Wow, Dave...You Missed The X-Conference Grand Finale!

[auntiegrav]

Nick Pope... Hmmm.........

You guys are aware of his professional background - right?

Umm... so what does that have to do with the question of whether he is an informed and reasonable commentator on UFOs?

That's a bit like asking "What has the fact that Dick Cheney used to be CEO of Halliburton have to do with Halliburton getting governmental non-bid contracts?"

Until 2006, Nick Pope was a full-time MoD employee. The nature of his work (see his bio at his own web site http://www.nickpope.net/faq.htm ) makes it abundantly clear that he made a career out of unquestioningly serving the political and military establishment. He talks about the horrors of war in a detached tone, as if they were a mere intellectual exercise:
(snip)
Listening to Nick Pope tells us what the MoD wants the public to know about the subject: Next to nothing.

I think you are right, but exaggerating a little. (as we all do to try and make a point)
However, as someone who has been in the military and worked in research and development, let me say this: The difference between Dick Cheney and Nick Pope is (I'm guessing here) is quite a chasm. You can either use your connections and training and experience to leverage yourself into better connections and more control and more power, or you sometimes realize that, like a religion, you just don't believe in that dogma any more, and you want to find out why you don't feel right doing it.
Nick Pope has a distinguished career, with a lot of conditioning that goes with secret work. It is hard to jump from being a guarded, emotionally controlled piece of the System into being an individual who questions everything.
Unless a person inherits a lot of money or strikes it rich someplace, then they have to maintain a certain level of respect for the experience that brought them to where they are, just in case they might need to get a job again.
It is also hard to step outside of the accepted societal norm and embrace a community of people who, by necessity or psychology, are paranoid, introverted, unbathed (from weeks of watching Area 51 lights), untrained, or in other ways extraordinary (hearing voices, seeing bigfoot behind every tree..).
On the other hand, someone who has spent their life being abducted, probed, examined, and humiliated would probably excel in the government's dungeons of secrets and lies, especially considering that they would at least get paid for it now, and keeping things secret would be a patriotic and trustworthy sacrifice.

For me, the jury is out on Mr. Pope. I don't know him, and what I have read in the past was not remarkable enough to remember over and above other writers. Perhaps his meeting with people at the X-Conf will stimulate some additional courage to burn more bridges and tell us things he was afraid to tell. Otherwise, it looks like we've gained another intelligent person who is willing to at least discuss and debate within the Paracast tendrils. If his job is to spread disinformation, then the stories will be unremarkable and left behind in the fray. If his contributions bring up new insights to how the government handles information, then we gain. At this point, the only threat someone would pose to true investigations is to compile a list of people and turn them over to the Scare Department, and even that would tell us something. Disinformation works mostly on the large number of people who know little about the big picture and are just poking around. The knowledge seeking part of UFO's doesn't require a majority, unless you expect to get the government to form another commission, in which case, you go in circles again, regardless of how many people call their legislators.

AG

 

[musictomyears]

Everybody is free to believe what they want to believe. I am just perplexed by Ufologists who's eyes appear to glaze over whenever someone from "The Government" agrees to divulge little snippets of information about UFOs. In the case of Nick Pope, every word he says has already gone through several layers of security clearances, and is about as original or "heartfelt" as an article about the subject in the Sunday Times.

May I remind everyone that he represents the very same government that lies to us on a regular basis on matters of life and death.

 

[valiens]

I think another part of trusting someone like him is that the more I see of the "ufo community" the more improbable it seems that any government cares to or needs to infiltrate ufology. That may have been true at one point but we are well beyond that point. The waters are muddied. The public enjoys its mud. There truly is nothing to see here, move along, unless you feel like digging through the mud and those who do dig already know the difference between legit research and pap (I assume).

 

[Paul Kimball]

Everybody is free to believe what they want to believe. I am just perplexed by Ufologists who's eyes appear to glaze over whenever someone from "The Government" agrees to divulge little snippets of information about UFOs. In the case of Nick Pope, every word he says has already gone through several layers of security clearances, and is about as original or "heartfelt" as an article about the subject in the Sunday Times.

