Hello, and welcome to Open minds UFO Radio. I am your host,
Alejandro Rojas, and I have with me Jason the Christmas Elf. McClellan.
Well, I am short, so elf is appropriate. I'll take that.
How you doing, Alejandro? Good? Good, But it's certainly a compliment.
So like I saw the Hobbit the new one last week, and Lego
lists, you know, is kind of the coolest warrior elf out there,
and the chicks dig that. Dude. Yeah, yeah, but I'm not
I don't know. I guess elves are Okay, you never really loved elves,
but really I love the elves there. They're the coolest. I'm alright
with elves. Yeah, they're cool. I like them. They're cool,
dude, And they're immoral at least on the Hobbit, aren't you. Yes,
But that's right. You're not supposed to tell people that secret. So
we're getting ready for the holidays. Happy holidays, Happy holidays. This is
our holiday episode, in fact, and you have special plans for the holidays.
You're not supposed to tell them that. Oh really, we are so
full of secrets. Yep, you always spill the secrets. No, nothing
too special. I'm just gonna run away to Vegas for Christmas. That's special.
Yeah, pretty cool, that's awesome. That's way awesome. I did
that for Thanksgiving. Yep. So I'm excited because I had an amazing trip
and I bet you will too. Always do. And I told everybody about
the Freemont experience where they had alien abduction kind of show going on there.
Yeah, that's really cool. I remember hearing something about that, and then
when you talked about Area fifty one, I posted a video today. Yeah,
that's very cool. I want to go see it so you could see
it on my YouTube. It's stupid, but the storyline especially is really dumb.
It's corny, but yeah, so weird, and you know, they
have these aliens that are sticking scissors and probing people with a laser and it's
really weird, man what they're thinking. And it's called Area fifty one,
so well, Vegas is kind of weird. It is definitely so yeah,
so you'll have to check that out when you're there. You can see just
a snippet of it on my personal Alejandro Rojas YouTube. I think it's called
Ali Buddha. That's one of my nicknames, Al Buddha. That's the Buddha
inside of me, my Buddha hood, Buddha hood. Yeah, so I
guess I should tell people who the guest is. The guest is Nick Pope.
Nick Pope of course worked for the MOD in the nineties as a UFO
investigator. He worked the UFO desk and the MOB being the UK's Ministry of
Defense and that's pretty cool. So of course we've had him on the show
many, many times. But he's written a book recently with two of the
main witnesses of the Rendelsham Forrest case, the case that happened, you know,
appropriately for this show on Christmas. Actually a couple of days after Christmas,
there were UFO sightings in these US spaces in the UK, very famous
cases. I'm sure you recall them because we've had a lot of interviews about
this recently because it's kind of started up more controversy and more news, and
that John Burrows has been able to get some more files released by the UK.
Really cool stuff. John Burrows being one of the witnesses, and he
having his medical records suppressed for some unknown reason for that period of time,
and he having health issues that he believes are a result of those events.
So really interesting stuff. We talked to John Burrows about that, but we
do talk to Nick about that. Also. There's other controversy because you know,
there's more contral virtual aspects of the case as to whether they happen or
not, and and some people have been upset with Nick Popen and the authors
of the book and the way they handled some of that, and so we
talked to Nick about his point of view on that. And so we talked
to him about a lot of stuff. And I think it's really cool,
some interesting information, I think, and I think we're able to get some
stuff out of him that he probably has not said. And I think he
even said that has not revealed anywhere else before. Bomb Well, and it's
very good timing of you to have that, like you said, around this
time of year. It's appropriate. And we're going to have more about this
topic at the UFO Congress coming up, Yeah, because we're gonna have John
Burrows and his lawyer, Pat Prasconia, who we had on the show as
well. But yeah, very interesting. I mean to have a guy this
is certainly novel, something new for this field to have a lawyer who's representing
someone about a UFO case. I mean medical issues stemming from a UFO case.
And this lawyer is familiar with defending veterans against the United States government to
get records released. So yeah, very strange, new kind of stuff here,
looking forward to it. It's going to be a good addition to the
Congress. So this will be a great show, perfect for this time of
year. Do you know why. Why Because it's the most wonderful time of
the I wanted an excuse to see I knew you were going there. We'll
see people. I might be singing some more later on, so stay tuned.
But before we get into the interview with Nick Pope, and before I
do anymore singing, let's talk some UFO news. How about that, Jason.
I like that idea, okay, And the first I want to bring
up the first story. I'm gonna switch things around a bit. I hope
you don't mind. And that's only because I want to talk about a Christmas
story, all right, go ahead, And not that it's that popular on
our website, but it's the only Christmas story that we really have unless you
can think of another. And I just think it's interesting. I think we
talked about this a couple of years ago. I don't know if we talked
about it last year. Probably we did. But it's just interesting that again,
speaking of the UK, since we have Nick Pope more and more and
now the news is saying more often than not, Nativity plays in the UK
put on by little kids include aliens. What's going on over there with the
UK and aliens? Jason, Well, you and I have talked about this
at length, and I think they're just cooler than we are. But they
they love to incorporate it seems, you know, as an outside viewer,
it seems like they are really open to the idea of incorporating aliens and and
and you know, using it as an educational tool for creative writing classes.
We see it a lot in their their curriculum at schools and popping up in
the Christmas stories, the Nativity plays that the children put on, and uh,
adding aliens to it, I mean they go. It seems this year
and maybe last year, they're moving away from just purely alien stuff. They're
like adding fairies and other you know, elbs, paranormal and strange things too,
just to be absolutely crazy. But the extraterrestrial element is there. Just
like in the schools we write a lot about that with the staged ufoshes and
alien invasions and things to give the children something to write about, a creative
writing exercise. So I don't know, and we said this before. I
don't know if all these teachers went to the same like teaching conference and somebody
had this great idea, here's an idea, have children stage a UFO crash
and have children write about it. And they've just kept doing it. But
it is interesting to see how much extraterrestrials pop up in the schools there and
what children are doing and these aren't, you know, just here and there.
It seems like lots and lots of schools, and very nice schools too,
from what we can gather, are doing this. So I like the
idea. I would have loved to have had some of this incorporated into my
curriculum as a wheelad. But interesting to see it. And we have seen
a little bit of it creeping across the pond here so but certainly not as
much as over in the UK. Yeah, according to these recent stories,
more often than not they will include aliens that else as new as they did
surveys to ask parents, well, what do you think of this? Idea,
and the parents said, well, we don't like it, we want
it to be traditional nativities. But of course the teachers argue that, well,
we're trying to engage the students, and the students like this, so
that's why we're doing it. So very interesting, and I just think it's
interesting for the impact that it has on this field as well. You know,
there's been a surviveed at a survey of who believes in extraterrestrial related to
many different factors, one of those being aged, and it showed that younger
people are much much, much more apt to believe in that. And I
think we've got a future where, you know, I recently did a talk
on this where I don't think, you know, those of us are interested
in this field have to worry about this topic going back into obscurity anytime soon.
That it's a very prominent kind of concept that's just, if anything,
growing and becoming more of a not just conversation piece, but a topic in
the mainstream. And you know, I was thinking about it and even more
unlikely that these types of plays would take place here in the States, because
a lot of schools don't really have nativity plays because of the religious aspect,
and they don't even have Christmas plays. They really go to great lengths to
find these non denominational, non specific winter plays or holiday plays, and they
get really bland and don't really feature much more than some sparkly lights and some
snow. You know, the one I went to for my girlfriend's daughter at
high school. She's in dance, and they have these chorus people come out
and do some chorus singing, which is cute, and then they have the
dances which are just kind of, you know, some contemporary music. And
I don't think the teachers know what some of these lyrics mean, because,
you know, instead of anything you know, holy, it's like these nasty
you know these days the songs. I keep saying this. I remember when
Two Live Crew came out and it was a big deal and it was,
oh my gosh, what are they saying? And now every song seems to
be pushing that that's on the you know, radio and the hip hop songs.
So they're playing this music and these girls are dancing to this pretty racy
stuff and some of it, you know, are these double entendres and stuff
where I don't know if the teachers know just how nasty these songs are so
Yeah, things have certainly changed since my day. Yeah, you sound like
a crabby old man. Yeah, well I am, dang it. No,
I'm not very chrect or your favorite word of curmudgeon. Yeah. So
yeah, so cool stuff, so interesting stuff. And that's our Christmas story
because really, I don't think there's any other Christmas UFO alien type of story
in the news or that we have, not any of that come to mind,
not that we've written about recently, that's for sure. Well, what
UFO story does come to mind that you would like to share with the listening
audience. Well, you know, we've got a lot of stories to choose
from here, because I think it's been a couple of weeks since we did
the last has. Yeah, so a lot of stories to pick through here.
But I do want to mention this story that generated a lot of headlines
about the mysterious whatever captured by a camera aboard the International Space Station. You
know, people saw this light and it looks like some object shoots a laser
beam down towards Earth or something. So you know, people are thinking that
aliens are trying to communicate with us or shooting at us or something. But
definitely something unusual captured on camera by the ISS camera and possibilities were offered.
