UFO: The Anonymous Author
Over in England, Dave Clarke has an interesting new article on the identity of the man who wrote the British Ministry of Defense “Condign” report on UFOs. As Dave says:
The identity of an MoD intelligence expert who wrote a controversial report on UFOs must remain a secret, the Information Commissioner has decided.
Three years ago the Ministry released - under the Freedom of Information Act - a copy of a four volume report, code-named ‘Project Condign’, that was completed in 2000 and classified Secret - UK Eyes Only.
Condign was the brainchild of a mysterious intelligence officer, working as a contractor for the MoD, who was given access to secret documents covering DI55’s investigations of UFO incidents over three decades.
He was asked to produce the report because of his long experience as an advisor to the Defence Intelligence Staff on
the subject of UFOs.
His study concluded that UFOs - or UAPs (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena) - did exist but were mostly likely to be natural, but poorly understood, atmospheric phenomena such as ball lightning and dusty plasmas.
But what of the identity of the man who wrote the report? On this matter, Dave has been digging deep to try and resolve things, as the following from his new post demonstrates:
One of the questions asked “who the author was, what the author’s qualifications in this subject were; to whom the report was circulated [and] what actions were taken on the recommendations of the report.”
In response Baker was told the report cost the public around £50,000 but they would not name the author or say anything more about his background. “The author of the report was a contractor and was employed by the Defence Intelligence Staff (DIS) on a long-term contract,” Ingram responded in Hansard, 19 March 2007. “Further details of the author, including the name, are being with-held under the Data Protection Act 1998 [Section 40 of the Freedom of Information Act].”
And what happened when Dave - obviously not satisfied with that response - took further steps to try and identify the elusive author? Click right here to find out!
This entry was posted
on Monday, April 13th, 2009 at 2:15 am and is filed under Alien Encounters, Breaking News, Close Encounters, Evidence, Eyewitness Accounts, Government Projects, Guest Column, History, The Redfern Files, UFO Sightings, UFOlogists, UFOlogy. You can follow responses via RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response or trackback from your site.
del.icio.us Digg Reddit BlinkList Google Ma.gnolia StumbleUpon Technorati Yahoo! Help
- Related News Stories:
- A New Way To Leak UFO (dis)Info? »
- Weird Alien-Like Thing Photographed »
- About »
- About UFOmystic »
- Sesh Heri On Radio Misterioso Sunday Night »
- Science Fiction Secrets: Available »
- Flaming, Turquoise-Colored UFO Crashes, Picked Up By Helicopter »
- UFOs & Christians at Roswell »
- Private Eyes Investigate UFO Drone Story »
- UFO Hoax Continues »
|
Apr 13 2009 
April 13th, 2009 at 3:25 am
Journalists do not have a right to invade the privacy of individuals. That aside, why doesn’t he just ask the Information Commissioner to compromise on the issue? I would ask if I could create a list of questions I would like to ask, and have the Commissioner act as a middleman and discreetly pass the questions to the anonymous UFO author, and then discreetly pass the answers back to me. Remember that it is the author who chooses not to exposed to with today’s in-your-face journalism tactics, and everyone has that right to be at peace, but maybe if the author was given a non-confrontational alternative, the author might agree to do it then.
April 13th, 2009 at 8:18 am
50,000 pounds of public money pissed away on a debunking exercise, probably by some professor who doesn’t know squat about the subject. Of course they want to keep him secret.
April 13th, 2009 at 10:03 am
The stubbornness of the MoD to not reveal the name of the author would indicate that:
a)The author is a very respected individual in its field, maybe even a public figure; and
b)The author explicitly requested that its name would remain anonymous.
I dunno… if I were the MoD, i would probably go with the smartest person I could find and ask its opinion. And it just happens that there’s one of those who ALSO happens to be a British citizen.
