Professional Pilots' Rumour Network - Compare and contrast

Whilst conducting internet research for another post I plan to publish, I came across some (now quite old) posts on the following forum - Professional Pilots Rumour Network (PPRUNE) - a site that hosts anonymous online chatter between current and former civil/commercial aviation pilots and other aviation personnel.

A number of these posts can be said to be typical of the ridicule that anyone interested in the UFO/UAP subject attracts from those claiming to represent the 'voice of reason' in the aviation community. One classic example is this post where the mere utterance of the dreaded acronym 'UFO' leads to very toxic responses. I personally find the level of arrogance displayed and cavalier attitude demonstrated on this forum, towards the subject and those merely discussing it, to be of some concern - but not unexpected.

That's because, if one was to conduct an opinion poll in the UK today on whether regular air travellers would feel safe sitting in a plane known to be piloted by someone who claimed to have seen a UFO (despite the initials standing for Unidentified Flying Object - the 'alien' stigma attached to these letters remains), then I imagine at the very least 50 per cent of those polled would say 'no'. Coupled with the point that all pilots and civil aviation personnel generally would know their career would quickly be over if they publicly insisted on having seen a UFO (whether it had an earthly explanation or not), it's not really surprising to see why this general attitude persists to this day.

What's really interesting however, is this very rare post which demonstrates that there are pilots out there who have had some strange experiences and - quite boldly in my view - are prepared to discuss this to a limited extent on the very same forum.

Another poster in this chain does, however, offer a very valid word of caution which I have quoted below:

"...Of all the witnesses, two west country policeman are perhaps the most memorable: they had become quite famous after spending most of an evening chasing a mystery object that hovered in front of their patrol car, darting from side to side and sometimes approaching very close as they hurtled along at 90mph. I remember them being distinctly disenchanted when shown astronomical tables that placed Venus right in front of them on the straight bits of road.  

These fine officers, and most other witnesses had fallen foul of two properties of the human eye: 

Firstly, it's extreme sensitivity - the ability to easily see a 3W torch bulb suspended on a hill top 6 mi away for instance. Unfortunately, the eye is not calibrated, and a pin point source has an apparent brightness linked to the surrounding environment. That is how Venus can be described by witnesses as 'dazzling' and so on.

Secondly, once denied normal visual cues in low light situations, the eye can begin rapid involuntary movements. This makes distant light sources (eg stars, planets, satellites and aircraft) appear to 'dart' about the sky.

Just note how many UFO stories involve 'dazzling' objects that 'dart' about!
I am not suggesting that all sightings can be explained in this way. But very many can. And there are important lessons for professional observers like Pilots and Policemen. The eye can certainly deceive and the more 'expert' the witness, the more extreme the mis-interpretation of visual cues can become. That's just because we all share the same physiology and no amount of training can change that, whatever any given individual might think. 

PS
I never really gave up on the UFO idea. The astonishing and continuing discovery of hundreds of extra-solar planets in the last few years gives the whole subject new momentum. But 'investigating' the anecdotes of witnesses is a hard road that rapidly becomes impassible if any kind of objective test is applied to the data. The subject was IMHO best discussed many years ago by Prof RV Jones, the man who 'discovered' the V2 rocket. His account is here"

[the link referred to at the end of this quote seems to have changed so interested parties will need to search for "Prof RV Jones"] 


These last comments give me pause for thought about my own recent sighting described in my previous post - in that it is possible that what I saw could also have been an exceptionally bright daytime celestial object - but I guess I'll never know for sure.


Should by any remote chance, any of those pilots have read this post (the latter and earnest ones only please - captain-flashheart-and-his-laugh-I-nearly-did crew of online abusers need not apply!), I would very much be interested in hearing their full accounts - anonymously of course.

Please email: Jonathan Niven at ufoscrutiny@gmail.com

As far as I'm aware, it's a shame that non-U.S. aviation personnel probably can't contact NARCAP to record their accounts.

The role and function of NARCAP can be found on its website and is self-explanatory. But this site is U.S. in origin and (tellingly) there is no such equivalent body or site in the UK for example, which means BUFORA would be the next best place for such reports in this country. 

A recent UFO sighting of my own...

I hope those of my readers in the UK enjoyed the exceptionally good weather we had this Summer (makes a change from recent years!). Aside from enhancing my visits to relatives and in-laws in different parts of the UK, the long sunny days allowed me to digest much more reading material in my back garden on the subject of UFOs, which I shall summarise in a future post.

In the meantime, I would like to share with you an interesting 'sighting' I had whilst recently walking through the area I live.

I should point out that although I am now in my mid-forties, I am very fortunate to still have very good eyesight and have yet to need glasses for any activity.

