tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-48140345545615487282024-03-05T08:30:27.610-08:00Dr David ClarkeDave Clarkehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17811372009688882929noreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4814034554561548728.post-53464707972932966852011-03-13T04:01:00.000-07:002011-03-13T04:05:11.463-07:00New Website<span class="Apple-style-span">Future postings will be found on my new website (from March 2011):</span><div><span class="Apple-style-span"><br /></span></div><div><a href="http://www.drdavidclarke.co.uk/"><span class="Apple-style-span">http://www.drdavidclarke.co.uk</span></a></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span">This blogger site will remain active for the time being as an archive for old posts only.</span></div><div><br /></div>Dave Clarkehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17811372009688882929noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4814034554561548728.post-54774314452060435032011-02-28T11:08:00.000-08:002011-03-02T16:00:06.254-08:00Largest ever release of UFO files<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiDikceG_lt0lG2oOO4pBs8CNb6CNO0MWcvVn_8jA0VUmXezM31okw981_iaKGu7dNjxAB-uPNLBt67-qBgqurGb00EgcgTYqH6eVZkE6ZShqzRdoM7qvbFOt5CTaOVaOOhMRVirkVvXVx3/s1600/SriLanka3.JPG"><img style="MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 234px; FLOAT: right; HEIGHT: 320px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5578827950996455634" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiDikceG_lt0lG2oOO4pBs8CNb6CNO0MWcvVn_8jA0VUmXezM31okw981_iaKGu7dNjxAB-uPNLBt67-qBgqurGb00EgcgTYqH6eVZkE6ZShqzRdoM7qvbFOt5CTaOVaOOhMRVirkVvXVx3/s320/SriLanka3.JPG" /></a> <p style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal" class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; FONT-SIZE: 14pt"><span style="font-size:100%;"><b>The UK National Archives have released the single largest collection of UFO files so far as the three year disclosure programme nears its end.</b><?xml:namespace prefix = o /><o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:'Times New Roman','serif';">Included in the 8,500 documents opened to the public today are policy and intelligence documents covering a 60 year span from the 1950s almost to the present day. The 35 files include papers produced by the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Home Office and United Nations.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal" class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">And for the first time complete files covering my own protracted correspondence with the MoD are included in this release – with more to follow later this year. They chart in great detail my campaign, using Code of Practice legislation (a precursor to the Freedom of Information Act), to persuade the MoD to end the unnecessary secrecy that surrounded official interest in ‘UFOs’. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal" class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Two files released today document how I became one of MoD’s most “persistent correspondents” from 1999 (see <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">DEFE 24/2030/1</b> and <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">DEFE 24/2032/1</b>). <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal" class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">They also underline how it was largely through my efforts, and those of my colleagues, that some of the key UFO documents held by the UK Government, including the file on the Rendlesham Forest incident and the report by the Flying Saucer Working Party, were released to the public.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal" class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">In my current role as official consultant to The National Archives UFO project, I have again produced a detailed highlights guide to the 7<sup>th</sup> tranche of files, which cover the years 1997-2006. The transfer programme, now in its fourth year, is expected to reach completion during 2012.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal" class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">The new files can be downloaded free of charge from the TNA website <a href="http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ufos">here</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal" class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">The <a href="http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ufos">TNA UFO page</a> also includes a podcast and background briefing to the entire collection of UFO files held at the UK archives in Kew, Surrey (for more details read my book <i>The UFO Files</i> published by The National Archives in 2009).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal" class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">One of the highlights from the UFO reports released today are two striking colour photographs of a strange “atmospheric occurrence” (pictured above right) taken by a member of the RAF in 2004. The photographer was on holiday in Sri Lanka when he heard a clap of thunder. Then he saw a doughnut-shaped cloud in the sky that “did not rise but headed from the high atmosphere towards the earth” (see <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">DEFE 24/2036/1</b>).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal" class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">To supplement the official highlights guide available at the TNA UFO page I have added my own detailed interpretation of the files on my new website, <a href="http://www.drdavidclarke.co.uk/">http://www.drdavidclarke.co.uk/</a></span></p><p style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal" class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">New visitors should also check out my <a href="http://drdavidclarke.co.uk/secret-files/"><b>Secret Files</b> pages</a> for detailed discussions of key themes including Defence Intelligence UFO research and the Rendlesham incident.<o:p></o:p></span></p>Dave Clarkehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17811372009688882929noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4814034554561548728.post-67227626758946185462010-12-27T03:43:00.000-08:002010-12-30T01:59:20.971-08:002010 ROUND-UP<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvcDd9e9QimE39luwu5gmq3Vvb7KQooHPCN2fYZvoqIpDp9sjye4-1P1lPl87nUSw4XuOBYrp6HZpL4JVCHn0Fm2rFciLkOtnSa7wGznPoUU-io13jHQsK0VCtwI3AM-CVF-oW0rAcxtoO/s1600/cryingboy3.JPG"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 227px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvcDd9e9QimE39luwu5gmq3Vvb7KQooHPCN2fYZvoqIpDp9sjye4-1P1lPl87nUSw4XuOBYrp6HZpL4JVCHn0Fm2rFciLkOtnSa7wGznPoUU-io13jHQsK0VCtwI3AM-CVF-oW0rAcxtoO/s320/cryingboy3.JPG" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5555327462782215442" /></a><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><span style="line-height: 115%; "><span class="Apple-style-span"><b>THE CRYING GAME</b></span><span class="Apple-style-span"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><span style="line-height: 115%; ">The best urban legends never fizzle out and <i>the Curse of the Crying Boy</i> keeps returning to my inbox year in year out.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><span style="line-height: 115%; ">Stories about a cheap print of a crying toddler that eerily survived fires unscathed first spread through the UK in 1985. In my <a href="http://drdavidclarke.blogspot.com/p/crying-boy-legend.html">definitive article</a>, originally published by <i>Fortean Times,</i> I traced the genesis of the legend to a news story published by <i>The Sun</i> (right) in September that year. This told how firemen in Rotherham, Yorkshire, could not explain how the print had escaped from a fire that gutted a terraced house. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><span style="line-height: 115%; ">During the ‘80s it emerged that more than 50,000 versions of the print were sold in the UK alone and news of the curse led hundreds of people to report house fires where a crying boy painting survived. Since then stories about the “cursed” painting by Spanish artist Bruno Amadio – actually one of a series by different artists – has become an internet phenomenon. Elaborate legends have appeared online, seeking to explain who the boy was and why the paintings are cursed. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><span style="line-height: 115%; ">The story was resurrected in October 2010 by comedian <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00bhc2s">Steve Punt</a> for an episode of his <a href="http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/3172354/The-Curse-of-the-Crying-Boy-is-solved-by-Steve-Punt.html">BBC Radio 4 series <i>Punt PI</i></a>, for which I’ve become a regular source of weird and amusing legendary. In his mission to pour cold water on the flames, producer Laurence Grissell managed to bag an interview with legendary former <i>Sun</i> editor Kelvin McKenzie. It was McKenzie who set the crying boy hare running. He was also the editor who presided over tabloid inventions such as the ludicrous 1986 page one splash, “Freddie Starr Ate My Hamster”. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><span style="line-height: 115%; ">In suitably playful mood, McKenzie admitted that the Crying Boy legend was born on a slow news day when a filler sent by a regional news agency caught his eye. The fact that firemen – rather than credulous members of the public – appeared to confirm this unlikely tale was enough for him. </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px; ">It was, he said, “as if a light went on”. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px; ">Not only did he and the tabloid create the Crying Boy phenomenon, but McKenzie personally fanned the flames, encouraging worried readers to send their prints to <i>The Sun</i> HQ for destruction on a Hallowe’en bonfire. When quizzed by Punt PI, McKenzie admitted he was a superstitious man who personally refused to allow a copy of the print to be installed on his office wall. But when asked whether there was any truth to the story, he said:</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><span style="line-height: 115%; "></span></p><blockquote><span style="line-height: 115%; ">“Who knows…[but] there comes a point when you research a story too deeply – as you keep on asking more and more questions about it - the story actually disappears and before you know where you are we are all sitting there, its ten to five, we haven’t got a front page lead and the story’s just collapsed. <i><b>So some stories are just too good to check</b></i>.”</span></blockquote><span style="line-height: 115%; "><o:p></o:p></span><p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span style="line-height: 115%; "><span class="Apple-style-span">Too good to check or too good to kill? </span></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><span style="line-height: 115%; ">Remember that the next time you read a headline proclaiming Atlantis has been discovered or the alien invasion fleet has been spotted hovering above your neighbourhood!<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><span style="line-height: 115%; "><span class="Apple-style-span"><b>WIKI-TEASE</b></span><span class="Apple-style-span"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><span style="line-height: 115%; ">Back in July in a blog post titled “<a href="http://drdavidclarke.blogspot.com/2010/07/where-are-ufo-whistleblowers.html">Where are the UFO Whistleblowers</a>?” I asked why, despite the massive leak of secret war logs to Wikileaks, not a single hint of US government contact with UFOs or ETs had emerged - despite decades of claims by conspiracy believers.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><span style="line-height: 115%; ">An answer to this question became all the more pressing when, in November this year, a further 250,000 US state department cables emerged dating back to the 1960s. Shortly afterwards the mercurial Julian Assange revealed during a <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2010/dec/03/julian-assange-wikileaks"><i>Guardian</i> Q&A session</a> that Wikileaks is plagued by what he described as 'weirdos' looking for the smoking gun that will confirm their beliefs. In a statement that will not endear him to the UFO disclosure brigade, Assange said they had not satisfied a Wikileaks rule that documents must be bona fide and not self-authored (which eliminates MJ-12 and other obvious fakes). But he hinted that “in yet to be published parts of the Cablegate archive there are indeed references to UFOs.” </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><span style="line-height: 115%; ">Now bear in mind the fact that in 1993 the US general accounting office identified some 3,067,000 people who had clearance to information classified secret and above (<i>Guardian</i>, 29 November 2010). We should not therefore be surprised to find at least <i>some</i> passing tongue-in-cheek reference within diplomatic traffic to the more bizarre UFO legends that regularly circulate in the media and on the net. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><span style="line-height: 115%; ">The anticipation was short-lived. On 17 December the <i>Guardian</i> revealed, in <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2010/dec/17/wikileaks-you-ask-we-search?INTCMP=SRCH">a follow-up</a>, that Assange was merely poking fun at UFO buffs. “Despite what [he] said…there are no references to aliens in the cables,” they said. “We searched for aliens and UFOs (“visitors” and “non-terrestrial officers” too, thanks, UFO-minded readers).” <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><span style="line-height: 115%; ">Which returns me to my original question: <i>where are the UFO whistleblowers</i>?<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><span style="line-height: 115%; "><span class="Apple-style-span"><b>THE KIWI-FILES</b></span><span class="Apple-style-span"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span style="line-height: 115%; "><span class="Apple-style-span">2010 may have been the year of Wikileaks but it was also a great one for the disclosure of genuine government UFO archives. </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px; ">Just before Christmas the Royal New Zealand Air Force published electronic versions of nine files containing details of UFO sighting reports dating way back to the great phantom airship flap of 1909. You can <a href="http://www.ufoeyes.com/2010/12/22/get-the-recently-released-nz-ufo-files-here/">download these files</a> in PDF format. </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px; ">This was not a “new” release, as claimed by some news outlets, as paper versions of these files have been available from The National Archives in Wellington, New Zealand, for a number of years. But few researchers have the time or resources to travel halfway across the planet to consult them, or can afford to order paper copies. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px; ">The RNZAF release is just the latest move by governments across the world to provide free and unrestricted access to historical UFO papers that have been hidden by unnecessary secrecy for too long. During the summer the Brazilian Air Force joined the fray by releasing a mass of UFO records to their country’s archives, following the example set by France, Britain, Denmark and Ireland in the past three years.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px; ">In Britain the on-going programme to transfer all surviving Ministry of Defence UFO files to The National Archives - for which I'm acting as consultant - saw the release of a further 42 files during 2010. The next 12 months promises to be another bumper year as the British disclosure project reaches its finale with just over one hundred remaining files being prepared for release. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px; ">The factors that led to the release of official UFO files release in Brazil, New Zealand and the UK are identical. And it is not to prepare the population for news that we are being visited by extraterrestrials, as some continue to falsely claim. </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px; ">The reality is that the military and intelligence services of all three countries have no interest in UFOs or the people who believe in them. They want to wash their hands of the whole messy business by literally making UFOs history, following the recommendation of fellow sceptic John Rimmer. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px; ">The most effective way of doing this is to place all their <i>surviving</i> records in a historical archive, where the subject clearly belongs. This allows them to direct all future inquiries to the archives and avoid wasting further public money responding to inquiries about a subject that has no defence value, in their view. This was clearly the reason behind the British MoD's decision to close their UFO Hotline in November 2009 and transfer all remaining papers to The National Archives.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px; ">The release of all these files comes in direct response to public interest stoked by the media and the UFO industry itself. It reflects open government, nothing more, nothing less. It does not indicate any international secret knowledge of ET presence or contact as claimed by some of the more credulous UFOlogists. As anyone who troubles themselves to actually read the files will realise, the opposite is actually the truth. Governments know no more about UFOs and ETs than the average person in the street.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><span style="line-height: 115%; "><b><span class="Apple-style-span">RETURN OF THE SPOOK BOMBS?</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><span style="line-height: 115%; ">In November the media got excited about a “mystery missile” filmed off the California coast near Los Angeles. The scare drew comparisons with the ghost-rocket flap that gripped Scandinavia in the aftermath of the Second World War. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><span style="line-height: 115%; ">The images, captured by a CBS news helicopter crew, appeared to show the vapour trail of a missile rising from the ocean 35 miles offshore. Conspiracy theorists were delighted when the Pentagon said it knew nothing about a missile launch and further fuel was added when former Deputy Secretary of Defence, Robert Ellsworth, hinted that it might have been deliberately fired from a US Navy submarine “to demonstrate, mainly to Asia, that we can do that.” </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><span style="line-height: 115%; ">As the mystery grew, further footage of mystery missiles emerged from elsewhere in North America. But <a href="http://contrailscience.com/los-angeles-missile-contrail-explained-in-pictures/">ContrailScience.com </a>revealed the “missile” was simply the contrail of an aircraft flying directly towards the camera crew, with the image distorted by a trick of perspective. Although the contrail is actually five miles high, it appears to touch the ground because of the curvature of the Earth. Many other examples of “contrail scares” are known across the world. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><span style="line-height: 115%; ">US sceptic Bob Sheaffer believes this might explain the famous Swedish “spook bomb” wave of 1946 that immediately preceded the modern flying saucer era. Writing on his splendid new blog <a href="http://badufos.blogspot.com/2010/11/famous-1946-ghost-rockets-in-sweden.html">Bad UFOs</a>, Sheaffer notes that despite the facts about the Californian footage being on plain view, the story has now morphed into a mystery that refuses to be debunked.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><span style="line-height: 115%; "><b><span class="Apple-style-span">THEY WANT TO BELIEVE</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><span style="line-height: 115%; ">As the first decade of the 21<sup>st</sup> century ends, so UFOs retain their place as the most important modern myth. Myth is defined by the <i>Oxford English Dictionary</i> not as a <i>false</i> belief but as “a traditional narrative sometimes popularly regarded as historical but not authenticated”, much like Bible stories and traditional beliefs common to all human history.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><span style="line-height: 115%; ">The continuing strength and popularity of the UFO myth was underlined by the results of a survey conducted by the Royal Society and <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1334217/Aliens-DO-exist-half-British-public-believes.html">published in December</a>. The poll of 2,000 adults found that 44 percent “believe that extra-terrestrial life exists” and men, perhaps unsurprisingly, have the most faith (46% say they believe). By contrast, 28% said they did not believe in ET and the remaining 28% simply couldn’t be sure. In my view the latter position is the only most honest position to take. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><span style="line-height: 115%; ">Of course there is a huge difference between the possibility, or in my view probability, that (a) life of some kind exists elsewhere in the universe and (b) the existence of intelligence life that has the level of technological sophistication and motivation to visit Earth. (a) and (b) are completely different concepts, with the latter involving a chain of unlikeliness so strained that even the most optimistic cosmologists find it hard to credit. But it is not impossible. </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px; ">Time will tell. But history shows that simply because lots of people <i>believe</i> in something, that does not make that something true.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; "><o:p><span class="Apple-style-span"> </span></o:p></span></p>Dave Clarkehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17811372009688882929noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4814034554561548728.post-71493656020871727422010-11-21T07:48:00.000-08:002011-01-07T02:06:56.205-08:00FLAT EARTH NUKES<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg02SV54AfBt5wdzOEPH8BzJMnYVzZVK4LLoTOPtb1I_mELTs8nK5JF0eMgeistMjaSzxWg5yMsw4pnGc547Z-StOZ4uBbYWmCddwv9gg2HFxyBZUGg5EH6caK1vFzMlrKK2aRVEOtQOY69/s1600/nukes1.JPG"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 149px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg02SV54AfBt5wdzOEPH8BzJMnYVzZVK4LLoTOPtb1I_mELTs8nK5JF0eMgeistMjaSzxWg5yMsw4pnGc547Z-StOZ4uBbYWmCddwv9gg2HFxyBZUGg5EH6caK1vFzMlrKK2aRVEOtQOY69/s320/nukes1.JPG" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5542033140917042210" /></a><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span style="line-height: 115%; "><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span">“…An industry whose task should be to filter out falsehood has become a conduit for propaganda…” </span></span></span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px; "><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span">Nick Davies, <i>Flat Earth News</i></span></span></span></span></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px; "></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 24px; ">The media tends to regard UFO stories as light entertainment rather than hard news. Proof of this was provided by the widely reported Flat Earth story that aliens had interfered with US and Soviet nuclear weapons during the Cold War (published uncritically by the <i>Mail, Express</i> and <i>Telegraph</i> in September). If that claim wasn’t remarkable enough, we were then asked to believe both governments had – despite their massive Cold War differences - collectively and successfully concealed the extraterrestrial threat from the public ever since.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:1.2pt; line-height:18.0pt"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span">Extraordinary, if true. And anyone who suspected this was either April 1<sup>st</sup> or a poor re-working of the script from <i>Independence Day</i> should think again, because “upstanding, dry former military chiefs who were trusted with our nuclear security” said so (<i>Daily Mail</i>, 27 September).<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:1.2pt; line-height:18.0pt"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span">But</span></span></span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; "><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"> c</span></span></span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span">ut through the spin and it becomes clear there was and is no <i>senior credible military source</i>. The story originates from a publicity-hungry American UFOlogist, Robert Hastings. Hastings worked as a lab technician before retirement and now devotes himself full-time to pushing the UFO Disclosure agenda via books and lectures. He appears to have no particular expertise other than an obsession with proving a link between UFOs and nuclear weapons. <o:p></o:p></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:1.2pt; line-height:18.0pt"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span">Hastings feels it is his “patriotic duty as an American citizen” to break the international cover-up and bring The Truth to the attention of the public. Let’s be clear what Hastings believes: according to the <i>Daily Mail</i>, he claims “Earth is being visited by beings from another world who for whatever reason have taken an interest in the nuclear arms race”.