DISCLOSURE / FILE
DEFE 24/1997 is the UK Ministry of Defence Secretariat (Air Staff) UFO desk file covering 1996–1998 correspondence, including handling of the March 1997 Howden Moor / Sheffield incident and questions about a 5 November 1990 RAF Tornado encounter over the North Sea.
DEFE 24/1997 is the UK Ministry of Defence Secretariat (Air Staff) UFO desk file covering 1996–1998 correspondence, including handling of the March 1997 Howden Moor / Sheffield incident and questions about a 5 November 1990 RAF Tornado encounter over the North Sea.
The file is the MoD's Sec(AS)2a working folder of public, MP, and press correspondence about UFOs from 1996 through 1998, logged in correspondence tables on pages 4–9 and routed for permanent preservation by CS(RM). It contains the MoD's standard policy line that the Department's interest is limited to whether a sighting represents an incursion of the UK Air Defence Region by hostile or unauthorized foreign military activity, and confirms that from 1 January 1995 to the date of the May 1998 reply the MoD had received one UFO report from a military source and 1,470 from civilian sources (p. 13). Internal e-mails between Sec(AS)2a and the Head of CS(RM)1 in May 1998 trace the MoD's attempt to locate the 1951 Flying Saucers Working Party Report, noting JTIC minutes at the PRO under DEFE 41/74, DEFE 41/75, and DEFE 10/496, and that the Report itself could not be found in MoD holdings (p. 18). The file also documents the MoD's denial that RAF Fylingdales had tracked any UFOs, in response to a 27 April 1998 Daily Express story alleging a battleship-sized craft at 24,000 mph over the North Sea (pp. 21, 25).
The MOD's policy in respect of reports of 'unidentified flying objects' has not changed. The Department's interest in these matters relates solely to whether a sighting represents an incursion of the UK Air Defence Region by hostile or unauthorized foreign military activity.p.13
Since 1 January 1995 to date the MOD has received: one 'UFO' report from a military source. 1,470 'UFO' reports from civilian sources.p.13
Reports of sightings on these dates are recorded on file and were examined by staff responsible for air defence matters. No firm conclusions were drawn about the nature of the phenomena reported but the events were not judged to be of defence significance.p.14
We have not been able to locate a copy in MOD. This is not too surprising as we hold an index of Joint Intelligence Bureau: Directorate of Scientific Intelligence, reports and memoranda issued during the period 1946 - 1992, of the more than 2,000 reports listed around 100 are known to have survived.p.18
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 THAT 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 397 · born-digital extraction
Ministry of Defence Secretariat {Air Staff) 2 Room 3iiMQ 'a '2.. 4-6"" Main Building Whitehall London SWlA 2HB Dear . · ~s of 6 ~eh ~c:1 I am writing to acknowledge receipt of your leJ:t:r'~:srnplaint of ......... ~5.J~ ... :2.~ al¥ettt rnilit2';;r aircraft a: ti ~'· We aim to reply to such letters/complaints within four working weeks from date of receipt. However, owing to current administrative difficulties it may not be possible to reply to you within this timescale. Nevertheless, you may be assured that you will receive a substantive reply as soon as is practicable.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 THAT 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
- (\..-, "':;.....J . . :y:_ \9 --~ ~ - -~LASSIFTED MINISTRY OF DEFENCE 1. Attention is .drawn to the notes on th"'< if""!side flap • . 2. Enter notes of t·etated files on page 2 of this jacket IVIVLI I"Oflll c1 d::~ll ~ -~ SiRevis .ed5 '97; , i! f:!':' '[l • = 100 . ~ DIVISIONiESTABI ·- ;T/UNIT/BRANCH SUBJECT _____ ' I Uf~~- --------.-----,-------- --- -- - ----- - ------------- ------ ----------- \. ,.(L \ "?IJ ~\ --------- -·--- ---------···-- -------·--- Heferred to Date Min/ •_ ... ' - '~ · 4 ~· rred to Encl £: "'~ ~_:· · · ···+· --·- ·--- ... ................ ' .. i I Date Min/ Encl -·--·-·--·------·---+--·-··--- +---- -- ···· !·· ... - .. ·-- ..... ... -+--······-·-·· · ·"T····-··--- Referred to Date Min/ Encl --r- Referred to Date Min/ Encl i .. ........ ...... i· . .... , ......... .; ·-··-----,..-·+--··----· ··-·-··· --·-···· ·---·-·---i--------+-- --·--+--------··--------+--------+----· c· ; . · ·- . . " ---------- ---···-------1----- ---·-+---·········--· f··- ---·······- .... ..... .. ·· -· - -- .................... ·+--------+----c---"'---·---t---'-"--""--_ ...... +-----+--- ----- -..,..--t---·--+---- FOR ORO USE ONLY ~-- I ~- --.- . ~. ; • ~ 11111111111:11111111111111 f---···- File "; el: SEC(A8)64/3 :---- Par!: rv1 1 ---- ?A. ACTION (MOD Form 2S2F must be completed} ' · ACC 1 1CI · r-.. r~cuonr~,, I .. - ,_ ,_, .. ,, . ~"''" r'< 2 -~·e' 011 79" "r- 1 1 NC ~ . .I..J ~- .'-.; 1 - .. ' '·" ' -~~ \' ' .. .. .. ,,,,~ , .......... ...... • ... , . 'lii;;; ,.. fl<4U'"'?.J' , ....... ..... .. _(~~J ............ . --· ·-----·-----·-----·· -··-----·--· ----------- ·---·· ----· ...... ...... .... :: .... . :':::: ........... L ............ ...... _._ ...... ............ ........... .
•:c NAME DATE DATE CODE ANSWERED WITHIN OA SOURCE OF OPS LEAFLET RECD REPLIED REQUEST 20 WORKING DAYS? LETTER? CODE REQT USED? I==== -===== ~ f== -- - .-- •======== ================= F======= = ========== I= =========== Col\- \~.\.· ~·"~ ,,.s .qa 1\0 i\10 NO
DATE DATE CODE ANSWERED WITHIN OA SOURCE OF OPS LEAFLE RECD REPLIED REQUEST 20 WORKING DAYS? LETTER? CODE REQT USED? =-=====- ======= ------------- ==·=== ------ ---------- -- ------------- ------ ---------- \1:.3 ·"8 W·l\.-·'lg NO t--lc hO 2C· \.\..·~ NO NO NO ·l\.·C"B' 2.t .U, .qt NO \fEE:? r\JO 22.· · ~~ No 'tS5 ~0 ·Ut ~ .. 22-· \.l ·'\13' \'lD ''{ffi ND 2! · 3·~ '22. u.. . '\:ir r~O NO f'-l c ·os- ., ~ . 22-'l\. .f1tr NO 'f'< ~ ):(iS 2.0"'~·"~ ~·" . 0~ ~·4· .a'\JO ~ ~ NO !'} ,..~As> \,! .. ~~ # t .. ~ •"l .• , • li . crsc ~ ~· · !1.1 "'l(::;s ~ t· .JO !\JO ~~I ~~() r~·l\. ·~ ~.u, ·'1)5 NO 'IGS tJO ':l·~·'1i 30·1.\. . NO '\ES NO ,s ·~ .~s: \·5 ·'\r ND "'E:S NO ~ ·l\-·'t~ t -S .qs- NO 'l~ »o ~·.S.C\& i . s ·"18' NO NO NO -~ ~· f"~ . .,.,..,. "~e.:. \ ~ .,r {;. ~· --~ N(:J < <' C:C. -·· ,..;:-... . ·1!.) '-i\··- .. "jt:.,.';. t .. 1~ v •v ' i ~ \.~- ,.,. .... ~~]: ! . ...,,..:) \~ · \.\ ·'la- 1-- -5 ·'1&' NO '-IE.:~ '/E.SDATE CODE ANSWERED WITHIN OA SOURCE OF OPS REPLIED REQUEST 20 WORKING DAYS? LETTER? CODE REQT USED? --- ---- --- ================ ------ ------- ---- - - ------- 2.· ~· "'~ 2· 4 ·'\8- NO NO NC S·3-ot8 2 · ~ ·~ ~~ NO NCJ 2. .£.\.·'\8- NO '1€5 NC '2 t'~ ·~ · . 2. ·f.\.·'\% NO NC NO \~·~ Pf~ 2·4: .q~ NO '{6 '{5 \0 .'!, . '\8 3 .to\. ·'18' t-~0 'fcS NO \~-3 ·'1i" S·l\.·'\8' NC> \(~ ~~ \':\- .s . '18' '=1--~ - ~% NO. 'f€.S NO 1':1-·3 .q~ 7·4 ·'i8 t.,.JQ ·"le.s i\JO -:; ll. "15 . : • ""' ~.JO 'IE.$ t~O ·l\. ·'18' %-~·"\'% t>.JC '\E.~ 'iES i lo •l\. .(\%' f\10 r.lC NO 21':>· S-'\2' l1-·~ ·'\8 ,,0 NO t<>iO 20 · 3·~ Pt·~ · q& t,t) tJO NO ~t • '1~ <!:.\·~· ,.J \1- (.'1 B; ·\+· ." NO \(E-5 Nc " · ~·~\)$' 2.C ·l\- · ~ NO NO f.JODATE DATE CODE ANSWERED WITHIN OA SOURCE OF OPS LEAFLET RECD REPLIED REQUEST 20 WORKING DAYS? LETTER? CODE REQT USED? ----- ----- ====== = ===~====== --- --- -------- --------- - -- ----- ----- ------ - ------- --------- b·1·'\~ ~-3·~% NO '(E.S NO 3·2·'\~ (o. 3 . '\?l NO NQ NO b·3·~~ q.3 · t\~ NC '165 NO \3 ·2 ·'\'&" \C · 3-~ NO '(€.S NC \5.2. ·~~ \0. S·CfiS t'+JD 'lE.:S NO \3·2..·'\~ \b· ~-'\~ NO 'l€5 'IES \b. 2.-C\~ lO ·S ·'18' NO 'IE:S NO \~ ,, ~% u •&.. \1--3· t:1% f-.lQ 't€;5 N~ l%-2·98' \q..g ·"~ NO '1£5 NC NO NO 'l~S l[).~ -~15 23 tF< '\~ ·~ · NC '{ES NC \S . \ ·~'1s' 2.5·'6·~ \'SO t-..iC l\!C Z..:t-2 · rJC 'lE.S NO 5 · 5·'\~ 25 ·3·'18 NO 'ft.$ t .. K) 2.·3 · 0 \8 2: " ~% b · ~· NC '{~ 'I~ s ·~ ·' \'% 2..~·~ · qg; NO \jt_s NO②
NAME: DATE OF REPLY: ENC NO:
[REDACTED]
7 April 1998 35
8 April 1998 36
6 April 1998 37
16 April 1998 38
17 April 1998 39
17 April 1998 40
17 April 1998 41
20 April 1998 42
20 April 1998 43
20 April 1998 44
21 April 1998 45
22 April 1998 46
22 April 1998 47
22 April 1998 48
22 April 1998 49
23 April 1998 50
24 April 1998 51
28 April 1998 52
29 April 1998 53
30 April 1998 54
30 April 1998 55
1 May 1998 56
1 May 1998 57
1 May 1998 58
1 May 1998 59
7 May 1998 60
7 May 1998 61
12 May 1998 64.t+ ~ \qt:1% . . (a ~ JOf1)S- 9 --~-'~ lQ ···-~ l'f18' _\a ~J~ 10 .. .. i\M«.tA. .... tqq% lO tOR% 11- ... ~\ ..... 199% rr- 'AA/)J(cA/'I_I't9&' \l$' lM!JfdA lCft~ ... --, -------· ..•... ~ ... •· '' - --- ... ---· ···------·- . ··- ~~ ~~CAt\ lCfi% _;l.'S ....... ~- 1'1'1~ ~--- JWrcll\ \q'18 ~3 . ~ct.\ l'f\8 J5 ~ctl\ \~ --· . ~ ____ l\4g(cV\ I'\ .~ ;lS ~dl\ lq98 Zb .. fVYdl\ \C\C{~ ~ ~ \qq~ - .... za- .. ~ctt, '2J- .. ~V\4rc~~, . 1 cea- .. _ 2 ~vu l'j'\8' 2 ~0.1 . ttjot~ t2 J\-{)V\1 \q~?S '2 Ai>vU t'\'\8' '2 ~vu \'1'1% 3 . AavJ . 199% ~ ..... ~0J ... \9~1S -~.VtJ .. lqqS" 1- #\{) ~\j i'1°i1?; ~~ !3 ll\- 15 \b '2'2... 27 t2fS 29 &:J 31 ~'' U Fos" P ~;. ~ C:c~ 1;,\fJtLS, fo-fJ.~N'\ tQ..~- PAfff ·~~ ~~$~~Jf.it!:\l s ~ ~;N~OtH.1~ ~i~t~OMM~Nt»Al~i;:.)a~~ fTt1 be cnrnpleted when the m~;} ~s cicB&d)
CtH~r>~~;~~~rOO b~J CS(RM) few p~trna.nQ!lnt p~·~{'i.f{lNi'iHor~Secretariat (Air Staff) 2a 1 Ml OF DEFENCE Main Building, Whitehall, london SW1A 2HB Telephone {Direct dial) 0171 218 2140 {Switchboard)~ {Fax) ~ Your reference Our reference D/Sec(AS)/64/3 ysarn Date Caernarfon 12 May 1998 111111~-------------------------------------- Dear 1. Thank you for your letter of 7 April in which you asked a number of questions in respect of reports of 'unidentified flying objects'. 2. I will answer your questions as presented: (1) In accordance with the Public Records Act of 1958 and 1967 Government files which are deemed worthy of preservation (for historical or public interest reasons) are transferred to the Public Record Office (PRO) at Kew thirty years after the last action has been taken on the file. It was generally the case that before 1967 all 'UFO' files were routinely destroyed after five years, on the grounds there was no long term interest in this subject. However, public interest has increased in recent years and, in 1967 a decision was taken that the Ministry of Defence's 'UFO' report files should be retained and transferred to the PRO at the thirty year point. A few files from the 50s and early 60s did survive and have been transferred to the PRO. I have consulted our records branch who advise that the MOD holds no papers relating to the 'UFO' phenomenon over thirty years old, ie. papers dating earlier than 1968. The absence of this report at the PRO leads me to conclude that it has regrettably not survived the passage of time. (2) All surviving contemporary paperwork has been forwarded to the PRO in accordance with the provisions of the Public Records Act of 1958 and 1967. (3) The Official Secrets Act reflects Government policy regarding the protection of nationally sensitive information; anyone contravening the Act makes themselves liable to prosecution and, if found guilty, liable to penalty as proscribed by law. This Act of 1Parliament applies equally to all UK citizens; members of the public, as well as serving and ex-service personnel. In the hypothetical example you cite in your question former service personnel would be able to discuss any matter which was not "classified" but may be liable under the Official Secrets Act if they revealed information which today remains "classified". (4) The MOD's policy in respect of reports of 'unidentified flying objects' has not changed. The Department's interest in these matters relates solely to whether a sighting represents an incursion of the UK Air Defence Region by hostile or unauthorized foreign military activity. (5&6)As explained in Mr Spellar's letter to Dafydd Wigley MP of 21 January, the integrity of the UK's airspace in peacetime is maintained through continuous policing of the UK Air Defence Region by the Royal Air Force which remains vigilant for any potential external military threat. We are confident that our current air defence capabilities fully meet any perceived threat. (7) The number of reports of 'unexplained' aerial sightings made by members of the armed forces is very small in comparison to the overall number of reports the Department receives. Since 1967 all reports received by this Department, from whatever source, are transferred to the PRO at the thirty year point. (8) On 24 July 1996 the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, the Hon Nicholas Soames MP, answered a Parliamentary Question from the late Martin Redmond about this alleged incident. I enclose a copy of the Official report for your information. (9) Depending on the nature of events alleged to have been witnessed, further advice as necessary would be sought from Defence experts within the Department. (10) Since 1 January 1995 to date the MOD has received: one 'UFO' report from a military source. 1,470 'UFO' reports from civilian sources. (11) As explained in para 2 of the letter to Dafydd Wigley MP of 21 January, unless there are defence implications, and to date no 'UFO sighting' reported to us has revealed such evidence, we do not attempt to identify the precise nature of each report. 3. I am returning your sae as we have our own postal arrangements. Yours sincerely, 2
.. qf~ ~orC- ColuMt'\ 4-2..l.;- 2.. Lf- -::,r V L )' Unidentified Craft Mr. Redmond: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is his Department's assessment of the incident that occurred on 5 November 1990 when a patrol of RAF Tornado aircraft flying over the North sea were overtaken at high speed by an unidentified craft; and if he will make a statement; pn..;sJ (2) if he will make a statement on the unidentified flying object sighting reported to his Department by the meteorological officer at RAF Shawbury in the early hours of 31 March 1993. (392461 Mr. Soames: Reports of sightings on these dates are recorded on file and were examined by staff responsible for air defence matters. No firm conclusions were drawn about the nature of the phenomena reported but the events were not judged to be of defence significance. \99 (a
• '., 1, ' I Sec. (A.S.)2a, M.O.D. Whitehall, LONDON. Dear 07/04/98. TALYSARN, CAEANARFON, GWYNEDD Your ref: D/Sec(AS) /64/3 I wrote to Secretariat (Air Staff) 2a1a occasionally during the latter half of 1996, my final letter dated 02i02197. Having reported a sighting of an unidentified aircraft on the night of May 4th 1996 to the MOD, I received written confirmation from both you~t no military aircraft were responsible for my sighting, and also from- of NATS that no flight plans were logged for civilian aircraft; also, North Wales Police confirmed their helicopter was not airborne that night, and the civilian airport at Caernarfon was not operational as of i 9.00hrs. that day. As I have therefore established that an unidentified aircraft was operational, and was somevvhat surprised at the lack of interest shown by the MOD at a possible breach of UK airspace defences, I wrote to my Member of Parliament, Dafydd Wigley (Plaid cymru) who in turn wtote to the Secretary of State for Defence on both 12/06/97 and again on 02/i 0/97 expressing IllY concern. Following the reply received from John Spellar MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary Of State For Defence ref. D/US of S!JS 5075/97/M and dated 21 January 1998, ! !1ave investigated previous reports which are available for public inspection at the PRO at Kew, and would appreciate your guidance on the following, namely:- 1) Re: File No. PREM 11/855. Why is the Intelligence study, referred to by the Air Ministry as having been carried out in 1951 , not available for public inspection at the P.R. o.? 2) Re: File No. 's AIR ?0/9321 +AIR 20/9320. Is there a conclusiVe report available for public inspectiot1 identifying the five unknown objects tracked by Defence Estabiishment radar installations? 3) Re: File No'.s AIR 20/9994+DEFE 31/118. Are former services personnel allowed to discuss declassified incidents of this nature; or are they still held to oath under the provisions of the Official Secrets Act? 4) Re: Jolln Spellar's reply to Dafydd VVigley MP in context to 2)&3) above. VI/hat has changed the MOD's stance t!1at no evidence exists to substantiate the breach of UK Air Defence Region by unidentified aircraft, when the above records prove othervvise?
" .. • , ~"' ' 0 .. --- ; 5) Can ! be reassured that the UK Air Defence Region is adequately covered for the detection of foreign 'steaith' technology, S$l or Russian, Chinese, or Iraqi origin? 6) When, as in my case, a structur?iJ unidt:ntifiable aircraft is reported, rather than 'lights in the skv' or '·. flving saucers' and no explanation for the oriain of said aircraft is J J . • ~ forthcoming, is lt not the case that an apparent lack of interest/indifference could be an error of judgement in maintaining the integrity of UK airspace? 7) Due to the lack of records of 'sightings' by service personnel available for inspection at the P.R.O. from 1958 onwards, would it be true to say that no observations t1ave been reported from this date by RAP/civilian pilots and radar operators? 8) Are the reports logged with Sec (AS)2a by a patrol of RAF Tornado Aircraft on November 5th i 990, while conducting manoeuvres over the North Sea available for public inspection? The brief mention of this incident by Nick Pope (formerly of your department) in his book, and in numerous magazine articles authored by himself state that the pilots were overtaken at high speed by a large unidentifiable aircraft of some sort 9) Without your specifying individual departments, do specific categories of unidentified aircraft sightings get passed routinely to an intelligence interpretation agency? i 0) How many reports of unidentified aircraft/phenomena have been received by the ministry since 1995 from :- a) military sources b) civilian sources i 1) Of these reports received, how many remain unidentified? Thank you very much for the time your department spent on replying to my previous correspondence during 199617. To save a littJejnk,.fr:em .. yourprinter cartridge, I am fully aware of your Departments' policy statement! Best wishes for a Happy Easter, I also enclose a SA.E for your reply.
' { . l l sft\ J Mon 11 May, 1998 9:15 mailbox standard Page 1 DATE FROM SUBJECT 11/05/98 Hd of CS(RM)1 AIR INTELLIGENCE REPORT ON ] * Intended: Sent: 11/05/98 at 9:04 Delivered: 11/05/98 at 9:06 To: SEC(AS)2Al CC: Ref: /GUID:E47F51B3CAE6DlllB39C00005A422BE6 From: Hd of CS(RM)l Auth by: Subject: AIR INTELLIGENCE REPORT ON UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS - 1950s Text: Priority: Normal Reply Request [ ] SEE PAGE View Acknowledge ( ] UNCL~~46W> Attachments Codes [ 1] ]memory has not let you down. Background. Under the direction of Sir Henry TIZZARD, then Chairman of the Defence Research Committee, the Joint Technical Intelligence Committee was directed to form a Working Party to investigate future reports of ufos. The JTIC meeting on 15 August 1950 approved the setting up of the Working Party. Subsequent meetings considered the Working Party's "Terms of Reference" culminating in a meeting on 20 March 1951 at which the Flying Saucers Working Party Report was approved and that the recommendation the Working Party be dissolved accepted. The minutes of the JTIC are at the PRO under the following references DEFE 41/74 and 75 (released during 1996) and DEFE 10/496 (released just a month or two ago). Partial Publication? At a subsequent meeting, 21 October 1952) the JTIC considered publishing extracts from the Working Party's Report. It may be these extracts were incorporated in an Air Intelligence paper from 1955 AIR 22/93 (released 1986!) In addition, another piece DEFE 41/153 (released 1995) includes a reference to "DSI/JTIC No 7 "Unidentified Flying Objects". Your enquirer appears not to have discovered these references. The Report. We have not been able to locate a copy in MOD. This is not too surprising as we hold an index of Joint Intelligence Bureau: Directorate of Scientific Intelligence, reports and memoranda issued during the period 1946 - 1992, of the more than 2,000 reports listed around 100 are known to have survived. USA Assistance. One of my reviewers pulled article from the internet, a us government report on "The CIA's Role on the Study of UFOs, 1947-90". As a result of a passing reference to the UK's study in the 1950s I have asked my contact in the States to approach the CIA just in case a copy survives at Langley. What to say to your enquirer? "[I have consulted our records branch who advise] the Ministry of Defence holds no papers relating to the UFO phenomenon over 30 years old i.e. papers dating earlier than 1968. The absence of this report at the Public Record Office leads me to conclude that it has regrettably not survived the passage of time." Hope this is helpful.
