Posted on 01/17/2009 1:52:28 PM PST by JoeProBono
CHAMA, NM - Several meandering V-shaped UFOs near a mountain slope here turned up on a woman's digital photos. Three photos shot with a 21 megapixel camera caught multiple crafts approaching in the first frame, one craft in frame two moving close to the ground while the others take positions in the sky, and then frame three shows all of the crafts moving out of the area.
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
I think the picture is hilarious, because it was presented as if you could just walk out there and snap away, when we all know that it takes amateurs hours and hours to string up those aluminum pie tins between trees.
Perhaps it was a sop to the masses during the Cold War, a way of projecting the idea "See?!? We're doing something about it. "
As to your Dad's patent and not knowing anything about it, I can only guess that maybe nobody thought there's be enough public interest to put venture capital in a camera that had to have two different rolls of film. (And black and white's could be made from color negatives).
We take no responsibility for the . . .
paucity of . . . capacities in such regards.
That’s actually been my experience.
There are some folks who seem to be . . . sorry, Dear Heart, but that just seems to be true . . . some folks who seem to be . . .
psychodynamically predisposed to brittleness, narrowness, limited world views, fears, paranoia, stubbornness, . . . etc. etc. etc.
such that they are UNWILLING AND SO MANY SEEM UNABLE
to conceive of things that 80%+ people accept as part of reality.
And even here on FR, the brightest and most robustly aware; most robustly integrative; most robustly understanding; most robustly perceptive etc. by far—as a group—at least realize that THERE’S SOMETHING SERIOUS AND INADEQUATELY EXPLAINED TO THE PHENOMENA. There are a few exceptions here and there but that’s by far majorly true—in my experience.
Most of those do NOT engage in the UFO threads because they realize it’s futile, a waste to bother with the stubborn arrogance and ignorance of the naysayers.
However, they let me know that they seriously appreciate updates on the field. Many of them like to keep tabs on what the current state of things is vis a vis such things. Some don’t care particularly from week to week but occasionally like to check in on it.
THE SHARPEST amongst them realize that such things WILL PLAY A MOST INTERESTING AND PROFOUND PART in
END TIMES EVENTS. It remains to be seen precisely how that will play out.
That’s not true.
The best original negatives etc. tend to end up disappearing by various curious means.
However, some have been analyzed and assessed as quite valid and inexplicable by conventional means.
The latest from Turkey is evidently the best recent case in point.
BTW, it only takes one such. And there’ve been a lot more than one such. The AZ flyover/Phoenix lights produced more than one such.
Well, ignoring for a moment your commentary on hoaxes, I still appreciate your posting the picture I find it a very interesting invention regardless.
As to my Dad’s patent... You are 100% correct. Some letters I found between my father and a venture capital company basically stated the exact same thing — just not enough public interest to develop it at all. I still think it would’ve been pretty cool especially for amateur photography enthusiasts who didn’t have access to darkrooms and such. Nowadays it’s just a click of a button in an image program to turn things into grayscale, amazing how computers have taken over. My husband was talking to an old friend and they discussed the art rooms in our old high school... Nothing but computers now — not even a darkroom — which is rather sad, really...
Yes. I know, Dave.
There are a surprising number of FREEPER EXPERIENCERS; workers in the field and those who’ve had very close-hand observations of remarkable craft.
Quite understandably they wish to remain anonymous though they have shared their experiences with you and/or myself.
I’d love to get the naysayers in a room with the FREEPERS WHO DEFINITELY FIRST-HAND KNOW SOMETHING OF THE SCORE—AND THEN HAVE THOSE BRAZEN NAYSAYERS TO TELL THOSE USUALLY WELL KNOWN AND WELL RESPECTED FREEPERS TO THEIR FACES that the latter are stupid idiots.
There would be blood on the floor without some Olympic class restraint.
Actually, that list was just of the astronauts who’ve said something interesting in the field.
HERE: . . . http://www.nickpope.net/faq.htm
Frequently Asked Questions
The material below is drawn from a variety of Nick Pope's media interviews and from questions submitted to Nick via this website.
What did you do before you took up your post on the UFO project and how did you get the job?
I joined the Ministry of Defence in 1985. At the time, the policy was to move people every 2 or 3 years - either on level transfer or promotion - so that everybody gained experience in a wide range of different jobs: policy, operations, personnel, finance, etc. I'd done 2 or 3 different jobs and prior to taking up my post on the UFO project I was working in a division called Secretariat(Air Staff) and had been seconded into the Air Force Operations Room in the Joint Operations Centre. I worked there in the run-up to the first Gulf War, during the war itself, and in the aftermath of the conflict. I was a briefer, preparing material for the key daily briefings to Ministers and the Service Chiefs. My job was to collect raw data about RAF operations, and pick out the key things that senior personnel needed to know: details of any casualties and losses, targets attacked, battle damage assessment, etc. It was an interesting and very high-tempo job. It was while working there that I was approached and asked whether, after I was released from duties in the Joint Operations Centre, I would like to run the UFO project, which was embedded in another part of Secretariat(Air Staff). I accepted the invitation. So, in a sense, I was headhunted.
What were your views on UFOs before you took up your post?
I knew little about the subject and I certainly had no belief in extraterrestrials. So while I was open-minded in all my investigations, my start point was broadly sceptical.
Can you explain a bit more about that post? What were its aims?
The MoD's UFO project has its roots in a 1950 initiative by the then Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir Henry Tizard. He said that UFO sightings shouldn't be dismissed out of hand without some form of proper scientific study. The MoD has been looking at the UFO phenomenon since the early Fifties and has received over 10,000 sighting reports to date. In all that time, the objectives haven't really changed much. The policy is to investigate UFO sightings to see whether there's evidence of anything of any defence significance, i.e. evidence of any threat to the defence of the UK, or information that may be of use to us, scientifically or militarily. Having a UFO project in no way implies a corporate belief in extraterrestrial visitation. It simply reflects the fact that we keep a watchful eye on our airspace and want to know about anything operating in the United Kingdom's Air Defence Region. Many other countries had similar research efforts. The Americans had Project Blue Book, which was run by the United States Air Force. Although the British effort was on a much smaller scale, the terms of reference and methodology were virtually identical.
What security clearances did you hold?
This isn't something that I can discuss.
What type of evidence did you encounter and how did you go about investigating cases?
I had access to all the previous UFO files, some of which had been very highly-classified, so I had a vast archive of data to assess. This enabled me to undertake various research projects, looking for trends, etc. But the bread and butter of the job was investigating the new sightings that were reported on a virtually daily basis. We used to receive 200 - 300 reports each year. The methodology of an investigation is fairly standard. Firstly, you interview the witness to obtain as much information as possible about the sighting: date, time and location of the sighting, description of the object, its speed, its height, etc. Then you attempt to correlate the sighting with known aerial activity such as civil flights, military exercises or weather balloon launches. We could check with the Royal Greenwich Observatory to see if astronomical phenomena such as meteors or fireballs might explain what was seen. We could check to see whether any UFOs seen visually had been tracked on radar. If we had a photograph or video, we could get various MOD specialists to enhance and analyse the imagery. We could also liaise with staff at the Ballistic Missile Early Warning System at RAF Fylingdales, where they have space-tracking radar. Finally, on various scientific and technical issues, we could liaise with the Defence Intelligence Staff, though this is an area that I can't discuss in any detail.
What were the results of your investigations?
Around 80% of UFO sightings could be explained as misidentifications of something ordinary, such as aircraft lights, satellites, airships, weather balloons or planets. In around 15% of cases there was insufficient information to draw any firm conclusions. Approximately 5% of sightings seemed to defy conventional explanation.
What sort of cases got into this 5% category?
UFO incidents where there were multiple witnesses, or where the witnesses were trained observers such as police officers or military personnel. Sightings from civil or military pilots. Sightings backed up by photographic or video evidence, where technical analysis found no signs of fakery. Sightings tracked on radar. Sightings involving structured craft seemingly capable of speeds and manoeuvres way ahead of even the most advanced aircraft.
What do you think about this 5%? Could they be extraterrestrial spacecraft?
I certainly can't rule out the possibility. There's some intriguing evidence, but no hard proof.
Have you ever seen a UFO yourself?
No. Sadly, I haven't.
Are governments covering up the truth about UFOs?
