• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.
There are people on the internet who feel UFOs will stop a nuclear war.

These people reference nuclear shut downs at RAF Woolbridge ( Charles Halt and Robert Jamison ) and Malmstrom AFB (Robert Salas).

Nick Pope claims according to the Official Secrets Act that he has to be careful what he says, but he doubts this idea has any merit.

Nick claims the UFOs did not stop Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The remake of Threads where aliens stop the missiles sounds weird.

They've race swapped Ruth though.
 
There are people on the internet who feel UFOs will stop a nuclear war.

These people reference nuclear shut downs at RAF Woolbridge ( Charles Halt and Robert Jamison ) and Malmstrom AFB (Robert Salas).

Nick Pope claims according to the Official Secrets Act that he has to be careful what he says, but he doubts this idea has any merit.

Nick claims the UFOs did not stop Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The idea of aliens stopping a nuclear war assumes that they think humanity is worth saving.

I think it is, but there are plenty of things in the world that would make me doubt it at times.
 
There are people on the internet who feel UFOs will stop a nuclear war.

These people reference nuclear shut downs at RAF Woolbridge ( Charles Halt and Robert Jamison ) and Malmstrom AFB (Robert Salas).

Nick Pope claims according to the Official Secrets Act that he has to be careful what he says, but he doubts this idea has any merit.

Nick claims the UFOs did not stop Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
It’s a safe bet: no nuclear war and Pope is correct, or nuclear war and none of us are around to call him out…
 
There are people on the internet who feel UFOs will stop a nuclear war.
These people reference nuclear shut downs at RAF Woolbridge ( Charles Halt and Robert Jamison ) and Malmstrom AFB (Robert Salas).
That is RAF Woodbridge, by the way, part of the Rendlesham incident. Charles Halt is (as far as I know) the only person who has suggested that the nuclear weapons at Woodbridge were affected in any way, and he was miles away at the time, in the forest. See our long thread on the subject.

Robert Jamison was not at Rendlesham, but was another witness at Malmstrom, like Robert Salas. As I've pointed out many times before, the Malmstrom incident (and other related incidents at US nuclear bases) are almost completely hearsay; neither Salas or Jamison actually saw a UFO, but they were underground so maybe that isn't surprising. Both relied on reports from security guards on the surface, who may or may not have been reliable, and for some reason very few first-hand accounts of the events topside are available.
 
That is RAF Woodbridge, by the way, part of the Rendlesham incident. Charles Halt is (as far as I know) the only person who has suggested that the nuclear weapons at Woodbridge were affected in any way, and he was miles away at the time, in the forest. See our long thread on the subject.

Robert Jamison was not at Rendlesham, but was another witness at Malmstrom, like Robert Salas. As I've pointed out many times before, the Malmstrom incident (and other related incidents at US nuclear bases) are almost completely hearsay; neither Salas or Jamison actually saw a UFO, but they were underground so maybe that isn't surprising. Both relied on reports from security guards on the surface, who may or may not have been reliable, and for some reason very few first-hand accounts of the events topside are available.
So, did the missiles not turn themselves off one by one then? And did they not do it whilst the troops providing security saw a UFO? So for what particular reason was the the entire story (presumably) concocted? And if it wasn't, then there are some amazing coincidences for you to explain.
 
So, did the missiles not turn themselves off one by one then?
The stories that have been told about these events are a tangle of misrecollections and suppositions. Have you never wondered why no-one who actually saw the UFOs have come forward? Why no-one could get the dates of the event right, or the location?
Here's Tim Hebert on the subject.
http://timhebert2.blogspot.com/
I believe that I have shown that there is now enough evidence to strongly support that UFO/s could not have caused Echo's ICBMs to shut down. The following strongly supports my conclusion:

