UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2002 > Dec > Dec 3

Re: Magonia Supplement 43 - McGonagle

From: Joe McGonagle <joe@ufology.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 12:19:34 -0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 10:24:42 -0500
Subject: Re: Magonia Supplement 43 - McGonagle

 >From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys@rogers.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 18:38:09 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Magonia Supplement 43

 >>From: Joe McGonagle <joe@ufology.org.uk>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 16:54:33 -0000
 >>Subject: Re: Magonia Supplement 43

 >>>From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys@rogers.com>
 >>>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 22:45:12 -0400
 >>>Subject: Re: Magonia Supplement 43


Thanks for the response, Stan. I see that you are corresponding
on-List in several threads at this moment, so I'll try to avoid
any lengthy discussion here.

 >>Just because information is withheld, it does not mean that such
 >>information amounts to conclusive proof of the ETH, which seems
 >>to me to be the inference which you are making- do you find it
 >>difficult to accept that there could be other information which
 >>the authorities would prefer to withhold, for instance, the
 >>participation of the U.K. in certain enquiries/operations?

 >I am not inferring that any particular bit of evidence amounts
 >to conclusive proof of the ETH. I am saying that the blacked out
 >and whited out portions of CIA and NSA UFO documents mean that
 >the government is witholding information about UFOs. Court
 >decisions are based on a whole web of info not on a single bit
 >of conclusive data.


I am sorry, I read your comments about the obliterated
information in the context of your belief that Roswell
represents military posession of alien technology, ergo the
withheld information must relate to that premise. I see form
your comments that that is not what you meant.

 >>What I am getting at is that I accept the various Governments
 >>are withholding information about UFOs, but much of that
 >>information is bound to be of a trivial nature. Of the material
 >>that is withheld but is not trivial, it most likely relates to
 >>operational systems or processes which they may have good
 >>to keep classified. There is no reason to think that they are
 >>withholding absolute proof of the ETH.

 >What possible basis is there for the "most likely" above?? If
 >they have any data on recovered crashed saucers and alien
 >bodies, that would certainly appear to be absolute proof of the

This assumption is based on the fact that the military must use
their defence systems and procedures in order to evaluate the
capabilities and activities of unidentified aircraft (or indeed
natural phenomena that may mimmick intelligent control, etc).
There is very little in the released records concerning the
technology or procedures in use by the UK military in this
respect. As an example, Fylingdales and B.M.E.W.S. is mentioned
in passing as having been consulted, but nothing is disclosed
about what systems were checked within those departments, how
long it took to obtain a response from them, or how much was
determined by any traces. Another example is the involvement of
DI55 being mentioned in some documents, but hardly any
information about the systems, procedures, capabilities and role
of DI55.

It seems reasonable that any such similar information is likely
to be withheld, for possibly justifiable reasons.

The real point is that there is real evidence that Fylingdales,
DI55 and B.M.E.W.S. exist in spite of the secrecy surrounding
them, and that they are consulted in some UFO cases, but there
is no trace of any similar evidence for the posession of any
extraterrestrial artifacts. Of course, it is possible that the
US doesn't share such information with the UK, but UK military
technology is equally capable (or incapable) of establishing the
nature of UFOs.


 >I am sure many government people who do know what is going on
 >about UFOs feel it is perfectly justified. If they know, for
 >example, that UK or USAF or Soviet aircraft attacking UFOs have
 >been shot down they might be very reluctant to let the public
 >and other pilots know. I, for one, don't want technical data out
 >on the table.

I don't disagree with what you say above, but the key to the
statement is the word "many". It is your premise that at least
one UFO (as in Alien flying machine) has been in the possession
of the military for over 50 years. During that period, many
thousands of people will have come into contact with that
information in a military or Government role. It seems
extraordinary to me that in all that time, not one Shayler-type
personality has been charged with attempting to disclose it.

There have been trials in the US and the UK of spies who passed
information relating to cryptography, the submarine sensor
network, military satellite technology, Nuclear technology, etc.,
yet none concerning captured ET technology? Not a single
whistle-blower worthy of a trial?

This seems to me to be the most damning indictment of the
crash/retrieval scenario.


Joe McGonagle

[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com