I see that there's been an exchange of fire between two of Britain's 'UFO experts' recently, especially coming on the heels of the final release of the MOD's UFO Files.
The Huffington Post article by Lee Speigel gives a good summary so far of these two having come to blows.
Whilst, I tend to favour Pope's view - and those of others such as Timothy Good - that these are not all the files that the relevant UK authorities possess concerning UFOs (note I'm not specifically concerned with just MOD's files here), I do wish these two would try and settle their differences.
One of the most recent salvos in this exchange was by Pope seemingly and indirectly referring to Clarke as a 'useful idiot' (which was in both the Reuters and UFOs and Nukes articles I referred to in my last post), which I thought was unkind given Clarke's work to have the MOD files released. Pope now appears to have offered an apology for his remark. It also doesn't help matters that - if certain claims being made about him are true - Pope might not have been the UFO sceptic he maintained he was before working for the MOD (the HuffPost article by Lee Speigel gives details).
As Lee says in his article:-
"If there are any losers here, it must be the public, for the confusion
this has brought up. After tens of thousands of pages of UFO files have
been released by the U.K., who are we supposed to believe about how
significant (or not) those documents really are?"
The two protagonists - like many others in the UFO community - seem more concerned with attacking each other (and perhaps protecting their own reputations) than making a collective effort to continue to search for answers.
Despite the arguments put forward by both supporters and sceptics generally, the phenomenon of UFOs and UAP persists. Of those cases that come to light, there are still a significant number that cannot be put down to chinese lanterns, balloons, experimental aircraft, drones, meteorological or astronomical phenomena, the mental state of observers etc.
The observable universe apparently stubbonly refuses to fit into the neat world-view of either hardened sceptics or avid supporters. In addition, whilst I favour 'cock-up' or 'WYSIWYG' (What-You-See-Is-What-You-Get) rather than 'conspiracy' to explain much Government activity, it would be foolish to think that any Government is entirely 'open' or 'transparent' on a topic such as this.
Still both Clarke and Pope - whatever flaws they might be considered by some to have (including each other) - are well-known and dare I say, respected names in the field and are bolder than I (and many like me), by publicly having just such an association with the UFO phenomenon, whilst I - through necessity - must remain anonymous.
That is why I think it is important that they acknowledge their differences in a mature, gentlemanly fashion and just try to get along.
Showing posts with label Nick Pope. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nick Pope. Show all posts
Friday, 12 July 2013
Sunday, 30 June 2013
Smoke and mirrors - the MOD's 'X-Files'
[Updated 11 July 2013 see below*]
The tenth and final batch of files on UFOs from the Ministry of Defence have now been released (groan). If you want to see them you can go to the relevant website here.
Whilst this may engage the interest of many a ufologist, I have learned not to expect too much from, what I view, as a diversionary exercise by the U.K. authorities, in much the same way that the now infamous Project Blue Book was used (more extensively) by the authorities in the U.S. over four decades ago. Whilst they sometimes make for an interesting read, I'm afraid any excitement I might have felt over these mislabelled UK 'X-files' files dissipated shortly after release of the first set some time ago. Funnily enough, I see that former MOD official Nick Pope apparently thinks the same according to one Reuters article I read today, which I was unaware of when I started writing this post.
*Since writing this post, I notice that Robert Hastings, author of the website UFOs and Nukes has written an interesting article concerning the latest MOD UFO files release, which also includes a definitive statement by Nick Pope (some of which is referenced in the former Reuters article). Readers might want to check out the relevant page of Mr Hastings's site here.
The same can be said generally with most material released under the UK's Freedom of Information (FOI) Act. Having contributed to responses to many a Freedom of Information case myself in two Government Departments, I know that our Government is, with a few exceptions, very careful not to put controversial material into the public domain and officials will obsesses over the tone of the covering response to FOI requesters, even with the relatively low or baseline security level cases I was involved in. My experience of FOI cases and processes is that these are mostly burdensome to Government Departments, using up significant amounts of officials' time and effort that could be usefully employed elsewhere, for the release of material that is effectively of little or no value.
