DISCLOSURE / FILE
UK Air Ministry/MOD policy file AIR 2/19086 documents Air Staff handling of UFO reports, including standard acknowledgement letters, parliamentary handling, and the 1974 decision to stop categorising UFO reports.
UK Air Ministry/MOD policy file AIR 2/19086 documents Air Staff handling of UFO reports, including standard acknowledgement letters, parliamentary handling, and the 1974 decision to stop categorising UFO reports.
AIR 2/19086 is a UK Ministry of Defence registered file (AF 3459/75, Part I opened 13 May 1970, Part II opened 12 August 1975) covering Air Staff procedures for handling UFO reports. The file contains two standard MOD draft letters: 'A' for acknowledging specific UFO reports and 'B' for general enquiries, both stating that 'investigations over several years have so far produced no evidence that UFOs represent an air defence threat to the United Kingdom.' A 27 March 1974 minute records that because MOD interest in UFOs is limited to defence aspects, the Department would 'no longer attempt to categorize UFO reports' to avoid embarrassment in PQ or PE contexts. The file also collates outside scientific commentary including Charles H. Smiley's Brown University fai analysis, Wernher von Braun's UFO Q&A, and Philip J. Klass's August 1966 Aviation Week ball-lightning/plasma theory.
investigations over several years have so far produced no evidence that UFOs represent an air defence threat to the United Kingdom.p.7
Since the Ministry of Defence interest in unidentified flying objects is limited to the defence aspect investigations into the scientific significance of the phenomena are not carried out.p.7
We cannot undertake to pursue our research, other than for defence implications, to a point where positive correlation with a known object is established, nor to advise you of the probable identity of the object seen.p.8
our interest in UFOs is limited to defence aspects and the fact that we do not now undertake to advise observers of the probable identity of the object seen, we should no longer attempt to categorize UFO reportsp.9
Thus the evidence seems to indicate that Martians and Venutians have not been arriving in large numbers if at all.p.11
Luminous plasmas of ionized air, a special form of "ball lightning" generated by electric corona that occurs on high-tension power lines under certain conditions, may explain many sightings of lower-altitude "unidentified flying objects."
Extracted text · Page 1
Page 1 · born-digital extraction
(c) crown copyright Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086 Image Reference:1
Page 2 · vision OCR
RESTRICTED/RESTRICTED
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE PART I
1. ATTENTION IS DRAWN TO THE NOTES ON THE INSIDE FLAP
2. ENTER NOTES OF RELATED FILES ON PAGE 2 OF THIS JACKET
DIVISION
FOR REGISTRY USE ONLY
115.
[handwritten:] 15 2 x 55
Registered file number
AF 3459/75
PART I
Date opened
13 5 70
[handwritten:] DOWNGRADED Re REG FROM AEK x 80/70
Referred to | DATE | Referred to | DATE | Referred to | DATE | Referred to | DATE
S4f (AIR) | 12.8.75 |
CLOSED
[stamped:]
MUST BE PLACED
IN THIS FILE
S4f (AIR) | 12.8.75
[circular stamp:] MOD
CS(RM)1
- 8 JAN 1999
SECOND
REVIEW
[handwritten large:] 2001
[initials]
[handwritten:] AIR2/19086
FOR DRO USE ONLY
1st Review Date
DOWNGRADING
(to be completed as necessary, and in any event when the file goes out of current use)
(i) This file may be downgraded to UNCLASSIFIED on .................................
(insert date)
Certifying Officer ..............................
Date...................................APPOINTMENT
AND BRANCH..............................
OR
(ii) Return for review on (insert date) ..............................
RESTRICTED/UNCLASSIFIED (2971)P D. 107419 184m 5/73 P.J. Gp.610
Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086 Image Reference:1Concatenated page-by-page transcript. Born-digital pages came through pdf.js; scanned pages were transcribed by Claude vision OCR. Pages marked unreadable failed multiple OCR retries (heavy redaction, microfilm artifacts, or blank separators) and are kept in place for audit.
(c) crown copyright Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086 Image Reference:1
RESTRICTED/RESTRICTED
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE PART I
1. ATTENTION IS DRAWN TO THE NOTES ON THE INSIDE FLAP
2. ENTER NOTES OF RELATED FILES ON PAGE 2 OF THIS JACKET
DIVISION
FOR REGISTRY USE ONLY
115.
[handwritten:] 15 2 x 55
Registered file number
AF 3459/75
PART I
Date opened
13 5 70
[handwritten:] DOWNGRADED Re REG FROM AEK x 80/70
Referred to | DATE | Referred to | DATE | Referred to | DATE | Referred to | DATE
S4f (AIR) | 12.8.75 |
CLOSED
[stamped:]
MUST BE PLACED
IN THIS FILE
S4f (AIR) | 12.8.75
[circular stamp:] MOD
CS(RM)1
- 8 JAN 1999
SECOND
REVIEW
[handwritten large:] 2001
[initials]
[handwritten:] AIR2/19086
FOR DRO USE ONLY
1st Review Date
DOWNGRADING
(to be completed as necessary, and in any event when the file goes out of current use)
(i) This file may be downgraded to UNCLASSIFIED on .................................
(insert date)
Certifying Officer ..............................
Date...................................APPOINTMENT
AND BRANCH..............................
OR
(ii) Return for review on (insert date) ..............................
RESTRICTED/UNCLASSIFIED (2971)P D. 107419 184m 5/73 P.J. Gp.610
Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086 Image Reference:1To those who, either through personal observation or through hearsay based on other people's accounts, still insist that objects of extra-terrestrial origin are roaming through our atmosphere, I can only say that I have never seen such an object and cannot believe in their existence until I do.p.14
Page 121 · vision OCR
Made and printed in Great Britain Ace Offset, Rudgwick, Sussex Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086
CLOSED NO [ILLEGIBLE] OR [ILLEGIBLE] OR ENCLOSURES MUST BE PLACED IN THIS FILE Authority to Downgrade Top Enclosure. Pt II opened 12.8.75 Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086
Miss Jameson
I think you are
right - we had better
find out how important
the RHC is.
I have re-arranged
the closing paras of [?our]
6/5 draft. Would you please
send to type.
If, Heaven forbid,
CS pronounces against
us I don't think we
can contemplate more
than a selective release
and even then I feel
we're getting DVS know first
because of the staffing
implications.
[initials]
5/6
Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086Miss Jameson
How much of X can I reveal in a letter
to the Royal Holloway College? [crossed out text]
Do you know what Davis said about MoD policy
in his TV talk?
— I have in mind a
letter which says openly that we don't
investigate UFO reports beyond the national defence
implications being [crossed out] our files at se [crossed out] would be of
little value — [underlined: Then] we can't reveal the
reports themselves because of the difficulties given at [?]
Can you put me on to an MoD
scientist who can advise on the standing
of the people at R H C and the validity
of their investigation — i.e. are they fit
the criteria in their form of Y?
Dr. Dawson of DSB is a scientist. He
might be able to give you informal advice
E.15 sent
to CS(RAF)
[initials]
2/6
Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086 Image Reference:1LOOSE MINUTE
AF/421/S4f(Air)
________________
RECORD OF MOD(Air) COMMITTEES
1. This branch is now responsible for the upkeep of a Committee
Record Book for MOD(Air) committees.
2. We have been informed that you are concerned with the
___________________________________________________________________________
If you are the Secretary of the Working Party/Committee, please tell
us whether it falls within the terms of MOD Manual 2, Chapter 4,
paragraphs 0405-0413 and, if so, provide the following information:
a. authority for setting up the committee;
b. terms of reference;
c. composition by section, branch or appointment;
d. whether the committee is:
(1) standing;
(2) ad hoc but likely to be in existence for some time;
(3) ad hoc but have a limited time in which to report;
e. date of last two meetings;
f. short title.
3. If you are not the secretary, it would be helpful if you would
let us know, from the papers you hold, the branch responsible for
providing the Secretary.
M E Kane
________________ 1973 M E KANE (MRS)
S4f(Air)
MB8243 6236MB
Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086 Image Reference:1'B'
DRAFT
I am writing to thank you for your letter asking for
information about unidentified flying objects.
The Ministry of Defence investigates UFO reports, which are
received from various sources, eg members of the public, the
police, Service units, etc, to see if there are any defence
implications. Reports are examined in the Ministry of Defence by
experienced staff. They do this with open minds. They have access
to all information available to the Ministry of Defence. They
call on the full scientific and professional resources of the
Ministry of Defence and may, if necessary, call in expert advice
from other Government and non-Government bodies.
Since the Ministry of Defence interest in unidentified flying
objects is limited to the defence aspect investigations into the
scientific significance of the phenomena are not carried out.
You will no doubt wish to know, however, that investigations
over a number of years have so far produced no evidence that UFOs
represent an air defence threat to the United Kingdom. Reported
[handwritten:] from experience over a number of years
[strikethrough:] sightings are considered to [underlined: have] originated, in the main, from
aircraft or the lights of aircraft being seen under unusual
conditions, balloons and various meteorological phenomena as well
as astronomical sightings, space satellites and space "junk".
Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086 Image Reference:1'A'
DRAFT
I am writing to thank you for your report of an [ILLEGIBLE]
unidentified flying object seen on
We are grateful to you for advising the Department of this
incident and your report will be examined in the Ministry of
Defence to see if there are any defence implications. We cannot
undertake to pursue our research, other than for defence implications,
to a point where positive correlation with a known object is
established, nor to advise you of the probable identity of the
object seen.
You will no doubt wish to know, however, that investigations
over a number of years have so far produced no evidence that UFOs
represent an air defence threat to the United Kingdom.
Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086 Image Reference:1[handwritten at top:] This question was discussed on 27/3/74 by Mr Crowther
with APS/UCOS(RAF) who considered that US/S(RAF)
Mr. Crowther would at [?] not be consulted about this proposed
change of procedure regarding cessation of categorisation.
He drafts at A + B, as amended were agreed by M. Cawth[?]
[illegible]
You mentioned recently that because
our interest in UFOs is limited to defence aspects
and the fact that we do not now undertake
to advise observers of the probable identity of the
object seen, we should no longer attempt to
categorize UFO reports; with our limited information,
our somewhat haphazard allocation could be
embarrassing should we be required to defend it
in the context of a PE or PQ.
With this change in procedure in view, I
have re-drafted the two standard letters,
the draft at 'A' to be used to acknowledge the
receipt of specific UFO reports, & the one at 'B'
in response to enquiries about the MoD attitude
to UFOs, for your agreement please.
Before we bring a new procedure into
operation, however, you may wish to see the
Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086 Image Reference:1/correspondence, in the attached file, under which the present system of acknowledging reports but not identifying the object to the observer was agreed by USoS(RAF) (Encl. 9) following a submission by your predecessor at E.7 which said we would continue to categorize reports where possible for our records. [signature:] CJ Jamison 2/3. Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086 Image Reference:2
ARRIVING FROM MARS BY UFO?
Roughly speaking, a space vehicle from Mars should overtake the earth
from behind and one from Venus should be overtaken by the earth. Thus
one could determine whether the path of approach was associated with
the proper radiant point in space; here we use the term in the sense
in which it used in connection with meteors.
Now to look at the evidence! A list of UFO's sighted between
September 8, 1956 and December 31, 1963 was examined. Nine fais of 20
days were found in this interval, 5 for Venus and 4 for Mars. Circular
paths were assumed for Venus, Earth and Mars in computing travel times
for space vehicles, but no particular difficulty is encountered if one
elects to allow for the eccentricities of the various paths. In table
I below, the number of UFO's reported in each fai of 20 days is given,
and is to be compared with the average number of UFO's per 20-day interval
outside the fais, namely, 1.88.
TABLE I
Fai Planet Number UFO's
1956 Sept. 8-28 Venus 1
1956 Dec. 5-25 Mars 1
1958 Apr. 16 - May 6 Venus 1
1959 Feb. 10 - Mar. 2 Mars 2
1959 Nov. 18 - Dec. 8 Venus 0
1961 Mar. 26 - Apr. 15 Mars 1
1961 June 28 - July 18 Venus 1
1963 Jan. 29 - Feb. 18 Venus 2
1963 May 1 - 21 Mars 1
1956 Sept. 28 to 1963 Dec. 31
outside fais 242 in 2570 days.
Thus the evidence seems to indicate that Martians and Venutians
have not been arriving in large numbers if at all. When one goes back
to examine the direction from which the UFO's arrived, we find not a
single case of the UFO coming in from the proper direction to indicate
that it had originated on Mars or Venus.
Charles H. Smiley, Brown University
Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086 2 Image Reference:2ARRIVING FROM MARS BY UFO?
In recent years there have been many reports of unidentified
flying objects (UFO's), especially since the first Soviet Sputnik went
up on October 4, 1957. From time to time the question has been raised
as to whether the UFO's might have come from Mars or Venus, perhaps
bearing intelligent beings. Usually the answer to this question has
been simply a guess which depended to a considerable extent on what the
individual wanted to believe. Most scientists have been inclined to
doubt that the UFO's came from Mars or Venus, preferring to credit the
sightings to natural phenomena which are not as well known as they should
be.
There is a logical approach to this question as to whether or not
UFO's have come from Mars or Venus. It is well known that if some one
on the earth wants to send a space vehicle to Mars or Venus, there are
specific favorable times, times when a body can be launched so that it
will travel along a minimum-energy orbit, arriving at the path of Mars
(or Venus) just as that planet comes to the same point. For example,
favorable times for launching a rocket to travel to Venus have been
listed as Oct 27, 1965, June 5, 1967 and January 11, 1969, and for Mars,
December 23, 1964, January 26, 1967 and February 28, 1969. (SPACE HAND-
BOOK, Gov't Printing Office 1959)
Of course, there are similar favorable times for launching a space
vehicle from Mars (or Venus) to the earth, and for each of these launching times, there would be a corresponding arrival time at the earth.
These favorable arrival times come at intervals of about 584 days for
Venus and about 780 days for Mars. Actually, in each case, the interval
is a close approximation to the synodic period of the planet; for Venus,
the synodic period varies from 579.8 to 587.8 days, and for Mars, from
767 to 803 days.
One could then choose intervals of 20 days, say ten days on either
side of a favorable arrival date, and look to see how many UFO's were
sighted in each such "favorable arrival interval", here named fai,
(Plural fais). If there were no increase in the number of UFO's in these
fais, then it would be unlikely that any considerable number of UFO's
had been arriving from Mars or Venus.
Some one is certain to raise the question as to whether or not a
Martian or a Venutian would elect to travel in a minimum-energy orbit.
Here I shall assume that intelligent beings from any part of the universe
will choose to travel by means and paths that will minimize the expenditure of energy.
This fai approach to the problem can be carried a step farther.
One can make a list of the UFO's observed in the fais, and look at the
record of each to see if the UFO was observed traveling in the direction
it would have if it came from Mars (or Venus) in a minimum-energy orbit.
Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086 Image Reference:2Extract from Wernher von Braun's book First Men to the Moon,
Copyright 1958, 1959, 1960 by Dr. Wernher von Braun, published
by Holt, Rinehart and Winston of Canada, Ltd.
"Question: What is your opinion on 'U.F.O.'s'?"
"Answer: There is a rational and rather straight-forward
explanation for the great majority of 'sightings of unidentified flying objects,' or 'flying saucers', as they are
more familiarly called. During the last ten years, official
U.S. investigators have tabulated about six thousand
sightings.' They could account for all but two per cent as
belonging to any of the following categories:
High-flying balloons of various kinds
High-flying aircraft illuminated by the sun after the sun
had set on the ground
Nightly 'Fata Morgana' type reflections in the atmosphere
of distant light sources on the ground
Artificial satellites of U.S. or Soviet origin
Meteorites and fireballs
Birds
The Planets Venus or Jupiter
Searchlights illuminating cloud layers
Hoaxes perpetrated by pranksters
Even the most ardent believers in flying objects of
extra-terrestrial origin will usually concede that most
reported 'sightings' can be traced back to one of these
sources. But it is that unaccounted two per cent that
makes enthusiasts cling tenaciously to their conviction.
I cannot account for the mysterious two per cent,
either. But a lifetime spent with testing of guided missiles has taught me to be extremely careful with eye-witness
accounts on rocket firings running into some in-flight
trouble. Of three experienced observers questioned
after a typical mishap, one swore that he clearly
saw a part coming off before the rocket faltered; a second
hotly denied this but claimed that the missile oscillated
violently before it veered off the course; while the third
trained observer saw neither a part coming off, nor an
oscillation, nor any veering off the course but insisted that
the rocket was flying perfectly steadily until it was abruptly ripped part by an internal explosion.
Such contradictions in the eyewitness accounts of old
rocket men are by no means an exception; we are almost
invariably confronted with this situation. Yet we are
dealing here with experienced observers who not only
had seen many firings, but who had the great advantage
of being mentally prepared for the imminent test.
Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086 Image Reference:2For this reason I am highly skeptical about the objective of any 'sighting' report of a fleeting, mysterious object in the sky submitted by an equally surprised and unexperienced observer. And those unaccounted two per cent of U.F.O.'s absolutely fail to raise
my blood pressure. To me, ninety-eight per cent is a
mighty good batting average. I wish we could account for
ninety-eight per cent of what we observe in many other
fields of human endeavor! Yet, ever since the Middle
Ages it has not been customary for science to call on
ghosts or witches — or little green men from Mars — whenever we are confronted with a phenomenon for which
we do not yet have a satisfactory answer.
To those who, either through personal observation or
through hearsay based on other people's accounts, still
insist that objects of extra-terrestrial origin are roaming
through our atmosphere, I can only say that I have never
seen such an object and cannot believe in their existence
until I do."
Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086 Image Reference:2AVIONICS
[photograph caption:] Spectacular corona display along General Electric's experimental 500,000-v. transmission line near Pittsfield was produced by application of more than 120% of rated voltage. Corona also is induced by dirt, salt crystals or other foreign particles on the line or insulators. An extremely high voltage gradient can develop across these, exceeding breakdown voltage of air.
Plasma Theory May Explain Many UFOs
By Philip J. Klass
Washington–Luminous plasmas of ionized air, a special form of "ball lightning" generated by electric corona that occurs on high-tension power lines under certain conditions, may explain many sightings of lower-altitude "unidentified flying objects." It is related to St. Elmo's fire, sometimes seen on or near aircraft in flight.
