.jpg)
By Dr David Clarke
www.drdavidclarke.blogspot.com/
3-10-10
www.drdavidclarke.blogspot.com/
3-10-10
.jpg)
As far as I can see the only words in this review that are relevant to the actual content of my book are "the book does have some interesting UK UFO cases" (final paragraph).My brief was to write a book about the contents of the UFO files released by the British MoD, which is what (I hope) I did.
The MoD's position is that it does not hold any Top Secret UFO files (apart from the Flying Saucer Working Party and Condign reports), so I cannot write about or speculate about files that either do not exist or which I have no access to. That's the bottom line.
Again, the brief was to write about British files and British investigations. With a 60,000 word limit, it was impossible to include anything but a brief mention of Blue Book, Condon report or the minutiae of any other foreign UFO projects.
The content of these have been covered in-depth elsewhere, by Stan and other writers far better qualified than I to comment. Why waste space repeating what we already know?
Again as these were not directly related to British cases or files, there was no reason why I should have covered them in any depth -other than to the detriment of British content.
Gentle readers, don't let Stan Friedman put you off. Should you invest a few dollars in my slim volume I can assure you that you will find lots of "interesting UK UFO cases" (which is what it says on the tin!).
.png)
No comments :
Post a Comment
Dear Contributor,
Your comments are greatly appreciated, and coveted; however, blatant mis-use of this site's bandwidth will not be tolerated (e.g., SPAM etc).
Additionally, healthy debate is invited; however, ad hominem and or vitriolic attacks will not be published, nor will "anonymous" criticisms. Please keep your arguments "to the issues" and present them with civility and proper decorum. -FW