UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2008 > May > May 28

Re: MoD File Release

From: Joe McGonagle <joe.mcgonagle.nul>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 13:57:19 +0100
Archived: Wed, 28 May 2008 09:29:11 -0400
Subject: Re: MoD File Release

>From: Brad SSparks <RB47x.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 03:22:44 EDT
>Subject: Re: MoD File Release


>Access to what "raw" data? Garbage? This is the fatal flaw in
>all futile efforts to follow a paper trail to find some
>conspiracy agency or conversely to argue there is no paper trail
>and no secret UFO agency. You're both wrong. No one wants your
>garbage UFO cases from housewives and truck drivers, when they
>have billion-dollar classified global sensor systems to rely on

Well how about a report, with radar contact, by a Vulcan nuclear
bomber crew? I know you are familiar with this case through Dave
Clarke. Or else, how about an instrumental report from Navy
helicopter pilots, as was released in the current batch? There
are many more examples, some already known about, and I am sure,
some yet to be released.

>This is the flawed "vacuum cleaner" methodology whereby every
>scrap of info no matter how unreliable is collected in some
>futile hope that someone can extract a gawdalmighty "pattern"
>from it.

You seem to be saying that the data is worthless. I disagree.
It is valuable at the very least in order to evaluate what
generates IFOs, what witness descriptions of IFOs are like, how
accurate are estimates of time, height, size, direction etc in
witness reports - especially 'expert' report - how fallible are
the operators composing and sending the military signals. I have
already identified a number with incorrect dates or times in the
current release.

People have been trying to get the government to make their
files available for decades - well now they have, in the UK and
some people just don't like what they see in them.


>So you can't expect to find a paper trail of anecdotal UFO
>reports and follow it to some supersecret agency. They're not
>interested, not because UFO's don't exist but because they don't
>want worthless reports where witnesses can't tell if the UFO was
>10 feet in size, or 100 feet, or 1 foot, or somewhere in
>between, etc. And you can't use that lack of interest in non-
>scientific non-instrumented UFO reports as proof of no interest
>at all in the subject.

I refer you again to the instrumented reports in the released
- or due to be released - files. Why don't they count?

Also, how do these instrumented reports reach the 'secret'
department? Take the hypothetical example of Captain Igor
Androvich, piloting his Ilyushin 96-300 from Moscow to Gatwick.
Over Kent, his collision avoidance system is triggered, he looks
outside and sees a missile-shaped object passing 100 feet from
his aircraft. Does he think 'I'd better not report this through
normal channels, I had better use the MoD secret channel'?

>Furthermore, however much you Brits think you're the hottest
>thinkers around, the US doesn't share its billion-dollar sensor
>feeds with you Brits. You get crumbs from the intelligence table
>that's all. And Kim Philby, Fuchs, Burgess and McLean, and many
>others are still remembered even if there is a moment of
>weakness about sharing the most expensive and highly classified
>intelligence, which you didn't pay a dime for.

I never claimed that the UK is privy to US technology, or all of
the available US intelligence. All I have said is that the MoD
are not concerned about UFOs. What is your problem with that?



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