I'm still on the lookout for inroads or at the very least to cause noisy problems... I hope you are all joining this crusade!! What a ridiculous notion to think we would actually believe there is nothing of any significance to the vehicles we are observing in our skies..
The streets of Britain have as many cameras as they do people, why are we so fascinating and they are not? Are we supposed to believe that even though we live in a society that likes us to fear our enemies within and be suspicious of our own neighbours that these structured craft are nothing to fear, not there, or nothing of any significance?!!! Yet some spotty scrote hanging out on a street corner drinking alcho pops is?!!!
Well in this instance the old philosophical anecdote that "we see things AS we are" really, really fits.... They must think we've got nothing but space for rent in our heads.
As I was wandering through cyber space looking for clues.. finding myself going down quite bizarre twists and turns looking for any indication of EU policy on intrusions into UK airspace by unknowns I found myself wearily looking at the same old same old, when something caught my eye.. It was conspicuous by it's lack of title... Just a few letters and numbers... So I downloaded the doc. When I opened it I nearly fell off the floor! In fact I was so taken aback I nearly panicked and unplugged my computer!! Silly I know.. this doc is online but sometimes you let the paranoia get the better of you... if only for a second... I could hardly read it.. I was so excited I tried to read the whole thing at once.. eyes skipping everywhere... making connections that I thought I'd never be able to, because this kind of information is supposed to be TOP SECRET and above.
Some of you will have seen it but I know it's not that well known. I have shared this with a few people who I would have expected to be able to quote it verbatim but they hadn't heard of it...
This document outlines strict AF policy and protocol on dealing with a UFO incident including who is responsible for what and to whom. As I read I thought what if the MoD are not lying when they say they don't investigate. What if investigations are the responsibility of the USAF? Look at their presence here in the UK.... menwith Hill Listening base is a spit away from me and has over the past few years had five more 'golf balls' installed under the Terrorism act whilst decommissioning the rest of them throughout Europe. I have good 'intel' from someone who is actually in the US Army dismantling them and has been doing for a few years... Seems to me they hold most of the Major Arcana and but we still hold onto the fool.... There will never be a day when they lay all the cards on the table so we need to find a way to force their hand or at the very least see what is reflecting back at us in their aviators.
So what's the policy?
AIR FORCE REGULATION 200-2
(AFR 200-2, 12-AUG-1954)
*AFR 200-2
AIR FORCE REGULATION THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
No. 200-2 WASHINGTON, 12 AUGUST 1954
INTELLIGENCE
Unidentified Flying Objects Reporting (Short Title: FLYOBRPT)
Paragraph
Purpose and Scope . . . . . . . . . . 1
Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Responsibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
ZI Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Release of Facts . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Purpose and Scope: This Regulation establishes procedures for information and evidence material pertaining to unidentified flying objects and sets forth the responsibility of Air Force activities in this regard. It applies to all Air Force Activities.
2. Definitions:
a. Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOB) relates to any airborne object which by performance, aerodynamic characteristics, or unusual features, does not conform to any presently known aircraft or missile type, or which cannot be positively identified as a familiar object.
b. Familiar Objects - Include balloons, astronomical bodies, birds, and so forth.
3. Objectives: Air Force interest in unidentified flying objects is twofold: First as a possible threat to the security of the United States and its forces, and secondly, to determine technical aspects involved.
a. Air Defense. To date the flying objects reported have imposed no threat to the security of the United States and its Possessions. However, the possibility that new air vehicles, hostile aircraft or missiles may first be regarded as flying objects by the initial observer is real. This requires that sightings be reported as rapidly and as completely as information permits.
b. Technical Analysis thus far has failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for a number of sightings reported. The Air Force will continue to collect and analyze reports until all sightings can be satisfactorily explained., bearing in mind that:
(1) To measure scientific advances, the Air Force must be informed on experimentation and
development of new air vehicles.
(2) The possibility exists that an air vehicle of revolutionary configuration may be developed.
(3) The reporting of all pertinent factors will have a direct bearing on the success of the technical
analysis.
4. Responsibility:
a. Reporting. Commanders of all Air Force activities will report all information and evidence that may come to their attention, including that received from adjacent commands of the other services and from civilians.
b. Investigation. Air Defense Command will conduct all field investigations within the ZI, to determine the identity of any UFOB.
c. Analysis. The Air Technical Intelligence Center (ATIC), Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, will analyze and evaluate: All information and evidence reported within the ZI after the Air Defense Command has exhausted all efforts to identify the UFOB; and all information and evidence collected in overseas areas.
d. Cooperation. All activities will cooperate with Air Defense Command representatives to insure the economical and prompt success of an investigation, including the furnishing of air and ground transportation, when feasible.