I mean, the very large telescope that the Europeans based organization owned or Observatory
owns fired a laser and they do this periodically to create an artificial star that
helps them calibrate their telescopes. And that happened on the day that a video
was uploaded to YouTube saying that you know, this thing was captured. But
as we posted, a more likely explanation is this new instrument on the ISS.
It's called the Optical Payload for lasercom Science or OPALS, and it's a
new laser based communication system that they've been testing aboard the ISS. So that
is likely the explanation for what people saw because it does exist and you can't
see this laser. But the confirmation, you know, a lot of skeptics
we'll say, we're pointing this out and just writing it off as okay,
we know exactly what it was when there wasn't necessarily direct confirmation that a test
took place on the day this video is recorded. And a lot of people
were citing to an article that was published by Discovery News about this OPALS instrument
that had a quote from somebody from NASA's JPL explaining how it works, and
people were quoting him saying, oh, this is what he said the laser
was, or you know, he was responding to the video saying that what
was recorded on the ISS camp was this. I never saw anything that had
him directly responding to the alleged UFO or this particular video. People were pointing
to this quote that he gave Discovery News. It was just a general article
about this technology, about this instrument aboard the ISS. It wasn't directly in
response to the particular incident in question. So he wasn't saying I saw the
video, that's what it was. It was just a quote from him explaining
how the system works. Mm hmm. Yeah. So again, and I
saw so of the getting it wrong again exactly they were. They were taking
something, taking it out of context really and applying it to what they thought
was being said, but wasn't actually what was being said. So, you
know, tossing something to the wind saying oh yeah, it's I've already been
figured out. This guy said what it was, but he didn't actually say
pertaining to that particular video. Sooe, you know, you and I love
to love to bitch a little and complain about people who who like to throw
things away pretty quickly, but I do personally think that's most likely what it
was. It makes sense, and it it does line up with with how
they describe the system works. So I wanted to point that one out.
Yeah, interesting, and I mean I think we get upset. I mean
it's it's concerning when uh UFO websites get it wrong. But I think for
the most most part, they do it because they're not journalists. They don't
do it every day. I think it's it's often, you know, done
just a genuine mistake. But there's I get so frustrated when mainstream media does
it because they don't have any excuse. This is their job. They're supposed
to be careful about their sources and how they frame what their sources are saying,
making sure they get it correct and accurate. And when it comes to
UFO cases, sometimes they just use what the UFO website suppoor work done there
on some of those sites or like this, they get it totally wrong and
out of context, and that's really frustrating. And look, we do this
with stories we write about. We we say what we think something is an
idified object or something, we offer up our best suggestion based on our experience
as people who do this full time, but we don't conclusively know. We
say, there, this is a possibility, and it's the strongest possibility,
most likely explanation, but we don't know. Yeah, well, and you
just did it yourself. You believe ople's probably is the what it was.
But you're still clearing up that you know, this science, what the scientist
had said, and putting what he said accurately right based on what I can
track down based on the published dates for the test that they've done with this
this instrument. You know, I personally haven't seen the evidence that leads me
to believe this is absolutely what it was. You know, it's a possibility,
and it's a strong possibility because it makes sense everything. You know,
there's nothing to suggest that it's not. But I don't have that confirmation.
So I put it in my most likely the identification of what was captured on
the video. But I don't know, and I'm not going to say absolutely
that's it, and I'm not going to stop, you know, reading articles
about it and dismiss it and say, oh, I already figured that out.
Yeah, yep, because we're not sure on that one yet. No.
Yeah, I want to point out another ISS one because unfortunately, and
people you know, may get disappointed, a lot of people point out weird
stuff on the ISS, and unfortunately, for the most part, it's usually
stuff that's explainable. Not always, of course, but I think for the
most part, because there's lots of weird things floating around and things look weird
in space. And I love this story just because this Italian astronaut, she's
the first Italian in space. She was on a Soyuz spacecraft recently, the
last one that went up there. There was a Russian her and an American
on this Russian spacecraft docking with the ISS. As they were docking, she
screams out and she's like, you know, essentially, from what I understand,
it's kind of like, oh my god, look at that kind of
thing. And the it's funny because the Russian kind of goes he says do
or something like that, but it's these that mean calmed down, calm down,
calm down in Russian. And prior to that, about a couple of
minutes prior, actually more like four minutes prior, you see this little white
thing kind of cruise across the screen very dimly, which could be anything.
I mean, there's so much debris. I think most likely that's what it
is. So in this video, a lot of people have speculated, oh
my gosh, you must have seen that UFO and freaked out. However,
they if you go back to her daily log, they're kind of taking her
daily log out of context because she explains the thing completely in her daily log,
and Italian News had written this up, and the Italian News was kind
of making it seem like it was her referencing the UFO. But if you
read the story, and you can even see in one of the videos,
at one point, the ISS lights up this bright orange and she saw that
and that's when she made her exclamation. She's says that in her log,
and she asked the ISS guys about that, you know, what was this,
and they said that happened, you know, at the right time during
the sunset, the sun hits us and it lights up the craft really brightly.
And she was just so amazed by this, and I think it's it's
cool to clear up that, you know, she wasn't referring to the UFO,
but Also, I don't know, ever since I spoke with and I
guess the movie Gravity does this for you too, and the photos themselves,
but ever since I spoke to that astronaut Mike, I forget his last name,
but astro Mike is his Twitter. Really cool guy, and he talked
about just how amazing, you know, how just overwhelming the view is from
up there in those spacecraft, and I just always think of that, and
I can only imagine I just kind of, you know, sympathize with her.
Just moments earlier she was on the Earth and here she is now about
to dock with the ISS, and how just breathtaking some of these views would
be where it would be difficult not to kind of exclaim kind of an astonishment
some of the stuff that you see. Absolutely I agree with you. And
in space, you know, it's just like here on Earth, with so
many conventional things being mis identified as unidentified objects in the sky just because they
look bizarre. There's something that people aren't used to seeing, Like you know,
people haven't seen Chinese lanterns or things like that, or how drones in
the sky. So so many things in the sky. I know, there's
a good changing to see something that you're not used to seeing in the sky,
so it looks strange. And in space, man, that's got to
be compounded so much because you're dealing with a completely different environment. You know,
things floating around, behaving differently than they would hear in our atmosphere.
So everything is going to look so as you're seeing it for the first time,
got to be just incredible, and everything's got to look confusing to you.
Yeah, yeah, it's got to be amazing. So and really that's
the main driving force, probably one of the main driving if not the that
I'm in this field and I love the idea of space so much. I
mean, I was an engineer major at first because I wanted to be an
astronaut for a while. I wanted to go to space, and that's what
you know, really, I just would love to go to space. And
that's why I'm so interested in commercial space ventures and all of this, because
and it's just got to be so incredibly amazing. Agreed, my friend.
But I think I'll wait wait a few years to go to space. Yeah,
I'm thinking about a good idea. Thirty years I'll go to space.
Yeah. By the time I get to space, yeah, well, I'll
need a that'll be a pretty old fella. It's okay, you'll be mostly
robot by then and it'll be okay. Oh yeah, that's cool. That's
a good roboparts yep. Yeah, awesome. So did you have any other
story you wanted to share with these people? I think, so let's talk
about this move on report from Ohio where a witness they filed a report.
This guy and his wife say they were driving in Ohio and it'saw an alien
run across the road. Oh yeah, so it's pretty interesting. This happened
on December twelfth. You're Carmel, Ohio, and the wife I think,
filed the report with Moufon and said that a couple they were driving in their
truck. They're driving down the road and this alien just kind of darted across
the road in front of their car and ran into the woods. Now,
she says her husband is a skeptic. He's almost sixty years old. He's
a proud marine, and she says he wouldn't have admitted seeing this strange alien
if he hadn't been in shock. So when they got home, he sketched
from his memory what he thought he saw in this alien in and he described
it as being asphalt gray in color, about seven feet tall, no arms
that he could see in muscular legs, and the the legs were bent backwards
there the knees bent the other way from ours, kind of like a like
a dog's leg or something really weird looking thing. He sketched, I'm running
across the road, so who knows what this could be? You know.
The mouf on investigator in the area kind of joked and said he gave the
the report to the local local media and he said, I'd like to get
this information out in your area in hopes that maybe someone else has seen it,
or that their giant crossbred ostriche got loose or something. So, I
mean you could see the ostriche. Yeah, they're with the strange legs running,
but who knows what this guy thow. I mean describing it as seven
feet tall too. It's difficult to judge height, especially when you're driving down
the road, and who knows how fast they were going. So it's it's
you know, it's interesting. We just have their their testimony and the interesting
sketch, but yeah, when you're driving, it's hard to really see details
and things, especially when they're darting across the road. Yeah, really weird.
And some people when I posted this on the moof on one of the
moof on forums with a lot of people in it, a lot of people
were saying, Oh, it's got to be a bird or sandhill crane or
something like that. But who knows. I mean, the witnesses most likely
would have recognized if it was something like that, but it's so hard to
say. It's one of these where it's you know, when you're not there,
or it's hard to say what a witness may have seen. Yeah.
I mean again, like anybody who's had an animal dart across the road in
front of their vehicles. You know, depending on the animal, sometimes you
really can't tell what it was and you start piecing it together in your brain
later you know, oh, yeah, that's what I think it was.