Fri 8 May, 1998 12:00 mailbox log Page 1 DATE TO SUBJECT ~0~8.~/0~5 4 /u9~8~H~d~o~f~C~S~(~RM~)~1------IIIIIIIIII~O~U~E~R~Y------------------~------4-- Sent: 08/05/98 at 11:55 To: Hd of CS(RM)1 CC: Ref: 1777 Subject: QUERY Text: Please see attached. Priority: Normal Reply Request [ ] View Acknowledge [ ] Delivery Acknowledge [ ] Attachments Codes [ 1] ]
I have received a letter with a list of questions as long as your arm from a persistent correspondent called One of the questions is as follows: 1) RE: File No PREM 11/855 Why is the Intelligence study, referred to by the Air Ministry as having been carried out in 1951, not available for public inspection at the PRO? In my dim and distant memory I have a feeling you've mentioned this report to me before as not being on file but that you were trying to get a copy from the Americans? Does my memory serve me correctly or am I thinking of something else? Have you any suggestions for a form of words that I might use along the lines of 'all surviving contemporary papers relating to 'UFOs' have, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Records Act of 1958 and 1967, been transferred to the PRO'. Grateful for a chat.
From: Secretariat(Air Staff)2a 1a, Room MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1A 2HB Skipton, lilillliiifshire. Telephone (Direct dial) 0171 218 2140 (Switchboard) 01 71 21 8 (Fax) Your reference Our reference D/Sec{AS)/64/ 3 Date 3"~~:.1:=s. ... ----··· ·-···----- -·····- - ----- --- ----· ···· ·- --- 1. Thank you for your letters of 28 and 29 April, the latter addressed to the Secretary of State for Defence which has been passed to this office for reply as we are the focal point within the MOD for correspondence of this nature. 2. You have asked about 'UFO' sighting over the North incorrect and speculative; 'UFOs' on its radar. The RAF Space' Symposium in June sightings. the recent press articles alleging a Sea. All of the press reports were RAF Fylingdales has not tracked any Cranwell 'Military Exploitation of is not concerned with alleged 'UFO' 3. I hope this explains the position. ----- .. - -- -- ------·--·· ··MINISTERIAL CORRESPONDENCE UNIT Ref No, __ ----1./.-!...19"'9~8 The Secretary of State,/ has received the attached letter from a member of the public. It has not been acknowledged by this office. Please send a reply on behalf of the Minister concerned. All Ministers attach importance to such letters being answered promptly, your reply should therefore be sent within 20 working days of the date of this minute. If, exceptionally, this should prove impossible an interim reply should be sent within the same timescale. A new Open Government Code of Practice on Access to Government Information came into force on in January 1997. All replies to members of the public must be in accordance with the procedures set out in the Code. A full explanation of the Code of Practice is contained in DCI(Gen) S~r information is available from DOMD on extension- Under the Citizens' Charter, Departments are now required to keep records of their performance. All branches and Agencies are required to keep information on the number of requests for information which refer to the Code of Practice including details of the correspondent and the nature and date of the reply. In addition, the Department is required to provide a record of the total number of letters from members of the public and provide statistics (which may be used on a valid sample) of its performance in providing replies within their published targets. As part of our monitoring procedure, random spot checks on the accuracy of your branch records on correspondence will be performed throughout the year. MB 6140 EXT
r . . , ' -- ... ---- --- --- -----···" ""'" . - .. _ _____ ,,_, ____ , ___ _________ __ _ _ _ The Rt. HonG. Robertson, MP, Secretary of'State for Defence, The House of Commons, London.,, SWlAdAA. 29th Aprill9~8. Dear Sir, S.E.R.I.U.S., ~ N.Y . Could you please tell both myself and my group what you and your colleagues know about the revelations contained in an article published in both the Daily Express and the Daily : Mail for Monday the 27th of April, 1998. To clarify my inquiry I have . enclosed a photocopy of the article in question. Please do not refer me to our MOD, I have already written to their Secretariat Air Staff 2A and I would hope that being a minister in a government that has promised the people of the United Kingdom a more open and enlightened government, along with a Freedom of Information Act, ·you will · appreciate how irritating it can be to be run through the Rose garden by those not exactly sympathetic to ones cause, or in establishing the truth regardingUFO's and the existence of extraterrestrial ·intelligence. I have been in touch with various people about tbis matter, including other MP's' & the commanding officer of HQ USAF Third Air Force, RAF Mildenhall at Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk. This particular body has been most helpful to us in the past regarding UFO inquiries. From our investigations thus far we have ascertained that the content ofthe article in question was givento .the DailyExptess and the DailyMaii-by ... a disgruntled ex employee of the MOD itself, who gave the information to a well k:hown author and researcher on the suoject ofUFO's: We would gratefully appreciate it if you could find the time to possibly raise this matter in the house at your earliest opportunity and cotlVenierice ~
... ,. . , If the content of this article can be verified then it is surely time we the people were told the truth regarding these extraterrestrial . craft, who appear to be visiting both our solar system and our planet with impunity, while at the same time being engaged in extremely uncivilised activities. I believe you will no doubt be aware of the importance and impact of such a situation. \Ve ·in the field of UFO research are sick and tired of officials and scientists in the world of academia, arrogantly telling us (the populace), that there are no such intelligence's visiting our world. at this moment in time. We are neither gullible nor stupid and they should not insult our intelligence by treating us as such. In" anticipation of your kind consideration of this matter, we would like to thank yov for giving this letter your most urgent attention. .S.
' . TIIEE}. .SS. MONDAY,APRIL27, 1998 po • pe In • h I ne rad r BRITAIN'S X-Files may be opened up amid claims of stunning evidence that UFOs fly over Britain. Tapes to be shown to British and American experts are said to show objects which change shape in mid-air and a battle- ship-sized aircraft travelling at 33 times the speed of sound. The details are due to be revealed in early June at a Space Symposium at the R.AF's Cranwell staff college. A senior RAF ·source claims the mystery craft have been picked up by the latest Phased Array radar at the Cold War listening post at Fylingdales in North Yorkshire. One senior officer said: "What we have seen are not secret weapons. They are craft "' BY JOHN INGHAM •of which we have no technical knowledge. We know their shape, speeds and height but cannot explain what they are." The mqst spectacular dis- covery is ·a craft spotted by Fylingdales and the Dutch Air Force over the North Sea. Desclibed as "the size of a bat- tleship", it zig-zagged at up to 24,000mph for 15 minutes, "as if it wanted to be spotted". Another tape shows a group of 12 oval objects seemingly change shape, to the amaze- ment of observers. But the RAF is expected to withhold some X-Files. It is feared they could.reveal how sophisticated their new radars are. w @@@ Eff !P Dog barks up the wrong tree FREE at last. Pa terrier who madt call that lasted s During a walk the dog bolted aJ thunder, diving~ into a lOin hole il
The UFO DeskOffi~er, . Secretariat (Air Staff) 2al, Ministry of Defence, Main ·Building, White halt:, London, SWlA2HB. 28th April 1998. Dear Sir/Madam, I am writing with reference to the article ... which · appeared on page 27 of the Daily Express for Monday the 27th of April regarding UFO's that were picked up on the nevv Phased Array Radar system at RAF Fylingdales. Also that senior members of the Royal Air Force and the American military will be discussing the relevant radar tapes at a symposium to be held at RAF Cranwell in the early June of this year. Please can you confirm that the content of this article is in fact a true record of events thus far. I have enclosed a copy of the article in question to enable clarification of my request. I am \\Titing this letter on behalf of both myself and my research group here in Skipton, :~orth Yorkshire.
., .. THEEXPRESS.MONDAY,APRIL27, 1998 RAF pot din pe UFO wit new radar BRITAIN'S X-Files may be opened up amid claims of stunning evidence that UFOs fly over Britain. Tapes to be shown to British and American experts are said to show objects which change shape in mid-air and a battle- ship-sized aircraft travelling at · 33 times the speed of sound. The details are due to be revealed in early June at a Space Symposium at the RAF's Cranwell staff college. A senior RAF source claims the mystery craft have been picked up by the latest Phased Array radar at the Cold War listening post at Fylingdales in North Yorkshire. One senior officer said: "What we have seen are not secret weapons. They are craft BY JOHN INGHAM 'Of which we have no technical lmowledge. We know their shape, speeds and height but cannot explain what they are." The most spectacular dis- covery is a craft spotted by Fylingdales and the Dutch Air Force over the North Sea. Described as "the size of a bat- tleship", it zig-zagged at up to 24,000mph for 15 minutes, "as if it wanted to be spotted". Another tape shows a group of 12 oval objects seemingly change shape, to the amaze- ment of observers. But the RAF is expected to withhold some X-Files. It is feared they could.reveal how sophisticated their new radars are. · Dog barks up the wrong tree FREE at last. Patch.l terrier who made a 1 call that lasted seve1 During a walk in t: the dog bolted after thunder, diving for c into a lOin hole in a :
.. Secretariat (Air Staff)2a MoD Room8245 Main Building Whitehall London SW1A2HB ... _______ .. __ LMay1998 .. BNSC , , BRITISH NATIONAL SPACE CE NTRE Letter to DTI Minister regarding UFOs. :y,,, ,./:"' British National Space t!'lhtre 151 Buckingham Palace Road London SWJW9SS Tel: Fax . As we discussed the other day, Mr Battle has received a letter from a member ofthe public regarding the Government's policy on investigating UFO sightings. We agreed that I would write back to the individual stating the Government's policy and informing him that the MoD has lead responsibility on this issue. For completeness, I am enclosing a copy of the original letter fro-and my response to him. Thank you for your assistance. Yours sincerely
Holyhead ...... 1 May 1998 Government Policy on UFOs BNSC ' BRITISH NATIONAL SPACE CENTRE British National Space Centre 151 Buckingham Palace Road London SW1W9SS Tel: 0171215 0971 Fax: 0171215 0936 Thank you for your letter of 3 April to Mr Battle regarding the government's policy on UFO sightings. I have been asked to reply. Government policy on UFO reports is to investigate any sighting in order to establish whether the UK Air Defence Region has been penetrated by hostile or unauthorised foreign military forces. Unless the sighting reveals evidence of a potential threat from an external military source - and to date no UFO sighting has revealed such evidence - no attempt is made to determine the precise nature of the sighting. The Government does not feel that investigating each repmi would generate sufficient benefit to justifY the large public resources required. Lead responsibility for Government policy on this issue lies with the Ministry ofDefence (MoD) and not with Mr Battle- the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry. If you wish to discuss the implications of government policy on UFOs, you should contact the MoD direct at the following address: Y ours sincerely Secretariat (Air Staff)2a Ministry of Defence Room8245 Main Building Whitehall London. SWlA 2HB
03 Aprill998 Mr John Battle, MP The Minister of State for Science and Technology House of Commons London SWIAOAA . "\ 2j \- ; :·~) 1 :.,. /l_~n9 ""' ... n i""·~O \ "'·' 1\ ,,, \\ .,, .. .. .;. "' ... 1 p... >·· ,z t ,~, \~ .A ;/ \f/fl,.... ,,;{~~'? -.....; <..'ltr'y ff', ':\,\'~"' '·;,'/ Dear Mr Battle, ~-.!- ·~ I am a student, and member of the WFIU (Wales Federation of Independent UFOlogists). I am writing to voice my concern over the issue of UFO secrecy in this country, and our government's refusal to acknowledge that highly advanced craft displaying capabilities Jar beyond the reaches of cutting edge technology, are routinely penetrating the United Kingdom's air space. The opinion held by myself, and many others, is that these UFOs deserve to be researched thoroughly, and objectively by scientific means, so as to establish the truth behind these extraordinary craft. The government's ignorance of this phenomena is frightening in itself, as UFOs clearly demonstrate the ease with which our airspace can be penetrated by potential threats, yet we are fed with clear displays of this ignorance when the government labels sightings of UFOs over our military and energy establishments as being of «No Defence Significance". Surely, in light of the recent increase in the volume of cases reported, the government should be a little more concerned, ordering scientific investigation into these sightings, and making the details available to the public. Many qualified scientists are already researching the phenomena on a freelance basis, but official scientific investigations need to be made, not only to establish whether or not UFOs are a threat to the security of the country, but also perhaps to find an answer to the mystery behind these craft I have enclosed some documents pertaining to UFO sightings, which I obtained through America's CIA Freedom Of Information Act database. Surely the phenomena highlighted in these documents deserves to be investigated scientifically. I am very grateful for your kind consideration on these matters. 1 "' r : - ,; '· 1., .• ·: · ·;s .~file/1/a'':u/C/SiGHTINGIS!GI-iTU.HT!\ri Title: SIGHTINGS OF lJl\ilDENTIFlED FL'Y1NG OBJECTS Abstract: Pages: 0004 Pub Date: August 24, 1954 Release Date: November 16, 1978 Key'l·vords: UFO SIGHTINGSilJFO Case Number: F-1975-03653 Copyright: 0 Release Decision: RIPPlJB Classification: l T Pages: 1 i 2 3 4! ··- t ... - _,__ ~ '
