DISCLOSURE / FILE
DEFE 24/2030 is a UK Ministry of Defence file of 1990 UFO desk public correspondence and incident reports, with later overlay material documenting Dr David Clarke's 2000 Freedom of Information request for MoD UFO policy and sighting files.
DEFE 24/2030 is a UK Ministry of Defence file of 1990 UFO desk public correspondence and incident reports, with later overlay material documenting Dr David Clarke's 2000 Freedom of Information request for MoD UFO policy and sighting files.
The file, released to The National Archives in the August 2011 tranche, opens with a MoD Form 3290 file jacket and an internal Sec(AS) catalogue of UFO records Clarke had requested, including DEFE 31/118, DEFE 31/119, AIR 20/12556, BJ 5/311, AIR 2/18564 (West Freugh 1957), and the D/Sec(AS) 12/1 and 64/1 UFO policy series. Clarke's 21 June 2000 and 1 August 2000 letters to the MoD frame an academic research request from the University of Sheffield's National Centre for English Cultural Tradition into how Air Ministry and MoD UFO policy evolved from 1950 onward. The MoD initially refused under Exemption 9 (voluminous and vexatious) and Exemption 12 (privacy of an individual) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, then negotiated a narrower release including identification of D/Sec(AS) 64/1 Parts A through D, one of which is held at SECRET. The file also contains 2001 printouts from flyingsaucery.com promoting the disclosure of the 1950 Flying Saucer Working Party report DSI/JTIC Report No 7.
55/40/9/1 Pt 3 (1968-1971) UFO Policy- File destroyed 8 August 1984p.4
D/Sec(AS) 64/1 Pt B -UFO Policy -Held by DAS 4a(Sec)-SECRETp.5
I am undertaking post doctoral research into the socio-psychological aspects of belief in the aerial phenomena popularly known as 'unidentified flying objects', as an Honorary Research Fellow at the National Centre for English Cultural Tradition, University of Sheffield.p.10
Since the 1950s, the UK Government's public position has been that reports of 'unidentified flying objects' have no implications for defence or national security.p.11
You say you receive up to 400 sighting reports each year and a similar number of letters.p.7
For fifty years UFOiogists have been searching for evidence of a secret study by the Ministry of Defence into the 'flying saucer' mystery.p.17
Extracted text · Page 1
Page 1 · vision OCR
THIS FILE IS MADE AVAILABLE THROUGH THE DECLASSIFICATION EFFORTS AND RESEARCH OF: THE BLACK VAULT THE BLACK VAULT IS THE LARGEST ONLINE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT / GOVERNMENT RECORD CLEARING HOUSE IN THE WORLD. THE RESEARCH EFFORTS HERE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DECLASSIFICATION OF THOUSANDS OF DOCUMENTS THROUGHOUT THE U.S. GOVERNMENT, AND ALL CAN BE DOWNLOADED BY VISITING: HTTP://WWW.BLACKVAULT.COM YOU ARE ENCOURAGED TO FORWARD THIS DOCUMENT TO YOUR FRIENDS, BUT PLEASE KEEP THIS IDENTIFYING IMAGE AT THE TOP OF THE .PDF SO OTHERS CAN DOWNLOAD MORE!
Page 2 · vision OCR
the national archives (c) crown copyright
Page 299 · born-digital extraction
• ' I .. Dr David Clarke 4 May 1999 Your ref: D/Sec(AS)/64/3 I refer to your letter dated 6 April, in reply to my who had written to AS2 asking for information concerning "UFO" atrcraft incidents reported to the MOD on March 24, 1997, from the Sheffield area. In your reply you stated that the RAF /MOD had no records of any complaints concerning low-flying aircraft from that particular night. However, as a result of questions on my behalf by MP Helen Jackson in Parliament on March 25, 1998, Defence Minister John SpeHar admitted that the RAF had received 13 complaints concerning low-flying military aircraft from different locations in the UK for March 24, 1997. Mr SpeHar said these complaints stemmed from a pre-booked training exercise in the area of the Peak District involving low-flying RAF aircraft which ended at 2135 hrs. In addition, the British Geological Survey in Edinburgh have stated that their equipment recorded two sonic booms at 2152 and 2206 hours GMT in the Sheffield area which could only have been caused as a result of aircraft breaching the sound barrier. The BGS said that RAF Flying Complaints were contacted on March 25, 1997, and "were unable to confirm they were caused by military aircraft." As a result of the above could you answer the following questions: Did RAF Military Police or any other department of the MOD conduct an internal inquiry/investigation into the source and/or cause of the two sonic booms recorded on March 24, 1997, given the legal stipulation (Military Flying Regulations) that pilots must not break the speed of sound over land/urban areas? If an inquiry was launched, what was the conclusion reached concerning the source of the sonic booms? If no such inquiry was launched, why not given the clear breach of military flying regulations these sonic events consituted? You may be aware that as a result of reports concerning an '"explosion" and sightings of a low-flying aircraft by civilians on the border between the Peak District and Sheffield shortly after 2200 hrs on March 24, police and emergency services launched a 15 hour search and rescue operation, without result. There has been considerable speculation concerning this event during the past two years, and I hope the MOD will be able to provide a definitive answer to the questions above. Thankyou for your attention to this matter,
Concatenated 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.
THIS FILE IS MADE AVAILABLE THROUGH THE DECLASSIFICATION EFFORTS AND RESEARCH OF: THE BLACK VAULT THE BLACK VAULT IS THE LARGEST ONLINE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT / GOVERNMENT RECORD CLEARING HOUSE IN THE WORLD. THE RESEARCH EFFORTS HERE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DECLASSIFICATION OF THOUSANDS OF DOCUMENTS THROUGHOUT THE U.S. GOVERNMENT, AND ALL CAN BE DOWNLOADED BY VISITING: HTTP://WWW.BLACKVAULT.COM YOU ARE ENCOURAGED TO FORWARD THIS DOCUMENT TO YOUR FRIENDS, BUT PLEASE KEEP THIS IDENTIFYING IMAGE AT THE TOP OF THE .PDF SO OTHERS CAN DOWNLOAD MORE!
the national archives (c) crown copyright
In 1955 and again in 1962 the MOD assured Major Patrick Wall MP in answer to Parliamentary Question that there 'had been no formal inquiry.'
the report was never published but was circulated at the highest level and was used as a 'yardstick' for future action.p.17
i . r . ~- .· !-' .'. ;· .. ! .:0:4 ; . · r · . ' ·· ; . ·· . . ' . I .- ; .. .:. }.. ,- ; ~~ .~~~ ~ ~i~!fse t D MINISTRY OF DEFENCE MOD Form 3290 (Revised 2/99) PPQ a 100 Date opened (Date of fii'Sf enclosure) . Attention Is drawn to the notes on the Inside flap. DIVISION/ESTABUSHMENT/UNIT/BRANCH 4oAS U-cc)<TA \ Oct 191(\ · Referred to , .· .. ··. ·.:t·. ; ~0'7 ... · \ . · · t~' . ·· . . Min/ · ·. Referred to Encl Date 2. Enter notes of related files on page 2 of this jacket ~0 t'\ <6 2.. +'5 NPnf'..l ~t.O& suBJECT uFos- {>us;sh;d: ~cte.s(~ Dr D C.(CM:ke. Min/ Encl Referred to Date Referred to Date Mini Encl .• . j 1• DR CLARKE'S LETfERS AND INFORMATION REQUESTED 1st Letter - 21 June 2000 Requested access to files from 1969 to date. Files currently closed under 30 year rule. Letter answered on 25 July 2000. Request refused under Exemption 9 (voluminous & vexatious request) and Exemption 12 (privacy of an individual) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. 2"d Letter - 1 August 2000 Narrowed request to following: 1. Sequence of files following DEFE 31/19- 1968-1981 - identified DIS files; 55/40/9/1 Pt 3 (1968-1971) UFO Policy- File destroyed 8 August 1984 55/108/15 Pt 4 (1971-1996) UFO Policy- File held by DIS 2. UFO sighting reports to the MOD during January 1974 (Possibly Air 20/12556) - identified; Am 2/18873 (1973-74) UFO Reports- File for release to PRO 2005 (currently with Records 1) AF/584 (January 1974) UFO Reports- File with Records 1 There are 250 pages on these files and 150 would need to be sanitised.-- has provided an estimate of cost. 3. BJ 5/311 UFO Meteorological Aspects (1968-70) File due to be opened to the public at the PRO on 1 January 2001. Dr Clarke said in his letter dated 10 October 2000 that as the file will be available un-sanitised in the PRO in January 2001 be will wait. He has withdrawn his request for this file. 4. DEFE 44/1 and DEFE 21 Records advise these files are retained in Department in accordance with Section 3(4) Public Records Act.
3rd Letter- 11 August 2000 5. BJ 5/311 Meteorological Aspects 1968-70 As 3. Above. 6. AIR 2/18564 UFO Reports: West Freugh 1957 File covers 1957-71, due for release to PRO 2002 but currently with Records 1. Consists of 75 pages, 25 need to be sanitised.--has provided an estimate of cost. 7. AF/3459175 UFOs: Policy and Policy Statements 1970 File currently with Records 1. Consists of 115 pages, 5 need to be sanitised. --has provided an estimate of cost. 8. D/Sec(AS)/12/1 (5 parts dealing with policy D/Sec(AS)64/1 issues) D/Sec(AS) 12/1 PtA- UFO Policy (1985) -Currently held at Bayes D/Sec(AS) 64/1 PtA- UFO Policy (1996) -Held by DAS 4a(Sec)-CONFIDENTAL D/Sec(AS) 64/1 Pt B -UFO Policy -Held by DAS 4a(Sec)-SECRET D/Sec(AS) 64/1 Pt C -UFO Policy -Held by DAS 4a(Sec)-CONFIDENTAL D/Sec(AS) 64/1 Pt D -UFO Policy -Held by DAS 4a(Sec)-UNCLASSIFIED Advice needed from OMD 14. I think the only part of the Code we may be able to withhold this under is Exemption 2b (Internal discussion and advice. Information who:we di.~closure would harm the frankness and candour of internal discussion, including: b. internal opinion, advice, recommendation, consultation and deliberation). 9. D/Sec(AS) 64/5 Media Issues This file is a DAS 4a (Sec) current file and consists of mainly newspaper cuttings and magazine articles. There are 197 pages. There are some notes written by DAS (Sec) staff on some of the cuttings and the file also contains 7 pages classified RESTRICTED which deals with a Daily Mail and Daily Express article on 24 April1998. This article talks about RAF Fylingdales. Advice needed from OMD 14 on whether if we release this file, can we sanitise the comments of DAS Staff and withhold the Restricted pages or do we have to release the whole file or nothing.
• 10. DSS/75/6 UFO TV Discussion (1976) Currently held by Record 2. We need to check with- about release of this file as it is not mentioned in his letter. 11. AIR 20112556 UFO Reports January 1974 See number 2 above.
- r ~~-- --· i L - ---:..=---·,.,_.J Your reference: D/Sec(AS)64/3 Dea~ 1 August, 2000 Many thanks for your detailed letter of25 July with reference to my request to view MOD files relating to 'unidentified flying objects.' Firstly, I ~~ise your .staff have ~~Y . Qthe.o.nore pr" essing defence-related duties and 1 .... ~ ..... apologise if my request has added to that burden. I contacted the Freedom of Information office on 20 July inquiring as to what had become of my original request, simply because I was concerned that my letter had gone astray, or had been sent to the wrong department, as I had not at that stage received an acknowledgement. Almost immediately I received your acknowledgement in the post, and would like to make it clear that I have always been satisfied with the helpful and detailed responses received from the MOD's Secretariat (Air Stafl) on the occasions I have contacted your department in the past. With regards to my request to view files, I accept that my request for access to files covering the period 1969 to present was a little ambitious in terms of staff time. From your response, it appears that the main obstacle preventing the use of these files for research projects such as my own is the Exemption 9 in the Code of Practice which relates to Privacy of the individual. You say you receive up to 400 sighting reports each year and a similar number of letters. but I wonder if you could specify how many of the individuals who contact the department in any one year have requested that their personal details should remain confidential for 30 years? From cursory viewing of the files which are available at the PRO relating to the period before 1969, I cannot recall finding one single request of this kind, and indeed many of the sightings and letters relate to events which are already in the "public domain", for example have already been reported in newspapers and other media. \ While I would question the basis upon which my request has been refused, I do not ~~ wish to add to your administrative burden by asking for a review or involving my MP ~\ye~ at this stage. I would be more happy to take up your offer of help to iocate "a more · \ cv limited amount of material" which might fall within the terms of your Code of Practice for Access to Government Information. I would be happy to guided by yourself as to Jib ~ what you feel would be a reasonable request for access to a "limited amount" of material. [ Further to your offer, firstly I would like to point out that my research is not. specifically concerned with the details of individual "UFO sightings" reported ta by
• . r '~ -? Q .bk~J individuals to the MOD. I am more interested in studying the evolution of how the old Air Ministry, and later the MOD, dealt with these kind of inquiries, how policy on this subject was formulated, and how that policy has been influenced by specific incidents, Government policy, Parliamentary questions, scientific opinion and the media. To this end, I have found the material in the Defence Intelligence Staff registered files particularly of interest. Of the two files currently available at the PRO, DEFE 31/118 (UFO policy 1953-63) and DEFE 311119 (UFO Policy 1967) contain precisely the category of information I am seeking: for exaiiipleint-emal memorandums, draft policy documents etc. There is little, if any, correspondence from the public contained within these files which fall within Exemption 12 (Privacy) or the exemptions relating to national security. Further to this detail, I would like to apply for access to the sequence of files which follow DEFE 31/119 and which presumably relate to UFO policy, between the years 1968 and 1981 . This request relates to specific files, falling within a specified period of time, so you may feel it would be worthwhile employing a more focussed search to retrieve and scrutinise these papers on my behalf. In terms of Air Staff files relating to sightlngls reported by the general public, tbe one-- .. , .-·-<. ~ -i. · ·:\;t specific file I wish to view relates to UFO/unidentified aircraft sightings reported to the ~~~ MOD during the month of January 1974. Following the file sequence at the PRO I ', ~~. ~ suspect this file would be be found at the reference Air 20/12556 (Air 20/ 12555 relates ~ to December 1973). ~ ~~~ I would also like to apply for access to a file produced by the Meteorological Office for the MOD, reference BJ 5/311 titled "Unidentified Flying Objects: meteorological aspects" which relates to the period 1968-1970. This file is due to be opened at the PRO on 1 January 2001 . From my research into historical files at the Public Record Office, I suspe<ft there may also be memoranda and reports relating to UFOs in the 1950s hidden witn}he Defence Intelligence Files, class numbers DEFE 44/l and DEFE 21 , and I have contacted the MOD Departmental Record Officer separately with a request for access to this material. DEFE 44 contains papers from as far back as 1946, but these remain classified because the file also contains material from 1991 . I would like to request access to the block of files and memoranda which relate to the period 1946 to 1969. which should be available for scrutiny under the Freedom ofinformation Act. ri hope you will feel it is possible to allow me to have access to at least some of the material specified in this letter, for use in what is a bona fide academic research progranune. I would be happy to meet any reasonable costs incurred_ asa.rerult of this application, and would be willing to sign any undertakings related to Data Protection or Official Secrets which you might feel appropriate. In addition, I will be happy to provide the MOD with a copy of my completed research paper, which I plan to .publish via the National Centre for English Cultural Tradition at the University of Sheffield. ~ .. _ ____ ---- ·-- - - ~ ~- ~- ......... -~·~~--- ~- · ·- ·~--- -- ..... .. - ~- ......... ~- .. ~-~- -· ..... , .... .......__,_ .. -' .. ......... - --- --- -· ...- In making this request, I am simply responding to the Government's and the MOD's own stated manifesto pledge to "establish a general statutory right of access to official records and through culture change throughout the public sector" (MOD website). This laudable aim will only be seen to working in practise if reasonable requests for ~ , v:. ~ ~' ) .:::-- (<;-~ ....,--
access to non·sensitive material, a category I feel my request falls within, are successful. This touches upon the discussion I mentioned I had with the MOD/RAF Press Office in January this year, when I tried to follow up a story in the national Press which suggested that all files relating to UFOs were soon to be released to the PRO. I 1 was told at that time by the duty Press Officer that the former minister Peter Kilfoyle ~ had indeed expressed the opinion that there was no good reason for keeping files ( related to UFOs restricted for 30 years. He said release of UFO data was likely to be a ) priority following "a review of the files." There was, I was told, "a general move ( within the department to give out information that is not security sensitive and take ( away the myth of secrecy that surrounds this subject." · I hope we will be able to reach an agreement on access to the limied amount of files specified in this letter, and that this application will not be too onerous upon your department's time. I am copying this reply to- at OrviD/AD, Room 617, Northumberland House, so that he is aware that I am happy with the expeditious and helpful way yoH· ·· ·· have dealt with my inquiry.
Ministry of Defence Main Building Whitehall London SWlA 2HB Dear Sir/Madam, Dr David Clarke 21 June 2000 ..... . ,_ -~- ~ ~- - - ; . '1 '-o - < · .. ~ . ... j '1 t_ ... -.,. ~ ; ·~} :? Tz ·· ... v JUN 2000 · ·--· -~- - --- - - - - Freedom of Information- Access to MOD files relating to aerial phenomena I am undertaking post doctoral research into the socio-psychological aspects of belief in the aerial phenomena popularly known as 'unidentified flying objects', as an Honorary Research Fellow at the National Centre for English Cultural Tradition, University of Sheffield. In particular, I am examining the role played by the mass media in the creation and transmission of beliefs and rumours about UFOs, and how these have been reflected in the Ministry of Defence's public policy towards this subject from 1950 to the present. While a certain amount of useful information can be obtained from the study of Press reports, the proceedings of Hansard and the records of private researchers, a study of this kind is reliant upon access to official records such as those available at the Public Record Office. Currently access to records kept by the MOD relating to UFO phenom·ena, including those relating to the formulation of official policy, are covered by the Access to Public Records Act, 1967. This has meant that the vast majority of records relating to this subject are made available for public inspection when they are 30 years old. As a result, a number of MOD air files relating to UFO reports and policy issues relating to the period 1953-1969 have already been released and are available for study at the PRO. However, at present records dating from 1969 to the present day remain closed under the terms of the 1967 Act. Despite this fact, during the past decade the MOD have released information relating to UFOs in response to individual requests from the public which, strictly speaking, continue to remain closed under the 30 year rule.
• Under the definitions used by the Draft Freedom of Information Act (1999) all Government records- other that those created by the Security and Intelligence Services - should be available for public scrutiny unless it can be demonstrated their disclosure would clearly cause harm to "national security, defence and international relations ... the internal discussion of Government policy [and/or] personal privacy." Since the 1950s, the UK Government's public position has been that reports of 'unidentified flying objects' have no implications for defence or national security. As a result, there would appear to be no reason, other than protection of personal privacy, why records maintained on this subject should not be made available for study purposes such as the one I am proposing. Indeed, in January this year I contacted the RAF Press Office who confirmed that the Ministry of Defence, in response to the published aims of the draft Freedom of Information Bill, were considering a proposal to allow access to UFO related files - currently closed under the 30 year rule - for what were described as "bona fide researchers." This was on the proviso that any proposed future access did not compromise confidential personal data supplied to the MOD by members of the public and/or endanger national security. A preliminary examination of the MOD air files on UFOs from 1953-1969 which are available at the PRO has demonstrated their value as a rich source of historical and social data relevant to my proposed study. For example, a Defence Intelligence briefing from 1966-67 released to the Public Record Office last year (DEFE 31/1 i 9) demonstrates how MOD staff were aware of the importance of these social and psychological factors, specifically the role played by the mass media, in the wax and wane of interest surrounding UFO reports .. These records have hitherto never been the subject of a properly funded academic research project. The value of such a study to the UK Government, in terms of the development of public policy in future, should also be taken into account when this request is considered. An independent study of this historical material might also help to dispel the popular myth of "secrecy" and "cover-up" which continues to surround the MOD's public statements on the subject ofUFOs. I am currently in receipt of an award from the British Academy to study the creation and transmission of rumours in the context of popular beliefs which spread through Britain during the First World War, based upon records preserved at the Public Record Office. Later this year I intend to apply to another funding body for an additional award which would allow me to study the development of popular beliefs about UFOs and how these have been reflected by MOD policy from the 1950s to the present. As it stands, the proposed study would have to be based upon the MOD air files which are currently available, and relate to the period 1953-1969. 2
I wish to make a formal application via the Freedom of Information Unit of the MOD for access to MOD Air files relating to UFOs and UFO policy for the period 1969 to the present day. I would define access as having the opportunity to examine all relevant files relating to UFO reports and UFO policy, making notes and copies of relevant material where necessary. I appreciate a project of this kind could take time and would incur costs, but these could easily be incorporated into my application for a research award. I would welcome to opportunity to discuss this proposal informally with a representative from the Ministry of the Defence and/or the Freedom of Information Unit and look forward to hearing from you, 3
Flying Saucery • flyingsaucery.com exists to publish the research findings from veteran fortean researchers David Clarke and Andy Roberts. " ••• A myth is not a miry story. n is the presentation of facts belonging to one category in the Idioms appropriate to another. To explode 11 mytfl/s accordingly not to deny tile facts but to re-alloe~~te them." Gilbert Royle (1900· 1976) British philosopher Since the early 1980s we have worked closely on a variety of Fortean subjects from UFOiogy to Earth Mysteries. The results of these researches have been published in several books, magazines, newspapers, booklets and TV programs (see bibliography) and more specifically via the pages of UFO Brigantia. Since the late 1990s we have been delving deep into UFOiogy in the United Kingdom since WWII, re- investigating so called "classic cases", visiting the Public Record Office and other archival sources of information, tracing and interviewing key witnesses and Ministry of Defence employees at all levels of UFO research and investigation. The results of this research will be published in our next book, titled, Out of the Shadows: UFOS, the Establishment a. the official Cover-up, due from Piatkus in May 2002. In addition, flyingsaucery.com will act as a outlet for the dissemination of our on~going research, along with commentary on what is taking place in UK UFO logy today. We will also occasionally be revealing significant breakthroughs in research. The first of these is the much sought after M.O.D. file on the Rendlesham forest incident of 1980, that has been described by some as "'Britain's Roswell" ~ CLICK HERE ~ brought to you first by us. -- World Exclusive: After half a century http://www.flyingsaucery.com/home.htm !'age 1 or~ The MOD X-Files lfO:O The Rendlesham Files \1'0> No Kidding This Time .. My Flying Saucer Photo is Genuine' go> 22/10/01
Flying Saucery • of denials we can reveal the contents of the British Governments top secret "f.!Yl.ng_ Saucer Studyu • the origin of the UFO 'cover-up'. Another Flying Saucery first, is the presentation of our research that reveals the truth behind two classic British UFO photographs taken by Alex Bitch and Stephen Darbishire. ~ and weep. If you want your belief in alien visitation stroked or need seating plans for the 6.15 from Zeta Reticulli flyingsaucery.com is going to disappoint you. However if you want the best in comprehensive 1 up to the minute exploration in the murky depths of contemporary and historical UFOiogy then welcome aboard. Dave and Andy would be delighted to hear from you if you have any comments or criticisms of the material you'll find here. We can be contacted at: info@flyingsaucerv.com flyingsaucery .com is designed and maintained by Mike Wootten © 2001 Andy Roberts and Dave Clarke http://www.flyingsaucery.com/home.htm Page 2 ot2 22/10/01
. ' Flying Saucery • INTERESTS Dave and Andy are working on a number of other UFO and fortean projects and would be interested in any information you may have on the following: Flying saucers a Unidentified Flying Objects British contactees 1947-70/George Adamski in the UK UFOiogy in the 1950s 'Death' rays and related phenomena Phantom airship sightings of the late 19th/early 20th centuries Foo Fighters Ghost aircraft/phantom helicopters Alleged crashed saucers in the UK The Berwyn Mountain 'UFO crash' Aerial Phenomena Enquiry Network (APEN) Earth Mysteries/Forteana The Big Grey Man of Ben McDhui (and other mountain panics) Pagan survivals in the UK Celtic stone heads and other "Cursed" objects Spring-heeled lack Spooklights and Earthlights BIOGRAPHY ANDY ROBERTS Is the author of Catflaps: Anomalous Big cats in the North, Brigantla Books 1986/CFZ 2001 Phantoms of the Sky (with David Clarke), Robert Hale 1989/90 Earthlights Revelation (contributing author), Blandford 1991 Ghosts & Legends of Yorkshire, Jarrold 1992 Twilight of the Celtic Gods (with David Clarke) Blandford, 1996/97 The UFOs That Never Were (with Jenny Randles &. David Clarke • Feb. 2000) In addition Andy has contributed chapters to the following compilations: UFOS 1947-87, Fortean Tomes, 1987 Phenomenon, Macdonald & Co., 1988 Fortean Studies 3, John Brown Publishing, 1996 Fortean Studies 5, John Brown Publishing 1999 lV & Radio: Andy has contributed to many local and national TV and radio shows. He worked as a consultant on and appeared in: The Isle Is Full Of Noises, Everyman, BBC1, Broadcast 1/11/92 and Down To Earth, Fourwinds for Discovery channel, also shown on Channel 4 Origin Unknown, Granada, Broadcast Jan/Feb 1999 The Haunted Valley Granada, Broadcast, November 2000 http:/lwww.flyingsaucery.com/who.htm 22/10/01
Flying Saucery • Major Magazine Articles: Andy edited the seminal UFO magazine, UFO Brigantia, for 25 Issues and also edits the sporadic scandal-rag The Armchair UFologist. In addition Andy has written for numerous publications including: The Dalesman, , Fortean Times, UFO Times, The Guardian, Yorkshire Post, Bradford Telegraph & Argus, Magonla, Northern Earth His article, Rocking the Alien, dealing with pop music's fascination with UFOs was the cover feature article for the July 1996 issue of Fortean Times and was also printed In the G2 section of The Guardian He can be contacted at: andy.roberts@flyingsaucerv.com DAVID CLARKE Ph.D in English Cultural Tradition and Language, University of Sheffield (1999) Thesis subject was the cult of the human head in Celtic mythology, British tradition and folklore. SA (Hans) dual honours Archaeology and Medieval History at Sheffield University (graduated 1990). As a UFOiogist, I was a founder member of the Independent UFO Network (tUN) in 1987 and of the UFO Investigator's Network (UFOIN) in 1999. I have also served as a Council member of the British UFO Research Association (BUFORA) in the late 1980s. As a journalist, I have worked for ten years on local newspapers including the Rotherham Advertiser and Sheffield Star and now work freelance as a journalist and full time as an author. I hold a Honorary Research Fellowship in the National Centre for English Cultural Tradition and Language, University of Sheffield, where I teach Traditions of Supernatural Belief, a 2nd and 3rd year undergraduate option In the School of English. My specialist areas of research interest are: • contemporary legend and belief: specifically 'space age' folklore (conspiracy theories,'flying saucer' and UFO beliefs); • rumour transmission and rum our-panics within a supernatural context; • the interface between archaeology, oral tradition and belief; • custom and belief, specifically in the context of northern England and the Peak District Books: Phantoms of tho Sky: UFOs ·A Modern Myth? (with Andy Roberts), London: Robert Hale, 1990. Ghosts and Legends of the Peak District, Norwich: Jarrold Publishing, 1991. Strange South Yorkshire: Myth, Magic and Memory in the valley of the Don, Wilmslow: Sigma Press, 1994. A Guide to Britain's Pagan Heritage, London: Robert Hale, 1995. Twilight of the Celtic Gods: An exploration of Britain's hidden pagan traditions, London: Blandford Press, 1996. The UFOs that Never Were, London (with Jenny Randles and Andy Roberts), Allison & Busby, 1999. Supernatural Peak District, London: Robert Hale, 2000. Contributor to: Fortean Times, Fortean Studies, Folklore Journal, Peak and Pennine Magazine, UFO Magazine UFO Brigantia, Third Stone, International UFO Reporter. ' UFOs 1947-87 (Fortean Times) Phenomenon (edited by John Spencer & Hilary Evans) Earthlights Revelation (Paul Devereux} Fortean Studies 3 (John Brown Publishing) Fortean Studies 6 (John Brown Publishing} Series contributor to: LWT 'Strange But True' (2 series); BBC Mysteries; BBC Close Up North; Granada lV 'Orfgin Unknown,' Channel4 Equinox, Four Winds Production, XYTV; Granad lV "The Haunted Valley" (November 2000) David can be contacted via email on dave.clarke@flyingsaucerv.com http://www.flyingsaucery.com/who.htm 22110/01
: Flying Saucery • • The YIO!> !>oc:uments "~~> APPli!ili'ldiJt; WORLD EXCLUSIVE: BRITAIN'S SECRET UFO X-FILES REVEALED For fifty years UFOiogists have been searching for evidence of a secret study by the Ministry of Defence into the 'flying saucer' mystery. Now we can Exclusively reveal the existence of a UFO study group created by British intelligence in 1950 and the contents of their final report- classified for half a century. This was the first and only official UFO study by the British Government that has formed the basis for all policy on the subject up to present. In 1955 and again in 1962 the MOD assured Major Patrick Wall MP in answer to Parliamentary Question that there 'had been no formal inquiry.' He was lied to. For in 1952 the Secretary of State for Air referred to 'a full intelligence study' of the saucers in a reply to Prime Minister Winston Churchill's request to know 'the truth.' During the research for our book 'Out of the Shadows' we discovered the final surviving c:opy of the report by the 'Flying Saucer Working Party' ~ DSI/mC Report No 7 Unidentified Flying Objects. As one of the authors, RAF Wing Commander Myles Formby, told us: "the report was never published but was circulated at the highest level and was used as a 'yardstick' for future action." Questions or media enquiries should be directed to: dave.clarke@flyingsaucery.com Documents reproduced courtesy of Crown Copyright © 2001 Andy Roberts and Dave Clarke http://www.flyingsaucery.com/modlindex.htm 22/10/01
Untitled Document • Commentary http://www.flyingsaucery.com/mod/comtop.htm 22/10/01
Flying Saucery • • .-.~uru Brigantla is /~~~~~;w:~e:~will be re- } classic arlticlles from the finest UFO magazine and frequently adding new material. UFO Brigantia originated as a monthly UFO magazine in the early 1980s, edited by the enigmatic Paul Bennett. Initially it was the house journal of the West Yorkshire UFO Research Group (WYUFORG). Andy Roberts took over as editor in 19851 when the magazine went bi-monthly and eventually quarterly as the journal of the Independent UFO Network (!UN). There has never been another &.~r'~~\wl~ii~~~~tl~'~¥1, No Kidding This Iime ... My Flving Saucer Photo is Genuine! The Berwyn Mountain UFO Crash Howden Moor Summary The Howden Moor Incident UFO over North Sea Schwelnfurt- A Mystery Solved? The Northumbrian UFO crash of 1969 My Flyin9 Saucer Photo magazine like UFO Brigantia. more flies to come... Mixing hard core investigative ufology with biting satire and sarcasm Brigantia left no stone unturned in its quest to represent ufology as it is rather than how some of its proponents would like it to be. UFO Brigantia's list of columnists, contributors and interviewees was impressive and included most of the best known names of the 80s and 90s, both from American and European UFOiogy. These included Jenny Randles, Paul Devereux, David Clarke, Robert Moore, Ralph Noyes, Hilary Evans, John Keel, Budd Hopkins, Bill Moore, Jacques Vallee and Philip Mantle. Since its demise in 1993 following the death of Stuart Smith and the temporary retirement from ufology of Roberts and Clarke, there have been numerous requests for UFO Brigantla to be revived. Flyingsaucery.com will host new UFO Brigantia items as well as archival material and occasional rants from the Armchair Ufologist. http://www.flyingsaucery.com/brigantia.htm _._ ""'O- - --- Full Report Word doc Word doc Word doc Word doc Word doc Word doc Word doc 22/10/01
r Flying Saucery • Out of the Shadows UFOs, the Establishment & the official Cover-up Out of the Shadows: UFOs, the Establishment &. the official Cover- up is the new UFO book by David Clarke and Andy Roberts, published by Piatkus in 2002. Out of the Shadows takes a fresh look at the subject of UFOs, focussing upon the British Ministry of Defence's investigations into the phenomena since 1940. Clarke and Roberts have spent two years researching the book and have uncovered hundreds of previously unseen MOD documents relating to UFO activity in the UK. The book sets the MOO policy on UFOs alongside the beliefs and attitudes of the British UFO community and the wider media towards both the subject and allegations of an official'cover up'. Out of the Shadows is not a sceptical book, nor is it written for 'believers.' We see it as a social history of the flying saucer/UFO phenomenon In the UK. It objectively traces the development of official interest and investigations into UFOs and reaches some startling conclusions. Among its many and varied contents, the book features: • Important new material on WWII UFO sightings and investigations • Hitherto unseen Ministry of Defence and RAF files on UFO reports by service personnel. • Interviews with and comments with numerous individuals who have worked at the highest level of governmental UFO investigation • The MOD file on the Rendlesham Forest UFO case of 1980 • New information on the Men In Black mystery • The involvement of the Royal Family, aristocracy and politicians in UFO studieS http://www.flyingsaucery.com/soon.htm 22/10/01
Flying Saucery • Page 1 of 1 The Rendlesham Forest UFO case is, with the sole exception of the Roswell Incident, the most talked about UFO case in the world. Numerous boob, articles and TV shows have been made about the Rendlesham Forest event and tens of thousands of hours of research has been conducted. Many people have speculated on the depth and nature of involvement by the UK government in this case and the 'Holy Grail' of Rendlesham has been the 'official' Ministry of"Defence file on the event. During the course of research for No Defence Significance? this file was located and obtained. For the first time in the world you can now discover the UK government's secret files on the Rendlesham Forest UFO case. You may not agree with the UK governments' attitudes to the case- but you cannot Ignore them. Here we present David Clarke's commentary on the file, placing it in context, with links to selected documents. Questions or media enquiries should be directed to: dave.darke@flylngsaucery.com Documents reproduced courtesy of Crown Copyright © 2001 Andy Roberts and Dave Clarke http://www.flyingsaucery.com!Rendlesham/index.htm 22/10/01
Flying Saucery • Pagel of I Five documents relating to the alleged UFO Landing at RAF Woodbridge in 1980 are no longer a secret following 11 landmark decision by the MOD"s Director of Information Exploitation. The decision marks a further breakthrough in our understanding of the events in Rendlesham Forest. Five documents were with-held from the original file under exemptions to the code, 2 under Exemption 1 (national security) and 3 under Exemption 2 (internal discussion and advice to ministers less than 30 years old). We immediately lodged an appeal against the decision and an internal review has now been completed. A senior MOD official has now released the two documents that were with-held on the grounds of national security. The new documents contain no evidence that a cover-up of a UFO landing ever existed. They simply illustrate how claims of a cover-up arise from secrecy for the sake of secrecy, part of an established tradition in Britain. What they reveal is that the RAF were making checks on radar records for 29 December 1980, following information supplied by Lt Col Charles Halt in his memo to the MOD. As we now know the actual date of Halt's sighting in Rendlesham Forest was the night of 27/28 December 1980. This implies incompetence and complacency on behalf of the MOD, who did not see fit to make further inquiries into the details they had been supplied by Halt. To see the MOD judgement, and copies of the newly released documents, click on the links below ... MOD Judgement Document 1 Document 2 Documents reproduced courtesy of Crown Copyright © 2001 Andy Roberts and Dave Clarke http://www. flyingsaucery. com!Rendlesham/news. htm 22/10/01
Untitled Document f «J1ru111 "'~X\ *"' t!RITAIN'S SECRET 'X-FILES' REVEALED David Clarke and Andy Roberts The Ministry of Defence has always denied involvement in any official study of the UFO phenomenon. But files recently discovered in Government archive~~ reveal how in 1950 the MOD set up a secret committee of scientists and intelligence experts to investigate sightings of 'flying saucers'. The report they produced for Winston Churchill's Government remained secret tor 50 years and even today certain sections remain classlf'led because of their intelligence content. During research for our forthcoming book on the British Establishment and UFOs early in 2001 copies of the historic report produced by the British Flying Saucer Working Party in 1951 were provided by a MOD source. Winston Churchill The full story of the Working Party and the stories of the high ranking MOD and RAF officers were involved in the first and only official British study of the UFO phenomenon will be revealed in our book: OUT OF THE SHADOWS, published by Piatkus in 2002. What follows is a summary of the context in which the report was produced and why its discovery is a major event in the history of UFOiogy. At the dawn of the 21st century it is claimed that slghtings of UFOs have become so few and far between that one of the oldest groups of civilian enthusiasts, the British Aying Saucer Bureau, have announced they are closing down. While recent opinion polls show SO percent of the public believe we have been visited by aliens, the Ministry of Defence have always denied they had ever taken the subject seriously. Fifty years ago, at the height of the Cold War, the situation was radically different. Sightings of 'flying saucers' made newspaper headlines every day on both sides of the Atlantic. The now defunct London Sunday Dispatch even described the subject as "bigger than the Atom Bomb Wars." By the summer of 1950 with war in Korea and the successful testing of the first Russian atomic bomb adding to growing international tensions, the Western powers were growing increasingly worried by the 'flying saucer' mystery. Across the world, nervous fingers hovered above the buttons that could trigger a devastating nuclear exchange. Those entrusted with weapons of mass destruction had only seconds to decide if an unidentified 'blip' tracked by radar was a Russian bomber, guided missile, or simply a "phantom." Whether they existed or not UFOs, quite clearly, had the potential to trigger a Third World War. Solving the UFO problem became a priority for the top brains in the American CIA and their British counterpart, the MOD's Directorate of Scientific Intelligence (DSI). It was the Defence Intelligence staff that were responsible for assessing any threat posed by UFOs. The OSI advised the Joint Intelligence Committee who ultimately answered to the Prime Minister. Throughout the 1950s the Ministry of Defence tried to calm public fears by debunking 'flying saucer' sightings as meteorites or weather balloons, but behind closed doors they had already launched their own secret study, drawing upon the expertise of the greatest scientific and military minds of the day. Documents discovered hidden In the archives of the Ministry of Defence, reveal how a team dedicated to the study of flying saucers was set up in October 1950 working closely alongside the CIA who were involved in their own top secret study. The very existence of any "official" study of UFOs had been long denied by the MOD. Even when the minutes of this non~existent committee came to light in 1997, the report it produced could not be found. The document, we were repeatedly assured, was "absentH from the catalogue at the Public Record Office. Staff concluded it "had not survived the passage of time.". The report constitutes the "Holy Grail" to those who have always believed that the Ministry of Defence were involved in a cover- up of UFO evidence. It is also an important jigsaw puzzle piece in the history of the Cold War. The papers reveal that the "Flying Saucer" study was the brainchild of one of Churchill's most trusted scientific advisors, Sir Henry Tizard, best known for his role in the development of Britain's pre-World War Two radar defences that proved so decisive during the Battle of Britain. Tizard felt the saucer sightings could not be simply dismissed as delusions, and demanded an investigation of the subject following a pro-saucer newspaper campaign backed by one of the most respected figures of the day, Lord Louis Mountbatten. Mountbatten and a number of other highly placed officials- including Battle of Britain mastermind Air Chief Marshall Hugh Dowding - had privately concluded that flying saucers were advanced craft from outer space. The Flying Saucer Working Party had five members, representing the elite Technical Intelligence branches of the Air Ministry, Admiralty, War Office and Ministry of Defence. It held its first meeting in October of 1950 in a room at the former Hotel Metropole In Northumberland Avenue, just yards away from Trafalgar Square. As a result, personnel serving with the RAF and Royal Navy were asked to submit sighting reports for Investigation. After eight months of sifting through hundreds of X-Files from as far afield as New Zealand, the committee concluded that only three originated from trustworthy sources and were worthy further study. In June 1950 a pilot on patrol from RAF Tang mere in Sussex sighted a "bright circular metallic object" which sped past his Meteor jet fighter at 20,000 feet. As he was undergoing a debriefing by squadron intelligence it emerged that four RAF controllers at an air defence radar station near Eastbourne had, at the same time, tracked an "unusual response" that vanished from their screens, moving at terrific speed. http://www.flyingsaucery.com/mod/modcom 1.htm 22/10/01
. T-he U~umertl% RPa~dlx .mmenta~ry :;a:; Page 1 2a Page 2 http:/ /www.flyingsaucery.com/mod/comleft.htm 22/10/01
Untitled Document • ~"'")(t~ The Rendlesham MoD file: Some Preliminary Thoughts Jenny Randles The release of this file to David Clarke in May 2001 is of considerable interest, given the prominence of the Rendlesham Forest case in UFO thinking. But It also has great significance in terms of other modern British incidents - for we might now hope to get better official information on them without having to walt 30 years and find re-investigation badly compromised. This recognition may be more important long term than the release of the files on a case that was already of diminishing import in terms of scientific UFO evidence - as obvious from 'The UFOs that Never Were' written two years before this file was released. However, Rendlesham has held - and will still hold - a vice-like grip on most UFOiogists because it offers them the lure of being 'the big one' - a single case that could change the world. And so any information that helps to illuminate the path towards resolution is to be welcomed. Yet, of course, whilst this file does not add much to any resolution of the case itself, and, it will always be arguable whether it even reflects the sum total of official knowledge on both sides of the Atlantic (with some no doubt suspecting hidden files may yet lurk somewhere unannounced) it is of great value. This is especially because of the picture that it paints about the approach of the MoD's public visage to UFO investigation. There are no great surprises in the image that it portrays. But there is great interest because we now have clear, on the record, data from the MoD that all sensible people should accept as being truthful - at least within the purview of those compiling the reports. Indeed - I would submit - these records would not be untruthful. They may not be complete (indeed the MoD have admitted to withholding some files) but they will be honest. The MoD simply would not lie on open record. It would be too potentially destructive for any government caught doing so. Ralph Noyes - himself a senior figure in the MoD who dealt with UFOs and who ran DS 8 at one point in his career - taught me from our various discussions that if the powers that be do not want to say something then they do not lie. They just don't say it. If they do say it then you can confidently assume that it is basically true. As such it is proper that we consider this MoD file not as offering untruths but as providing genuine pointers towards what happened. Here is a summary of the key things that seem to emerge from the new information and my thoughts about them- based as yet on only a study of the summary. I will probably add more when I examine the full report. 1: The dating of the Events There is no question in my mind - and has not been since one of the three original witnesses (John Burroughs) told me this in 1989 - but these two events occurred in Rendlesham Forest in the early hours of 26 December and overnight on 27/28 December. There were other minor sightings at other times (many caused by airmen who were aware of the gossip from around base and so went skywatching in the forest determined to see 'the UFOs' for themselves). But the Rendlesham legend revolves around these two nights. http://www.flyingsaucery.corn/Rendlesham/comjen1.htm 22/10/01
Untitled Document janyone clings to any other possibility they are wrong to do so. For a decade the above simple truth was not thought to be true. Even when the Woodbridge police claimed a different date for the initial sighting in late 1983 an~ when l ~ound ~ very early note by Brenda Butler which confirmed that her source (the st1ll mystenous a1rman . Steve Roberts) had initially told her that it occurred on ~6 December (bu~ then changed thiS claim to the following day) we were reluctant to accept 1t because the we1ght of other evidence argued against. Primarily this meant Colonel Halt's insistence about his mem?, compiled (~~ assumed) from witness statements but in reality from his memory alone. ThiS was so pos1t1ve that the dates were 27 December and 29/30 December. And he was backed by other witnesses (such as Larry Warren) then willing to go on public record. This reliance upon false information was a serious problem for the investigation. It compromised not only efforts to obtain information from the authorities (Brenda Butler and Dot Street asked Woodbridge police to comment within weeks of the sighting but asked them about the wrong night and so were never told about the police suggestion that the lighthouse was visible from the forest as the might otherwise have been). It also meant that we dismissed more readily than we would otherwise have done Ian Ridpath's theory that the initial light in the sky was a bright meteor. One of these was visible on the night of 26 December and could have triggered a misperception. Yet, officially, the sighting did not happen on that night. It happened on the next night when there was no meteor. So, of course, we tended to be skeptical of this idea in the early years. The MoD file shows that the authorities were equally thrown off the track by this fundamental error. They had the wrong dates to check out and so any study was pretty meaningless. It was not even realised by the MoD as quickly as it was by UFOiogy since Halt and the British squadron leader Donald Moreland stood by the dates (as you might expect them to do) and so the MoD, again naturally, believed trained military personnel and their contemporary records. It cannot be underestimated here what a simple error did to this case. It is hard to appreciate why this cock-up happened, if the events were significant. Halt could have studied the signed witness statements and the correct date was in the base log book (the blotter). So why wrong dates were imposed onto the case and then allowed to stand firm for so many years is always going to be a contentious issue. I da_re say some skeptics might contend that it was preferable for UFOiogists and witnesses to nd the spectre of explanation by standing by a false date. But I was really glad to have the ~ates sorted out in 1989 and it started the slow process towards resolution. UFOiogists are, m the mam, here to solve cases and not to perpetuate mysteries. And - do not forget- it was one of the original witnesses who clarified the correct dates for me - without hesitation - so this hardly suggests that there was a plot to obscure the damaging truth. No the problem with the dates - seriously misleading as it was - occurred through an apparent m1stake rather than any devious plotting. Th.is was the first cock up to inspire beliefs about a conspiracy - many of which persist to thls.day. But 1t wa.s not the last and it is a great shame that the error was not spotted earlier because th1s case may have unravalled long before it did - since the correct dates are the key to finding answers. UFOiogy long did not have these dates. And nor, we now know, did the MoD. Both paid the price for being innocently mislead - until the story had become a legend amidst its own phenomenon. This is an object lesson to all people involved in UFO study - including the MoD. Check and http://www.flyingsaucery.com/Rendlesham/comjen1.htm 22/10/01
Untitled Document · double check basic information. One simple error can have a knock on effect and literally fJeak years of havoc. I should add that this is not a unique circumstance. A similar error occurs in an Irish military file released (via IUFOPRA) in late 1997. This described a mid air encounter between an Irish transport plane and a UFO at 1.10 am on 31 March 1993. The same event was witnessed over the southwest of England by numerous people and was followed up by BUFORA within hours. I was acting as Director of Investigations and it was, without question, the result of a misperception of the burn up from a Cosmos satellite. However, the official Irish military file on the case contains a second sighting backing up the transport plane incident. This was by a Captain Cotter at Newcastle, County Dublin. From his account there cannot be any serious doubt that he saw the same thing as witnesses across the British Isles. Yet he clearly dates his sighting as 1.10 am on 28 March - three days to the minute too early - and this was seemingly accepted by the authorities because he was a credible, military witness and had signed his statement within hours. You would not expect a military officer (here based with the Naval Support Squadron) to misrecall a sighting so soon afterwards and get the date wrong by three days. But here, if you decline to accept that this is what he did, you must assume that something remarkable recurred in identical circumstances 72 hours apart. Far more probable is that he got this date wrong and so we face the consequence of knowing that if you were to make assumptions based on that error - as many did with Rendlesham - you risk misjudging the entire case. Dates clearly are vital and we now must always be aware of how they can mislead us. http:/lwww.flyingsaucery.com/Rendlesham/comjen 1. htm 22/10/01
PART3 Signatu Name: c. Registered File Disposal Form MOD Form 262F (Revised 9/01) FILE TITLE: (Main Heading -Secondary Heading -Tertiary Heading etc) Reference: \..) '0os;- 'f <=:.~ lS."'<C..C'!( c:_o~~~'tbN~· ;\;~~c~~\~o~\~\ '-'- 'D~ C) C'-'f\~~ Part: ~ • l PROTECTIVE MARKING (including caveats & descriptors): \:) \ c_ . I Date of last enclosure: \~"~"'C)_()()\_ . II Date closed: <: PART 1. DISPOSAL SCHEDULE RECOMMENDATION FOR DEFENCE INFO(EXP)-R USE ONLY (To be completed when the file is closed) "" I II I I Destroy after years D Date of 1st review Date of 2nd review Forward Destruction Date Forward to INFO(EXP)-R after __ years D Reviewer's Reviewer's No recommendation D Signature: Signature: PART 2. BRANCH REVIEW (To be fully completed at time of file closure) • ~ (Delete as appropriate) ..- a. Of no further administrative value and not worthy of permanent preservation. DESTROY IMMEDIATELY (Remember that TOP SECRET 0 and Codeword material cannot be destroyed locally and must be forwarded to INFO(EXP)-R. b. (i) To be retained until the end of the year 2010 for the following reason(s): "" "" LEGAL D DEFENCE POLICY+ OPERATIONS D CONTRACTUAL D ORIGINAL COMMITIEE PAPERS D FINANCE/AUDIT ~ MAJOR EQUIPMENT PROJECT D DIRECTORATE POLICY OTHER (Specify) D I PPQ: 100 (Continued overleaf) (ii) Key enclosures which support the recommendation are: (iii) At the end of the specified retention period the file is to be: v Destroyed IJ Considered by DR for n permanent preservation L._j Of no further administrative value but worthy of consideration by INFO(EXP)-R for permanent preservation. v D ==··-= l~· :. ot below C2/equivalent) PART 4 DESTRUCTION CERTIFICATE It is certified that the specified file has been destroyed. Signature: (Block Capitals) • ' ' J Grade/Rank: _~_L ____ Date: ____!___!f__l C) l 0 S , Name: (Block Capitals) Branch Title and Fu!IADAS ISQ Grade/Rank: _____ Date: __________ Witnessed by (TOP SECRET' and SECRET only) Signature: --------------------- Name: (Block Capitals) Grade/Rank: -------- Date:---------- •(FOR DR USE ONLY) t..clrnn lr1?17$17~ 111l"'~
Ministry of Defence Room8243 Main Building WhitehaU London SWlA 2HB Your reference: D/DAS(Sec)/64/3111 Dear 12 March 2001 Thank you for your letter of 9 March 200 1 and for the information relating to the three UFO policy files. Once again I am grateful that you have been able to locate and review these files on my behalf Accordingly, I am enclosing with this letter a crossed cheque for £20 made out to 'MOD Accounting Officer' in advance payment for photocopying and postage as agreed. If the cost of the work exceeds this amount please let me know. In the meantime, I look forward to hearing from you with regards to the issues raised in my letter of 7 February. · .... - - . ....._
From: MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Room 8243, Main Building, Whitehall, London, SW1A 2HB Dr D Clarke Dear Dr Clarke Telephone (Direct dial) (Switchboard) (Fax) Your Reference Our Reference DIDAS(Sec)/64/3/11 9 March 2001 020 721 6 2140 020 721 8 9000 I I We have been sent the three files mentioned in my letter of2 February that contain, broadly speaking, policy material on the subject of'UFOs'. The files are: AF/419- BBC2 Man Alive Programme- UFOs AF/S4F(Air)/422 - UFOs- Radio Oxford Programme S4F(Air)U/506 - Statistical Analysis ofUFOs These files have now been reviewed and are ready for photocopying and a very small amount of sanitising. The review, involving reading all the documents on the files, has taken us some 4 hours and has been conducted free of charge under the Code of Practice. Photocopying and sanitising the papers is estimated at 2 minutes per whole document - in practice some will take a little less time and those consisting of a number of pages, rather longer. We estimate that this work will take some one and a quarter hours. At a charge of£ 15.00 per hour, the total cost is likely to be £20.00. Would you let us know that you are content to meet this charge and we shall send you the material as soon as possible. With regard to your letter of 7 February, that raised a number of issues, I hope to be able to write to you very shortly. Yours sincerely,
• Loose Minute D lnfo(Exp)R/3/7 /8 1 March 2001 .~.6). Head Air Historical Branch Copy to : DAS 4a1 (Sec) ENQUIRY FROM DR DAVID CLARKE Reference: - email exchange 12 & 15 February 2001 1. We recently exchanged email on the subject of Forms 541 s (their non-survival). The enquirer, Dr Clarke , has now written seeking information about the Neatishead GCI (attached). 2. You will note that Dr Clarke has been advised "by a senior MOD source" that such a record "would not have been destroyed and that even if this had been the case, a record would have been made.." Clearly the MOD source is not familiar with MOD regulations relating to the retention periods of destruction certificates. However, I would welcome your comments about the fate of this type of record. 3.
' e - Deputy Departmental Record Office Ministry of Defence 3-5 Great Scotland Yard London SWlA 2HW Your ref: D INFO(EXP)R/3/7/8 Dear - Dr David Clarke 8 March2001 Thank you for your letter of27 February 2001 replying to my question with regards to the absence of Forms 541 from RAF records during 1956. Far from being disappointing, I found your reply helpful and the information you provided will allow me to channel my research into more fruitful avenues. Whilst the information you provided explains the absence of daily records for Squadrons and RAF stations for the period I am researching, it does not account for the absence of records for the Neatishead GCI radar station relating to this period. According to the testimony of the retired senior RAF Fighter Controller who was on duty during the night of August 13-14, 1956, he personally completed a detailed logbook record relating to the scramble and attempted interception of an unknown target detected by the USAF GCA radar at Lakenheath. He informs me that a representative from Fighter Command at Stanmore visited shortly after these events and removed the Neatishead GCI station logbook for scrutiny by the Air Ministry. As the incident recorded by the logbook involved both a radar tracking and the 'scramble' of two aircraft from the Battle Flight, it would seem improbable that the GCI logbook would have been destroyed. I am informed by a senior MOD source that records such as the GCI log relating to an event as important as this would not have been destroyed and even if this was the case, a record would have had to be made recording who ordered and authorised such destruction, and for what reason. Despite extensive searches of the PRO records I have been unable to locate a file··relating to Neatishead GCI covering the relevant period in 1956. Records do exist for Sector Operations Eastern Sector and the 271 Signals Unit, Neatishead, but these do not contain the GCI station records. As public records outside the 30 year rule these should be available for scrutiny at the Public Record Office.
