UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2013 > Jul > Jul 12

Re: Colin Andrews Re: We're Done Here, Now Go Away

From: Gerald O'Connell <goc.nul>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 11:50:10 +0100
Archived: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 11:49:17 -0400
Subject: Re: Colin Andrews Re: We're Done Here, Now Go Away

>From: Joe McGonagle <joe.mcgonagle.nul>
>To: post.nul
>Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 15:42:56 +0100
>Subject: Re: Colin Andrews Re: We're Done Here, Now Go Away - Cox

>>From: Gerald O'Connell <goc.nul>
>>To: <post.nul>
>>Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2013 12:56:28 +0100
>>Subject: Re: Colin Andrews Re: We're Done Here, Now Go Away -  Cox

>>>From: Dave Haith <visions1.nul>
>>>To: <post.nul>
>>>Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2013 09:48:44 +0100
>>>Subject: Colin Andrews Re: We're Done Here, Now Go Away - Cox


>To add to Colin Andrews' comments via Dave Haith, there was a
>noticeable absence of photographic evidence from the batches
>that were released in the early phases of the project. This was
>the case in instances where witnesses were independently
>recorded as having provided such evidence to the MOD.

>Any researcher of a forensic (and, perhaps, pedantic) mindset
>who wished to query the 'completeness' of the release might find
>this to be one amongst a number of suitable angles to pursue.

>It would also be interesting to hear Nick Pope's views on this
>particular matter, as I believe he may be aware of evidence that
>was submitted to the MOD but which has not been released.

>When I raised the issue with Clarke on a UK list he showed a
>distinct lack of interest. I fact I was left with the impression
>that I was farting in church. So it goes...

My view on this is pretty straightforward. There are copies of
photographs in some of the files. There are also references to
submitted photographs being returned to the sender. I know of no
instance where photographs were submitted but did not appear in
the files and were not returned to the sender, but even if there
are, I would assume that they were returned unless there is some
evidence to the contrary, e.g. a complaint from the sender that
they had not been returned plus their non-appearance in the
files and no explanation given.

One reason why more images appear in later years is likely to be
that they were digital images, easily copied and transmitted via
email - there would be little justification for returning such
images, other than in the case of copyright protection, but that
doesn't seem to be much of an issue.

The bottom line is that the MoD can't release what they don't
have. If you have some evidence that images were submitted and
not returned or included in the files, I would be interested in
seeing it.

OK, a couple of issues relating to file AIR 2/16918:

1. The Bush/Hull case. Negatives were returned but there is
reference to  images taken in the course of working on the
negatives. These images are not in the file.

2. The Henson/Taunton case. When interviewed by Nick Redfern,
Anne Henson said that the official who visited her to
investigate the case took photographs of objects/lights similar
to or the same as the ones she had reported. These are not in
the file.

It is obvious that that they cannot release what they haven't
got, but it is equally obvious that we cannot be sure that
haven't got things that they say they haven't got. There is
prima facie evidence that the release is either selective or
incomplete. If governments could be shown to be honest and
truthful, then it would be easy to accept their word.
Unfortunately, the evidence is to the contrary, and there will
always be doubt.

Gerald O'Connell

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.

[ 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