The sighting

The date was Wednesday 28 August 2013. I can remember the time of the sighting as I was walking on my way to see a matinee screening of the film 'Elysium' at my local Odeon cinema which was at 13:15pm. The sighting itself started at approximately 12:45pm. I was on my own (my wife being at work) and was in a quiet residential back street in the South London area where I live.

The sky was a brilliant cornflower blue with virtually no clouds. I just happened to look up in a northwesterly direction and noted the positions of at least two airplanes, both cruising at completely different altitudes, with one really high up (I couldn't hazard a guess at the specific altitude I'm afraid) and the other probably at base cloud level (had there been any significant cloud cover on the day).

What particularly caught my eye was a very bright object in-between these planes (in terms of guessed altitude). It seemed as bright, if not brighter, than the star Sirius would be at night-time, except this was in a clear early afternoon sky. The light was intense, white and occasionally fluctuated, but did not 'twinkle' like a night-time star would. Also of interest was its long, near-stationary position relative to other points of reference, such as the rooftops of houses over which I could see it and one of the airplanes I had first noticed. My impression was that the light source was artificial and not a natural phenomenon. There was no - even distant - accompanying jet engine or rotor noise that I would expect to hear from either a plane or helicopter. Remember I was on a quiet residential street with little or no ambient noise.

I also remember being annoyed for two reasons: that I hadn't got my binoculars with me (which though fairly portable, I only generally carry around with me when in more rural surroundings); and that the duration of the sighting was in danger of making me miss the start of the film I was going to see - in that it lasted almost 15 minutes.

Just to make sure I wasn't the only person who could see this, I asked a lady who was passing by if she could see it too (which probably unnerved her a bit and I can't say I blame her!). She had to physically cross the street to look over the rooftops from roughly where I was standing but she did indeed confirm that she could see the object too and that 'no. I wasn't going mad'. The lady then rather matter-of-factly carried on as if seeing a very bright stationary object in the daytime sky was no big deal!

I continued watching the bright object, whilst the planes disappeared on their respective flightpaths and others came into view, concerned that I would need to tear myself away soon if I wanted to see the film, as I was still some five minutes walk away from the cinema.

Then, almost as if to allay my concerns, at around 13:00pm the object very slowly appeared to descend. I say 'appeared to descend' because it could have been moving straight away from me relative to my position (in other words further northwest) which would also give the impression of descent. As it was I found myself slowly walking further and further back to keep it in sight above the rooftops until I almost banged into a tree on the kerbside.

Conventional explanation?

Now here's a list of the things, I personally believe this object couldn't have been which make the sighting interesting:-

• An airplane because I could initially see at least two of those in the sky at the same time which did not resemble this object in any way and the object 'hovered' or remained stationary for at least 10-15 minutes. Incidentally there was no vapour-trail from or near the object;

• A Chinese lantern, hot-air balloon or party balloon as the object remained stationary for a lot longer than any of those would;

• The Moon - because I saw the Moon quite clearly in another part of the daytime sky and nowhere near as bright as this object;

• Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Sirius, Arcturus or another similar such celestial body because having read up on this aspect of astronomy, it is extremely rare for these to be seen with such luminous intensity in the daytime - and they do not move across the sky in as short a time-frame as this object did at the sighting's conclusion.

• A 'sun-dog' or rainbow effect as there were no clouds near the object, which these phenomena are usually caused by and the object was only one apparent colour - a very intense white;

• A bird as most birds - as far as I'm aware - rarely hover for fifteen minutes and aren't luminous or emit intense (even reflected) light!; and

• A firework or laser show given that both of those would be more transitory, more obvious to even the casual observer and almost always take place at night.

I should also point out that, although it was a late Summer's day there were, as far as I am aware, no thunderstorms or associated atmospheric electrical phenomena in London that day.


Now it is possible that, given the objects 'flight characteristics' what I saw could have been:-

• A helicopter, (real or model) or a camera drone; or

• An airship.

However, for it to have been any of these, it would have to have had:-

• a highly polished reflective surface to reflect sunlight with such intensity, for such a duration and at just the right angle for me to see it for nearly quarter of an hour; or

• very bright searchlights pointed in my direction for nearly fifteen minutes - but why would either an airship or helicopter being using searchlights in the daytime?

Supporting evidence?

In view of the above, it is a source of intense frustration to me that I didn't have my binoculars or any other means of getting a closer view of the object. Also a video or image on my iPhone camera wouldn't have done it justice given the limitations of digital zooms - something analogue or optical zooms are much better for in these circumstances.

So no images or video to back up my sighting I'm afraid and no way for me to discern what the actual shape of the object was from such a distance. I have however found a recent UK video online (made incidentally the day after my sighting) which shows an object closely resembling what I saw. The video was posted on Youtube under the poster's heading "ufo (saucer) Derby Uk 29/08/2013". I cannot vouch for this video's authenticity however.

