The British government has been in the process of declassifying its archive of files on unidentified flying objects for many years. Nick Pope formerly worked in the UK Department of Defense's department of incoming UFO sightings and worked with these files. Through hundreds of media interviews, Nick has become the public face of the publishing process. Currently, Nick Pope is a very famous journalist and TV presenter, lives in California (USA). Some call Nick "the British Fox Mulder."
The following questions and answers are taken from selected interviews with Nick Pope. They provide an overview of the publication of UK Department of Defense materials.
Interview
Nick, hello. Thank you for taking the time to answer our questions
While working on declassifying Department of Defense materials, how many were eventually released?
So far, 209 files and about 52,000 pages of documentation have been disclosed. This is in addition to a number of UFO materials that have already been disclosed under the old Public Records Law, which has the so-called “30-year rule” that materials can be published after 30 years from the date of the last document they contain. …
Why was this content published?
Promotional video:
There were three reasons.
First, the French government released its UFO material in 2007, setting a precedent that would be difficult to ignore.
Second, the UK Department of Defense hoped it would create good publicity about the Department's commitment to open government and freedom of information, while helping to dispel rumors of some kind of mystery.
But the third reason, and the most important, was that the Department of Defense developed the program as a solution to a huge number of requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which requires the Department to disclose information about UFOs. Between 2005 and 2007, there were times when the Department of Defense received more requests for UFOs in the FOIA than for any other issue. The amount of work involved in responding to each specific request was overwhelming. But as soon as in 2007 the decision was made to disclose the files, all subsequent requests within the FOIA could be answered simply - the Department is in the process of declassifying the material. Thus, new requests under the FOIA ceased to require a substantive response, because "information intended for declassification"is one of several exceptions to the FOIA. And as soon as all the materials are disclosed, responses to FOIA inquiries about UFOs will take into account that all information on this topic is already available in the National Archives.
There were statements from some ufologists that they were the reason for the publication of classified files. It's true?
No. Such claims are either dishonest or incredibly naive. Hundreds of people have made inquiries about UFOs through the FOIA. In 2006, on the Department of Defense website, Undersecretary of State for Defense Tom Watson stated the following:
There is a real and sustained interest in unidentified flying objects. UFOs are by far the most popular in terms of popularity, followed by recruitment requests, employee requests, and requests for historical events such as World War II, the Falkland Conflicts and the Balkans. UFO disclosure requests come through the media even from countries as distant to us as Japan.
This was the main factor that prompted the Department of Defense to decide to transfer their UFO materials to the National Archives. For the hundreds of members of the public, journalists and ufologists who approached the Department of Defense regarding disclosure and made inquiries within the FOIA, it was probably quite offensive to find out the true reason for the declassification and not everyone is ready to admit it.
So what is actually in the declassified material?
Let me start with what is not in the materials: there is no "spaceship in the hangar" to prove that we are visited by aliens. If we actually have such a thing, then I'm afraid they didn't tell me about it.
Now for the files: it's a mixture of different materials.
First, there are policy documents that describe the UFO phenomenon in principle and set out the basis for research and investigation of cases involving them. Such documents set out the Department of Defense's strategy on UFO-related issues.
Secondly, the incident reports themselves. This category is a jumble of different reports, where the vast majority of "UFO sightings" are erroneous due to the fact that people actually see light from different terrestrial aircraft or Chinese lanterns. Therefore, researchers are forced to re-read many one- or two-page reports before really worthwhile material is found. This is a classic example of the old adage that "the best place to hide a book is in the library." This state of affairs has led researchers at the Department of Defense to be reluctant to investigate such reports.
Third, there are public correspondence files.
Fourth, there are files showing how the UFO topic was dealt with in the UK Parliament.
If there is no clear evidence, what does the disclosed material show us?
From an examination of the materials, it becomes apparent that the Department of Defense has informed Parliament, the media and the public that the UFO phenomenon is "of little importance to security" and is of limited interest to the Department of Defense. However, the files show that behind the scenes the topic was taken more seriously than it was stated. Many of the known cases, of course, were of great defense importance: for example, when UFOs were seen in close proximity to military bases, when they were encountered by RAF pilots, they were tracked on radar by fighter controllers or air traffic controllers. Those of us who have worked on this topic have often faced the need to use Orwell's "ambiguity" in solving this problem.
Are there other secrets in the materials?
