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 -> Nov -> Here

From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 20:11:49 +0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 08:14:08 -0500
Subject: Re: British ufology Has Been Reborn!


 >From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >Subject: Re: British ufology Has Been Reborn!
 >Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 20:09:17 -0000

Dear Jenny

Thank you for your reply

You appear to have a problem with my questions; but may I remind
you that the reason I joined this thread was because you
suggested I was evading the issues you presented about the
Lakenheath case. I had not thought to get involved in this
debate but as you made that assumption I decided to respond with
what I believe were some very profound questions.

Because we are dealing with a very prominent and historical
case, and the fact that you are now claiming it is less
significant than it originally was, I feel it demands some
answers from you.

First, with regard to what you wrote concerning the Official
Secrets Act being an impediment to the early release of
testimony from pilots involved in the incident, I consulted Nick
Pope, who, as you know, has worked for the Ministry of Defence
(MOD) for almost fifteen years. He confirmed that this was a
complete non - issue. As you well know, the MOD's position on
the UFO phenomenon is that it is of "no defence significance".
Given such official statements (which have been made not just to
ufologists, but to parliament) it would be impossible for the
Government to object to the release of material relating to this
case. Such an objection would show that the MOD's "no defence
significance" statements were incorrect. Surely you can see that
the MOD would never put themselves in this position? In any
case, it's disingenuous to imply there would be any problem with
releasing information about an incident that occurred 44 years
ago - especially when numerous details of this case have been in
the public domain for around 30 years.

Regarding your interview with the crew: may I request for a
second time that you post their statement where they actually
say they had no visual sighting because this is not included in
the BBC interview. You also say there was no cat and mouse
chase, but in the interview it is clear that the object flew
down "again" and disappeared when they overshot it, and there is
no mention that the object was not on their tail. Therefore,
would you mind posting this statement from them too. The reason
I ask is because you claim the interview proves the official
report was incorrect. If this is so, and in view of it being
such a prominent case, I think it is necessary to offer this
evidence.

Squadron Leader Freddy Wimbledon, who was in charge of the alert
station that night, and the person who actually scrambled the
jets,said the first aircraft locked onto the target and ALSO SAW
THE LIGHT, which swept around the back of the plane and
FOLLOWED it. In the official report there was no mention of the
crew seeing an object, just "A BRIGHT LIGHT". So it seems
Wimbledom was agreeing with the report.

However,in your revised book (1997) "The Complete Book of UFOs",
co authored with Peter Hough, you mention the BBC interview with
the crew, (February1996) where they insist that neither jet made
any visual contact and suggest that "their testimony lessens the
significance of this famous case". You also write that they
[crew] had not considered UFOs until you came along. However,
this is all very misleading because it seems they did not claim
to know what the object was, so it stands to reason it was a UFO
(unidentified flying object). In answer to your questions,asking
if they were aware that other ground radar systems were involved
and did they know about the_ visual sightings_ from _below_ and
that a USAF transport aircraft  actually was looking down on
this thing from 5,000 feet and could see a yellow glow beneath
it. They said they did not know until you had just told them.
There is a vast difference here.

The fact that they did not know what the ground were
experiencing is not unusual. But where do the crew actually say
they personally had no visual sighting of the LIGHT or that they
were not followed by the UFO or that they did not know it was a
UFO? None of these questions or answers appear to be included in
the BBC interview. Again, I ask you why were they not included
if you find them so important that you are now questioning the
significance of this very important case? Indeed, I think we do
need to know exactly what the crew had to say about all of this.

 >If anyone is being difficult, surely its you for insisting on
 >probing for something that just isnt there.  In fact rather like
 >you did over Rendlesham when for your book you asked me no
 >questions at all about my views on the case, or the evidence, or
 >theories of explanation, or anything I'd gladly have discussed
 >with you. Instead your questions were about things like
 >documents you suggested (quite spuriously) that I had witheld
 >from others when - as I had to prove to you at length - I had
 >done exactly the opposite.

I cannot believe you are still going on about that episode. The
truth of the matter is, that no way did I accuse you of
withholding documents, but was merely _asking_ you questions -
the same as I am doing now. It seems you have a problem
answering questions Jenny and read into them what you want to
believe.

Several months ago I sent you a PRIVATE e-mail with eight
questions, which you claimed were based on gossip. You refused
to answer my questions, but posted _selected_ pieces publicly on
UFO UPDATES. This was, in my opinion a breach of confidence. I
asked you to post a message retracting what you wrote, or at
least to explain that the information you posted was incorrect,
inasmuch as I did not base my questions on gossip but on your
own published works and through interviews with your co-authors.

What you wrote suggested we had done some kind of deal that if I
don't write gossip about you, you would help with my questions.
I sent an update explaining there was no deal. How could there
be?  I had no intention of writing about you or the gossip that
you implied my questions were based on. I explained that my work
was about the case - not about Jenny Randles.

When you finally decided to answer my questions, you sent an
e-mail of almost a thousand words, when all I wanted was
straightforward answers to the eight factual questions, not your
life story.

However, that was not the end of it. You recently posted to your
colleague Tim Matthews list, again bringing up the accusations
that my questioning was more or less based on gossip. This is
simply not true!

 >you asked me no questions at all about my views on the case, or
 >the evidence, or theories of explanation

Why would I ask your opinion? Were you a witness? Were you
involved? Were you on the base at the time? Were you in the
military? Were you with any agency or government department? No!
This is a book about the witnesses and the experts - not about
ufologists. Besides, I've read your latest views and theories
and no offense meant, but I have to disagree with you entirely.

Georgina Bruni