5. Guidance. The thoroughness and quality of a report or investigation into incidents of unidentified flying objects are limited only by the resourcefulness and imagination of the person responsible for preparing the report. Guidance set forth below is based on experience and has been found helpful in evaluating incidents.
a. Theodolite measurements of changes of azimuth and elevation and angular size.
b. Interception, identification, or air search action. these actions may be taken if appropriate and within the scope of existing air defense regulations.
c. Contact with local aircraft control and Warning (AC&W) units, ground observer corps (GOC) posts and filter centers, pilots and crews of aircraft aloft at the time and place of sighting whenever feasible, and any other persons or organizations which may have factual data bearing on the UFOB or may be able to offer corroborating evidence, electronic or otherwise.
d. Consultation with military and civilian weather forecasters to obtain data on: Tracks of weather balloons released in the area, since these often are responsible for sightings; and any unusual meteorological activity which may have a bearing on the UFOB.
e. Consultation with astronomers in the area to determine whether any astronomical body or phenomenon would account for or have bearing on the observation.
f. Contact with military and civilian tower operators, air operations offices, and so forth, to determine whether the sighting could be the result of misidentification of known aircraft.
g. Contact with persons who might have knowledge of experimental aircraft of unusual configuration, rocket and guided missile firings, and so forth in the area.
6. ZI Collection. The Air Defense Command has a direct interest in the facts pertaining to UFOB's reported within the ZI and has, in the 4602d Air Intelligence Service Squadron (AISS), the capability to investigate these reports. The 4602d AISS is composed of specialists trained for field collection and investigation of matters of air intelligence interest which occur within the zone of the ZI. This squadron is highly mobile and deployed throughout the ZI as follows: Flights are attached to air defense divisions, detachments are attached to each of the defense forces, and the squadron headquarters is located at Peterson Field, Colorado, adjacent to Headquarters, Air Defense Command. Air Force activities, therefore, should establish and maintain liaison with the nearest element of this squadron. This can be accomplished by contacting the appropriate echelon of the Air Defense Command as outlined above.
a. All Air Force activities are authorized to conduct such preliminary investigation as may be required for reporting purposes; however, investigations should not be carried beyond this point, unless such action is requested by the 4602d AISS.
b. On occasions - after initial reports submitted - additional data is required which can be developed more economically by the nearest Air Force activity, such as narrative statements, sketches, marked maps, charts, and so forth. Under such circumstances, appropriate commanders will be contacted by the 4602d AISS.
c. Direct communication between echelons of the 4602d AISS and Air Force activities is authorized.
7. Reporting. Information relating to unidentified flying objects will be reported promptly. The method (electrical or written) and priority of the dispatch will be selected in accordance with the apparent intelligence value of the information. In most instances, reports will be made by electrical
means: Information over 24 hours old will be given a "deferred" precedence. reports over 3 days old will be made by written report prepared on AF Form 112, Air Intelligence Information report, and AF Form 112a, Supplement to AF Form 112.
a. Addressees:
(1) Electrical Reports. All electrical reports will be multiple addressed to:
(a) Commander, Air Defense Command, Ent Air Force Base, Colorado Springs, Colorado.
(b) Nearest Air Division (Defense) (For ZI only.)
(c) Commander, Air Technical Intelligence Center, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio.
(d) Director of Intelligence, Headquarters, USAF, Washington 25, D.C.
(2) Written Reports:
(a) Within the ZI, reports will be submitted direct to the Air Defense Command. Air
Defense Command will reproduce the report and distribute it to interested ZI intelligence
agencies. The original report together with the notation of the distribution effected then
will be forwarded to the Director of Intelligence, Headquarters, USAF, Washington 25,
D.C.
(b) Outside the ZI, reports will be submitted direct to the Director of Intelligence,
Headquarters, USAF, Washington 25, D.C. as prescribed in "Intelligence Collection
Instructions" (ICI), June 1954.
b. Short Title. "UFOB" will appear at the beginning of the text of electrical messages and in the subject of written reports.
c. Negative Data. The word "negative" in reply to any numbered item of the report format will indicate that all logical leads were developed without success. The phrase "not applicable" (N/A) will indicate that the question does not apply to the sighting being investigated.
d. Report Format Reports will include the following numbered items:
(1) Description of the object(s):
(a) Shape
(b) Size compared to known object (use one of the following terms: Head of a pin, pea,
dime, nickel, quarter, half dollar, silver dollar, baseball, grapefruit, or basketball) held in
the hand at about arms length.