• .. Additionally, according to the information provided by the retired RAF Controller, a report on the incident I am researching was prepared for Air Ministry by the technical intelligence section DDI (Tech) during 1956~57. Records created by DDI (Tech) appear in the PRO files for the period 1940-45, but none appear to be available post-1945. I would be grateful if you could provide any information regarding the survival, present location and public access arrangements in respect of 1) the GCI station logbook from RAF Neatishead radar for August 1956 and 2) files created by Air Ministry DDI (Tech) relating to the period 1952-58. Your assistance is greatly appreciated and I look forward to hearing from you (SAE enclosed). Yours faithfully,
' Page I of 1 DAS4A(SEC) From: lnfo(Exp)-Records1 Sent: 12 February 2001 12:1 To: Hd of AHB(RAF) J Cc: DAS4A(SEC) Subject: ENQUIRY FROM DR DAVID CLARKE- FORM 541s Dr Clarke is an enthusiastic researcher into unexplained aerial phenomena. He is researching an incident which occurred between 0010 hours and 0330 hours GMT on 14 August 1956, when an unidentified radar track was recorded by the GCI radar station at RAF Neatishead. Apparently aricraft from 23 Sqn were scrambled from RAF Waterbeach to intercept this unidentified radar target. Dr Clarke has traced the pilots and navigators of both aircraft and have copies of their personal logbooks which confirm these dates and timings. But in trying to confirm these details from records at Kew ie ORBs (AIR 2 7/2 742, AIR 29/2631 and AIR 2 5 I 1 55 5-6), he has drawn a blank. He has been given to understand that the information he seeks would be on Form 541 (the appendices!). Some earlier 541 s (194 7) are located at Kew and contain the kind of information he seeks, but those for 1956 are not available. He asks if those for the periods of interest survive, if so where are they and are they available to researchers? . 12j02j0 1
Page 1 of 1 DAS4A(SEC) From: lnfo(Exp)-Records1 Sent: 12 February 2001 12:17 To: Hd of AHB(RAF) Cc: DAS4A(SEC) Subject: ENQUIRY FROM DR DAVID CLARKE- FORM 541s Dr Clarke is an enthusiastic researcher into unexplained aerial phenomena. He is researching an incident which occurred between 0010 hours and 0330 hours GMT on 14 August 1956, when an unidentified radar track was recorded by the GCI radar station at RAF Neatishead. Apparently arfcraft from 23 Sqn were scrambled from RAF Waterbeach to intercept this unidentified radar target. Dr Clarke has traced the pilots and navigators of both aircraft and have copies of their personal logbooks which confirm these dates and timings . But in trying to confirm these details from records at Kew ie ORBs (AIR 2 7/2 742, AIR 29/2631 and AIR 2 5/1 55 5-6), he has drawn a blank. He has been given to understand that the information he seeks would be on Form 541 (the appendices!). Some earlier 541 s (194 7) are located at Kew and contain the kind of information he seeks, but those for 1956 are not available. He asks if those for the periods of interest survive, if so where are they and are they available to researchers? 12/02/0 1
.. .... .:t. •. Ministry of Defence Room 8241, Main Building Whitehall London SWIA 2HB Dr David Clarke 7 February 2001 Many thanks for your letter of2 February and for the results of your review of UFO policy material from the period 1968-198 I . I note your comments concerning the process by which ' policy' material was distributed across files created by the Secretariat, and the problems identifying this material within a range of subject files. I was surprised to hear that 'a number of files' dealing with UFOs were likely to have been destroyed in 1990. It was my understanding that a policy decision had been taken during 1970, on instruction from an Under Secretary of State, to preserve all files relating to this subject. Has there been a subsequent change of policy, or does the preservation of files relate specifically to UFO reports, rather than UFO policy documents? Despite the above, I was pleased to hear that you had identified three files containing policy material from the period specified in my request, including the file AF/419 relating to the 1972 BBC2 Man Alive Programme. I appreciate the effort you have made to locate these documents and to review them on my behalf, arid I look forward to hearing the results in due course. I would of course wish to obtain copies of the documents concerned when this review is completed. With regards to my request for access to more recent policy material I would like to take up your offer to search files if I was able to specify "a particular year, topic or incident." My research into the MOD's involvement in the UFO issue during the past half century would not be complete, or comprehensive, without making reference to the saga of the "Rendlesham Forest/RAP Woodbridge" incident which occurred between 26-30 December, 1980. You will no doubt be acquainted with the details of the alleged 'sightings' by US airmen and others at the RAF Woodbridge base, which has generated sensational newspaper articles, books and a number of letters from members of the public addressed to your Secretariat ever since that time. Last year the claims resurfaced yet again in a further book entitled ' You Can 't Tell the People,' the subject of questions in the House of Lords as recently as last week. My review of the MOD's public statements relating to the Rendlesham case since it first received national publicity in 1983 have led me to agree with your original position that the alleged events had "no defence significance." Having visited the forest and observed the optical effects created by the beam from the Orfordness
f') • lighthouse, I am inclined to agree that a completely down-to-earth explanation is readily available. Wherever the truth may lie, my interest is in the process whereby the MOD reached their original decision, and how public statements on this issue have been interpreted by the media and others who wish to promote fantasy rather than reality. In order to understand the decisions taken, it would be necessary to have access to the briefings upon which your Secretariat must have relied in order to answer both Parliamentary and public questions on this matter. In a reply to a question from Martin Redmond MP in the Commons, the former Defence Minister Nicholas Soames said the original report from RAF Woodbridge was "assessed by the staff in my Department responsible for air defence matters ... [and] the judgement was that it contained nothing of defence significance" (24 July 1996, Written Answers). In a reply to an earlier question requesting a list of papers held relating to the case, Mr Soames said other than the report written by the USAF deputy base commander "the documents held by my Department are internal staffing papers and correspondence from members of the public relating to the alleged events" (10 June 1996, Written answers). As this 'incident' has been the subject both of questions in the Commons and the Lords, not to mention the focus of numerous enquiries from the public and news media, it must have generated a considerable number of Parliamentary briefings and internal policy documents. In the Lords on 30 January 2001 Baroness Symons referred to "surviving departmental records [which satisfy us] that nothing of defence significance occurred on the nights in question." I would ask, therefore, if it would be possible to carry out a review of the file/s which relate to this incident in order to determine if these records couid be released (in a sanitised form, if necessary) for use in my research. This would enable me to place the MOD's public policy relating to this incident into its correct context. Finally, to bring my study fully up to present I wish to ask if it would be possible to arrange a formal 'question and answer' session with a member ofDAS(Sec) staff, or ~ an appropriately briefed MOD PR officer to discuss UFO policy as it stands today. In my journalistic capacity, I have discussed this subject with Squadron Leader~ ~ring his duty on the RAF Press Desk, on a number of occasions and waysollnd my questions answered comprehensively and helpfully. The questions I ask will be of a general nature, and I could supply a summary in advance ifthis would be helpful. You will find that my approach to the UFO subject is generally in sympathy with that adopted by the MOD. In my opinion no objective historian who has researched the documentary evidence available at the Public Record Office could arrive at any other conclusion, but I believe that the issue deserves study in terms of what we can learn about a range of subjects from perceptual psychology to social history. In the meantime, thank you for your assistance with my inquiries and I look forward to hearing from you in due course. Yours sincerely,
15 JAN '01 15:25 FROM DGMD,DMCS.DOMD LONDON Fax OMD14 Ministry of Defence Room 817, Northumberland House Northumberland Avenue LONDON WC2N 5BP Telephone Fax: TO j6@6i!S! 1 40j Pages; 1 (including this cover page) Date: 12 111 January 2000 Dr Clark~ UFO files. P.01 Dr Clarke: Thanks for faxing the DIS letter over to me. Having spoken with DOMD I'm happy that you treat your end of Dr Clarke's request as complete. However rv ·~ contacted DIS about the file they mention in their letter. I can't see a reason fc:- refusing to release the information concerned. We'll chase them up on this.!! th~J agree to release this info to Dr Clarke will I get them to forward it to you? -- long as the files withheld by the RAF would reveal details of opc:rctt:lorual procedures then exemption la is okay. Any other information would have ! to be considered separately. Was there a possibility of releasing some info but not the / whole document? If not, then I'm happy with the letter to go out as is. Once again, rm sorry about the delay in getting back to you. 0 - ** TOTAL PAGE. 01 **
• Dr D W Clarke Dear Dr Clarke, From: MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Room 8241, Main Building, Whitehall, London, SW1A 2HB Telephone (Direct dial) (Switchboard) (Fax) Your Reference Our Reference DIDAS(Sec)64/3/ l Dote 2 FebJUary 2001 1!1!1 : stas:: as, Thank you for your letter of 15 January enclosing your cheque for £183.75 for the reviewing, sanitising and photocopying work done on your behalf The cheque was sent to Defence Records with the request that a receipt be issued to you. A review of material from the period 1968 to 1981 identified some eighty files. As a part of the work of the Secretariat is to handle correspondence from members of the public, policy discussion on how best to answer a particular letter has tended to be spread across the range of subject files rather than appearing exclusively in designated "Policy" files. Starting by iso1ating only those files with policy in the title we trawled through the Records area of the Department before conducting a search of files still with the Secretariat. The conclusion of that search was that it ~ appeared that a number of files are likely to have been destroyed in 1990; a few 'UFO' files including policy volumes were among that number. I am sorry to have to give you this disappointing news. We have, however, identified three files that contain some policy material. One of those was the AF/419 'UFOs' BBC2 Man Alive Programme' mentioned in your recent letter. I am now calling for those files to be returned to this building. The room in which they are kept has been closed to staff for some ten days for repair work but I am hoping that Records staffwill have access next week so that they can send them to me. I am not sure how many documents those files might contain so I will not attempt to estimate how quickly we might review and photocopy relevant material. I shall however write again once the files have reached us. ln your letter of 15 January you also refer to more recent policy material. As I indicate above, policy discussion is spread over the series of 'UFO' subject files as well as being located-on specific policy files but if you were able to indicate a particular year, topic or incident, we shall conduct a search. Yours sincerely,
• LOOSE MINUTE D/DAS(Sec)/64/3/11y 23 January 2001 Info(Exp)-Records 1 CHEQUE FROM DR CLARKE FOR WORK UNDERTAKEN 1. Please find attached a cheque for £183.75 from Dr.Clarke for the material you kindly provided, plus a copy of his covering letter to 2 . I would be grateful if you could arrange for a receipt to be sent to Dr Clarke. DAS(Sec)4ala - MB8245
• - ·-· --~ . ~ ~- -----.&:...... ~ . Ministry of Defence Room 8243 Main Building Whitehall London SWIA 2HB Your ref: D/DAS (Sec)64/3/l De~ --l Dr David Clarke 15 January 2001 Many thanks for your letter of 5 January. The parcel containing copies of the files I requested arrived here at the end oflast week, and in return I enclose a crossed cheque made out for the amount agreed. It would be helpful if you could let me have a receipt specifying the work done for use in my end of year accounts. I wish to thank you and the staff who worked to process my request before the holiday. Your help is very much appreciated and the material )OU sent wiil be of great i1elp a~ pan my ongoing research, which will acknowledge the assistance the MOD have provided. With regards to my request for copies of "additional UFO policy files 1968-81 ", I look forward to your response when this is convenient. Having reviewed the contents of the policy file AF/3459/75 I would certainly wish to see more recent policy documents, as these are directly relevant to my research into the UK Government's official position on this nebulous subject. Further to the above, I wonder if you could include within the category "UFO policy files 1968-81 "a copy of the file AF/419 "UFOs: BBC2 Man Alive Programme" which I believe dates from the year 1972. This TV programme is referred to in the 1970 file, and is of interest as it appears to have been the first time an MOD spokesperson appeared on British TV to answer questions on the UFO issue. I'm happy to leave to your discretion what other files are deemed to fall within the terms of my supplementary request. This will form the sum total of my request under the Code ofPractice for Access to Government Information. With regards to my question regarding the location ofthe missing file DSIIJTIC Report No 7. I'm satisfied that your staff have done everything reasonable to locate this document, but it is encouraging that you do not appear to completely rule out the possibility that it could have survived and may one day be found. In the meantime, I will
• continue to pursue other lines of inquiry to locate the document and if successful will provide the MOD with a new copy for your records. I look forward to hearing from you, Dr D.W.Ciarke
!5 Lloyds TSB ,. Church Street Sheffield Branch • 1 4 Church Street Sheffield South Ynr ............. Pay "' ~ a> ~ ~~~~~~===1~~~~~~~~~~~ ! 30-97-51 Date IS JA--JvA,;ey 'UJO I
. ,_ .. ... . .. ....... ~~-~ ·' ·" ' .. / ~'. I .: .·. . ..,_ , . _ j : · ·.·· '• ; &2" - --- - ~ Room8243 Main Building Whitehall London SWlA 2HB Your ref: D/DAS (Sec)64/3/l De~ """\ . - ~ 1 Dr David Clarke I .! ' . :• ~ ' ...._ :' 15 January 2001 Many thanks for your letter of 5 January. The parcel containing copies of the files I requested arrived here at the end of last week, and in return I enclose a crossed cheque made out for the amount agreed. It would be helpful if you could let me have a receipt -'"? specifying the work done for use in my end of year accounts. ~ I wish to thank you and the staff who worked to process my request before the holiday. Your help is very much appreciated and the matenal you sent wili be of great help as part my ongoing research, which will acknowledge the assistance the MOD have provided. With regards to my request for copies of "additional UFO policy files 1968-81 ", I look forward to your response when this is convenient. Havin~'\the contents of the policy file AF/3459/75 I would certainly wish to see mor~icy documents, as these are directl relevant to my research into the UK Government's official position on this nebulous subject. ---- - - = --.....w-~ - Further to the above, I wonder if you could include within the category "UFO policy files 1968-81 "a copy of the file AF/419 "UFOs: BBC2 Man Alive Programme" which I believe dates from the year 1972. This TV programme is referred to in the 1970 file, and is of interest as it appears to have been the first time an MOD spokesperson appeared on British TV to answer questions on the UFO issue. I'm happy to leave to your discretion what other files are deemed to fall within the terms of my supplementary request. This will form the sum total of my request under the Code of Practice for Access to Government Information. With regards to my question regarding the location of the missing file DSIIJTIC Report No 7. I'm satisfied that your staff have done everything reasonable to locate this document, but it is encouraging that you do not appear to completely rule out the possibility that it could have survived and may one day be found. In the meantime, I will
, > • continue to pursue other lines of inquiry to locate the document and if successful will provide the MOD with a new copy for your records. I iook forward to hearing from you, Yours sincerely, Dr D.W.Ciarke
From: MINI OF DEFENCE Room 8243, Main Building, Whitehall, London, SW1A 2HB · ... · . .L. Telephone (Direct dial) (Switchboard} (Fax) ~ Dear Dr Clarke, Your Reference Our Reference D!DAS(Sec)64t3/ l If"" Ihte 5 January 200 I Thank you for your letter of2 January enquiring about progress photocopying the material you requested. The task was finished on 2l December, the material reached this building between Christmas and New Year and is now being packed for posting to you. I am not sure how many days it may take to reach you and so, although I shall have a copy of this letter placed in the parcel, I am also sending a separate copy to keep you informed. You will receive the contents of: AIR 2/18564 (PRO reference) AIR 2/18873 (PRO reference) AF/584 (MOD reference) AF/3459/75 (MOD reference) A number of 'UFO• related documents on files DEFE 3119 and DEFE 44/1 have also been photocopied and accompany the material listed above. The work has taken 16 hours and 15 minutes to complete and, as indicated in my letter of 6 October, the first 4 are free of charge. The remaining 12 hours and 15 minutes, at £15.00 an hour, result in a cost of £183 .75. I would be grateful if you would let me have your crossed cheque, made payable to "Accounting Officer MOD .. , once all the material has reached you. I apologise for the fact that I am still not able to reply to your request concerning the "additional policy files 1968-81 ". If, by the middle of next week a response early in January seems unlikely I shall let you know. Finally, in your letter of 10 October, you asked about the possibility of a further search within MOD files for DSI/JTIC Report Number 7. Unfortunately, there are not the resources to undertake a full search of files stored in the MOD archives, which seems to be what you have in mind. However. Records staff have, in recent years, seen many files in the course of an •
• accelerated review of records closed for more than 30 years and reviewed DIS material more than 20 years old. As even this extensive work, along with more recent searches, has failed to locate Report Number 7 the opinion, that it has not survived the passage oftime, appears very reasonable. Perhaps your other lines of inquiry have been more successful. Yours sincerely,
---'"-'" -. ;':i~~- _- REST8J¢TJ:D1~!!j,I)ED- . MOD Form 329 D - .. - . MINISTRY; OF DEFENCE ·. )(.9 . -_~o-r7~ \ / -~ . - .::; . ---- <:' LO ·?~,;'; . . . . ·. . ' "' ~-·- -THi --""-__;_.+---+-- II •R) ) USE ONLY )ate ' \ . I. ATTENTION IS· DRAWN TO THE DIVISION NOTES ON THE INSIDE FLAP ' - 2. ENTER NQTES OF RELATED FILES ' ·ON PAGE 2 OF THIS JACKET FOR REGISTRY USE ONLY ------ SUBjECT U,N.l.D..sN:l.l.f:.L€JJ ........... ..f.i,Y.JN~ ........... O.J3.:::f€.C.X$ .. ::: ..... .f'O..(,tC.Y .... .. . 8~N0 ............. 6.t..H:.Y. ........... .S:1'f:):f.ftt.e.t>Jf.S. ........................ : .................................. . ........................ , ......................................................................................................................................... MO CSOi - B JAN DOWNGRADING Referred to DATE (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 co ...................... :: ........................................... . (insert dare)
REPORT OF AN UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECT lA· Date, Time & Duration of Sicrhtincr Description of Object B. (No. of objects, size, , J) shaee, col,ovr, br~ptnessf-,, H'"-J, ~ ~vdL · Exact Pos1t10n of bserver · C. Location, indoor/outdoor, stationary /moving D. How Observed. (Naked eye, binoculars, other optical device, still or movie) Direction in which object first seen E. (A landmark may be more useful than a badlJ::: estimated bem·ing) 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 J. of course and S[>eed) 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, militarx, eress etci M. Name & Address of Informant ·; N. Background of Informant that mayi be volunteered .I • ·I I ·I 0. Other W~tnesses P. Date , Time of Receipt A-·1 ' ANNEX TO SOP 502 - .. --~-' ·-----·- '
• ! ... •' Q, Detailed Met Report. (AEGR"to Obtain) R, -~ .. - Assessment . Check radars, ATCCs etc) 1. · Aircraft • 2. Ranges. 3. Gliding, 4. Balloon. 5. Air Sea Rescue Activities. Date . ......••............ Copies to: S4f(Air) . . .; ... ··· ., c -s-wee v '.L,, .. .. Ops(GE)2(RAF) DI 55 1 J:>.l:.-fitlG .. Science 4 3 :I File AFOR/12/502 · A-2 .. ,.; :-: .. :<-;: __ ;~:~~-~};~;:~J/~i~.::-'· : ' • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • eo • • • • ~ • • Squadron Leader Duty Operations Officer AF-GR{R:AP)·j ''~om· • .! ..... M~~..I!STf\Y Cl" DE~=ENCE Main Building Whitehall London SW1A 2HB Teie~hane o·J-218 (O;rect Di~!lir.G) 01-21 S SOOO (Swhchbo~r..i) ------- -·---- Royal Hollow·ay College Egham :!:Li.ll Egham Surrey T\120 0"8X Dear Your reference Our reference £F/CX 80/70 Date ?,o July 1975 I apologise for the delay in ansHerinv your rr.;ouest for access tc: the Ninistry of Defence fiJ.es on Unidenti.fied }?lyin-g Objects - the rrt'J:~:e so as I must send a disappointing reply. 1•/e h<.we given a good deal of thought to t)lis proposal but I am foreed to the conclusicn that t'iiO difficulties stand jn the way, Firstly., the correspondeY.·;:)e bet>;een the Departmenf, and rr;embers of the puLlic on this subject has aJ.>;ays been treated 2.s confidential, and the reports could not be made available unless every single piece of paper •,,-ere edited to re"'ove the i.denti ty of .the observ-er, or his written permissj on were obtained to di V'J.:cge the information he had. provided. This in itself would be a fon:id.able task and, 11hile I have every confidence in your assurance i;hat the anonymity of l·li tnesses l•rould be respected, I cannot e\·ade responsibil:L ty for inad.vertent.disclosurP.. Nore ir1lportantly, the files 1-!0LJ.ld have to be expurgated of JI'Ii.nistry of Defe:..1ce cornraentaries. J?or obvious reasons, >·re have to catisfy our~3e:tves that reports of U:F'Os have ;no implications for th<S defence of'' the country and our advisers naturally draw on classili.ed j_nforruation where this r:ight be relevant to a specific report und2r discussion. Here again there is a ch<":J.ce that something might slip :!IJr~ugh ami this is a risk I cannot afford to ignore. I am very sorry I can11ot be more helpful "but I c·an. assure you we have not treated your request lightly. You.rs since:::-ely
• LCCSE NINU:CE S4(Air) (Hr Peduzie) Copy to:- DCS(RAF) UFO Rl'JCORDS Reference: AE'/CX 80/?0·da.ted 6 June 1. DCS(RAF) has asked me to reply to your minute at reference. 2. The Royal Ifolloway College •team' which comes in practice from REG, King's College, London and 1•Tational Physical Laboratory, seems to be a group of academics dravrn together by an interest in UFOs. It 1wuld be difficult to distinguish it from any other group of academics ;rhich might be dra1m together by a cor:!ll'.on interest, of 1-1hich there could be many, and therefore I do not oelieve that it can be described as 'a maier scientific organisation of high standing'. For this"reason I su:;gest that the request be turned- do·":·m. 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-lightni.'lg" ...... for u.se as material for a .scientific conference on little-understood aerial phenomena". Dr Christop.!)_er ~ans is an applied psychologist who has i·lritten books on topics such as scientolcgy, Sub bud and other fringe activities' and \•rho also appears fre1uently on TV and radio. It therefore appears that the study might range _more ;ridely~.than the brief description suggests. I.n any case you 1'i0Uld require more ii:lforr:1ation befo1·e it could be called 'strong scientific reason' for undertaking the work. , 4. H"owever, I believe that soor'.er or later somebody >-rill break II this confidentiality barrier, and the data 1Jill have to be ~ sanitised. F2ve you considered asking the Air ffistorical Branch r 'l' whether they could em:Jloy a consultant to do this'? \; r''. . 11 June 75 J :5 A HAlL'USOT ACS (G) RA.F
!.COSE MINUTE PS/CS(RAF) 1. I attach a copy or a lette~ f~om Royal Holloway College, University or London, in which they seek access to our UFO records. 2. We are not in:t':requently asked by outside bodies or indi·;iduals for permission to examine our UFO repo!'ts. Up to now these ba ve all been r,:fused on the grounds that ell correspondence between MOD and mer:~bers of the public is regarded as · contidentia:J. and. could not be made available to ?Ublic acru·r.iny unless the l'epo:M:s were edited to preserve the anonymity of the ~·eporter or th~ observer's per-wission were obtained. I~ would also be necessary to examine all tne records to ensure that no classified ir£ormation used in the course of inveatig~ting reports was inadvertently releaesd. The tim<> and et'fo.rt in this task would be formidable and up to !lOW we have taken the general line that reporta shoul<! remain closed until they became availabls uz:.der the l'uhlio Record Acts after 30 years. 3. ~:inisters have snnounced, hc<Veve;:o, that an application~- for acoells would be oonaiCI.ered on its me.rits if it cF.lme :·rom a major scientific organisation of high standing which ha<l st:r-o:ng re11sor.e f.'or e:calllining our record:~. The question is whether this concession should boa ext<>nded to the Royal HolUway College, who are r1ell awar<> of the Ministerial undal•taking. I do not think c.ur files would help them - the MOD investigations go no f'urther then the dei,ence '..mplications - but the raw material could I suppose !w.ve objectiye value. l;.. I should be gratet'..tl for your views on the standing o:f the Royal Holloway College team as a ttMajor Scientific Organisation" and whether the relevance of the UFO reports to their enquiries can be construed as a "~.£reason". 5. I am aura we ::an rely on your objective ·advice. My heE.rt quails at the thought of' the massiv<> editing that might have to be d_one and, with :"11r overtaxed resourcea, I would not wish to embark on it unless in your view it has " demonstrable scientific value. h Jun 75 · ~- f) . ,)«--~F J A Fr.DUZIE S4(Air) ··':.
• MINlSTRY OF DEfENCE Main Building WhiteiJ:ill London SW1A 2HE· Telephono 01 ~21 S 01·21.19000 (Direct Dialling) (Switchboard) r==·· ::::'=::=======;-'- Royal Hollway College j':gham Hill · £gham Your reftmmco Our refer ~nc:a AF/7461./72 1 c;< 1J,J7o Dato l .. surrey 1'1120 OEX ~ gM<Jy 1975 Deal' 1 X am writing to th<Jok yo-u t:o:t' your recent letter about unidentified. flyl.ng object reporta: this is reoel.va.ng attention and we ~<ill write to you again on thi3 subjeot :<6 ·soon en possible<·. Yours f'ai thf'ully H E MACKBY
• ' }{()y:l! lJO!IOWllY College University or'I.ondcn :please reply to . Department S4f(Air) MINIS'I'RY OF DEFENCE Whitehail, LondonSWl ·J.·" Dear Birs Egham Hill Egham Surrey TW20 or Egham 6371 l•'u.rther to rece:nt teJ.e·;:>J:lOne oonversat1on vd.th Miss Jamieson of you:!:· Depart- ment, we are writing to request that W•3 be permitted to have access to the Department's f:D.es on Unidentifi•ld Flyh1g Object reports, in the hope that data might thereby b.e obtained concel~ning rare atmospheJ:ic events, su·Jh as 11 ball-lie;htning", ~'h.e d.ata would be used as material for a. scien- tific conference on little-understood aerial phenomena. Should you require further infor- tr.ation, please let us knmv. '£his request is made ·On the understandLng that we would respect the Department's poli·~Y of witness anonymity. Youmay wish to impose fur- tli.er restrictions, although we would p:ee:fer to be unJ1arnpered by such so far as possible. 'J'hanlc you in anticipation of your consideration. of this request. ----------- -------------ROYAL HOLLOWAY COLLEGE
(University of London)
Egham Hill, Egham
Surrey TW20 0EX
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')MD/130/26/2 //. LOOSE MINUTE DI 55/4.0/9/1 Miss G J Jamieso~ 84f'(Air) Room S~35"MB 7 UFO REPORTS 1. I have ex~mined 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" f'or 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 ef'f'ect f'rom 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 f'or 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 f'act been happening. We would also welcome receipt of' your statistics at whatever period you prepare them. DR J WALTON f'or ADI/DI 55 I \·/l
• P.F/CX 80t70 DI5Sb' (Dr Walton) I sh.ciJld be gr~.tef\:..1 f'or any ccmnent3 ycu C:in :ilake concern.:: the UFO sighting reported in the attache<= folder 557/lC/2C. Enquiriea made by STCCC of Air Defence Radars have proved negative. 2. You will wish to know that US of S (RAF) haa agreed tl- ohange of procedures in dealing wi\h correspondence f~ tbe public concerrdrlg UFOsJ proposed in S4(P.ir)' .a lcose minute AF/CX 8C/7C o !' 16 DeceQber, and reports received e.fter 1 January 1972 will be ackno·oledged by S4-."(Air) L-:t tr for::; of the attached letter. Yol: m.;y wis:l to consider w'cether we should periodically fonvard any ct" the re])orts to your branch for perusal. h Jc.r:.uazy 1972. Miss G .J Jamieson S4-"(Air) ME Ext: 70.35
• Owreferena: A:F/CXS0/70 . Your ro/lll"ltlt4: · Sir UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS • MINISTRY OF DEFENCF.s:u(Air Main Building, Whitehall; LoNDON S.W.I Telephone: wmtehall7022, ext. ~ January 1972 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 yqu that approval has now been given for~change of procedure in dealing with correspondence with the public about reported UFO sightings. All reports will be examined as heretofore so tha 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-rQ, 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 atDthe }unistry of Defence Press office. 1 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 tequired. I am Sir Your obedient Servant • .. · . ./!Jf~ .MISS G J JAMIESON To:· Air Officers Commanding-in-Chief Strike Command Copies to: AFOR DPR(RAF) Air Support'command Maintenance Command Training Command · · DST1 . Ops(GE)2c(RAF) ATSA2-MrRice
• J CODE 18-78 AF/PS ~~7~· Reference ......•..•.......... --------~ ~ Mv. e~ ""'S"'-4 .>..:( A:..=i::.:::.r..~...) _(>..:.Mr=-:=.:D a:=..v:...:i;.c,j'-'- M,.._. o 'i p /VI/ .,. f"-<.-;...-...,_- DUS(Air) f- f'& D of Ops(A Def & 0) (RAF) . ~s~f Ops(S)(RAF) (j_}~/ 1 DR Met 0 (I DPR(RAF) Copy to: 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). (N.J. BEAUMONT) PS to US of S(RAF) 31st December 1971
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 examine.d in the Ministry of Defence to see if there are any defence implications. We canno~ 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 • .... ~ AA<-1J'.o.......<>k~ 0... /_Jo~ will no do¥b~ wish t.o know,. however, that the gPeat~jgrity ~-15-·~~~ ... 'f) J.. of UFO reports 1 t~ t"o have inund:ane explanatiene, 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 spac.e junk, balloons, unusual cloud formations or aircraft condensatio·n trails. Investiga- tions over a number of years have so far produced no evidence that UFOs represent an air aefence threat to·· the. 1Jni ted Kingdom • ·\ '. ., . . .- .".•. _:. ' . .. ·:· . ... , I .... ;· :·; ! -- '; , . • ~~ . ' .. _: ~ ·, .. - ~-; . . . I, ' .!·•.·. - ... (' .. .' . ' ·, '. -- -~ ' ~·:' ',- .. · ~'::': . .- . ·.· ' ·~-; '· --~ . ·;-, .. · ., , ___ .;_ '' . ... ,._ .-,- ' ..• LOO. 1-D:NUTE AF/CX 00/70 PS/US of S(.RAF) £through DUS(Airl7 Copies to: AUS(O)(Air) D of Qps(A Def & O)(P~) D of Ops(S)(RAF) DST1 DR Met 0 DPR(RAF) • UlllDBIJT!FIED FLYING OBJECTS - SUGGESTED ~T~d PROC'SDURES 1. ¥/hen 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 fJfOD position concerning UFO investigations was reviewed. It was decided early in 1970 that our policies and procedures for dealing with these reports should continue uncbane;ed. · (Flag C on AF/PS 26/70 attached), · . 2. In accordance wi tb. this procedure ]JF'O reports are currently circu.- lated, either by S4(Air) or AFOR, to STCOC • 0ps(GE)2(RAF) • STOIC and Dl55. When it is concluded that there is no defence implication it is our current practice to make an assessment of the identity of the ob~ct from available information; where the report is not likely to have ·,- originated from an aircraft movement advice may be sought from Met 09 if a meteorological balloon might have been involved, or :trom the Roya.l 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 ~e our concl.usions i:f' the obsel"'7EEr disa- grees With ~hem. We do not investigate anonymous reports. nor, normally, reports forwarded by UFO associations on beha.l.i' of third parties. 3. one of the factors leading to the decision in 1970 to continue to dea.l With UFO reports in this way was the need to answer questions from the public which might arise :from a real anxiety about nationaJ. eecuri ty. However, recent publicity given to the subject of UFOe by the press and tel.ev:i.sion has resul.ted in an increased vol.ume of reports :from the public. During the three months August to October this year, 118 reports were received- oompanxl ·nth 56 1n the same period of 1970. 23 were received within three deys of the showing on tel.evision on :26th October .of an alleged UFO :filmed at Enstone in Oxfordshire, whiQh has since been the subject of a Parliamentary Ellquiry. Since the end of October a singl..e :Banbury resident has sent to the Department 84 separate reports of UFO "sighting$" in the :Banbury area. There is now pressure for a respon- sible MOD official to appear on a BEC TV programme to discuss UFO reports and l\!Oll procedures :for handling them. 4. All. letters and tel.epbone calls during working hol:n's 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 cs.J.ls are dealt With by AFOR and actioned by S4(.~r) the next day, With the limited
• I res, ~ces available in this Division, especially since the recent establishment cuts, it is recomr.1ended 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 exa.m:ined. 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 ( RA.F) approves this proposed change in procedure S4 ( A1x) will notify RAF Commands that individuals who report UFO sightings · shou.ld no longer be asked whether they Wish to be advised of our find- in,;-s. We would continue to categorize reports where possible for our records and to retain the records of reports in the manner agreed in F..a.rch 1970. - 2-
• DRAFT PRG-FORH.I\ LETTER I am writing to thank you for your report of an unidentified flying object seen on ....•••••.••.•••••••••••••••••••••••..•.••••.••••• \1e are gr.a.teful to you for advising the Department of this incident and your report will be examined in the Hinistry o:f 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 dcru.bt 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 coomon sources have proved to be astronomical sightings, space satellites or space junk, balloons, unusual cloud formations crr 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.
• Head of S.4 (.a..ir) / Copies to: Reference ....... .D./P.r?.~Y.\?.9/§ ............................ AUS(O) (Air) D of Ops(A Def & O)RAF D of Ops(S)(RAF) . DR Met 0 DPR (RAF) ADI DI 55 UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS - SUGGESTED NEW PROCEDURES Reference liF/CX 80/70 dated 9th December 1971. I have no collllllents. J~ December 1971 DSTI
• Reference .... ····················· . ············ rt..,-a , -o. y. of~ ([(. J c !-tOY-) tL ' i, · ~ ~r"~ & H-ofC ~ ~ 1"5'/t .. /71 ~. ~l- ~, 1 (}1/?". _ 4 . ef ~ ...._ ~-- ·~· ~ t, fsjUSvJS(/-rJY-) ~ ~.J.y (A ~~ ~~ t~r ~- ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ CJ;ft d4f I!Co/.. o--) 0-~ 4 S"''? F-( a~) ~ MJ-- ~, )~ ~IJ, vtt;:, ~~ ~~ avJ ~. ll, t-ytJv-J., lJ.i ~-- ~n-(~ ~ 1'-R ~f:v{ ~ A w~ (,o:t- '· ~ Jz_ ~ ~ ~ ;s f 1 ~ a -kl~ ~~ ~ ... £ ~ r1 f?«-A :;_ I.~- 1.;.< du» ~- oft" ,~·· ~dtu ~ '(--v ~C-€ ~ <," ~ aL<-ti:.-U2 - j "1;-J- ~- ~ ak ~~ 4: ~ti..J tJW ~Ci~ ~~cl cA-1)• LOOSE MNUD AF/CX 00/70 AUS(O)(Air) D of Ops(A Def & O)(RAF) D o:f Ops(S}{P..Al') DST1 . DR Met 0 DPR(M:F) E./.;. I attaeh a seU-e:xpJ.anator,y draft m.inut.e which, subject tc you:r comments., I propose t-o send to PS/US o1' S("RAF}. In the absence of any ecmnent :from your Directorate by 1700 hrs on 15 ~ember I shall assume your concurrence. 9 December 1971 AN DAVIS S4(llr)• i LOOSE NINUTE AF/CX 80/70 PS/US of S(RAF) ~rough DUS(Airl7 Copies to: AUS(O)(Air) D of··ppa(A Def 8: O)(RAF) D of Ops(S)(RAF) DST1 DR Met 0 DPR(R..\F) UNI DElTTIFI ED FlYING OBJECTS - SUGGESTED NEW PROCEDURES 1. \fuen the USAF announced in December 1969 the termination of project Blue Book (which was a special us unit set up to investigate reports of UFOe) the ?-iOD postion concerning UFO investigations was reviewed. It vas decided early in 1970 that our policies and procedures for deaJ1ng with these reports should continue unchanged. The authority of the then US of S(RAF) was recorded in the papers associated With Parlia- mentary Enquiry AF/PS 26/70, which were cirouiated to copy addressees under l.oQse minute AF/X58/64 dated 24th March 1970 (not to AUS(O)(Air). 2. In accordance W1 th this procedure UFO reports are currentl.y circu- lated, either by S4(A1r) or AFOR, to STCOC, Ops(GE)2(RAF), STCIC and D155. When it is concluded that there is no defence implication it is our current practice .to mekJ an assessment o:t the identity of the object from available in:tormation; if the report is not llkeJ..y to have originated :trom an aircraft movement advice may be sought :from Met 09 if a meteorological .balloon might have been involved, or from the RoyaJ. - - . Observatory i:t a star or planet might have been the source. 'de 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 w1 th them. \ie do not investigate anonymous reports, nor, normally, reports forwarded by UFO associations on behalf of third parties.
• 3. One of the factors ~eading to the decision in 1970 to continue to dea~ with UFO reports in this way was the need to answer questions :t:rom the public which cl.ght arise from a real anxiety about national. secUrity. However, recent publicity given to tho subject of tJ:FOa by the press and te~evision has res~ted in an increased volume of reports from the public. During the three months Au.._,"Ust 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 fillned at Enstone in O:l:fordshire, 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. .;.;' 4. All letters and telephone calls during working hours concerning UFOe are at present dealt With by a single HEO in S4(Air) whose primary responsibilities are as followa:- Co-ordination of RAF aspects of MOD war Book, Co-ordination of NATO A~ert measures with Government War Book, Supervision of clerical work of Air Force Board and Standing Com- mittee, At present the MOD v/ar :Book is being entirely rewritten .;En .line with the .NAfQ Al.ert system and. t)?.e _HEC' is concerned almost whole time with this work. 5. With the limited resources available in this Division, especially - since the recent establishment cuts. it is reco~"ended 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 implication if any, may be examined. ;:"\ :t<~mbers of the public would be advised that their report will be examined for this purpose but that we cannot under- take to identify the object·aeen. A pro-forma letter would normally be used on the lines of the draft attached to this minute. - 2 -
• 6. If_ US of S(RAF) approves this proposed oha.nge in procedure S4(Air) will notify RAF CO!ll!:!2nds that in future individuaJ.s who re:;>ort UFO sightings should no longer be asked whether they wish1 to be advised of our findings. We would continue to categorize reports where possible for our records and to retain the records of reports in the manner agreE in :li!Ai'ch 1970. ...,_
• DRAFT PE0-FORI'.A I am writing to thank your for your re'-;ort of an unidentified tlying object seen on •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• We are grateful to you for advisine the Department of this incident and your report will be examined in the ~~nistry of Defence to see if there are any air defence implications. I recret that we are unable to extend our investigations beyond our defence interest. We can..."lo·t therefore undertake to pursue our research to a point where posi- tive correlation with a known object is established, no~ to adVise you of the )robable identi-ty of the object seen. '~( You will no doubt wish to know, however, that thegr-eat 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. Investigations over a number of yea:. so far havejproduced no evidence that UFOs represent an air defence threat to the united Kingdom.
('f.r.' · ·-. t 4' I' .. ' r~(O.,~./ CODE l~ UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS - PARLIAMENTARY ENQUIRY FROM SIR JOHN LANGFORD-HOLT MP You may wish to have the enclosed copy of a reply which the Minister for Trade has· sent to an enQuiry from Sir John Langford- Holt MP about UFOs. 2. US of S(RAF)'s own letter of 14th May to Sir John, under the above reference, refers. 25th May 1971. ·~~:>----- (I. H. MORGAN) .APS/US of S(RAF), ' ' ... , I"'". " . -~: ·.' '.:(6.£· • • . •. . : · . .... DEPARTMENT OF TRADE A;'m INDUST~Y ·~ I VICTORIA STREET · · • ••• . .. . . LONDON S W 1 .. · . ·: . . -.-. . . . ' .. . ··-· .··• . ·.- ., ; ,· .. - ..... __ ··-·· .. .. ·.·:; ..... . '· - /·~<; Oi .. 2i~ n1_7 ... · . . .- .. ,;;·_ ·. \ ' ......... ·.- ·_;:.; ·. . · .. ! . : ., ....... -:"·: .. ·_ .. ·- ',·. ·: ... '. ···:;· Tlr.~ Mini.star /()r Tf'rld6 . ... . .. · . . ' .. ··- .. ..... · .. . ' ::.Sir. John LangJ:ord-,Ho·lt MP . · . House of Commons · ,. ' ·: ... . SW1. .... ...,,_. . :, : . ,· .... ' •• . '· ' .... . . . •. ... _ ;, :: ·;.. ;· .. •' .. . . . .. ··. ·, · .. :_ ·_,_,; _,· .· -· ·:··:--. ·.. :• _; :. .,: . "':>_·_--._: _·;-. -,,'•· .. ·i 'i ., . . _ ... .· .. ' . : .' :; ........ .. '• ·, .'·. · ... _·· . ; . ' .. .. ·._··:·_.· ... 2'1 .· -··: .. . . .'. •.. • • I ~ ' .> -. :.. : _:_ ~ ': ·.: i •:· •' .:' .. : ;,,, ·. -::; . ' , . . ·. . " .·-. .. · :' · .. .... - . _.,,· _: May .. 1971 / ·. ' ' ·: . . .·· '/:-~ :. ,· ... 1 . .. . ~- .. , .. ··-· . ~- . ' ; -.- .•. ·'; ·. -·' .. . ·-;_·. ... , ... ' ! • __ -.- t -.:. ' •' Thank you J:or your letter oJ: National Air TrafJ:ic Control unidentified flying objects. '·-·· ·, 6 May about instructions, within the Services, for dealing with reports of ·-----~ NATCS units have instructions that,· in the event of a report concerning an unidentified flyirig object, they should- obtain as much as possible of the information required to complete. a prescribed . ·. report form. The details are to be· passed by telephone to the parent : Air TrafJ:ic Control Centre(ATCC); .whi,le the completed report form · .. ·· is forwarded to the Ministry oJ: .Defence. The ATCC is required to.. · give the details without delay to the Military Aero-nautical .. In.formation Service. . ' · •. · ·· · · , · . • These instructions >vere first issued in January '1968, and published the Manual of Air Traffic Control. I enclose copies of the relevant pages from that Manual, which include· the report form. The NATCS does· not keep statistics oJ: these reports once they have· in ! l I ' ; . i • f ,_; ' ... . ·l· --b - -·.;·. , . . ' j._ .. ;_ \:. be <en passed on in this way; but I understand that Antony Lambton . . has recently written to you. about reports received by his Department'· . during 1970. I would suggest that he may be able to supply similar · .··. · . . in.formation J:or earlier· years should you so ·wish, . and am copying . · · · · :. this lett~r t~him.,,. . . . . . . ·· , : ··· :' . . .. ' ' ·.' . ' • ··. f· ..•. ' ~ ' . .... . ·.:·:. · .. _ .. .-,_. ! '. . . . :. ·:. . . . ... · .. · ~.r.:w.~... esc£• ·., ..... · · .. · . .~··· ~' ' · ·· ' · ' . ' \\\...& o.Q...Q ~ , . :::: :~- : . ,_.J_, ...... ·'.: ~ ·. . ... : -~--- . ;' .. ' ' -. .. . •. _.. ; :.>'.::-·:. : ,·_1 ;' _·_ ·. .. · .. ··:· .-.- ... :·· .. ;-' ·,:-·-· .. · '·:-·. , .. .. -·. :·:·. :·->. :· :··:-~·---~-:> -_. . . . i . . ·'•>"':' . . ' . . _ _.. :-:·.: ,. •. ·_,_ ·. /. . . ' ·:' ·. · . . ....... - '. : -·;: . :. .. •' ';. -1 .• :. : ·_.·, · . ......: .· .- .. · .. ., . -·-., '. ·. ~ : ·: ~ ,· . .. ' ' : ~-- •-: , ..
i.- ! J•· 1 ! i l 1. l • . . 1 ! ;. ' i' '. ' ' • '.···. '. .· ~· .. \.T.C. A.T.C.I. No.2 Part 1-19. ; :· ,---- _l:ilapterS:- . , ,. · 5.5. Reporting of Un~<lcntificd Flying Objects 5.5.1. ll< the event of a report concerning an unidentified flying object being received by an ATS unit _ the following action shall be taken. _ _.- 5.5.2. The ATSU receiving the report shall obtain as much as possible of the information required-to · complete .the report fonn shown at Appendix" F" and pass all details by telephone to the watch supervisor at the parent A TCC (Scoltisl< A TCC, Preston ATCC or London ATCC). The.' completed form shall be sent by the originating A TSU to The Ministry of Defence (AFOR), Royal Air Force, Mai11 Building, Whitehall, Lonclon SWI. · · _ 5.5.3: The Watch Supervisor at the ATCC' concerned. shall pass all details without delay via (he _-, · operational telephone network to -the Military Aeronautical Information Service section at \-.Je.~'r 1c-...J;:1-l.~bridi)C;'cxt~i~lF8'. _If it is ~eccssary to usc the GPO network the information ~hould be passed to ·1ft!J.td ~o:n:J;q4 4 extenS!Oll '31i?'. -:;. · · · ·· 5.5.4. Such repo~'G 4 ihatl"bet~~rteria1J the A tC log. · 5.6. Reporting of Aircraft Incidents and Breacl!cs of Regulations .. ·.', 5.6.1. -Aircraft Incidents ·. _ .. . -.:,. ·, ·.:· · Au incident is an occurrence which, but for fortuitous circumstances, might have resulted in an:· accident, and may be caused by: · (a) Ground Organisation: - (i) equipment defects, faulty organisation and procedure, etc.; (ii) personnel error, incompetence, negligence, failure to comply with instructions etc. Jfit is thought that the cause of the incident may be attributed to ATC error, the ATCO ifc, · or'in his absence the watch supervisor or senior co11troller on duty, will ensure that written.·. · reports are made_ iri1mediately by all ATC staff concerned and that a preliminary report is ·- telephoned to the Divisional ATCO. Reports should comply with ATCI No. 8, para. 6.3.3. (b) Aircraft-defects in .the aircraft or its equipment, loss of control due to meteorological . conditions, etc. · ' . . ' . · (c) Aircrew-negligcncc, incompetence, failure to comply with procedures and instructions, i~correct practices and errors of judgment, etc. · . 5.6.1.1. Minor Incidents (Form CA 163) .-.-. --: . ; ,' ';. 5.6.1.1.1. Minor incidents, such as errors in navigation, usc of incorrect procedures, faulty radio operation etc., in which the safety of the aircraft or its occupants - · is not involved; shall be recorded on Form CA !63 Aircraft/Aircraft Radio Operation Fault Report. The completed form will be passed to tl<e Air Traffic Controller ifc, the Centre Superintendent or the STO, as appropriate, who will review the circumstances and decide whether or not reference to the operating company is justified. , A register of such incidents will be maintained showin~ the fo.Jlowing inforn1ation:.- ·.:- :··_: · ·. :~: :::- :~ . _ ~-----· :- · ~:. '·· .. ·_, ._ ·, ·_ (a) Statton senal No. · (b) Operating agency .(c) Date of incident (d) Aircraft registration (e) Date referred to operator (f) Brief details of incident (g) Dale reply received. (II) Summary of exphination. . : ~ S.6.!.L2; A copy of any Aircraft Operati11g Fault Report submitted .to an operator·.:,.·-_- ' . will be forwarded .to the DATCO for information. 5.6.1.2. incidents Involving Safety (Form CA 1260) i .- 5.6.1.2.1. Incidents in which the safety of an aircraft or of any person is threatened other . - • _I- • -than no!fr;.,)-_.:•-' <~ccidents and airmisses shaH be recorded on Form CA 1260. : · · · -. · ·Incidents oi' t>-.:s il«ture which may in addition involve a breach of regulations · ..··-. · · · . . . . will be recorded 011 this form and on Form CA 939. The completed form . ·> .will be passed to the Aerodrome Commandant, the Centre Superintendent, ' , _. ._ ., · the Chief Officer or the Aerodrome Licensee as appropriate, who will decide_· · Board of Trade _, . ' ,, ! ' . r. )•: ~- .. ·..... . ' .... .': 10.11.69 ·. "- · ... ·., .: .... -··· :.- · .... . -·~-
'p;e-o --~----------------~------------------------~ A.T.C.I. No. 2 M.A.T.C. (Clw; )S:~contd.) .: . ) . .... . . ·,. . . _·, .. . -:. . whether the matter can be dealt with locally or whether it should be submitted to higher authority for attention. His decision will depend on the degree of· risk .involved to other opemtions and to persons and property 011 the ground. Incidc11ts recorded at ATCCs wilt normally be submitted by the Centre · Superintendent to the Divisional Onlcc for attention unless they can be dealt with locally without difficulty. Reports on all incidents on which local action ·. · has bce11 taken will be forwarded to the Divisional Office for information . 5.6.1.2.2 .. A transcript of the R/T recording relating to the incident need not be made initially but one may be r~quircd later. Such R/T records will therefore be retained until the case is .finally disposed of. · ' . 5.6.1.2.3. Incidents caused by tmexpected weather and incidents calling for a statement · .· ofwcather conditions will be referred without delay to the local meteorological · . office, or, where this office has only limited facilities, to the appropriate main or parent office. 5.6.1.2.4. Any incident which it is considered might give rise to public interest shalt be ·., · reported witl10ut delay to the Board of Trade Press Office, 01-222 7877 Ext. 2231, or 2684 (or Night Duty Officer 01-222 7877). · .~·' . :; . ·.()' .. .·:. . .. , . .. ~; ' .. ''.'I .. · .. .. ·. . 5.6.1.2.5. Where an arrangement exists for form CA 1260 to be prepared in respect of. / ··. · ' · . '· : ... "off paved area" incidents, the information to be provided by the ATSU ..; ·- , ... •.-·· ..... · ' .' .- .. ·.· ·- - ... ,. -;.: , ·.. · · will normally be:- ·_: ::· ·:.-.-· > (a) aerodrome, time and date; . .. . , . (b) aircraft iype and registration ; •.··. ·.·{c) direction and length of runway on which the incident occurred and, if this. . was not the runway in use, the fact should be noted. In the case of over- . runs the state of the runway surface should be described, i.e. Wet, dry, icy, etc.; '.' . .... . ~-- ... ·: ·:_: ". ': (d) particulars of the aircraft movement in_ question with a sketch plan to · .. ' ··.::-.. show its ground track, includi11g the· distances run off the paved surface · · and lateral displacement from the centre line of the runway or taxiway; .. ·, .. . (e) wind velocity, temperature and barometric pressure. · Visibility or runway · visual range; weather conditions at the time, visual or radio approach procedure in·use and details of obstruction lighting; . , . (/)State of unpaved surface at the time, including remarks as to the effect ;·, .. : ;_ thereon of the season or recent weather. · ·. '· · .. ·. : .. 5.6.1.3; GrowtdRadio Fault Report (Form CA 647) ', .· 5.6.1.3.1. When any telecommunications facility is alleged to be faulty by an aircrew . . · member, details will be entered on Form CA 647 where held and forwarded · to the STO for attention . .5.6.1.3.2. Notwithstanding satisfactory ground reports if a crew member of a subsequent · • .. ·: .. ···. aircraft confirms the reported fault, the procedure shall be as follows:- · . ,.- __ (a) At ATCC's the STO after consultation with the Centre Superintendent will decide on one of the courses of action in para. 5.6.1.3.3. (b) At aerodromes, the STO after consultation with the Air Traffic Controller · · i/c will decide on one of the courses of action below. The STO will advise the aerodrome authority of the action taken. · ·(c) At non-state aerodromes the report should be given to the .aerodrome . · licensee. ' • ·, 5.6.1.3.3. The courses of action are:- (a) To retain the facility in operation as fully serviceable •. · ' · (b) To retain the facility with specified limitations: (c) To withdraw the facility from service. . · ..... . _; .. '._·· . ' . ' ) ·-._·_,., ,;' :-:-)· . ·_\_ .. . ':-:'· ·_ . .. ·---~ . ~ . - ... · 10.11.69 ' . Board of Trade . ! . .,.• . . ' .; ..' , .. ! ·: . f. •.; -~ ... . .. ---·-~~ ... ,..,.....,.-~-- .. -~··M-.---.;.;...~------·...------;..., . .: . (;;{;.:i~{i - . - ·:-,~·_,,",._:_'.·.·.::_:_:j:_::_'.:.':i., . •. ' __ ;_. .:-~- • . · .. ·.·,_',,' .. :.·,[·.·.·~.,·:·_,_:_.·.·.· ..• ' .. ·,'_: .• · . . .,· ... -:.-:.(,./j ! l!L-· 1 -•, · -;- ... -. . . '· ··. ·. vCrN:: · •· · ·· . . ~ --~-·: ___ .. :~,,:.· .. , ... ··_._·.··_ .. ·._- .. · •.. ·:·r_:_- .. :_:_.,·;:_:_ .. •_.:_._._:-.~._, ___ :,~,j_·_ •. _· .. _ .. '_·,i .• ,:~: .. · •. · .. · .. _·_:·.- __ ·._:~.-.•.··. ·.:. : · .• ·_.· ._- ~-···· .. ;o . ,· . ·;· .'. /.·.' _,_:_·:,i:_~,: • .-:··.·_J,:.'_\,.:.-~ .. :,·:il/1: ·. ''' .,· 1 . . ' - - : }_·_.·.'-··· .• ··. . \ ,! "' 1. '- :' ...r' :'l\I.A.T.C. _ J '·-· A.T.C.I. No.2· . • APPENDiX ''F" REPORT OF Ai''l U!'.'IDEN"lll<I.ED l1LYING OBJECT.· A. Date, Time and Duration of Sigltling ~: . Local times to be quoted. ., ·.I' . ''. n. Description of Ol>ject . :···· l'art 1-45 ,;: . ··-.:' . /j .,_ .. · . ,_ .. ·.·· -Number of objects, size, shape, colours, brightness, sound, smell, etc. . :·.·. -r .- .. c. Exact Position of Observer · -. I" ~ ·• :, , .D. -E.-; F. G. . Geographical location, indoors or outdoors, stationary or moving.-.-. ' • , , I •' ' ' • How Observed Naked eye, binoculars, other. optical device, still or movie. camera. · Direction in which Object was FirstSeeri A landmark may be mote useful than a badly estimated bearing. Angular ElcYation of Object - Estimated heights are unreliable. Distance of Object from Observer By reference to a known landmark wherever possible. ·<'. .. -•. ., ,: _,., \. . ' Mm·ements 'or Object Changes in E, F and G may be of more use than estim~tes of cOurse and speed. . ' .. · _. '. ,_ ' . . H .. · J .. Meteorological Conditions During Observations Moving clouds, haze, mist, etc. ··.• ,. ·; .' .. -·:· ·· .. ,·;. '··,:, .. ,_; . ,_. .,. • . . ... Nearby Objects Telephone or higl1-voltage lines; reservoir, lake or dam; swamp or marsh; river; high buildings, ·tau· ·chimneys, steeples, spires, TV or radio masts; airfields;_generating plant; factories, pits or other sites· with floodlights or other lighting. . - · · · · ' · · , .· · · •' · L. · To Whom Reported . Police, military organisations; the press etc. : - ':i M. 1'\amc and Address of Informant '· ... .- .. :I N. Any J3ackground Information on tbe Informanftbat may be ,Volunteered ,:,,·-. ,·.• I .' . . ~·· ·: .. ,•. .... '· ··' ,. ·- ... ... · .. • ..... ·· ··· .... 0. Otber Witnesses. : -. P, Date and Time of Receipt of Report ., · '.' '•>, .. ·, . . . . ' . · .. ·, _:_:.' '.i'··· . --.·-_. Q. Is n Reply Requested? Board of Trade . (118S7S)-9710 '· '·' . ".•. ,. ,. ..: ;,. ·.:-. ;··· .I:'·. -· .... .'· ·- .·. .. :-·· .. \;. .· .. :· ··' : ,:_ ~' ,_·:; .... ; .· . -~--·· .. ' ··; ., . :" .i . ,' ... . ''. --~ . .- · .... ·. ·. •' \ ' ',"• ...... "!,,,- . '. : . ~ -'_.. : ·. ~ ·. .; I·-·:.'· ·• . ... ·.·:-• : .. ; ···-:;;-:; ;:· :' . ·• ,.,. 7.3.~9 - ·. A••l . ... _. ',. .- ..... ·. ..•. . ·- -~ -' · .. : 1 • .-.; ·: '- .' ., . .; . '·: ·j ' ·:·,j. . '~-; : ,j: '. ·• . i' '- i: ··~~· . ---.--r:: --:--- ...... ' . !,: . ··, .. ; ,.·,· .··· .. \ , .. '· '· -;. ,·. ; · ... : ~ j : ,jj l ·, :• .·.·~ ··_,·· .... .;· . ··-· . •t .J .... :_:;.:_ .... :-··:· t' ';.·": li ... ;.;J .n.{·:· -- ... -.i ·: _ _;·. ··.j : .. ·I" . ! . ... ·~·-::• U-1397-70/AIRA J Mr. L. W. Akh ~t (S4f (Air)} vs MOD, Main Building Whitehall, SW.l Dear Mr. Akhurst: EMBASSY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA OFFICE OF THE AIR ATTACHE LONDON 23 June 1970 \ _,. £bO Reference is made to your letter of 25 February 1970 requesting information on how the United States is handling Unidentified Flying Objects now that Project Blue Book is closed. We have just had a reply from the Department of the Air Force and are enclosing the information which they provided. I hope this informa- tion will be of some assistance to you. 1 Encl r;;; WARD W. HEMENWAY Colonel, USAF Assistant Air Attache
• DEPARTMENT OF TH!;: AIR FORCE WASHINGTON ZOJJQ OFFJC£ OF THE: SEC::RETARY We wish to acknowledge receipt of your recent inquiry. Please accept this form or response so that we may give you a reply w.ithout undue delay.· On December 17, 1969 the Secreta~y of the Air Force anneunced the termi- nation of Project Blue Book, the Air.Force Program for the investigation of unidentified flying objects (UFOs). ' The decision to discontinue UFO investigations was based on an evalua- tion of a report prepared by the University of Colorado entitled, "Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects;" a review of the University of Colorado's report by the National Academy of Sciences; past UFO studies; and j\.ir Force experience investigating UFO reports dm·ing the past two decades •. · As a result of these investigations and studies, and experience gained from investi~ating UFO reports since 1948, the conclusions of Project Blue Book are: (1) no UFO reported, investigated, ~~d evaluated by the Air Force has ever given any indication of· threat to our national security; (2) there has been no evidence submitted to or discovered by the Air Force that sightings categorized as "'midentified" represent technological developments or princi- ples beyond the range of presentday scientific knowledge; and (3) there has been no evidence indicating that sightings categorized as "unidentified" are extraterrestrial vehicles. With the termination of Project Blue Book, the Air Force regulation establishing and controlling the program for investigating and analyzing UFOs has be.en rescinded, and Project Blue Book records have been ·transfer- red to the Air Force Archives. Attached for your information is the Project Blue Book sighting summary for the period 1947-1969. Also included is a listing of UFO-related materials currently available through publication outlets of the federal government. Atchs Your interest in the United States Air Force is appreciated. · SincePely, JANES H. AIKK~N, Lt Colonel, USAF Chief, Civil Branc~ Cornmunity Relations Division Office of Inforll!ation
. TOTAL UFO SIGBTIIlGS, 1947-1969 .. YEAR TOTAL SIGBTINGS UNIDEJl.fiFIED 1947 122 12 1948 156 7 1949 186 22 1950 210 27 1951 169 22 1952 1,501 303 1953 509 42 1954 487 46 1955 545 24 1956 670 14 1957 1,oo6 14 1958 627 10 1959 390 12 .1960 557 14 1961 591 13 1sb2 474 . 15 1963 399 14 1$64 562 19 1965 887 16 1966 1,112 32 1967 937 19 1968 375 3 1969 146 1. TO'.CAL 12,618 701 ' '
I UFO V.ATERIAL:; UFOs ar.cl Re.laced Subjects: An Annotated Bibliog:-aphy, Lyr.n E. Catoe. Prepared by the Libra!7 of Con~ress Science and Technoiogy Division. Library of Congress Card Catalog No. 68-62196. Fo1· sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. s. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C. 20402, $3.50. GPOrf 0301.45-19-2:68-16)6. Aids to Identification of Flying Obj~. For sale by the Superintendent of D:>cuments, U. s. Government Printing Office, Washington, 'D. c. 20402, 36 p., 20¢ per pamphlet. GPO# D)Ol.2:F'67. Scientific Study of Unidentified r'lying Objects, Sludy conducted by the University of Colorado under contract F44620-67-C-OO:l5· Three volumes, 1,465 p. 68 plates. Photoduplicated hard copieR of tile official report may be. ordered for $3.00 per volume, $9.00 the set of three, as AD 68o 975, AD 680 976, and AD 680 977, from the Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information, u. S. Department of Commerce, Springfield, VA 22151 Revie·.: of Uni varsity of Color·d.dO Report on Unidentified Flying Objects. Review of ;·eport .by a panel o·f the National Academy of Sciences. National Academy of Sciences, 1969. 6 p. Photoduplicated hard copies may be ordered· for $j.OO as AD 688 541 from the Clearinghouse of Federal Scientific and Technical Information, 1.J, S. Department of Commerce, Springfield, VA 22151.
