On Jun 5, 7:03 am, "H." <hbo...@charter.net> wrote:
"Cujo DeSockpuppet" <c...@petitmorte.net> wrote in
messagenews:h09f3j$cdn$2@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
"Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A."
<scie...@zzz.com> wrote in
news:34851090-42c9-42ce-9159-37fbb2486468@j20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
On Jun 3, 9:37 am, "Hagar" <ha...@sahm.name> wrote:
"Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A."
<scie...@zzz.com> wrote in
messa
genews:9a373861-741d-4a78-8e4c-553d80846c83@k2g2000yql.googlegroups.com
...
On Jun 2, 6:13 pm, "Hagar" <hs...@surewest.net>
wrote:
"Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A."
<scie...@zzz.com> wrote in
messagenews:42a0743e-9521-4ee2-a343-91e3683187d0@r16g2000vbn.googleg
rou
ps.com...
On Jun 1, 9:32 am, "H." <hbo...@charter.net>
wrote:
"Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers
A.S.A."<scie...@zzz.com> wrote
in message
news:61aca553-dd6e-4400-96e8-3428ed6a2ebb@j18g2000yql.googlegroups.
com
...
Put a cork in it, LipFlapper. You are hereby
ordered to put on your
tin-foil
hat, sit in the nearest cornfield and wait for
the UFO. Your annual
ana
l
probing is due again.
Let me ONCE AGAIN remind you and your kind, these
groups are NOT for
9- year old bed-wetters (VD-VAC: pay attention),
useful idiots are
your regular run of the mill debunkers. They are
for HONEST
researchers ONLY.
For some reason, that is even STRANGER than
extraterrestrials, time
travel and warp speed; debunkers do not seem to
know that they have
been officially BANNED from posting on these
democratic newsgroups!!
They keep posting like they haven't been warned,
repeatedly.
So let us do this one more time, and hopefully the
FINAL time,
because it is now time for the FINAL SOLUTION in
regards to debunkers
and their ilk. Ilk, you ask? YES, this also applies
to debunker
sympathizers, supporters, enablers, apologists,
followers, admirers,
devotees, disciples and friends of debunkers. They
are also on the
DO NOT POST list. This is STRAIGHT from the
Homeland Insecurity
Agency (HIA)!
Please govern yourself accordingly.
These groups are for honest researchers ONLY!!
************************************
Like you ??? Bwahahahahahahahahahaahahaaaaaaaa
Oh no, we have another Bwa-bwa-bwaer. I thought we
got rid of Davis
about 10 years ago? Where do the debunkers drag
these fools up, the
gutters and sewers. That WOULD explain a lot!
Yep, Mike Davis kicked your ass too. Admission noted.
I don't think there is anyone that has not kicked
Holeflappers ass.
After all he is one step below a Mongoloid Idiot.
H.
Dear Mr. NSA spOOk "H"eroin: Again, these groups are for honest
researchers ONLY. They are NOT for spOOks, useful idiots, dolts,
cretins, fools, schmucks and scumbags. Since you are all of those,
you are not welcome here with civilized people. Get it? Good, now
git!
BRITISH MoD EXPERT TELLS WHY HE VIEWS SOME UFOs AS E.T.//Nick Pope
Says Mystery Craft Often Penetrate UK Defenses
[From 1991 until 1994, Nick Pope worked the "UFO desk" at Air
Secretariat
2-A, British Ministry of Defense. His job was to assess UFO reports
for any
possible defense significance. He found that his predecessor had
treated all
UFO reports as automatically mundane and essentially trivial. But
Pope,
though not a "believer," decided to do his job as if the true
significance of
any UFO report was actually unknown until studied. What he learned
gradually
convinced him that at least some UFOs were most certainly
technological
objects of unknown origin, potentially of great significance to the
defense
of Great Britain. In June of 1996, he published a book called "Open
Skies,
Closed Minds" which described his personal evolution as a UFO
investigator
and his views on the seriousness of UFO phenomena.
