From: Joe McGonagle <joe.mcgonagle.nul>
Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 19:56:08 +0100
Fwd Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 11:07:15 -0400
Subject: Re: Project Condign - McGonagle


Hello Nick, List,

I am working through a 5-day backlog of emails, and will
eventually respond where appropriate, but I felt I ought to
address Nick's post first.....

>From: Nick Pope <nick.nul>
>To: UFO UpDates <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Sun, 7 May 2006 20:37:32 +0100
>Subject: Project Condign

>Further to recent media reports about the MOD's formerly-
>classified UFO study, 'Project Condign', I should clarify:

>Although I was involved in the 1993/1994 discussions that led to
>the commissioning of the study, I had left the MOD's UFO Project
>by the time it began.


Indeed 1993 there was some discussion between DI55 and
Sec(AS)2a. DI55 wrote on June 1st:

"You may be interested to hear that at long last I have had some
funds allocated for serious UFO research. The study will include
a review of our data, the construction of a data base, a
detailed review of specified incidents and recommendations for
the future. Needless to say we do not want this broadcast and it
is for yor information only".


It appears however, that by October 1993, no progress had been
made. In a minute dated 18th October 1993, DI55 wrote again to
Sec(AS)2, saying that they couldn't spare any desk officers for
the task, but that they would seek to employ a contractor on the
strength of an existing contract. The minute concluded with:


"Although this study will be undertaken by the DIS, with due
account of the sensitivities, I believe that I should seek your
support for this limited study".


Nick forwarded the minute to his superior, with the following
comments:


"The attached note from DI55c seems fine. AD DI55c came over to
discuss this some time ago, and I advised him that I saw no
difficulties, although I asked him to write to us setting out
their proposals, their money, their business.

As our policy already commits us to looking at all reports to
ensure there is no threatto the defence of the UK, we are not in
any way going outside our remit, as this study is no more than a
review of data.

As you can see, the term 'UFO' is being dropped, as it is rather
a loaded term.

Coincidentally, this week we have received a new report of a
huge triangular object flying over the UK mainland.

I have attached a short draft reply to DI55."


The reply basically says that there are no objections from
Sec(AS)2, and requests that they be kept informed of progress.
It also contained the following passage:


"It has become clear that not all those organisations charged
with submitting UFO reports when contacted by the public are
actually doing so, and we may need to tighten up the existing
system. Whether we do this immediately, so as to gather more
data for the study, or whether we wait to see what
recommendations arise from the study, is a point for
consideration."


In another document written by Sec(AS)2 in August 1995, were the
following relevant paragraphs:

"...for some years DI55 have been under general remit to advise
on "UAPs" but due to lack of resources they have not been able
to study the reports we send over to them, and the reports were
merely glanced at and placed on file."


"...we have heard nothing more about this proposed review of
data [since October 1994 - Joe] and as far as I am aware nothing
further has been done about it".

"...we don't do research into the phenomena; we haven't done
any; we only would if there were some good reason for doing do -
ie evidence of a threat. It remains that case that no threat
has been discerned which has been attributed to an unidentified
flying object".


The last paragraph above doesn't sit well with the comments at
your site:

www.nickpope.net

where you state:


"Welcome to the official website for Nick Pope, the Ministry of
Defence official who was responsible for researching and
investigating UFOs, alien abductions, crop circles, cattle
mutilations and other strange phenomena.."


So, was the author that wrote "we don't do research into the
phenomena" lying to his colleagues?

The next document was written in January 1997 by DI55 in reponse
to an enquiry from Sec(AS)2 and contained the following
paragraph:


"...Historically, it is perhaps useful for you to know that,
during 1995, subsequent to the unsuccessful 1993 initiative, the
Department again attempted both in June and October to get
approval for funding.The timing eventually clashed with the
onset of Defence Study 18 and the requests were shelved."


I have had to be selective with the quotes as some of the
documents were too long to transcribe in the short time I have,
and they form part of a number of documents which will be used
in a forthcoming article. No doubt, someone will try to run a
"spoiler" on the article based on the short extracts that I have
provided, but this will not ultimately devalue the article that
I have in mind.

>I am not the author of the report.

It was perfectly clear that it was written by DI55, Sec(AS) and
their later equivalents were not even aware that the study had
been carried out until the request by Dave Clarke revealed it -
they had no "need to know", it would seem. The press may not
know the difference between Sec(AS) and DI55, but I am sure that
the majority of people on this List will have realised that you
couldn't possibly have been the author.

>It would be inappropriate for me to criticise the report, but I
>do not agree with some of its conclusions, particularly where
>they relate to subjects such as electrically-charged atmospheric
>plasmas, or temporal lobe disorders, where there is no
>scientific consensus.

When the main body of the report is published I am sure that the
contents will be ably picked apart by those of us able to
recognise it's weaknesses, but I also hope that some will
recognise the significance of the report on several levels:

1. Sec(AS) and it's descendant DAS were not told about it - they
had no "need to know".

2. Regardless of whether or not anyone agrees with it's content
or conclusions, it was a serious attempt by DI55 to carry out an
appraisal of the phenomena.

3. It was never intended to reach the public (at least in
advance of the statutory conditions set out in the Public
Records Act). This is significant, because there are comments
within the report which show that there has been no "Global
cover-up", that the British are unaware of any US efforts, and
the US were unaware of DI55's activity in respect of Project
Condign. (Incidentally Nick, what was the name of the "UFO
Project" that you were "in charge of"?). There are other
revelatory comments included in the Condign documents which will
make good grist for the ufological mill.

4. In spite of the document's multiple failings there is
information in it of a useful nature to ufology.

5. Precisely because of the weakness of the document, we in the
UK now have more ammunition to argue for a better evaluation by
the MoD. I like to compare the intelligence value of this
document with the intelligence used to show that Iraq had
weapons of mass destruction - both examples were intrinsically
flawed.

>The release of this report is part of an ongoing series of
>releases under the Freedom of Information Act. The MOD is
>committed to releasing as much UFO material as possible,
>proactively, under the FOIA 'Publication Scheme'.

Nick, your "clarification" neglects to mention that if Dave
Clarke or Gary Anthony (or someone else) hadn't have made
requests leading to the release of the documents, DAS would
still be blissfully unaware of the existence of Condign and
therefore unable to make any such "routine" release. Please give
credit where it is due.

>The full report will be posted on the MOD's website on 15 May.

Yes, this was a generous act by the MoD. Initially, they
intended to release it simultaneously with the despatch of the
documents to Clarke and Anthony, but agreed to delay the release
to allow us to digest the contents in advance, particularly
since we had been given several missed deadlines for the release
through no fault of our own.


Regards,

Joe