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:1.2pt; line-height:18.0pt"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span">Fair enough. Hastings is entitled to believe what he likes. But it’s equally fair for me to compare his beliefs with those of other ‘independent thinkers’, as Patrick Moore calls them, who have – at various points in the past 60 years - tried to persuade us that aliens are coming here to follow ley lines, to collect water from our reservoirs or drill holes in livestock.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:1.2pt; line-height:18.0pt"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span">The idea that flying saucers have been coming here in increasing numbers since we first tested nuclear weapons is nothing new. It was a common theme in the writings of contactees such as George Adamski and George King at the opening of the ‘flying saucer’ age. They were equally obsessed with drawing links between UFO sightings and the Cold War arms race. During the 1950s warnings were channelled by these individuals and the quasi-religious sects which they founded, warning that Martians and Venusians were concerned by our nuclear experiments. <o:p></o:p></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:1.2pt; line-height:18.0pt"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span">In my view, Robert Hastings is simply following in the footsteps of Adamski and King but dressing up his beliefs in a way that appeals to “scientific UFOlogists” of the 21<sup>st</sup> century who would not want to be associated with contactee cults.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:1.2pt; line-height:18.0pt"><span class="Apple-style-span"><b><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span">THE UFO-NUKE BANDWAGON BEGINS ROLLING….</span></span></span></span></b><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><o:p></o:p></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:1.2pt; line-height:18.0pt"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span">In September Hastings hired the Washington Press Club as a platform to reveal his “evidence”. It consisted of testimony from a tiny group of ex-military “credible witnesses” who have joined the ET/disclosure bandwagon. </span></span></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:1.2pt; line-height:18.0pt"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span">One of Hastings’s key witnesses is Captain Robert Salas who claims that on one occasion in 1967 a UFO hovered directly over a nuclear weapons store at Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana. Salas maintains that as a direct result of this incident ten Minuteman nuclear missiles malfunctioned. Taken at face value, Salas’s story sounds impressive. But virtually every evidential detail has been questioned by James Carlson, whose father Eric, also a Captain in the USAF, was present during the incident. Carlson senior insists that UFOs had absolutely nothing to do with the failure of the missile system and his son has published factual evidence that points to a complex equipment malfunction. There is also clear evidence that Salas has changed his story on several occasions. </span></span></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:1.2pt; line-height:18.0pt"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span">Hastings and Carlson jnr are now locked in an online flame war over Salas’s claims and the interpretation of statements made by a third USAF officer, Walt Figel. Carlson says Figel’s testimony is consistent with his father’s evidence that no UFOs were involved. Hastings has published tape transcripts that suggest Figel <i>was</i> told about a UFO sighting by technicians working on the missiles. But reading the transcript one cannot escape the impression that Figel didn’t take the story seriously and regarded it as a leg pull of ‘the dog ate my homework’ type.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span style="line-height: 115%; "><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span">The whole story is so riddled with contradiction and ambiguity that it is impossible to say anything more than "not proven". But you can read Carlsons’s dissection of the claims made by Salas <a href="http://tinyurl.com/3458btl">here</a> </span></span></span></span></span><span class="apple-style-span"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 115%; color: black; "><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span">while Hasting’s detailed rebuttal can be followed <a href="http://www.theufochronicles.com/2010/09/echooscar-witch-hunt.html">here</a>.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 115%; "><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><b><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span">BUT THE WHEEL COMES OFF MID-ATLANTIC</span></span></b><span class="apple-style-span"><span style="color:black;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><o:p></o:p></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 115%; "><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span">Another of Hastings’s “credible witnesses" is Col Charles Halt, of Rendlesham forest fame. Halt’s story has grown over the years from a straightforward sighting of “unexplained lights” (his words) in the forest near RAF Woodbridge, Suffolk, into something that resembles a script for a science fiction film.</span></span></span></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 115%; "><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span">In the space of three decades “unexplained lights” have been transformed into intelligently controlled craft of ET origin whose occupants “directed laser-like beams of light down into or near” the nuclear weapons store at nearby RAF Bentwaters. Like Hastings, since retirement Halt has become convinced the US and UK governments – including his own former colleagues - are conspiring to hide The Truth from the public. <o:p></o:p></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 115%; "><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span">Again, this type of claim can sound convincing to those who are impressed by military ranks and titles. For those unfamiliar with the minutiae of the Rendlesham legend, or too lazy to critically examine the evidence it can be easier just to follow the herd and churn out another Flat Earth story. But anyone who puts the Rendlesham legend under the a critical microscope will realise that Halt’s claims simply do not stand up to scrutiny. <o:p></o:p></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 115%; "><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span">Like Salas, Halt’s testimony has grown and become more elaborate in the constant re-telling, encouraged by his UFOlogical minders. Like Hastings and the others, he is now part of the UFO Disclosure movement and appears to see every new development through the lens of his belief in a conspiracy to hide evidence of ET visits. For that reason, he cannot be described as a “credible witness".<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 115%; "><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span">Furthermore, as I have revealed in <a href="http://drdavidclarke.blogspot.com/p/rendlesham-files.html">New Light on Rendlesham</a>, Halt’s former boss, the RAF Bentwaters base commander Col Ted Conrad, has gone on record to say he was in direct radio contact with his deputy as Halt’s experience in the forest unfolded. Conrad says he had trained Security Police on patrol looking out for anything unusual. But despite “a sparkling, clear, fogless night with a good field of view in all directions” they saw nothing. Neither was anything unusual reported by RAF Air Defence radars. That led him to conclude there was no hard evidence that required further action.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 115%; "><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span">Even worse, Halt’s own laconic official account of the events, set out in his famous memo to the British Ministry of Defence makes no mention any threat to base security or the nuclear weapons store. By his own account, after several hours spent pursuing UFOs through the forest he simply turned around and went home to bed, leaving lights still visible in the sky as dawn broke (which strongly suggests they were bright stars as <a href="http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham3.htm">identified by astronomer Ian Ridpath</a>). <o:p></o:p></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 115%; "><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span">Having failed to persuade his own superior officers in the USAF chain of command to take his story seriously Halt waited a further two weeks, until the British base commander Don Moreland returned from Christmas holidays, before he informed the Ministry of Defence. </span></span></span></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 115%; "><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span">Halt’s memo was dated 13 January 1981 and described events that took place on 27/28 December the previous year. The memo contains no mention of UFO interest in the weapons store at Bentwaters, nor does it highlight any perceived threat to British sovereignty. For that very reason the British authorities chose to ignore it. Yet incredibly Halt is on record as expressing puzzlement as to why no higher authority, British or American, took the story seriously or instigated a full investigation.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 115%; "><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span">Hastings makes a big deal of the fact that Halt waited until retirement from the USAF in 1991 before he revealed, on a US TV show, that he saw UFOs shining beams upon the weapons store at RAF Bentwaters. Apparently he was concerned about the impact this might have on his career. <o:p></o:p></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 115%; "><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span">So we are asked to believe that Halt, “an upstanding dry former military chief” neglected to mention a possible direct threat to a frontline NATO base either to his own superiors or the MoD, because he was concerned he would not be taken seriously. </span></span></span></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 115%; "><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span">But he then expects us to take him seriously when he reveals this same information on a TV programme 11 years after the event?<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 115%; "><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span">If the evidence for aliens interfering with nuclear weapons is so good – then why does Robert Hastings pick such poor examples to prove his case?<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 115%; color: black; "><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span">The bottom line is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In both the Malmstrom and RAF Woodbridge cases there is absolutely no evidence.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 115%; color: black; "><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span">What we actually have is a mass of deeply conflicting and contradictory testimony concerning ambiguous events that happened decades ago. Testimony that is being filtered through the subjective and selective agenda of those who want us to believe in ETs and government cover-ups. None of these stories would stand up to the vigorous standards required of evidence presented in a courtroom. <o:p></o:p></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 115%; "><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><b><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span">NO EVIDENCE OF ET INTEREST IN NUKES </span></span></b><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><o:p></o:p></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 115%; "><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span">So is there really any credible evidence to support Hastings’s claims about alien interest in our nuclear weapons?<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 115%; "><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span">If the security and intelligence agencies really were concerned about UFO sightings in the vicinity of nuclear facilities, as Hastings claims, one would expect there to be some official, corroborating documentary evidence, either from the paper trail the events produced or through leaks from senior,<i> credible</i> sources within the military/intelligence community. <o:p></o:p></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 115%; "><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span">In pursuit of such evidence I found that one British intelligence agency has indeed examined the assertion “that UFOs are ‘spying’ on strategic installations such as power stations, airfields and nuclear facilities”.</span></span></span></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 115%; "><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span">But they concluded “<i>there is no evidence whatsoever to substantiate this claim</i>.” </span></span></span></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 115%; "><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span">This document, once classified “<b>Secret – UK Eyes Only</b>” was released under the UK Freedom of Information Act in 2006, yet there was no mention of this at the UFO-Nukes press conference.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 115%; "><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span">The nuclear issue was just one of a number of questions scrutinised by the anonymous author of the Defence Intelligence Staff study. The author was a senior intelligence officer with expertise in air defence and radar systems who was contracted to work for the Ministry of Defence’s during the late 1990s. </span></span></span></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 115%; "><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span">During the project, he studied a sample of 850 UFO reports collected by the MoD during a 4-year period towards the end of the Cold War. These were entered into a computer database and scrutinised for patterns. He specifically looked for evidence of reports concentrated around strategic military assets in the UK. </span></span></span></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 115%; "><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span">Unsurprisingly, he found most UFO reports clustered around areas of population density (like central London) and in the air corridors and Air Traffic Control Zones linking airports. His analysis is worth quoting in detail: <o:p></o:p></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 115%; "><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"></span></span></span></span></span></p><blockquote><span style="line-height: 115%; "><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span">“UAP events reported from RAF stations were examined…for a four year period for a repeated UAP presence. Only six widely-dispersed RAF stations reported one event each. These locations were found to operate in a variety of roles, rather than together representing a group with specific strategic (for example, nuclear) importance, which some have suggested attract higher than expected UAP activity…It is probably the case, because of the radar and visual look out maintained as part of the normal role of the station, that in most cases if any UAP is present near a RAF station it is quite likely to be seen and reported.</span></span></span></span></span></blockquote><span style="line-height: 115%; "><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><o:p></o:p></span></span></span></span></span><p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 115%; "><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"></span></span></span></span></span></p><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span">“From the information examined:<i> contrary to certain media suggestions that there is some sinister UAP agenda or that there are repeated UAP visits to locations of national importance, no evidence has been found that RAF strategic sites are some sort of target at which UAP appear more often than over certain other areas</i> (eg over highly populated areas or along air corridors). [On the contrary] there is no evidence that regular or irregular repeat visits occur at any RAF site, strategic in nature or otherwise.”</span></span></span></blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"> <o:p></o:p></span></span></span><p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 115%; "><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span">The study concludes: <o:p></o:p></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 115%; "><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"></span></span></span></span></span></p><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span">“There is, therefore, no firm evidence which points to the repeated presence of UAP at, for example, US or RAF strategic or tactical bases (airfields), Army assets or RAF or Naval HQ or special asserts (in particular, at nuclear assets such as Faslane, Aldermaston, Capenhurst, etc)…</span></span></span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><i>"The fact that [UFOs] are seen at all, at some service locations, is undoubtedly because they are manned 24 hours a day with staff who are likely to be observant by virtue of their normal tasks....</i>” [my emphasis]</span></span></span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"> (Source: <i><a href="http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/FreedomOfInformation/PublicationScheme/SearchPublicationScheme/UnidentifiedAerialPhenomenauapInTheUkAirDefenceRegionResultOfInternalReview.htm">UAPs in the UK Air Defence Region</a></i>, DI55 Report, vol 1, pg 13).</span></span></span></blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><o:p></o:p></span></span></span><p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 115%; "><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span">From the point of view of the tabloids, a story that reads “MoD study debunks claims that UFOs are messing with our nukes” isn’t half as news-worthy one that reads “Aliens tampered with our nukes.” <o:p></o:p></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 115%; "><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span">But why let the facts get in the way of a good story?</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 115%; "><o:p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium; "><span class="Apple-style-span"> </span></span></o:p></span></p>Dave Clarkehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17811372009688882929noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4814034554561548728.post-43243346074642331312010-09-03T03:45:00.000-07:002010-09-07T07:36:48.200-07:00New Light on Rendlesham<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">I have added a <a href="http://drdavidclarke.blogspot.com/p/rendlesham-files.html">new page</a> to my blog that summarises the results of my ongoing research into the famous "Rendlesham Forest UFO incident", that has become one of UFOlogy's <i>cause celebres</i>. The main highlight is my exclusive interview with the RAF Bentwaters Base Commander, Col Ted Conrad, who has gone on record in detail for the first time since the immediate aftermath of the incident in 1980-81. </span></span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">The paper also summarises the results of my research into the paper trail at The National Archives, along with exclusive interviews with key MoD and RAF personnel. These include the DS8 UFO desk officer who dealt with the incident, Simon Weeden, and the British liaison officer, Wing Commander Don Moreland, among others.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">The 30th anniversary of the case often referred to as "Britain's Roswell" takes place in December this year. Despite a decade of research I still don't know what happened at RAF Woodbridge in December 1980. But one thing I am certain about is this: neither does anyone else!</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">The Rendlesham Files are subject to copyright. However, visitors are free to quote from these pages provided the source of this information is clearly acknowledged and a link is provided to this website.<br /></span></span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">Ian Ridpath has a new blog page covering his research into the Rendlesham incident - which began in 1983 - <a href="http://ianridpathauthorblog.blogspot.com/">here.</a><br /></span></span></div></div>Dave Clarkehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17811372009688882929noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4814034554561548728.post-56555514475521263772010-08-14T05:14:00.000-07:002010-08-31T03:36:31.169-07:00Britain's first X-File?<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjj3w-881ERwshN2yR7x40nbeRi6okRoaZEK296iYZwLUX_KglesDXz-nIAMmFWZzGeY97cGUtO80P3-sYSkq4X3fP94xfxDevJadpdhTbKQSr51aXSOEHQ7CaXWN2xMngbBTkkPTvqAuc3/s1600/SouterLH.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 240px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjj3w-881ERwshN2yR7x40nbeRi6okRoaZEK296iYZwLUX_KglesDXz-nIAMmFWZzGeY97cGUtO80P3-sYSkq4X3fP94xfxDevJadpdhTbKQSr51aXSOEHQ7CaXWN2xMngbBTkkPTvqAuc3/s320/SouterLH.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5505244810351478034" /></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">The September issue of </span><i><a href="http://www.forteantimes.com/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">Fortean Times</span></a></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"> reveals my discovery of what may be the very first British Government inquiry into 'UFO' sightings - in </span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">1865</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">.</span></span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /></span></span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">'</span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">The False Lights</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">' were mysterious revolving lights seen above a rocky headland at Whitburn, county Durham, by mariners negotiating a hazardous stretch of the northeast coast.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">During a ten year period from 1860 more than 150 ships were wrecked on the rocks near Whitburn after following a light or lights in the sky which they wrongly believed were from a lighthouse at the mouth of the Tyne.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">Accusations were made against local fishermen who, some believed, were deliberately luring ships onto the rocks to steal their cargoes.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">The Government stepped in after Durham MP Sir Hedworth Williamson tabled questions in the House of Commons. </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">And in December 1865, a commission of inquiry led by Rear Admiral Sir Richard Collinson travelled to Sunderland to investigate. Although the mystery was mentioned by Charles Fort in </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">The Book of the Damned </span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">(1919), as far as I am aware this is the first time anyone has obtained access to government files compiled at the time.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">By a stroke of luck, I discovered the complete proceedings of the inquiry have survived in a file at </span><a href="http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">The National Archives</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">. This contains summaries of the evidence taken at Sunderland, transcribed in longhand, alongside original copies of witness statements and petitions handed in by the fishermen.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">The inquiry chaired by Admiral Collinson was followed by further investigations by the Tyne Pilotage Board and South Shields Police Court in 1866. </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">The files suggest the Board of Trade was unable to explain the cause of the 'false lights', which one official described as 'very mysterious'.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">But the most amazing discovery I made was this: </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">A direct result of the inquiry was the government decision to pay for the construction of a </span><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/wear/content/articles/2005/06/29/coast05walks_stage3_walk.shtml"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">lighthouse at Souter Point</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">, in response to demands from local people to provide a fixed beacon for shipping.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">The lighthouse was opened in January 1871 and was the first in Britain powered by electrical alternators (today the building and grounds are in the care of </span><a href="http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">The National Trust</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"> and contain a small museum).</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">As far as I am aware the Souter Point light (above right) is the only lighthouse in the world originally constructed to warn seafarers of a hazard caused by 'unexplained aerial phenomena.'</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">A full account of my investigation and extracts from the files can be found in<b> </b>my <i>Fortean Times</i> article, now available online <a href="http://www.forteantimes.com/features/articles/4225/the_false_lights_of_durham.html">here</a>.