Conclusion

To me at least, my sighting currently sits within the pure definition of an Unidentified Flying Object, and I hasten to add - not necessarily with any of the E.T. connotations many automatically assume with such a sighting.

Given the above, I would be interested to hear from anyone who saw something similar on or around that time in the skies above South London, or indeed any other part of London which may help to 'triangulate' the sighting or even throw more 'light' (no pun intended) onto what this object was or might have been.

David Clarke and Nick Pope - For heaven's sake make up!

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.

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.

Screen capture of the site where the MOD files can be accessed

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.

Douglas Trumbull's UFOTOG Resurrected?

Visual effects expert Doug Trumbull

In previous postings, you'll have seen my speculations about visual effects expert Douglas Trumbull and his supposedly shelved UFOTOG project. Mr Trumbull was kind enough to take the time out to update me on UFOTOG as it stood when I asked him about it.

My previous posts are below with the most recent first.

Douglas Trumbull's response on UFOTOG

Open email to Douglas Trumbull about UFOTOG

Still no news on UFOTOG

Well according to an interview that Open Minds (click link) was able to get with a colleague of Trumbull's, who - rather interestingly in itself - is a representative of Mutual UFO Network - Mark D’Antonio (a photo analyst for the MUFON), a new 'fictionalised' account concerning the use of the equipment featured in the UFOTOG project is soon to be released.

Whilst encouraging, this appears to be a new approach being taken with this project. It seems that rather than produce an actual documentary (yet) of Trumbull and his team's efforts to get verifiable data on intelligently controlled non-terrestrial objects; or conversely even come away with no verifiable data to support existence of the same; Trumbull is perhaps seeking to generate further interest and funding for UFOTOG by releasing this 'fictional' version of a documentary.

The UFOTOG Humvee in action

To paraphrase Mark D’Antonio from the Open Minds interview, the film will be 'A visual foray into what could be the potential reality of the project'.

I think that this is great news that the project is alive and well and that Mr Trumbull has some support in this.



It's also very interesting to see that Mr Trumbull is now apparently working with a well-known, long-standing and respected American UFO investigations body on this project.

This could be a smart way to engage more undecided hearts and minds (and potentially well-funded backers) for the project without the stigma of ridicule being attached.

We'll have to see whether this leads to an actual groundbreaking documentary in time...

Book review: "A.D. After Disclosure" by Richard M. Dolan and Bryce Zabel

Front Cover of the book

What can I say? Life got in the way of blogging again for a while so - sorry for the absence of posts since early April.

Anyway, whilst routing through one my local bookstores months ago I came across "A.D. After Disclosure" which was amongst the (frankly abysmally) tiny selection of books devoted to the UFO/UAP subject.

For my own reasons, and probably like millions of other people around the world, I'm still effectively at 'first base' when it comes to the subject. I believe the whole UFO/UAP subject deserves much more attention than it gets and less ridicule than it deserves - especially when thousands of professionals in the armed forces and other state services around the globe have been reporting inexplicable things in our skies for at least seventy years. Despite the hard line taken by debunkers and the ridicule the subject attracts, the phenomenon isn't about to go away and - like one well known UK skeptic and self-proclaimed 'expert' on the subject would otherwise like to suggest (whom I won't name here) - it seems a little arrogant to explain all of it away on just wish-fulfilment, mythology, cultural influence or some form of mass-hallucination.

However, I wouldn't go as far as saying that extraterrestrials (in the traditional sense of intelligent species from other planets) are necessarily behind the most compelling of UFO/UAP cases either. So you can begin to see why the central core of this book requires a 'leap of faith' for me - and for many other people I would imagine - by reading it.

First impressions

 

Whilst I doubted the wisdom of having an endorsement by none other than Stan Lee* (of Marvel Comics fame) on the front cover, after having looked into the (quite impressive) credentials of the two authors Richard M. Dolan and Bryce Zabel, I decided to give the book a go - and can honestly say I was not disappointed.

[*Don't get me wrong - I've nothing against Stan Lee and Marvel Comics. I just don't think he's necessarily the best person to be cited endorsing something that appears to be a serious attempt to address the issue of 'Disclosure'.]

What first struck me was that, as far as I'm aware, nobody - outside the various works of science fiction - has made a serious and in-depth effort to tackle the questions arising from what would happen were it to be publicly proven beyond doubt that: a) intelligent extraterrestrials exist; and b) they have been engaging with humanity for some time albeit in apparent secrecy.

So the authors have set a publishing precedent in this at least - but I'm happy to be corrected if there is another similar such book out there that predates this one.

I mentioned making the 'leap of faith' above by reading this book and would point out that it is a necessary one in order to properly appreciate its content.

Re: its overall content, it makes for an accessible and engaging - if sometimes slightly cliched and overly dramatic - read but I can understand that such a writing style would be necessary to retain many readers' attention.

