Wikipedia

Talk:Porton Down

Latest comment: 6 years ago by Da-rb
Learn more about this page

Untitled

edit
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Does anyone know what CCU stands for? It doesn't seem to be explained in the article

Rbirkby 18:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

"UAP Research and Investigation" section

edit
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This whole section appears to be a mass of POV, with its cited sources being UFO websites. I've removed it from the article and placed it below. It should either be radically revised to meet the neutral point of view and attribution policies, or deleted. -- The Anome 18:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Reply


Agree completely. I have also described Nick Pope as an "employee" rather than an "Agent". The word Agent lends an air of dashing secrecy and authority that is ... shall we say ... inappropriate. Jas 20:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply 

------- DELETED SECTION BEGINS --------

UAP Research and Investigation

edit

{{npov-section}}

Cover of the 1999 novel by UFO desk MoD operative Nick Pope. In this novel Nick Pope speculated that alien bodies (EBE's), had been taken to Porton Down.

Porton Down is also suspected of being a research facility for UAP studies, research and investigation. Some even believe it to be involved with UAP crash and retrievens.

It is believed that personnel from Porton Down [1] visited Rendlesham in 1980 after the Rendlesham Forest Incident. In 1999 Nick Pope, a UK Government MOD Agent, published a book, 'Operation Thunder Child', talking about alien bodies (EBE's), being taken to Porton Down [2] and in 1996, British researcher Tony Dodd surfaced with a story about alien bodies supposedly taken to Porton Down from the site of an alleged UFO crash on the Berwyn Mountains in North Wales most commonly referred to as the Berwyn Mountain Incident. [3] [4]

Lord Hill-Norton asked Her Majesty's Government "Whether they are aware of any involvement by Special Branch in the investigation of the 1980 Rendlesham Forest Incident [HL303]"

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean stated "Special Branch officers may have been aware ofthe incident but would not have shown any interest unless there was evidence of a potential threat to national security. No such interest appears ot have been shown." You Can't Tell the People

The Ministry of Defences's usual comment when describing the "alleged" incident is that it was merely "lights in the sky". But here we have confirmation that there was an incident and that Special Branch may have been aware of it.

Porton Down: Did they investigate the RAF Watton incident?

According to Harry Thompson, a former RAF secdurity police officer at RAF Watton, a team of four British Government scients had visited the forest after the Watton incident. Thompson suspected they were from Porton Down. On 25 January 2001 Lord Hill-Norton asked Her Majesty's Government:

  • Whether personnel from Porton Down visited Rendlesham Forest or the area surrounding RAF Walton in December 1980 or January 1981; and whether they are aware of any tests carried out in either of those two areas aimed at assessing any nuclear, biological or chemical hazard. [HL301][5] [6] - You Can't Tell the People.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean stated that "The staff at the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) Chemical and Biological Defence (CBD) laboratories at Porton Down have made a thorough search of their archives and have found no record of any such visits." [7] [8] - [You Can't Tell the People]

Although, Georgina Bruni, author of the definitive account on the Rendlesham Forest Incident entitled You Can't Tell the People commented that "that should have been RAF "Watton" not Walton. According to my witness from RAF Watton, some agency, presumably from Porton Down, did visit Watton and investigate the area on the perimeter of the base. Then the question is, if they were not from Porton Down, which is the place one would expect it to be, where was the unit from? I expect like the first Answer, any reference to this event has been carefully logged elsewhere." [9] [10]

One has to ask, if it was not a unit from Porton Down, who were these men and where were they from? Recall also that Americans were seen in the forest on the perimeter of the Watton base. Could these have been researchers from Langley (the CIA research establishment)? Could this same group, who were said to have investigated the Rendlesham Forest landing sites, also have investigated the perimeter of RAF Watton. - You Can't Tell the People. 

------- DELETED SECTION ENDS --------

Mysterious deaths

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

What the hell has David Kelly's death got to do with Porton Down? He wasn't working there at the time, hadn't worked there for years, and the events leading up to his completely non-mysterious suicide (unless you are a crank) were political and not military/CBRN. Tin foil hat brigade been here again? Removing until inclusion is justified. 86.17.211.191 (talk) 22:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

UFO section needs removing

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It's not factual and it's been removed and reinstated before. I tried to remove it myself but it promptly got reverted and I got a ticking off for not explaining my edits properly. Make of that what you will... 194.74.227.66 (talk) 15:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

21 Days Later?

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is Porton Down the laboratory that the activists tried to free the chimps from in 21 Days Later? If so should be added to popular culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.2.182 (talk) 04:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well, 28 Days Later is a well known fictional film; I am not sure that it wise to admit knowledge of the 21 Days Later incident involving Porton Down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.7.158.223 (talk) 11:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

"Millions were in germ war tests", "Fluorescent Particle Trials"?

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This story, of a government report about biological weapon trials between 1940 and 1979, perhaps originally reported on The Guardian in 2002, is not mentioned. I wonder why? Does that government report not actually exist? [11] [12] 

Pflanze2 (talk) 01:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Porton Down. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Porton Down. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Land acquisition

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Mention how the land was originally acquired. Jidanni (talk) 13:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

New Section

edit

This new section may be too much for this article, so I'll place a copy here just in case:

=== Associated locations ===

  • Sutton Oak: A factory in Sutton Oak, St Helens, Merseyside was requisitioned in 1917 by the War Department and was named HM Factory, Sutton Oak and started producing the chemical warfare agent diphenyl chlorarsine. The site switched to prodcing Adamsite in 1922. In 1923 the War Office halted the requisition and purchased the site, renaming it to the War Office Research Establishment, a.k.a. Chemical Warfare Research Establishment, and later the Chemical Defence Research Establishment Sutton Oak . Throughout the 1920s, the sit switched to producing Mustard Gas products, starting with the HS variant and adding the HT variant in the 1930s and filling armaments. After WW2, the site also produced the nerve agent Sarin for experimental purposes. The site close in 1957, with much of the work transferring to Chemical Defence Establishment Nancekuke .[1]
  • RRH Portreath: This Royal Air Force site, built in 1940, was renamed Chemical Defence Establishment Nancekuke in July 1949. Manufacture of Sarin in a pilot production facility commenced there in the early 1950s, producing about 20 tons of the nerve agent from 1954 until 1956. It was intended as a stockpile and production facility for the UK's chemical defences during the Cold War, focussed on nerve agents, including small amounts of VX intended mainly for laboratory test purposes and to validate plant designs and optimise chemical processes for potential mass-production: but full-scale production of VX agent never took place. In the late 1950s, the chemical weapons production plant at Nancekuke was mothballed, but was maintained through the 1960s and 1970s in a state whereby production of chemical weapons could easily re-commence if required.[2]

References

  1. ^ "Magnum Poison Gas Works". Retrieved 29 June 2016.
  2. ^ "Nancekuke Remediation Project". Ministry of Defence (Archived by The National Archives). Archived from the original on 8 December 2010. Retrieved 25 April 2012. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

To Do List

edit
  • Fix the timeline such that the WW1, WW2 references etc are right
  • Expand the 21st century section, including the development of the military site and expansion to non CB research as well
  • Revise the external links and thin down by turning relevant ones into references
  • Get numbers for the animal testing section and update properly
  • Add how the land was requisitioned
  • Explain in the history the two site bit properly, around the 1951 build
  • Expand the non-government section
  • Properly reference the table
  • Update the secrecy section to draw more references but thin out that one.
  • Consider the UFO section properly: either more references, or something else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Da-rb (talk • contribs) 00:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Porton_Down&oldid=1205283470"