But you know, I know I've had have Alina dart across the road and
deer and different birds and squirrels and rabbits, and sometimes they just look bizarre
because they dart out so fast and you're driving so fast, so there's very
little time to process things in your brain. Yeah, and I don't want
to be too mean here, but I do want to address some of our
Facebook readers. Thank you so much for looking at our stories, but please,
for God's sakes, this is my Christmas wish. Please just read the
story a lot. There were so many comments with people looking at this picture
where you took the witnesses drawing and you put it kind of on the scenic
like what it might have looked like in that area. Obviously, this isn't
a snapshot or you're not alleging this to be a photo. It's obviously a
recreation. And so many people, Oh, that looks so fake. Of
course it looks fake because it is. It's like an animation. It's a
graphic. For God's sakes, people, if you would have read the story,
you would have seen that, and that you would not seem so silly.
That's that's the world of Facebook. That's how social media works. And
people people love visuals, they love photos, and they'll glance the photo and
then comment solely on that. Yeah, and you know, with a lot
of the you know, any story we post that doesn't really have a photo
of what witnesses saw and are describing, you know, it's the photo of
the location where it occurred, or something like that, and people will comment,
I don't see the UFO, dumb, or they'll comment and say,
I think that's a cloud. It is a cloud. It's all that's in
the photo. Nobody said otherwise. But yeah, there is a lack of
reading the story, even like open it, clicking on it and glancing at
it to see what we said, or seeing more images that go along with
the story. So yeah, it is frustrating, but I guess short attention
spans. Yeah. And one of the reasons it's frustrating too is just the
facts, because there's a lot of facts, a lot of details with a
lot of these stories, some stuff that you know, we've pains taken lee
research to find out what all the facts and information are, and the stories
are so much better, there's so much better information if people were to read
the stories like this one in Italy that I posted this week. The photo
isn't that impressive, but there were multiple witnesses and I think that the facts
of this story are really interesting, and if you just look at the picture,
you're not going to know that there were these multiple witnesses from all over
the country and everything. So yeah, please read the story, and a
lot of these stories do have, you know, additional sources, additional information
that comes down additional research that we do. You know. So some people
will see the headline we post and they'll recognize that they've read something about this
story, you know, that same day or whatever, and say, oh,
that was already explained, or that was this move on or something like
that, and they don't realize there's more to this story, right, and
or this see that was already identified as that, and if you look at
the story, we will identify it as that. Yeah, so that one's
a big one. Yeah, that's what we explain in the story. In
fact, typically if we're posting the story, we explain it. I feel
better than anyone else has because both of us do a lot more research and
find the root sources. So we've explained this better than anywhere else. So
yeah, read the story and you'll get some information you will appreciate. Yeah,
it helped to read. Yeah. One guy posted put reading so hard
kind of funny. Some people I guess don't like to read, but I
told them, you know, practice makes perfect, So maybe you just can
use a little more reading practice there. Well, since reading is so hard,
maybe what we should start doing in our stories, and even in our
featured photos we post is we should post the photo and then put big words
in the photo, you know, like an Internet meme or something, and
yeah, say the important things right there in the photo. With Twitter,
you know, with the information being so short a couple of sentences, maybe
that's where we're headed. The meme photos will be the new stories of the
future. You get to get out your story in five or maybe five words
and one big picture. Sadly, I'm sure you're right, ay, y
ay yi, that's gonna be mine. Show my picture and just put a
AI and that's my story for they all. Right, Well, there we
go. We have you know, Chili did some really cool stuff, the
UFO organization working with a French organization. That's really cool story. There's other
cool stories. However, Jason and I will be joined by none other than
Lee Spiegel, the Huffington Post's own UFO paranormal writer, next week, and
we're going to be talking about news. So we'll certainly be talking, I
think at length about Chili and some of the cool things that their UFO organization
has done over the year. So we'll have a lot more news and some
of the news we didn't cover next week exciting. Huh, of course it's
exciting. I can't hear any excitement. Yes, I look forward to that
every year. It's a lot of fun, Leon and hopefully you get angry
at him again this year. Yeah. We tease each other about what,
you know, we think are the top stories, but little ribbon there.
But yeah, it's always fun. Yep, it's fun. It's fun to
have, you know, different different viewpoints and comments and thoughts about these stories,
because yeah, we all do have different ideas about the bigger stories of
the year and and the stories that deserve the attention or the ones that didn't
deserve the attention. Yeah, I think that's where we so we'll see why
are you giving that oh so much attention? Ro All right, okay,
so why don't we go ahead? And I guess I should ask is there
any other story you wanted to talk about, mister McClellan, No, sir,
we'll talk about plenty next time. Yep, we sure will. All
right, then let's get to our interview with mister Nick Pope. I am
very happy to welcome back to the show Nick Pope. Hello, how are
you? I'm fine? Thanks, it's great to be back on. Yes,
it's great to talk to you again, and especially right now in the
middle of all the controversy. I have a hard time listening to your accent,
not you saying it like you know, controversy, kind of like how
the British stay it. Well, hey, it's not my fault. You
Americans butchered our language, right, We kind of did our own thing with
it, didn't we. Well, I shouldn't have said that. I've probably
alienated just about all the listeners. Now, Oh that's okay. We have
lots of listeners from the UK who will appreciate your comment there. But yeah,
we've got a lot to talk about, especially right now. I don't
know if you know, but I was able to interview John Burrows and Pat
Frasconia not too long ago, who are both part of your recent book.
So we'll talk a lot about what he's been up to or they've been up
to as well. Sure, yes, I haven't listened to the show,
but I was aware that you'd managed to get an interview with them, which
is great. Yeah, so I guess we'll start out with because I haven't
spoken with you, I think I spoke with you while you were writing it
not too long before it came out, but not since your book has come
out, Encounters in Rendelsham Forest. So I guess what was your gold with
tackling this story. Well, I think a couple of things. Many years
ago, of course, a number of other people have had to go at
writing the Randallsham Forest story. We had Jenny Randalls, Brenda Butler dot Street,
then we had Larry Warren and Peter Robbins. Then we had Georgina Bruney.
Now I had obviously been involved in quite a lot of that. Georgina
in particular was a good friend of mine. But as time passed and as
new information came in, I was toying with the idea of writing my own
account. And then at that point I'd have to check back exactly when,
but I think it was maybe, I don't know, two thousand and nine,
twenty ten, perhaps John Burrows and Jim Peniston contacted me and they said,
look, we're thinking of putting together our own account of this. Would
I like to contribute a chapter with particular reference to the Ministry of Defend Angle
and the UK involvement in this. And I said yes, and I started
putting that together and then I thought, well, wait a minute, I
wonder if we can't maybe do a little bit better. I think they had
in mind just self publishing something. But I have a literary agent in the
UK and he had placed my previous four books with major publishers in both the
UK and the US, and I thought, well, I wonder if we
can't collaborate and get a book together on this, And that's precisely what we
did. John and Jim thought that was a good idea. We contacted my
agent and we did a deal with Saint Martin's Press, which is part of
the giant McMillan publishing house, so one of the Big six. And I
think in that way, we got the story out to a large number of
people, much much more mainstream than had we decided to just go our separate
ways on this, which makes sense and I always appreciate and I always personally
put author is in this field to go that route. A lot of people
want to self publish or go with kind of these kind of micro publishing that
which is really just a couple of steps above self publishing. So it gets
out to the field and we share amongst ourselves, but it's so much better
to get it out to the masses. Well, sure, and you know,
we got reviewed in the Washington Post, in the San Francisco Review of
Books, in various other places. We got some mainstream media coverage with this,
and it was always our intention to say, look, this isn't really
just a UFO story, you know. I think it goes wider. It
goes into areas of government, the military, the intelligence agencies that are particularly
controversial now with all the kind of talk that one hears in the media about
the secret state, surveillance society, etc. And I think some of the
issues in the book play to that too. So, as you say,
it was important to us that this didn't just come out in some small New
age press, but we really did hit one of the big six really cool
And how have those reviews been thus far? Mixed? I don't think the
Post liked it, but the San Francisco Review of Books very much did.
And also I was picked up by a major history and political blog that was
as much interested in the kind of government secrecy side of all this as the
UFO angle. So and of course we have the paperback coming out early next
year, which is going to again in terms of sheer numbers take this to
a new level. So I think, as with all UFO books, it's
a mixed bag when it comes to the review. But you know, I
look back on this and I think it's not like the nineties when publishers were
churning out UFO books left, right and center. Really in recent years,
the number of UFO books that have come out with major mainstream publishers really only
I think being in Leslie Kayne's book, John Alexander's book, and the book
that John Burrows, Jim Peniston and I have just put together. So it's
a more difficult environment for this subject than it was in the nineties with the
fiftieth anniversary of Roswell and all the associated interest in that right, no doubt.
I mean, people in this field know there are lots of books coming
out, but we know of them because of our internal kind of networks within
the field. But as far as penetrating the mainstream like you have here,
doesn't happen often, no, And I think when it does, well,
when one gets the opportunity, one should grab that opportunity with both hands.