(c) Color.
(d) Number.
(e) Formation, if more than one.
(f) Any discernible features or details.
(g) Tail, trail, or exhaust, including size of same compared to size of object(s).
(h) Sound. If heard, describe sound.
(i) Other pertinent or unusual features.
(2) Description of course of object(s):
(a) What first called the attention of the observer(s) to the object(s)?
(b) Angle of elevation and azimuth of the objects when first observed.
(c) Angle of elevation and azimuth of the objects upon disappearance.
(d) Description of flight path and maneuvers of object(s).
(e) Manner of disappearance of objects(s)
(f) Length of time in sight
(3) Manner of observation:
(a) Use one or a combination of the following items: Ground-visual, ground-electronic,
air-electronic. (If electronic, specify type of radar.)
(b) Statement as to optical aids (telescopes, binoculars, and so forth) used and description
thereof.
(c) If the sighting is made while airborne, give type of aircraft, identification number, altitude,
heading, speed and home station.
(4) Time and date of sighting:
(a) Zulu time-date group of sighting.
(b) Light conditions (use one of he following terms): Night, day, dawn, dusk.
(5) Locations of observer(s). Exact latitude and longitude of each observer or Georef position,
or position with reference to a known landmark.
(6) Identifying information of all observer(s):
(a) Civilian - Name, age, mailing address, occupation.
(b) Military - Name, grade, organization, duty, and estimate of reliability.
(7) Weather and winds-aloft conditions at time and place of sightings:
(a) Observer(s) account of weather conditions.
(b) Report from nearest AWS or U.S. Weather Bureau Office of wind direction and
velocity in degrees and knots at surface, 6,000', 10,000', 16,000', 20,000', 30,000',
50,000', and 80,000', if available.
(c) ceiling.
(d) Visibility.
(e) Amount of cloud cover.
(f) Thunderstorms in area and quadrant in which located.
(8) Any other unusual activity or condition, meteorological, astronomical, or otherwise, which
might account for the sighting.
(9) Interception and identification action taken. (Such action may be taken whenever feasible,
complying with existing air defense directives.)
(10) Location of any air traffic in the general area at the time of the sighting.
(11) Position title and comments of the preparing officer, including his preliminary analysis of the
possible cause of the sighting(s).
(12) Security. Reports should be unclassified unless inclusion of data required by c and d below
mandates a higher classification.
8. Evidence. The existence of physical evidence (photographs or materiel) will be promptly reported.
a. Photographic:
(1) Visual: the negative and two prints will be forwarded, all original film, including wherever
possible both prints and negatives, will be titled or otherwise properly identified as to place,
time, and date of the incident
(see "Intelligence Collection Instructions" (ICI), June 1954)
(2) Radar: Two copies of each print will be forwarded. Prints of radarscope photography will
be titled in accordance with AFR 95-7 and forwarded in accordance with AFR 95-6.
b. Materiel: Suspected or actual items of materiel which come into the possession of any Air
Force Echelon will be safeguarded in such manner as to prevent any defacing or alteration
which might reduce its value for intelligence examination and analysis.
9. Release of Facts: Headquarters USAF will release summaries of evaluated data which will inform the public on this subject. In response to local inquiries, it is permissible to in form news media representatives on UFOB's when the object is positively identified as a familiar object (see paragraph 2b), except that the following type of data warrants protection and should not be revealed: Names of principles, intercept and investigation procedures, and classified radar data. For those objects which are not explainable, only the fact that ATIC will analyze the data is worthy of release, due to many unknowns involved.
By Order of the Secretary of the Air Force:
Official: N.F. Twining
Chief of Staff, United States Air Force
K.E. THIEBAUD
Colonel, USAF
Air Adjutant General
DISTRIBUTION:
S; X
ONI, Department of the Navy 200
G-2, Department of the Army 10
There is a lot more to the doc but I'm still mooching over it... More disections to come,as you can already see it's pretty specific and detailed....
Maybe it's about time we started hounding the DoD too... For information on their attempted interceptions or involvement in cases of unkown structured craft in UK Airspace.
Follow the discussion on my forum http://www.ufomagazine.co.uk/ufoforum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1909&PN=1
Saturday, 12 December 2009
Tuesday, 8 December 2009
MoD Closes UFO Desk After 50 Years.