May I remind everyone that he represents the very same government that lies to us on a regular basis on matters of life and death.

That's your opinion, filtered through your own biases and pre-conceived notions of what is right and wrong, and how things work. Fair enough. I think that's rather naive, and close-minded, but that's just me.

As for Nick, I know him, and have read his work, and I find him to be one of the few rational, skeptical, but open-minded UFO researchers around today. The fact that he worked for MoD doesn't change that opinion one bit. I also don't agree with everything he says (particularly about abductions). That's the way it goes.

Paul

 

[tommyball]

musictomyears:
Now while I did not get to speak with Nick Pope at the X-Conference nor listen to his presentation I find him to be one of the more respectable researchers in the field today. I don't know the details of his clearance, nor what his government has told him to say or not to say (if anything at all) but that is beside the point. He is a researcher who points to that unexplained percentage of UFO reports and tells us that there's something to it; and I think for the most part he sticks to the evidence in those eyewitness reports.

He's not out there telling tales of sharing a strawberry ice cream sundae with J-Rod in the basement cafeteria of Area 51.

I think the field of ufology is lucky to have him in its ranks.

-todd.

 

[musictomyears]

Everybody is free to believe what they want to believe. I am just perplexed by Ufologists who's eyes appear to glaze over whenever someone from "The Government" agrees to divulge little snippets of information about UFOs. In the case of Nick Pope, every word he says has already gone through several layers of security clearances, and is about as original or "heartfelt" as an article about the subject in the Sunday Times.

May I remind everyone that he represents the very same government that lies to us on a regular basis on matters of life and death.

That's your opinion, filtered through your own biases and pre-conceived notions of what is right and wrong, and how things work. Fair enough. I think that's rather naive, and close-minded, but that's just me.

As for Nick, I know him, and have read his work, and I find him to be one of the few rational, skeptical, but open-minded UFO researchers around today. The fact that he worked for MoD doesn't change that opinion one bit. I also don't agree with everything he says (particularly about abductions). That's the way it goes.

Paul

Funny that, the word "naive" came to my mind also when I read through the "aren't we so much smarter than the average, run-of-the-mill ufologist" love fest, further up in this thread. However, if you think that I am also "close-minded", then that's rather rude.

To be sure, I didn't like that kind of self-gratulatory tone, in particular in conjunction with the apparent lack of discernment when it comes to (dis-)information paid for, and directed by, the institutions that have a stake in keeping the public in the dark about the subject (NASA being another one, of course).

If some people want to believe, as Nick Pope states, that "while the MoD has consistently tried to downplay the subject, they've never lied about it and have no evidence that would prove the existence of extraterrestrials", then all I can say is, good luck with that.

 

[musictomyears]

I think another part of trusting someone like him is that the more I see of the "ufo community" the more improbable it seems that any government cares to or needs to infiltrate ufology. That may have been true at one point but we are well beyond that point. The waters are muddied. The public enjoys its mud. There truly is nothing to see here, move along, unless you feel like digging through the mud and those who do dig already know the difference between legit research and pap (I assume).

Sadly, I'd have to agree with you. Different from the late 90s, Ufology has become almost entirely irrelevant - it is having a near-death experience. Nothing new has been happening for a while, and the old stuff that is being discussed over and over again gets pretty tiring after a while.

I have no idea what exactly Nick Pope thinks he is doing in this field, or how much of his writing and travelling is carried out because of genuine personal interest. However, I can't help but notice that in all the years he has been around, and with all the inside information he allegedly has, he has come up with preciously little substantive material. What he says and writes is always the same, and it goes like this:

Look people, we - the MoD - are really the good guys. Honest! We are on your side, we want to know the truth just like you do. Trust us, we will tell you everything we know, once we know it. Unfortunately, we don't know anything yet. But if you come back tomorrow, maybe..?

