British Ministry of Defense reports huge diamond shaped object over Scotland.

page: 3
28
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrHammondStoat

Originally posted by cripmeister
No reply yet from the Daily Record, with the holiday season and all I guess it'll take a while.


The MOD have stated that the original negatives of the UFO photos were returned to the Daily Record. If the Daily record says it doesn't have them or won't release them then that is suspicious and would contradict the MOD's story. Why would a newspaper not want to publish such spectacular photographs?

Several plausible reasons for unwillingness today:

  1. Newspapers were (in my experience) some of the first to move over to digital cameras. It's possible that beyond what they've scanned, older negatives and prints are no longer in the same building and/or in storage. They can't be bothered to go through the archives because viewing the numbers of negatives accumulated by a newspaper would be a major task. Especially if archived ad-hoc rather than adequately indexed. Changes of premises etc. would contribute further.
  2. It's possible they don't know, because so many staff have changed in the intervening period, and because they don't know, they tell people they haven't got the photos, again because it'd take time to track down ex-staff members in the know.

Several plausible reasons for unwillingness in the past:

  1. A D-Notice. For the background to D(now DA)-notice Wikipedia's page here does a reasonable job. It's feasible that the object was included in standing D-Notices 1 & 2 or even a new D-notice issued.
  2. The involvement of a foreign government (one with Harriers too) requesting that publication was withheld, either directly with the editors, or through the owners of the paper.
  3. That evidence came to light that indicated the pictures were hoaxes. I'd hope that the MOD and The Daily Record wouldn't be caught out, but people do.
  4. That UFO photos weren't considered an appropriate topic by the newspapers editors. I think this is unlikely given they're a tabloid
  5. There was a dispute between the owners of the photographs and the newspaper.


    [edit on 21-12-2009 by jackphotohobby]




posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by jackphotohobby
 


Very plausible reasons, I had never heard of a 'D notice' before, thanks
for the info.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrHammondStoat
Very plausible reasons, I had never heard of a 'D notice' before, thanks
for the info.


DrHammondStoat - British Ambassador Gordon Creighton makes some very interesting comments about D-notices,UFOs and press censorship in this interview:




Around 7:00




Cheers.

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 04:17 PM
link   
With regard to the D-Notice idea, the MOD having now released the documents pertaining to this case, would the newspaper still be under that directive ? Surely the D-Notice died when the MOD documents were released ? I think the only way to get to see these photo's is maybe to track down the person who took them ! I still believe though that the newspapers have copies whether they've been digitised or not ! Papers tend to reference their photo's incase anyone featured in their publication require copies ! It's probably simply that they can't be bothered to hunt them out ! Perhaps if enough of us request them they might think again ?

[edit on 043131p://12America/Chicago21 by ProRipp]



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProRipp
With regard to the D-Notice idea, the MOD having now released the documents pertaining to this case, would the newspaper still be under that directive ? Surely the D-Notice died when the MOD documents were released ? I think the only way to get to see these photo's is maybe to track down the person who took them ! I still believe though that the newspapers have copies whether they've been digitised or not ! Papers tend to reference their photo's incase anyone featured in their publication require copies ! It's probably simply that they can't be bothered to hunt them out ! Perhaps if enough of us request them they might think again ?

[edit on 043131p://12America/Chicago21 by ProRipp]


An argument against a D/DA-Notice, then or now, is that it was released as part of the FOIA bundle. It seems counter-intuitive to go to the trouble of preventing its publication then releasing references to it in a FOIA release.

I think, if it were some huge UK government or UK military secret it wouldn't have been released now. Unless it was a mistake.

One possibility is that they suspected it belonged to the United States but couldn't confirm it, so were as much in the dark as the general public. IIRC the only other operators of Harriers are Italy and the US, I doubt the Italian military are in Scotland often.

Still doesn't explain why the story didn't appear in the newspaper though. If it were US they may have asked the newspaper or UK Government not to publish it.

I suspect you're correct that the only person who will really know the story of what happened is the photographer, assuming they were told much.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 04:58 PM
link   
They should certainly be worried about the incident, whilst they continue to devour their deceit and wage wars for no other purpose other than theirs. By now if it was not for decades and centuries of useless wars, we could have had plenty time to have built a reasonable defense systems even if not used, provided we had it.

Yet we still pride our self on aerodynamic screw tighten air crafts, blah.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 01:55 AM
link   
With regards to earlier posts above. This is Robert Taylor actually speaking on television about his encounter with an alien probe in the woods !


media.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 18 2010 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Is this the Pitlochry photograph found at 0:41





posted on Mar, 18 2010 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 


I can't really make out what the photo at 0:41 is supposed to show, a wing? Also, the MoD files say that no Harriers were in the area at the time of the sighting. How could the photo have been shot from a Harrier then? This doesn't make sense.