Extract from Wernher von Braun's book First Men_, .. to the -Moon, Copyright 1958, 1959, 1960 by Dr. Wernher yon Braun,. publishe.d by Holt, Rinehart and Winston of Canada,. Ltd. , . ....,, ' ·' ' .. "Question: What is your opinion on '.U.F .• O. 's'? ... ! :. ':< ; .:·.:.· ! :. "Answer:. There is a rational and r';'-t!l~r straight~focyard.. . explanation '•for the great majority of '!!ightings, oLuniden- tified flying objects, ' or 'flying saucers ' / as :they are ·• 0. · more familiarly. called. During the last ten ·years, o:f,'ficial· U.S. investigators have tabulated.about six thousand sightings.' They could account for.all •but .two,per ·r.ent·as .... belonging to any of the following categories: '" High-flying balloons of various kinds .. High-flying aircraft illuminated by the sun af-ter the sun ... had s.et 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 mis- siles 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 ab- ruptly 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 bei~g mentally prepared for the imminent test.
• ARRIVING FROM MARS BY UFO? In r~cent years there have. been many reports _of unidentified ., _ flying objects __ ( UF,<l.' s), especially since the first. Soviet .Bputnik l(ent up on October 4, 1957. From time _,to time the _question has .been a"llised · as to whether the UFO; s might have come from Ma.rs or Venus, perhaps bearing -intelli~nt_,beinga;. -_ Usually the answer to ;this ,_·que"StiOlY has been siqlly a guess which-ciepended to a _considerable extent .on .what->the individual _wanted to believe • ,_. Most sc~entista--ha1le:been inclined, to ;,.e? doul)_t_ ti:lat _t:t;e,UFO' .. s came from Ma.rs or Venus; ;pret'erring.to.credit -:tllec• sigbtings to ,n&tura1 phenomena wllicll ·are not- as well kno'IIIl·as they•should be. _., "· -·- ---- ·..... ,-,.,. '·"'·" •'··· . i -~---- There is a logical ·approach to .this- questi-on as .to.: whether :or not•: UFO• s have come from Ma.rs or Venus. It is well _known that if souuLone 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· orl:i:it, arriving at the path of Mars (or Venus) ju11t ~s ,that Plllnetccomes to the same point. For eXSJ11.ple, favorable times' I'or launching a rocket to travel to Venus have ·been listed as Oct 27, 1965, June _5, 1967 and January ll, 1969, _and,for ~r_s, December 23, 1964, January 26, 1967 and February 28, 1969: (SPACE HAND- BOOK, Gov' t Printing Office 19?9) , , .• _, Of course, there are simi_lar favorable times for launching a ,spac:.~ vehicle from Mars (or Venus) tci the earth, and for each of these launch- ing times, the_re would be a cprrea;ponding arrival time. at :the earth., These favorable arrival time's ccime at intervals of about 584- d&is for Venus and about 780 days for _Mars. Actually, in each case, ·the inte_r.val 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 teii' days' ~ either side of a favorable arrival_date, and look to see how many UF'O's wer;e,,- sighted in each such "favorable arrival interval", here named- fai~c -~- (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 t:IFo•'s'- - had been arriving from Mars or Venus. · ' Same 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- intelli~nt beings hOIII any part of the ,universe will choose to travel by means and paths that will minimize, the eX.Pendf~ ture 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.
•• AVIONICS Spectacular corona display along General Electric's experimental 500,000-v. transmission line near Pittsfield was produced by applicat=on of more than 120% of r~ted voltage. Corona also is induced by dirt, salt crystals or ather 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 ob· jects.~· It is n~lated tO St. Elmo's fire, sometimes seen on or near aircraft iri flight. If this theory is correct, it would explain the increasing frequency of UFO sight- ings in recent years when there have been growing numbers of very high-voltage · power lines. Also there has been increasing atmospheric pollution whose contami- nants 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., approxi- mately 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 sigh.tings are analyzed. Most of the UFO sightings in the Exeter area occurred along or very near to high-tensiori power lines, according to the author. The same is true of two other ·sightings he investigated in west- ern Pennsylvania and others reriorted at the time of the No.rtheast power black-· out last November. Fuller speculates that the extra-terrestrial spacecraft may be attracted to the power lin~s as a source of energy for refueling ..their pro- . pulsion systerf!s. · · Electric corona, which this writer be· · lieves is the mechanism that triggers one . · form of "ball lightning"· under suitable conditions, is a moderately well urider- stood phenomenon. But mOst scientific investigations of corona have been aimed at devis-ing means of suppressing it, rather than gainjng f1.,lndamental theo- retical understanding. Ball lightning, most frequently re- ported during or immediately following a thunderstorm, is poorly understood. Until recent years it attracted little scien- tific attention, having been treated by many as an "old wives tale." But in the late forties and early. fifties, ·ball light· ning attracted the attention of several top Soviet scientists, including Academi- cian Peter Kapitsa. Five years ago, several U. S. labora- tories began to invest!gate the phenome- non, motivated in part by its possible application to anti-ICBM defenses (AW&ST Dec. 4, 1961, p. 52). These in- cluded the Bendix Research Labora- tories, the Illinois Institute of Technol- ogy's Research Institute and Raytheon's advanced development group. There is a striking similarity between the reported characteristics of ball light- ning and the UFOs sighted by dozens of persons in the Exeter area, as re- ported by Fuller, who used a tape re- corder to insure accurate observation details. For example: • Color: Ball lightning is multi-col- ored. but red is the most predominant color reported, followed by intense blu- ish-white and green. A vast majorHy of the sightings reported from Exeter said the object was red, whil~ the remainder were. either. bluish-white. green. or a combination of all of these. • Shape: Ball lightning normally is either spherical or ellipso'dal with many reports of a doughnut-shaped or ring configuration. The Exeter sightings were mostly round, ova1-shaped or dome- shaped. . • Sound: Ball lightning is often ac- 48 Aviation Week & Space Technology, August 22, 1966
• -.,,_., .... _ -~---"'· .. , :. , .. _~ .. ' ' .. 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 micrasec .• far briefer than the Lucci photo (below). companied by a sizzling or hissing sound. Exeter sightings reported that the UFO sometimes made a soft hum·· ming or hissing sound. · • Dynamics: Ball lightning has been reported as hanging motionless at times, yet able to move up, down and horizon· tally at extremely high speeds. It ap- pears to move by rolling and gliding, often along electrical conductors or structures and frequently exhibits a spin- ning motion. The Exeter sighting re· ports said ~he objects often hovered over a fixed location, frequently power lines, often rolled or bounced along, some· times exhibiting a spinning motion and would then appear to zoom off at great speed and disappear from sight. • Lifetime: Ball lightning reports in- dicate that they can have a lifetime rang. ing from several seconds to many min- utes. Observers at Exeter reported that . objects remained in view for a few sec· onds or as long as 15 min. • Size: Ball lightning has been re- ported 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 ex.· plainable 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 light- ning triggered by electric corona may be a Jower·energy plasma of larger size than that usually induced by lightning discharges. Electric corona is a luminous plasma :::aused by ionization of the air sur· ·oundiog a transmission line .or one of ts insulators. When electric corona irst occurs, it briefly resembles a small .troke of lightning. The corona can ·emain_ fixed or .can trav:eL along the 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 tor 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 af· fixed to the line or insulators they can trigger the cor.ona~ according to DarreU Shankle, manager of field research in· Westinghouse EI.ectric's electric utility operatio·ns- The reason is that an ex~ tremely high-voltage gradient develops across the dust or salt crystal which exceeds the breakdown vOI tage of air. Even. flying insects that alight on the line can trigger a corona. For example, during the months of August and Sep- · tember a very.high-voltage transmission line in West Virginia experiences fre· quent coronas caused bY ·~flying spiders" · that are carried by the winds and alight on the lines, . .,according to.~Shankle. TranSmission Jines 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 Sawyei, says that corona occurs more frequently "when there is not much rain to clean off the Jines." A check with the U.S. Weather Bu- reau 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 summe:r. For example, during the months of ~viation Week & ·Space Technology, August 2~. 1966
• • Tuly, August and Septel]lber the Exeter rea 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. Wheil corona first occurs, it usually has a bluish color which Can then take on the color of a lightning strike, ac- cording 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 gi-een due to the chlorine. This suggests that some of the Exeter sightings could have "een 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 reg- ularly 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 !0:45 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 teenage'r and subse- -quently witnessed by two policemen, was located near the 34,500-v. trans- · mission line of the Exeter and Ha·mpton . Electric Co. The line is mounted on wooden poles approximately 29 ft. above the ground. In total there were 73 instances, Fuller. writes, where per- sons reporting UFO sightings near Exe- ter used the words "power lines" or "transmission linesn or referred to loca- tions 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 re- sponded: ·~·rd 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-volhige transmission line." The Northeast power blackout pro- 50 vided an unexpected opportunity for additional evidence that indicates a rela- tionship 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 Syiacuse, 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., sub- station, a huge red ball of brilliant intensity appeared" This particular substation initially was reported to be the "crux of the diffi- culty," 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 Syra- · .cuse area, according to Fuller. On Nov. 26, Fuller reports that a power failure in St. Paul, Minn., coin~ cided "with the appearance of objects overhead giving off blue and white flashes ~ - . . Fifteen minutes later a resident on Hogt Avenue repOrted a 'biue-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 sigh lings. 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 net- work ~instabilities, there are voltage . surges at some points in the network. These higher-than-normal voltage con- ditions would induce very large corona discharges. The leakage current duriilg 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 re- ported observations of ball lightning appears significant, as· well as their frequent appearance on, along or near high-tension power lines under atmos- pheric · conditions likely to produce · corona discharges along the lines. The only unresolved question is the mecha11ism . by ·which the corona . dis- ·explode ••. the theory that a challenging career has to include challenging living conditions. United Controi. the fastest growing aerospace electronics corporation in the Pacific Northwest, has career opportunities open now. Men who join us will have a chance to contribute to advanced proj- ects of major importance to the aircraft and space industry. They will be members of a young, vigorous organization that is al• ready leading the way in its field. They'll work with some of . the brightest minds in the aerospace industry. Read the ad on the opposite page. This is the kind of action you'll be involved with . at United Control. Yet, outside the plant you·n· enjoy living in one of the world's most beauti· ful regions. Drive 20 minutes to the cosmopolitan bustle and cul- tural attractions of Seattle. Drive 40 minutes to snow-capped . peaks and mountain wilderness. Golf year 'round, cruise on hun- dreds of miles of sheltered waters, enjoy clean air ... space ... a home with a view. For full details on careers at United Control, send your resume to Mr. D. G. Vawter, Employment Manager. ~ UNDID CDNmDL UNITED CONTRO~ CORP./ REDMOND, WN.S8052 A:viati~n Week & Space ~Technology. August -22, 1966
--~:.-------- ------·-·-- -- UFO-Ball Lightning Observations Compared ' CHARACTERISTICS Color ·::· Shape Movement Dynamics Sound Lifetime ·Size EXETER UFOs Usually reddish-orange and/ or bluish-white, sometimes green. Rou~d, oval or dome-shaped Often hovering or moving upfdown slowly. Also moves horizontal!~ at slow or high speed. BALL LIGHTNING Multi-colored, dominating white. with red pr bluish· Spherical,· -ellipsoidal or doughnut-shaped. SometimeS hangs motion· less or moves vertically and horizontally at slow or high speed. Often seems to move with Appears to bounce or roll rocking or undulating rna- in horizontal direction. tion. Sometimes appears to Sometimes exhibits .spin· be spinning. · ning motion. No sound, or slight hum- Sometimes exhibits a siz· ming or hissing. zling or hissing sound. Frof!l several minutes to up From few seconds to to half an hour. many minutes. Difficult to estimate by most observers during night sight· ings, but those given range from basketball size to 200 ft in diameter. Daytime sightings (in brighter ambient ·- light) usually are a few ihches in diameter but have ranged up to 15 It charge expands into a larger plasma seen in proximity to wires or :::.tPu:.:. with ball lightning characteristics. tures. It is usually airborrie or partially· _ Present limited knowledge of both airborne, moving randomly in space or phenomena complicates this problem. · along electric conductors. It often ex- But the similarity of electric corona dis- hibits rolling, tumbling or spinning charge and natural lightning discharge motions. which is known to induc_e ball lightning · Small-diameter ball lightning has would seem to support strongly the been reported _inside houses and other theory presented here. · buildings. Recently an Air Force Stra·: Despite long years of experience with tegic Air Command flight crew reported corona, the experts disagree even over seeing it· inside an aircraft during flight, · · the effect of temperature, barometric AVIATION WEEK & SPACE TECHNOLOGY. pressure and humidity in inducing was told by a scientist working in the · corona. The reason is that power line field. corona is difficult to duplicate realisti- Many of the ball lightning sightfngs cally fo? study under controlled con-· reported by persons surveyed by Me-' . ditions. To do so would require con- Nally occurred on or near power lines.~ struction of a huge facility, large enough Many different theories and mathe- -~ to house ·a long transmission line :Within rnatica] models have been advanced by a chamber so that barometric pressure· scientists here and abroad to explain the and temperature could be varied while _,·· basic mechanism which generates ball a variety of atmospheric contaminants · lightning and the internal-external were introduced. forces that enable it to survive for ex• ~- There is considerably less scientific tended periods. information available on ball lightning, Within ·recent months two Westing· although a number of conflicting theo- . house Electric research laboratory scien- ries have been advanced to explain it. tists, Dr. Martin A. Uman and Dr. C. Several years ago Dr. J. Rand McNally, W. Helstrom published a mathematical Jr. of the Atomic Energy Commission's model that Predicts many of the unusual Oak Ridge National Laboratories made properties of ball lightning. The Wes- an ijnformal survey of 1,962 persons in tinghouse research was partially funded the laboratory. Surprisingly, he found by the Office of Naval Research. . that 110 of them, or 5.6% of the total This theory suggests that ball light- sample, had observed ball lightning at ning is a luminous, high-temperature some time. Usually it was associated region of air having high electrical with a conventional stroke of lightning; conductivity that has been heated to but not always. the required lemperature by a 'troke of Analyzing the returns, McNally con- lightning under suitable conditions. eluded thai ball lightning can originate When cloud-to-ground lightning cur- randomly in space but is most often . renls are symmetrical through the ball, Aviation Week & Space TechnoloQy, August. 22, 1966 Easy readin,.. 1 This is the new KODAK LINAGRAPH Direct Print Paper, Type1843 Expose it to light (fluorescent or day- light) and almost instantly you get a high-contrast blue trace that can be easily read. But that isn't the only ·.: reason you'll like this paper. The excellent image it produces lasts for hours, even in bright day- light. .. and for days, in room light. · If you want the image to last for years and years, process the paper in the surprisingly inexpensive KooAK EKTAMATIC Processor, Model218K. Or in ordinary chemistry .. Prefer an extra-thin base material? Specify KoDAK LINAGRAPH Direct Print Paper, Type 1855 .. Want more detailed information? Get it fast from Instrumentation Products Sales . EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY,. Rochester, N.Y. 14650. 55 .. ' ;;. ,. ; ['-: ; __ _
it hangs stationary in air, but if these
currents become unsymmetr' 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 ex-
periments 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 light-
ning, perhaps more, which would ex-
plain 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 sup-
ply 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 transmis-
sion 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 Westing-
house 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.
RESEARCH IN
TARGET CHARACTERISTICS
BENEFITS AICBM SYSTEMS
This special-purpose computer, designed by Cornell Aeronautical Labora-
tory under contract to Bell Telephone Laboratories, Inc., is capable of
processing resolvable targets detected by an AICBM radar and desig-
nating 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 extrac-
tion 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 exten-
sive 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 recon-
naissance and surveillance systems.
EXPERIENCED PERSONNEL ARE NEEDED FOR SUCH
RESEARCH IN BOTH BUFFALO AND WASHINGTON
CORNELL AERONAUTICAL LABORATORY, INC.
OF CORNELL UNIVERSITY.
J. V. Rentschler T/C
CORNELL AERONAUTICAL LABORATORY, INC.
Buffalo, New York 14221
[ ] Please send me a copy of your factual, illustrated prospectus, "A Community of
Science," and an application blank.
[ ] I'm not interested in investigating job opportunities now, but I would like to see
your latest "Report on Research at CAL."
Name......................................................................................................................
Street.....................................................................................................................
City.........................................................State....................................Zip..................
An Equal Opportunity Employer
*56 Aviation Week & Space Technology, August 22, 1966'. 'i I !i it i ., 1 '' ' :I; \ ·~. '' PREDICT POINT-OF-FAILURE WITHOUT DESTRUCTION You can use Kaman Variable Impedance DIS· lion of turbine rpfn. Vibration of the Jet engine placement Transducers for test stand meas- housing, extreme fluctuations in temperature urements to determine point-of-failure without do not Influence accuracy of measurements. running the test unit to destruCtion! For ex- Kaman Transducers measure displacement ample, Kaman Non-Contacting Transducers between transducers and adjacent conductive have been used in high speed jet engines to surface without mechanical connection to measure growth of turbine blades in in ere- the turbine blades. If you make measurements ments as small as .000025N-equlvalent to 1 part In hostile environments, send for technical in 1,000 total transducer range-to determine data and application information on Kaman blade elongation and other distortion as a tunc~ Nuclear's Variable Impedance Transducer. :Kaman Transducers Excel in Hostile Environments Kaman. Nuclear 1700 GARDEN OF THE GODS ROAD, COLORADO SPRINGS. COLORADO 80007 Telephone: (303) 473-5880 • TWX: (510) 431-4929 PROBLEMATICAL RECREATIONS 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 bookie~ Problematical Recreations8 , is available to all problem solvers during WESCON. Pick up your free copy at the Litton · booth #!507. 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 L.AST 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 EDIJBC. Join EC. Then triangle AEC is equilateral and angle DEC = 40°. T~iangle EDC is isosceles and angle EDC is 70°. Thus the stripe makes an angle of i50° (or itS supplement) with the edge. [8 LITTON INDUSTRIES ·. Beverly Hills, California ~htl98d plied; "I wouldn't reject this possibility. because a conventional smoke·-' .... g is an interesting example of a pl• i held together under the proper cond1tfons by a combination of internal and external forces whlch are difficult to explain scientifically." This seems an appropriate analogy because not every instance of corona along power lines generates ball light- ning. The presence of salt vapor near Exeter would increase the conductivity of the air, and vaporization of the salt crystals deposited ·during the dry sum- mer could provide a mechanism for increasing current flow and air tempera- ture once corona occurred. Other con- taminants in the air at Exeter and at other locations could provide similar catalytic action. A spokesman for the National In- vestigations Committee on Aerial Phe- nomena (NICAP), quoted by Fuller, says that UFO "sightings seem to con- centrate in small geographic areas dur- ing any wave. But the concentration area will shift around. •• This indicates that when the required combination of atmospheric conditions exists, the phe- nomenon 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 at- mospheric conditions) including air con- taminants,· do not occur until the cooler· night air arrives. Another possible ex- planation 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 along- side it. 1 Westinghouse's Dr. Martin Uman suggests several possible tests which can be made in the presence of a UFO sight- ing to confirm or deny the ball light- ning theory. )f it is an electrical dis- charge. 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 inexp~nsive prism or transmission grat- ing 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 obj.ect is a solid, the viewer will see a continuous spectrum~ but if it is a form of ball lightning !J.e will see instead a number of individual colqr lines, including intense red~ radia- tiOn- due to the presence of hydrogen and blue due to nitrogen in the air._ · 60 Aviation Week & Space }e-?hnology, August 2~, 1966
/ ~jt:, ~t;;:_ iJ-11-. kco~' &- pf~/7'+ 1;;- f1;. {/-.,._~ tvd{ /dff/U r;t( rt#l) ~ ~ A,;GA- U(y f(,CfiJ ""Mt. /1 i-1 ~ ~.-- &..d rf .t:_ ~ ~ ~ rt<f. c,.e_,L I' ' 0A7-'kJI.AiJ .- · ~ 2,P~ .~';_. ~~ . i · ~~1 !:!4 .~-!!, ~ ~- ~ ~ 4 l'ltt.G.vav ·--;t/l,_ ~ ~ ~- .~~~ tJvJ ,h_,(J;.e, t ·. ,_- ui::-o, t:. ~ A ~~ 04F t<---,) Au. (ac-t- ~- t.J--(1_ cLo 'MJ1~ 4-Ul-0 ~i/..._~ .,4-. t>-JAJ~ . ~J-<---0 ·.1 ~ 1 re-t~~ ~ f ~ o--ip" ~, rJ-- ~ 1u Lrr-ru ~? .A- ~.JZ(~~ . u (v() '1 ~ ~ wJ{ eriAl ~ ~~;_ uU/ tJ~-- ~c."" (JvLL~:._ ~ k ~~ ~~l V-- ~ ~0 .).- ~~ ~- ~ ~ ~- 1 "'- t>F fl/ f'Q, , IJ:))___ A:iu;, d~ .:. ~~ ..:: -.kW-' J ~ te-~ ~ A;j. ~.r/ ~ / Jie ~- tM' It' /)Ji ~ A ~b~~ ~ ~tr 1 "H~ uh Jef~ "' '66- ciW2 o--t~ /1, C..: ~~<""-!..~ _.(- ~ ?,/~ M\JrvC -{:;1J. . tu c) cJ;tJ;:;:_h A uf-'~s; f{v -ycrvv ~~ ~- f'>1qtH_ 0-e ~ ~ ~ f'~· ~ ~ r -/_,_4-v~i 1f til- ~·· ~..-.;), k ~ ~••• DRAFT I am writing to thallk. you .tor_ ;rour report o,i','"lan'- 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~~l 1 no doubt/wf'sh to kn6w, however 7•"th~;·:~estigations /'_/ / ,..,/ ,/ - ~_,.,,:":;"" ,/ ....... ~~"""'-- ... --.,_\ over a numbef of years have so !ar produced no evidence that'""UFOs 1 // _/ /"' t'/ _,.,.~"" .._ // ,..!?~;"'" ! represent ~ a+:r' defence threat t<?.•the United Kingdo~~_,.,"- \~/ (/-"' v,..
• 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 ~stigat±ons over-a"1l1l!!lrer--o£---years.-have~o--£~<-p;roduced~no-·.·evidence.ctha~oUF.Os-- . ,. repr~s'en~anc:aiTO:ef"e1Ice"4;moeatc;,tO""othe·,..Umted···'Kingdom• -·Reported- ···\;"{~ ·E:~pq·,.€~.tf. ov""f.:r q ttu~~-.,-· ~J.. 8eQr~ (sightings are considered to~originaty, .·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".' 1e I .i I I '}1)(. ~-' 1/ UFO'S I. attcui.J .; c. ~~ (- f-"'--- A ~ J ~~1 ~I rJ~~~ 1 ~~I A }u_ ~~ A J_,_d <?J d/AJ u r::-o tHf&-t;. 2. i ~ tf~r/ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~A ~~ r ~ ?~(; r L<--~ ~.~ ~ ~ aLl ~ ~ "' J£_ ~L JLv<- ~~- ~ ~crt; f J;/~ ~ .AJ-A--~ ~t&'h_cfi,_U ~ J:i, '*I~- ,_.) . ~ -6 £i. ~."(_, 0 ~ {)_, c. . ' J ~~~~~,~~ ~- ~cAL 1~ ~ ~ ? p~ ~ ~7~ 1 -4-e 7~ 1 cY cflV' ~ Ae ~~'" ~ .A·~ ~ ~~. ve aho If~(- ~ ~- h 1ot-l; t~ ~ ~~~ __A- ~k . ~r lL,c ~ uy~ ~e ~ ~ ck,c/__..J;J Ql 4.~ ~- ~ ~te.v~;;_p ~ 0- .I ~- ~ e<nl ~£.- ~~ (; crvJJ lt_/(r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~- UFD ~h ~'-tcj-tJ ~ ~ A~ , ~~~ ~ ~k ~ ~ rAJ; (-e_ ~bo~, 2>. ~ tre_ ~ ~j) ~t A ~ CJ ;££ ~ J ctho cA ft1 r;, ~~- ~ ~~~& ? o._ ry'd ~~ ~"1-~ol:;. o/ iyL ~~ ~ dv;J ~ .,__, (vv ~ ~ A ,nJ. (...!:; w,J_.{ 1-< ~ ~:J; ~. ~~ ~ ·~ .--.: rc;--;o ~ J:::4 ~«•) r·~ ~ u;:o ~tf~~ ~ ~ (~ ~ U.JfhC ~~~-..: fl~ 'S G 9 f-tA. ~ o/~ r~~r5d {~ ~ c_ ~f us~-~- ~ t;. / # ,- t f (A.V}J', tv~e e-M4:.,tf~ '7'~ f uFas) ev..-~ tr''~A)-e ~ eM- rf'l1.r ~~, ~ ~~~ cj ~~~ c.__) 0-~ k uro ~. j?- tv~ a-/~ e--v' f1)0 ~~ J~ tL) (/~~ ~ ~ /V--..~1 Jh4'J-l" ~~ ~ ~~ ?J~~ ~ ~ ( ~ 1:- :::ti-M- ~ Hf~ ~~:rJ ~-0~ (76. d. ~ ~ A~ a. k7 i v- ~4 ~._&{-~ ~ ~vr~ ~~ i ~ ~~-~~H). t ~~ ~/" vf r~ tc/ (A~ A- cMJ ~'TV~ . . ~ C\. v--1¥ (?~~· age~~ ~ };u;_ ~'eA( Cit_ fiM' L-'v~-/vf:; I ;v/• We., ~ ~~~ ~ ~- ~I fv; 1-E--F~ ~ ~ ;4~~ -h-vLck, /v_) ~ ~' c"" / ~ ~ ·1 JJ~. ~r-.y~ f-~ 1 ~ f~ tlrUJ-1-f[~-vt, _j)~~ ~ (11.- uf-Os ~-<- ~· ~ ,;tLM- " J ~ ~~~~ d7~ ~ i<J,,J__) vw1 {w 0-~ _,A-· dVV u f-o ~yy{.., ~- ~ t~~ ~-• ~ ;t p- of'!~ 0-. ~· ;&~ A!~"vL; .~{- ~ ~ -' ~ ~Le ~ r--- ! ~ J;L; A-R- ~- 4 w ,LA M; ~~ ( ~ g 1110 ,~tJYiJ) ~ till~~ ~ Jl~- c...' c__ /J$13 C' J ~-'"' tf~ a___ uhJt c_A- /S~ £.-\, ~ (Cj]J.# ~ J:pfJ . ·~~ o-- ~ lcri~ ~N i~ 11 ~ p~ ~~-~ ~. .J~ ~ ~ .::( i-H_;;A:; . ~ ~~ ~ l.u- ~ 1- <'- cA:L -irf4h J j ~?Tf .~ ~ ~ ~- ~ . . ..A)~~ ~A~~ 4 ~ fw ~r 9 o£._:/ ~ ~~ ~ vi- L-U ~,. ·-;,_~ Lp_ ~- _,;A- ~JJ ~. ~. _:> ik AJ;W ;~ ~ u~~ 4 if~ ~ ~~~ ·. re/V ~ IJVV'/• (/<4 ~ (}-. j w-E~ ~ ~ vU-7 (- ~ ~ tf~,:t ~r~ ~ ~ A- i:L .P~, -t ~ ~ M~ '1~· ~ 1~~--!:4 t. !IN rcu-ur:v., ~ "'~- p ~ ;A- ~ ~ ~~.A~ YJy~- .~ ~ 1~ ~ tJ~ 1 fo ~ ~ ~~ fr -4v /7 JO ~~ ~ fE4~ ~ S'~ }'VLlJ} fi'P~ ~ u ,£or tJ 0-, f::Lu ~~ A- ~wv ~c~ fo1!0- ~ ~ t;t-/u:£ ~6- ~ r-~ 0 ~ ~~ ~' ?1-~c.J ~~. ~-L& ~- /~ / wiA::(_ ~~--y ~·~ (lk, ~ P..~ 6) rvP 0~ (.~ ~ ~~ /'e/ ~/ ~ ~ h-. ~ ~~- ~ Uro u.r-R. ~ ~ ~ f~ rf~ ~ f~ · c9 ~c~u, k 1])1 ur1 r Cf~ c: ~ -· r'~J...ef
• lV} c._ ~- -ff c~ tv'€ ~ vel~ ~(- d)¥~ -~--·~~ .teJt~ ~/ ~ w.J--i ~ ~ ~ M o). A, W :.v{ ~ o}f d ~~ ~r 4J- ~- iJ-2 ~ ~- ~ ~ r /t:Le ~~ ~ cf A:4 o-lj-J· ~- > ())r ~- ~ lJ-e. ~,__J A ·~~ rjtrA;-, ~ ,.~ i ~I;; f~-dJ!x ~ Cj~S, t« rJ'v') v1Nh ~M ' Cu... e( d C<.~J"I"/..4._ ! ~ ~ .. (w4 P<fe. ,~ c~ UFOl ~ 9~ CVt-.. ~Ji.... -~ /~ 1 (M.~ -~ I o-1~ ~~ · t 1t{co-i_ (~/Y, (P{f.(~ A~ w;);{. Afiv~f[ a A~~~ k_..Lcc~ < Uh t.Jtl';-/. 1 ~- ~~ CJf.. ~ ~ A ~r- 6: ~G(~ tef~ - /(- ~~ le-V-~- ... Wbf_ S'((.t ~ t-j~• ~) ,/Jc~~(/ ~7~{ ~ o/~~- &J_J A~~ -if CA. ~'Z ~( .A- ~cvf .J:ie ~ ~ ~ .: --C:te ~- '1 17'--· ~r::- t'V ~Q. . f;iL ~ ~ ~ /'~· ~ ~· d. M ~/ ~ .,_;, ~ dY /u-e, cJi 1vy{; ~ peJ fj (, :J Ci ~o ~ ~M; ~r""'"~ef (!:&- ~ 0~ ~ tef,ti:o_ ~ Jn·· ~~ 1 ~ 1~ oY, J"~, 1~ A #4 /\_Nev-e- ~ ~ A je ~ {w c. 17~~ r?-'~ rV c.__. ~~ {vt "' (0~: ~~u__~l. /J{ c~~~~1~· ~~ cJlAJ ~ (- ~ ~~ .::. ~·~ ( ~_).f ~. 1\W</. ~~ 'd ~· .~. /L '~ ~~~p./h ~ c._ J'y ~~ ~/ J.juJ/ ~ ~ ~ ~ A A ~~i-t: ~- ~ 1-UL rrl.;· oJ-e ~ ~ ~ . . ,. 9 ~ ~ y~~ l d- .Ji--J A Cf;v-t-. ~• c.-C•-nJ' ./~ ~'-€ 1 ~ l~~9~ . ~ ~ u--/~ we. ivc~ ~-- ~AF{-~~-- ~ ~~~~~i J..-~c~ ~- ~~. tv~'f. t4~ -10 . ~~~ tv4- AP okT "}!.,.(;0~ c ••• : C/fl4!-, tOJ..-cf.y_._ u A..:r ?::le ' M-'j) ~ ~ u FO\ c.; cv-u----Ci ,~u.;~ ..;; tv'e cL Ju[( ~~~ fleA. je- .:ru- a~u fo -fh~u-u iv'f civ ._e~ A ~ p ~ "' ;_ J&a 6 .. '() 1. Altf]_JJ_ J ~. /"' ~ ~ ~ 'l~ '" rero~ ~- c ~~~ 1 cr0tr~ '7 ba ~ J.e /-&~ 0/ J p. ~~ tv--e. ~~ ' ~~~ ~0'1 ~ ;:__ S'~ ~~- ~~ w-e of~ A- ~~ 0 tL.-y ~~ • c.c- ~ lJ:J:;{_ c.._ 04- J_ lf-7 ~ u~~ ~ L~ ~ IL4 c0.~- ~ ~u(~ ~ ~..e JJJ A J~ fl.-ev(- c. ~/VIA(_- ,rv-- c.- ~ 9 ~ ~~~A<..~~~ ~4 . ope~- A~ ~ ~[(- ~7• ~h .~~ of..£,_ .,.& A.r<J ~ A ./Lf_ !:;- ;i ac~ A .J:Le ~~~ C / . !:- ~; ~;}' 9 ~--- {;L "f ;rl;- "" .,..___ ~ A .c~ u~d:? A ~~e fi_;. ~~ f 4 1n-!;' ~ ~ ~ ~(--~ ~ ~~d (/ ~ W'f)u ! fr~ VO ~ct C(., ~ ~e-1! . tiL; ~ ~,;~ ~~ ~ £ _/£ ~c.~ J ~ .._: ~~ b. ~· w _/;&A)/?~~ ~- ~ e~- 7 h f 1 r/;-/;; ~ ~ 1~ ~(Lt- ~ ice ~~ _A- - LAJ-1'/1-~.; <::/;. n-kv ~ />1-..e.....- c.. " a.vf M :Y ~. ~· A::: q ~ ct Lt~ ~- a_ .f';u- ~~ 0fl,JJ ~~--r- vd~ r~ ,,,~.,~ ~ ~t. o lf.r ~ n ..;,_ ~ ~~ C. ~ ~clJu ~ }.M-f . ~d.-, ~ ~ .4 ~ ttJ-h (;;._ J t~ ~- ~ 6 , .i«-, ~ ~ dir:f: . .@. __ :t£~ :1 .,_y S' '-f. F• b ~- iJ_.~ 0~/ ~ J ~~.~ ~ u~GJ iN~ d ~ (fl-..~ ~ tv ;C(_ C/VV J~- riGft. 7 of Ad~ ?~ ·0~ ~ ~- ~ tf~rv L~ ~ A ~ ~~ 1Y h~ __.t _j(!__ptJZL{}-e_ ~ ~ C( a_h~ ~ ~ ~ C:UJ~ 71:, lvvJL/ .J~ ~ ~iA-'-~ ~ ,f ;i4 c!~~ w~ ~ A ~ ~ 1M~ <(~- ~ ~~~ t.J·~.J_/ f 1 ~~ ~ A U ~ ~t,) /~ '~- tJ.R_ ~ M1-- rvd ~ ~~ ~ i.e ~ J t.J-.J.J 4 ..J.Lt- ~ ~ ~ ~ cL.~ ~ ~ f&VU--~ A.e ~u.S<,.<:-. ·, J~~~ ~~ ~ jdzJ. ~- J:L 0'\.A...II..Ai~~ - • (uv ~ ~4 ~ ~rJ;;( .16. ~iu.L. t- oJ~ ~f--f~- ~ ~ cj.._, C- ~~ vi ~ - - - - .. tf 9. J'vL-, W:U t_,c.;/_ .A ~U::W cr-0- ~ f a~~- ~ , ~-• ~wM~~ J~ ~ 1 X ~ ~~:..._c... ~ t4 ~ ¥ l~ ~ ; L';:f_ '.z.~., A--o~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ /)c-:1) ~ k: 1....,';.. TV~? - )~ ~~ <!?... ~~~~~-We~~..,&- ~ 0~ -*r-./Ci ~ J4~~ ~ ~ ff-J ~ f*./--e -?~ ~ t ~~ '- ~ ~ ~'..{- ~~ ·~\ ·~ ~ ~ tp -f4 ~ ~ <tG:"( ~ ~ r A-...L eJ\A.- .,6- <i.-- . r/) c--:b ~ ~ ~ ~~ I.A._ J.-~~· ~ ~ fk1J&· 4 !( H- e. CL_,;_ .ft.t ~- dj }J__U-. ~ ~ 2~_ ~ ~ (f,Av 7 ~~ ~ ~{'~1'f, ~ ~~ ·~ J) S8" c., o,_ ~. lf..e ¥&~~~~~~ )i_ '1-1 ~• - ~ Jy· !JJ. ~ J'/CO C f?,~ f(d¥'7~ ~.J ,~Vf ~ --e; .l'Tao_c ·' ' 9 ~ ~ ~ ufvo A-~8~ CJ--I_J. ~ ~ d~ '-~-' lk ~ (L..} ~--I t.-v ~ ~ t'" /:te ~~~~a_) ~ ~~ ~ plb-) -a~ ~ ,~ ~()~~ ~ ~- J cy~ A J;t.;, ~ ~ r~'-e- }'ZFP(~ 7/17 1 -: (. ~ }k ·~ vt~:v~ -;j ~ 1 d~ ~w-J . ~ ck.._ ~ ~ ~ .2'-(-Wo . ~ .;t ~~ ~ ~ (!r ffa_ A: ~ ~ ~c/J·~.