Not worth the time of day.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Your are right about there being nothing new forthcoming in Ufology. The subject is almost dead in the water.The same old regurgitated crap is doing the rounds as was 20 years ago.

 

[valiens]

I have no idea what exactly Nick Pope thinks he is doing in this field, or how much of his writing and travelling is carried out because of genuine personal interest. However, I can't help but notice that in all the years he has been around, and with all the inside information he allegedly has, he has come up with preciously little substantive material. What he says and writes is always the same, and it goes like this:

Look people, we - the MoD - are really the good guys. Honest! We are on your side, we want to know the truth just like you do. Trust us, we will tell you everything we know, once we know it. Unfortunately, we don't know anything yet. But if you come back tomorrow, maybe..?

Not worth the time of day.

I see your point. My point is that, having met the man, it's obvious that he really does believe this (for better or for worse.) Blind patriotism, perhaps?

 

[Paul Kimball]

Blind patriotism, perhaps?

Or he's right, which I think is far more likely than a vast, international conspiracy. It also happens to be the conclusion best-supported by the evidence.

Of course, some people have the opinion that it's supported by the evidence because the government has withheld all of the real evidence of aliens, or whatever.

Which is convenient for them, I suppose.

Paul

 

[valiens]

Blind patriotism, perhaps?

Or he's right, which I think is far more likely than a vast, international conspiracy. It also happens to be the conclusion best-supported by the evidence.

Of course, some people have the opinion that it's supported by the evidence because the government has withheld all of the real evidence of aliens, or whatever.

Which is convenient for them, I suppose.

Paul

I'm trying to remember correctly, but didn't Nick say that some cases went higher than his department and he believes they are keeping them secret?

 

[musictomyears]

What are you saying, Paul. That the MoD, DoD, NASA, CIA, NSA, etc. are institutions with a reputation for integrity, trustworthiness, and selfless service to one's fellow man? Or that they are incapable of concocting blatant lies, and sticking those lies straight into our faces? Like, the MoD has no information about the nature of UFOs? You believe that? Blimey.

 

[Paul Kimball]

What are you saying, Paul. That the MoD, DoD, NASA, CIA, NSA, etc. are institutions with a reputation for integrity, trustworthiness, and selfless service to one's fellow man? Or that they are incapable of concocting blatant lies, and sticking those lies straight into our faces? Like, the MoD has no information about the nature of UFOs? You believe that? Blimey.

So, the MoD has information about the nature of the UFO phenomenon? That's quite the claim.

Show me the proof, or otherwise all that I can say is "blimey, indeed".

Paul

 

[valiens]

Paul you're not really asking for proof of something you know is unprovable from where we sit, are you? That's the oldest, hackneyed debunker tactic out there. You're better than that.

 

[Paul Kimball]

I'm trying to remember correctly, but didn't Nick say that some cases went higher than his department and he believes they are keeping them secret?

I can't recall either (long conference, three weeks ago). However, it wouldn't surprise me, just as it would still not be evidence that the MoD was covering up the "truth" about the UFO phenomenon. I'm with Nick - I am convinced from the evidence over the past 60 years that the governments are as befuddled as the rest of us about what the UFO phenomenon may be. Where I think they are being less than honest, obviously, is when they say that they are not really interested in the phenomenon. But these are two entirely different issues.

Paul

 

[valiens]

Hmmmm...well that's interesting. So no Roswell for you, eh?

 

[Paul Kimball]

Paul you're not really asking for proof of something you know is unprovable from where we sit, are you? That's the oldest, hackneyed debunker tactic out there. You're better than that.

Of course I'm asking for proof. Conspiracists have had 60 years to blowthe roof off of the Cosmic Watergate. What's happened? Nada. The nuclear secrets have been leaked. Watergate was uncovered, and a President brought down. But UFOs? Still super-duper-above-top-secret.

Occam's razor applies - the most logical conclusion, barring evidence to the controversy, is that there is no over-arching conspiracy to hide the "truth" from us about UFOs - just governments which are as in-the-dark as we are.

