This just in from researcher David Clarke on UFOs and the British Ministry of Defence:
Two months ago Norman Baker, Lib Dem MP for Lewes, tabled a written question in Parliament on the Defence Intelligence Staff report on UFOs ‘Project Condign’.
He wanted to know how much public money was spent on producing the report, along with the name of the author, his qualifications, to whom the report was circulated and what actions were taken on the recommendations.
The reply he received from Rt Hon Adam Ingram MP revealed that the report cost an estimated Â£50,000 and was produced by a contractor employed by the DIS on a long term contract. The MOD refused to name him, citing the Data Protection Act, but said the report had been circulated within the DIS and to other branches of the MoD and RAF.
Mr Ingram’s reply did not say if a copy of the report – produced by the intelligence services -Â had been sent to the Defence Secretariat, or DAS – formerly Sec(AS), and often referred to as ‘the UFO desk’ – which the MoD maintains is the single and only focus for UFO matters at Whitehall.
As a result Mr Baker has tabled a further Parliamentary Question to be answered on 4 June, specifically asking if the Defence & Overseas Secretariat received a copy of the UAP report, see this linkÂ (question 48 in the list).
Mr Ingram’s reply will be of great interest. As I have already demonstrated: (Section 6: Was the UFO desk, Nick Pope’s former post at Sec AS, made aware of the existence and conclusions of the Condign study?)
The Defence Secretariat were specifically excluded from the distribution list of the intelligence report, despite the fact that in 1995-96, when the study was commissioned, they were cited by DI55 as “the main customer” for the report’s conclusions and recommendations. Why was that?
Internal DIS documents recently obtained by Joe McGonagle under the FOIA provide an indication of the reasons why, by 2000, the intelligence services deemed the completed report could not be trusted with the “UFO desk.”
In an email dated 17 December 1999 from DI55 to DIST an intelligence officer says:
“No positive purpose would be served in sending the report to…Sec AS [Nick Pope's former branch]…in view of the ‘leakiness’ of Sec AS we would advocate only releasing the report to them on request, in order to discourage further discussion.”
It will be interesting to compare Mr Ingram’s Parliamentary reply with this quotation from a contemporary document. In the meantime Mr Baker intends to pursue the question of the identity and qualifications of the report’s author directly with the Defence Ministry. I will keep you updated on the results.
- Related News Stories:
- No related posts »