for retrieving fresh material.
Now, it's not designed for 40 years ago or over the phone from 2,000 miles away.
But suffice to say that essentially you give the control over to the person and set up what you're seeking.
And really, a lot of it's just asking them to really concentrate and really focus on getting their account out.
And the first account is totally uninterrupted.
And I think he spoke for about an hour and I didn't interrupt.
That first account is like gold dust.
You can then go back and clarify which I did.
And at the end of that three and a half hours conversation, I probably established the greatest or the most significant movement forward in actual major developments of the case since the likes of Holt, Pennyson Burroughs came out.
So what did he tell you that we didn't know already?
Well, I'm only going to tell you half of what he told you, but the half that I will tell you, which is if you see the IMDb trailer, he goes on camera for the first time.
And what he basically says is that he arrived at the base in early December.
I think it was the second or third of December.
And he arrived within a day of Larry Warren arriving there.
Now, keep this in the background, that Larry Warren and Steve Longero were on the same police training course.
They did their basic police training together.
And they arrived within a day or so of each other to Bentwoods and Woodbridge.
Now, this is relevant because people talk about, oh, people can't have been on shift.
They haven't been there long enough.
Well, Steve Longero, as a new airman, inexperienced, finds himself on, and we think this is probably the 27th, 28th, 29th, one of those days on duty with a senior experienced airman inside, with inside the weapons storage area, the nuclear weapon storage area.
And it is nuclear.
And he says on camera, I'm protecting nuclear weapons.
There's no big secret.
Of course, that's never been officially confirmed, has it?
No, but this documentary will now feature six people that will say exactly that, that they're guarding nuclear weapons.
So again, that's another little thing that moves it forward and clears up this argument.
But what he will say is that he's walking around with his M16 inside the weapons storage area with an experienced airman, when suddenly they see an object over the nearby forest.
Now, for those of people who are unfamiliar with the layouts of a weapon storage area, then you have effectively at Bentwaters, you have one row of nuclear bunkers and it's surrounded by a dual layer inner and outer electrified fence.
It's guarded by microwaves in the ground, sensors, etc.
And essentially, it's a sealed off area.
It's the most secure area for their entire base because, obviously, the nature of what they got in.
And they see nearby, and as with all squadrons and nuclear facilities, they always have a forest nearby.
Right, okay, but the trees are kept to a maximum height of 40 feet.
And they have one high tower within the weapon storage area that's 80 feet high that gives a full 360 degree panoramic view of the entire forest.
Obviously, so it can spot any threats coming from the sky.
Well, basically, what he will say is that he is inside when above the trees nearby, they see an object coming over that he describes as like a disc that's dripping like molten metal, which is what other people, Holt has described that, other witnesses describe like something dripping off that appears to be molten metal.
And then this object does something very strange.
It then fires a beam of light down from it, from its undercarriage, as it were, Into the weapon storage area, and then begins like a grids pendulum search of all the nuclear bunkers.
Now, we've had rumors in the past, and questions were asked in Parliament within weeks of the case breaking in October 1983, but we never had a name to it.
Well, now we've got this name of a guy who is inside who will now say and stand up once this film is released and be there to be questioned.
I will say that he will say that I was there and I saw this.
So he was essentially saying, I think, that he saw something scan those bunkers.
Correct.
Which is a pretty, pretty big thing.
And if you think about in October 93, when questions were asked based on alleged stories of beams being shone near the nuclear weapon storage area, well, the Ministry of Defence and the House of Commons people, the Defence Secretary, etc., all came back at the time and said this case was of no defense significance.
Well, I think now this surely is going to come back to haunt them in light of this new information, as if to say, well, if it wasn't relevant then, it surely is now, because if you have an object shining what would appear to be an intelligently scanned across all the bunkers,
this is an intelligent act that you would assume, there's some intelligence behind the object, wherever it's from, whatever it is, and it's all done in total silence, that this has got to be of major defense significance in 1980.
So I think we need to have a serious re-examination of what was considered no defense significance.
And what have those who said at the time and have been saying for years that the beams and lights were in fact a local lighthouse?
Well, for anybody to be saying that realistically, then you have to be involved, from my point of view, as involved in a conspiracy to deny the truth.
Because Holt said at the time, I used to take people into the forest.
I used to take people to the Orford Lighthouse.
No, it was not the lights from the lighthouse that he saw, that his men saw, etc.
It's ludicrous to assume that an object can stop above your feet, as in with one of Holt's account on his audio tape, that the object stops at a thousand feet and then shines a beam down at your feet.
You know, the small objects that are seen, the basketball size objects that are seen near the nuclear weapon storage area in some of the precursor cases that will be revealed in the film.
This is clearly nothing to do with lighthouses and anybody that says they are, I think, really a part of a cover-up to downplay the significance.
And you actually touch on a very good point here, and it's something that you may not like because you're in the mainstream media.
But for someone like me, who has been, in a sense, arguing with the mainstream media to tell the truth, you think of the logic here.
All of these things in all of the 50, 60 documentaries being made worldwide, and we still talk about lighthouses.
It's ludicrous.
And that can only be for one reason, is that someone wants to create the doubt in half the mind of the public in Britain.
And this is why this isn't a really important opportunity from an independent production point of view to actually say, well, no, it ain't any of those things.
Let's just put the facts out there.
And that's all I'm interested in is the fact.
And again, one of the other things that's never been shown properly in TV documentaries, and I've worked on probably half a dozen involving Rendlesham, is the fact that they never actually base their special effects on actual witness descriptions.
They tend to be very liberal in the way that objects are portrayed on screen.
Some are better than others, but what we will do with Capricreen, we've got a great special effects guy who is, you know, and he is basing it entirely on the witness descriptions.
So if it's a red beach ball size object, it's a red beach ball size object with a dark glowing center.
That's what you're going to see.
So everything that you see on screen is actually based on witness testimony, not on artistic license given from a special effects guy who just wants to make a show.
Right.
Now, I do do work in the mainstream media, but when I'm doing this, I do not consider myself to be in any way part of the mainstream media.
I've paid my dues over the years by doing shows like this.
And, you know, I've had colleagues in regular newsrooms that I've worked in who still don't understand that I do this.
So, you know, I've kind of, I have to some degree my spurs in this field, Gary.
But the one thing that I would say...
Long time.
But it's to be applauded because you're to be applauded because you are one of the few who has been doing it for so long, who's not been afraid to stick your head above the parapet in the mainstream and say, well, actually, there is some very interesting things going on.
Well, I believe that there are things that need investigating, and some parts of the media are not investigating them even today, which is a big surprise to me, and I'm sure to you.
But the one thing I would say, that if there was some kind of high-level attempt to cover up the true significance of this, and I think I probably will get panned for saying this, but there's little doubt that something way beyond the norm happened there, you know, from all the accounts that we've seen.
And, you know, people can write in and tell me that I'm wrong about that.
That's by the by.
But nobody tried to stop you doing this, did they?
Not so far.
And I'm twitching my desk here, hoping that suddenly we're not served with some kind of denosis that stops us doing that.
But no, so far, I mean, there is opposition.
We asked Colonel Holt to get involved.
He declined.
We asked John Burroughs to get involved.
He declined.
We asked Jim Pennyson to get involved.
He declined.
We asked Nick Pope to get involved.
and they declined.
Is that because you are involved heavily with Larry Warren here and you know that I spoke to him face to face in Liverpool, as you know.
I'm sure Larry's told you that.
You know, I found him a very, you know, a nice guy, a rock and roll Dude, with some amazing stories to tell.
Now, there are people who cast great doubt on his credibility and some of the circumstantial stories that he tells about himself.
I don't want to go down that particular rabbit hole, but do you think that some people won't get involved with your project because of your involvement with Larry?
Well, yes, but bear in mind, I had a seven-year collaboration with Colonel Hall.
I worked with him for seven years to write a film script.
So we had a very close worker relationship for seven years.
And that only ended when he began to make unsubstantiated allegations about Larry Warren at conferences.
And I said, if you've got the evidence, put it out there.
But you can't say, call people a liar, command, et cetera, unless you've got the evidence to back it up.
And he never produced the evidence.
Well, you know, if you go online, you can see a lot of people saying a lot of things that question Larry's credibility.
I mean, you and I had the conversation.
I think I had the conversation with Larry himself, actually, about the John Lennon photograph.
There's a photograph that purports to show Larry with John Lennon.
There's Larry's account of having worked, I think, in the music industry that some people take to task.
Larry's account of having been, I think, at ground zero.
This is just off the top of my head.
You know, a lot of people in this field, well, a lot of people in this field are playing the man, not the ball, it seems.
Well, I think the reality is that for the last two and a half, eight years, I've had abuse by trolls for saying that I believed his account.
Well, one, he passed a lie detector test.
Two, I know of at least three people that will put him in the forest that night that are all in Capricorn or featured, referred to in the film.
And the evidence presented by the trolls is literally a distortion of many, many things by someone who was his number one fan, who then went on a campaign to destroy it.
I'm not going to get into that either because they don't deserve the airtime.
But suffice to say, you've got to ask yourself this question.
How long have we known each other now, Howard?
Well, more than a decade, I think.
All right, and do you consider me an honest person?
I think you're an honest seeker after truth.
Yeah, absolutely.
All right, so why do you think that I have put two years of my life into this if I did not think that Larry Warren was in that forest and telling the truth?
Well, I can't answer that question.
I mean, that's for you to know, but you know that there are a lot of people who cast aspersions.
Hang on, a lot of people who cast aspersions on the quality of Larry's account.
Now, one thing that would be very important was if Steve Longero, who you spoke with at length, did he confirm everything that Larry's said over the years?
No, he didn't, but he put him in the forest that night when he was out.
And so that's there.
He's on the base And so again You've got They were on the same training course, but didn't really hang with each other.
They obviously knew each other because they'll be in a group of about 50 or 60 others.
So like when I went through my training, you make your own little clicks and friend group of friends.
So he knew him, say hello to him, but he didn't really have any big deal for him.
But they arrived within a day of each other.
And so ask yourself this question.
So if it's possible that Steve Longero is in the nuclear weapons storage area on the same night that Larry's out there, and nobody's going to question Steve Longero about his bona fide fact that he was on the base on duty, then you can't really have a go at Larry Warren.
But Steve doesn't back up the things that Larry says happened to him.
He doesn't see that part.
He has a different account because he was on the weapon storage area.
But then I'll tell you something else, and I'm going to give you an exclusive now.
Guess what?
Steve Longero, when all the panic is going off in the forest, after the UFO has shone its beam into the weapon storage area, then goes over towards Rendlesham Forest.
And guess what?
Steve Longero is taken off the weapon storage area and taken into the forest himself.
And this is where he sees Lara Warren.
So he was out there that night.
So that's a big, big, big thing in itself.
Well, it would seem to be.
I mean, if they hadn't been in contact with each other and, you know, talking around their stories over the years, if you say that they hadn't been in contact for decades, then that's significant, isn't it?
It absolutely significant.
And I didn't know this.
I didn't know Steve Longero.
And it was a shot in the dark ringing him.
But this is what's emerged.
And what I will give you another hint at is that there's another major event that Steve Longero gets involved in in the forest, having left, been taken off the weapon storage area because there's a whole panic going on in the forest.
This is not as described by Colonel Holt of the Ease out there just with the fire.
There are many, many, many people and events that happened before Holt got out into that forest.
So this is what's going to be presented for the first time is that there's so much new information.
The last time I looked, we're looking at over 30 plus new revelations about Reynolds and Forest.
I can't go into too much detail as the director will kill me.
Literally.
He's probably going to kill me now after what I've already said.
You've got to give me something.
But these things, do they all substantiate the core story?
And the core story is that something not of this earth was involved across those nights.
Yes.
And this is going to clear up with the accurate representation of what was shown by the witnesses.
That's what we're going to do is base it on the witness testimony.
And believe me, some of the witness testimony that I've come across over the last two years is absolutely remarkable.
Nobody has heard of it.
It's never been shown.
And it will rewrite the way we look at Reynoldsham.
And it will, if questions are asked of certain people, Then it won't be me who's going to ask those questions.
It will be for reporters and the public to ask certain people why certain things have maybe not been reported in the right way.
But let me tell you: when people talk about what is there to cover up at Reynolds and Forest, well, I'll tell you what is there to cover up.
Let's just presume for a moment that there was a meeting with a landed craft between the base commander, Colonel Williams, with entities, three entities in a field, a farmer's field called Capricreen, and that there were numerous other security police personnel there, that it was being filmed.
Do you think the American government, the American military, the British government, the British military would want that to be actual fact?
I don't think so.
Once the memo came out, they couldn't do anything about that.
That was not supposed to come out and it led its own life.
They couldn't control that.
But the big story about Reynolds and Forest is Capricorn Green and this event in the field.
And that is what they're trying to cover up.
And this is what will be shown in depth in Capricorn Green.
With people that we haven't heard speaking before about that.
Yes.
And I mean, obviously, look, I know you've got this product that you're putting out.
You're very proud of it.
It isn't out yet, so you can't tell me the whole story.
And, you know, look, I know how this works.
That's fine.