A final note - the conspiracists always seem to work on the assumption that all of these agencies - NASA, CIA, NSA, MoD, CSIS, USAF, etc - work on the same agenda, and cooperate to keep the lid on things. This is patently ridiculous, and betrays a fundamental lack of knowledge about the intelligence agencies of various countries, how they work, and the rivalries and varying agendas that simply preclude the kind of massive cover-up we would be talking about here. Heck, even within a single country (i.e. the USA) the intel agencies have always been at each other's proverbial throats, which has led to no end of screw-ups over the years.

Paul

 

[Paul Kimball]

Hmmmm...well that's interesting. So no Roswell for you, eh?

It sits in my grey basket. Again, no solid proof, just witness accounts, many of which have been debunked over the years by pro-Roswell researchers.

Kevin Randle's new book "Roswell Revisited" is a good summary of the Roswell mess, including some honest analysis from a pro-ET guy as to the flaws in the Roswell case.

Paul

 

[valiens]

Paul you're not really asking for proof of something you know is unprovable from where we sit, are you? That's the oldest, hackneyed debunker tactic out there. You're better than that.

Of course I'm asking for proof. Conspiracists have had 60 years to blowthe roof off of the Cosmic Watergate. What's happened? Nada. The nuclear secrets have been leaked. Watergate was uncovered, and a President brought down. But UFOs? Still super-duper-above-top-secret.

Occam's razor applies - the most logical conclusion, barring evidence to the controversy, is that there is no over-arching conspiracy to hide the "truth" from us about UFOs - just governments which are as in-the-dark as we are.

A final note - the conspiracists always seem to work on the assumption that all of these agencies - NASA, CIA, NSA, MoD, CSIS, USAF, etc - work on the same agenda, and cooperate to keep the lid on things. This is patently ridiculous, and betrays a fundamental lack of knowledge about the intelligence agencies of various countries, how they work, and the rivalries and varying agendas that simply preclude the kind of massive cover-up we would be talking about here. Heck, even within a single country (i.e. the USA) the intel agencies have always been at each other's proverbial throats, which has led to no end of screw-ups over the years.

Paul

Still, PROOF is not something joe blow can come up with. It's something that would need to be leaked or outright given. I get the argument, but it rings hollow to me because, as Rummy might say, "We don't know what we don't know." So, yeah: Watergate happened, Iran/Contra, etc. But for every one scandal that does break, who knows how many more don't?

So proof, for me, isn't the key. The key is the evidence. Where does the evidence point? If you're going to dismiss all testimony out of hand then I guess it goes nowhere. But, where Roswell is concerned, I think when the Air Force says things like "case closed" and gives an absurd story that doesn't wash, we'd be fools not to question that. It's not like they're saying Roswell never happened. All along they have conceded that something crash, they just have never been straight about what.

Likewise, if they say "case closed" in regards to UFO studies in general and then we find out a slew of, for instance, Blue Book cases were sent higher than the investigating team and so on--well we should be suspicious of that too. Didn't Hynek think his own project was a wash in the end?

When I see NASA addressing the latest "UFO" video from the shuttle by saying, "It's nothing. It's either lint or ice crystals. We see it all the time, no big deal," should I not ask, "Then why is the astronaut following it with his camera?"

It wouldn't shock me to find out that the biggest cover-up of all time is simply: "Some UFOs represent something of nonhuman intelligent origin. Beyond that we don't know anything."

As for conspiracists, I think the general consensus isn't that all of those agencies are working together but that their info gets funneled to a small cabal of people who secretly run the show. Those agencies are part of the show. (And then they are controlled by aliens who are controlled by angels who work for Satan who is a Zionist...er something)

 

[Paul Kimball]

Paul you're not really asking for proof of something you know is unprovable from where we sit, are you? That's the oldest, hackneyed debunker tactic out there. You're better than that.