The UFO Desk Has Left The Building.
Most of us know something fishy is going on, after all who trusts anyone in government? There’s always something fishy going on…! But for the serious ufologist it’s nothing short of having them blow a raspberry at us, accompanied by a two finger salute!! We mostly of the opinion this is another attempt to discredit the serious ufologist who dedicates their own personal time to uncover their secrets and to pull the wool over the eyes of the people. So many have been discovered and the logic of our arguments cannot be disputed. So many credible witnesses are now talking about the subject with knowledge and conviction that people who were formerly undecided now have taken the step over to our side. Whether they have become actively involved or not does not matter… the fact people are now accepting that we are seriously onto something. All efforts by the governments and military just seem to strengthen our case.
Action Stations!!!!
My suggestion is this. We can no longer report sightings to the Ministry of Defence BUT we can report sightings to the police.
I spoke to both Nick Pope and Gary Heseltine who is a police officer in the Central Crime Division who runs a website called PRUFOS. (Police Reporting UFOs)http://www.prufospolicedatabase.co.uk/
I asked them both if the police had any specific protocols when people report UFOs to them. The reply was a unanimous yes, they do.
Gary said;” Each police force has a reporting procedure for the public and police officers who wish to report a UFO sighting. They are obliged to fill out a list of MOD questions on a set form. After that they are obliged to send that report onto the MOD. As a result of the MOD decision I am about to write to every Force in Britain asking them to re-route their future reports by the public to me! I can but try.”
Nick said;
“In theory, every police station, military base and commercial airport should have had copies of a standardized UFO reporting form, so that if they received sighting reports they could log the information and then forward it to the MoD for investigation. In practice, compliance was patchy. I tried to tighten up the system with reminders and as part of this process I think I reviewed, amended and reissued both the form and the guidance - but I can't recall the details of what I did.”
The Man from the Ministry
One of the first things I did was contact Nick Pope who ran the UFO desk for three years. He said;
“Of course MoD investigated UFOs. Look at the statement on their own web site, in the infamous “How to report a UFO sighting” document, which they edited this week to sneak the story out in the hope it wouldn’t get noticed. It states ‘MoD will no longer respond to UFO sightings or investigate them’. You wouldn’t say ‘no longer’ unless you were describing something you previously did do!”
I then told him that I had found a statement from Dr David Clarke which was taken from a pod cast regarding the move of the documents to the archives. A few pages into this document there was a sub heading; Belgium UFOs, which contained a statement from a ministry official which states quite categorically “We have never detected a structured craft in UK airspace that has not been identified” Nicks Response was “I’ve spoken to plenty of pilots (civilian and military) who have seen structured craft in our airspace (sometimes corroborated by radar evidence) that have remained unidentified after investigation!”
He also said “I don’t see this as a prelude to disclosure. I had an indication this was coming, but thought the original plan was to terminate the project shortly after the final batch of files had been sent to the National Archives, probably in 2011.”
Here is a link to an article in the guardian regarding Nick’s opinion on the closure.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/04/ufo-ministry-of-defence/
The public response.
So what is the general consensus of opinion? Well apart from the obvious stunned outrage there have been a few interesting comments made on my forum and facebook page. Here is one of the most notable ones and I’m quoting verbatim. (http://www.ufomagazine.co.uk)
“I've never thought of the UFO Desk as the main department of the MoD when it comes to UFOs. To me it has only ever been there because the public expected there to be such a department. Defence Intelligence and Scientific Intelligence is where the main UFO research is carried out in my opinion, and those departments cannot be accessed by the public!!
If you look at areas outside the main MoD at Whitehall interested in UFOs you'll come up against places like Rudloe Manor and High Wycombe. Funny that just before the shut down of the UFO Desk it moved from London to High Wycombe! So has it really closed down or has it just been an exercise to reorganise things, hide it all from Joe Public, and prevent easy access to information given the huge volume of FOIA requests on UFOs?
Ask the MoD about UFOs from now and it will be like the USA and Blue Book, you will be told, first we have no department for that and second, we have released all our files to the National Archives. In other words, go away!
I know what I believe.”
Was the opinion of Astrophysicist Andrew Pike (PHD) who has written numerous articles for various popular UFO magazines and was also officially involved in the research of what may have occurred in Rendlesham Forest in 1980 which involved the US AF.
Ministry of Deceit.
