UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1998 > Jul > Jul 1

Re: Sheffield Incident

From: David Clarke <dclarke14@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 13:15:26 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 01 Jul 1998 08:48:03 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheffield Incident

For those following the twists and turns of the "Sheffield
Incident", Updates readers will shortly be able to access my
report on the incident which will be posted on:

This article was completed shortly after Helen Jackson MP for
Hillsborough asked questions about the case in Parliament. Since
that time my investigation has continued and an update to the
article will be posted in due course.

In the meantime, here are my responses to questions posed by Max
Burns: 1. Believing official sources.

Max claims I am naive for believing what "official" sources -
ie. the police, MoD etc - are telling me about this case.
Really? Well then what is the South Yorkshire Police Log if it
is not an "official source"? Max uses the Log throughout his
Sheffield Incident as a source of unquestioned reliability, so
using his own logic, why should be believe a word which that log
is telling us? The log was produced by the police, who by his
own statements are party to the cover-up. Could not the person
(a police sergeant, whose name I have) who passed the log to
UFOlogists in the first place have done so just to mislead
whoever got hold of it, therefore the log could be part of the
cover-up too? Oh no, I'm getting paranoid as well now....

But on a serious note, all my sources really exist and can be
independantly checked by anyone who wants to email me for their
phone numbers. We can't say the same about Max's "sources", one
of whom we are told is a drug taking New Age traveller who
sleeps in a horse-box.

2. MoD and UFO reports
Max claims the MoD must be lying because the Police Log does
have UFO sightings in it. So what? How do we know the police
passed those incidents onto the MoD? As the police never
regarded the incident as a UFO incident, why should they have
passed them onto the MoD? If the reports had been passed to
anyone, they would have been passed to the Home Office, not
necessarily to the MoD. My information is the police didn't pass
them onto anyone, therefore the MoD never received them in the
first place, Why does max see such significance in things which
are not significant....it all comes back to paranoia once again.

If Max feels the MoD have lied to Helen Jackson MP then let him
contact Helen Jackson directly; she can be contacted via the
House of Commons switchboard.

3. Radar Operators Tracking UFOs.
The fact remains that RAF Linton-upon-Ouse was closed on the
night of March 24, 1997. That is an indisputable fact which can
be independantly checked by anyone who cares to visit the base,
look at the logbook, and speak to the staff. Even when working,
the bases' radar has a very limited radius for training purposes
only. It could not be used for detecting UFOs over the Peak
District. Once again, all this information can be checked by
anyone who cares to do so.

Air defence radar on the night of March 24, 1997 was being operated from
RAF West Drayton.

4. The News of the World.
If Max has so little respect for the content of newspapers and
the ability of journalists, why did he go to the News of the
World to sell his story? Answer: because he knows they are the
only paper likely to swallow such a huge trout of a yarn. No
other national paper would touch it with a bargepole, except
perhaps the Sunday Sport, where it would be a fantastic
follow-up to the classic "B52 Bomber Found on the Moon" or
"Space Aliens Turned My Son into an Olive". Just imagine it
"Pilot shot down by UFO hitches ride from Mini-Bus while covered
in Aviation Fuel". What a prize exclusive that would be in the
Sport's hall of fame...

In the end even the News of the World failed to believe Max's
far-fetched tale. He's being paranoid once again if he really
thinks a News of the World Journalist would allow me to order
him not to run a story, They did not run the story because I
appraised them of the FACTS, that's all, plain and simple.

But then he has the gall to say I should feel sorry for him
losing the grubby =A31,500 he stood to make! You have to conjur
the image of Max visiting the newspaper and saying "I have this
fantastic evidence of man's first contact with aliens, but I'm
not telling you this just for the money guys, it's simply
because I really believe what the witnesses are telling me..."

You have got to admit the man has some cheek.

5. Emma Maidenhead's sighting of a Triangular UFO.
Despite what Max claims, I have never said that no one believed
they saw a UFO on March 24, 1997. But there is a whole world of
difference between belief and reality. Nowhere have I ever
claimed Emma was having "delusions" as Max puts it. I simply
believe she misidentified an aircraft or some other more
unconventional - but earthly - object as a UFO. We know that
roughly the same time as she saw the UFO there were squadrons of
low-flying RAF bombers skirting the Derbyshire Peaks at 250 foot
altitude, therefore it is reasonable to conclude she saw that
exercise or something connected with it.

That does not mean I'm calling her a liar, I accepted that she
believes what she says she saw. I'm not disputing that for one

But you have got to pose the obvious question: If a giant
triangular UFO was flying so low over Dronfield (which with
neighbouring Chesterfield has a population of something in the
order of 250,000 people), how is it that one person, and one
person alone, saw it? And why if she was so convinced the craft
was something not of this earth did she not drive immediately to
her local police station and log a formal report? She did not,
because her sighting does not appear in the police log.

Granted, plenty of people saw the low-flying jets over Dronfield
and surrounding areas, but not one other person reported this
massive triangle. And isn't it also a coincidence that Emma is a
friend of Max and a member of his "skywatching group"...of
course Max's views and beliefs have had no influence upon Emma's
interpretation of what she saw....not! 6. The Carol Vorderman
programme on the aircrash.

Yes Max I did tell you I acted as a consultant to the programme.
But "consultant" in my dictionary (Oxford English Edition) is:
"a person providing professional advice, etc for a fee". I
provided the BBC with newspaper cuttings and a list of names and
phone numbers, including Max Burns phone number, therefore I was
by definition acting as a consultant. As I said, I had no
control over what theory the programme makers decided to settle
upon, that was their choice. And in the end they settled on a
mundane explanation, which in this case is the right one. In
answer to Max's other questions:

Yes I am a skeptic, and proud of it. That is the first thing
about this case which Max has got right.

 I am not, and never will be a gullible believer, or someone who
is only interested in making =A31,500 out of the News of the World
like others I could mention.

My motives for investigating this case?

Simple. I want to get to the truth.

If Max can provide me with evidence to back up his claims that a
UFO was chased by the RAF and a fighter was shot down, leading
to loss of life, I would happily put every last bit of energy I
had in pursuing this case to its bitter end.

So far, Max has not produced one tiny piece of evidence to
suggest such an event took place.

In the meantime, I challenge him once again:

1. Name one witness who saw a UFO shoot down/"vanish" a Tornado
   on the night of March 24, 1997.

2. Name the base from which this Tornado took off.

3. Name the pilot and co-pilot of the Tornado jet.