But what sorts of things do they tell you that lead you to believe that this lends credibility to that which you've just told me?
Well, put it this way.
A lot of the confirmations have nothing to do with Larry Warren.
I found during my investigation that I've probably got around at least a dozen confirmations of the event happening in the field that have nothing to do with Larry Warren.
And that is pretty amazing when you start to collect them here and there over the years, going back literally from the days after the incident.
I mean, how many people realize that the first people to mention aliens was never Larry Warren?
This was within two or three days of the event when the original civilian investigator of the case, Dot Street and Brenda Butler.
Brenda Butler had a friend who was in the military who said that there was three entities and a landed craft in a meeting with a base commander in a farmer's field.
Way before Larry Warren said that.
Why do you think the people who've spoken to you, and we'll see them in the documentary, why do you think they waited?
Were they lent on?
Were they told not to speak?
I think there's a variety of reasons for that.
I know that in one of the incidents, one of the precursor incidents, Michael Stacey Smith, you'll see him in the trailer, in the IMDb trailer, he's manning an M60, which is like a big Ramble heavy machine gun.
And he has an incident in one of the three precursor cases where he sees a beach ball size object just outside the fence line to one of the squadrons.
So he's in the base and just outside the fence line, he sees this object.
He then calls for backup.
Two people come out and one of them moves towards this small glowing beach ball size red object.
And at the time he does that, he's thinking, well, if that object does anything threatening towards the airmen going towards it, he was shaking like a leaf.
He cocked his weapon.
He was ready to open fire with a heavy caliber weapon.
And so this is kind of the reality that we're dealing with.
We're not talking about flying lighthouses now with something that's maybe 30, 50 meters away.
But Michael Stacey Smith had another incident that got him within 50 feet of one of the objects.
And he has subsequently gone on in life to develop many tumors.
And 20 years later, he's riddled with tumors that nobody can account for.
His doctors are saying, have you been exposed to some kind of strange radiation?
And basically, he can get no help.
He's very ill, as in his life is at risk.
And I think this is one of the reasons why he came forward, because he saw it as a way of saying, well, I know what I saw, and other people are suffering like me, and we should be getting help.
And if you think about that, John Burroughs got paid out for developing a heart problem when he had close proximity injuries associated with what he saw on one of the nights at Reynolds and Forest.
Yes, I'm aware of that.
So he got paid out by the VA, but lots of other witnesses who were ill and developing type of radiation type cancers are not getting help.
So again, that's one of the motivations why some people are coming forward.
Steve Longero's motivation was after all these years of watching some of the documentaries, he was seeing Larry Warren absolutely getting castigated and knowing that he saw him out in the forest that night when he did.
So he got so hacked off with the wear and the abuse that he was getting that he said, no, I'm going to come forward because I can back this guy up.
I didn't see what he saw, but I can verify that he was out in the forest that night close to where he said what he said he saw.
Is he going to take a lie detector test?
Who?
Steve Longero?
Yeah.
I have no idea, but I'm sure he would.
Absolutely no problem.
But what about Charles Holt?
Is he going to take a lie detector?
Is John Borrows going to take a lie detector?
Is Jim Penniston going to take a lie detector with his binary code download?
There's a lot of questions and a lot of changes in people's stories over the years.
And I suspect that after this film comes out, people will be asking certain questions of certain people as to why things have been shown and presented over the many years it has.
And I think the real answer to that is because certain people wanted to downplay the significance of what happened in the farmer's field.
And if that happened, they don't want this to come out.
It's something that we really don't want to come out.
And I think there's really good grounds why they would want to cover this up.
What are you going to do after this thing comes out then?
Because you say that it gives us a lot of new information.
It puts a lot of extra impetus to the case that something really significant happened there and perhaps to some extent, to a large Extent was covered up.
Are you going to do something else about this?
Are you going to campaign, or are you just going to let the documentary, the accounts in it, speak for themselves?
Well, if there's any justice, and Dion, the editor, is a quality editor, and everything is filmed in 4K, both on the ground and in the air.
You know, the special effects, the 4K aerial drone footage is going to revolutionize the way the case is looked.
Nobody's actually ever shown the forest properly.
Very rarely do maps get shown other than where Bentwaters and Woodbridge is and where the forest is.
Very rarely do people say, well, this happened here, this happened here, in a plan overview.
Well, we're going to be doing that.
We're going to be addressing all of these issues.
And some of the things that have come out are clearly going to point to major, major cover-up, predominantly, I think, by the US military and government, but let's say the military.