I have not received a reply from the Daily Record about the photo.



posted on Mar, 21 2010 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by cripmeister
 


Cripmeister, thanks for the reply -you make a good point there about the Harriers and I agree the picture shown in the clip is a very poor one - it seems a lot of things about this report just don't add up.

Cheers.



posted on Mar, 21 2010 @ 01:19 PM
link   
The MOD don't do themselves any favours do they?

If we summarise what we have so far from the release of the info it goes something like this.

A welter of reports, some unexplained , many with perfectly normal explanations, into a subject, they claimed, for many years, they had no interest in at all, past collating information received by them.

However, it is really of no importance as there is no perceivable *threat* to security, in their view. Even so, they have somehow managed to lose, the film from Woomera, the only one of 80+ films from the rocket site, that, according to their own reports contains footage of a UFO and now they have * misplaced* this picture. They also then seem to claim that they *took the photo down because it showed a top secret American project, a top secret project that in, 1994, you buy a model of, made by the company Testor.

Haven't they also, * misplaced*, the weird substance that was found on a wound on Zigmund Admaski's body?

I'm trawling through a few old books at the moment. i know, for certain, that there were at least 2-3 other cases from Britain, in the 60s and 70s, where. The witness(es) claimed to have taken clear photographs of the object, then handed the film over to the authorities for developing, only to be told.

"Oh, sorry, we lost it" or

"There was nothing on it, but you can't have it back because we threw it away"

Doesn't really help damp sown the speculation that, they aren't actually being wholly honest does it?

[edit on 21-3-2010 by FireMoon]



posted on Mar, 21 2010 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by FireMoon
Doesn't really help damp down the speculation that, they aren't actually being wholly honest does it?



Firemoon -great post and no it doesn't.

There are many, many other examples at the thread below:


The Missing UFO Evidence Thread.


Cheers.



posted on Mar, 21 2010 @ 03:02 PM
link   
If you read the released documents, I think it states (or I read it elsewhere) that the photograph is either a very poor black-white photocopy or a drawing. Not sure, been some weeks. The original photo was, I guess, taken from a distance showing the jet and the UFO.



posted on Mar, 21 2010 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by internos
 


Your post said the pictures were given to the Daily Record
they would have been all over the front page then, the Record will run a story on anything without checking the facts like all tabloid newspapers
in the UK.



posted on Mar, 21 2010 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


If you actually read the full thread you will learn that newspapers were often ordered by the UK government not to print such photos and are referred to as "D-Notices".

Highly interesting topic guys, my thanks goes out to everyone who have contributed to this excellent thread. Be sure to post more information if anyone comes across it. It's quite scary to learn that the UK government posses such powers that can go as far as taking away the freedom of the press at any given time or situation as they see fit; basically in the same manner as the Chinese Government censorship...



[edit on 21-3-2010 by Jocko Flocko]



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Wish I had seen this thread at the outset, bloody interesting well researched thread with blinding content by all, shame we don't see more like this these days, all fights and rudeness.

Did anyone ever get any replies from the newspaper involved?

I wonder if the photographer is still alive and where the shot from the harrier went (as if I need to ask about the harrier shot).

A case so sensitive it went right to the top, there just has to be something behind this and I doubt its US military craft..



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 11:36 AM
link   
They will probably conclude that it is a flying advertisement for
DeBeers.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 

Karl12,

Yet another excellent thread of yours.

During the 1989-91 Belgian wave, witnesses observed several large diamond-shaped UAPs hovering over features of apparent 'interest' to them. Here are three relevant sketches that I've uploaded from my copy of the SOBEPS report, volume 2, 1994:

img864.imageshack.us...

img12.imageshack.us...

img96.imageshack.us...

The first sketch, showing a UAP observed above Tancremont on 26 July 1992, seems to correspond in some details with the Pitlochry/Calvine image.

In Belgium the UAPs appeared to show 'interest' in busy roads, intersections, factories and so on. At Calvine, the Scottish village north west of Pitlochry above which the August 1990 UAP was observed to hover, Google Earth shows several road intersections and the busy A9 crosses a railway line:

img854.imageshack.us...


So when viewed in the context of the contemporary Belgian sightings, investigated in such an exemplary manner by the Royal Belgian Air Force, the Pitlochry/Calvine image assumes an even greater significance.

all the best



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Lowneck
 


Hey Lowneck, thanks for the post and I'd never seen those object depictions before - Internos also made a great post here on the Belgian wave and there are some other witness statements a few posts below - very interesting stuff.


As for the Pitlochry case, Mtaftm posted a relevant video in this thread but I don't think we're any closer to finding out what happened to the original images or why the British MOD broke with all official protocol when investigating the incident.





Cheers.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Mclaneinc
 


Not a word from the The Daily Record.





top topics
 
28
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join