At its Core

 

The central aim of the book is to give informed speculation about the likely consequences of - and a suggested timeline of likely events - in the face of proven intelligent ET contact and this the book does really well. In my view, it effectively leaves no stone unturned in terms of how a significant event leading to Disclosure would affect, amongst other things:-

• initial Governments' responses to the event and how this would be managed; 

• the public's reaction and their subsequent treatment of those in authority especially if certain Governments were proven to be complicit in some sort of cover-up; 

• how this might to a lesser or greater extent lead to political or civil instability; 

• the collateral damage and unintended consequences as a result of such instability; 

• how the mainstream media would cover the developments; 

• how the world would re-examine the phenomenon of UFOs and its history and how this might impact on education; 

• how the entertainment industry might deal with developments; 

• how the economies and stock markets of the world might be affected and whether this might cause another financial crisis; 

• how legal systems might have to change to incorporate previously unforseen legal complexities (something I'd honestly never considered until I read this book); 

• how religions, their followers and leaders might react and how this might affect religious views; 

• how aspects of mainstream science might have to re-evaluate certain theories; 

• how advances in technology might be affected especially in terms of how the world's energy supplies and linked economies might potentially change;

• how different generations might react to such developments; and

• how this might all impact on daily life.

Each of the above (and some other elements I haven't listed) have separate passages devoted to each topic and make a good fist of suggesting what likely consequences might be. One I hadn't expected was in terms of religion (which is backed up by some actual research into public opinion on the question). I won't spoil things by saying why here - I would suggest one reads the book to find out - but suffice to say most people's expectations in this area may be turned on their head after reading this book.

The Breakaway Group

 

Another interesting thread running through the book is the theory concerning the 'Breakaway Group' which - the authors suggest - is a super secret organisation which has supposedly been coordinating events behind the scenes ever since apparent contact with intelligent non-humans in the post-war period.  The authors attempt to speculate why the Group came about, how it has been involved with many of the issues listed in the bullets above and how it would seek to manage developments following an unprecedented event which leads to Disclosure might bring.

Conspiracy theorists will of course lap up this aspect of the book. Throughout Ufology in general there are frequent references to 'Cabals' or secret societies trying to clandestinely impose a (mostly unwelcome) 'New World Order' on a largely unsuspecting world.

Thankfully the authors do not sink to regurgitating many of the extreme ideas espoused by many theorists on the web and elsewhere. They do however attempt to take a hard look at how such a body not only could have come into existence (with the possible emergence of the 'military industrial complex' warned about by President Eisenhower in his now famous farewell address) but also just how it might be operating across geographical and legal boundaries and with technological resources quite possibly at least 60 years ahead of that available in the public domain.

The authors readily cite examples of how such secrecy could be effectively maintained and how clever manipulation of the media and national security agencies - amongst other bodies - could confound any serious attempts to reveal such a Breakaway Group to the world.  Even more compelling is the authors' suggestion that such a Group might, given their possible advanced resources, have developed its own 'infrastructure' and society 'off the grid' as it were which is operating under the noses of the unsuspecting billions around the world.

Concerning this thread, one only has to look at bodies like the Bildeberg Group (featured in the press only this week for their clandestine 2013 meeting in Watford of all places!) to see real examples of secretive bodies dabbling in world affairs, and as the authors discuss, impressively large scale undertakings like the Manhattan Project, which apparently employed 130,000 people in total secrecy in its time and was effectively kept secret until necessity required that it be revealed to the world with the infamous (and horrific) bombing of the Japanese. Given that nearly 70 years have passed since that chapter in history, one can begin to understand how mind-boggling subsequent projects could be with greater funding and more advanced technology at their disposal.

The Others

 

Of course no such book would be complete without discussing the non-terrestrial intelligences (NTIs) that are the source of an event that leads to Disclosure. Rather than dwelling much on what such NTIs or ET might actually be (given there could be a number of possible explanations), the authors do examine what might be their likely motivations.
Whilst some interesting points are made, for me this tends to be the weakest element of the book. Whilst it can be an interesting thought experiment to ponder what moves such non-human entities to apparently only indirectly interact with humanity (until the Disclosure event described), one could argue that there is no direct evidence at all to draw on for this. Conversely, the human experience and human history provides a wealth of material for speculation in terms of the likely impact of Disclosure and the likelihood of the existence of a Breakaway Group, which I think this book does really well.

Conclusion

This is a thoroughly engaging, sometimes complex and thought-provoking book which examines - as far as I'm aware - a relatively unexplored territory (outside the realms of science fiction). I would encourage any serious reader to add this to their library. What would be truly fascinating would be to see how accurate some of the authors' predictions would be if the world did indeed one day suddenly find itself facing actual public Disclosure concerning ET contact...


Disclaimer

Neither of the authors of this book are personally known to me and I have not received any incentive from them, financial or otherwise, in writing this review.