And again that's very much when we sat down at the beginning of this project,
both John Burrows, Jim Peniston, and myself did think that was what
we wanted to do, because otherwise, in a sense, you're just you're
just preaching to the choir. You can sell a lot of books to the
UFO community, but really we wanted to break out and make it go beyond
that, and that's what we did. When it comes to the mainstream critics,
what have been the criticisms out of curiosity that you've seen, Well,
I think they as ever, I sometimes wonder whether the critics have read the
book in huge detail, because sometimes as a times some of the criticisms are,
well, this is far too credulous. But actually, in our book,
we are the first ones to conclude ourselves. Look, you know,
we're really not in a position to say definitively what we're dealing with here.
So we don't ram any one theory, whether it's extraterrestrials, whether it's time
travelers, or indeed, whether it's any of the skeptical theories like secret prototype
aircraft or drones. We don't ram any of those theories down people's throat.
So, you know, when some of the criticisms have said, oh,
this is just another UFO book and actually it's not. So. I do
wonder sometimes whether people get too far beyond the press release when they do a
review, right, which is so frustrating, because you know, you had
mentioned Leslie Kane's book and she ran across something very similar. Were many of
the reviews you could tell were referencing cases that weren't even in her book,
that they really hadn't reviewed the book indeed. And I mean some of the
criticism we got, for example, and both within and from outside the UFO
community, was oh, have you come down far too much in favor of
the time travel theory? Well, no, we don't. Actually, if
anyone's read the book, it gets a couple of pages where we talk about
the possibilities of time travel in general terms, and we talk, for example,
about the work of physicist Ronald Allott. But we absolutely do not conclude
that it's time travelers, nor do we conclude it it's extraterrestrial. So you
know, it's very very strange reading on forums and blogs all sorts of interpretations
of our book, and John, Jim and I are looking at each other
going, that's not what we said, right, right, And I think
what's interesting. I think there are so many people that are hold the you
know, they're so into the idea. There's so they believe so much that
this is an extraterrestural phenomena that they get frustrated with alternative theories. And I
think it's interesting to introduce alternative theories. And I don't think a lot of
people know that Jim Peniston, for one, very much subscribes to that idea.
Yeah, I mean that's that's certainly you know the case. Jim was
very much attracted by this, and I mean indeed there is a point,
particularly during one of his previous regression hypnosis satuate posisions, where he actually turned
around and said they are us. But now looking back at that, Jim
is I think the first one to admit that there are, of course,
as we all know, problems over regression hypnosis, whether it's a way of
genuinely uncover hovering real memories or whether it can create false ones. So I
think John's the first. Jim is the first one to say, well,
you know, yeah, it's a theory, but it's by no means a
definitive opinion on this, And I mean it does you know, sometimes it
amuses me when people say, oh, you know, you're even mentioning the
time travel theory is going to discredit our theory that it's space aliens. You
know, as far as the public concerned, all these theories are pretty out
there, and it's our job, I think, when we're putting together a
book like this, to dispassionately weigh all the evidence and to say, right,
what have we got here? And if we don't have enough to come
to definitive conclusion, which hand on heart, I don't think we do,
then then we shouldn't try to pretend that the case is in any way solved,
because it's not. And for those critics, especially in the mainstream you
know the books, if they review it thoroughly, is much more palatable and
credible when you know an approach is taken with where it's serious researcher and being
done and looking at all possibilities. Yes, and I think you know where
the Washington Post did, like Encounter in Rendlesham Forest was when it got into
you know, surveillance society, the secret State and things like that, and
there was a quote where they said, you know, words to the effect
of this is a book filled in many ways with paranoia about the activities of
the government, and not all of this paranoia by any means, is unjust.
So it was nice to have the post reference our book in that way.
So here's a tough question in a nutshell, because there's so many perspectives.
Of course, you're taking three perspectives here, three valid perspectives people who
were involved very closely with the case. But in a nutshell, how would
you describe the events the Rendalstrom Forest. You've probably been asked this before I
have. I'll try and give it to you each time. I try and
do this in a briefer and briefer version so I can give people. I
think the important thing to say about this is that, according not just to
the testimony, but from the government documents we have, this was not lights
in the sky. This was a landing of a craft of some sort.
It was a multiple witness event. I sometimes characterized this as a perfect storm
of upology. What I mean by that is almost every single factor that makes
a case interesting and compelling is here in Renderlsham Forest. Military witnesses, multiple
witnesses over a series of three different nights, an audit trail of government documents,
the provenance of which is not disputed. You can read these at the
National Archives and on the mod's website. It's not like MJ twelve, for
example, where people say are these documents real or not? No, we
have the documents. They are the government's own documents by their own admission,
and we have the physical evidence. We have an object that was tracked on
radar. We have an object that landed and where radiation levels were recorded using
a gey encounter and then assessed by the Ministry of Defense Defense intelligence staff i
e. Those scientific and technical intelligence staffs that we at the Ministry of Defense
in the UK used for this sort of thing. And all of this put
together proves beyond any reasonable doubt that there was a structured craft of unknown origin
that John Burrows, Jim Peniston, a number of other witnesses encountered what we
don't you know, in a sense, we know what it wasn't. It
really wasn't a secret prototype aircraft or drone, though that's probably the strongest skeptical
theory. It wasn't the local lighthouse. It wasn't a psychological test of the
Guard Force to see how they would react using holographic technology and Hollywood special effects.
So we know what it wasn't. What we don't know is what it
was. But that in a nutshell is I think the Rendalsham Forest incident.
But there are obviously a lot more specifics, and perhaps we'll get into those,
or perhaps not. When you'd say, for instance, you can rule
out a drone or any other sort of hay tech kind of military equipment,
what for you makes that so well? I think a couple of things.
Firstly, aviation technology generally runs around ten or fifteen years ahead of what's publicly
declared and what you'll see on display at the major ESH shows like Farmborough,
Paris. This object had speeds and maneuvers and capabilities that go way beyond anything
like that. I mean, even now near what thirty five years on,
we don't have anything that can remotely do this. The other thing is a
more practical point, and it's one that I'm more familiar with from my own
government work, and that is this, if people had encountered some secret prototype
drone or aircraft, chain of command would simply have told them you've seen something,
it's one of ours. Don't say anything else other than leave things hanging.
So, in other words, there is a way to kill the story.
Stone dead on day one, and yet that's not the road they went
down. I mean, my goodness, you know, you certainly wouldn't have
had pay per trayals of documents going out from the USAF to the MOD.
You wouldn't have had the local police getting dragged into this. It would all
have been locked down in the way that invariably things were locked down from the
fifties and the sixties onwards when people saw U two's and SR seventy ones,
and in the seventies and the eighties when people were seeing stealth fighters and stealth
bombers. So with the I mean the kind of way if you follow the
official paperwork and everything, I think that and I want to get your opinion
on this. It seems as though both sides, the Americans and the the
MOD kind of wanted to wash their hands of the whole situation, at least
that's what it seems like on the surface, trying to pass it off one.
On the other, of course, you had people like Lord Hill Norton
trying to get more done publicly as far as research, which didn't really happen.
Is that the story Do you think that each say did kind of just
try to push it off on the other and wash your hand of the whole
event. At one level, that's certainly true. And the jurisdictional position is
complex. I mean, it's been a while since I've dug out the NATO
Status of Forces agreement and the various UK US memoranda that governed the United States
military presence in the UK. But there's quite a lot of paperwork, and
it is quite tricky. But I can't help but wonder despite all of that,
all the confusion over juris diction, all the trying to hand this off
to the other side, whether to some extent it almost looks as if both
the Americans and the British at some level are almost being set up to fail
here. But there there is an embarrassment, and there's a difficulty, And
the main difficulty is one which the UFO community have hardly ever mentioned, and
that's right from the outset, the United States Air Force started doing something which
directly contradicted US government policy. In other words, they were investigating at UFO
sighting right from the moment when Borrow's penistone and Kevanasack approached the object. They
were doing what the US government and military have said for decades, we no
longer do. The party line, as you well know, is we don't
investigate UFOs anymore, and we haven't since nineteen sixty nine when Project Blue Book
was terminated. So, in a sense is quite a problem with the Americans
doing anything at all. And by the time you start, for example,
flying in and this is one of the most intriguing documents in the mod file,
the commander in chief of the United States Air Force in Europe to be
briefed on this, and once he starts taking items back to his headquarters in
Ramstein, Germany, you're not just kind of bending US government policy on UFOs.
You're absolutely driving a coach and horses through it and breaking it into a
zillion pieces. Well, and that's the hard part. And I know you
and I have talked about this, and you certainly would have an unique perspective
in that, when does what I mean the definition of a UFO. If
the military has something an observable, observable phenomena, an object that is at
the so to speak, and they need to investigate it, at what point
do they say, you know, this is something we're not going to look
at because it's a UFO, whether it be the Americans or now the UK,
because now they say they don't investigate this sort of thing either. You
know, at what point does it become not a possible foreign threat of unknown
origin and versus a UFO. Well, I think it's a great question.
It gets to the heart of this. I think the only way you can
do this without fatally compromising the US government's position is probably the way they did.