And I think that there will be a lot of questions asked in the run-up to the film.
We are going to try to get MPs, our respective MPs, of those in the film crew.
We're going to try to get publicity.
We're going to show the sequence.
We're developing a short sequence media pack, especially the Steve Longiero nuclear weapons aspect, the Beam Sean In, to try to get these very serious questions raised in Parliament again, because these do need to be addressed.
And if you think, Howard, in light of the Pentagon admissions in December of 2017, there has never been a more apt time for Capricorn to come out because it's coinciding with the announcement that these things are real, that are operating in the US airspace way beyond the capabilities of the best fighter pilots out there.
There's been three Pentagon released authorized videos so far and apparently there are a good 20 others in the pipeline to come out as well, I'm told, by Grant Cameron, one of the prominent researchers involved in that process.
And basically what you have is an admission now.
They're not talking about aliens because that's a big leap because they don't want to be stigmatized with the stigma that has been around this subject for 70 years.
So they just want to say, look, let's just get it out there.
These things are actually real.
They are on radar.
They have been seen visually and confirmed on radar.
And they are moving far beyond anything that our top pilots, top gun pilots can do.
I mean, there's a groundswell of calls, there's a groundswell of clamor for there to be an admission that we have been, and I say we, I mean the US, UK, have been investigating something.
There's been something to investigate, in other words.
Absolutely.
I mean, for researchers, UFO researchers, we've known along that that can't be true because we know that in the best cases around the world, the Americans turn up, whether it be the Tehran incident, Colaras in Brazil, they turn up and they have dominated the subject.
But the point being is that for the Pentagon to admit that these things are real, this is not people's figment of the imagination, this is not misidentification, this is not astronomical, atmospheric, etc., to acknowledge that was a huge thing on December 16th, 2017.
And now, and it's not actually come over to the UK yet, but in America now, there is unprecedented mainstream media news discussions where they're having serious discussions about what these things can be.
And they're talking to the pilots.
They're talking to the top radar specialists about what these things are and how could they be moving in the way that they're moving.
So that is a huge advance.
Now, I think it's only a matter of time before that then starts to come over to the UK.
And I think what will make that happen is Capricorn when it's out, which will hopefully be in September.
The people that you've spoken to, you say that you have new people and new accounts and substantiating accounts.
Do you also believe, bearing in mind that there were, I think you said, a hundred people involved in this, that there are many other people who would perhaps like to give their accounts and might be encouraged to give their accounts once your documentary comes out?
Yes, I think that's entirely possible and there will be an appeal in the credits for new witnesses to come out.
I think you will see that there are, well, I think what's likely to happen is that if there is any justice, the film should be well received because of the incredible amount of new information.
It's only based on the truth.
I'm not interested in the politics, but there is a politics side that can't be avoided because it's led to certain decisions being made.
But the point is that I think that, yes, I think some witnesses who have got stories to tell are likely to come forward if the film is deemed to be a success.
And do you think that Larry Warren, who as we know has been or has become a controversial character with people taking a view on him, and I don't want to get back into that debate, but do you think that he will come out of this saying that this production and this groundswell that you are starting has vindicated me?
Is that what you think he's going to say at the end of this?
I think you best leave that for him, but what I can say is that it will vindicate him because there is without a shadow of a doubt a lot to say that his account was genuine.
He said certain things before anyone else did.
And I've found lots of confirmations to his account.
And obviously through the investigations that we've done, people put him there, that indeed it happened.
So no doubt he will say that.
But let's not forget that this whole process of Capel Green started in July of 2017.
And the editor, the director, Dion, contacted me and said, I've had a chance meeting with Larry Warren at Rendellsham, believe it or not.
And he said, contact me.
And I said, well, there's a lot of controversy about him.
If I was you, the first thing I would do is get him to do a polygraph test.
He said, for years, he's happy to do one.
And I got involved in that process.
And I was not there when the test was done, but I was there when it was being set up and met with the polygraph examiner, who is Britain's leading polygraph examiner with over 2,000 tests, worked with the military and governments in both the US and the UK, lots of overseas sensitive material.
And she is the top, top kind of person in the UK.
And he passed that polygraph test with flying colours.
So you tell me.
I think that doesn't indicate him.
And that was the starting point.
If he'd have failed that polygraph test, I wouldn't have got involved.
What sort of questions were asked in the test?
You know?
I know exactly what was in there.
And that's for the documentary.
I mean, do they ask him the things that he specifically claimed that are different from other claims?