In the materials, of course, there are some reports of contacts with aliens and abductions. There is also some material in other areas that many believe are related to the UFO phenomenon, such as crop circles and animal mutilation. Occasionally, and mainly because the government had nowhere else to send such material, the department received reports of ghosts seen at military bases, as well as offers from psychics to conduct "remote viewing." The latest batch of declassified materials even contained some articles concerning the interest of Department of Defense scientists in research in the field of gravity and antigravity. And I was not joking when I compared the Department of Defense's UFO department as "the real X-Files."
What was your personal participation in the publication of these materials?
While working on this project at the Department of Defense, the National Archives asked me to select a few cases that could be highlighted in the media ahead of the public declassification. Of course, the media could publish any stories that they liked, but in most cases they chose the ones that I suggested. I have been asked to select cases to be from all areas of the UK (for use in the regional press) and the material selected to suit the widest possible range of viewpoints. Therefore, I selected cases that were easy to understand, and some of them even contained genuine secrets and even disturbing cases, for example, UFO flights at close range of commercial aircraft. There were also amusing cases, for example, when a person claimed that his car,the tent and the dog were abducted by aliens.
I was also asked to record a promotional video for the National Archives to draw attention to the publication of the materials and communicate it in a positive way. But my biggest part was to do literally hundreds of interviews on television, radio, newspapers and magazines and thus become the public face of the publishing project. It was certainly a success, and I appeared on a wide variety of news, talk and radio programs including Newsnight, BBC News, ITV News, CNN News, Larry King Live, Good Morning America”,“Sky News”,“This Morning”,“GMTV”,“Radio 4's Today”.
What was it like for you in the days when the materials became open?
It was crazy! With regard to the practical circumstances of the "publication day", two days before that, an official press release had been sent out to the world media. On many occasions I was asked to write an article for a newspaper. I have written several articles for The Sun, The Times, The Guardian and the Daily Mirror. After the press release was sent out, I received requests for short comments that could be used in newspaper articles, as well as numerous television and radio interviews. I tried to accept as many of these proposals as possible, but inevitably I had to refuse something due to the fact that some programs were broadcast simultaneously and I could not be in several places at once. This problem was partially solved when he began scheduling, say, a news interview on the BBC at 6 a.m., a talk show on ITV at 7 a.m. and Sky News at 8 a.m. But it was still difficult to reconcile, especially since the BBC, ITV and Sky studios are located in different parts of London, and traffic jams turned into a nightmare.
I'm glad I never missed a scheduled interview. Later, my media life became even more hectic as new requests for interviews came in constantly. There were even some "surreal" moments when I was doing a live interview with a BBC radio station using my mobile phone while in the car. Another tool was pre-recording where possible. Before most of the material was released, I had my comments recorded in advance at ITN Productions studios in Holborn. Then they released 2 or 3 different news packages that any media could use. This was especially useful for American networks such as ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and Fox. If people type phrases like "Nick Pope" and "ITN" on Google,then they can watch some of this news. It has already become a tradition that at the end of the day, after the final meeting (usually late in the evening), the courtesy machine drops me off at the local sports bar for a well-deserved cold beer.
What interviews or news releases have been the most memorable for you?
There were several such moments. Newsround and Blue Peter were very interesting, as was The Alan Titchmarsh Show. Most unusual was the reception of one writer who came up with a science fiction story for The World Today on the BBC World Service, all based on declassified material. Then I had to judge the recordings of the listeners who were asked to continue the story. I also fondly recall the publication of materials at the Royal Albert Hall in October 2010.
Which story is your favorite of the published materials?
I have seen more documents than have been published, including on "classic cases" such as the Rendlesham Forest incident and the Cosford incident. Although it was annoying that some of the documents from the intelligence services about the incident in Rendlesham Forest were subsequently destroyed. There have also been some interesting and very disturbing reports of UFO flying close to commercial aircraft. However, I hope that readers will forgive me, but what I like most is the case when a person in the last century bet 100 to 1 on the sweepstake that the lives of aliens would be officially confirmed before the end of the millennium, and then tried to enlist the help of the UK Department of Defense to support him in a case against bookmakers. Unfortunately, the person lost their stake.
How did you feel after seeing all these materials years after you worked with them?
The whole publishing project was like a "blast from the past" for me, because I never thought I would see them again. Keep in mind that when I was at the Department of Defense, there was no Freedom of Information Act in the UK yet, and I could only expect that none of the files I was working on would be considered for publication before 30 years. In fact, there were mixed emotions. Obviously, it was to some extent feelings of nostalgia and pride for a job well done. There were also some regrets about the inevitable mistakes and missed opportunities.