It's desperately avoid using the term UFO. And it's interesting, of course,
if you look at all the paperwork, and we put the key documents
in the appendix of our book, of course Colonel Holtz memo, but some
other ones too that are less well known. They all have the type or
most of them have the title Unexplained Lights. And the other point, which
John Burrows and Jim Peniston are often I think it pains to point out,
is that this was being treated in some respect, certainly at the outset as
a security situation. I mean, here we have two of the most sensitive
NATO bases in the entire alliance at a time of some considerable international tension,
and you have a possible incursion, and of course it was treated as such.
So I think the trick is and it is a trick. Your question
is right, it is a trick. Is you avoid using the term UFOs
because, as Colonel Holt has said on many occasions, the phrase ufo is
what you say over here, a tar baby or something. No one wants
to touch it, but the moment you do, you kind of you know,
it gets all over you. Right then you're dirtied. And and so
that's an interesting observation on how they handled it. But then getting deeper,
getting past all of this, there of course the rumor and speculation that there
was something deeper going on. Even Colonel Holt believes that possibly Air Force intelligence
went so far as to brief people such as John and Jim under the no
under their nose, so that Halt, as a deputy based commander and his
you know, base commander, didn't know that these debriefings were going on.
Do you believe that that happened? Yes, I do. I think that
Colonel Holt, as the deputy based commander, is extremely well placed. I
mean, if you look into the actual role of the deputy base commander,
Holt is almost perfectly placed to be the one to say what's going on.
And yet even he seems powerless to stop these these people coming and going.
He talks about unmarked flights, he talks about personnel who nobody could could really
get to the bottom of who they were. And of course, his most
provocative quote of all, and I mean, again we put this in the
book, but I mean, this quote is absolute dynamite. When when he
said, and this is I'm reading this if you don't mind, but it's
so important quote. Drugs such a sodium pentathole often called a truth serum when
used with some form of brainwashing or hypnosis, were administered during these interrogations,
and the whole thing has had damaging and lasting effects on the men involved.
You, I mean, when that comes not from the junior personnel but from
the deputy based commander, that has got to be taken seriously. And the
preface to that, and this again was was a direct quot. Is he
said, Office of Special Investigations operatives harshly interrogated five young airmen, some of
them in shock at the time, who were key witnesses. And yet it
seems like his pleased or his when he's come out with this has kind of
fallen on deaf ears other than people like us. It doesn't seem to have
been taken seriously. Yes, and of course that's why Colonel Holt is extremely
frustrated by this. He has I think, been very bollish in his language.
He's sometimes either stated or implied that it would maybe take a sort of
I don't know, formal congressional inquiry and a subpoena or something, but that
he would be prepared to put certain information in the public domain. He's dropped
more than a few hints recently that he's thinking, he's twying with the idea
of putting together his own account of this. Now he's doing a public talk
in Woodbridge next summer, but that you know, inevitably that's only going to
get I don't know, two or three hundred people in the door. It
will probably get some media coverage, coverage, but that'll be predominantly UK.
I think at some stage he's got to think about putting putting together a book
on this himself, and that would be interesting. But yeah, you are,
You're right. He's been bullish in his statements. But it has been
surprising in a sense how little has been picked up by the mainstream media.
And of course the reason for this is the age old problem of signal to
noise. There are so many bogueous stories out there, There are so many
completely made up UFO accounts that when you get the real deal someone like Colonel
Holt, you know, the mains stream press journalists don't really have time to
do a sort of deep background check and they go, oh, yeah,
here's another guy you know with his UFO story. And yet the ultimate irony
is, yeah, actually, this guy really is who he says he was,
and he was involved in what he says he was involved in. But
that's a problem I know that will be well known to you. It's a
problem well known to me, and you know, without wanting to go too
far down this road, it's a problem that in a sense I've been on
the other side of because when I worked for the Ministry of Defense, my
job, just some extent of course, was to try and downplay this sort
of stuff. And we loved nothing better than, you know, trying to
kill a media story or you know, killing one or either kind of twisting
it and spinning it so that what came out was something that made people look
crazy. So I'm sure Colonel Holt has been up against much of the same
thing. Now when you worked in your official capacity, as you just mentioned,
were you then at has we're doing this sort of thing with this case
in particular. No, inevitably it was the case, and at my time
on the UFO project, of course, was nineteen ninety one to nineteen ninety
four, so this was some years after the event, but it was still
an incident that was attracting a lot of interest from the UK's Parliament, from
the media, from the UFO community, and from the public. And my
job when the press office came and said, hey, we've got an inquiry
from a journalist here, my job was to try to tell the story,
to give what we called, we used the phrase defensive lines to take and
these were what we did is we designed very quotable sound bites which we knew
would be picked up by the media because they were very carefully constructed to be
exactly the sort of punchy thing the media love. I mean, most people
or a lot of people working in the Ministry Defense's Press office are actually poached
from newspapers, so these people know how to do this. And the trick
is, and it is a trick, is to design these short, punch
yet very quotable sound bites that will downplay the incident, will make the witnesses
maybe sound a little kooky, and will take the story off in the direction
that you want to take it in, not the direction that the journalist might
want to go, and certainly not the direction that the witness and the UFO
community would want to go. And that's a kind of fine art. It's
a bit of a dark art as well. And in many cases where the
media is coming out the government or the military as a skeptic, you haven't
had it. I'm sure a little easier because in this case the media is
coming as more of a partner where they're often looking for kind of an out
because they don't want to go down the crazy road or the more controversial road.
They would love to have. I'm sure a quote from someone in the
military that leads them to a more easy solution that they can print. You're
absolutely right. We were pushing on an open door here, and all you've
got to do sometimes is throw in a few kind of quotes about little green
men and flying saucers and the story virtually writes itself. Now, our nightmare
was, of course, that one day we would come up against a woodwood
or a Bernstein or someone like that, but it didn't happen in my time.
I mean, now I'm kind of, I guess on the other side
of the fence. I work as a broadcaster and journalist myself, so I'm
you know, I'm hoping to do it from the other side. So I
suppose it's the kind of case of what would you say, gamekeeper turned poacher.
Well, and that's another thing that I wanted to touch au pont in
it and I John had brought this up a little bit with my interview with
him. And of course you've ran across this before because you're you still can't
completely divest yourself of your past like you've we've talked about in previous interviews.
You've still under the secrecy oath there. So there are you've got kind of
a tough road to follow. But does that then, is that a detriment
to research in this area? So, for instance, when John is looking
at material that he feels the mod did not want released. And of course
when you're someone a researcher who's looking deep and you're trying to unearth things such
as this, you can't really go to those places. No, I can't.
I mean there are constraints, but I mean I'm not unique in that
John himself and Jim are bound by their secrecy oaths. And I certainly I
have never considered myself a whistleblower. Encountering Randalsham Forest is not a whistle blowing
book. It's an informed insider book written, you know, not from the
outside looking in, but from the inside looking out. It's written by John
and Jim as the two people at the heart of this on the first night.
It's written for myself with my mood background. It's no secret that the
manuscript did go to both the DoD and the Ministry Defense in the UK for
security vetting. It is not my intention to divulge classified information. That's not
what we're about. So it is a fine line that we have to tread
and John knows that as well as I do, even though he is obviously
frustrated with it at times. But John has worked within the confines of the
UK's Freedom of Information Act, and John Burrow is probably more than any journalist
British or American, has played a key role in perhaps forcing the MOD to
look again at the declassification and release of files and documents, not just on
Rndlesham Forest, but on UFOs more generally, and indeed John Burrows has been
a key force in forcing mod to you know, change its line on this.
So it shows what can be achieved when you work within the system.
But yeah, you're right, I do get accused of this all the time,
and I mean, just if you'll forgive me a slight indulgence. But
you and your listeners might find this quite funny. I mean I picked this
out completely at random, but yesterday I got I receive emails like this all
the time, but I got an email and it said, may I ask
why you continue your mission of disinformed? May I ask why you are the
only mi I five employee to go dancing in the public like you do.
Obviously you have an agenda. I think you're still employed by them and that
you should stay away from the field with respect. I know what you are
heading for once you pass on, and you deserve it. Happy Christmass.
Wow. So I you know, I get this sort of stuff all the
time. So yes, of course there will be people in the UFO community,
in the conspiracy theory community, who think I'm still secretly working for the
government just because I point out things like I'm still bound by the Official Secrets
Act. And yes we had the manuscript for encounter in Ranglish and Forest Security
vetted. But you know we, as I said right at the outset,
we are not whistleblowers. We are insiders telling a story but wanting to do
so in a way that respects our security odes to our respective countries. And
speaking of whistle blowing, and you having vetted, what the interesting thought comes
to mind? Now? I've read a lot about what you've written about this
vetting that you went through and everything. And I know this didn't happen in
this case with this book, and you can correct me if I'm wrong.