Well, I can only speak with any authority concerning the British Government. To the best of my knowledge, there's no cover-up and no conspiracy. While the MoD has consistently tried to downplay the subject, they've never lied about it and have no evidence that would prove the existence of extraterrestrials. Where information is being withheld, it generally relates to details that if released would be detrimental to defence or national security. Examples include information relating to the capabilities of military radar systems, or to 'methods and sources'.
Could some UFOs be 'black projects'?
Clearly there are aircraft and UAVs (both experimental and operational) the existence of which is not yet public knowledge. As you'd expect, this is a subject about which I can say very little. But there are ways of eliminating this possibility from any official UFO investigations. To give one obvious example, we know where we test fly our own experimental craft, so can take this into account in any UFO investigation.
What other phenomena did you investigate in addition to UFO sightings?
In running the MoD's UFO project I found myself the recipient of reports into any strange phenomena that people had witnessed or experienced. Alien abductions, animal mutilations, crop circles, ghosts at military bases, people who claimed to be psychics and wanted to use their powers to help the intelligence agencies, questions about how we could destroy or deflect comets or asteroids on collision course with the Earth, etc. Anything weird and wonderful came my way. It's not that such things were in my terms of reference - it was simply that there was nowhere else to send them.
What are your views on crop circles?
Some of the small, single circles (and that's where the phenomenon started) may be attributable to some form of meteorological phenomenon such as a whirlwind or wind vortex. As for the more complex ones - the so-called pictograms - there's no doubt in my mind that most of them are made by people. I've seen it done. Some of the people involved in this are highly skilled and motivated, plan the formations meticulously, well in advance, and split the work between several people. Some people call them hoaxers but many of the people involved see themselves as conceptual artists. Do I completely rule out a more exotic explanation? No. In my line of work, I tried never to rule anything out altogether, and always tried to keep an open mind.
How do you feel about your work being referred to as the real X-Files, and about being dubbed the real Fox Mulder?
The media started this in the Nineties and then my own publishers picked it up. At first I was irritated, because I regarded it as a trivialisation of the serious research and investigation that I did for the government. But I came to see the funny side of it and on reflection I suppose I should be flattered.
Haven't you signed the Official Secrets Act? How are you able to write and speak about your government work?
I signed the Official Secrets Act on my first day in the MoD and even though I've left, it binds me for life. But it doesn't preclude writing or speaking about my work. Politicians invariably keep diaries and write memoirs, and military officers write accounts of their careers. There's no bar on this sort of activity, provided you follow various rules and procedures, the most obvious one being the absolute prohibition on revealing any classified information.
Are you going to write any more non-fiction books?
Yes. There's lots of fascinating information about UFOs and the unexplained that I've yet to write about, and I hope to be able to turn my attention to this shortly.
Is there going to be a third book in the series of sci-fi novels that began with Operation Thunder Child and Operation Lightning Strike?
I hope so, although making the first two books into a film or TV series is my priority here at the moment.
Why did you leave the UFO project?
After having done the job for 3 years I was promoted and moved to another post at a higher grade. There's certainly no truth to the rumour that I was moved because I was getting too close to the truth, as some conspiracy theorists allege.
What did you do at the MoD after you left the UFO project?
I went to a financial policy job where my duties included considering requests from film and TV companies to film at military bases. We had to consider the potential benefits in terms of PR, training and recruiting, and balance that against the desire to generate some income. I learned a lot about the media in that job (although I'd already been media-trained during my time on the UFO project, not least because I had to appear on TV as an official MoD spokesperson). After that, I went to a security job where my duties included being Clerk to the MoD Police Committee and working with the military police. This was a fascinating job which involved a fair bit of travel, including trips to Germany, Northern Ireland, Kosovo, and two visits to Iraq.
In May 2006 the MoD released a formerly classified UFO study that had been codenamed Project Condign. Are you the author?
No. I was involved in the preliminary discussions that led to the setting up of the study, but had left the UFO project by the time the study commenced, and played no part in it.
Why did you leave the MoD?
I left the MoD in November 2006 after a 21 year career. I'd passed the Assessment and Development Centre, so could have applied for a post at B2 level (formerly known as Grade 7 and Principal), but had already deputised extensively at this grade, so decided it was an appropriate time to move on to fresh challenges outside the Department.
There were media stories about your resigning in protest at the UFO project being closed down, and about your warning about alien invasion.
My resignation became an international news story, but some of the media coverage of my departure was inaccurate. The MoD receives more Freedom of Information Act requests on UFOs than on any other subject, including the war in Iraq. That means my successors have little or no time for the research and investigation that took place in my day. I think this is a mistake and I believe UFO sightings should be properly investigated in a scientific way. The MoD's line on UFOs is that they are of "no defence significance", but it seems to me that any meaningful assessment can only be made on the basis of a proper investigation. Frankly, anything else is assumption and guesswork.
Do you miss working for the MoD?
I very much enjoyed my 21 years working for the Department. I've done some interesting things and really enjoyed working for my country, doing something genuinely important. I miss the buzz of being a part of that - coming home to see things I've been involved in being discussed on the evening news, and knowing there are some things I've been involved in that will never be on the evening news! I miss the people too, of course, though I'm still in touch with a wide range of my former colleagues and have been back to MoD Main Building several times for social events. But all in all, I know I made the right decision, and I have no regrets.
Some people believe you haven't really left the MoD at all, and that your role is to spread disinformation about UFOs. How do you respond?
How can I respond? You can't prove a negative. The rumour isn't true, but if people believe this sort of thing they won't believe my denial, or the MoD's confirmation of my departure. I can't win.
What are you doing now?
I do a mixture of writing, lecturing, radio and television work on UFOs and the unexplained. I also do some consultancy, promotion and PR work. Finally, I have a number of business interests unrelated to the media or the unexplained, to which I can now devote more time.
QUIX COMMENT: I do not believe that the Brits have NOT covered up the stuff at all--i.e., of course the Brits have been involved in the cover-up. Maybe they are more cleaver about it and avoid lying more than our folks do. But I don't believe they've never lied about it. I find that assertion kind of inexplicable given his candor otherwise.
Part of me wonders if he was in charge of some mid-level department set up for just such an eventuality . . . a kind of intermediate level of disclosure. He could be telling the more or less truth from his limited perspective, in that case. I don't know.
He strikes me as quite authentic and reliable ON THE WHOLE. I'm just not sure of some of the details around the edges. Of course . . . my persepctive being more or less all conjecture.
More Nick Pope docs . . .
http://www.nickpope.net/operation_thunderchild_concept.htm
Operation Thunder Child - Concept
These previously unpublished notes illustrate how the concept for Operation Thunder Child was first devised. I discussed the questions below with various official sources before writing the book, so that the plot was as realistic as possible in dealing with how the government and military would respond to an alien invasion. The final manuscript had to be submitted for official clearance and various details were changed to avoid compromising national security.
Scenario
Uncorrelated targets are detected by radar systems at RAF Neatishead, and Tornado F3s are scrambled to carry out an intercept. The pilots report an unidentified craft capable of speed and manoeuvrability way in excess of any known aircraft or UAV. Over the next few days similar incidents occur, until two F3s are lost during an intercept, after reporting they are under attack. It is not entirely clear who is operating the mystery craft. Some believe the craft is Russian, but an extraterrestrial option is also considered. As events unfold it becomes clear that a hostile extraterrestrial force is involved.
Military Questions
After the loss of two aircraft during an attempted interception, would Rules of Engagement be changed?
Under what circumstances would aircraft be:
a. Armed with live weapons?
b. Given orders to engage the target?
What other weapon systems might be deployed? Any meaningful Ballistic Missile Defence System (e.g. Russian GORGON/GAZELLE), or ground based or airborne laser system (e.g. US Boeing 747 plan)?
Ministry of Defence Questions
What chain of command would be used for this information? Presumably HQ Strike Command would brief somebody at MOD, but would this be ACAS or CAS?
Would this be discussed in the Air Force Board Standing Committee, the Chiefs of Staff Committee or the Defence Council?
What would be the involvement of CDI, or of the Intelligence Agencies?
Would operational control be exercised by the PJHQ, following a directive from CDS to CJO?
Role of Cabinet Office Group or Joint Intelligence Committee?
Scientific Questions
At what stage would CSA or DUS(S&T) be consulted?
To what extent would the potential biological hazard be discussed? Are there any existing (biological warfare) contingency plans that might be activated?
Role of RAF Fylingdales?
Role of satellites?
What consultation might there be with observatories?
What attempts would be made to establish communication?
Political Questions
How feasible is the concept that any of this would be covered up?