Have all the UFO materials from the Ministry of Defense archive been published?
No.
First, many UFO files from the 1950s and 1960s were destroyed before any decisions were made to store or disclose material in this direction.
Secondly, there are a number of exceptions to the Freedom of Information Act, which does not imply the publication of materials covering areas such as “defense”, “national security” and “intelligence”. There have been seizures of information from UFO data - nothing more than the removal of names and addresses of witnesses for reasons of confidentiality. But there are times when other exceptions are used. The famous reconnaissance report on an unidentified flying object, codenamed "Project Condign", is a good example of a published document in which a small (but significant) amount of information has been shaded in black.
Third, the Defense Department admitted that the Intelligence Service's records of the Rendlesham Forest incident were "inadvertently destroyed." Likewise, the Department of Defense stated that the logbook from HMS Manchester, which may have contained information about a UFO seen during a NATO exercise, was "lost" due to being blown overboard by "a strange gust of wind ". RAF footage of UFO footage in the 1960s appears to be "lost." The impressive UFO photograph that has hung on my office wall for years has been “lost” along with the negatives. I am not making any “foul play” accusations, but I can definitely understand the anger and frustration of those who believe in UFOs and conspiracy theories.
Finally, even though the Department of Defense and the National Archives reported in the media that the last of the files was declassified in June 2013, there are in fact 18 more files that have not been transferred from the Department of Defense to the National Archives.
What was the reaction to the publication of materials from communities interested in UFOs?
To be honest, the reaction was a little disappointing. Many activists tend to view the publication as disinformation. The most frequent comment: "All the most interesting things were hidden." Revelations about materials that were destroyed or lost did not help. My central role in publishing materials further added fuel to the fire. From conspiracy theorists, when they saw me in the media, I often heard the phrase: "He still gets his salary at the Department of Defense."
The backlash from die-hard whistleblowers has been equally disappointing. There has been a mocking tendency to focus on a case that is clearly related to deception or an eccentric witness, while ignoring or omitting evidence from police, pilots and military personnel, without taking into account UFO sightings on radar, photographs or videos analyzed by Ministry technicians. defense. The reasons for these reactions are, of course, related to the faith of these people.
Believers in UFOs wanted to find in the published materials the final proof of the visit of the Earth by representatives of extraterrestrial civilizations and that the government is covering this fact. At the same time, stubborn "mystery debunkers" wanted confirmation that all observations can be explained in terms of erroneous definitions, hoaxes, illusions, or people who drank too much or used drugs. But open source didn't tell them about it. They reflected the more subtle and complex truth about UFOs and that the Department of Defense does not hide the evidence of extraterrestrial visits, and some UFO sightings defy conventional explanations.
What's happening now and what to expect next?
Each time another piece was published, within a day or two thereafter, there were media reports and, accordingly, public interest, but attention to the topic quickly disappeared. There is an old adage in the UK media: "Today's newspaper is tomorrow's fish and used paper." But DOD materials on UFOs are a valuable resource, and over time they will undoubtedly become more appropriate for use in UFO debates, for example, within the Blue Book Project Archive. Ultimately, though, little will change. “True Believers” and “Rebellious Whistleblowers” will occasionally select from published material information and quotes that fit their existing worldview - a classic case of what cognitive science calls “confirmation of bias”. Ultimately, “true believers” will continue to naively believe every fairytale they hear, and “stubborn whistleblowers” will continue to ignore hard data and manipulate facts to bring things to their preconceived notions. The irony is that the UFO phenomenon itself will, as always, exist regardless of the views of both factions.
Do you have any comments on the results of the publication of materials?
I will end by repeating two points that I voiced when I published another story in June 2013, and they were quoted by the media in most articles about this story. I think these points capture the essence of things pretty well:
“I hope people enjoy reading the real X-Files that I happened to work with. These documents do not solve the UFO puzzle, but they certainly show how the phenomenon was as intriguing to the government as it was to the public.
“These are the real X-Files. Most UFO sightings had conventional explanations, but a small percentage still remained unexplained. This includes instances where UFOs have been seen by police officers, chased by pilots and tracked on radar stations. Whatever you think about UFOs, the release of this material sheds light on one of the most intriguing subjects the British government has ever studied."
National Archives video of Nick Pope making the official announcement of the first batch of UK government UFO files
Nick Pope announces the release of yet another batch of UFO government files in an interview that was published by global media.
Nick Pope interview with Campbell Brown on CNN about his work on a UFO project for the UK government