1F itnage 624x788 pixels of 1 f . . ~- .... COUNl R'f HOW f'\.il'iU$HED Wttf:Rt t'::.JBi.f· sm o ft.i\Tt runus Hto Ctt "If ltt·~T ION ~l~~~~~~ }:~ :;~;~ ~:·~!· ::~ it~~j~ ~ ~1~~:i Ctl'HHAt INH'U.iGE NC:{ AG ENCY I·~F;:oRl NO, 00- ·~·30'<~3 H~f'ORMAT!ON FBC,IM FOR !UGN ()O C.VM~[ N \! S O f~ NftJ>UO ti i'lOAtlCA ~;ts C[) N(l. Noo -Orbit f.lA ~ £ C1f lNfO;<U-fMION SUPPlEMCN'F 1'0 P.E:f'ORf NO. UUS lS UNf}w''AU..IAlfr> INrGRMAT!Ot·; jREDACTION ON ORIGIN~L DOCUMENT I M.•DlfJCNAt 14t'l'!f~~S&3 •ro f'IIJ'ilWc$ SJC!ftP/; >.kfN S 'il'lt,~iX ""' 3i<:>c!oi : holi~l; 'SveMUI .tlflgl!•hvi>lt, .l'3 Ml 1 5'< t-uH-VJ. ·~ A sno l.'~> t •n'lll• eo l7 l"ir.y :r>i~·· l . ~ it i:c:r-c,~; $t'tilc !t~·tt.he Gt~clli>.rnt~ p:/i..H:'-' "!.·:::! lt '; ·· ~~ tlg'S!te t},~ (!'de~ t .hl QO~ C~. I; t; Y~ieh 'lo't(e :f~>:C' 'JJtl:y . 1ft)!ll::i 1tl y.l. /'10 •;~ pl~·:~ ,. in <>•<)t\:.~;.::to Nc•rr't .. M~l<:' t:l .l':·o~if,~e. 'til<~ ~·oH c~ •lo MI. U.1Hi'li _'l.till.t. tbe .;,)) . J.:: cl .~ "We:.tc -tiir~"t '~ '6Ti'~l10-t;i~ -~.l 'ttf1lloc. nG \,-.1; t d.'ll- fJ( .. t, hh -~ - .: iifJ,Y t.;net.".ft · ~ . e>$ ·t .o · t~-.C. iC' {/\~.t:lt. !'i>r i:he- c.:fe;l. vt· Sr.:.gs... ! nee l& t~ -~ t.;. E')i o!'li!llt1'1t";tl-$ a ~~q,; ;n: t ~'& -~ giv~ :rJ n:v· V ,!i - l dC ;i!~\ t~ Ylif;i<:~ 't.:r:t1 c, t ;:r~ rtt ]{~~tz .. ~ 1...,1.r.v~ · - &.·Y l, V rto~~ J d- ~·;'l,o.r~~i --- \~;J\t, "'h~ s :~" lf'! · -!\ r. i l v~ t : )" f (l....QtL:;ril].""' s't"J\p.~ ~t ·~"b~ ~ c· c t. ~:tl:ltf ; g i:':to:.D thlft tm:d$~ ~>ti!~ {Jt the ~~ r)~t·,'lJi. ry ~ it t~Mi 1 1 !tet:r l.tt.U ·(o-. e o m~t!ln lNI~ , t>r•·i n,p?!,!IY·~·l t.o · ll.,•H'<c !\>'~ t o •m:- t.ll ~tl:<0 '~t 'I:J; ~l a. :1\H,cc.et-t•:r f:r.r;;~ vber>l! i c. i.l' l- '11 !11 . J~t:Wi K·!H?s sc.,n, ·liloncJ\h.e r t:;ft':.l'l'i.m:a;lll, e . t:.~.l;!·~ ·~~t' •'111<'1. to:\\~ot to "'"'h~tt:te•ll · l"'' ~)tc d ob· J: e~;~ r.ttnr.J1<l•~ ton m"!L~t~ l: .<:ng n>d :{l>1J ~~ ~ .n f)t ~ dht.<l.n~e .;;;.{"' J~·5 ~~ t, ~C-r'i' (tote) Bll•i t J;.,j , c ·~ to ~<t~tUi. .1 u thll !\!t~'c t t, a et!or·t d. l•~t -'il. .~·e~ f.!f'"!ll ber . :~o tri\1.e~~; cf 't.hh (1);r j~¢t. :i:L'i~Y¢ 'l:!el)';,l fC<T.l.,~ ·1• Ci:t.t:S"'l'.!AL C!' ... t~ 't ~~.) 1\S mJt'l l)f' lltl I i K>;}~,!.JV ~ ~~ S · tMkh, {l ~m 1 $vcmikll .t>~~bJMtt, 24 ¥..\\)' 5lj lr. f hl't r.:"'tt:r fui.1Ut' , a::; in~·{'S!~ h:·\ . tt,<O~ vlll be i:>~de tc •t~t~~ 'lll lne . vi:re-t~e :r !i flyitl.l". ()lyJ!:: -~ t \1:iJtl\ landc•;i :l.t~ .li, n¢l,di t':t'll. l" 1:\pj:l!:l.l-l!'r'o lp ;~ti,) • D'<!i'!l:< 6 !f,:>nth :; flr£VO llll ~ r.e \. 1~o:r, n E>l:l,;D,, • :.r ~.OI!lc p.,:w\i -~f a ~fll/lng * ''"'"N'r'.,. 'l''he ;:,'b ,jt'ct , ,.~de il. ~:t•:)h' .l.tl tlt~ t~!i!ld I'Lol\1~. -.. J .!J l!i !:i~t·rt> ~¢<:p !!IN1 4 ;~ ~;-~nt.:!t, l!lt .~:r~> 1.n ~:HMr·<:t¢r t•">d, ;r.!lilfl~ · ~·! 1 ,~.' ;l' i:!'~li: ~~ ~· ; a t;;~i ,,:fk tlotl~ ·tr .~. ot" flt . (; t; · ~ x -: ~ :e' ~ - -tiir:,';!,ft', f' c! th~ t~ : .. : ~_ ; · ·.;;;; ~-~ :.:;l'j <;..; ::':.. :;;/~ {) _ ; -r o ~~ N ·:\ hl.t o tb.~ h~:~l.~ · ar. : 'l. det ~~t'~h~ea t lvl.t tt•il: fl'bj.c~t fl!,t t ilt>! l:•at '..<>•u h lli::<rt.fU~~. l.t i~l &ill.id t '>f:> t at the tLuie U < !!l ot je~ t. il>e~¢{!':, ,1e;~ t :~ t)a:rt.h., '-~•tre '\o'~l"~ r;,uHe lil nr.<,t•i!'r ·of tJot<t~t<'tH'!J.(!•i fly :lt>,s (>bJ~ ' ct . ;;: e· ~ ~~ ·u:.e nr .e~ . .~1!r<>v,.Ut.r.r1 ~ ) r t· ~ e o~·J~.:: t v1H ~>e t>>!r!tln.,...,;J; 'll'~th il !ti!\\Hit&r ,~~ fx ~-m tt;e ~:~U1.t&.r,y, file///a%7C/SIGHTING/SIGHT1.11F 03/20/9812:21:47of 1 IF image 62' - 7 88 pixels ftA1E fUflt tSHEO .... Sill';)~~~:>, '~'<:: r .. l!:$:r.:n, i'l''<; f•·::':fl 1 Cn·u!l ·., SUi'"PUJoi;ENT 10 REPO[if NO. !REDACTION ON ORIGINAL,DOCUMENT I Arl:lr·rttN:AJr Wlr_r!'i1-~~l5M f,l;,"O l?R~~'/IOU£: f~.!t'..~~· :l,Nt;:S . l. llii S-~lZ11fJi- ~~ .... St¢:c 'kf.r ·~l~f 4, 1 , SY -Cn~k J~ Xtiigt.!'l..!lilet, 18 ).~;~ :; 5t, Ln 1t :l.~ ~ • ,1>. ~n< ;V ~:~:(Jt'lt> qn lj ~'>)' ¢a$1!: H l~ · C·Uft•1~ f or th. e; G~<J!lJ:!.'~r;are j;>')lit.:!l t;.) 1~h·esU~t~ tJtii< <H•le~tld '-'~~o:cts ~thkh 'io'Ct() t<:C;~O.tl)' l:Hi!!Ul !l!l \!!;;l"JC>Us j:·l •'1. ·~~~~ in !lul·th~rn ~Nt"bot tcrt. Pt<i••in• ': <'!. t r.:,c: t;(•J'it.~ do tX;t, ·t.b·iM t!:.'il•• U;¢ ~•b· ,:i~ et.$ IN H C it r!t~~~,l:'~)}(~g~.C3l t)ll;lJ.~•(I~i& b•lt. do .f•¢'t r.iiWI:: litli/ th.~ -:> :l"J.t!ti t!> G.;t{.Wcirt l!; .t"~l:' the EO!ghUr,g;, , 'J'hc :l~t.f:llt I.!J'<!"'l t ~ t'ilil' l!l t~O\lllL w:& l,;h¢ll b~~ "'~iiiolrl('tllr:J,:I' "!'Ht!I!!I)!;.s.:,o f'r<·~ · J\"i;~tHJ"~(lf-~'~·vt _ 1 Ytit.> ;~ ~~ta ·.rl'.!~1 \.hl~ !t. :!-~~ : &.~.':or Ci- :~dJ>rv 1 t~f'~t · f-c ~.-:~ t "t1;e.;. ll. -·Sh!A.pe,d o},; · -1-t ~.t; , ~ , eq;rd.ng fr<C.t~ t)H1 F! nnhh ffl~e · or t,l> t 't•t;t\a!d.n:rt. 1.t J;t•;S , JI.}i~ t.;( UT.$1 10·-f:•) 1;1~toas lt•llg jl.n~ 4?f'<'·!Ucd· M d.1•sce!'JI to tntl\ e.bo•.tt. 1.114\1" !! ltf\tJo,f i>.V·r fr~ v 'ber~ · b~ ·~·s11-. Je'lll1Y X:H ! s~ c· n, !l~ot h ~r· ~;~;:w·!,.l>et,~ , r,.t!lt·ell. \ba~l ,si:J,f! t;;;.ll .• ~ ' ' .Ph(·:¢ ~ l'in>" . ;H~ - ~~ _oh. Je-~"- ~~<1.* ;Ml'u~\3 to !I !!i!!t-•:t:r~lcrt;r. r c:.d l""~" l.cr ot f;l <Hlit3.kce .:.>t J •.• , l!lct .~r<> ts:ic 1 IH\1} eom~ •~· ~,~ rth .i'l t l H! f6i<r i!t.i, a £h~tl. ~h:tilfJeli!! rr ~"'l: h~:r~ !!i'o t.N<:·Nl qftbH> obJt>.e1. h.:~<. ve b<e e:.n fC, \:.n,) . ' · CtLFS't.!.A.t, O~E1:' 1' 'I'(J i·-S; !tU!J ~lf HI P!':WJ..R.~ • • ~tO (:;kh<";> 'l!>l'; , s~<"l1sb f.rt>i~ibln~H, :i'il l>'·"'Y s~ l ee th<! r.~M· i\,f.;o~.te;, an in,'\'· I.'U:.ig ,a t~. ,~•n . ..,Hl 1::~ zr,'\il~ to !toe·t~nui.r,l!! '~<lle>l;.b¢: .· 11 flying otJe ~l; vhkh b. nJ~;l i . n ~ fid~ t'.'il!" SiJ-JtU~ruif tc'N)•.!t 6 ::tl''>!:Hbs; &ifl<l· ·is 11. :t>:~\.~¢J", a sMU, Qf s o~ ~~ p.,. f1. ot e. '"f.l;y1ng ('o\1.-U<::cr •. • _ 'l'!-,e: o't, ,l~~:t. ,.,.~<!1 ~ ~.:1'1~ tn ~~.e fi.<'lli !!l;'i;.(>t.lt :}.5 lli•!!h.,r !l. \it~{l a>,ri ~5 Cf:~llli:~tO,r~ ;!.q ili.~t'l:et.~ J' t.'loi r-&4\~.ed ~ t~ .. t~:~Jt:h ~ - t b.i'Gk $\.t·!)~ .. :•.r.:'J:; Qt · t'li . ti_ ~. I'~f! -;; ·.::;tt-~~ - c•.f : '\1i· ~J ; . ~ ~. -:.;~ _ {;;.: __ 2 :_ ,_- ~· .1 ::. : t-- !\: 1r:n:; :to·' $r;t'' t:t.l!' h •':>le 8l'i•i dH€!"15!t:t~ . ~ u·,~~,t Uli! q'"bj~¢t ~~!,, t.h-.e b·t;rttol:l it! ~l<t.AlU·~. H ts £s.1~ u ·,.!!>1> "'t t h"J· t:l. . .r,~ t.hf! <-bJ!!:ct <.1-r~·-~<~r•~t::·S H• ~i!!.tt .h; ·tl::e:rf! \r 11· r~· ~uHc n ll1•1'liter of t<nid~ntH~i~-'· :O.;rlog 9))Jf;!!t.5 on: r tb'l!: !1-tc"'. ;:.;;uv'.Sti.(;ln t>f tbo;· ~.,bje.:::t vHl be i!··Zrfo J.~t •d vit,"t, .<A~. :sll!lt-'U'Il(!r frv!l'; the ~H1.t.i'l>i",)' . ~JtlD~',ro ~ -~.a rt ~; ~sr OA 1 f . ~ /, -~~! ·:~ :1(~ ;:~~~~~: .. . - .. file:/1/a% 7C/SIGHTING/SIGHT2. TIF 03/2.0/98 12:23:35· oi 1 F iiTlage 62<1v788 pixels \ ,,, /REDACTION ON ORIGINAL DOCUMENT I ( .. ·•· S:Gl!l' t,>1il4:1Kril' .tfHiJJ ~Mf ·j• t.'lft'.fl 'l' A' .IJ\U~. lo',Clr:'i\ 'I;t ~ .• ;:; , (F ~ ":.Hli': E.'( -- I!>!,<:<!>l:al'1, 'l'eni f< • ~.l11"'t•, 1 t.'..!t)' )11 M~ ·nin, 6 ~"'Y 1954 ·~ ':N1<1y, v.n :.~<t<.ler.ltH:l~d rst:rct-:~>H ~~~,, :HsM ·~ ·j ~'Y r<'l:::~d·l';!'t~ ·Of · o;,~,~ t.ovn ¢( )Je;ru . ~~; J>t llN•fi)J:iJl',:!tl!'l)' ll~,O l; r)'.U'EJ, 'l'b¢ e:-raft-1 vhi·¢h at~ · r : n.~A'flf.d o·PP..t tt i.~ ' :1'!\ .~n·u~~ ¥.<r'-t~~..a1. ns - ., 1{.~11~- ~j to \t.~ A'bo t.ll ~ l-0 !t e't- ~t~: h·~ l('!r~e;t-~ a·t·i "'alii 1.r,.,v<1Hne;: tn .fli t.t:"·EI.if.M. lj:- , ~. lt "'!liS vi!;:lb)le only for 3 (~ll :;r.t , • ;; •.lt~·•< !'\:.;.d ttu;H'l d.1~~W '? 'li : · l'<4. tnf :.HlRN'J ~ IF ll:!' ~ ~:Lll~ ~)- Q~\Jtl1'r".,} S~.:e -.~ c~~li~F~ 'iil.;S _ ? OHftt~VJl'i AI" ·~ - Ik}\1- !!.li.t.r t. 'lt'!:r~1. t ~u; t~""'~ · ~t¢':ttl_; l7 ,l'u.i.) ~4 'rv'> \lt.l<li!!lliUfi<!d f1:;it.t object!l ¥ere l'"i!t!:><•:rtc4 to· !i~vc l::ecm tete·:. ~~ · >:: ~::• ; 1y to:r a 'l.l4;'4 t lil· a ~N > lll! <>y e. F~i'T (i'oiit·tt~, 'l'$:;,,r,r,lr·hr.·;; , ~t Tlil~i:·h ::.M· ~>, l>6P..t., T!!lt• .gl'!!.ph, u! Tel (!;>h<:me Sen· tee) e;;t l f:. !f ~!'. . -t\t.d lit l1\'l.i;.U,f!r { fHt; (}!li t·rH'.· ·~'"" Jl'r(l ~ ,~ \:',~ t"t and· D~~ · ;p;;t;:;~. t, ' '·~ ·~r thllt f r ;r.~ , in·l-!"-Il'; !\t.:r ll.ue • . 'T~~ '6hjll'o'tii; ' ;;..!.!'te ~ e;.<: ;H, tt!il ~15 fl: .le>~<t'l ~~~ i!Jt.sk.G, v'llkh dt~;Jtt'.t odcd tiltr.~· ~ t- . nrU•(;.,_Uy t<i .k . .r;ed:..,.:l,;:; hM,p\H: t.fic ~ 1 di:tl<tiiiJ·<' e €1.1':¥1:1 • ~ th" ~Hth ~~. ·~ hie.h t.p~ee4 ~:,,,, t! ·:f·r~ :ro$<r J11<p:ld!.rr de.s ·~; · tb tcg ill. p .u·r~he;;:. .. •.L ~):\ r;;~,. . t rHd: rw't. ptdt \tjl tr •. o o~ ,j~ ·~tr.. ~,'!mpl.ti~~lll!i ot rati OlH1 <!~ill' 11ne;,; <t~.'t- thll' .D\t itU ·H~o·r ·t l>.t:pOl"t. t<'t;e:'•t'i,y {>'!:•• !Htl"'< ~·l n. G 'l'ii!!Y. n~n·I ~~~Ject Yl'..X('h apprc-'l"t¥J:it 'f:r.:i.?ll t1:1 e ~out~ M. r.t(~"il !i~·l·~~, t~;et! • t. ;1w,.. ,~ ~o~•~rd Hlf v·ut, M ~:l. 6 \$,. .ppe• . ~:r~.~ r.b6ve · th~ li,.cl'C():... w,:ete t CiV!!rt:: <lll<~ , Ali~ ~x:r,10.)I<!!oc ,;.·r Uil' C·~·f,~ r til.!tla t~s. ·l ' <illtH~d•lf.. i'tm, v): ,~ ,, h~;~:ppe~•~h~. ·to '\;•¢ • .,..,.h~ll· hg ~ . ~k.t•"l'it'"'r ei' ht~ fim ~&t t.M t~~~~~ •. <::<~11<!:.1, tho: qt,;e;:t r. "fl:ti;:}t ll!\\lecr • and ~:tA . ti!!:d that 1t co\.ll.d Mt 'p<>~.sltt• :t ;l' lJ,l'lvc: 'be>\'ll fli~ <lir~ ·t,a M~ ))."H(:-<::1\; ;r;.:r M1t !l1l:l #i.-t~~ , t. t t·l tt g dt.J-."f~ --tt . .. S~¥ -tr~1 - ot.. b~:r fl.iriJfC\rt: t.:tiploye ·t'!: ,~· - eott· r.fti;,P,;· ;!. h l ~ ol~e~t'!~Yat~~ ;;- o, lin::.iii d /0 1 .._,...:.>~\.,), 1 , 11 'iU I ""-' t ......,, . ........ . , , uSi2Di98 i2:25:i i1 or 1 iF"image 624x788 pixels tl:!lti .r .~~; ?.f t ,~ ~· rrn ::olY . HtG oc .. Jtcl~ ~ ;:F;:~~s u·rKR ~ 1::;;.:.::.r G E?._IW';.A.:'i" ... t ...... :b ~.\~~" ~ "Jj , · :,.. ' f!~;o;l ~t 1 r,·J· r.;-.;.r:·.cy-{ 1:" ~ ' "" ~ ?..7 .Tu r '< S4 T-•" '1;,1l .l <l~i\ t"1r :!.~4 U)"ii'TP., ·~<bJN :. <; lii'U e: :r -r;•O"lt: ·~ to ~ ..... ,,<:; ~ < • e n Ht~" r.t~eer.~:;, fc .·r [l , ~~:·!~t 1.0 $·J.l::Of;·&r,. by t"' ~ (Fot;:r:..~ · n_, T~ . p;t i~ f. · h . !:;!& _ ~ et. T e .l ~:pho c; e'&J:, J .iont., 'T!:!ll;";l,.;. f?:.Ttt:ph,. ~o d 'T~el~ '·' frl l C' ti. C Sc:" .. (1'Ce·) ~ng~r·.~l!'-r 4) _ ('..::5, \!.)' !1:-tC•t,t.~~r - rlet":t0rt 't<~.!-tVc en F.r.f~ . !'l,:1i1\~rt MI~ ~\,n;~.-;t .!l. <:lt, rtfl~:r '!.~, ~ }!.t i.'J t: ·•J.!.i ~r. Air !·.~~e. 7be t.>l!J\'·.::1-lf ·,tet~~ <l i'S ·~ ·d"t · ~ d u e.~·~··d• j f. 4l£k~, vht~h d~s ,~t· nded alr~ . :;~t, . \'e;rtie'.\11.1 t e;. !1, ~ ~: :' tNln hm &pt cHt~:i J dh.\.M IC;e flb<;;"f . lJ' t,ll ... ~ 'il rtll a .t. hl€}'1 fiji~<:<! (>~ , ~ ·t h<>l). 1'~ ·!H' T'<l~ t •H;:r , •1 <' ,HH1'b1ne; j?, l•a<·•1bo11•, tt6\ l' •~·i : ~>r 4 t,! JJ-:>t. pldt. \l'fl ttr .Jt o'QJ~c !.1> , &":!!p] o ;r· ·( - ~t . ::; : t )r V -~tic.us: n.i!" lf r..~s ~It, ! :J ~ ~ ~l ets:elr,~('~: ·'f' n. ~r-r.d:;~· t. .. rcc<.· n.tl.y '"tr- ~>e .:rv .t -1 a "'hic l~f. rc•ln:i o::. ~ l e;:c'• vbtc~; ~Zf~l: " C•I'H~hii:<! fr' ~'> 1 t}.., t.<N.tb. ll t Mit.h f..}-l!~ ll , t.h- t:;d) t . urr ~ c ;:~ t ~ ~ ' i!. 'l ~ T! tl· •-~ v~s.t. J' -Bn• i. t,l~ ;r~ : Pt,:e- . o,:r.e •;l et• CYC' t lt"Z ( ~ ; ,t.'Q '.'j;'• - nv? l. ~! _ .l" ' · (:; ·, · or ~ ~;u1l .. At! tt~,-pl o)' . !.: 1 :tt ;,:;t· ~he Cor'~~t·r - a~::!.n.l-~-J _ v·(l:.:rtt~d, r! g f 1r::n 1 : 'W'ltf> hiil?t-~t ,.e ·: !: t - o 'l:,e V't t .: h- "' !nit e. ,f(!)Vii'!t-fl' t o:' )Ii& fit~!! '';. 'tb•! tt:~~. <:• 'J.!l- e-1 tt,e t:ib .\e .-: t. til •:t;fl .n~ s.twc(' r" Gc -n~ ~~;At~ <O.Jj · ';,':'~-¢. !.. t.t t;;- C·uld. .nvt.. :p~~ .. £1-bl.t h.\ ·.o;e 'be t-rt -an t!tir~ l :s.n~ .. 't4 ' r~ i.l(:{ \ f1 _ , (.'l _ r ~t"ti a! Jt: ~· Q' .\ . Ii~ : ~~~ '' i.!" J g .C•.Ptlt ~ e.. S.avtrf.!.l , c.tb.~r ~ ·\ : '·p ~:·t- (""nit:r i r~ ~.:re"£ c-·~=-t~ri:r =-~~ -~ f;1r,:; 'Jl ! ~i!.· :· v ~ .t:i<" ;,:o .. Bliif .. . ·.· _. ''. '· . .. ' . . · "'·' ·· . . . >I I '-' •'' ' .._. • "' -..... - • ._.. , ._ ' ' ' /REDACTION ON ORIGINAL DOCUMENT I l::iolzt:JI'dti 1 t:ib :ot.Title: l'FO SIGHTED 0\iER 1JRLTI\1QI EVENING OF 6 SEP Abstract: Pages: 0001 Pub Date: September 12, 1989 Release Date: l'v1ay 31, 1994 Keywords: UFO!SIGHTEDi6 SEP;SACCER;URUi\JQI Case I"1nnbt'r: F -1990-01096 Copyright: 0 Release Decision: RIPP"lffi Classification: U Pages: t: 03/:20/9·3 ! 215 53
IF image 63"' ~~6 pixels ..... ; 1 Ii>IOUT ru!::'fX)C9Ii n~ INC•::-0003~S33 F.!I;'VF.LOPE cus~~n2 "~ : 892'5611'56£7 ro~ •• B9lS&D9~o RTi"\l'Z. fU"ili RiJEXJCS 1 99? 256001 8~0tJW~~RUEAt.CX • th"R lrJ';JUU KE. A:DE'R JrTI'Mtsz s~J" 89 FM' JOIN"!' STAFF W~SHING1".:1N OC INFO RU 'E'.ALCXfSAf~ R 1]C1~l!Z Stf'· 89 F'H Fli!IS OKUIAiiA Jll TC RIJCVUVF!US !l!:S'ro~ U P~iUdCHICi'ACfl.'t' '1'£111'14. Hl!.f'Jl011 H! f!IJACA/114/COMIJSXOR.EA llltltL Sf..Ot.n. lt:CFI//fl.J~ IP~fEl/ IUJCLA.CtiCfillUTH?SYOF'GI' i:'l fl!!ll::itG \Htlllt.OOt~f> OC .~$511 RU .t~:HJo:Bii'hlS LONOON U'i:llt'll3Cil l!tlJMllCl't:ti:O'JQ!lf~TCf:. t-: 51JlTUNP M il ~UF. I! ·li.I\M.S1'0!U;~:E CEtil'fJI i''!HS \iiiSHlNG1'0N PC RutKJCS/Olt ~· l N 1 ttG»CY \lt.SH DC Rl.ff.'Hili'UK?C F1' CiEO C MEAU£ H!1 RlJHOHQJI/IJSCl.NCf'AC HONOI.Lll..U HI R'Jl!OlPt./C>?Ml PAC 1-!0NOl .. IJLU IH Ru:!•.JIIlVF SIS H t)lloi:i kOtlG IH:CT f!ro\H:IiD~: tat Cl')M. infc1. 1r 'OODY : oou-..'t:!al : lP!it S'J!IJ: . trro SIGlf!£0 OVE:I': U~U}{Q J f:llf'...NING OF 6 SE£' SOUliC£ : an J HJC. X ItmtJA f N e::NCI..lSH 06 19 GMi 1 l . S£P 8.~· ttlT: HTEI!Jl u~:JH.OI, str'TE:Mst:fi. n t:Urt'!'!fJili) ~~ AN uNwt.1'liilJiED r·:..nr.1c Of\,!E.C'f t~']} liAS SlCHI!EP O!Jf:R !JHI.il'!il;n, CM'!TIIL- Of 1li: H~.IH.JoiCi IJYC.IJf.l ~\J1."C:.Jil<:mous REGION , n n:n r'H Oli Sf:f''Tf.I'ISER 6, 'f'Hi!'l' ·WlGH't 'i'ClNC 1\.'\llil j "- liiOI\Kf:i\1 Hl 'm~i CITY SAW A PflRll CtOut• S1JDt1l!.11Lt l.lCHT UP • . FOL :~.QWHIC A (XJtt)f;J~ fi;.J!SH 1 A SA.\JC~~ SllliS'Et OaJ£CT liJTrl II BU,:II. GAP tlN lTS Ef!Gf A'FFE:ARED. AMf.FI l:lOVl:mU~C Ill 'llif: S11' r'OR A tmnm: , 'i"HE lJf"O, IlATII :ui lN . flED UID yn,u:nt LlGH'f, ROTnnu:; .lT HIGH Sr'!EP., l)fiOf'!Pf:P OUT Of StUHT TO~ARD 't!i£ Sdl.lfl:fi,/~St. !ltliHIIG ~£ 'l'lME O f Ttit oa.:t:cr · s AN' E~tRANCE. OBS£f!\tf:FLS flf.rmm;;p MtAJtt)tC som.. ~n.s t.oum;.R "l'I<I..RN A C4fi e:.N!::ane , Ji!»!:U f&iltltLt) 1306 Wtri4RIIIftlllt. Ht13ll<j,D0? OI.SX rM 1 ';l/Q1SOZ St:l' !IT !REDACTION ON ORIGINAL DOCUMENT I l.llKU&S!fiEO ~~pro¥td ~Cf miiUIIl JWt~ file :lila% ?C/URUMQI/URUMQI. TIF 03/20/98 12 17 32Title: Abstract: Pages: Pub Date: Release Date: Keywords: Case N mn her: Copyright: Summary of document 913 713 POLICE OFFICERS SPOT L'.FO; RAPID RK·\CTIO!\ FORCE ALERTED 0002 June 25, 1996 ~.1arch 25, 1997 l.!FOiLITHUAN1A!IJTHUA~1AN BORDER F -1997-00403 0 Release Decision: RTI'P"l]3 Classification: U Pages: liZ! 03/27/98 1 j 54:53
"'""""'~"--.....,..4 .. <»>""" ',· •; ''" < '"~··~ .. ~·-·- ......... ~-·~ • . ~-1:~=Q~1IR:JZ-.DC{.:3 ~~·:; .. t·'tr:r,~ NC~,oo2r: 5'316 261t07Z J~·~~_.tN: 96 if11i t•~B I,; .U..:\NDC'~'i: Uti: TO 'rO !;:.'UCW,ii,,A,;l\./IHUS RES':"O.N '\1.;.., [i;'i:r;:,CNE/CU:t::t:CSNA\I'E"G"R LO~r;;()N QK/ /:!:fJ/ / ~llf~8A.~'t/1JOI; WA.S:H t~t::://l:ll:~'-JC~// EK:liFk'~A.AJ~/tJ'r}\.~CS :RJ\M;:71\t:. ~;t.: A.B. G3// .. ~J~·Of-4/ / RHFTPI.t'\t"~,jOS lA 1f:0'!{.0!d'8 Pli!::n; l-IAUT U GE in-!'H,J.JJiA/.:-I CP,i\C i"ifXK'~)LU.LU lll !~Rnt~:r.:Jl~t:{l~ACCfr.~ l:J:ri!~ :tlONCI . ..-tt.~U :f.IJ. 1Ui:JJ:r~UHA/%$SC:NCPA!C rKJt-ICt.,t;::;,tl R'! RQ1:::B..'l!<!/A1(~ r~~t:I/U'OtK VA ti\J'C'fl~\.:~C/1~!C NCllli'\CYLl!C V"A/ f;Jr!C// RUC~~Xt>"Q/ FI ':::'!K;t):f ONE :~ f' ~l·~J O!fll:/ /l?.: 0 / / ;.;;.t~CWJt.;V\/l''l:lJ$ 'ot~:S'fC•N VA/ /M';.t.// Rtn~:~.KFAA/STOeYJIOLM SW\~ ,R U!HG;'N /.AME."'M:fl&'S ~?,. Y CCJ:SNU!\(;t~:N t!.Ul;) KTA /1l.Kli::V-llASS.Y ·':t ,M,,!, !!rn~ HI'J:iK\i'f.'i/.;t'JJ;~:#:NHASS"l:' v:;:.L.Nli}S !iitt,ID\•!QNI /{~J:iil !lfA.SH.HKi!:P:;:;; CC{ St::1Tif'I'>!A~/Fil.IS1<. FT !U<:AGG NC' %~1rr~P~i:CtC../LlA ,l\MH.f;. W:~~~i-l:.~~G~:~·c~~ O~:t ]~,:7rt:;A t. f.:S/S"'!'ORJtV.;K,i; \,.; .. 7·~~~N 11 ~~'f?.~~; "flliS :R£5,TtJN 'VJ.\ :Rt'lEJGGt;/~:zf:vn,r:r.,mrcy !Ii'MH Il<: l>~(f~D.-!''U:i::/1.r'c:.s:::: roc BOLLnK~ p,~-H rJC 'R~J.f!'HC /.~~ ~r..~s~:rcr:E! ~~.~:.:;.H:INGfT:(lt-4' -n~C . .l 1J:.:Ut~OJU</.1V~l~l'4I1.f~6Y iil\:1.4li ~!:~¥..~· ~ll~HfJL~.)/ ~~1Jf~1~~iS~rf WJSCOW t~t)P,:f;JR.:'t./ ji\ .. .'"'I:Er>t':~i\B(f'i' R n~,!, RUl':H''l:P:~/ r.JS1-1!SS lCN U5V I !illi'N'l' 'Rl.TtZC""'l\Y.t'\/Cll~~ .::-l(~lC CHi\P..LO;;:~'B;:2~\l.r.::Jr,.r: 1 lA tAf.J~::k~~~}".~/C:OR2111~i"r~~ ;r···r 'HOCD· P:U"E:5 f'''l/'~·:!f!,l ;\> 'v'JEJ,1JA AU ~~~.1ft:~ li"W / F.t1;!}!.; ·~~.A:ft~~;'*~~'l! p;r,., F::,~~rE;'SMf.'/fw~IS Jto10$CC,i· ~itS ~··~t: (U\(:c G M~-AJ~ie ~i~! { i i'.t'U.f'~~·l{~U/CDR U~:U~5.t1:""~~A·;F .+t/IC.EJ:~ZP'l :t1t/ /A.'R:S~--('MC.')/ / Ft'U:FGA tt,/tJ.SC:!:t'·CEtJR :r;rr:~u ... 1 .lf\.!1t!!;::;1:';};· Cr~~ R!TFDlillil-\/,;;AC J•iCt:f,.J;:;SWORTH HAl: r·~·:')f..f(~Wo,p:rH till: [~[JF'Q:t,;:cildl'JS ttrli:Vt:Y S?~C SltM 1 '1!' B:li: ~:~JH~A.H.ft,./C.G 111 ~1f::{t''//(~-2// !ir~'1j'·i'St4.;r~: l/.A..~~r:: r~':"ieL~, Cn~·:f f,;.~::(.?'l~T l\.FB / ~· M~:.,:·/ / Fi2'WSMX.r/tJz.~etNc~; 1 s:~"a-; :.tiTlfL cr:N ~~.c;orrr· J~F'i~ J:~.t~~::~\'XK/'¢iQ :!SSP.ACJ:::cCr~1 PF:"'!'SlRS'Jl~ .f'4J!l'B t''C:!./ /~-'C!....i\0./ / R.XDH,!~'W / C rlJ'C'1'~C~T1rWZS7 llA..l HX &~i;;:'CI.l'./CC!>!Ml<!'O~!.'l.'H/ f,;Q:nrrnrr/ / lGIF image 636x825 pixels ;-.l Tln.r'7t..~:r.11 l!?t~J.~~~C:~ OFFIC!f:.'RS 5£:1:C:'=' t:T~); ~;All·~.D $.IL~C'21.:1.N f::{)~t:C£ At .. Ea.TE:D rc ... a.t-5 TRt~Mb:.tA.~-p:E~n '!'r?~X"r V!f,.i:rnJD, '16 ~:ttt!-I q&?~.~:~;;~: (U~C'JJ ~ D~Ol'TED N~.A~ 'rn:~: !~I:'rltuit'l!.f!Ja!~1 ~)Urt" ~!0'1"01-: J- 1 0LP.:,;s !'!J~'fRCL Of"F'!·Ct~i~£;6, ~.fAtm:::~;s: POZ"t.RA itN'O .r,,;r-.:;t-~:s. ~~~,:;,tUj:.;r,tt.t~l.ST PUtCE-D 'J~H~ ~~11-1-~J.t~t: ·v·:;~-l::ru£ POL!;:O£:; G:~ -~':"HE 3.\!.irt.Rt _ \"l~:H;:t(·~:.~~ !.-0:1JJS \..'ll'" S<;t~)lfi·~~ F~Q~~ ':":?n:: ARAf.~ R~P:l::~~-;: Ra?~.crr:·::ro.t~ "ft'Cil:C~~~ SN:TFE:R r::ot;~~ p.,:q:r_:;; [)OLX,~:s RI&;;IN'YCRG~~~~h:·iS'T:f; ::t~El{ffi:D!;v.":ELY l'l.:fR'f(f'Vto~:.n C~t>1 7H7~ SG:t!:;~; (>1? ~l"'JJ! SMF.:~~- r~; i-~N(;. ''/ . AC~.X)~.ttfN(il ~c.-. ~rnz: E.,.i!!W!'!Nl~S~:~-·~i ~J::;:.C:tJl~N'rB. J-.:T Ati-O'I.ff, Ot~JD IN' 11.1 .;.!2 4.~-;I-.:i.L~Y M(.l~r::.t·~·:.t.1·,·::f ::::;~ t~E V!Ll'e::ru.s .... ~EI.':l:J.f~tN·'M:.tn: P.::::,lill .. 1U':-.~iH ~~~HE; \~""IL!J'~.i!:': ;:)~ ~{~~J~tt:ZTS~ 10 X~r~ r.:·p_t)~C -;·R.'f: ·:.:~AP"t~'tr;.t.~ ~"Ys.'T .i!!N Pt.T/~'Jl"~)":f~tt C)F :20 <1t1 14£'i~J~~,:S .fit..i1t~~V}.:: THF! GR~,')T.:,;t,n:~. T11E'l NO~rtt~~t;JJ ~ ~:PHE~r:.:::rt..~ fJB.,}B:t~'r ~~.,.J:;~3lN: .. ~. AN~:; ~" '?.~.ft...,I.Jl . . i N'1tK.~ /J.t:~:'E~~,iJl ... !'}!;!~Y tr~~~]·fK~:l~'f:~. M'Ttl ~J~.g'M.-:Jt:U:N~~;., A,':C 1'1~It S~1.til-1?.! ··~·l,M£, "'::-g,Ey ]{.EARJ) W~AT' "J'"!~fF.Y ;:::;:~:~CR!Ei~:O AS ~;A ;S·T"~,.;;:tllir.lE SOL1N~~~ .L~JKR. J\l:r !!:I.J1·::fn~.~H~ fJ;:t: ~.!1:.J1·C'!1t1:::liN!>~ C:IVV:KtAt;, ,.. WJ.~l': 1 J.U~ TO :"Al(f.:J A C~ .. (.1~i}:~k !..OO!r. .A~~ '!'HE. lJF·J;), ·tHE PO~,.r-::;:t;~'~-U·:~f ll~•(JV&D T.f)KA:~~ .. :::· h~t' 1JH'E~·i '!1l;ii"f J-:f..A!.1 P:~=~·'l.iA.Nt':E:E! MOO"~' ;.~':;;, r•W:.'