Could any Government seriously go public with speculation about extraterrestrials unless the evidence was irrefutable?
If an announcement was to be made, would it be a clear-cut statement by Secretary of State or even the Prime Minister?
If no announcement was made, how could a suspicious MP force the issue? Would an Adjournment debate or a Private Notice Question be used, and if so, how might a Government circumnavigate this?
More Nick Pope:
http://www.nickpope.net/mod_x-files.htm
MoD X-Files
By Nick Pope
Abstract
Late in 2007 the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) gave an undertaking to release its entire archive of UFO files. On May 14 2008 the National Archives released the first batch of files, leading to worldwide media coverage, including articles in the New York Times and coverage on CNN News. On October 20 2008 the National Archives released the second batch of files, again generating global media coverage, including a feature on ABC News’s Nightline. I used to work at the MoD on these files and although I left government service in 2006, I assisted the National Archives in the release process by reviewing the files, selecting cases of potential interest to the media and acting as someone to whom they would refer journalists wanting to discuss the files. I will set out the background to this release and explain how the French government’s 2007 decision to release its UFO files was a major factor in the UK decision, as was the fact that the MoD receives more FOI requests on UFOs than any other topic. I will then give detailed information about the files, explaining how much material there is, what it comprises and what the timeline is for full disclosure. I will also discuss the level of classification involved and the various FOI exemptions that mean certain information will not be released. Finally, I will pick out some cases from the newly released files and discuss the wider implications of this release.
Introduction
I used to work for the MoD in the UK and for 3 years I ran their UFO project. My remit was to investigate UFO sighting reported to the British government, looking for evidence of any potential threat, or anything judged to be of any “defence significance”. In 2007 the French government released their archive of UFO files and this was followed by many stories suggesting that the British government was about to do the same. This process has now begun and has commented upon extensively in the media and in the UFO community. However, the situation is more complex than many suppose and some of what’s been written has been misleading or wrong. Accordingly, I’ll clarify the position, explain what’s already happened, what’s happening now and what future developments people can expect to see.
The Public Records Acts
Before the UK’s Freedom of Information Act came fully into force in 2005, the Public Records Acts set down the rules on access to government files. The best-known feature of these acts was the so-called 30 Year Rule, which did pretty much what it said on the tin and meant that most files wouldn’t be opened until 30 years after the most recent document. Some more sensitive files were withheld for longer, while some would never be released. The ‘default position’, as it were, was not to release. It was a totally different culture, and when I joined the MoD in 1985, it was a closed organization with limited public and media interface. The Department I left in 2006, after a 21 year career, was virtually unrecognizable from the organization I’d joined over two decades ago.
1967
There was a major wave of UFO sightings in the UK in 1967 (and indeed in the US and elsewhere) and the subject enjoyed extensive media coverage. There was parliamentary interest too and one of the key decisions in relation to MoD UFO documents was taken in that year. It was agreed by Defense ministers that in view of the historical/public interest, all UFO files would be kept permanently and considered for eventual release. Prior to that, files on the subject had been reviewed 5 years after closure and might be either destroyed, sent to MoD records management divisions or sent to the Public Records Office (now renamed the National Archives). What this meant was that prior to 1967, few UFO files had survived this process and with a few exceptions, UFO files from the Fifties and early Sixties had been destroyed. There was nothing sinister about this and such decisions were made all the time on a wide range of subjects. It was a subjective business and I’ve done it myself: administrative staff would bring me files and I’d have to decide whether to authorize destruction, permanent retention or a further review. I never authorized the destruction of a UFO file and following the 1967 ruling, nobody should.
Freedom of Information
The introduction of the Freedom of Information Act (passed in November 2000 and coming fully into force in January 2005) effectively reversed the default position and the presumption now is that information is released, unless any of the formal exemptions apply. I was trained in this and have dealt with Freedom of Information (FOI) requests myself, so have first-hand experience of this. Ufologists have used FOI (and the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, which preceded FOI but attempted to apply some of the principles) extensively and researchers such as Georgina Bruni and Timothy Good have achieved some high-profile successes. The file of the Rendlesham Forest incident and on the Cosford incident, the Flying Saucer Working Party and Project Condign (a highly classified UFO study sponsored by the Defence Intelligence Staff and undertaken by a defence contractor) were all obtained using the Code or FOI. All these files and more besides are now available on the MoD website, www.mod.uk. Go to the Freedom of Information section and search the Publication Scheme and the Disclosure Log, using keywords such as UFO and UAP and it’s all there, alongside documents and files on a vast range of other fascinating subjects including MoD’s 2001 remote viewing study.
FOI or Investigation?
The MoD receives more FOI requests relating to UFOs than on any other subject, including the war in Iraq or Afghanistan. The section where I worked is now so busy dealing with FOI requests that this has taken precedence over the research and investigation that was done in my day. Few UFO sightings are currently investigated in any meaningful sense of the word and most sightings elicit little more than a standard letter. A major case such as Ray Bowyer’s sighting over the Channel Islands on 23 April 2007 will at least be investigated, but not to the extent that has previously been the case. The case file on the Channel Islands UFO sighting ran to 9 pages. Compare that with previous major cases such as Rendlesham Forest or the Cosford Incident, where the case files ran to over 100 pages of documentation. Investigations are suffering because of the workload being put on staff due to FOI, but FOI is taking priority because if it fails to comply, MoD would be breaching the law.
Disclosure
By 2007 the workload involved in dealing FOI requests was becoming intolerable and I know that staffs were getting increasingly frustrated. Accordingly, because of the administrative burden involved in responding to UFO-related FOI requests on a case by case basis, MoD decided to proactively release its entire archive of UFO files. As mentioned earlier, the French government did this in 2007 (and the dedicated server crashed due to the volume of hits as around 220,000 people attempted to access the material on the day of release) and this was another reason for the release, as was the hope that the move would help deal with accusations that MoD was covering up the truth about UFOs. Indeed, both the MoD and the National Archives hope that this will be a good news story about open government and freedom of information. MoD confirmed to me in December 2007 that the final decision had been taken and I duly broke the story in the media.
The Details
There are around 160 files in all, covering sighting reports, public correspondence, policy files and files detailing with how the MoD handles the subject when raised in parliament and in the media. MoD decided not to release the material all in one go, mainly because of the administrative burden of redacting the files, i.e. deleting any information covered by the various exemptions to the Freedom of Information Act, ensuring that classified information and personal data isn’t released. Names, addresses and other personal details relating to witnesses and officials have to be removed, to comply with the Freedom of Information Act and the Data Protection Act. Other exemptions cover categories such as defense and national security and examples of the sort of information that is being withheld include classified information such as the capability of military radar systems, information passed to the UK in confidence by allies, commercially-sensitive information and information which, if disclosed, would reveal intelligence sources or methods of gathering intelligence. It’s a massive job: MoD has received over 11,000 UFO reports to date and case files on major incidents can run to over 100 pages of documentation. The entire process is likely to take 3 - 4 years.
The Asbestos Files
While most files are ones from the secretariat branch that has the policy and investigative lead on UFOs (i.e. the division where I worked) 24 Defence Intelligence Staff (DIS) UFO files are also being releasd. The DIS provided specialist advice and assistance on a number of areas related to specific investigations. These 24 files were part of a batch of several thousand DIS files that had been contaminated by asbestos. It was feared originally that they’d have to be destroyed. Historians were outraged and conspiracy theorists smelt a rat. But at a cost of around £3M all the files have now been decontaminated and scanned onto CD-ROMs. Many UFO researchers have made Freedom of Information Act requests relating to these files, so the material can now be considered for release in the usual way.
What’s in the Asbestos Files?
The 24 files cover the period 1975 to 1999 and cover a wide range of material, including both policy and investigations. Many of the UFO sightings detailed are mundane, but there are some more interesting ones, including sightings by civil and military pilots and sightings corroborated by radar evidence. And of course the period covered means that there will be documents on Rendlesham Forest, the Cosford Incident and Project Condign. Some of the documents will be new, but many will be copies of ones in the secretariat divion’s file. This is because the DIS UFO files mirror those of the secretariat division responsible for setting policy and leading investigations, because the secretariat and the DIS were looking at the same cases and corresponding with each other about them. Some documents I wrote are in the files and some documents are ones that were written to me. Brief details of these 24 files are available on the MoD website, in the Disclosure Log. A search on the phrase “DIS UFO Incident Files” will turn up the information.