.I • __ !)., .ik·~·-· .. ~~ .~ .. .Ate . ~~~~~ .. r' ···'?rt-f: -~ ·~ . -~- ·--· - -Jer~ ct Lftd. ~. ffi . ~~.Jr- ,iu:.J. . ·· ·· .. ~:-~--;;z~--~--- ~fr-D_c. d.~_oo ''o/-~ ( fJL1 . C.:._ ..• ~······ .. • · •• ~;--~~;z:;;;/~f~JR~- ....... c2o .... ··~:·-~~~ ~~~~~~-· ......... - ... ~ p!:Lt---~--"1- ~~----*~·· -~··· ~o-1:;,4~ ~····~·.-of _--- - ~-~~~ 5_;k~) -N~ .-~ __ _ _ _ - - ~~. j_~ ( -~- . . - -- -~-~- ·····--~-~Mi.-~~--~····- · jr . p ....... J..Jl...uo .. .u .. J ... e-o. · b__.L J.L.iM- M OA #n'
• W ______ --·-•••••••u-~--- ~---A--~ ~--~- ._:;U. }1~------· --~===:-~--==:_:~~=-]=~=:~~--~~~ L ~L~ ___ - -------------------------~_ ~----==~----'/--~~~ w~ :~=~-- ---~--tAd A- --::&--~~ Cvvz ffJ-.r--trCticu>k-P ~--- ······;_~~~~~-;;-~1~~~-- 7-
• (D~ ~c~. ..:;{- c.~ ~h_d 4 -~ ~ ~ t{ tJe ~ ~-- I.- ~ • .A& ~ ~ t; ~~ -( ()._ ~ e.;v~ ... . tt¥ -~' .rf-~ UIV ~- L~ o~--- ~~ -/# L ~ ~--;- f:I.' . . . .. .. . ....... ~~ Ct..~ . /<r .... ~ ~ff ·' ~-~~ ······- - ..... --~~---~---·~·-····-~----11/_-~ ~''}?or ~ x·· ------~--- 7~--~--~~ -~~---·····~_ue_··· ~-- ..... · .. ·._ ·····----- ···· ---~- -~ cf~ -~ -r~- _ . .?k? ·· .. - -·· ~--~ [c¥' ~"'-¥u~ -~ •-··---~ ····~ .. --=~~-=-~~~~--~~~ t~··. ""'-- ~ .. lb~·-.,·. ~ -~~--~ ~!:_~]- ~~-;;;·:~-_--;;_.110. ··--~··· t~ ~~ . -- .. --~---= - -~·~ -~-~----~------•~- ~- _.£~~···--~~~ -=vi=P·· .. ···--- -_ ..... ···· ..•.. u-;;;z: ----~--. -;;_ ----~-- ~-- .---~---·~--- ·-·~-----~··········:·~··· ...... · -··/Jn;;~·-·· -P-- ~-~•--~--~ .... -7~,3-~ ·-···_··- -~ tJ;. ~~- r-f~--!Jt:f#~;cl~ ····-····-~---~ i-~-~~-IJE~-~~~- ---- .. --· ··~. . ................. ----··- --·····:~~=--~=·--······-~~~-~···· - . , ~ . . , ~ oe.. ~ ?lA . ... ~ . ·- ... ·-··-·· --- _:;, . - cu . - . - l!~ . . .. - -- . .. ... . ...... . - ... ... ~- . .. . . . . ~-=~-~ -~ .. ··1---~----~-~=---=g:;.-._=-··. ~ ---~-:-~-~ a::.u;;: __ - p;;:.:_··· __ ::;;_-~-~--- ~~----9-=~~-¥--•==--- - -== - ~:.~~- -~ -ii~ - ~==P- r~-=-~-t!f'--0~;--. /~ ...,··· -·-----------~--·--~·------~ __ kel-t_ ~. o.Je c;~ ~ nU---~- ~=- ---_y{;~~;:(·---.-~~--6-~_.d,- -I~--~ =t, .,. ,. ~-~--- ~==--------==~={ ~ -- M uafr--~~ ~- . ~ =~~~~=-~=~=- --~-=--~-~ :----x ~. 8-n:.-u~. m .· ~=--~~---~--------~·~~- -~::~~:-~ .. ~:~------~-~--'-- .._ ---- ---·---~·· ---===Iii--~~-- ~: 4---=~~=~---=- ::·-=--=~==-=~---¥~~·~=u_h=--~~--~~: __ _ -~-=----------~--~ ~ -,;-~, -:z--~-;--~--- - ·- - ----- - :...-~==;-zJ7h ·---·-·-··- ·-- - ------------------------·-- ----- ----------cr~_r~~---~ ~. .:1---- .,__._., -~~ - - -·-- -,----------~---·- - --- --------~~ - -l;fi;Ce_-- ----------------=- --------- ·- __ &_~---··--~-·- --~;---------------- -·4- __ j&_~~,----- ·~. ==-~==-~-----.:;6&_-~tq-~o--~:Cft~~e---=J;J.· ~-~-~--- ~-~-=~ _--=~=====--~=~------:R__g_=¥-=~----.zs--~~-----=.._: ===~--=~~----wvtz---:A----~_{;-__ __ 4_ ~~·~ tf'~--- ·····--···-··----·--~·~~===~~=<-~~~~·~=~=~-~~-~~~~~.-~~- --- - --- ------~-(:_ _. ---------- ---------··----·-------· -·---·-------··----· ·- --- ---·-···-·----- - -~··--~··· =----1:-:. __ --.i-~==;;·~--~~;;::;;-~_~-:;=::=~ ~- -?fi¥_;;}_=- --------- -----I{JL~---~=~;z--t;,.;;z- ~----~~ '-· .I-=---~== -==-----__-.~~---~-~~~:#_-__:-k: --ru ------ ==------ -,14{~~- --~~_{~ )5: __ _ - __ he_ --;;:i;l_-------l.ZJ_~---~-A_ (:i!t_=== -- ~: n - -C~ ~~~·------;;--~-;c:p~~:~~ --~----~ ~unn~it-~== -------------~----~-~ -~~----- ~---~--- -- ------ - ----- ---:Nr·-·· ····-·-- ----·---·.···· -- -J7~----;;- --- ·-------------- ________ _A_hd~------~---,----4-----~ t?Cik-l. - ~- -~ w-e -• >!.,_a..J. otv.~ ------------------· -{T- ~----"'~=---==-> ----------------R----~ -~ ---··----- ~-------·· ---------------------- ·------ --- ~F0<-:-t----------------- -- --- ---l.~J---- ----------- ---- ---- - ----===---·----==--·- . -------------~-=-==- ___ jJij.:J_J ____ ------------------- ·---·--·------------ ·--·--·-------···-·---------- ··-----·-·-· ····-·--------------·-··· ·--- ----·-----·--·--·-·----···----·-- --- ... --·--·--·-·-··--------LOOSE HINTITE M/CX 8o/70 A:F'OR Rl!.'VISION OF AIR FORCE OPERATIONS ROOM STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES- REPORTS OF 'UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS. References: A. MOD AFO.R SOP No 502. B. AFOR/92 dated 22.7.75. Our suggested amendments to Ref A are as follo,,;;;;: Information Amend pe.ras 1 , 2 and 4 to read: Para 1. S4f(Air) co-ordinate detailed inve<"tigation into reports on Unider.tified Flying Objects, consulting Ops (GE)Z{RAF), DI 55, DI 50, Science 3 and STCOc,· and correspond with tlle public on the subject of ill'Os 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 t;:i.ephone message or by signal :nessage. Para 4. The above mentioned reference gives considerable detail on the stages of investigation of liFO reports, and infomation should be passed to S4f(Air) a.s early as possible~ · Para 3 - No change. Action by the Duty Operations Officer Para 5. Jl.mend s:ff(Air) telephone extension r·umbers to read 'Ext 7035/6020'. Para 6. - No change. Annex to SOP 502 - Report of an Unidentified }Lying Object Item B. Item R. {; Aug 75 Amend to read: Description of Object {No. of objects, size, shape, colour, brightness, sound and smell). Pre>>umably 'ADOC' should read 1 SCCCOC'. ·~~!:)_ }l!SS G J J A11IESOli S4f(Air) Room 8235 7035MB• To: MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Main Building Whitehall l.ondon SW1A 2HB MOD (AFOR) (RAF) s 4 f A,'R • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Telephone O:OS:naG~ 01-218-6117/8 Your reference Our reference AFOR/ 9 2 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. p/J_ CLARK adron Leader for Officer in Charge Air .Force Operations Room
~- . - ~ .- -.} COPY NO ------ SOP N0_-""5QL__ PAGE NO .1 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE AIR FORCE OPERATIONS ROOM STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE NO 502 REPORTS OF UNIDENTIFIED FLYING 6i3JECTS Reference : AF OR/92/ SOD, 1: 'il H;; 1§? 1 1 J Annex : .Report of an Unidentified Flying Object Sponsor S4f Air · ~9 '\ c 'I 6 {'Y l6JJ" INFORMATION · ~ ~\~ oJ, 1. S4f(Air) co-ordinate detailed investigation into reports on Unidentified Flying Obiects, consulting Ops(GE)2(RAF), DI55 ,~G,. Science ~? and/ ~('W"'!Thn necessary.-.{ . S4ft-i~ir·}-;re{fly--to,·those . or-igif!;<!;t<Jr.sc;J:ha:'treque.;;t -a-r_eirlY .. a-,-_·:{(-~ " 1 ,.c~ <t --·C•> {; .. --t-f:t'c ·~ CL1 ,._. ' :- -.'; i <, ', '- _: ~ ~- ~- .::_-.._.,.. rl-2---.r::_/l.-1:.-~• 2 •. The inili.-a-kF;Se-.;1-f;.a't;;-.~f repor•f;s on UFOs is S4f(Air) Pesponsibility during normal working hour•s, and .~GR:(RAF..)-t ''•"' responsibility outside normal working hours, Reports. may be r<-1•:·cived by telephone message or by signal message. {: f; ~.<-A .. 3. Copies of all UFO reports received in ~), and reports of' ' ·. AEOR(1?8J:::.J..Jni~ial im;estigation, are ci;cy,I;',~';.d toB4f(Air), Ops(GE)7.(RN'_J DISS, DtSJJ€!;Sc10nce/+, and ~ V ·"' • ' •. · ... • ,, , . . • ,>, 4. The above-mentioned reference gives considerable detail on the st<;~ges of inv~stigation of UFO repa·ts, ~-e-:tteeJ'l-IM-!'1'-e'a'ses-woope:oa :fi:dd i-l'l-V6:§Ug:flJiolioiSc.necessal":y.-the_ainhisthat .• ..S..4f(-Air-}.-is=provideu·~·wi£hiri . 1Q.da:,ts..o:LthF-..i.nitial.J."~POrt, .with. the hfor-ma;tion,-on-which- t!) -ba,se.- tl-)a. l"ep-1-)'-tcr:-t\le~qriginator- ..• >'_ '. / • r ,-/., r ,' ' ~- •. _,' ,· ·· •',/ I, . .-.: ( ,, _(,·--(~/ /1.-'" ()-~· ·l .. , ' ACTION BY THE DU1~Y OP_E:F.'.A,IIONS O_fFICEfS !I • 5. · Dur!~.?r_maLForkil}g Hours. Ref~r telephone calls repol'ting UFOs to S4f~Air-), Ext 7035/~. No ·:;.ction is requi!'ed on signal message repbr·ts. c;.,J) 2~- o 6. Outside Norma.l WorkinilJi:2~:ll:.:?..• a. ReQort'? Receive~:!J~Y...J'e.)eJilis:>~. Complete the pro-formfl eo t the Annex to this SOP. Dispatch it through the Registry. (1) h:nsure f.Jv:jl, tl1e cn(~.~.;:;_:A.ge hH.s b13en GircuJtd:ed to the st.:-JJ::: detniled nt para 3 above. (2) CompletG p<:wa R of the pro-for·n,e, at tho Annex t,c t.l:i "' SOP a.nd inser-t on the pr·o-fol~rn.e., t.L) .signr.J n10S.f:dr}~~ r·cicr··;·n· _ t•."l which the investigc1tion t'(~r ers. ·. Di.sp;·.,_tch it throtiqh th:·, f~·-.·-::, 1 : ·_ r· · -... INVESTIGATION OJ!' UNIDJ<lllTD'Ilm liLYIHG OBJEm~s l. It bas been stated in the House of Commons and in policy correspondence in the Ministry of Defence that all reported sightings of Ul!'Os are investigated by Jlii.O.D. to detel1lline their cause and to assess if they constitute a military threat. The present procedure ;in M.O,D. is that all sightings are channelled to S.4f(Air) who is responsible for all communications with the public on these matters. S.4f(Air), in collaboration with the A.Ji'.O.R., make preliminary enquiries with Fylingdales or R.S.R.S. Slough, for possible satellite sightings, and with other organisations who may be flying aircraft OI' balloons, or o_perating equipment that could cause optical phenomena giving rise to the sightings. In the majority of cases the sightings can be attri bu·i;ed to these causes 13:nd no fur·ther action is required. 2. In the cases where no inunedia·te satisfactory explanation can be determined, i.e, they are truly unidentified flying objects, then D.S.T.I. are required by Jvl.O.D. to carry out further investigations. These investigations were originally carried out by Tech. Intelligence (Air) but they became the responsibility of the Space Section in DI.55 from the beginning of May 1967. After receiving UJi'O sightings from S.4f(Air) for a complete month, the Space Sec·tion have now had a chance to assess the ma;?;nitude of the task. It is emphasised that the infoimation given in the reports is quite inadequate for any decision to be made from within the office, and if the task is to be done at all, more details must be obtained from those members of the public who originated the sightings. This can only be done from personal in·~erviews as it is sure to involve the prepara-tion of sketches, geographic bearings, distances, heights, movements and further statements. Armed with this lmowledge the investigating officer would then be obliged to assess the facilities in the local area, such as air bases, uni ve1·si ty experimental areas and factories, and consider the prevailing meteorological conditions at the time for conditions which could possibly have given rise to the phenomena. Finally, the investigating officer would be required to make his decisions and write a report on the results of his investigations. It is suggested, therefore, that Ll' the investigation is to be carried out in accord with the official policy statements on the subject, 2-3 man days will be required for each investigation. A total of nine Ul!'O sightings requiring furUwr inves-Gir,ation by DSTI were received during May 1967. \ 3. From the above, it is apparent that investigations into UFOs cannot be regarded as a part-time or· secondary task, and that it is completely beyond inclusion in the work schedule of the already overworked and undermanned Space Section of DI. 55. Under these ·circumstances it is recommended that it be recogn1sed that DSTI cannot undertake the investigation of u:E'Os to the standard required by the stated policy on the subject, or, aHernati vely, an officer and transport be established in DSTI specifically for this purpose. 7th June 1967 (E. HUMl'STON) Sqdn.Ldr. DI. 55 b, ,
... -. 24 The Ortify 1'eleympfr, Fridrry,, June 1:1, 19fi'! -E Around America ::t AS1'RONAV1'S TO DO OlVN DENTIS1'RY l>A.ILY 'rEL£GitAI'H STAH l."'RRESI'ONI>ENTS • NEW YORK, Thursday. I NDIANA. . University's School of Dentistry · is developing a do"it-yourself kit at .the request of the Air Force. When ready, It will ena~le astronauts· and -others cut ori from civilisation to kill pain, fill their own teeth, and stop the spread of decay [or a. year. Dr. Ralflh Phillips, Director or the Air Force School of Aerospat:e Medicine·. said the Ail· Force was lpsing too many man hours because of ll1.olhachc . .. Under stress, nicrs often grind their teeth ·and break. the mol<~rs," he said~ "TOO MUCH SUCCESS" Airline to be merged · l~ACIFIC AIRLINES' starlling ·•advertising campairm ha:;; had an equally st.artling result •. -" Hey. there. you wir.h the sweal on your palms," it- began and procee~led on the princiJJ)e that "most pNlJJie. arc scared witless of flying." Pas· sengers were gh·en a '' lucky .rab· bil's fool." It was diSdoscd tocfay I hat Mr. Matthew McCarthy, the president, has resigned, and !hat the line is to be mcrg~d inlo West Cn:tst Air~ lines. The· camp;1ign "was too successful, it scared people away,". said a spokesman for the new cumpany. TV BULLFIGHTS· Humane society Itr<ltcsts {i'OUR bullfight " kills" are being shown by- a l.os An~eles television station each Sctturday ni~ltt in its peak-hour sports rn·o· gramme. The· .series, filmed in .Tijuana an.d Mexico City, pro· duced an 83 per _cent. favourable response after the first week, Mr. Mal Klein. the station's general manager, said. I ''We are using the programmes on an experimental basis. Our community has a· strong Latin ht:!rirage and that heritage in· eludes bulllighting.'' Protests by the Society for Prevention o(/ Cmehy tn Animals and· the American Humane Society have been made to the Federal Com· municatiOris Commission.- SAUCER•SIGHTERS MEET Visits to other plan~ts: S. AUCER"SIOHTEI\S fmm this country and' Britain were arriving in New York todaY to attend a weekend conference. om~ dally,· it is- tl;le 4 1967 Congress of Scientific Ufolo&ists, commemora~ ting the first'. recorded 'to Dying saucer" sighting 20 years, ;("o\\•~;;h: Mt. Rainer in the Stale ~ ington.:.-.:·_. · ·:, The I • t ~ I f. • • 'i·" . • •• .. I: J. fl . .... : ., " ' r- 1'>-. n i . .I 1· (",_ •II,· - > \....VIWii~·~1'J.:.L.P..u ._ • ,,.,.._ . <: ~ '1.- v I c,"·e~~t Si;CRET · .. • -- ~· ' .. -. .,' UNIDFJ1TIFIED l<'LYlliG OBJ.ECTS Reference : DSTI/126/6 dated 19th June1967 Air Crlre ( Int )/ 2.111 1. Having exrunined the attached minute from DSTI, I have the following comments to make. 2. I agree with DS'l'I that, if UFO are to be investi11aterl in any depth, the task would be formidable and entirel,y outside the scope of curl'ent resources. In the United States, to allay public concern, the Department of Defence has been forced to delegate detailed investigation to Universities on a substantial research contract • In our case, we have tailored our efforts to meet the minimum requirement of protecti!lt! UK airspace from any incursions which mit;ht pose a threat or a hazard. 3. Since investigations began no positive evidence has come to light which would indicate. activity other than that associated with known phenomena. Most reported sightings in recent years have been traced to satellites in orbit, space debris, or meteorological sources. In no case has a report been received which would indicate a real or potential hazard to UK air apace. Prima facie as this is a problem connected with the integrity of OUl' air space, it is arguable that the Air staff should have full responsibilit-J for it. However, because of the high percentage of UFO reports which have space or scientific connotation it is inevitable that DSTI staff will be consulted and become involved in the major part of any investigation. There. is no one else capable of doing this. 'rhey should therefore continue to hold responsib- ility for advising S.4(Air) and other sections of the Air Staff as a direct extension of the work done on a single service basis by the former DDI(Tech). In fact I can think of no better place in which to undertake· this work than DI 55 with its breadth of scientific and teclmical knowledge in space study. In the future they will be helped in this task by the presentation of detail of space, missile and aircraft events in the STCIC. 4. In ~ view the case for deeper investigation into UFOs to meet public and House of Commons demands has been overstated. Our questioners have appeared satisfied with the service given over ten years and I believe it would be illogical to give higher priority or devote more effort than we do now to such a nebulous subject. 5. I therefore recommend that DI 55 should retain responsibility for UFOs and attach a minute to DSTI for your consideration. I also attach a Dail,y Telegraph cutting of 23rd June which epitomises the medium in which we are dealing. • 27th June 1967 lb.~~ ommodore (Intelligence)
• . .. ....-. D,G,I. Unidentified Flying Objects The old Air Ministry had a responsibility for reportin~ on Unidentified Flying Objects. This wa delegated through ACAS(I) to DDI(Tech.), and we hav i~~erited this responsibility, which we have merged into the space section of DI 55. I 2. I am attaching minutes by Mr. Hunter and Squadron Leader Htun:pston setting out the position 1. more detail. 3. I agree with Mr. Hunter that we cannot afford - devote much effort to pursuing these matters, _but I reel that I ought to bring this to your attention, because it is a subject that is always liable to involve newspaper sensationalism or parliamentary q_uestio.'ls. 4. We have the choice of divesting ourselves of' ar responsibility in the matter or accepting_ the ris.l{ that we shall on some occasion be found wantin;r. 19th June, 1967. D~FENCt iNTE~ .. L:l}~j··iCf: 5T.li.FF ? 'i :; i . · . . ,_! ..::.. ,; ....... ·~·'. .~ vc ~ D.S.T,I. . - -, _,-- _,C), '"'-E- ""lf'· "'~ :?" ,~---._M · ·._fi; v .. ,. ........ - ... 4., -- .~ ... . ~r· --. ;•-• " .J_ t ·. .. ) '( CODE 18·76 MR. A. POTTS, DSTI. \:t i I tV:.. l otlbiL. 1 , , .· .. , '.:' Reference ............................ i;.i:-? U. F. O.'s I :recently discussed with you the problem which U.F.O.'s present and you enC.orsed the provisional ruling I had made in DI. 55 that they were to receive the lowest priority of all the cuxTent tasks of the Space Section. 2. I nov;· enclose a note by the DI. 55 Space 'ileapons Systems Office:::· (S/Ldr. E.A.F.. EUM:FS'j~OH) '•7hich sets out in greater detail the handling by the 1iinistry o.f Iie.fence of U.F.O. sightings. 3. When vve are so sho:::·t of ste.:ff for tasks of much higher ].:j!'iO:r'i ty, it is clear that Vie cannot contemplate a s:;ecia.l appointment for the investigation of U.F.O. 's and we must ther:·e:·ore always fall short of v:h2t is requireC. to implement the stated cfi"icial policy. 13th June 1967
• .·. ~· D5T! - 2. ~!la J?:'L'Ue raazo.'l ~or under..aking U?O i.nvcstiga:t:l.otl n,-;; ;:(Ll is to ~ro~"Oct t.b.a integrit:; o.t LX Qirspaoe. Sines i_!i~>!!S·tiga7io~ ~"'~ w-ar -;~u y~;;:s agv !l\.1 p,olli '!.;ivi! ta"":Jidence haa co!lie to llsh-t wm.c;i~ wo::.1~;1 i;;dic.at.a;; aotl.v:tty other t!!Si-, tha-t M!loeiaterl w1 th known p..~er~ame::s. In no ease taa-; 1: am. a~r"~ 0"£ hM a r~pwt bilen :t"aC5i:7cd hticb. ~"Uld s-tlppc.r-t a re~ or J;>ota:rtia:!. tm7<'.,.d to ITii: a:irs'pace. It" ;t'QJ..:.uwe tnat t.hsre is no Ct!.:lle tor gi.v!.ng ~ai:'-tr ezpl::ul.ais to 1011e subject; than in thg p~. 1Ur'!lh.err:.rore, tha~a .is r~ Z'~ggszrtion t.hat o~ CUS'tO.!Z'~rs ei tf~:" s~""""T.ic:=, f'£:' I:JLotblle, a...-a d.issa·tiaf"ii.id 1ti th tn~ ras:r in whicb. t..'l.ai.r qruurtionG hm'G been invasti~ted. 34 -J:.ha 3iiSO:t"PtiOa of th-e !.!Fa "task by DI 55 !ro::t. tile to~er- liD! 'l!sc-'4 i:= a l;cgica:L ou.tcoma rr ~htt 1Diiegrat:l.on ot star! ~it:'.r.i.~ ymu' d.ire-e'tolate. Inavita.b~ inteJ1i_genoe- has the ~jor rol~ t~ ~ in ~~&$6 itiv~st~ti~n~ and, because ot -t1::e SJt·aoe ar ac1en~ifi.o e~lan_atitl!33 gi~;J il"o most ~'70 rapQ.r~m'i ~!li~ ~ark ti·t.s 1-nto the general a...-eas of invootig.at!on aond~cted i~1 tbair pl"1 m.-~my 'tasks b;r D! 55~ Once ti:e STO!O is a g-Ging aon~e...--n th~a m: 55 role in thiz i.'idd ahotU.d be made co:rmid<:~r~bly aa>ilier u a ;I!a.'%'Uoular reDc...'""t en iiio uro will be capable C1t :L~diate ~oas-raf~tiee to opaee acti:vit;y at tho ti..ma.,. COl'f?IDEifJ:!AL . -~-
• • DAS4A(SEC) From : DAS4A(SEC) Sent: To: Subject: 05 January 2001 10:17 OMD14 LOOSE MINUTE Importance: High Page l of l U note from your o ut of office message t1 ·1 at you are away until 8 Jan. I arn away on 8/9 Jan b ut w o uld like to be able to reply to Dr Clarke (see rny minute 12 Dec attac11ed) on my return f possible as t1e has written again, in good humo ur but clearly anxious for a respo nse/ Witl1 thanks - 05/01/0 l
. . Room 8243, Main Building, Whitehall, London, SW1A 2HB Dr D W Clarke Dear Dr Clarke, Telephone (Direct dial) (Switchboard) (Fax) Your Reference Our Reference DIDAS(Sec)6413/1 Dale 5 January 2001 Thank you for your letter of2 January enquiring about progress photocopying the material you requested. The task was finished on 21 December, the material reached this building between Christmas and New Year and is now being packed for posting to you. I am not sure how many days it may take to reach you and so, although I shall have a copy of this letter placed in the parcel, I am also sending a separate copy to keep you informed. You will receive the contents of: AIR 2/ 18564 (PRO reference) AIR 2/18873 (PRO reference) AF/584 (MOD reference) AF/3459/75 (MOD reference) A number of'UFO' related documents on files DEFE 3119 and DEFE 44/1 have also been photocopied and accompany the material listed above. The work has taken 16 hours and 15 minutes to complete and, as indicated in my letter of 6 October, the first 4 are free of charge. The remaining 12 hours and 15 minutes, at £15.00 an hour, result in a cost of£ 183.75. I would be grateful if you would let me have your crossed cheque, made payable to ,Accounting Officer MOD", once all the material has reached you. I apologise for the fact that I am still not able to reply to your request concerning the "additional policy files 1968-81 ". If, by the middle of next week a response early in January seems unlikely I shall let you know. Finally, in your letter of 10 October, you asked about the possibility of a further search within MOD files for DSIIJTIC Report Number 7. Unfortunately, there are not the resources to undertake a full search of files stored in the MOD archives, which seems to be what you have in mind. However, Records staff have, in recent years, seen many files in the course of an
• • accelerated review of records closed for more than 30 years and reviewed DIS material more than 20 years old. As even this extensive work, along with more recent searches, has failed to locate Report Number 7 the opinion, that it has not survived the passage of time, appears very reasonable. Perhaps your other lines of inquiry have been more successful. Yours sincerely,
• .. Ministry of Defence Room 8240 Main Building Whitehall London SWlA 2HB Dr David Clarke • .. ... 4 ··· .. I . ···-···<: . You may recall our exchange of correspondence in October last year with regards to my request for access to certain MOD documents related to 'UFO' phenomena under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. In your most recent comm:.mi<;a!-ic:tl, dated 6 October 2000, you listed the material which you said "could be made available to you during December 2000." I responded on October 10 (copy enclosed), when I confirmed I was willing to meet the appropriate charges and asked if you could proceed with this arrangement. I perfectly understand your staff will have been extremely busy checking material which will have been released at the PRO in the New Year. However, having not heard from you since that date, I wonder if you could let me know if my request has been progressed, and when the material you listed is likely to be available. Many thanks for your help and I look forward to hearing from you,
0 Ministry of Defence Room8l40 Main Building Whitehall London SWIA lHB Your ref: DAS(Sec)/64/3 Dear Dr David Clarke 10 October 2000 Many thanks for your letters of 29 September and 6 October in response to my request for access for MOD documents under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. Firstly, I wish to thank you and your staff for the help you have provided and the efficient and detailed attention which my enquiries have received. Secondly, thank you for listing the contents of the documents you have located, and for explaining both the 'sanitisation' procedure and the details of the charging regime for · copies which I feel is very reasonable. On that basis I want to confirm that I wish to proceed with this enquiry in tenns of the documents requested, listed as nos. 1 and 3-6 in your letter of 6 October, and that I am willing to meet the appropriate charge specified. With reference to the question concerning the contents of the Meteorological Office file, BJ 51311 (no. 2 in your list); after taking into consideration the fact that an 'un-sanitised' version of this document will be available at the Public Record Office from I January 2001, I feel it would be an unecessary waste of your staff resources to request a copy of this document from the MOD at this late stage. Therefore I do not wish to proceed with this particular part of my request. With refto no. 5 in your list ' additional policy files 196S.81' I am grateful that you have been able to identify a number of files relating to this enquiry, and I wish to proceed with my request for access to these documents. I realise there will probably be a large number of documents which fall within this category. It might therefore help if you could provide me with a brief summary of the number of files and pages, estimated cost of copying and the years and subjects they relate to, when your research is completed.
• u 0 Finally, with regards to my request fqr access to DSI/JTIC Report No 7 on UFOs (1952). It is disappointing that this document has not been located during your review of closed files. The attachment I enclosed with my letter of September 4 clearly demonstrated this document existed in 1967 when it was referred to by an officer of the DSTI branch, 0155. It seems improbable that such an important document (the basis of a briefing by the Secretary of State for Air to Prime Minister Winston Churchill in 1952) would have been lost or 'not have survived the passage of time' when other material of lesser interest has survived and is available in the Public Record Office today. From the DSI/JTIC committee minutes available at the PRO it is stated that a 'watered down' copy of the Report No. 7 was being considered for release to the Press during October 1952 by DDI (Security), so it is possible copies may have been sent to a number of different MOD departments. As it is also noted that the Americans (presumably the US Air Force) would have to be consulted before any Press release, copies of Report No 7 may also have been sent to the US Embassy in 1952-53. In addition, there is a note in the minutes stating that copy of this report had been sent to Sir Henry Tizatd, whose papers are preserved at the Imperial War Museum. I intend to visit the Museum to research Tizard's papers in the near future, and will notify you ifl find the document among these papers. In the meantime, I would appreciate any information or advice you could supply as to the options which remain open to me in terms of requesting a further, comprehensive search of Defence Records to locate this historically important Intelligence report. I look forward to hearing from you again before the end of the year as and when the first part of this request is processed. Yours Sincerely, Dr. D.W.Clarke
.l>AS . +~ {SQc) Mtf\1\~TRY OF · O~f~NCE. f2ooM 824-6 MAIN SUfLOIN<O (A)HtT£~ALL 'L.ONDot\J . . 5Wifi Z.H$Loose Minute D lnfo(Exp)R/3/7/8 21 December 2000 DAS4a(Sec) OMD14 REQUEST FOR ACCESS TO UFO FILES- Dr CLARKE Reference: A. D INFO(EXP)R/3/7 /8 dated 16 November 2000 1. Further to Reference A you will be relieved to note that the photocopying of the papers is now complete. I forward six folders, each representing the relevant files identified by Dr Clarke. 2. I previously estimated that the exercise would take 14.9 hours and cost Dr Clarke £163.50. In the event it took 16 hours 15 minutes to complete with a final cost of £183.75. The time taken on individual files was: DSI/JTIC Report N07 and related intelligence reports on "UFOs" 1951-1952 - two folders representing pages from DEFE 31 /19 & DEFE 44/1 -time taken not quantified. ,/ AIR 2/18564- 3 hours 30 minutes. (_ (l,'F /C.K (2-.Cf) {72) ....-· AF /3459/75 - 3 hours 1 0 minutes. AIR 2/18873 & AF /584- two folders 5 hours 35 minutes and 4 hours respectively.DAS4A(SEC) From: -ent: .,b: Subject: OMD14 21 December 2000 14:23 DAS4A(SEC) Out of Office AutoReply: DR CLARKE EXERCISE I'm away on leave until 8th January. If you have an urgent enquiry please contact Chots at OMD/AD(E+MG). L__ _ _ ___, 1
Loose Minute D lnfo(Exp)R/3/7/8 21 December 2000 DAS4a(Sec) OMD14 REQUEST FOR ACCESS TO UFO FILES - Dr CLARKE Reference: A. D INFO(EXP)R/ 3/ 7/ 8 dated 16 November 2000 1. Further to Reference A you will be relieved to note that the photocopying of the papers is now complete. I forward six folders, each representing the relevant files identified by Dr Clarke. 2. I previously estimated that the exercise would take 14.9 hours and cost Dr Clarke "'1" £163.50. In the event it took 16 hours 1 5 minutes to complete with a final cost of £183.75. The time taken on individual files was: DSI/JTIC Report N07 and related intelligence reports on "UFOs" 1 951-1952 - two folders representing pages from DEFE 31/19 & DEFE 44/1 -time taken not quantified. AIR 2/18564- 3 hours 30 minutes. AF/3459/75- 3 hours 10 minutes. AIR 2/18873 & AF/584- two folders 5 hours 35 minutes and 4 hours respectively. 'f. lb~ lfiM: [24-\.1{ - • I• ( l \ l 0 Mcwr ~ <JIU.& 1\c:w.f : ~ lt !.(.[ D lnfo(Exp)R 1 GSY1 .01 - o.v Jts ""-' "-~ .r I UN Cf~SSfiZ IED I From: MINISTRY OF DEFENCE :g; :g @Did War Office Building, Whitehall, London. SWIA 2EU rrectal: Switch Board: Ministry of Defence, DAS4a(Sec), ~ .. Room 8243 Main Building, Horseguards A venue, .London. Your Reference: D/DAS(Sec)/64/3-12th Dec 00 Our Reference: D/DI551108/15 Date: 15 Dec 2000 Dr CLARKE's REQUEST FOR ACCESS TO FILES ON UFOs At your reference above you have asked whether papers up to 1981 on Part 4 of file DI55/108/15 can be released to the PRO. This file was opened on 9th December 1971 and closed on the 11 December 1996 with retention recommended for 10 years. It is not MoD Policy to spilt or disturb closed files, doing so would be likely to create future concerns and suspicion when these files are released to PRO. You also asked for our view on whether MoD should reveal that file part 3 of file D/DI55/40/9/1 has been destroyed. DI55 sees no reason not to be open about the destruction of this file in 1984 but we do not have any information relating to its destruction. You should be aware that DIST wrote to Hd Sec (AS) on the 4th December 2000 terminating any further involvement of DI55 in UAP reporting on the grounds that it is not a formal task and that, in 30 years, no evidence has been found of relevance to DIS interests. Copy to: HdDIS(Sy) AD/DI55 OMD14
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ~ld War Office Building, Whitehall, London. SW lA 2EU Direct Dial: --- Switch Board: ~ Ministry of Defence, DAS4a(Sec), Room 8243 Main Building, Horseguards A venue, .London. Your Reference; D/DAS(Sec)/64/3-121h Dec 00 Our Reference: D/DI55/108/15 Date: 15 Dec 2000 Dr CLARKE's REQUEST FOR ACCESS TO FILES ON UFOs At your reference above you have asked whether papers up to 1981 on Part 4 of file DI55/108/15 can be released to the PRO. This file was opened on 9th December 1971 and closed on the 11 December 1996 with retention recommended for 10 years. It is not MoD Policy to spilt or disturb closed files, doing so would be likely to create future concerns and suspicion when these files are released to PRO. You also asked for our view on whether MoD should reveal that file part 3 of file D/DI55/40/9/l has been destroyed. 0155 sees no reason not to be open about the destruction of this file in 1984 but we do not have any information relating to its destruction. You should be aware that DIST wrote to Hd Sec (AS) on the 4th December 2000 terminating any further involvement of 0155 in UAP reporting on the grounds that it is not a formal task and that, in 30 years, no evidence has been found of relevance to DIS interests. Copy to: HdDIS(Sy) AD/DI55 OMD14 · ~ · . ~~ ~CU"Ctt \ ~ol '2.. . \ a.ut\ 1\o V t'CI\Cltll\e,C. h f ~r,r Dl tr> op~ ~e.w .f.;\~(_~ l ~ ot ':1 ~ b c.c.Y ~CA.) M~ h~\Je. Vt e..w.r lv\ rJ.u... fh 'e. I UN C1te~~J:E IED I Co~+ ~Lt-t '
DAS4A(SEC) From: Sent: To: lnfo(Exp)-Records1 12 December 2000 13:49 DAS4A(SEC) Subject: Dr Clarke Page 1 of I Photocopying of the files for Dr Clarke is progressing. I'll let you know towards the end of the week when we estimate completion. So far as payment is concerned. A cheque payable to "Acco!lntjng Officer MOP" and crossed for the relevant sum (again final cost in due course>. Records 2 at Hayes has a well established billing system and will be happy to bank the cheque. 2 lj l2j00
.. - ~ LOOSE MINUTE 12 December 2000 OMD14 copy to: DD Info{Exp)Rl DI 55 DR CLARKE's REQUEST FOR ACCESS TO FILES ON UFOs Reference: D Info(Exp )R/3/7/8 dtd 16 November 00 1. Following earlier correspondence from Dr Clarke calling for a wide range of information a refined request was provided to us on 4 September. Papers from a small number of files are now in the process of being sanitised and copied for him. 2. The outstanding element of the work relates to policy files covering the years 1968-81 and, over the last month, we have been engaged in checking what material (originating from the Air Staff Secretariat) might be included in this category. Records 1 has been good enough to draw together a list of files on the subject ofUFOs originating from two areas within MOD (Reference) identifying five Secretariat files with the word "Policy" in the title. Unfortunately, despite the Secretariat's confident pronouncement that files on the subject had been retained since 1967, not all have survived. Amongst the casualties are four entitled "Policy" which, according to our records, were destroyed within the Secretariat in 1990 (along with a number of other files on the same subject containing letters from members of the public). The file held by Records I (AF/3459/75 Policy and Policy Statements) has already been requested by Dr Clarke and is being photocopied. 3. Three other files are marked by Records 1 in their "Comments" column "Policy File" ; AF/419 BBC2 "Man Alive Programme", AF/S4f(s)/422 "UFOs Radio Oxford programme" and AF/S4(Air)/506 "Statistical analysis of UFOs (in response to PQs)". This highlights our dilemma; most Secretariat files will contain a few papers that might be termed policy. When Dr Clarke was asked to refine his request in August 2000 he wrote back asking for "AF/3459/75 UFOs: Policy and Policy Statements 1970. This file plus additional policy files 1968-1981.". It seems.to methatthe. ~~ ·~'m'e ' obti~ed 'te ~t()Ok -at in ordeT to close this e;~tercise are tho!e wrttt the wmd Policy in• t~W.. ~: fl!lfb.,•,.u weuW fXlftfirm thotthis assumption iscorre(f. If that is the case, and in the light of the destruction 1n 1990, there are now no more Secretariat policy files from the period that Dr Clarke has not already viewed, or are in the process of being photocopied for him. ht~ an;:. r~,f.o.Df:~~-memM:mthe fact that four additional policy files eJCtsted but un.fortunateij; if)f?IF•~·~~~.m l99<Jt I would appreciate your advice on this point also. 4. There are 6 DI files on the list. The first two are already in the PRO and therefore readily available to Dr Clarke if he wishes to view them. The third (55/40/9/1 Pt 3) is no longer available."· \ UN~ IED \ The final three contain more recent material almost entirely outside the period Dr Clarke has requested. Only Part 4 of 55/108/15 probably holds some papers from the years up to and including 198land may fall to be considered at this time. I would be grateful ifDI 55 would contact OMD 14 direct on this subject and would either DI or OMD let me have a form of words for the reply to Dr Clarke. Would you please indicate whether I should mention the destroyed Pt 3 of 55/40/9/1. As I must write by the end of this year I would be grateful for comments by COP 19 December. DAS4a(Sec) MB8243 - \ UN~l£1ED \
LOOSE MINUTE D/DAS(Sec)64/3 8 December 2000 DD Info(Exp)Rl copy to: OMD14 DR CLARKE's REQUEST FOR ACCESS TO UFO FILES Reference: D Info(Exp)R/3/7/8 dtd 16 Nov 00 1. Thank you for your minute at Reference in which you suggest that Dr Clarke might be asked to pay a deposit in advance of work being undertaken on his behalf I am sorry not to have replied sooner, unfortunately I was out of office unexpectedly and did not return until 6 December. 2. When I wrote to Dr Clarke on 6 October I mentioned two options to him. One was to copy a larger body of information, costing approximately £330, the second option was estimated at some £160. Dr Clarke accepted our offer to copy the smaller number of papers at around £160. As the re-estimation recently made by you increases that latter sum by £3.50 only I do not think we can now insist on a deposit, having made no mention of that possibility in the first place. 3. I would be grateful if you would now undertake the main task as Dr Clarke is expecting to hear from us by the end of the year, with the photocopied papers. Who produces the invoice, perhaps you would let me know? DAS4a(Sec) l\.1B8243-
' • LOOSE MINUTE D INFO(EXP)R/3 /7/8 6 December 2000 D lnfo(Exp)R 1 c Copy To: DAS4a(Sec) REQUEST FOR ACCESS TO FILES: DR CLAKE 1. Following Dr Clarke's request for access to a number of files it has subsequently been agreed that photocopies from the files should be made available. In all four files, not yet release under the provisions of the 30-year rule are involved, plus copies of a few pages from two retained files. 2. Action required: AIR 2/18564- file consists of approximately 77 pages of which 23 require redaction. In the main the redactions relate to the identification of G!C Whitworth and Hennessey's, their names and addresses, from correspondence, but not Whitworth's from newspaper clippings. Note that there are references to both in minutes and submissions which should also be deleted. The original file cover should also be photocopied. AF 3459/75- File consists of approximately 115 pages of which just five require redaction. Leave the Royal Holloway College's details in but remove the name of those writing to the MOD. The UFO Register, the three books at the back of the file, to be photocopied also. For convenience copy two page at a time rather than attempt to reproduce the books as they are in the original. As before the original file cover to be photocopied. AF /584- Number of pages 1 05 approx, number to be redacted 50. Photocopy the front cover of each enclosed file. Watch out for repartee's details in signals. Front file cover to again be photocopied. AIR 2/18873- Number of pages 156 approx, number of redactions 102. Photocopy original file cover but not the PRO cover. Do not photocopy envelopes. On a few occasions a divider (dummy) has been inserted ie E44/45. This should be photocopied. In addition, letters from "officials" (state funded) institutions are included - these made be release without redaction but watch out for references to member of the public ie Ell RSRS letter, it refers to a "Mr Best" (delete "Mr Best").
• Extracts from DEFE 31/19- six pages only- these are to be photocopied, no redactions. Extract from DEFE 4 T/T - one page only to be photocopied. No redactions. 3. The photocopied pages are to be placed in new (PRO) file covers endorsed with file titles and references. In addition, please ensure that all protective marking are cancelled on photocopied documents by overstamping UNCLASSIFIED. 4 . Finally, Dr Clarke has agreed to meet charges, which we have estimated to be in the region of£ 130, we therefore need to monitor very closely the time spent on this exercise. I suggest that you record the t ime taken to process each file separately. This will, of course, prove useful for similar exercises in the future. 5. Any problems please let me know. ~ DD INFO(EXP) RECOROSl GSY1.01.-J Chots: INFO(EXP)-Records 1 Internet : defence.records 1 @gtnet.qov.uk
• • Page I of I • DAS4A(SEC) From: lnfo(Exp)-Records1 Sent: 06 December 2000 09:55 To: DAS4A(SEC) Subject: DR CLARKE EXERCISE janet Please see the attached. lain 06/12/00
• LOOSE MINUTE D INFO(EXP)R/3 /7 I 8 6 December 2000 D lnfo(Exp)Rl c Copy To: DAS4a(Sec) REQUEST FOR ACCESS TO FILES: DR CLAKE 1. Following Dr Clarke's request for access to a number of files it has subsequently been agreed that photocopies from the files should be made available. In all four files, not yet release under the provisions of the 30-year rule are involved, plus copies of a few pages from two retained files. 2. Action required: AIR 2/18564- file consists of approximately 77 pages of which 23 require redaction. In the main the redactions relate to the identification of G/C Whitworth and Hennessey's, their names and addresses, from correspondence, but not Whitworth's from newspaper clippings. Note that there are references to both in minutes and submissions which should also be deleted. The original file cover should also be photocopied. AF 3459/75- File consists of approximately 115 pages of which just five require redaction. Leave the Royal Holloway College's details in but remove the name of those writing to the MOD. The UFO Register, the three books at the back of the file, to be photocopied also. For convenience copy two page at a time rather than attempt to reproduce the books as they are in the original. As before the original file cover to be photocopied. AF /584- Number of pages 1 OS approx, number to be redacted SO. Photocopy the front cover of each enclosed file. Watch out for repartee's details in signals. Front file cover to again be photocopied. AIR 2/T 8873- Number of pages 1 56 approx, number of redactions 102. Photocopy original file cover but not the PRO cover. Do not photocopy envelopes. On a few occasions a divider (dummy) has been inserted ie E44/45. This should be photocopied. In addition, letters from "officials" (state funded) institutions are included -these made be release without redaction but watch out for references to member of the public ie Ell RSRS letter, it refers to a "Mr Best" (delete "Mr Best").
Extracts from DEFE 3 I / I 9- six pages only - these are to be photocopied, no redactions. Extract from DEF£ 41/ 1- one page only to be photocopied. No redactions . 3. The photocopied pages are to be placed in new (PRO) file covers endorsed with file titles and references. In addition, please ensure that all protective marking are cancelled on photocopied documents by overstamping UNCLASSIFIED. 4. Finally, Dr Clarke has agreed to meet charges, which we have estimated to be in the region of £ l 30, we therefore need to monitor very closely the time spent on this exercise. I suggest that you record the time taken to process each file separately. This will, of course, prove useful for similar exercises in the future. 5. Any problems please let me know. ~ DD INFO(EXP) RECORDSl GSY 1.01 0 Chats: INFO(EXP)-Recordsl Internet: defence.records l @gtnet.gov.uk
. .. -- • .. Loose Minute D lnfo(Exp)R/3/7 /8 16 November 2000 DAS4a(Sec) REQUEST FOR ACCESS TO UFO FILES - Dr CLARKE Reference: A. D/DAS(Sec)64/3 dated 12 October 2000 1. Your minute (Reference) together with a copy of Dr Clarke's reply (1 0 October 2000) to your earlier letter seeks to resolve a number of outstanding matters. A revised estimate of providing photocopies 2. I have revisited this part of the exercise. There are some minor variations in the figures but overall no changes in the final total: DSI/JTIC Report N07 and related intelligence reports on "UFOs" 1951-1952 - Seven pages from DFE 31/19 & DEFE 44/1. AIR 2/18564- 75 pages (25 to be sanitised). AF/3459/75- 115 pages (5 to be sanitised). AIR 2/18873 & AF /584- 250 pages (150 to be sanitised). In alii estimate that 44 7 pages will require photocopying, of which 180 will need to be sanitised. On the same basis as previously advised, assuming 2 minutes per enclosure the exercise will take approximately 14.9 hours, the first four hours are free leaving 10.9 hours to be charged at £1 5 per hour, totalling £163.50. 3. In view of the large sum involved I suggest that Dr Clarke be asked to pay a deposit, say £1 00, before we start work. The balance on completion. Time-scale, as before we will devote three hours per week to the activity making it a five week exercise. On receipt of the deposit(?) we will commence work. The identification of policy files covering the period 1968-1981 3. I attach a list of unreleased "UFO" files (Annex A). The list was compiled from; the PRO catalogue, trawl through DAS(Sec), and predessoress files stored at the main MOD archives at Hayes and though contacts in DIS. The list does not purport to be a definitive listing of "UFO" files held by MOD but just those created by two branches.
.. • 4. Three files originally stored at Hayes may be relevant to this exercise: (1) AF /41 g BBC2 Man Alive Programme- "UFOs" (1972) (2) AF /422 "UFOs" BBC Radio Oxford Programme (1973) (3) AF/S4fU/506 Statistical Analysis of"UFOs" (1973) These three and the other records noted in the comments column "Records 1" await cataloguing and eventual transfer to the PRO. Should you wish to view them please let me know. Two DIS 5 files may also be relevant, one, appears to have been destroyed Dl55/40/9/l Part 3, covering the period 1968-71, the other, Part 4 covers the period 1 971 -96. - 5. All other files attributed to "Records" have, following a cursory examination, the standard exchanges of correspondence between members of the public and the MOD about incidents that have been witnessed or enquiries of general interest. Files located at the PRO have not been examined as part of this exercise, but I note that all carry the standard description "UFO" reports! 1J].iM 11fW.~cOU!d be made to locate DSI/JTIC Report No 7/Unidentified Flying Objects (1952)? 6. In short there are -tthe resources to undertake a fullseardt of files stored in the two MOD archives. 7. For your background information: the PRO recommends that government departments undertake two reviews (1) one at around the five year point, and (2) another, for records surviving the first review, at the 25 year point. MOD action varies slightly in that branches undertake a local review before archiving surviving files. Records subsequently surviving local and first these reviews receive a review at the 25-year point ie my staff are currently reviewing records dating from the mid- 1970s. Records selected for permament preservation but that are too sensitive to release at the normal 30-year point may remain closed subject to the Lord Chancellor's of the day agreement. Record, whether open or closed, appear on the PRO catalogue. 8. Open records are, of course, available to researchers at Kew. Closed records can be identified by their PRO references and descriptions on the PRO catalogue. With the advent of the open government initiate (1993) more than 700 member of the public have approached this office about closed records. In addition, my staff have undertaken an accelerated review of records closed for more than 30 years. During the same period my staff have been given access to the DIS store in order to review records more than 20 years old. <nlr actiOfls since 1993 have failed to locate the
~ifl9 - ~part-ano·aswtth other records over 30 years ofd its absence from the PltO catalog~ ~s to only one conclusion that it has not survived the· passage of time. D lnfo(Exp)Rl GSYl.Ol~
• ' AnnexA FILES IDENTIFIED RELATING TO THE SUBJECT OF "UFOs" COVERING THE PERIOD 1970- 1981: CLARKE EXERCISE (October 2000) Note. 1. At the time of the PQ December 1998 a trawl was made through the most likely MOD Form 262Fs stored at Hayes for files relating to UFOs (search was in fact limited to Sec(AS) and predecessor branches only). 2. In addition, files already reviewed, catalogue and transferred to the PRO, but have yet to be released are identified. 3. Comments column record the location of the file, if known: a. PRO- Public Record Office ie awaiting release at the designated date. b. Records 1 = 0 Info (Exp)R 1, GSY. The files are awaiting cataloguing and eventual transfer to the PRO. c. Records 2 = D Info (Exp)R2, Hayes. Files are held pending transfer to 0 Info (Exp)Rl. d. Defence Intelligence Staff -DIS, OWO. Records to be transferred to D Info (Exp)R 1 f 2 in due course. e. Sec(AS), now DAS(Sec). File ref. Date Title Comments Alll2(18564 1957-71 UFO reports West Freugh PRO for release 2002, but as the subject of Dr Clarke's enquiry with Records 1 Alll2(18565 1970-71 UFO reports PRO for release 2002 Alii 2(18872 1972-73 UFO reports PRO for release 2004 )JK2118873 1973-74 UFO reports PRO for release 2005, but as the subject of Dr C's enquiry with Records 1. Alll2(18874 1974-75 UFO reports PRO for release 2006 Alii 2(18920 1975-76 UFO reports PRO for release 2007 Alll2(18921 1976 UFO reports PRO for release 2007 Alll20(12067 Jan 70 UFO reports PRO for release 2001 Alll20(12297 Feb 70 UFO reports PRO for release 2001 Alll20(12298 Mar 70 UFO reports PRO for release 2001 Alll20(12299 Apr70 UFO reports PRO for release 2001 Alll20(12300 May 70 UFO reports PRO for release 2001 Alll20(12301 jun 70 UFO reports PRO for release 2001 Alii 20( 12 302 jul 70 UFO reports PRO for release 2001 Al1120(12303 Aug 70 UFO reports PRO for release 2001 Alll20!12304 Sep 70 UFO reports PRO for release 2001 Alll20!12305 Oct 70 UFO reports PRO for release 2001 Alll20/12306 Nov 70 UFO reports PRO for release 2001 Alll20(12399 1971-72 UFO reports PRO for release 2003 Alll20/12400 Jan 71 UFO reports PRO for release 2003 Alll20/12401 Feb 72 UFO reports PRO for release 2003 Alll20/12402 Mar 72 UFO reports PRO for release 2003 Alll20(12403 Apr 72 UFO reports PRO for release 2003 Alll20(12404 May 72 UFO reports PRO for release 2003
• AIR 20/12405 jun 72 AIR 20/12406 jul 72 AIR 20/12407 Aua 72 AIR 2M 2408 Sep 72 AIR 20/12409 Oct 72 AIR 20/12410 Nov 72 AIR 20/12411 Dec72 AIR 20/12544 jan 73 AIR 20/12545 Feb 73 AIR 20/12546 Mar 73 AIR 20/12547 Aor 73 AIR 20/12548 Mav 73 AIR 20/12549 jun 73 AIR 20/12550 lui 73 AIR 20/12551 Aua 73 AIR 20/12552 Sea 73 AIR 20/12553 Oct 73 AIR 20112554 Nov 73 AIR 20/12555 Dec 73 JU 5/311 1968 70 AF /419 Dec 71 AF/S4f(a)/422 Dec 72 AF /447 Pt I Aug 75- jun 76 AF /S4f(Air)/506 1967-73 AF/584 jan 74 AF 1585 Feb 74 AF/586 Mar 74 AF 1587 Anr 94 AF /588 Mav 74 AF/589 jun 74 AF/590 jul 74 AFI591 Aua 74 AF/592 Seo 74 AF/593 Oct 74 AF /594 Nov 74 AF /595 Dec 74 AF /596 jan 75 AF /587 Feb 75 AF/598 Mar 75 AF /599 Anr 75 AF /560 May75 AF 1561 jun 75 AF /562 jul 75 AF/607 Dec 75 AF /608 jan 76 AF /610 Mar 76 AF /611 Aor 76 AF /612 Mav 76 AF /613 jun 76 UFO renorts UFO reoorts UFO reoorts UFO reports UFO reports UFO renorts UFO reoorts UFO reoorts UFO reoorts UFO renorts UFO reoorts UFO renorts UFO reoorts UFO reoorts UFO reoorts UFO rePorts UFO reports UFO renorts UFO renorts UFO: Met asnects BBC 2 Man Alive programme UFOs Radio Oxford nronramme Edited Reports ( Statistical analysis of UFOs (in " resnonse to PQs) Renorts Reoorts Reoorts Reoorts Reoorts Reoorts Reoorts Reoorts Reoorts Reoorts Reoorts Reoorts Reoorts Reoorts Reoorts Renorts Reports Reoorts Reoorts Reoorts Reoorts Reoorts Reoorts Reoorts Reoorts PRO for release 2003 PRO for release 2003 PRO for release 2003 PRO for release 2003 PRO for release 2003 PRO for release 2003 PRO for release 2003 PRO for release 2004 PRO for release 2004 PRO for release 2004 PRO for release 2004 PRO for release 2004 PRO for release 2004 PRO for release 2004 PRO for release 2004 PRO for release 2004 PRO for release 2004 PRO for release 2004 PRO for release 2004 PRO for release 2001 "POLICY FILE" Records 1 ;:p6ucv FILE!" Records 1 Records 1 Edited very badly. Some are duplicated in files marked thus * (below) "POLICY FILE!" Records-~ --~ Records 1 Records 1 Records 1 Records 1 Records 1 Records 1 Records 1 Records 1 Records 1 Records 1 Records 1 Records 1 Records 1 Records 1 Records 1 Records 1 Records 1 Records 1 Records 1 Records 1 * Records 1 * Records 1 * Records 1 * Records 1 * Records 1 * t:- ~ I .. [.,.-;' 4:::- tZ..\1"' ,kd Se.~e, It-
• .. · '~ ~ AF /616 AF /617 AF /618 AF /619 AF/3459/75 D/058/25/3 D/058/75 /2/1 PtA D/058/75/2/l Pt B D/058/75/2/1 Pt C D/058/75/2/1 Pt F D/058/75/2/1 Pt G D/DS8/75/2fl Pt H D/058/75 /2/2 PtA D/058/75/2/2 Pt B 0/058/75/2/2 Pt C D/058/75/2/2 Pt D D/058/75/2/2 PtE D/058/751212 Pt F DID5817512/2 Pt G DID58/7512/2 Pt H DID581751212 Ptj DIDS81751212 Pt K D/0581751212 Pt L DIDS81751212 Pt M DIDS751213 Pt D D/057512/3 PtE 0/0575/2/3 Pt F 0105751213 Pt G 0105751213 Pt H DIDS75/213 PtJ 010575/2/4 PtA DID5751214 Pt B DIDS751214 Pt D DID581751215 PtA D/058/75/2/5 Pt B 0/058/7516 PtA· 0/05817517 PtA DIDS8fl01209 PtA OIDS8/101209 Pt B D/DSS/101209 Pt C DIDS8fl 01209 Pt D DIDS81101209 PtE DIDS8/IOI209 Pt F DIDS8/l 01209 Pt G DID581101209fl PtA Sep 76 Oct 76 Nov 76 Dec 76 1970 1978 1977 1977 1978 1979 1980 1980 1977 1977 1977 1977 1978 1978 1979 1979 1979 1979 1980 1980 1978 1978 1978 1978 1978 1978 1979 1979 1979 1980 1980 1979 1979 1981 1981 1982 1982 1983 1984 1984 1983 Reports Records 1 Reoorts Records 1 Reoorts Records 1 Reports Records 1 Policy and policy statements "POLICY FILE" Records 1 ?-.\q- - Parliamentary correspondence Records 2 UFO reports, correspondence Records 2 UFO reports corresoondence Records 2 o..l ......... .tj "'Yes ._..A.. UFO reoorts, corresoondence Records 2 UFO reports, correspondence Records 2 UFO reports, correspondence Records 2 UFO reports, correspondence Records 2 UFO reports (edited copies) Records 2 UFO reports (edited copies) Records 2 UFO reoorts (edited cooies) Records 2 UFO reports (edited copies) Records 2 UFO reports (edited copies) Records 2 UFO reports (edited copies) Records 2 UFO reports (edited copies) Records 2 UFO reports (edited copies) Records 2 UFO reports (edited copies) Records 2 UFO reports I edited cooies\ Records 2 UFO reoorts (edited cooies) Records 2 UFO reoorts (edited cooies) Records 2 UFO reoorts Records 2 UFO reports Sec(ASl ~ 8/00 UFO reports SecCAS\ ~ 8/00 UFO reoorts Records 2 UFO recorts Records 2 UFO reoorts Records 2 UFO rePorts Records 2 UFO rePorts Records 2 UFO reoorts Records 2 UFO reoorts Records 2 UFO rePorts Records 2 TV discussion Records 2 Satellite debris Records 2 General briefs and reports, UFO Records 2 corresoondence General briefs and reports, Records 2 correspondence General briefs and reports, Records 2 correspondence General briefs and reports, NIT Hayes correspondence General briefs and reports, NIT Hayes correspondence General briefs and reports, NIT Hayes - correspondence General briefs and reports, Records 2 correspondence General briefs and reports, UFO Records 2 correspondence reports
.. • " • D/DS8/10/209/1 PtB 1984 General briefs and reports, UFO Records 2 correspondence reports D/DS8fl 0/209/1 Pt C 1985 General briefs and reports, UFO Records 2 correspondence reports AF/X58/64 1968 UFO policy & policy statements DAS(Sec), LM 24 Aug 00 AF/X58/64 1970 UFO policv & policy statements DAS(Sec), LM 24 Auo 00 )lb~be- D/DS8/75{l PtA 1979 UFO policy & policy statements DAS(Sec), LM 24 Aug 00 D/DS8/75{l Pt B 1979 UFO policy & policy statements DAS(Sec), LM 24 Aug 00 -11 ~-\~ FILES IDENTIFIED BY DR CLARKE (LETTER DATED 11 AUGUST 2000) THAT APPEAR TO BE~TSIDE ~ ~l ~ • DESIGNATED PERIOD :\'' t't 1985 ~ 0 . - 1996 1996 Media issues D UFO FILES CREATED BY DIS Note: Information obtained b~ D Info (Exp)R 1b, during the early phases of the CLARKE exercise. 55/40/9/1 Pt 1 58- 63 UFO policy IN PRO DEFE 3 1 Ill 8 55/40/9/1 Pt 2 63-67 UFO policy IN PRO DEFE 3 1 /11 9 55/40/9/1 Pt 3 68- 71 UFO policy DESTROYED 8 Aug 84 55/108/15 Pt4 71 - 96 UFO policy DIS 55/108/15 Pt 5 96- 00 UFO policy DIS 55/108/15 Pt 6 2000 - date UFO policy DIS 108/15/1 Pt 1 N/K Incident file DIS 1 08/1 5 I 1 Pt 2 N/K Incident file DIS 108/15/1 Pt 3 N/K Incident file DIS 108/15/1 Pt 3 N/K Incident file DIS 108/15/1 Pt4 N/K Incident file DIS 108/15/1 Pt 5 N/K Incident file DIS 108/15/1 Pt6 N/K Incident file DIS 108/15/1 Pt 7 N/ K Incident file DIS 108/15/1 Pt 8 N/K Incident file DIS 108/15/1 Pt 9 N/K Incident file DIS 108/15/1 Pt 10 N/K Incident file DESTROYED DATE N /K 108/15/1 Pt 11 N/K Incident file DESTROYED DATE N/K 108/15/1 Pt 12 N/K Incident file DESTROYED DATE N/K 108/15/l Pt 13 N/K Incident file DESTROYED DATE N/K 108/15/1 Pt 14 N/K Incident file DESTROYED DATE N/K 108/15/1 Pt 15 N/K lnciderH file DESTROYED DATE N/K 108/15/1 Pt 16 N/K Incident file DESTROYED DATE N/K 108/15/1 Pt 17 N/K Incident file DESTROYED DATE N/K 108/15/l Pt 18 N/K Incident file DESTROYED DATE N/K 108/15/1 Pt19 N/K Incident file DESTROYED DATE N/K 108/15/1 Pt 20 N/K Incident file DESTROYED DATE N/K 108/15!1 Pt 21 1977 Incident file Records 1 108/15/1 Pt 22 1977 Incident fil e Records 1 108!15/1 Pt 23 1977 Incid ent fil e Records 1 1 . . :l• S()tiJ'\If~ 6\~ l)A$. . " • 108/15/1 Pt24 1977 Incident file Records 1 108/15/1 Pt25 1977 Incident file Records 1 108/15/1 Pt26 N/K Incident file DESTROYED DATE N/K 108/15/1 Pt27 N/K Incident file DESTROYED DATE N/K 108/15/1 Pt 28 N/K Incident file DESTROYED DATE N /K 108/15/1 Pt29 N/K Incident file DESTROYED DATE N /K 108/15/1 Pt30 N/K Incident file DESTROYED DATE N /K 108/15/1 Pt31 N/K Incident file DESTROYED DATE N /K 108/15/1 Pt 32 Feb 78 -Jan 83 Incident file DIS 108/l/5 1Pt33 N/K Incident file DESTROYED 30 Nov 92 108{15{1 Pt34 Jun 83 - Mar 85 Incident file DIS 108{15{1 Pt35 Apr 85 - Dec 86 Incident file DIS 108{15/1 Pt36A Dec 86 - Nov 87 Incident file DIS 108/15/1 Pt 368 Nov 87- lui 88 Incident file DIS 108{15/l Pt37 Aug 88 - jul 89 Incident file DIS 108/15/1 Pt38 Jul 89 - Dec 89 Incident file DIS 108{15/1 Pt39 Jan 90- Jun 91 Incident file DIS 108/1511 Pt 40 lun 91 - lan 92 Incident file DIS 108/15/1 Pt41 Feb 92 - Aor 93 Incident file DIS 108{15/1 Pt42 Aor 93 - Oct 93 Incident file DIS 108/15/1 Pt43 Oct 93 -jan 94 Incident file DIS 108/15/l Pt44 Jan 94- May 94 Incident file DIS 108/15/l Pt45 Jun 94- Nov 94 Incident file DIS 108{15{1 Pt46 Nov 94 - May 9S Incident file DIS 108/15/l Pt47 Jun 95 -Jan 96 Incident file DIS 108/15/l Pt48 Feb 96 - Jul 96 Incident file DIS 108{15{1 Pt49 Aug 96 - Oct 96 Incident file DIS 108{15{1 Pt 50 Nov 96 - Dec 97 Incident file DIS 108/15/l Pt51 Jan 97 -to date Incident file DIS I 08/15/2 Pt 1 1993 "Title unknown" DIS 2:!. T)t ~ /fl.l .LOOSE MINUTE :;~tD.AS(S€<:)64 I 3 f 12 October 2000 Hd of DR 1 copy to: OMD 14 REQUEST FOR ACCESS TO 'UFO' FILES -DR CLARKE Reference: DAS(Sec)64/ 3 dtd 6 October 00 1. Dr Clarke has replied speedily to my letter of 6 October (Reference) and I attach a copy of his reply to this minute. 2. J\s you will sec, he is accepting the offer as expressed in my letter, excluding copying ofBJ 5/ 311. \'Vith the reduction in the amount of material to be copied (by soine 300 pages) it would be helpful if we were able to let Dr Clarke have a revised estimate o f the date by \vhich he might hope to receive the documentation, perhaps you would let me know. As the task progresses we also need to be alive to the costs involved and if there is any chance of exceeding the estimate given at Reference. I would be grateful if you wo uld keep a close watch on that aspect and alert me if necessary. I have no idea how the in,roicing is handled, perhaps either you or OMD 14 would advise. 3. Dr Clarkers outstanding request relates to policy ftles 1968-81 . From records kept in this office it appears four ft.les, labelled 'UFO' policy files were almost certainly destroyed in 1990, along with a number of other ft.les on the same subject. This is very disappointing but there might be a possibility of drawing policy material from other ft.les. I shall look through the list and speak with you further.
Ministry of Defence Room 8240 Main Building Whitehall London SWIA lHB . _ , . . ';'.~:: ···~: ~ ··. ,' .-.: Your ref: DAS(Sec)/64/3 Dr David Clarke 10 October 2000 Many thanks for your letters of 29 September and 6 October in response to my request for access for MOD documents under the Code of Practice on Access to Govenunent Infonnation. Firstly, I wish to thank you and your staff for the help you have provided and the efficient and detailed attention which my enquiries havl! received. Secondly, thank you for listing the contents of the documents you have located, and for explaining both the 'sanitisation' procedure and the details of the charging regime for copies which I feel is very reasonable. On that basis I want to confirm that I wish to proceed with this enquiry in tenns of the documents requested, listed as nos. 1 and 3-6 in your letter of 6 October, and that I am willing to meet the appropriate charge specified. With reference to the question concerning the contents of the Meteorological Office file, BJ 5/311 (no. 2 in your list); after taking into consideration the fact that an 'un-sanitised' version of this document will be available at the Public Record Office from 1 January 2001, I feel it would be an unecessary waste of your staff resources to request a copy of this document from the MOD at this late stage. Therefore I do not wish to proceed with this particular part of my request. With ref to no. 5 in your list 'additional policy files 1968-81' I am grateful that you have been able to identify a number of files relating to this enquiry, and I wish to proceed with my request for access to these documents. I realise there will probably be a large number of documents which fall within this category. It might therefore help if you could provide me with a brief summary of the number of files and pages, estimated cost of copying and the years and subjects they relate to, when your research is completed. . ··-.-.'·"
Finally, with regards to my request for access to DSIIJTIC Report No 7 on UFOs (1952). It is disappointing that this document has not been located during your review of closed files. The attachment I enclosed with my letter of September 4 clearly demonstrated this document existed in 1967 when it was referred to by an officer of the DSTI branch, DI55. It seems improbable that such an important document (the basis of a briefing by the Secretary of State for Air to Prime Minister Winston Churchill in 1952) would have been lost or 'not have survived the passage of time' when other material of lesser interest has survived and is available in the Public Record Office today. From the DSI/JTIC committee minutes available at the PRO it is stated that a 'watered do""rn' copy of the Report No. 7 was being considered for release to the Press during October 1952 by DDI (Security), so it is possible copies may have been sent to a number of different MOD departments. As it is also noted that the Americans (presumably the US Air Force) would have to be consulted before any Press release, copies of Report No 7 - ,. ;may also have been sent to the US Embassy -in 1952-53. In addition, there is a note in the mi~utes stating that~opy of this report had been sent to Sir Henry Tizard, whose papers are preserved at the Imperial War Museum. I intend to visit the Museum to research Tizard's papers in the near future, and will notify you if! find the document among these papers. In the meantime, I would appreciate any information or advice you could supply as to the options which remain open to me in terms of requesting a further, comprehensive search of Defence Records to locate this historically important Intelligence report. I look forward to hearing from you again before the end of the year as and when the first part of this request is processed. Dr. D.W.Ciarke
~AS4A(SEC) From: Sent: To: Subject: Importance: APS(1 )/U SofS(Perso na I) 11 October 2000 09:25 DAS4A(SEC) UFOS High Thanks very much for the files and the other bits and pieces on ufos. Minister is in office today and tomorrow and I'll try and get him to focus on this. I'll let you know what the outcome is as soon as I can. In the meantime, if you need the files let me know. Thanks Assistant Private Secretary to the Under Secretary of State
~ _uo Q.M.~ ~ ~·'-*. ~~At· .. );.,~.~~~~~ ~~·~~~. ~~~ DR2trt~c'"'"t' ~. J~OURNE AVENUK .HAYES MIDDI.~ESE:% 003 Hitf MOD Form 195 {7194)11-0CT-2000 10=40 FROM SECRETARIAT CAIR STAFF) TO e .. -· TO: • From: DAS 4a(Sec) MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Secretariat (Air Staff) Room 8243. Main Building~ Whitehall LONDON SWlA 2HB Telephone (Direct (Switchboard 020 7218 9000 (Fax) = === FAX MESSAGE "Fi1es Out" SUBJECT: Location of closed files 1 '· DATE: 11 Oct 00 NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS COVER: 3, LOCATION OF CLOSED FILES I attach a list of files, all 'UFO' volumes, that appear to have been scnr for destruction during March 1990. Numbers 1-2 and 5-6 you have already searched for and confirmed that you still have 6 (D/DS817 511). I would be grateful if you would now check your ~cords to see ifyou have any of those files up to and including number 17 and let me know the result of your scarclt Wilh thanks. P.01/03
11-0CT-2000 10 =40 FROM SECRETARIAT CAIR STAFF) TO • f • UPO Piles And ~beir Status Title & Date of Last Encl t •. ·· UFO Policy & Policy State~ts-22/2/68 \~. UFo/Policy & Policy - Statements-31/3/70 XBY Number AF/XSB/64 AF/XSB/64 ~ . · Pttr-l.ic:UcL.:ti&{i:iy .. E:nqufi:'ie's···"· '" ~"·· · · ·· · -,~ -~··.- · .. ··--· ·- ·· on UFOs- Prime Minister's (JJA Hennessey)-1/7/70 AF/1505 *· Parliamentary Questions and Enquires on UFO's-13/1/77 AF/1505 S· UFOs- Policy Statements 18/1/79 ' , UFOs- Policy Statements 4/12/79 ~;. UFOs- Reports Correspondence 25/8/78 D/DSS/75/lA D/DSB/75/l D/DSB/75/2/1 P. 02/ 03 D=Destroyed c-eurrent D/q:lllo~ quoted hir:held in room Part Status f·UFOs- Reports Correspondence D/DSS/75/2/1 E ~ 10/1/79 q •UFOs- Reporte Correspondence JJA Hennessey-ll/1/78 l~· UFOs- Correspondence-12/2/82 t\. UFOs- Reports Correspondence M.D.Davies - 13/1/77 ~ tJFOs Reports June-Oct 7 9 24/9/79 l3·UFOs Parliamentary correspondence-25/1/79 \~.UFOs Parliamentary Correspondence-ll/2/82 I{·UFOs Parliamentary Correspondence- House of Lords Debate J~n 1979 15/l/79 ~ D/DSS/75/2/1/1 I .)t) D~ D/DSS/75/2/1 J ~ .D;/ D/DSS/75/2/l/2 A ~ ov-· D/DSB/75/2/4 c~ o··yy··· ··- ... ~ . .. , ... B~ ,..-· D/DSS/75/3 o ... / D/OSS/75/3 c ::D o ·/ ··· D/DSB/75/3/l A~ D ;_.,/·~·· ~; ·1_l l-OCT- 2C00 10 : 40 FROM SECRETARIAT C AIR STAFF ) TO \ \·· \ '\ I lb . UFOs Parliamentary Correspondence- House of Lords Debate Jan 1979 15/2/79 D/DSS/75/3/1 11. UFOs Solar Satellite Power Station-Not Quoted P.03/03 ' .;,· _ ~ = . f ~ •. . \4 ' B -~ _c"_· . · r · ~,., ) D , ; , . .., .. ~----------- -- - ------------------------------------ ----------------~~ . • 1··' r I· , -- / ·' I 1 \ "- -., ..... '\ '.-.,_.,..._ ~ ' D/DSS/75/5 n/q / .,_ . --7 General Briefs + Reports ~ UFO Correspondence-30/7/81 D/DSB/10/209 ~ ~ General Briefs + Reports UFO Correspondence-30/12/81 D/DSS/10/209 --7'>- g~~e~~~r:~~~~~e~c~=~~~~~~ -~~D~/; _ ~ --~ - 20~ - -~, ~Aia'ft ¢\ ~~otf-'/ . General Brl.efs + Reports ··---- _ ---~ . , --7' UFO Correspondence-29/10/82 D/DSB/~0/?09 _ D > :. ~ <. ~ - ~ , General Briefs + Reports ~~UFO Correspondence-10/5/83 General Briefs + Reports ~ UFO Correspondence-22/2/84 D/DSB/10/209 D/DSB/10/209 E ,, F ~-- ll Pt--r· H A , ,~ ~f__j · \ ~\ --:::s:-- General Briefs + Reports · · ~ . / ' UFO Correspondence-6/8/84~8/10/209 _ \_§) General Briefs + Reports -.-- - __ _ _- !' · ~ ~ r" \ nJ.l ';)_~~~ ·oV UFO Correspondence-24/12/84 D/DSB/10/209 H General Briefs + Reports UFO Correspondence. Reports 2 3/10/t:l General Briefs + Reports UFO Correspondence. Repo ts "/ No date quoted "--... General Briefs + Reports ~ ------ - - --- ---- --- UFO Correspondence. Report D/DSB/10/209/1 No date quoted UFOs- Policy I' D/DSec(AS)l2/1 UFOs- Reports -- D/DSec(AS)12/2 ~ ,-- II II II " II " .. 1\ A A B c D E p· G ._ ,\·'\ \4(\'f...:? ~ - if<.. --/ . n/q ~loo""'lS A-1"' ·t\ f\'t ci$ Sj K J.cc.c; . njq .,- ~,._on " ;;;;.~--- f\'f- "'"'i~ ~~ K: / n/q · /~b I 0 6 hir hir hir hir hir hir hir -: " / I 'I '·. ',, ''/ TOTAL P. 03
From: DAS 4a(Sec) MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Secretariat (Air Staff) Room 8243, Main Building, Whitehall LONDON SWlA 2HB Telephone (Direct (Switch 020 7218 9000 (Fax) FAX MESSAGE -"Files Out" SUBJECT: Location of closed files DATE: 11 Oct 00 NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS COVER: 3 LOCATION OF CLOSED FILES 52 I attach a list of files, all 'UFO' volumes, that appear to have been sent for destruction during March 1990. Numbers 1-2 and 5-6 you have already searched for and confinned that you still have 6 (D/DS8/75/l). I would be grateful if you would now check your records to see if you have any of those files up to and including number 17 and let me know the result of your search. With thanks.
UFO Files And Their Status Title & Date of Last Encl \. UFO Policy & Policy Statements-22/2/68 '·k_· UFO Policy & Policy Statements-31/3/70 ~ . P-u.L 1-~ct..utenti.iY E-~LJ.qUirie·s··~·- on UFOs- Prime Minister's (JJA Hennessey)-1/7/70 ~. Parliamentary Questions and Enquires on UFO's-13/1/77 S. UFOs- Policy Statements 18/1/79 ~ , UFOs- Policy Statements 4/12/79 7. UFOs- Reports Correspondence 25/8/78 ~.UFOs- Reports Correspondence 10/1/79 KEY D=Destroyed C=Current n/q=not quoted hir~held in room Number AF/X58/64 AF/X58/64 AF/1505 AF/1505 D/DS8/75/1A DjDS8/75/1 DjDS8/75/2/1 D/DS8/75/2/1 Part 1 2 2 3 A B D E Status D ., c_ "'(j.,. ,.,.. oA .hJl-..o . .._eo(.- N•v \1 lo<AN.C. D v/c-..gv........,..t .. .. ~~,~~=,.v D/ DV D ~ D ~·UFOs- Reports Correspondence JJA Hennessey-11/1/78 D/DS8/75/2/1/1 X Dv IU· UFOs- Correspondence-12/2/82 D/DS8/75/2/1 J t\. UFOs- Reports Correspondence M.D.Davies-13/1/77 D/DSB/75/2/1/2 A ~ UFOs Reports June-Oct 79 24/9/79 l3.UFOs Parliamentary Correspondence-25/1/79 l~·UFOs Parliamentary Correspondence-11/2/82 f~·UFOs Parliamentary Correspondence- House of Lords Debate Jan 1979 15/1/79 DjDS8/75/2/4 c DjDS8/75/3 B D/DS8/75/3 c D/DS8/75/3/1 A Dv D D D ·.,~
• lb. UFOs Parliamentary Correspondence- House of Lords Debate Jan 1979 15/2/79 11. UFOs Solar Satellite Power Station-Not Quoted D/088/75/3/1 D/DS8/75/5 B n/q / D '/ D .j' --- ~ ~ral Briefs + Reports ~------------------------------------------ ~ UFO Correspondence-30/7/81 General Briefs + Reports UFO Correspondence-30/12/81 ~General Briefs+ Reportsd'.\ UFO Correspondence-30/6/~ )-' General Briefs + Reports UFO Correspondence-29/10/82 ·- . ·'·· . ·- . General Briefs + Reports ~~UFO Correspondence-10/5/83 General Briefs + Reports ~ UFO Correspondence-22/2/84 ~General Briefs + Reports ~UFO Correspondence-6/8/84 General Briefs + Reports UFO Correspondence-24/12/84 General Briefs + Reports UFO Correspondence. Reports 23/10/tJ General Briefs + Reports UFO Correspondence. Reports ~ No date quoted General Briefs + Reports UFO Correspondence. Reports No date quoted UFOs- Policy UFOs- Reports " " " " " " D/DS8/10/209 A D/DS8/10/209 B D/DS8/10/209 c D/DS8/10/209 .. D D/DS8/10/209 E ,, D/DS8/10/209 F nfet -- I' D/088/10/209 G D/DS8/10/209 H D/088/10/209/1 A njq/ D/088/10/209/1 B D/DS8/10/209/1 c njq ·/ D/DSec(AS)12/1 A c D/D8ec(A8)12/2 A hir " B hir " c hir " D hir " E hir " F hir " G hir
*************** -COMM. JOURNRL- ******************* DATE 11-DCT-2000 *****TIME 10:40 *** P.01 MODE = MEMORY TRANSMISSION START=11-0CT 10:39 END=11-0CT 10:40 FILE NO.= 098 STN NO. COM AEER NO. STATION NAME/TEL.NO. PAGES DURATION 001 OK 003/ 003 00:00'52" -SECRETARIAT CAIR STAFF) - ************************************ - - ***** - From: DAS 4a(Sec) MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Secretariat (Air Stafl) Room 8243, Main Building, Whitehall LONDON SWIA2HB Telephone (Direct (S~tchbo~OO (Fax)- FAX MESSAGE TO:-- "Files Out" SUBJECT: Locatiou of closed files DATE: 11 Oct 00 NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS COVER: 3 LOCATION OF CLOSED FILES I ;mach a list of filc.o;, all 'UFO' volumes, thar appear to have been scnr ror destruction during March 1990. Numbers 1-2 and S-6 you have already searched for and confirmed that you still have 6 (DJDS8n511). Twould be grateful if you would now check your records lo see if you have any or those files up to and including number 17 and lel me know the result of your search. With thanks. $'] *********
....... .... DAS 4a(Sec) Ministry of Defence Room8240 Main Building Whitehall London SWlA 2HB Your ref: DAS(Sec)/64/3 De~ Dr David Clarke l 0 October 2000 Many thanks for your letters of 29 September and 6 October in response to my request for access for MOD documents under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. Firstly, I wish to thank you and your staff for the help you have provided and the efficient and detailed attention which my enquiries have received. Secondly, thank you for listing the contents of the documents you have located, and for explaining both the ' sanitisation' procedure and the details of the charging regime for copies which I feel is very reasonable. On that basis I want to confirm that I wish to proceed with this enquiry in terms of the documents requested, listed as nos. l and 3-6 in your letter of 6 October, and that I am willing to meet the appropriate charge specified. With reference to the question concerning the contents of the Meteorological Office file, BJ 5/311 (no. 2 in your list); after taking into consideration the fact that an 'un-sanitised' version of this document will be available at the Public Record Office from l January 2001, I feel it would be an unecessary waste of your staff resources to request a copy of this document from the MOD at this late stage. Therefore I do not wish to proceed with this particular part of my request. With ref to no. 5 in your list 'additional policy files 1968-81' I am grateful that you have been able to identify a number of files relating to this enquiry, and I wish to proceed with my request for access to these documents. I realise there will probably be a large number of documents which fall within this category. It might therefore help if you could provide me with a brief summary of the number of files and pages, estimated cost of copying and the years and subjects they relate to, when your research is completed.
Finally, with regards to my request for access to DSI/JTIC Report No 7 on UFOs (1952). It is disappointing that this document has not been located during your review of closed files. The attachment I enclosed with my letter of September 4 clearly demonstrated this document existed in 1967 when it was referred to by an officer of the DSTI branch, DI55. It seems improbable that such an important document (the basis of a briefing by the Secretary of State for Air to Prime Minister Winston Churchill in 1952) would have been lost or 'not have survived the passage of time' when other material of lesser interest has survived and is available in the Public Record Office today. From the DSI/JTIC committee minutes available at the PRO it is stated that a 'watered down' copy of the Report No. 7 was being considered for release to the Press during October 1952 by DDI (Security), so it is possible copies may have been sent to a number of different MOD departments. As it is also noted that the Americans (presumably the US Air Force) would have to be consulted before any Press release, copies of Report No 7 may also have been sent to the US Embassy in 1952-53. In addition, there is a note in the minutes stating that~opy of this report had been sent to Sir Henry Tizard, whose papers are preserved at the Imperial War Museum. I intend to visit the Museum to research Tizard's papers in the near future, and will notify you if I find the document among these papers. In the meantime, I would appreciate any information or advice you could supply as to the options which remain open to me in terms of requesting a further, comprehensive search of Defence Records to locate this historically important Intelligence report. I look forward to hearing from you again before the end of the year as and when the first part of this request is processed. Dr. D. W.Clarke
DAS 4a(Sec) Ministry of Defence Room 8240 Main Building Whitehall London SWlA 2HB Your ref: DAS(Sec)/64/3 De~ 10 October 2000 Many thanks for your letters of 29 September and 6 October in response to my request for access for MOD documents under the Code of Practice on Access to Govenunent Information. Firstly, I wish to thank you and your staff for the help you have provided and the efficient and detailed attention which my enquiries have received. Secondly, thank you for listing the contents of the documents you have located, and for explaining both the ' sanitisation' procedure and the details of the charging regime for copies which I feel is very reasonable. On that basis I want to confirm that I wish to proceed with this enquiry in terms of the documents requested, listed as nos. 1 and 3-6 in your letter of 6 October, and that I am willing to meet the appropriate charge specified. With reference to the question concerning the contents of the Meteorological Office file, BJ 5/311 (no. 2 in your list); after taking into consideration the fact that an 'un-sanitised' version of this document will be available at the Public Record Office from 1 January 2001 , I feel it would be an unecessary waste of your staff resources to request a copy of this document from the MOD at this late stage. Therefore I do not wish to proceed with this particular part of my request. With ref to no. 5 in your list 'additional policy files 1968-81' I am grateful that you have been able to identify a number of files relating to this enquiry, and I wish to proceed with my request for access to these documents. I realise there will probably be a large number of documents which fall within this category. .!!_ might therefore help if you ~uld prov~e me with a · f s of the number of files and a es, estimated coSf of copying and e years and subjects they relate to, when your research is completed.
I Finally, with regards to my request for access to DSI/JTIC Report No 7 on UFOs (1952). It is disappointing that this document has not been located during your review of closed files. The attachment I enclosed with my letter of September 4 clearly demonstrated this document existed in 1967 when it was referred to by an officer of the DSTI branch, 0155. It seems improbable that such an important document (the basis of a briefing by the Secretary of State for Air to Prime Minister Winston Churchill in 1952) would have been lost or 'not have survived the passage of time' · when other material of lesser interest has survived and is available in the Public Record Office today . .. From the DSIIJTIC committee minutes available at the PRO it is stated that a 'watered down' copy of the Report No. 7 was being considered for release to the Press during October 1952 by DOl (Security), so it is possible copies may have been sent to a number of different MOD departments. As it is also noted that the Americans (presumably the US Air Force) would have to be consulted before any Press release, copies of Report No 7 may also have been sent to the US Embassy in 1952-53. In addition, there is a note in the minutes stating that~opy of this report had beeu sent iu Sir Henry Ti~d., whusepapet:s are preserved at the Imperial War Museum. I intend to visit the Museum to research Tizard' s papers in the near future, and will notify you if I find the document among these papers. I look forward to hearing from you again before the end of the year as and when the first part of this request is processed. Dr. D.W.Ciarke
(- . TO: From DAS 4a(Sec) MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Secretariat (Air Staff) Room 8243, Main Building, Whitehall LONDON SWIA 2HB Telephone (Direct (S - FAX MESSAGE - "Files Out" SUBJECT: Location of closed files DATE: 9 Oct 00 NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS COVER: 1 LOCATION OF CLOSED FILES I would be grateful if you would attempt to trace the following files: UFO Policy and Policy Statements- AF/X58/64 Part 1 -Opened 22.2.68 UFO Policy and Policy Statements - AF/X58/64 Part 2 -Opened 3 1.3. 70 UFO - Policy Statements - D/DSS/75/1 Part A - Opened 18.1.79 UFO- Policy Statements - D/DSS/75/ 2/ 1 Part B- Opened 4.12.79 ~ cs"'"~ ~ ~._:S + ~ c-o-b,.,~ 4-. ~du- ~~ ~). ~aw~ + M (..f.L.I.J ';..& -tN, o-\ k..t..... ~ QA ~ "~-:-:---: \' ~ :9 (~· OcVOO
.. .. *************** -COMM. JOURNRL- ******************* DATE 09-0CT-2000 ***** TIME 15:27 *** P.01 MJDE = MEMCRY TRANSMISSIQ-l START=09-0CT 15:27 END-09-0CT 15:27 FILE NO . = 079 STNt-0. COM ABER NO. STRTlON NAME/ TEL.NO. PAGES DURATION 001 a 001/001 oo: 00' 25" -SECRETAR IAT CAIR STAFF) - ************************************ - - ***** - From DAS 4a(Sec) MINISTRY DEFENCE Secretariat (Air Staft) Room 8243, Main Building, \Vhitehall LONDON SWlA 2HB Telephone (Direct dial)~ (Switchboard) 020 72fr9-~ (Faxp@§d! I :Zj FAX MESSAGE TO: ~~~~" "Files Out" SUBJECT: Loc:atioo of closed files DATE: 9 Oct 00 NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS COVER: l LOCATION OF CLOSED FILES 1 would be grateful ir you would attempt to trace the following Iiles: UFO Policy and PoliC}• Statemcnr.s- AF/XSR/64 Part 1 • Opened. 22.2.68 UFO Policy and Policy Statements· AFIX.58/64 Part 2 • Opened 31.3. 70 UfO ·Policy Statements- DIDS8nSil Part A· Open<:d 18.1. 79 UFO- Policy Slatements- OIDS&nS/211 Part B ·Opened 4.12. 79 *********
r Dr David Clarke Dear Dr Clarke, From: DAS 4a(Sec) MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Room 8240, Main Building, Whitehall, LondonJ SW1A 2HB Telephone (Direct dial} (Switchboard} (Fax} You•· Reference Our Reference - "";? DAS(Sec )164 J Date 06 (kto h~r 2000 020 721 8 21 40 ... · [ am· writing fitrther lo m~ 4 letter of 29 September in which lindicatcdthat l 'hoped to be·. able to rep!~.· tc- - you in greater detail during the course of the first week in October. Tmvards the end of your own letter of 4 September you summarised your request for access to information under the Code of Practice on Access to Government lnfonnation, asking six main questions_ I shall now address these questions in the order they were asked but before doing so it might be helpful if I explain the usc of the term "sanitisc" in the paragraphs below. This simply means that all personal details (names. addresses) are obscured as documents that have not been released to the PRO are copied for supply to indiYidual enquirers. l) DSIJJTIC Report No 7 'Unidentified Flying Objects' (1952) and related intelligence reports on 'VFOs' 1951-52 -I can confirm that a review of closed files has taken place but none were found to contain the report you seck. As a consequence of this, and earlier searches which failed to locate the report. we conclude it has not survived the passage of time. However, this latest rcvie\v identified a number of 'UFO' related documents, six on DEFE 31/19 and one page on DEFE 44/1 \Yhich might be photocopied and supplied to you, as I shall explain belo\v in greater detail. I am informed that these documents represent the full extent of'UFO' material contained in closed intelligence records. 2) BJ 5/311 Records of the Meteorological Office, 'Unidentified Flying Objects': meteorological aspects, 1968-79- The file contains some 360 enclosures, mostly letters to and from members ofthc public. and is due for release to the Public Records Office in January 200 I. Sanitising and photocopying the contents of the file might be done marginally in advance of that date (see below). 3) AIR 2/18564 Air Ministry/MOD, 'UFO' Report West Freugh 1957-1971- This file is for release in January 2002. In the meantime it "·ould be possible to sanitisc the dozen or so pages that contain personal details and photocopy them and the remainder of the file (around 40 documents), supplying you with those copies (see beiO\v). 4) AF/3459/75 'UFOs': Policy and policy statements 1970- The file includes policy documents. published articles and pamphlets, and some six pages require sanitising. It "ould be possible to photocopy the contents of the file and provide you with copies (see below). · 5) Additional policy files 1968-81 -Our researches have identified a substantial number of files, although many appear to contain correspondence from members of the public. We are now \\Orking on locating those that may include policy documents and shall write to you as soon as we have completed that research.
f • 6) AIR 20/12556 'UFO' reports January 1974 (additionally AIR 2/18873)- File AIR 20/12556 is not a 'UFO' file. AIR 2/18873 contains public enquiries concerning 'UFOs' covering the period June 1973 to February 1974 and amounts to some 109 enclosures. Additionally, AF/584 contains 'UFO' reports for January 1974 amounting to some l 00 enclosures. It would be possible to sanitise and photocopy the contents of both files (see below). As I mentioned in my letter of 29 September, the Ministry of Defence is bound by the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. This means that we are committed to providing you with the information you require, as long as it is not exempted under the Code. However, to ensure this does not create an extra burden on the taxpayer, we have a charging regime for more complicated requests. If a request is likely to require over four hours' \Vork, each hour's work over four hours (or part thereof) is charged at £15.00 per hour. We estimate that the number of documents to be copied in the files mentioned in 1-4 and 6 above is in the region of 800 pages. Assuming it will take two minutes to check, sanitise and photocopy each page our calculation is that, after the first 4 hours, 22 hours ohvork at £15.00 per hour will remain totalling some £330.00. To copy the full 800 pages would be a four day task spread over eight half days. As the fairly small section likely to take on the \York \viii also be heavily involved in checking material to be released in January 2001, those eight half days would be spread over an eight week period. The material could be tna'CI~· ~v<lil<l hl .t~ toyotnluring Decr:'mher2·ooo.·. ~ ·· ··-· ~·· · , · ·· · ·· · - If \'OU decide to wait to view the contents of file BJ 5/311 until its release to the Public Records Office in January 2001, then the cost of copying the remaining files falls, after deducting the first four hours of \\·ork. to around £160.00. I would be grateful for confirmation that you wish to proceed with this enquiry, indicating \vhether including or excluding BJ 5/311, and that you are willing to meet the appropriate charge. If the cost of obtaining the information is likely to be significantly greater than our estimate suggests we will contact you again before proceeding further. I look forward to hearing from you in due course.
Dear Dr Clarke_ From: DAS 4a( Sec) MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Room 8240, Main Building, Whitehall, London, SW1A 2HB Telephone (Direct dial) (Switchboard) (Fax) Your Reference Our Reference DAS(Sec )!64' 3 Date 06 Octoller 2000 020 721 8 21 40 020 721 8 9000 .. -.· · ·. ,.· :t.·anl 'rrh1ng ft1tther tom)'· letter of ·2g - s ~ ·pt f ~!'il,cr i"n 'vhich ! t!'·dir:ttedthat I hOped tc be able to repl)' tcY · you in greater detail during the course of the first week in October_ our ... T awards the end of your own letter of 4 September you summarised your request for access to information under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, asking six main questions_ I shall now address these questions in the ord!.!r they were asked but before doing so it might be helpful if I explain the usc of the term "sanitise" in the paragraphs below. This simply means that all personal details (names, addresses) arc obscured as documents that have not been released to the PRO are copied for supply to indiYidua\ enquirers. 1) OSI/JTIC Report No 7 'Unidentified Flying Objects' (1952) and related intelligence reports on 'UFOs' 1951-52- I can confirm that a review of closed files has taken place but none were found to contain the report you seck. As a consequence of this, and earlier searches which failed to locate the r~port we conclude it has not survived the passage of time. However, this latest revie\v identified a number of'UFO' related documents, six on DEFE 31/ 1 9 and one page on DEFE 44/l which might be photocopied and supplied to you, as I shall explain below in greater detail. I am informed that these documents represent the full extent of'UFO' material contained in closed intelligence records. 2) BJ 5/311 Records ofthe Meteorological Office, 'Unidentified Flying Objects': meteorological aspects, 1968-79- The file contains some 360 enclosures, mostly letters to and from members ofthc public, and is due for release to the Public Records Otlice in January 2001. Sanitising and photocopying the contents of the file might be done marginally in advance of that date (see below) . 3) -/A IR 2/18564 Air Ministry/MOD, 'UFO' Report West Freugh 1957-1971 -This file is for release in January 2002. In the meantime it would be possible to sanitise the dozen or so pages that contain personal ddails and photocopy them and the remainder of the file (around 40 documents), supplying you \vith those copies (see belo,v). / 4) AF/3459/75 'UFOs': Policy and policy statements 1970- The file includes policy documents, published articles and pamphlets, and some six pages require sanitising. It would be possibk to photocopy the contents of the file and provide you with copies (see belm\"). - 5) Additional policy files 1968-81- Our researches have identified a substantial number of files, ~0( ~ .... although many appear to contain correspondence from members of the public. We are no\v \vorking on locating those that may include policy documents and shall write to you as soon as \Ve have completed that research.
• • '-,/" """ ,-)_::;..- / ,.,\Q; ~oy ut ./ 6) AIR 20/12556 'UFO' reports January 1974 (additionally AIR 2/18873)- File AIR 20/12556 is not a 'UFO' file. AIR 2/18873 contains public enquiries concerning 'UFOs' covering the period June 1973 to February 1974 and amounts to some 109 enclosures. Additionally, AF/584 contains 'UFO' reports/ for January 1974 amounting to some I 00 enclosures. It would be possible to sanitise and photocopy the contents of both tiles (see below). As I mentioned in my letter of 29 September, the Ministry of Defence is bound by the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. This means that we are committed to providing you with the information you require, as long as it is not exempted under the Code. However, to ensure this does not create an extra burden on the taxpayer, we have a charging regime for more complicated requests. If a request is likely to require over four hours' work each hour's work over four hours (or part thereof) is charged at £15.00 per hour. We estimate that the number of documents to be copied in the files mentioned in 1-4 and 6 above is in the region of 800 pages. Assuming it will take two minutes to check, sanitise and photocopy each page our calculation is that, after the first 4 hours, 22 hours of work at £15.00 per hour will remain totalling some £330.00. To copy the fi.Jl!800 pages would be a four day task spread over eight half days. As the fairly small section likely to take on the work will also be heavily involved in checking material to be released in January 200 I, those eight half days would be spread over an eight week period. The material could be made available to you during December 2000. If you decide to \vait to vie\v the contents of file BJ 5/311 until its release to the Public Records Office in January 200 !, then the cost of copying the remaining files falls, after deducting the first four hours of work to around £160.00. I would be grateful for confirmation that you wish to proceed with this enquiry, indicating whether including or excluding BJ 5/311, and that you are willing to meet the appropriate charge. If the cost of obtaining the information is likely to be significantly greater than our estimate suggests we will contact you again before proceeding further. ' !look forward to hearing from you in due course.
. . . ~ OCT ' 00 11 : 06 FROM DGMO' DMCS' DOMD LONDON T0 ~~ 4~0 P.01 CLASSIFICATION: CAVEAT: COVERING: Fax g-(Jrge.,t 0 For Review 0 Please Comment 0 Please Reply 0 Please Recycle • Convnents: ~e: v€ ~Aua:D C!>VEI2 AA't fb&S• @.L( coNe.~ ABov-r C1<? .1 · s fl.b~ C>N ~ON4glt ~S ~-< A;S\0€: fi.¥L "\'1.~ ~ ~ g€ .iX:NE. b~"i\A-tv-t , ~vtA"( iS ~N~ ~ t~N~L.E ~N'I cF ~~' VA/lt€5 AhM 0~ ~ ~€N"f. ~Nc:. (N'\0 Ac::COJ~ :s-r~ l.6/fist ~C.Es 1 f~'t1<:*'.,~-n€j ~ 0rV"5lON 1 SCc'"flON ., ~<:Nc.'r, B.L- ~A.N ... fk_C/.0€ ·~ fDl '('-tcy...., saves . Aro1~LI, ~~,~~ I}(€ 6-.v6"Z./orl_ ~ <lveN ~Oz . ~ C>J~ ~ \Z".) ~ ft .. )Al-'~60 ~~ ; ~ A i.ca.(_ M ~~ to 0(:. .('11r\E- cd>E~ CWV\t~ l -KAv& ~aostSQ). ~ (p..)l..O '51 Mfl.-t /lUU!:£ -tt> ")/o ~~ h:IO"Ih( 12@..~ c:rt::> A~ '""''-'\~ vJ4-t..<.. ~ tMMlN~'t'\.-'-( OA~ .~ OCT • 121121 11 : 1216 FROM DGMO, DMCS, DOMD LONDON Open Government CODE OF PRACTICE ON ACCESS TO .GOVERNMENT . .. . . . ... .. . . . . P.1212 .• . ·~e -. ·~ ~~ ~ 1 .. f' · ·~ ; ~ : ~, . : , < r ." ·.;_ " }, :, :> · ·' :. · ~ :¥ ~Git . , ·.,_ - . • ~~f "· . ;';j· ,l : · , -~, 7 ~;~;·;~~ : ' ·
05 OCT '00 11 : 08 FROM DGMO I DMCS I DOMD LONDON TO CODE OF PRACTICE ON ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT INFORMATION Second Edition (1997) PART I Purpose 1. This Code of Practice supports the Government"s policy under the Citizen's Charter of extending access to official information, .1nd responding to reasonable requests for infonnation. The approach to release of information should in all cases be based on the assumption that information should be released except where disclosure would nol be in the public interest, as specified in P.&t II of this Code. 2. The aims of the Code are: o to improve policy-makin~ and the democratic process hy extending access to the facts and analyses which provide the basis for the consideration of proposed policy; 0 to protect the interests of individuals and companies by ensuring that reasons are given for administrative decisjons, except where there is statutory authority or established convention to the contrary; and o to support and extend the principles of public service established under the Cititen's Charter. These aims are balanced by the need: o to maintain high standards of care in ensuring the privacy of personal and commercially confidential information; and o to preserve confidentiality where disclosure would not be in the public interest or would breach personal privacy or the confidences of a third party, in accordance with statutory requirements and Part IT of the Code. lnfor1TI(J,tion the Government -will relea!e .3. Subject to the exemptions in Put II, the Code commits departments and public bodies under the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (the Ombudsman}: ' i) to publish the facts and analysis of the facts which the Government considers relevant and important in framing major policy proposals and decisions; such information will normally be made available when policie~ and decisions are announced; I It! /Vt~rtlu:rn. if~iu.tuJ. Ilk Pa•lklmc'llaty C•m1,,; ,~i otter ,lilf lltbuirtuVIIlimt and 1he Cm'"'"- ui<>'lllf .Ji1r Cm~tpli.Unu. P.03
' ' 05 OCT '00 11:09 FROM DGMO.DMCSoDOMD LONDON CODE OF PRACTICE ON ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT lNFORMATlON Seeonci Editio11. (199 7) ii) to publish or otherwise rnake available, as soon as practicable after the Code becomes operational, explanatory material on departments' dealings with the public (including such rules, procedures, internal guidance to officials, and similar administrative manuals as will assist better understanding of departmental action in dealing with the public) except where publication could prejudice any matter which should properly be kept confidential under Part ll of the Code; iii) to give reasons for administrative decisions to those affected; 2 iv) to publish in accordance with the Citizen's Charter: 0 full information about how public services are run, how much they cost, who is in charge, and what complaints and redress procedures are available; 0 full and, where possible, comparable jnfonnation about what services s.re being provided, what targets are set, what standards of service are expected and the res!.llts achieved. v) to release, in response to specific requests, information relating to their policies, actions and decisions and other matter.:> related t<> their areas of responsibility. 4. There is no commitment that pre-existing documents, as distinct from information, will be made available in response to requests. The Code does not require departments to acquire information they do not possess, to provide infonn.ation which is already Jmblished, or to provide information which is provided as patt of an existing charged service other than through that service. Responses to requesu for information 5. lnfonnation will be provided as soon as practicable. The target for response to simple requeMs for information is 20 working days from the date of receipt. This target may need to be .extended when significant search or collation of material is required. Where information oannot be provided under the terms of the Code, an explanation will normally be given. 2 Tlrl:rr: will H a 1- arnu lllherc ~U-Qta/UWwJ c:tltll>lflltiM or lqu1 aullwril)' limils tht <"<HIUI~IIIt!fll w KWtt ,._.,A<,fM' t!liWt<flU aert.uiA eleci.8itHU 1111. lrie'fC' and lllllft<) Jl<Jly acnl!.f "' "" ~Ill lakil t~!Jdf'«IIIUIJ U.ClU"', ----------------------~2~----------------------- P.04 ' j ';
05 OCT '00 11:09 FROM DGMO.OMCS,DOMD LONDON TO ;att 4ol CODE OF PRACTICE ON ACCESS TO COVERNM.ENT INFORMATION Second Edition (1997) Scope 6. The Code applies to those Government departments and other bodies within the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman (as listed in Schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967).: 1 The Code applies to agencies within departments and to functions earned out on behalf of a department or public body by contract()rs. The Security and Intelligence Setvices are not within the scope of the Code, nor is information obtained from or relating to them. Charges · 7. Departments, agencies and public bodies will make their own arrangements for charging. Details of charges are available from departments on request. Schemes may include a standard charge for processing simple requests for information. Where a. request is complex and would require extensive searches of records or processing or collation of information, an additional charge, reflecting reasonable costs may be notified. Relation.ship to statutory ac ceu rights 8. This Code is non-statutory and cannot ovexride provlslons contained in statutory rights of access to information or records (nor can it override statutory prohibitions on disclosure). Where the information could be sought under an existing statutory right, the terms of the right of access takes precedence over the Code. There are already certain access rights to health, medical and educational records, to personal files held by local authority housing and social services departments, and to personal data held on computer. There is also a right of access to environmental information. It is not envisaged that the Ombudsman will become in"olved in supervising these statutory rights. The White Paper on Open Government (Cm 2290) proposed two new statutory rights to information: an access right to personal records, proposed in Chapter 5; an access right to health and safety infonnation, proposed in Chapter 6 . 3 Itt N•Kflt.t:rr& lr~ 1M Cotk l.lf>p/W "' fH£1,/~ bodw ulllkr d.., jvr~dkti.m "/ ch• Nt.nl>~?tt. INiltJnd Purli41mlm .. ry CummiJjiun.<~r .fiu Ad"ii.IIL11r1Ui"" u.r&d IJoe Cmm11i.uitwu:r }or CtHNf.t..inu, will• !lac: ~llit.n 4l4clut ,,.lr.ffl,lrelll aNI. lwuhh <VI4 JMfltlwwl o<JCial ~~Nku IHxU& •• for whicl. •cpat'Citt urru.f1P1ltlml.• CV!: f,~ lkve/or~M w tn Cr<!Ul BriltJin.. ,S.,.,.e Ntwth.ertt J,.,LtuuJ. ~ocvu•ww ond (,.HlUJs - ~txp rc :wr •flhJcot 111 1./u: jrvt.ldJt:lWI tt/ tlu: PGrlk»n.et~SlVy C tHtw~sitHII!r IUOI~ &ht 196 7 Alii, ----------------------~J~----------------------- P.05
05 OCT '00 11:09 FROM DGMO , DMCS,DOMD LONDON CODE OF PRACTICE ON ACCESS TO COVERNMENT INFORMATION Second Edition (1997) Where a statutory right is proposed but has yet to be implemented, acr.ess to relevant information may be sought under the Code, but the Code should not be regarded as a means of access to original documents or personal files . Public records 9. The Code is not intended to ovenide statutory provisions on access to public records, whether over or under thirty years old. Under sl2(3) of the Parliamentuy Commissioner Act 1967, the Ombudsman is not required to question the merits of a decision if it is taken without maladministration by a Government department or other body in the exercise of a discretion vested in it. Decisions on public records made in England and Wales by the Lord ChancelloJ; or in Scotland and Northern Ireland by the Secretary of Sta.te, are such discretionary decisions. Jurisdiction of couru, tribunals or inquiries 10. The Code only applies to Government-held infonnation. It does not apply to or affect information held by courts or contained in court documents. ("Court" includes tribunals, inquiries and the Northern Ireland Enforcement of Judgements Office). The present practice covering disclosure of information before courts, tribunals and inquiries will continue to apply. Investigation of complaints 11. Complaints that infonnation which should have been provided under the Code has not been provided, or that unreasonable charges have been demanded, should be made first to the department or body concerned. If the applicant remains dissatisfied , complaints may be made Lhrough a Member of Parliament to the Ombudsman. Complaints will be investigated at the Ombudsman's discretion in accordance with the procedure:> providetl in the 1967 Act.~ -----------------------{4~---------------------- P. 0605 OCT '00 11 : 09 FROM DGMO.DMCS,DOMD LONDON CODE OF PRACTICE ON ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT INFORMATION Second Edition (1997) PARTU Reasons for confidentiality The following categories of information are exempt from the commitments to provide information in this Code. In those <:lltegories which refer to harm or prejudice, the presumption remains that information should be disclosed unless the harm likely to arise from disclosure would outweigh the public interest in making the information available. References to harm or prejudice indude ,b(1th actual. hann or prejudice and risk or reasonable expectation of harm or prejudic:e. In su<;h cases it should be considered whether any harm or prejudice arising fwm disclosure is outweighed by the public interest in making information available. The exemptions will not be interpreted in a way which (:a.uses injustice to individuals. 1. Defence, security and international relations a) Infonnation whose disclosure would harm national security or defence. b) Information whose disclosure would harm 1he conduct of inte~tional relations or affairs. c) Information received in confidence from foreign governments, foreign courts or international or:ganisations. 2. Internal discussion and advice Information whose disclosure would harm the frankness and candour of internal discussion, including: o proceedings of Cabinet and Cabinet committees; 0 internal opinion, advice, recommendation, consultation and delibera1ion: o projections and assumptions relating to internal policy analysis; analysis of alternative policy options and infonnalion relating to rejected policy options; o confidential communications between departments, public: hodies and regulatory bodies. ----------------------~~~---------------------- 1-' .1::1'(
1215 OCT '121121 11: 10 FROM DGMO, DMCS. DOMO LONOON TO jSEU!Li I 401 CODE OF PRACTICE ON ACCESS TO GOV.ER.NMt:NT INFORMATION Second EdiLion (1997) .1. Communications with the Royal Household Information relating to confidential communications between Ministers and Her Majesty the Queen or other Members of the Royal Household. or relating to confidential proceedings of the Privy Council. 4. La'ID enforcemenl. and legal p't'oceedings a) lnfonnation whose disclosure could prejudice the administration of justice (including fair trial), legal proceedings or the pt·oceedings of any tribunal, public inquiry or other formal investigations (whether actual or likely) or whose disclosure is, has been, or is likely to be addressed in the context of such proceedings. b) Information whose disclosure could prejudice the enforcement or proper administration of the la.w, including the prevention, investigation or detection of crime, or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders. c) Infonnation relating to legal proceedings or the proceedings of cmy tribunal, public inquiry or other formal investigation which have been completed or terminated, or relating to investigations which have or might have resulted in · proceedings. d) [nforrnation covered by !egal professional privilege. e) Information whose disclosure would hum public safety or public order, or would prejudice the sec:utity of llny building or penal institution. t) Information whose disclosure could endanger the life or physical ::;afety of any person, or identify the source of info.nnation or assistance given in confidenc~ fClr law enforcement or security purposes. g) Information whose disclosure would inc::rease the likelihood of dam~e to the environment, or rare or endanger~d species and their habitats. 5. Immigration and nationality Information relating to immigration, nationality, consular .t~.nd entry clearance cases. However, information will be provided, though not through access to personaJ records, where there is no risk that ----------------------~6~---------------------- P.el8
' . ' "C···. -- .e 05 OCT '00 11=10 FROM DGMO.DMCS,DOMD LONDON TO CODE OF PRACTICE ON ACCESS TO COVERNMENT INFORMATION Second Edition {1997) disclosure would prejudice the ~ffective administration of immigration controls or other statutory provisions. 6. Effective management of the economy and collection of tax a) Information whose disclosure would hann the ability of the Government to mana_se the economy, prejudice the conduct of official market operatjons, or could l~:ad to improper gain Qr advantage. b) Information whose disclosure would prejudice the assessment or collection of tax, duties or National Insurance cuntributions, or assist tax avoidance or evasion. 7. Effective management and operations of the public se"'ice a} Information whose disclosure could lead to improper gain or advantage or would prejudice: 0 the competitive posilion of a department or other public body or authority; 0 negotiations or the effective conduct of personnel management, or commercial or contractual activities; o the awarding of discretionary grants. b) Information whose disclosure would hann the proper and efficient conduct of the operations of a department or other public body or authority, including NHS organisations, or of any regulatory body. 8. Public employment, publk appointments a.nd honours a) Personnel records (relating to pubJic appointments as well as employees of public authorities) including those relating to recruitment, promotion and secul'ity vetting. b) Information, opinions and assessments given in confidence in relation to public employment and public appointments made by Ministers of the Crown, by the Crown on the advice of Ministers or by statutory office holders. c) Information, opinions and assessments given in relation to recommendations for honours.05 OCT '00 11:10 FROM DGMO.DMCS,DOMD LONDON TO~ CODE OF PRACTICE ON ACCESS TO GOVEHNMENT INFORMATION Sec:oud Edition (1997) 9. Voluminous or vexatious requests Requests for information which are veutious or manifestly unreasonable or are fonnulated in too general a manne~; or which (because of the amount of information to be processed or the need to retrieve information from files not in current use) would require unreasonable diversion of resources. 10. Publication and prematurity in relation to publication Information which is or will soon he published, or whose disclosure, where the material relates to a planned or potential announcement or publication, could cause harm (for example, of a physical or financial nature). 11. Research, statistics and analysis a) Information relating to incomplete analysis, research or statisriC'.s, where disclosure could be misleading or deprive the holder of priority of publication or commercial value. b) Information held only for preparing statistics or carrying out researr.h, or for surveillance for health and safety purposes (im:luding food safety), and which relates to individuals, c:ompanies or products which will not be identified in reports of that rese~fch or surveillance, or in published statistics. 12. Privacy of an individual Unwarranted disclosure to a third p41rty of personal infonnation abuul any person (including a deceased p~rson) or any other disclosure whic:h would constitul~ <lr could facilitate an unwarranted invasion of privacy. 1.1. Third party's commercial confidences Information including commercial confidences) trade secrets oc intellectual property whose unwarranted disclosure would harm the competitive position of a third party. P.10
05 OCT '00 11:10 FROM DGMO,DMCS,DOMD LONDON TO CODE OF PRACTICE ON ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT INFORMATION Sceucl Edition (1997) 14. Information given in confideru:e a) Information held in consequence of having been supplied in confidence by a person who: o gave the information under a statutory guarantee that its confidentiality would be protected; or o was not under any legal obligation, whether actual or implied, lo supply it, and has not consented to its disclosure. b) Information whose disclosure without the consent of the supplier would prejudice the future supply of such infonnation. · c) Medical information provided in confidence if disclosure to the subject would hann their physical or ment.il health, or should only be made by a medical practitioneJ: 15. Statutory and other restrictions a) Information whose disclosure is prohibited by or under any enactment, regulation, European Community law or international agreement. b) Information whose release would constitute a breach of Parliamentary Privilege. ------------------~--~~ r----------------------- P. ll **TOTAL PAGE. 11 **
• SEC(AS)2A From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Hd of DR1 03 October 2000 13:13 SEC(AS)2A OMD14 DR CLARKE'S REQUEST FOR ACCESS TO UFO FILES Importance: High Page 1 of 3 · .. . , ~ .: r Thank you for you loose minute dated 2 October 2000, together with a draft reply to Dr Clarke. You sought comments and for ease of reference I offer the following in the order raised by you : DSI/JTIC Report No 7 UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS (1952) and related intelligence reports on UFOs 1951-1952. We presume that as no reports survive they must have been destroyed, but in the absence of supporting evidence, for example Destruction Certificates, the convention has been to say that "we conclude that the papers have not survived the passage of time" (or something very similar). My staffs review of DIS records over the last few years has specifically targeted records over 2 S years old. This is because under the terms of the Public Records Act government departments are not permitted to hold records in excess of 30 years without first receiving the Lord Chancellor's approval. This Report has been on our target list. But no success. An additional difficulty, is that under current security instructions destruction certificates need only be kept for a minimum of five years. The copies of papers identified on closed files - I think we should identify the files DEFE 31/19, which contains six UFO related documents and DEFE 44/1 which contains just one page (an entry that refers to Report No 7!). I also believe that the reply should also make clear that although neither piece (a generic term used to describe the record) is being released the copies we are offering to make available represents the full extent of UFO documentation contained in intelligence records identified by Dr Clarke that he wish us to review ie closed intelligence records. BJ 5/311 The file contains aroundi3'6ll pages (many enclosures consist of multiple pages). Whilst I agree with your options (a) that1fr'Ciarke should wait until January (b) or we take photocopies I have some pertinent comments re the resource and cost implications (see below). AIR 2/18564 The file consists of some 60 pages. I am happy to seek the Lord Chancellor's approval to release it ahead of time, but if during the interim Dr Clarke would like copies this could be arranged. Early release will take about three months. As above the cost verses the time might be particularly relevant. AF/3459/75 Although about six pages to be sanitised the file consists of around 1 50 enclosures. As the files dates from 1970 to 1975 normal release would not occur until january 2006, but note the file 04/ 10/00
. ... , rJ2J ge 2 of 3 has NOT been formally transferred to the PRO it awaits cataloguing. Additional policy files 1968- 1981 - "1::>\~ <:.c.J u ~(~ - ~e.L~h~ toc.o--~ 1-kl..tJ. C~c.JL DfH (ke) ~~ ~~ t'koUCc.J.~r ~ ~ Our researches have identified nearly 1 00 files relating to the subject of UFOs. In the main they ~ have originated in DS Sec, and predecessor branches and DIS. From file titles most appear to ~ hold reports from members of the public. But only an examination of the files will determine whether this is actually so. A few files, perhaps eight or nine, are about policy. From~ ~fha,#J. ~ ute 24 August 2000 I believe that~are held by you! One Dl file, held~ ~ f' ~T period Dec 1971 to 1996. 4- _ 5 -........ (\(.Me.. ~(ot.. ,~ IM~ /Dilrl (~Co:) t.S'-81. The nine files could easily contain 900 enclosures! In addition, to certify that the other 90 files contain no relevant policy information we would need to undertake a major review. We are talking about review effort of at least one week (EO level). All these files are earmarked for review at the 25 year point. Current review policy is for UFO files to be selected for preservation and for their transfer to the PRO in time for release at the normally 30-year point (but see my final comments below). At this time I suggest that Exemption 9 applies. I'm not sure that the middle section of this paragraph is appropriate. Dr Clarke has specified dates and we've identified nearly 1 00, of which 9 have a specific reference to "policy" in their title . If he wished we could offer to investigate these nine files on his behalf and if found to contain "policy" rather than the usual reports photocopies could be provided. The absence of enclosure information precludes any estimate of castings. But if they contain 900 pages as you will note below it will prove to be very expensive for Dr Clarke. AIR 20/12556 (AIR 2/18873) and UFO reports january 1974 It is agreed there should be mention of AF I 5 84. He is specifically interested in an incident that occurred in January 1974. He could be invited to provide more information or, alternatively, photocopies of the enclosures of both files could be made, totalling around 209 in all. ~ We have offered to make photocopies offive files BJ 5/311, AIR 2/18564, AF/3459/75, AIR 2 !18873 & AFS 84, plus a few pages from DEFE 31 /19 & DEFE 44/1. In all I have estimated that they contain approximately 800 pages. Photocopying would be undertaken by my EO in charge of the Sensitive Archive , or myself. I have no other member of staff will the appropriate levels of clearance to undertake this kind of work in a sensitive office area! The individual is experienced in undertaking this kind of work as it occupies close to two days of a normal week. We estimate that to examine the files for the areas to be sanitised , to dismantle the files, sanitise papers, photocopy them, re-establish the original file and re-create the photocopied version would take on average 2 minutes per page. If my maths are correct this totals 26 hours. The first four are free leaving 22 hours at £1 5 per hour= £330. / ,........ 3C.:L po.~(> t' d..cr-. Should he choose to defer ordering copies of B~ 5/311 a . nd wai~ for the accelerated opening of AIR 2/18564 costs fall by almost a half. _ ! t5<iroo (~J: l6o) G'""\ ... S.f _Should he elect to order photocopies the four day task would be spread over eight half days and 01j l0j00
• P age 3 of 3 that over a period of eight weeks. In other words he should get his copies by Christmas. My EO has other things to do and we at a particularly busy time checking material closed for more that 30 years that should also be re leased in January. Your final question ~( ~\v ~( ( ~ D Cl k . . . h h . . d d h" d ri . d f~~,k·s-.ot.. . r ar e ts qutt e ng t t ere ts m ee not mg to stop epartment evtewmg an tran s ernng records to Kew and arranging for release in advance of 30 years. he White Paper on Open Government, published July 1993, offered this as an option , subject to resources. You may wish to say this to Dr Clarke: "The White Paper on Open Government identified an number of initiates that, subject to resources, that would lead to the release of material closed for more than 30 years and also encouraged the release of blocks of material in advance of the normal date. Hitherto, the Ministry of Defence has , as have a number of other government departments, concentrated on records closed in excess of 30 years. To date more than 11, 700 such records have been released since July 1993. Also, as with other government departments the MOD has a structured review programme and in compliance with Public Record Office guidelines the final review of record s takes place at the 2 5 year point . The MOD has no thematic database of records due for review, as a consequence review occurs according to date rather than subject. This present exercise has apparently identified a few fil es that would appear to fall outside the kind of UFO material that hitherto has been preserved ie reports from members of the public. Consideration w ill now be given to seeing whether these few files could not be processed and released in advance of the normal date." {On this point would DAS(Sec) wish Records to progressively review and release all surviving UFO material in advance of the designated date. Although, a special exercise review would be fairly straight forward what would take time the is the deletion of personal details from files] Rather longer that I hoped but I trust that it answers your questions. t . At\- t-~"tb ~ L ~ o::> )' ~ (~) = \\boo"'· 4:. . ( 0 ...oe> -7 6 0 : 2. 6 . ~ ~~ ,...f ~co~ c;t...(_~.r ~ -Lr" '2.2 .. ~ ~ ~ fa:> ~ ~ (AI1 ({ J l£ •GO Z ~ 3 3 t"f. <=t ~ · l l.gse!>.e.o) ~ -} ·· ot \ 1>-4- +~. J r 4. . b hou.,., - ~ .: ( 0 • ' kvs- • )C t ( {' ~ o ~ o v 10/00 tl5],e>e(~&EC(AS)2A From: Sent: To: Subject: OMD14 03 October2000 15:10 SEC(AS)2A Dr Clarke - Privaleged Access Just a quick response to your enquiry as to whether Dr Clarke would be able to obtain privaleged access to the fi les containing the information he has requested on UFO's_ Since many of the vast number of files involved will contain personal details of those who have reported seeing a UFO we would have to deny Dr Clarke privaleged access under Article 14 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government lnfonnation, which makes it our duty to protect the anonymity of those mentioned in the files_ Sanitising the quantity of documents concerned would be a massive job thus if he suggested we do that to allow him a look at the files he wants, we could refuse him under Article 9 - Voluminous Requests. The only thing I can suggest is that Dr Clarke refine his request somewhat, allowing staff to perhaps sanitise a more manageable numbe r of documents_ I hope this helps. L£Cdl:S: . 12 1
e SEC(AS)2A From: Sent: To: Subject: OMD14 03 October 2000 17:22 SEC(AS)2A Dr Clarke: Privaleged Access Sorry to have missed this point out in my original Email. The Data Protection Act legally forbids us from violating the anonymity of those persons whose details are contained in our files. This supersedes the Code. It basically amounts to the same thing as exemption 14 except it is enshrined in law and not merely a guideline. Apologies for neglecting to mention this earlier. NH617 - ~vJt-) ~~~o{ ~ l:tc (Af). ~ tk))t...o{ ·,.~ ( l.d~ ~ ]:)II· ClGfA.Mt. tJ..J.. r)_ ~ k_ C+V fL_ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ! Oc.J . (,9~ ~ ~ ' W11l~ p~ 1-UlMJ CtN" c.e.r. 0 l(w ( ';..,.. w J~t)r cf" ~ ~ ~~~ o{- fiA a , , ;)u_ axtr~tn b & · nevo I -~· ··- ---l ~.J-> j:?. 11j ct &w 1»~ -lt4 1a..oo +:tt ~ ~ Pt<..o ~ 'f "-~ S~h'Jt~ /co\j ~ ... wH~A ~ ~~ c~ <~ .(· ~«..V r:jJ.A J '-1-(..cJr (' j./0·0'0· 1' .. ·· ·:~ . ~ . . ·-: ... -..::• ~ ~ LOOSE MINUTE D/DAS(Sec)/64/3 2 October 2000 Hd ofDRl copy to: OMD14 DR CLARKE'S REQUEST FOR ACCESS TO FILES- UFO's Reference: A. D/PUS/23/7 (1301) dtd 12 Jan 00 B. DR/3/7/8 dtd 6 Sep 00 C. D Info(Exp)R/3/7/8 dtd 25 Sep 00 1. Thank you for your minute at Reference C. On the basis of the advice contained in that minute and our subsequent telephone conversation I attach a draft letter to Dr Clarke. I should appreciate receiving further advice and comments in view of the fact that the reply concerns your own area of expertise rather than Secretariat (Air Staff) (now DAS(Sec)) procedure. 2. I suggest it would be advisable to employ a consistent approach in our reply to Dr Clarke in making offers of either sanitising records or applying for release in advance of 30 years. Dr Clarke has already been made aware of the Department's ability to sanitise files, in a Sec(AS) letter to him dated 25 July. I suggest an offer (in relation to BJ 5/311) to apply for early release of one file alone, an action that would take almost three months, might not be seen as being particularly helpful. 3. I assume the cost of sanitising and photocopying material will be £15.00 per hour (or part thereof) over and above the first four hours, as stipulated in the DCI. However, I would appreciate OMD 14 1 s conformation on that point in view of the cost levied which was abated by 50o/o as a gesture of goodwill (Reference A). I suggest we might also want to consider the nature of our response in the unlikely event that Dr Clarke offers to pay a substantial sum of money in order to have the fi]es copied! Perhaps OMD would advise in slower time. ... ...~
4. Dr Clarke's throw-away mention of "additional policy files 1968-81" in his question 4 appears to refer, on the evidence of your further research (Reference B), to some 80 additional files. You do not advise on that point but it seems reasonable to assume it constitutes a voluminous request and I have worded my draft accordingly. Perhaps OMD 14 would confirm his contentment with that approach. I suggest we might then offer him the list of file titles from which he might choose a small number (OMD 14 and DRl how many?) to be sanitised and copied for him. 5. We must reply to Dr Clarke by the end of this week. I would, therefore, be grateful if you would let me have your amendments and additions by 1400 Tuesday 3 October. An alternative would be for us to meet, discuss options and redraft the reply and I would be very happy to come over to GSY in order to accomplish the task. Perhaps you would telephone me and let me know what you think. 5. Finally, I am in the process of enquiring with the Air Historical Branch about privileged access as defined in Chapter 3 of JSP 400 (as suggested by DDC&L (F&S) Legal). Such access may not be appropriate but it seems reasonable to at least ask the question. Unfortunately I may not have an answer in time to influence this reply to Dr Clarke but I shall inform you when I do.
