Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here UFOs | Paranormal | Area 51 People | Places | Random Top 100 | What's New Catalog | New Books 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 Our Bookstore is OPEN Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1999 -> Jul -> Here

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 12:52:48 +0100
Fwd Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 09:05:03 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?


>From: David Clarke <crazydiamonds@compuserve.com>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Date: 18 July 1999 11:45
>Subject: UFO UpDate: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?


>>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
>>Subject: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
>>Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 18:35:48 +0100

>>-----Forwarded Message-----

>>From: Martin Jeffrey <martin-j@lineone.net
>>To: Hauntedscotland@listbot.com <Hauntedscotland@listbot.com
>>Date: 17 July 1999 17:10
>>Subject: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

<snip>

>>The above totally matches Mike France's statement to myself
>>during the investigation of "The Sheffield Incident" that "it is
>>a regular occurrence...people mistake aeroplanes taking off and
>>landing at Manchester airport or they mis-judge the height of an
>>aircraft when infact it is at a safe height."  Mike France 20th
>>April 1997

>>Again the above case has the same commitment and dedication from
>>the brave voluntary rescue teams combing over 25 square miles
>>just because of several reports.

>Hello,

>Of course Martin and Jenny have hit the nail on its proverbial head.
>The "regular occurrence" of yet another search for a crashed plane
>on the Peak District moors bears out what I have been trying to
>put across to the hard-of-hearing diehard UFO nuts for the last
>two years.

>Martin and Jenny know what they are talking about because they
>live in the Peak District, they are familiar with the toings and
>froings of aircraft and the dedication of the emergency services.

>Just because helicopters and search teams have been called out
>is not PROOF that something must have crashed.

>It is simply procedure - the police simply cannot take chances;
>if they receive a report they have to check it out.

Hi,

Yes, I echo all that. And, as I said in a couple of responses to
Max Burns the other day, my real fear is simple. Around here
these rescue teams are essential, but it is a huge drain on them
personally (because of the time and risk involved) and on local
taxpayers too. This must be true in many other locations
worldwide.

We do not begrduge false alarms because they may not be false
and chances cannot be taken with human life. Every now and then
lives are saved. What I certainly do begrudge is some stupid UFO
tale being invented in the absence of anything resembling real
evidence (as certainly would be true of last weeks case) - built
around a subject as serious as this.

Why? Because the danger is that crying wolf time after time
might - however subconsciously - put doubt in the minds of those
charged with a rescue mission on the grounds - its just another
stupid UFO misperception, when, of course, it might be a real
plane crash one of these days. These are not matters to be
trivialised and it is therefore very important that we act as
ufologists to prevent non stories built around them becoming
popularised and spread by the media and our own junk literature.

So, I applaud what David has done on these stories and deplore
any continued attempts to make mystery out of non events because
it is here far more than an academic point scoring exercise over
a UFO incident. One day someone might die as an indirect result
of the series of wild UFO crash stories that have driven the
authorities ro distraction and that in the UK are unquestionably
proliferating (I can think of four or five in the oast 2 - 3
years). As such those who promote them on the basis of no solid
evidence are not merely hurting UFOlogy they are (probably
without realising it) putting doubt in the minds of those who
need to act quickly, selflessly and without pondering if it is
just another UFO rumour.

In my discussions with Buxton police last week I told them of my
25 years UFO investigation. During that time I have been
involved in at least half a dozen alleged UFO/plane crash cases
that were in fact nothing of the sort. Mostly they are triggered
by meteors and satellite debris re-entries. Buxton told me their
experience is similar. But they cannot afford to take chances.

One good outcome is that, because of my contacts with places
like Jodrell, they have now put me on the contact list for such
incidents (their suggestion, I should add - not mine). I might
in some small way be able to advise if there is any substance to
a story. They knew, for example, that if a 'crashing plane' is
really a meteor a ufologist might learn that almost before
anyone because they will receive sightings from far and wide. A
spread over many miles of the same light sighting will rule out
a crashing plane and prove the phenomenon was high in the
atmosphere - such as a meteir or space junk burning up.

This could be an area where many investigators out there could
profitably aid the authorities. I would not have thought of it
myself until the police made the request of me on Wednesday.
Maybe you didnt either. But it makes good sense when lives are
at risk. Why not help just a little in a practical way. It could
be a lot more satisfying than forever accusing the government of
a cover up or forlornly chasing alien bodies.

I am not simply 'getting at' Max Burns here. Many of us look for
UFO mysteries in incidents that do not justify them.  Its a
tendancy I propose we all need to draw back from. This is one
situation (but far from the only one) where we have to consider
the inherent risks we take by playing political games with
serious matters. It is clearly vital that we learn to moderate
our claims in positions where public welfare is at risk.

This, incidentally, is a feature of the Code of Practice that we
self determined in British ufology years ago. Any action that
interfered with police activity would be in direct contravention
of the code and a person who signed allegience to it could be
fired by any responsible UFO group who had adopted it as
mandatory. Sadly in the UK, to my knowledge, only ASSAP, BUFORA
and NARO have adopted the code this way. Not even the IUN - so
how about it IUN members???

I hope there are others out there whom I dont know about -
please tell us if you are. Lets draw up a registry of groups
that support the code of practice and issue an internet
declaration of such support to try to attract others. Of course,
BUFORA should be doing this - but then whats new!

Maybe those who scoffed at the Code as a waste of time (and
there were some serious ufologists who did) will now rethink
this. Not only does it serve to protect witnesses via hypnosis
(it does not BAN it - this was a unliateral BUFORA move
extending the code - but does insist that it be conducted by a
medically qualified practitioner, which is not what happens in
many (even famous) cases these days is it?)  It also is now seen
here to be useful outlawing situations where rescue operations
might be hampered by inappropriate actions or statements.

The code could be due for a reawakening.

Best wishes,

Jenny Randles