If this theory is correct, it would explain the increasing frequency of UFO sightings in recent years when there have been growing numbers of very high-voltage power lines. Also there has been increasing atmospheric pollution whose contaminants may play a catalytic role in the phenomenon.
Descriptions contained in a recent book, "Incident At Exeter," appear to support this theory. John G. Fuller, its journalist author, interviewed dozens of persons who reported seeing UFOs in the vicinity of Exeter, N. H., approximately a year ago.
Fuller expresses the belief that top Air Force and government officials know that the UFOs are extra-terrestrial spacecraft but have successfully kept this a secret for nearly two decades to prevent national panic. But a much more plausible scientific explanation emerges when the Exeter sightings are analyzed.
Most of the UFO sightings in the Exeter area occurred along or very near to high-tension power lines, according to the author. The same is true of two other sightings he investigated in western Pennsylvania and others reported at the time of the Northeast power black-
out last November. Fuller speculates that the extra-terrestrial spacecraft may be attracted to the power lines as a source of energy for refueling their propulsion systems.
Electric corona, which this writer believes is the mechanism that triggers one form of "ball lightning" under suitable conditions, is a moderately well understood phenomenon. But most scientific investigations of corona have been aimed at devising means of suppressing it, rather than gaining fundamental theoretical understanding.
Ball lightning, most frequently reported during or immediately following a thunderstorm, is poorly understood. Until recent years it attracted little scientific attention, having been treated by many as an "old wives tale." But in the late forties and early fifties, ball lightning attracted the attention of several
top Soviet scientists, including Academician Peter Kapitsa.
Five years ago, several U. S. laboratories began to investigate the phenomenon, motivated in part by its possible application to anti-ICBM defenses (AW&ST Dec. 4, 1961, p. 52). These included the Bendix Research Laboratories, the Illinois Institute of Technology's Research Institute and Raytheon's advanced development group.
There is a striking similarity between the reported characteristics of ball lightning and the UFOs sighted by dozens of persons in the Exeter area, as reported by Fuller, who used a tape recorder to insure accurate observation details. For example:
■ Color: Ball lightning is multi-colored, but red is the most predominant color reported, followed by intense bluish-white and green. A vast majority of the sightings reported from Exeter said the object was red, while the remainder were either bluish-white, green, or a combination of all of these.
■ Shape: Ball lightning normally is either spherical or ellipsoidal with many reports of a doughnut-shaped or ring configuration. The Exeter sightings were mostly round, oval-shaped or dome-shaped.
■ Sound: Ball lightning is often ac-
48 Aviation Week & Space Technology, August 22, 1966
Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086 Image Reference:2[Three photographs at top]
[caption:] Ionized plasmas produced by electric discharge in laboratories of Illinois Institute of Technology's Research Institute several years ago show some of the characteristic shapes of UFO sightings. However, these pictures were made with extremely short film exposure times of 0.2-0.5 microsec., far briefer than the Lucci photo (below).
companied by a sizzling or hissing sound. Exeter sightings reported that the UFO sometimes made a soft humming or hissing sound.
■ Dynamics: Ball lightning has been reported as hanging motionless at times, yet able to move up, down and horizontally at extremely high speeds. It appears to move by rolling and gliding, often along electrical conductors or structures and frequently exhibits a spinning motion. The Exeter sighting reports said the objects often hovered over a fixed location, frequently power lines, often rolled or bounced along, sometimes exhibiting a spinning motion and would then appear to zoom off at great speed and disappear from sight.
■ Lifetime: Ball lightning reports indicate that they can have a lifetime ranging from several seconds to many minutes. Observers at Exeter reported that objects remained in view for a few seconds or as long as 15 min.
■ Size: Ball lightning has been reported in sizes up to 15 ft. in diameter. Exeter observers estimated the size of objects sighted at from the size of a basketball to as much as 200 ft. in diameter.
This apparent size discrepancy is explainable in several ways. All but two of the sightings reported at Exeter by Fuller were made at night and one of the two occurred at dusk. The absence of visible landmarks for size comparison would make it difficult for a layman to estimate size accurately, especially when the object could induce fright in the observer.
Additionally, the type of ball lightning triggered by electric corona may be a lower-energy plasma of larger size than that usually induced by lightning discharges.
Electric corona is a luminous plasma caused by ionization of the air surrounding a transmission line or one of its insulators. When electric corona first occurs, it briefly resembles a small stroke of lightning. The corona can remain fixed or can travel along the
[photograph caption:] Unidentified flying object photographed over high-tension power lines near Beaver, Pa., in August, 1965, by James Lucci with full moon visible to the left of UFO, is believed to be a form of ball lightning induced by electric corona discharge. Photo was taken using film with ASA speed of 100, lens opening of f/3.5, set at infinity, and exposed for 6 sec. Film development time was 12 min.
power line until cooled and extinguished by external forces.
So long as a transmission line and its insulators are clean and suitably designed, corona does not normally occur. But if small particles of dust or salt crystals, for example, become affixed to the line or insulators they can trigger the corona, according to Darrell Shankle, manager of field research in Westinghouse Electric's electric utility operations. The reason is that an extremely high-voltage gradient develops across the dust or salt crystal which exceeds the breakdown voltage of air.
Even flying insects that alight on the line can trigger a corona. For example, during the months of August and September a very high-voltage transmission line in West Virginia experiences frequent coronas caused by "flying spiders" that are carried by the winds and alight on the lines, according to Shankle.
Transmission lines near the ocean are also susceptible to corona because salt crystals deposit on the lines and insulators, according to A. F. Rohlfs, manager of high voltage development for General Electric at Pittsfield, Mass.
Exeter is located only 10 mi. from the ocean. The power lines of the Exeter and Hampton Electric Co., which were involved in the sightings, run right down to the ocean beach beyond Hampton. The company's chief engineer, Stanley Sawyer, says that corona occurs more frequently "when there is not much rain to clean off the lines."
A check with the U. S. Weather Bureau shows that conditions during the summer of 1965 preceding the Exeter sightings in September were especially conducive to corona in that area because it was an extremely dry summer.
For example, during the months of
Aviation Week & Space Technology, August 22, 1966
Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086 Image Reference:3July, August and September the Exeter area received barely more than half of its normal rainfall. During these three months, there was only 6.0 in. of rain, compared to the average of 10.8 in.
When corona first occurs, it usually has a bluish color which can then take on the color of a lightning strike, according to experts on the subject. But the presence of sodium-chloride (salt) on the line could give it a pronounced orangish-red color from the sodium with a touch of green due to the chlorine.
This suggests that some of the Exeter sightings could have been no more than a corona discharge traveling along the power line. Here are some of the first-hand observations described by Fuller in his book:
■ Meredith Bolduc: "This thing was coming up the power lines toward the road . . ."
■ Mrs. Jerline Jalbert: "We see it regularly along here. Always seems to be somewhere near the power lines."
■ Mr. Heselton: "Just the other night, some other people saw it along another section of the power lines."
■ Mr. A. Reid Bunker, Sr. "We were under the high-power lines . . . when at 10:45 p.m. we saw an object approach . . . It had red lights most, and sort of green and white lights . . ."
First Sighting
The first Exeter sighting on Sept. 3, 1965, that triggered many subsequent reports, made by a teenager and subsequently witnessed by two policemen, was located near the 34,500-v. transmission line of the Exeter and Hampton Electric Co. The line is mounted on wooden poles approximately 29 ft. above the ground. In total there were 73 instances, Fuller writes, where persons reporting UFO sightings near Exeter used the words "power lines" or "transmission lines" or referred to locations near power lines.
During the period in which Fuller was researching the Exeter incident, he visited Beaver, Pa., near Pittsburgh, to check UFO reports. One night sighting during the previous month near high-tension power lines had been made by 17-year-old James Lucci and two friends and Lucci had managed to photograph the object (see photo, p. 49).
When Fuller and Lucci visited the area of the sighting and he was asked to pinpoint its location, the youth responded: "I'd say it was right up there, directly over the wires, not more than fifty or sixty feet."
A sighting was made three days later in the same general area by Donald de Turka from his yard. His house, Fuller reports, was "down the street from a section of high-voltage transmission line."
The Northeast power blackout pro-
vided an unexpected opportunity for additional evidence that indicates a relationship between electric transmission lines, and associated power distribution apparatus, and the type of object sighted near Exeter and Pittsburgh.
A private pilot, Weldon Ross, was approaching Hancock Field at Syracuse, N.Y., for a landing "at almost the exact moment of the blackout. As he looked below him, just over the [345,000 v.] power lines near the Clay, N.Y., substation, a huge red ball of brilliant intensity appeared."
This particular substation initially was reported to be the "crux of the difficulty," Fuller writes.
Same Report
A total of five persons reported the same phenomenon, including Robert C. Walsh, deputy commissioner for the Federal Aviation Agency in the Syracuse area, according to Fuller.
On Nov. 26, Fuller reports that a power failure in St. Paul, Minn., coincided "with the appearance of objects overhead giving off blue and white flashes . . . Fifteen minutes later a resident on Hogt Avenue reported a 'blue-glowing' UFO as all house lights and appliances in the area went dead."
