UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2008 > May > May 27

Re: Government Officials Were Telling The Truth

From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul>
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 14:10:32 -0300
Archived: Tue, 27 May 2008 08:14:00 -0400
Subject: Re: Government Officials Were Telling The Truth

UFO UpDates - Toronto posted:

>Source: The New York Times - New York, USA


>May 26, 2008

>[Illustrations at site]

>British UFO shocker! Government Officials Were Telling The Truth
>By Sarah Lyall

More childish reporting from the New York Times. Sarah comes
across as a teenager in this piece. Talk about spin.

>LONDON: They were shaped like cigars, saucers, coffins and
>amorphous blinking blobs. They hovered in a menacing manner,
>traveled at impossible speeds and vanished into the netherworld,
>or, in one instance, a hedge in Cornwall.

>A few carried humanoid life forms, or so it seemed. A few
>materialized courtesy of the observers' possibly having had a
>drink too many, as in the case of an unidentified flying light
>cluster witnessed loitering in the sky by the patrons of a pub
>in Kent.

Not much critical thinking there.

>Whatever they were, these phenomena reported to Britain's
>Ministry of Defense over the years and made public this month
>were almost certainly not actual alien aircraft piloted by
>actual alien beings.

Almost certainly ,eh. Says who? Where's the authority for this
"almost" conclusion

>"The government has been telling us the truth," declared David
>Clarke, a senior lecturer in journalism at Sheffield Hallam
>University, who has a side interest in UFOs. "There are a lot of
>weird things in the sky, and some of them we can't explain, but
>there's not a shred of evidence for a single alien visitation."

They forgot to put Doctor in front of Clarke's name. They
slipped up there by not getting their credentials in order.
Wasn't it mentioned to the press? I assume that Clarke is their
authority on this story. Clarke can't be held accountable for
the NYT picking this up as a line story and then putting their
own negative spin on it but he has to take some responsibility
for its negative flavor.

As for his claim that "there is not a shred of evidence" I
disagree. So there you have it. The difference between me saying
there is a shred and Clarke saying there isn't a shred is that
he has the ear of the meadia on a daily basis. I have no real
resource in that regard.

Clarke is clever with the media; it was he who engineered the
release of the badly flawed Condign Report through the Sheffield
Hallam media center. As mentioned Clarke lectures on Journalism
at Sheffield Hallam, those at the media center are students at
Hallam. Clarke writes a mean FOIA but has he ever been in the
field; not twenty years later but the first or second onscene at
a current UFO report site or with the witnesses? I've seen no
evidence of it.

But whatever, it works for him.

>Which is, frankly, a letdown, as is the government's prosaic
>explanation of why, for decades,

Very true, Joe. Cudos to you for pointing that out.

>it has meticulously documented reports of UFO sightings.

Now that is pure nonsense. Jounalistic spin? Meticulously? Come
on. I can see why Joe would be upset.

>"We only check the sightings from the
>perspective of making sure that our military airspace has not
>been breached, and we pretty much never have airspace breaches,"
>a Defense Ministry spokeswoman said.

They have airspace breeches all of the time according to the
"meticulously documented" reports. That is what is so
embarrassing for the MOD. This is a critical point around which
the actions of the MOD and every other governing agency on the
planet investigating these events must revolve. It is nonsense
to claim that these things don't breech security when in fact
they do and the 'autorities" can't do a damn thing about them.

>The spokeswoman, who spoke on condition of anonymity =97 not
>because she works with Agent Mulder in some shadowy basement
>office, but because that is government policy

Sure. Not identified then not of jounalistic worth. Would Sarah
go to jail to protect this source?

> =97 said the
>ministry had begun making the files public because it had been
>inundated with UFO-related requests under Britain's Freedom of
>Information Act.

Unlike their North American counterparts who released them years
ago without being "forced" to.

>The files from 1978 to 2002 were released this month. Some older
>files have already been declassified and made public;

Why was so much of this junk classified?

>the rest
>will be released over the next few years. Available on the Web
>from the National Archives at ufos.nationalarchives.gov.uk, they
>cover hundreds of sightings but are hardly the X-Files. Much of
>the material consists of one-page forms carrying details like
>how big the supposed aircraft was and what, if anything, it
>seemed to be doing.

Our teenaged reporter from the Times compares the imaginary MOD
files with the real thing from the "X-files". Sheesh!

>A citizen who gives her profession as "meals on wheels operator"
>describes her shock and awe at the sight of a smallish "Vulcan-
>shaped object" hovering in the sky. Another witness says she was
>roused from bed by a brilliant light emanating from a UFO "the
>size of a milk-bottle base."

Note how Sarah makes sure she gets the profession of the witness
in, in this case quotes. This is reporting at its best... for
the New York Times.


>The files include random newspaper clippings of questionable
>journalistic rigor.

Unlike this candidate for the self serving "Courage in
Journalism Award".

>A 1986 Daily Mirror article reports that the
>light "from a glowing red object" suffused the cockpit of a
>Royal Air Force jet carrying Prince Charles, seriously unnerving
>the pilot. As an aside, the newspaper noted that "Prince Philip
>has been a keen UFO follower for the past 36 years."

Ah, so obviously for that reason it could not have happened. The
pilots have been tainted by their passenger's interest in UFOs.

>There are long letters asking big questions. "When is a flying
>saucer not a flying saucer?" muses one correspondent. "And is
>the mothership man-made or from a distant planet?"

>In the old days, the United States systematically compiled
>reports of UFO sightings, too. But its last program, known as
>Project Blue Book, was closed down in 1969 after government
>officials concluded that if something was out there, it was not
>anything they wanted to investigate.

At least she got this right. It's called ignoring the huge wart
on your nose because it's embarrssing and you can't do anything
about it.

>Some UFO enthusiasts said last week that they believed the
>British government had not released all of its files and was
>concealing the truth about a massive cover-up it had long
>perpetrated on the British people.

I don't think it was massive. I haven't actually seen news
reports stating that. If it was a massive cover-up it would be
easier to spot.

>But Joe McGonagle, a self-described UFO researcher here, said
>the documents showed that far from concealing anything, the
>government had failed to investigate the sightings properly in
>the first place.

Which contradicts this statement from above; "Which is,
frankly, a letdown, as is the government's prosaic explanation
of why, for decades, it has meticulously documented reports of
UFO sightings." But Joe is right-on in this regard. If the
reports I've seen are meticulous then I don't know how the MOD
gets anything done. Amateurish might be a better word.

>"A lot of people imagined that there was this vast UFO project
>with lots of people working on it, when in reality it was a
>civil servant spending 25 percent of his time on it, filing
>reports," he said.

Maybe the people in the UK thought that, most people over here
don't think of it at all, and very few think that the government
takes an interest. In reality the UK is behind about 20 years,
perhaps more, with these releases and now they are taking very
little heat for not just putting the reports "out there' and
letting the chips fall where they may. Their reluctance strikes
me more as "If we aren't forced to release, why bother?'
Governments are lazy that way.

>It is not as if the authorities have always failed to take the
>issue seriously. In 1950, the government convened a secret
>committee, the Flying Saucer Working Party, to investigate
>sightings of UFOs. It concluded that UFOs were optical
>illusions, weather phenomena, airplanes seen from strange angles
>and the like, which has been the government's line ever since.

Which apparently the media bought hook, line and sinker. It
seems to be a mantra with the NYT. But all we get from them is
just a 'line'; or a load.

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