start again. I was a little disturbed about the allegations slung at Nick Pope by
Dr. David Clarke recently and that Nick Pope had not had the opportunity to
respond to them. I also want to point out that I have no dog in this fight and
was looking for a little fairness in all this. I expected some pushback, but,
in this world today, who wouldn’t expect some pushback. I have now heard from a
number of others about all this.
I suppose, is to answer the question of why Dr. David Clarke would bring this
up now, if the issue had been settled decades earlier. According to what he
told me; the simple answer is that he didn’t. He was responding to a question
asked by Martin Willis during Willis’ podcast.
Nick Redfern - Photo copyright by
Second, all those who emailed me seemed to object to my use of the term “allegations” against Nick Pope. All who emailed me said that there had been no allegations, just statement of facts. One of those facts, an important one, had to do with Nick Pope’s duty at the MoD and whether or not he, Nick Pope, had conducted official UFO investigations. While serving in the MoD, Nick Pope had other duties and devoted only 20% of his salary to dealing with UFOs. In other words, the majority of his time went to other things. His UFO duties involved taking down the initial information about a UFO sighting and then passing it on to another organization. To quote Nick Redfern (and now you know why I kept saying Nick Pope), back in 1994, Nick Pope told Nick Redfern, “There is no specific ‘UFO budget,’ except the staff costs, i.e. around 20% of my salary, together with a tiny percent of some other salaries, reflecting my line management’s supervisory role.”
those interested, here is a link to an article an Nick Redfern published a
number of years ago that dealt with some of this:
of course, does not rule out Nick Pope having investigated UFO sightings. It
suggests that there wasn’t much of a budget for any investigation. It could be
said that the initial intake of information over the telephone is part of an
investigation, though certainly not the most important aspect of it. However,
there is additional information that is relevant to the discussion.
Clarke noted in communication with me, “Sec(AS) [Secretariat Air Staff] where
Nick worked 1991 – 1993 was not authorized or funded to investigate UFO
seems to be fairly definitive but there is more relevant information. According
to what David Clarke provided, “This is set out clearly in the attached policy document from 1997,
written by Pope's line manager, that says any follow-up investigations that
were required were carried out by the DI55 intelligence staff and/or the Royal
still another document that came from official sources, and of which I now have
a copy, it says:
Mr. Pope at one time served as EO (Band D) in the Secretariat Air
Staff [a junior civil servant grade] ... [and] left Sec(AS) in 1994...and his
knowledge of this issue, other than from publicly available sources, must be
regarded as dated. Mr. Pope elected to describe his position as the "Head
of the MoD's UFO Project", a term entirely of his own invention, and he
has used his experience and information he gathered (frequently going beyond
the official remit of his position) to develop a parallel career as a pundit on
the topic, including writing several books, some purportedly non-fiction. Mr.
Pope constantly puts himself forward in various parts of the media, solicited
and unsolicited, as an "expert" (despite his lack of recent knowledge
about the work carried on in the branch concerned) and seeks credit amongst
other aficionados for having "forced" the MoD to reveal its
"secret" files on the subject. The latter is far from the truth...
in what might be the final straw here, David Clarke provided the following, “In another document from
the same period, the head of the Air Historical Branch (RAF) is even more
forthright, saying ‘Far from accurately representing the Department's position,
he [Pope] has sought to embellish the truth at almost every turn’.”
I suppose, that if you wish to be generous, you could say that
taking the initial report and asking questions about it could be considered
part of an official investigation. But that is really stretching a point and
doesn’t accurately reflect the situation. The actual investigation into the
reports that demanded additional work was carried about by other British
government organizations and Nick Pope had virtually nothing to do with that.
But the real problem here is what Nick Pope published on his own
website. Any errors, embellishments, alterations of fact can’t be blamed on the
webmaster. Nick Pope approved the content. This biography said:
Nick Pope ran the
British Government’s UFO project. From 1991 to 1994 he researched and
investigated UFOs, alien abductions, crop circles and other strange phenomena,
leading the media to call him the real Fox Mulder. His government background
and his level-headed views have made him the media, film and TV industry’s
go-to guy when it comes to UFOs, the unexplained and conspiracy theories.