This is, of course, one of the main reasons why the MOD set out to release 'all' the UFO files they have to the public - to reduce some of the increasing workload on an ever decreasing workforce of civil servants.
It should come as no surprise then that material of a significantly higher security level will never see the light of day. This is irrespective of the UK's blessed FOI Act because, the effort of releasing it (properly redacted) notwithstanding, it is deemed too sensitive to release in the interests of national and international security - largely with strong justification.
This leads me onto the recent Sky interview (below) of famous and long-standing ufologist Timothy Good - author of the fascinating "Need to Know" amongst other books, whose comments echo my own thoughts on the matter.
Whether you subscribe to Mr Good's theories or not, it would be truly naive to assume that the material released by the MOD is in any way a true reflection of the UK authorities' amassed files - whether definitive and revealing or not - on the subject of UFOs. As Mr Good suggests there are other players in the defence, intelligence and security community who will maintain records that will not reach the MOD, let alone reach the public domain. GCHQ, MI6 and Royal Naval Intelligence spring to mind for example and are referred to by Mr Good in the interview.
Now it may be that many such records might only be retained for 'horizon scanning', in that they are used to assess whether there is evidence of a technological or strategic advantage which our military and intelligence community needs to be aware of. This is likely to be in the context of assessing the capabilities of hostile foreign powers or organisations, and not necessarily because of some implied 'extraterrestrial' threat.
It's also interesting to note that this comes at a time when a certain whistleblower (a very foolhardy one at that) has compromised the security of some GCHQ and NSA activity, which would otherwise never have been revealed. Anything the authorities, especially those in defence and intelligence, deign to reveal to the public will only ever be a tiny piece of the true picture. And that's even excluding the subject of UFOs, which as Mr Good suggests, might have one of the highest orders of security clearance attached to it.
The tenth and final batch of files on UFOs from the Ministry of Defence have now been released (groan). If you want to see them you can go to the relevant website here.
 |
| Screen capture of the site where the MOD files can be accessed |
*Since writing this post, I notice that Robert Hastings, author of the website UFOs and Nukes has written an interesting article concerning the latest MOD UFO files release, which also includes a definitive statement by Nick Pope (some of which is referenced in the former Reuters article). Readers might want to check out the relevant page of Mr Hastings's site here.
The same can be said generally with most material released under the UK's Freedom of Information (FOI) Act. Having contributed to responses to many a Freedom of Information case myself in two Government Departments, I know that our Government is, with a few exceptions, very careful not to put controversial material into the public domain and officials will obsesses over the tone of the covering response to FOI requesters, even with the relatively low or baseline security level cases I was involved in. My experience of FOI cases and processes is that these are mostly burdensome to Government Departments, using up significant amounts of officials' time and effort that could be usefully employed elsewhere, for the release of material that is effectively of little or no value.
This is, of course, one of the main reasons why the MOD set out to release 'all' the UFO files they have to the public - to reduce some of the increasing workload on an ever decreasing workforce of civil servants.
It should come as no surprise then that material of a significantly higher security level will never see the light of day. This is irrespective of the UK's blessed FOI Act because, the effort of releasing it (properly redacted) notwithstanding, it is deemed too sensitive to release in the interests of national and international security - largely with strong justification.
This leads me onto the recent Sky interview (below) of famous and long-standing ufologist Timothy Good - author of the fascinating "Need to Know" amongst other books, whose comments echo my own thoughts on the matter.
Whether you subscribe to Mr Good's theories or not, it would be truly naive to assume that the material released by the MOD is in any way a true reflection of the UK authorities' amassed files - whether definitive and revealing or not - on the subject of UFOs. As Mr Good suggests there are other players in the defence, intelligence and security community who will maintain records that will not reach the MOD, let alone reach the public domain. GCHQ, MI6 and Royal Naval Intelligence spring to mind for example and are referred to by Mr Good in the interview.