!?:~.ii'$ ':'}t~.t.):('tl;;:..;r 7Hl~~ !~~~;o ti.?-A5~, ... 'l"HB POL1C:El <SJ.t.!D_,, ·~:Hf; ~~Pl·E"ERE M.C·V~:t1· ~~. 1 j.,i',i\';{. rtC!S.ll U:l.~~nt.:;.:K Al-l·:) ~;A.r:··~rJ~:~Y ~RP1'Ji~'7:·tt.) :1.~~ Tf!li1~ 'Z)ZRECt!C~t~ Of VJ::Nr.:.:s. JHU-1,1'\"AL '/J ... T ''T!LE S·~E:~r~ {):f" ';:\~iF~ tJE:fJ'.ER,;;;E;J:;C'l" ~ :,'1-~~t~t~~R~1- Ol~ ".:·HS C:J\-~ 1 T;J :~·E:!'~tH~:.r.!: r;:t~·;;A,Aitif,':M:EN~.. i;W~V1·~~"~~~· :P~:).~l TF~ S~~Ct.~t,, r.·{'>11.Cb:S r~.N:;; f<~:--.:r;::r.ss. :rO:.~·.-·t:.li s: t .. l-~ ,.tHf.'· c:;.t.·rrAr .' s :PDL:IC.J.:: e..~H~;::.r-r,;nJ""Y s:r:J·:;~r Hr::~ ·t-n:E· ~'L'Z{n:;~- r.~cA.SJ:~~r:·l, 'ftU1 Et~'.:'~~1-1:K(>UN:O !V<,;O<tl1Tl~)r.~~ AtfD ':'1\?~~-!di·CO~u·~ .. r.;~). T~n.•: $':'.lV'\t4C:b' S{H~a";"D, WiilC:J1. ~.!~5 S't;~k,,J.,. H2~ . .RJ.) :IN T;rg .~~i!:J!., A.f~!'"Kf.i Tir:K D.!S.~~~PJ•::l~.~.ASC~t !i)? ~:'H.b': lJF.:) T~i.[· ~~.NT.FFE~}~ rV~i'i tHJ:'J NUl' :::.t,:.;;·;::;,v~K .t~Jti':rr:·f!:"}i(~ st;z,p: r~~~:r.:.;tJ~ . . :;..1-:lt; .tn~:t~·.;rFn f;trrr·f,·~~x.:·r, 8U1' :IT ti.it.S N:;;trrc·~ ·tH~.~· 'I1I5: J'ALL· G~~A:S:A .r~Rol.t:in -r::tE :?LJ\:C£ {)"J't:,:i~t WH.t:t .. ~ft ~~··ttf~ .SJ.i!~f~RE H:Ai'J 11 ~'1r"iJ~ifi ~ rtJ:rt;~ ff.<J .. TIE~~;;.:; ~1:.-·n A P;Jr.D!.~J$ -:.H:·" l. ~:! ~tf~?El! B . t~~: Tf-lt;!_.\J;.;r:·:_;r<~.J:.J ;:;c:F.:tcr:s1.·.~; HA.V!; W)'·~: ''{l;-~~:' E!CE~nEs;~,:t:.~:~ ;,,t:: t:i?:tn;c~:r (.)t,-2 ~l."''Hfr!: ,;:l;:c::-J;;£:1ll:!C.It~S .::;A.:.:D JN A R"'JJTC :J~E5.'V.:r::; 1 tr~ ~t't~~)~~~(~ 'ZlEltl" JE10~.:·u +:)~;:·F'l"t:'ERS !l!if~:lO w.A:tcH}~J":- THt ;.;iHI!i::t-ro ·~)~.Jtr::·r~r ~-AJi!.f; ~<i~:t·cnc::Lc.lc-rcAt,J'.,'f a~: ... ':~.~.t:~::;;~y I Non~.t\.~ .. ?8~ ~·L·,:; ~ NtYt; NO'f"f::D fTCR ,;.:p..i~tt:.::bfE~·g;~., it TI::rs 1-Ui,:?Cl:.'.T .~J",y C(~.~~··;:"~, l}f ;::··~-:,:;:•\{RJ..G:E"'!l:~)) ;~tA''l'!CF~:C~%.:,,. ('C\?1' .~.N::J AN:::: r..1 rs.:~ r.::v '·£ g~:-r J 1};4 ~r .. s r R.,~~-:t: :1].1 TR:C: ,.,'!'-.t 'fl~~r<:rr p:£:~-=-1-r.c~~~ l.'::n: t:Jr- ·:-H :~~ c.c~ f.'""t'":!f~ 1. \;:f. "t. olf.n:c~~.sr.From: Secretariat( Air Staff)2a 1a, Room MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Main Building, Whitehall, london SW1 A 2HB 1. Thank you for your recent letters Secretariat (Air Staff) answerphone "unidentified flying object" seen near This office is the focal point within correspondence of this nature. Telephone (Direct dial) (Switchboard) (Fax) Your reference Our reference D/Sec(AS)/64/3 Date \ May 1998 and message left on the regarding a sighting of an Grangemouth on 2 February. the Ministry of Defence for 2. First I should explain that the Ministry of Defence examines any reports of "unidentified flying objects" it receives solely to establish whether what was seen might have · some defence significance; namely, whether there is any evidence that the UK Air Defence Region might have been compromised by hostile or unauthorized foreign military activity. 3. Unless there is evidence of a potential threat to the United Kingdom from an external military source, and to date no "UFO" report has revealed such evidence, we do not attempt to identify the precise nature of each sighting reported to us. We believe that rational explanations, such as aircraft lights or natural phenomena, could be found for them if resources were diverted for this purpose, but it is not the function of the MOD to provide this kind of aerial identification service. It would be an inappropriate use of defence resources if we were to do so. 4. With regard to your particular observation, I have made enquiries and have found that there were no military aircraft booked into the low flying training system for 2 February near Grangemouth at around the time specified in your message. I have also looked back through our sighting report files and can confirm that we received no other reports of "UFO" sightings for 2 February from anywhere in the UK, and we are satisfied that there is no corroborating evidence to suggest that the United Kingdom's airspace was breached by unauthorised military aircraft. 5. Finally, you asked about the recent press articles alleging a 'UFO' sighting over the North Sea. All of the press reports were incorrect and speculative; RAF Fylingdales has not tracked any 'UFOs' on its radar. The RAF Cranwell 'Military Exploitation of Space' Symposium in June is not concerned with alleged 'UFO' sightings.
UFO AWARENESS GROUP ,-----,---::-] INVESTIGATIONS DIRECTOR !Section 40 fli l --~~- osMoNDTHORPE LEEDS.LS9 OHN ~------------------------------------------------------TT~el;ep~h~o~ne~ Dear I am writing to you for information about a sighting of a unidentified flying object ·that was seen _ in Scotland at the begini ng of this year. The information I got was. of a object that was seen near a BP OIL REFINERY in Grangemouth, this object was in this area for a few minuets before three jets came in to the area, once these jets were in the area the object took off at such a speed that it left the three jets in a matter of seconds and they could noy keep up with it. I would like to ask if you have had any sightings of this nature, and too point out a few things I havefound out: 1. I have been told that this area is in controlled airspace and only special authorization can be given for overflights of this highly explosive complex, if this is the case who give the three jets permission to chase this object. 2. There was also a similar object photograped in 1991 over this same area and doing the same thing. Any information or answers you can give me on this sighting would be most helpful!.
Osmondthorpe, Leeds, group (?) had rec.:~ .. ~y. .~~··· ~ rE:lport .. rom Grangemouth in Scotland in the early hours (;~l~\ iiW:~ ;~p:·/ Bi f . ~O.?rr;t<i > ·4 .111m> l of 2 Feb 98. The area is quite close to a BP chemical refinery. and • the object was seen flying very close to the refinery. The witness at first thought it was some kind of big aeroplane or helicopter as there was a light beam coming down from the craft so at first he didn't take much notice of it until three jets came on the scene and tried to intercept the object which took off at such a speed it left the jets standing. The witness then knew it wasn't an ordinary aeroplane or helicopter. Some other members of the group have looked into this sighting and have found that the chemical refinery is in controlled airspace because its a highly explosive complex so somebody gave the the jets permission to enter the airspace. Some other strangely marked jets and a black helicopter were in the area but this as Mr Ellis doesn't know anything about it. who works in Scotland for SPI has looked into the s g as spoken to RAF Leuchars. lllllllll was wondering if anything else had been reported on 2 ~He would also like a statement on the Daily Mail article of 27 April entitled "24,000mph UFO Buzzes Britain" (a copy of which is held on 64/5 enc 62). ACTION: 29/04/98 has sent a letter to us which we received on 30 March and the reply sent to him as a result of that letter has incorporated our response to this phone call. Copy held on 64/3 part M enc ??.
;.. :~ - .. - ... ~ . . ' lseR'i?? 40 I INVESliC:AliONS DIRECTOR bs~oNDTI -tonre ] @J\Y8tion 40 I LEE Dear Sir, UFO AWARENESS GROUP I I am sending this letter after reading a stery in my 1 1 ocal' paper that reports that the MOD are l'ooking at Radar r ecords from your listening post on Fyl'ingdales moor, which are said to show a craft moving at speeds of 17.000 mpho~ f,it also reports that these records are to be shown to science and mill'itary top brass at a conference at the RAF' s Cranwel'l staff collage. I would just like what comments you have on this report and if the report is accurate to the events that took pl'ace. I also send a copy of the news article so you can read what was put, a respoq:ie to my letter would be greatly appreciated as I would not like to put wrong info in our newsletter.
,. . ' ~4,000mph UFO ~buzzes Yorkshire BY PAUL ROBINSON A MASSIVE UFO travelling .. at 33 times the speed of sound ·has been spotted by the · ·Ministry of Defence in North :Yorkshire. . The craft, said to be the size of a battleship, was picked up ' flying in a zig-zag pattern at : :17 ,ooompb over the North Sea. It then accelerated to - . __ 24,000mph and sped off , towards the Atlantic. '.'tb~ Dutch air force also Sp<itted the object but two F · .. '16 fighters scrambled to intercept it were unable to }<eepup. ·Tapes l'be UFO was tracked by the · latest Phased Array radar equipment at the Cold War 'listening post on Fylingdales ·moor. Radar records of the craft are set to be shou-11 to science and military top bra'is at a t'Onference at the RAF's Cranwetl staff college, in Lincoinshire, in .June. And a second series of tapes, said to show 12 UFOs · changing shape in mid-flight, may also be released, according to RAF insiders. Mark Birdsall, who runs Otley-based UFO Magazine, said: "I am absolutely amazed. If these reports are accurate then I would be very interested indeed in seeing the tapes." Some UFO watchers believe the object may have been an expetimental military aircraft while others believe the sighting may be a result of a freak weatlter effect. The tapes are tltonght to have been made witltin the last two years . . ..._.,.,.~JI!JIIfi!JIJL -llli!IIIIUU- T ._.
Ma denhead, Berkshire. From: Secretariat{Air Staff)2a 1a, Room 8 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, Main Building, Whitehall, London. SW1A 2HB Telephone (Direct dial) 0171 21 8 2140 (Switchboard) 0 171 218 9000 (Fax) Your reference Our reference D/Sec(AS)/64/3 Date J May 1998 111111~----------------------------------- 1. Thank you for your letter of 28 April addressed to RAF Fylingdales. Your letter has been passed to this office as we are the focal point within the Ministry of Defence for correspondence relating to "unidentified flying objects". 2. You have asked about the recent press articles alleging a 'UFO' sighting over the North Sea. All of the press reports were incorrect and speculative; RAF Fylingdales has not tracked any 'UFOs' on its radar. The RAF Cranwell 'Military Exploitation of Space' Symposium in June is not concerned with alleged 'UFO' sightings. 3. I hope this explains the position..... GENERAL OFFICE Fax 29 t=lpr '98 15:25 P.02102 {){-:,~* '· MOD Establishment. RAF F,ylingdalee, North Yorkshire. Dear Sirs, 28th April 1998 Reft Da~ Jail dated 27/4198 page 17• Was this a recent traCking of· a UFO? As· a Spiritualist, I know· space-ships are.used by S¢ri tua.l 'Beings to travel around the globe & to planets. SOme transport, others researoh the. problem.s. of _this .. planet, caused by igno.rant scientists & h~ma.nkind & such Which is destroying the ~viro~ents. Others are stabilising the el~etro-magnetic fields, the vortexes, the balances of the Universe, because mankind are abusing'~ ·· spaceo& earth itself. · · · SOme of' us who see The Holy Spirit Masters would like you to understand the Spiritu&l Viewpoint of·iife, from whence we came & where we return after death. You should reveal your encounters quickly. Time for Planet Ear:th i e dangerous ~·some of us are trying to bring .sense to people involved in Service life, NASA & space endeavours. There is too mu.ch jUnk produced by humans, apace- ships are not ju.l2k so do not shoot at them with any wea.po~. Sinoerel;r, 1;'. ~:;:- • :r. 29 RPR '98 15=30on, ... ] From: Secretariat(Air Staff)2a 1a, Roo MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1A 2HB Telephone (Direct dial) (Switchboard) (Fax) Your reference Our reference D/Sec(AS}/64/3 Date \ May 1998 1. Thank you for your letter of 13 April regarding an incident which is alleged to have occurred in Llandrillo in January 1974. 2. As my colleague stated in her letter to you of 3 April, the files have been checked and the MOD has no record of any 'UFO' sightings or military aircraft crashes having occurred on 23 January 1974 ' in the Llandrillo area. If you believe the Fire Service, police or any other organisation have records of this alleged incident then you may wish to contact them directly. · 3. I am sorry that I cannot be of further assistance.
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
E. [ILLEGIBLE]
London
13/4/98
Dear [ILLEGIBLE],
Thank you for your reply. I would like to say
that my reason for requesting only information on the
Charnville incident is that I possible [sic] the police, the
fire service, and fire agency appears to have been called in.
That being [so] reports would have been made, I guess,
if not just filed.
My report that the 2 caller[s] early, however night assisted
by the Yorkshire [Yorkshire?] fire [Service?] [testimonies?] and. They
apparently raised it at 9:30pm. . . I then it was reported
that the explosion occurred before the freezer.
If these reports are available to the general public, please
let me know.
Once again I thank your Department for all your help.
Yours [truly?]
[REDACTED]
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
SEC (AS) 2
15 APR 1998
FILEDear From: Secretariat (Air Staff) 2a 1 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Main Building, Whitehall, london SW1A 2HB Telephone (Direct dial) (Switchboard) (Fax) Your reference 9llr ··~~ter~Q!OJ.~ ... · .... , ; Jf.)vpS€!h(.A:s··')/:j.9.•~.,1'~ ·····. , Date 30 April 1998 1. Thank you for your letter of 4 April in which you sought details of the five 'unidentified flying object' reports received by the Ministry of Defence for 23 January 1974. 2. A brief description of the details contained in the five reports received are as follows: Location: Time: Description: Location: Time: Description: Location: Time: Description: Chigwell Row 2200 hours Size of the Moon, Green in colour with a long tail. Travelling from East to West Millhill 2200 hol;lrs White vertical track in sky - green flash occurred before it disappeared behind the horizon. Observed in a North-Westerly direction. Willesden 2145-2200 hours Cone-shaped, seemed to send off sparks - yellow in colour. The observer was looking towards Kilburn (from Willesden). Appeared to be falling to the earth. 1
Location: Time: Description: Location: Time: Description: Greenford, Middlesex 2145-2200 hours Large whiteish-green light. The observer was sitting indoors looking out through a window facing north. Appeared to be falling to the earth - looked like a firework. Islington 2120 hours Triangular shaped object with three bright lights - white - no sound - appeared larger than an aircraft. Object at first appeared to be stationary, but it then appeared to turn south at an angle of about 45° and gathered speed. Yours sincerely, 2
- ~ . Your ref: D/Sec(AS)/64/3 Brighouse West Yorkshire Many thanks for both your letters concerning my request for information about possible UFO sightings on 23 January 1974 from the Bala region ofNorth Wales. I note that your second letter indicates you have located five reports from the date in question although none of them are from the area in question. However, as the case I am worldng on is most probably misperceptions of meteors, which were seen as ' UFOs' and would have been visible all over the country, particularly in the north and north west of England, I would be very grateful for any details of the sightings you mention. I look forward to hearing from you in respect of this. Thanks for your time and assisti:Ulce in this matter.
From: Secretariat(Air Staff)2a 1a, Room MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Main Building, Whitehall, london SW1A 2HB Telephone (Direct dial) 0171 218 2140 (Switchboard) 0171 218 9000 (Fax) Your reference Our reference D/Sec(AS)/64/3 Date Hull. 3a April1sss ---~-------------------- 1. Thank you for your recent letter regarding missing trawlers. 2. As stated in my last letter dated 2 April, I am afraid I am unable to assist you with your questions regarding missing trawlers as this is simply not a matter for this office. 'lo.YS <St v\cai~~ I ,,
[REDACTED]
Section 40
[REDACTED] Hull
Section 40
Dear [Section 40]
I am wrighting to you about
the trawler mystery [Section 40]
You said" in my last letter"( The M/O/D
Cant answer any of your Questions) but
they was a Christmas Card from the
M/O/D) written to a ([Section 40])
dted 1965 Sent to the ( Mo Crew) was this
Christmas Card in anyway to do with
the trawler incident (which happened in
1974) a Coldwar Spying project and
was it run by you
the man who [lost] from 'S the
[Section 40] but from 'S the
Christmas card date 1965 by the
M/O/D) was the card Connected with
the trawler incident in 1974:
Thankyou for reading my letter!
your's
[Section 40]
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
SEC (AS) 2
17 APR 1998
PS /Please wright back!