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /></span></span></div></div>Dave Clarkehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17811372009688882929noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4814034554561548728.post-16205773424577817952010-08-01T08:49:00.000-07:002011-03-06T10:06:50.813-08:00The 'Real X-Files' Pt 6<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;font-family:georgia;">The facts about some of Britain’s best-known UFO mysteries are revealed in the sixth collection of ‘X-files’ released by Britain’s National Archives. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"><span style="font-family:georgia;">At the </span><a href="http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ufos"><span style="font-family:georgia;">TNA's UFO website </span></a><span style="font-family:georgia;">you can download all the files - free of charge for the first month - along with a highlights guide and updated background briefing. As the TNA's consultant for the release programme, I have recorded a special podcast with journalist Clare Jenkins, available as a download, where I discuss some of the more quirky stories included in this tranche. </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"><span style="font-family:georgia;">The release includes 18 files containing 5000 pages of correspondence and Parliamentary briefings created by the Ministry of Defence between 1995 and 2000. The documents provide a unique historical snapshot of the extraordinary beliefs, legends and rumours that were held and spread by UFOlogists around the time of the 50<sup>th</sup> anniversary of the birth of the subject in 1997.These files contain hundreds of letters addressed to the MoD and politicians that cover every conceivable rumour circulating just before the millennium: UFO crashes, alien abductions, animal mutilations, demonic entities, crop circles, remote viewing, mind-control and government conspiracies. </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"><span style="font-family:georgia;">By contrast, alongside this feast of weirdness are the MoD’s increasingly exasperated attempts to pour cold water on topics they regarded as irrelevant at best and a nuisance at worst. But they could not stem the flood of correspondence that led to a doubling of the UFO desk’s workload.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>During 1996 – the year before the Roswell anniversary – the MoD received 609 UFO reports, 343 letters from the public and 22 inquiries from MPs. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"><span style="font-family:georgia;">The files demonstrate how far official policy towards UFOs changed after the end of the Cold War. Back in 1950s the Government really was concerned by a spate of incidents involving unidentified objects tracked by radars and on occasion aircraft were scrambled to investigate them. Possibly the best known example is the famous </span><a href="http://www.drdavidclarke.co.uk/lakeni.htm"><span style="font-family:georgia;">RAF Bentwaters-Lakenheath incident</span></a><span style="font-family:georgia;"> of 1956.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"><span style="font-family:georgia;">As a direct result the subject of “aerial phenomena” appeared on the agenda of the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC), at Whitehall.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>One set of the JIC papers from 1957 are included in this release and they reveal the Air Ministry could not explain four incidents involving UFOs on radar (see DEFE 24/2013, pgs 257-60).<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"><span style="font-family:georgia;">But in 1996 Don Valley MP Martin Redmond tabled a Parliamentary Question that asked how many times RAF aircraft had been scrambled to investigate UFOs. The background briefing given by the RAF is in my view one of the most interesting documents in this release (you can see the original papers in DEFE 24/1983, pages 53 and 40-48).<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:georgia;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">This document reveals that before 1991 – which saw the collapse of the Soviet Union – RAF aircraft were scrambled on average 200 times every year to investigate unidentified objects seen by UK air defence radars. The vast majority of these were identified as Soviet reconnaissance aircraft probing NATO defences in the North Atlantic. But a</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">fter the fall of the Berlin Wall the frequency of these scrambles reduced to zero. There were none recorded between September 1991 and the summer of 1996 when Redmond tabled his question in the Commons.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"><span style="font-family:georgia;">Contrast that zero figure with the number of UFO reports made by members of the public and logged by the MoD during exactly the same period. Between 1991 and 1996 there were almost 1200 sightings recorded. Few, if any were corroborated by a radar contact and just a handful were investigated in any depth – mainly as a result of pressure from MPs or the media.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"><span style="font-family:georgia;">Since 1959 the subject of UFOs has never reappeared on the agenda of the Joint Intelligence Committee. This is a sure sign that the subject is now regarded as of no consequence to the military and intelligence services in Britain at least.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"><span style="font-family:georgia;">What all this indicates to me is that by the 50<sup>th</sup> anniversary of the UFO industry in 1997, the British Government was no longer interested in UFOs as a defence problem. By then they saw it purely as a public relations issue. Each year they received hundreds of reports from the public but none that contained any evidence of a threat to the defence of the UK. The inevitable consequence of that change in policy was the closure of the MoD’s UFO hotline at the end of last year.</span></span><br /></p><br /><p class="MsoNormal"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"><span style="font-family:georgia;">KEY HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE FILES</span></span></u></b><br /><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"><span style="font-family:georgia;"><b></b></span></span></p><br /><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"><span style="font-family:georgia;"><b>RAF Rudloe Manor</b> features heavily in the files as the obsessive focus of UFO conspiracy rumours during the 1990s (see for example DEFE 24/1978, 1982, 1993 and 2004). <span style="mso-spacerun: yes"></span>Some UFOlogists became so convinced the government was hiding wreckage of crashed flying saucers that attempts were made to break into the facility. Other stories spread that a secret MoD ‘Men In Black’ unit was based at Rudloe that investigated close encounters and conducted secret research. But as the MoD’s Kerry Philpott pointed out to letter-writers, Rudloe was at that time the HQ for the RAF’s Flying Complaints Flight who are responsible for investigating reports of ‘low flying aircraft.’ Inevitably some UFO reports ended up in the RAF’s low-flying inbox at Rudloe Manor. But these were simply collected, put in an envelope and sent to the MoD’s UFO desk in London for follow-up. Quite how this plain fact became transformed into stories about spacecraft and aliens hidden in secret tunnels remains the real mystery.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:georgia;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">Berwyn Mountains incident</span></b><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes"></span>DEFE 24/2045 contains copies of official papers from 1974 that discuss the Berwyn Mountains UFO ‘crash’ in North Wales. This story was resurrected by UFOlogists at the time of the 50<sup>th</sup> anniversary and quickly became transformed into Britain’s answer to the Roswell incident. But the contemporary records reveal a far less sensational story. MoD received just five reports describing bright fireballs falling to earth, but none of these came from Wales. On the same night, villagers living near the mountains called emergency services to report “a brilliant ball of light apparently coming down over the hills, accompanied by a flash and an immense bang.” A search of the hills by a RAF rescue team found no sign of any impact and astronomers quickly identified the fireballs as part of a meteor shower. Shortly afterwards the British Geological Survey identified the “immense bang” as an earth tremor originating on the Bala faultline. The complex Berwyn case is the subject of a book, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">UFO Down</i>, by FT writer Andy Roberts, published this month by the CFZ. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:georgia;"><b><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%">Winston Churchill 'foo-fighter' incident.</span></b><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%"> DEFE 24/2013 contains a letter sent to the MoD in 1999 that claims Winston Churchill ordered a cover-up of a wartime UFO sighting by the crew of a RAF reconnaissance aircraft over the English coastline. The letter-writer says he heard the story second-hand via his grandfather, who claimed to have been present at a secret meeting between Churchill and Eisenhower when the incident was discussed, in the later stages of the war. Although merely an anecdote, there may be a grain of truth in the story. Winston Churchill's interest in unexplained aerial phenomena dates back to 1912. As First Lord of the Admiralty, he answered questions in the Commons following sightings of a "phantom airship" over the naval base at Sheerness in Essex. Again in 1952 he wrote his famous memo to the Air Ministry demanding to know the truth about flying saucers following a flap of sightings over Washington DC. In 1999 the MoD were sufficiently interested by the contents of the letter they received to check wartime cabinet minutes. Although no written record of the wartime meeting appears to survive, Air Ministry files from 1942-45 do contain accounts of mysterious sightings reported by aircrew - including RAF Bomber Command. Air Ministry classified these reports as "night phenomena" and "balls of fire" and believed some were caused by German secret weapons such as the Me262 jet fighter. United States Army Air Force aircrew called them "foo fighters". See my <a href="http://www.drdavidclarke.co.uk/Reviews1.htm">review </a>of Keith Chester's book for more details of WW2 UFO sightings.</span></span><br /></p><br /><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold"><span style="font-family:georgia;"><b>Mystery object caught on film during launch of Blue Streak rocket, Australia, 1964.</b><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>DEFE 24/1983 contains the MoD’s reaction to claims made by UFO writer Jenny Randles in a 1996 documentary shown on BBC2, summarized </span><a href="http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/50163/the_cumberland_spaceman_1964/"><span style="font-family:georgia;">here</span></a><span style="font-family:georgia;">. When MP John Fraser asked about a “missing” can of film that was said to show a mysterious “spaceman” during a Blue Streak rocket launch at Woomera, desk officers were forced to reopen archived files from 1964. Inquiries discovered copies of the "missing" Woomera film were </span></span><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%"><span style="font-family:georgia;">held by the Imperial War Museum and had been widely circulated by the media at the time. The contemporary papers show that British Pathe, who distributed the film, identified the 'object' (not a spaceman) as "an internal camera reflection."</span></span><br /></p><br /><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:georgia;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">Persistent Correspondents</span></b><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">. While some UFO legends do have a factual basis, the files expose others as based entirely on rumour and gossip or, like the ‘alien autopsy’, as hoaxes. </span>Nevertheless, some persistent letter writers who believed these legends targeted Prime Ministers John Major and Tony Blair with demands for confirmation the Government had proof aliens really had landed in the UK. One asked Blair if he could confirm that films and TV shows like <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">The X-Files</i> and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">Independence Day</i> were part of “a strategy by Western governments to prepare the population for the admission that there has indeed been contact from aliens, extraterrestrials, trans-dimensionals and/or time travellers.”<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"> </span>Another made a 100-1 bet with bookmakers Ladbrokes that “aliens would be found on earth dead or alive before the end of the century”. After reading about the Roswell incident and the ‘alien autopsy’ he approached the government during 1999 for evidence to support his claim when Ladbrokes refused to pay out. Unfortunately for him, the MoD said they were open-minded about extraterrestrial life but had no evidence of its existence (DEFE 24/2012).</span><br /></p><br /><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:georgia;"><b><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%">Nick Pope</span></b><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%">. The former MoD 'UFO' desk officer proclaimed his belief in UFOs in 1995 and published a book, <i>Open Skies Closed Minds</i>, that was cleared for publication in the following year. Pope's book and his media interviews generated a number of questions both from MPs and members of the public. In response MoD said his views were his own opinions and did not reflect or represent that of MoD. But the media publicity surrounding its publication added to the workload of his successor Kerry Philpott who told inquirers Sec(AS) was "not a strange phenomena section" of MoD. She said Pope worked in a junior management grade "but neither he nor indeed am I the head of any 'UFO' section" (see DEFE 24/1983). The MoD have redacted a number of references to Pope’s activities in these files but in 1996 David Alton MP was told that media coverage "tended to exaggerate the MoD interest in UFO matters and the role of the post" (DEFE 24/1983). </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:georgia;"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%">In 1999 Scottish UFOlogist James Easton in his "An Open Letter" addressed to Pope, posed a series of questions to the MoD. These included: "What were his main duties? Approximately how much time was spent on 'UFO'-related investigations? and 'have the MoD ever, as Pope states, investigated to any significant extent a single case where a 'crop circle', 'alien abduction' or 'animal mutilation' has been reported and if so, what was the outcome?'</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:georgia;"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%">UFO desk officer, Gaynor South, responded on 29 September 1999: </span></span><span style="font-family:georgia;"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%"><span style="font-family:georgia;"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%"><br /></span></span></span></span></p><blockquote><blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:georgia;"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%">“The main duties of the post concern non-operational RAF activities overseas and diplomatic clearance policy for military flights abroad. A small percentage of time is spent dealing with reports from the public about alleged ‘UFO’ sightings and associated public correspondence. The MoD has not investigated a claim of alien abduction, crop circle formations or animal mutilation.” (DEFE 24/1978)<o:p></o:p></span></span></p></blockquote><br /><p class="MsoNormal"><br /><br /><br /></p></blockquote>Dave Clarkehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17811372009688882929noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4814034554561548728.post-47138578909569462332010-07-31T01:50:00.000-07:002010-07-31T05:56:48.701-07:00Where are the UFO Whistleblowers?<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimH1leUkM3NN5S4DCV1Nc3vOGEYY8KKDrfOR66PGM7xNaWokypQHSIpX2B5DB9APRToz6q_YbI2GCPD3EvITIrjqqliGk1i3vXiY3b0KZx-Rul6lHPcUOdbU46hwVtmgK0uvb1faTtzclF/s1600/miragemen.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 211px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimH1leUkM3NN5S4DCV1Nc3vOGEYY8KKDrfOR66PGM7xNaWokypQHSIpX2B5DB9APRToz6q_YbI2GCPD3EvITIrjqqliGk1i3vXiY3b0KZx-Rul6lHPcUOdbU46hwVtmgK0uvb1faTtzclF/s320/miragemen.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5500004616986460002" /></a>Wikileaks has once again shaken the foundations of the government and military establishment with its mass leaking of documents chronicling the war in Afghanistan.<div>The leaking of more than 92,000 secret documents to the media last week revealed how difficult it now is for any government - however powerful - to conceal information from the public.<br /><div>With near impregnable security for its servers and twin commitment to holding authority to account and protecting its sources, Wikileaks has become a haven for whistleblowers to expose lies, corruption and human rights abuses wherever they occur.</div><div>But here is the conundrum. Many thousands, if not millions of people across the world, believe the US Government is with-holding evidence that we are not alone in the universe. A central item of this belief is that a flying saucer and its occupants crashed at Roswell, New Mexico, in 1947 and the authorities have concealed that fact for over 60 years.</div></div><div>If there is any truth in these stories hundreds, if not thousands, of people must have been involved in the perpetuation of the cover-up. Foreign governments, such as the Soviet Union during the Cold War, would have learned about the incident and would, therefore, have to be party to the secret. Again, many many people across the world must have been involved in perpetuating the greatest conspiracy in the history of mankind.</div><div>So - where are the UFO whistleblowers? </div><div>As Greg Boone, who believes in the existence of a global UFO cover-up, asked plaintively on a newsgroup recently: "Why has not one major UFO secret been revealed via Wikileaks?" </div><div>He went on to add: "Surely the truth regarding UFOs would so shake the foundations of global criminal evil that just one brave soul would come forward and forever change the history of humanity."</div><div>Well Greg, we're waiting...and waiting...and waiting.</div><div>Of course there have been plenty of hoaxes and forgeries that have been proclaimed as proof positive of the alien presence in the past. But the amateurish MJ-12 papers that were supposed to have been created by a super-secret US committee that concealed the Roswell incident would not pass the first test of authenticity when placed under the Wikileaks microscope.</div><div>While we wait, my colleague and fellow <i>Fortean Times</i> writer Mark Pilkington has published his own in-depth excoriation of the murky world of military intelligence involvement in the UFO phenomenon.</div><div><i><a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Mirage-Men-Journey-Disinformation-Paranoia/dp/1845298578/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1280580659&sr=1-1">Mirage Men: A Journey in Disinformation, Paranoia and UFOs</a></i> is published by Constable this month and comes highly recommended. Mark's central thesis - that intelligence agencies have been promoting the idea of UFOs as a useful cover for their own covert testing of military technology - is not entirely original. But Mark is no armchair theorist and he and sidekick John Lundberg developed their new take on 'the federal hypothesis' during a long journey through the badlands and backwaters of America, meeting some of the key players in the UFO industry along the way.</div><div>Unlike many books with 'UFO' on their cover, <i>Mirage Men</i> is a gripping read.Whether you agree with Mark's conclusions or not, you will enjoy the journey and come to realise that the closer you get to the source of UFO stories the more the whole phenomenon takes on a mythic dimension.</div><div>While <i>Mirage Men</i> chronicles the phenomenon in North America, Andy Robert's new book takes a withering look at one of the UK's central UFO legends.</div><div><i>UFO Down</i> (published by the CFZ early in August) is subtitled <i>The Berwyn Mountain UFO Crash</i> and investigates the facts and folklore surrounding a mysterious incident that occurred in North Wales one night in January 1974. The Berwyn incident has been described by the some as 'Britain's Roswell' and Andy has spent the past two decades tracing every possible permutation of the legend to its source. As an exercise in investigative journalism, his journey takes some beating and the conclusions may surprise those who expect a thorough debunking of this particular story.</div><div>Both <i>Mirage Men</i> and <i>UFO Down</i> are fine pieces of writing and I urge everyone remotely interested in Fortean phenomena to add them to their reading list.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Dave Clarkehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17811372009688882929noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4814034554561548728.post-34475967384926318442010-07-15T04:54:00.000-07:002010-07-15T09:57:39.066-07:00Alive and Kicking!<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYc78HsBmSDnyx_4Po8RcaGjwEmTStAyVuSajPJ8wPYigrvU9HlNiQGH0H2y5FlEYnANfEdTwK7KEKJob-7eGb1zf7WwXSti7D_EHv_iBHlfwcFheX0l3x_-NmYfpYWdtLyEQgtyj6Ue6g/s1600/assange.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 87px; height: 119px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYc78HsBmSDnyx_4Po8RcaGjwEmTStAyVuSajPJ8wPYigrvU9HlNiQGH0H2y5FlEYnANfEdTwK7KEKJob-7eGb1zf7WwXSti7D_EHv_iBHlfwcFheX0l3x_-NmYfpYWdtLyEQgtyj6Ue6g/s320/assange.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5494103223759404834" /></a><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GBfont-family:";font-size:12.0pt;">It is often claimed that investigative journalism is dead, or at least on its last legs – the victim of cutbacks in resources and investment by the news industry. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GBfont-family:";font-size:12.0pt;">But from what I saw and heard at the July summer school organised by the <a href="http://www.tcij.org/summer-schools/sumer-school-2010">Centre for Investigative Journalism (CIJ)</a>, truth-seeking and holding authority to account is not only alive and well, but safe in the hands of a new breed of “information activists”.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GBfont-family:";font-size:12.0pt;"><a href="http://wikileaks.org/">Wikileaks</a> founder Julian Assange (right) believes the future depends upon networks of hackers and whistleblowers working to expose corruption and human rights abuses wherever they are found. Assange’s presentation was added to the schedule at the eleventh hour, possibly because he is constantly on the move to avoid spooks who would like to shut his network down. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GBfont-family:";font-size:12.0pt;">Assange describes Wikileaks as an “uncensorable system for untraceable mass document leaking”. This aim has been achieved with remarkable success given its skeleton staff and total reliance for its funding upon individual donations. Launched in 2007, during its short life it has exposed more scandals than some newspapers in their entire lifetime.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GBfont-family:";font-size:12.0pt;">It came of age this year with the release of an <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Msi-Q09LOXQ">incriminating video</a> that shows the crew of US helicopter gloating after an attack on civilians in Baghdad in July 2007 that left, amongst the carnage, two Reuters personnel dead and many others – including children – injured.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GBfont-family:";font-size:12.0pt;">Also this year Wikileaks stepped in to publish the leaked “Minton Report” that exposed the danger posed by toxic waste dumped by oil firm Trafigura on unsuspecting residents of the Ivory Coast – leading 10,000 people to fall ill. Despite the clear public interest in this story, Britain’s media was gagged by a super injunction, granted by a judge, which not only banned reporting of the story but also banned reporting of the injunction itself!<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GBfont-family:";font-size:12.0pt;">It took the intervention of a friendly MP (and former <i>Observer</i> journalist) Paul Farrelly, who tabled a question in the Commons using Parliamentary privilege, before the British public were allowed to read the facts. Farrelly and David Leigh, investigations editor for <i>The Guardian</i>, pointed out in their presentation that whilst the gagging order was in place in the UK, people in other European countries had free access to the facts.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GBfont-family:";font-size:12.0pt;">Leigh said the <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/01/trafigura-trial-toxic-waste-netherlands">Trafigura debacle</a> demonstrated how new methods such as cross-border co-operation between journalists and new media such as Wikileaks and Twitter, combined with older methods such as Parliamentary privilege, were creating new opportunities for breaking stories that overcame legal censorship.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GBfont-family:";font-size:12.0pt;">For his part, Assange was skeptical about the ability of the journalistic establishment to force disclosure in the public interest. In an <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/jul/14/julian-assange-whistleblower-wikileaks">interview </a>with <i>The Guardian’s</i> Stephen Moss, he says journalists have been letting big business and vested interests off the hook for far too long.