Now it may be that many such records might only be retained for 'horizon scanning', in that they are used to assess whether there is evidence of a technological or strategic advantage which our military and intelligence community needs to be aware of. This is likely to be in the context of assessing the capabilities of hostile foreign powers or organisations, and not necessarily because of some implied 'extraterrestrial' threat.
It's also interesting to note that this comes at a time when a certain whistleblower (a very foolhardy one at that) has compromised the security of some GCHQ and NSA activity, which would otherwise never have been revealed. Anything the authorities, especially those in defence and intelligence, deign to reveal to the public will only ever be a tiny piece of the true picture. And that's even excluding the subject of UFOs, which as Mr Good suggests, might have one of the highest orders of security clearance attached to it.
Friday, 12 October 2012
Secrets of Area 51 revealed?
I'm sure all of you will have noted the recent event "Area 51: Myth or Reality" that took place at the National Atomic Testing Museum, which is affiliated with the Smithsonian Institution. The publicity running up to it rather misleadingly claimed that the 'secrets' of 'Area 51' were to be revealed.
Obviously such publicity promised much and delivered virtually nothing, so whilst there wasn't any earth-shattering news to come out of this event, it was a milestone for having the Smithsonian - a respected U.S. establishment - host an event of this type.
It was also notable for having five respected speakers with military backgrounds and/or impressive credentials who willingly and candidly spoke about their take on the UFO phenomenon - and this being outside of any pro-ufologist forum such as that of the Disclosure Project. The speakers were retired US Air Force Col. Robert Friend; retired US Air Force Col. William
Coleman; retired US Air Force Col. Charles Halt; former UK Ministry of
Defense UFO investigator Nick Pope; and retired US Army Col. John Alexander.
Several online articles, including one posted by the Las Vegas Sun give a good rundown of the speakers and their comments so I won't repeat them here.
Concerning Area 51
Area 51 itself is in the news yet again because of a BBC film crew that recently tried - and failed - to enter the base, according to various articles, the most comprehensive of which is the Daily Mail's.
At the BUFORA 50th anniversary conference, a member of the audience asked one of the speakers whether they had any insider knowledge about the old chestnut that is the alleged reversed engineering of alien spacecraft at Area 51. I have to say I groaned inwardly when I heard this person ask the question (a question that was frankly naive). The speaker rightly answered that they had no knowledge on this. Why would they anyway? It is highly unlikely that a representative of a volunteer UFO investigation body in Britain would have come into possession of genuine, privileged information about Area 51, let alone whether this information contained the 'smoking gun' about E.T.
As it is, if you believe the hype about what goes in in Area 51 then this place is perhaps - bizarrely - one of the worst kept military secrets in the world. Look at it another way however (I'm sure I'm not the first to say this) and we may be observing a great smoke and mirrors operation in effect. In my view, Area 51 very usefully serves to divert attention away from genuine ongoing USAPs or black projects elsewhere in the U.S. (or perhaps in other friendly countries) which - if they are being carried out in the interests of national security - should of course remain heavily protected from unfriendly powers.
Given the continuous satellite surveillance by all superpowers - and other interests over the globe, not to mention an increasing army of 'Google-earthers' out there, any such activity would have to be based either underground or in very ordinary looking facilities at an unremarkable location so as not to attract unwanted attention. Such a location, or locations could be housed in existing military - or even civil - facilities but known to only a select few with the highest compartmentalised security clearance. And given the Americans have had nearly 70 years - since the Second World War - to perfect how to hide their greatest military secrets, I'm sure they're now very good at it.
As for strange lights/activities observed by those over the years who claim to have skirted - or even penetrated - the perimeter of Area 51 (a rather foolhardy thing to do in my opinion considering the threat of deadly force to interlopers - the BBC film crew were let off lightly in my view), this could all be part of the 'show'.
Of course I claim no privileged knowledge on this subject. It just seems to me to be a simple and logical conclusion to reach about this now world-famous area.