CNI News editor Michael Lindemann met with Nick Pope on November 17,
1996,
during a UFO conference at Blackpool, England. Pope is 31 years of
age,
resides in London, and has worked as a civilian in various departments
of the
Ministry of Defense since 1985. He has not served in the armed forces.
Though
he left the UFO desk in 1994, he still works for the MoD and now
pursues UFO
investigations outside his regular job. CNI News thanks Celeste for
transcribing the original interview tape.]
by Michael Lindemann
ML: In general, what does Secretariat Air Staff do?
NP: Secretariat Air Staff, a division of about 30 people, acts as an
interface between the Royal Air Force and everybody else, like the
press,
Parliament, and the public. When things happen that you have to, for
example,
prepare a press line on, we are the people who interface with the
military
and translate the raw data into a user-friendly description of what
happened.
And, of course, in doing so, we try to allay people's concerns.
ML: How did it happen that you were assigned to the UFO desk?
NP: I fell into the job by accident, really. I had been working in
another
part of Secretariat Air Staff in a job that I didn't particularly
like. Then,
during the Persian Gulf War, I was working in the Joint Operations
Center in
the Ministry of Defense Main Building. While I was doing that job, I
was
working directly for a chap [who] worked in Secretariat Air Staff 2.
He had
a vacancy coming up and he said, "Look, after the Gulf War is
finished,
instead of going back to your old job, why don't we do an internal
reshuffle,
and you can have the UFO job if you want it." So it didn't even go
through
the Personnel Section. I was never quizzed about my knowledge or
beliefs on
UFOs. It was simply the fact that he offered me the job, and I felt,
Well,
why not?
ML: Were you enthused about it?
NP: Part of me, if I'm being honest, was just so keen to get out of
the old
job that I would have jumped at anything. But, of course, I won't say
that I
wasn't a little bit intrigued to know why the Ministry of Defense was
looking
at UFOs.
ML: How would you characterize your previous interest or attitude
toward
UFOs?
NP: I would say that it wasn't so much a question of being skeptical;
I just
didn't know anything about it and had never really thought about it.
In my
entire life, as far as I can recollect, I had never read a complete
book on
UFOs.
ML: When you came to this job, to whom did you report, and what were
you
supposed to accomplish?
NP: The chain of command is quite complicated. Being a division which
worked
very closely with the military, there was a dual chain of command, so
you
would report up the political chain to somebody called Assistant
Undersecretary Commitments, and ultimately up to Defense Ministers,
the
Secretary of State for Defense. And then we were partly accountable
on the
military chain, too, to the Assistant Chief of the Air Staff and then
the
Chief of the Air Staff. But that's typical at Ministry of Defense. As
to what
we were supposed to do, the brief, in a nutshell, was to evaluate the
UFO
reports that came to us, to [see] whether there was a threat of any
sort to
the defense of the UK. Now, the party line was that unless there was
evidence
of any threat, that's where our involvement ended, and it wasn't then
our job
to go on and actually investigate each and every report. I took the
view that
you couldn't say there was no threat until you knew what these objects
were
that were being reported. So that gave me the hook upon which to hang
my
investigations. I inherited a situation where people were really doing
little
more than sending out letters. "Dear Mr. Smith, what you saw was
probably
aircraft lights, it's nothing to worry about. Thanks for writing.
Goodbye." I
didn't think that was really good enough. I started off playing by
those
rules. But in the course of my three years, from 1991 to 1994,
gradually my
views began to evolve. As I got more and more reports, I became
gradually
convinced that there was more to this than just aircraft lights.
ML: Can you point to any event, or sequence of events, that caused you
to
decide there was really something important here?
NP: I think the moment where I really felt, "Okay, this is it, I'm not
playing any more," was a wave of sightings that occurred on the 30th
and 31st
of March, 1993. We had several hundred reports that came our way. Many
of the
witnesses were police. A lot of police in the southwest of the
country, in
Devon and Cornwall, saw something. Now, as with all of these big
waves of
sightings, quite a lot of the reports were fairly mundane, lights in
the sky.