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GBfont-family:";font-size:12.0pt;">This was a theme that emerged from other presentations during the three-day event, organised by City University in central London, which is a key unmissable event in my annual calendar. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GBfont-family:";font-size:12.0pt;">In his <a href="http://www.badscience.net/">Bad Science</a> talk, Dr Ben Goldacre exposed the reliance of lazy journalists on the opinions of maverick “experts” in science and health scare stories such as that surrounding MMR vaccine. “One person’s word is not enough as you can always find an ‘expert’ who will back up claims that have no scientific validity,” he said. The key message was rely on what the scientific consensus says and not the views of individual “experts”. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GBfont-family:";font-size:12.0pt;">This rule applies equally to the global warming controversy, the subject of a talk by Spinwatch blogger <a href="http://www.spinwatch.org.uk/blogs-mainmenu-29/andy-rowell-mainmenu-30">Andy Rowell</a>. He pointed that 97-98% of qualified scientific researchers support the view that climate change is man-made. Yet the coverage given to the marginal views of so-called sceptics and climate change deniers is out of all proportion to their numbers and credibility. This falls into trap laid by the denial campaign whose key tenet is identical to that used by the tobacco industry in its attempts to persuade us that smoking is good for us – “Doubt is our product.”<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GBfont-family:";font-size:12.0pt;">On the final day Andrew Jennings, who runs the <a href="http://www.transparencyinsport.org/">transparency in sport website</a>, lambasted hacks in the national press for their failure to expose greed and corruption that is endemic in the football gravy-train.Holding authority to account, he said, is the only justification for being a journalist. But many establishment sports writers are only interested in sucking up to managers who feed them safe stories and access to players. This is in effect sports churnalism, not journalism as he recognises it.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GBfont-family:";font-size:12.0pt;">The final word must go to Paris-based investigative reporter Mark Hunter – one of the most popular speakers. He told delegates their whole purpose in being journalists in the first place was not just to report news “but it is to change the world – don’t deny yourself that.” <o:p></o:p></span></p>Dave Clarkehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17811372009688882929noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4814034554561548728.post-29997598304037971062010-07-05T12:19:00.000-07:002010-07-30T09:09:28.894-07:00Open Skies - Closed Files<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHPakZKKz0RSCKRmPDeEkKh8ObsCv30OQIP2m2PbOjT40tvpSKQkiuSv3zoZhvktU800b4fdTWBn_wPMBUD2-4-ZqB0iXPALjnZNzL3spIaq31I8uqyZOjW9ihLB2r3JgGiHFAfe5UrEcR/s1600/DISmemo.JPG"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 226px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHPakZKKz0RSCKRmPDeEkKh8ObsCv30OQIP2m2PbOjT40tvpSKQkiuSv3zoZhvktU800b4fdTWBn_wPMBUD2-4-ZqB0iXPALjnZNzL3spIaq31I8uqyZOjW9ihLB2r3JgGiHFAfe5UrEcR/s320/DISmemo.JPG" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5490507786213739106" /></a><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">Within the next 18 months the Ministry of Defence will complete their disclosure programme of UFO-related documents. </span></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">But some UFOlogists continue to demand they “come clean on all levels”. They believe there are more secret documents being held back that contain evidence of alien visitations.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">I can reveal the only documents MoD intends to permanently conceal from the public concern their secret dealings not with aliens, but with a former member of their own staff – Nick Pope.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">Nick was responsible for UFO reports and associated public correspondence for three years (1991-94) during his career at the Ministry. According to the MoD this was actually a small part of his responsibilities.</span></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">Yet Nick </span></span><a href="http://www.nickpope.net/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">describes himself</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"> as the man “who used to run the British Government’s UFO Project”, a claim that I will return to later.</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"> </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">In 1996, after leaving Sec(AS)2, the branch responsible for UFOs, but whilst still employed by the MoD, he wrote a book that flatly rejected his department’s official line that UFOs were of “no defence significance”. <o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">The cover blurb for </span></span><i><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">Open Skies Closed Minds</span></span></b></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"> says he became “a firm believer in the reality of UFOs” during his posting and, based upon the cases he investigated, “warns that extraterrestrial spacecraft are visiting Earth and that something should be done about it urgently.” Pope resigned from the MoD in November 2006 to pursue a career as “author, journalist and TV personality.”<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">Early in 2007 I made a Freedom of Information Act request to see the internal paperwork covering the period when Nick first publicly emerged as “a UFO believer”.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">The request asked for:</span></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"></span></span></span></p><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">“copies of MoD papers, records or other information relating to internal discussion, policy and/or briefings in response to public statements made to the media and via the release of </span></span><i><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">Open Skies, Closed Minds</span></span></b></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"> by Nick Pope during the period 1995-96.”</span></span></blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></span><p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">Taking the MoD’s new policy of openness at face value I argued that here was an opportunity to reveal how they handled Nick’s conversion to “UFO believer”. After all, they have stated that by opening their files “we may also help to counter the maze of rumour and frequently ill informed speculation that surrounds the role of the MoD in the UFO phenomena.”<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">But it seems openness only goes so far. It took two years to obtain a sensible answer from the MoD and even then they refused to release seven documents that contain information relevant to my FOIA request. </span></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">After two appeals and a further year waiting for a judgement from the Information Commissioner he has now ruled “the MoD was correct to refuse the information requested.” Click </span></span><a href="http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2010/fs_50225113.pdf"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">here</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"> to read the full decision notice, posted on the Commissioner's website.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">In his judgement the Commissioner, Christopher Graham, admits “this is a finely balanced case and [Dr Clarke</span></span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"> </span></span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">has] provided well reasoned arguments to support [his] case” for disclosure in the public interest. </span></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">But the fine balance appears to have been tipped by Nick Pope who, the notice reveals, </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">personally intervened to block the release of these documents</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">. <o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">Early in 2009 I asked Nick for his consent for the disclosure of these papers in the public interest. In an email dated 27 March 2009 I pointed out that “from your own point of view, surely the perception will be, if this paperwork is [removed] from the public record it will continue to imply that someone is trying to hide something.” I added that “if you don’t want this to emerge…this will imply you have something to hide.”<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">I pointed out my request was specifically for “internal comment on your Press interviews in 1996 and MoD’s discussion of what line to take” and not for access to his private correspondence with his employers over the clearance of his manuscript (with one exception that concerns a specific letter which he had quoted from in the public domain). </span></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" line-height: 18px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">Some of the documents I requested form part of the Sec(AS) UFO files that are being prepared for release to The National Archives. So o</span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" line-height: 18px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">n 30 July I asked Nick, via email:</span></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"></span></span></span></p><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">“</span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">Do you have any objections to the release of internal discussions within MoD surrounding the release of your book that are included in the UFO files that are part of the ongoing TNA releases?</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">”</span></span></blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><o:p></o:p></span></span><p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">His response took me by surprise, g</span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">iven his public support for the Disclosure campaign. </span></span><a href="http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/disclosure/briefing/disclosure10.htm"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">Nick is on record</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"> as saying: </span></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px; "></span></span></span></p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px; "><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">"I believe that governments and the military, and indeed private researchers, politicians - whoever - should place everything in the public domain on this issue. Governments can't, I think, have it both ways...I, in support of that aim, believe that there should be a full disclosure of all information on UFOs held by governments all around the world."</span></span></blockquote></span><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">Despite this very public commitment to openness, not only did he refuse to give consent for the release of these documents, he went on to recite a list of legislation that he claimed prevented their disclosure. He invoked a number of FOIA exemptions, the Data Protection Act, the MoD’s common law duty of confidentiality and for good measure Article 8 of the Human Rights Act – ‘</span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">the right to privacy</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">’.</span></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"></span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">All of these exemptions could have been overturned if Nick had given consent for the release. How ironic that here was someone who has spent the last 15 years talking about his role as 'head of the British Government's UFO Project' to any and every media organisation that would listen. Now suddenly he was desperate to protect his 'privacy'.</span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">And it is now apparent that my decision to approach Nick openly led him to contact his former employers to register his objection to the release of the documents. </span></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">In his </span></span><a href="http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2010/fs_50225113.pdf"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">judgement</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"> the Information Commissioner reveals that MoD informed him on 6 January 2010 that Nick Pope “</span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">has written to the MoD and asked for the information not to be released into the public domain</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">.”</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"> </span></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">Given the “fine balance” on disclosure, Nick’s direct intervention had provided “a contributing factor to support the withholding of the information.” <o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">As Col Arnold Moulder has noted in </span></span><a href="http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/SUNlite.htm"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">SUNlite (September 2009)</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">, Article 8 of the HRA is a favourite resort of celebrities who delight in self-publicity, but then invoke ‘the right to privacy’ when the press start to probe too deeply into their ‘private affairs.’ </span></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">In this case, I asked the Commissioner to consider: “whether Mr Pope has any reasonable expectation of privacy in regard to his statements to the media, given his career as a media pundit and self-declared ‘former head of the MoD’s UFO Project.’”<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">For the record, the MoD have made it clear: "there is and never has been any such thing as a UFO Project". What's more, spokesperson Linda Unwin, in an article published by the MoD's own in-house magazine </span></span><a href="http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/tna/+/http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/DefencePolicyAndBusiness/TheTruthIsOutThereUnderFoi.htm"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">Focus</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"> (2006), said: '</span></span><b><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">There is no UFO project</span></span></i></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">.' As Linda was the MoD's UFO desk officer from 2003-2007 she would have known if such a 'project' existed!</span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">In his </span></span><a href="http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2010/fs_50225113.pdf"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">judgement</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"> the Commissioner says the more senior a civil servant is the more likely that information – even that covered by exemptions – will be released. I argued that Pope’s claim that he was the man “who used to run the British Government’s UFO Project” implied seniority, real or imagined.</span></span></span></p><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></span><p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">Taking all this into account, the Commissioner concludes that Nick Pope “was not at any time a senior civil servant” and says his actual role [Executive Officer during 1991-94] and substantive junior management grade during his time at MoD was already public knowledge. Therefore there was nothing further that would be added to that knowledge by the release of the documents.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">The Commissioner admits that “although interviews given and articles written by [Nick Pope] are very obviously in the public domain this does not itself mean that the individual will have an expectation that all correspondence and comments made about these statements will be made public…the information withheld appears to be of a private nature and this is not altered by the fact that its creation came about because of a number of public acts.”<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">Under the heading “Consequences of Disclosure” he notes my suggestion that because Nick has courted media interest and has placed himself in the public eye his expectation of privacy should be reduced. I argued that the purpose of the Data Protection Act was to protect private lives of individuals and cited the Information Commissioner’s own guidance that “where information requested is about people acting in a work or official capacity then it should be released.” </span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" line-height: 18px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">But he concludes: </span></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" line-height: 18px; "></span></span></span></p><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">“Although [Nick Pope] has spoken publicly about his time at the MoD [he] has not spoken publicly about the contents of the information the MoD is seeking to withhold. The Commissioner believes that if the information were to be released it has the potential to cause some element of harm or distress to the individual concerned.”</span></span></blockquote><p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">This raises an obvious question: what information do these documents contain that Nick Pope is so keen to conceal?</span></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">An indication of their tone and content is given in section 17 of the </span></span><a href="http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2010/fs_50225113.pdf"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">disclosure notice</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"> which says "several of the documents...contain expressions of opinion about the individual". Expressions of opinion are exempt from disclosure under Section 40(2) of the FOIA as they constitute personal data as defined by the Data Protection Act.</span></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">If for example, Nick's boss - the head of the MoD's Air Staff Secretariat - had written that he believed Nick was exaggerating when he described his role in press interviews, as an expression of opinion about a named individual this would be exempt from release.</span></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">Later the Commissioner says the with-held information “relates to aspects of how [Nick Pope] was undertaking his public role”. </span></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">Responding to my suggestion that the documents could be edited to remove sensitive material, the Commissioner says if this was done “the documents would either make no sense to the reader or the subject matter and tone of the documents would be so obvious that the redactions would serve little purpose.”<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">Fortunately, we know a little about the contents of the seven documents with-held because in 2008 MoD helpfully supplied me an itemised list of the contents. This reveals:<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><u><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height: 115%;Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"></span></span></span></u></p><blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height: 115%;Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">Document 1</span></span></b></span></u><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"> is a file copy of a letter sent to Nick Pope by the MoD after he submitted his manuscript for clearance. Although he now invokes his “right to privacy” to protect the contents, in 1996 he was happy to quote from this document in an interview for </span></span><b><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">UFO Magazine</span></span></i></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"> (UK) and the </span></span><i><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">International UFO Reporter</span></span></b></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"> (Vol 21/3). In this interview he claims there was a faction at MoD that “certainly didn’t want the book to appear” and he received a letter that said it was “completely unacceptable to MoD and quite beyond any suitable amendment”. We will never know how accurate this claim actually is, as we are only allowed to hear Nick's version of the sequence of events leading to the clearance of his book.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height: 115%;Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">Document 2</span></span></b></span></u><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"> is a file note dated February 1995 which contains “staff management discussion in response to a letter received from Mr Pope notifying MoD of his private activities.”<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height: 115%;Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">Document 3</span></span></b></span></u><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"> is a loose minute dated 10 February 1996 “addressed to Mr Pope following his notification of his private activities.”<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height: 115%;Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">Document 4</span></span></b></span></u><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"> is “a record of the line management steps taken following Mr Pope’s notification of his private activities" that “contains personal information about Mr Pope’s staff management.”<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height: 115%;Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">Document 5</span></span></b></span></u><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"> is an internal memo written on 2 July 1995 following publication of an interview with Nick Pope published by the </span></span><i><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">Mail on Sunday</span></span></b></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"> (‘</span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">ET lives, says man from the Ministr</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">y’). This document “contains free and frank advice” about Mr Pope’s “private media activities” and the steps taken to ensure that MoD regulations were not breached – including direction to line managers. <o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height: 115%;Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">Document 6</span></span></b></span></u><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"> is a file note dated 21 August 1995 on a BBC Newsnight item that mentioned Nick Pope’s book. This covers “media handling following mention of Mr Pope by name as both an MoD employee and ‘a believer’ in UFOs.” This document contains “free and frank advice” by MoD managers which the public are not allowed to read.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height: 115%;Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">Document 7</span></span></b></span></u><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"> is a file note dated October 1995 “following a Yorkshire TV enquiry”. It records “how the enquiry was handled given that Mr Pope was acting in a private capacity when supportive of the Operation Right To Know campaign”, which ironically demanded the release of secret UFO documents held by the MoD!</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"> </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">Again, this contains “free and frank advice” from his bosses that we – the taxpayer who foots the bill for all this – are not allowed to read.</span></span></span></p></blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">An indication of the “subject matter and tone” of the documents being withheld can be judged from an example that slipped past the official censor and was sent to me in response to a separate FOIA request during 2007 (see copy inset right).<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">Written by a RAF officer working for the Defence Intelligence Staff, it is titled “[Nick Pope]: recent media appearances and interviews” and was sent to his successor as UFO desk officer, Kerry Philpott, on 24 April 1996, shortly before Nick's book was published. In the minute the officer raises concerns about the media’s description of Nick as a “senior MoD official” and notes “he seems to have accepted the title willingly”.</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"> </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">He adds that MoD needs to “approach the matter VERY delicately” and says: “I am not attempting to ban a book I have not read [but] I believe it will be based on supposition and technical ignorance.” </span></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">He adds: “</span></span><b><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">The truth seldom sells books!