But had they take an issue with something in the book, and then you
would have to ask as a journalist and decide for yourself. You know,
this is an important piece of information I think that needs to be out in
the public. What would you do at that point? I think, knowing
you, you'd probably default to the oath and you would probably then bend to
their wishes. Yes, I think that's correct, But let me let me
maybe tell you why. I think it's all too easy for someone to say,
oh, yes, I know best, you know what's in the public
interest what isn't. I got into a little row with Robert Sallas about this
just the other day. Now I have great respect for Robert Sallas, but
he disagreed with my position on this, and he said, well, I
didn't get my book cleared because I know where the line is. I know
what's classified and what isn't. Now, with the greatest possible respect, I
don't think anyone and I've worked My final tour of duty in the Ministry of
Defense was in the Directorate of Defense Security, and I know a little bit
about INFOSI. And one thing I know is this, only the information owner
is qualified to say whether something is or is not classified anymore, and if
so, at what level it should be classified? I what degree of damage
that disclosure of that information would cause. So it's not you know, I
might like to think that I'm well enough qualified to say, oh yeah,
if they questioned this, I could just put it in any way, But
I think, no, I'm not. I know what I don't know,
and only the information owner may make that decision legitimately. And there are very
clear rules setting out what information security policy is within government, within the military,
within the intelligence agencies. And I don't think it's helpful when people try
and start to second guess that. But you know, if it helps maybe
you and readers can be assured that as a result of this process, I
did not feel that the book ended up as a water down version. I
mean, in most cases I self censored because I know the sorts of areas
which are the danger areas. And for example, I mean, you know,
people ask me for an example, and maybe anticipating that you will,
A question that often comes up is what about nuclear weapons at the base?
Now, I don't care what other people have said about this. My position
on this is always going to be neither confirm nor deny, because that's the
British government's position, and I check that with the Press Office as well as
the security vetting procedure because it does come up so often. But so far
as I am aware, the position of both the American and the British government
is to neither confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons at a specific location
at a specific time, even if we're talking about something that might to you
and I now sound like a piece of intriguing Cold War history. Well,
it's an interesting area. I think it's extremely fascinating because of course there's fan
to the X files, but I think there's you know, and that kind
of brings us that these kind of ideas up. But also there are a
lot of patriotic Americans out there that believe in this field. There are military
veterans who are interested in this field, and I think that if they came
upon a piece of information that their government asked them not to share, they
would have a difficult decision to make. And I think there are many patriots
out there who would say, I'm going to default to, you know,
my government. I trust them, and I'm a patriot, and I'm gonna
so I don't think as as cut and dry and black and white as a
lot of people, especially on the internet, you know, the Internet trolls
try to make it seem well, I agree, and I mean I think
the danger, as I'm sure you know, is that all of this is
going to sound a little bit to some people like trust us, your government
knows best, and I mean, you know, of course that's not what
I'm saying, right. I mean, even when, for example, you
look at John Burrows and his freedom of information requests, the MOTMD has something
which they call a public interest test, and actually, in some ways it's
quite skewed in favor of disclosure, so you actually have to conduct a public
interest test to show why information should not be disclosed. Sometimes. I mean,
this actually drives some people in government crazy. But you know, it's
all too easy to think that the government is just hiding behind a kind of
freedom of information firewall and just saying oh, defense, national security, like
it's a kind of get out of jail free card. It really isn't quite
as simple as that. And I've done this. I've handled Freedom of Information
Act requests from the inside, so I know that it can get quite tricky,
and sometimes governments do put out rather more than they would like. So
I want to get into more of the bird is kind of what he's done,
and some of this stuff post your book, however, I really want
to, even though actually some of it actually took place during the writing,
but I want to get into this before I leave the book also, and
kind of get into some of the other controversy going on. You had mentioned
Larry Warren and Peter Robbins, and as you know, I've read your retort
as well. Peter Robbins was disappointed with aspects of the book. But I
want to ask about two things. First of all, your approach to dealing
with Larry Warren. What were you thinking going into the book. I'm sure
that you put a lot of thought towards how am I going to deal with
this witness who has more controversial things to say. Yes, my approach was
essentially to almost literally draw a Diane Gram of all the different witnesses and their
various interconnections. And the way that I did this was almost literally to take
a blank sheet of paper, and then you put all these people down,
like John Burrow's Jim Peniston, and each time they say something, you know,
look at their statement and say, well, who else did they say
was out there with them or saw them, or interviewed them afterwards and took
a statement from them, And you kind of end up with a blank sheet
of paper with a lot of you know what looked like spiderwebs on them.
And the point is that when Colonel Holt, for example, says that he
went out into the forest, he names, you know, half a dozen
people who are out there with them. You can talk to those people and
they'll give you Holt's name. Black Larry was much more of a standalone and
yes, in evidential terms, that was problematic. So I guess I took
the decision that we would kind of ring fence Larry's testimony a little bit more
and just say, well, you know, here's what Larry says, and
and the other thing is I think give him a little bit less I guess
space in the book. Then certainly I don't know Peter Robbins would have liked,
for example. But again on that point, we were very clear at
the outset this was the story of the Randallsham Forest incident. But I mean
here's the key point. But told through the eyes predominantly of Germ and John.
I mean, Germ and John didn't see Larry. No amount of soft
soaping or not wanting to upset people can change that. I mean we can't.
We can't somehow change history and kind of come out with the version where
they saw Larry out there and everything all right, They did not see Larry
right, end of story. I had asked John about that, and John
was offended Larry a bit and saying that he doesn't feel that hot can be
definitive in saying Larry wasn't out there. But John admits I didn't see him
out there, but that doesn't mean he's not out there well quite, you
know. And that's the thing, you know, It's it's like, well,
of course, can't Halt can't say that Larry wasn't out there, but
being being ridiculous about it, Halt can't say that her Majesty the Queen wasn't
out there, you know. I mean, all he can say with are
you trying to tell us something? Miskidding? But off with my head.
I'll be taking an hour for that anyway. No that, you know,
So no amount of kind of being nice to people can change what they saw.
And they John and Jim didn't see Larry out there. So that doesn't
take away from Larry's role as a whistleblower, and we give him absolutely the
credit for that. He played a key role, if not the key role,
in geting this story out there to the UFO community and ultimately to the
media. But like I say, John and Jim, whose story encounter in
wrangleshrom Forest really is, didn't see the guy. And you know, there's
nothing I can do about that, absolutely nothing that makes sense. And I
think that's fair, and I'm sure Peter will respond to us and let us
know his perspective on that. Sure you will. It is of course from
John and Jim's perspective, and they didn't see him out there. And there's
also the issue of corroborating evidence, and as you kind of outlined, which
any journalists, as you look for, you know, what are the stories
that have more than one witness, and of course those hold more credibility.
It's the same with the paperwork. Yeah, And it's the same with the
paperwork. Of course, We've got the memo from Holt, We've got statements
from Baran, from Chandler, from Peniston, from Burrows to Cavanasak, but
we haven't got any paperwork with Larry's name on it. So, yeah,
the essential problem was an evidential problem, and that as a journalist and a
broadcaster myself, you know, I know that when I come out with a
story which isn't underpinned by a document or another witness who can corroborate it,
you are in much more difficult terror. And that's the reason why Larry didn't
get much space in this book. The other issue that Peter had, which
I did see your you did address this, but I just wanted to bring
it up here so you could do that again. Is that he feels a
lot of the facts in your book were taken from his and Larry's book I
left at Eastgate, and you define, yeah, they weren't. Is the
bottom line? I mean, you know, I could spin this anyway,
but the short answer is it simply ain't true. I mean, I think
I gave one example and I will repeat this because I think it's illustrative of
the point. Peter made a big point about Lord hill Norton asking questions in
Parliament and said then that all these questions were in his book. Sure they
were. But again I go back to the point that as a journalist and
a broadcaster who who's written for most of the UK's national daily newspapers, including
The Times of London, you know you always have to go back to the
original source. So if I have a choice of quoting Peter's book or going
back to the original source, which is sad the written record of UK parliamentary
proceedings, I make no apologies for going back to hansard Well, and I
can kind of sympathize with Peter in that. And I'm sure you've had this
happen to you as well. And I've stopped doing this because I got egg
on my face too many times where I had read because I write stories every
day, you know, and I had rather there's stories that referenced information that
was in my stories, thinking I'm the only one who had this information,
but they didn't give me credit. And then I confront them and they're like,
oh, no, I got this from over here. I was able
to find the saurus, and then I feel foolish because they did find a
legitimate source that was better than me, you know. So absolutely, I
always go to the original source where I can. But very often when someone
claims, hey, the source of this is a UFO book, Actually,
if you check, no, it isn't, it's right. You know,
I cannot begin to tell you how many times all sorts of information is cross
posted on the internet. And of course, when I was putting together the
book, I checked and double checked and trouble checked all this right, right,
well, so I was very sure of my position on this, and
it's you know, it's slightly disappointing when this thing comes up as a criticism,
because you know, it really is a sort of journalism. First day
lesson go back to the original source, not a UFO book, even if
subsequently that information was in the book, right, and when it happened to
me often as well, where someone says you got that from my story,
when I do, like you do, I that's what I do most of
the day is researching for the original source. Well, sure, I'll probably
get a bit kind of pissy if I read Colonel Holt's book in three years
time, if he writes it, and I'll say, hey, wait a
minute, that was an encounter in Rendolu from forest. But I suspect that
if I check, I'll find that, you know, he, like me,
has gone back to the original source. Right. So much controversy.