Fuller hints at foul play by extra-terrestrial spacecraft by claiming that scientists have not been able to explain the causes of the Northeast power blackout or the simultaneous proximity of the UFO sightings.
Engineers working with large-area power distribution networks concede that the complexity of such systems makes it difficult to pinpoint readily a specific faulty circuit breaker. But no competent expert has publicly advanced the idea that the blackout resulted from external causes.
Voltage Surges
During conditions of such power network instabilities, there are voltage surges at some points in the network. These higher-than-normal voltage conditions would induce very large corona discharges.
The leakage current during corona contains harmonics in larger than usual proportions, creating an inductive effect which aggravates network instability. But only to this extent could the corona or corona-induced ball lightning have contributed to the blackout problem, according to several experts.
The marked resemblance between many of the Exeter sightings and reported observations of ball lightning appears significant, as well as their frequent appearance on, along or near high-tension power lines under atmospheric conditions likely to produce corona discharges along the lines.
The only unresolved question is the mechanism by which the corona dis-
50 Aviation Week & Space Technology, August 22, 1966
Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086 Image Reference:3UFO-Ball Lightning Observations Compared
CHARACTERISTICS EXETER UFOs BALL LIGHTNING
Color Usually reddish-orange and/ Multi-colored, with red
or bluish-white, sometimes dominating or bluish-
green. white.
Shape Round, oval or dome-shaped Spherical, ellipsoidal or
doughnut-shaped.
Movement Often hovering or moving Sometimes hangs motion-
up/down slowly. Also moves less or moves vertically
horizontally at slow or high and horizontally at slow
speed. or high speed.
Dynamics Often seems to move with Appears to bounce or roll
rocking or undulating mo- in horizontal direction.
tion. Sometimes appears to Sometimes exhibits spin-
be spinning. ning motion.
Sound No sound, or slight hum- Sometimes exhibits a siz-
ming or hissing. zling or hissing sound.
Lifetime From several minutes to up From few seconds to
to half an hour. many minutes.
Size Difficult to estimate by most Daytime sightings (in
observers during night sight- brighter ambient light)
ings, but those given range usually are a few inches
from basketball size to 200 in diameter but have
ft. in diameter. ranged up to 15 ft.
charge expands into a larger plasma with ball lightning characteristics. Present limited knowledge of both phenomena complicates this problem. But the similarity of electric corona discharge and natural lightning discharge which is known to induce ball lightning would seem to support strongly the theory presented here.
Despite long years of experience with corona, the experts disagree even over the effect of temperature, barometric pressure and humidity in inducing corona. The reason is that power line corona is difficult to duplicate realistically for study under controlled conditions. To do so would require construction of a huge facility, large enough to house a long transmission line within a chamber so that barometric pressure and temperature could be varied while a variety of atmospheric contaminants were introduced.
There is considerably less scientific information available on ball lightning, although a number of conflicting theories have been advanced to explain it. Several years ago Dr. J. Rand McNally, Jr. of the Atomic Energy Commission's Oak Ridge National Laboratories made an informal survey of 1,962 persons in the laboratory. Surprisingly, he found that 110 of them, or 5.6% of the total sample, had observed ball lightning at some time. Usually it was associated with a conventional stroke of lightning, but not always.
Analyzing the returns, McNally concluded that ball lightning can originate randomly in space but is most often
seen in proximity to wires or structures. It is usually airborne or partially airborne, moving randomly in space or along electric conductors. It often exhibits rolling, tumbling or spinning motions.
Small-diameter ball lightning has been reported inside houses and other buildings. Recently an Air Force Strategic Air Command flight crew reported seeing it inside an aircraft during flight, AVIATION WEEK & SPACE TECHNOLOGY was told by a scientist working in the field.
Many of the ball lightning sightings reported by persons surveyed by McNally occurred on or near power lines.
Many different theories and mathematical models have been advanced by scientists here and abroad to explain the basic mechanism which generates ball lightning and the internal-external forces that enable it to survive for extended periods.
Within recent months two Westinghouse Electric research laboratory scientists, Dr. Martin A. Uman and Dr. C. W. Helstrom published a mathematical model that predicts many of the unusual properties of ball lightning. The Westinghouse research was partially funded by the Office of Naval Research.
This theory suggests that ball lightning is a luminous, high-temperature region of air having high electrical conductivity that has been heated to the required temperature by a stroke of lightning under suitable conditions. When cloud-to-ground lightning currents are symmetrical through the ball,
Aviation Week & Space Technology, August 22, 1966 55
Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086 Image Reference:3[photograph caption:] RESEARCH IN
TARGET CHARACTERISTICS
BENEFITS AICBM SYSTEMS
This special-purpose computer, designed by Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory under contract to Bell Telephone Laboratories, Inc., is capable of processing resolvable targets detected by an AICBM radar and designating for further processing those which are likely to be lethal threats. In addition to its specific application to ballistic missile defense systems, this Signal Data Processor represents a significant advance in the extraction of discrimination data from raw radar signals.
CAL's continuing systems research program on radar discrimination has defined potential targets — including their expected motions. An extensive study of down-range experimental data is supported by theoretical research in reentry physics.
In addition to AICBM investigations, our systems research encompasses various programs for tactical and strategic weapon systems: penetration aids for tactical aircraft, new delivery techniques for chemical ordnance, command and control techniques for air and sea operations, ground mobility studies, ASW investigations, and advanced research on reconnaissance and surveillance systems.
EXPERIENCED PERSONNEL ARE NEEDED FOR SUCH
RESEARCH IN BOTH BUFFALO AND WASHINGTON
CORNELL AERONAUTICAL LABORATORY, INC.
OF CORNELL UNIVERSITY.
it hangs stationary in air, but if these currents become unsymmetr[ical] the ball will move.
The lightning ball will disappear quietly if the internal electric currents gradually fade away, according to the Westinghouse scientists' theory, but it can also collapse with a bang if the current drops sharply.
One scientist who has worked in the field for some time, Carsten M. Haaland, says that none of the proposed models fully explains the phenomenon and that it is possible to find flaws in all theories proposed so far. Haaland, currently employed by AEC's Oak Ridge National Laboratory, previously conducted experiments in ball lightning when he was a member of the Illinois Institute of Technology's Research Institute.
Using relatively crude discharges in air produced by exploding wires, Haaland was able to create small ball lightning for brief intervals (see p. 49).
Haaland believes that there are at least two different types of ball lightning, perhaps more, which would explain why none of the theories advanced to date explains all sightings.
Most theories on ball lightning hold that some external source of energy is needed to sustain the plasma for more than a few seconds. Haaland pointed out, in support of the proposed new theory, that the electromagnetic lines of force from high-tension lines extend for a considerable distance and could supply such energy. The Exeter lines are at a relatively low height (29 ft.) above the ground.
Another scientist working in the field, who declined to be quoted by name, was asked if he could positively exclude the possibility that power line corona could generate ball lightning. He re-
Transmission Grating
Washington–Tiny, low-cost transmission grating which can be used to view UFOs to determine if they are balls of ionized air, as a new theory predicts, can be obtained from two scientists employed by the Westinghouse Research Laboratories.
The transmission grating, roughly the size of a 35-mm. color slide, is small enough to fit into a man's wallet. If the object when viewed through the grating shows an intense red line rather than a full color spectrum, it is a plasma.
Readers interested in obtaining a grating and instructions for its use should send $1, to cover fabrication and mailing cost, to Drs. J. L. Moruzzi/Martin Uman, 579 Lucia Road, Pittsburgh, Pa. 15221. The gratings are being made by the scientists in a home workshop. It is not a Westinghouse sponsored effort.
56 Aviation Week & Space Technology, August 22, 1966
Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086 Image Reference:4[Kaman Nuclear advertisement - left column]
KAMAN
TRANSDUCERS
HERE...
[aircraft diagram]
PREDICT POINT-OF-FAILURE WITHOUT DESTRUCTION
You can use Kaman Variable Impedance Displacement Transducers for test stand measurements to determine point-of-failure without running the test unit to destruction! For example, Kaman Non-Contacting Transducers have been used in high speed jet engines to measure growth of turbine blades in increments as small as .000025"—equivalent to 1 part in 1,000 total transducer range—to determine blade elongation and other distortion as a fuel
tion of turbine rpm. Vibration of the jet engine housing, extreme fluctuations in temperature do not influence accuracy of measurements. Kaman Transducers measure displacement between transducers and adjacent conductive surface without mechanical connection to the turbine blades. If you make measurements in hostile environments, send for technical data and application information on Kaman Nuclear's Variable Impedance Transducer.
Kaman Transducers Excel in Hostile Environments
[K] Kaman Nuclear
1700 GARDEN OF THE GODS ROAD, COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO 80907
Telephone: (303) 473-5880 • TWX: (510) 431-4929
PROBLEMATICAL RECREATIONS 341
[mathematical diagrams]
Show, with a simple example, that an irrational number raised to an irrational power need not be irrational. —Contributed
WESCON 1966 starts tomorrow and 8 is the number of the week! We'll explain. This year's show is "8-great-shows-in-one" featuring 8 special product areas from communication and detection to computers to air and space control systems. (There are 5 other areas to see.) And we're happy to announce that our eighth puzzle booklet, Problematical Recreations®, is available to all problem solvers during WESCON. Pick up your free copy at the Litton booth #1507. We'll be on the main floor of the Los Angeles Sports Arena displaying our latest advances and new products. Hope to see you the 23rd through the 26th!
