UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2008 > May > May 25

Re: MoD File Release

From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul>
Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 14:08:20 - 0300
Archived: Sun, 25 May 2008 07:35:00 -0400
Subject: Re: MoD File Release

>From: Joe McGonagle <joe.mcgonagle.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 02:59:11 +0100
>Subject: Re: MoD File Release

>>From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 15:14:32 - 0300
>>Subject: Re: MoD File Release

>>>From: Joe McGonagle <joe.mcgonagle.nul>
>>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>>Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 13:08:49 +0100
>>>Subject: Re: MoD File Release


>>>The rest of ufology appears to be at a loss

>>Yeah, where did you hear that? We've got enough to deal with over
>>here without worrying about the MOD's thin reports and pablum

>I didn't hear it anywhere - it is evident from the general lack
>of reaction in some quarters, the frenzied speculation in other
>quarters, and it is only in the quieter backwaters that a few
>people are actually taking steps to _do_ something with the data
>and make the most out of it.

Well actually that's the way it should be. Frenzied? Come on
Joe. I haven't seen that on this list. It sort of fell flat
actually, probably because the boy cried wolf once too often.
Perhaps another reason might be that it has been second nature
to find UFO reports or have them released without fanfare over
on this side of the Atlantic and over a period of years. The
Blue Book files are huge and those in the Canadian archives
number, as I said, around 10,000. Like the MOD files many of
them are not worth viewing while others are very interesting but
you get to see page one and the following page[s] are missing.


>>See below.

>>>There are a lot more files to come, and there will be more
>>>interesting reports amongst them, and in a few cases, the MoD
>>>will have carried out superficial investigations (the Cosford
>>>case is a good example). There is no 'secret squirrel' section,
>>>no smoking gun, no positive evidence of ET visitation. Get used
>>>to it, and decide what you want to do to make the best use out
>>>of 'disclosure' - it's arrived.

>>Ah cut the crap, Joe. The conspiracy side is getting a little
>>tired. You wouldn't know in any event if there was anything they
>>wanted to keep out of the public eye. You state with authority,
>>"There is no 'secret squirrel' section, no smoking gun, no
>>positive evidence of ET visitation."

>I'm not sure what you mean here - by "The conspiracy side is
>getting a little tired", do you mean that it is becoming more
>untenable? If so, I couldn't agree more.

You stated, "There is no secret squirrel section, no smoking
gun, no positive evidence of ET visitation.." and I don't think
you are in any position to know if there are or are not the
above; it is as simple as that.

>As for in not being possible for a conspiracy to be uncovered, I
>disagree - the Pat Finucaine murder scandal in Northern Ireland,
>and the 'dodgy dossier' debacle in relation to the poor
>intelligence about Iranian weapons of mass destruction are two
>examples that come straight to mind about things which the UK
>government would prefer were not public knowledge.

There is a difference about something having occured in the
public domain and being covered up then some policy begun in
intelligence circles. There is a structure in place from the
beginning that is aimed at keeping certain information out of
not only the public's hands but others in the same intelligence
agency. It is compartmentalized and layered.

>I've looked for signs of a cover up and not found any, though I
>have to say that there could be grounds to suspect that some
>material has been tampered with.

Depends on what is or might be construed as harmful to the
affected agency, whatever that might be. Plus you might be
looking in the wrong place.

>>Why the hell would they tell you? Do you really think you are in
>>the loop? There are plenty of things the government keeps secret
>>that have nothing to do with UFOs that you will never be privy
>>to. They have become masters at it over many centuries.

>See above - they are not as masterful as you would seem to think.

They learn from their mistakes - Guy Burgess, Blount, etc.

>For a cover - up to be successful requires that a) relatively few
>people know about what is being covered up and b) those that do
>know recognise the need for it.

As I stated above. The reason to cover up might be not what we
think it is, however. Things are never what they seem.

>>The Canadian government UFO files have been avaiable for 15 or
>>20 years, even copies of the 16mm copies have been available

>>from the National Archives through the library loaner system

>>_and_ with a lot more detail than is evidenced in the MOD
>>released files, i.e. RCMP reports of their investigations. But
>>there are more there that we can't get at for whatever reason
>>they are holding them back.

As mentioned above, files are obviously missing - whether by
design or due to sloppy filing practices - but on three
occassions in my own right and in a few instances with my
co - author [Dark Object] Chris Styles, we have gone after files
that had to stem from a case and they are denied. The very first
instance was when Chris Styles went to Ottawa and after certain
documents at the National Archives while in Ottawa. They told him
the files were being kept in another location and he had to wait
a day and a half to see the file folder. When the folder showed
up, worn and puffed out as if it had contained dozens of files
there were two papers in there, a UFO document of mundane
interest and a slip of paper that indicated that the files had
been reviewed and sanitized the day before while Chris was
waiting for them.

