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 Location: Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1999 -> Feb -> Re: The Sheffield Incident

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: David Clarke <dclarke14@compuserve.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 06:45:38 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 10:50:38 -0500
Subject: Re: The Sheffield Incident


>From: Martin Jeffrey <mbkc67@dial.pipex.com>
>To: <Updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: The Sheffield Incident
>Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 18:14:04 -0000

<snip>

>This case was nothing more than a mix of coincidence and
>hysteria inadvertantly caused by the police and Sheffield media.
>The RAF, broke the sound barrier over Sheffield and the Howden
>Moors twice and this coincided with sightings of a low flying
>aircraft.

<snip>

Martin's independent evidence bears out what I have been saying
about this 'incident' for the best part of two years.

As for the "over-ambitious investigator" to whom Martin refers:
Max Burn's most recent, voluminous, posts on UpDates are
indicative of his confusing fantasy with reality to the point
where he is actually playing a part in his own episode of the
X-Files - and this one has more holes in the plot than average.

The more he posts to the Internet, the more it become obvious
how little he knows about the geography of the area he is
discussing, the rules of evidence and even basic investigation
techniques.

I will dealing with his claims and allegations concerning my
"intimidation" of witnesses and other investigators in a
separate post.

My experience and qualifications - including a PhD from the
University of Sheffield, ten years working as an investigative
journalist, and a series of awards for my work - speak for
themselves.

I am keeping Mr Dagenhart, in particular, informed about what
Max is claiming and this may lead to separate action elsewhere.
Some of those people whom Max is invoking are now starting to
post their separate evidence to this List, and he will soon
find himself having to eat his own words.

All I ask is that readers who are interested in this 'incident'
should acquaint themselves with both sets of evidence before
making their own minds up. My account appeared in the UK UFO
Magazine in July/August last year and full updated 40 page
report will be available from the Independent UFO Network
shortly.

The twists and turns of this case have illustrated the dichotomy
that exists in the UK between serious ufology and the lunatic
fringe.

Anyone like myself who ventures into the muddy waters and tries
to take a serious and scientific look at the problem is
demonised and pilloried by that lunatic fringe.

Their only method of responding to reasonable questions about
their extreme claims is to throw the words "debunker", "skeptic"
and "cover-up" like confetti.

It's a highly convenient way of avoiding having to produce a
logical argument that adheres to the scientific method like the
rest of us have to follow. The word of Max is  all very
amusing for those of us watching from the outside - but what
worries me is the damage that it is doing to the reputation of
ufology as a whole.

How can any serious UFO investigator and researcher expect
scientists and Governments to take a serious look at the UFO
evidence when the subject is entertaining unscientific claims of
the kind he is promoting? One final point:

If Max wants to put an end to this saga once and for all, there
is a quite simple way of doing it. We can argue about it on
UpDates for years, but if he is so confident he has evidence
which can "prove" (his words) that NATO lost a jet over the Peak
District (with the loss of life) as a result of a UFO incident -
then he should take his evidence to the appropriate authorities
for an independent investigation.

It is a criminal offence in the United Kingdom to hide a dead
body or the remains of a dead body from the HM Coroner - and
that is in effect what Max is claiming has happened in this
case.

I challenge Max to present his "report" and conclusions to HM
Coroner for South Yorkshire. Christopher Dorries, at the
Medico-Legal Centre, Sheffield, by March 1 this year.

If Mr Dorries finds there is any evidence to support such a
claim I will accept my conclusions are wrong.

If Max fails to present his evidence by March 1 then it will be
obvious he has none, and readers can draw their own conclusions.

It's time to put up or shut up once again, Mr Burns.