UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Dec > Dec 31

Re: Faux Disclosure In The Works?

From: David Rudiak <drudiak.nul>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 10:48:33 -0800
Archived: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 17:01:27 -0500
Subject: Re: Faux Disclosure In The Works?


>From: Joe McGonagle <joe.mcgonagle.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 15:59:18 +0000
>Subject: Re: Faux Disclosure In The Works?

>>From: David Rudiak <drudiak.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 10:07:58 -0800
>>Subject: Re: Faux Disclosure In The Works?

>>Without speculating on what may or may not be going on now, 160
>>total files for 60 years of investigation does not remotely
>>constitute "disclosure." That's not even 3 cases a year. Give
>>me a break!

><snip>

>I am afraid that you are a victim of exaggerated claims about
>the efficacy of the MoD UFO desk (grandiosely and misleadingly
>described as the 'British UFO Project' and invalidly compared
>to 'Project Blue Book').

>You must also have missed the first paragraph that I wrote
>specifically about the release:

>"1. There are a total of 160 files managed by DAS and DI55 which
>will be released. These cover a period from the late 1970s up to
>2007, including a series of files containing FoIA requests and
>their responses on the subject of UFOs from 2005 to present."

So instead of an anemic 160 cases in 60 years, it's a 'whopping'
160 cases in 30 years, or around 5-6 cases a year. How does this
change anything? By comparison, France's UFO projects (SEPRA,
GEIPAN) have collected and analyzed 40 times that many UFO cases
in the same period of time. Either the British are totally
incompetent in investigating unidentified objects penetrating
their air space, with possible consequences for national
security, or the real serious investigation was being done
elsewhere (not unlike the actual situation with Project Blue
Book). Either way, release of these 160 cases hardly constitutes
"disclosure."

>I think I need to explain a few things here.

>Prior to 1967, UFO files in the UK were routinely destroyed
>after 5 years. Due to the efforts of UK NICAP Committee chairman
>at the time (Julian Hennessey), an undertaking was given to
>Members of Parliament that UFO files would be retained in the
>future. Consequently, there are very few files which have
>survived from before 1962 (5 years before 1967).

>Files are normally released to The National Archives by the
>MoD after 30 years. In fact, some have been released early, and
>files are currently available at TNA from 1962 up to 1978 at
>least.

>The 160 files due to be released mainly cover from 1978-2007,
>though there are some earlier documents within them.

>Contrary to your apparent expectation, a file may contain
>correspondence, multiple reports of UFOs, discussion of UFO
>policy, newsclippings, etc. It is not usually the case that
>details of a specific incident are exclusively housed in an
>individual file, though there are notable exceptions, such as
>the so-called 'Cosford Incident', and the 'Rendlesham file'.

This still sounds like a lot of doubletalk. The number of cases
being released seems absolutely pathetic for that period of
time.

>Most of the reports comprise a report form (one or two pages),
>often with just handwritten remarks by the UFO desk written on
>them. Occasionally, there is some internal discussion of the
>report (often along the lines of the UFO desk asking DI55 what
>they think, and DI55 responding that it was/wasn't a satellite).
>Less frequently there is more substantial dialogue about a
>particular case, but rarely more than 7 or 8 pages in addition
>to the report.

So, in other words, however you mince words, basically around
160 reports, most of them sounding like little or no
investigation was actually done. Again, I ask, how does this
constitute "disclosure".

Imagine a city where several thousand murders have taken place
over a period of 30 years. However, the police only bother to
"investigate" 160, most of which, after only cursory
investigation, are written off as "suicides" or "accidental
death". Then, after 30 years and much public outcry, the police
release those 160 cases and claim they demonstrate that there is
little or no murder taking place in the city. Why would anybody
think a whitewash was going on?

>Your raised expectations aren't your fault - one could get the
>impression from the 'Head' of the 'UFO Project' that cases were
>regularly investigated in-depth, but in fact this was a very
>rare occurrence. The 'UFO Project' consisted of a single person
>who divided their UFO activities with other duties, typically
>spending in the order of 25 percent of their time on UFOs.
>Allowing for holidays and weekends, that only amounts to 50
>man-days of resource per _year_ and much of that time would be
>spent drafting responses to dignitaries such as MP's on the topic of
>UFOs and responding to enquiries from members of the public.
>There wasn't the time or the resources to _really_ investigate
>reports, just time to assess whether or not they were of Defence
>significance in the vast majority of cases.

So totally inadequate staffing and investigation, like assigning
one police detective for only a day to investigate several
murders a week.

Again, I ask, if this was really the total extent of UK UFO
investigation, how does this consitute true "disclosure"?

>The quality of material will generally be better in the DI55
>files, since the cases had already been filtered to a large
>extent by the public-facing UFO desk (which was it's 'Raison
>d'etre').

Or just like Project Blue Book - mostly a public relations snow
job while most of the serious investigation was being done out
of the public eye.

>It will be interesting to see how many recorded radar/visual
>cases there are for example, following claims elsewhere that
>there are rather a lot of them. As I wrote at my site:

>"Within the next three years, everyone will be able to see the
>true level of interest and effectiveness demonstrated by the MoD
>on the topic of UFOs for themselves. This release will be a
>source of disappointment or vindication for some, and
>embarrassment for others. Conspiracy theorists who believe that
>the various governments of the world are hiding secrets about
>the 'reality' of alien visitation will see this move as another
>whitewash effort by the MoD and will probably continue their
>self-sustaining 'campaign for the truth', when the 'truth'
>really will be 'out there' - just that they don't believe it!"

>Will the hype match the goods? We will soon see for ourselves.

So in summary, you yourself have stated in various ways:

1. There are only 160 files for about 30 years of
'investigation' by the British MoD.

2. Most of the files constitute only a few pages.

3. Only one person was assigned to the public UFO Desk, a part-
timer.

4. Most of the files out of the UFO Desk have already been
written for public consumption.

5. Therefore what we will see will be a relative handful of
mostly inadequately investigated cases by an inadequately
staffed UFO Desk turning out mostly watered-down versions for
the public, with maybe a few interesting, properly investigated
cases thrown into the mix.

6. People who complain that this isn't true 'disclosure' are
just "conspiracy theorists" who will never accept the 'truth'
that there is nothing to dislcose.

Thanks for clarifying the U.K.'s 'disclosure' for us Joe.


David Rudiak



Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast

See:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/subscribers/


[ 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