They asked him about those.
Yes, yes, absolutely.
And you say that he came through that with flying colours.
Correct.
Okay.
Correct.
Well, you know, there will be people who dispute the use of lie detectors because, as you know, they're not admissible in courts of law in the UK.
But they are in the US.
And their accuracy, as the polygraphic examiner explained to me, was between 96, 98% accuracy.
And she said, with all the five different bits of equipment that you're hooked up to, it's virtually impossible.
Now, I ain't an expert, so maybe there is a way to get around it.
But when you see the film, we had remote cameras on the whole of the test.
And so we all left the house, just leaving Larry with the examiner.
We have six remote cameras, and that will all feature, or part of it will feature in the film.
But you'll find it very compelling.
And you'll find it also very compelling what the polygraphic and examiner says afterwards.
The best productions of this kind leave us with a question.
What question do you think this one is going to leave us with?
That's a good question, Howard.
It's a question about a question.
One of the questions I hope it leaves is, I hope people realize now the extent after watching the film, I think people will now possibly look at the subject of the UFOs, not with the stigma, not with the little green men aspect, and realize that, my God, did this really happen?
And it did really happen, and the witnesses are all going to be on there in full colour and giving their accounts.
So this is going to make people think.
And if people just really think about what they were involved in and what they witnessed, then I think people's ideas on this subject may change.
Rendles and Forest has always been one of those top five, top 10 cases around the world that has the ability, if shown properly, if handled properly, to be a bit of a game changer when it comes to pushing for disclosure.
And I maintain that, that if we do our job properly and the final version does justice to what we've accumulated over two years, then that should happen.
You can understand a skeptical person, maybe a skeptical researcher, would say, well, if this thing happened, if this thing happened, you know, the thick end of 40 years ago, how come it was a one-off like that?
Okay, you say there were precursor events and we'll hear about those in the documentary.
But how come it didn't repeat?
It didn't happen six months later.
Well, there was a case in February of 1981.
So, you know, we only focus on the three precursor cases.
But there was a well-known case involving Holt, I think, and other witnesses in February of 1981 at Bentwater's Woodbridge.
So I think events did happen.
But if you're talking about worldwide and other cases, what makes Reynolds from a bit unique is the amount of incursions, the amount of activity, the amount of day-to-day events that took place, which is unprecedented.
Sightings take place all over the world, but they tend to be a one-off being shone down into the Maelstrom 10-minute missile, you know, nuclear weapons, shut them down.
There's a one-off event, and then there's another base that will be affected.
But this is a series of multiple incursions over several short periods of time.
That's what makes Reynolds from a bit different.
And I think that's one of the reasons why the case has been played down by the authorities, because they do not want people to realize just what went on there.
Because if they did, people might think that UFOs are real and ET is real.
And people can't be thinking that, can they?
You've obviously heard, as I've heard, the recordings of the radio traffic, people sent out to investigate this thing.
And those recordings show people with fear in their voices.
One of the questions that follows on from all of it is, what was it that went on there that was capable of scaring people who were trained not to be scared?
Well, I think that's that you've just answered your own question.
Clearly, you do see the fear.
You can detect the fear and apprehension in the voices.
I think when you're dealing with something truly profound and you don't know what it is, as many of the witnesses have been telling me, they were fearful of their lives.
And the other thing that is going to come out of this is that many of them had their weapons taken off them, going out into the forest.
And when they then subsequently saw UFO activity, strange objects moving through the forest, they felt extremely vulnerable.
They felt that they were almost ready to be used to be killed and they felt defenseless.
And that has left some of them with quite a lot of anger towards the US or military authorities because they felt stripped of an ability to fire back at these things if they were attacked.
Various people who were involved have said over the years that they were advised not to speak about this in the strongest terms.
Do you know any more about that process, about what happened in the subsequent days and how people were told, keep your mouth shut about this?
Absolutely.
That's a matter of public record.
There were interrogations.
At least five people were interrogated.
At least two were given sodium pentathol, including Larry Warren, including Jim Penniston, True Sear and those kind of things.
Now, I think that there were a whole series.
If you just take, for example, Jim Penniston, Jim Penniston will say that I think within three days of his event, the first night, that he was interviewed something like 10 or 12 times by various people: the base commander, the deputy base commander, one or two other people, OSI.
You know, but here's an interesting thing as well: is that a lot of people talk about statements being given, but only five statements have ever surfaced.
And of those statements, three of them are in the wrong format.
And in the case of Edgar Banzac, he says, that's not my statement.