1. High probability that no maintenance teams were out on any of Echo's sites during shutdowns.
2. No maintenance or security teams mentioned in the Unit History.
3. After 44 years, none of the supposed eye witnesses have ever been identified, nor have these people ever came forward, concluding that they may never have existed in the first place.
4. Walter Figel's inconsistency from both Hastings and Salas' interviews.
5. Walter Figel's perceived reluctance to publicly support Hastings' UFO theory, as evidence by, his absence from the D.C press conference, lack of an affidavit affirming his statements.
6. Eric Carlson's strong denial of receiving any UFO reports from security personnel.
7. No intercept missions flown by the Montana National Guard against any unknown radar contacts.
8. Minuteman LF design of connectivity isolation precludes any one event (UFO included) from affecting the remaining ICBMs in a given flight.
9. Echo was a flight specific event with no other adjoining flight effected
10. The only plausible UFO scenario would have been a UFO over/near Echo's LCF/LCC. This never occurred and no reports or rumors ever comes close to supporting this scenario.
11. The Boeing ECP and final installation of EMP suppression fixes resulting in no Echo-like situation from ever happening again for all SAC missile wings (Minuteman and Titan).
Particularly significant is that the Boeing engineers suspected that an accidental EMP pulse had caused the shutdown, and after they implemented a fix the problem didn't happen again.
 
I am pretty sure that the 'Oscar Flight' Malmstrom AFB thing may be down to people misremembering a story they had heard about the events at Minot AFB on 24 October 1968, which amongst other things featured a) a security team getting a bit panicky about seeing lights over a launch site and b) the perimeter / gate alarms being triggered at 'Oscar Flight' ( albeit nothing as sensational as missiles themselves being shut down).

All the Minot events are quite well documented, unlike the supposed events at Malmstrom. No doubt rumours about the incidents went around at the time, and were perhaps conflated with the (explained) shutdown at Malmstrom.
 
Nick Pope has been appearing on the Anomalist newsfeed blog with ever more idiotic statements: seagull UFOs, aliens being afraid of Will Smith and Elon Musk blocking aliens on Twitter to name but three…

Has he got a new book out…?
 
I did wonder about dementia, and I don’t say that to be nasty or unpleasant

Yeah, but there's also a contest-like compulsion for oneupmanship in certain quarters of the UFO/conspiracy crossover that sees the participants going steadily around the bend, assuming they believe their wild stories, that is. Maybe Pope is really ill, maybe he's an opportunist, but I advise him to step away from all this for a while if that's what he's promoting.
 
A six page article in BBC's Sky at Night magazine by Nick Pope on Roswell. Fairly balanced but unusual subject matter for Sky at Night.
 
I'm not so sure about Pope's current activities, but my mention of Ralph Noyes on the Calvine thread reminded me that (contrary to some assertions) there have in fact been a wide range of opinions within the 'Establishment' on the subject of UFOs, and that Pope is hardly an aberration.

For those who don't know the name, Noyes was a presence in the background of 1970s and 80s ufology: a retired senior civil servant who for a while ran DS8, the MoD department then responsible for dealing with UFO reports. He was higher up the food chain than Pope and had an RAF background. After retirement he (much like Pope) became a ufologist of sorts and even contributed some erudite articles to Magonia. Noyes's own opinion was that the phenomenon was indeed real, but possibly natural (rather like a rare, unusual weather phenomenon), or something parapsychological - more akin to a ghost than a nuts and bolts craft.

There are two really interesting transcripts of interviews with Noyes by Jenny Randles and by Clarke and Roberts which give some background on his career and opinions. Anyway, all this reminds me that the context to the Calvine case, the Condign report etc was a lot more complex than sometimes claimed, and that there have probably always been a wide range of opinions held on the subject within the MoD itself - it wasn't just them fielding letters from fantasists, or Pope railing against his superiors. There is no reason to believe they didn't initially take the Calvine photographs seriously at the time.
 
After watching Nick Pope on many History Channel UFO programs, he is a very frustrating person.

He “ sits on the fence “ after talking about this and that and he will not take a definite side.

He might have had signed a no talk contract about UFOs with the British government ?
 
After watching Nick Pope on many History Channel UFO programs, he is a very frustrating person.

He “ sits on the fence “ after talking about this and that and he will not take a definite side.

He might have had signed a no talk contract about UFOs with the British government ?

I think it's perhaps more that as with most government people called on to deal with UFOs, he has found they (ie. UFOs) are resistant to productive study. You can classify and analyse all you want but ultimately you are, for whatever reason, dealing with phantoms.

