Nick Pope seems to come out with amazing statements, but not back them up with anything substantial, or base them on any facts at all.
His latest statement to The sun’s article ” Google Unearthed” (posted 30th March, 2009) was:
” Yesterday baffled ufologist Nick Pope said he was “very excited” by the image, which he labelled “truly fascinating”.
He added: “It appears to show nine objects flying in near perfect formation. About the only thing I know that can do this is the Red Arrows — and it’s not them” ” (extract from article). Ironically at Above top secret, there is a possibility that they are either jets, (including red arrows) or balloons : see Here and Here . Also they point out that google started mapping London out in 2008. One possibility could be that it was the Queen’s birthday flypast see here. Again i say possibilities, and as such should be presented as such.
You can see the google map in question here . I did notice that the next camera to the right, has (looking at the skyline) an aerial dissected half way up, and am unsure how this was caused (unless it was collected at two seperate times, for instance).
Anyway, it soon finds its way into many newspapers and media outlets, but why? Again, i say why is this an amazing image….. to me one answer could be that its an image malfunction. I’m not saying that it should not be discussed, but the way it is being put ‘out there ‘ is getting sad, and there are better cases that should be disscussed/ talked about ina rational way, but i guess it does not sell papers.
I will within the next week or so, put together an article, on why i have come to this conclusion about Nick Pope, and give my reasons with background information.
For example, i wrote about ” Is nick Pope being GULLable towards UFO sighting? ” in which the image was clearly a seagull (or Unidentified Feathered Object).
Although i’m not saying that you can get everything right, he does not seem to be learning from his mistakes, or even looking at the evidence with a clear head, and reassessing his answers to these questions.
Of course, sometimes all you can give are a series of alternatives (ie what they could be), and leave it at that.
Therefore we have to ask what are his motives in all this? Maybe i’m reacting to strongly to all this, possibly, but i do believe it is more sensationalism again.
The Sun newspaper is also proving to not be interested in the truth about UFOs whatsoever, and sooner the rest of the media realize this the better. For instance, the latest wind Turbine incident is a good example of hype by them.
I would be interested to find out what you think of Nick Pope? is he a reliable source of information on UFOs, and Ufology as a whole.
I only bring this whole subject up, because i wonder why some people are surprised, when they ask ” why is ufology not taken seriously”.