Nick Pope, Britain's Most Famous UFO Case

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