Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here Our Bookstore is OPEN Over 5000 new & used titles, competitively priced! Topics: UFOs - Paranormal - Area 51 - Ghosts - Forteana - Conspiracy - History - Biography - Psychology - Religion - Crime - Health - Geography - Maps - Science - Money - Language - Recreation - Technology - Fiction - Other - New Search... for keyword(s)   in Page Titles in Book Title/Author in Contents of Pages ---other searches--- Metacrawler Yahoo FAST Search Google Altavista Dogpile Inference Find Northern Light IWon.com MSN Search Las Vegas Sun Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1998 -> May -> Here

From: David Clarke <dclarke14@compuserve.com> 
Date: Sat, 2 May 1998 20:07:50 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 02 May 1998 21:33:49 -0400
Subject: Re: Max Burns

From Dave Clarke, Sheffield, UK

Well everyone has now had the chance to read the long nonsensical
rant by Max Burns - who is obviously "well rattled" (as they say
round here) because his spurious claims have been questioned and
shot down in proverbial flames.

I think we can see where Max is coming from by his first
reference to myself , viz Dave Clarke "who has also supposedly
been carrying out extensive research" into the Sheffield UFO
crash incident.

Supposedly, eh?

So I just "supposedly" pursuaded an MP to raise questions twice
in the House of Parliament on the events and forced the MOD to
admit they DID carry out a previously denied military exercise
over the north of England on the night of this alleged crash?

This is REAL research work - not loony speculation about space
aliens in triangles.

Readers of my previous UFO Updates postings on this case, with
the sampling of my extensive research and investigation, might
like to ponder on Max's use of the word "supposedly."

I must have been dreaming then over the last 12 months, when
right from day one, and in my employment as a news  reporter for
the Sheffield Star I just "supposedly" wrote the first story ever
to appear in print on the case (pg 1 The Star, March 25, 1997), I
just supposedly penned a 25 page investigation report for BUFORA
in June 1997,  I just supposedly acted as consultant to the BBC1
Mysteries episode on the case (November 1997) just "supposedly"
contacted, all the 20 plus witnesses and countless police, RAF,
fire and mountain rescue personnel  (presumably I've just made up
all the three notebooks full of shorthand notes from these
people??) Well first of all  let's establish my credentials and
why I feel I have the right to comment authoritatively on this
case.

The facts are, whether Max, Miles or any of the other
post-X-Files re-write UFO history brigade like it or not, I have
been actively investigating UFO claims for more than half my
adult life, more than 15 years.

I have written five books on the subject, the first of which was
published in 1990 and entitled Phantoms of the Sky (Robert Hale,
London), and is even today being cited as recommended reading by
authors such as Peter Brookesmith and Paul Devereux.

In addition, I have contributed to many other books including
Fortean Times 1947-87, BUFORA's Phenomenon and penned literally
dozens of research and investigation articles on the subject, not
just in newspapers but in journals ranging from Fortean Times to
UFO Magazine, and interviewed literally hundreds, if not
thousands of witnesses the length and breadth of the country as
my extensive files of statements and taped transcripts testify.

Not only am I actively involved in research and investigation (to
the extent that I graduate to PhD in tradition and folklore of
the subject at Sheffield University this year), but I am paid to
investigate and write about the subject too via my work capacity
as a journalist, which has provided me with extensive contacts
within the RAF, armed services, emergency services and House of
Parliament.

As a testament to my experience, I was asked by BUFORA to become
Press Officer for the association earlier this year and took up
the offer. Hardly an offer that would be made to someone with no
experience or credibility, as Max would have it.

Despite Max's naive claims to the contrary, being interested in
UFOs does not mean you have to believe in Extraterrestrials
piloting them. This is juvenile talk. Do you have to believe in
God to write about religion? Come off it Max, who are you
kidding?

I don't wish to bore readers of UFO UpDates with too much detail,
but lets cut away the drivel and reduce this case to one of two
possibilites.

First there is Max's claim - viz.that  the event was caused when
a 300plus foot Extraterrestrial triangular flying object was
being chased across the Pennines by both (according to Max) a
light plane and a squadron of RAF Tornados. Said slow-moving ET
craft then shot down (or "vanished") one of the pursuing
Tornados, which subsequently disappeared off the face of the
earth or crashed into a reservoir near Sheffield. It's pilot and
co-pilot were killed and recovered in secret by the X-File blue
beret crash retrieval team. Despite the two pilots deaths, this
earth shattering news never reached the national media or the
families of the two unfortunate pilots.

Let's subject this claim to critical scrutiny. Who saw this UFO
shoot down/capture/vanish this Tornado fighter? Answer: not one
single witness.

Who saw the wreckage of this aircraft, or the bodies of these
pilots being recovered?  Answer: Not one single witness. Who is
claiming this happened?

Answer: Max Burns and Miles Johnston. Not one of the original
witnesses, any of the residents, the police, or anyone else have
ever claimed any UFO involvement in this case before these two ET
believers got themselves in a tizzy about it. Right from the word
go, everyone knew the incident was caused by a low-flying
aeroplane until the UFO buffs turned up on the scene.

The most Max can say in his defence is that he knows of three
witnesses who saw flying triangular shaped objects in the sky
that night. Max has only spoken to two of these witnesses, and
one of those two is a personal friend of his. She saw the
triangle at 9.30, half an hour before the supposed "crash"
occured, at exactly the same  time when we know two RAF Tornado
strike aircraft were operating at 250ft on a low-flying exercise
above Derbyshire. I say she saw an RAF aircraft, and I challenge
anyone to prove otherwise.