I’m talking of course about Stephen Hawking
April 14th, 2009 at 12:51 am
Dear Nick,
What is the significant of trying to drawl broad conclusion using sanitized reports. This, is for me, a waste of time. The only good reports are those none of us including Nick Pope have been privy too, although Nick swears he knows it all. This constant banter about the government’s minor involvement with this subject is just for the masses in my book. It makes perfect sense that they would look very seriously at this. If John Alexander is right and 10% of those in the military have had UFO experiences. What does that mean? It means some of the military had close craft and entity experiences, just like everyone else. That would mean some of those cases would reflect some powerful evidence. I really think, if they had a case with proof of UFO Craft and entities witnessed by military personal, Nick Pope and others would simply not know. When it is leak the government can get away with so much, in the way of nonsense explanation, that any real whistleblower may think it’s a waste of time.
So you are investigating government constructed vacuum.
This whole thing is a big joke and the joke has always been on us.
Joe Capp
UFO Media Matters
Non-Commercial Blog
April 14th, 2009 at 3:54 am
“If I were the MoD, i would probably go with the smartest person I could find and ask its opinion”
Didn’t you guys learn anything from the Morristown Hoax? The smartest person’s opinion is no different from the dumbest person’s opinion — it is still just an opinion and opinions are not facts.
It would be interesting to see the believers debunk the Condign report, as they have attempted to do in word but not deed, but I have yet to find a believer skeptical of the report who has even read the report.
You guys keep randomly guessing as to why the name would be kept secret, but since it is random it isn’t fact but fantasy. Something to seriously consider here — but for some reason believes do not want to do — is that there is nothing to “hide”, but rather the author is a human being who does not want to join the Media Circus, especially the ridiculous Media Circus that surrounds UFOlogy.
April 14th, 2009 at 5:03 am
Sage:
I have to agree with you on this. It’s known for example that the author also filed his very own UFO report while serving in the British RAF; so in addition to his writing the report, doubtless the media would also want to know about his UFO sighting.
I understand the MoD’s thinking on this, even though it’s a shame we’re unlilkely to get the name.
And here’s why I understand: until only a few years ago, the National Archive would declassify its UFOs pretty much intact, with the only blacked-out sections being those that referred to the names of internal departments of the MoD’s intelligence offices.
At the time, they even left in place the names of the officials who investigated the reports.
Quite routinely, myself and a good friend of mine, Matthew Williams (notorious in the crop circle world) would go to the archives, and check out the new files.
If, for example, there was a named MoD official who (let’s say hypothetically) investigated UFO reports for the MoD in 1967, we would write his name down, and then attempt to track him down.
This proved highly successful on more than a few occasions.
And, rather than write the person a letter, we used the Net to find their current address (if they were still alive of course), and turn up on their doorstep.
On several occasions we were on the receiving end of irate tirades from elderly (late 70s/early 80s) men, long retired from the MoD, highly concerned that (a) we knew who they were; (b) we knew they worked in the MoD’s Intel offices; and (c) that we had tracked them down.
We always took copies of the files with us to demonstrate to the person in question that the only reason we had their names was because the MoD had not blacked them out on the declassified files.
There’s some evidence that one of these people we confronted phoned the MoD in a highly agitated and concerned state about 2 individuals turning up on his doorstep at 10 o’clock at night - me all in black with a shaved head, and Matthew adorned in camouflage gear, camera and tape-recorder in-hand, asking questions about his UFO work for the MoD’s Defense Intelligence Staff.
I’m pretty sure it’s situations like this that the MoD is keen to avoid when it comes to releasing or withholding names - such as the Condign Report’s author.
No conspiracy here: rather, a desire to ensure that a (possibly) old man doesn’t drop dead of a heart attack on his doorstep if a couple of pro-active UFO researchers turn up on his doorstep late one night, asking all sorts of questions about his work with the MoD.
April 14th, 2009 at 5:08 am
Sage:
Error in last comment:
Where I wrote: “…the National Archive would declassify its UFOs pretty much intact…”
I did of course mean: the National Archive would declassify its UFO [reports] pretty much intact…!
April 14th, 2009 at 5:24 am
“There’s some evidence that one of these people we confronted phoned the MoD in a highly agitated and concerned state about 2 individuals turning up on his doorstep at 10 o’clock at night - me all in black with a shaved head, and Matthew adorned in camouflage gear, camera and tape-recorder in-hand, asking questions about his UFO work for the MoD’s Defense Intelligence Staff.”