Of course I'm asking for proof. Conspiracists have had 60 years to blowthe roof off of the Cosmic Watergate. What's happened? Nada. The nuclear secrets have been leaked. Watergate was uncovered, and a President brought down. But UFOs? Still super-duper-above-top-secret.

Occam's razor applies - the most logical conclusion, barring evidence to the controversy, is that there is no over-arching conspiracy to hide the "truth" from us about UFOs - just governments which are as in-the-dark as we are.

A final note - the conspiracists always seem to work on the assumption that all of these agencies - NASA, CIA, NSA, MoD, CSIS, USAF, etc - work on the same agenda, and cooperate to keep the lid on things. This is patently ridiculous, and betrays a fundamental lack of knowledge about the intelligence agencies of various countries, how they work, and the rivalries and varying agendas that simply preclude the kind of massive cover-up we would be talking about here. Heck, even within a single country (i.e. the USA) the intel agencies have always been at each other's proverbial throats, which has led to no end of screw-ups over the years.

Paul

Still, PROOF is not something joe blow can come up with. It's something that would need to be leaked or outright given. I get the argument, but it rings hollow to me because, as Rummy might say, "We don't know what we don't know." So, yeah: Watergate happened, Iran/Contra, etc. But for every one scandal that does break, who knows how many more don't?

So proof, for me, isn't the key. The key is the evidence. Where does the evidence point? If you're going to dismiss all testimony out of hand then I guess it goes nowhere. But, where Roswell is concerned, I think when the Air Force says things like "case closed" and gives an absurd story that doesn't wash, we'd be fools not to question that. It's not like they're saying Roswell never happened. All along they have conceded that something crash, they just have never been straight about what.

Likewise, if they say "case closed" in regards to UFO studies in general and then we find out a slew of, for instance, Blue Book cases were sent higher than the investigating team and so on--well we should be suspicious of that too. Didn't Hynek think his own project was a wash in the end?

When I see NASA addressing the latest "UFO" video from the shuttle by saying, "It's nothing. It's either lint or ice crystals. We see it all the time, no big deal," should I not ask, "Then why is the astronaut following it with his camera?"

It wouldn't shock me to find out that the biggest cover-up of all time is simply: "Some UFOs represent something of nonhuman intelligent origin. Beyond that we don't know anything."

As for conspiracists, I think the general consensus isn't that all of those agencies are working together but that their info gets funneled to a small cabal of people who secretly run the show. Those agencies are part of the show. (And then they are controlled by aliens who are controlled by angles who work for Satan who is a Zionist...er something)

Jeremy:

Evidence is meaningless unless it can be marshalled to prove something, in this case, because of the extraordinary nature of the claim, to a standard beyond a reasonable doubt (as opposed to something on the balance of probabilities). This applies when someone says or even implies that these cover-ups are proven facts, as was done above (and that Nick can't be trusted because he's in on it).

With Roswell, forget the USAF's explanation back in the 1990s. Focus instead on the actual evidence. Where is it? Sure, we have a few people who claim to have been eyewitnesses, but to what? How credible are they, really (there's the $1,000 question that believers never really want addressed)?

On the other hand, we have plenty of evidence that what fell to earth was of an earthly nature. We have lots of witnesses who came forward with outlandish claims, upon which much of the pro-ET explanation was based, that have been thoroughly discredited - Frank Kaufmann, Glenn Dennis, Gerald Andersen, and perhaps even Walter Haut, given his longstanding support for the first two of those three hucksters, and the problems inherent in his recently released affidavit.

At best, Roswell is a wash - it could go either way. I think the majority of the evidence points to something of a terrestrial nature, which, perhaps, the government wants to continue to keep under wraps, all these years later. Or maybe it really was Mogul, an explanation which makes as much sense as aliens.

Regardless, I agree with Nick Redfern - Roswell has passed into myth and legend. We'll never know the "truth", at least not to the satisfaction of everyone. For that you can perhaps blame the USAF... but you can also blame the generally incompetent Roswell investigators (with one or two exceptions), and the need-to-believe crowd.

Paul