I mean, I love Peter. I know, I think you're very fond
of Peter. Yeah, he's a great guy. I mean, I think
you know he on this. I don't suppose it's an insult to say,
and it's nothing that Asian other people haven't said. In the last couple of
weeks. I think he's been more than a little obsessive about this. But
he's a great guy. My door is always open to him, and you
know, I hope that when the dust settles on this, we can all
move on. I mean, you know, goodness. I mean in some
respects, I suppose you know, someone said to me the other day,
Hey, it's great publicity for your book. Well, you know maybe,
but in a sense it's it's I think time to kind of move on and
concentrate on the issues. Well you know, who said what to who and
what get you know, what got written where. I don't think the desk
will ever settle in this case, because there's always been a desk step somewhere
somehow regarding this case. And I love all the people. I'm very fond
of everyone involved. That's euthology. There will always be someone who isn't happy,
right, And I'm genuinely sorry if that's Peter and Larry, and you
know, I'll, I'm sure sure that sometime in twenty fifteen I'll sit around
the table with them and we'll share a couple of told bears. Bear seems
to especially out there in the UK, although you're in America now, is
a peacemaker. So moving on to these new UK files that John Burrows has
been and this is really weird, okay, So I wanted to ask you
about this and I'll kind of lay the groundwork because we did interview John,
but I wanted to interview you the peculiar way in which this all came about
recently. So John Burrows of course put in a foyer to the MOD to
get some more documentation, and it was told what last January or December,
so about a year ago, that they would give him more information, and
they outlined kind of what that information was. John had talked about this in
Sedona actually out here in Arizona, and some people had written something up on
it, but it was really kind of a silent story until you all,
I think you were involved. But there was some RENDALSCHAM conference out there in
the UK a few months ago and one of the organizers put out a new
press release saying these new files were found. However, when that went out
at the same time, nearly the same day, the MOD for some reason
posted on their updates, their FOYA updates, that they are releasing these new
UFO files, but they referenced the FOYA of a British gentleman who actually only
submitted the FOYA because he had heard that John Burrows had done so prior to
him months prior. Isn't that weird? It is It's an interesting question because
it ties back into something we were talking about earlier about the way that the
mood sometimes use spin to maybe kill a story. A couple of things.
Firstly, yeah, this UK researcher simply slapped in a kind of I don't
mean this in a disparaging way, but a kind of copycat FOI request to
say, Hey, what's all this stuff about John Burrows? What are you
going to release now? At the same time, there was a change at
the Ministry of Defense, and there was a new Secretary of State in and
there were new Undersecretaries of State. And one of the things that the ministers
decided was that they weren't posting enough information on the Freedom of Information website,
so they wanted proactively to start doing this. So copies of people's requests and
then the responses were and are on a wide range of subjects posted now every
day. Now, this actually has a somewhat kind of sneaky consequence in one
respect, and that it somehow sometimes helps to kill a media story. And
let me explain that if a journalists thinks, hey, I've got a scoop
here, you know, they may run a story. But if the mod
says, hey, yeah, we've had to release this to someone in the
UFO community, to a journalist. Sometimes a way to actually kill the story
is to put it out, because then the journalist thinks, well, it's
not really an exclusive anymore. It's on the website, and if anyone ever
calls them out, it's like, well, yeah, that's not a big
journalistic kind of discovery. It's look here, it is on dot gov,
dot UK or whatever it's on. So that's kind of what happened, I
think, But that's not to detract from John's achievement in getting the story out,
and in fact, one national daily newspaper in the UK, the Daily
Star, did put this story out and did say, hey, remember last
year when the Ministry of Defense put out some files and they said, well,
folks, that's it. You know, that's the end of this fantastic
five year program. We've now declassified and released all the files. And the
Daily Star put out the story quite rightly to say, oops, we've forgotten
some here's another eighteen files, which is probably several thousand documents. And to
give you the time scales, the Ministry of Defense is attempting to get those
to the National Archives by the end of this year. So they've just really
got a you know, two or three working days left now, and then
the National Archives will probably put them out. It takes them a while to
prepare them. It will probably be September twenty fifteen before they go out there.
But there will be documents from the Defense Intelligence staff, there will be
documents from radar specialists. Some of them will be Randal Sham Forest documents.
The vast majority will be other non Rendalsham UFO documents. So interesting times ahead.
It's one of the big stories for twenty fifteen that I'm looking forward to.
And indeed, this kind of embarrassing, Yeah, the embarrassing admission that
it wasn't the end of the program after all was one of the big twenty
fourteen stories. I think. Well, it's funny that we were talking about
tracking your sources, because that's how I came about it. And there is
confusion amongst you and I and John over this because I went to write a
story on the Daily Star story, but they didn't cite their sources, so
I had done extensive research, searching, searching, searching for their sources.
I found the mod say with the posting of their infamy because it had come
out the same time, I assumed that that was the source for The Daily
Star, which it was not. Well, I still don't know for sure
what their source was because they were very vague in that story, but I
think they had a quote from you, they had a quote from me.
They did have I think confirmation from the Ministry of Defense Press Office, which
is not a resource that would be open to the public. I mean,
that's really a sort of journalist to journalist route, right, And that it
was their their exclusive story, which I started was strange. They called it
exclusive because that stuff was up on the MOD site, and then John contacted
me and corrected me and said, hey, that's actually stuff that I had
retrieved, you know, months ago, and that's when we start. He
started clearing the air on this whole thing, and we started to figure out
what the heck happened. Yeah, it was unfortunate for John. I mean,
in a sense the MOD, I think because John had been quite forthcoming
about this. I think a number of people had written to the MOOD and
said, I don't know exactly what I'm looking for, but I want what
John wants, and I want what John has been promised. So at the
end of the day, when the Mood put up a statement a letter on
its website saying we have found another eighteen files and these are the titles and
this is when we're going to release them. They put out something and they
just picked one of those letters and it had some British ufologists name on.
It might just as well have had John's name on. And arguably they have
been fairer to John if they had put the one his name on, because
he was the first. But they didn't. And I mean it's not the
mod's job, of course to kind of I don't know, referee or row
about who got what first. I mean, frankly, the Mood of course
isn't interested in that sort of thing. And how how big of a deal
is this? I mean that the Mood said they released everything, and now
now they're like, oops, we've got more. That of course lends people
to believe, well, there's probably more that they don't know of if they've
got these, you know, thousands of other files that they're going to put
out. Yes, I mean, I think inevitably this is what I would
characterize as a good news story turning into a bad news story for the MOD.
What starts off as being Hey, look at us, look at our
commitment to FOI and to open government ends up looking like either incompetence, you
know, oh dear, we've found another eighteen files we didn't know we had,
or something even more sinister. Heck, we were trying to hide these,
but John John Burrows managed to kind of expose you know that, and
kind of make it public. So, I mean, I think it probably
is more you know, can spira up. Excuse me, I'll start a
conspiracy there. I think it is more bureaucracy than conspiracy. But yeah,
of course it doesn't play well for the mod and yes, it's going to
be a big story next year. I think when these things do get made
public, I agree. I think that he was able to get them to
release more fhiles is a big story this year, and it's unfortunate that they
didn't get more attention. I've done my best to try to get it more
attention because I think this is a big deal. It is, and I
think one problem is that generally, I mean, newspapers can be quite unscrupulous,
but generally speaking, when a newspaper gets and announces that it has an
exclusive, as the Daily Star did here being the first to break the story.
Other newspapers are less inclined to run a story, not least because it
looks like they're following. And that's a journalistic term. I don't know if
you use it here in the States, but in the UK you do not
want to be accused of following because it is what it says. It just
makes you look very kind of second place, and nobody wants to be second
place. So in a sense, that's why this story didn't get quite as
much coverage as it might have done, because the Star had this as an
exclusive. And some of what gets me excited about these files it's things that
you have said. It seems that you, I'm not sure what sort of
insight you have into these files, perhaps more than everyone else. Well as
ever, I've probably it's going to be a mixed bag. So I suspect
I've written some of them or some of the documents in them. But yeah,
inevitably I should we say, I think I know what's coming. It's
not going to be a spaceship and hanger smoking gun. Excuse me for using
that sound bite yet again, but I think it's kind of you know,
everyone knows what I mean. It's not going to be that, but it
is going to be extremely interesting. Any intelligence documents on UFOs, I think
are inherently interesting in and of themselves. Certainly so, we're running out of
time, but I wanted to get to this because it is the end of
the year. What other maybe UFO story this year? Do you think it
was important that maybe people didn't pay enough attention to or it did that you
just think were really big stories? Well, I guess you know, I'm
not even going to go down the YouTube route, I mean, because there's
just a zillion photos and films out there. But I think the stories that
stood out for me were perhaps the Boyd Bushman whistleblowing quote. You know,
yet more supposed government insiders claiming to have worked at Area fifty one, claiming
to have worked on alien technology. I mean, I think in the world
of intelligence we have a phrase, and I know I've used it to you
before, interesting if true. But that was undoubtedly a big story of the
year. The other one, which I think is more important, and when
historians look back, if ever they write up the official history of this will
be more important is the government initiatives. The Chilean government recent liaison with the
French government. I think that's a big story because there are precious few governments
in the world still officially in the UFO investigation business. So when you get
governments actually saying not only are we still in that game, but we are
going to collaborate, that is essentially moving forward in a field where a lot
of people either stand still or move back. I so so so agree with
you. That's why I try to follow closely what CEPHA and the other official
organizations are up to. But it is so it gets to be a bit
disheartening when Boyd Bushman gets tens of thousands of hits on her safe fully so
so. But stories like this very important agreement between I think this the French
Aerospace Agency and ZEPHA gets a fraction, a tiny fraction of the attack.