ANSWER TO LAST WEEK'S PROBLEM: Let BC be the side opposite the 20° angle and D the point 10" from A on side AB. Construct triangle ADE congruent to ABC with ED||BC. Join EC. Then triangle AEC is equilateral and angle DEC = 40°. Triangle EDC is isosceles and angle EDC is 70°. Thus the stripe makes an angle of 150° (or its supplement) with the edge.
[LITTON INDUSTRIES Beverly Hills, California] ©Copyright 1966
plied: "I wouldn't reject this possibility, because a conventional smoke-r[ing] is an interesting example of a pl[asma] held together under the proper conditions by a combination of internal and external forces which are difficult to explain scientifically."
This seems an appropriate analogy because not every instance of corona along power lines generates ball lightning. The presence of salt vapor near Exeter would increase the conductivity of the air, and vaporization of the salt crystals deposited during the dry summer could provide a mechanism for increasing current flow and air temperature once corona occurred. Other contaminants in the air at Exeter and at other locations could provide similar catalytic action.
A spokesman for the National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP), quoted by Fuller, says that UFO "sightings seem to concentrate in small geographic areas during any wave. But the concentration area will shift around." This indicates that when the required combination of atmospheric conditions exists, the phenomenon occurs repeatedly.
It seems more than coincidence that only one of the dozens of Exeter UFO sightings reported by Fuller occurred in broad daylight. This prompted one police officer who was interviewed by Fuller to ask: "Where does it go in the daytime?"
It is possible that the necessary atmospheric conditions, including air contaminants, do not occur until the cooler night air arrives. Another possible explanation is that the luminous plasma of ionized air usually is too faint to be easily visible in daylight, although it could appear quite bright in the dark.
In the photograph taken by Lucci near Pittsburgh, using a 6-sec. exposure, the UFO appears to have about the same brightness as the full moon alongside it.
Westinghouse's Dr. Martin Uman suggests several possible tests which can be made in the presence of a UFO sighting to confirm or deny the ball lightning theory. If it is an electrical discharge, it should generate radio noise. At least several persons interviewed by Fuller reported that their automobile radios had briefly become inoperative when the object came near.
If the object is viewed through an inexpensive prism or transmission grating it should be possible to ascertain whether the object is a solid spacecraft or a form of ball lightning, Dr. Uman points out. If the object is a solid, the viewer will see a continuous spectrum, but if it is a form of ball lightning he will see instead a number of individual color lines, including intense red radiation due to the presence of hydrogen and blue due to nitrogen in the air.
60 Aviation Week, August 22, 1966
Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086 Image Reference:4Mr. Peduycie UFOs 1. Attached is a request from the Royal Holloway College, University of London, to be allowed to look at our UFO reports. 2. In the past, we have received from time to time, similar requests from individuals and these have always been refused on the grounds that although the reports may themselves be unclassified, correspondence between the Department and members of the public is treated as confidential and thus documents cannot be made available without either the reports being edited to preserve the anonymity of the reporter or on obtaining the observer's permission to release the information. We also point out that the reports would need examination to ensure that no classified information was [continued:] inadvertently/ Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086 Image Reference:4
inadvertently disclosed & explain that the extensive time and effort needed for those tasks would not be justified & that UFO records therefore remain closed to public scrutiny until they become available under the Public Record Acts i.e. after 30 years. 3. However we have also stated to members of the public and also to MPs that a request by a major scientific organisation of high standing with strong reasons for obtaining access to our reports would be considered on its merits. This view was taken in 1970 when the MoD position concerning UFO investigations was reviewed following the USAF announcement in December 1969 of the termination of their Project Blue Book (which was a special US unit set up to
investigate reports of UFOs) and pressure by an MP about the destruction of reports and access to UFO records. It was agreed in 1970 that policies and procedures should remain unchanged except that all reports would be retained (up to that time reports received before 1962 had been destroyed as being of a transitory interest, the explanations being of a mundane nature). In saying that applications for access to our records from a major scientific organisation could be considered on their merits, it was noted that up to that time, no requests from such scientific bodies had been received, and in view of the negative findings of the Colorado University Scientific Study on UFOs it seemed unlikely that any reputable scientific organisation would ask for access to our UFO records in the foreseeable future.
4 The first approach on this London University request was made in a telephone call from Mr. Stenhoff who told me that he had spoken to Mr. Davis (one of your predecessors) when Mr. Davis took part in a BBC 2 television programme on UFOs at Banbury in January 1974 who told Mr. Stenhoff that an application for access to our reports by a scientific organisation would be considered on its merits. Mr. Stenhoff was therefore making his request on this basis; I therefore told [strikethrough] him that the University would have to submit a case for consideration but I did not encourage him to hold out much hope that it would be agreed. 5. The letter from the University hardly presents 'strong reasons' for seeing
as a result of which we merely acknowledge receipt of reports & advise reporters that they would be examined in MoD to see if there are any defence implications, but that we could not advise them of the probable identity of the object seen. c At that time we continued to categorize reports, where possible, into probable identity groups, for our own records, and any correspondent d who asked for the Dept's views on UFOs was given an analysis by year of probable identity of objects reported. In March 1974, Mr. Crowther discussed with APS/U3[ILLEGIBLE]S a further possible reduction in UFO work, viz. that we should cease to attempt to categorize reports - it was felt that with [so] limited information
and somewhat haphazard allocation of identity it could be embarrassing if we were required to defend the analysis in the context of a PE & PQ. This further change in procedure was agreed. d. We hold, either at Archives or here, all reports received since 1962 & also letters in the correspondence files which would constitute reports. However, the majority of these reports are, I consider, of such a sketchy nature [strikethrough] as to be useless for a scientific study or as material for a scientific conference! We always maintain, of course, that our interest being only in defence, we have never undertaken any scientific studies. But any examination of the papers in our custody could, I feel, lead an outside body to the conclusion that the reports are given very little investigation, or lead to questions
about the nature of our investigation - questions which we would not wish to get involved in - an attitude which could lead to allegations that we were covering up information when we always maintain in correspondence that the MoD view on UFOs is quite straightforward & we do not suppress facts. It might also be thought that we do little to allay fears arising as in para 6a. 7. While I consider, for the reasons given in para 6 that a general release of our papers from 1962 should be resisted, I feel that we could equally find ourselves in some difficulties if we appear to be anything but co-operative with a body such as the University of London when they no doubt feel that they were led to believe that a request from a body of their standing would be looked on favourably. Apart from a straight refusal
the alternatives open to us seem to be a To accede to the request; b Select, say, 2 months reports & send then to the University to demonstrate the nature of the reports, in the hope that they would realise that our papers were of no scientific importance. This still leads us open to the questions I foresee in para 6. c. Tell the University that only about 7% of reports received have been thought to be attributable to meteorological & natural phenomena, supplying one or two examples & hope that a sight of these would discourage them from pursuing their request. 8. Action under any of the above alternatives leaves us open to the question I foresee at para 6, but, more importantly for S4f,
a lot of additional work, which I cannot see being completed within any reasonable time with our present staff. Any of the alternatives would mean that the papers would have to be edited by us to ensure anonymity & also for the security aspect. This would be a mammoth task & the University would have to be told of this & that the work would, of necessity, have to take a low priority & we could not say when it could be completed. I would hope that this in itself would discourage them from pursuing the request. However, you may feel that the difficulties for us complying with the request are sufficient to justify a refusal of the application. 9. You will wish to consider our line of action. [Signature] G J Jamieson 2/6/75.
Note. Sgn Ldr Davies STCOC phoned regarding the monthly return by STCOC of their results of UFO investigations which now invariably show "nil". He suggested that, for the future, the monthly return should cease and they would only send us any positive information they had. I agreed to this change in procedure. [Signature] G J Jamieson S4F(Ai) 7/8/75. P.S. He mentioned that if any report received by them was more than 24hrs. old it was very difficult for them to make a radar check. G.J.
[top margin, handwritten:] Miss Jameson Thank you - a most useful Survey. I agree that we should not pursue the AHB idea - probably a consultant who[ILLEGIBLE] did the clerical chores - possibly a consultant who could [ILLEGIBLE] cope with Nevertheless I also agree that we cannot cope with the editing with our attenuated staff. [left margin:] Mr. Pedynjie. [right margin, handwritten:] Nothing & of para 4 & agreement further action should be taken either or present of 7/9/75 1. We spoke about ACS(6)'s suggestion at the last sentence of E16 of this file that AHB might employ a consultant to edit our UFO reports in order to preserve anonymity & to exclude any classified material. 2. The task would involve the examination of reports received from the beginning of 1962 until the present time. These total approx. 2600 reports (filed in individual folders, the bulk of which are held in Archives). In addition some 19 or 20 general correspondence files which contain letters from the public & which were regarded as reports, sometimes the subject of protracted correspondence, would require examination. Some of these letters probably contain more intelligent material than a lot of the other reports & the files would need careful scrutiny to extract the relevant enclosures. Each report would/
would have to be copied with the name & address of the observer blanked out. The geographical location of the sighting would have to be inserted instead, otherwise the report would be useless. Any classified material would also have to be excluded, but this is not thought to amount to very much. 3. At first sight the idea of asking AHB to undertake this task is very attractive, but on further consideration I feel it would be very difficult to justify the use of any staff (either AHB or S4f) on this work, & so far as AHB is concerned the work seems to be inappropriate to a "consultant", falling more in the category of a "clerical chore". 4. ACS(C) may well be right in saying that sooner or later the data will have to be sanitised
sanitised, and it would indeed be an ideal situation if we were able to have the task completed in anticipation of a successful application for access to our UFO records. But the statement about possible access to a major scientific organisation was made in March 1970, and five years have elapsed before we even received an application which gave us any cause for thought, during which time other increasing pressures on other aspects of S4t work & the need for economies resulted in less time being spent on UFO work which is now given a relatively low priority of importance. The idea of employing a CO on the job of editing UFO reports (as part of normal duties) during these five years would not have been entertained. 5. At the present time we are no more certain of receiving an application for access from a scientific body of high standing than we were five years ago.