But even so, it was quite late at night -- most of these reports were
between, say, 1:00 and 1:30 in the morning -- and because there were
police
officers on night patrol, you're dealing with more than average
recognition
training, and people used to being out and about, and used to seeing
lights
and other things in the sky. Repeatedly, I heard the phrase, "This was
like
nothing I'd ever seen before in my life." People were genuinely quite
spooked
by this.
What was generally reported was two lights, flying in a perfect
formation,
with a third, much fainter light -- our old friend the flying
triangle,
really. The lights were described as being in a triangle formation.
It's
difficult to say, of course. It's quite possible they could have been
three
separate things flying in formation, but the impression from talking
to
witnesses was that this was a triangular craft with lights mounted on
the
underside, at the edges. The most interesting reports, of course, were
the
ones which occurred at close distance. There was a family in
Staffordshire
who apparently saw this thing so low -- and they described it as
either
triangular or diamond shaped -- that they leapt into their car and
tried to
chase it. They didn't succeed, although at one point they thought it
was so
low that it had actually come down in a field. It wasn't there when
they got
to it. They described a low, humming sound, a very low-frequency
sound. They
said you didn't just hear this sound, you felt it, like standing in
front of
a bass speaker.
The really intriguing thing was that this object, whatever it was,
then
proceeded to fly over two military bases. It was seen by the guard
patrol at
RAF Cosford, about three or four people, [who] made an instant report
of
this, obviously because it had flown over their base. They checked
radar.
There was nothing on the screens, nothing at all, and there was
nothing
scheduled to fly. No military or civil aircraft should have been
airborne in
that area at all. They phoned the nearby base at RAF Shawbury, about
12 miles
away from Cosford. The meteorological officer there took the call. He
was a
man with about eight years experience of looking into the night sky
and then
doing the weather report for the next day. So he knew his way around
objects
and phenomena. Now, to his absolute amazement, he saw a light in the
distance, coming closer and closer. That light eventually resolved
itself
into a solid structured craft that he saw again flying directly over
the
base, but at much closer proximity than the guard patrol at Cosford
had seen
it. He estimated that the height of the object was no more than 200
feet.
Its size, he said, was midway between a C-130 Hercules transport
aircraft and
a Boeing 747. He heard the low hum, too. He had not spoken to any
other
witnesses, except the Cosford people, who I don't think had reported
the
sound. He reported this low-frequency hum. Perhaps most disturbingly
of all,
he reported this thing throwing a beam of light down at the nearby
countryside and fields just beyond the perimeter fence at the base.
And this
light was tracking backwards and forwards, he said to me, "as if it
was
looking for something." The beam of light then retracted, and the
craft moved
off. It was traveling very slowly, I should say, probably no more than
20 or
30 mph. Then it gained a little bit of height, and then it just shot
off to
the horizon in little more than a second. Needless to say, that was a
description I had come across many times in other UFO reports, the
virtual
hover to the high-Mach accelerations in an instant.
I launched a full investigation. I made all the usual checks, trying
to track
down aircraft movement, satellite activity, airships, weather
balloons,
meteorites, etc., etc. I drew a blank -- with one exception -- and
then put
a report up the chain of command. The exception was a ballistic
missile
early warning sensor at RAF Fylingdales, in North Yorkshire. It is
estimated
that at some stage in the night there had been a rocket reentry of, I
think,
Cosmos 2238, which might have caused a very brief firework display in
the
high atmosphere. It's just possible that some of the vague lights-in-
the-sky
sightings might have been explained in that way, although Fylingdales
didn't
seem very sure on whether [the satellite re-entry] was actually going
to be
visible from the UK at all. But, clearly, it wouldn't explain the
sighting
of the family in Staffordshire and, most importantly of all, the
direct
overflight of the military bases, particularly the meteorological
officer's
report. He had obviously seen a structured craft. This to me really
[refuted]
any idea that these things are of no defense significance. You had a
craft
which, whatever it was, had penetrated our defense region. It wasn't
on our
radar, and we hadn't got our air defense fighters out. So whether it
was
extraterrestrial or not, there was something which we all should have
been
very concerned about.