I didn't write that.
So you've clearly got a hoax there.
So there is a lot more documentation.
In fact, I've talked to people who said, I gave a statement.
Well, this has never been disclosed.
And when you think about the Rendellsham case, when Georgina Brunei got involved with her book, You Can't Tell the People around the year 2000 when that came out.
And she wasn't a UFO researcher.
She came from an entertainment background, but she did a pretty good job, put the book together.
A very good book, really, as an overview.
I spoke with her in about 2004, yes.
Yeah, and it was a pretty good book, and it did its best to bring it all together in a logical way.
And she did a good book.
But what she will say is that for years and years that she was investigating, the US government just totally refused.
No, we haven't got any more documents, no more documents.
And then I think literally in the year 2001, another 100 pages of information were released.
So it's clear that for a long time, it's like pulling teeth.
They don't want to reveal anything.
And don't forget, with the Holt Memorandum, for many, many years, within days of the incident happening, the likes of Brenda Butler.Street, then joined by Jenny Randalls, were submitting Freedom of Information.
Harry Harris, an early UK researcher, he got involved.
And they were all being told there's no documentation.
Nobody was mentioning the memorandum.
But that actually came out indirectly through Larry Warren because he spoke to a Connecticut policeman in 1982 called Larry Fawcett.
Larry Fawcett, then new people who worked for the campaign against UFO secrecy cause he then said, I've got a witness in America who's saying he was a part of this.
And on the strength of that, they then submit another FOI.
And amazingly, this time, the Holt memorandum surfaces.
And nobody knew it existed.
But of course, once that came out, then that said that there was a landed craft on the first night, approximately three meters by three meters in a clearing, which is the John and Jim first night event.
And then two nights later, Holt was saying that he saw multiple UFOs himself.
So this was a whole new bald game.
But it was pulling teeth.
It was only through a mistake that that came out.
And literally, I suspect there is a hell of a lot more information on record out there.
And remember, on one occasion, very early on, Brenda and Dot went in and I think they had a meeting with Holt within months.
And they didn't really know him at that time.
But they went in and there was apparently a big, big folder that was like Mark Reynoldsham, like classic six, eight inches in depth.
And then he thought that they were from the Ministry of Defense, believe it or not.
And then as soon as he realized that they weren't, that quickly was put away.
So again, who knows?
But it hints that there is much more paperwork to come out from this.
And I think if Capricreen does its job, then I think it will rattle some apples from the trees, put it that way.
You were first of all hoping to release this about May, I think.
It's now looking like September.
Why the delay?
Because there's so much material.
What you've also got to realize is that people are doing this over and above their normal day jobs.
We're not working on this full time.
Well, I am because this is my job.
But for like the directory, he's a cameraman doing other promotional material for other companies.
And so he's doing this over and above.
He's got the one with the editing skills.
And that's where really the film is going to be made good or bad.
We have over 55, 60 hours of material to condense into a feature length, which is going to be two, two and a quarter hours.
Now, that's a mammoth task in itself.
We are still getting new bits of information.
For example, we did a film shoot just to just, oh, two months ago in Reynolds Sherman, it was only meant to be like some finishing off shots, just for things that you thought of later on that you need for continuity for the film.
And that actually led us to another sighting event.
And one, the film crew, Dion, the director, and one of the extras had a late-night sighting of a strange object.
That'll be in the film.
I wasn't there, but they saw something very strange, which I can't go into.
And then we were also alerted to there's a house that is at the end of RAF Woodbridge Runway called the Foley House.
If you look on any maps, well, Dion knocked on a door and said, you know, have you ever, were you around at the time?
They were, they weren't, but they'd moved in.
Have you ever had any strange experiences?
Well, I've had one experience, but my kids had a really strange experience.
That then led us down an entirely new path.
And so, again, two children aged 11 and 13 give fascinating, corroborating, separate accounts that corroborated each other of a very strange event, which again will feature in the film.
So something very strange is still going in that forest to this day.
And again, lots of little reasons why you just put the date back and date back.
But we are as desperate as everybody else to get the film out because originally it was a small film, probably going to be out within a year.
But it grew exponentially.
There are 11 or 12 American interviews.
And let's just talk about music.
We'll cover music in some depth and with some people with famous links that will corroborate all of what you said about music industry and Larry Warren.
So don't worry about that.
I'll be in the film.
And it's all there.
But it's turned into a mammoth project.
That certainly sounds it, Gary.
Listen, I can only wish you the very best of luck with it.