</span></span></i></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">”</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"> </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">Given Nick Pope's claim that he used "to run the British Government's UFO Project", a project the MoD claims did not exist, I continue to believe there is a clear public interest in the release of these documents.</span></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">The Press Complaints Commission Code of Practice for journalists defines the public interest as including "preventing the public from being misled by the action or statement of an individual or organisation."</span></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" line-height: 18px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">This decision by the Information Commissioner effectively means the public will never get to read what Nick Pope’s bosses at the MoD really thought about his effectiveness as ‘head of' the MoD’s [non-existent] 'UFO Project.’</span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">As one </span></span><a href="http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/SUNlite1_3.pdf"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">commentator has noted</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">, this leaves us with “the rather delicious spectacle of a former MoD clerk, once well inside the military-UFO loop and with a habit of accusing the Ministry of neglecting the alien threat, assiduously orchestrating a cover-up of information.”</span></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"></span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">Given Prime Minister David Cameron’s pledge while in opposition “to release all UFO documents” if he was elected, this would appear to be a prime example where disclosure really would benefit open government and public knowledge.</span></span></span></p>Dave Clarkehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17811372009688882929noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4814034554561548728.post-37116620452102520982010-06-20T02:35:00.000-07:002010-07-29T04:33:51.467-07:00Father Paul Eric Inglesby (1915-2010)<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9HlEsVDR1ME8s5PkidwW9EjXfIf2BK9mkTv0GvHCYyDkDdzmGZm-hT1q1AfCjMI1z8zvK1Mr4gwcjc3NYRznF09o8mnXXfwhQF_1yx5uNijE_HBoYKMJ80lJW3vMFMpGbz6VXDRcZKjBO/s1600/Inglesby.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 214px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9HlEsVDR1ME8s5PkidwW9EjXfIf2BK9mkTv0GvHCYyDkDdzmGZm-hT1q1AfCjMI1z8zvK1Mr4gwcjc3NYRznF09o8mnXXfwhQF_1yx5uNijE_HBoYKMJ80lJW3vMFMpGbz6VXDRcZKjBO/s320/Inglesby.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5484789917932075794" /></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:arial;font-size:small;"><div class="gmail_quote"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">One of Britain's longest serving Christian UFO theorists, Fr Paul Eric Inglesby has died, age 94, at Glastonbury, Somerset. </span></span></div><div class="gmail_quote"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">Inglesby's interest in UFOs began at the dawn of the modern UFO era in 1947. He was one of the first subscribers to the magazine <i>Flying Saucer Review</i> in 1955.</span></span></div><div class="gmail_quote"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">At the opening of WW2 he served in the Royal Navy and later in the war as Assistant Secretary to Lord Mountbatten working in Combined Operations at Whitehall. </span></span></div><div class="gmail_quote"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">According to his 1978 book <i>UFOs and the Christian</i> his lifelong fascination with the subject actually began in 1938 when he underwent a "devastating spiritual experience" triggered by a life-threatening illness contracted during his naval service. This included an out-of-body journey to Mars and visions of a future atomic war against demonic forces who controlled spacecraft. During this experience "not only did I witness future events, in a mental telepathic sort of way, but throughout the whole of this time a battle was raging for possession of my soul."<br /></span></span></div><div class="gmail_quote"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">In 1964 he joined the clergy as a Church of England priest and during this time corresponded with some of the key figures in UFOlogy. During the occult revival of the 1960s he rejected the popular idea that flying saucers were extra-terrestrial and came to believe UFOs and their occupants were of demonic origin. Although not fully reflected in the UFO literature, this was a view shared by a number of leading British UFOlogists, including three former chairmen of the British UFO Research Association (BUFORA).</span></span></div><div class="gmail_quote"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">In 1980 Inglesby converted to the orthodox faith (taking Paul as his Christian name) following a meeting with Fr Seraphim Rose at a monastery in California. Fr Rose had written a treatise that identified UFOs as demonic signs of the approaching End Times and this document proved to be highly influential for Ingleby's unpopular but uncompromising viewpoint on the subject.</span></span></div><div class="gmail_quote"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">Inglesby's Christian UFO archive contains not only his dealings with UFOlogists covering a 60-year period, but also his correspondence on the subject with a range of famous figures from the military, literary and religious establishment. These include Professor C.S. Lewis, Lord Mountbatten, Lord Dowding, Lord Hill-Norton and Sir Victor Goddard. During the 1960s Inglesby asked Mountbatten, who had publicly expressed his belief in UFOs during the 1950s, for his considered views. Writing in 1964, as Chief of Defence Staff, he responded to say he no longer believed after discussing the subject with the British government's Chief Scientific Advisor, Sir Solly Zuckerman. Zuckerman told him there was no more evidence for UFOs than for ghosts or the Loch Ness Monster.</span></span></div><div class="gmail_quote"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">In 1977 Inglesby founded the Christian UFO Research Association via an advert placed in <i>The Church Times</i>.This was a loose association of clergymen from a number of denominations plus UFOlogists whose aims were to warn the public about the dangers of an obsessive interest in UFOlogy which Inglesby believed was "fraught with danger for the unwary and riddled with heresy and false belief."</span></span></div><div class="gmail_quote"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">In the same year he wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury and Lord Mountbatten warning that Her Majesty the Queen and Prince Philip should not attend the Royal Premiere of Steven Spielberg's film <i>Close Encounters of the Third Kind</i>, as the film had a Satanic sub-plot involving demonic possession and alien landings at the "Devil's Tower" in Wyoming.<br />His attempt to dissuade them failed, but the group had more success in its campaign to influence peers of the realm who attended the UFO Debate in the House of Lords during January 1979. It was through Inglesby's intervention that Maurice Wood, Bishop of Norwich, contributed his view that obsessive belief in UFOs "obscured basic Christian truth."</span></span></div><div class="gmail_quote"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">After the Lords debate he founded a second pressure group, Christian UFO Concern, and became friends with Admiral Lord Hill-Norton who shared Inglesby's naval background and his conviction that UFOs were a clear and present danger to humanity. During 1996, with public fascination with UFOs rising again, Inglesby produced a booklet, <i>The UFO Concern Report,</i> on behalf of Hill-Norton. This was privately published and circulated to a number of "top people" who had expressed an interest in UFOs. It was intended to warn them of what the authors believed were the occult origins of the subject. In the foreword Inglesby said UFOs were "essentially a religious matter" rather than a military threat and added: "There is certainly a degree of psychical involvement in almost every [UFO] case. Quite often, such experiences are definitely antithetical to orthodox Christian belief."</span></span></div><div class="gmail_quote"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">Hill-Norton died in 2003 and Inglesby retired from UFOlogy shortly afterwards. </span></span></div><div class="gmail_quote"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">I spent a full day with Inglesby at his home in Glastonbury during the summer of 2005 and was able, with his permission, to examine the archive of material he had collected which stretched back to the 1950s. </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:'times new roman';">More details of the Inglesby's life and the demonic theory for UFOs can be found in my <i><a href="http://www.forteantimes.com/features/articles/95/flying_saucers_from_hell.html">Fortean Times article</a></i> 'Flying Saucers from Hell', published in the summer of 2006.</span></div><div class="gmail_quote"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">His last words at the end of my interview were: "UFOlogy is a vast, huge subject, shot full of religious danger. To be immersed in its study, without spiritual protection, is fatal. Further curiosity, even scientific curiosity, equally. Remember the cat."</span></span></div><div class="gmail_quote"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">For more biographical details see the <a href="http://www.blogger.com/One%20of%20Britain's%20longest%20serving%20Christian%20UFO%20theorists,the%20Rev%20Paul%20Eric%20Inglesby%20has%20died,%20age%2094,%20at%20Glastonbury,%20Somerset.%20Inglesby's%20interest%20in%20UFOs%20began%20at%20the%20dawn%20of%20the%20modern%20UFO%20era%20in%201947.%20He%20was%20one%20of%20the%20first%20subscribers%20to%20the%20magazine%20Flying%20Saucer%20Review%20in%201955.%20At%20the%20opening%20of%20WW2%20he%20served%20in%20the%20Royal%20Navy%20and%20later%20in%20the%20war%20as%20Assistant%20Secretary%20to%20Lord%20Mountbatten%20working%20in%20Combined%20Operations%20at%20Whitehall.%20According%20to%20his%201978%20book%20UFOs%20and%20the%20Christian%20his%20lifelong%20fascination%20with%20the%20subject%20actually%20began%20in%201938%20when%20he%20underwent%20a%20%22devastating%20spiritual%20experience%22%20triggered%20by%20a%20life-threatening%20illness%20contracted%20during%20his%20naval%20service.%20This%20included%20an%20out-of-body%20journey%20to%20Mars%20and%20visions%20of%20a%20future%20atomic%20war%20against%20demonic%20forces%20who%20controlled%20spacecraft.%20During%20this%20experience%20%22not%20only%20did%20I%20witness%20future%20events,%20in%20a%20mental%20telepathic%20sort%20of%20way,%20but%20throughout%20the%20whole%20of%20this%20time%20a%20battle%20was%20raging%20for%20possession%20of%20my%20soul.%22%20In%201964%20he%20joined%20the%20clergy%20as%20a%20Church%20of%20England%20priest%20and%20during%20this%20time%20corresponded%20with%20some%20of%20the%20key%20figures%20in%20UFOlogy.%20During%20the%20occult%20revival%20of%20the%201960s%20he%20rejected%20the%20popular%20idea%20that%20flying%20saucers%20were%20extra-terrestrial%20and%20came%20to%20believe%20UFOs%20and%20their%20occupants%20were%20of%20demonic%20origin.%20Although%20not%20fully%20reflected%20in%20the%20UFO%20literature,%20this%20was%20a%20view%20shared%20by%20a%20number%20of%20leading%20British%20UFOlogists,%20including%20three%20former%20chairmen%20of%20the%20British%20UFO%20Research%20Association%20(BUFORA).%20In%201980%20Inglesby%20converted%20to%20the%20orthodox%20faith%20(taking%20Paul%20as%20his%20Christian%20name)%20following%20a%20meeting%20with%20Fr%20Seraphim%20Rose%20at%20a%20monastery%20in%20California.%20Fr%20Rose%20had%20written%20a%20treatise%20that%20identified%20UFOs%20as%20demonic%20signs%20of%20the%20approaching%20End%20Times%20and%20this%20document%20proved%20to%20be%20highly%20influential%20for%20Ingleby's%20unpopular%20but%20uncompromising%20viewpoint%20on%20the%20subject.%20Inglesby's%20Christian%20UFO%20archive%20contains%20not%20only%20his%20dealings%20with%20UFOlogists%20covering%20a%2060-year%20period,%20but%20also%20his%20correspondence%20on%20the%20subject%20with%20a%20range%20of%20famous%20figures%20from%20the%20military,%20literary%20and%20religious%20establishment.%20These%20include%20Professor%20C.S.%20Lewis,%20Lord%20Mountbatten,%20Lord%20Dowding,%20Lord%20Hill-Norton%20and%20Sir%20Victor%20Goddard.%20During%20the%201960s%20Inglesby%20asked%20Mountbatten,%20who%20had%20publicly%20expressed%20his%20belief%20in%20UFOs%20during%20the%201950s,%20for%20his%20considered%20views.%20Writing%20in%201964,%20as%20Chief%20of%20Defence%20Staff,%20he%20responded%20to%20say%20he%20no%20longer%20believed%20after%20discussing%20the%20subject%20with%20the%20British%20government's%20Chief%20Scientific%20Advisor,%20Sir%20Solly%20Zuckerman.%20Zuckerman%20told%20him%20there%20was%20no%20more%20evidence%20for%20UFOs%20than%20for%20ghosts%20or%20the%20Loch%20Ness%20Monster.%20In%201977%20Inglesby%20founded%20the%20Christian%20UFO%20Research%20Association%20via%20an%20advert%20placed%20in%20The%20Church%20Times.This%20was%20a%20loose%20association%20of%20clergymen%20from%20a%20number%20of%20denominations%20plus%20UFOlogists%20whose%20aims%20were%20to%20warn%20the%20public%20about%20the%20dangers%20of%20an%20obsessive%20interest%20in%20UFOlogy%20which%20Inglesby%20believed%20was%20%22fraught%20with%20danger%20for%20the%20unwary%20and%20riddled%20with%20heresy%20and%20false%20belief.%22%20In%20the%20same%20year%20he%20wrote%20to%20the%20Archbishop%20of%20Canterbury%20and%20Lord%20Mountbatten%20warning%20that%20Her%20Majesty%20the%20Queen%20and%20Prince%20Philip%20should%20not%20attend%20the%20Royal%20Premiere%20of%20Steven%20Spielberg's%20film%20Close%20Encounters%20of%20the%20Third%20Kind,%20as%20the%20film%20had%20a%20Satanic%20sub-plot%20involving%20demonic%20possession%20and%20alien%20landings%20at%20the%20%22Devil's%20Tower%22%20in%20Wyoming.%20His%20attempt%20to%20dissuade%20them%20failed,%20but%20the%20group%20had%20more%20success%20in%20its%20campaign%20to%20influence%20peers%20of%20the%20realm%20who%20attended%20the%20UFO%20Debate%20in%20the%20House%20of%20Lords%20during%20January%201979.%20It%20was%20through%20Inglesby's%20intervention%20that%20Maurice%20Wood,%20Bishop%20of%20Norwich,%20contributed%20his%20view%20that%20obsessive%20belief%20in%20UFOs%20%22obscured%20basic%20Christian%20truth.%22%20After%20the%20Lords%20debate%20he%20founded%20a%20second%20pressure%20group,%20Christian%20UFO%20Concern,%20and%20became%20friends%20with%20Admiral%20Lord%20Hill-Norton%20who%20shared%20Inglesby's%20naval%20background%20and%20his%20conviction%20that%20UFOs%20were%20a%20clear%20and%20present%20danger%20to%20humanity.%20During%201996,%20with%20public%20fascination%20with%20UFOs%20rising%20again,%20Inglesby%20produced%20a%20booklet,%20The%20UFO%20Concern%20Report,%20on%20behalf%20of%20Hill-Norton.%20This%20was%20privately%20published%20and%20circulated%20to%20a%20number%20of%20%22top%20people%22%20who%20had%20expressed%20an%20interest%20in%20UFOs.%20It%20was%20intended%20to%20warn%20them%20of%20what%20the%20authors%20believed%20were%20the%20occult%20origins%20of%20the%20subject.%20In%20the%20foreword%20Inglesby%20said%20UFOs%20were%20%22essentially%20a%20religious%20matter%22%20rather%20than%20a%20military%20threat%20and%20added:%20%22There%20is%20certainly%20a%20degree%20of%20psychical%20involvement%20in%20almost%20every%20[UFO]%20case.%20Quite%20often,%20such%20experiences%20are%20definitely%20antithetical%20to%20orthodox%20Christian%20belief.%22%20Hill-Norton%20died%20in%202003%20and%20Inglesby%20retired%20from%20UFOlogy%20shortly%20afterwards.%20I%20spent%20a%20full%20day%20with%20Inglesby%20at%20his%20home%20in%20Glastonbury%20during%20the%20summer%20of%202005%20and%20was%20able,%20with%20his%20permission,%20to%20examine%20the%20archive%20of%20material%20he%20had%20collected%20which%20stretched%20back%20to%20the%201950s.%20More%20details%20of%20the%20Inglesby's%20life%20and%20the%20demonic%20theory%20for%20UFOs%20can%20be%20found%20in%20my%20Fortean%20Times%20article%20'Flying%20Saucers%20from%20Hell',%20published%20in%20the%20summer%20of%202006.%20His%20last%20words%20at%20the%20end%20of%20my%20interview%20were:%20%22UFOlogy%20is%20a%20vast,%20huge%20subject,%20shot%20full%20of%20religious%20danger.%20To%20be%20immersed%20in%20its%20study,%20without%20spiritual%20protection,%20is%20fatal.%20Further%20curiosity,%20even%20scientific%20curiosity,%20equally.%20Remember%20the%20cat.%22">obituary</a> by Peter Hore published in <i>The Daily Telegraph </i>on 28 June 2010.</span></span></div></span>Dave Clarkehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17811372009688882929noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4814034554561548728.post-49212301563617960152010-06-19T07:38:00.000-07:002010-06-19T08:07:30.283-07:00Dave Cameron comes clean on ET<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHq8D_Qslp8q7w7dqH-uyIyfQo1BB8o5ZuKrXUnGJLuCrRfA7kMmAFDLUwyqAUtOjrZh7fpRxN2O1PK-_akywR-JRIJr3eNf1xMeq9dv6fle2dqQw1FIYUjMzR_Ou5tgkG55rQSINfa_3X/s1600/davidcameronprimeminister.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 234px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHq8D_Qslp8q7w7dqH-uyIyfQo1BB8o5ZuKrXUnGJLuCrRfA7kMmAFDLUwyqAUtOjrZh7fpRxN2O1PK-_akywR-JRIJr3eNf1xMeq9dv6fle2dqQw1FIYUjMzR_Ou5tgkG55rQSINfa_3X/s320/davidcameronprimeminister.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5484500758436670162" /></a><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Judging by the content of the MoD's UFO files it has become a tradition that each new Prime Minister receives a full postbag of letters from pressure groups who demand the release of ‘the truth’ about flying saucers and aliens. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">David Cameron is no exception and last year he promised to be “entirely open and frank” about the subject if elected. At one of his 'Cameron Direct' public meetings Cameron fielded a question from UFO buff Richard Hall (who believes, among other bizarre things, that I work for MI5). In response, the Tory leader laughed and said he was “convinced we have been visited by alien life forms - and one of them is the trade secretary Lord Mandelson." </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Hall was not pleased and said Cameron “will not be making jokes when the truth comes out” - but at least an alien invasion might provide him with a distraction from cutting the deficit. Anyway, a year passes and a new version of this exchange reappears on the internet not as a joke but as a unequivocal declaration from the coalition leader that “aliens in UFOs <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">have</i> visited earth.” According to </span><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="http://www.nationalufocenter.com/artman/publish/article_334.php">George Filer’s ‘Filers Files’ </a></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Cameron actually said: ‘I am convinced the Earth has been visited by aliens and vow to publish any secret files that may exist on UFOs if I become Prime Minister.”</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Of course this isn’t nearly as exciting as Cameron’s honest admission that he has no idea “whether any of the sightings which have taken place have any basis in truth” and that most UFO claims, when subjected to critical scrutiny, turn out to have rational explanations. While Dave checks his postbag you can revisit the amusing exchange between Cameron and Hall on </span><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_ZsftZ9GCM">YouTube</a></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">.</span></p>Dave Clarkehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17811372009688882929noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4814034554561548728.post-42844279290658607302010-05-23T03:17:00.000-07:002010-05-23T07:07:06.411-07:00The Sea Monster Files<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQiEL2hnDqxGREyIy9E7UJttrl4j8zYBQooupeb5YzBTjTeSV1NFh4ivObXZQJE52UFGhsW6uC7b4vUFjiJtU8lN2T4zdsKqMtife2LJNOX6oZtOCqpPhXDjQjzd2N8KnZ9Xm24urPLd3i/s1600/hms-daedalus-sea-serpent.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 230px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQiEL2hnDqxGREyIy9E7UJttrl4j8zYBQooupeb5YzBTjTeSV1NFh4ivObXZQJE52UFGhsW6uC7b4vUFjiJtU8lN2T4zdsKqMtife2LJNOX6oZtOCqpPhXDjQjzd2N8KnZ9Xm24urPLd3i/s320/hms-daedalus-sea-serpent.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5474410327124286034" /></a><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">The Royal Navy is not hiding any secret files on sea monsters - but crews who make unusual sightings may have recorded their experiences in ship logbooks. This revelation emerged as a result of a Freedom of Information request made by marine biologist Sebastian Darby.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Darby’s request asked the MoD if there were “any abnormally large, or dangerous sea monsters hundreds of metres under the sea that haven’t been revealed to the public.” If such creatures did exist, he argued, it would be in the public interest to publish the facts as the lives of marine biologists could be at risk. The original request and response from the Navy FOI officer can seen on the helpful </span><span lang="EN-GB"><i>What Do They Know</i></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> website </span><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/worringly_big_sea_monsters">here</a></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">The response says MoD does not keep “any form of central repository of information purely devoted to sea monsters”. But the navy did encourage personnel to record sightings of marine mammals “and its possible this could include unusual sightings.” All such reports were sent to the UK Hydrographic Office in Somerset, but individual ship’s logs are retained until they are deposited at The National Archives after 30 years. But a search of thousands of ship’s logs for entries on sea monster sightings would exceed the cost limits allowed for a FOI request.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Nautical folklore is replete with such stories and first-hand accounts of sightings have been recorded in Atlantic waters since the Middle Ages. In more recent centuries, one of the most celebrated sea serpent reports was made by the captain and officers of the frigate HMS Daedalus off the Cape of Good Hope in the South Atlantic on 6 August 1848 (see image, right). On arrival in England the captain, Peter M’Quhae sent details to the Admiralty and to </span><span lang="EN-GB"><i>The Times</i></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> newspaper. Later, he personally supervised a detailed drawing of the 60 ft long creature. But his story was rejected by palaeontologist Professor Richard Owen, who insisted the crew had seen a giant seal.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">A number of other 19<sup>th</sup> century accounts have emerged in British Admiralty files deposited at The National Archives in Kew.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>One contains an account of a sea serpent written by Captain James Stockdale in May 1830. Stockdale and the crew of the barque </span><span lang="EN-GB"><i>Rob Roy</i></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> were near the island of St Helena when they heard a scuffling noise in the water. As they turned to the port bow they were amazed to see the head of “a great thundering sea snake” whose head rose six feet out of the water “as square with our topsail [and] his tail was square with the foremast.” Stockdale said his ship was 171 feet long with the foremast 42 feet from the stern, which would make the monster 129 feet long. He reported to his masters in London: </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"></span></p><blockquote>“If I had not seen it I could not have believed it but there was no mistake or doubt of its length – for the brute was so close I could even smell his nasty fishy smell.”</blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Unusual reports like these appear to have been filed away without comment by the Admiralty, in much the same way that the Air Ministry dealt with reports of flying saucers and UFOs from RAF crews during the 20<sup>th</sup> century. Unless a clear threat was identified, either from sea monsters or aliens, sightings like these were classified as interesting but of “no defence significance.”</p>Dave Clarkehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17811372009688882929noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4814034554561548728.post-48680275426413330902010-05-23T03:13:00.000-07:002010-05-29T02:49:46.882-07:00Ewe couldn't make it up!<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:normal"><span style=" font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-Times New Roman"; font-family:";font-size:12.0pt;color:black;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:normal"><span style=" font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-Times New Roman"; font-family:";font-size:12.0pt;color:black;">The idea that aliens are mutilating farm animals and other creatures began in the USA during the 1960s. Opinion is divided between those who believe the wave of mysterious deaths of cattle that followed can be attributed to predators, nefarious military experiments, cult activity or- whisper it!