The sexy sound fight always wins out, which is why I was very disappointed.
For example, and she puts a brave face on it, but Leslie
Kane's pressed cry and the involvement of the academic community kind of got overshadowed yet
again with a story about photos of Roswell and aliens. Well that's always the
way in this kind of subject, right, So my next question was going
to be the big stories of twenty fifteen. You already mentioned the new mod
files. I'm very excited for that. You just mentioned something else which will
be a big story, no doubt of twenty fifteen, because I know that
Tom Kerry and Don Schmid are planning to release the evidence behind those slides of
these Raswell pictures, so we'll see, you know, the veracity behind that.
What else is in store for you coming twenty fifteen, Well, I
think, Oh, by the way, I'll just very briefly mention one other
big story of twenty fourteen, which is I think the NASA Library of Congress
Astrobiology symposium that was held in DC three in yeah, back in September.
Yeah, didn't get as much coverage as it might have done. But I
mean, you know, in terms of the whole scientific community, through astrobiology,
maybe edging a little closer to the kind of things that we're all interested
in is I think to be encouraged. And I think that was a big
story in twenty fourteen, and I'm sure that astrobiology, through scientific discovery and
through other symposia will go from strength to strength in twenty fifteen. And who
knows what discoveries lie ahead. But I think it's exciting times for me personally.
What lies ahead in twenty fifteen is a lot of television, and I
think sometimes people in the UFO community roll their eyes at this and they say,
oh, more TV shows, And yeah, I gotta admit I just
rolled my eyes. Well you know, well, you know, there are
some bad shows out there, but there are some good ones too. There
is a second season of Nassas Unexplained Files coming. I do like that one.
Yeah, that's that's a good one. There is a second season of
what's it called Close Encounters, Yeah, Canadian show, but so Discovery Canada,
but also shown on Science Channel in the States and UK. Two I
think, and syndicated all around the world. The big one that's coming,
And you know, I think an announcement about this one was only made in
the last week or so. It's UFOs declassified. Now. This is made
by a Canadian production company and it's going to be on History Canada. But
it's also and here's the I think the big news. It's going to be
on Smithsonian TV in the States. And I mean, if ever a story
and if ever a complaint from the UK from the UFO community is, Hey,
no one takes this seriously, and you know, mainstream media and things.
For Smithsonian TV to touch the UFO subject is I think interesting, and
this is going to be a I think it's six or eight parts. But
UFOs declassified in Canada, in US and in the UK is I think going
to be the show to look out for in two twenty fifteen. But there
are many more, so, you know, excuse the pun, watch this
space, but I'm involved in a lot of this as in consultancy roles,
in kind of contributor role, in on camera narrator or presenter or contributor role.
So yeah, twenty fifteen for me, a lot of TV, right,
Yeah, some of it's yeah, some of it's in the can already
of course because of the Broadcasting League times, and some of it is still
to be filmed, so busy times. Yeah. I'm looking forward to the
Smithsonian one, which I think it might have aired the first one in Canada
or somewhere else. I think it's going to air in Australia, but I
think it's maybe a different one. Yeah. The world year is January ninth,
Oh, I see, And I think that's only I think that's only
in Canada. I think the Smithsonian TV that. But you know, there
are so many of these series at the moment. Sometimes I know what you
mean. They kind of all blur into one. But there is another one
which has about three different titles depending on whether you're austrail. I was thinking
that's the one, Yeah, But UFO is Declassified is a new one.
They've got their own Facebook group and and you know, the website and things.
So that's that's the one. Oh and of course I will be doing
a lot of conferences too, so people can catch me on the road.
Well, thank you so much for coming on and joining me again talking about
some of the latest and hottest topics out there right right now. Renderl Schim,
which happened so long ago but is such a hot topic, and rightfully
so has remained one for so long. Yes, I think it's it's an
intriguing mystery, and the mystery will continue. I have no doubt of that.
All right, Thank you very much, Thank you, Thank you so
much to Nick Pope for joining us this week. Very informative, great stuff.
You know, I think it's important that we get all points of view,
so I'm glad that we were able to talk to Nick and Rendelsham.
You know, we've been beating it to death here, but there's so much
interesting stuff. It's like Roswell. Really, people think, oh, what
more can you say? Well, you can say more. There's more research
going on all the time, and there are new developments in some of these
bigger cases that are really important, and I don't think we should let him
go. I think we should continue to research them. So really interesting stuff.
Thanks again to Nick for that. Also, I want to remind everybody
about the UFO Congress. You know what I've told you how we're going to
have Bob Lazar, which is a big deal. You know, the Area
fifty one whistleblower. He's the one who put Area fifty one on the map.
Many people know that Stanton Friedman has some doubts about what mister Lazarre has
to say. And I've had a lot of people when I've gone around saying,
oh, Man, Stanton Friedman will never go to that conference because he
doesn't want to be anywhere around Lazarre because he thinks Lazar is lying. Not
the case. In fact, I get to spend a lot of time with
Stanton Friedman. Luckily, here and there at different conferences. And the first
time I saw him and I said, hey, did you hear about Lazzari?
He said, oh, yeah, that'd be great. You know,
I'd love to be there. And I told him that's funny because people say
you would never go, and he says, well, I can't. I
wouldn't be much of a researcher if I didn't want to back up what I
say, So of course I wouldn't mind being there. And he actually agrees
that there are some compelling pieces to what Lazarre has to say, but he
believes that some of it just flat out isn't accurate, namely when it comes
to his degrees. So Friedman has some interesting things to say about Lazarre,
and he will be at the UFO Congress. Friedman won't be speaking, will
probably be able to get him onto a panel here or there to be able
to share some of his insight. However, he will have a table at
the UFO Congress and he will be there the entire time with his colleague Kathleen
Martin, who he's written his latest books with, and they'll be selling their
books. But he will also be available so when Bob Blazar talks. You'll
be able to say, Stanton, what'd you think of this? What do
you think of that? And hopefully, you know, we'll be able to
have George ask a couple of Stanton's questions to Lazarre. So really interesting.
I'm so excited because, as I've said before, even if you're skeptical about
Lazar, George Knapp is going to do a talk that is really compelling.
I mean, it really makes you scratch your head. I think even the
most hardened skeptic has to walk away from naps talk and go, well,
you know what, he's got some good points there. And then of course
that'll be followed up with the Q and A with Bob Lazar. That's just
one of many, many exciting and really interesting talks we're going to have there.
I haven't said much about James Gilliland because he was the last person we
finally confirmed. He runs the E. Sdie Ranch and Why Washington where they
have a lot of UFO sidings, and he's got a lot of videos he's
going to share with us, so that ought to be really interesting. But
we have just an incredible amount of great speakers there. Ufocongress dot Com tickets
are selling very quickly. If you're on our physical snail mail list, you
should be getting a full brochure in the mail if you haven't already. That
outlines all of the speakers and our current schedule. Of course, that is
subject to change. I don't think it'll change much, if at all,
but you never know what's going to happen between now and February eighteenth to the
twenty second, which is when the conference is so really exciting. What's cool
this year too, is a lot of researchers who haven't been able to make
it out before are planning to be able to make it this year, probably
mostly because they want to see Bob Blazark, because this is kind of in
the UFO field, a bit historic in that he has not addressed a large
crowd like this or done a large event like this. He's done US small,
really really small. I think there was only a dozen people or so
there event in the middle of the desert, But this will be the first
time he's really done a live presentation, so this should be exciting. UFO
Congress dot Com come to the conference. Oh this is cool too. Speaking
of George Knapp, I will be on the air with him this weekend talking
to him about UFOs and kind of the best cases and year in review on
Sunday night, so early Monday morning really, so that'll be a lot of
fun. I always love talking to George on coast to coast there, so
watch out for that. Thank you to a recent show I was on on
Truth Frequency with Chris Geo, him and his wife, a very nice couple.
We talked the other day. But thank you to everybody out there who
he's had us on and supported us this year. It's been a great year
and we will do our year and review like we talked about next week.
Thank you to Caleb Hanks who does the music opening and close. He has
a ep out called The Clerk Chronicles and it's also an animation that he does.
He's an artist on many different levels, music and drawing, and his
stuff is really cool. So you can find a link there on the radio
page for us for that. Also, we did film our last spacing out
for the year and that is posted on YouTube, so you got to check
that out where we talk about some of these great stories and Jason and Maureen
and I. So that's a lot of fun and more to come. But
thank you all you listeners for joining us every week. Sorry we didn't have
a show last week, but we've got one this week. We're gonna have
one next week. Even though it's the holidays, We're coming through for you
all. So thank you all for listening. I hope you have a wonderful
week. We will talk to you you soon. Adios, moved Jos Moss