So that's all we have to back Max's claims. Three sightings of
triangular shaped objects, none of them at the time of the
alleged "crash", and all three of them were more than likely
misidentified aircraft.

Secondly, these are the conclusions I have reached, and I
challenge any rational, sane human being to claim there is more
evidence for Max's ET triangle than there is for what follows:

Despite what Max and his supporters claim, the event which
sparked this whole "crash" mystery occurred around 10.06 pm when
a group of witnesses, including a police special constable, saw
what they described as a low-flying aircraft pass overhead and
appear to crash into the moors west of Sheffield, followed by a
loud bang and flash. The bang coincided with the second of two
sonic booms recorded by the British Geological Survey in
Edinburgh, the first being at 9.52 pm, 14 minutes previously.

Subsequently, emergency services from four counties (2
helicopters, 141 mountain rescue personnel, 100 plus police, fire
and dog handlers, etc) scoured 40-50 square miles of moors, but
found no trace of any crash, and called the operation off 15
hours later, about 2pm the next day.

Although the RAF denied at the time they were exercising, the BGS
confirmed officially that the sonic booms "could only have been
caused by a military aircraft reaching supersonic speed possibly
while performing a mid-air turn."

Exactly a year later,  I enlisted my MP Helen Jackson to question
the MOD in Parliament about the cause of the event. Mrs Jackson
tabled 7 questions about the event, and asked a further question
one week later. In reply Labour Under Secretary for Defence John
Spellar admitted that a number of military aircraft were taking
part in a low-flying night exercise over the Peak District on the
evening of March 24, 1997, in preparation for possible outbreak
of hostilities in the Gulf.

Aircraft, including two GR1 Tornado bomber from RAF Marham in
Norfolk were involved in low-flying training exercises during
this exercise as low as 250ft in altittude, just minutes before
the "sightings" and explosions reported by members of the public
in Derbyshire and South Yorkshire.
After the MOD made these admission I gained direct access to the
RAF's Press Office in Whitehall and asked the current incumbent
Alan Patterson directly if these aircraft had been scrambled to
intercept a triangular shaped UFO as per Max Burns' claims.

The answer was an unequivocal denial - no this was just a
pre-planned and pre-booked training exercise. No aircraft were
lost, there were no accidents, no pilots died.

 If this denial is a lie, it can and will be challenged in
Parliament and would no doubt lead to the fall of Britain's
elected Government if and when the bereaved families of the two
Tornado pilots who were "vanished" begin to ask where their
husbands and fathers have been for the past year.

That's basically it. The Sheffield "crash" was, as they say in
Full Monty Land, "summat and nowt".

Max Burns and Miles Johnston can rant and rave all they like
about this case, but all it comes over as is just sour grapes.
They have not done any kind of investigation worth its salt, they
have started off with a belief system and made up the evidence to
fit it as they have gone along, ignored all the evidence and
eyetwitness testimony that dosen't fit their theory, and set
their target on me for daring to put an alternative point of view
to the unsubstantiated claims they have been peddling.

Max's naive statement "Why does it have to be something else? Why
can't what witnesses say they saw be exactly what they say they
saw?"  exactly sums up the case. Why should we believe every wild
and outrageous claim that people make?  If someone came into my
newspaper office claiming they saw a pink elephant floating past
would I have to accept that was literally what they had seen?
And if I wrote a story claiming "Sheffield Man Saw Pink Elephant
- There's No Doubt About it Because he says so", I wouldn't be
holding down a job very long.

Our function in Ufology, as Andy Roberts rightly points out,
should be to rigorously question every wild and uncorroborated
claim, and not be afraid to question witnesses and evidence to
reach the TRUTH.

Anything else is just succumbing to irrational belief.

I rest my case.

But two final brief points:

1. Max in his rant claims the copy of the CID log on the
Sheffield incident I sent him was fabricated by myself for some
bizarre reason. The fact is that it was given to me in Hammerton
Road Police Station by Detective Inspector Christine Wallace on
the afternoon of 29 March 1997, and in fact contains her own
handwriting in the margin. Perhaps Max might like address his
claims to Det Insp Wallace?

2. Max and Miles claim that I have "innacurately reported"
details of his charge for an alleged offence and pending trial in
private correspondence.
Not so. All the details I have reported are accurate and straight
from the charge sheet held by Sheffield Magistrates Court. Any
"legal action" which might be likely in respect of this would be
directed against both Max and Miles for discussing details of the
prosecution and defence evidence in public before it is heard
before a jury - it is what is known in English law as
"prejudice". It is not against the law to report that someone has
appeared in court charged with an alleged offence, as reports of
this kind appear every day in thousands of local and national
newspapers.

. It is against the law, as Max and Miles have done, to claim
that person was "set up"  etc etc as they have done to all and
sundry via the Internet before the trial is held. This kind of
claim is surely prejudicial and unfair on the other two
defendants in the case who have not had the opportunity to put
their defence before the trial later this year.

If Max did not want his legal situation airing in public, he
should not have raised it in the first place and used it to claim
he was being "harrassed" by the authorities due to his
involvement in the Sheffield incident. He can't have it both
ways.