FILEFrom Secretariat( Air Staff)2a 1a, Roo MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, Main Building, Whitehall, London. SW1A 2HB Telephone (Direct dial) (Switchboard) (Fax) Your reference Our reference D/Sec(AS)/64/3 Date 29 April 1998 1. I am writing with reference to your recent report of an unexplained aerial sighting which you observed on 10 April 1998 from your back garden. The details of your report have been passed from RAF Leuchars to this office as we are the focal point within the Ministry of Defence for correspondence relating to "unidentified flying objects." 2. First I should explain that the Ministry of Defence examines any reports of "unidentified flying :objects" it receives solely to establish whether what was seen might have some defence significance; namely, whether there is any evidence that the UK Air Defence Region might have been compromised by hostile or unauthorized foreign military activity. 3. Unless there is evidence of a potential military threat, and to date no "UFO" report has revealed such evidence, we do not attempt to identify the precise nature of each sighting reported to us. We believe that rational explanations, such as aircraft lights or natural phenomena, could be found for them if resources were diverted for this purpose, but it is not the function of the MOD to provide this kind of aerial identification service. It would be an inappropriate use of defence resources if we were to do so. 4. With regard to your particular observation, I have looked back through our sighting report files and can confirm that we received no other reports of "UFO" sightings for 10 April from anywhere in the UK, and we are satisfied that there is no corroborating evidence to suggest that the United Kingdom's airspace was breached by unauthorised military aircraft. ~ iAoJ.d C!t/\, 6 u.-\ '- pJc er !()/\£. ' 0( \.\- { '2._ -·Enclosure 52 on 64/3/10 PE A E 1/3
Enniskillen, ~agh. From: Secretariat(Air Staff)2a1a, Room MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Main Building, Whitehall, london SW1A 2HB Telephone (Direct dial) (Switchboard) (Fax) Your reference Our reference D/ Sec(AS)/ 64/3 Date NORTHERN IRELAND 23 April 1998 0171 218 2140 ... 1. Thank you for your. postcard in which you have described an unexplained aerial sighting observed on 10 April from your back garden. This office is the focal point within the Ministry of Defence for correspondence relating to "unidentified flying objects" and I have been asked to reply. 2. First I should explain that the Ministry of Defence examines any reports of "unidentified flying objects'' it receives solely to establish whether what was seen might have some defence significance; namely, whether there is any evidence that the UK Air Defence Region might have been compromised by hostile or unauthorized foreign military activity. 3. Unless there is evidence of a potential threat to the United Kingdom from an external military source, and to date no "UFO" report has revealed such evidence, we do not attempt to identify the precise nature of each sighting reported to us. We believe that rational explanations, such as aircraft lights or natural phenomena, could be found for them if resources were diverted for this purpose, but it is not the function of the MOD to provide this kind of aerial identification service. It would be an inappropriate use of defence resources if we were to do so. 4. With regard to your particular observation, I have looked back through our sighting report files and can confirm that we received no other reports of "UFO" sightings for 10 April from anywhere Northern Ireland, and we are satisfied that there is no corroborating evidence to suggest that the United Kingdom's airspace was breached by unauthorised military aircraft.
[POST CARD]
What will
you send
this E POST CARD
THE ADDRESS TO BE WRITTEN ON THIS SIDE
[STAMP: 2 [ILLEGIBLE]
11 APR
[ILLEGIBLE]
1ST]
To Ministry of Defence
Dept of UFOs
LONDON\~Q Si~~<.Q. tJ'\6t'\EJ\k ~ \.:. ~~M~,\ H;. l.,.;. \~ 6 .. ~~~._%"""\0, t';::).~~t \~;:)\~:::,fv, 1.., ( ~~\:; \\,.~~~ l .. S\j~ .AJ;.· ~~~~\~~"-.·· \t\~<l ~{t;\~~~\~ S Ut'\6¥w~4 ~~\.C ~12)~"~\.\ €t~1~~~. ~ ~~} i'f) ~ dlt.OU!"'id ~\:!,t.QFrom: Secretariat(Air Staff)2a 1 a, Room MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1 A 2HB Telephone (Direct dial) 0171 218 2140 {Switchboard) 0 (Fax) Your reference Our reference D/Sec(AS)/64/ 3 aw, Date N Lanarkshire . 22. April 1998 111111~----------~------------------------- 1. Thank you for your recent letter addressed to the Prime Minister regarding "unidentified flying objects". Your letter has been passed to the Ministry of Defence and this office is the focal point within the MOD for correspondence of this nature. I have been asked to reply. 2. First I should explain that the Ministry of Defence examines any reports of "unidentified flying objects" it receives solely to establish whether what was seen might have some defence significance; namely, whether there is any evidence that the UK Air Defence Region might have been compromised by hostile or unauthorized foreign military activity. 3. Unless there is evidence of a potential threat to the United Kingdom from an external military source, and to date no "UFO" report has revealed such evidence, we do not attempt to identify the precise nature of each sighting reported to us. We believe that rational explanations, such as aircraft lights or natural phenomena, could be found for them if resources were diverted for this purpose, but it is not the function of the MOD to provide this kind of aerial identification service. It would be an inappropriate use of defence resources if we were to do so. 4. The MOD does not have any expertise or role in respect of "UFO/flying saucer" matters or to the question of the existence or otherwise of extraterrestrial lifeforms, about which it remains totally open-minded. I should add that to date the MOD knows of no evidence which substantiates the existence of these alleged phenomena. 'Jo.xs ~~,MINISTERIAL CORRESPONDENCE UNIT To ScC-(A-i) 2- Ref No /1998 Date ~1/ (!j'1~ l The attached letter(s) which the Prime Minister has received has been forwarded to this Department for official action. No.lO's letter codes are as fo!G - ~~~ ~~~~~\1 ~~~f;~it~~~~~~~~~n~ d~;~~:~~~~~=c•·-·--- B !% t~ The Jetter has been acknowledged by No. ]jO. PI~~:~~ li1 It consi?er whether there is anything wh~ch 'an us~fp~~)if.f be sa1d to the correspondent and actiOn •ccordmgly: · t·'i::;··tT"iE''"·"'"~ .. ,..~.,.~ .. ,=~· .. , ........ c.,,,.>.,. .• " ... ,.,,, ·~·.,-,~,=·,,~.«""'' No acknowledgement has been sent. In ttli~~,~~[i!.W" ~~"'""'"'""r"''"'""''''""'""'''''"'""''"'"''"f. 1 , however, it is obviously important that both an acknowledgement and a fu11 rep1y are sent. c Unless specifically asked to do so, there is no need for you to copy your re·plies to this office. A new Open Government Code of Practice came into force on January 1997. All replies to members of the public must be in accordance with the procedures set out in the Code. A full explanation of the Code of Practice is contaiJ?e~) 54/98; further information is available from DOMD on extens10~ Under the Citizens' Charter, Departments are now required to keep record of their performance. All branches and Agencies are required to keep information on the number of requests for information which refer to the Code of Practice including details of the correspondent and the nature and date of the reply. In addition, the Department is required to provide a record of the total number of letters from members of the public and provide statistics (which may be based on a valid sample) of its performance in providing replies within their published targets. As part of our monitoring procedure, random spot checks on the accuracy of your branch records on correspondence will be performed throughout the year. MINISTERIAL CORRES MB 6140 EXT UNIT
26/3 2292 3. UFO'S MO [REDACTED] PRIME MINI[STER] CORRESPOND[ENCE] [REDACTED] [Redacted information] Governmental [?] ...fordshire for a [?] [REDACTED] Dear Mr Blair, Thank you for taking the time to read my letter. I have a deep interest in the paranormal and have collected different views on UFO's from people such as J Edgar Hoover, Ronald Reagan and Apollo 14 astronomer Edgar Mitchell and would like to know your view on UFO's and unexplained [REDACTED]. PARLIAMENTARY BRANCH 17 APR 1998 yours faithfully DM 6136 MAIN BLDG [REDACTED]
From: Secretariat (Air Staff) 2a1 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1A 2HB Telephone (Direct dial) 0171 218 2140 (Switchboard) 01 71 218 9000 (Fax) Your reference Our reference D/Sec(AS)/64/3 Date lilliiiif----------------~------------~--~--A_p_r_i_l_l_9_9_8 ________ __ Dear 1. I refer to your letter of 20 March. The content of your letter has been noted and placed on a relevant Departmental file. Yours sincerely,
, .. ,_ ,.. · .'. · ·.···_',• ·.·.'.-~·· -~,;: .- .• -".:~~ ~.--"',t r .. ·,. c::: -~ c I'~- ·y·· ~:s .. ,.. - -- - - - - - .1. '; ; ·; ; ~ <, L .', '". ' •• l 1 :t conten ~ therein. U.c2 c '\.s\..., ~ -to S'<'..f\.~ a. "S' M ?'~ O..c_ \-v\.0\A~~~ \r ~.nc1 ~-·.;t CJ [) I' j·-; i '~::. " it tc: -~- .f.
Dear From: Secretariat (Air Staff) 2a1 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Main Building, Whitehall, london SW1A 2HB Telephone (Direct dial) (Switchboard) (Fax) Your reference Our reference D/Sec(AS)/64/3 Date 22 April 1998 1. Thank you for your recent letter in which you asked whether the Ministry of Defence holds any information on a alleged 'unidentified flying object' sighting in the early 1950s. 2. As is the case with other government files, MOD files are subject to the provisions of the Public Records Act of 1958 and 1967. This Act of Parliament states that official files generally remain closed from pubiic viewing for 30 years after the last action has been taken. It was generally the case that before 1967 all 'UFO' files were destroyed after five years, as there was insufficient public interest in the subject to merit their permanent retention. However since 1967, following an increase in public interest in this subject 'UFO' report files are now routinely preserved. A few files from the 1950s and early 1960s did, however, survive and these are available for examination by members of the public at the Public Record Office, Ruskin Avenue, Kew, Richmond, Surrey, TW9 4DU. 3. I hope this is helpful. Yours sincerely,
UNISPEC (TEL) (FA.. X) lJFOLOGY RESEARCH GROlJP f(erAt 24HOlTR - ve you any information of an incident which 70-80 members an unidentified flying th.E~ 22 If you have anymore information on this incident, please do t hes te tc• ('.~c;n.t;,::\.ct Jf(3tSf;l:f C)n tl1e a.lJ()\le a(ld.r ss JDear From: Secretariat (Air Staff) 2a 1 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1A 2HB Telephone (Direct dial) (Switchboard) (Fax) Your reference Date ,22._ April 1998 1. I refer to your letter of 17 April. 2. You should by now have received my letter of 20 April in response to your earlier letter. Yours sincerely,
• < ~ Ministry of Defence, Secretariat (Air Staff) 2A, Room 8245, Main Building, Whitehall, LONDON, SW1A2HB Dear Sirs, 17th April, 1998 We recently wrote to you in relation to a request tor information as to the whereabouts of some UFO photographs you seized from ex-Chief in the Aldridge area, some years ago. Would you JUSt confirming that you did receive our last letter, in which case we are hopeful of a reply? Yours sincerely,
' \ Hartlepool Cleveland Dear From: Secretariat {Air Staff) 2a1 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Main Building, Whitehall, london SW1A 2HB Telephone (Direct dial) 0171 218 2140 (Switchboard) ~ (Fax) - Your reference Our reference D/Sec(AS)/64/3 Date 21 April 1998 1. Thank you for your letter of 17 April addressed to the Chief of Staff, the content of which has been noted. Yours sincerely,. . APRi'L / .. 7.. 1148 l ..... L ... ~ OtffE : 5EPf£JVJf:J£8 .. :1.4· i J'i'/1. ·r i lst e· .~ L tt./ltll!"l/1 t: ... . · /VI() 0 /llllll d 13tt/t PiiY~- W Hi t'Ef!ALL ; L OIY 4 /?ar.V.. / La~ fiCiCJlC - f?6C6f/Jt21!1 (FRaP! ./1/16~o£Y). PAS$' /li'Cl 'Sit£dll lif.RG /Y/1/I'Iiii Ol11&. J 1 4 7 I liCc~/!JG'P lti V1:5-riT" ·~r/16" K6CE/P7"/Pd A f?t91 OF -rf.IG t16f! /}tt)t!Ji·,!!ltY· t"'!L . C)(fJ{fl( /CJ 17/J C&'J:c:· Att~r? ;vt/lkE A S~i718Mfhf)"T 1?.56--AKPi!V? Tilt£ 71!~\Pis: U ;.11L6 I :2.,) ffYP'10/LJ/.Y (tJYR{;11JifJtJl()~Y)l :J) !'kv/C?S'f.RA p,!JidlfttJ !op65' I !/A.Vfi Ct:.Aclr6JJ (llll P,~tf("tJ) Atvtl PCI1~v7£"p lfR./ lilY SC/oA/CG" {: i'c1kw' t/C1~6L 2/t.?Cl RtJflO{I(t:Jc.k - Cl!iSS·~: T/F!2 . r4 tJtiV5 '"'/tJP Pfi{) R)U 1 h/tf ;c;fl HAS ·7::4k6A!' ;1/IG It PPKt?Jri ;vl;tffGLY 1 .. ·j: >Y<'6:,Ate5 > I. 3 1 !!/e?O ltt1ttR5 (v..1# it:ll IAI~tttVe:5 ;;;rf'rcl' /VS) 1/G~ ~'6564e£H . 'wORk) .C6!11Pte.1'Cf) {)t:tfi/11'~ Ffi!J!?tl/lt:.Y /9'17. ' . A 5 I f)() !11'"01"' 14A t/6" A PASS ;1/t(/1{ f'fil() I t: £o55t;f) .!11Y /VIIfrf& c>.;::;: 77113: LtJtr f}ooJr '!lrt5-!"Y/ , J AP,eRollcH:r;O A ·-(!ttL S!'oc!r·Y N"G'?t-lo s cCtt/?/T~ OFF'iCC:R: (1/1/HO wot:e: 1Ji..tt6 Urvir&R.M). / 7t>Lr0 H. lP~ I w i Slf G P T& 3 P fill k "IO S Ol4116 c~~e: If Pt:kt T f'flff Ccl{)6 IIS'f'6t::-t'J CJF. ~t.Y l3&tJK , , , . J Wll 5 5'fl&wf11" ·ro 7~+6. S"ct:aeJ-ry cc,JctAIIG .. If ~tv!I6R-6 1 1J lSnAYbP A CtJPY OF Coo6 Pf'i;vb4f?,Y Or C fl ~If, AL 115' 111 ;4 f.!; F/1 ct'J (j F ·-r7f5 s· cIt flf B J ft- tt J 0¥5 C() 'IJG &'C&PG I !IV~G'f( Ci'tvk; .IV~ Iff {i' PR //j/C CJ)' p /A/Y'II, oop; l/L FIIYt;:p itl/CtP6/!/I. C"~F rg I Au d-a5'7- /t:fq)'. 'JH 6 ~C:A/'tZ-t; ;v11iN" 8"6~1-/);V[/ !.II&· Ct.Ptt.H"7Glr; P6~,CR).f~yo/V j .tA-rG -J/ . .f)fl/65 FliRt.~~ _FCJ~1?.j65 J 7#1/~/r¥tf'J/'Q-' Lt~l/7 SH&tr Ctt-r 8tetn111-/IS.II ~~~llf ; wot<t;- L i c::-H1' S~uil r 1- ;~11"1 S lt/R-r > 8 i ti6 T/6 (ltv) 'Tit tidY lr! SitiNlA) PRocGEi P"GP !o MAkb' A PfltJ;r6 Clt':'L . , ~ ~ . fill t;il !Vii/n {; 1.4 f, II/ 6 6<eo S 6C'tc: f( ;· ~y d Fj:)c t;'R (/ S" "'_l//¥1/lw6- lvt::.t·r -rt) -rf!ff PRa~ c lltL&R tJ t7fl ilvP rifE- ct~ttN'10t€) fi A 1? A t.' t~·f:'itJa5 LtJtJ k A ·f"tlG~ t:'ovc: co ,,. A ;VIOI46;v·-r PliSJtiP vH·c/J/ A Yvt(ft"'!~- LAP.~ ~ t'VI 0 0 6 FF:'i' C l .A L COA<r G 71:> 5 e;·G /4? 11 fj(Ju,.1~ h/ f(!J·-r- ; £; V'Gl< I H II f) -r& sll Y . i :A1 A FRA iO I Z.V A· 5 .No·t (;) V6fll /5 r1ilt5R t:'Sf6C/ /vt'~R PRtJPC:R : "'f; !f1 G !"o E~Ptlr i .rtf -(If t3 C O.M ri: 5;,(· S C 6 /'/ ll R /o oF= ;S.(iJ!?AlJSj C:l(t: A ~cOOG ~11-·ll 1 Al/5t;l~' .ltR-(i .. /:fJc·tJ Of':: ·'ft{ : ( -ro It/ C t..t(.,fJ t; ' -r7+ G. £:',,..~ C tJ PiiS) .. "/ () t? W' ~ 5 '"' "" ·-(A-6lG A,vr Ht:'fti F'&R Al/li !fJ t.AYott.7 !VlY voce;t-· '(¥lo!if·t:J .Af'/0 ORA u6:H 1':5 " 11413 5"/1f.L A-r;'tJtl 8G~Attte:-: . f f<..C(.i I J.. S'o I f)~ c I PG[) -ro e 6- PI/C/1. f#'t>" B R)r:; - :t::ASt=& Howl3V'6K 1 fJt.t:&f!.G. J lGF .. 1.- I Sr.I/T:C:P A ' v ~ PA ~ -r !,Al6- tvA- R tv· i iV &- q !3 e- w~lf R li CJ F fll v P,4 ~"Vi 13 . Htt SSG itl 1 H 15 a/!; -r'N6 ~/nR P111·11 . ~ , - Z £l<O : M 1,1!1 u 5 '2/· 2 A /V [) Ct} t4 "'"""(;/I" 1- . ' 1 I? r;-: ,IV/ fi,/111 f3 c:·RI '1/i /5 'vVA5 SltiO 0,11 -ri!G Sr;r·rt;;vtBGI? 1/f? 19'17. S6VGRAL };~6G'k5 Lltf"'6R {;tl(i M'61?/J1 Rt!Pt 1 ,R'ltrl) -(i-1 lf1' -r11G' 1 'Rlttl i R 6 t.. ( /4 f; tA/ D'R5 fJ t()Cfr: ;.rvtf- t)t:t"e;-5 5 ·"'fo ~H'G- tt/11/ Wt:lfPtt115 1/v)Pfit::'(/CJ/V -t:->A/4 , , ~ ~ , o5FtJf!-li FG.Bf?aARY 11'13 wNi5:¥" 801'11 .S/PC5 R GSt't V6P 70 ll Sottt 1) O#. :BflF&f(fi: I ~p:~·r -r?lt;- /VltJ 0 !J«:it/P/.~1(.. J 11'1t:r LIYrVY R"G&tt~S-rr;·v ··ti-{11...,-- I S 1511/12 1¥ II f:t:"Pt:Rr J 5o I 1-JIJ.VG Pec?pc;p ·-rt' Sc;v~f? /¥ 111/S tQRELI>141Ilc.Y A 1--two-· /tv/ I ·f1f F/1 c 1J, /i./V'V ;:: l tf· tt- tG·3 f='c; R. -1./f-6- , n · ..... /H·· /L MCtO -1'{) ~,/()tt£J.l-6r ~-· .. lf""·'' . / lrV A 5 ALL ~ £ JJ ·ro t/£1 L ; Vt- Or/ A//? Ft:J.R ftlf?O.t'iM.I/ tl£1 Y St 116tV 1/1. I ;/tt -r65 -r-o o / s c t£ .s·.;-· !tis f:R i If 5CGIV:II RiO 1Z6fr.Af(Pi>vtf-· -rite;: kG!',/rv/lifJY Ctt1255. I 6 I ~"0 Vtt5 5Vi-rittt5' t/tt ~-'tfJ£R5' vEt! 7..,.r; R tJ IV t} ,!'if1 Y' )oSNttA7 . ·-:r u vo:- E5 S Rtt I'N q' ,. <:A Vft{~'j ""n f ;::; """' 2..- SAMUEL u. ' l ~ "''' s· l(, /If (}"'' J2 2 ,'t(f .rl '"5 JIJ.. ' (:"'' /,.; ,. J{ 11 ~~ lq 1 /H o , /' r <., ' t.-· I f\ ON I -· 1- v J 2 C:fl RoJVi.clG S EZRA .r1/'G H G lV£7 A H ~5 't'!i/!f< "-:J0/3 P SAL /111 ~ PSA tllS l q ~ ·6.'3' I , ,. GY 5"'AJ..L 8G &--lVti!Y" tJI/Gl? I} u-: _ _,··· ... r-:· s"'J L /; ., a 0 -r""'.l ""': v c .'1 A J j u r-· t ffr:;, . ., vv & """v 1 · 1 fr b/ .,) iln {f..~· -:r11c k::A L 5 " Ft116E£ALP ltJ I , ·• ·rf!&: Pow&r: 8'13- PRG~Y PtJR: VI!J65 1':4 iS 61='6 R P(t;5( Df7nl7F ":)c"J fltl/ 0065 iff 5 wo 1( v oR 0 ·11t6R £-v·CciflGP :.l 70 -(.'t/5 A SSA s·s; tvlJi/04 OF F;I:ZG·t:RiftO },ti;r"rr~GvY? ~51cfrAL :5· r?r;a::G·/2 !() ltS5' II SS}/3/ 1.1/ .~~ L'g"" ./!' /i/.1 ~ ~ ,(~~ ~ f]!'Y . v ()"-~" "~~'
' t,4R"f'/Jt{L:fl65 J SCAR A f) 1 ·;r.11CKAL 1 1#6 foi1L6P '11tvl l~1,ql OF -r"Hli ~t'fl CJ,c rlft;i' P6A:P .;tf#U 13/5''·, II '- .... 1 L I j:::rv _/ / ' ' "\ I C J A5e" .F ·. '~"'n . g . J-.n . ) 1 J c:; iJ 1 \ ~ o . A _., .u ' l ;.,.G.,tn~ .k G>v:/1/ t:Ff) Y P 7 0 S u Ff: ~:~I? SPi A/Ill Ct 1 J?l' lli!'/0/11~ A/, . .,-; ≪ -t)"' J fil 5' 1.R 1*46!{ /.5' SCI/RAB5 I 13E £ IL lr5 ~ )'j4CREP) q ....k£;VliEDY EtY'CtJ[)E- PEC.L.AS:;//F!Ef) (-ro INtLtt..P6 5 )'HC:IfRO!VltdY /tVa/'46 Rot.otfY I iliFI'<A- . ~S"1Rtltft.tf?E) q ' i 7 I tf f 3fl+-li1+fLffl OP !liE SC:4/?l.f:f)S ' :/ L 3 4 5' 6 & q /()II/ /3/4/5/6171114 20:2122 3 Zi/ 2!! :L6' ,.X 1 YZ. I / ) ,
c ~=II \! ·~~ I U!V 1 £-D ALIEN t?11 FA c·1s or: ~'R.E = J /\ 1/q-; I- / I / I .2 I / I J ( R tVGLA!iG~¥ ·- B i .8Lt;;) Nl1 ~~~lf11}El{ } t::f l,('~ lf ~ ~~;r .!l l I I I I I I C.f !J,4 R I P c t-liJS; f::i ~ ~' .A"'" 1- • '· ..... . ' / t H {\ · tVrw' f.i ) (' f 1v:fj R '0 ~~ 6/1/ ·r·t~t g;·~ O}O V6Cl:i B6R ~! .. 2 _ J 7 > J '!81 f1Ftc .4/ ,;c· kG/VI!IG.PY o;G' I!Y ll ~s~,ki ilVft .Ace; 06!ll ,. 0 IH R Coorf.5 , J,1f.C/..'",u:Pi,¥~ f;w/CtJ j c fl- II, .Al-l G# IV /tf( I FAt: F' SC:A l{;f.} 85' ... () l A R e: Olv" V - c l415'S i ,.:: .1 t.IJ 7""'10r/ ...I l1 tt.J"( 11(G:55 "LH.-A·-r /3;/t'P6.ntJt;S f."'::o R 2!120 ~etJo·r·R IJC-K- S1A/}lP5 A-r ll-PfRaki !'11/f.liLY £/ 1 ft)(J 1 ( ·r L1JC)-~P 1/v~ Ll1J3<'£t!C o Rl£55//Re~), FERHAP5 It( Ftt"-r&¥1(fi .. -('ff.tr- fitt'P Ccilt:t(..!J Jil&l<t/ .A1tF ,_} · '· ;. ·-~"'. .. ..,r. . 1_ A l'j rill"' - i~ I L I J~- ,/ !P;l.lf\:, I;: l( E"r.~ l)G R. ti 1J . I fflt v 6' ~~ OELJ T R tJC ,Jr"' . ~ . ""f}f 6- A BIJ.SG'. pI ,tV'itkLY A l- fi·ttGR. A. /V a /tJl¥f1 Dtir i Hl~P5 t tllv061fSTf.1tvP IH5' "t'i.t12ttG' 'L7o:: g s~&-gvit: e;;;~ 1-\t<. TO !Y(JjvJ ,..V R t:~AJ'. .Pi .I'Yf llj 0 () C&IJ55 A- RG: l1l& 1" 6) PG;vr·· 7tJ 13,/1/'Ci.#tJ$17 COPl~J Cl tt:- p;/Y? k"!iPi..-.Y F Ro.tt~t i,4/ ?· S 1l!£E'7} 'i?ffi' FiR; AI/ G l1 11'r~iJ' t.J_.l' iL '-· . eJ 7'/JG' R tttYIJ&:fl-YitY 6-- R 614 SCJ#.i). ri Mf7 I RtuV/¥ }.I'/? ()l( Jtftjcf .,---f •2100 ROBOTROCK CLASSIFIED ABOVE TOP PRIORITY MINISTRY OF DEFENCE SEC (AS) 2 20 APR 1998 FILE
~Ae-rc~ Pt?OL 1 CLf:~L!irVP 0£A R PRiA16 l/lr#i57cR, I HA v6 P6C; P6e> -ro -rAfrli SO/VIE 1'/Mc OC<.-1 F=Ro!Vl fY\.Y S(/6/i"'CG r:: t'C-r/o!V Pt:.o-;-c-c-r 1/{)0 Roeo-rRtJC/1 (C1-Itr5;t/~p -A8£Jv6 !tJP PR/Of(/Tr) J 1o Pet 1 FoRwA Ro A V'GC:PCY -rH-CJa(.H-r /f(-r~R !1/A--rt't-17 cos-r Ctl71)fr'6-/ SAvi!Vtf PftJPesAL CtJtVC"GRN);Vtf- (/-lf3 ?-000 IV!;ccE tV!IIt't<.!VT DtJM6. A 5 I -LR«.51 -(f.l!f-r. M,AtV...V ,M1'Uidtf'S OF PtJa-rvoS H~ Vc Ati!-'C!tPY 'f3Ci6t¥ >Po;¥7 &A/' -nt-G Dotr1 c peortc-r 115, PtM;V,/v tF 1 FCJM!Jtl-r it'~ . (O!Y S 1t-uc-riON 1 &&aiPIY16>t7 E-re ) Jv HY ;vtJI . (CJ,tY),'pr;ff. -(tf 15 !YG'w oP-ri&/11'. iV HY rvo-r fJa;~o tJ/f/6 ~t'AYT c9R SCii6Rttt- t;./AIYI -(6"«£5 tJR !l1Af?dltLG'&5 O;V l'fff7 . 6-f."Gorl wiCif S I IG A-t A Ff.AC!itJt¥ OF 7H~ Hr<U: : cos-r { J HAVG Gvr!IY (Af?~/60 CJu-r !YIAR/{6-r' RtJOAUfl orf "fH ;s rfVl Pot-rA.tv-r tSSLt-6- ; F'J41Ylt'V 7 R "GIIt-r/rJ/1'"5 AND FR1'6';vf)5 . Al-L HA vG £..-rPf26'SJ~D P&Sr'-r iVt7cY ~ON'(oRIYl'IV~ -(HG (-,'A!Vr {f>tl'-rj fYIA f? &ttGC: ll?&'li / 50 PR iMG ;11l{ IV I fi6'R Jv' 6 fj 6l.-i 6Vfi 1#,4-r 111 LeAS-( Rcvt'ch/ -(1+6 1 SiTa!l-rlo;V tJrvG !Vl&!CG -ri/1E"- h.-r!IH YO{.((( (lf:B;!VG-r CCJt,J_'f7;4c}-t(G5 J (411Vk oF -rt.to Hct ~c SA(/ {,/Y 6- S (# tr-r C 1/,o/ '8 E iYlA P ~ ~ 1?-ori {f/) S IN H-6R;~co , k xPcr"S/VG LF:6-flc>" OF 11+6 -ro ~ PARIY . 1 lrV 118~ [) r' D P R0/'1 o-r; O!VIi L rvo f21r !!VCi--« FOR -(t+G c{RCttJ 8ttf:.U/Y'l -(cJu_f:(_o~=" wGsr 6-:GeMA;vY. J EtvCLtJ56 -rwo PHo!tJ~of'/65 OF -(lf-Gi R MASS; v6 -(5!'1l'5 J OIVG H-&ttS//Y'&- 3J tJoo P6&Pl6 -(t.f~ e-rii-G'f 2 '2-0C? .. ) ~ t=.;tl~t.i-Y 1 A fdMt'tvOG'R t?N' -(11-G P()SSi '8K1TY OF T6~RoR:SA1 , ( ~AN'A~Y wHARf=' ANP 1#6 JCJ~1 ~RIWO tVA1,'oiYA-t- ARt PR ,~ht~ 6-kll/11fC6'5 7?J 1.L S' ALL). 5(Cttf/'fY ~ttS-r' 66 }:r6p-r E..{l'tGAf6LY ~1'~/Ck' A!VO v 1 ~; I-At1/ A I It 8StJlt.-<.:1'~U" ALL -r~/lttFJ .10 DOWNING STREET LONDON SWlA 2AA From the Correspondence Secretary 29 August 1997 HARTLEPOOL Liverpool ~ The Prime Minister has asked me to thank you for your recent letter and the enclosure. Yours sincerely
Daily Mail, Friday, April 3, 1998 * Page 5 GRAND NATIONAL OR WESTMINSTER SUMMIT COULD HAVE FACED CARNAGE Found: Bomb as big as the one at Canary Wharf [PHOTOGRAPH: police officers standing beside a white BMW with boot open] [PHOTOGRAPH: Docklands building devastation] Deadly cargo: The 980lbs of explosives, discovered in the boot of the white BMW, left, filled 12 bin bags and, right, the Docklands devastation caused by the 1996 bomb By DAVID WILLIAMS Chief Reporter POLICE yesterday dare. Two English couples in timers and Semtex packed in seized a massive 980lb another BMW who were also booster tubes to maximise car bomb aimed at caus- arrested were later released. ignition. ing carnage on the Police swooped at 5.50am as A 45-year-old West London British mainland and cars queued at Dun Laogh- businessman who was queu- major escalation by CIRA, made up mainly of hard-line FOR £1 OFF
AITKEN & STONE ------·---- ------ ---·--··-------··-------·-··--·-·---- LHv1ITED ----- ·-·- ·-- 18 February 1998 Dear Thank you for sending in the synopsis and sample pages from your novel 2100 ROBOTROCK. Although I have read the pages with interest I do not feel convinced that I could find publication for them and cannot therefore offer you the representation you seek. I wish you every success in finding a suitable publisher elsewhere. Thank you for allowing Aitken & Stone the chance to look at your work. --- -------------
y Lancashire Dear From: Secretariat (Air Staff) 2a1 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1A 2HB Telephone (Direct dial) 2140 (Switchboard) 0171 218 9000 (Fax) j332l!Si! I3 j Your reference Our reference D/Sec(AS)/64/3 () Date c:-(_ 0 April 1998 1. Thank you for your letter of 12 March. 2. The MOD's limited interest in reports of 'unexplained' aerial sightings has been explained to you in previous exchanges of correspondence. I am afraid that there is nothing further that I can add. Yours sincerely,
· Staff) 2a1 MoD Main Building, Whitehall, london SW1A 2HB Dear COMMERCiAL IN CONFIDENCE March 12, 1998 Thank you for your response to my letter of the 10th February. My interest stems from a specific instance documented in . the closing report to Project Blue Book reference USAF Contract no F44620-67-C-0035 published as ISBN 85478-142-0 page 56-57 where a USAF 847 equipped with special radar monitoring equipment was involved in an incident associated with " unexplainoo~ aerial sightings where emissions of 2,800 MHz were detected. The publication World Electronic Aircraft: by Martin Streetly ISBN 0 7106 01662 identifies from page 20 to 25 a number of RAF platforms equipped for a similar role. Confirmation that RF emissions in the range of 2,500 to 3,500 MHz have been recorded elsewhere, associated with "unexplainedff aerial sightings may provide an indication of commonality of propulsion system, and may aide in identifying a physical effect which may lead to a novel aerospace propulsion system_ Any data on colour changes and flight characteristics associated with such incidents 'ilv'hich can be released would also be useful in this study. Thanking you in anticipation of your assistance. Sincerely,
Dear From: Secretariat (Air Staff) 2a 1 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1A 2HB Telephone (Direct dial) (Switchboard) (Fax) Your reference Our reference DjSec(AS)/64/3 Date .2..0 April 1998 1. The content of your letter of 16 March has been noted and your letter has been placed on Departmental file. Yours sincerely,
[REDACTED] MINISTRY OF DEFENCE SEC (AS) 2 1 7 MAR 1998 FILE Swadlincote South Derbyshire [REDACTED] 16th March, 1998- Hello [REDACTED] I will start another c ommunication to you with a quotation from a former Pr esident of the United Stat es of america ABRAHAM LINC OLN (1809-1865) YOU CAN FOO L ONE OF THE PEOPLE ALL OF TH
TIME, AND ALL OF THE PEOPLE ONE OF THE TIME, BUT YOU C ANNOT FOOL ALL OF THE PEO PLE ALL OF THE TIME." I enclo se a Clipping taken from "FO·REALITY" Magazine of a n Object photographed us a g a Video-Camera and can ou provide an EXPLANATION r this question that is pos ed? Re my, you will probab y state "IT'S AN AIRCRAFT" bu t, LORD HILL-NORTON THE ADM IRAL OF THE FLEET AND CHIEF OF DEFENCE STAFF 1971-197 3 G.C.B. has this to say abo ut [REDACTED] IS THE W MAN WHO ANSWERS LETTERS
FROM THE PUBLIC ABOUT UFOS SHE USALLY SAYS THAT THE MAT TER POSES NO THREAT AND IS TH EREFORE NOT OF DEFENCE IN TEREST-- OR SOMETHING L IKE THAT, SO IT IS NO SURPRIS ING THAT THEY Official Letter MAKE YOU WANT TO YAWN. Lor d Hill-Norton GCB then sta tes MY POSITION IS THAT I HAV E NO DOUBT SOME PHYSICAL THIN GS ARE OPERATING IN OUR ATM OSPHERE AND I WANT TO KNOW W HAT THEY ARE, WHERE THEY COM E FROM AND WHO DIRECTS THEM I SHALL DO MY BEST TO FIND O [UT]- - I would advise you t o contact Lord Hill-Norton G
B ex Chief of Defence Staff 1971-1973 who the House of Lords by so doing you will le ave me No choice but to wr ite to Her Majesty the Que en [REDACTED] a quotation from [REDACTED] [REDACTED] Investigations for the IRISH UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECT AND PARANORMAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATION ie WAIT WATC H AND WONDER IS PRECISELY W HAT BELIEVES BEHIND THE UFO CONSPIRACY IT IS N OT OF WHICH IS KNO WN BUT OF WHAT IS NOT KNOWN I await your Reply with in terest- Watch the Skies! Stay on [REDACTED] [REDACTED] Dolgoch
UFO myste did E by Janet Patchett DID Mabletllorpe receive art extra~terrestrial visitation in the early hours of June 21? · Awakened fu>in his sleep by a strange brigllt light, Peter Gregory was amazed t() . see ·a large luminous sllape hanging in the &ky over Somersby Avenue. ~Luckily my video camefil: was at halld and 1 W!IS able. to capture the entire eyenton film." .... "The WhOle tllinJ!: onlyl~~~~d about four seco~ds before. it disaj?pe1)!ed northwards over the town leavipg a trail of light." Uifottunately, two men claiming they were frorn Grimsby UFO Society asker,! Mr Gregory. if they coUld borrow his video ...•.. ·. Believing them to be genuine, he lent the fili\1 in good faith, but it was never returned. Further investigations revealed . that there • is no Grimsby UFO Society. However, Mr Gregory did manage . to photograph. one franj~ of his video before it was s(.Ol(On, and here it is. What do you think? Is there some&n& out there? Or did you see the .strange phenomenl)n witnessed by Mr Gregory? Drop us a.line at the News
new york
[American flag illustration]
Oneida
Lake Lights
the suggestion that a paintball par[REDACTED] the
north shore of the lake was using flares in
a night game, but contact with the
owners of the park indicated that there
was no night game running on the date in
question. The McDermott tape also
shows the lights winking out and coming
back on as well a feature well-
documented in the Gromoski tape.
OTHER WITNESSES
A total of 28 witnesses have come
forward with sightings so far and at this
[ILLEGIBLE]
credible.
The witnesses, both men and women,
[ILLEGIBLE] hills, or glowing objects in the vicinity of
the north shore of Oneida Lake as well as
in the general southern region of the Tug
Hill Plateau. Some of the most interesting
sightings come from witnesses who say
they saw the lights move from east to west
sighting location: north of Pulaski, NY on
[ILLEGIBLE]
by Bob Camino
On the tale of our 'Arizona Lights' article (Issue 9) we received this
report from Oneida Lake, New York State, where the same strange
triangular formation of lights caught on camera in Phoenix has now
been caught on camera in Upstate New York. Bob Canino reports...
[ILLEGIBLE] comments as to what [ILLEGIBLE]
[ILLEGIBLE] doing. Those comments [ILLEGIBLE]
making interesting [ILLEGIBLE]
the lights were do[ILLEGIBLE]
[ILLEGIBLE]
[ILLEGIBLE] the [ILLEGIBLE] at different distances and [ILLEGIBLE] lights by his father [ILLEGIBLE]
[ILLEGIBLE] different heights. Two outstanding [ILLEGIBLE] down from him [ILLEGIBLE]
[ILLEGIBLE] videotapes [of a] minor portion of the event [ILLEGIBLE] Oneida Lake. M[ILLEGIBLE]
[ILLEGIBLE] were taken by two different witnesses [ILLEGIBLE] also witnessed the[ILLEGIBLE]
[ILLEGIBLE] who lives a few houses [ILLEGIBLE] unsolicited to a third party [ILLEGIBLE]
[ILLEGIBLE] on the south shore of [ILLEGIBLE]
[ILLEGIBLE] Dermott's young son [ILLEGIBLE] Sharon Ca[ILLEGIBLE]
[ILLEGIBLE] lights and stood by his [ILLEGIBLE]
[ILLEGIBLE]
[ILLEGIBLE]
[ILLEGIBLE] two-night period. What makes their tape [ILLEGIBLE] over the lake did [ILLEGIBLE]
[ILLEGIBLE] so outstanding is the fact that I'd worked [ILLEGIBLE] units. After [ILLEGIBLE]
[ILLEGIBLE] the zoom correctly and also set reference [ILLEGIBLE] curiosity was pi[ILLEGIBLE]
[ILLEGIBLE] good follow-up [ILLEGIBLE]
[ILLEGIBLE] not see anything at that [ILLEGIBLE] when her dogs went nuts she has a
[ILLEGIBLE] event. McDermott [ILLEGIBLE] grooming Kennel and her husband saw
[ILLEGIBLE] aged, and he did some [ILLEGIBLE] the lights and called for her to bring out
[ILLEGIBLE] on his own. He is a top [ILLEGIBLE]
[ILLEGIBLE] points in the background. As well as [ILLEGIBLE] porch similar [ILLEGIBLE]
[ILLEGIBLE] the video camera. She subsequently did [ILLEGIBLE]
[ILLEGIBLE]
UFO REALITY · PAGE 12of these sightings or· any others please contact us at lU!lAIJ:TY on .01458 834112 or.any of the groups listed in UFO Connections on pp;ges 72 and 73
mystery pics MYSTEI MABLETHORPE, JUNE 21, 1993 This astonishing photograph was sent to us by Peter Gregory of Mablethorpe, Lincolnshire. It was taken from a video shot by Peter on June 21st 1993. At the time of the sighting, Peter was fast asleep, but was awoken by a bright light shining in through his bedroom window. "Luckily my video camera was at hand," Peter said, "And I was able to capture the entire event on film." He added: "The whole thing only lasted about four seconds before it disappeared northwards over the town, leaving a trail of light." Then came a strange twist in the tale. Two men claiming they were from the Grimsby UFO Society called and asked Peter if they could 'borrow' the video for analysis. Perhaps unnervingly Peter agreed. The video was never returned. Added: subsequent investigations revealed that the Grimsby UFO Society doesn't even exist! In this respect it is indeed fortunate that Peter had photographed a frame from the video before it was stolen. As you can see, it is a very impressive photograph indeed.
When ordinary people witness extraordinary things UFO FOCUS-THE
Name: ........................................Address: ........................................................................................... ...........................................................Post/ZipCode: ................. ; ......... Country: ............................... . Please make all monie;:; payable to Quest Publications International Ltd. Send to: Quest Publications International Ltd, Wharfebank House, Wharfebank Business Centre, llkley Road, Otley, LS21 3JP, England. All major Credit Cards accepted. Photocopy or hand-written applications acceptable, or telephone direct: FREEPHONE 0800 068 7281 (UK only) 44+ 1943 850860 (Overseas)
--------------'--,----Post Code:. ______ Please tick venue: London [ Leeds l ] Manchester [ Number of tickets [ I enclose Cheque/PO £_I_ r-r-~~,-~~~~-r-~-r~~-~~ Credit Card No: • •• • I I • 32 • ew cases o en 1n ac ... and morel Send to: Quest Publications Int. Ltd, Wharfebank House, Wharfebank Business CentJ·e, llkley Road, Otley, West Yorkshire, LS213JP
~ ln j ~----------__,fO FOCUS· THE 'FLYING TRIJNGLES 1 ~ R {i ;~ ;; conversation locally, many times over the years. I have yet to find anyone who saw the craft or who has bad a similar experience. I read most local papers from cover to cover. I found nothing to match my sighting. There were reports of cigar sbaped objects seen above the sea off Grimsby, but no reports of my delta. Another observation is that our area is full of RAF installations. The coastal strip along whicb the craft flew is sparsely populated. Howevet; it would bave passed over Wainfleet Sound wbere tbet·e is an RAF bombing range just off tbe coast. James Easton says that 'Paul' seems to be as credible a witness as one could wish for, but is not convinced that in 1978, or any other year, an above-top-secret trian- gular aircraft, four times the size of a Vulcan bomber, would be nonchalantly ambling down the AI 028 and shining searchlights on the road, whilst cai·efully maintaining an altitude of 'tree-top'." Another witness to the 'Flying Triangle' sent this correspondence: At the end of October, beginning of Not,ember 1994, I saw a craft of the same description i.e., triangulm; silent, matte blacl?., etc., hovering over my house in Stockton, Cal(fornia, USA. I was with my friend. About one week prior to this, my friend and our two cbildrenhad seen a similar craft about eigbt blocks away from our house wben they were at tbe store. They tried to cbase it, but lost it. Botb times we saw tbiscraft it was between 10.00pm and ll.OOpm. We bad some strange occurrences in our home as well. After reading bis book 'Rez,elatiorts' l wrote to the author, jacques Vallee, but never heard anytbing back. My friend and I came to tbe conclusion tbat tbis craft, wbile being an actual UFO in that it was an unidentified flying object, in all probability, bad very bttman origins. We also didn't tell too many people since we didn't want to appear as lunatics. Reading tbe 'FT' accounts on your web page bas assured me tbat rny friend, myself and our cbildren were not alone in wbat we saw. I don't recall tbe exact date of the incident, only that it occun·ed in October or November of 1994. 1be object appeared to be between 100 - 150feet in altitude. I could- n't tell what material the object seemed the made of Since it appeared to be some type ojjlying craft, I ·presumed it was made of metal or maybe .,~, something ligbter, like a titanium alloy. Its appearance had a matt finish. The object appeared to be approximately 30 - 35 feet wide and 45 - 50 feet long. I only saw the 'bottom' of it. It was more of an isoceles triangular shape. The corners appeared to be rounded, but only sligbt~'}'. Tbere were smaller, recessed white ligbts at each point of tbe triangle which were on at all times. There also appeared to be a larger ligbt in tbe centre in a bubble, or convex in sbape, tbe bubble being of tbe same colour as the rest of the craft with tbe resultant ligbt being seen in an opaque manner. This light was also on at all times and seemed muted in ret, to the other lights wbicb again, hau • ..~e quiet ligbting of recessed ligbts, or lights in concave sockets. I don't recall seeing any other features but tbe lights. At first I thought it was stationary and bovering over our bouse, but then I noticed that it was moving, albeit very sloioly. I would say it seemed to be moving about 5 - 10 miles per bour. It rnot,ed in a slight arc andjust kept moving until it was out of my line of sigbt. I didn't bear any noticeable sound. In fact, wbat I noticed was the zinusuai quietness - not just of the craft itself- but tbe wbole vicini~y. My friend on the otber band, said he beard a low bumming. Ibere did seem to be a change in the atmosphere. This incident occurred in the Fall when tbe weather is usually clear and crisp, but on this night it almost felt summerisb with an un- natural warmth and a little more humidity tban usual for tbat time of year. In terms of temperature and humidity, it was sirnilm· to how it warms up before a winter rain, but tbe sky was clear and retained the clarity and focus of a normal Fall sky. As jar as I can recall there were no markings of any kind. The entire objeci appeared to be a dark grey or black colour e.xcepi for tbe ligbts whicb were a soft white, a clear white witbout any yellowisb or pinkish tinge to them, witb tbe exception of the ligbt coming througb the centre 'bubble' tbat was an opaque, gre,J/isb colour tbat appeared to be given by tbe colour of tbe 'lens'. I didn't report my sighting, unless writ- ing to jacques Vallee about two years later constitutes a report. Afy friend was with me wben I saw the object - in fact, be was the one who bad pointed it out to me. We bad just pulled into our drive- way and it was right over the bouse. He drew my attention to it because be bad seen a similar craft about a week before, while at tbe store witb our two children. As far as I am aware of, tbere were no reports in the local press. I don't take the newspaper, and rare~y watcb 1V news or listen to tbe radio news. But I don't believe there were any reports at tbe time. bttp: /!fames.Eastonpulsar@compuserve. com 31maj way south towards Boston unt<. _;St sight of it just past !>.pilsby. I'd love to know what it was. It seemed too real to be extraterrestrial. However, its immense size, its low speed and above all, the sheer silence made it unlike any aircraft known to me! I have no accurate existing aide-memoire as to the exact date, but it was in March 1978. The craft appeared to be perfectly 'solid', so it toasn't constructed of any- tbing flimsy. It didn't flex in its move- ment but remained rigid .. I would tbere- fore assume that it was made of a metallic element. I would not say that it was a hard, cold metal. It seemed to be soft and warm - maybe like a cross between aluminium and manganese. The area of tbe sigbting is very rural - surrounded by agricultural property. Althougb the village of Alford was bebind me, tbe village is small and quiet and does not emanate mucb ligbt. The on(v immediate ligbt (other than that on the craft) would have come from the headlights of my car dnd from another car, which came down the hill towards me after l bad stopped. Howeve1; I recall seeing tbe underside of tbe craft in its entirety. I have already described it as being light blue, but maybe it had luminescent nature. Ibinking about it, there was nothing else, otber than the craft's forward lights, to reflect that amount of light. I saw it in the black of nigbt and yet my memmJ' of the underside was as if I'd seen it in daylight. W'hen Rving along the coast, its altitude was constant. It was quite low; I would guess 50 feet or so. That would also have been its altitude when it passed over my car. Altbough I do not have a PPL (j)rivate pilot's licence), I have flown in a Cessna along tbat stretch of coast. The coastline constitutes land reclaimed from the sea and is un~fm·mly flat. 17Je road fi·om Alford to Ulceby (All 04) goes uphill (quite unusual for this part of Lincolnsbire.) When I first saw the lights, I was at the bottom of the hill and the lights were at the top. So, my perception as the ligbts 'left the road' was tbat they moved to my rigbt rather than upwards. In retrospect, I suppose that tbe craft came over the bill towards me at just above tree height and maintained that altitude rather tban following the contour of tbe land down the bill. As for width and depth of the craft, l will not try to gioe you 30 dimensions in feet and incbes (or metres and centimetres.) Otber than the craft itself, and a few small trees, I had sight of no other structure by which l could gauge it. However, I could compare it to tbe Vulcan bombers with whiclJ I was familiar (tbe Vulcan squadron was based at RAP Waddington, Lincoln at the time.) I would say that the area of the delta was about four times that of the Vulcan. The deptb of the delta was about the same as the cabin section of a Boeing 747. As far as I can recall, the depth was the same tbrougbout the delta. All tbree sides of tbe triangle were of equal size and perfectly dimensioned to boot. There were no sbarp edges. Even the tail angles of the delta were beautiful(y and smootbly rounded. ''However, I could compare it to the Vulcan bombers with which I was familiar'' At first I thought the lights were car craft beadligbts and tbey dazzled me. As they flew towards the side of my car it became obvious that two distinct beams were emanatingfi·om tbe 'nose' of the delta and were aimed direct(y towards the ground (i.e. they were not aimed at the ground in front of the craft but came directly down at 90 degrees from the delta.) The two beams ·remained on at all times l had sight of the craft and in fact, it was these beams which enabled me to track the craft from my vantage point on theA16. The beams seemed to bave the same intensi~v of white light throughout their entire length. Strange!;y, the width of the beams was also the same throughout tbeir length. Ibey did not splay out as would a spot- ligbt or searchlight beam. The best view l bad of the craft was of its undel'side as it flew over my car. There were no protrusions or attach- ments. More tellingly, perbaps, neither were there any panels, rivets, joins or welds. Tbe whole thing seemed to be made of one single sheet of material. I would expect that it moved at between 15 and 40 mph, altbougb it seemed to me that its speed was constant. It did not stop at all, and neitber did I per- ceive it to accelerate. I could see the craft (after rny initial encounter) as I drove towards Boston on tbe A16. It did not pull away from me and occasionally l had to slow down to keep it in sight. When it wasn't turning, it did fly in a perject{y straight line. However, it did navigate a seeming(y premeditated route. Whi.'tZ [_first saw it on the All 04, it was moving towards Alford. Astt 'left tbe road' it turned towards Loutb and then turned back towards the coast at Skegness directly over my cat: It then turned South towards Boston. Throughout all these turns, its beight remained con- stant. l cannot recall tbe craft 'banking' in any of tbese turns. Ibe air was clear, cold and absolutely still. (Tbe stillness may be seen as unusual because the area is renowned for being windy) There were no markings at all. .Just em even light blue underbody. No roundels or numbers or logos! Wben I got home, I was very excited and told the wbole story to my fiancee (now my wife.) I also excited~)' related tbe tale to my work colleague tbe next day. However, I did not report tbe sighting to any official authority First(y, because I bad no idea which autbori~y to report to and secondly because I didn't want to be seen as a crank! As for other witnesses, another car bad come towards me on the A.ll04 and bad stopped on tbe road. 1 remember point- ing up towards the craft to draw his attention to it (as if tbe otber driver could miss it!) After tbe craft had passed, be drove on. I didn't speak to him; I've no idea wbat kind of car he was driving. I've related this stotJ' in-----------•UFO FOCUS· THE 'FLYING TRIANGL(S! We were following our daughter and son-in-law who were about 75 yards in front of us. After about 30 seconds, our son-in-law signalled to pull into the nearside of the road. He bad a bicycle and rack on the rear of his car which was obstructing his rear view mirror. We were stopped for approximately 60- 90 seconds while be adjusted it. I asked if he had seen the craft, but be had been so preoccupied with his rear vier<.J mir- rorproblems be hadn't noticed any- thing. During this brief stop, l heard no other aircraft noise and the mysterious craft had by now long'passed beyond our position. On arriving home however, my daughter said she bad seen the craft. She said it was triangular witb a waved trailing edge and bulbous shape slung underneath the nose section - the source of a number of brigbt lights. She could- n't recall anJ' noise. We passed two very large convoys of mil- itary vehicles carrying some unusual equiprnent as we passed through Cambridgeshire. 1bey eventually beaded soutbwest off the Mil motorway. A week later CND (Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament) announced that the last stockpile of nuclear weapons bad left USAF Lakenheatb tbe week previous. J ames Easton is one of Scotland's leading UFO researchers and has been at the forefront of inves- tigating 'Flying Ttiangle' reports. Here is an early account of one such sighting derived fi·om a discussion he entered into »ith a man known only as 'Paul'- witness to an intriguing encounter. As a Cbartered Accountant, 1 often have to oversee audit assignments with a strict timetable. This leads to the need to work long hours. In March 1978, I was working on such an assignment in my horne county of Lincolnshire. One 1bursday night, 1finished work tlt about 10.30pm and dmve a col- league borne to the village of Alford. In general, tbe coastal areas of Lincolnshire are very flat. However, Alford lies on tbe edge ofgen- tfcv rolling count1) 1 side - the Lincolnshire Wolds. My route home took me up a hill on the All 04 towards Ulceby Cross. Part way up the bill I was da=led by what I took to be tbe undipped head- lights of an oncoming em: !flashed my own headlights and slowed. To my astonishment, the oncoming ligbts slowly 'took off· fmm the mad and gracefulfcy flew to my right. Excitedly, I stopped my em; wound down the driver's side win- dow and peered out. 1be sight that greeted me will stay in my memory for- ever. I saw that the ligbts were coming fmm a massive, beautiful aircraft wbicb had now turned, was flying at a height of about 50 feet and was now heading towards the coast directly over my car! Tbe craft was shaped like a delta, uety similar to the Vulcan bombers based in Lincolnshire at the time. However, it was about four times the size of a Vulcan, flew extremely slowf:J' and was absolutely silent! All leading edges of tbe delta were beautiji.tl~v rounded - there were no shmp protuberances such as tailplane. The underside of the aaft was coloured sky blue. It just glided over me and head ed towards the coast - no noise, no smoke, no vibrations, no smell- just an aircraft ()( sbeer gargantuan beauty It was vet)' real; from the .416 I was able to watcb tbis craft making its slow, 29
...was a jet black 'equilateral...
It had a white light at each apex and a red flashing light somewhere in its tri-angle. Malcolm thought the red light was near the white ones, but Sharon was sure it was more central.
'To be honest,' he told me, 'I have to disclose that this is a very sketchy and I wasn't that bothered about counting lights!'
He said that the shape of this thing was very obvious against the night sky, which was grey in comparison.
The object moved slowly over the road ahead of them and after a fairly [ILLEGIBLE] they both jumped out of the car and ran across the field and came to a halt about 400 yards away. Malcolm told Sharon, 'That thing is hovering!'
She said something like, 'it can't be, but it was.
It stayed in that position long enough for them to discuss what they would do if it came back towards them.
It must have remained there for a minute or two before moving sharply to the right at right-angles to the direction it had originally been heading, then turned slightly and accelerated away and upwards.
Malcolm heard no sound whatsoever, but Sharon thought she heard a low humming noise. The craft was probably some 60-780 along each side, although Malcolm said that this was their own work on their part.
They contacted a local ('Six Hotline') in order to report the sighting which led to the Ministry of Defence stating there had been no registered activity in the area.
Malcolm tried very hard to come up with a rational explanation during and after the sighting. By now, he himself is very intelligent man- but the less convincing he appears, the more after someone is being secretive about the
most amazing and 'unrepeatably' sensitive technology, of the craft was extraterrestrial in origin.
Both possibilities have left him quite alarmed, but the story has one final twist in the tail.
The following evening, when he returned to the drop in group, the director asked him if he had been on a jet-bed. It would appear he had developed an overnight tan!
Sharon then developed 'red blotches' on her stomach and arms inside the 'felt a sort of tingling,' 'burping' in their senses (then followed by two, followed by one), but along with Malcolm, retrospectively this may be just pure coincidence or imagination due to the shock of their experience. I have asked to be kept updated with possible developments and Malcolm is very keen to talk about the experience, but only in friends and certainly, not to the media.
Malcolm said, 'You can make fun if you like, but I know what I saw.'
ADVANCED HI-TECH DESIGN
Gordon Thompson is 56 years-of-age and from the age of 7-8 years developed an interest in the weather, aircraft recognition and astronomy.
'Consequently,' he told us, 'once my childhood and adulthood I have spent countless hundreds of hours observing the sky and its contents.'
Mr. Thompson wrote to us about an 'unusual aircraft sighting' (note the term 'aircraft' and not 'UFO') which took place on Monday 21 October 1996 in the direction of the B1106 and A11, near Elveden Forest, Suffolk.
On leaving Elveden Forest holiday complex in the above vehicle, I observed a low, incoming aircraft in a landing-altitude making its low-powered descent at either Mildenhall or Lakenheath USAF bases
through. I am quite certain it was the latter of the two.
The first thing that seemed obvious about the craft was that it had many lights and its shape was triangular. The sweep angle seemed sharper than Concorde, it's as discernible nose.
We were on a quiet stretch of country road with a good surface that produced very little noise. I lowered the driver's window and just cruised with the engine idling and wound down my offside window.
Gordon Thompson's drawing of the unusual aircraft and his daughters diagram below
Mixed in with this sound was what I can only describe as a crude sort of 'whirring gears' sound - the whole noise reminded me of a washing jet sound.
Fortunately, the craft passed in front of a fairly large patch of thin cloud which was back-lit by moonlight, rendering the shape of the craft quite visible, otherwise observation would have been more difficult.
28•UFO FOCUS- THE 'FLYING TRIANGLES' [IMAGE: large headline spanning page] who better to relate their experience than the people themselves?- 'FLYING TRIANGLES' Mark Lewis of Baltonsboro to Wentworth Norton. Perhaps it is through fear of being ridiculed that has held me from mentioning this before now, but after reading about the increase in sightings of 'Flying Triangles', especially over the British Isles, it brings to mind something that I witnessed first-hand with a group of friends back in 1979. It was either day and we were on the local playing fields partaking in our usual games of cricket and football, when glancing into the sky we were met with a most unusual sight of what could only be described as a Flying Triangle. It was around 100-150 metres from the ground and fairly slowly, 50-80 metres from point to point and some 10 metres thick. There were no lights of any kind visible, in fact there were no distinguishing features on it at all, although due to its position it was impossible to view the top surface. It travelled silently with no audible noise in a north to south direction and as it moved it was spinning through 360 degrees. It kept a constant speed until was out of sight after 3-4 minutes. I was wondering whether any readers or organisation could shed some light on what we saw? Perhaps there were similar sightings around that time. I myself wonder whether it was an early prototype of a military 'TT' or perhaps a genuine UFO. [IMAGE: diagram labeled "Spinning through 360" with "Direction of travel" and "*Mark's drawing of the 1979 'TT'"] Adrian Gentes writes from Hemel Hempstead: I heard from my brother that one of his mates (his best mate) had seen a UFO on Wednesday night, 26 June '97 and was badly shaken by the experience. Malcolm is a teacher in Somerset and apparently tried to describe himself as sitting on the sceptical, although keeping an open mind with regard to the possibility of other life in the Universe. Needless to say, he is not quite so sceptical now! Malcolm had been helping a theatre group on an issue at his particular evening and was returning home with his girlfriend Sharon besides, in the direction of the Quantock Hills. They were travelling away from Kingston St Mary on a country lane (which is called Kingston Road) at the start, but something else after a few miles. It was very close to 11.00pm and Sharon asked Malcolm to put the radio on to listen to the news, after several failed attempts to tune in to the local radio station on AM, Malcolm ended up focusing on the car radio. Malcolm slowed the car down and tried to tune manually. He lowered the right frequency but there was a lot of interference. He was about to put his foot down again when he noticed something very strange ahead. His exact words to his friend to describe how to react to the view, 'What the **** is that?' He slowed to a halt and approximately 200 yards ahead of them and slightly to the left, at a height of 27
From: Secretariat (Air Staff) 2a1 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1A 2HB Dear Telephone (Direct dial) (Switchboard) (Fax) Your reference ~ Our :;reference ~ . . .. • ·D/Sec(AS)/64/3 Date . . ,'~()Jl.prLL . 1.998 1. Thank you for your letter of 12 February, which we received on 9 March concerning •unidentified flying objects'. I am sorry for the delay in responding. 2. With regard to the alleged events at Rendlesham Forest in December 1980 I am afraid you have been misinformed about access to Ministry of Defence files. As is the case with other government files, MOD files are subject to the provisions of the Public Records Act of 1958 and 1967. This .Act of Parliament states that.official files generally remain closed from public viewing for 30 years ~fter the last actiori has been taken. 3. We hold various papers on our files wl'lich mention Rendlesham Forest. These are mainly enquiries from members of the public about the allegedincident and official replies to their letters. The only paper ofany note we have is a memorandum written by Lt Col Charles Halt the then Deputy Base Commander of RAF Bentwaters, which was written some two weeks after the alleged events took place and has been in the public domain for several years. I attach a copy for your information. 4. I should say that the MOD examines any reports of •unidentified flying objects' it receives solely to establish whether what was seen might have some defence significance; namely, whether there is any evidence that the UK Air Defence Region might have been compromised by hostile or unauthorized foreign military activity. Unless there is evidence of a . potential threat to the United Kingdom from ap external military source we do not attempt t9 iQ.entify the · precise nat,ure of each reported ~ticident~ · ·· · · 5. The judgement at the time Lt Col Halt's memorandum was received, was that nothing had occurr:~d to substantiate a breach of the United Kingdom's air defences <:m the nights in question. Where there is no evidence to substantiate such an event it is the case that no further investigation into the matter is necessary. 1
Although a number of allegations have subsequently been made about the alleged events at Rendlesham Forest, nothing has emerged over the last 17 years which has given us reason to believe that the original assessment made by this Department was incorrect. 6. Turning now to your question about an alleged sighting in the West Midlands in 1971. As explained above, the MOD has a well- established review programme to release files into the public domain after 30 years in accordance with the terms of the Public Records Act of 1958 and 1967. However, in the light of the Government's commitment to greater openness, the Under Secretary of State for Defence has asked that some files, due for release to the Public Record Office in the next few years, be considered for earlier release and the files covering the 1971 period are part of this batch. I am afraid it is too soon to say when a decision might be made particularly $ince factors such as personal privacy must first be addressed. I shall write to you again when this issue has been resolved. 7. I hope this explains the position. I am returning your sae as we have our own postal arrangements. Yours sincerely, 2
l\tiinistry of Defence, Air Secretariat 2A, ~\. y Dear Sirs, 12th February, 1998 1 We are wondering if you could help us in locating a number of photographs that were recovered from Chief Inspector~ of the Staffordshire Constabulary in 1971, following a UFO seen over Aldridge in the West Midlands, which was described as 'egg shaped', (who has given us permission). 2 Would we be able to obtain a copy ofthe photos, which we may decide to use in a book we are hoping to publish on what we consider to be the true realities of the 1JFO Phenomena, which does not include an acceptance of the E. T. hypothesis? 3 We have also researched into the events that took place at Rendlesham Forest in December, 1980, and would hke to ask if we would be able to obtain sight of the files that relate to the incident, which we gather you indicated (quote) "would be available to serious researchers of the subject!!, which we believe we fall 1 into that category/ /J"-ccc.e~ 0 ole ~~ ~v~t&~~ \...__ ':.£ ~~.._t<) <!~t.;'-~S ~~ ·~ ) \..) Yours faithfully,
. .. From: Secretariat(Air Staff)2a 1a, Room MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1A 2HB Telephone (Direct dial) 0171 218 2140 {Switchboard) 0171 218 9000 (Fax) Your reference Our reference D/Sec(AS)/64/3 Stoke on Trent, Date Staffordshire. \1- April1998 111111 ~------------~----------------------- 1. Thank you for your recent letter addressed to Mr Nick Pope. This office is the focal point within the Ministry of Defence for correspondence relating to "UFOs"; Mr Pope has not worked in this branch since July 1994 and I have been asked to reply. 2. First I should explain that the Ministry of Defence examines any reports of "unidentified flying objects" it receives solely to establish whether what was seen might have some defence significance; namely, whether there is any evidence that the UK Air Defence Region might have been compromised by hostile or unauthorized foreign military activity. 3. Unless there is evidence of a potential threat to the United Kingdom from an external military source, and to date no "UFO" report has revealed such evidence, we do not attempt to identify the precise nature of each sighting reported to us. We believe that rational explanations, such as aircraft lights or natural phenomena, could be found for them if resources were diverted for this purpose, but it is not the function of the MOD to provide this kind of aerial identification service. It would be an inappropriate use of defence resources if we were to do so. 4. You asked about an alleged incident near Rendlesham Forest. When the Ministry of Defence was informed of the events which are alleged to have occurred at Rendlesham Forest/RAF Woodbridge in December 1980 1 all available substantiated evidence was looked at in the usual manner by those within the MOD/RAF with responsibility for air defence matters. The judgement was that there was no indication that a breach of the United Kingdom's air defences had occurred on the nights in question. As there was no evidence to substantiate an event of defence concern no further investigation into the matter was necessary. Although a number of allegations have subsequently been made about these reported events, nothing has emerged over the last 17 years which has given us reason to believe that the original assessment made by this Department was incorrect. 5. Finally, I would like to point out that the views expressed by Mr Pope on the subject of "UFOs" are entirely his own personal, ' opinions and do not represent you wish to write to Mr Pope, Simon & Schuster Ltd., West W2 2AQ. I have enclosed your arrangements. nor refl'ect the views of the MOD. If you may do so via his publishers at Garden Place, Kendal Street, London, SAE as we have our own postal
[REDACTED]
STOKE-ON-TRENT
STAFFS
[REDACTED]
Dear Mr Pope
I HAVE WRITTEN THIS LETTER
TO ASK A FEW QUESTIONS, ON YOUR 3 YEARS A
T THE UFO DESK AT THE MOD.
FIRSTLY, HOW MANY REPORTS (IN AN ESTIMATE) DID YOU G
ET & HOW MANY DO YOU THINK WERE ACTUALLY PROVABLE
U.FO OR ALIEN ENCOUNTERS.
SECONDLY, WHAT OBSTACLES DID YOU COME ACROSS WHILST YO
UR INVESTIGATIONS.
THIRDLY, DO YOU THINK A UFO DID LAND IN RENDL
ESHAM FORREST AT AN RAF BASE IN SUFFOLK IN 1980, 2
6TH OF DECEMBER.
IF YOU CAN REPLY TO THESE OR ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS
I WOULD BE VERY GRATEFUL.
