Missing?
Nick Redfern is concerned about some missing Rendlesham files:
Rendlesham's missing papers
And Anthony Bragalia is concerned that much of a Battelle report about memory metal (allegedly discovered in connection with the Roswell mishap) is missing also.
Mr. Bragalia will provide more about this upcoming and Mr. Redfern might go looking for the Rendlesham reports (or so we hope).
posted by RRRGroup at
Thursday, March 03, 2011
9 Comments:
I shall not lose any sleep over these missing files. Reading Neil Henderson's write-up, he says first that the files have (or had) gone missing. Later he tells us that these were "key files". Why? How does he know they were key files?
The only information we have is that in the MOD files there is a note to say that certain files during 1980-82 have gone missing. Big deal. In case people suspect a cover-up (a la Roswell) we may ask why the MOD would ever insert a note to in its files to tell the world certain other files are missing! If a real cover-up, why draw attention to it in this way?
Is Nick really that concerned? Is anyone else?
By
cda, at Thursday, March 03, 2011
CDA:
Concerned? No. Intrigued? Yes. It's rather like those outgoing records from Roswell from 1946 to 1949 being missing.
Maybe it means something, maybe it means nothing. But maybe it means everything.
So, when we find examples of missing files, I think at the very least we should follow up on it.
By
Nick Redfern, at Thursday, March 03, 2011
Part 1 of 2:
@cda/Nick Redfern:
Joe McGonagle, of the UFO in UK mail list/website group, via a message on the UFO UpDates mail list, updated and provided new data on the most recent MOD UFO files release, as follows:
"http://drdavidclarke.co.uk/national-archives-ufo-files-7/
National Archives UFO Files 7
On 3 March 2011 The National Archives released the 7th tranche
of MoD UFO files.
All 35 files and 4 annexes can be downloaded from the TNA UFO
page
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ufos
where you will find a highlights guide, podcast and background
briefing. Here is a summary of the key stories and themes that I
have chosen from this collection.
(1) Destruction of Files the first 'Smoking Gun'?
A number of papers in this tranche of files reveal the MoD
destroyed whole collections of UFO files as recently as 1990 for
reasons they could not explain They were reluctant to publicly
admit they had destroyed files as they feared this might add
fuel to allegations they were involved in a cover-up. They were
right!
The most frank admission appears in papers covering an internal
MoD exchange following the public release of the famous
'Rendlesham File' in 2001. When a copy of this file that
contained unclassified paperwork was sent to me in May that
year it was immediately obvious from the paper trail that further documents relating to the case must be held by other MoD branches, specifically the secretive Defence Intelligence Staff section DI55 that had an interest in UFOs and foreign
technology. But an archive search by MoD records staff revealed
that a collection of DI55 files covering the period 1980-82 had
been destroyed, even though other files from the surrounding
years had survived. Even worse, record staff could not say who
authorised the destruction of the files or why as it was MoD
policy to shred the Destruction Certificates after five years
(DEFE 24/2026/1). MoD were warned that if what it called this
"apparent anomaly in the records" were made public...
"...it could be interpreted to mean that a deliberate attempt
had been made to eradicate the records covering this incident".
Why were these files destroyed? The most likely answer is that,
at the time, intelligence staff believed they contained nothing
worth preserving. We know these files were just a fraction the
total number "lost" or destroyed in the chaotic and disorganised
MoD records system before Freedom of Information regulations
forced them to put their house in order.
But in hindsight, by allowing the arbitrary destruction of
swathes of intelligence records, MoD have helpfully provided a
rod for conspiracy theorists to beat them with."
(Above excerpted from Joe's message--sorry for the ragged or broken up lines of text above--some kind of formatting issue I couldn't resolve)/sgs
By
steve sawyer, at Thursday, March 03, 2011
Part 2 of 2:
Soooo, according to this message from Joe, David Clarke is effectively saying that some MOD UFO files over a certain period in the late 1980's to early '90's were destroyed, not just "missing" (I assume copies may have been made by someone, and mayhaps be secreted elsewhere--?) including those concerned with Rendlesham, (other than the initial files released in 2001), have also been destroyed _without_ normally required, documented destruction or disposal record notice of authorized or known personnel (which _is_ weird) for the destruction, and while there may be some related or peripheral files, if so, they may reside in the files of other agencies, which does raise some potentially significant questions, if not a "smoking gun' itself. But, although Clark and McGonagle would likely disagree, I do at least think there is a whiff of smoking gunpowder wafting through the room, don't you? Smell the aroma! Hmmmmmm.....(--cough--)!?! 8^}
And yes, this is somewhat reminiscent of the GAO finding, in its investigation of the Roswell incident records, at the request of House Representative Steven Schiff, that all the incoming and outgoing messages/phone records/logs from just before and somewhat after the Roswell incident were apparently also destroyed, and again with the only documentation as to that destruction order coming from unknown or undocumented personnel.
(Cue the Dragnet theme music):
Dum de dum dumb! Dum-dumbbbb!
Make of that what you will, it is more than a bit "mysterious."
By
steve sawyer, at Thursday, March 03, 2011
If I recall correctly, the missing or destroyed Roswell files (or documents) were official documents from the period 1946-49, thus covering the Roswell Incident period. This does NOT mean any records pertaining to the Roswell crash were destroyed. It merely means documents to and from the AF base overlapping that period were destroyed. We do not know what the contents were (e.g. whether they refer to things like how many cooks, nurses, trucks, cans of paint, varnish, new toilets etc. were needed).
Similarly we do not know the contents of the missing/destroyed papers from the MOD in 1980-82. Were they routine messages or were they messages related to Rendlesham? And even if related to Rendlesham, so what? An awful lot of junk papers may be 'related to Rendlesham', and thus destroyed.
Smoking gun maybe? Not a chance. And why does a journalist refer to 'key documents' anyway? This is a slight, but obvious, case of hype. There is simply no way of knowing if these were 'key' or 'non-key'. None whatever.
By
cda, at Friday, March 04, 2011
CDA/Steve:
My personal view, as per my previous comment to CDA is that the fact the files are missing is intriguing.
In the same way I find it interesting that a mass of files from Roswell in the 46-49 period is intriguing.
Maybe there is some reason that takes us down the path towards something significant.
But could it be mere bureaucracy? Yes, of course.
However, CDA, re your "not a chance" comment: I would disagree.
I do think we should not be excitedly jumping up in the air, claiming this is proof of a Rendlesham cover-up.
But, we should be digging into this as deeply as possible to ensure we get as clear an answer as we can as to the reasons behind the missing files.
Just because their may be a mundane reason for the files being missing or destroyed, doesn't mean there may not be another reason too...
By
Nick Redfern, at Friday, March 04, 2011
Around 1997 the army had a website with the papers of retired and deceased officers. I looked up Blanchard (I don't recall whether they were downloadable or whether it was a listing of the archive).
It covered the timeframe of his career except for...well...you know.
Regards,
Don
By
Sourcerer, at Friday, March 04, 2011
You look different, Nick.
Faceless (almost) and dressed as an MIB. Should we be concerned about this?
By
cda, at Saturday, March 05, 2011
LOL, sickly-white skin against a black hoodie always makes me look a bit MIB-like. In fact, for my next book - actually on the MIB, published in June - the publisher had me wear a hat and sunglasses like the MIB, as you'll see from the back-cover photo when it's published...
By
Nick Redfern, at Saturday, March 05, 2011
Post a Comment
<< Home