From: Joe McGonagle <joe.mcgonagle.nul> Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 00:38:34 +0100 Archived: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 09:16:35 -0400 Subject: McGonagle On Pope [was: UFO files #8...] >From: Nick Pope <nick.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 18:16:31 +0200 (CEST) >Subject: Re: UFO files #8 Released By UK National Archives >>From: Gerald O'Connell <goc.nul> >>To: post.nul >>Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 11:55:56 +0100 >>Subject: Re: UFO files #8 Released By UK National Archives I find Nick's superstitious and wholly predictable habits rather amusing, especially when he thinks people don't notice them and when they don't have the magical effect that he believes they do. Things like replying indirectly (in this case to Gerald rather than to me), and failing to specifically name the target(s) of his ire in case naming them empowers them. <Snip> >The file is "striking" only to a couple of ufologists who are >obsessed with every word I say or write. The topic wasn't raised >with me in any of the TV, radio or newspaper interviews that I >did on the file release story last week. And you have carefully neglected to provide the link to the files themselves at the TNA site, I would guess because you are embarrassed by their contents. You don't actually want people to examine the files for themselves because they will realise that in the past you have exaggerated your own role, that of the MoD, and the level of assessment carried out by you and the other UFO desk officers. For anyone who has not found the files, they can be downloaded from: http://ufos.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ the one containing the redacted pages and handwritten comments which I mentioned is at: http://filestore.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pdfs/defe-24-2091-1.pdf This lack of mention of names or information which challenges your claims is a long-standing trait. Another example are your lightweight remarks about Cosford and (again, indirect) criticism of myself, Gary Anthony, and Dave Clarke, and the lack of a link to the pages at: http://www.uk-ufo.org/cosford/ >The Information Commissioner's Office and the MoD have explained >that under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act, people >have a right to information about my official work at MoD, but >not to information about my non-MoD work as an author, >journalist and broadcaster. Your commitment to openness and sharing of information would be commendable if it was backed up by action. Why do you still persist in concealing the fact that "Peter" of the Tollbooth incident was originally yourself in the manuscript? Is it so shameful for someone to have had such an experience? Should all experiencers be ashamed and not tell anyone about their experience? Don't you think you should lead by example? Your "official line" that you "have never seen a UFO" doesn't actually answer the question, does it? How Civil-Servant like. And some people wonder why governments aren't trusted. Oh dear, I seem to have mentioned rather a lot of the things which you would prefer people to be ignorant of. Still, I didn't mention all of them, did I? Keep your fingers crossed, maybe people won't read this post if you don't mention it, and if you don't reply to it, it will diminish in mystical power.... Best Wishes, 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