Responses to applications for freedom of information were always accompanied by a letter from the MoD which explained;
“You may find it useful if I explain that the sole interest of the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence in reporting sightings of unidentified flying objects (UFOs) is to establish whether they have any bearing on the defence of this country.
There is no organisation in the Ministry of Defence appointed solely for the purpose of studying reports of such objects, and no staff are employed on the subject full time. The reports we receive are referred to the staff in the department who are responsible for the air defence of the United Kingdom, and they examine the reports as part of their normal duties.
Since our interest in UFOs is limited to possible defence implications we have not carried out a study into the scientific significance of the study of these phenomena. Unless there are defence implications we do not attempt to identify sightings and we cannot inform observers of the probable identity of the object seen. The department could not justify expenditure of public funds on investigations which go way beyond the pure defence significance.
We have to recognize that there are many strange things to be seen in the sky, but we believe there are adequate explanations for them. They may be satellite debris re-entering the Earths atmosphere, ball lightening, unusual cloud formations,
And meteorological balloons. Aircraft lights, aircraft at unusual angles or many other things.”
BUT….. On the MoD home page it say’s this;
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/FreedomOfInformation/PublicationScheme/SearchPublicationScheme/HowToReportAUfoSighting.htm
“The MOD has no opinion on the existence or otherwise of extra-terrestrial life. However, in over fifty years, no UFO report has revealed any evidence of a potential threat to the United Kingdom.
The MOD has no specific capability for identifying the nature of such sightings. There is no Defence benefit in such investigation and it would be an inappropriate use of defence resources. Furthermore, responding to reported UFO sightings diverts MOD resources from tasks that are relevant to Defence.
Accordingly, and in order to make best use of Defence resources, we have decided that from the 1 December 2009 the dedicated UFO hotline answer-phone service and e-mail address will be withdrawn. MOD will no longer respond to reported UFO sightings or investigate them. The ongoing programme to release Departmental files on UFO matters to the National Archive will continue.”
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ufos/
European Union, Do they have a policy?
Whilst trying to figure out how to open another inroad for the information we want I talked to one of my forum members who are, in my book, the most tenacious MoD hound in history. He told me that his next line of attack would be to approach the EU. Considering we have now signed the Lisbon Treaty he thought that he may find an inroad within central government. Alas that was not to be. He sent me this message…
“Well we have signed the Lisbon treaty even though we had no vote or choice that may work in our favour. I will look at all the inroads into central government as all policy has changed now. One thing I am is definitely a MoD hound, so Europe cannot be harder.
I was reading last night that Keyhoe had the same problem with Congress in the states. This must be one hell of a secret, NICAP was hammered by CIA etc.. The same thing may happen here? I am not a conspiracy theorist but this action by the UK government smacks of what I have been avoiding for many years”.
After a considerable amount of digging he discovered this;
91998E0984
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 984/98 by Eryl McNALLY to the Commission. UFO sightings within the European Community
Official Journal C 310 , 09/10/1998 P. 0152
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0984/98 by Eryl McNally (PSE) to the Commission (2 April 1998)
Subject: UFO sightings within the European Community
One of my constituents has enquired about Europe's position on Unidentified Flying Objects. In his letter, he reports two witnessed sightings of UFOs in Britain and also in Belgium, both involving military personnel. When he approached national ministers for their response, he felt it inappropriately lax, and this led him to question the foundations of national and European security in these matters. He also implies the possibility of a cover-up which may well be detrimental to European citizens and the notion of security in general.
In light of the above, what measures does the Commission feel are required to ensure that European citizens are reassured as to their security in relation to Unidentified Flying Objects? Indeed, is there any European policy on UFOs or room for elaboration on any existing policy?
Answer given by Mr. Santer on behalf of the Commission (15 April 1998)
The Commission takes the view that it has no jurisdiction in this matter.
(http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:91998E0984:EN:HTML)
This was penned in 1998… will there be any policy change? I doubt it but if they have, we will find it.
Then he posted a comment on the forum about how he had rung the local police to report a UFO sighting seen by a group of people.
I had an unusual discussion with a police operator the other week. A UFO was reportedly seen by numerous people in a car park not far from a local town, I phoned the police to report this sighting as one inevitably tends to do. The response on the other end of the line was rather chaotic to say the least? The operator had no idea of how to take my report or who to report to? I had to explain my local police policy for reporting UFO's and asked them to contact the MoD or part with the number so I could contact them, my comp was down at the time I had to use other methods to get the sighting reported etc.
To my disbelief I could not be helped, so after a drawn out discussion, I was passed over to someone else who promptly gave me a crime number after taking said statement. With a promise that the MoD would be informed if not I would receive a call back stating so.
All I'm waiting for now is the victim support leaflet to be put through my front door, and I will have definite proof that, my local police authority has no idea of how to take UFO reports from the local population. 20+ mins on the phone telling the police what they have to do, and how they policies work in regards to taking UFO reports. I truly give up, talk about banging your head on a brick wall??????????
In the end after not knowing what to do they gave him a crime number!!!!!
It was the 17th of November 2009, 20:40pm.
The object seen was circular with green and red flashing lights, running silently. The report was given to the Cambridgeshire Constabulary. They did not know how to take the report and were advised by Mr J.M that they needed to report it to air sac 2a. They gave him crime no 518.
He contacted them today and was told that the police officer who answered his call said he ‘thought’ it had been reported to the civil aviation authority.
How can we fight back?
After I’d stopped laughing about the crime number and the images of aliens in handcuffs sat in the back of a police car and their vehicle on a tow truck after being impounded, I picked myself up off the floor and in a flash had a moment of absolute clarity…. Maybe, just maybe I could start a lawful rebellion? I sat and thought the possibilities through and formulated a way to work the system to our advantage for a change.
Would it work? Could it work? Yes I decided it could seriously work… If everyone who cares about freedom of information on UFOs gets in on the act and promotes this sensibly.
Hopefully we can make it standard practice and maybe we can still find a way of wording the FOI requests so that we can discover if they have had any incidents where they scrambled jets. We might be able to find out about some incidents by sending FOI requests regarding police involvement. If they respond to an actual sighting then that’s more witnesses.
If we can the stations to pass the information to Gary Heseltine we might be able to keep an eye on the sky and correlate some serious data which would give us a more accurate picture of UK incidents than the one we are afforded now.
It’s not infallible but, if we can make the change, get people to start reporting sightings to the police and it becomes the norm they won’t be able to ignore it. We have a right BY LAW to send FOI requests on policing and crime statistics. We’ll just have to leave the MoD playing with their toys while we get on with the business of UFOs and little green men.
Please, get involved, spread the word, and make a difference by helping this gain momentum in whatever way you can.
Thank You.
Most of us know something fishy is going on, after all who trusts anyone in government? There’s always something fishy going on…! But for the serious ufologist it’s nothing short of having them blow a raspberry at us, accompanied by a two finger salute!! We mostly of the opinion this is another attempt to discredit the serious ufologist who dedicates their own personal time to uncover their secrets and to pull the wool over the eyes of the people. So many have been discovered and the logic of our arguments cannot be disputed. So many credible witnesses are now talking about the subject with knowledge and conviction that people who were formerly undecided now have taken the step over to our side. Whether they have become actively involved or not does not matter… the fact people are now accepting that we are seriously onto something. All efforts by the governments and military just seem to strengthen our case.
Action Stations!!!!
My suggestion is this. We can no longer report sightings to the Ministry of Defence BUT we can report sightings to the police.
I spoke to both Nick Pope and Gary Heseltine who is a police officer in the Central Crime Division who runs a website called PRUFOS. (Police Reporting UFOs)http://www.prufospolicedatabase.co.uk/
I asked them both if the police had any specific protocols when people report UFOs to them. The reply was a unanimous yes, they do.
Gary said;” Each police force has a reporting procedure for the public and police officers who wish to report a UFO sighting. They are obliged to fill out a list of MOD questions on a set form. After that they are obliged to send that report onto the MOD. As a result of the MOD decision I am about to write to every Force in Britain asking them to re-route their future reports by the public to me! I can but try.”
Nick said;
“In theory, every police station, military base and commercial airport should have had copies of a standardized UFO reporting form, so that if they received sighting reports they could log the information and then forward it to the MoD for investigation. In practice, compliance was patchy. I tried to tighten up the system with reminders and as part of this process I think I reviewed, amended and reissued both the form and the guidance - but I can't recall the details of what I did.”
The Man from the Ministry
One of the first things I did was contact Nick Pope who ran the UFO desk for three years. He said;
“Of course MoD investigated UFOs. Look at the statement on their own web site, in the infamous “How to report a UFO sighting” document, which they edited this week to sneak the story out in the hope it wouldn’t get noticed. It states ‘MoD will no longer respond to UFO sightings or investigate them’. You wouldn’t say ‘no longer’ unless you were describing something you previously did do!”
I then told him that I had found a statement from Dr David Clarke which was taken from a pod cast regarding the move of the documents to the archives. A few pages into this document there was a sub heading; Belgium UFOs, which contained a statement from a ministry official which states quite categorically “We have never detected a structured craft in UK airspace that has not been identified” Nicks Response was “I’ve spoken to plenty of pilots (civilian and military) who have seen structured craft in our airspace (sometimes corroborated by radar evidence) that have remained unidentified after investigation!”
He also said “I don’t see this as a prelude to disclosure. I had an indication this was coming, but thought the original plan was to terminate the project shortly after the final batch of files had been sent to the National Archives, probably in 2011.”
Here is a link to an article in the guardian regarding Nick’s opinion on the closure.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/04/ufo-ministry-of-defence/
The public response.
So what is the general consensus of opinion? Well apart from the obvious stunned outrage there have been a few interesting comments made on my forum and facebook page. Here is one of the most notable ones and I’m quoting verbatim. (http://www.ufomagazine.co.uk)
“I've never thought of the UFO Desk as the main department of the MoD when it comes to UFOs. To me it has only ever been there because the public expected there to be such a department. Defence Intelligence and Scientific Intelligence is where the main UFO research is carried out in my opinion, and those departments cannot be accessed by the public!!
If you look at areas outside the main MoD at Whitehall interested in UFOs you'll come up against places like Rudloe Manor and High Wycombe. Funny that just before the shut down of the UFO Desk it moved from London to High Wycombe! So has it really closed down or has it just been an exercise to reorganise things, hide it all from Joe Public, and prevent easy access to information given the huge volume of FOIA requests on UFOs?
Ask the MoD about UFOs from now and it will be like the USA and Blue Book, you will be told, first we have no department for that and second, we have released all our files to the National Archives. In other words, go away!
I know what I believe.”
Was the opinion of Astrophysicist Andrew Pike (PHD) who has written numerous articles for various popular UFO magazines and was also officially involved in the research of what may have occurred in Rendlesham Forest in 1980 which involved the US AF.
Ministry of Deceit.
Responses to applications for freedom of information were always accompanied by a letter from the MoD which explained;
“You may find it useful if I explain that the sole interest of the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence in reporting sightings of unidentified flying objects (UFOs) is to establish whether they have any bearing on the defence of this country.
There is no organisation in the Ministry of Defence appointed solely for the purpose of studying reports of such objects, and no staff are employed on the subject full time. The reports we receive are referred to the staff in the department who are responsible for the air defence of the United Kingdom, and they examine the reports as part of their normal duties.
Since our interest in UFOs is limited to possible defence implications we have not carried out a study into the scientific significance of the study of these phenomena. Unless there are defence implications we do not attempt to identify sightings and we cannot inform observers of the probable identity of the object seen. The department could not justify expenditure of public funds on investigations which go way beyond the pure defence significance.
We have to recognize that there are many strange things to be seen in the sky, but we believe there are adequate explanations for them. They may be satellite debris re-entering the Earths atmosphere, ball lightening, unusual cloud formations,
And meteorological balloons. Aircraft lights, aircraft at unusual angles or many other things.”
BUT….. On the MoD home page it say’s this;
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/FreedomOfInformation/PublicationScheme/SearchPublicationScheme/HowToReportAUfoSighting.htm
“The MOD has no opinion on the existence or otherwise of extra-terrestrial life. However, in over fifty years, no UFO report has revealed any evidence of a potential threat to the United Kingdom.
The MOD has no specific capability for identifying the nature of such sightings. There is no Defence benefit in such investigation and it would be an inappropriate use of defence resources. Furthermore, responding to reported UFO sightings diverts MOD resources from tasks that are relevant to Defence.
Accordingly, and in order to make best use of Defence resources, we have decided that from the 1 December 2009 the dedicated UFO hotline answer-phone service and e-mail address will be withdrawn. MOD will no longer respond to reported UFO sightings or investigate them. The ongoing programme to release Departmental files on UFO matters to the National Archive will continue.”
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ufos/
European Union, Do they have a policy?
Whilst trying to figure out how to open another inroad for the information we want I talked to one of my forum members who are, in my book, the most tenacious MoD hound in history. He told me that his next line of attack would be to approach the EU. Considering we have now signed the Lisbon Treaty he thought that he may find an inroad within central government. Alas that was not to be. He sent me this message…
“Well we have signed the Lisbon treaty even though we had no vote or choice that may work in our favour. I will look at all the inroads into central government as all policy has changed now. One thing I am is definitely a MoD hound, so Europe cannot be harder.
