From: David Clarke <email@example.com> Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 16:23:04 -0400 Fwd Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 05:35:35 -0400 Subject: Re: Sheffield Incident >From Dave Clarke, Sheffield. Max Burns becomes ever more desperate in his pitiful attempts to pursuade UFO Updates readers to buy his yarn about a UFO, a triangle and a pilot covered in aviation fuel. But it will just not wash. Judging by the amount of messages I have received from readers who have offered me congratulations and support for the stand I have taken over this nonsense, I believe my thorough and unompromising investigation of this case has been vindicated. One of them, Paul Power, has already been accused of participating in the same laughable "cover-up" that I stand accused of, simply because Paul dared to ask Max a few reasonable questions in a private email. If you were to believe Max Burns he is the one and only pillar of truth in this case - I am lying, a Member of Parliament is lying, the RAF are lying and the Ministry of Defence are lying when asked a clear and direct question by a member of the Press and by a Member of Parliament. These are serious slurs and allegations in themselves, but at the end of the day I don't have to prove anything. I am not making any claims about crashed Tornados and UFO. Max is making the claims, I am simply asking for evidence. And as one perceptive UFO Updates reader from Holland noted, all he can do is launch a vicious attack in response. But most importantly, when challenged to come up with the evidence to support his wild claims, all Max can say is: "Obviously I am striving towards this goal, and have opened some new avenues with regard to obtaining this information. And as patience is a virtue, I feel that I will eventually succeed in obtaining this proof.. However I do not think that I will be supplying you with any such information, after all dont you think that have shared enough of my research with you?" What a cop out - it is so easy to make crazy unprovable claims about UFOs shooting down jets, but its more difficult to come up with the goods, isn't it Max? I predict you will never find the "evidence" you are looking for because it does not, and never has existed, except of course in your imagination. In a disgraceful display of arrogance, Max even goes so far as to ask "what is sensitive" about a failed suicide attempt, and says he even wants to go and interview the poor man who tried to kill himself and has since been labelled a victim of a UFO dogfight. The facts are these: the transcript of Max's conversation with Dagenhart proves absolutely zilch. What Dagenhart did or did not say doesn't matter, because we know who he saw, and it wasn't a pilot of any description. Dagenhart is a red-herring, a mere pawn in Max's game. This man's delusions know no bounds, and he is so full of himself he can't see how his Internet postings are sounding more and more ridiculous as time goes by. I challenge Max for a third time: 1. Who SAW a UFO shoot down a Tornado jet? At the moment, we don't have one single witness who claims they saw this occur, so what basis is there to leap to this wild conclusion? 2. Which base did this jet fly from? 3. What was the name of the pilot? Just last week a REAL Tornado jet crashed in the North Sea off Flamborough Head, killing the pilot and the co-pilot. The news media were informed immediately, and we were given the names, ages, home addresses etc of both men within 24 hours, probably just minutes after their families were told. Does Max seriously believe the RAF could have succeeded in a complete cover-up of the loss of a jet over Sheffield more 15 months ago, and the death of its pilot, without one snippet of information leaking out to the news media? What about the family of the pilot, would they have not been asking questions now after their husband or son had not returned for 15 months? This claim does not stand up to any kind of rigorous examination. It is quite plainly and simply nonsense, and what's more Max knows it is nonsense. To deal with some of his other points: 1. Max's claim I have used his information without acknowledgement. That's rich coming from someone who is using information about Parliamentary Questions, information on RAF jet timetables from RAF Coningsby etc in his Sheffield Report, all without acknowledgent to myself. Who told Max there had been two sonic booms reported that night, not the one? Yes, it was me, but of course he choses to ignore this fact too. Yes, I did obtain a copy of the police log from Max, but so what? Max got it from Martin Jeffrey, who got it from the police, so it is hardly Max's property, is it? Martin is happy for me to have a copy and would have provided me with one if I had asked, so what's the big deal? What does the police log prove anyway, it's just a list of aeroplane sightings, and the conclusion reached at the end of is precisely the one any sane normal person would reach, viz: "Enquiries reveal a combination of circumstances that would lead people to believe a plane might have crashed". 