UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2008 > May > May 31

Re: MoD File Release

From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul>
Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 00:06:27 -0300
Archived: Sat, 31 May 2008 08:49:00 -0400
Subject: Re: MoD File Release


>From: Joe McGonagle <joe.mcgonagle.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 17:55:49 +0100
>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

><snip>

>>>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.

Wouldn't that have been you and David and gary, etc. who was
"screaming for disclosure" via FOIAs?

And captured space ships and dead aliens; did you actually ask
for documents looking for same?

>>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.

No not tongue in cheek, just going by a documentary that I
watched a couple of months ago involving Nick. Cosford came up.

>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.

If memory serves the re-entry came up in the program but those
sightings seeming to fall outside of that event, i.e. time line,
track line and flight characteristics were considered on their
own. For my own part I still have trouble with a signals officer
getting the time wrong.

>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.

I don't argue with that.

This will undermine the tenets of conspiracy theorists,

Yeah, you seem to be bogged down in that idea. I'm not sure who
these conspiracy theorists are. You use that term too much. So
does the goverment in the "House". It's use is meant to
denigrate by proclamation without proof. In fact conspiracies
happen all of the time particularly in Government and the
military and intelligence; particularly intelligence.

>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 for sure and I agree. But there is room for more direct
investigation, not just research. The Ray Bowyer's pilot
sighting was a good start, harkening back to Clarke's look into
the case. It's a good one on which to get your hands dirty.
Cosford would have been better investigated at the time of its
occurance.

><snip>

>>That's strange, wasn't it David Clarke, Andy Roberts, Gary
>>Anthony who were sending in those FOIAs with exactly those same
>>words:

>>- 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!

Bingo. But the government has files. We want them released still
stands.

>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:

>http://www.uk-ufo.org/downloads/condign%20IUR%20article.pdf

I'm sure I read that some time ago.

><snip>

>>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.

I'm assuming that TNA means National Archives? If so, that is
odd. Why would that government agency seek the limelight for UFO
reports?

<snip>

>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.

Is this the frenzy source you speak of? Too many forums and too
many blog sites.

>http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread356921/pg1

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

Nor do most of them know their history. The media doesn't know
the history and makes the same mistakes over and over. The OZ
article by Stephen Hughes from a few days ago. This man did not
do his homework. But he wrapped it around a statement from the
press release that mentioned David and yourself. "THE UK
Government recently announced the release of UFO files that have
been collected over the past two decades. So the big question
is, does this new information contain evidence of alien
visitations? Do aliens really exist? Personally, I think that
the answer is no." No big stretch there. Then he goes on to foul
up the rest with a a pack of inaccuracies and cliches.

>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.

Well the MOD was just following along on the heels of their
transatlantic counterparts albeit as Johnny Come Latelys.

>>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.

So I'm guessing they didn't want to waste money on that endeavor
otherwise since these were largely low level cases, why not just
let them go?

>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.

For my part and some I am aware of on this list never assumed
that the UK had any significant information in that regard. It
was expected that the reports would be in the same general
nature of unidentified objects or some phenomenon, not yet
understood. An understood phenomenon might generate some
interest in some quarters over there it would be hoped because
it seems that it hasn't happened over here.

>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.

Doesn't much matter how much you squeeze anyway. If they have
anything they want to hide, they can have balls of steel. Throw
in a hooker or two and any scandle surrounding whatever
information you are seeking will soon leak out in the media.
Gerta Munsinger and the Profumo/Keeler affairs come to mind. The
first was Canadian the second was British for the American
readers. I'm sure you have your own political hooker affairs. The
press called them high priced call girls which made it seem
classier. Nothing but the best our tax dollars  could buy for our
politicians.

>>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.

So far, not so different. As Chris Rutkowski has already
mentioned the Canadian/UK military reports are similar in some
respects.


Don Ledger



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