I was reading last night that Keyhoe had the same problem with Congress in the states. This must be one hell of a secret, NICAP was hammered by CIA etc.. The same thing may happen here? I am not a conspiracy theorist but this action by the UK government smacks of what I have been avoiding for many years”.
After a considerable amount of digging he discovered this;
91998E0984
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 984/98 by Eryl McNALLY to the Commission. UFO sightings within the European Community
Official Journal C 310 , 09/10/1998 P. 0152
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0984/98 by Eryl McNally (PSE) to the Commission (2 April 1998)
Subject: UFO sightings within the European Community
One of my constituents has enquired about Europe's position on Unidentified Flying Objects. In his letter, he reports two witnessed sightings of UFOs in Britain and also in Belgium, both involving military personnel. When he approached national ministers for their response, he felt it inappropriately lax, and this led him to question the foundations of national and European security in these matters. He also implies the possibility of a cover-up which may well be detrimental to European citizens and the notion of security in general.
In light of the above, what measures does the Commission feel are required to ensure that European citizens are reassured as to their security in relation to Unidentified Flying Objects? Indeed, is there any European policy on UFOs or room for elaboration on any existing policy?
Answer given by Mr. Santer on behalf of the Commission (15 April 1998)
The Commission takes the view that it has no jurisdiction in this matter.
(http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:91998E0984:EN:HTML)
This was penned in 1998… will there be any policy change? I doubt it but if they have, we will find it.
Then he posted a comment on the forum about how he had rung the local police to report a UFO sighting seen by a group of people.
I had an unusual discussion with a police operator the other week. A UFO was reportedly seen by numerous people in a car park not far from a local town, I phoned the police to report this sighting as one inevitably tends to do. The response on the other end of the line was rather chaotic to say the least? The operator had no idea of how to take my report or who to report to? I had to explain my local police policy for reporting UFO's and asked them to contact the MoD or part with the number so I could contact them, my comp was down at the time I had to use other methods to get the sighting reported etc.
To my disbelief I could not be helped, so after a drawn out discussion, I was passed over to someone else who promptly gave me a crime number after taking said statement. With a promise that the MoD would be informed if not I would receive a call back stating so.
All I'm waiting for now is the victim support leaflet to be put through my front door, and I will have definite proof that, my local police authority has no idea of how to take UFO reports from the local population. 20+ mins on the phone telling the police what they have to do, and how they policies work in regards to taking UFO reports. I truly give up, talk about banging your head on a brick wall??????????
In the end after not knowing what to do they gave him a crime number!!!!!
It was the 17th of November 2009, 20:40pm.
The object seen was circular with green and red flashing lights, running silently. The report was given to the Cambridgeshire Constabulary. They did not know how to take the report and were advised by Mr J.M that they needed to report it to air sac 2a. They gave him crime no 518.
He contacted them today and was told that the police officer who answered his call said he ‘thought’ it had been reported to the civil aviation authority.
How can we fight back?
After I’d stopped laughing about the crime number and the images of aliens in handcuffs sat in the back of a police car and their vehicle on a tow truck after being impounded, I picked myself up off the floor and in a flash had a moment of absolute clarity…. Maybe, just maybe I could start a lawful rebellion? I sat and thought the possibilities through and formulated a way to work the system to our advantage for a change.
Would it work? Could it work? Yes I decided it could seriously work… If everyone who cares about freedom of information on UFOs gets in on the act and promotes this sensibly.
Hopefully we can make it standard practice and maybe we can still find a way of wording the FOI requests so that we can discover if they have had any incidents where they scrambled jets. We might be able to find out about some incidents by sending FOI requests regarding police involvement. If they respond to an actual sighting then that’s more witnesses.
If we can the stations to pass the information to Gary Heseltine we might be able to keep an eye on the sky and correlate some serious data which would give us a more accurate picture of UK incidents than the one we are afforded now.
It’s not infallible but, if we can make the change, get people to start reporting sightings to the police and it becomes the norm they won’t be able to ignore it. We have a right BY LAW to send FOI requests on policing and crime statistics. We’ll just have to leave the MoD playing with their toys while we get on with the business of UFOs and little green men.
Please, get involved, spread the word, and make a difference by helping this gain momentum in whatever way you can.
Thank You.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
