More UFO files released - UK February 2010 (including VIDEO overview showing images)

More UFO files are being released by the British Ministry of Defence tonight (Wednesday 17th February 2010).

The new batch of documents was made available to download for free at the link below in the last few minutes:

www.nationalarchives.gov.uk...


The National Archives has an 8 minute video giving an overview of the documents (with a commentary by Dr David Clarke and images of some of the relevant reports) at:


The mainstream media has already started reporting this news, e.g. The Times has a story that includes the following:

UFO close encounters laid bare as ‘X-Files’ released by records office

Super-fast spacecraft and a giant, humming triangle hovering above the house of Michael Howard, the former Home Secretary, feature in the latest release of UFO-related files at the Public Records Office.

Almost 6,000 pages of declassified files are released online today, the majority covering 1994 to 2000. Many sightings contained crude drawings.

Among the most puzzling of reports listed was an object tracked moving at more than 1,000 knots by Prestwick airport in 1999. Equally mystifying were UFO sightings by police over the North Sea near Lincolnshire, and a British Airways 737 that reported a near-miss with a mysterious object in January 1995, while there were more than 600 reported sightings of unexplained objects over what was dubbed the “Bonnybridge Triangle” in Scotland between 1995 and 1997.

Dr David Clarke (a skeptical academic in the UK that acts as a consultant to the National Archives in relation to the releases of UFO documents, and author of several UFO books) has more about the latest batch of documents on his blog, including:

By 1996 when these MoD files were compiled, few of the incidents were investigated thoroughly and even the most interesting were simply filed away. This was due to lack of time and resources, as desk officers were distracted dealing with correspondence with UFOlogists and members of the public who believed they were hiding facts about alien visitors.

This does not mean the files contain nothing of interest. This tranche contains a fascinating example of a “Close Encounter of the Second Kind”, the account of a man who suffered an unexplained illness after he was struck by a beam of light from the sky. The identity of the witness – who worked in a funeral parlour at Newport, Gwent – has been redacted from the file. But a two-page report on the case completed by an officer at a RAF base in Wales the morning after the encounter, on 27 January 1997, describes the incident in bare detail.

All the best,

Isaac



[edit on 17-2-2010 by IsaacKoi]

[edit on 18-2-2010 by IsaacKoi]

The websites of various other newspapers are now covering the latest documents, e.g. on The Independent's website

There's a UFO over Michael Howard's house...

Formerly secret files containing the details of hundreds of close encounters with possible extraterrestrial life were released by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) today.

But perhaps the most telling aspect of the records is their suggestion that the shapes of UFOs spotted in the skies over Britain have changed markedly over the past 50 years, suggesting people's sightings are influenced by what they see in television shows and films.

...

Among the more interesting sightings is a large triangular UFO seen hovering above the home of the former home secretary and Conservative Party leader Michael Howard in March 1997. Eyewitnesses said they had seen a "humming" object the size of two passenger planes close to his house near Folkestone in Kent, but an RAF investigation found nothing unusual.

"It was just a huge triangle thing, which was a lot bigger than an aeroplane or anything like that," said one person who saw the object. "It had lights all around the outside, and this disc attached to the back, and a big light on the front. I pulled up to a stop and as I did it shot off." It is unclear whether the UFO influenced Mr Howard's decision to run for the Tory leadership in 2003.

Similarly, The Mirror's website has an article that includes the following:

MoD documents reveal UFO sighting over Michael Howard's house

Tory bogeyman Michael Howard was involved in an alien mystery yesterday when files revealed there was a UFO over his house.

Previously secret MoD documents show a huge triangular object was reported hovering above the ex- Conservative leader’s home in 1997.

Mr Howard, who was once accused by colleague Ann Widdecombe of “having something of the night about him”, said he’d been completely unaware of the sightings near Folkestone, Kent.

Depending upon your views of ufology and the media, you may be amused or dismayed to learn that the headlines of some of the articles about the new batch of documents are actually based on memos which were actually released quite a few years ago.

In particular, some of the stories highlight a memo from Winston Churchill asking a question about UFOs - a memo that has been discussed in quite a few UFO books in previous years...

e.g. ABC's website has a story that includes the following:

Churchill demanded UFO briefing: secret files

...

The newly-released files span 6,000 pages and cover the period 1994 to 2000.

They were released alongside another file dating back to 1952 which showed then British prime minister Winston Churchill requesting a briefing on UFOs from his secretary of state for air.

"What does all this stuff about flying saucers amount to? What can it mean? What is the truth? Let me have a report at your convenience," he wrote.

In the reply, Churchill was told that alleged UFO sightings could be explained by earthly phenomena such as optical illusions, mistaken identification of planes, birds and balloons and deliberate hoaxes.

[edit on 17-2-2010 by IsaacKoi]

Let's watch this release of documents, as it will create a
domino effect within the governments across the globe.
(Fingers are X'ed)

Great Thread!

S & F

But perhaps the most telling aspect of the records is their suggestion that the shapes of UFOs spotted in the skies over Britain have changed markedly over the past 50 years, suggesting people's sightings are influenced by what they see in television shows and films.

Seems the reporter here has uncritically reported David Clarke's own preferred hypothesis. Clarke is a staunch supporter of the psychosocial hypothesis.

Time to start poking through these. I doubt there will be anything of real significance, just a few more leads, a few more birds, weather balloons, but neva know. might find a shiny rock amongst the rubble

There is a lot more press coverage of this release this morning (and quite a few more threads started about it here on ATS...).

The coverage includes discussion on the BBC Radio 4 "Today" programme - which is a pretty rare event.

All the best,

Isaac

Originally posted by jclmavg

But perhaps the most telling aspect of the records is their suggestion that the shapes of UFOs spotted in the skies over Britain have changed markedly over the past 50 years, suggesting people's sightings are influenced by what they see in television shows and films.

Seems the reporter here has uncritically reported David Clarke's own preferred hypothesis. Clarke is a staunch supporter of the psychosocial hypothesis.

pure arrogance...'we cant explain it therefore its a delusion'...

Originally posted by jclmavg
Seems the reporter here has uncritically reported David Clarke's own preferred hypothesis. Clarke is a staunch supporter of the psychosocial hypothesis.

But Dr Dave Clarke, unlike quite a few skeptics/debunkers that have been quoted by the media over recent years, has certainly done his homework...

There are very, very, VERY few ufologists/believers that have done half as much research into the UK Government's UFO documents as Dr Clarke.

All the best,

Isaac

David Clarke is a serious and honest researcher, used to STUDY before talking: in my humble opinion, it's surprising that such an open-minded man had the chance to do what he had been allowed to, and i see this as some positive fact: he would be one of the last men i would choose if my purpose was to hide the truth: think about it, if you can.
Thanks, Isaac, for keeping us updated.

Dr David Clark talks to the BBC about the MOD releasing even more files on UFOs.

no incidents with real pictures released in these files = coverup/whitewash

OR

nobody in the U.K. owns a camera ?

[edit on 18-2-2010 by easynow]

reply to post by IsaacKoi

But Dr Dave Clarke, unlike quite a few skeptics/debunkers that have been quoted by the media over recent years, has certainly done his homework...

I agree. As skeptics go, Dr. Clarke is as tough and leathery as they come. He's not a Klass-style debunker, but dissects all the cases he's researched. His Flying Saucery site is tough, even impossible, reading for true believers.

For the disclosure aficionados, New Zealand have delayed their release of UFO files until later in the year. No doubt a few semi-hysterical threads will appear expecting 'full disclosure.' I look forward to reading them...the files that is

Nice OP.

People talk about no evidence. Why do people trust the gov. with spacecraft residue in jam bottles? Wouldn't smart money have a 2nd bottle tucked away for independent private research? And the case where the field was scanned by the ufo. Were no readings taken of that area? I think there is tons of evidence that is either stolen by the gov. or never bothered to be followed up.

Do you ever get the feeling your surrounds by idiots (joke)?

I think the relic alloy artifact from Bob White is interesting. And backed up by the fact that a very similar object was recovered in Europe years earlier by the Russians was it? Evidence in that analysis points to unknown origin. And the lying and stealing of samples from Los Alamos lab. That's fishy.

As well doctor Roger Lier who collects alien implants has some interesting patterns emerging. Most of the recovered bits are all a similar shape and size, covered with a dark gray membrane and resemble meteorite in their chemical make up. How could all these random unrelated people be getting splinters of meteorite in all different parts of their bodies? Plus the bodies don't reject the implants as an infection or such. Come on

This stuff is not easily explained away. I'll expect the usual though:

1) Don't bother me with the facts, I've already made up my mind.

2) If one can't attack the data, attack the people. It is easier.

3) Research by proclamation rather than investigation. It is much easier, and nobody will know the difference anyway.



[edit on 18-2-2010 by sparrowstail]

I would love to know what happened to the silky substance collected in he jam jar by the guy who alerted by his dogs saw a blue triangle ufo above his garden.

MoD documents reveal UFO sighting over Michael Howard's house

Tory bogeyman Michael Howard was involved in an alien mystery yesterday when files revealed there was a UFO over his house.

Previously secret MoD documents show a huge triangular object was reported hovering above the ex- Conservative leader’s home in 1997.

Mr Howard, who was once accused by colleague Ann Widdecombe of “having something of the night about him”, said he’d been completely unaware of the sightings near Folkestone, Kent.

I did research this particular report nearly 2 years ago if anyone is interested most of the details are on this thread :

The Burmarsh Incident

reply to post by sparrowstail

People talk about no evidence. Why do people trust the gov. with spacecraft residue in jam bottles? Wouldn't smart money have a 2nd bottle tucked away for independent private research? And the case where the field was scanned by the ufo. Were no readings taken of that area? I think there is tons of evidence that is either stolen by the gov. or never bothered to be followed up.

I share the frustration, someone, somewhere probably has some very interesting pictures in a top drawer. It's worth pointing out that most people don't have dark misgivings about the Armed Forces and Govt. If they discover something, they cheeerfully hand it over out of a sense of duty. If I had some mindblowing evidence, it'd be going global without taking any chances.

That Bob White article was actually analysed using money paid by ATS two years ago. I remember the thread well. Bob White is an ATS member. The results weren't good...as in probable origin was Earthly.

Dr Leir is one of the guys presenting dubious claims. I went toe to toe on a thread last year to show that he's *probably* a hoaxer. IIRC I won on points!

There's a hell of a lot of evidence for UFOs being more than atmospheric phenomena...70 years worth! None of it in the public domain is enough for us to make our minds up. Based on how long Ufology has lacked great evidence...the odds are that you and I will go to our graves no nearer to answers than we are now...bummer huh?

reply to post by IsaacKoi


Quality content

A letter from senior MoD official Ralph Noyes in which he describes seeing a film of UFOs captured by RAF fighter pilots in 1956. Mr Noyes claims the footage was shown at a secret underground screening arranged for Air Defence staff at the MoD Main Building in 1970.

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by sparrowstail

 

That Bob White article was actually analysed using money paid by ATS two years ago. I remember the thread well. Bob White is an ATS member. The results weren't good...as in probable origin was Earthly,

Dr Leir is one of the guys presenting dubious claims. I went toe to toe on a thread last year to show that he's *probably* a hoaxer. IIRC I won on points!

Earthly origin doesn't prove that it didn't come from a ufo as White says. Could it not be a recipe put together by "Them" on our behalf? Is it not true that while the elements are earthly the alloy itself is unknown and could not be duplicated? Not to mention the beautiful design and finish on the artifact. And what about the other one found. I doubt there is a relation or connection between the two? And why the shananigans with Los Alomos lab. If it was earthly and easily explained away why wouldn't the lab be up front about it. Their testing is probably the best isn't it?

Because ATS'ers had a debate on Lier still doesn't prove that he is a hoaxer. Plus how can you hoax the patients who are random and unrelated. You are attacking the person and not the facts. There are multiple samples from many different sources and there are great similarities and they are meteorite like with a gray membrane: Explain.

All due respect though. I know these are lofty hopes on my part but so rarely do we see something tangible, I just want to give it its due.

[edit on 18-2-2010 by sparrowstail]

Originally posted by infinite

A letter from senior MoD official Ralph Noyes in which he describes seeing a film of UFOs captured by RAF fighter pilots in 1956. Mr Noyes claims the footage was shown at a secret underground screening arranged for Air Defence staff at the MoD Main Building in 1970.

Infinite -good post.
Heres another interesting statement made by MOD Senior Official Ralph Noyes taken from Dr David Clarke's Website:

Statement from British Air Ministry Senior Official

"Here we had a number of object seen coming in across the North Sea on coastal radar. It looked like a Russian mistake. Jet aircraft were scrambled. The objects were travelling at quite impossible speeds like 4-5000 mph and then came to an abrupt halt near to one of these stations not very high up. Jet aircraft picked them up on aircraft radar. The objects then simply made rings round them."

"Inevitably this led to the sort of enquiry which you would put in hand if you had any military responsibilities. Had something gone wrong with ground radar or with aircraft radar? We experienced pilots going out of their minds? Were people having fantasies? We *had* to investigate cases of that kind. Over the years - although there were not an enormous number of such cases - there were a sufficient number to persuade me, and a number of air staff friends with whom I had to work, that something was going on, sporadically, in British airspace which we could not explain."

"But we did not particularly want to make public statements about that. Not for something that we had no explanation."

Ralph Noyes,Senior Official with British Air Ministry - retired as Under Secretary of State in 1977

www.drdavidclarke.co.uk...

Isaac -great thread as usual mate.

reply to post by sparrowstail
Hiya, the Bob White object isn't something I have much of an opinion on. I was pointing out that it isn't an unearthly alloy. Tests have indicated it's likely human-artificial. Springer (ATS) paid for an analysis and Bob White and Larry didn't like the results. They've got a certain history of taking that item for a second opinion. Like I said, it's not something I'm invested in..The ATS thread was just amazing when it happened! It was like being on the edge of your chair as we got closer and closer to PROOF! Pity it ended the way it did....Recovered Piece Of UFO! Is This Irrefutable Evidence Of Alien Presence?

It's a great read

Because ATS'ers had a debate on Lier still doesn't prove that he is a hoaxer. Plus how can you hoax the patients who are random and unrelated. You are attacking the person and not the facts. There are multiple samples from many different sources and there are great similarities and they are meteorite like with a gray membrane: Explain.

Dr Leir


Nope. Didn't attack the man. Attacked the facts and then the man. Seriously, read everything you can about Leir and his colleagues. Check his sources. Follow his lab reports. Check out the lab's provenance. He's not the man you may think he is.

I'm not trying to bug ya. I was originally agreeing with most of your points earlier