Again we come back to Noyes's conclusions, as MoD staff, after dealing with reports of the phenomenon in the age of the 'classics':

I think during my time that after we had failed to find an explanation and satisfied ourselves that the thing was a one-off and it hadn't shown any signs of coming back - all one could really do was to file the report. And to hope that there were not too many public questions, because we had no satisfactory answers

we are dealing with something that is real, but very brief, very transient and doesn't behave within the ordinary laws of Newtonian physics. It's like an intruder from inter-dimensional space - or something from a surrounding space or realm. And at that my UFOlogical friends get slightly cross when I make the comparison with ghosts but I think it's a useful comparison

Ultimately all they could say was they didn't appear to be a threat.
 
I think it's perhaps more that as with most government people called on to deal with UFOs, he has found they (ie. UFOs) are resistant to productive study. You can classify and analyse all you want but ultimately you are, for whatever reason, dealing with phantoms.

Again we come back to Noyes's conclusions, as MoD staff, after dealing with reports of the phenomenon in the age of the 'classics':





Ultimately all they could say was they didn't appear to be a threat.

Great post.

As regards 'productive study' you only have to look at the Calvine image: pages and pages of speculation (some of it mine) and we are no closer to a definitive answer than when Clarke released it. Even if the two witnesses come forward and say "Yes, we saw a UFO and a Harrier jet!", do you really think the folks over at Metabunk will take that on face value? Not all all, rather there will be more pages and pages of speculation about why the witnesses are lying. However, if they come forward and say "Sorry, we hoaxed it!" then there will also be pages and pages of speculation on Reddit that they were pressured into a false confession.

Yet that Calvine image is tantalising and every time I step away it draws me back in...
 
Last edited:
Nick Pope claims Prince Philip and his close friend ex RAF Sir Peter Horsley spent years investigating UFO sightings in the UK.

Nick claims that there is the “ royal “ X-Files that need to be released to the public which involves also Mountbatten’s involvement of a UFO landing near Mountbatten’s house.

Nick claims that this was the “ secret “ side of Prince Philip.

After Mountbatten’s death people were shocked to find a dictated letter dated 1955 signed by Mountbatten and his brick layer Fred Briggs describing how Fred came in contact with a force field from the alien and his ship as the alien walked around the property.
 
Last edited:
Nick Pope claims Prince Philip and his close friend ex RAF Sir Peter Horsley spent years investigating UFO sightings in the UK.

Nick claims....

Nick claims....
At risk of repeating myself, Nick claims a lot of things. Many if not most turn out to be demonstrably bollocks, but he's carved himself a little niche where he says things some people want to hear which is all you need in certain quarters.
 
At risk of repeating myself, Nick claims a lot of things. Many if not most turn out to be demonstrably bollocks, but he's carved himself a little niche where he says things some people want to hear which is all you need in certain quarters.

I was listening to an interview with him on an archived Art Bell show the other evening and I have to say that he used to claim a lot less.

While he was careful not to shoot down the wilder suggestions that were put to him ('it's possible, but I saw no evidence of it'), he didn't make too many outrageous claims at all.

I think as his temporal distance from that subsequently lucrative job has increased, he has felt the need to inflate claims of both his expertise and knowledge to remain relevant.

Which is sadly something exceedingly common in Fortean circles.

The end-state is often a dreadfully vague all encompassing meta-theory that covers all bases and makes one a viable guest on all subjects.
 
Last edited:
Nick Pope could be right.

Ex-Commander in Chief RAF Strike Command, Sir Peter Horsley, and later Equerry to Prince Philip wrote a book published 1997 Leo Copper publisher called “Sounds From Another Room “ in which he states that he meet an E.T. in London in 1954.

I have limited information, but Sir Peter Horsley, being so impeccable respected, I would say unbelievable !
 
Nick Pope could be right.

Ex-Commander in Chief RAF Strike Command, Sir Peter Horsley, and later Equerry to Prince Philip wrote a book published 1997 Leo Copper publisher called “Sounds From Another Room “ in which he states that he meet an E.T. in London in 1954.

I have limited information, but Sir Peter Horsley, being so impeccable respected, I would say unbelievable !
Seems to be available as a pdf here:

https://avalonlibrary.net/ebooks/Peter Horsley - Sounds From Another Room.pdf

btw there's a typo @charliebrown, the publisher is Leo Cooper (not Copper). They were a well respected publisher of military history titles.
 
I may be wrong, but as I remember many years ago when Nike Pope was first presented on TV talking about the possibility of UFO’s he was working in an attic or top floor in a small domestic house and appeared to say that there was nothing to all this UFO stuff and that the ministry was closing it all down, some years passed and suddenly Nike is regularly taking a different approach and trying to convince us all of the opposite. I love Nick! :cool:
 
Nick Pope called the Condign Project ( 2000-2006 ) as England’s “ dirty little secret “.

Nick claimed that the MoD originally thought Rendlesham and Cosford were an exotic atmospheric phenomenon that could be harnessed as a powerful weapon.

This idea was later given up and the MoD went on to declare UFOs harmless and the MoD was not investigating these phenomena anymore.
 
Missiles being mysteriously shut down would generate a truly frightening amount of paperwork...
 
Having meticulously gone through the MoD archives, profoundly significant new evidence has come to light, as regards the true facts behind Nick Pope's claims:

NICK POPE – THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE

It has been conspicuous for many years, that elemental evidence existed, which challenged Nick Pope's following claims:

“I’ve worked for the MOD for over fourteen years now, and three of those were spent researching and investigating UFO sightings, alien abductions, crop circles, animal mutilations and any other weird and wonderful reports that came my way”.

Source: ‘Nick Pope’s Weird World’, July 1999 newsletter.

It is an assertion which is still maintained, in the biography on his website:

“Nick Pope ran the British Government’s UFO project. From 1991 to 1994 he researched and investigated UFOs, alien abductions, crop circles and other strange phenomena, leading the media to call him the real Fox Mulder".

www.nickpope.net/wpte19/biography/

In truth, there was no “UFO project’ and the Ministry of Defence has never investigated a report of ‘alien abductions', ‘crop circles’ or ‘animal mutilations’, the very notion being ludicrous.

Additionally, a somewhat fundamental omission from Nick Pope, is that his tenure at the ‘UFO desk’ was a minor, part-time role, which essentially involved dealing with correspondence from the public.

On 29 September, 1999, the Ministry of Defence responded to my related enquiries:

“You asked various questions about the role of Mr Pope when he worked in Sec(AS)2.

Mr Pope was employed as an Executive Officer in Secretariat (Air Staff) 2. His post was designated Sec(AS)2a. The main duties of the post concern non-operational RAF activities overseas and diplomatic clearance policy for military flights abroad.

A small percentage of time is spent dealing with reports from the public about alleged "UFO sightings and associated public correspondence.

The Ministry of Defence has not investigated a case of alien abduction, crop circle formations or animal mutilation”.

www.jceaston.com/MoD_Pope.jpg

Validating that his ‘UFO’ related assignment was a secondary task, is correspondence from Nick Pope himself, in a letter dated 10 May, 1994 to UFO researcher and author, Nick Redfern:

“There is no specific "UFO budget", excepting the staff costs, i.e. around 20% of my salary, together with a tiny percentage of some other salaries, reflecting my line management's supervisory role”.

www.jceaston.com/Nick-Redfern.jpg

So how much time was actually spent at the ‘UFO desk’?

Over to Nick Pope, who can give us the factual answer. Amongst the UFO related files released by the Ministry of Defence and held in the National Archives, is a two page internal memo, in which he confirms:

"Between 5-10% of my time is spent dealing with enquiries about UFOs".

www.jceaston.com/Nick_Pope_01.jpg

www.jceaston.com/Nick_Pope_02.jpg

That would average out at 7.5%, or in other words, over 90% of Nick Pope’s assignment to Secretariat (Air Force) 2a, had zero connection whatsoever, precisely as the Ministry of Defence had set out, in their letter to myself and have repeated elsewhere, when the same enquiry has been made to them.

In an associated letter of response, sent by the Ministry on 10 December, 1997, they also reiterated:

"Turning specifically to your comments concerning Mr Pope, I should point out that he was a junior desk officer... and not in charge of, or the head of any part of Secretariat (Air Staff) 2".

www.jceaston.com/MoD_Pope_02.jpg

Furthermore and categorically cementing these facts, is one of the earliest interviews given by Nick Pope, to 'UFO Magazine' (UK) on 5 May, 1996:

UFO Magazine: One gets the impression that the MoD consider the UFO phenomenon totally irrelevant?

