UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2008 > May > May 29

Re: MoD File Release

From: Brad Sparks <RB47x.nul>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 20:27:57 EDT
Archived: Thu, 29 May 2008 05:54:42 -0400
Subject: Re: MoD File Release


>From: Joe McGonagle <joe.mcgonagle.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 13:57:19 +0100
>Subject: Re: MoD File Release

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

<snip>

>>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
>>instead.

>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.

We're not talking about what kinds of cases I am personally
interested in, but whether those running billion-dollar
classified sensor systems in the US are even interested in
"cases" as "cases" when they have almost infinitely better
sensor data. The cases you mention I do not recall, are they
from the 70's or 80's? When the USAF adopted the policy in 1952
of de-emphasizing or disregarding anecdotal reports they adopted
an anti-case attitude. Cases from decades later won't change
what happened in 1952.

>>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.

I am not saying anything about what my interests are or how I
personally judge the value of certain types of data. I am
telling you what actually happened, what actual policies were
adopted at a specific date, on July 28, 1952, when USAF Director
of Intelligence adopted the anti-anecdotes, anti-case, anti-
"vacuum cleaner" intelligence policy that had been worked out by
his Pentagon staff and by his ATIC staff in Dayton over some
months.

The USAF said quite specifically then that military pilot and
civilian pilot sightings were deemed of "little or no worth"
under the new policy. And they applied that attitude generally
to other anecdotal reports. This explains why the USAF had such
a cavalier attitude towards UFO "cases" for years afterward.
They had something better in the works than collecting
anecdotes.

>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.

That's what you say and what you think in 2008, not what the
USAF said in 1952 and has followed ever since. You can argue the
USAF was mistaken in adopting that policy and the anti-case
mentality that goes with it but it doesn't change what was
actually decided by US intelligence policymakers.

>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.

<snip>

>>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?

Because your "instrument" cases involve extremely limited data
collection of little or no value to those running billion-
 dollar classified sensor systems. It's like you are trying to
plead with modern day navigators that they should use 19th
century British Admiralty charts instead of satellite maps and
GPS because you say that the Admiralty sometimes had some
accurate soundings or whatever. It's a historical curiosity to
them, at best, but you think it's the greatest and best data.
Those in charge won't be distracted for a second.

>Also, how do these instrumented reports reach the 'secret'
>department?

Strawman! First you set it up that any "secret department" must
be collecting your garbage UFO cases, then you turn around and
demand to know how they would get the data! If the "secret
department" doesn't give a rat's ass about your junk data
because they have something far better, then there is no problem
to solve here.

>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'?

Huh? Again you assume because you and I might be keenly
interested in such reports that those in charge of secret sensor
networks would also be interested.

>>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?

At least you admit that the UK doesn't have access to the data
streams from the highly classified worldwide US sensor networks.
What the MoD is or is not interested in has nothing to do with
what the analysts using the US sensor networks are interested
in, since MoD has no access to the networks. Thus you can't
magnify this into a universal proof there is no secret agency
investigating UFO's especially when you ignore the USAF
intelligence policy directly affecting all such arguments.


Brad Sparks



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

See:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/subscribers/


[ 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