2. My report to BUFORA on the case. Max has not seen this report, yet he chooses to make wild claims about it and make slurs against my ability as an investigator on that basis. Well I have news for you Max, I have been around for years before you saw your first X-Files episode and then suddenly went on to become an "expert", and I will be around an equal number of years after you have disappeared like all the other ET believers I have seen come and go. In fact, My report does not in fact conclude a Bolide meteor was responsible, it says the Royal Astronomical Society say a bolide could have caused the sonic booms reported that night. I actually conclude the events were caused by a military aircraft and possibly a Bolide meteor. My report states quite clearly there was RAF activity that night, well before it was officially admitted, and this is a fact I have always believed played a major role in the initial stages of the incident. That fact is clearly stated in my report which went to Gloria Dixon, BUFORA NIC, just two months after the incident. Like it or not, that is a fact. 3. The Carol Vorderman BBC show. Once again (or at least when I spoke to him earlier this year) Max has not seen this programme, yet he makes slurs against my character and professionalism based upon something he has not even watched! In fact, I played no role in the making of the programme, other than providing the TV researchers with a list of phone numbers of people who were involved in the March 24 event - including Max, a fact he chooses to ignore. If I was trying to debunk this incident, why would I have urged the TV people to contact him? I did so because unlike Max I'm open minded and can accept that other people can have an opinion. In the event, Max as usual behaved like a petulent child, took his bat and ball home and turned down an invitation to appear on the programme because it would not pander to his absurd claims about a Tornado crash. Ironically, if Max had watched the programme, he would know that Glenn Ford, the senior Seismologist from Edinburgh University, who actually recorded the sonic booms, goes on record and says he believes both the booms and the sightings were caused by a Bolide meteor burning up in the atmosphere! Is Mr Ford now to be labelled a liar, and an agent of the cover-up too? And how is it shoddy investigation on my part to conclude a Bolide meteor could possibly have played a part in the event, when this explanation is supported by both a senior Seismologist and the spokesman for the Royal Astronomical Society? Lets face it the only "expert" who Max will believe is himself, or one of his loony friends. Objective investigators should always apply Occam's Razor and look for the most likely explanation first, before jumping to fantastic conclusions. In this case, we know both military aircraft and Bolide meteors exist, we don't know that ET-piloted triangular UFOs exist. Therefore its logical to conclude a military jet/Bolide played a part in the incident until we have good solid evidence that ET-piloted triangles actually exist. I'm sorry Max but it's not good enough to say they exist because you believe they do, or because people claim to have seen them. People can and do misidentify aircraft and a whole host of mundane objects as UFOs every night - that is a FACT, and if you can't accept it you should get out of UFOlogy and take up science fiction. 3. UFOs and the police log. Max claims there is "plenty" of evidence in the police log of people who rang to report UFOs. This is simply untrue, as Max's edited excerps from the log prove. The log is simply a list of people who saw low-flying aircraft. There are no more than a couple of instances in the entire log where people describe UFOs, and then they are just talking about "lights in the sky" which could be anything, and probably were the low-flying aircraft we know were around at that time.. With regards to Mrs Dronfield's sighting, I have not deliberately ignored it - her sighting appears in the first few paragraphs of my article in UFO Magazine, out this week, and in my report to BUFORA. I believe she saw an aircraft at an odd angle, simple as that. If you look at the time she saw the object, it simply must have been the same low-flying aircraft seen by the police special constable and the farmers a couple of minutes later. A question for Max arises at this point: Why has Max ignored the testimony of Marie-France Tattersfield? It was her sighting which triggered the initial police concern. She describes what can only be interpreted as a low-flying aircraft, NOT a UFO. Yet, Max has completely ignored her story in his Sheffield report. Why? Because she is a police special constable a.k.a yet another agent of the cover-up. Therefore, why believe an employee of the RAF? Surely they are involved in the cover-up too? Ooops we're in the hall of mirrors again! With regards to Brian Haslam, his sighting of a "triangle" UFO is the only one recorded in the police log, and it took place at 7.40, more than two and a half hours BEFORE the report of the "crashed aircraft". You cannot use this as evidence of anything, and what's more Max has not spoken to Haslam, therefore his evidence is useless - just more hearsay. As for the other witnesses to the "triangle", there are just two of these, one saw it half an hour before the reports which triggered the search, and the second saw something almost two hours later. Is this the best evidence we have of a triangular UFO? If it is, then it dosen't amount to much, especially when you bear in mind one of these witnesses is a personal friend of Max's anyway. The more you look at the details of this case, the more it falls apart, and the claims of there being any kind of UFO incident or "cover-up" of a UFO incident are just ludicrous. Max has now painted himself into a corner to such an extent that anyone who questions his claims is immediately labelled a liar or an agent of the cover-up. I'm sorry but it just won't wash, it's just an easy way for Max to avoid having to answer direct questions and provide proof for his claims.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp