SUNlite

General UFO stories

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Re: SUNlite

Postby Tim Hebert » Wed Sep 01, 2010 6:35 pm

Tim,

Another great effort. I now go to SUNlite for the latest and greatest information. Your review of UFO blogs is a great asset for me. Also, I like the astronmy aspects of SUNlite, since I too dabble with a telescope at night. Note, heavey emphasis with "dabble" on my part. :)

Again, thanks and congrats for your efforts.

The Other Tim
Tim Hebert
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 491
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 11:29 pm


Re: SUNlite

Postby astrophotographer » Tue Nov 02, 2010 1:19 am

The latest issue of SUNlite is out. I am sure it will cause a lot of complaints from various individuals we all know and love so much. Highlights include a review of the Rendlesham event, the Malmstrom case, and some articles about the Belgium UFO wave. There are also the usual articles.

http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/SUNlite2_6.pdf
User avatar
astrophotographer
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 577
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:46 pm

Re: SUNlite

Postby Frank Stalter » Thu Nov 04, 2010 1:40 am

Recently, Dr. David Clarke has come under fire from the UFOlogical “elite” on UFO updates.


Clarke showed his true color - yellow. He's a spot picker when it comes to UFOs. He loves it when you bring him something he likes http://drdavidclarke.blogspot.com/2010/05/mama-theyre-making-cgis-at-me.html
but doesn't have the guts to post a criticism of his dishonest smear attempt on Nick Pope. He's a punk. [-X

Mr. Oberg I respect. I like his feistiness and he'll always engage. You have to respect that. However his claim that 95% of pilot sightings being explainable makes pilots bad witnesses is flawed. It makes them excellent witnesses. If a proper explanation to a UFO event can be determined in 19 out of 20 cases, it's because the witness consistently described it well. Mr. Oberg acknowledged my point in a forum exchange last year. I could dig it up if you'd like to see it. :D
Frank Stalter
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 12:37 am

Re: SUNlite

Postby astrophotographer » Thu Nov 04, 2010 11:35 am

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, in the case I was discussing, a lot of people were proclaiming that Clarke was not fit/qualified for being involved with the release of MOD files. My argument is that what makes anybody "qualified" to investigate UFOs? What makes Robert Hastings, Stanton Friedman, Peter Davenport, Kevin Randle, etc. so qualified to investigate UFO cases? IMO, Clarke's work associated with the MOD files is something to be commended and not condemned.

As for Pope, his desire NOT to have documents related to his work at MOD's UFO desk indicates he does not want people to know about what he did there or what people thought of his work. So much for "full disclosure".

EDIT: If you consider Clarke's discussion of Pope's documents in the MOD files a "dishonest smear campaign" but still want all UFO records to be disclosed, you are being hypocritical. If a military witness comes forward about something he saw/experienced during his military career, then his military record becomes part of the equation. Was he really in that location? What was his paygrade? What does his evalautions say about him? All of these become pertinent to any investigation. In the case of Nick Pope, he proclaims that he was an expert at the UFO desk and has used that to write books and appear on television. Therefore, what he did at that desk is VERY pertinent to him being an "expert" on UFOs. By hiding behind privacy concerns for these documents, one can only assume that these documents reveal a side of Pope that he does not want revealed to the public.
User avatar
astrophotographer
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 577
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:46 pm

Re: SUNlite

Postby Gilles F. » Thu Nov 04, 2010 5:24 pm

Greetings,

BTW, even if already stipulated : TY very much Tim for your new "newsletter" issue. Already awesome issue, covering many Ufology cases, revisited with the Skeptic eyes and common sens.
I appreciated particulary (I have not all readed and I have an interest mainly about Roswell Myth) your "Classified documents and Roswell" article, remembering me the Echo it was for me to read the famous Karl Pflock's article in FT n°114, as your now so famous "The Roswell's Corner" Tribune. Same concerning the "A review of the Rendlesham case" article, continued by "The AN/PDR-27" one. I'm already enjoyed to read soon "The Kean and Oberg MSNBC debate" article.

Well, just modestly encouraging you to continue all of it, after Phil Klass. You have fan readers fare away your own computer ;) And of course, you dont need my GG to make what you did, do and will do. A simple "merci à vous", then.

Respects,

Gilles F.
Gilles F.
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: SUNlite

Postby murnut » Thu Nov 04, 2010 5:34 pm

astrophotographer wrote:Everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, in the case I was discussing, a lot of people were proclaiming that Clarke was not fit/qualified for being involved with the release of MOD files. My argument is that what makes anybody "qualified" to investigate UFOs? What makes Robert Hastings, Stanton Friedman, Peter Davenport, Kevin Randle, etc. so qualified to investigate UFO cases? IMO, Clarke's work associated with the MOD files is something to be commended and not condemned.

As for Pope, his desire NOT to have documents related to his work at MOD's UFO desk indicates he does not want people to know about what he did there or what people thought of his work. So much for "full disclosure".

EDIT: If you consider Clarke's discussion of Pope's documents in the MOD files a "dishonest smear campaign" but still want all UFO records to be disclosed, you are being hypocritical. If a military witness comes forward about something he saw/experienced during his military career, then his military record becomes part of the equation. Was he really in that location? What was his paygrade? What does his evalautions say about him? All of these become pertinent to any investigation. In the case of Nick Pope, he proclaims that he was an expert at the UFO desk and has used that to write books and appear on television. Therefore, what he did at that desk is VERY pertinent to him being an "expert" on UFOs. By hiding behind privacy concerns for these documents, one can only assume that these documents reveal a side of Pope that he does not want revealed to the public.




Exactly right on every level.
"The Conformers are hard to read. They are rocks."
User avatar
murnut
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 951
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:35 am

Re: SUNlite

Postby astrophotographer » Thu Nov 04, 2010 5:45 pm

Giles,

As far as the AN/PDR-27 article goes, I considered myself something of an expert on the subject because we used the 27 frequently during my 22 years of nuclear submarines. As the Senior enlisted man of the nuclear engineering department on my last tour, it was my responsibility to ensure adequate training was held at the department level, which included regular training associated with the radiation equipment. I was also the senior drill monitor where I was responsible to make sure people who operated the device were using it properly. I saw a lot of the errors that untrained or non-proficient people made with the device. The people who operated the equipment on a daily basis (our Engineering labratory Technicians) were very proficient in using it. Meanwhile, those that did not use it on a regular basis were more likely to use it improperly.
Based on the tape recording, it certainly appears the Sgt Nevels was somebody who knew how to work the device (indicating he had SOME training with it) but really did not understand it or was very proficient in its use.
User avatar
astrophotographer
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 577
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:46 pm

Re: SUNlite

Postby DrDil » Thu Nov 04, 2010 6:23 pm

astrophotographer wrote:Everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, in the case I was discussing, a lot of people were proclaiming that Clarke was not fit/qualified for being involved with the release of MOD files. My argument is that what makes anybody "qualified" to investigate UFOs? What makes Robert Hastings, Stanton Friedman, Peter Davenport, Kevin Randle, etc. so qualified to investigate UFO cases? IMO, Clarke's work associated with the MOD files is something to be commended and not condemned.

As for Pope, his desire NOT to have documents related to his work at MOD's UFO desk indicates he does not want people to know about what he did there or what people thought of his work. So much for "full disclosure".

EDIT: If you consider Clarke's discussion of Pope's documents in the MOD files a "dishonest smear campaign" but still want all UFO records to be disclosed, you are being hypocritical. If a military witness comes forward about something he saw/experienced during his military career, then his military record becomes part of the equation. Was he really in that location? What was his paygrade? What does his evalautions say about him? All of these become pertinent to any investigation. In the case of Nick Pope, he proclaims that he was an expert at the UFO desk and has used that to write books and appear on television. Therefore, what he did at that desk is VERY pertinent to him being an "expert" on UFOs. By hiding behind privacy concerns for these documents, one can only assume that these documents reveal a side of Pope that he does not want revealed to the public.


Agreed 100% and I also covered this aspect as well as Pope’s “position” in a Blog post I made at the time:

http://blog.ufo-blog.com/2010/08/uk-ufo ... enied.html

For anyone vaguely familiar with the UK UFO scene or indeed the global UFO scene then Nick Pope needs no introduction. But just in case he's passed you by then depending where you read/hear/see his resume Nick could have been “Head of the MODs UFO Desk” (if of course they had one) or alternatively he used to run the, “British Government's UFO Project” as is claimed in Nicks Biog on his own website:
________________________________________

Author, journalist and TV personality Nick Pope used to run the British Government's UFO project at the Ministry of Defence…..while working on the MoD's UFO project Nick Pope also looked into alien abductions, crop circles, animal mutilations, remote viewing and ghosts.

Source.
________________________________________

Also it is usually claimed that he held this position for some 21 years or so when he was actually the ‘desk officer' from 1991 to 1994, and as for the specifics of this position, well, have a look at the following which is a document answering this exact question and which was sent to Mr James Easton back in 1999:
________________________________________

“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.”

Also I’ve reposted this several times prior (not here but at many other forums) so one more time won’t hurt, the document in question courtesy of Mr James Easton:

Image
User avatar
DrDil
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 10:55 pm

Re: SUNlite

Postby Gilles F. » Thu Nov 04, 2010 7:11 pm

Based on the tape recording, it certainly appears the Sgt Nevels was somebody who knew how to work the device (indicating he had SOME training with it) but really did not understand it or was very proficient in its use.


Aloha Tim,

Yep, 100% agree. I have summerized all of it in french, October, the 5th, about the use of, or the instrument itself and accuracy for low units, the AN/DPR27 ; versus the validity of the "dataes" measurement -sic -that night about this Mythic case of ufology, and why it is "solid" at first view when vehiculated and "popularized" by "mythists" like Nick Pope.

"Article" or topic already in our Skeptic forum. Quoting sources of course : Ian Ridpath or Dr David Clarke, mainly.

http://sceptic-ovni.forumactif.com/les- ... -t1702.htm

Regards,

Gilles with two "l" ^^
Gilles F.
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: SUNlite

Postby astrophotographer » Thu Nov 04, 2010 7:48 pm

Gilles F. wrote:Gilles with two "l" ^^



Mea Culpa. Sorry about that.
User avatar
astrophotographer
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 577
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:46 pm

Re: SUNlite

Postby Frank Stalter » Thu Nov 04, 2010 11:31 pm

astrophotographer wrote:My argument is that what makes anybody "qualified" to investigate UFOs? What makes Robert Hastings, Stanton Friedman, Peter Davenport, Kevin Randle, etc. so qualified to investigate UFO cases?"


Judge the bottom line. Their work either makes the grade or it doesn't. Davenport I don't know, but the others have been at it long enough and have a track record to look at. A person's "credentials" sinks to insignificance compared to that.

astrophotographer wrote:As for Pope, his desire NOT to have documents related to his work at MOD's UFO desk indicates he does not want people to know about what he did there or what people thought of his work.


No, it indicates it's nobody's damn business, which it isn't. Clarke's own "investigation" confirmed, via the MOD itself, that Pope worked on UFO reports when he was there. Case closed. If Clarke feels so strongly about "full disclosure," he ought to release his own personnel records or he's the hypocrite. And while he's at it, he can throw in his financial statement and medical records. Clarke provided no evidence that Pope isn't what he says he is, so he chose to sling some mud like the rat that he is.

Journalism in England, which Clarke is a professor of, makes the dung heap that passes for journalism here in the States smell like a bouquet of roses.

STUNNING Sam Faiers — who claims to be the hottest Essex girl — today fulfills her dream of posing topless for The Sun.
Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/3210693/The-Only-Way-Essex-Sam-Faiers-goes-topless-on-The-Suns-website.html#ixzz14L8NJPDh
Now, that's some hard hitting investigating right there . . . and yes, I do know Pope is a contributor at The Sun.
Frank Stalter
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 12:37 am

Re: SUNlite

Postby astrophotographer » Fri Nov 05, 2010 12:42 am

Frank Stalter wrote:Judge the bottom line. Their work either makes the grade or it doesn't. Davenport I don't know, but the others have been at it long enough and have a track record to look at. A person's "credentials" sinks to insignificance compared to that.


Well, I can demonstrate where several of those have made serious errors in their research and have been "taken in" by individuals who weren't telling the truth. Therefore, their track record does speak for them. If they are gullible enough to be taken in by hoaxers and liars, how can one consider their research beyond reproach? At least Clarke has not been taken in so easily.

Frank Stalter wrote:No, it indicates it's nobody's damn business, which it isn't. Clarke's own "investigation" confirmed, via the MOD itself, that Pope worked on UFO reports when he was there. Case closed. If Clarke feels so strongly about "full disclosure," he ought to release his own personnel records or he's the hypocrite. And while he's at it, he can throw in his financial statement and medical records. Clarke provided no evidence that Pope isn't what he says he is, so he chose to sling some mud like the rat that he is.


Nobody is asking Pope to release anything that is not related to his work at MOD. These documents directly discuss Pope's work there. He has promoted himself as somebody who was in the loop. What if these documents show he was just a clerk that really did not do much of anything? Wouldn't that be very important to know? Meanwhile, Dr. Clarke has been completely open about his work with the MOD and his record as a journalist. All you have to do is ask.
User avatar
astrophotographer
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 577
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:46 pm

Re: SUNlite

Postby DrDil » Fri Nov 05, 2010 12:46 am

Frank Stalter wrote:
astrophotographer wrote:As for Pope, his desire NOT to have documents related to his work at MOD's UFO desk indicates he does not want people to know about what he did there or what people thought of his work.


No, it indicates it's nobody's damn business, which it isn't. Clarke's own "investigation" confirmed, via the MOD itself, that Pope worked on UFO reports when he was there. Case closed. If Clarke feels so strongly about "full disclosure," he ought to release his own personnel records or he's the hypocrite. And while he's at it, he can throw in his financial statement and medical records. Clarke provided no evidence that Pope isn't what he says he is, so he chose to sling some mud like the rat that he is.

Journalism in England, which Clarke is a professor of, makes the dung heap that passes for journalism here in the States smell like a bouquet of roses.

STUNNING Sam Faiers — who claims to be the hottest Essex girl — today fulfills her dream of posing topless for The Sun.
Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/3210693/The-Only-Way-Essex-Sam-Faiers-goes-topless-on-The-Suns-website.html#ixzz14L8NJPDh
Now, that's some hard hitting investigating right there . . . and yes, I do know Pope is a contributor at The Sun.

I’m not sure I follow your logic, the Sun is little more than a comic and is recognized as such. It’s famous for it’s “page 3 beauties” (http://www.page3.com/) which adorn every paper and is not a fair representation of journalism in the UK but even if it is then how does that affect the validity of Clarke’s academic qualifications? I’m fairly sure they weren’t obtained studying the Sun’s topless images, also, whether you like it or not the image you linked to is currently halfway down the main page and shows the star of a new reality TV show that is currently getting lots of exposure (pardon the pun) so hey, at least it’s topical!!

Granted its no, “Weekly World News” as Bat-Boy would win hands down (even with his top on)…..

Having said that I agree with you about Nick exercising his right to keep the documents out of the pubic domain but let’s not pretend the information isn’t relevant to the disclosures as they detail the period when Nick went public with his personal beliefs, beliefs that were/are in opposition to the official party-line of the MoD, documents including:

Document 1 is a file copy of a letter sent to Nick Pope by the MoD after he submitted his manuscript for clearance. Although he now invokes his “right to privacy” to protect the contents, in 1996 he was happy to quote from this document in an interview for UFO Magazine (UK) and the International UFO Reporter (Vol 21/3). In this interview he claims there was a faction at MoD that “certainly didn’t want the book to appear” and he received a letter that said it was “completely unacceptable to MoD and quite beyond any suitable amendment”. We will never know how accurate this claim actually is, as we are only allowed to hear Nick's version of the sequence of events leading to the clearance of his book.

Document 2 is a file note dated February 1995 which contains “staff management discussion in response to a letter received from Mr Pope notifying MoD of his private activities.”

Document 3 is a loose minute dated 10 February 1996 “addressed to Mr Pope following his notification of his private activities.”

Document 4 is “a record of the line management steps taken following Mr Pope’s notification of his private activities" that “contains personal information about Mr Pope’s staff management.”

Document 5 is an internal memo written on 2 July 1995 following publication of an interview with Nick Pope published by the Mail on Sunday (‘ET lives, says man from the Ministry’). This document “contains free and frank advice” about Mr Pope’s “private media activities” and the steps taken to ensure that MoD regulations were not breached – including direction to line managers.

Document 6 is a file note dated 21 August 1995 on a BBC Newsnight item that mentioned Nick Pope’s book. This covers “media handling following mention of Mr Pope by name as both an MoD employee and ‘a believer’ in UFOs.” This document contains “free and frank advice” by MoD managers which the public are not allowed to read.

Document 7 is a file note dated October 1995 “following a Yorkshire TV enquiry”. It records “how the enquiry was handled given that Mr Pope was acting in a private capacity when supportive of the Operation Right To Know campaign”, which ironically demanded the release of secret UFO documents held by the MoD! Again, this contains “free and frank advice” from his bosses that we – the taxpayer who foots the bill for all this – are not allowed to read.

An indication of the “subject matter and tone” of the documents being withheld can be judged from an example that slipped past the official censor and was sent to me in response to a separate FOIA request during 2007 (see copy inset right).

Written by a RAF officer working for the Defence Intelligence Staff, it is titled “[Nick Pope]: recent media appearances and interviews” and was sent to his successor as UFO desk officer, Kerry Philpott, on 24 April 1996, shortly before Nick's book was published. In the minute the officer raises concerns about the media’s description of Nick as a “senior MoD official” and notes “he seems to have accepted the title willingly”. He adds that MoD needs to “approach the matter VERY delicately” and says: “I am not attempting to ban a book I have not read [but] I believe it will be based on supposition and technical ignorance.”
He adds: “The truth seldom sells books!”

http://drdavidclarke.blogspot.com/2010/ ... files.html

Regardless of whether it was about Pope or a nameless faceless employee I’d like to see just how uncomfortable the MoD were and if, how or why they tried to exert a little damage control, but like I said I also understand Nick’s decision to request that the information be withheld.
User avatar
DrDil
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 10:55 pm

Re: SUNlite

Postby Frank Stalter » Fri Nov 05, 2010 3:04 am

astrophotographer wrote:Well, I can demonstrate where several of those have made serious errors in their research and have been "taken in" by individuals who weren't telling the truth. Therefore, their track record does speak for them. If they are gullible enough to be taken in by hoaxers and liars, how can one consider their research beyond reproach? At least Clarke has not been taken in so easily.


I could to, but how do they handle it when it happens? In a couple cases involving Randle, one with his former research partner Don Schmitt, who did do some rather unwise resume padding, and another with one particular Roswell "witness" Kaufman who proved to be completely full of it, Randle owned up and moved on. Everyone is going to make mistakes and no research is beyond reproach.

DrDil wrote:I’m not sure I follow your logic, the Sun is little more than a comic and is recognized as such. It’s famous for it’s “page 3 beauties” (http://www.page3.com/) which adorn every paper and is not a fair representation of journalism in the UK but even if it is then how does that affect the validity of Clarke’s academic qualifications?


His doctorate is in folklore. He lectures on journalism. Those are his credentials. His work, or lack thereof, is what I judge. . .

http://drdavidclarke.blogspot.com/p/rendlesham-files.html

Dr. David Clarke wrote:Credits:
Thanks to all those who have contributed to this research, particularly Ted Conrad, Don Moreland, Simon Weeden, Neil Colvin, Derek Coumbe, Ian Ridpath, Vince Thurkettle and Nick Pope.


Use the guy's research, thank him for it and then try to assassinate his character. Class all the way Dave!
Frank Stalter
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 12:37 am

Re: SUNlite

Postby astrophotographer » Fri Nov 05, 2010 12:02 pm

Frank Stalter wrote:I could to, but how do they handle it when it happens? In a couple cases involving Randle, one with his former research partner Don Schmitt, who did do some rather unwise resume padding, and another with one particular Roswell "witness" Kaufman who proved to be completely full of it, Randle owned up and moved on. Everyone is going to make mistakes and no research is beyond reproach.


However, when research is shown to be prone with errors and based on questionable sources, one has to wonder how good the researcher is. Of course, in UFOlogy, such research is easily forgiven. While Randle et al. have blindly accepted what they have been told and failed to even question their "reliable sources" (remember Randle felt Kaufmann was reliable for over a decade and continuously tried to sell the idea that Kaufmann was telling the truth), Clarke seems to be more critical of what he is willing to accept. You don't see him describing wild stories based on rumor and speculation.

Frank Stalter wrote:Use the guy's research, thank him for it and then try to assassinate his character. Class all the way Dave!


Hmmm...he gave credit to Pope for his input, which is what most writers do even though they may not agree with them. Stating he is into "character assassination" is not being accurate and appears to be an effort for you to do the same. Character assassination involves presenting exaggeration,rumors, and misrepresentations as facts in order to tarnish a person's reputation. Clarke has simply asked why Pope wants to conceal documents that relate to his UFO work at the MOD. He wants the pertinent facts to be released. All Pope has to do is authorize the release of these documents and that is the end of the story. Pope is the one creating the story by not allowing those documents to be revealed.
User avatar
astrophotographer
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 577
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:46 pm

PreviousNext

Google

Return to UFOs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests

cron