On the other hand, we are certain that defence expenditure is to be drastically cut & this must inevitably result in further staff cuts. In these circumstances there seems to be even less justification for embarking on the formidable task of editing UFO reports. In the present climate of cuts & economies, it seems possible that, even if an application worthy of approval were to be received, the 1970 ministerial ruling could be reversed, and the Dept. refuse to engage in extra work to assist a scientific project which would go beyond our purely defence interest. 6. In view of our experience with the Royal Holloway College we have slightly amended our procedures for holding UFO reports. From the beginning of August 75 we will hold a file containing a duplicate copy of all reports received with the necessary items blanked out. Thus, if at some future date, we
forced to disclose any of the reports, a certain number will already be prepared. 7. Do you agree that no further action should be taken to edit the 1962-July 75 reports? [Signature] G J Jamieson S4t(Ai) 3/8/75.
LOOSE MINUTE
AF/CX 80/70
AFOR
REVISION OF AIR FORCE OPERATIONS ROOM STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES-
REPORTS OF UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS
References:
A. MOD AFOR SOP No 502.
B. AFOR/92 dated 22.7.75.
Our suggested amendments to Ref A are as follows:
Information
Amend paras 1, 2 and 4 to read:
Para 1. S4f(Air) co-ordinate detailed investigation into reports on Unidentified
Flying Objects, consulting Ops (GE)2(RAF), DI 55, DI 50, Science 3 and STCOC. and
correspond with the public on the subject of UFOs when required.
Para 2. Circulation of reports on UFOs is S4f(Air) responsibility during normal
working hours, and AFOR responsibility outside normal working hours. Reports may
be received by telephone message or by signal message.
Para 4. The above mentioned reference gives considerable detail on the stages of
investigation of UFO reports, and information should be passed to S4f(Air) as
early as possible.
Para 3 - No change.
Action by the Duty Operations Officer
Para 5. Amend S4f(Air) telephone extension numbers to read 'Ext 7035/6020'.
Para 6. - No change.
Annex to SOP 502 - Report of an Unidentified Flying Object
Item B. Amend to read:
Description of Object (No. of objects, size, shape, colour, brightness,
sound and smell).
Item R. Presumably 'ADOC' should read 'STCOC'. '
6 Aug 75 [Signature]
MISS G J JAMIESON
S4f(Air)
Room 8235 7035 MBMINISTRY OF DEFENCE
Main Building Whitehall London SW1A 2HB
Telephone 01-[REDACTED]
MOD (AFOR) (RAF) 01-218-6117/8
Your reference
To: S.4f. Air.... Our reference AFOR/92
Date 22nd July, 1975
REVISION OF AIR FORCE OPERATIONS ROOM STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES
1. Many of the Standard Operating Procedures used by the Duty
Operations Officers in AFOR are in urgent need of review or
amendment.
2. It is requested that you check those SOP's which are sponsored
by your Department and advise AFOR, by completion of the attached
certificate, of the action that needs to be taken.
[Signature]
G J CLARK
Squadron Leader
for Officer in Charge
Air Force Operations RoomMOD FORM 195 [Royal Crest] With the Compliments of MINISTRY OF DEFENCE AIR FORCE OPERATIONS ROOM (RAF.)
COPY NO____
SOP NO____502____
PAGE NO____1____
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
AIR FORCE OPERATIONS ROOM
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE NO 502
REPORTS OF UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS
Reference: AFOR/92/500, [REDACTED] AL/3
Annex : Report of an Unidentified Flying Object
Sponsor : S4f Air
INFORMATION
1. S4f(Air) co-ordinate detailed investigation into reports on
Unidentified Flying Objects, consulting Ops(GE)2(RAF), DI55, DI50,
Science 4[strikethrough], and [ADOC][strikethrough STCOC], when necessary. S4f(Air) reply to those
originators that request a reply. [handwritten: correspond with the public on all
matters of UFOs where so inclined]
2. The initial investigation of reports on UFOs is S4f(Air)
responsibility during normal working hours, and AFOR(RAF) [handwritten: AF Ops]
responsibility outside normal working hours. Reports may be received
by telephone message or by signal message.
3. Copies of all UFO reports received in AFOR(RAF), and reports of
AFOR(RAF) initial investigation, are circulated to S4f(Air), Ops(GE)2(RAF),
DI55, DI50C, Science 4, and STCOC. [handwritten: UKRAO.]
4. The above-mentioned reference gives considerable detail on the
stages of investigation of UFO reports, and except in cases where a field
investigation is necessary the aim is that S4f(Air) is provided, within
10 days of the initial report, with the information on which to base the
reply to the originator. [handwritten: & information should be passed to S4f(Air) as
early as possible]
ACTION BY THE DUTY OPERATIONS OFFICER
5. During Normal Working Hours. Refer telephone calls reporting
UFOs to S4f(Air), Ext 7035/[REDACTED]. No action is required on signal
message reports.
[handwritten: 6020]
6. Outside Normal Working Hours.
a. Reports Received by Telephone. Complete the pro-forma at
the Annex to this SOP. Dispatch it through the Registry.
b. Reports Received by Signal Message.
(1) Ensure that the message has been circulated to the staffs
detailed at para 3 above.
(2) Complete para R of the pro-forma at the Annex to this
SOP and insert on the pro-forma, the signal message reference [text continues off page]
through the investigation refers. Dispatch it through the Registry.ANNEX TO
SOP 502
REPORT OF AN UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECT
A. Date, Time &
Duration of Sighting
Description of Object
B. (No. of objects, size,
shape, colour, brightness) [handwritten: , sound, smell) )]
Exact Position of Observer
C. Location, indoor/outdoor,
stationary/moving
How Observed (Naked eye,
D. binoculars, other optical
device, still or movie)
Direction in which object first seen
E. (A landmark may be more useful
than a badly estimated bearing)
F. Angle of Sight (Estimated heights are unreliable)
G. Distance (By reference to a known landmark)
Movements (Changes in E F & G
H. may be of more use than estimates
of course and speed)
J. Met Conditions during Observations
(Moving clouds, haze, mist, etc)
Nearby Objects (Telephone lines,
high voltage lines, reservoir, lake
or dam, swamp or marsh, river,
K. high buildings, tall chimneys, steeples,
spires, TV or radio masts, airfields,
generating plant, factories, pits or
other sites with floodlights or
night lighting)
L. To Whom Reported (Police,
military, press etc)
M. Name & Address of Informant
N. Background of Informant
that may be volunteered
O. Other Witnesses
P. Date, Time of Receipt
A-1Q. Detailed Met Report.
(AFOR to Obtain)
R. [strikethrough ADOC] [handwritten: STCOC] Assessment. [handwritten: UKRAO]
(Check radars, ATCCs etc)
1. Aircraft.
2. Ranges.
3. Gliding.
4. Balloon.
5. Air Sea Rescue
Activities.
......................
Squadron Leader
Duty Operations Officer
Date........................ AFOR(RAF)
Copies to:
S4f(Air)
STCOC [handwritten: UKRAO/toc]
Ops(GE)2(RAF)
DI 55
[strikethrough DI 50C]
Science 4 3
File AFOR/92/502
A-2From: Mr J A Peduzie
(E 17)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
Main Building Whitehall London SW1A 2HB
Telephone 01-218 (Direct Dialling)
01-218 9000 (Switchboard)
Mr Mark Stenhoff FRAS Your reference
Royal Holloway College
Egham Hill Our reference
Egham AF/CX 80/70
Surrey Date
TW20 OEX 30 July 1975
Dear Mr Stenhoff
/ E 13
I apologise for the delay in answering your request for access to the
Ministry of Defence files on Unidentified Flying Objects - the more
so as I must send a disappointing reply.
We have given a good deal of thought to this proposal but I am forced
to the conclusion that two difficulties stand in the way. Firstly,
the correspondence between the Department and members of the public
on this subject has always been treated as confidential, and the
reports could not be made available unless every single piece of
paper were edited to remove the identity of the observer, or his
written permission were obtained to divulge the information he had
provided. This in itself would be a formidable task and, while I
have every confidence in your assurance that the anonymity of
witnesses would be respected, I cannot evade responsibility for
inadvertent disclosure.