I receive a thick envelope which I thought was going to contain a
wealth of reports only to discover that it was a couple of
letters crying poor about their lack of resources and how I
couldn't expect them to do all of this work, blah, blah,
blah...They recommeneded that I go to the capitol and go through
them myself or hire someone there to do so. Expensive either way.
The thickness came from the entire act being included in the
envelope and the proceedures needed to resubmit, likely so that I
could get another copy of same.

>How do you know this? Aren't they subject to the Canadian FoIA,
>or don't you have one?

Access to Information Act here in Canada and it has been in
place for many years but that doesn't mean they will release the
stuff. As in your case in the UK the latest indignity is the
blacking out of witness names, investigator's names, department
names and location names to protect the privacy of the
witnesses, etc. I can understand some civilian witnesses name
being blacked out but the RCMP officer's name for example, a
public servant who wrote up public documents on the public's
budget for a public department? That is cheezy.

>>The Blue Book files have been around for a couple of dozen years
>>as well. Not sure about all of the hype about the MOD files
>>other than they are remarkable for the MOD lying about not
>>having them in the first place and then releasing them bit by
>>bit as if they are the be all and end all of UFO reports. They
>>for the most part are disturbingly amateurish.

>The MoD have never, as far as I am aware denied having files
>containing references to UFOs.


>They have on occasion either lied probably lied
>or been mistaken about exactly what they hold, for instance, when
>the Rendlesham story broke they said that all they had was Halt's
>memo - we now know that not to have been true.

An oversight no doubt. But these are the same people who should
not admit to forgetfulness as it tends to make people a bit
antsy about their ability to carry out their jobs gathering
intelligence that can mean the ability to win or lose wars.

>I have always maintained that the MoD handling of UFO reports
>has been amateurish - I am glad that you agree.

Not a stretch but I think there is method there for other
purposes. It is an extention of their seeming lack of interest.
I think there is interest. I can't see how it could be
otherwise. The RN , the British Army, the RAF have all had
encounters with these things plus police officers commercial
pilots and some scientists. How can you ignore that? Doesn't
make sense. It would be like ignorin a serial killer because you
can't catch him - or these days - her so authority attempts to
downplay it of limit the damage it does to image. The serial
killer scenario is an extreme anology I agree but you get the

>>Was this the last final release of reports - other than the
>>continuation of the most recent - or will their be more do you

>It's possible an odd case might turn up here or there, which
>will be due to people either flouting or not being aware of the
>process. We already know of at least one case followed up by
>Ops(GE) without the involvement of Sec(AS), but this was done in
>ignorance and wasn't an especially spectacular case.

>We are also aware of missing files, which contained UFO - related
>information. At the moment the MoD position is that these have
>been destroyed in error, but we are still pursuing them and they
>might ultimately be found.

>>As for Nick, if he was commenting more on the most recently
>>released files you would babbling on about him trying to steal
>>some thunder from you and the others. Which way do you want it,
>>Joe... make up your mind.

>My mind has always been made up - as soon as Nick starts to give
>appropriate credit, I don't care how much he depends on our
>efforts. Can you imagine how Brad Steiger would react if someone
>else claimed to have written his book Maritime UFO Files?

Write it all he wants as long as I get the royalties.

>>Nick worked there. You and the others are just nibbling around
>>the edges.

>I don't think that having worked in what now seems to be
>universally recognised

Now here you use words that presume that which you cannot prove
but which you wish to be true. You can't say with any authority
or accuracy that it. "now seems to be universally recognised".
He would have had access to certain military or government people
with information either directly involved with the registering of
these objects or to those who had access to such people.

>as an ineffective department is much of a
>recommendation - Tony Blair used to work as our Prime Minister.
>These edges are getting quite large, we had about 10,000 pages
>of MoD material _before_ the current release.

Big difference between a highly public Prime Minister and
documents kept out of the limelight because it embarrasses the
nations military AN ITS command of it own skies. What you can't
deal with you ignore and diminish its importance. "Not a threat
to national security."

The government, in this case the UK government, through the CAA
has obviously instilled a degree of fear [for their jobs or
perhaps the hindering of future advancement] in its air traffic
controllers. The case of the three at an eastern airport is an
obvious example of this. Normally such a heinous infraction of
the air regulations whould have neccessitated the most serious of
charges against the infractor. This intrusion of a UFO
comprimised the safety of the tower's control zone which any
pilot or air traffic controller is sanctified airspace for one
reason - to prevent death. In this case death to a back seat to
fear and incredulity. Whatever agency put fear for job security
into these controllers did a dis - service to them, the aircraft
and passengers using that zone and the area in general. Once this
came to the fore, where was the CAA eagerly attempting to track
down these controllers. No doubt these same controllers had a
good snicker over stories that had heard previously - then it
happened to them.

On a lesser scale those who can't disprove the validity of the
phenomenon attack witnesses, use buzz words to denigrate the
inquirey of others and attempt to put themselves in the position
of being on the high intellectual ground when in fact they are
coming at this late in the game when much of the ground work had
been done in the 40 - 50 years previously.

Don Ledger

Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast



[ 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