• DRAFT reply to Dr Clarke I am writing further to my letter of29 September in which I indicated that I hoped to be able to reply to you in greater detail during the course of the first week in October. Towards the end of your own letter of 4 September you summarised your request for access to information under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, asking five main questions. I shall answer these in the order they were asked. • DSIIJTIC Report No 7 Unidentified Flying Objects (1952) and related intelligence reports on UFOs 1951-52- I can confirm that a review of the closed files has taken place but none were found to contain the report you seek. As a consequence of this, and earlier searches which failed to locate the report, we conclude that it has not survived the passage oftime. (Question: can we just say destroyed?) However, this latest review identified a number of 'UFO' related papers and copies of these papers may be made available to you at your request, as I shall explain below. • BJ 5/311 Records of the Meteorological Office, Unidentified Flying Objects: meteorological aspects, 1968-79- The file contains some 300 enclosures, mostly letters to and from members of the public, and is due for release to the Public Records Office in January 2001. You may wish to view the file at that time but, should you not wish to wait, it would be possible to sanitise the documents and supply copies to you (see below). • AIR 2/18564 Air Ministry/MOD, 'UFO' Report West Freugh 1957- 1971 - This file is for release in January 2002. In the meantime it would be possible to sanitise the dozen or so pages before containing personal details, photocopying the full number of around 50 and supplying you with those copies (see below).
• • AF/3459/75 'UFOs': Policy and policy statements 1970- This file contains a very small number, perhaps six, to be sanitised. It would be possible to photocopy the file and provide you with photocopies (see below). • Additional policy files 1968-81 - Our researches suggest this may represent around 80 files. There will be a matter ofthousands (Question: can we quote an approximate figure?) of documents on these files including many containing personal details that would require sanitising before copies might be released. This is because, as mentioned in our letter of25 July, the MOD has a duty to protect third party confidentiality over a 30-year period. In order to sanitise the likely number of papers and photocopy the full contents of all the files, staff would need to be diverted from their essential defence-related tasks. Your request in relation to the policy files 1968-81 is therefore refused under Exemption 9 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information (voluminous or vexatious requests and Exemption 12, Privacy of an individual). Were you able to be more specific about dates this would enable us to consider a more focussed effort on a limited amount of material. I attach a list of the files and their titles. If you wish to identify (Question: Number?) of files we would be able to sanitise and photocopy the contents. If you are unhappy with the decision to refuse your request for access to those MOD files and wish to appeal, you should write in the first instance to the Ministry of Defence, DOMD, Room 619, Northumberland House, Northumberland Avenue, London WC2N 5BP requesting the decision be reviewed. Iffollowing the internal review you remain dissatisfied you can ask your MP to take up the case with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (the Ombudsman) who can investigate on your behalf. The Ombudsman will not, however, consider an investigation until the internal review process has been completed. • AIR 20/12556 'UFO' reports January 1974 (additionally AIR 2/18873)- File AIR 20112556 is not a 'UFO file. (Would it be disingenuous of us to fail to mention AF/584 UFO reports January 1974? If so I suggest the following.) AF/584 contains UFO reports for January 1974 amounting to some 100 enclosures. AIR 2/18873 contains public enquiries amounting to some 109 enclosures. It would be possible to sanitise and photocopy the contents of both files (see below).
• As I mentioned in my letter of29 September, the Ministry ofDefence is bound by the Code of Practice on Access to Govermnent Information. This means that we are committed to providing you with the information you require, as long as it is not exempted under the Code. However, to ensure this does not create an extra burden on the taxpayer, we have a charging regime for more complicated requests. If a request is likely to require over four hours' work, each hour's work over four hours (or part thereof) is charged at £15.00 per hour. Our estimate is that we will have to charge you £X (Question: please estimate cost, and perhaps timescale to accomplish the task) in order to sanitise and copy the papers referred to in your major questions (excluding material included in the "additional policy files 1968- 81 "). I would be grateful for confirmation that you wish to proceed with this enquiry and that you are willing to meet this charge. If the cost of obtaining the information is likely to be significantly greater than our estimate suggests we will contact you again before proceeding further. (Question: are we able to copy the full 600 enclosures, or thereabouts, contained in the files referred to in the 5 questions excluding the reference to policy files 1968-81, or may we tell Dr Clarke it would be a voluminous request? If that is the case I suggest our offer might be to request him to wait till January 01 for BJ/ 5/311 but offer to copy the remaining 300 enclosures. We do have, of course, to consider our answer alongside any offer we may make in respect of copying a small num her of the policy files from 1968-81.) (Question: I am not sure how to answer the third paragraph of Dr Clarke's letter. I believe one of the points he is trying to make is why files that contain material that is not subject to confidentiality may not be opened to the public. Perhaps you would add a short paragraph as Dr Clarke will, I am sure, light on files with titles such as "UFOs BBC Radio Oxford Programme" in the list of policy files and wonder why they may not be released!)
TO: Hd of AHB- From: DAS 4a(Sec) MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Secretariat (Air Staff) Room 8243, Main Building, Whitehall LONDON SWIA 2HB Telephone (Direct dial) (Switchb~OOO (Fax- FAX MESSAGE SUBJECT: Privileged access to files- Dr Clarke DATE: 29 Sep 00 NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS COVER: 4 Following my telephone call to your office, I attach a ''sample" letter from Dr Clarke who wishes to gain access for research purposes to a range of files on Unidentified Flying Objects that are currently closed to the public under the 30 year rule protecting confidentiality of personal details. Earlier in the summer (F&S) Legal alerted this Directorate to the fact that there was a provision, administered by yourselves, to award a special dispensation from disclosure practice to enable privileged access to bona fide historical researchers (JSP 400 paragraph 3.23). tf In advance of consulting with DOMD and DR I would be grateful for your advice concerning what you would regard as bona fide historical research and whether you consider Dr Clarke might merit such access, on the basis of the information available to us in the attached letter.
·' - :· \ A UG 2000 :.l .. ; - , -- ~ · . . . .. · ·~-- ~·-' ·'-"-.,..--.-J ~~ :.---- 1 August, 2000 Your reference: D/Sec(AS)64/3 Dear Many thanks for your detailed letter of25 July with reference to my request to view MOD fi{es relating to 'unidentified flying objects.' Firstly, I realise your staff have many other more pressing defence-related duties and I apologise if my request has added to that burden. I contacted the Freedom of Information office on 20 July inquiring as to what had become of my original request, simply because I was concerned that my letter had gone astray, or had been sent to the wrong department, as I had not at that stage received an acknowledgement. Almost immediately I received your acknowledgement in the post, and would like to make it clear that I have always been satisfied with the helpful and detailed responses received from the MOD's Secretariat (Air Stafi) on the occasions I have·contacted your department in the past. With regards to my request to view files, I accept that my request for access to files covering the period 1969 to present was a little ambitious in terms of staff time. From your response, it appears that the main obstacle preventing the use of these files for research projects such as my own is the Exemption 9 in the Code of Practice which relates to Privacy of the individual. You say you receive up to 400 sighting reports each year and a similar number of letters, but I wonder if you could specifY how many ' .. --·; .. ·. ::.,_ ~-.: . -..:.<::. ofthe-.individuals·-who .contact the dep'artment·in:canyoite year ~have requested 'f liii" ih:eti >'.'~ ;:~~; '-' ,;"' .. ·'; il •·•:·•:,,: ... personal details should remain confidential for 30 years? From cursory viewing of the · :. : ., · files which are available at the PRO relating to the period before 1969, I cannot recall finding one single request of this kind, and indeed many of the sightings and letters relate to events which are already in the ''public domain", for example have already been reported in newspapers and other media. While I would question the basis upon which my request has been refused> I do not wish to add to your administrati~e - b\lrden by-asking for a review or involving my MP · · at thi_ s stage. I would be more happy to take up your offer of help to locate "a more limited amount of material" which might falJ within the terms of your Code of Practice for Access to Government Information. I would be happy to guided by yourself as to what you feel would be a reasonable request for access to a "limited amount" of material. Further to your offer, firstly I would like to point out that my research is not specifically concerned with the details of individual ''UFO sightings" reported • by• individuals to the MOD. I am more interested in studying the evolution of how the old Air Ministry, and later the MOD, dealt with these kind of inquiries, how policy on this subject was formulated, and how that policy has been influenced by specific incidents, Government policy, Parliamentary questions, scientific opinion and the media. To this end, I have found the material in the Defence Intelligence Staff registered files particularly of interest. Of the two files currently available at the PRO, DEFE 31/118 (UFO policy 1953-63) and DEFE 31/119 (UFO Policy 1967) contain precisely the category of information I am seeking: for example internal memorandums, draft policy documents etc. There is little, if any, correspondence from the public contained within these files which fall within Exemption 12 (Privacy) or the exemptions relating to national security. Further to this detail, I would like to apply for access to the sequence of files which follow DEFE 31/119 and which presumably relate to UFO policy, between the years 1968 and 1981. This request relates to specific files, falling within a . "- specified-period of time, so you may feel it would be worthwhile employing a more · focussed search to retrieve and scrutinise these papers on my behalf In terms of Air Staff files relating to sighting/s reported by the general public, the one specific file I wish to view relates to UFO/unidentified aircraft sightings reported to the MOD during the month ofJanuary 1974. Following the file sequence at the PRO I suspect this file would be be found at the reference Air 20/12556 (Air 20/12555 relates to December 1973). I would also like to apply for access to a file produced by the Meteorological Office for the MOD, reference BJ 5/311 titled ''Unidentified Flying Objects: meteorological aspects" which relates to the period 1968-1970. This file is due to be opened at the PRO on 1 January 2001. From my research into historical files at the Public Record Office, I suspect there may also be memoranda and reports relating to UFOs in the 1950s hidden witli}he Defence Intelligence Files, class numbers DEFE 44/1 and DEFE 21, and I have contacted the MOD Departmental Record Officer separately Mth a request for access to this material. DEFE 44 containS papers from as fuback as t946,-tiut these remaiil classified because the file also contains material from 1991. I would like to request access to the block of files and memoranda which relate to the period 1946 to 1969, which should be available for scrutiny under the Freedom of Information Act. I hope you will feel it is possible to allow me to have access to at least some of the material specified in this letter, for use in what is a bona fide academic research programme. I would be happy to meet any reasonable costs incurred as a result of this application, and would be willing to sign any undertakings related to Data Protection or Official Secrets which you might feel appropriate. In addition, I will be happy to provide the MOD with a copy of my completed research paper, which I plan to publish via the National Centre for English Cultural Tradition at the University of Sheffield. In making this request, I am simply responding to the Government's and the MOD's own stated manifesto pledge to "establish a general statutory right of access to official records and through culture change throughout the public sector" (MOD website). This laudable aim will only be seen to working in practise if reasonable requests for
access to non-sensitive material, a category I feel my request falls within, are successful. This touches upon the discussion I mentioned I had with the MODIRAF Press Office in January this year, when I tried to follow up a story in the national Press which suggested that all files relating to UFOs were soon to be released to the PRO. I was told at that time by_ the duty Press Officer that the former minister Peter Kilfoyle had indeed expressed the opinion that there was no good reason for keeping files related to UFOs restricted for 30 years. He said release of UFO data was likely to be a priority following "a review of the files." There was, I was told, "a general move within the department to give out information that is not security sensitive and take away the myth of secrecy that surrounds this subject." I hope we will be able to reach an agreement on access to the limied amount of files specified in this letter, and that this application will not be too onerous upon your departme~t's time. I am copying this reply to- t OMD/AD, Room 617, Northumberland House, so that he is aware that I am happy with the expeditious and helpful way you have dealt with my inquiry. :.-":.:,.··-. ··:· ~ -= ~\· :.":¥·.·:. ... . ~: · .. -- ~ ;: ••. :· . ... .-- . • • ,. - -:- ' :- - .-. :.- ;.:
• • *************** -COMM. JOURNAL- ******************* ~TE 29-SEP-2000 ***** TIME 15:21 *** P.01 MODE • MEMORY TRANSMISSION START:29-SEP 1s: as END=<29-SEP 15:21 FILE NO .= 231 STN NO. COM ABBR NO. STATION NAME/TEL.NO. PAGES DURATION 001 634 Iii -SECRETARIAT CAIR STAFF) - ************************************ - - ***** - TO: Hd or ARB- From· DAS 4a(Sec) MINISTRY DEFENCE Secretariat (Air Staff) Room 8243, Main Building, Whitehall LONDON SWIA 2HB FAX MESSAGE SUBJECT: Privileged access to files- Dr Clarke DATE: 29 Sep 00 NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS COVER: 4 Following my telephone call to your office, I attach a "sample" letter from Dr Clarke who wishes to gain access for research purposes to a range of files on Unidentified Plying Objects tbat are cutTcntly closed to dw public under the 30 ye;~r rule prote<:ting con!idcnlialily of personal details. Earlier in the summer (F&S) Legal alerted this Dircctorarc lO the 13ct that there was a provision, administered by yourselves, to award a special dispcru;ation from disclOS\Jre practice to enable privileged aa:ess to bona fide hisroricai researchers (JSP 400 paragraph 3.23 ). In advance of consulting with DOMD and DR I would be gratefu! for your advice concerning what you would regard llS bona tide historical research and whether you consider Dr Clarke might merit such access. on the basis or the information available lo us in the attached letter. *********
• Dr David Clarke Dear Dr Clarke, From; DAS 4a(Sec) MINISTRY OF DEFENCE >' J, Room 8245, Main Building, Whitehall, London, SW1A 2HB Telephone (Direct dial) (Switchboard) (Fax) Your Reference Our Reference DIDAS(Sec)/64/3 Date 29 September 2000 0171 218 2140 0171 218 9000 .... Thank you tor your letter of 4 September in which you further refined your request for information addressing your letter to the Secretariat (Air Stafl). I should explain the Secretariat has now merged with Directorate Air Staff and, as a result, Secretariat (Air Staff)2 is now titled DAS 4(Sec), as appears in the heading to this letter. In her letter of 23 August,~entioned she hoped to be able to give you a progress report by the end of September and so I am writing to you at this time. I am pleased to say that we have identified most of the files mentioned in the major queries raised in your letter. I think you wi!J understand the reference in your fourth question to "additional policy files 1968-81" might encompass a considerable body of papers and that has indeed turned out to be the case. l am at present speaking with Defence Records in order to identify material that may be made available to you within the Department's reasonable resources, for which there may be a charge. The Ministry of Defence is bound by the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. This means that we are committed to providing you with the information you require, as long as it is not exempted under the Code. However, to ensure this does not create an extra burden on the taxpayer, we have a changing regime for more complicated requests. If a request is likely to require over four hours' work, each hour's work over four hours (or part thereof) is charged at £ 15.00 per hour. I shall estimate the charge, if one is likely, when I next write to you. Yours sincerely,
' 1/ Secretariat(Air Staf1)2 Ministry of Defence Room8247 Main Building Whitehall London SWlA 2HB Your reference: D/Sec(AS)64/3 - ,.-- \ 0 Dr David Oarke · . · ; · .. .... ~ ... : ........ ·-- -~ - ·' .: ..• ~ - ........... :: ...::..:~.--? ; 4 September 2000 Thank you for your letter of 23 August referring to my requests for access to UFO-related MOD files, addressed to Sec (AS)2 an<i the MOD Record Officer. Firstly, let me assure you that other than the four letters you mention, addressed to Sec (AS)2 and the Record Officer I have not made any additional requests to other parts of the MOD for access to UFO- related files. For your information, I contacted the MOD Records Officer directly and separately because I was advised to do so by staff at the Public Records Office. I had asked the PRO for help in determining the specific closure period and content of certain Defence Intelligence files retained by th~ MOD under Section 3(4) of the Public Record Act 1967 which I wished to access under the Freedom of Information legislation. Staff advised that I should contact the MOD Record Officer directly, and provided an address for me to do so. As my request for _...,access related to "historical" files - dating from 1950-1971 - I felt this would not fall v within the remit of Sec (AS) 2. Secondly, thankyou for explaining the MOD's policy relating to the 30-year retention of files and the duty which the Department has to protect the confidentiality of employees and third parties. I did misunderstand the general policy, and fully accept your reasoning, as it is strictly applied under present legislation. However, my point was that confidentiality should only extend to material which is not already in the public domain - hence my comment upon the many UFO reports on file at the MOD which have already been the subject of publicity in newspapers, TV etc and where the identity of observers is known and their views have been quoted in the media (a number of whom, for example RAF air crews, are ex-MOD employees!). For this reason I find it difficult to und~rstand why files which ~9Jl•)argely of newspaper cuttings (for example Air 2/18871-4) should remam··iclosed:.for 30 years if the MOD wishes "to encourage more open and accountable governrt1ent by establishing a general statutory right of access to official records and through culture change throughout the public sector" (MOD website - Freedom of Infonnation).
' That caveat aside, I do understand and sympathise with the MOD's position on the subject ofUFOs. My ongoing research into the social history of the subject at the PRO and the British Library has demonstrated how dealing with inquiries about UFOs has become an on-going public relations problem for your staff dating back to the early 50s. On the subject of''UFOs" themselves, I completely concur with the MOD's conclusions that the vast majority - if not all - observations can be explained as misindentifications of natural phenomena, balloons, planets and stars etc. However, the ongoing 'will to believe' in the existence of 'exotic' UFOs intruding into UK airspace on the part ofUFOlogists and the attitude of the media, which you note observers often seek out to promote their alleged experiences, has meant the UFO myth has continued to develop and will not go away. [ It is precisely these social and psychological contexts - particularly periods of Press interest and Parliamentary Questions - which I am examining as part of my on-going research based at the National Centre for English Cultural Tradition and Language, University of Sheffield. The paperwork generated by the various MOD departments which have dealt with the UFO issue - both in terms of public and internal policy - since 1950 are a crucial source of information for my project, hence my request for access to documents which currently fall within the 30 year rule. I am grateful that you are taking the trouble to retrieve and review the UFO-related files to which I have requested access, and look forward to your progress report at the end of September. In the meantime, as new information has come to light I am now in a position to be more specific in terms of my request for access to files addressed to the MOD Record Officer on 27 July and 7 August. I am now able to precisely specifY the name and what I suspect to be the current location of the file/s to which I referred in my earlier requests to the Record Officer. The document I am seeking is known as DSI/JTIC Report No.7 on Unidentified Flying Objects. It was created in 1952 by the 'Flying Saucer Working Party' set up in August 1950 at the request of Sir Henry Tizard. DSUJTIC minutes I have viewed at the Public Record Office (DEFE 4174-76) demonstrate that the Working Party consisted of representatives from DSTI, ADNI (Tech), MI 10 and ADI (Tech). Report No 7 is referred to in a minute of? October 1952 and is listed on a register ofDSUJTIC reports in DEFE 41176 (see enclosed, Attachment A). However, the document is missing from the DSUJTIC reports and papers which are contained within DEFE 152-54. This is not because the file has been destroyed, but rather because it was "retrieved" (moved to another file?) by a member of the DSTI branch, DIS5, in December 1967. In evidence for this assertion, I attach a copy (enclosed, Attachment B) of an internal memo, copied from PRO file Air 2/18117, where JE Dickison ofDI55 states that: "we [DI55] have recovered all but two of the Metropole (ie Intelligence) files on UFOsfor the period 1951-2... we consider that the report DSIIJTIC Report No. 7 Unidentified Flying Objects covers the situation as a whole for such activity at that time." It is accepted that all files and papers relating to UFOs have been permanently 'I"' u '""(,(. --'>preserved by the MOD from 1967 at the request of the Secretary of the State for Defence. Attachment B demonstrates that DSIIJTIC Report No 7 existed in 1967, and should therefore still exist today if that policy has been followed. I would suggest a
' copy of the report will be found in the DIS/DSTI Intelligence Papers from the period 1967-70 (possibly DEFE 31/19,64 and/or DEFE 44/1 ), which cover the period during which it was ' retrieved' by 0155. Further copies may well exist in other MOD departments, and I would be surprised if even today Air Staff are not aware of this document, as its conclusions (that UFOs do not exist) appear to form the origin of the MOD's policy on UFOs from 1952 right up to the present day! L t / ud:: f As the original report was created in 1952, it should be available for public scrutiny ~+v("-J?J · under the 30 year rule and I request access to a copy of this document plus any .. / , \ attached appendices under the~~~ Act. - (. s:A'"\.f f ""- lr (S 1 I f ~'' ·&' 09t Cfcl_; To summarise my request for access to UFO-related documents, set out in my letters to the MOD Record Officer on 27 July and 7 August and to Sec (AS) 2 of 1 and 11 August, these are: flf{C)lj~~ ( ~ 1. DSVJTIC Report No 7, Unidentified Flying Objects (1952), plus related .J Intelligence teports on UFOs, 1951-2 (see attachment). J 2. BJ 5/311 Records of the Meteorological Office. Unidentified Flying Objects: meteorological aspects, 1968-1970 r1 3. Air 2118564 Air Ministry/MOD. UFO Report: West Freugh, 1957-1971 J 4. AF/3459175 UFOs: Policy and Policy Statements 1970. This file plus ouh~, ~nal ~cy file~__I968-1981 . --- ~u 5. Air 20/12556 (?)UFO reports January 1974 (additionally Air 2118873 may contain information relevant to reports in this month.) I feel this is a reasonable request for access to MOD documents under the terms of the draft Freedom of Information Act. Based upon the knowledge I already have pertaining to their contents, there is nothing contained within these documents which could conceivably compromise national security, or the privacy of individuals, -~~! . P. .~~~ --~~~~~~~~~~ I would be happy to pay any reasortable charges for access to this material, and wish to thankyou in advance for your efforts to retrieve and review these documents. I look forward to hearing from you. Yours sincerely, DrD.WReferenc~: (-} / J< ?-, I/!{; J} f- CM GUIDE I II 21 3 I 41 INCH GUIDE I 1 I lloiJ <lhk• "'"" M W~ ..,., ,.,...,_.,.,_, svh/~~~ /a ""·" ""f'f!rltitl r~>lrie/1'!"" («< h/toy·j_ ""-~ Mf'~-' <>~W MMt b/dtt tl~tf" AI,_ plwtM;t>f!l"' fflpp/IM h,.th~ R~,.,...,grapltk~ IN~/ I" "''f""U<' Ia tit# w-tkr"""' h~ wuJ ""~ ft>r f"""'M~J <>f~N<#dl. ptto.a~ stru4o tr/rtcal '"'~"' .. .,..,.,,.,.,~- , .. "{~,;tiM fi..in•ITvffl"""'" '%"""",;"" ~~ ~ """''"' lr'•-~,.. ••e~tViltlf lb tOUh11<:11<>" "' f"'l"""l~t <>rttflriftfllltt rurminmin<> . ..IPf111cn#muf"r ptmr~M.rl<lll {oF"":"<>,..,~~~ slto>Jid!Jf <>Jm.fJ.oM ro /lit I'll() r,.~ 1)/ortJIY htft'l~•:m IJ/IIt~ "'.'" • -,.,., n{n:r:n><h m t~t l'~hlit R«:nrdOfPct m,.,.. bt(rl"l(.' cnpyr•glrl. 1'/,t ,.//rt<';n.-1~"-:1<1 ;, t!tt r~Mk Rr~miOJJk< """Cn>Yn ('"Wif!hl. -~"-'""" •·isblnfl"' ~. pr~Xiw:; t!tt ,.,,,,;a/l<>tron.<r:ripl. '"""'"''"" « f«simllt l.f .... .,.,.ulblt ftv ;,k,.tifo/ng rM cwrmr « r> .~nbt, lnilor t>T pllio/t.<h l..jnrmDIMnfr""' {ro..., '""'~'flM public N'trml• "'I<> ""'h }UFtA"' CDf#"fi"mn &loci <Nt<l ~<hilt ~r>pi<IOjth<"'- Tltt 1'/IQ ("<>PJ'f'lflhl OJ!ktr or I// f"'<'"i<k fi""'"" ;,.~r>/Hm llf'<>'l ,.,.,.,., . ,...,...,..,., ""l~r '""'' a<td ~...Jitin>t< "'' ""' ttl><>•"'· .....r •ll•rl"<.,.d •~ rll• R•r""R:"p/1/r.• &f'<""'"''"' •·I// ~- '"'''"''''"Am~ «<'I''"' lA"" h. I' ••!row <>fhm'in!f "'""'" nqDut f"'" '"'''" A"V'"'I""'" """ ~'" ""' 1""'"'"'/~,/.-nfr ,..;,A r~ r.~IJ<: ll.r.:rwiOJ!Ir. Rr1""t''r /n J.op.f ""' w/.thlu «cr<f'/ ><«:~ ,.,..,_, •m<f nmi/1/I<>II.T m"<l ~l~m ttl/ <"f'l<flmmrt~nir/1•. rro~r/>• p<~Cltd, h ""V "'""'·' nffn;,~"lf / .. M{<>f<hll•-.••· 11 .. <"-"""''' •·ill hr ,/umr,/1# ""'"' <><:U/'f<d lhriF rdll< R<<"<.,-<111{fkt ''""' rtndr<>>ttflllt>"~ i(rrl/ r<rrJ<.<""' ""'"TI~m:-:r:./f.:. 1. Further to your M7, we have recovered all but two of the 'Metrornle' (ie Intelligence) files nn UFOs f~r the period 19'51-2. ;0 • The files examined indicate tllat Topcliffe-Meteor incident, which 0CCL<rreo d11ring the NATO Exercise i·.'tAINBHACE, was typical nf reports ab0ut such aircraft at that time. (The Meteor WRB being extensively operated in a variety nf rnles and was the first UK jet tn be so deployed). 3. As regards t:,e partic11lar incident the 'object' only apreared tn come from the aircraft. There is no specific evidence in the files examl.ned so far, that tlle object tracked or came from the aircraft. In fact, the tra,ject ory of"th_e __ apparent ob,iect was nDt established in absolute terms and thus typical questions such as true range have not been answered. 4. We consider that the report DSI/JTIC Report No 7 L Unidentified Fl.YingObjecte covers the situation as a whole, lif8[D"' such activity at that time. Similar remarks apply to the observed radar anomi.lies which occurred at that time. ( J • C . DICKISON ) DI55 RC,OM 4/'58 EXT '5230 Metropole Building 13th December 1967PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE 2 b ic e ce's terms and con 1t1ons and that your use of It may be subject to Please note that this copy Is_ supplte~ su 1ec 1 t to ~h~u 1'erm and Conditions of supply of Public Records' leaflet displayed at and available copyright restrictions. Further mformation Is g venIn s h' Ord . I r rrom the Reprograp 1c: enng coun e . ,/,t ·-"%cYt.!C; -·= ,. ... • Report No, Subject DSI Report No, 21 Leningrad Physico-TGchnic3l Institute, II II II II " " II " II II II II II II II II II II DSI/JTIC No, 1. " 2, II 3. II 4. II 5. .... " 6, II 7. II If II II II II 22 23 24 25 26 27 Soviet Impressions o~ tho XVIII, International Physiological Conference, Science in France. Wind 1unnels in tho U.S.S,H. Scienti~ic RosBarch Work of To, IT, I.E.L. by Eng, S. M, Gortinskiy Elc,J:triclw:oJkiytJ Stantsiyi No, 12,1950. Gener:ll Bockground Informn t ion c'lJtn ined from Germon Scientists cmd En''incors re- turned from Russia JnnuC~ry, 1951. Mi:l j or-General ,,ndroi Grigorievich Kostikov, II 28 If If Hoport II II " " " " 29 RUS-2 and Dumbo Pulse widths measuromunts, 30 Physics Institute 1/N P. N, J,,;i;c,:L,:'.;, •cnder·rly o-P "cl' "llCG 'LJ "' 0 ' ]' ("h,,·,,+ i~ (.._~ .L !.,.) \~ • u. u, ~. 1.) .... _. .L u Title FLcN). Gorman C,W, Installations at F :llunh::.";en, Russian V:;lvo List. Russian Electronics. Russian Manuf:::cture of norvo g<Jses r1t BL~ce:t·-~vk:;. Rccolvers in GcrmDn and Hussion Homote Controlled Missiles, Unidenti~ied Flyin;l Objects, DSI Translations The plan o~ Scientific Hcsoarch Work of the ,,cademy o~ Sciences U, S. G. R. and plc1n .of Scienti~ic Cadres for 1950, No, 1 • II 2, II 3. II II Vestnik Ak,dcinJ.i Kmt 8, 8, S, H. ";u::,'11St, 1950. Conference on StQinlass Steels. MoscoVl Directory (20th Jan •. 1950) Extract of ;,cademiGs Scionti~ic Institutes and Laborlltories. - 3 - SEcRET ~-~ Security Class'n SECRET SECRET SECRET TOP SECRET DISCR~ RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL TOP SECRET SECRET TOP SECRET illflCREET TOP SECRET DISCREET TOP SECRET TOP SEem- TOP SECRET DISC!ET SEC T SECRET DISCREET RESTRICTED CONFIDEN~ SECRET• Loose Minute D lnfo(Exp)R/3/7/8 25 September 2000 DAS4a(Sec) 'UFOs' -Dr CLARKE'S REQUEST FOR ACCESS TO FILES Reference: A. DR/3/7/8 dated 6 September 2000 B. D/Sec(AS)64/3 dated 11 September 2000, together with a letter from Dr Clarke dated 4 September 2000 C. My email 14 September 2000 12.42 D. Dr Clarke's letter dated 1 August 2000 1. Dr Clarke's most recent communication (attached to Ref B) significantly refines his early requests for access to files relating to "ufo" matters. I believe that I can now update earlier advice to you (Refs A and C). 2. Dr Clarke identifies five files (or categories of files) he seeks access to: (1) DSI/JTIC Report No 7, Unidentified Flying Objects (1952), plus related Intelligence reports on UFOs, 1 951 - 1952. That this report once existed is not disputed. It is documented in a number of pieces at the Public Record Office, for example DEFE 10/496 & 497 (both released some four years ago). In correspondence Dr C has identified a number of closed intelligence files from the PRO catalogue that might contain the report- DEFE 21, DEFE 31 /19 & 64 and DEFE 44/1. The closed files have been examined and although we are not able to release complete files reviewers did look out for papers relating to "ufos". First, the Report No.7 is not on any of these files; second, a few "ufo" related papers have been identified. DEFE 31 I 19, out of 1 08 enclosures some six (dated June 1967) concern "ufos". DEFE 44/1 one paper (only) refers to Report No. 7. These pages are not sensitive and could be released. I BELIEVE THAT THERE IS ONLY ONE OPTION: a. to advise Dr C that a review of the closed files identified by him none contained the report he seeks, and b. that as a consequence of earlier searches for, and failure to locate, this report we conclude that it has not survive the passage of time, but
• c. our review of these files did identify a number of"ufo" related papers. Copies of which can be made available [for a fee?]. I did discuss with a representative of the PRO the best method of releasing these papers into the public domain and he concurred that providing photocopies by far the best. NOTE: Although, not referred to in Reference Ban earlier letter ReferenceD sought the release of successor files to two files located at the PRO under references DEFE 31/118 & 119 (former MOD references DISS/40/g/1 Pts 1 & 2). I understand that Pt 3, whilst in DIS custody and covering the period 1967 to 1971 was destroyed August 1984, Pts 4, 5 & 6 still survive in the DIS archive and cover the periods 1971- 1996, 1 996-2000 & 2000 to date. In addition, a large number of "ufo report" files are held. Parts 1-9, 21-25, 32 & 33, 34-51, covering the period May 1 975 to date. The sample I've seen reveals they mirror Sec(AS) files from the respective period. (2) BJ 5/311 Records of Meteorological Office. Unidentified Flying Objects: meteorological aspects, 1968- 1970. This file is due for release january 2001. It contains more than 280 enclosures, a great majority correspondence with members of the public. Two documents will be of interest to Dr C; (1) 54f(Air) discussion paper, january 1968, concerning revised procedures for dealing with "ufo" reports, and, (2) a submission to PS/USofS(RAF), March 1970, re policies and procedures. The S4f(Air) reference AF/X/58/64 cited in some correspondence is not identifiable in the PRO catalogue, therefore we must conclude that it has not survived the passage of time. OPTIONS: a. to sanitise the file of the names and addresses of members of the public would, I suggest, be excessive, particularly as accelerated opening action would take around three months ie prepare submission to the Lord Chancellor seeking closure for one month (legally the shortest period permitted that triggers early opening) and then subsequent administrative action by staff at Kew. By which time the file would be freely available to researchers at the PRO, or b. to permit Dr C access to the files in advance of the normal release, subject to his agreement to treat the information as "in confidence"' until 1 january 2001. Such action would normally be confined to researchers engaged on '"official" histories ie whose work receives the support of the Cabinet Office, or c. with the files imminent release to advise him to "bide his time" until january. (3) AIR 2/18564 Air Ministry/MOD. UFO Report: West Freugh, 1957- 1971.
• File in PRO custody, due for release january 2002. A file of two parts: (1) a DDI Tech file from Feb 1957 to August 1958, concerning "Flying Saucers, Parliamentary Questions", specifically West Freugh; (2) a S4f(Air) segment from May- Sept 1971, concerning the former OiC West Freugh's attempt to obtain permission to discuss the West Freugh incident with a researcher. OPTIONS: a. although release not due until jan 2002, on this occasion, we could be helpful to Dr C by: (i) providing him with a photocopy of the file, about 12 pages out of the approximately 50 pages would need to be sanitised to maintain consistency with our commitment to protect the name and addresses of members of the public until normal release at the 30-year point, or (ii) the file could be sanitised but arrangements could be made to accelerate the opening of the file, subject to the Lord Chancellor's approval, and thus available to all at the PRO sometime early in the New-Year (see above for timings). In this case I believe this the stronger option. (4) AF /3459/75 UFOs: Policy and Policy Statements 1970. This file plus additional policy files 1 968 - 1 981. File recovered from Hayes, covers the period 1970-1975. It includes, policy documents, some published articles and pamphlets and an exchange with a college engaged in research (perhaps six pages to be sanitised). No other "ufo" policy files for the period up to 1981 identified at Hayes. OPTIONS: a. provide Dr C with a photocopy of the file, a few pages will need to be sanitised, or b. the file could be prepared for release in advance of 30-years, as per item 3 above, but on this occasion action could take longer than six months ie the cataloguing along could take a significant time just being processed by the staff at Kew. NOTE: Outstanding to the enquiry, policy files that cover the period up to 1981!
e· (S) AIR 20/12556 (?)UFO reports january 1974 (additionally AIR 2/18873 may contain information relevant to reports in this month). Not with stand ing Dr C's interest in policy matters he appears to have an interest in incidents (o r an incident) that took place in january 1974. He identified from the PRO catalogue AIR 2/18873 as covering that period and specu lates t hat AIR 20/12556 might also (piece 12555 relates t o December 19 73). Although PRO class AIR 20 currently extends from piece 12566 to 12673 no "ufo" files appear within this number ranger S4f(Air) file AF/ 584 UFO Reportsjanuary 1974 has been locat ed and requi sitioned from Hayes. The file contains 24 folders each re lating to a different report (approxi mately 1 00 enclosures). This file together with 33 other files requisitioned from Hayes are due (or in a few cases overdue) for review. At the conclusion of this exercise cataloguing action and subsequent transfer to the PRO will take place with a view to release at the normal 30-year point. AIR 2/18873 has been requisitioned from the PRO . The piece is due for release 2005, as it covers the period june 1973 -February 1974. It con sists of 1 09 enclosures, all public enquiries, OPTIONS: a. to sanitise (between them more t han 2 00 enclosure), catalogue (AF / 584) and t he corresponding delay concerning acceptance by the PRO, transfe r and then to seek accelerated opening I suggest is not a serious proposition . But rather Dr C could be invited to specify his precise area of interest during this period and checks against both files could be made. Hd DR 1 GS Y 1 .0 1~
P;:1ge 1 of I SEC(AS)2A From: Hd of DR1 Sent: 25 September 2000 08:02 To: SEC(AS)2A Subject: RE: Dr Clarke Thanks. I hope that I will shortly complete a more (!) detailed account of the situation regarding the "historic" "ufo" files Dr C has expressed interest in. I'll expand on my para 2. ~ )'-,j ()t.jj()() -----Original Message----- From: SEC(AS)2A Sent: 22 September 2000 08:23 To: Hd ofDRI · Subject: Dr Clarke Importance: High Reference your E-m< lil 14 Sep 13:4). l l klve l)een llet:Miy 1nvolvecj lhs week 1n otl:er t!1:ngs but ;:m 1 now turning (after tllis <::Jrrl) to Dr Clarke. Your pc=1ra 2- wtl,lt does ~ Jf('Jntin~d ' speci(:~l' , ::1ccess involve. Who i: --Jssesses til e rncr:ts of rl-,e case. How long woulci conslcjer,:Jt:on take. Speak to you soon. ~P21 ge 1 of 1 ,. . i'" 1 ' ··~) ;t .... '\ • . ) ' :"" · .. "(' ::: ·. --~ .. S!C(AS)2A =-=- =-··=· ·--~ - -=- From: SEC(AS)2A Sent: 22 September 2000 08 :23 To : Hd of DR1 Subject: Dr Clarke Importance: High ;~e ference your E-m< Jil 14 Sep 13:42. I h<.we been lleavily :nvoivecJ this week in otller things l)Ut am now lurning (after tt1:s am) ro Dr Clarke. :22;owoo Your para 2- what does granting "special" access involve. Who assesses tile merits of the c:1se. How long would consideration rake. Speak to you soon.SEC(AS)2A From: Hd of DR1 Sent: 14 September 2000 13:42 To: SEC(AS)2A Subject: DR CLARKE'S REQUESTS , oage l of I Thanks for forwarding Dr Clarke's most recent letter. This does refine his ear lier requests some what. I believe that we are some way from providing Dr Clarke with a substant ive reply. Dr C's "revised shopping list": /b ~~. 1. The status of this item is the subject of my recent minute to Sec(AS) datec@september. - .-- 2. Due for release in January 2001 . To release earlier would require identification of correspondence from individuals reporting occurrences and their names and addresses to be deleted. This will take, say a day or two, and then an application to the Lord Chancellor for formal release in advance of 30 years which will take around 3 months. Alternatively, we could allow Dr C "special" access, otherwise he will have to wait until January. 3. I've ordered this from Kew. Assuming no, or relatively few, correspondence from the public early release ie prior to 2002, could be possible. 4 & 5. I've order 24 files from Hayes covering the period 1971 - 76 ie those which for some reason are overdue fdr review. Item 4 is included in this batch. Item 5 is a request for reports covering the period Jan 74. The PRO catalogue quite clearly reveals that AIR 2/12 5 56 is nothing to do with UFOs, but I note that one file expected from Hayes does cover the period as do two files at Kew AIR 211 88 73 & 188 7 4 (the former has also been requested from Kew). Hope that this is helpful?
LOOSE MINUTE ' ' . . ... , -~ ..... t . ~ ' 11 September 00 OMD14 DRl UFO FILES - REQUEST BY DR CLARKE Ref: DR/3/7 /8 dtd 6 Sep 00 1. Thank you for the advice in your minute at Reference. 2. \'\'e have received another letter from Dr Clarke refining his original request. I attach a copy of this latest letter for your records. I am in the process oflooking at your advice and Dr Clarke's most recent request to see if we arc now able to give him a substantive reply. DAS 4a (Sec) I\.ffi8243
• A~·\~ A.o~ ~ Loose Minute Clc- D, ctcl-...Q ~lr. '(Jv.h DR/3/7/8 6 September 2000 AD /Sec(AS)2 Copy to: ~ ~:;, ~ be. ~ ,~~LtJ. ,· " ' ' t · . / ~ --· _\ :~ _l ~-;- ( ~ .... _; ~-- (filfiZ!J I .J .. - ' . > - -~- _-: .~--- ~'"' . . 'l J • . / ?J6 9-)> ' ---C / c ·-f;~ t;-t Jr ~ i /_-·-r~ /~·<;-- ~- .. <- ::t / ,; ' OMD14 --·- - -. -- .···· ~uFOs"- DR CLARKE'S REQUEST FOR ACCESSS TO FILES Reference: D/Sec(AS)64/3 dated 24 August 2000 I· ....... __ ! ... ' • ' -- ,_,(" / ,. _ _ __ c . .. ) 1. As requested I have checked and made a number of amendments to your initial assessment of Dr Clarke's request (see attached). 2. Dr Clarke's clarification of his original request for access to files ~for the period 1969 to the present day" has, I suppose, been helpful if we assume that his subsequent letters limits his original request. But it is still a significant "shopping list". 3. So far as the DR element is concerned. The historic records(ie those selected for preservation but are retained in department for reasons of sensitivitv}re being reviewed. I note his late inclusion of the closed files in DEFE 44 I do not plan to review the three retained files in this class as they were only reviewed two years ago and have nothing to do with his area of interest. 4. I am though a little concerned that the records flagged-up in the December 1 998 PQ dating from the early to mid-1970s have still to appear for review (review at the 25-year point means we should be looking at papers from the mid-1970s!). I am investigating. 5. As the review and other queries are resolved I will update the Annex. - Hd DRl GSYl.Ol - \ .... t . -·,.... ......... - !.·"-'--- ·-.·- - .. I .· ,.- ~- "' I ... .,_• Annex A Cited in Dr Clarke's letter: 1. To Sec(AS) 21 June 2000 2. To DR 21 July 2000 3. To Sec(AS) 1 August 2000 4. To DR 7 August 2000 5. To Sec(AS) 11 August 2000 Letter File No. requested by Subject according No offile parts Comments No. Dr Clarke to Dr Clarke (former ref) 1 All related files for UFOs ? ? the "period 1969 to the present" 2 DEFE 31/19 DIS & D5TI DR 1 Note: File (D/DISSEC/20/1/4) intelligence currently retained in papers (1960- accordance with 1970) S3(4) of Public Records Act. Is being reviewed by DR. 2 DEFE 31/64 DI5/D5TI DR 1 Note: File (DIS5EC/20/2/14/1) intelligence currently retained in (1970-1972) accordance with 53(4) of PRA. Is being reviewed by DR. 2 DEFE 44/1 D5TI, later D5TI: DR 1 Note: File Reports and currently retained in Memoranda; accordance with register of 53(4) of PRA. Is JSTI/DSTI/DSI being reviewed by reports and DR. memoranda (1946-1991) 2 DEFE 21 DSI Registered PRO catalogue DR 1 Note: Just over files records 72 files 30 files were (1946-1 964) assigned to this released a few years class covering ago (some only after the period the deletion of 1946-1978. sensitive passages). Closed files and extracts Uust over 60 files) are currently retained in accordance with 53(4) of PRA. These
• are being reviewed by DR. 3 Subsequent parts to UFO Policy No. of parts not DR 1 Note: A files preserved at known but member of DR is Kew under ref. DEFE suspected to liasing with Dl to 31/118& 119 extend to at ascertain fate of (former ref. least Pt 32. It is other files, incl. Dl55/40/9/1 Pts 1 & understood that dates of destruction 2) covering the most parts have (if known). period 1968-1981 been destroyed. But five files - Dl55/108/15/1 Pts 21-25, UFO incidents - are in DR possession awaiting cataloguing dated 1979 ie for normal release 2010. These appear to mirror Sec(AS) (S4f (Air) as was!) files recording incidents reported by members of the oublic. 3&5 AIR 20/12556 (?) Sighting reports DR 1 Note: AIR 20 January 1974 currently extends to piece number 12637, after 12555 there are no entries for UFO files. No UFO files are held in GSY waiting cataloguing or review. I note that in December 1998 Sec(AS) forwarded AF584- 601 (19 files) covering the period Jan 74- July 75, in addition to AF447 Pt 1 to Hayes. Files are probably due for review around now.