More importantly, the files would have to be expurgated of
Ministry of Defence commentaries. For obvious reasons, we have to
satisfy ourselves that reports of UFOs have no implications for the
defence of the country and our advisers naturally draw on classified
information where this might be relevant to a specific report under
discussion. Here again there is a chance that something might slip
through and this is a risk I cannot afford to ignore.
I am very sorry I cannot be more helpful but I can assure you we
have not treated your request lightly.
Yours sincerely
JaPeduzie(E16)
LOOSE MINUTE
S4(Air) (Mr Peduzie)
Copy to:- DCS(RAF)
UFO RECORDS
E15
Reference: AF/CX 80/70 dated 6 June 75.
1. DCS(RAF) has asked me to reply to your minute at reference.
2. The Royal Holloway College 'team' which comes in practice
from RHC, King's College, London and National Physical Laboratory,
seems to be a group of academics drawn together by an interest
in UFOs. It would be difficult to distinguish it from any other
group of academics which might be drawn together by a common
interest, of which there could be many, and therefore I do not
believe that it can be described as 'a major scientific
organisation of high standing'. For this reason I suggest that
the request be turned down.
3. I also have some reservations about the objective of the
study. It is described as 'obtaining data concerning rare
atmospheric events, such as "ball-lightning"......for use as
material for a scientific conference on little-understood aerial
phenomena'. Dr Christopher Evans is an applied psychologist
who has written books on topics such as scientology, Subbud
and other fringe activities, and who also appears frequently
on TV and radio. It therefore appears that the study might
range more widely than the brief description suggests. In any
case you would require more information before it could be called
'strong scientific reason' for undertaking the work.
4. However, I believe that sooner or later somebody will break
this confidentiality barrier, and the data will have to be
sanitised. Have you considered asking the Air Historical Branch
whether they could employ a consultant to do this?
fee ||
E 21. ||
11 June 75 J E A HARRISON
ACS(G)RAF(E15)
LOOSE MINUTE
AF/CX 80/70
PS/GS(RAF) Pee E16.
UFO RECORDS
1. I attach a copy of a letter from Royal Holloway College, University of
London, in which they seek access to our UFO records.
2. We are not infrequently asked by outside bodies or individuals for permission
to examine our UFO reports. Up to now these have all been refused on the grounds
that all correspondence between MOD and members of the public is regarded as
confidential and could not be made available to public scrutiny unless the reports
were edited to preserve the anonymity of the reporter or the observer's permission
were obtained. It would also be necessary to examine all the records to ensure
that no classified information used in the course of investigating reports was
inadvertently released. The time and effort in this task would be formidable and
up to now we have taken the general line that reports should remain closed until
they became available under the Public Record Acts after 30 years.
3. Ministers have announced, however, that an applications for access would be
considered on its merits if it came from a major scientific organisation of high
standing which had strong reasons for examining our records. The question is
whether this concession should be extended to the Royal Holloway College, who are
well aware of the Ministerial undertaking. I do not think our files would help
them - the MOD investigations go no further than the defence implications - but the
raw material could I suppose have objective value.
4. I should be grateful for your views on the standing of the Royal Holloway
College team as a "Major Scientific Organisation" and whether the relevance of the
UFO reports to their enquiries can be construed as a "strong reason".
5. I am sure we can rely on your objective advice. My heart quails at the thought
of the massive editing that might have to be done and, with our overtaxed resources,
I would not wish to embark on it unless in your view it has a demonstrable scientific
value.
6 Jun 75 JaPeduzie
J A PEDUZIE
S4(Air)(E14)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
Main Building Whitehall London SW1A 2HB
Telephone 01-218 (Direct Dialling)
01-218 9000 (Switchboard)
Mr Mark Stenhoff FRAS Your reference
Royal Holloway College
Egham Hill Our reference
Egham AF/7464/72 ,CX 80/70
Surrey Date
TW20 OEX 28 May 1975
Dear Mr Stenhoff
I am writing to thank you for your recent letter about
unidentified flying object reports: this is receiving
attention and we will write to you again on this subject
as soon as possible.
Yours faithfully
H E MACKEYRoyal Holloway College University of London
E13
Egham Hill
please reply to Egham
Mark Stenhoff FRAS Surrey TW20 OEX
Egham 6371
Department S4f(Air)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Received
Whitehall, London SW1 attention
Dear Sirs
Further to Mark Stenhoff's recent telephone
conversation with Miss Jamieson of your Depart-
ment, we are writing to request that we be
permitted to have access to the Department's
files on Unidentified Flying Object reports,
in the hope that data might thereby be obtained
concerning rare atmospheric events, such as
"ball-lightning".
The data would be used as material for a scien-
tific conference on little-understood aerial
phenomena. Should you require further infor-
mation, please let us know.
This request is made on the understanding that
we would respect the Department's policy of
witness anonymity. You may wish to impose fur-
ther restrictions, although we would prefer to
be unhampered by such so far as possible.
Thank you in anticipation of your consideration
of this request.
/cont'd...2
Yours faithfully
Mark Stenhoff [signature]
Mark Stenhoff (Department of Physics, Royal
Holloway College)
Paul Davies [signature]
Dr Paul C W Davies (Department of Mathematics,
King's College, London)
[signature]
Dr Christopher R EvansROYAL HOLLOWAY COLLEGE #/E11
(University of London)
Egham Hill, Egham
Surrey TW20 OEX
1975 April 10
Miss Jamieson
Dept S4f (Air)
Ministry of Defence
Dear Miss Jamieson
Further to our telephone conversation
of today's date, I shall write as you
suggested in about two weeks' time when
I have had the opportunity to discuss
the subject of the "UFO files" with my
colleagues.
Meantime, many thanks for your
help.
Yours sincerely
Mark Stenhoff
[Mark STENHOFF, F.R.A.S.]AMD/130/26/2
LOOSE MINUTE (E11)
DI 55/40/9/1
Miss G J Jamieson
S4f(Air)
Room S235 MB
7
UFO REPORTS
1. I have examined your UFO report 557/10/20 and have the
following comments.
2. The time of the sighting is within 3 minutes of the time of
"nautical twilight" for that day. The sky also seems to have been
cloudy. In late October there could well have been a layer of
ice crystals in the atmosphere which might have produced an halation
effect from the sun's rays. The net result is the appearance of
a "false sun" such as is frequently seen in Arctic regions when
the sun is just below the horizon. It often appears "diamond
shaped".
3. Thank you for referring to the change in procedures. I
propose that, under these circumstances, we should no longer receive
UFO reports routinely. Any reports which are difficult to categorise
could perhaps be sent to DI 55b on a monthly basis, as has in fact
been happening. We would also welcome receipt of your statistics
at whatever period you prepare them.
27 Jan 72 DR J WALTON
for ADI/DI 55ET
LOOSE MINUTE L10
AF/CX 80/70
DI55b (Dr Walton)
I should be grateful for any comments you can make concerning
the UFO sighting reported in the attached folder 557/10/20.
Enquiries made by STCOC of Air Defence Radars have proved
negative.
2. You will wish to know that US of S (RAF) has agreed the
change of procedures in dealing with correspondence from
the public concerning UFOs, proposed in S4(Air)'s loose
minute AF/CX 80/70 of 16 December, and reports received
after 1 January 1972 will be acknowledged by S4F(Air) in the
form of the attached letter. You may wish to consider
whether we should periodically forward any of the reports
to your branch for perusal.
20 January 1972. Miss G J Jamieson
S4F(Air)
MB Ext: 70359.
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE S4f(Air)
Main Building, Whitehall, London S.W.1
Telephone: WHItehall 7022, ext.
Our reference: AF/CX80/70
Your reference:
7th January 1972
Sir
UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS
Reference A: AF/X58/64/S4f(Air) dated 29 March 1967
In Reference A guidance was given on the action to be taken by units on
receipt of reports of unidentified flying objects.
I am directed to inform you that approval has now been given for a change
of procedure in dealing with correspondence with the public about
reported UFO sightings. All reports will be examined as heretofore so that
defence implications, if any, may be investigated. However, with the
limited resources now available to deal with correspondence from the
public on the subject of UFOs, the Department can no longer undertake to
advise observers of the probable identity of the object seen. It is
therefore necessary for Item Q, which asks if a reply is requested, to be
deleted from the form on which reports are made. All reports received by
units should, as in the past, be forwarded to AFOR for normal circulation
action.
Reports will be acknowledged by S4f(Air) to the observer with a short pro-
forma letter.
Any enquiries from the press should, as before, be referred to the Ministry
of Defence Press office.
It will be necessary to continue to categorize reports where possible for
the Department's records of UFOs and the monthly summary currently
prepared by HQ Strike Command (STCOC) will therefore still be required.
I am Sir
Your obedient Servant
GJJamieson
MISS G J JAMIESON
To: Air Officers Commanding-in-Chief Copies to: AFOR
Strike Command DPR(RAF)
Air Support Command DST1
Maintenance Command Ops(GE)2c(RAF)
Training Command ATSA2-Mr RiceReference AF/PS 14/6 26/70. E9
S4(Air) (Mr Davis) Mr Clifton
Miss Jamieson — for file
Copy to: DUS(Air) ob 3/1
D of Ops(A Def & O)(RAF)
D of Ops(S)(RAF)
DST1
DR Met O
DPR(RAF)
UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS – SUGGESTED
NEW PROCEDURES
US of S(RAF) is content with the change
in procedures proposed in your minute
reference AF/CX 80/70 dated 16th December
1971, and with the Proforma Letter as
amended by DUS(Air) (attached).
