UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2008 > May > May 30

Re: MoD File Release

From: Joe McGonagle <joe.mcgonagle.nul>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 17:55:49 +0100
Archived: Fri, 30 May 2008 13:49:36 -0400
Subject: Re: MoD File Release

>From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 14:11:03 -0300
>Subject: Re: MoD File Release

>>From: Joe McGonagle <joe.mcgonagle.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 19:53:55 +0100
>>Subject: Re: MoD File Release


>>No I don't think so - I think that a lot of people's
>>expectations have been shattered and they haven't adjusted to
>>the reality of the situation yet.

>Joe you have a hard time restraining yourself from using silly
>phrases such as 'expectations have been shattered' and 'they
>haven't adjusted to the reality of the situation yet'.

>Who are you referring to? What is the reality of the situation?

I'm referring to those people who have been screaming for
disclosure, but don't recognise it when it has arrived. The
reality in the UK is that disclosure has arrived, just that there
are no captured spaceships or dead alien bodies.

>In the scheme of things do you really think the MOD's release of
>these files most of which are pretty lame is/was Earth shaking
>to anyone but the media looking for stories on a slow day? If
>anything I was hoping the MOD or whoever looked into these cases
>for the MOD might have done a thorough investigation into some
>of them. Nick did so in some cases [Cosford?] when he was
>involved but the earlier cases were basically just shelved.

I take that the Cosford reference was tongue-in-cheek - I regard
it as a perfect example of how _not_ to investigate a UFO case -
no site visits, no confirmation of witness provided times,
directions, heights, and the total failure to incorporate the
re-entry event which we know took place into the picture.

In all fairness to Nick, he had not been provided with the
resources or training to make a good job of it, but
retrospectively, he can have no excuse for not acknowledging the
part played by the re-entry.

I think the release when completed, will provide enough
information for people to assess the evidence and apply common
sense and ultimately reach the same conclusions as many UK
researchers that the MoD genuinely know less about UFOs than we
do. This will undermine the tenets of conspiracy theorists, and
hopefully redirect the attention where it belongs - either to
conduct our own research, or to apply political pressure for the
authorities to conduct a _real_and_effective_ investigation into
the UFO phenomena. My preference is the latter, because
ufologists don't have the resources to be as effective as a
properly resourced and directed 'official' investigation.


>That's strange, wasn't it David Clarke, Andy Roberts, Gary
>Anthony who were sending in those FOIAs with exactly those same
>- The government have files
>- We want them released

>then the second time around:

>- Any files that are released aren't the real files
>- The government have files
>- We want them released

No, our approach is radically different from what you describe,
but to describe it in any detail would take too long.

Taking the FSWP as an example:

- Read the existing released files
- determine that the FSWP was produced
- Ask the MoD for the FSWP
- The MoD can't find it
- Ask the MoD why they can't find it
- They think it was destroyed
- Ask the MoD why they think it was destroyed
- Because they can't find it
- Ask the MoD to look harder
- Oh, we found it!

The circumstances were quite different for the Condign and
Rendlesham releases, and other requests under the CoP and FoIA.

For an account of how the Condign report came to light, I refer
you to Clarke and Anthony's article from IUR at:



>The difference between the Canadian release and the UK release
>was the media hype that was generated by a clever manipulator at
>Sheffield Hallam. No problem there, the documents at least
>finally got to see the light of day, flawed as most were.

The media circus was planned by the TNA regardless of Clarke or
the rest of us. Because the TNA realised they did not have the
specific UFO-related knowledge to deal with all of the media
enquiries, they recruited Dave's assistance. The TNA drove the
media campaign, Dave dealt with the resulting enquiries.

>David Clarke and Gary Anthony often said that they had to prod
>the MOD to release these documents through FOIA for nearly a
>couple of years. The emails posted by Clarke made it clear that
>it was a huge effort to gain the document releases and it
>eventually came with the media fanfare.

No dispute there - I still have an outstanding appeal for a
request made in May, 2005. I have also requested a review of
another FoIA today, which I expect will go to the Information
Commissioner and could take just as long to resolve. Contrary to
speculation at the time of the Condign release, the MoD do not
just hand us what we ask for on a plate, but in many instances
we have to fight to get the information.

>Over on this side of the Atlantic our files were just there. We
>asked the right questions and they sent them out.

>Canada's AIA didn't come into being until about 1999.

>My point is that the perceived frenzy around the release of the
>various incarnations of MoD files is of your own making. A date
>was picked for release then the media was lined up through
>Sheffield Hallam. This at least put the phenomenon in the
>limelight for a couple of weeks.

There are two different aspects here. I have already pointed out
that with or without Dave's participation, the TNA were going to
stir the media up.

The other aspect is within ufology, no doubt fuelled by the
media, but longer lasting, for example, the link I posted
earlier which has grown from 297 replies when I wrote the last
message to 337 as I write this.


The ironic thing is that I doubt many of the respondents on that
thread have actually read the contents of the MoD files.

There are other threads around the internet, most of them more
muted, but some displaying the same enthusiasm. On my own List,
there is relatively little comment though I have tried to
stimulate discussion of some of the specific and in some cases,
interesting reports or comments in the released files. I think
that is possibly because most people on the List were already
aware of the sort of things to expect in the file and are not
surprised by the ineffectiveness of the MoD in assessing UFOs.

>Reserchers new to the game might have considered this release as
>a boost to 'Ufology' but to me and others of my ilk this was
>just another batch of documents and the MOD - or some other
>ministery/agency - finally 'fessing up to the fact that they had
>them. And that was no surprise.

It was already common knowledge in the UK that these files
existed - people have been trying to persuade the MoD (or Air
Ministry as it was then) to release them since the 1960's,
including MPs.

For me the significance is that anyone who takes the trouble to
examine them properly and apply common sense will realise that
the premise that the UK hold positive knowledge of ET visitation
is untenable. The effect hopefully will be a refocussing of
efforts in more productive directions than simply squeezing the
government's balls to make them disclose what they do not know.

>Additionally there would have have been some interest in seeing
>if yours was the same sort of stuff as ours, so they could be
>slotted into the proper places in various databases.

Yes, that would be interesting, a cultural comparison.

>And some are, but the quality of the reports in many cases -
>speaking of Condign for example - is low. I'm sure you know

Oh yes, no disagreement there!



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