Nick Pope: That's correct.

There is not some great mysterious organisation which is actually getting on with the bread and butter of investigation, whilst I sent out standard letters".

Nick Pope has self-elevated himself to running the British Government’s “UFO project”, even drawing comparisons of his importance, to the substantive United States ‘Project Blue Book’ undertaking, from March 1952 until its termination on 17 December, 1969:

“Between 1991 and 1994, I was posted to a division called Secretariat (Air Staff) and was given the job of researching and investigating the UFO phenomenon, mirroring the work done in the US by the now defunct Project Blue Book”

It’s all a far cry from the true perspective and context.

When he has responded to the challenging evidence published, Nick Pope deflects from the central question of his rather more mundane, part-time desk duties, by implying it is being questioned that he did have a position dealing with UFO related matters, often pointing to an extract from Hansard, an edited verbatim record of what was said in Parliament:

18 Apr, 2006:

Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in what capacity Mr. Nick Pope was employed by his Department between 1991 and 1994. [63392]

Mr. Touhig: From 1991 to 1994 Mr. Pope worked as a civil servant within Secretariat (air staff). He undertook a wide range of secretariat tasks relating to central policy, political and parliamentary aspects of non-operational RAF activity.

Part of his duties related to the investigation of unidentified aerial phenomena reported to the Department to see if they had any defence significance.

The key word here is part, which, in his own words was “between 5-10%” and that is the critical aspect which Pope does not disclose, instead maintaining the public persona of someone who engaged on overseeing a high-level, UFO, alien abductions and crop circle investigative project, on behalf of the British government.

Likewise, we can observe from the copious, available material, that his references to having briefed ministers, turns out to be a rare instance and generally, little more than suggesting how best to answer questions on the subject in Parliament or from the media, or whatever invitations to participate in public discussions, should be accepted.

Although the Ministry of Defence archives show a few occasions where Nick Pope was required to look further into a new UFO report, these were few and far between. The National Archives files evidence that his investigative remit, primarily consisted of replying to correspondence from the public.

Indeed, Nick Pope explained this, himself.

In a standard letter of response, dated 4 November, 1992 and midway through his tenure, Nick Pope wrote:

"Although the Ministry of Defence does receive and co-ordinate reports of UFO sightings, our only concern is to establish whether or not they pose a threat to the security of the United Kingdom. Unless we judge that they do - and this has not been the case so far - we do not attempt to investigate further, or to identify whatever might have been seen.

Given this limited Involvement with the subject, the Ministry of Defence has no department which is appointed solely for the purpose of studying UPO reports, nor are there any staff employed on the subject full time. The reports we receive, which are usually limited to very brief details of what was seen, are passed to staff in departments concerned with the air defence of the United Kingdom, who examine then as part of their normal duties.

Since our interest In UFOs is limited to possible defence implications, we do not carry out studies into the UFO phenomenon, nor do we have the resources to undertake any in-depth investigations. Defence funds are fully committed to maintaining the security of the UK and meeting our responsibilities to allies and dependents. This being so, we could not justify the use of defence funds on scientific investigations, unless a threat to the security of the UK had been identified.

(...)

Despite some of the stories that are sometimes told, there is no question of our attempting to cover up any Incidents or keep any information about UFOs from the public.

(...)

I would also suggest that you get in touch with some of the civilian organisations currently engaged in study of the UPO phenomenon, who will doubtless be keen to help, and put forward their own opinions. I also suspect that the more exotic close encounter UFU reports are generally made to such groups, rather than to us; we get very fav such reports. I suggest the following societies:

British UFO Research Association Section

(....)

The MOD is not involved in any research or investigation into the crop circle phenomenon...".

www.jceaston.com/MoD_Pope_03.jpg

www.jceaston.com/MoD_Pope_04.jpg

www.jceaston.com/MoD_Pope_05.jpg

Fast forward a year and towards the end of his tenure, a letter dated 6 December, 1993, is essentially a carbon copy of his 1992 correspondence, illustrating that nothing has changed in between.

www.jceaston.com/MoD_Pope_06.jpg

If the Ministry did not investigate crop circles, then what about alien abductions?