- <i>real</i> aliens. But it was inevitable that “mutes”, like most other UFOlogical legends, would be exported from the USA to the rest of the world. The phenomenon in the UK is sporadic and has tended to preoccupy the energies of the type of UFO buff that Patrick Moore used to describe as ‘independent thinkers’. We didn’t have to wait long for <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">The Sun</i> to set this hare running and in April, under the frivolous headline “Baas Attacks” we were told that farmers</span><span lang="EN" style=" font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:ENfont-family:";font-size:12.0pt;color:black;"> near Shrewsbury in Shropshire had found bodies of sheep which had been “lasered” by mysterious orange lights in the sky, leaving the poor creatures without brains or eyes. Others have been found with neatly drilled holes via which brains and internal organs have been extracted, and so on. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:normal"><span lang="EN" style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:ENfont-family:";font-size:12.0pt;color:black;">The source for <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">The Sun’s</i> story was ‘UFOlogist’ Phil Hoyle who claims that such mutilations are regularly taking place in a 50-mile "corridor" between Shrewsbury and Powys in Wales. Hoyle’s grandly-named ‘Animal Pathology Field Unit’ was featured briefly on BBC3’s <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">I believe in UFOs</i> programme earlier this year, but his wild claims left even the clueless presenter Danny Dyer lost for words.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>One of the unit’s investigative activities was to organise a skywatch at one of the farms plagued by extraterrestrial mutilators. Afterwards Hoyle was quoted as saying: “The technology involved in these attacks is frightening. For a short while it looked more like a Star Wars battle. These lights and spheres are clearly not ours. They are built by technology and intelligence that's not from here.” The following day he quizzed farmers (none of whom were named or quoted) in the vicinity and found that "all but one had some type of unusual disappearance of animals or deaths with strange injuries".</span><span lang="EN" style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-Times New Roman"; font-family:";font-size:12.0pt;color:black;"> </span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-Times New Roman";font-family:";font-size:12.0pt;color:black;"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:normal"><span style=" font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-Times New Roman"; font-family:";font-size:12.0pt;color:black;">Now I can understand why <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">The Sun</i> runs this type of 'flat earth' story but when it is picked up by the Press Association and repeated by the <i><a href="http://tinyurl.com/yhvnc9q">Daily Telegraph</a></i><a href="http://tinyurl.com/yhvnc9q"> (5 April 2010)</a> you begin to realize how far fact-checking has declined in British journalism.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:normal"><span style=" font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-Times New Roman"; font-family:";font-size:12.0pt;color:black;">For his 2008 book <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Flat Earth News</i> Nick Davies commissioned Cardiff University to survey the contents of four ‘quality’ newspapers (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Times, Guardian, Independent</i> and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Telegraph</i>) during two random weeks to assess the source of their editorial content. He found that a massive 80% of the content was drawn from either agency and/or PR sources. That left just 12% of the content that appeared to be generated through the efforts of the paper’s own reporters. This is what Davies calls churnalism - but essentially it is lazy journalism and it is endemic in newsrooms everywhere. Stories like this one are copied without the most basic checks and endlessly recycled on the internet.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:normal"><span style=" font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-Times New Roman"; font-family:";font-size:12.0pt;color:black;">Perhaps I’m taking this too seriously – after all newspapers run daft stories every day, as their role is to entertain as well as to inform. But any journalist worthy of the name <i>should</i> have asked</span><span lang="EN" style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:ENfont-family:";font-size:12.0pt;color:black;"> why farmers – not usually known for their lack of initiative when it comes to pursuing claims for loss of livestock - had not reported these mutilations to the police or the authorities, or made any claims for compensation. At an even more basic level, who <i>are</i> these farmers and why isn't a single source - apart from Hoyle - named in the story?</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:normal"><span lang="EN" style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:ENfont-family:";font-size:12.0pt;color:black;">It took me less than half an hour to make some basic inquiries with the Animal Health team that is responsible for the Welsh Border region (part of the Department for the Environment, Food & Rural Affairs). This established the team had not received a single complaint from farms in this region or even any report of an unexplained animal mutilation during the past five years. But why let the facts get in the way of a good story?</span></p><span style=" line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language: EN-US;mso-bidi-language:AR-SAfont-family:";font-size:12.0pt;color:black;"></span>Dave Clarkehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17811372009688882929noreply@blogger.com13tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4814034554561548728.post-57608951275332425662010-05-23T03:06:00.000-07:002010-05-24T01:24:06.351-07:00Mama, they're making CGI's at me!<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLI_9sFRGJB9sp1-kfFBLEGKTgcNwFt5mIDgb2uosFzykjJ9ea4vne6r_HO_EIsP6cAzy-dcblFG7MvpRvJS9tKvUS0-vfFHRbatKKmY0cFbM-6nluJ-CEXnQD0xfe3Zl4FRl-HyNRaWRn/s1600/M5.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 167px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLI_9sFRGJB9sp1-kfFBLEGKTgcNwFt5mIDgb2uosFzykjJ9ea4vne6r_HO_EIsP6cAzy-dcblFG7MvpRvJS9tKvUS0-vfFHRbatKKmY0cFbM-6nluJ-CEXnQD0xfe3Zl4FRl-HyNRaWRn/s320/M5.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5474406358685635698" /></a><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-Times New Roman";font-family:";font-size:12.0pt;color:black;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="color:black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">Also in April </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">The Sun</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"> claimed fighter jets had been captured on film in daylight pursuing a UFO over the M5 motorway. We were told “a mystery cameraman” obtained the footage from a West Midlands service station car park and posted the footage on </span></span><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXm3HwtvTKA&feature=player_embedded#!"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">YouTube</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">. Ex MoD saucer-botherer Nick Pope was quoted as saying this was “one of the best videos” he had seen and suggested the object was either a military drone or “the real thing” – “a UFO in our airspace and military aircraft scrambled to intercept.”</span></span><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"> </span></span></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="color:black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span></span>But was it? Had the balloon gone up? Or was it just another cynical exercise to attract readers? If so readers were not taken in. </span></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="color:black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">Immediately, commentators dismissed the footage as fake. Questions asked included: why was there just one witness and why was he anonymous? why do both the UFO and the jets appear to be motionless and why do the trucks appear so clean and spotless? Another identified the jets as Russian Sukhoi Su-27s, not normally part of the RAF’s interceptor force!</span></span><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"> </span></span></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="color:black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span></span>All the clues pointed towards a clever hoax. Investigative UFOlogist Isaac Koi - who has a fantastic new website </span></span><a href="http://www.isaackoi.com/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">here</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"> - spent an afternoon scrutinising the mystery footage and consulted CGI experts who have posted similar films on YouTube. One said: “…everything that appears in the video is digital. The textures are very clean. The trucks, the tree, the UFO, the jets. Not mine, but it is very good, and is CGI.” </span></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="color:black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">Not conclusive proof, but it shows what an enquiring kind and a small investment of time can come up with. Koi pointed out there is a P&O container in the foreground of the video on which some serial numbers are visible. Suspiciously, the camera appears to focus on the serial number before shifting to the UFO. He then traced an online 3D image of a P&O container with a serial number visible, which appears to be the same serial number as the container image online. </span></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="color:black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">Conclusive evidence the video is a hoax? </span></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="color:black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">Yes. The creator of the video confessed on 21 April and posted the </span></span><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adroNNbzRe8&feature=player_embedded"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">full video on YouTube</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">, along with a stage-by-stage account of how it was produced using a simple computer programme. It appears the whole story was a clever exercise in viral marketing - with the tabloids and UFO 'experts' all taken in by their will to believe.</span></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">Bear in mind that none of the international news outlets - including </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">The Sun</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"> and </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">Daily Mail</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"> - who ran the original story have told their readers it was a hoax.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">As a YouTube viewer commented, the hoax revelation has received just 65 hits in five days. That compares to the original footage, which received hundreds of thousands of views, net comment and international media coverage.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">Won't get fooled again?</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">Only 'till next time.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-Times New Roman";font-family:";font-size:12.0pt;color:black;"><br /></span></p>Dave Clarkehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17811372009688882929noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4814034554561548728.post-84642055789671565102010-04-16T01:20:00.000-07:002010-04-16T01:27:10.861-07:00Victory for Free Speech<span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Tahoma, 'Sans Serif', Arial;font-size:medium;">The British Chiropractic Association have dropped their wrong-headed libel action against Simon Singh. The move follows the decision by the Court of Appeal that Simon's comments, published by the Guardian, were honest comment not a statement of fact. </span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Tahoma, 'Sans Serif', Arial;font-size:medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Tahoma, 'Sans Serif', Arial;font-size:medium;">A delighted Simon says:<br /><br /><em><blockquote>"It still staggers me that the British Chiropractic Association and half the chiropractors in the UK were making unsubstantiated claims. It still baffles me that the BCA then dared to sue me for libel and put me through two years of hell before I was vindicated. And it still makes me angry that our libel laws not only tolerate but also encourage such ludicrous libel suits. My victory does not mean that our libel laws are okay, because I won despite the libel laws. We still have the most notoriously anti-free speech libel laws in the free world."</blockquote></em></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Tahoma, 'Sans Serif', Arial;font-size:medium;"><em><br /></em></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Tahoma, 'Sans Serif', Arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">50,000 people have now signed the online <a href="http://www.libelreform.org/">campaign for libel reform</a> and with a General Election just weeks away, there is a real chance of significant changes to this repressive piece of legislation.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Tahoma, 'Sans Serif', Arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /></span></span></div>Dave Clarkehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17811372009688882929noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4814034554561548728.post-2890457037997385032010-04-04T06:49:00.000-07:002010-04-06T05:21:53.620-07:00The Chilling Effect of Libel LawsCongratulations to Simon Singh on his resounding victory in the appeal court for his right to express an opinion on alternative medicine. Simon is being sued by the British Chiropractic Assocation (BCA) for an article he <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/apr/01/simon-singh-wins-libel-court">published in </a><i><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/apr/01/simon-singh-wins-libel-court">The Guardian</a></i> two years ago, which described some of its treatments as "bogus" and based on insufficient evidence.<div><br /><div>Last week's ruling does not bring an end to this farcical action, it simply allows Simon to use the defence of <i>fair comment</i> when the action finally reaches court. Simply to reach this preliminary stage the proceedings have cost both parties a total of £200,000 - proof, if such were needed, that libel remains a rich man's game with the only beneficiaries being m'learned friends. Without the fair comment defence, under Britain's archaic libel laws, Simon would have had to prove his comments were factually true as opposed to an opinion, an experience that England's law lords compared to "<i>an Orwellian Ministry of Truth</i>."</div><div><br /></div><div>So the battle to reform Britain's libel laws and defend freedom of speech continues. It is shameful that despite promises from the Labour Government for reform the UN human rights committee's criticism of the current system, published in 2008, still stands: "The law law of libel has served to discourage critical media reporting on matters of public interest, adversely affecting the ability of scholars and journalists to publish their work."</div><div>I urge you all to sign the petition at <b><a href="http://www.libel-reform.org/">www.libel-reform.org</a></b>.</div><div><br /></div><div>Manchester solicitor <b>Mark Lewis, </b>who<b> </b>acted for Sheffield Wednesday fan Nigel Short and Owlstalk in another recent action, sent me his commentary which I'm pleased to publish here. You can read the background to the Nigel Short story on <a href="http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/09/17/the-price-of-free-speech/">George Monbiot's blog </a>here.</div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" border-collapse: collapse; font-family:arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;"><div class="gmail_quote"><br /><div lang="EN-GB" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><i>What has Sheffield Wednesday got in common with an American medical company?</i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><i> </i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><i>If your mind is going towards “steel”, then that thought is wrong. What both have in common, is the use of libel laws by companies against individuals.</i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><i> </i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><i>The dust has settled since Sheffield Wednesday decided to sue its fan, Nigel Short and seek an order against “Owlstalk” website to disclose the identities of anonymous bloggers. You might remember the uproar among football fans when Sheffield Wednesday and their then board decided to sue the fans. Even Blades fans united in their support of Wednesday fans who were threatened with being sued for making fairly trivial comments and posting blogs.</i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><i> </i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><i>The fans stood up to the challenge, Nigel defended the case against him and eventually Sheffield Wednesday, saw sense, and dropped the claim . Nigel never had the chance to have his day in court and so even though there is satisfaction that the claim was dropped and his costs paid (he was represented “No Win No Fee”) the matter was not resolved in a way that allows other football fans to post on websites with the certainty that they will not be sued.</i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><i> </i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><i>So what you say. If there is a good defence it can be run. Apart from the hell that Nigel had to endure and the lost time, libel cases cost a fortune to defend. Even if you can get the backing of a lawyer who will not charge you, the risk of financial loss if the case goes against you is huge. Lose and you can end up paying costs and damages sometimes over a million pounds. Free speech has never been so dear. That is what is known as the “chilling effect”. Football fans who cannot post on fan websites for fear of being sued, are “chilled” because of the financial risk. The financial loss is only one part. The stress of being a defendant to a claim and the disruption to life is huge.</i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><i> </i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><i>Libel law is simple. If a claimant has got money then he is likely to win against a defendant who can’t afford to lose. No law, no merits, just the power of money.</i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><i> </i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><i>The chilling effect became the “killing effect” when doctors and scientists started to get sued. Simon Singh is being sued by the British Chiropractors Association, for an article he wrote in the Guardian. </i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><i>Dr Peter Wilmshurst is being sued because of an interview he gave to a journalist. Oh yes, I forgot to say, that interview was given to a Canadian journalist in the USA at a scientific conference about cardiology. The website that the article was on is open to subscription viewers only. Oh and the website wasn’t sued, nor was the journalist. No proceedings were issued in America. But Dr Wilmshurst a Consultant at a hospital in Shrewsbury is being sued in an action that NMT estimated would cost £1.5 million. Patients lose out because he has to devote time to defending a court case rather than treat them.</i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><i> </i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><i>Dr Wilmshurst is defending the claim. He sees it as a principle issue because he needs to speak out. That is how science works. Scientists challenge theories and as a result knowledge develops. If a scientist is scared off from speaking out then we all suffer. The killing effect is not to Peter Wilmshurst or Simon Singh, but those scientists who modify articles and worse those who don’t write articles at all in order to prevent being sued. Put it this way, just think about your own favourite theory – say, which football team is better. Then ask yourself would you say that aloud if you risked being sued for £1 million. </i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><i> </i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><i>It is for that reason that people are now fighting back and calling for a change in the libel laws to get recognition of a “public interest defence” – it doesn’t matter whether a theory is correct or not, if it is in the interest of the public and has been said honestly then you need to be able to say it. </i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><i>Defending a claim has to be made affordable. Otherwise the cost of a libel claim and the Claimant friendly laws, leads only to silence. People have to speak out!</i></p><div style="border-top-style: none; border-right-style: none; border-left-style: none; border-width: initial; border-color: initial; border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-bottom-width: 1pt; padding-top: 0cm; padding-right: 0cm; padding-bottom: 1pt; padding-left: 0cm; "><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; border-top-style: none; border-right-style: none; border-bottom-style: none; border-left-style: none; border-width: initial; border-color: initial; padding-top: 0cm; padding-right: 0cm; padding-bottom: 0cm; padding-left: 0cm; "><i> </i></p></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Mark Lewis from Manchester is the solicitor who acted for Nigel Short and Owlstalk against the previous board of Sheffield Wednesday, and currently acts for Dr Wilmshurst.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "> </p></div></div></div></span></div></div>Dave Clarkehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17811372009688882929noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4814034554561548728.post-65494883985339700842010-03-07T02:56:00.000-08:002010-03-07T04:24:19.971-08:00Alone Again: Naturally?<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibTag2PMw0kkS3JDSdSMNK0LeZ6eVTeTR86yX52C5Q-ad83937gvbeGLGufSRlthXC-ESxi_cgE44lscS2_HzGoifiOSM-RJ8afbT_YCtsh_zRZHeORs6d7_rwDHRfGFPKeDv2-oAPdwbu/s1600-h/PaulDavies.JPG"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 206px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibTag2PMw0kkS3JDSdSMNK0LeZ6eVTeTR86yX52C5Q-ad83937gvbeGLGufSRlthXC-ESxi_cgE44lscS2_HzGoifiOSM-RJ8afbT_YCtsh_zRZHeORs6d7_rwDHRfGFPKeDv2-oAPdwbu/s320/PaulDavies.JPG" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5445851145206027378" /></a><br /><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" border-collapse: collapse; font-family:arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;"><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">Professor Paul Davies' new book <i><a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Eerie-Silence-Are-Alone-Universe/dp/1846141427/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1267960144&sr=1-1">The Eerie Silence: Are we alone in the universe?</a> </i>was published on 5 March and is highly recommended for anyone interested in the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) and 'UFOs'. I blogged about Davies's views on UFOs <a href="http://drdavidclarke.blogspot.com/2010/01/eerie-silence-ufos-and-astronomers.html">earlier this year</a> and the book has now been reviewed by Jon Ronson in <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2010/mar/06/paul-davies-aliens-welcome-jon-ronson">The Guardian</a> and by Lord Martin Rees in <a href="http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/book_reviews/article7049425.ece">The Times</a>.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:'times new roman';font-size:medium;">Particularly worth reading are Davies's comments on UFOs and government cover-ups (discussed in Chapter 1). As a student at Royal Holloway during the 1970s Davies was a believer in UFOs as craft visiting Earth from other worlds, and was convinced by the catalogues of ground traces and radar trackings used by UFOlogists as proof that structured craft from elsewhere are regularly visiting Earth. </span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:'times new roman';font-size:medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:'times new roman';font-size:medium;">But his mature views after 40 years as a SETI scientist are worth contrasting with the beliefs of Stan Friedman, Tim Good and the 'disclosure movement'. As chair of the SETI Post-Detection Task Group, it would be Davies who would be the first to announce to the world that contact has been made with an extraterrestrial civilisation, as they would be first to receive it. And he would do that via the scientific community, making any notion that governments would or could successfully conceal such amazing news redundant.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:'times new roman';font-size:medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:'times new roman';font-size:medium;">In his review of the book Jon Ronson mentions that at the recent Royal Society conference to mark the 50th anniversay of SETI, a man in dark glasses stood up during the Q&A session with Davies to announce: "Why does SETI ignore what's right in front of us? The 6,000 abductions! The 10,000 cattle mutilations!" His succinct answer was: "To expect alien technology to be just a few decades ahead of ours is too incredible to be taken seriously." To Davies, unpicking the mysteries of the universe utilising fundamental physics and astrobiology leads to a far more satisfying explanation of the wonders of nature, compared to which the UFO abduction industry is merely a updated medieval demonology.