The First Batch
The first batch of files were released on May 14 2008. They covered the period 1978 - 1987. There were 8 files in this first batch, which led to some misunderstanding as many people thought this was the same as saying that there were only 8 individual cases. In fact, most of the files were sighting report files and each file contained several hundred pages of documentation, consisting mainly of one or two page summaries of individual sightings: the raw data, as it were, recorded in a standard format by the person receiving the UFO report. Overall, therefore, there were thousands of pages of documentation in these 8 files, detailing several hundred sightings. Most cases had mundane explanations and were clearly misidentifications of ordinary objects and phenomena, mainly aircraft lights, satellites and meteors. But some were more difficult to explain, including cases where the witnesses were pilots and police officers, together with instances where UFOs had been tracked on radar. There were also some more light-hearted cases, which were almost certainly hoaxes or instances where some practical joke had got out of hand. Some of the more interesting incidents included:
26th April 1984: Members of the public report a UFO in Stanmore. Two police officers attend the scene, witness the craft and sketch it.
13th October 1984: a saucer-shaped UFO is seen from Waterloo Bridge in London by numerous witnesses.
11th September 1985: 2 UFOs tracked on a military radar system travelling 10 nautical miles in 12 seconds.
4th September 1986: a UFO passes an estimated 1.5 nautical miles from the port side of a commercial aircraft.
The release made the news all around the world and within a couple of months the material had been downloaded around 2 million times. The National Archives regarded this as one of their most succesful proactive events of all time.
The Second Batch
A second batch of Ministry of Defence UFO files was released on October 20 2008 and are now available at the National Archives. There are 19 files, many of which contain several hundred individual documents. The files date from 1986 to 1992 and therefore include cases from my tour of duty on the MoD’s UFO project (1991 to 1994). It’s fascinating to see these files again - it’s a real blast from the past. As with the first batch, most of the UFO sightings in these newly released files can be explained as misidentifications of ordinary objects or phenomena, with around 5% being more difficult to explain. The cases that concerned me most were those involving near misses between UFOs and commercial aircraft. There are several such cases in these files, along with more sightings from police officers and more cases where UFOs have been tracked on radar. I did a seemingly constant stream of TV and radio interviews, appearing on most TV news programmes (including a number of US shows such as ABC News’s Nightline) and on others shows such as GMTV, The Alan Titchmarsh Show and Newsround, as well as prestigious radio shows such as Radio 4’s Today programme and BBC World Service’s The World Today. I appeared twice on this latter show, once giving a conventional interview and the second time reading a science fiction story they asked to write, based on the files, which listeners were then invited to continue. The fact that such extensive media coverage resulted not only from the first release but from the second illustrates the appeal that this subject has with the media. The British file release is helping move the UFO phenomenon out of the fringe and into the mainstream.
Close Encounter Over Kent
One of the most interesting cases from the second batch of files occurred on 21st April 1991. I remember this incident very well and indeed I was involved in the official investigation. We were informed by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) - the UK equivalent of the FAA - that there had been a near miss involving a commercial aircraft. The aircraft was an Al Italia MD-80 with 57 passengers on board. It was a height of around 22,000 feet over Kent, near Lydd, when a brown, cigar-shaped object passed so close to the aircraft that the pilot shouted “look out, look out”. In the normal course of events, any near-miss would be investigated by the CAA. However, most such incidents involve other aircraft, and as the crew were not able to identify the object, it was treated as a UFO incident and passed from the CAA to the MoD. We launched a full investigation and eliminated all the usual possibilities, including weather balloons, military aircraft, etc. We even checked to see whether we had accidentally fired off a missile of some sort. We drew a complete blank and the incident remains unexplained to this day. This incident had a profound effect on me, because I realised that a commercial aircraft had come within seconds of being blown out of the sky over the UK. This illustrated that whatever one believes about UFOs, the phenomenon raises important defence and air safety issues. However, some people at the MoD and the CAA did not treat the incident as seriously as me, simply because of their automatic reaction to hearing the word “UFO”. This was deeply troubling and convinced me that I should make every effort to ensure that all UFO incidents were investigated thoroughly, in a proper scientific manner. It also convinced me that I should make efforts to ensure the subject was taken more seriously within government, the military and the intelligence community.
Milton Torres
Another case from the second batch that I discussed in my various media interviews was that of Milton Torres, a United States Air Force pilot who stated that on 20th May 1957 (in fact, the date is the subject of some confusion/debate) he was ordered to open fire on a UFO that was being tracked on radar. He was based at RAF Manston in Kent and was scrambled to intercept a UFO that had been tracked over Kent. He claims that he came within seconds of firing off a salvo of 24 rockets when the UFO accelerated away at a speed of around Mach 10. Torres stated that he was subsequently warned to stay silent about the incident and only mentioned it years afterwards, at a reunion. While Torres has gone on the record and given a number of media interviews, following the release of the documents from the MoD files, most people have not realised that the account in the MoD file is not an official USAF or MoD witness statement. It is a transcript of an interview with Torres, undertaken years after the event and forwarded to MoD by a ufologist. The ufologist then speculated that the incident was part of some secret test, which is patently false, as such tests would be conducted in the restricted airspace of various ranges over the sea. Needless to say, one does not conduct tests involving the potential firing of live weapons over the mainland UK! Torres is clearly an honourable man, recalling a difficult and potentially life threatening mission. But I would suggest that ufologists need to track down the original paperwork if they are to get to the bottom of this incident. Torres is not the only pilot to have been ordered to open fire on UFOs. General Parviz Jafari (Iran, 1976) and Comandante Huertas (Peru, 1980) were placed in similar positions and their stories, in their own words, can be found on the Coalition for Freedom of Information website. Check out www.freedomofinfo.org for further details.
Other Highlights From The Second Batch of MoD Files
There are plenty of other fascinating cases from the MoD UFO files. These include a case from 5 November 1990 when a number of RAF Tornado aircraft were overtaken by a UFO. There is a case from Scotland where a spectacular UFO photo was sent to the MoD. It was on my office wall for years, but was removed by my Head of Division, who had convinced himself that it showed Aurora - supposedly a prototype aircraft, the existence of which has never been confirmed. Additionally, there is a file that I opened on alien abductions and alien contact cases, with a series of bizarre letters. There is also material on crop circles, including papers showing how the MoD tried to get the military to stop flying over crop circles and photographing them, as it undermined the line that we were desperately trying to push at the time, i.e. that we weren’t interested in the phenomenon!
Summer of the Saucers
At the same time as these file releases, the summer of 2008 has seen a massive upsurge in UFO sightings in the UK and - perhaps fuelled by the release of the government files - an increase in media coverage, as journalists become increasingly aware that there’s a serious story here of interest to a vast number of people. I shall highlight the two cases that have attracted most media attention. Both are to be covered in Series 2 of the History Channel series UFO Hunters.
UFO in Near-Miss with Police Helicopter
A spectacular encounter between a UFO and a police helicopter took place on 8th June in South Wales, over the military base at RAF St Athan, close to Cardiff International Airport. The helicopter, with a crew of 3 on board, was about to land when it was in near collision with a UFO. Initially described as being disc-shaped and covered in lights, early media reports suggested a chase had taken place, with the helicopter pursuing the UFO south over the Bristol Channel and only breaking off pursuit when the UFO proved too quick and when they ran low on fuel. After the story broke on 20th June the story changed and the police were careful to use the phrase “unusual aircraft” as opposed to UFO. Additionally, while confirming the sighting, they denied a chase had taken place. Perhaps the most extraordinary aspect of the story was a quote from the MoD Press Office, where a spokesperson made the following comment: “But it is certainly not advisable for police helicopters to go chasing what they think are UFOs”. It has now emerged that numerous other people in the area saw the UFO. The story generated massive media coverage and numerous FOI requests have been made to the MoD and the CAA, so look out for further developments on this story. Whatever one believes about UFOs, incidents like this illustrate the the phenomenon raises serious defence and flight safety issues.
UFOs Filmed Over Military Base
The police helicopter story was followed by an even bigger story, when it transpired that a few hours before the police helicopter incident, soldiers at Tern Hill barracks in Shropshire saw several UFOs fly directly over their base. One of them filmed the objects on his mobile phone. The Sun (the UK’s best-selling national daily newspaper) ran the story on the front page under the headline “Army Spot UFOs Over Shropshire”. Again, investigation into this sighting is ongoing. The film is inconclusive and may even just show so-called Chinese lanterns, but the media coverage has been almost without precedent.