• I will check with Hayes that the files are held. 3&5 BJ 5/311 Unidentified DR 1 Note: File, (AF /M396/68 Pt 1) Flying Objects. which contains a 1968-1970 large number of reports from members of the public In addition to a few policy papers, is due for normal release in january 2001. 3 DEFE 44 Reports and DR 1 Note: In all memoranda class currently has 1946-1969 118 pieces assigned to it. 109 are open! Of the remaining 9: 3 are closed under 53(4) of the PRA- as these were only last reviewed in '98 and their titles clearly indicate no involvement with ufos I do not plan to review them. 3 are awaiting release at the normal 30-year period; again titles reveal nothing to do with ufos I therefore plan to leave these alone. 1 number not used and I piece "WANTING" ie catalogued but without possession of the report. Finally, DEFE 44/1 is already the subject of review action (see above). 5 AIR 2/18564 UFO report: West DR 1 Note: Dr Freugh 195 7 Clarke probably obtained information on this oiece from PRO
• catalogue. Piece covers the period 1957-1971, thus due for normal release 2002. Arrangements being made to recall piece from PRO to ascertain contents. If there is an absence of letters from members of the pu bile this might be a candidate for early release! 5 AF/3459/75 UFOs: policy and Sec(AS) Note: See policy statements. note below. 1970 5 A refined request for Sec(AS) Note: Dr UFO policy files for Clarke mentioned the period 1968- D/Sec(AS)12/1 & 1981 64/l in his letters. 5 D/Sec(AS)/12/l UFO policv files Sec (AS) Note: Pt A seems to be the only file. Opened in 1 Feb 85 and is therefore outside the period reQuested. 5 D/Sec(AS)/64/l UFO policy files Sec(AS) Note: Pts A- D exist. PtA opened 8 Aug 1996 and therefore all parts outside the period requested. 5 D/DS(AS)64/5 Media issues Sec(AS) Note: Dr Clarke did not give any particular date for this file. PtA is the only file. It was not opened until 8 Dec 96. 5 D/DS8/75/6 UF0:1V Sec(AS) Note: This discussion file appears to be a 1996 file. [But see DR additional note below] 5 AIR 2/18873 UFO reports, DR 1 Note: Due for (AF/7464/72 Pt II) 1973-1974 normal release after
• 30 years ie January 2005. I will recall from PRO to see whether early release is possible, but I again suspect that it will be identical to other files containing reports from the public. 5ec(AS) Note* information extracted from DR1 background note for Lords PQ of 17 December 1998 :t,. s. Additional Notes: Number of file arts 5ec(AS) input: The following files have been identified that might be relevant to the "all ufo policy files 1 968~-;J..'O ....... ...,__ UFO Policy & policy statements (Pt B- opened 4 Dec 1979 ~ At the time of the PQ December 1998 a trawl was made through the most appropriate records stored at Hayes for files relating to UFOs (search was in effect limited to 5ec(AS) and predecessors branch files). A large number of files were identified.): File: AF/419 BBC2 Man Alive Programme- UFOs Dec 71 ~ File: AF/S4f(a)/422 UFOs BBC Radio Oxford Programme Dec72 .?, File: AF 447 Pt 1 Reports(!) Aug 75-Jun 76 it File: AF/S4f(air)U/506 Statistical analysis of UFOs (1967-1973) 5 Files (19): AF 584-602 (2..4-) Comments Sec(AS) Note: There seems to be a gap between this one and the one listed next. I cannot identify from records here relevant series of numbers. DR Note: Currently DR should be reviewing records at the second review stage dating from the mid-1970s. It follows that it would appear that the absence of some of these files from the PRO catalogue and their absence from the various review and cataloguing processes in GSY suggests that they have been overlooked for review! This is being investigated.
• Reports (!)Jan 74-July 75 2.1, Files (2): AF/607 & 608 UFO reports Dec 75 & Jan 76 3o Files (4): AF/610- 613 UFO reports Mar 76 - Ju n 76 s~ Flles(4):AF/616-619 UFO reoorts Sept 76-Dec76 S'. 3 5 ~-""File: AF/3459iZS) UFOs Policy & policy statements 1970 31; File: D/DS8/25/3 UFO Parliamentary Correspondence 1978 4-'2. Files (6): D/058/75/2/1 UFO reports, correspondence PtsA&B1977 Pt c 1978 Pt F 1979 PtsG&H 1980 . SIt Files (12): D/DS8/75/2/2 UFOs reports - Edited copies Pts A-D 1977 Pts E & F 1978 Pts G & H, J & K 1979 Pts L & M 1980 __ _ 6 0 Files (6): D/0575/2/3 UFO reports Pts D- H & I 1978 6! Files (3): D/DS/75/2/4 UFO reports Pts A, B & D 1979 bs- Files (2): D/DS8/75/2/5 t.l UFO repo~~-~-A & B 1980 - File: D/058/75/2/S UFO -TV discussion PtA 1979 --··· File: D/DS8/75/6 UFO -TV discussion PtA 1979 --"·---· File: D/DS/75/7 UFO- Satellite debris PtA 1979 '15"" Files (7): D/05/1 Otii:ii;i -~ ·- ·- ·-· General briefs and reports, UFO correspondence PtsA&B1981 Pts C & D 1982 PtE 1983 Pt F & G 1984 12 Files (3): D/058/1 0/209/1 General briefs and reports, UFO correspondence reports Pts A 1983 (?) Pt 8 1984 PtC 1985 'loVe..\ 1&
A ~-( ICc A.c~ ~ Loose Minute ({z- Dr Cla.s-\r-'-'2 ~{r. tJv.h ~~~be p \-k~ltJ. DR/3/7 /8 6 September 2000 AD /Sec(AS)2 Copy to: OMD14 ~ .... . . ·-. ·' . ' ' .. .. - ' ' i ~uros•- DR CLARKE'S REQUEST FOR ACCESSS TO FILES Reference: D/Sec(AS)64/3 dated 24 August 2000 -- ~ ........ .- ... . '• 1. As requested I have checked and made a number of amendments to your initial assessment of Dr Clarke's request (see attached). 2. Dr Clarke's clarification of his original request for access to files "for the period 1969 to the present day" has, I suppose, been helpful if we assume that his subsequent letters limits his original request. But it is still a significant "shopping list". 3. So far as the DR element is concerned. The historic records(ie those selected for preservation but are retained in department for reasons of sensitivity)re being reviewed. I note his late inclusion of the closed files in DEFE 44 I do not plan to review the three retained files in this class as they were only reviewed two years ago and have nothing to do with his area of interest . ..-- .[ ' ·" 4-i.::·:J~rn·thovgh a, little concerned thatthe recordsJiagged-:-up in the.Oecember ·. 19~8-~. ::.:.: PQ dating from the early to mid-1970s have still to appear for review (review at the 2 5-year point means we should be looking at papers from the mid-1970s!). I am investigating. S. As the review and other queries are resolved I will update the Annex. - Hd DR1 GSYl.Ol o.cco~"'v . ,., ..• Annex A Cited in Dr Clarke's letter: 1. To Sec(AS) 21 June 2000 2. To DR 21 July 2000 3. To Sec(AS) 1 August 2000 4. To DR 7 August 2000 5. To Sec(AS) II August 2000 Letter File No. requested by Subject according No of file parts Comments No. Dr Clarke to Dr Clarke (former ref) 1 All related files for UFOs ? ? the "period 1 969 to the oresent" 2 DEFE 31/19 DIS& DSTI DR 1 Note: File (0/DISSEC/20/1/4) intelligence currently retained in papers (1960- accordance with 1970) S3(4) of Public Records Act. Is being reviewed by DR. 2 DEFE 31/64 DIS/DSTI DR 1 Note: File (DISSEC/20/2/14/1) intelligence currently retained in (1970-1972) accordance with S3(4) of PRA. Is being reviewed by DR. 2 DEFE 44/1 DSTI, later DSTI: DR 1 Note: File Reports and currently retained in Memoranda; accordance with register of S3(4) of PRA. Is JSTI/DSTI/CSI· ... -· being reviewed .by reports and DR. memoranda (1946-1991) 2 DEFE 21 DSI Registered PRO catalogue DR 1 Note: Just over files records 72 files 30 files were (1946-1964) assigned to this released a few years class covering ago (some only after the period the deletion of 1946-1978. sensitive passages). Closed files and extracts (just over 60 files) are currently retained in accordance with 53(4) of PRA. These
• are being reviewed bv DR. 3 Subsequent parts to UFO Policy No. of parts not DR 1 Note: A files preserved at known but member of DR is Kew under ref. DEFE suspected to liasing with Dl to 31/118&119 extend to at ascertain fate of (former ref. least Pt 32. It is other files, incl. Dl55/40/9/l Pts 1 & understood that dates of destruction 2) covering the most parts have (if known). period 1968-1 981 been destroyed. But five files - Dl55/108/l5/l Pts 21-25, UFO incidents - are in DR possession awaiting cataloguing dated 1979 ie for normal release 2010. These appear to mirror Sec(AS) (S4f (Air) as was!) files recording incidents reported by members of the oublic. 3&5 AIR 20/12556 (?) Sighting reports DR 1 Note: AIR 20 january 1974 currently extends to piece number 12637, after 12555 ,. --·--·- . .. ·- · .. · h . .. . . . .· -t ere anfno entries·· for UFO files. No UFO files are held in GSYwaiting cataloguing or review. I note that in December 1998 Sec(AS) forwarded AF584- 601 (19 files) covering the period Jan 74- July 75, in addition to AF447 Pt 1 to Hayes. Files are probably due for review around now.
• I will check with Hayes that the files are held. 3&5 Bj 5/311 Unidentified DR 1 Note: File, (AF/M396/68 Pt 1) Flying Objects. which contains a 1968-1970 large number of reports from members of the public in addition to a few policy papers, is due for normal release in january 2001. 3 DEFE 44 Reports and DR 1 Note: In all memoranda class currently has 1946-1969 118 pieces assigned to it. 109 are open! Of the remaining 9: 3 are closed under 53(4) of the PRA- as these were only last reviewed in '98 and their titles clearly Indicate no involvement with ufos I do not plan to review them. 3 are awaiting release at the normal 30-year period; again titles reveal nothing to do with ufos I therefore plan to leave these - . I .. ··- - ··- ---"-~- ----. - alone. ----· -- . 1 number not used and I piece 'WANTING" le catalogued but without possession of the report. Finally, DEFE 44/l is already the subject of review action (see above). 5 AIR 2/18564 UFO report: West DR 1 Note: Dr Freugh 1957 Clarke probably obtained information on this oiece from PRO
• catalogue. Piece covers the period 1957-1971, thus due for normal release 2002. Arrangements being made to recall piece from PRO to ascertain contents. If there is an absence of letters from members of the public this might be a candidate for early release! 5 AF/3459/75 UFOs: policy and Sec(AS) Note: See policy statements, note below. 1970 5 A refined request for Sec(AS) Note: Dr UFO policy files for Clarke mentioned the period 1968- D/Sec(AS)12/1 & 1981 64/1 in his letters. 5 D/Sec(AS)/12/l UFO poliC't files Sec(AS) Note: Pt A seems to be the only file. Opened in 1 Feb 85 and is therefore outside the period requested. 5 D/Sec(AS)/64/l UFO policy files Sec(AS) Note: Pts A- D exist. PtA opened 8 Aug 1996 and ~-' '" --~ ---. -· _., __ , ___ _, -~-. ,_ -----· ... -- - '., . ----- th.erpforP all ~arr< . I --------- outside the period . I reQuested. 5 D I DS(AS)64/5 Media issues Sec(AS) Note: Dr Clarke did not give any particular date for this file. PtA is the only file. It was not opened until 8 Dec 96. 5 D/DS8/75/6 UFO: TV Sec(AS) Note: This discussion file appears to be a 1996 file. [But see DR additional note below] 5 AIR 2!18873 UFO reports, DR I Note: Due for (AF /7464/72 Pt II) 1973-1974 normal release after
30 years ie January 2005. I will recall from PRO to see whether early release is possible, but I again suspect that it will be identical to other files containing reports from the ~ublic. Sec(AS) Note* information extracted from DR1 background note for Lords PQ of 17 December 1998 ', # ' ' Additional Notes: :.. ~~) Number offile parts Sec(AS) input: The following files have been identified that might be relevant to the "all ufo policy files ~-· 1968-Uliil" ~ ~. l • ~~;_IT::.:Ie 7 ::;· ;..;AF;;;;:.{:;:?';;:58:::;/!::=~....., / UFO~& policy statements (Pt 1 -file opened 22 Feb 1968) File:Af:/xss-/64 ----~---·' / UFO PEJ!cy & policy statements (Pt II - file open~_March 1 970) File: D/DS8t7'511 UFO ~~policy statements (PtA- file opened 18 Jan 1979) -~ File:1>/DS~[!~IJ UFO ~olicy & policy statements (Pt B - opened 4 n.o.r 1 Q7Q DRl input: At the time of the PQ December 1998 a trawl was made through the most appropriate records stored at Hayes for files relating to I UFOs (search was in effect limited to Sec(AS) and predecessors branch files). A large number of fi!~s were id~ntified.): / ( File: AF/419 ('"? ", cd· .( · 2 BBC2 Man Alive Programme - UFOs Dec 71 File: AF/S4f(a)/422 _......_._.. UFOs BBC Radio Oxford Programme Dec72 .3, File: AF 447 Pt 1 Reports(!) Aug 75-Jun 76 ~ File: AF/S4f(air)U/506 Statistical analysis of UFOs (1967-1973) 5 Files (19): AF 584-602 (2t+) Comments Sec(AS) Note: There seems to be a gap between this one and the one listed next. I cannot identify from records here relevant series of numbers. DR Note: Currently DR should be reviewing records at the second review stage dating from the mid-1970s. It follows that it would appear that the absence of some of these files from the PRO catalogue and their absence from the various review and cataloguing processes in GSY suggests that they have been overlooked for review! This is being investigated.• • R_epc>rts (!) Jan_74- J~ ly _Z_5 2b Files (2): AF/607 & 608 UFO re orts Dec 75 -~01,'! ?6. __ . _ 3o Files (4): AF/610- 613 ? UFO reports Mar 76 - Ju n 76 5 + Files (4): AF/616-619 3 ~ !'-!.!!=:..!,;:;=...._.. UFOs Policy & policy statements 1 970 3 (, File: D/DS8/25/3 UFO Parliamentary Corresponde.!!.~_l~Z.!! ________ -~ _ .... . .... ______ _ Files (6): D/D58/75/2/1 ---- --?.>{"i,.-(., D, e- "' ~I",J"'"'"c( '"'"' UFO reports, correspondence . 1\Jo N! eels~- f{o~ cf:Lu. p~. PtsA& B 1977 1 PtC 1978 Pt F 1979 '- Pts G & H 1 980 ~----~----- ___ _ S '+ Files (12): D/D58/75/2/2 UFOs reports - Edited copies Pts A-D 1977 Pts E & F 1978 Pts G & H, J & K 1979 Pts L& M 1980 ·--·----·-·· 6 0 Files (6): D/0575/2/3 UFO reports Pts D~Ji~JJ~z_s_ __ - -----~> --···-. """"·''' --- - - - 6l Files (3): D/DS/75/2/4 UFO report~ Pts A.!_B & D_19L~= b;~ Files (2): D/DS8/75/2/5 UFO reports Pts A _&_B 1980 .•.• b b File: D/DSB/iS/2/5 UFO- TV discussion PtA 1979 6 7 , e:-r:rJo<;sm-,-o-·----------------- UFO -TV discussion PtA 1979 {,Q File: OlnS/?S 17 ----- ·+-ui'o·= 5at'eliiteciebris PtA ;979 ., !: Files (7): DJDS/1 o/2o9 General briefs and reports, UFO correspondence PtsA& B 1981 PtsC& D 1982 PtE 1983 Pt F & G 1984 1:11 Files(3): o/osS/l0/209{1 General briefs and reports, UFO correspondence reports Pts A 1983 (?) Pt B 1984 Pte 1985 "\'o let\ 1 & ', \!.. J . ..., rec~ .:;...W~ 1 £"'~-,. /)..;_,___f.,, Po--t ;::, ) "'t-+ AJ-J.,. • .-<o( :J.'li<;:(:O"t(- f .• ILoose Minute DR/3/7/8 6 September 2000 AD /Sec(AS)2 ; ' . ". · . Copy to : / - 029' It 'SB'Jl :' . · . / . I . A~~ ((z- Dr Cl~'-'? f\R-!Ld:, k, \,e. ~,~~ltJ. .. It '- ! !;)(' Reference: D/Sec(AS)64/3 dated 24 August 2000 - ·i. P.s requested 1 have checked ai1ci made a nurnbet u1 amenatnents to your initial assessment of Dr Clarke's request (see attached). 2. Dr Clarke's clarification of his original request for access to files "for the period 1969 to the present day• has, I suppose, been helpful ifwe assume that his subsequent letters limits his original request. But it is still a significant "shopping list". 3. So far as the DR element is concerned. The historic records(ie those selected for preservation but are retained in department for reasons of sensitivity}re being reviewed. I note his late inclusion of the closed files in DEFE 44 I do not plan to review the three retained files in this class as they were only reviewed two years ago and have nothing to do with his area of interest. ___. · ~~ ~ ' ._, - ~(- . . · . . · --~ :: .. . ' /· J • • • .... . . . ~ . l . _ 4 •. Jam -though a . littl~ concerned that the records.flagged-:-up in the.. Dec~mber 1998 . ..:... .. PQ dating from the early to mid-1970s have still to appear for review (review at the 2 5-year point means we should be looking at papers from the mid-1970s!). I am investigating. 5. As the review and other queries are resolved I will update the Annex . Hd DRl GSY1.01 ·,.EC(AS)2 From: Sent: To: Subject: ~ OMD14 25 August 2000 10:45 SEC(AS)2; Hd of DR1 RE: Dr Clarke I think the absolute limit for Dr Clarke's request should be the number of hours we spent on the-. (14 hours). I agree that we should compile a list ofthe number of file parts requiring editing. We c~werlf out roughly how many files we can edit within the 14 hour limit, and then ask Dr Clarke to pick the files he wants within that limit. We would, obviously, have to seek his prior consent for the charge we would levy (£150) before we did any work. I suspect that Dr Clarke won't be very satisfied , but, as you say, we have to draw the line somewhere. Regards, ~ --Original Message- From: SEC(AS)2 Sent 24 August 2000 17:10 To: OMD14; Hd of DR1 Subject Dr Clarke « File: DrCiarke@Code.Request.3.doc » 1 -
Loose Minute D/Sec(AS) 64/3 ,/" 24 August 2000 OMD14 DRl . . ' 'UFOs' -DR CLARKE'S REQUEST FOR ACCESS TO FILE- S .. I. At our meeting earlier this week I said that I would look at Dr Clarke's letters and try and compile a list of the files I think he wants to see so that we might gauge the size of the request overall. This is attached at Annex. In compiling the list I checked the details of the Lords PQs mentioned in his last letter to Sec( AS) and looked at the background notes drafted at the time. As you will see, I have been unable to complete the task; I should be grateful ifDRl could chet.:k, amend and complete the list. 2. It seems to me that we are already spending a great deal of time on this non defence-related task. It has taken me something in excess of two hours to compile the details in the attachment to this minute. With that and the DR staff time in mind, I should be grateful to know from OMD14 how much time would be reasonable to devote to Dr Clarke's 'shopping lists'. Might a completed Annex (in tenns of the number of parts of files needing to be reviewed/sanitised) be sufficient to make an initial judgement on whether to proceed further? How many files (based on an average of 100 enclosures per file) might constitute a voluminous request? I am reluctant to devote further resources to this request (recalling files from archiv es etc) until we have reached that stage. 3. I look forward to hearing from you both. I
• AnnexA File Number Subject according From MOD AD/Sec(AS)2 requested by Dr to Dr Clarke Records- Number Comments Clarke of file parts DEFE 311118 UFO Policy 1953- Already accessed 63 N/A by Dr Clarke at the PRO DEFE311119 UFO Policy 1967 N/A Already accessed by Dr Clarke at the PRO DEFE311119 UFO Policy(?) 1968-81 DEFE31119 DIS+DSTI Intelligence Papers 1967-70 I DEFE 31/6<1 DIS+DSTI .• ! Intelligence Papers 1970-72 DEFE44/l DSI (later DSTI) Reports and memoranda Register of JSTIIDSTI/DSI reports and memoranda 1946- 91 DEFE21 DSI Registered files 1946-69 DEFE44 All files 1946-1969 BJ 5/311 UFOs Meteorological Aspects 1968-70 Air 20/12556 (?) Sighting Reports Dr Clarke has January 1974 assumed the file number because Air 20/12555 concerns Dec 1973. But, I am not sure that number existed. Was AF/584 the file reference for Jan 74? (* see Note below) Air 2/18564 UFO Report- West One I am not sure where Freugh 1957 Dr Clarke found the file title. Is it a .. file of reports for
• 1957, or one specifically concerning the WestFreugh 'incident' (* see Note below) Air 2118873 UFO reports 1973- One Dr Clarke says he 74 wants the file ... because it D}ay contain information about Jan 74 reports. However, I think the file reference might be Air 2/18833 (previously AF 7464 Pt II) (* see ... ··'·· . NotP h~>low) AF/3459/75 UFOs Policy and One (* see Note below) Policy Statements 1970 All files UFO Policy 1968- Dr Clarke 1981 mentioned D/Sec(AS)l2/l and 6411 in his letters. D/Sec(AS)/12/1 UFO Policy files Part A seems to be the only file. It was opened 01102/85 and is, therefore, outside - r- ~ reauested. D/Sec(AS)64/l UFO Policy Files Parts A-D exist. Part A was opened 08/08/96 and, therefore, all parts are outside the ·- ~d. I have identified the following files that might be ,. relevant in respect ~IA..l> ::,. " . --:> of •aU UFO pOlicy files 1968-81 , '· File AF/XSS/64 UFO Policy& . -- A6V t<.... Policy Statements %:.... (Part I -file
• opened 22/02/68) 2· File AF/X58/64 There seems to be a UFO Policy& gap between this Policy Statements file and the one (Part II- file listed next. I - f-. opened 31103170) cannot identify from records here a relevant series of numbers. '1. File D/DSS/75/1 UFO Policy& Policy Statements - f- (Part A - file opened 18/0 1179) 4-· File D/DSS/75/1 UFO Policy& Policy Statements - (Part B -file opened 04/12179) D/Sec(AS)64/5 UFO Media Issues Dr Clarke did not give any particular date for this file. Part A is the only file. It was not opened until 08/08/96. D/S8175/6 UFO TV This seems to be a Discussion 1979 file. (* See Note below) Note* information extracted from DR1 background note for Lords PQ of 17/12/98
_,:._- . Loose Minute D/Sec(AS) 64/3 / 30· 24 August 2000 OMD14 DRl 'UFOs'- DR CLARKE'S REQUEST FOR ACCESS TO FILES 1. At our meeting earlier this week I said that I would look at Dr Clarke's letters and try and compile a list of the files I think he wants to see so that we might gauge the size ()(the request overall. This is attached at Annex. In compiling the list I checked the details of the Lords PQs mentioned in his last letter to Sec( AS) and looked, at the background notes drafted at the time. As you will see, I have been unable to complete the task; I should be grateful ifDRl could check, amt:nd and complete the list. 2. It seems to me that we are already spending a great deal of time on this non defence·related task. It has taken me something in excess of two hours to compile the . details in the attachment to this minute. With that and the DR staff time in mind, I should be grateful to know from OMD 14 how much time would be reasonable to devote to Dr Clarke's 'shopping lists'. Might a completed Annex (in terms of the number of parts of files needing to be reviewedlsanitised) be sufficient to make an initial judgement on whether to proceed further? How many files (based on an average of l 00 enclosures per file) might constitute a voluminous request? I am reluctant to devote further resources to this request (recalling files from archives etc) until we have reached that stage. 3. I look forward to hearing from you both. - ~ J _ I ".r-" - ! -, .· I I I "":"· :, - . I • 1. { ! i ~ . • J •' "j ' l ,... , .. t/ ·. ~ · - I ' ·. _ .... >----• AnnexA File Number Subject according From MOD AD/Sec(AS)2 requested by Dr to Dr Clarke Records- Number Comments Clarke offtle parts DEFE3l/118 UFO Policy 1953- Already accessed 63 N/A by Dr Clarke at the PRO DEFE3l/119 UFO Policy 1967 N/A Already accessed by Dr Clarke at the PRO DEFE31/119 UFO Policy(?) 1968-81 DEFE31/19 DIS+DSTI Intelligence Papers 1967-70 I DEFE}l/64 DIS+DSTI Intelligence Papers 1970-72 DEFE4411 DSI (later DSTI) Reports and memoranda Register of JSTI/DSTI/DSI reports and memoranda 1946- 91 DEFE21 DSI Registered files 1946-69 DEFE44 All files 1946-1969 BJ 5/311 UFOs · .. Meteorological __ .. -A5i>ects196S-7o -- -- Air 20/12556 (?) Sighting Reports Dr Clarke has January 1974 assumed the file number because Air 20/12555 concerns Dec 1973. But, I am not sure that number existed. Was AF/584 the file reference for Jan 74? (* see Note below) Air 2/18564 UFO Report - West One I am not sure where Freugh 1957 Dr Clarke found the file title. Is it a file of reports for
• ~-·'- 1957, or one . specifically concerning the WestFreugh 'incident' (* see Note below) Air 2/18873 UFO reports 1973- One Dr Clarke says he 74 wants the file because it may contain information about Jan 74 reports. However, I think the file reference might be Air 2/18833 (previously AF 7464 Pt II)(* see N otP hi! low) AF/3459/75 UFOs Policy and One (* see Note below) Policy Statements 1970 All files UFO Policy 1968- Dr Clarke 1981 mentioned D/Sec(AS)l2/l and 6411 in his letters. D/Sec( AS )/12/1 UFO Policy files Part A seems to be the only file. It was opened 01/02/85 and is, - 1- therefore, outside ~-~ reauested. D/Sec(AS)64/1 UFO Policy Files Parts A-D exist. '' oe·.c. ·.·c .. •·· ··:-:-.·'d.:.C • ·~,.,_ --~ -·- -."""-- --- ·- . .. - ·<< :Pim A \vfu; o'Peneci ·· 08/08/96 and, therefore, all parts f- ~de the en e(illeSted. I have identified the following files that might be ,. relevant in respect ~v....::, ::.o.. _..,. of 'all UFO policy files 1968-81 · '· File AF/X58/64 UFO Policy& - !o.St .. Policy Statements OJ.,'~~ (Part I -file
' • opened 22/02/68) - :2· File AF/X58/64 There seems to be a UFO Policy& gap between this Policy Statements file and the one (Part II - file listed next. I -r-. opened 31103170) cannot identify from records here a relevant series of numbers. '?. File D/DSS/75/1 UFO Policy& Policy Statements - (Part A- file opened 18/01/79) ~- File D/DSS/75/1 UFO Policy& Policy Statements - (Part B -file opened 04/12/79) D/Sec(AS)64/5 UFO Media Issues Dr Clarke did not give any particular date for this file. Part A is the only file. It was not opened until 08/08/96. D/58/75/6 UFO TV This seems to be a Discussion 1979 file. (* See Note below) Note * information extracted from DR! background note for Lords PQ of 17/12/98 -1 ,_,··- "· ,.J.- '>':f~ ;·~-
Dr David Clarke From: Secretariat (Air Staff)2 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Room 8247, Main Building, Whitehall, London, SW1A 2HB Telephone (Direct dial) (Switchboard) (Fax) Your Reference Our Reference A __,. D/Sec(AS )164/3 .r Date 23 August 2000 020 7218 2140 020 7218 0000 :scas: :as: Thank you for your further letter of 11 August setting out in more detail the files you wish to access. Rather than answering each one of your letters separately, we feel that you will get a quicker and more complete answer if we can provide you with a single consolidated response that addresses all the outstanding requests you have made to MOD for 'UFO' -related information. I note that in your letter of 1 August you say that you have contacted the MOD Record Officer seeking access to files. It would be helpful if you could let me know of any requests you have made to other parts of MOD (in London or elsewhere), so that these can also be covered in our substantive reply. In the meantime, we are progressing your letters to Sec(AS)2 of 1 and 11 August and to the MOD Records Officer of 21 July and 7 August. This will, however, take some time in view of the fact that the many flies requested will need to be retrieved and reviewed. It will involve a considerable amount of staff time which will have to be fitted in around core Defence tasks. I hope, however, to be able to provide you with a progress report by the end of September. I would also like to address some of the points that you raised in your letter of 1 August. You ask whether individuals contacting the Department have requested that their personal details remain confidential for the 30-year period I think you may have misunderstood the position. It is not a requirement that individuals should make that request. MOD has an obligation, both in common law and as an employer, to protect the confidentiality of its current and former employees and third parties. This obligation may only be overridden by consent, where there is an overriding public interest, or where statutory law (eg the Public Records Act) allows. It is for this reason that all personal identifying details of members of the public must be deleted before third party access is given to any information held on Departmental files. I should wish to assure you that MOD does not, as a matter of policy, release personal details to the media when contacted about alleged 'UFO' sightings. Rather, it is our experience that some members of the public seek actively to promote their alleged experiences through the media. You again mention in your letter of 1 August a conversation at the beginning of the year with the MOD Press Office. ~said in her letter of25 July, a number of enquiries were made to MOD by the media and members of the public about 'UFO' files being released at
' that time by the Public Record Office. I cannot comment on your recollection of what might have been said during your conversation but I can say that media reports about comments attributed to · the then Under Secretary of State for Defence in respect of •UFO' files were totally unfounded. MOD does take a positive approach to the release of information and works on the presumption that mformation should be made available. However, for the reasons I have given above about MOD's legal obligations, this is not always possible. ~R.I\._ GJrroO-~ 'DR\ cS:>Mo ''-~-
-C(AS)2 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Hd ofDR1 23 August 2000 07 :09 SEC(AS)2 OWD14 RE: Dr Clarke and UFOs I am content with your proposed draft as amended by ===-___j --Original Me688ge- From: SEC(AS)2 Sent: 22 August 2000 15:31 To: Hd of DR1 ; OMD14 Subject: Dr Clarke and UFOs «File: DrCiarke@Code.Request.2.doc >> 1
From: Sent: To: Subject: OMD14 22 August 2000 16:41 SEC(AS)2; Hd of DR1 RE: Dr Clarke and UFOs Thanks for this. I think you make the points we discussed very well- however I would prefer it if we slightly softened the beginning and made the letter sound more positive. Can I suggest the following for the 2nd paragraph: "Rather than answering each one of your letters separately, we feel that you will get a quicker and more complete answer if we can provide you with a single consolidated response that addresses all the outstanding requests you have made to MOD for UFO-related information. I note that in your letter of 1 August you say that you have contacted the MOD Record .Officer seeking access to files. It would be helpful if you could let me know of any requests you have made to other parts of MOD (in London or elsewhere), so that these can also be covered in our substantive reply." Then your 3rd para. Then I would add a para explaining how we are getting on with his request (I think it is better to have this upfront rather than at the end): "In the meantime, we are progressing your outstanding requests made in your letters to Sec( AS) of . . . and to Defence records of . . . . This will, however, take some time, in view of the fact that the many files requested will need to be retrieved and reviewed for disclosure. This will involve a considerable amount of staff time, which will have to be frtted in around core Defence tasks. I hope, however, to be able to provide you with a progress report by the end of September." Then, "I would like also to address a number of points that you raised in your letter of 1 August. .." Then your paras 4 and 5. Regards, ~ ---Original Messag~-- From: SEC{AS)2 Sent: 22 August 2tXXl15:31 To: Hd of DR1; OMD14 Subject: Dr Clarke and UFOs «File: DrCiarke@Code.Request.2.doc »Loose Minute D/Sec(AS)/64/3 22 August 2000 OMD14 DRl 'UFOs': LETTER FROM THE PUBLIC- DR DAVID CLARKE 1. We met this morning to discuss how we might deal with Dr Clarke's scattergun approach for information in a 'joined-up' way. As agreed, I have drafted an acknowledgement to his latest letter (dated 11 August and copied to you at the meeting) and covered one or two points from the 1 August letter (you already have a copy) to reflect our discussion. This is attached; I should be grateful to know asap that you are content. 2. I shall write separately about what I think his file 'shopping list' comprises! AD/Sec(~ MB8247- ;.__
• e Draft or Dr Clarke Thank you for your further letter of 11 August setting out in more detail the files you wish to access. - has already acknowledged your letter of 1 August and I accept that you have yet to receive a full reply. However, in that letter you also say that you have contacted the MOD Departmental Record Officer seeking access to files. This fragmented approach to the Department is hampering efforts to make meaningful enquiries about your requests for access to official information. It would therefore be helpful to know as soon as possible whether you have contacted other parts of the MOD in London or elsewhere. It is only with full details that we shall be able to look at the totality of your requests and provide an overall substantive response. It would also be helpful in any future dealings with MOD about this request to direct all of your correspondence to the above address. Sec(AS)2 is the MOD focal point for dealing with all correspondence relating to 'UFOs' and I can assure you that Sec(AS)2 staffliase with and discuss all related matters with others in the Department as necessary. In your letter of 1 August you ask whether individuals contacting the Department have requested that their personal details remain confidential for the 30-year period. I think you may have misunderstood the position. It is not a requirement that individuals should make this request. MOD has an obligation, both in common law and as an employer, to )Xotect the confidentiality of its current and fanner employees and third parties. This obligation may only be overridden by consent, where there is an overriding public interest, or where statutory law (eg the Public Records Act) allows. It is for this reason that all personal identifying details of members of the public must be deleted before third party access is given to any information held on Departmental files. I should wish to assure you that MOD does not, as a matter of policy, release personal details to the media when contacted about alleged 'UFO' sightings. Rather, it is our experience that some members of the public seek actively to promote their alleged experiences through the media. You again mention in your letter of 1 August a conversation at the beginning of the year with the MOD Press Office. As ... said in her letter of 25 July, a number of enquiries were made to MOD by the media and members of the public about 'UFO' files being released at that time to the Public Record Office. I cannot comment on your recollection of what might have been said during your conversation but I can say that media reports about comments attributed to the then Under Secretary of State for Defence in respect of 'UFO' files were totally unfounded. MOD does take a positive approach to the release of information and works on the presumption that information should be made available. However, for the reasons I have given above about MOD's legal obligations, this is not always possible. I am sorry not to be able to give you a substantive response to your letters of 1 and 11 August at this time. Nevertheless, I can assure you that whilst we await information about any additional requests you have made to the Department, Sec(AS)2 and Departmental Records staff will continue with their enquiries on your behalf. We hope to provide a progress report by the end of September.
SEC(AS)2A1 -From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: DC+L{F+S)Legal 16 August 2000 14:49 SEC(AS)2A1 OMD14; OMD16; Hd of DR1 Dr Clarke - addendum .• See also Annex A of JSP 400 for guidance on access to records less that 30 years o""'ld. tfiTS amplifies my earlier minute. ~ 1/ D/DC&L(F&S)/29/4/1 16 August 2000 Sec(AS)2a1* Copy to: OMD14* OMD16* DR1* CODE REQUEST: DR DAVID CLARKE 1. OMD14 has passed us your minute (D/Sec(AS)/64/3) of 7 August in relation to Dr Clarke's request for access to Departmental records on UFOs. 2. First of all, I want to point out that the Data Protection Act 1998 is irrelevant in this context. Dr Clarke is not asking to see what papers we hold on him. The key principle regarding disclosure of these and all other MOD documents continues to be the obligation by the Department, both in common law and as an employer, to protect the confidentiality of its current and former employees (Service and civilian) and third parties. This obligation may only be over-ridden by consent, where there is an over-ridding public interest, or where statutory law (e.g. the Public Records Act) allows. As you suspected, it is the latter - the third party angle - that is important here. All personal details will need to be deleted before he can have access to the papers still held by the MOD. 3. However, the historical branches have a special dispensation from the normal disclosure practice to enable privileged access to be given to bona fide historical researchers (see JSP 400, paragraph 3.23 located on the Web at "Instructions", then "JSP 400".) Whether Dr Clarke comes into this category I leave to you to decide. It may be material that he does not know that we do not yet have a FOI Act; the Bill is still going through Parliament. [signed] DDC&L(F&S)Legal MT3/28 Fax:
CHOTS: DC+L(F+S)Legal
.. ~ ., ttsEC(AS)2A 1 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: 08.00 "'cl•rlc• OMD14 11 August 2000 18:06 SEC(AS)2A1 Hd of DR1; OMD/AD(E+MG); OMD16; DC+L(F+S)Legal Code request: Dr Clarke ur ••. doc PSA loose minute on the above. OMD14 NH617 - 1
- . j LOOSE MINUTE D/DO:MD/2/3 11 August 2000 Sec(AS)2al Copy to: DRl O:MD/ AD(E&MG) DC+L(F+S)Legal OMD16 CODE REQUEST: DR DAVID CLARKE Reference: A. D/Sec( AS)64/3 of 7 August 2000 1. Thank you for seeking our comments (at Ref A) on Dr Clarke' s request for information on UFOs. I have the following comments on Dr Clarke' s paragraphs: Paragraph 3 2. As you suggested, this is covered by the Data Protection~ 98). Policy on DPA 98 is now the responsibility ofDG Info, throug~ and - and I have sought the latter' s advice on this case. She shares DRI ' s ~ have a duty of confidentiality towards third party information, which Dr Clarke' s offer to respect the confidentiality of the information does not waive. Unless DC+L(F+S)Legal disagrees, I therefore think it is our legal duty to redact the personal details from all UFO files released before 30 years. Paragraph4 3. I think we need to be a bit careful about using th~se as a precedent here. In the we only agreed to provide the information as a one-off gesture of was also much more narrowly focused (it was for specific sightmg and was therefore easier to handle. We should also take into account the fact that Dr Clarke is requesting other files from Defence Records, which it is taking staff time to handle. I therefore think it is reasonable for us to handle his requests for PRO files first before we offer anything extra. Paragraphs 6-9 4. We need to ensure that we answer all h1s requests here in accordance with the Code. Regarding file BJ 5/311 , my view is that we should ask the PRO whether the document can be released in advance of January 2001. If not, then we should advise Dr Clarke to wait for the release of the file in January. Rather than citing exemption 10 ofthe Code, we should simply explain that the process of releasing a document (as
.. , ,·- . required under the Public Records Act) takes some time and the PRO are not in a position to complete this before January. 5. Lastly, given that Dr Clarke is writing separately to different parts of MOD about this, we may wish to be "joined-up" in our responses to ensure that we are not duplicating work or sending conflicting messages. 6. I hope this is helpful and I am happy to discuss. OMD14 NH617-
. . Main Building Whitehall London SWlA 2HB Your ref: D/Sec (AS) 64/3 Dear Dr David Clarke . 22 ; .. ..... .........,-.. ·- · ~ ~:':· ,- ·'""·- · ··: ....... .......... ~ .. Thank you for your letter of7 August acknowledging my request for access to MOD files, and for keeping me informed about the time involved in processing my request. In the meantime my attention has been drawn to a list of 'closed files' provided by Lord Gilbert in a Written Answer to Lord Hill-Norton in the House of Lords on 19 November/17 December, 199.8. This information has allowed me to draw up a more specific list of file references which may help you consider my request. These are: BJ 5/311 UFOs: Meteorological Aspects 1968-70 (closed until I Jan 2001) Air 2/18564 UFO report: West Freugh 1957 (closed until1 Jan 2002) AF/3459/75 UFOs: Policy and Policy Statements, 1970 This file plus additional policy files: 1968-1981 which may include: D/Sec(AS)/12/1) 5 parts dealing with policy D/Sec(AS)/64/1) issues. D/Sec(AS)/64/5 Media Issues D/DSS/75/6 UFO: TV discussion. Air 20/12556 (?)UFO reports January 1974 (additionally Air 2/18873 UFO reports 1973-74 may contain information re January 1974 reports). Thanks for your help. I look forward to hearing from you in due course. Yours sincerely,
eooM 32-t5 MArt"/ BvrLo £NG., W~t~HAt,L LoNoof'l Swlt\ ZHl3 ~ . 'lldlnl···~ .... - ... II--== -·~~;~ ~~=~-
, • Loose Minute DR/3/7 /8 8 August 2000 Sec(AS)2al -9 AUG :.:.000 Copy to: AD/E&MG OMD CODE REQUEST - PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE Reference: D/Sec(AS)64/3 dated 7 August 2000 1 . Thank you for your minute and for a copy of Dr Clarke's latest letter to you clarifying further his request for information relating to MOD's interest in "unidentified flying objects". 2. Before turning to the questions you have raised you will be interested to learn that Dr Clarke sought to clarify his earlier request to this office concerning the re- review of a large number of files closed in accordance with 53(4) of the Public Records Act of 1 95 8 (Annex A). Originally thought to be in the region of 30 closed files, subsequent research has identified a further 43. The latter being sensitive extracts taken from the files to permit release at an earlier review. So far as his latest letter is concerned I have simply acknowledged his letter and for thanked him for clarification of his original request and that it is still my intention to provide him with a progress report of our review of these files towards the end of September. 3. Now your minute: Dr Clarke's Para 3 I endorse your comments. As your papers will reveal the earlier advice was taken after obtaining Legal input and was based on the belief that the 30-year rule removed from the department continuing obligations on confidentality. This was of course, before the Data Protection legislation of 1998 came into force. It is my understanding the recent change in Data Protection still provides for a duty of confidentiality and that our position should be unchanged. AD/E&MG OMD may be able to give further advice. Para 6
•• .... e DEFE 3111 19 (together with 118) was one of two files that came to light during DR's ongoing review of record holding in DIS. They were discovered by my staff during 1997 and following review transferred to the PRO. So far as 119 is concerned the complete file has not been released. One sentence, unrelated to the subject of "ufos" continues to be retained on intelligence grounds. I have asked my staff to investigate with DIS whether subsequent parts survive. You should note from the attached (Annex B) I suspect not! I will let you know the outcome in due course. Para 8 I can confirm that fl/ 5/311 is at the PRO waiting release at the normal point ie january 2001. The Public Records Act permits the release of records in advance of the 30-year point. Administrative action takes normally three or four months and specifically requires the Lord Chancellor's formal agreement (Section 5(1) of the Act applies). I would not normally suggest we take such action at such a late stage in the year, it is just possible the PRO would take the line that in view of its imminent release in just over four months no useful purpose would be served. Alternatively, the MOD could recall the record from Kew and permit Dr Clarke to view it in department. This would of course set an interesting precedent at least so far as Dr Clarke is concerned. A final option, would not exemption 10 apply "publication and prematurely in relation to publication."? Para 9 Dr Clarke's request for the release of DEFE 44/ T and DEFE 21 is being handled by this branch. I very much doubt that DEFE 44/ 1 will be released. It is solely a list of DSI / DSTI reports etc created from 1946, something in the region of 2,000 entries. The register is intelligence sensitive simply by virtue of a majority of the titles. Reports that survive ie have been passed to Defence Records and have been selected for preservation are identifiable in the PRO catalogue . To date this category consists of just 11 7 reports. 4. I hope that this is helpful.
LOOSE MINUTE D/Sec( AS )64/3 7 August 2000 ADIE&MGOMD DRl CODE REQUEST- PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 1. Please see attached a copy of a letter we received this morning from Dr Clarke who, as you will be aware, had previously requested access to MOD files from 1969 onwards on 'unidentified flying objects'. We have refused his request under Exemption 9 of the Code of Practice (voluminous or vexatious request) and Exemption 12 (Privacy of an individual). We did however, say th~t if he. CQQl_dl>e more specific about·dates, we would be happy to see what could be released, hence the letter attached. We have acknowledged receipt ofDr Clarke's letter and propose to put together a reply but would be grateful for your advice as follows; Para 3 -DRl We consider that all members of the public who contact the department, whether in writing or by telephone, have a right to expect that we will respect their privacy and not disclose their details to a third party. We do not specifically ask them if they wish us to keep this confidentiality. I do not know if this comes under aliy kind of formal rule (Maybe the Data Protection Act). I would welcome your views. Para 4- ADIE&MG OMD We thought we might offer Dr Clarke copies offiles for a period of 1 year (similar to the case and ask him to choose a year. We could retrieve the appropriate files from archives, copy them and remove all the personal details. We believe itcould amount to 8 or more files depending on the year he chose. Do you think this is a reasonable offer to make to him? Para5 We are not proposing to offer any advice or comment on this paragraph. Para 6-DRl Please could you advise on Dr Clarke' s request for access to DEFE 31/119 between 1968 and 1981 . Para 7 We could look at this in addition to the year offered at paragraph 4 if he chooses another year. Para8-DR1 Do you know where Meteorological Office files are kept and who would need to contact them about access (Dr Clarke?, Sec(AS)? you?).
Para 9- DRl I would welcome your comments concerning Dr Clarke's request to have access to files in the DEFE44/l and DEFE2l series from 1946 to 1969. 2. If you have any comments on anything in Dr Clarke's letter that I have not specifically asked for your advice on, please feel free to offer your thoughts. Sec(AS)2al MB8245 - .... - ·· --:-·•·. •.·,:: · ~.· "' -~- . ; · , ··- ~~ . - ~ . - ... . . ·-. .. . . ,, .... -~- .. -·;r.- . .... ~·.,.··.- .. .. ~ ··--·-- -·R.;•,. T .... ;.. ~:...:.- .. o:~:; .. :: :.:.;..•_.;~. ~-..:.
- Room 1.01 Minstry of Defence 3-5 Great Scotland Yard London SWlA 2HW Your Reference: DR/3/7/8 -. . . ~'-r \ > ~ ·. : ~~-:. . . ... ' : . . : _ _ _. _ ... .. .... . .:.. :. - ·. - - . 7 August 2000 Defence Intelligence Staff: Registered Files De~ Thank you for your letter 31 July, in reply to my application fo~· the release of certain Defence Intelligence and predecessor departments records in the DEFE class. Thanks also for clarifying the position with regards to the status of the records within DEFE 31/19,64 and DEFE 44/1, which are currently retained in department in accordance with Section 3(4) of the Public Records Act 1958. I very much appreciate your intention to arrange for a rereview of the closed records to which I requested access, and I hope I can provide some additional information which may help this process. Could I point out that of the 30 files concerned, I am solely interested in locating those records or minutes which relate to the subject of 'unidentified flying objects' which may also be referred to as 'aerial phenomena' , 'unidentified aircraft' 'flying saucers' or 'anomolous radar tracks.' This may help save you time and effort in your rereview, and I hope the information in this letter will help you locate the specific records to which I refer. I am led to believe it was the Air Ministry's policy, until 1962, to routinely destroy records relating to unidentified flying objects at five yearly intervals. ~ractice ~s C~ .e.ck, ..ended following Parl~entary Qu~~i .?.~ ~ s.!!!2. ~Lm~~~~~Y~. ~e~p__~~s.~~e Mvp C:- s~s;e f9§2. However, a numoerot Atr M1mstry UF<5 records rrom ffie 1 Si50s, eSpeciall"y "~'here these rdate to Parliamentary Questions, have survived and are available for viewing at the PRO. The location of Intelligence records relating to UFOs, generated by DSTIIDSI, remains a mystery but there are clues which suggest at least some did survive and are still retained by the MOD under Section 3(4) above ._
There are references in some of the PRO files which relate to Intelligence papers on UFOs generated by the DSTI staff during this period. For example, I'm enclosing a copy of a loose minute found in PRO file Air 2/18117 sent to Department S4 (Air) by J.E . wl- Dickison ofDI55 on 13 December 1967. It describes how staffhad "recovered;._twoQ.U b Intelligence files on UFOs for the period 1951·52, and refers to one of these specifically as "report DSI/JTIC Report No.7- Unidentified Flying Objects." This is good evidence that at least some Intelligence files on UFOs did survive from this period. From an examination of the PRO catalogue, it would appear these files - if they still exist - should be listed under the DEFE class 44/1 which is a register of JSTIIDSTIIDSI reports and memoranda for the period from 1946 onwards. DEFE 31/19 and 64 may also contain Intelligence reports on UFOs for the period 1967·1972 which should have been retained under the 1962 policy referred to above. I hope this information assists in your rereview of the documents I have described and I look forward to hearing from you in due course,
MFB/3 AF/PS 427/67 Unidentified Flying Objects ~g Cdr Sir Eric Bullus, M.P. Julian J. A. Hennessey, Esq. S4 (Air) MOD (Mr. W. P. Cassell) E/JO 1. Further to your ~17, we have recovered a 11 but two of the .'Metrorole' (ie Intelligence) files on UFOs frr the period 1951-2. ,0 • The files examined indicate tllat Topcliffe-Meteor incide'1t, which f'ccurred dllring the NATO Exercise i'":AINBHACE, was typical of reports ab~ut such aircraft at that time. (The Meteor was being extensively operated in a variety of rnles and was tile first UK jet tn be so deployed). 3. As regards the particular incident tile 'object' only appeared tn c0me from the aircraft. There is no specific evidence in the files examined so far, that ttle object tracked or came from the aircraft. In fact, the trajectory of-rhe--- apparent C>b,iect was not established in absoltJ.te terms and thus typical questions such as true range have not been answered. 4. We Cl)nsider that the report DSI/JTIC Report No 7 L Unidentified FlyingObjects covers the situation as a whole,~ such activity at that time. Similar remarks apply tn the observed radar anomilies wtlich occurred at that time. (J. C. DICKISON) DI55 RC•OM 4/58 EXT 52 30 Metro1•ole Building 13th December 1967
To : Defence Records 1 - Sensitivity Date: 08 August 2000 Your Ref: From: Defence Records 1 Room 1.01 Great Scotland Yard - Our Ref: DR/ 3 / 7/ 8 ENQUIRY FROM A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC: DEFENCE INTELLIGENCE FILES Reference : My memos dated 31 july and 1 August 2000. 1. I attach a photocopy of Dr Clarke's response to my letter acknowledging his request for the review of a large number of Dl files recorded as retained in department in accordance with 53(4) of the PRA. 2. In an attempt to be helpful he further expands on his area of interest - Mufos" - notwithstanding this limited area of interest please ensure that the 64 files (approx) are reviewed with the view to possible release. Please advise of any that might fall into his area of interest, whether releasable or not. I am of course aware of the reference to "ufos" in DEFE 44/ 1 DSI/}TIC Report No 7- Unidentified Flying Objects. Of which no copy is known to have survived. I believe that there are no other references in this piece to this particular phenomena, but confirm. 3. Finally, Dr Clarke has written separately to Sec(AS) about access to a variety of files including those that continue the run preserved at the PRO as OEFE 13! 118 & 119. Former reference Dl/55/40/9/1 Parts 1 & 2. Please bring me up to date on his review of 01 material in general and specifically 0155 material. I seem to recall that 3 or 4 years ago, when visiting Dl 55, he became aware that, other that these two files, no other "ufo" files survived until the late 1 970s or was it the late 1980s (?). He also saw documentary evidence recording the destruction of these parts. Can he provide dates of destruction for each file part and the dates covered by each file (or better still copies of th Rank: C2 Name in Block Letter -
Dr David Clarke Dear Dr "Clarke· [(( From: SEC(AS)2A 1 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Room 8245, Main Building, Whitehall, London, SW1A 2HB Telephone (Dil'ect dial) 020 7218 2140 - (Switchboard) 020 7218 9000 (Fax) (GTN) Your Reference OW Ryferenc7: B'\~;c~AS)64 3 7 August 2000 Thank you for your letter dated 1 August concerning your request for access to MOD files. We are giving your request carefully consideration and consulting other branches where necessary. As you are aware, we aim to send a substantive reply to all letters within 20 days of . receipt and if it looks as if we will be unable to meet this deadline we will write to you again. Yours sincerely,
: ~ .·::.:•:- ...... Dr David Clarke ~ .. ; ~ UG 2000 1 August, 2000 Your reference: D/Sec(AS)64/3 Many thanks for your detailed letter of25 July with reference to my request to view MOD files relating to 'unidentified flying objects.' Firstly, I realise your staff have many other more pressing defence-related duties and I apologise if my request has added to that burden. I contacted the Freedom of Information office on 20 July inquiring as to what had become of my original request, simply because I was concerned that my letter had gone astray, or had been sent to the wrong department, as I had not at that stage received an acknowledgement. Almost immediately I received your acknowledgement in the post, and would like to make it clear that I have always been satisfied with the helpful and detailed responses received from the MOD's Secretariat (Air Staft) on the occasions I have contacted your department in the past. With regards to my request to view files, I accept that my request for access to files covering the period 1969 to present was a little ambitious in terms of staff time. From your response, it appears that the main obstacle preventing the use of these files for research projects such as my own is the Exemption 9 in the Code of Practice which relates to Privacy of the individual. You say you receive up to 400 sighting reports each year and a similar number of letters, but I wonder if you could specifY how many of the individuals who contact the department in any one year have requested that their personal details should remain confidential for 30 years? From cursory viewing of the files which are available at the PRO relating to the period before 1969, I cannot recall finding one single request of this kind, and indeed many of the sightings and letters relate to events which are already in the "public domain,, for example have already been reported in newspapers and other media. While I would question the basis upon which my request has been refused, I do not wish to add to your administrative burden by asking for a review or involving my MP at this stage. I would be more happy to take up your offer of help to locate "a more limited amount of material" which might fall within the terms of your Code of Practice for Access to Government Information. I would be happy to guided by yourself as to what you feel would be a reasonable request for access to a "limited amount" of material. Further to your offer, firstly I would like to point out that my research is not specifically concerned with the details of individual ''UFO sightings" reported • by
•• individuals to the MOD. I am more interested in studying the evolution of how the old Air Ministry, and later the MOD, dealt with these kind of inquiries, how policy on this subject was formulated, and how that policy has been influenced by specific incidents, Government policy, Parliamentary questions, scientific opinion and the media. To this end, I have found the material in the Defence Intelligence Staff registered files particularly of interest. Of the two files currently available at the PRO, DEFE 31/118 (UFO policy 1953-63) and DEFE 311119 (UFO Policy 1967) contain precisely the category of information I am seeking: for example internal memorandums, draft policy documents etc. There is little, if any, correspondence from the public contained within these files which fall within Exemption 12 (Privacy) or the exemptions relating to national security. Further to this detail, I would like to apply for access to the sequence of files which follow DEFE 311119 and which presumably relate to UFO policy, between the years 1968 and 1981. This request relates to specific files, falling within a specified period of time, so you may feel it would be worthwhile employing a more focussed search to retrieve and scrutinise these papers on my behalf. In terms of Air Staff files relating to sighting/s reported by the general public, the one specific file I wish to view relates to UFO/unidentified aircraft sightings reported to the MOD during the month of January 1974. Following the file sequence at the PRO I suspect this file would be be found at the reference Air 20/12556 (Air 20/12555 relates to December 1973). I would also like to apply for access to a file produced by the Meteorological Office for the MOD, reference BJ 5/311 titled "Unidentified Flying Objects: meteorological aspects" which relates to the period 1968-1970. This file is due to be opened at the PRO on 1 January 2001. From my research into historical files at the Public Record Office, I suspe~;t there may also be memoranda and reports relating to UFOs in the 1950s hidden witli}he Defence Intelligence Files, class numbers DEFE 44/1 and DEFE 21, and I have contacted the MOD Departmental Record Officer separately with a request for access to this material. DEFE 44 contains papers from as far back as 1946, but these remain classified because the file also contains material from 1991. I would like to request access to the block of files and memoranda which relate to the period 1946 to 1969, which should be available for scrutiny under the Freedom oflnformation Act. I hope you will feel it is possible to allow me to have access to at least some of the material specified in this letter, for use in what is a bona fide academic research programme. I would be happy to meet any reasonable costs incurred as a result of this application, and would be willing to sign any undertakings related to Data Protection or Official Secrets which you might feel appropriate. In addition, I will be h&ppy to provide the MOD with a copy of my completed research paper, which I plan to publish via the National Centre for English Cultural Tradition at the University of Sheffield. In making this request, I am simply responding to the Government's and the MOD's own stated manifesto pledge to "establish a general statutory right of access to official records and through culture change throughout the public sector" (MOD website). This laudable aim will only be seen to working in practise if reasonable requests for
. . ·- access to non-sensitive material, a category I feel my request falls within, are successful. This touches upon the discussion I mentioned I had with the MODIRAF Press Office in January this year, when I tried to follow up a story in the national Press which suggested that all files relating to UFOs were soon to be released to the PRO. I was told at that time by the duty Press Officer that the former minister Peter Kilfoyle had indeed expressed the opinion that there was no good reason for keeping files related to UFOs restricted for 30 years. He said release of UFO data was likely to be a priority following "a review of the files." There was, I was told, "a general move within the department to give out information that is not security sensitive and take away the myth of secrecy that surrounds this subject." I hope we will be able to reach an agreement on access to the limied amount of files specified in this letter, and that this application will not be too onerous upon your department's time. I am copying this reply to~t OMD/ AD, Room 617, Northumberland House, so that he is aware that I am happy with the expeditious and helpful way you have dealt with my inquiry.