I'm sure there'll be huge international interest in it, both before and after the release.
How much money have you spent on this?
It's an independent production.
There's been nobody putting me money other than ourselves.
Dion has put in quite a lot of his own money into this.
Various people throughout the film shoots over the two years and hotels and whatever.
I've probably put in two grand in hotels and travel expenses and whatever.
But it's not for me.
I've never been motivated by money.
And for me, it's about making a significant difference to the way this case is viewed.
And so if I never made a penny, it wouldn't bother me.
It probably bothered Diem because he's invested more heavily.
But suffice to say, for me, it's really about telling the truth and getting the facts out there.
And the fact that it's independent and having worked on mainstream TV, I can tell you that there is no bias this time.
And I, as the lead researcher and co-writer, can actually just have a blank canvas and say, this is what's relevant.
This, in my opinion, is what the public needs to be told.
hate me for this question, though.
Isn't your buying...
I think everybody has some degree of bias, even if they don't think they do.
You want this to be true.
That's your bias, isn't it?
Well, no, no.
It can only be true if the facts are there to support it, and the facts are there to support it.
No, belief is one thing, truth is another.
And this is entirely based on truth, Howard.
So that's where we separate fact from fiction, isn't it?
Well, that's going to be the quote I take away from this, Gary.
Belief is one thing, truth is another.
Like I say, I wish you well with it.
We'll talk, you know, again, around the time of release, maybe on the radio show.
But, you know, I know it's been a lot of hard work.
And good luck, as I say.
Thank you, Gary.
I think one thing that I'd like to invite you to the premiere, we're hoping to maybe have a cinema premiere somewhere to launch it.
I'd like to be there.
So I'd like you to see it.
I'm there to be shot at.
I'm more than happy to be there to be shot at.
And why would I put my reputation in the line to make a lie?
I wouldn't.
I want to see you unfold the story.
I think the trail, from what I've seen of it, looks very good.
It looks very professional.
Well, as I say, one of the things that we're hoping to do, but you can only do it once it's finished, is submit it to film festivals around the world.
We've already had some input with marketing production on that.
But basically, you have to have the finished product first before you can submit an application.
So, of course, we've got to finish the film first, which is what we're actively seeking to do now.
And as soon as it's finished, then we can submit the entries to prominent film, documentary film festivals around the world.
And hopefully, if there's any justice, because of the amount of new material and the explosive nature of what we're doing, hopefully it'll get selected to be shown.
And if that happens, then who knows what will happen after that?
But it deserves to, because we've got some very good people involved in this.
And two years, by then, two years and two months is a long time of your life.
I had no idea that it would take as long as this.
I'm sure my wife would be glad that it's over with tomorrow for obvious reasons.
But that's the same with all of us.
But it's going to be worth it in the end.
So stick with us.
And I will gladly, once we have the premiere date, I will gladly send you some complimentary tickets.
Well, I'd love to see it.
I'm looking forward to it very, very much.
And it's one of the, like you said, and I've been involved in projects like this myself.
It's one of those things that once you start, you're committed to it.
You can't go back.
Well, absolutely.
You know, I never envisaged that it would take this long.
But as I've said to my wife all along, you know, we're actually talking about something that's actually very serious in history.
And, you know, we have a duty to tell it as best we can.
And as more witnesses came forward, then you've got to listen to them.
And that's what we've done.
So I hope that it'll be worth it in the end.
I sincerely believe that it will be and it should be.
Well, it's called Cable Green.
I look forward to seeing you at the premiere.
I look forward to seeing you too.
Thank you for having me.
Thank you, Gary, very much.
Gary Hesseltine, your thoughts about what you've heard?
Go to my website, theunexplained.tv, and let me know there.
And also, if you want to make a guest suggestion or say anything you want about the show and how it can be improved, good to hear from you.
And if you've made a donation, as I say recently, thank you very much for that.
It is vital to allow this independent work to continue.
Thank you very much for all of your nice messages.
We are now into the 400s and I'm aiming at edition 500 and beyond.
And maybe one of these days we'll make a thousand editions of The Unexplained.
But only with your help.
Thank you very much for being part of this.
When you get in touch, by the way, please tell me who you are, where in the world you are, and how you use this show.
Thank you very much.
So until next we meet, my name is Howard Hughes.
I am in London.
This has been The Unexplained Online.
And please, whatever you do, stay safe, stay calm, and above all, please stay in touch.
Thank you very much.
Take care.
▲
Export Selection