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:'times new roman';font-size:medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:'times new roman';font-size:medium;">On the subject of UFOs, Davies appears to have reached the same conclusion as others such as Jenny Randles, Paul Devereux and myself namely that, despite scepticism borne of past experience in investigating UFO incidents: </span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:'times new roman';font-size:medium;"><blockquote>"it would not surprise me if a small fraction of cases involve new or little-understood atmospheric or psychological phenomena. But whatever lies behind that stubborn residue of hard-to-explain cases, I see no reason to attribute them to the activities of alien beings visiting our planet in flying saucers. UFOs, like ghost stories, are fun to read, but cannot be taken seriously as evidence for extraterrestrial beings. They do serve a useful purpose, however, by providing a window on how the human mind imagines aliens and alien technology. What is striking about the accounts is not their weird and otherworldly character, but their distinctly mundane and human-like quality. We would surely expect of extraterrestrials something more extraordinary than humanoid beings piloting the equivalent of souped-up Stealth bombers" (pg 22 of <i>The Eerie Silence</i>).</blockquote></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:'times new roman';font-size:medium;">This is a viewpoint which is entirely sympathetic to my own position after 20 years on the flying saucer beat. As I was quoted by <i>The Times</i>: on 18 February "I think either aliens are watching our TV and adapting their aircraft accordingly, or people are seeing these things in popular culture and adapting them in their own imagination."</span></div><div><br /></div></span>Dave Clarkehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17811372009688882929noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4814034554561548728.post-62456153583362944612010-02-27T06:42:00.000-08:002010-03-02T10:30:06.537-08:00MoD Endgame: new UFO reports destroyed<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4F8Fbp8-BvWqxZ3H9s4A2D6klO2JQmAZ44krl0UKTj8cWVbk3gto3_Ikmepg2x7HVxc2bjp1Qmohy2-W3E2I9NrLjXUecq2ewDxpg9sDCUPPLvWoR7Oo1mmgX5qmOJu4CN82BVaJ95skf/s1600-h/DefenceInstructionUFOs.JPG"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 196px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4F8Fbp8-BvWqxZ3H9s4A2D6klO2JQmAZ44krl0UKTj8cWVbk3gto3_Ikmepg2x7HVxc2bjp1Qmohy2-W3E2I9NrLjXUecq2ewDxpg9sDCUPPLvWoR7Oo1mmgX5qmOJu4CN82BVaJ95skf/s320/DefenceInstructionUFOs.JPG" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5442963220685474834" /></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">Britain's </span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">Ministry of Defence</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"> is destroying all UFO reports it receives so it can avoid answering Freedom of Information requests.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /></span></div></span></span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">This decision means that any future sightings - even those made by reliable sources such as aircrew, radar and police - will in future be shredded after 30 days, according to a formerly secret document released to me in response to a request under the FOIA.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';">I released copies of the original documents to the Press Association and <a href="http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/science_technology/mod+ufos+are+not+a+military+threat/3566772">Channel 4 News</a> who have exclusively made them available to the public as a simple download from their <a href="http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/science_technology/mod+ufos+are+not+a+military+threat/3566772">website</a>.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">According to a November 2009 MoD briefing, the new policy took effect immediately after the decision to close the UFO desk and the public 'UFO hotline'. Officials said these "</span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">serve no Defence purpose and merely encourage the generation of correspondence of no Defence value</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">." A defence minister, Kevan Jones MP, approved the decision:</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"></span></span></div><blockquote><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">"...that reported sightings...should be answered by a standard letter and, on the advice of Corporate Memory and The National Archives, should be retained for 30 days and then destroyed, largely removing any future FOI liability and negating the need to release future files post 30 November 2009."</span></span></div></blockquote><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">The justification given for the decision is a tripling in the numbers of UFO sightings reported to the MoD, from an average of 150 reports per year during the past decade to a whopping 634 in 2009. "The increased workload caused by this upsurge...is now exceeding the level of staff resource allocated to the task and impacting on other tasks," according to the briefing. No doubt many of these additional reports were made as a result of the campaign by <i>The Sun</i> newspaper to persuade its readership that orange lights floating the skies were alien spaceships rather than Chinese lanterns. </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">The MoD has for some years been looking for an excuse to close down the UFO desk and this tripling of reports has provided the opportunity they needed. Anticipating the decision would attract outrage from UFOlogists, the MoD predicted they "may individually, or as a group, mount a vociferous, but short-lived campaign to reinstate the 'UFO Hotline' suggesting that, by not investigating UFOs, MoD is failing its Defence commitments." It adds: "It is possible that there will be a resulting short term increase in public and Parliamentary correspondence [but] the press interest is...likely to be more frivolous in tone than critical."</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">Clearly rattled by claims they were hiding information on UFOs, MoD reveal they had "deliberately avoided formal approaches to other Governments on this issue [as these] would be viewed by 'ufologists' as evidence of international collaboration and conspiracy." As a result MoD officials searched the US Department of Defence website where they found a press release that stated "the issue of UFOs is no longer being investigated by the US Government". This policy was implemented following the closure of Project Blue Book in 1969 and the subsequent transfer of records to the US National Archives (NARA).</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">As I suspected all along, the closure of the UFO desk and the decision to transfer all remaining MoD files to The National Archives are linked. Referring to the US example the British MoD briefing adds: "This is broadly in line with our proposed way forward. Public sources suggest that other Governments are taking a similar approach to ours, with the Canadian, French and Danish Governments publishing their historic UFO files in recent years."</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">The five page briefing released simultaneously to me and colleague Joe McGonagle was originally circulated to Secretary of State Bob Ainsworth, senior civil servants and military officials including the Chief of Air Staff, and intelligence branches of RAF Air Command on 11 November last year.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">It included a "defence newsbrief" that said the decision to end all further UFO investigations was taken because the task "diverts resources away from core defence business...MoD has no interest in receiving reports of UFO sightings and will not be actioning the reports that we receive post November 2009." </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">A Defence Instruction and Notice spelling out the new policy was circulated to all military establishments in the UK on 1 December (see copy, above right). It contained an order that "stations...contacted by members of the public are advised not to encourage them to report a UFO sighting or expect an investigation to take place."</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">The new policy means that any UFO reports received in future will be answered by a standard letter, with the correspondence destroyed within 30 days: "This would mean that there would be no FOI liability and no requirement to release any further files to the National Archives, since the only filing generated would be copies of the standard response."</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">It also allows MoD to extend its ongoing transfer of files to The National Archives to include all the most recent Air Command UFO files opened before 30 November 2009 when the decision was implemented. This means that by the end of the disclosure programme MoD will retain no further paperwork on UFOs.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">The document concludes: "There is no merit in maintaining a dedicated UFO desk in Air Command, nor in adding to the staff resource allocated to the UFO task. The current UFO staff resource should be redeployed to other public and Parliamentary tasks as soon as possible."</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">Intriguingly, this decision does not apply to, or signify any change in "the standing arrangements for control and defence of UK airspace." Under the question: "are our skies being left undefended?" the press briefing answers that: "There will be no change to current arrangements and air space integrity will be maintained through the existing mixture of civil and military radar and aircraft on quick reaction alert."</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">Concluding the policy, a defence official writes that MoD's public response to inquiries on UFOs in future will stress that:</span></span></div><div><ul><li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">MoD has no opinion on the existence or otherwise of extra terrestrials</span></span></li><li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">In more than fifty years, no UFO sighting reported to the [MoD] has indicated the existence of any military threat to the UK</span></span></li><li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">[MoD] have a responsibility to use defence resources only for activities which contribute to the defence and security of the UK</span></span></li><li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">No defence benefit arises from the receipt of UFO reports from the public and responding to [them] diverts MoD resources from tasks of relevance to defence.</span></span></li></ul></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">The disclosure of this document makes it evident this is the endgame as far as the MoD are concerned. Clearly, in a time of economic crisis savings have to be made and public spending cuts provided the opportunity they needed to finally rid themselves of a subject they regard as a nuisance. Indeed, the similarity between the concluding statement and the recommendations of the University of Colorado report that led to the closure of the USAF's Project Blue Book in 1969 bear close scrutiny. </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">But if MoD have learned anything from 50 years experience it should be that UFOs will simply not go away. I suspect that the next time a near-miss incident involving civil or military aircraft occurs, they will be forced to rethink this somewhat short-sighted policy. Only time will tell.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /></span></span></div>Dave Clarkehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17811372009688882929noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4814034554561548728.post-30540025275574725612010-02-19T06:15:00.000-08:002010-02-22T02:05:52.886-08:00Take us to your leader?<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjuVw05JBEqOPrL6MRSPtRbMYmSMUVbx66wjdxbRhgehLDHFrUJ8txc7MbnXIfA1kfLrLObrtr658azEmluLyCQPEByJ-q6c0oD3OwOZ79q9HNOA4wxqLCEMV5rNQoREhIzNKKE84ip5thW/s1600-h/howard-pic.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5439987259843146386" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 320px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 200px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjuVw05JBEqOPrL6MRSPtRbMYmSMUVbx66wjdxbRhgehLDHFrUJ8txc7MbnXIfA1kfLrLObrtr658azEmluLyCQPEByJ-q6c0oD3OwOZ79q9HNOA4wxqLCEMV5rNQoREhIzNKKE84ip5thW/s320/howard-pic.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div></div><div>The release of the fifth tranche of UFO files by <a href="http://ufos.nationalarchives.gov.uk/">The National Archives </a>has been widely covered by the UK and international media.<br /><br />It didn't surprise me that many led with the ludicrous story about UFO sightings in the vicinity of former Tory leader Michael Howard's home in Kent shortly before the 1997 General Election.</div><br /><div><div>The basis for the claim was that assorted people saw lights in the sky and "a large triangular object" hovering above a field near Folkestone one night in March that year. Examining the details closely, the link between the "UFO" and Howard was, to be generous, a little tenuous. A UFO enthusiast was quoted by the BBC as saying that the craft didn't appear to be interested in the girl who saw it "[which] <em>left me wondering if its purpose had something to do with Mr Howard</em>." </div><br /><div>Quite what that means I've no idea, but that is what this entire story amounts to. According to the MoD file on the incident (a whitewash, of course) Howard wasn't at home at the time, there was no security alert and nothing unusual was seen on radar - which suggests the UFO was most likely a perfectly ordinary helicopter or low-flying aircraft.</div><br /><div>So if aliens were involved, they hadn't done their homework as Howard was out on the campaign trail. Perhaps they were actually looking for his colleague, John Redwood, who is frequently caricatured as "Mr Spock".</div><br /><div>Coupled with Ann Widdecombe's declaration that there was "something of the night" about Howard, this story was a gift for the press: "<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8520717.stm">Was Michael Howard buzzed by aliens?"</a> asked <em>BBC News Online</em>), whilst <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/18/michael-howard-ufos-folkestone"><em>The Guardian</em> </a>ran the story on its front page with the headline: "Earthlings, take us to your leader...of the opposition."</div><br /><div>Inevitably, extraterrestrial interest in Mr Howard was top of the agenda when I was interviewed by John Humphries on <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8521000/8521390.stm">BBC Radio 4's Today programme yesterday </a>morning. The BBC had spoken to Howard, who had said he had never taken the story seriously.</div><br /><div>Far more interesting, I told Humphries, was the account in the files describing RAF gun camera film of UFOs seen by MoD official Ralph Noyes at a secret screening in 1970.</div><br /><div>Some newspapers did cover this intriguing anecdote, along with my comments linking changes in UFO shapes with depictions of advanced aircraft in film and media, from the "flying saucers" in 1950s B-movies to the black triangular UFOs reported from the late 1980s when photographs of the USAF Stealth fighter and B-2 flying wing were first declassified.</div><br /><div>This line was used to full effect by the BBC on their <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtPEgGtQsT0">World Briefing </a>and by <a href="http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/science_technology/close+encounters+ufo+sightings+revealed/3548137">Channel 4 news</a>, which quoted me saying that either the aliens were watching our TV shows and adapting the shape of their craft in response, or there was a link between popular culture and what people reported as UFOs.:</div><div><br /><blockquote><p>"It's impossible to prove a direct link between what people are reading and watching and what they report as UFOs," I said, "but one interpretation could be that the latest advances in technology may be influencing what people see in the sky." </p></blockquote></div><div>And finally...the podcast I recorded for The National Archives' launch of the latest set of UFO files is now available on <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MN4g2aEBxdQ">YouTube</a> and has had 150,000 views so far. </div><div><br /></div><div>Some of the comments are hilarious, but my favourite says: "Dr David Clarke explains away every incedent [sic] as something not related with extraterrestrials. I don't know how or why that makes him an 'expert on UFOs'." MoD is just purging files of nonsense and are fully aware of what's going on." Another corker, from 'AristotleP', adds: "Dr David Clarke is a government sponsored UFO debunker." </div><div><br /></div><div>Kevin Randle once said that you haven't made it in the wacky world of UFOlogy until you are accused of working for the CIA or MI5. That's a sure sign that when your detractors are unable to sustain any form of logical argument based upon facts, their last desperate option is to say you are a government agent paid to debunk their cherished beliefs.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><br /><div></div></div>Dave Clarkehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17811372009688882929noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4814034554561548728.post-63064096941154415852010-02-14T10:03:00.000-08:002010-02-17T16:03:12.479-08:00UFOs Galore: 24 files released by The National Archives<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GBfont-family:";font-size:12.0pt;">The National Archives have released the fifth collection of UFO files from the Ministry of Defence. The files can be downloaded free of charge for one month from the <a href="http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ufos">TNA UFO website </a>which also contains a 10-minute audio/visual summary of the contents and a guide to the highlights.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GBfont-family:";font-size:12.0pt;">As TNA’s consultant for the project I have been helping to prepare for what is the largest release of files to date. There are 24 files in this tranche containing more than 6,000 pages of documents spanning 1994-2000. The correspondence files span the period 1994-99 and the UFO report files begin in August 1996 and end in September 2000.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GBfont-family:";font-size:12.0pt;">1996 was one of the busiest years for UFO reporting, with 609 incidents logged by the MoD. The popularity of the subject, encouraged by TV, films and media hype, continued into 1997 when 425 reports were received. But from that point there was a steady decline in reporting, with 193 incidents in 1998, 228 in 1999 and 210 in 2000.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GBfont-family:";font-size:12.0pt;">It is important to note that most of these reports should not be regarded as “UFOs”, as few if any were investigated or followed up to the stage at which it was possible to eliminate even the most basic explanations. An Air Ministry study in 1955 found that 90% of sightings they received at that time could be explained if inquiries were made before the scent went cold. In the 1950s sightings were investigated by air intelligence officers, who found many could be accounted for as balloons, aircraft, fireballs and celestial objects.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GBfont-family:";font-size:12.0pt;">By 1996 when these MoD files were compiled, few of the incidents were investigated thoroughly and even the most interesting were simply filed away. This was due to lack of time and resources, as desk officers were distracted dealing with correspondence with UFOlogists and members of the public who believed they were hiding facts about alien visitors.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GBfont-family:";font-size:12.0pt;">This does not mean the files contain nothing of interest. This tranche contains a fascinating example of a “Close Encounter of the Second Kind”, the account of a man who suffered an unexplained illness after he was struck by a beam of light from the sky. The identity of the witness – who worked in a funeral parlour at Newport, Gwent – has been redacted from the file. But a two-page report on the case completed by an officer at a RAF base in Wales the morning after the encounter, on 27 January 1997, describes the incident in bare detail.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GBfont-family:";font-size:12.0pt;">Whilst driving near Ebbw Vale at 10.40 the witness saw “a massive star” approaching his car from the east. Then a “tube of light” came down from the sky at a 45 degree angle, surrounding him. He stopped and switched his headlights off as “the light encircled the car, remaining for perhaps five minutes.” During this time he got out of the car and walked through the brilliant light. He noticed there was no sound as would have been expected if the light was a searchlight from a helicopter or aircraft. Very frightened, he began to feel ill and vomited later that night. As he returned to the car he noticed it was covered in dirt or dust and found his radio and mobile phone would not work. <span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>When he called the RAF the following morning he was still feeling ill and had developed a skin condition that needed medical treatment. But that is all the brief report tells us. There is no evidence in the file to suggest the MoD followed up this startling incident or collected evidence from the scene (<a href="http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ufos">DEFE 24/1988</a>)<o:p></o:p></span></p>Dave Clarkehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17811372009688882929noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4814034554561548728.post-75907725013230064162010-02-14T09:52:00.000-08:002010-02-17T16:02:48.297-08:00Highlights from the UFO Files/1<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgU4XDgMI9J8AgcMmdpaC42Ml3qGvFvDdfI5hl1QrK4yp-E7nHzaZ6jPy1-OMQkf3d2fL_henZBHXAVa4cbOpzBJovr4n1rePSgsUU_XKYQbJF02KJYniPwtA2rCEFmY74pTyAPguZifzV7/s1600-h/SkegnessUFO.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 214px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgU4XDgMI9J8AgcMmdpaC42Ml3qGvFvDdfI5hl1QrK4yp-E7nHzaZ6jPy1-OMQkf3d2fL_henZBHXAVa4cbOpzBJovr4n1rePSgsUU_XKYQbJF02KJYniPwtA2rCEFmY74pTyAPguZifzV7/s320/SkegnessUFO.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5438159706291922114" /></a><p class="MsoNormal"><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height: 115%;Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GBfont-family:";font-size:12.0pt;"><b>UFOs on Radar</b><o:p></o:p></span></u></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GBfont-family:";font-size:12.0pt;"><b><a href="http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ufos">DEFE 24/1977</a></b> – contains papers on the Boston Stump radar incident (see my <a href="http://www.forteantimes.com/strangedays/ufofiles/442/the_1996_east_anglian_ufo_flap.html">2006 Fortean Times</a> article for full background). Unusual phenomena seen on radar are oft-cited by UFOlogists as examples of hard evidence for the existence of “structured craft of unknown origin.” The key radar case in these papers occurred during a UFO flap over East Anglia on 5 October 1996. Police reported seeing flashing coloured lights over The Wash and alerted the coastguard, who contacted the RAF. This call led radar operators to link the UFO scare with an unidentified “blip” they could see hovering above Boston in Lincolnshire. But as this "UFO" did not move for nine hours – until dawn broke - cool observation confirmed it was a "permanent echo" caused by the 273ft (83m) spire of St Botolph’s Church, known locally as Boston Stump. The lights seen and captured on video by the police (still taken from police video - above right) were easily explained as bright stars which faded in the dawn sky. This illustrates how easy it is, even for experienced operators, to misinterpret natural phenomena seen on radar as something extraordinary, particularly when a UFO flap is underway.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GBfont-family:";font-size:12.0pt;"><b><a href="http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ufos">DEFE 24/2008</a> </b>– UFO on radar, Prestwick Airport, Glasgow. Air traffic controllers at Prestwick in Scotland tracked a huge UFO on the morning of 15 February 1999. The blip appeared to be ten miles wide and two miles long and travelled at a speed estimated at 1000 knots across the Irish Sea. This report triggered an investigation by RAF Air Defence experts. They examined the video tape from Prestwick control tower and compared its contents with recordings from RAF air defence radars. This revealed there were no aircraft in the area at the time and nothing unusual was detected by RAF radars.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>The conclusion was: “recorded radar data replays do not support the sighting”. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GBfont-family:";font-size:12.0pt;"><b><a href="http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ufos">DEFE 24/1989 </a></b>– Radar/visual UFO. Even more intriguing is a brief report of a sighting made by the crew of a fishing trawler in the North Sea, 19 miles northeast of Fraserburgh. At lunchtime on 15 August 1997 one spotted a “round, flat bodied, shiny object” at a distance of less than a mile from the ship at low altitude. The object was visible for 30 minutes during which it was picked on the ship’s surface search radar and was observed by the other three crew members. The UFO approached the trawler, then moved out to sea before it “vanished almost instantaneously.”<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height: 115%;Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GBfont-family:";font-size:12.0pt;"><b>Physical Evidence?</b><o:p></o:p></span></u></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GBfont-family:";font-size:12.0pt;"><b><a href="http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ufos">DEFE 24/1988</a></b> – In March 1997 mysterious "angel hair" was dumped by a UFO on a suburban garden in Birmingham. Angel hair is a cobweb or jelly-like substance that drops from UFOs and has also been reported during experiences with the Blessed Virgin Mary. Like fairy food and ectoplasm it quickly evaporates before it can be examined. In this case the observer was alerted by barking dogs to the presence of a large blue triangular-shaped object hovering silently over his garden at 4 AM one morning. As he went outside the UFO suddenly shot off into sky and disappeared, leaving behind “a silky-white substance on the tree-tops”, some of which he collected inside a jam jar. There is nothing in the file to suggest MoD were interested in obtaining this sample for further analysis. This became just another routine call logged by the UFO desk and forgotten about<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif"font-family:";font-size:12.0pt;"><b>Alien Abduction and Cattle Mutilations</b><o:p></o:p></span></u></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height:115%;Times New Roman","serif"font-family:";font-size:12.0pt;"><b><a href="http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ufos">DEFE 24/1979</a></b> contains a policy statement on reports of "alien abductions" prepared by UFO desk officer Kerry Philpott in 1996 in response to a letter from Welsh UFOlogist Chris Fowler. As the existence of intelligent ET life is not proven, the subject is “a non-issue” as far as MoD were concerned. The letter adds that “any form of abduction is a civil police matter but can only be investigated if there is any evidence to support the claim.” Similarly, in response to a letter asking if MoD had investigated links between UFOs, BSE and unexplained cattle mutilations, Philpott responded: “criminal aspects of animal mutilations are matters for the civil police, who would investigate any claims based upon the evidence available.”<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif"font-family:";font-size:12.0pt;"><b>UFO crash at US listening post?</b><o:p></o:p></span></u></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height:115%;Times New Roman","serif"font-family:";font-size:12.0pt;"><b><a href="http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ufos">DEFE 24/1981</a></b> – contains a bizarre claim linking <span style="mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">RAF Menwith Hill, North Yorkshire</span>, the controversial joint US/UK base for electronic eavesdropping with UFOs. In 1997 a UFOlogist wrote to the base claiming that two farmers nearby had seen a disc-shaped object inside the base perimeter escorted by guards. The farmers were ordered to move away from the perimeter fence. In a joint statement, the base and MoD said "no UFO/flying saucer has landed in the vicinity of Menwith Hill and the base had no connection with UFO research.”<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif"font-family:";font-size:12.0pt;"><b>Rendlesham Forest Incident</b><o:p></o:p></span></u></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height:115%;Times New Roman","serif"font-family:";font-size:12.0pt;"><b><a href="http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ufos">DEFE 24/2011 </a></b>- The ‘Rendlesham Forest’ UFOs reported by USAF security policemen at RAF Woodbridge, Suffolk had become a cause celebre by 1999. In this year Scottish UFOlogist James Easton published copies of the original witness statements made by the USAF security police in January 1981 that he had obtained from an American UFO group. Copies of these statements were sent to the MoD and placed on a departmental file.<o:p></o:p></span></p>Dave Clarkehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17811372009688882929noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4814034554561548728.post-16797661428093733342010-02-14T09:38:00.000-08:002010-02-17T16:02:15.896-08:00Highlights from the UFO files/part 2<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfdp0BGT9GxXjuOS55po6tzJ3c76iRUuUIxLYKuMKql3u1wqa5qJrs1981lFZI4xvOV0WHO4bMSM5EGeYYyeQHMM4IKIDG9uAsSFMv9Dsieub1GXhxpzfA6SY0HuavFOk0WsjiSaPlLLL-/s1600-h/Noyes.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 79px; height: 95px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfdp0BGT9GxXjuOS55po6tzJ3c76iRUuUIxLYKuMKql3u1wqa5qJrs1981lFZI4xvOV0WHO4bMSM5EGeYYyeQHMM4IKIDG9uAsSFMv9Dsieub1GXhxpzfA6SY0HuavFOk0WsjiSaPlLLL-/s400/Noyes.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5438161368456598018" /></a><p class="MsoNormal"><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height: 115%;Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GBfont-family:";font-size:12.0pt;"><b>Gun Camera Film</b><o:p></o:p></span></u></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GBfont-family:";font-size:12.0pt;"><b><a href="http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ufos">DEFE 24/1966</a></b> – contains a letter to the MoD from Ralph Noyes (pictured right), a retired senior MoD official who had responsibility for UFO incidents. In his 1994 letter Noyes describes seeing gun camera film of unidentified aerial phenomena captured by RAF fighter pilots during the 1950s.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>He claims this was shown at a secret sub ground film-show arranged for Air Defence staff at the MoD Main Building in 1970 when Noyes was head of DS8 (one of the branches responsible for UFOs).<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Noyes’ letter says a representative from the Meteorological Office was also present. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GBfont-family:";font-size:12.0pt;"></span></p><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GBfont-family:";font-size:12.0pt;"><blockquote>“…we were shown some slides, purportedly from aerial photographs taken by air crew. The highlight was a couple of brief clips of what I understood to be gun-camera material obtained as far back as 1956…the material was, on the whole, unimpressive: fuzzy greyish blobs in the daylight shots; small glowing globular objects in the night films. We were invited to comment. A civilian – the Met Office man, I think – suggested that we were witnessing unusual meteorological events. One of the Ops people said that ground-radar and air-radar responses had been reported on occasion. Somebody reminded us of the tendency of radar to produce spurious images on occasion. No conclusions were reached….Reflecting on this episode, I now rather feel that somebody in [Air Defence] had become uneasy about the occasional reports from air crew of unusual aerial objects but did not wish to expose himself to ridicule. The small informal gathering in the cinema was an opportunity to test the reactions of a few of us to the unusual objects caught on film. The lack of much response from any of us probably persuaded [him] to drop the subject.” </blockquote></span><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GBfont-family:";font-size:12.0pt;">Despite a search of the archives by MoD staff in 1993-94 no trace of these films could be found and Noyes adds: “Quite possibly, the photographic material was simply scrapped, or ‘pinched’ for somebody’s private collection of curiosa, or conceivably passed to the Met Office.” <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height: 115%;Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GBfont-family:";font-size:12.0pt;"><b>Politicians and UFOs</b><o:p></o:p></span></u></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GBfont-family:";font-size:12.0pt;">Some UFOlogists are obsessive letter-writers and this release contains a number of files dealing with “persistent correspondents” who have plagued the MoD and politicians with demands for information about UFOs. <a href="http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ufos">DEFE 24/2016</a>, for instance, runs to 318 pages of correspondence between a Welsh UFOlogist, Dr Colin Ridyard, and the MoD. His campaign began in 1996 and ended in 2000 when Ridyard made an official complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman after his requests for disclosure of UFO documents were refused. During these four years Ridyard wrote 35 letters to the MoD, encouraged his MP to submit three Parliamentary Enquiries and organised a petition that was submitted to the House of Commons.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GBfont-family:";font-size:12.0pt;">Other files feature a series of letters from UFO believers addressed first to the Tory Prime Minister John Major and then, from 1997, the newly-elected Tony Blair. These ask for the Prime Minister’s views on UFOs and alien life and appeal for the release of secret documents they believe the MoD are with-holding. On this evidence, David Cameron should expect a full postbag from UFO believers when he enters Downing Street in May! (for examples see <a href="http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ufos">DEFE 24/1967, DEFE 24/1968, DEFE 24/2011, DEFE 24/1969</a>).<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GBfont-family:";font-size:12.0pt;"><b><a href="http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ufos">DEFE 24/1994</a></b> – </span><span style="line-height:115%;Times New Roman","serif"font-family:";font-size:12.0pt;"><span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>contains details of one of the most hyped, and least substantial, UFO stories of 1997. This concerns a supposed UFO sighting in the vicinity of the Kent home of the former Tory Home Secretary, Michael Howard. The basis of the story was that a journalist and others had seen a triangular shaped object hovering near Howard’s home one night in March. The connection with Howard was tenuous, to say the least, and inquiries by the RAF found there was no unusual air activity or any security alert in the area at the time. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height:115%;Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-weight:boldfont-family:";font-size:12.0pt;"><b><a href="http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ufos">DEFE 24/2017</a></b></span><span style="line-height:115%;Times New Roman","serif"font-family:";font-size:12.0pt;"> - Councillor Billy Buchanan, of Falkirk District Council, wrote to PM John Major in 1994 asking for an inquiry into a series of unexplained UFO sightings around Bonnybridge, a small town between Glasgow and Edinburgh. Press reports had described this region as "the Bonnybridge Triangle”. In his letter Cllr Buchanan claimed more than 600 separate incidents had been reported over a two year period. In response MoD said there was no need for them to investigate anything as they had received only a handful of reports from the Falkirk area. They felt most could be explained by aircraft overflying the area. In 1997 Cllr Buchanan wrote to Tony Blair again requesting an investigation but received a standard response from the MoD.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif"font-family:";font-size:12.0pt;"><b>Nick Pope</b><o:p></o:p></span></u></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GBfont-family:";font-size:12.0pt;"><b><a href="http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ufos">DEFE 24/2000</a></b> –</span><span style="line-height:115%;Times New Roman","serif"font-family:";font-size:12.0pt;">In 1995 former MoD desk officer Nick Pope announced he had become a believer in UFOs and alien abductions. Whilst still a MoD employee, he published a book and interviews appeared in a number of national newspapers including the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Daily Mail</i>.</span><span style="line-height:115%;Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ansi-language:EN-GBfont-family:";font-size:12.0pt;"> </span><span style="line-height: 115%;Times New Roman","serif"font-family:";font-size:12.0pt;">As a result, in 1996 a member of the public quizzed the MoD on how they could justify their dismissive policy towards UFOs when one of their own officials was openly claiming there was evidence that UK airspace had been penetrated by ET craft. MoD stonewalled this perfectly reasonable question and told the inquirer that Pope’s statements were his own personal views and did not reflect MoD policy. This response led to an official complaint against the MoD by the writer, who said his “enquiries have been deliberately ignored and my correspondence has been met with bland and patronizing replies.”</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 115%;Times New Roman","serif"font-family:";font-size:12.0pt;"><b><a href="http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ufos">DEFE 24/1967</a></b> – This file contains correspondence between the Spanish UFOlogist Vicente-Juan Ballester Olmos and the MoD’s UFO desk officer Nick Pope concerning a flap of UFO reports over the UK in the early hours of 31 March 1993. This has subsequently become known as “<a href="http://www.mithrand.karoo.net/index.htm/cosford.htm">the Cosford Incident</a>” and is cited by Pope as the one unexplained case that helped to transform him from a skeptic to a believer in the existence of UFOs piloted by extraterrestrials. However, this file shows that Ballester Olmos supplied Pope with a comprehensive explanation for the sightings on 21 March 1994. He enclosed copies of a NORAD statement and computer simulation which shows the UFO was in fact the rocket that launched the Russian ELINT satellite Cosmos 2238. This was confirmed by other sightings made in Ireland and France on the same night, which resulted in a press release by the French CNES Space Agency confirming the Cosmos rocket as the source. In his response to Ballester Olmos dated 6 April 1994, Nick Pope makes the following statement: “I think it is clear that most of the UFO sightings that occurred on the night in question can be attributed to this event.”</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GBfont-family:";font-size:12.0pt;">All these files can be downloaded free of charge for the first month from <a href="http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ufos">http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ufos</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>Dave Clarkehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17811372009688882929noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4814034554561548728.post-77905803714185481022010-02-04T04:31:00.000-08:002010-02-04T04:51:04.996-08:00Libel Reform Campaign and Simon Singh<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgFpparyBJxQmY2CICXSZboCToQS2sxe3tZH6ImBibruH7Lkdu3Tic0RN0hSfgq5N5pIubqU3Gm7e2ZAQdDcn2vb96xksV8Ki1arfTAtp3RmHRQiNGxsbJD9a9ROtHumVEKfYy4ZocOQVuA/s1600-h/Simonpic.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5434368052057635170" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 210px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 320px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgFpparyBJxQmY2CICXSZboCToQS2sxe3tZH6ImBibruH7Lkdu3Tic0RN0hSfgq5N5pIubqU3Gm7e2ZAQdDcn2vb96xksV8Ki1arfTAtp3RmHRQiNGxsbJD9a9ROtHumVEKfYy4ZocOQVuA/s320/Simonpic.jpg" border="0" /></a> This article under my byline was published by the <em><a href="http://www.sheffieldtelegraph.co.uk/news/Science-writer-brings-libel-law.6041072.jp">Sheffield Telegraph</a></em>, 4 February 2010<br /><div></div><br /><div>A science writer who is being sued for expressing his views on alternative medicine brings his campaign for a change in the libel laws to Sheffield next week. </div><div><br />Dr Simon Singh, who has a MBE for services to science, says if he loses his battle - which reaches the Court of Appeal on 22 February - it will be a massive blow against freedom of speech. </div><div><br />The writer’s Libel Reform campaign is supported by a galaxy of celebrities from the world of science, the arts and comedy, including Ricky Gervais, Stephen Fry, Richard Dawkins and former government chief scientist Sir David King. </div><div><br />Sheffield Hallam MP and Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg has added his voice to the campaign, saying he is “deeply concerned” about the chilling effect libel laws are having on scientific debate and investigative journalism. </div><div><br />“Our libel law has turned a country once famed for its traditions of freedom and liberty into a legal farce where people and corporations with money can impose silence on others at will,” he said. “I believe in raucous freedom of speech, not gagging orders in our courts.” </div><div><br />A pledge to reform the libel laws was adopted by the Lib Dems at last year’s party conference and an early day motion – signed by 159 MPs from all political parties – is adding to the pressure on Justice Secretary Jack Straw, who is reviewing the libel laws, to make a radical change. </div><div><br />Dr Singh has a PhD in particle physics and has worked as a director and producer on TV programmes including Tomorrow’s World and Horizon. He was sued by the British Chiropractic Association two years ago after he claimed the organisation “happily promotes bogus treatments” in an article published by a national newspaper. They demanded an apology and retraction and won a preliminary court ruling against the writer last June. </div><div><br />In the ruling, Mr Justice Eady ruled that Dr Singh’s use of the word “bogus” meant he was accusing the association of being dishonest in promoting treatments that it knew did not work. Dr Singh refutes Eady’s interpretation, claiming that he simply meant that “alternative therapists who offer treatments unsupported by reasonable evidence are deluded rather than deliberately dishonest.” </div><div><br />Law lords will decide on the outcome of the case at the Court of Appeal in two weeks, but Dr Singh already faces a crippling £100,000 bill for the costs of defending himself to this point. </div><div><br />"Whatever decision they reach will have a great impact," said Dr Singh, who will comment on the legal battle at Sheffield Skeptics in the Pub on 8 February. "It will either reinforce the current situation or overturn the current libel laws." </div><div><br />In the UK the all the weight of proof in a libel action rests on the defendant. Unlike the USA, whose constitution defends the right to freedom of speech, libel in this country depends upon people’s ability to pay. This had led to libel tourism, which Nick Clegg has said is “making a mockery of British justice, with foreign plaintiffs able to bring cases against foreign defendants when the publications in question may have sold just a handful of copies in England.” </div><div><br />People who are sued for libel are not entitled to legal aid and most ordinary people simply cannot afford the huge legal bill to defend themselves in court. The UK Index on Censorship has found the cost of defending a libel action in the UK is one hundred times greater than anywhere in mainland Europe. In a <a href="http://www.libdemvoice.org/nick-clegg-calls-for-reform-of-uk-libel-law-17608.html">speech to the Royal Society </a>last month Nick Clegg said: </div><div></div><div></div><div><blockquote>“<em>Of course people have the right to protect their reputations from damaging and false statements made recklessly, irresponsibly or with malice. But scientists must be allowed to question claims fearlessly, especially those that relate to medical care, environmental damage and public safety, if we are to protect ourselves against dubious research practices, phoney treatments and vested corporate interests. English libel law as it stands is obstructing that process and threatens the public good as a result. The prospect of a costly, protracted legal battle hangs over journalists, editors and academics seeking to ask basic questions about the evidence for practices they believe may put people at risk</em>.”<br /></blockquote>Dr Singh added: " When people think about libel they tend to think about celebrities and tabloid exposures. But that is not what this is about. Celebrities have a reputation to defend and the media should not abuse that. However, right now people are being sued for writing about important scientific research. This is not salacious gossip, this is about matters of real public interest. </div><div><br />"Now is the time for the public to sit up and say we want to live in a society where free speech and responsible journalism is something that is valued. If they do then they need to sign up to the <a href="http://www.libelreform.org/sign">Libel Reform campaign petititon </a>put pressure on their MPs to support a change in the law. Politicians are open to this change right now." </div><div><br />*“<strong><em>Trick or Treatment: alternative medicine on trial</em></strong>”, starts at 6.30 pm on Monday, 8 February 2010, at The Lescar on Sharrow Vale Road, Sheffield. Entry £2.</div>Dave Clarkehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17811372009688882929noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4814034554561548728.post-13241715785869619822010-01-31T09:08:00.000-08:002010-02-01T00:39:47.383-08:00Ex-files Re-upholstered<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GBfont-family:";font-size:12.0pt;">The UFO and conspiracy industry suffered a double-whammy this week. At the Royal Society conference on the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence scientists dismissed the UFO “evidence” as unconvincing. Gordon Brown's government isn’t convinced either, as shown by the MoD's recent decision to close its UFO desk and the public hotline on the grounds they are an “inappropriate use of defence resources”. But all is not lost, thanks to the nation's best-selling tabloid.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GBfont-family:";font-size:12.0pt;">This was an opportunity <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">The Sun</i> could not allow to pass by. The paper that likes to believe it has a direct link to the public mood stepped in to fill the void by establishing its own X-files bureau. <i>The Sun</i> has a long history of inventing its own content. Back in 1985 the tabloid, then edited by the legendary Kelvin Mackenzie, told its readers that a popular print of a tearful street urchin known as the Crying Boy was cursed after running a story about a series of house fires where it had survived unscathed. When hundreds of people threw out their prints Mackenzie knew he had hit the jackpot, telling the punters: "Send them to us and we'll burn them for you." </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GBfont-family:";font-size:12.0pt;">Like the crying boy legend, the UFO bureau has "got legs" as Mackenzie would say. And who best to act as <i>The Sun's</i> “UFO expert” than Nick Pope, who is happy to take Murdoch's cash in return for regular endorsement of every submitted fuzzy photo showing everything from seagulls to Chinese lanterns as proof that aliens are buzzing us. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GBfont-family:";font-size:12.0pt;">Pope described his former employer’s decision to close the real X-files as “bizarre” because of “<i>massive public interest in the issue</i>.” If there's something unusual in our skies, he says, then "we need to know or we could be leaving ourselves open to terrorist attack" (<i>Sun</i>, 22 January). But he failed to appreciate the delicious irony hidden in his own words which leads me to suspect this is all part of what Baldrick would call "a cunning plan." </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GBfont-family:";font-size:12.0pt;">What created the massive public interest that Pope speaks of? The final set of UFO sighting statistics released by the MoD revealed they received 634 UFO reports in 2009, triple the numbers logged over the previous two years. The vast majority of these "UFOs" are reports of lights in the sky sent in by members of the public who have seen Chinese lanterns, aircraft, bright stars and other common IFOs. This is precisely the sort of tedious and uncorroborated reports the MoD know are of no interest to them. To spend scarce public funds following these up, as Nick Pope believes they should, is a mad way to squander resources at a time when soldiers are dying in Afghanistan.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GBfont-family:";font-size:12.0pt;">Which leads me to ponder further on who or what is behind the tripling of UFO reports received by the MoD over the past two years. Who has been encouraging people to interpret what they are seeing not as lanterns sent up for fun but as alien spacecraft? Who is it that has been running a relentless UFO campaign aimed at keeping the subject firmly in the public domain and any contrary voice out of a paper that claims to tell its readers the truth? Why that must be <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">The Sun</i>!<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height:115%; Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GBfont-family:";font-size:12.0pt;"><span style="mso-spacerun:yes"></span>Now, how about this for a conspiracy theory: Nick Pope finds himself out of a job and then the MoD pulls the plug on its own X-files, which until now have provided his bread and butter. So he then steps in to help a tabloid newspaper invent a phony UFO invasion to create a new job for himself. You couldn't make it up.</span></p>Dave Clarkehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17811372009688882929noreply@blogger.com0