A Vision of the Future
Once all the files have been released, most FOI requests can simply be dealt with by a standard reply that refers people to the National Archives and/or the MoD website. At that point, it is entirely possible that MoD will attempt to disengage from the subject altogether, as the United States Air Force did when Project Blue Book was terminated in 1969. The DIS disengagement that followed Project Condign is a possible model and precedent for this. Whether MoD will need a new review, or will simply rely on Project Condign, is open to debate. But something has to give. There’s no point in investigating UFO sightings if you’re not going to do it properly. I once wrote a paper on this for the MoD Press Office (after I left the UFO project but before I left MoD), who were having difficulty reconciling Directorate Air Staff’s public line that they “weren’t interested” in UFOs with the fact that they had a telephone line for people to report sightings and did investigate sightings from pilots.
No Smoking Gun
So far as the files are concerned, don’t expect a smoking gun. There isn’t one. The files contain no references to spacecraft in an air force hangar or alien bodies at a government laboratory. No back-engineering, no deals with extraterrestrials and no alien autopsies. If such things have happened (and I have no knowledge that they have) I don’t believe they have happened in the UK. I’m accused of being part of a cover-up when I make such statements, but they’re true, whether people like it and believe it or not. Much of the material is mundane - when I joined the UFO project each case looked different, but when I left they all seemed the same. It’s not all gloom, of course and there’s some amazing stuff in amongst the mass of more routine material: UFOs seen by police officers and pilots, UFOs tracked on radar, craft seen performing speeds and maneuvers significantly in excess of those of our most advanced military aircraft, intriguing photos and videos, etc.
The Limits of a Paper Trail
A word of warning. Documents and files can never tell the whole story. The written word has its limitations. Reading a book about war doesn’t mean you truly understand what it’s like to be under fire in a war zone. Unless you’ve been there and done it, you can only - at best - have an outsider’s view - a second-hand understanding, as it were. It’s the same at the MoD. Journalists and members of the public who make FOI requests relating to UFOs (or on any subject, for that matter) may get to see some documents and files, but that only tells part of the story. Documents and files don’t generally capture the politics, the personalities and the intrigue. They don’t capture the unminuted discussions that take place every day, in the office, the corridor, the canteen or at social functions. Think about it from a personal point of view. How much of what you do at work each day is ever written down? If an outsider was to read some of your files, would they really understand all the business of the organization? Ufologists who specialize in document research make a valuable contribution to the subject, but an experienced journalist will tell you that the paper trail can only lead you so far. In any organization, but especially in a fundamentally secretive one like MoD, documents and files can only ever tell part of the story.
Conclusion
I am always reluctant to use the word disclosure, because in ufology the word is often associated with the work of Dr Steven Greer, whose Disclosure Project has become something resembling a political campaign (as has Exopolitics) aimed at ending the UFO cover-up in which many conspiracy theorists believe. But I do use the word (with a small d and not a capital letter!) because in a very real sense, disclosure is precisely what the MoD is doing in relation to documents and files. Much has already been released and there’s more to come. These are exciting times.
Horseplop.
Why is it you fall back on the usual paranoid conspiracy crap, that evidence just “disappears”? Either you guys have the evidence or you don’t.
As to “the latest from Turkey”, are you talking about that goofy YouTube video that looks like someone just zoomed in and out and panned on something stationary? Hell, even my mother can make one of those.
Maybe the angle your Dad needed to try was getting color from black and white film, akin to the way Technicolor did. That likely wouldn't have gone over either, actually, and it technically wouldn't have been all that easy, but there would have been more of the "gee whizz" factor.
Sounds like you are returning to silly absurd willful ignorance.
sigh.
HERE: http://www.nickpope.net/ufology_for_the_new_millennium.htm
[COLOR EMPHASIS AFTER TITLE, are QUIX's; SOME ADDED PARAGRAPHING FOR EASIER READING. British spelling left alone ]
Introduction
The summer months of 1997 saw ufology in the public eye to a greater extent than any time than I can remember. The fiftieth anniversaries of Kenneth Arnold’s ‘flying saucer’ sighting, coupled with the fiftieth anniversary of the Roswell incident were events which attracted the attention of the mainstream media, and therefore presented ufology with a tremendous opportunity to put forward its case to a wider audience than usual. There were numerous television programmes and features devoted to the subject, and a whole host of books were published at around the same time. But despite all this exposure, was the cause of ufology actually advanced? Indeed, are we at all clear what we mean by ufology, and what its aims should be? And does the recent demise of some of the glossy ufological magazines mean that the bubble has burst, and that a saturated market is beginning to bite back? In the course of this article I intend to give ufology a health check, and put forward some ideas for some initiatives which I believe may help us make some progress. I also want to use this article to say a little about how I have been affected by my involvement in ufology, and in particular I intend to address some of the accusations and questions that crop up about my role.
I should first make it clear that I do not claim to sit in judgement on ufology. I have no right to do so, not least because there are many people who have been involved for much longer than a relative newcomer such as myself, and who have been struggling to take forward our understanding of the UFO mystery long before I was even born. But my background does give me a unique perspective on the topic, and one which I hope can be put to some constructive use.
As many readers will be aware, I am a civil servant in the Ministry of Defence, and came to ufology quite by chance, when in 1991 I was posted to Secretariat(Air Staff)2a. I had not been quizzed in any way about my views on the subject before taking this job, but for the next three years my duties involved me in carrying out official research and investigation into UFO sightings, alien abductions and anything else weird and wonderful that came my way (crop circles, animal mutilations and the threat to the Earth from comets and asteroids are examples of some of the other topics I found myself drawn into). I would not dare to claim that this background somehow makes me a better ufologist than anybody else, but the fact that I was carrying out official studies gave me unique access to assets and expertise simply not available to members of the public.
[QX: I guess the officials thought much, much, much MORE of the topic than mysterio, yazoo or JoJo!]
Addressing the Conspiracy Theories
The fact that I work for the MOD has, of course, made me controversial, and I should like to address some of the accusations and questions that have been put to me over the past few years. I have been accused of being part of an officially-sanctioned campaign to cover-up the truth about UFOs. This I find bizarre, because although I do not believe in an MOD cover-up, I have made no secret of the fact that I believe some UFOs to be extraterrestrial in origin. I have also been quite critical of the Department’s track record on UFOs, suggesting that there is a sort of ‘reverse cover-up’ - in that one or two people are effectively bringing the whole research effort to a halt because they have their heads in the sand, with their own ignorance and prejudice about UFOs being reflected in the way in which the MOD now treats the subject.
Alternatively, I have been accused of being an innocent dupe, unaware that sinister forces were operating to a different agenda, behind my back. This is also untrue. I have made no secret of the fact that other sections in the MOD are involved in looking at UFO data, and I admitted as much in my first book, Open Skies, Closed Minds. But this involvement is little more than the process of specialist advice being sought by Sec(AS)2a in its attempts to get to the bottom of specific UFO sightings. An example would be bringing in a section specialising in air defence matters, to ask if a visual sighting could be correlated by radar. Another example would be the way in which RAF Fylingdales might be asked about satellites or space debris. There’s nothing sinister about such routine consultation, and I find it amusing that much of the controversy about secret departments has arisen as a result of documentation made available at the Public Records Office.
If we were really dealing with the sort of cover-up envisaged by some conspiracy theorists, you’d hardly be reading the details in freely available documents which have been identified as suitable for public release! Another argument against my being an innocent puppet in this business is the fact that the one thing any covert UFO division would have needed was access to the raw data that came to me, and indeed access to the witnesses themselves. Not once in three years was I told by a witness that after their contact with me they’d been contacted by shadowy and sinister Men in Black, or been asked to repeat their stories to someone else, or asked to send in any photographs they had. Sec(AS)2a are the lead division so far as the MOD’s UFO investigations are concerned. Others have been involved, but in a limited role that is subordinate to that of Sec(AS)2a and its predecessors.
[Qx: I think he’s mostly believable above. I don’t think he’d be able to tell, however, IF sufficiently black and compartmentalized departments were doing their own thing in the field.]
I have even been accused of being spokesperson for a conspiracy of indoctrination, responsible for drip-feeding information to the public, acclimatising people to an extraterrestrial reality, prior to some official announcement about alien contact. If only I had a pound for every time I’d been told that ‘the big announcement’ was just around the corner! And as to the notion of an indoctrination programme, all I can say is that it’s actually a very old idea - the same accusations have been made about films such as Independence Day or Close Encounters of the Third Kind (It’s a very strange and contradictory campaign that indoctrinates people about such different scenarios of alien contact).