Once more, in a letter dated 27 July, 1992, Nick Pope provides us with the answer:

"My view is that any reports of alien entities or abductions are, for whatever reasons, made almost exclusively to UFO organisations father than to us.

Needless to say, if I receive any such reports, I would encourage people to get in touch with BUFORA, Quest International and Contact International".

www.jceaston.com/MoD_Pope_07.jpg

Nick Pope will also cite features in mainstream media, such as the New York Times and the BBC, as supportive verification, which acknowledges he was responsible for overseeing the British Government's mythical "UFO project".

In reality, not one is anything other than an acceptance of his narrative.

Therein lies the foundation; a paucity of basic fact checking.

In an article published by the ‘Independent’ newspaper on 2 June, 1996, we read:

“Pope was assigned in 1991 to the UFO desk - a post neither he nor most of his colleagues even knew existed.

Superficially, Pope's life remained unchanged. As before, each morning he filed with thousands of other government bureaucrats into the vast, expressionless MoD building. Hurrying down its labyrinthine corridors Pope would be seated at his desk by 9am. But from one minute past nine through to 5pm, he found himself in what amounted to a parallel universe.

"People came straight through to me on my direct line, so my phone could ring and it could be a member of the public on the other end saying 'I saw a UFO last night.' Indeed that happened on a daily basis," Pope explains. "There was a regular stable of 'interesting' characters who would phone up often, I got to know them all," he says with a reserved smile”.

Prima facie, this promotes the impression of a full-time job.

The article continues:

“But Pope found that the more diligently he investigated unexplained sightings, the more uncomfortable his bosses within the MoD became. "I was never actively blocked by my superiors," he writes in his book "but there were times when things were made difficult for me; times when I was quite deliberately given one-off tasks to divert me from a UFO case”.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/now-i-m-a-believer-1335264.html

What tasks might those have been?

Would not perchance have anything to do with the tasks, which statedly accounted for over 90% of his time?

Perhaps, back in 1996, one simple question, “were there any other duties and how much of your time did they take up’, might have uncovered the true scenario.

Then again, Nick Pope does not exactly have a history of addressing this intrinsic question.

Moreso, when cornered, Nick Pope resorts to venomous diatribe, such as this example from his Twitter account:

"There are various forged, doctored and out-of-context (it's been MoD policy to play down our UFO work for decades) letters about me being circulated in the blogosphere - mainly by 2 of the most dishonest nutjobs in the UFO community! - but my investigative role in relation to UFOs is confirmed on the official website of UK Parliament....".

Together with Nick Pope’s claims to having investigated crop circles and alien abductions on behalf of his employers, allegations of bogus documents is also demonstrably untrue - there are copies in the National Archives and he knows it.

Again, Nick Pope hides the pivotal challenge, this time behind a masquerade of subterfuge.

To falsely accuse researchers who are exposing the truth as being dishonest is reprehensible and under the circumstances, hypocrisy personified.

Behind the façade of a smooth talking, ostensibly trustworthy individual, lies something infinitely less charming.

The world of 'UFOs' often comprises 'smoke and mirrors'. It also, regrettably, has a long history of fraudsters and charlatans galore.

If a pursuit of a truthful 'disclosure' is championed, then perhaps expectations should begin closer to home.

Good people who earnestly wish to understand the true facts behind UFOs, are being deceived and lamentably, sometimes the sound of a chequebook rustling, is all that takes.

As of 6 June, 2023 ‘The Guardian’ newspaper have printed an article which incorporates, “Nick Pope, who spent the early 1990s investigating UFOs for the British Ministry of Defence (Mod)...”.

Many ufologists within the U.K. have taken issue with both Nick Pope’s exaggerations and downright blatant untruths and many resultantly castigated as “dishonest”.

This endeavour is solely with the intention of evidencing the true, elemental facts, more often than not, in Nick Pope’s own words.

Supporting material, constantly being added to, can be found on the bew Facebook group ‘Nick Pope MoD – The Facts’:

https://m.facebook.com/groups/1263302827654306/?ref=share
 
Back
Top