Oh, so it was YOUR fault, Nick! Thanks a lot, mate
PS: 10 o’clock?? Srsly? That’s kind of rude, don’t you think? Senior citizens have trouble getting back to sleep after they’ve been waken up; something most of us are destined to find out eventually. So let’s see how YOU like it when some Gen-Z teen drops by and interrupts your nightly Ramones holo projection
April 14th, 2009 at 5:32 am
RPJ:
Nah, I don’t care what time of the night it is. I’m a night-owl, and if they’re not, well that’s just how it goes!
April 14th, 2009 at 10:47 am
LOL at Nick and his pal showing up and shoving a camera in some old guys face at 10 pm. I love it and I love the fact Nick is not apologetic in the least about it.
April 16th, 2009 at 3:44 am
Thanks for the reply, Nick. Being an investigative reporter (or taking on the role of one) requires sacrifice and a constant, aggressive pursuit of the truth, (almost) no matter what the risk. Apparently you have what it takes, so I would like to change the subject and ask you a question…
What about cattle mutilations? This sounds like something that most definitely could be solved by a competent and serious investigative reporter, unlike most other mysteries that are discussed here. If there is any connection between cattle mutilations and the black ops or UFOs, this would be the place to find it.
April 16th, 2009 at 5:46 am
“What about cattle mutilations? This sounds like something that most definitely could be solved by a competent and serious investigative reporter, unlike most other mysteries that are discussed here.”
Yeah, but I’m beginning to doubt if Nick would be the right individual for that kind of investigation…
For starters, those cattle ranch folks have a method to deal with strangers bothering them at ungodly hours of the night: it’s called shotguns LOL
April 16th, 2009 at 8:08 am
Sage:
Yes, I would definitely be interested in digging more into the mutes, but the more I look at it, the more I’m inclined to think it has less to do with UFOs (maybe actually nothing) and far more with testing of animals for disease etc.
I heard a very disturbing story once about CJD and mutes/testing of cattle that may be related, and which was linked with the perceived massive increase in Alzheimers, where there was a thought some might be linked instead with CJD or some related factor.
Greg is actually far more informed than me on mutes - he’d do a great book on it.
RPJ: LOL, yeah I might end up as the only confirmed victim (indirectly of course!) of a cattle mute!
April 16th, 2009 at 8:10 am
First confirmed “Human” victim, I mean - the cattle are of course the main victims!
April 16th, 2009 at 10:26 am
Sage, Nick,
Yes, I’ve been toying with that idea for a couple of years now. Yet to find a publisher who’s interested. In the meantime, information keeps coming my way. There are enough books on the UFO angle, but those are the ones that sell!
One mutilation researcher I knew suddenly dropped out of the subject about 8 years ago and refused to answer any phone calls, mail, or email from me after that. The mail from this person was continually opened or torn up (resealed in a post office envelope with a standard, printed apology) or never even reached me.
April 17th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
What I meant was, for example, there was a cattle mutilation on May 21st, 2009, near Walsenburg, Colorado. See http://www.earthfiles.com/news.php?ID=1540&cateegory=Environment. This is Linda Moulton Howe’s coverage of the event but it tells you nothing about what actually happened — as does every book on the subject. I’m talking about a real life investigation, not a collection of reports in a book. Colorado has a very high incidence of mutes, in particular the Walsenburg area. Instead of asking everybody what happened, because they will obviously all say, “I don’t know”, set up cameras (including infared) and motion detectors and EM field detectors in high incidence areas. Find a rancher who is concerned enough to let you stay on his property for awhile and can show you the “migration” pattern of his cows so you can set up strategic monitoring points. Find out what the ranchers have in common, including what type of cows and where they are most often mutilated. A report that this happened and that happened on this date or that date are boring and tell you nothing. Statistics are boring and tell you nothing. You need real life investigation but we have yet to see that happen. That’s what I’m talking about. It is a mystery that has a solution if only someone was competent and willing enough to take the time to solve.