From: Joe McGonagle <joe.mcgonagle.nul> Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 00:07:08 +0100 Archived: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 09:12:41 -0400 Subject: Re: UFO files #8 Released By UK National Archives >From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 16:02:03 -0300 >Subject: Re: UFO files #8 Released By UK National Archives >>From: Joe McGonagle <joe.mcgonagle.nul> >>To: post.nul >>Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 14:15:35 +0100 >>Subject: Re: UFO files #8 Released By UK National Archives Hi Don, >Considering the efforts that you, David and others had to put >into getting the MoD files released in the first place and which >have been coming out in clumps for some years now would it not >make sense that the RAF's inability to guarantee the UK's >airspace would likely produce some embarrassing cases that might >be held back? As far as the MoD were concerned UFOs never represented a threat to British air space. The MoD and RAF were satisfied that our airspace was secure from all known threats. Only if an identified threat (a Russian Bear for instance) was found to have ventured undetected into monitored (not necessarily British) air space would they have been concerned. The air defence radars deliberately filter output which doesn't conform to the performance envelope of known aviation technology. If the Russians decided to invade or bomb the UK using hot air balloons, there would have been no response until the attack started or visual reports reached a critical mass. >The United States and Canada have done the same and all three >have parroted one another with the claim that these unidentified >objects pose no threat to national security. You will by now have seen Nick Pope's remarks about 'playing down' the topic of UFOs. I agree with him that that was the policy - it is very apparent in the released records. There are a number of reasons for that policy; there was no history of UFOs conducting hostile acts in the UK; filtering radar output reduced the workload; to have to positively account for every reported light in the sky would have been impossible no matter how many resources were applied, leaving the MoD/RAF open to accusations that they were negligent or incompetent. Those are just a few reasons, there were others. <snip> >One wonders if Ms Rose was able to suddenly warp away at Mach 15 >in her J-3 Cub, out maneuver her F-16 persuit, avoid being shot >down would she then NOT be a threat to national security? Would >it then be classified Top Secret because it is too embarrassing >to release to the public; claimed not a threat to national >security; or redacted to the point of un-readability? All I can say is that if there were reports like that in the UFO files, anyone who removed them would be putting their career and possibly their liberty at risk if it were discovered. If I was a civil servant getting paid around =A318,000 a year, I wouldn't want to risk my pension for that. In the case you highlight, the cause was identified - such records would not necessarily be expected to appear in UFO files. There are a very few reports similar to the one you hypothesise mentioned in the released files, without high classification or heavy redaction. West Freugh is one example, though the report available in that case is retrospective because the original file was destroyed. You could possibly classify the Bowyer case in a similar category, and the MoD were just not interested. The documents could possibly be hidden by redaction, but those redactions can (and have been) challenged. That would require staff from the ICOs department to actually see the records and verify or otherwise that redactions had been correctly applied. Their decisions can (and have been) challenged at an Information Tribunal. Again, the tribunal would need to have sight of the records. There is, I believe another stage beyond that, though I haven't taken anything that far - yet. >It appears that if these air forces can't catch or out maneuver >an unidentified flying object then said object is no longer a >threat to national security. During WWII it was imperative to >have air superiority over Europe and Japan in order for the >allies to win. And in WWII, before radar technology was advanced enough to distinguish between a flock of birds or a fleet of enemy bombers, I am sure there were a lot more false alarms, scrambles, etc. This is one of the reasons why filtering is applied and why UFO reports are played down. The RAF just don't bother chasing what they perceive as ghosts - if it doesn't behave like an aircraft, it isn't a threat in their eyes. Joe Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp