Re: Nick Pope's Credibility Blown
From: Joe McGonagle <joe.mcgonagle.nul>
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 23:56:42 +0100
Archived: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 05:38:32 -0400
Subject: Re: Nick Pope's Credibility Blown
I struggle to understand why anyone thought Nick Pope had any
credibility to start with.
This is the man who still pushes the "Cosford incident" as
unexplained, when in fact there is an obvious explanation for the
majority of the reports on 31st March 1993.
The same man who discussed an obvious image of a gull as "If I
was still there [on the UFO desk] I'd be looking at this very
closely. The object looks structured, symmetrical and metallic.
This man has caught something very interesting indeed."
The same man who claims to have investigated Alien abductions,
crop circles, and animal mutilations for the British Government
when he was "in charge of" "the British Government's UFO
Project", when according to the head of his department in 1997;
"Turning specifically to your comments concerning Mr Pope, I
should point out that he was a junior desk officer in the
Secretariat(Air Staff)2a section from 1991-1994 and was not in
charge of, or the head of any part of Secretariat (Air Staff)2.
Mr Pope was an executive officer and shared the support of one
administrative officer. Although Sec(AS)2a was, and still is,
the focal point for handling queries directed at the MOD in
connection with "unexplained" aerial sightings, during Mr Pope's
time such work represented a small part of his overall duties.
There were no staff working on this subject on a full-time basis
and this remains the case."
(DEFE24/2000 page 43)
and according to one of his successors, Linda Unwin;
"The first point to make is that there is no 'UFO Project'.
Handling of UFO sightings is a very small element of our work."
The same man who wrote about his own role while he was still in-
post; "There is no specific "UFO budget", excepting the staff
costs, i.e. around 20% of my salary, together with a tiny
percentage of some other salaries, reflecting my line
management's supervisory role." (DEFE24/1967 p.84)
The man who tried to persuade the Army Air Corps and the Royal
Navy not to take photographs of crop formations from helicopters
to help researchers (and was told quite firmly to get lost by
both services). (DEFE24/1955 p.24)
The same man who continues to portray the radiation readings as
hard evidence of something unusual at Rendlesham forest when in
fact the readings are meaningless.
The same man who espouses that all governments and UFO
researchers should disclose their records, yet writes to the MoD
with the intention of suppressing any material concerning his own
activities within the UFO field.
I could go on, including examples of failing to credit the work
of other people, more examples of "best ever" or "very
interesting" images or incidents with obvious explanations,
false accusations of dishonesty, and so on, but that would make
a book-length article.
In spite of all of the above, many people still fail to see
through his shallow veneer, while others prefer to simply ignore
it. In the end, ufology gets what it deserves.
Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast
These contents above are copyright of the author and
UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced
without the express permission of both parties and
are intended for educational use only.