[Qx which does NOT per se, yet, wholesale refute the idea, interestingly—though he does class it as incorrect below.]
All these separate and mutually contradictory theories are incorrect, but clearly there is nothing I can do to convince a small but vociferous minority whose minds are already made up on this matter, and who refuse to believe what I say simply because I work for the MOD. The truth is that I am simply an ordinary person who was put into an extraordinary situation, where I tried to do my job to the best of my ability. I believe that I achieved some success in my job, forging some constructive links between the Department and the UFO lobby, and arranging for the release of some information into the public domain. But I made mistakes too, and kick myself for some of the lost opportunities that slipped away simply because three years is far too short a time to develop a comprehensive knowledge of the UFO phenomenon.
If I knew then what I know now, I believe I would have made significantly more progress towards an understanding of the mystery. The MOD has the resources to make a comprehensive ‘Estimate of the Situation’, but seems currently to lack the will to do so. I have certainly let it be known that I would be prepared to lead a small study group - along the lines of the United States Air Force’s old Project Blue Book - to see if we can make some progress on these issues. This offer has not yet been taken up, but who knows? It is a mistake to think of the MOD speaking with one voice on this, or being corporately sceptical. The fact of the matter is that the Department is a collection of individuals, whose views on UFOs are pretty much the same as anybody else’s; there are sceptics, believers and agnostics in the Department - but many more believers than might be supposed!
Answering the Questions
Let me now briefly address some of the questions most frequently put to me, again in the hope that this will clarify the situation and resolve some of the debate about my own role. Yes, of course I am bound by the Official Secrets Act, which I signed on my first day at the MOD, back in 1985. I’ve been asked how I’ve been able to speak out so publicly, and in particular how I’ve been able to write two books which draw on my official work. The answer is that the Official Secrets Act does not bar people from talking about their official experiences - if it did, none of the books on the Gulf War written by some of the military personnel most closely involved would ever have been published. There is a procedure for dealing with such books, which involves submitting the manuscript to the Department in advance of publication, so that any classified information which may accidentally have been included can be removed. This applied to the Gulf War books (by a curious turn of events, I was actually involved in clearing some of these books!) and it applied to mine. Whilst it is true that one or two people tried to ban my books, there was nothing sinister about this. It was an abortive attempt that - according to some very senior colleagues in the MOD - was motivated by nothing more than a combination of jealousy and ignorance about the proper procedure for clearing manuscripts. Ultimately, despite a few battles, both my books were submitted and cleared in the normal way - end of story.
I should also address another question I am frequently asked, and that is the story behind my departure from Sec(AS)2a. After three years in the job I was promoted from the rank of Executive Officer (equivalent in rank to an Army Captain) to the rank of Higher Executive Officer (equating to the rank of a Major). Some have suggested that this was a move designed to get me out of the job, because I was ‘getting too close to the truth’. Again, this is nonsense. Although the promotion board will consider reports from immediate line management, the process is entirely separate from this management, and turns on nothing more sinister than the sort of thirty minute interview sat by countless thousands of hopeful middle-ranking executives in organisations all over the country. The most telling argument against this theory is that there was no need to promote me if they wanted to get rid of me - three years was a fairly standard tour of duty at the time, and I was due to move in 1994. So if I had failed my interview I would have been given a level transfer anyway!
The Personal Effect
Now that I have clarified these points, I want to say something about how involvement in ufology has affected me. My three years in Sec(AS)2a were a personal turning point for me, and a profoundly life-changing experience. I had no previous knowledge of ufology, and no particular belief in extraterrestrials, and yet found myself exposed to the most bizarre material imaginable.
While 90% of cases could be explained as misidentifications of conventional objects and phenomena, a hard core of cases seemed to defy all such explanation, and appeared to involve structured craft with a technology that exceeded that of even our best prototypes, both in terms of speed and manoeuvrability. I made no secret of the fact that I believed some sightings had an extraterrestrial explanation.
Eventually I found myself increasingly unable to agree with the Ministry of Defence’s party line that UFOs were of ‘no defence significance’. I had cases involving near misses between UFOs and civil airliners where the presence of the UFO was validated by radar. I had cases where military jets were being overtaken by UFOs and where RAF bases were being directly overflown by them. Clearly this was of extreme defence significance. The details of my work at the MOD and of some of the bizarre cases I investigated were set out in Open Skies, Closed Minds, so I do not intend to cover much of this material here.
An Estimate of the Situation
I want now to turn away from my personal involvement, and put the spotlight on ufology itself. As I consider ufology today I am not filled with optimism. I see a disunited group of individuals and organisations, squabbling with each other, and unclear as to what their aims should be. Despite some positive stories in the press, there are still a depressing number of instances where the media regards a UFO story as being fit for a quirky or humorous treatment, and a similarly depressing number of cultists and crackpots who manage to hijack ufology, making it that much more difficult for serious researchers and investigators to make any headway.
Occasionally I like to dip into some of the older UFO books on my bookshelves, and as I do so, I am struck by how little things have changed over the decades. There is a hard core of solid information and good research, but the picture is muddied by a whole host of red herrings. We seem to be going round in circles, and sometimes I think we are no further forward than we were thirty years ago. What are the precise problems we face, and much more importantly, what can we do to rectify them? The following headings attempt to address these questions, and where possible they incorporate lessons that I learnt during my official research and investigation.
Respecting Alternative Viewpoints
I have discussed aspects of ufology with various scientists, and whatever their views on the subject as a whole, they never cease to be amazed at the way in which ufologists are constantly making personal attacks on each other. Scientists often disagree with each other, but while they make the most furious of attacks on each others’ data, these arguments hardly ever turn into the sort of personal vendettas that characterise ufology. Can we not learn from this?
It seems to me that the first step here would be to recognise that ufology is a broad church. We simply must get away from a sceptic versus believer mentality, and recognise that everybody with a serious interest in ufology deserves some respect.
Although I personally subscribe to the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis (ETH), I do not instantly condemn all those who, for example, believe that UFOs are lightforms caused by energies from within the Earth. Neither, though I believe that some alien abduction accounts involve physical interaction with extraterrestrials, do I condemn those who hold equally sincere views that we are dealing with a purely psychological phenomenon.
In the world of science, people often achieve most when they enter into constructive debate with colleagues who hold different views. Yet ufologists seem to gather in cliques, with the consequence that many UFO conferences involve a lot of preaching to the converted. And where opposing viewpoints do come together, it usually involves a lot of bitterness and sarcastic point scoring. There is little constructive debate. We need to get away from these attitudes, and be more tolerant of those with whom we disagree. One way to look at it is that you may well learn more from someone with an opposing view than someone who agrees with everything you say.
Another important point is that a little less egotism on the part of certain ufologists would greatly help ufology as a whole. All of us are wrong from time to time, but learning to admit as much is important. There is little point in blindly defending your own theory against critics. Again, many scientific advances come from evolving one’s theories in the light of constructive criticism, and modifying them to take account of fresh data. Much as he has been criticised and accused by the UFO lobby, I cannot help but admire the stance taken by Kent Jeffrey.
Having organised the International Roswell Initiative, aimed at getting the US government to release all information on the case, he very publicly changed his mind on the whole Roswell incident, and now believes that the incident did not involve a UFO crash. While I would dispute some of his reasoning, I have tremendous respect for his approach. Would that everyone else was as honest. In a fast-moving field of study such as ufology, ideas and beliefs should evolve and change in response to emerging facts.
We may, for example, have to reassess views on the so-called ‘Face on Mars’ as a result of the latest NASA photographs. And before people say NASA are covering up the truth, I should point out that NASA would love there to be evidence of intelligent life on Mars - or indeed anywhere else. Think how much their budget would be increased, and think back to the way in which they were so keen to endorse the idea of life on Mars through their strong and publicly stated belief (which, incidentally, is still hotly disputed by much of the scientific community) that meteorite ALH 84001 contained fossilised remains of organic Martian molecules. Ufologists need to be more flexible in their response to emerging data, more tolerant of dissenting views and more able to admit to mistakes.
Recognising Diversity
One of the greatest problems that I think ufology faces is a tendency to look for neat solutions to complex situations. One of the ways in which this manifests is the undue prominence given to certain descriptions of UFOs and aliens, to the exclusion of all else. If you believe some ufologists, our skies are currently brimming with little else but large, triangular shaped UFOs. Clearly there are many such objects being reported (I have investigated numerous such cases myself) but the truth of the matter is that a bewildering array of sizes and shapes of UFOs still being seen in our skies.
The same is true of extraterrestrials. Pick up some magazines and you would think that the Greys were the only alien being reported by close encounter witnesses. Nothing could be further from the truth, and while I was researching my book on abductions, The Uninvited, I came across many cases which did not fit into what is now regarded as being a standard pattern. Indeed, one of my key findings was that the ‘contactee’ experience, which many ufologists believe stopped at the end of the Fifties, is still going on, with many people reporting more benevolent contact experiences.
I think we need to recognise that the UFO and close encounter phenomena are multi-faceted, and should resist the idea - however attractive it may be in the short term - that there is one neat solution to these mysteries. This is unlikely to be the case, and if and when we do get to the bottom of things, we are likely to find that there are a number of different things going on.
Widening the Net
Related to the above concern is the worry that we are giving undue prominence to material from within the UK and the USA. UFOs are being seen all around the world, and close encounters (both contactee and abductee type experiences) are similarly global. And yet, time and time again, a quick glance at many of the ufological magazines would suggest that little goes on outside Britain and America. The language barrier is a huge problem here, and yet there is a lot of overseas material available if you look for it. Timothy Good does an excellent job in highlighting material from all around the world in books such as Beyond Top Secret and Alien Base. Gordon Creighton has featured much overseas material in his journal Flying Saucer Review, while everybody at UFO Magazine have done similar good work, and have taken this a step further by bringing a number of speakers to the UK from such countries as Israel, Mexico and Brazil. This is important, not just because we need to break away from regurgitation of the same old information by the same old speakers, but because there do seem to be differences in the types of experiences reported in different countries. It is therefore of vital importance to see whether the phenomenon itself varies, or whether a constant phenomenon is being interpreted in differing ways, according to the cultural background of the witness.
The Internet also plays an important role in allowing researchers to access more exotic information from outside the normal British and American sources. I shall be saying more about the Internet later.
Dealing With Hoaxes
The proliferation of cheap cameras and camcorders means that we are seeing increasing numbers of films and photographs showing UFOs. Unfortunately, the proliferation of PC-compatible photographic image packages has meant that it is now increasingly easy to produce fakes so convincing (as an example, incorporating a shadow of the ‘object’ into the image) that even an expert would find it difficult to spot the deception. All I can recommend here is that ufologists adopt a cautious attitude to all photos and videos. In a rush for an exclusive many a ufologist has been caught out by prematurely endorsing material that has subsequently proved to be fake. So think before speaking out, and try to develop contacts with special effects companies, or companies specialising in image enhancement and analysis.
We must also remember that an image itself can tell us very little, so speak to the person who claims to have taken the picture, and see if their story checks out. Go through the normal series of checks that you would carry out during an investigation. See if you can locate independent witnesses, perhaps though a letter or article in the local paper. Above all, remember that you can never consider the image in isolation from the witness.
On a final point, we should try to understand the mentality of hoaxers, rather than simply condemning them out of hand. If we can appreciate the way in which these people operate, we are likely to be better able to spot hoaxed material in the future. To illustrate this point I had a recent discussion with Rob Irvine, who was talking about crop circles in language which was that of a conceptual artist. As frustrating as it may be for some, we need to work with such people instead of vilifying them.
Developing Specialist Knowledge and Contacts
A little bit of specialist knowledge will go a long way. As an example, a ufologist confronted by a wave of sightings involving numerous fast moving UFOs at high altitude might pause for thought if the event occurred on 12 August. A little astronomical knowledge would mean that the ufologist would know that this is the night of one of the most spectacular of the annual meteor showers visible from Earth - the Perseids. Most ufologists will have encountered cases where Venus has been mistaken for something more exotic, and knowing the location of this most brilliant of planets at any given time can quickly help to clear up misidentifications, saving much nugatory work.
Similarly, a little basic psychological knowledge can be of great assistance to those ufologists who investigate abductions. I find it incredible that there are still those who have no knowledge of the vivid hallucinations that can sometimes be seen in the borderline state between being awake and asleep. These visual hallucinations are known as hypnagogic and hypnopompic imagery, and when coupled with sleep paralysis (which inhibits bodily movement during dreaming) might give rise to a belief that an abduction had taken place.
A 1996 article in the British Journal of Psychiatry reported that in a survey involving over 5000 people, around thirty-seven percent reported some regular experience of hypnagogic hallucinations. And examining this figure more closely it was found that the second most commonly reported hallucination was that of a presence in the bedroom.
Other specialist knowledge that it will be useful to develop is increased knowledge of information technology, and in particular, use of the Internet. Although there is a lot of nonsense on the Internet, there is much good information, and knowing how to search for specific facts will save researchers much time. It is also a valuable tool for exchanging ideas and encouraging the sort of liaison that I have argued for earlier in this article.
It is important to develop a network of contacts who can help you with research or investigation of a specific case. These contacts might include a local police officer who could let you know about any unusual activity that might tie in with a UFO sighting, or a Community Relations Officer at an RAF base, who might be able to tell you whether a UFO sighting was backed up on radar, or whether there was any aircraft activity in the area at the time. Remember that such people have busy, demanding jobs. Do not overload a contact with requests and generally make a nuisance of yourself, but use them selectively. If you approach someone who won’t help, politely accept this and try again.
Finally, whatever your views on a cover-up, please don’t assume that anybody in any position of authority is involved in some sinister conspiracy. Speaking personally, I can assure readers that there are numerous ‘believers’ in the MOD and the RAF (I’ve spoken to many RAF pilots who have seen UFOs themselves, and files at the Public Record Office reveal a number of such cases) so don’t assume otherwise.
Using the Parliamentary System
In the last eighteen months or so there have been over thirty written Parliamentary Questions on UFOs tabled in either the House of Commons or Lords. In some cases these questions have covered the general policy on UFOs, whilst others have dealt with specific cases such as the Rendlesham Forest incident. It does seem as if some MPs and Peers are becoming increasingly aware of the potential defence and national security issues raised by the UFO phenomenon, and increasingly dissatisfied with bland and unsubstantiated platitudes about UFOs being of ‘no defence significance’. Again, this is a situation which serious ufologists can exploit.
In general, your first approach should be to your own MP, especially if you are asking about a local sighting in your MP’s constituency. You cannot force an MP to take an issue further, but if they do help, one of two things may happen. They may write to the MOD, forwarding any correspondence you may have had with your MP. This is known as a Parliamentary Enquiry, and the MP will get a letter back from one of the Ministers at the MOD. This letter will almost certainly have been drafted by officials in Sec(AS)2a, so if the Enquiry asks general questions, you are likely to receive little more than the standard reply that UFOs are of ‘no defence significance’.
So try to ask specific questions. Alternatively, your MP may table what is known as a Parliamentary Question (these tend to be short, very specific questions), and when the reply has been received, both question and answer will be printed up in the parliamentary Hansard - the written record of parliamentary proceedings. In this way it will have visibility amongst MPs, civil servants and defence correspondents on national newspapers. Interesting PQs are often picked up by the press, and this can be an excellent way to increase the profile of a UFO incident.
Use common sense in any dealings with MPs. They are busy people, and are unlikely to wish to see their names associated with anything quirky, so you are more likely to interest an MP in incidents such as near misses between a civil aircraft and a UFO where the incident has been confirmed by the Civil Aviation Authority, sightings involving military witnesses or sighting correlated by radar.
Preparing for the Freedom of Information Act
Shortly after the current government came to power, its legislative programme was set out in the Queen’s Speech, delivered to both Houses of Parliament - Commons and Lords - on 14 May 1997. This speech confirmed that a White Paper would be published on proposals for a Freedom of Information Bill, thus honouring a manifesto commitment of the Labour Party. The UK’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) will be a particularly complex piece of legislation, and unlike most Bills, will need to be drawn up in consultation with every branch of Government. Departments such as the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will be particularly involved in this consultation, but contrary to some ill-informed rumours I have heard, they will not be exempt from the Act. It is true that there will be some exemptions, but what this means is that certain information will not have to be released if it can be shown that its release will be harmful to the interests of the UK. Examples of such information in the MOD would include technical details about military weapons systems, and information relating to doctrine and tactics.