• e 1 August, 2000 Your reference: D/Sec(AS)64/3 D~ Many thanks for your detailed letter of 25 July with reference to my request to view MOD files relating to 'unidentified flying objects.' Firstly, I r~se your _ staifilave ritllJ!Y. _ .Qth~LIRQf.~ ~ pressing defence-:related duties.andl .-~ -- -·· ·· - ....... . apologise if my request has added to that burden. I contacted the Freedom of Information office on 20 July inquiring as to what had become of my original request, simply because I was concerned that my letter had gone astray, or had been sent to the wrong department, as I had not at that stage received an acknowledgement. Almost immediately I received your acknowledgement in the post, and would like to make it clear that I have always been satisfied with the helpful and detailed responses received from the MOD's Secretariat (Air Staff) on the occasions I have contacted your department in the past. With regards to my request to view files, I accept that my request for access to files covering the period 1969 to present was a little ambitious in terms of staff time. From your response, it appears that the main obstacle preventing the use of these files for research projects such as my own is the Exemption 9 in the Code of Practice which relates to Privacy of the individual. You say you receive up to 400 sighting reports each yell£ and a similar number ofletters, but I wonder if you could specify how many of the individuals who contact the department in any one year have requested that their personal details should remain confidential for 30 years? From cursory viewing of the files which are available at the PRO relating to the period before 1969, I cannot recall finding one single request of this kind, and indeed many of the sightings and letters relate to events which are already in the .. public domain", for example have already been reported in newspapers and other media. \ While I would question the basis upon which my request has been refused, I do not ~~ wish to add to your administrative burden by asking for a review or involving my MP ~ ~\V.,e;r at this stage. I would be more happy to take up your offer of help to iocate "a more . \ f ..f' limited amount of material" which ~ght fall within the terms o~ your Code of Practice I for Access to Govennnent Informat1on. I would be happy to gwded by yourself as to I?; . · 8 what ~ou feel would be a reasonable request for access to a "limited amount" of c · matenal. { Further to your offer. firstly I would like to point out that my research is not l specifically concerned with the details of individual 'lJFO sightings" reported • byindividuals to the MOD. I am more interested in studying the evolution of how the old Air Ministry, and later the MOD, dealt with these kind of inquiries, how policy on this subject was formulated, and how that policy has been influenced by specific incidents, Government policy, Parliamentary questions, scientific opinion and the media. To this end, I have found the material in the Defence Intelligence Staff registered files particularly of interest. Of the two files currently available at the PRO, DEFE 31/118 (UFO policy 1953-63) and DEFE 31/l19 (UFO Policy 1967) contain precisely the category of information I am seeking: for example internal memorandums, draft policy documents etc. There is little, if any, correspondence from the public contained within these files which fall within Exemption 12 (Privacy) or the exemptions relating to national security. Further to this detail, I would like to apply for access to the sequence r· of files which follow DEFE 31/119 and which presumably relate to UFO policy, between the years 1968 and 1981. This request relates to specific files, falling within a specified period of time, so you may feel it would be worthwhile employing a more focussed search to retrieve and scrutinise these papers on my behalf. In terms of-Air -Staffilles relating to sighting!s reported by the general public, the one specific file I wish to view relates to UFO/unidentified aircraft sightings reported to the MOD during the month of January 1974. Following the file sequence at the PRO I suspect this file would be be found at the reference Air 20/12556 (Air 20/12555 relates to December 1973). I would also like to apply for access to a file produced by the Meteorological Office for the MOD, reference BJ 5/311 titled "Unidentified Flying Objects: meteorological aspects" which relates to the period 1968-1970. This file is due to be opened at the PRO on 1 January 200 1. From my research into historical files at the Public Record Office, I suspect there may also be memoranda and reports relating to UFOs in the 1950s hidden witli}he Defence Intelligence Files, class numbers DEFE 44/1 and DEFE 21, and I have contacted the MOD Departmental Record Officer separately with a request for access to this material. DEFE 44 contains papers from as far back as 1946, but these remain classified because the file also contains material from 1991. I would like to request access to the block of files and memoranda which relate to the period 1946 to 1969, which should be available for scrutiny under the Freedom oflnfonnation Act. I hope you will feel it is possible to allow me to have access to at least some of the material specified in this letter, for use in what is a bona fide academic research programme. I would be happy to meet any reasonable costs incurred as a result of this a-ppi~Cation, and would be willing to sign any undertakings related to Data Protection or Official Secrets which you might feel appropriate. In addition, I will be happy to provide the MOD with a copy of my completed research paper, which I plan to publish via the National.Centre for English Cultural Tradition at the Universitv of Sheffield. -----------..::-----~---- In making this request, I am simply responding to the Government's and the MOD's own stated manifesto pledge to "establish a general statutory right of access to official records and through culture change throughout the public sector" (MOD website). This laudable aim will only be seen to working in practise if reasonable requests for
. e access to non-sensitive material, a category I feel my request falls within, are successful. This touches upon the discussion I mentioned I had with the MODIRAF Press Office in January this year, when I tried to follow up a story in the national Press which suggested that all files relating to UFOs were soon to be released to the PRO. I was told at that time by the duty Press Officer that the former minister Peter Kilfoyle had indeed expressed the opinion that there was no good reason for keeping files related to UFOs restricted for 30 years. He said release of UFO data was likely to be a priority following "a review of the files." There was, I was told, "a general move within the department to give out information that is not security sensitive and·take away the myth of secrecy that surrounds this subject., I hope we will be able to r~ch an agreement on access to the limied amount of files specified in this letter, and that this application will not be too onerous upon your department's time. I am copying this reply to~t OMD/ AD, Room 617, Northumberland _ ........... : ... ', House,.so.that he is aware thatl am happy.with .. the~peditious and helpful way yo.•- - ---· ·-- ··------ · - · have dealt with my inquiry.
. e 1 August, 2000 Your reference: D/Sec(AS)64/3 Dear Many thanks for your detailed letter of 25 July with reference to my request to view MOD files relating to 'unidentified flying objects. • _ _ __ FiJ:stly, !_~e~s~ _ yq~r .staff J::tave tPru!Y .. Q~he.t.more . p~e .ssing defence.-:related.,duties .and L - -~ -~~ -. .-. . --- . - apologise if my request has added to that burden. I contacted the Freedom of Information office on 20 July inquiring as to what had become of my original request, simply because I was concerned that my letter had gone astray, or had been sent to the wrong department, as I had not at that stage received an acknowledgement. Almost immediately I received your acknowledgement in the post, and would like to make it clear that I have always been satisfied with the helpful and detailed responses received from the MOD's Secretariat (Air Staff) on the occasions I have contacted your department in the past. With regards to my request to view files, I accept that my request for access to files covering the period 1969 to present was a little ambitious in terms of staff time. From your response, it appears that the main obstacle preventing the use of these files for research projects such as my own is the Exemption 9 in the Code of Practice which relates to Privacy of the individual. You say you receive up to 400 sighting reports each year and a similar number of letters, but I wonder if you could specify how many of the individuals who contact the department in any one year have requested that their personal details should remain confidential for 30 years? From cursory viewing of the files which are available at the PRO relating to the period before 1969, I cannot recall finding one single request of this kind, and indeed many of the sightings and letters relate to events which are already in the "public domain", for example have already been reported in newspapers and other media. \ While I would question the basis upon which my request has been refused, I do not )-~ wish to add to your administrative burden by asking for a review or involving my .MP .rl ~\yed"' at this stage. I would be more happy to take up your offer of help to iocate "a more \ v limited amount of material" which ~ght fall within the terms o~ your Code of Practice · for Access to Government Information. I would be happy to gutded by yourself as to ~ . _ 8 what you feel would be a reasonable request for access to a "limited amount" of material. I Further to your offer. firstly I would like to point out that my research is not specifically concerned with the details of individual "UFO sightings" reported • by
individuals to the MOD. I am more interested in studying the evolution of how the old Air Ministry, and later the MOD, dealt with these kind of inquiries, how policy on this subject was formulated, and how that policy has been influenced by specific incidents, Government policy, Parliamentary questions, scientific opinion and the media. To this end, I have found the material in the Defence Intelligence Staff registered files particularly of interest. Of the two files currently available at the PRO, DEFE 31/118 (UFO policy 1953-63) and DEFE 31/119 (UFO Policy 1967) contain precisely the category of information I am seeking: for example internal memorandums, draft policy · documents etc. There is little, if any, correspondence from the public contained within these files which fall within Exemption 12 (Privacy) or the exemptions relating to national security. Further to this detail, I would like to apply for access to the sequence r· of files which follow DEFE 311119 and which presumably relate to UFO policy, between the years 1968 and 1981. This request relates to specific files, falling within a ; specified period of time, so you may feel it would be worthwhile employing a more focussed search to retrieve and scrutinise these papers on my behalf fu ternis of Air Staff files relating to .sight~gts ~ep~rted by -ihe general public, tbe 'One~-·- , ...... -. ~ i\ \;t specific file I wish to view relates to UFO/unidentified aircraft sightings reported to the ~~ MOD during the month of January 1974. Following the file sequence at the PRO I , ~~~- - :f suspect this file would be be found at the reference Air 20/12556 (Air 20/12555 relates ~~~ to December 1973). ~ _ -~"'-•'L""' ~ •v- I would also like to apply for access to a file produced by the Meteorological Office for the MOD, reference BJ 5/311 titled ''Unidentified Flying Objects: meteorological aspects" which relates to the period 1968-1970. This file is due to be opened at the PRO on 1 January 2001. From my research into historical files at the Public Record Office, I sus~t there may also be memoranda and reports relating to UFOs in the 1950s hidden witll}he Defence Intelligence Files, class numbers DEFE 44/1 and DEFE 21, and I have contacted the MOD Departmental Record Officer separately with a request for access to this material. DEFE 44 contains papers from as far back as 1946, but these remain classified because the file also contains material from 1991. I would like to request access to the block of files and memoranda which relate to the period 1946 to 1969, which should be available for scrutiny under the Freedom of Information Act. I hope you will feel it is possible to allow me to have access to at least some of the material specified in this letter, for use in what is a bona fide academic research programme. I would be happy to meet any reasonable costs incurred asa~t of this application, and would be willing to sign any undertakings related to Data Protection or Official Secrets which you might feel appropriate. In addition, I will be happy to provide the MOD with a copy of my completed research paper, which I plan to publish via the ~ational .C~for En~~h C~!~~~~n at ~~niv~_!~~ · In making this request, I am simply responding to the Government's and the MOD' s · own stated manifesto pledge to "establish a general statutory right of access to official records and through culture change throughout the public sector" (MOD website). This laudable aim will only be seen to working in practise if reasonable requests for
. e access to non-sensitive material, a category I feel my request falls within, are successful. This touches upon the discussion I mentioned I had with the MODIRAF Press Office in January this year, when I tried to follow up a story in the national Press which suggested that all files relating to UFOs were soon to be released to the PRO. I was told at that time by the duty Press Officer that the former minister Peter Kilfoyle had indeed expressed the opinion that there was no good reason for keeping files related to UFOs restricted for 30 years. He said release of UFO data was likely to be a priority following "a review of the files." There was, I was told, "a general move within the department to give out information that is not security sensitive and· take away the myth of secrecy that surrounds this subject." I hope we will be able to reach an agreement on access to the limied amount of files specified in this letter, and that this application will not be too onerous upon your department's time. I am copying this reply to - t OMD/ AD, Room 617, Northumberland House, .. so.that he is aware that 1 am happywith-.the ~xpeditious and helpful way yo~- ··--·- ·· · -- · - have dealt with my inquiry.
Room 1.01 Is- MINISTRY OF DEFENCE 3-5 Great Scotland Yard, London SWl A 2HW .. .... --· .·.· Dr D Clarke Defence Intelligence Staff: Registered Files Tele: (Direct dial) (Switchboard) (Fax) Your Reference Our Reference DR/3/7 /8 Date 31 july 2000 Thank you for your letter dated 21 July 2000 concerning the status of records - DEF£ 31 I 19, and 64, DEF£ 44/1 and DEFE 21 - selected for preservation at the Public Record Office that are retained in department in accordance with Section 3(4) of the Public Records Acts, 1958, and your wish for these records to be released. As you may be aware all government departments are required to review their records in accordance with the terms ofthe Public Records Act, 1958 and 1967. Records selected for permament preservation are transferred into the custody of the Public Record Office (or some other suitable institution) where they generally become available to the public after 30 years ie the "30-year rule". Records not selected for permament preservation are destroyed. The very few records that are too sensitive for release at the normal 30-year point may be closed by either being retained in department (Section 3(4) of the Act)) or by being placed on extended closure for a period between 40 and 90 years (Section 5(1 )). Retained records are closed under the authority of the Lord Chancellor, but are subject to a rereview at least once every 1 0 years until release into the public domain is possible. Records closed under the extended closure arrangement are transferred to the PRO for release at the future designated date. The status of whole files either retained or subject to extended closure is noted on the PRO catalogue. Where pages from files are subject to a similar process a "dummy" or a photocopy of the redacted pages are appropriately endorsed. However, the White Paper on Open Government, Cm 2290, published july 1993 set out a number of initiatives that, subject to resources, would see the rel~ase of records hither to closed for more that 30 years. For example, greater use of the extraction and redaction techniques I .
' whereby sensitive papers or passages could be removed thereby permitting the release of some part of a file, and to consider ad hoc requests from researchers of records closed for longer than 30 years. As a result of these and other initiatives the Ministry of Defence has released in excess of 11,750 records originally closed for longer than 30 years. So far as your request for the release of certain Defence Intelligence and predecessor departments records is concerned DEFE 31/19, 64 and DEF£ 44/1 are all retained in department in accordance with Section 3(4) of the Public Records Act, 1958. From a cursory examination of the PRO catalogue on the Internet I note that 34 of the 72 records assigned to class DEF£ 21 are open and available to the public. In keeping with the MOD's commitment to greater openness I am prepared to arrange for the rereview of the closed records you have expressed an interest in. You will appreciate that our review programme for the year is well established thus the review of more than 30 additional files will have an impact on my cr:>,rra in about tWo months.
Departmental Record Officer Defence Records Room 7/40 Metropole Building Northumberland Avenue London WC2N SBL Dear Sir/Madam, Dr David Clarke 21 July 2000 Defence Intelligence Staff: Registered Files The Enquiry staff at the Public Record Office have suggested that I write to you in order to follow up an enquiry concerning the status of a group of MOD files which are currentl.y "retained by the Department under section 3 (4) of the Public Record Act 1958." The files in question all appear to have been deposited at the Public Record Office. They fall under the class reference DEFE and contain papers generated by the work of the MOD Defence Intelligence Staff. They include: DEFE 31119 DIS and DSTI Intelligence Papers 1967-1970 DEFE 31/64 DIS/DSTI intelligence 1970-1972 DEFE 44/1 DSI, later DSTI: Reports and Memoranda; Register of JSTIIDSTIIDSI reports and memoranda, 1946-1991 . DEFE 21 DSI Registered Files 1950-1964 I understand from the PRO that records would be retained under the 30 year rule until the latest date in the sequence covered by the file, in which case DEFE 31/19 above should be available for public scrutiny on 1 January 200 I. Could you confirm if that is the case? More ...
r I ' As for DEFE 44/ 1, although this file contains material more than 50 years old, it might not be released until 2021 because it also contains material dating from 1991. In the case of files held under class DEFE 21, these apparently contain files created by both the old Directorate of Scientific Intelligence between 1950-1964, which should be open; however, they also contain later material from the DSTI relating to the period 1964-1991, which under the terms of the 1967 Act would remain closed until2021. In these circumstances, would it not be possible to make ·an exception and allow access to the reports and memoranda contained within those files which specifically relate to the period 1946-1969, which would fall under the terms of the 30 year rule? I understand that under the Freedom of Information Act all Government records - other that those created by the Security and Special Services - should be made available for public scrutiny unless it can be demonstrated their disclosure would clearly cause harm to "national security, defence and international relations .. .the internal discussion of Government policy [and/or] personal privacy." I understand from the FOI unit that individual departments do have the power to make exceptions and allow access to 'closed' material for research purposes in certain circumstances. In my case, I am researching the UK MOD's involvement in the study of Unidentified Flying Objects, both in terms of the Air Staff and Defence and Scientific Intelligence, within the context of a sociological study based in an established academic department. The research is supported by the University of Sheffield, where I have an Honorary Research Fellowship from the National Centre for English Cultural Tradition, School of English. I wish to apply for access to the files specified above under the Freedom of Information Act, and I would appreciate any information you can provide with regards to their current closure status under the current Access to Public Records Act, 1967. I hope you are able to help and look forward to hearing from you,
Dr David Clarke From: OMD/AD(Efficiency & Machinery of Government) MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Room 617, Northumberland House, Northumberland Avenue, . ·. London WC2N 5BP Telephone (Direct dial) (Switchboafd) (Fax) Your Reference Our Reference D/DOMD/2/3/2 Date 27 July 2000 Thank you for your letter of 20 July I have recently taken over in this post and am now responsible for implementmg policy on Open Government. am ;.) '•. sorry for the delay in replying but your letter was routed to - ib YI t®l MOD internal mail system and was only delivered to me yesterday. Your letter asked why you had not received an acknowledgement or a substantive reply to a letter written on 21 June requesting access to a series of files relating to UFOs and UFO policy. I have checked with the MOD officials in the MOD's Secretariat( Air Staff), who handled your request, and you may fmd it helpful to know the background to dealing with your request. Your letter of21 June was received in the Secretariat( Air Staff) on 23 June and they set about researching your request (which involved looking through a sample of the very many files concerned). In the event, this took rather longer than they expected and, when they realised that they were not going to be able to reply within the 20 working day deadline, I understand they wrote to you explaining this and promising a substantive reply as soon as possible. This interim reply was sent on 20 July, which was 19 working days after they had received your letter but 21 working days after you had posted it. A substantive reply was subsequently sent to you on 25 July, ie: 22 working days after they received your letter, which I hope you have now received. In retrospect, it would have been better if you had been sent an acknowledgement as soon as your letter had been delivered to the MOD official who was dealing with your case, and the Secretariat(Air Staff) accept this. I understand you are also in correspondence with MOD's Departmental Records Officer over a request to view some Defence Intelligence files . I have asked that your request is processed as soon as possible. I hope this explains the position. If you have any other problems with requesting · information from the MOD, either with the time taken to receive a reply or with the information provided, please let me know. \ ~ . ,. l -~
SEC(AS)2 From: Hd of DR1 Sent: 26 July 2000 08:16 To: SEC(AS)2 I~ /.,./~~R DAVID CLArKE ~eee_k. You would wish to be aware that following his approach to you for access to "ufo" files Dr Clarke's has now written to this office about 60 plus "intelligence" files identified on the lists at the PRO that are retained by the department that he wishes to see released. As with similar requests for the release of records more than 30 years old that are closed in accordance in the terms ofthe Public Record-; Act I will initiate a review of the records. As an interim measure I will acknowledge his letter and further advise him that the review is likely to take several months. You may also wish to note that he claims in him letter that his research is supported by the University of Sheffield where he has an Honorary Research Fellowship from the National Council for English Cultural Tradition, School of English(!). 26/07/00
• • Fro OMDlAD(Efficiency & Machinery of Government) MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Room 617, Northumberland House, Northumberland Avenue, London WC2N SBP /2_ Telephone (Direct dial) (Switchboard) (Fax) ~ ELi! j 2o- 72t8-00w- ~ ' ?;,. l~ "-{__ t' ~ - V\o~ ~V ·- ~ "br c_~y~ ~ ' ~\?')~ ~- c:) r..o'v- ~ CA. ~~ ~ Your Reference Our Reference Date 26 July 2000 ·2..o ao..rs-- t~ ~~ D(.R - ;~ -{o.c h>o..\4__) c..CN-S ,e e:.\.- . .... ~u for your letter of 20 July to I have recently taken over from~s post and am now responsible for implementing MOD's policy on Open Government. I am sorry for the delay in replying but your letter was routed to~ MOD internal mail system and was only delivered to me today. Your letter asked why you had not received an acknowledgement or a substantive reply to a letter written on 21 June requesting access to a series of files relating to UFOs and UFO policy. I have checked with the MOD officials in the MOD's Secretariat(Air Staff), who handled your request, and you may fmd it helpful to know the background to dealing with your request. Your letter of21 June was received in the Secretariat(Air Staff) on 23 June and they set about researching your request (which involved looking through a sample of the very many files concerned). In the event, this took rather longer than they expected and, when they realised that they were not going to be able to reply within the 20 working day deadline, I understand they wrote to you explaining this and promising a substantive reply as soon as possible. This interim reply was sent on 20 July, which was 19 working days after they had received your letter but 21 working days after you had posted it. A substantive reply was subsequently sent to you on 25 July, ie: 22 working days after they received your letter, which I hope you have now received. In retrospect, it would have been better if you had been sent an acknowledgement as soon as your letter had been delivered to the MOD official who was dealing with your case, and the Secretariat(Air Staff) accept this. I understand you are also in correspondence with MOD's Defence Records division over a request to view some Defence Intelligence files. I have asked that your request is processed as soon as possible. I hope this explains the position. If you have any other problems with requesting information from the MOD, either with the time taken to receive a reply or with the information provided, please let me know.Page 1 of 1 ... A SEC(AS)2 ., From: OMD/AD(E+MG) Sent: 26 July 2000 18:35 To: SEC(AS}2 Subject: Dr Clarke ~ mments on the attached draft? I don't want to be critical of Sec(AS), but am looking forward ~robable appeal with the Ombudsman! OK with my para 3? 31/07/00
Dr D Clarke Dear Dr Clarke From: SEC(AS)2A1 I \ MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Room 8245, Main Building, Whitehall, London, SW1A 2HB Telephone (Direct dia I) (Switchboard) (Fax) (GTN) Your Reference Ov.r Reference D/Sec(AS)64/3 Date 25 July 2000 020 7218 21 40 020 7218 9000 IQ&CliS: I 46j Thank you for your letter of 21 June seeking access to MOD files from 1969 onwards on 'unidentified flying objects' for examination, note taking and copying as necessary for your post doctoral research in to the socio-psychological aspects of belief in aerial phenomena. The Ministry ofDefence already operates in accordance with the Code ofPractice on Access to Government Information. It responds positively to any requests for information and no categories are automatically excluded. Each request is considered on its merits. As you say, MOD files are subject to the provision of the Public Records Act of 1958 and 1967 and remain closed for 30 years after the last action on the file has been taken. We have, however, looked carefully to see whether earlier release of the files containing papers relating to 'UFO' issues might be possible. The Department receives about 400 sighting reports each year and a similar number of letters from members of the public, some of which may also contain sighting reports. The information is filed manually in the form it is received on Branch files and therefore contains the personal details of all those contacting and corresponding with the Department. MOD has a duty to protect this third party confidentiality and the 30·year period is deemed appropriate for this purpose. Before access could be given to the material, staff would need to be diverted from their essential defence-related tasks to retrieve the material from archives and scrutinise and remove all of the personal information from many th,m,1.sands of documents. The latter actiotiWOiifcfbe~he~;native:-io -·~~ntact . ev~ry;n~-providtng the information to secure their agreement to the release of their personal details, would be unworkable. Your request is therefore refused under Exemption 9 ofthe Code of Practice on Access to Government Information (voluminous or vexatious requests and Exemption 12, Privacy of an individual). We would, of course, be happy to look to see what information might be made available if you could be more specific abcut dates. This would then enable us to consider whether a more focussed effort on a limited amount of material might be possible. I am sorry if any information provided to you by staff in the MOD Press Office has caused a misunderstanding. At the beginning of the year the department received a number of enquiries about the release of, and access to, 'UFO' files for 1969. These files were opened in the Public Record Office in January and it may be that the MOD press officer at the time you made contact was confused on this particular point.
Finally, I should say that if you are unhappy with the decision to refuse your request for access to MOD files and wish to appeal, you should write in the first instance to the Ministry of Defence, DOMD, Room 619, Northumberland House, Northumberland Avenue, London WC2N SBP requesting that the decision be reviewed. If following the internal review you remain dissatisfied, you can ask your MP to take up the case with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (the Ombudsman) who can investigate on your behalf. The Ombudsman will not, however, consider an investigation until the internal review process has been completed. Yours sincerely,
Loose Minute DR/ 3 / 7/8 21 july 2000 Sec(AS)2 Copy to : OMD /AD(E&MG) CODE REQUEST - ACCESS TO FILES Reference : A. D/ Sec(AS)/64/3 dated 20 July 2000 B. D/ DOMD/ 2 / 3 dated 20 July 2000 1. Thank you for sight of the correspondence from Dr Clarke and your proposed response to him. (CJ 2. Paragraph 3 of your draft reply continues to represent the advice previously given by this branch and endorsed C+l(F&S)legall following lord Hill- Norton's approach to the Department a few years ago. Dr Clarke 's request for access does not, in my view, support the need for this advice to be recon sidered. - Hd DRl MTA8 / 3-
LOOSE MINUTE D/DOMD/2/3 20 July 2000 Sec(AS)2 Copy to: DRl CODE REQUEST· ACCESS TO FILES Reference: D/Sec(AS)/64/3 dated 20 July 2000 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your proposed reply to Dr Clarke's request to examine all MOD files containing information on UFOs. 2. I agree that Exemption 9 is a valid exemption in this case. In explaining this to Dr Clarke, it might also be worth quoting Exemption 12 (privacy of an individual). 3. If Dr Clarke suggests that he provide an undertaking that he would not to submit a more focussed request, that would have no bearing on our position - the duty on MOD is to not release the information. My understanding is that allowing a third party to view personal information is as much releasing it as if we gave them a copy. Subject to a change in the Public Records Act or the Data Protection Act, the only way I can see MOD being able legally to grant access to these records without anonymising them would be to ask every person mentioned whether they were happy to have their data released. 4. It may be worth explaining this to Dr Clarke to help him formulate a request which does not break these key principles. (signed] OMD/AD~ NH617 -
*************** -cOMM. JOURNAL-******************* DATE 20-JUL-2000 *****TIME 11=S2 *** P.01 MODE = MEMORY TRANSM ISS l ()..J START~20-JUL 11:47 FILE NO.~ 160 Sn.tNO. 001 002 OK OK RBBR NO. Iii a STATION NAME/ TEL . NO. 005/ 005 00: 1:11 ' 47" 005/ 005 11J0:1:J1'47" -SECRETAR IAT < AIR STAFF) - ************************************ - - ***** - Loose Minute D/Sec(AS)/6413 20July 2000 ADIE&MGOMD Copy to: DRl CODE REQUEST- PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 1. We spoke this morning about a letter we have received from a member of the public who is seekiDg access to 'UFO' files from 1969. 1 attach a copy of the letter aDd our proposed response. 2. We have found Dr Clarke to be tenacious when corresponding on other 'UFO'- related issues and I have some concerns about how he might respond to a refusal to grant his request What might we say if he replies that he is prepared to give an undertaking that he would not record or use any ptnonal details contained in the files? He could claim that he was only interested in aggregating the data and therefore the personal confidentiality argument would not arise. 3. If a decision was to be made now or in future to grant access without the material being sanitised, how might this be done so as to ensure personal infonnation wa<~ not extracted? It is likely that agreement to Dr Clarke's requests would prompt others (ufologists with 'UFO' research-related interests and/or the media) to seck similar access and a strategy would need to be developed for dealing for dealing with this. I am copying this note and attachments to q any advice he might have on th 1 '-~"""'-'UVI I J ese aspects. 4. We have aclcnowledged Dr Clarke's letter and advised him that we will provide a substantive response shortly. *********
Loose Minute D/Sec(AS)/64/3 20 July 2000 AD/E&MGOMD Copy to: DRl CODE REQUEST- PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 1. We spoke this morning about a letter we have received from a member of the public who is seelcing access to 'UFO' files from 1969. I attach a copy of the letter and our proposed response. 2. We have found Dr Clarke to be tenacious when corresponding on other 'UFO'- related issues and I have some concerns about how he might respond to a refusal to grant his request. What might we say if he replies that he is prepared to give an undertaking that he would not record or use any personal details contained in the files? He could claim that he was only interested in aggregating the data and therefore the personal confidentiality argument would not arise. 3. If a decision was to be made now or in future to grant access without the material being sanitised, how might this be done so as to ensure personal information was not extracted? It is likely that agreement to Dr Clarke's requests would prompt others (ufologists with 'UFO' research-related interests and/or the media) to seek similar access and a strategy would need to be developed for dealing for dealing with this. I am copying this note and attachments to--for any advice he might have on these aspects. 4. We have acknowledged Dr Clarke's letter and advised him that we will provide a substantive response shortly. Sec(AS)2 MB8247 - ,rtTe/~3- . . _ 1~~~~ ~----- 1 __ ~{~ 1 . . ]_• ... • Draft Thank you for your letter of 21 June seeking access to MOD files from 1969 onwards on 'unidentified flying objects' for examination, note taking and copying as necessary for your post doctoral research in to the socio-psychological aspects of belief in aerial phenomena. The Ministry of Defence already operates in accordance with the Code of Practice on Access to Govermnent Information. It responds positively to any requests for information and no categories are automatically excluded. Each request is considered on its merits. As you say, MOD files are subject to the provision of the Public Records Act of 1958 and 1967 and remain closed for 30 years after the last action on the file has been taken. We have, however, looked carefully to see whether earlier release of the files containing papers relating to 'UFO' issues might be possible. The Department receives about 400 sighting reports each year and a similar number of letters from members of the public, some of which may also contain sighting reports. The information is filed manually in the form it is received on Branch files and therefore contains the personal details of all those contacting and corresponding with the Department. MOD has a duty to protect this third party confidentiality and the 30- year period is deemed appropriate for this purpose. Before access could be given to the material, staff would need to be diverted from their essential defence-related tasks to retrieve the material from archives, and scrutinise and remove all of the personal information from many thousands of documents. Your request is therefore refused under Exemption 9 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information • (voluminous or vexatious requests). We would, of course, be happy to look to see what information might be made available if you have a more specific date in mind as it would require a more focussed effort on a limited amount of material. I am sorry if any information provided to you by staff in the MOD Press Office has caused a misunderstanding. At the begiuning of the year the department received a number of enquiries about the release of, and access to, 'UFO' files for 1969. These files were opened in the Public Record Office in January and it may be that the MOD press officer at the time you made contact was confused on this particular point. Finally, I should say that if you are unhappy with the decision to refuse your request for access to MOD files and wish to appeal, you should write in the first instance to the Ministry of Defence, DOMD, Room 619, Northumberland House, Northumberland Avenue, London WC2N 5BP requesting that the decision be reviewed. If following the internal review you remain dissatisfied, you can ask your MP to take up the case with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (the Ombudsman) who can investigate on your behalf. The Ombudsman will not, however, consider an investigation until the internal review process has been completed.
Page 1 ofl SEC(AS)2A1 From: ICL- TECH-COORD Sent: 05 July 2000 10:13 Subject: UNCLASS -Additional Guidance - Parliamentary Enquiries (PEs) and Parliamentary Questions (PQs) Parliamentary Enquiries (PEs) Despite the fact that the PE Unit's guidance clearly asks that drafts be cleared by a named official at Grade 7 level or above, increasingly we find that checks have to be made to ensure that replies have been so approved. In future, could all drafts please include a 'Drafted by/Authorised by' declaration as per Parliamentary Questions. Parliamentary Questions (PQs) The disproportionate cost threshold for answering PQs has been increased to £550. You should take this new cost into account when recommending to Ministers a 'disproportionate cost' reply. / PARLIAMENTARY CLERK I .i J · ,., c __ 1 -· t:::.J. , · ·· ~ ~ - ;A,_ ~ .::? 06/09/00
• Dear Dr Clarke From: SEC(AS)2A1 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Room 8245, Main Building, Whitehall, London, SW1A 2HB Telephone (Direct dial) (SWitchboard) (Fax) (GTN) Your Reference Our R~ferenc~ D/Sec~AS)64/3 Date 20 July 2000 020 721 B 2140 020 7218 iii f j££1!211 I 1 am writing to acknowledge receipt of your letter of 21 June concerning access to MOU fites relating to 'unidentified flying objects'. We aim to reply to such letters within four weeks form the date of receipt. However, mving to current administrative difficulties it may not be possible to reply to you within this timescale. Nevertheless, you may be assured that you wi1l receive a substantive reply as soon as is practicable. Your sincerely, ,- . ~-- ; · ; .• :~ -· · .. , - .. · :' ~ -· ..
5 ~ 'f'k- twt ro~ = - (.)I..(~ ,.,... ~ t- ~ ,.,..u. ,_ ~ ~ "- ~ .cAt ~ w IMJl ~ ~~ old'"~ ~~ ~ 0\I.J~~ k~e~~ w.. 'c.~~~ ~~~.tAla.~ ~~~~~~~~ - www.A ";t- ~ wrJL s~~ iJ1J hMO fD ~ f ~ ~ ~ - ~ f-a~ 1M ~ ~ ~ 1f~~9~
Q189 Barry Gardiner had asked PUS whether he accepted that EDS-SCICON had discovered 56 category one anomalies. This might be checked. A189- The 56 Cat 1 anomalies found by EDS Scicon had no particular significance to safety. EDS-Scicon in their feasibility study into Options for FADEC Verification Report dated June 1994, acknowledged this by saying that they were "confident that Cat 1 anomalies relating to software and documentation can be mitigated. However, mitigation may ultimately require changes to the object code, although none of the mitigation that are proposed under this study require changes to the object code". The definition of a Cat 1 anomaly is that "EDS-Scicon has a high of confidence that the anomaly relates to real error in the code or a discrepancy between the code and the documentation". However, this does not mean that it necessarily has any safety implications, it may not even affect the overall operation of the system. Section check whether the quote also includes the last sentence?
\, !\, ... >L '\ '-~~ _ \ Sec~ _) ll,u.g v'\£ed& C)~ - '<' 0. ~ Lt Thank you for your letter of 21 June seeking access to MOD files from 1969 onwards on 'unidentified flying objects' for examination, note taking and copying as necessary for your post doctoral research in to the socio-psychological aspects of belief in aerial phenomena. The Ministry of Defence already operates in accordance with the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. It responds positively to any requests for information and no categories are automatically excluded. Each request is considered on its merits. As you say, MOD files are subject to the provision of the Public Records Act of 1958 and 1967 and remain closed for 30 years after the last action on the file has been taken. We have, however, looked carefully to see whether earlier release of the files containing papers relating to 'UFO' issues might be possible. The Department receives about 400 sighting reports each year and a similar number ofletters from members of the public, some of which may also contain sighting reports. The information is filed manually in the form it is received on Branch files and therefore contains the personal details of all those contacting and corresponding with the Department. MOD has a duty to protect this third party confidentiality and the 30- year period is deemed appropriate for this purpose. Before access could be given to the material, staff would need to be diverted from their essential defence-related tasks to retrieve the material from archives, and scrutinise and remove all of the personal information from many thousands of documents. Your request is therefore refused under Exemption 9 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information (voluminous or vexatious requests). We would, of course, be happy to look to see
• what information might be made available if you have a more specific date in mind as it would require a more focussed effort on a limited amount of material. I am sorry if any information provided to you by staff in the MOD Press Office has caused a misunderstanding. At the beginning of the year the department received a number of enquiries about the release of, and access to, 'UFO' files for 1969. These files were opened in the Public Record Office in January and it may be that the MOD press officer at the time you made contact was confused on this particular point. Finally, I should say that if you are unhappy with the decision to refuse your request for access to MOD files and wish to appeal, you should write in the first instance to the Ministry of Defence, DOMD, Room 619, Northumberland House, Northumberland Avenue, London WC2N 5BP requesting that the decision be reviewed. If following the internal review you remain dissatisfied, you can ask your MP to take up the case with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (the Ombudsman) who can investigate on your behalf. The Ombudsman will not, however, cousider an investigation until the internal review process has been completed. Yours sincerely, lt I Jde.r-._ ~'_:) w l"J_ o-r~ "''-o.. I Ue()J~l-- ~ Of'A D 1lf- \ * ~f
Ministry of Defence Main Building Whitehall London SWlA 2HB Dear Sir/Madam, .... I t Dr David Clarke 21 June 2000 .. ; ~ · i 23 JUN 2000 , - · Tr~ · .· ··-· _ ...... --- . . ~ , ... . .... Freedom of Information- Access to MOD files relating to aerial phenomena I am undertaking post doctoral research into the socio-psychological aspects of belief in the aerial phenomena popularly known as 'unidentified flying objects' , as an Honorary Research Fellow at the National Centre for English · Cultural Tradition, University of Sheffield. In particular, I am examining the role played by the mass media in the creation and transmission of beliefs and rumours about UFOs, and how these have been reflected in the Ministry of Defence's public policy towards this subject from 1950 to the present. While a certain amount of useful information can be obtained from the study of Press reports, the proceedings of Hansard and the records of private researchers, a study of this kind is reliant upon access to official records such as those available at the Public Record Office. Currently access to records kept by the MOD relating to UFO phenomena, including those relating to the formulation of official policy, are covered by the Access to Public Records Act, 1967. This has meant that the vast majority of records relating to this subject are made available for public inspection when they are 30 years old. As a result, a number of MOD air files relating to UFO reports and policy issues relating to the period 1953-1969 have already been released and are available for study at the PRO. However, at present records dating from 1969 to the present day remain closed under the terms of the 1967 Act. Despite this fact, during the past decade the MOD have released information relating to UFOs in response to individual requests from the public which, strictly speaking, continue to remain closed under the 30 year rule.
• Under the definitions used by the Draft Freedom of Information Act (1999) all Government records - other that those created by the Security and Intelligence Services - should be available for public scrutiny unless it can be demonstrated their disclosure would clearly cause harm to "national security, defence and international relations ... the internal discussion of Government policy [and/or] personal privacy." Since the 1950s, the UK Government's public position has been that reports of 'unidentified flying objects' have no implications for defence or national security. As a result, there would appear to be no reason, other than protection of personal privacy, why records maintained on this subject should not be made available for study purposes such as the one I am proposing. Indeed, in January this year I contacted the RAF Press Office who confirmed that the Ministry of Defence, in response to the published aims of the draft Freedom of Information Bill, were considering a proposal to allow access to UFO related files - currently closed under the 30 year rule - for what were described as "bona fide researchers." This was on the proviso that any proposed future access did not compromise confidential personal data supplied to the MOD by members of the public and/or endanger national security. A preliminary examination of the MOD air files on UFOs from 1953-1969 which are available at the PRO has demonstrated their value as a rich source of historical and social data relevant to my proposed study. For example, a Defence Intelligence briefing from 1966-67 released to the Public Record Office last year (DEFE 31/119) demonstrates how MOD staff were aware of the importance of these social and psychological factors, specifically the role played by the mass media, in the wax and wane of interest surrounding UFO reports .. These records have hitherto never been the subject of a properly funded academic research project. The value of such a study to the UK Government, in terms of the development of public policy in future, should also be taken into account when this request is considered. An independent study of this historical material might also help to dispel the popular myth of "secrecy" and "cover-up" which continues to surround the MOD's public statements on the subject ofUFOs. I am currently in receipt of an award from the British Academy to study the creation and transmission of rumours in the context of popular beliefs which spread through Britain during the First World War, based upon records preserved at the Public Record Office. Later this year I intend to apply to another funding body for an additional award which would allow me to study the development of popular beliefs about UFOs and how these have been reflected by MOD policy from the 1950s to the present. As it stands, the proposed study would have to be based upon the MOD air files which are currently available, and relate to the period 1953-1969. 2
• '• I wish to make a formal application via the Freedom of Information Unit of the MOD for access to MOD Air files relating to UFOs and UFO policy for the period 1969 to the present day. I would define access as having the opportunity to examine all relevant files relating to UFO reports and UFO policy, making notes and copies of relevant material where necessary. I appreciate a project of this kind could take time and would incur costs, but these could easily be incorporated into my application for a research award. I would welcome to opportunity to discuss this proposal informally with a representative from the Ministry of the Defence and/or the Freedom of Information Unit and look forward to hearing from you, 3
'i'l From: Secretarlat(Air Staff)2a, Room 8~ MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Main Building, Whitehalt· London, SW1A 2HB Telephone (Direct dial) (Switchboard) {Fax) Your Reference Our Reference D/Sec(AS)/64/3 Date 4 January 2000 .... .. '- ' .. ;_ ·~ 0171 218 2140 iiila , I wrote to you on 15 December 1999 and apologise for the delay in providing you with a full reply to your letter of 19 November 1999. . . ... : . .. Taking each of your points in turn, I can confirm that the RAF Police tasked to investigate the incident concentrated their enquiries on whether a military aircraft had been in the area concerned on the date in question. Once they had established that military activity was not involved they made no further enquiries to determine what might have caused the noise. The MOD is satisfied that on the date in question, there was no threat to the UK Air Defence Region from hostile military activity. RAF Police reports are classified documents. They contain material gathered as part of a Police inveStigation and, as such, are confidential to that investigation. The reports themselves are not available for public scrutiny but we are happy to provide a summary of the conclusions reached. I have consulted my in the Branch who dealt with this particular RAF Police Investigation and, as explained of 1 October 1999, can confirm that no RAF or NATO aircraft were found to be operating in the area at the time. ' (..,c. 1$' c. t/ z. M:. R Finally, as I said in my previous letter, I can confirm that MOD received no reports of unidentified aerial phenomena for the period 19:00 hours 24 March 1997- 01 :00 hours 25 March 1997. ~· . .Can we have some help with the attached please. Dr Clarke is a persistent 'ufologist'. In his October letter he wanted information about low flying complaints • : icular day in March 1997 and an alleged sonic boom on the same day. ~ked with Sec(AS)1a and was able to say that there had been an RAF Police investigation into an alleged sonic boom but found that no RAF or NATO aircraft were operating in the area concerned at the time. Dr Clarice has asked further questions about the sonic boom. What should we say in response to (1)- that the RAF Police investigation ruled out any military involvement and it was not, therefore, for them to make any further investigations as to the cause? And, what do we say for (2)? For (3), would it be something on the lines of 'RAF Police Reports are classified documents because they contain material gathered as part of a Police investigation and are, therefore, confidential to that investigation'? Finally, I assume there is no other part of MOD involved with sonic booms? We have acknowledged the letter but would like to send a substantive response before Christmas. - 15/12/99
As I explained in my last letter, an RAF Police investigation was carried out into the alleged sonic event over Sheffield on 24 March 1997. Although their report is an internal document, its conclusions are made available to the public in the same way as I am doing here. The RAF Police found that neither a military or a civilian aircraft could have caused the alleged incident on that night. The radar tapes for the area showed a single civilian aircraft landing at Manchester airport. As far as possible explanations for.this i~Cident are concerned, I can only suggest that a sonic boom may have been caused by a satellite or meteor re-entering the earth's atmosphere. We sometimes receive reports ofloud explosions, initially thought to have been caused by military aircraft, being generated by industrial operations at steel factories. .· ..
• 2 From: Secretariat(Air Staff)2a, Room 8245 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Main Building, Whitehall, London, SW1A 2HB Telephone (Direct dial) (Switchboard) (Fax) Your Reference ' ' 80 0171 218 2140 0171 218 9000 - O~,J;r R~ference D/SectAS)/64/3 V Date t S' December 1999 Thank you for your letter dated 19th November. Your questions relating to the alleged sonic boom incident on 24 March 1997 have been passed to the relevant branch in MOD and you should receive a response shortly. With regard to your last question, I can confirm that MOD received no reports of 'UFO' sightings for 24th or 25th March 1997 from anywhere in the UK. I would like to apologise for the delay in replying.
\ 19 November 1999 Your ref: D/Sec(AS)/64/3 Secretariat (Air Staff) 2a, Room 8245 Ministry of Defence Whitehall, London SWlA 2HB Dear Thankyou for your letter of 1 October and for taking the trouble to answer my questions regarding complaints about low-flying aircraft and sonic booms reported on 24 March 1997. I realise that you have limited time to deal with enquiries such as mine, and I do appreciate your efforts to provide the answers I am seeking with regards the events of the evening in question. I wonder if I could trouble you once more with a small number of supplementary questions. I note that RAF police did investigate the incident, and that RAF or NATO aircraft were found not to be responsible for the sonic booms recorded by the British Geological Survey in the Sheffield area at 2152 and.2206 GMT on 24 March 1997. This leads me to ask, therefore, if military and civilian causes were ruled out, did the RAF Police reach any other conclusion as to the source or origin of these sonic events? If these booms were not generated by friendly aircraft, then by definition they merit further investigation to determine whether their source. following the MOD's own terminology, posed "any potential threat to UK airspace." ~"'"?.\ Additionally, and in light of the current proposals for Open Government, is the RAF :::;;) Police report on the incident and/or its conclusions available for public scrutiny? If you are unable to answer specific questions with regard to sonic events such as those reported on 24 March 1997, could you refer me to a relevant branch of the Ministry of Defence who might be able to provide more detailed information?
. •• • A final question I would like to ask is this: did the Ministry of Defence receive any reports, whether from a militarY or civilian source, of unidentified aerial phenomena from any part of the United Kingdom, for the period 7pm on 24 March 1997 to 1 am on 25 March 1997, and if so from which specific locationls? I do hope you are able to answer these questions, and I look forward to hearing from you. Many thanks for your assi~taiice in tliis matter,
• From: MINI I Secretariat(Air Staff)2a, Room OF DEFENCE , , Main Building, Whitehall, London, SW1A 2HB Telephone (Direct dial) (SWitchboard) ~ (Fax) ~ Your Reference O~r Reference D/Sec(AS)/64/3 Date \ October 1999 Thank you for your letter regarding complaints about low flying military aircraft and sonic booms. Your letter concerns correspondence between· myself and your colleague, In the letter sent to I advised that the Ministry of Defence had received no complaints about military low flying on 24 March 1997 from Sheffield or the Howden Moors area of the Peak District. You then wrote to me stating that you had found that the MOP received thirteen complaints of military low flying on the date in question. I can confirm that the MOD did indeed receive thirteen complaints for 24 March 1997, however, none of the reports originated from Sheffield or the Peak District. original question asked if there had been any complaints about low flying military two specific areas, and my reply was tailored to his question. · On the matter of the alleged sonic boom on 24 March 1997, you are correct in stating that military aircraft may only fly at supersonic speeds over the sea and to fly supersonic overland is in breach of flying regulations. We t~ke reports of sonic booms overland very seriously and you will be reassured to learn that the RAF Police did investigate the incident. Their investigation found that no RAF or NATO aircraft were operating in the area at the time and that civil aircraft in the area were travelling too slow to have generated a sonic boom. I would like to apologise for the delay in replying. . ·. . .;. ·'·
Page 1 of 1 SEC(AS)2A1A From: SEC(AS)1A1 Sent: 01 October 1999 11:32 To: SEC(AS)2A1A Subject: Sonic Booooooom Importance: High D/Sec(AS)/56/1 We spoke about the alleged sonic boom over Sheffield on 24 March 1997. A nice little paragraph follows: non the mattter of the all edged sonic boom on 24 March 1997, you are absolutely correct that military aircraft may only fly at supersonic speeds over the sea and to fly supersonic overland is indeed in breach of flying regulations. We take reports of sonic booms overland very seriously indeed and you will be reassured to team that the RAF Police did investigate the incident. Their investigation found that no RAF or NATO aircraft were operating in the area at the time and that civil aircraft in the area were travelling too slow to have generated a sonic boom." Howz that? If you want to refer any further questions Dr Clarke may have on the matter to me (either by phone or by post), please.. _~ c .. ( .. Any probs, give me a ring. ~ · ·~ . '-· .. ·· 01/10/99
·- From Secretariat(Air Staff)2a, Room 8245 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Main Building, Whitehall, London, SW1A 2HB Telephone (Direct dial} (Switchboard) (Fax) Your Reference BYse~(Xs)?Gc!t3 Date 21 June 1999 0171 218 2140 0171 218 9000 - Thank you for your letter of 4 May. I apologise for the delay in responding to your letter; I am looking into the matter and will reply when I have the infonnation available. l . ·.
• ' I .. Dr David Clarke 4 May 1999 Your ref: D/Sec(AS)/64/3 I refer to your letter dated 6 April, in reply to my who had written to AS2 asking for information concerning "UFO" atrcraft incidents reported to the MOD on March 24, 1997, from the Sheffield area. In your reply you stated that the RAF /MOD had no records of any complaints concerning low-flying aircraft from that particular night. However, as a result of questions on my behalf by MP Helen Jackson in Parliament on March 25, 1998, Defence Minister John SpeHar admitted that the RAF had received 13 complaints concerning low-flying military aircraft from different locations in the UK for March 24, 1997. Mr SpeHar said these complaints stemmed from a pre-booked training exercise in the area of the Peak District involving low-flying RAF aircraft which ended at 2135 hrs. In addition, the British Geological Survey in Edinburgh have stated that their equipment recorded two sonic booms at 2152 and 2206 hours GMT in the Sheffield area which could only have been caused as a result of aircraft breaching the sound barrier. The BGS said that RAF Flying Complaints were contacted on March 25, 1997, and "were unable to confirm they were caused by military aircraft." As a result of the above could you answer the following questions: Did RAF Military Police or any other department of the MOD conduct an internal inquiry/investigation into the source and/or cause of the two sonic booms recorded on March 24, 1997, given the legal stipulation (Military Flying Regulations) that pilots must not break the speed of sound over land/urban areas? If an inquiry was launched, what was the conclusion reached concerning the source of the sonic booms? If no such inquiry was launched, why not given the clear breach of military flying regulations these sonic events consituted? You may be aware that as a result of reports concerning an '"explosion" and sightings of a low-flying aircraft by civilians on the border between the Peak District and Sheffield shortly after 2200 hrs on March 24, police and emergency services launched a 15 hour search and rescue operation, without result. There has been considerable speculation concerning this event during the past two years, and I hope the MOD will be able to provide a definitive answer to the questions above. Thankyou for your attention to this matter,