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 ><snip> >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 http://www.saatchionline.com/gacoc Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ 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 - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp