UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2004 > Feb > Feb 12

Re: Harrassment - Has It Happened To You? - Pope

From: Nick Pope <nick.nul>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 00:36:58 -0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 10:40:20 -0500
Subject: Re: Harrassment - Has It Happened To You? - Pope


>From: Bill Stockstill <size14d.nul>
>To:  ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 16:34:30 -0500
>Subject: Re: Harrassment - Has It Happened To You?

>>From: Nick Pope <nick.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 21:38:50 -0000
>>Subject: Re: Harrassment - Has It Happened To You?

>It is interesting that you would chime in on this topic. Years
>ago I read  "UFO A Deadly Concealment" by Derek Sheffield. I was
>so interested in the book I later started up written
>correspondence with him on his investigations into the Belgium
>triangle UFO sightings of 1989/1990. He wrote of harrassment via
>the British Post Office. He states in his book that about 2
>dozen pieces of mail, including registered mail, involving his
>investigation into the 1989/90 Belgium UFO flap never made it to
>their destinations.

Bill and List,

Mr Sheffield was a persistent correspondent. But curiously
enough, every time I wrote to him, he replied virtually by
return of post. Over the several months that this correspondence
continued, the mail flowed freely and speedily in both
directions.

>He also wrote of several encounters with your where you seemed
>to give him incomplete information. When I wrote him of your
>book, "Open Skies, Closed Minds", he was shocked. He thought you
>were a government debunker. Here are some of the things he
>states happened when he contacted you for information of the
>British Government's knowledge of the March 30/31, 1990 Belgium
>F-16 UFO encounter:

I'm sorry to hear that Mr Sheffield thought I was a government
debunker, because I made every effort to respond fully to his
numerous questions. He used some of my letters in his book, and
if you re-read this correspondence, I hope you'll see that I
tried to be as helpful as possible.

>Your department handled radar enquires but you had no figures
>concerning them.

We never separated the data out in this way.

>You first told him that radar can have spurious returns but
>later admitted skilled radar operators can discern them from
>real objects.

These two points are not contradictory. I was probably trying to
explain the basics of radar technology to Mr Sheffield.

>You told Derek that in 1992 there were 147 UFO reports and when
>he asked for information on the sightings was given "a few
>sparse details - heavily censored - which revealed no details
>that could be checked."

The figure is certainly correct. But it's not the business of
the MOD to provide an aerial identification service to members
of the public. If ufologists ask the MOD for information with
regard to specific cases, we'll indicate whether or not we've
received other reports that might correlate what was seen. If we
have, we'll release redacted versions. But you may rest assured
that the MOD will not release personal details of witnesses to
ufologists. I'm sorry to hear that Mr Sheffield viewed this as
censorship. We viewed it as respecting witness confidentiality.
Nowadays we'd describe it as compliance with the Data Protection
Act 1998.


Best wishes,

Nick Pope




[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com