MoD scorns UFO reports, apparently

[Justin_Anstey]

This small article (7x5cm) was on page 2 of The Mirror on Thur. 3 Jan. 2002.:

"MoD scorns UFO reports
By Harry Arnold.

UFOs do not exist according to a Defence Ministry probe revealed for the first time yesterday.
A "Flying Saucer Working Party" was set up 50 years ago after sightings in Britain, Germany, Norway, Finland and the US.
But in findings released by the Public Records Office the experts dismissed the British "UFOs" as either a meteorite, meteorological balloon or optical illusion.
They said: "We recommend no further investigation of mysterious aerial phenomena unless material evidence becomes available.""

Now, that appeared in one of the country's biggest selling newspapers. What effect might this have on the general public?

-Justin

 

[Anonymous]

To be honest, I'm not sure if The Mirror has the influence that it once had. It has been trying to move a little more up-market, and there has been talk of it losing its "red-top". I suspect that it is going through somewhat of a transition at the moment, losing some of its traditional readership without yet acquiring the readers that it is now after. (Its campaign to get the UK into the Euro doesn't seem to be having much influence on public opinion. )

As to the article itself, I suspect that there was a lot of "don't panic!" at the time. I believe that a large priority at the time was to avoid anything that hinted that the UK air defence system was even slightly flaky. (This wasn't only to avoid worrying the public, but also because UK airspace was being regularly probed by Soviet aircraft, and it would not be a good idea to let on that we sometimes couldn't see them.) It would then follow that any sighting of an apparently unidentified flying object must be "explained away."

 

[Anonymous]

I'd suggest it was not only "don't panic" but also that the committee was required to reach a firm conclusion. A conclusion of "we don't know what the hell it is" which in my opinion is the truth, is not acceptable, so they swing the other way.
Reports that governments don't consider the phenomenon worthy of investigation are talking bilge. If an unidentified flying object in controlled airspace isn't worthy of investigation I don't know what is.

 

[Anonymous]

Of course the MoD scorns UFO reports - they know that 90% of them are misidentifications of mundane phenomena, and that the remaining 10%, whatever their cause might be, are NOT alien space craft, or anything else of any defence significance.

Besides which, if they encouraged people to report UFO sightings, they'd be doing nothing but talking to nutters all the time!

 

[Anonymous]

That the unidentified 10% are harmless is not a conclusion that the MoD can afford to jump to, nor do I believe they have. Bear in mind that during the war the first V1 was a UFO untill it landed on some poor sod.

 

[mejane]

Of course the MoD scorns UFO reports - they know that 90% of them are misidentifications of mundane phenomena, and that the remaining 10%, whatever their cause might be, are NOT alien space craft, or anything else of any defence significance.

How do you know, Wintermute? You're not a military spy come to check up on us are you?

Jane.

 

[Anonymous]

How do you know, Wintermute? You're not a military spy come to check up on us are you?

Sh*t! sussed already!

But seriously (and I know that this will convince some paranoids that I'm part of the cover-up!), I don't think any UFOlogist, of whatever persuasion, would deny that 90% of reports are misperceptions etc. As to whether the remaining 10% are space craft or whatever, I'm one of those who say 'show me the evidence'. 50+ years of UFOlogy, and not one nut, bolt, or other spaceship part to show for it. Its not surprising that the MoD share the view of rational researchers that there ain't no aliens out there.



BTW - check out

http://www.flyingsaucery.com/mod/index.htm

for more on this topic

 

[Anonymous]

I'm one of those who say 'show me the evidence'. 50+ years of UFOlogy, and not one nut, bolt, or other spaceship part to show for it. Its not surprising that the MoD share the view of rational researchers that there ain't no aliens out there.

You are working from an stance that so called 'genuine UFOs' are held together with nuts & bolts. Maybe they don't have 'parts' or components as such. They could be made from a single piece of material.

How would you know that a piece of material was from a UFO, if that material was not extraterrestrial, but interdimensional? By which I mean it source of manufacture was a lot closer to home.

The Boggart

 

[Anonymous]

Why do UFOs have to be made of something weird? What if they are made of aluminium? How would we know it was a bit of UFO?
Talking of vast craft that leave no trace, has anybody here heard of the plan during the Second World War to build a humungous aircraft carrier out of ice?

 

[Anonymous]

NUTS'N'BOLTS

OK - some people didn't get the reference. 'Nuts & Bolts' has been used as shorthand among skeptical UFOlogists for the school of thought that believes that UFO's are some form of structured craft. Sorry if I was obscure for a minute there!

First off, it doesn't matter whether we're talking about n&b (or equivalent) or whole craft - the fact is that nobody has ever produced anything which stands up to the slightest scrutiny. Given the number of alleged UFO's seen in the past 50 years (and lets not forget that it used to be the fashion for them to be sat about being repaired), the best explanation for this is that, whatever people saw, it wasn't space(or dimension)ships.

Secondly, I'd suggest that Occam's razor makes it pretty clear that anything common or garden (i.e. aluminium) found by UFOlogists is almost certain to have a common or garden origin.

To be honest, I can't understand why anyone thinks UFO's are extraterrestrial or otherwise 'alien' craft. There really is no evidence to support this view. And if there were, don't you think we'd all know it by now. All this boils down to is that the MoD have a rational view of the subject, which might be a bit unusual for an arm of the British govt, but is hardly hot news.

 

[Anonymous]

This is true, but a smaller step to take is to accept that people are seeing saucer shaped craft or strange lights that defy explanation - a significant number of witnesses, some extremely credible, are not imagining it, and for which there is no explanation. I agree that concluding these things are ET in origin is a maybe a leap too far, but some people, governments included (publicly at least), won't admit there is a phenomenon worthy of investigation. It's much easier to say there's nothing to it.

 

[Anonymous]

I agree Dark One (ooooh I've always wanted to say that!). There's a core of reports that appear to be from people who have experienced some currently unknown phenomenon. These reports probably have something important to tell us about something - trouble is its not aliens/spacecraft. All the ExtraTerrestrial Hypothesis has achieved is to make UFOlogy seem so ridiculous that people are put off from any effort at serious research. Thats why

some people, governments included (publicly at least), won't admit there is a phenomenon worthy of investigation

.

My money's on a combination of psychology/neurology and geophysics as being the key to most of the phenomena classed under UFOlogy.

 

[Anonymous]

My money's on a combination of psychology/neurology and geophysics as being the key to most of the phenomena classed under UFOlogy.

I agree, oh mute one. Like most unsolvable things it appears to me to be a combo of several things: I like Devereaux's work on earthlights, I think military technology is partially to blame, plus the psychological element: particularly effects of EM radiation and low frequency vibration on the brain. I sincerely wish science would take this last element seriously, as it is reproducible in a lab, so hopefully the next step is to track it down in nature.

 

[Anonymous]

I reckon that just as interesting as the cause of the effect is the nature of the experience it generates. How come the same themes reappear in different guises in medieaval folklore and the 'modern myth of things seen in the sky'. Whats the connection between UFO percipients, particularly those who go on to develop religions based on their experiences, and more 'conventional' mystics? And what the f**k is really happening in some of the 'high strangeness' cases?