Obviously such publicity promised much and delivered virtually nothing, so whilst there wasn't any earth-shattering news to come out of this event, it was a milestone for having the Smithsonian - a respected U.S. establishment - host an event of this type.
 |
| Publicity image from the National Atomic Testing Museum |
Several online articles, including one posted by the Las Vegas Sun give a good rundown of the speakers and their comments so I won't repeat them here.
Concerning Area 51
Area 51 itself is in the news yet again because of a BBC film crew that recently tried - and failed - to enter the base, according to various articles, the most comprehensive of which is the Daily Mail's.
At the BUFORA 50th anniversary conference, a member of the audience asked one of the speakers whether they had any insider knowledge about the old chestnut that is the alleged reversed engineering of alien spacecraft at Area 51. I have to say I groaned inwardly when I heard this person ask the question (a question that was frankly naive). The speaker rightly answered that they had no knowledge on this. Why would they anyway? It is highly unlikely that a representative of a volunteer UFO investigation body in Britain would have come into possession of genuine, privileged information about Area 51, let alone whether this information contained the 'smoking gun' about E.T.
As it is, if you believe the hype about what goes in in Area 51 then this place is perhaps - bizarrely - one of the worst kept military secrets in the world. Look at it another way however (I'm sure I'm not the first to say this) and we may be observing a great smoke and mirrors operation in effect. In my view, Area 51 very usefully serves to divert attention away from genuine ongoing USAPs or black projects elsewhere in the U.S. (or perhaps in other friendly countries) which - if they are being carried out in the interests of national security - should of course remain heavily protected from unfriendly powers.
Given the continuous satellite surveillance by all superpowers - and other interests over the globe, not to mention an increasing army of 'Google-earthers' out there, any such activity would have to be based either underground or in very ordinary looking facilities at an unremarkable location so as not to attract unwanted attention. Such a location, or locations could be housed in existing military - or even civil - facilities but known to only a select few with the highest compartmentalised security clearance. And given the Americans have had nearly 70 years - since the Second World War - to perfect how to hide their greatest military secrets, I'm sure they're now very good at it.
As for strange lights/activities observed by those over the years who claim to have skirted - or even penetrated - the perimeter of Area 51 (a rather foolhardy thing to do in my opinion considering the threat of deadly force to interlopers - the BBC film crew were let off lightly in my view), this could all be part of the 'show'.
Of course I claim no privileged knowledge on this subject. It just seems to me to be a simple and logical conclusion to reach about this now world-famous area.
Saturday, 14 July 2012
Tony Blair and the UFO files
Just a quick reference to the most recent BBC News article on the British UFO files
Tony Blair's name is used as a headline grabber and I'm unashamedly using it here too.
This comes hot on the heels of Dr David Clarke's article "MOD Files make UFOs history" about the release of the ninth set of MOD UFO case files.
Look through the MOD files published to date and you will not see any revelation about UK Government cover-ups, (as there is unlikely to be one) but you will find some fascinating and as yet unexplained cases such as the 'UFO over Manchester' incident video I posted a couple of days ago.
As Nick Pope discusses in his book 'Open Skies, Closed Minds', the MOD's intention when recording accounts of UFO activity (something they now no longer do), was always to assess whether there was any threat to UK airspace. To this day the MOD's conclusion, after almost 60 years of gathering data, appears to be 'no'.
However, one could argue - as Nick points out to some degree in his book - that 'no threat' strangely allows for numerous accounts of UFOs or UAP that:-
Tony Blair's name is used as a headline grabber and I'm unashamedly using it here too.
This comes hot on the heels of Dr David Clarke's article "MOD Files make UFOs history" about the release of the ninth set of MOD UFO case files.
As Nick Pope discusses in his book 'Open Skies, Closed Minds', the MOD's intention when recording accounts of UFO activity (something they now no longer do), was always to assess whether there was any threat to UK airspace. To this day the MOD's conclusion, after almost 60 years of gathering data, appears to be 'no'.