The introduction of the FOIA presents ufology with a huge opportunity, and yet to my knowledge there are only a handful of researchers who have given the matter much thought. There are, at present, some twenty five UFO-related files available for viewing at the Public Record Office in Kew. While there is much fascinating material in these files, most of it relates to events which occurred thirty years ago. Once the FOIA has been passed, the so-called Thirty Years Rule will not apply, and ufologists will be able to request more recent material.
The details of exactly how requests should be submitted will be published nearer the time, but in general, specific questions will need to be asked. A typical request would probably read as follows:
‘I am writing to you under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act to request that you forward me any documentation originated by the Ministry of Defence or the Royal Air Force relating to the sighting of a UFO on 31 March 1993 by personnel based at RAF Cosford and RAF Shawbury.’
In general, the more information you are able to supply, the better. So following on from the above example (which relates to a real case), if you are after a particular document that you know exists, say so:
‘I am especially interested in seeing the official report of this sighting submitted to Sec(AS)2a by the guard patrol who witnessed the craft flying over RAF Cosford.’
If your request is denied, you should be told why, and if you disagree with this decision there will be an appeals procedure.
My advice to ufologists is to get alongside some of the American researchers who have successfully exploited the US FOIA, and see what advice they have on how best to play the system. Watch the media for news of our own Act, and once it’s in place, test the system. Don’t expect miracles, and be patient with government officials who will be just as unused to a FOIA as you. And one final point, following on from the earlier warning about hoaxing. If somebody claims that a document has been obtained under the FOIA, do not assume this is true. If you have doubts, you can always check with the originating Department.
New Research
As one flicks through some of the articles in the various ufological publications one cannot help but notice the number of features that simply rake over a lot of old ground. Now, there is nothing wrong with a punchy analysis of a famous UFO case, coupled with some new ideas on its interpretation, and many of those new to ufology may well be hearing of the case for the first time. But it seems to me that there are a number of contemporary issues crying out for analysis, and a number of specific questions that would be worthy of detailed study.
An area that has attracted proportionally more of my attention lately has been the issue of alien abductions. One of the problems with the theory that this involves physical removal of individuals from their cars or beds, is the shortage of witnessed abductions. There are really only one or two such incidents - most notably the case of Linda Cortile, described in considerable detail in Budd Hopkins’ excellent book Witnessed. But when one examines the accounts of countless abductees one finds descriptions of events that ought to have attracted numerous witnesses. These accounts tell of large, luminous UFOs hovering at low altitude over roads or houses for some length of time, and of abductees being drawn up beams of light into a craft. Given the fact that there are thousands of UFO reports received each year, often dealing with small lights at high altitude, seen for only a few seconds, surely the considerably more impressive events described by abductees should be seen by an independent witness far more often? It seems to me that we are missing something here, and this might be an interesting area for study. I touched upon this in my last book, The Uninvited, and controversially suggested that we might need to consider some strategies that raise a number of moral issues.
Surveillance of abductees has been tried, and researchers such as David Jacobs have tried setting up video cameras in abductees’ bedrooms. The problem is that on a number of occasions the abductees themselves have turned these cameras off, unaware of why they did so. On other occasions the equipment appears to have malfunctioned, and it is after such occasions that an experience is claimed to have occurred. One way around this might be to consider - within the law - covert surveillance of an abductees’ home, without their knowledge.
Another question on which I have seen no research is whether there are a higher proportion of any particular blood groups among UFO witnesses - especially close encounter witnesses. Researchers such as the late Ken Phillips recognised the importance of the witnesses themselves, and concentrated on what became known as witness-led investigation. His Anamnesis Project sought to find out whether there were any common factors in the lives or backgrounds of abductees that might account for their experiences. I am convinced that this is an idea that we need to get back to, and an examination of blood groups is just one idea.
Another idea for a very focused investigation into a specific ufological mystery would be a look at so-called doorway amnesia. This is the mystery of why, given the detailed way in which abductees are often able to describe aspects of their experiences, so few recall the actual moment of entry into a UFO. Again, David Jacobs has touched on this in his book Secret Life. Jenny Randles also commented upon it during a presentation she gave at Abduction Study Conference held at MIT in 1992, when she described an experiment designed to compare imaginary abduction experiences with real ones. Twenty people who had never had any UFO experience were asked to imagine an encounter. Eighteen out of the twenty described some form of entry into the craft, and only two said that they suddenly found themselves there. Again, worthy of further research, I would suggest.
National Representation
I believe it would be impossible and counter-productive to try and unite all the different UFO groups and independent researchers, many of whom would have absolutely no wish to join such an organisation anyway. Having said this, there is much duplication of effort in ufology, and very little co-ordination. The impression is given that ufology is a disorganised collection of groups and individuals, constantly bickering amongst themselves, and never able to present a united front.
It seems to me that what we need is a national institute of ufology. Such a body would be a loose collection of representatives from various existing groups, and would be aimed solely at promoting ufology. This might be achieved through the organisation of conferences, the commissioning of specific research projects, and the subsequent publication and distribution of papers detailing the results. It might also aim to draw up summary sheets of information on various ufological topics, which could be made available upon demand to other ufologists, the media or children doing school projects. Such an organisation would have no authority over any groups or individuals, but by providing a forum where such people could come together, would hopefully provide a fertile environment for new ideas, and generally promote better practice within ufology - perhaps by following up some of the ideas in this article.
Conclusions
This article has covered a lot of ground, and I hope I have provided people with some food for thought. I am sure that I am not the only person with ideas about how ufology can put right some of the things that have gone wrong, and make progress towards a better understanding of that which we study. While I hope it has been of interest to everybody, I hope that it has been of particular interest to those involved in some way in ufology, because we face some tough times. As the Millennium approaches, we may well see a proliferation of cults, many of whom may latch upon ufology, which has always been of interest to a number of cults - some harmless, but some less so. I remember only too well the fiasco that surrounded the approach of Comet Hale-Bopp, when a number of ufologists who really should have known better jumped on the bandwagon and started to endorse some of the wilder stories about giant spacecraft travelling with the comet. Tragically, the Heaven’s Gate cult were thinking along similar lines, and thirty nine cult members took their lives last March in the belief that they would be reincarnated onto the spacecraft they believed was travelling behind the Hale-Bopp comet. Inevitably, ufology came in for some heavy criticism in the aftermath of the tragedy. We must do everything within our power to dissociate mainstream ufology from cults and other dubious fringe activities.
As we move into the twenty first century ufology needs to move on too. We need to leave behind some of the divisions and pettiness that has dogged us for the last fifty years, and get away from an endless raking over of historic material. I believe we need to adapt if we are to survive and remain relevant. This means having a long, hard look at everything we do, and making some changes. I care passionately about ufology, and some of the people involved in this field are among the most dedicated and professional people that I have encountered. Often it is the people working away at local level who are doing the best work, away from the glare of publicity.
Above all, we must attract new faces to ufology, so that this fascinating subject can be enriched by fresh, new ideas. This means sharing information with those who ask, and offering a helping hand, rather than jealously guarding cases as if they were some sort of personal property. It means taking the time to help the various people who write and ask for help with school projects or college dissertations. But above all it means trying to conduct our business in a professional way so that people will want to get involved. If we do this, perhaps by following up some of the ideas I have put forward here, we will have something that people will want to be a part of. Ufology requires hard work and a professional approach, but offers in return the chance to be a part of the quest for perhaps the greatest and most important mystery of all time. Ultimately, ufology is what we make it, so there will be no great mystery about the nature of ufology in the twenty first century. It will evolve as a result of what we do now, from choices that all of us make. Choose well.
My only sighting was quite high in the sky.
Thankfully I had good binoculars and Joya and I and my relatives locally all were able to see it.
Joya and I saw it most clearly and watched it for 20 min or so. By the time we got to my relatives, it had seemed to drift far enough south that the features Joya and I had seen were no longer sharply visible.
It was clearly one of the common smaller triangle craft with bright lights at each corner.
We saw it at twilight—quite bright daylight still but rapidly going into twilight at the beginning of the sighting.
“What do you think the red glow was about?”
I have no idea, nor do you. The difference is, I don’t wish it to be something extra terrestrial the way you do. I accept that it is not explained and there is not one scintilla of evidence it is extra terrestrial.
2. from alien implants taken from abductees.
3. from within authentic crop circles vs outside the authentic crop circles.
Neither of which you have any evidence for except the writings of other true believers like yourself. There is absolutely no evidence for either of the things you claim.
What a surprise . . .
yet another clueless, ill-informed, ignorant assertion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.