Newham
Beaumont
(N.J. BEAUMONT)
PS to US of S(RAF)
31st December 1971
CODE 18-78(E8)
DRAFT PRO-FORMA LETTER
I am writing to thank you for your report of an unidentified
flying object seen on .............................................
We are grateful to you for advising the Department of this
incident and your report will be examined in the Ministry of Defence to
see if there are any defence implications. We cannot undertake to
pursue our research, other than for defence implications, to a point
where positive correlation with a known object is established, nor to
advise you of the probable identity of the object seen.
simple explanations are
You will no doubt wish to know, however, that the great majority
found for the great majority
of UFO reports, turn out to have mundane explanations, the most common
single source being aircraft or the lights of aircraft seen under
unusual meteorological conditions. Other common sources have proved to
be astronomical sightings, space satellites or space junk, balloons,
unusual cloud formations or aircraft condensation trails. Investiga-
tions over a number of years have so far produced no evidence that UFOs
represent an air defence threat to the United Kingdom.
[ILLEGIBLE](E7)
LOO[SE] MINUTE
AF/CX 80/70
PS/US of S(RAF) [through DUS(Air)]
Copies to: AUS(O)(Air)
D of Ops(A Def & O)(RAF)
D of Ops(S)(RAF)
DST1
DR Met O
DPR(RAF)
UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS – SUGGESTED NEW PROCEDURES
1. When the USAF announced in December 1969 the termination of project
Blue Book (which was a special US unit set up to investigate reports of
UFOs) the MOD position concerning UFO investigations was reviewed. It
was decided early in 1970 that our policies and procedures for dealing
with these reports should continue unchanged. (Flag C on AF/PS 26/70
attached).
2. In accordance with this procedure UFO reports are currently circu-
lated, either by S4(Air) or AFOR, to STCOC, Ops(GE)2(RAF), STCIC and
DI55. When it is concluded that there is no defence implication it is
our current practice to make an assessment of the identity of the object
from available information; where the report is not likely to have
originated from an aircraft movement advice may be sought from Met O9
if a meteorological balloon might have been involved, or from the Royal
Observatory if a star or planet might have been the source. We do not
pursue our enquiries to a point where a positive identification is
established, nor do we re-examine our conclusions if the observer disa-
grees with them. We do not investigate anonymous reports, nor, normally,
reports forwarded by UFO associations on behalf of third parties.
3. One of the factors leading to the decision in 1970 to continue to
deal with UFO reports in this way was the need to answer questions from
the public which might arise from a real anxiety about national security.
However, recent publicity given to the subject of UFOs by the press and
television has resulted in an increased volume of reports from the public.
During the three months August to October this year, 118 reports were
received compared with 56 in the same period of 1970. 23 were received
within three days of the showing on television on 26th October of an
alleged UFO filmed at Enstone in Oxfordshire, which has since been the
subject of a Parliamentary Enquiry. Since the end of October a single
Banbury resident has sent to the Department 84 separate reports of UFO
"sightings" in the Banbury area. There is now pressure for a respon-
sible MOD official to appear on a BBC TV programme to discuss UFO reports
and MOD procedures for handling them.
4. All letters and telephone calls during working hours concerning UFOs
are at present dealt with by a single HEO in S4(Air) who is occupied
almost whole time on other work. Outside working hours calls are dealt
with by AFOR and actioned by S4(Air) the next day. With the limitedres[ources] available in this Division, especially since the recent
establishment cuts, it is recommended that time and effort should no
longer be expended in dealing with UFO reports beyond their circulation
as detailed in para 2, so that air defence implications, if any, may be
examined. Members of the public would be advised that their report will
be examined for this purpose but that we cannot undertake to identify
the object seen. A pro-forma letter would normally be used on the lines
of the draft attached to this minute.
5. If US of S(RAF) approves this proposed change in procedure S4(Air)
will notify RAF Commands that individuals who report UFO sightings
should no longer be asked whether they wish to be advised of our find-
ings. We would continue to categorize reports where possible for our
records and to retain the records of reports in the manner agreed in
March 1970.
A. N Davis
16 Dec 71 A N DAVIS
S4(Air)
- 2 -DRAFT PRO-FORMA LETTER
I am writing to thank you for your report of an unidentified
flying object seen on .............................................
We are grateful to you for advising the Department of this
incident and your report will be examined in the Ministry of Defence to
see if there are any defence implications. We cannot undertake to
pursue our research, other than for defence implications, to a point
where positive correlation with a known object is established, nor to
advise you of the probable identity of the object seen.
You will no doubt wish to know, however, that the great majority
of UFO reports turn out to have mundane explanations, the most common
single source being aircraft or the lights of aircraft seen under
unusual meteorological conditions. Other common sources have proved to
be astronomical sightings, space satellites or space junk, balloons,
unusual cloud formations or aircraft condensation trails. Investiga-
tions over a number of years have so far produced no evidence that UFOs
represent an air defence threat to the United Kingdom.E.6.
Reference D/DSTI/126/6
Head of S.4 (Air) ✓
Copies to: AUS(O)(Air)
D of Ops(A Def & O)RAF
D of Ops(S)(RAF)
DR Met O
DPR (RAF)
ADI DI 55
UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS – SUGGESTED NEW PROCEDURES
Reference AF/CX 80/70 dated 9th December 1971.
I have no comments.
[signature]
15 December 1971 DSTIE5
Note-
Gp Capt Scott, D.D. Ops(R)(RAF) who
is administratively responsible for NOR telephoned
on 15/12/71 to suggest that para 4. of the
draft loose minute to PS/US of S(RAF) should
include a reference to the fact that
calls after duty hours are dealt with through
AFOR and actioned by S4f(Air) the next
day. He thought this would strengthen our
case.
As regards the draft pro-forma letter he
suggested that the word "air" should be
deleted from line 3 of para 2 before
"defence implications". In line 5 of para 2
he thought we should insert after "research"
"other than for defence implications" &
delete sentence "I regret that we are
unable to extend our investigations beyond our
defence interest."
G J JamiesonE4
LOOSE MINUTE
AF/CX 80/70
AUS(O)(Air)
D of Ops(A Def & O)(RAF)
D of Ops(S)(RAF)
DST1
DR Met O
DPR(RAF)
UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS – SUGGESTED NEW
PROCEDURES
I attach a self-explanatory draft minute which,
subject to your comments, I propose to send to
PS/US of S(RAF). In the absence of any comment
from your Directorate by 1700 hrs on 15 December
I shall assume your concurrence.
[signature]
9 December 1971 A N DAVIS
S4(Air)Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086 Image Reference:10
Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086 Image Reference:10
Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086 Image Reference:10
Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086 Image Reference:10
Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086 Image Reference:10
Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086 Image Reference:10
Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086 Image Reference:10
Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086 Image Reference:11
Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086 Image Reference:11
Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086 Image Reference:11
Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086 Image Reference:11
Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086 Image Reference:11
Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086 Image Reference:11
THE UFO REGISTER The Official Organ of Data Research CONTACT (U.K.) VOLUME 1, PART 2. 1970 Oxford: Published by Data Research, 75, Norreys Road, Cumnor, nr. Oxford. OX2 9PU
Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086 Image Reference:12
Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086 Image Reference:12
Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086 Image Reference:12
Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086 Image Reference:13
Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086 Image Reference:13
Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086 Image Reference:13
Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086 Image Reference:14
Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086 Image Reference:14
Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086 Image Reference:14
Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086 Image Reference:15
Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086 Image Reference:15
Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086 Image Reference:15
Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086 Image Reference:16
Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086 Image Reference:16
Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086 Image Reference:16
Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086 Image Reference:17
Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086 Image Reference:17
Made and printed in Great Britain by TRUEXpress, Oxford
THE UFO REGISTER The Official Organ of Data Research CONTACT (U.K.) VOLUME 2. PART 1. 1971 Oxford: Published by Data Research, 75, Norreys Road, Cumnor, nr. Oxford. OX2 9PU Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086
Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086 Image Reference:17
Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086 Image Reference:17
Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086 Image Reference:18
Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086 Image Reference:18
Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086 Image Reference:18
Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086 Image Reference:19
Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086 Image Reference:19
Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086 Image Reference:19
Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086 Image Reference:20
Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086 Image Reference:20
Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086 Image Reference:20
Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086 Image Reference:21
Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086 Image Reference:21
Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086 Image Reference:21
Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086 Image Reference:22
Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086 Image Reference:22
Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086 Image Reference:22
Made and printed in Great Britain Ace Offset, Rudgwick, Sussex Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086
THE UFO REGISTER The Official Organ of Data Research CONTACT (U.K.) VOLUME 2. PART 2. 1971 Oxford: Published by Data Research, 75, Norreys Road, Cumnor, nr. Oxford. OX2 9PU Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086
Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086 Image Reference:23
Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086 Image Reference:23
Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086 Image Reference:23
Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086 Image Reference:24
Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086 Image Reference:24
Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086 Image Reference:24
Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086 Image Reference:25
Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086 Image Reference:25
Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086 Image Reference:25
Made and printed in Great Britain Ace Offset, Rudgwick, Sussex Catalogue Reference:AIR/2/19086