However, one could argue - as Nick points out to some degree in his book - that 'no threat' strangely allows for numerous accounts of UFOs or UAP that:-
- have near misses with military aircraft;
- have near misses with passenger aircraft sometimes carrying hundreds of people;
- routinely emerge, unidentified, in UK controlled - and sometimes restricted - airspace with no clear motive, largely unchallenged and vanishing as quickly as they appear;
- behave in a way that strongly suggests intelligent control; and
- still to this day - after decades of recorded accounts - exceed speeds or manueovers that can be performed by any current civilian or military aircraft.
Sunday, 8 April 2012
Recommended Reading
For anyone really wanting to get to grips with the thorny topic of UFOs, the internet will have much information but will not always be reliable - and yes I am conscious of the irony of stating this in a blog! This is where good old-fashioned books can come to the rescue. There are still earnest individuals out there who are prepared to put in hundreds or thousands of hours into volumes of work which contain a rich mine of solid information on the subject.
Hence here is one of my more 'organic' posts which I will be developing as I go along simply because of the many books on UFOs that are out there. I certainly can't claim to have read all the available worthy material on the subject but here are my top choices, in no particular order, of (relatively) recent publications.
Open Skies, Closed Minds by Nick Pope
An excellent book on the phenomenon from a writer with a unique perspective on the subject - as a former M.O.D. official. It includes intriguing cases from the post-war period to the late nineties, many of which are based on eyewitness accounts by military personnel. In my view, it's a must for any reader interested in the subject of UFOs.
UFOs: Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials Go on the Record by Leslie Kean
Written by Leslie Kean who is a U.S. journalist with impressive credentials, this book is the result of ten years research and engagement with credible professional and military witnesses. To me this gives a thorough American take on the subject and also includes fascinating cases from other countries such as Belgium, Brazil, England and France.
The UFO Files: The Inside Story of Real Life Sightings by David Clarke
David Clarke is a senior lecturer in journalism at Sheffield Hallam University with former experience as a press reporter for local newspapers and press officer for local government. The book is an objective, comprehensive and detailed study of the subject which includes many key UFO cases and others less well known.
UFO: The Complete Sightings Catalogue by Peter Brookesmith
From an author experienced in writing about 'paranormal' subjects, another objective and detailed repository of UFO sightings up to the mid-nineties which nobody interested in the subject should be without. It methodically lists hundreds of cases complete with the author's own assessment of each incident.
None of the above authors are personally known to me and consequently none of them have asked me to endorse their books. I am promoting these of my own volition and purely out of wish to signpost interested parties to well-written material by (in my view) serious and credible authors.
Hence here is one of my more 'organic' posts which I will be developing as I go along simply because of the many books on UFOs that are out there. I certainly can't claim to have read all the available worthy material on the subject but here are my top choices, in no particular order, of (relatively) recent publications.
Open Skies, Closed Minds by Nick PopeAn excellent book on the phenomenon from a writer with a unique perspective on the subject - as a former M.O.D. official. It includes intriguing cases from the post-war period to the late nineties, many of which are based on eyewitness accounts by military personnel. In my view, it's a must for any reader interested in the subject of UFOs.
UFOs: Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials Go on the Record by Leslie KeanWritten by Leslie Kean who is a U.S. journalist with impressive credentials, this book is the result of ten years research and engagement with credible professional and military witnesses. To me this gives a thorough American take on the subject and also includes fascinating cases from other countries such as Belgium, Brazil, England and France.
The UFO Files: The Inside Story of Real Life Sightings by David Clarke David Clarke is a senior lecturer in journalism at Sheffield Hallam University with former experience as a press reporter for local newspapers and press officer for local government. The book is an objective, comprehensive and detailed study of the subject which includes many key UFO cases and others less well known.
UFO: The Complete Sightings Catalogue by Peter BrookesmithFrom an author experienced in writing about 'paranormal' subjects, another objective and detailed repository of UFO sightings up to the mid-nineties which nobody interested in the subject should be without. It methodically lists hundreds of cases complete with the author's own assessment of each incident.
Disclaimer
None of the above authors are personally known to me and consequently none of them have asked me to endorse their books. I am promoting these of my own volition and purely out of wish to signpost interested parties to well-written material by (in my view) serious and credible authors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)