The debate got bogged down in the search for Aurora, the alleged
hypersonic
replacement to the SR-71 Blackbird. We were chasing our tails trying
to find
out whether there was such a thing. We were asking the Americans, "Are
you
operating a prototype aircraft in our airspace?" That, of course, was
nonsense. You simply would not do that from a diplomatic and political
point
of view. It would undermine the entire structure of NATO if you were
putting
things through someone else's airspace, particularly a close ally,
without
seeking the proper diplomatic clearance. But we had to ask. And the
Americans, having had similar reports, I guess, since the Hudson
Valley wave
[New York state, mid-1980s], had been quietly asking us if we had some
large,
triangular shaped object that could go from 0 to Mach 5 in a second.
Our
response was that we wished we did. This was the bizarre situation:
that we
were chasing the Americans, and the Americans were chasing us.
Meanwhile, I
suspected a third party was having a laugh!
ML: You ran this up the chain of command, and you went through all the
necessary procedures. Did you, in the end, hit a blank wall? Was
there any
follow-through, any aftermath to this, any inkling that policy was in
motion
over this?
NP: I put a report up the chain of command, and it ended up on the
desk of
the Assistant Chief of the Air Staff, who is an Air Vice Marshall. The
report
ended up on his desk, but to be fair, I had made pretty much all of
the
checks that could possibly be made, so while he was undoubtedly
interested in
it, he could say little more than, "Well, this is interesting, good
investigation, well done, but there is nothing further we can do." I
do have
some sympathy because, of course, so much of ufology is a study of
something
that isn't there anymore. So the critics would say that he should
have done
more, but I'm not sure that there is that much more that he could do.
I think
the report did change attitudes, albeit in a very subtle and gradual
way. It
made people in the chain of command think. It was the first time I
could
recall a UFO report ending up on the desk of the Assistant Chief of
the Air
Staff, to look at it from a defense and national security viewpoint.
Maybe it
got him thinking.
Certainly when I socialized with my RAF colleagues, I would find that
they
were a little bit more receptive to the idea of UFOs -- and by that I
mean
perhaps even an extraterrestrial explanation for this -- than you
might have
supposed. One of the reasons for that was that so many RAF pilots had
actually seen things themselves. Many of them have never made an
official
report. I had one chap tell me that he had seen something over the
North
Sea. I asked him why he hadn't reported it, and he said, "I don't want
to be
known as Flying Saucer Fred for the rest of my career."
But there were some reports occasionally made up the military chain of
command. On the fifth of November 1990, a flight of Tornado aircraft
were
returning to the UK across the North Sea when they were overtaken at
high
speed by a UFO. They reported it. They speculated that it might be a
Stealth, but my impression was that they were only saying that because
it was
the only thing they knew how to say. But this was really interesting,
because
you had pretty much the best jet in the RAF just made to look totally
ineffective by being overtaken and left standing by this object,
whatever it
was.
Now, questions have been asked in our Parliament about this very
recently, in
the Autumn of 1996. The official line from the Ministry of Defense
is, "Yes,
this happened. No, we don't know what it is, but we say that it is of
no
defense significance." How can it possibly be of no defense
significance when
your best jet is left for standing by a UFO? And, again, how can it
be of no
defense significance when your air defense region is routinely
penetrated by
structured craft?
ML: This seemingly irrational denial of significant UFO events could
be
interpreted as evidence of a deliberate cover-up. What are your views
on
that?
NP: I found no evidence to support a cover-up in Britain. I think,
without
trying to sound too arrogant, that I would have gotten a few hints in
three
years if there had been someone doing my job but on a covert basis,
not least
because the one thing they would have needed beyond anything else was
access
to the raw data of the witnesses, and never once in three years had
any
witness complained that I had sent someone around to the house.