But this particular allegation has been debunked by Hayley Stevens
a post to her blog which you can read here:
I mean you can disagree with someone but this is unreasonable.
There is additional information contained in this post that sheds additional
light on the problem. Some of the sources or documents she mentions I have seen
and have copies for verification.
I’m not sure if this is piling on, or if it is relevant information. As noted above, Nick Pope claimed that he had investigated claims of alien abduction, crop circle formations or animal mutilations as part of his job at the MoD. Philip Mantle supplied the following information:
Just read this from UK documentary producer Matt Quinn. This was
posted in the comments section of the martin Willis podcast:
From that reference Phillippe... "From 1991 to 1994 Mr. Pope
worked as a civil servant within Secretariat (air staff). He undertook a wide
range of secretariat tasks relating to central policy, political and
parliamentary aspects of non-operational RAF activity. Part of his duties
related to the investigation of unidentified aerial phenomena reported to the
Department to see if they had any defence significance." This doesn't
actually contradict what David Clark has said, and what has been 'common
knowledge' for a very long time... it also completely fails to support in any
way, Nick Pope's ridiculously-aggrandised claims... But in reality? I can only
paraphrase Martha and the Muffins...
" _From nine to five, he had to spend his time at work His
job was very boring as an office clerk The only thing that helped him pass the
time away Was knowing he'd be back at Echo Beach someday_ " As we're
'buying' UK government publications (when it suits) do a search with the UK's
National Archive service... And I do very much encourage you to do your own
legwork; don't just take my word for it. I can tell you (as a media
professional) that when 'Open Skies Closed Minds' was published it was
generally received by the press as highly entertaining bollocks... riding a
wave that was well in motion at the time. Just a 'jolly japes' type romp through
an over-egged fantasy world... Good copy, bit of a laugh. But Nick Pope always
had more in common with Dilbert than Mulder. The woman who got Nick Pope's job after
him is called Kerry Philpott, and is on record stating there was no
"strange phenomena section" at the MOD and that whilst Nick had been
an 'EO' - Junior management grade administrator - just as she now was, she
wrote "neither he nor indeed am I the head of any 'UFO' section"...
There is a chap called James Easton who is fairly well known here
in Scotland as something of a 'UFOlogist'. Way back in 1999 he wrote an open
letter to the MOD which posed many questions about Nick's duties and the MOD's
locus in relation to various 'Fortean' phenomena... The response he got was.
“The main duties of the post concern non-operational RAF activities overseas
and diplomatic clearance policy for military flights abroad. A small percentage
of time is spent dealing with reports from the public about alleged ‘UFO’
sightings and associated public correspondence. The MoD has not investigated a
claim of alien abduction, crop circle formations or animal mutilation.” I'm
sure it's now well over a decade since David Clark put that information up on
his own site - over 20 since James got the response he did from the MOD and I
honestly cannot tell you of anyone (except the incredibly non-credible) to whom
that was in any way, shape or form a surprise. David Clark hasn't lied. - You
don't have to like the guy, or not be disappointed at Nick. But David hasn't
then, is the other side of the coin. I provided Nick Pope with a platform for
his comments, and it is only fair that I supply the others with a similar
courtesy. I’m inclined to say that the reader should take his or her own view
of the material and decide what to believe. However, that is a somewhat
weasel-worded claim for me to make. I waded into this swamp because I believed
that Nick Pope should be heard, but now, having seen the other side, and
although I think of Nick Pope as a friend (and can say the same about Philip
Mantle and Nick Redfern), I must come down on their side of the fence.
we see here is just another of the nasty fights that erupt in this field,
though this one played out in the UK rather than here in America. If you care
to comment, then you must be prepared for the consequences of that commentary.
It had seemed to me, originally, that this was a bit of a fight over semantics,
but it has, of course, ranged far beyond that. I don’t like the name calling or
the allegations of plagiarism, having had that directed at me for a long time,
but sometimes you just have to make a stand.
then, is what I believe to be the whole truth of the matter. And while I could
say that I wish I had not involved myself in it, I would rather say that I
think here is enough information that we all know the truth.
is one of those documents that seems to clarify the situation. I append it here
for those who wish to see a little more of the evidence.
|One of the documents that seems
to refute some of Nick Pope's