ML: How about your view on cover-ups, say, among the Americans? Any
sense of
that?
NP: That was a little more complicated. The one thing that I tried to
do very
quickly in my tour of duty was to establish contact with an American
opposite
member, because I thought it was sensible to tap into the expertise
which I
was sure must exist there, and to exchange data, given that Britain
and
America work very closely on all sorts of other defense issues. I made
extensive inquiries both through the American Embassy in London and
through
the British Embassy in Washington, but I drew a complete blank. I
couldn't
find anyone who claimed to be investigating UFOs for the [U.S.]
government.
I was told, "No, since Project Blue Book was closed down in 1969 we
just
have not done it anymore." Now, I found that bizarre and, I would
have to
say, a bit at odds with authenticated Freedom of Information
documents, which
seem to suggest that various agencies in America have been up to their
eyeballs in UFO research. But, for whatever reason, I simply couldn't
get
access. And it was my perception that -- I have to be careful what I
say of
my close allies and friends, of course -- certainly the full story was
not
being told, and the true nature of involvement and the true situation
had not
really been made public in the States.
But in Britain, I do think that if anything has been covered up about
UFOs
corporately, it's just how little we know; there's a coverup of
ignorance and
prejudice. Time and again when you would brief people, they would
repeatedly
say, "Of course, I don't believe in UFOs." You'd be talking about a
structured craft of unknown origin -- you'd be talking, say, about a
near
miss between a UFO and a civil airliner -- but the moment you use the
word
"UFO," people just switched off. They didn't want to know. You were
dealing
with someone's belief system and, you know, the language is incredibly
biased. So if you talk about unauthorized penetration of the UK air
defense
region, people will listen. But if you talk about a UFO, they won't,
although
you had just been talking about the same thing, using different
language.
It's a question of mindset, as well. The Ballistic Early Warning
Center at
Fylingdales was saying that they frequently got fireballs on their
screens,
and they say that they flash across at speeds of several thousand
miles an
hour. And the question was put to them, "How do you know that they
are
fireballs?" And they said, "Well, because they go very fast." Now,
that is
the view that I was up against, and that is the paradigm you have to
challenge if you want anyone to take this seriously.
ML: Lately in Great Britain there have been a number of serious UFO
incidents. One apparently occurred in the region called the Wash near
Skegness on October 5 [see CNI News 2.15 of October 16, 1996],
involving many
military and police witnesses. What update can you give on that?
NP: The incident on the Wash was fascinating because there were
sightings
reported by the police at Skegness, and various other witnesses,
including
the crew of a civil oil tanker. People were seeing green and red
lights in
the sky. Now at first sight that might have indicated some sort of
aircraft
activity, but this was pretty much staying in the same place, and it
continued to stay there for some hours. Simultaneously, this was
picked up on
several different radar systems, both military and civil. The most
bizarre
thing about this is that jets were not scrambled. This to me seems
quite
extraordinary: that you can have a visual sighting of a UFO, which has
clearly penetrated our air defenses, whatever it is, coupled with this
thing
showing up on several different radar screens, yet our air defense
aircraft
sit there quite casually on the ground. Now, that poses the question,
"Why?"
And it is my understanding that a member of Parliament here has raised
that
very question with Secretary of State for Defense, [asking], "What is
the
standard practice about scrambling jets? What has to happen before our
air
defense aircraft get off the ground here?" The incident remains
unexplained,
but clearly raises some serious questions about the way in which we
police
our air defense region.
ML: Now that you're well away from the UFO desk at Ministry of
Defense, are
you continuing to pursue your research? What are you working on now?
NP: At the moment, I'm working on the abduction mystery. I'm writing a
book
which is to be called "The Uninvited." In Britain it's scheduled for
June
1997, published by Simon and Schuster. It attempts to be an overview
of the
abduction phenomenon, with part two of the book being a series of
cases that
people won't have come across before, with various abductees telling
their
own stories, with a minimum of spin from me. So that's taking up all
of my
time at the moment. But I continue my research into UFOs and
abductions on a
private basis. I was touched by this subject when I was doing it
officially,
and like many who are touched by it, you find that you simply can't
walk away
from it.
ML: Undoubtedly you are aware of nay-sayers who respond to all these
claims
of UFOs with a variety of theories ranging from "honest mistakes" to
various
forms of psychopathology, hoaxes, and so forth. For yourself, coming
out of
the Ministry of Defense environment, and having had some experience
with a
fairly hard edge of the phenomenon, how do you respond to those types
of
remarks?
NP: Many skeptics raise entirely valid points, and my official
research and
investigation certainly [supported] the fact that nine out of ten UFOs
have
conventional explanations. They are either misidentifications, or some
sort
of psychological or psychopathological explanation, or simply somebody
making
it up because they're fantasy-prone. [But] that to me does not explain
the
whole story. It seems to me there is a technology on display which
goes
beyond the cutting edge of our own. People talk about prototype
aircraft, but
in my experience you simply don't fly those over populated areas where
they
can be photographed and put on the front page of the next morning's
newspaper. If that's your best bit of hardware, you just don't risk
it like
that. And you don't fly into other people's air space without
diplomatic
clearance, either. I concentrate on the science. I'm interested in the
UFOs
seen by the police and military witnesses. I'm interested in the near
misses
that pilots report, where their aircraft nearly collide with these
things.
I'm interested in the visual sightings backed up by radar. I'm
interested in
the military bases that are overflown by these things. I'm interested
in the
cases where you have radiation readings on the ground. These are no
lights in
the sky. These are not misidentifications or fantasy prone
individuals. This
is a cutting-edge technology being reported by reliable, trained
observers,
and it is something that goes beyond what we can do. That to me
suggests that
if it is not ours, it belongs to someone else. If that technology is
better
than ours, then the extraterrestrial hypothesis seems to me the best
explanation.
+++===+++===+++===+++===+++===+++===+++===+++===+++===+++===+++===++
+===+++===+++===+++===+++===+++===+++===+++===+++===+++===+++===+++===+
++===+++===+++===
UK PRESS TOLD NOT TO REPORT BLACK TRIANGLE UFOs
UFO Magazine Says Media Got "D-Noticed" On Mystery Aircraft
[CNI News thanks Ian Read for sending the following text, which ran in
the
Bristish magazine UFO Reality, issue 5.]
A top BBC executive let slip recently that there is a D-Notice on
media
reporting of the so-called "Black Triangle."
The executive, who cannot be named, is the former producer of a very
popular
BBC science program. He told one of our team that the black triangle
"craft,"
first witnessed by hundreds in the Hudson Valley region of the United
States
[mid 1980s], then by thousands in Belgium (1989-90) and more in
Britain, has
been "heavily D-Noticed" by the government. For this reason the BBC
will not
be reporting on the enigmatic craft, no matter how many witness
reports they
receive.
According to the former science program producer, the reason the
government
has seen fit to slap a restrictive notice on reporting of the Triangle
is
because -- so far as the government has secretly informed the BBC --
the
craft is part of a new secret military project, and as such must be
protected
under the secrecy laws. If this is the case, however, it surely begs
the
question: If the so called Black Triangle is a secret military
aircraft, then
what is it doing hovering over residential areas and frightening
people half
to death? Something somewhere simply does not add up.
[CNI News adds: As noted by Nick Pope in the previous article, it is
very
unlikely that the "Black Triangle" aircraft can be explained as a
secret
military project. Its technical capabilities and flight behavior
suggest it
neither belongs to any earthly government nor falls within the
envelope of
human technology. Perhaps, then, the British media are actually being
warned
away from reporting on a fairly obvious example of "alien" craft
intruding
with impunity into British airspace.]