Yours Sincerely
[REDACTED]
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
SEC (AS) 2
-3 APR 1998
FILEWhitehall, Dublin 9. From: Secretariat{Air Staff)2a 1a, Roo MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1A 2HB Telephone (Direct dial) 0171 218 2140 (Switchboard) ~ (Fax) ~ Your reference Our reference D/Sec(AS)/64/3 Date Republic of Ireland \9-April 1998 1. Thank you for your letter of 14 March in which you asked whether any British military aircraft crashed near Boyle, County Roscommon during the summer of 1996. 2. I have made enquiries and can confirm that there were no such accidents involving British military aircraft in the Republic of Ireland at that time. If you have not already done so, you may wish to c'ontact the Irish Department of Defence and/or the Civil Aviation Authority who would be able to advise you if there were any aircraft crashes recorded in the Republic of Ireland during 1996.:IUFOPRA RESEARCH Irish Ufo & Paranormal Research Association.) "~ '""'a~.t Whitehall, Dublin,9. Ireland. ~pra@indigo.ie For Information & Attention of f<.lt.t'{.-1 '3f ' i• ) .- Or C.ov,r ·s.fL ·f}~J;")-t-~ :t""VA-a,J. · • .,... . 't .. A. .,._._ , ~ ~ri +\:; ~ 1\1~,._\ \)':ta.t~-~ 71(~raf't WC.-...~4: . • lvs-· ; .,.. ,, < : .. r:. tt~~<i:' ~ ~- > ,f,.'l~ - \ \, • ~'~fre_.,.,~\~J"~> d .. \: ealw . .. '"..,.,...,..,. digiserve.com/ufoinfo/iufopral P.A.I. (Fairview Branch.) . t ~~J'C'..~~~ r ··-f.:-~N--,·,;:;~~.tr.,j r (\.} () ;:tJ~ t ],~ · .. """ o;}J·"l~~~.., -)- v'--"l:)>.. 1 ... ~c; t;.;. \rl.f - ,. l,~to < - _.,.;:, r' ' $.\.t.l'- V' ·'··I?.r ,;:yf':" I c\ 'i l"l' . '\A}Q. ' \> rOve ~ AiJ... "f'-)..A pc::SS~~ ~i~., .. .f . '\ ;- • ,, ' ); , wf ~~A.'l' 'w ~C . c. A. . C . "'-JI.I'V / -e,s:p.ec.;; ' - ·~ " ·to ' · , ·_. -.~.... ·- From: Secretariat(Air Staff)2a1a, Room MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, Main Building, Whitehall, London. SW1A 2HB Telephone (Direct dial) 0171 218 2140 (Switchboard) 0171 218 9000 (Fax) Your reference Our reference D/Sec(AS)/64/3 Date 11- April 1998 1. Thank you for your letter of 17 March. 2. I have looked back through our sighting report files and have found that no reports were received by the Ministry of Defence for 4/5 March in the Nottinghamshire or Derbyshire areas. '{OJ(S .Si~ 1B.U.F.O .. R ... A .. (BRITISH. UNIDENTIFIED. FLYING, OBJECT. RESEARCH, ASSOCIATION) L C·- r ... :;. ~ c,:,. I·. ~~ ~ ~;; \."-) \ ~ '.i...H & , Telephone No;01298 812036. Dear Sir1Madame; Recently I have been asked on behalf of a number of members of the public to find possible explanations for a sighting of an tmidentified ariel nature, this sigl1ting was \Vitnessed by over thirty persons to date, and I have included a brief conceming these sightings upon the page following this letter. If you were aware of a11y further reports, possibly conn(fcted to these reports- that you can pass onto myself, then I would be most grateful to receive these. Further if you or your staff were aware of any possible causes that may account for these reports, then I would be most grateful to hear of any such ideas, that you may have. Finally, I a1l1 aware that there was a laser display operating -.,..;1thin the area of Mansfield, upon the night that the sighting reports concern, from my inquiries- I have eliminated many of the reported sightings that this display has already caused, though I still have thirty plus reports that I cmmot identify as being connected to the display, .some of these may tum out to be misidentified aircraft in time. Thankyou for all your help and assistance, please attend to this inquiry when time pennits! Yours (B.U.F.O.R.A.)(Nottinghamshire & Derbyshire) -(Coordination's officer for investigations.)
The maj01ity of reports received from the telephone enquiries, if believed to be associated with the other reports- concem an tumsual object with a triangular fonn, three edge white lights, \Vith no apparent noise, sighted flying between Mansfield (Nottinghamshire) and (Shirebrook) Derbyshire, from the evening of the 4/3/98 to the morning of the 5/3/98, by thirty plus persons. Other details conceming the reports are as follows~ L A very intensely bright blue-white light when first sighted, this light appears to be fonned from the three edge light sources upon tile object, due to the vie\Yers' position at the time of the sighting. 2. A dull grey or black triangular object, about the size of a conventional passenger jet, or smaller, with panelling or grooves upon its underportion. 3. Within these grooves appears many smaller white lights, arranged within rows. 4. Several witness repm1 green and orange nm-igational lights steady in luminosity and located close to these grooves. 5. Some witness' repot1 what could be perceived as a shadow reflection of ground lighting, reflected away from the clouds above the object, by its passing. 6. The object appears to have no apparent engine noise, except for a time when the object appears to power up ready for a rapid departure towards the Shirebrook area. 7. The object has either a diamond or triangular shape to itself, reports similar to this shape, have been reported across Derbyshire recently. 8. The object was observed as moving slo-wly across the Mansfield area at treetop level passing over several witnesses in their cars, before moving off at rapid speed towards Shirebrook. 9. The object was sighted in one instance as having a glowh1g rear, similar to a heat signature from a jet, similarly several received reports have noted a helicopter sighted as following the same flightpath of the object shortly aftemards. 10. The object appears to have been flying around from 18:00 hrs, on Wednesday 3rd to about 06:00 Ius on Thursday 4th, with periods whereby tl1e object was sighted darting constantly around the area all night, whereas, the first report has the object as grounded close to pylons near the Blidworth area of Nottinghamshire. ll. In one instance a report was received whereby prior to the sound of the low rumbling/powering up sound, a brilliant flash was reported to be seen coming from the area of the craft, this lit up the sky, before the object disappeared. 12. TI1ese details match other reported sightings from other groups arom1d the areas of Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire. 13. One \"litness described how the object had "upwards swept \vingtips''? OTHER REPORTS RECEIVED HAVE NOT BEEN INCLUDED WITillN THIS BRIEF AT PRESENT. COJ\r1PILED .O.R.A".
Persons wishing to report an unusual sighting, or to enquire for any information concerning this subject may contact myself at; - THE "BRITISH, UNIDENTIFIEJ), FLYING, OBJEC,T RESEARCH, ASSOCIATION" DERBYSHIRE AND NOTTINGHA.'\fSHIRE L"'VESTIGATIONS COORDINATOR; CAN BE CONTACTED AT; PEAK, OR TELEPHONE ; The group has 326 investigators in both the U.K and the world. The group operates upon a professional and unbiased opinion, that all witness' reports require logical, rational investigation to attain possible logical explanations as to the cause of the witness • sightings. WITNESS' PERSONAL DETAILS ARE NEVER RELEASED AND ARE PROTECTED UNDER THE DATA PROTECTION ACT, A COPY OF WHICH IS AVAILABLE UPON REQU~ST.
Nort iliilll From Secretariat(Air Staff}2a 1a, Room 8 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1A 2HB Telephone (Direct dial) 0171 218 2140 (Switchboard) 0171 218 9000 (Fax) Your reference Our reference D/ Sec(AS)/64/ 3 Date lb Apri11998 1. Thank you for your letter of 13 March. 2. First I should explain that the Ministry of Defence examines any reports of ~unidentified flying objects" it receives solely to establish whether what was seen might have some defence significance; namely, whether there is any evidence that the UK Air Defence Region might have been compromised by hostile or unauthorized foreign military activity. 3. Unless there is evidence of a potential threat to the United Kingdom from an external military source, and to date no "UFO" report has revealed such evidence, we do not attempt to identify the precise nature of each sighting reported to us. We believe that rational explanations, such as aircraft lights or natural phenomena, could be found for them if resources were diverted for this purpose, but it is not the function of the MOD to provide this kind of aerial identification service. It would be an inappropriate use of defence resources if we were to do so. 4. You asked what the response would be if the UK air defence region were to be breached by a craft of extraterrestrial origin. The situation would be handled in the light of the particular circumstances which prevailed at the time. I am afraid there can be no categorical answer to this hypothetical question.
Secretariat (Air Staff) 2a, Room 8245, Main Building, Whitehall, London SWlA 2HB Dear Sir/Madam, 'ra~J~J~J~a The Magic Bullet Research Group. Cheam, Surrey, - 13 March 1998 As a matter of interest to both myself and the group that I belong to I am interested to know the MOD's policy if, however unlikely it may be, an alien (i.e. not of this world) invasion took place over British air space. Would this constitute a "threat" as this is you're policy on UFOs. You only feel it necessary to investigate to discover whether they are of "any defence significance" and thus if you discovered that this alien invasion was of no threat to Britain and was just passing overhead to another couritry for its landing site, would you still investigate the matter. These questions are in no way a prediction of any sort and are purely for research and inquisitive purposes only. Your help and co-operation is most gratefully received. Yours sincerely,
BNSC ·~~ BRITISH NA TIO NAL SPACE CENTRE Secretariat (Air Staff) 2a Ministry ofDefence Room8245 British National Space Centre 151 Buckingham Palace Road London Main Building SW1W9SS Whitehall London. SW lA 2HB Tel: Fax: 6 Aprill998 Ref ('\~ . . ------··-J:UIIC . ~>'-~ . Thank you for your fax of l~nclosing some information about the MoD's policy on UFO sightings. As you will recall from our discussion, written to Mr Battle, a DTI minister responsible for Science, Energy and fudustry. to believe that Mr Battle is the chairman of the Science & Technology Select Committee and is inviting the committee to look at HMG's policy towards UFOs. I am attaching a copy of my letter back to : gives him the address of the S&T Select Committee Clerk and re-affirms that MoD has responsibly for this area of policy. I am also enclosing a copy letter to Mr Battle along with his Iepott which, I am sure, · you will already have seen. Once again, thanks for the advice. c.r~J b D11 We... re...~"bL~ c._ ~(J cF-- c~ ~· ~- <::>- :J~ \BNSC ~- BRITISH NATIONAL SPACE CENTRE 6 Aprill998 Government Policy on UFOs British National Space Centre 151 Buckingham Palace Road London SWJW9SS Tel: Fax. Ref HV 7/6/7 Thank you for your letter of20 March to Mr Battle enclosing your report entitled "Unidentified Aerial Phenomena: A need for Fundamental Change in Current Policy". As the B1itish National Space Centre (BNSC) co-ordinates the Government's civil space interests, I have been asked to reply. Responsibility within Government for UFO sightings lies with the Ministry ofDefence. You should therefore send your report, if you have not already done so, to officials within the Air Secretariat ofthe MoD. I see from your report that you are already in contact with them To prevent any apparent misunderstanding, I should point out that Mr Battle is not a member of the House of Commons Select Committee on Science & Technology. Select Committees oversee the work of Government departments and are staffed by backbench MPs. It is the responsibility of the Select Committee itself to decide which subjects it should investigate. If you believe they should review the Government's policy towards UFO sightings, you should contact them direct. Their address is : Y om·s sincerely Committee Clerk Science and Technology Committee House of Commons 7 Millbank London. SWlP 3JA.
John Battle, MP Minister for Science House of Commons Select Committee on Science & Technology Committee Office House of Commons London SWIAOAA Dear Sir, / ( -,~ ./}z.. ~ GcJ s ( -------- 20 March 1998 It was a pleasure to meet with your Select Committee colleagues at the "Science Question Time'' Meeting on the 17th March sponsored by The Royal Society of Chemistry. I was also grateful for a request on information by Dr Ian Gibson, .MP and the opportunity to share with him my historical research on unidentified aerial phenomena. On the recommendation of the POST, I take pleasure in copying you with a nine page report with appendices entitled Unidentified Aerial Phenomena-A need for a Fundamental Change in Current Policy. I feel that the evidence I have presented is overwhelming and the sources utilised are clearly beyond reproach. I trust that the Select Committee will concur with my assessment As an Industrial Chemist, I do not quite fit the category of"Distinguished Academic"; However, I am happy to further offer what limited guidance I can to the Select Committee on these matters. Once again, I am grateful for the opportunity to share with you my research on what is evidently a fascinating topic. I look forward to hearing from you in due course. Th For ADVICE (AND DRAFT REPLY IF APPROPRIATE) PLEASE BY 114-19'8 ... ' ... Cf
~_.,, Unidentified Aerial Phenomena- A need for a Fundamental Change in Current Policy Author: Abstract: Current Government policy on unidentJfled aerial phenomena (UAP) has for some years been rendered obsolete by information that has come into the public domain. The infonnation has come from various sources including the US Department ofDefence, The Civil Aviation Authorily (CAA), dissenting voices within the Ministry ofDefence (MoD} and The Public Record Office (PRO) at Kew in Surrey. It is clear from this infimnanon that on occasion, UK airspace has been penetrated by unidentified craft with design and performance parameters well in excess ofcutting edge state of the art technology. What is not clear is the origin of and motives behind these incursions although many have speculated that they are ofan extraterrestrial nature. Despite the uncertainties, the origins ofthese craft are truly "alien'' in as ·much as they have not been manufactured by any known "earthbound" civilization. This observation is bam out by mankind's failure to emulate capabilities displayed by these unidentified craft in the fif'Y years since Widespread "[JFO S1ghtings" have been recorded. It is also clear from historical evidence that our Jmelligence services such as the Directorate of Scientific and Technical Intelligence (DSTI) were involved in the investigation of UAP and that concerns were expressed by this Department at the lack ofmanpower available to carry out a proper analysis ofsightings. It {$recommended that a formal acknowledgment of UAP or even a partial acknowledgment should be expedited under "New Labour" so that academic and industria/facilities be utilised in the ongoing investigation ofwhat is clearly an incredibly fascinating subject. Background The "Flying Saucer" entered our consciousness and our vocabulary in 1947. At approximately 3. OOpm on the 24 June, Kenneth Arnold, an American pilot "Witnessed nine unidentified aerial objects flying in a wedge-shaped formation over the Cascade Mountains in Washington State, USA Describing the objects as "crescent shaped", Arnold likened their movements to those that a saucer would make if it were skimming across a pool of water 1 • The press at the time latched onto this description and ever since, UFOs or UAPs have always been, somewhat mistakenly construed as being round and saucer shaped. Ever since that first sighting, speculation has been rife that these craft originate from another planet, probably outside our solar system. The MoD have consistently asserted to interested Members of Parliament and public alike (Appendix l) that they have no interest or role with respect to "UFO/Flying Saucer'' matters. Furthermore, there is no evidence to substantiate the existence of these alleged phenomena, and, when reports ofUAP have been received, no evidence of defence significance has been forthcoming. There have been dissenting voices \.Yithin the MoD 2 disputing the official line; however, no changes in policy have been forthcoming. Those within the MoD who have disputed the '"no defence significance, no substantiating evidence" policy have been correct in their re-assessment of the situation. Their observations have been based on.- I . Files released by the PRO. 2. Files released by the US Department of Defence 3. Files released by the CAA 4. Experience at the "UFO-Reporting" desk "ithin the MoD. Let us now consider this material in detail. Documentation disputing "no !mbstantiating evidence" (i) The lvfainbrace lnciden?.- 1952 was a landmark year in the history of the Twentieth Century. Britain had a change of monarch, UN forces were fighting in Korea and President Truman dedicated The Nautilus, the worlds first nuclear submarine. September also had its share of the years events, Alfred Hershey and Martha Chase confirmed the hereditary nature of DNA in a report published on the 20th. That same month, the NATO allies were conducting a huge exercise in the North Sea and North Atlantic. Dubbed "Mainbrace", the exercise used the military resources of Britain, USA Canada, Norway, Denmark, France, Netherlands and Belgium. Details of an incident that occurred during Operation Mainbrace have only recently been made available through the auspices of The PRO.As part of the Royal Air Force's involvement in 1'v1ainbrace, No 269 Squadron were posted to RAF Topcliffe on Yorkshire. On the 19th September, whilst on duty there, several members of No 269 Squadron witnessed a silver disc type unidentified flying object. Flt Lt Kilburn, the senior officer among the men filed a full report which ·was posted to HQ No 18 Group and dated 20th September 1952, the contents of the report are summarised thus.* The witnesses observed a Gloster Meteor descending at 500 feet at RAF Topcliffe in Thirsk, Yorkshire, The time was 7.1 Opm. The UFO was seen approximately 5 miles astern of the Meteor at approx. 15000 feet, described as circular and silver in colour. Whilst moving at a slow speed on a similar course to the Meteor, the UFO then began a descent swinging in a pendular motion not too dissimilar to that of a falling sycamore leaf The descending Meteor had turned towards Dishforth and the UFO, whilst still descending, appeared to follow suit. The pendulous motion then ceased and the object initiated a rotary motion about an a'lcis perpendicular to its horizontal plane before disappearing in a westerly direction and turning on a south easterly bearing. The witnesses stated that its movements were not identifiable with an~ thing that they had seen in the air and acceleration was in excess of that of a shooting star. The duration of the incident was 15 to 20 seconds. The sighting was also backed up by a number of civilian witnesses outside of the base. (ii) The West Freugh Incident 4 .- Cast your mind back if you will to Thursday, 4th Aprill957. Tom Finney of Preston North End FC had just been voted Footballer ofthe Year and the recently elected MacMillan Government had come to the bitter conclusion that the sun was setting on the British Empire. Consequently, it was announced on the day that there was going to be a radical change in the defence policy of the UK, more reliance was going to be placed on a nuclear deterrent and large cut backs would be made in conventional forces; especially those serving overseas. With all the talk over the defence cuts, it \vas small wonder that little attention was being focused on incredible events that were happening near Stranraer in South West Scotland. On the morning of the 4th, radar operators at the Ministry of Supply, Bomb Trials Unit, West Freugh picked up an unusual response from an almost stationary object. The first return was picked up on the screen of a radar at Balscalloch. Although its range remained appreciably constant for about ten minutes, its height appeared to alter from about 50,000 to 70,000 feet. A second radar was switched on and verified this return as the unidentified flying object was detected at the same range and height. The radar sets used were capable offollowing the objects automatically and the information was obtained in the form of polar coordinates. These could then be conYerted to give plan position indication and were printed out onto a plotting board via an electronic pen, the heights were read off a meter. The unidentified object was tracked on the plotting table and after ten minutes, it moved in a north*Casterly direction with a gradual increase in speed (70mph groundspeed at 54,000 feet). Further confirmation of the unidentified object came from a radar station t\Yenty miles away from BalscaHoch which was equipped with similar height/position monitoring equipment. After the radar return had traveled about twenty miles, it did a sharp tum and proceeded in a south*Casterly direction whilst increasing its speed. The Balscalloch rad:Jr tracked an object at 50,000 feet moving at a speed of 240 mph while the other station tracked four objects at 1..).,000 feet and 4,000 yards line astern from each other. The Balscalloch rad:Jr also picked up these returns. It was noted by the radar operators that the sizes of the echoes were considerably larger than would be ex-pected from normal aircraft. In fact they considered that the size was nearer a ship's echo. In the previous December, a memo marked SECRET had been issued by RAF HQ No 11 Group (Ref. 11G/S.l803/7/Air Int. Paragraph 3 of this memo stated.~ "It will be appreciated that the public attach more credence to reports by Royal Air Force personnel than to those by members of the public. It is essential that the infonnation should be examined at Air Ministry and that its release should be controlled officially. All reports are, therefore, to be classified "CONFIDENTIAL" and personnel are to be warned that they are not to communicate to anyone other than official persons any infom1ation about phenomena they have observed unless officially authorised to do so" Despite these standing orders, it appears that the Evening Standard must have gotten a handle on the story as a reference was made to West Freugh in the Saturd:Jy edition (6th April). It would seem that the newspaper's Air Reporter was told by an Air Ministry spokesman that the radar returns \Vcre
attributable to a weather balloon which had been sent up from Aldergrove airfield in Northern Ireland (Appendix 2). This rather mundane explanation seems to have been accepted. the reporter had his story and the case was to all intents and purposes closed. by contrast to the explanation given to the press, it would be interesting to see what the Deputy Directorate of Intelligence thought of this incident. In a report dated the 30th April 1957 (Ref. DDI (Tech)/C.290/3/, Appendix 3) the following observations were made.- l. It is deduced from these reports that altogether five objects \Vere detected by the three radars. At least one of these rose to an altitude of 70.000 feet while remaining appreciably stationary in azimuth and range. AU of these objects appeared to be capable of speeds of about 240 mph. Nothing can be said of physical construction except that they were very effective reflectors of radar signals, and that they must have been either of considerable size or else constructed to be ~ especially good reflectors. 2. There were not known to be any aircraft in the vicinity nor were there any meteorological balloons. Even if balloons had been in the area these would not account for the sudden change of direction and the movement at high speed against the prevailing wind 3. Another point which has been considered is that the type of radar used is capable of locking onto heavily charged clouds. Clouds of this nature could extend up to the heights in question and cause abnormally large echoes on the radar screens. It is not thought however that this incident was due to such phenomena (author's note.- clouds, like balloons would also be unlikely to move against prevailing winds at high speed). 4. It is concluded that the incident was due to the presence offive objects of unidentified type and origin. It is considered unlikely that they were conventional aircraft, meteorological balloons or charged clouds. It is interesting to note that observation 2 states that there were no meteorological balloons in the vicinity at the time in question which contradicts the version of events given to The Evening Standard by an Air Ministry spokesman. Was this a blatant cover-up ofthe facts ? Certainly the Deputy Directorate of Intelligence were unhappy that the radar incident fell into the hands of the press and this is alluded to in a secret memo (RefDDI (Tech)/S290/). However, even more damning were the draft notes prepared for Mr George Ward. The Secretary of State for Air. A Parliamentary Question was tabled by Mr Stan Awberry, a Labour J\.1P for one of the Bristol constituencies on Wednesday, 17 April, 1957 (Hansard, col206). The question read.- To ask the Secretary of State for Air, what recent investigations have been made into tmidentified flying objects; what photographs have been taken; and what reports have been made on the subject E:\.iracts from the Ministerial notes prepared for George Ward (Appendix 4) read.- 3. The Ministry of Supply Bombing Trials Unit at West Freugh, Wigto"'nshire reported a radar sighting made on 4th April of an object which was tracked 36 minutes, continually increasing in speed whilst losing height. Enquiries so far made reveal that that no service or conunercial aircraft \Vas in the vicinity at the time. It is possible that the object was a private aircraft, and enquiries on this point are still being made. The object could not have been a balloon since it was moving against the wind. 4. A reference to this report '\Vas contained in the "Evening News" and "Evening Standard"' on 6th April (cutting attached). If S. of S. is asked questions on this point, it is suggested that the reply should be on the follO\\ing lines:- ''That report is still being investigated. and the cause has not yet been established. It may well have been a private aircraft.·· You will notice from these draft notes that the Minister was not informed of.- 1. The size of the object
2. The appreciable height 3. The fact that it was hovering Also, no mention ;.vas made of object~; was there a cover-up? Certainly if you consider the witholding of information from a Government ivlinister and the blatant misrepresentation of facts to the press as a cover-up then clearly, this was indeed the case. Notwithstanding the fact that a cover-up was perpetrated, it would be an absurd anachronism to apply the moral hindsight of the 1990s to the Cold War horrors anticipated by the military establishment in the 1950s. We must not forget that in April 1957 the world was also becoming a dangerous place to live as Britain was one month from exploding its first H-Bomb over the Pacific and the USSR was about to announce that it had developed long range missiles capable of delivering nuclear warheads. (iii) The St Afargaret 's Bay Incident 4 .- It \vas the 1st May 1957, once again, the Middle-East was very much in the headlines. Having survived an attempted coup, a youthful King Hussein of Jordan was happy to accept $10 million of US aid in order to quench the influence of communists and "other extremists" within his country and establish a more moderate and pro-Western monarchy. In Washington, The House of Representatives had just passed a controversial (and very much diluted) Civil Rights Bill which was to be approved by The US Senate the following August. Then in September, the standoff at Little Rock occured the rest is of course, history. These were not the only headlines in the papers that first day in May-RAF chases 900mph mystery object screamed The Daily Express to the commuters on the trains; RAF hunts "The Thing" yelled The Afirror to the factory workers on their tea breaks; Radar staion's report of flying object cautioned The Daily Telegraph to teachers and bank managers. The Dai(v Sketch and The Worker also carried similar headlines. Clearly, something incredible had happened. The actual exclusive for the story was obtained by the Evening News and published the night before. Apparently, senior Air Ministry officials in charge of Britain's radar defence network scrambled a squadron of Javelin interceptors from RAF Odi.ham, Hampshire in response to some 1 OOOmph anomalous radar returns. The incident had occured the previous Monday (29th April) and the aircraft were put up at 8.50pm. They were homed on to the objects near St Margaret's Bay in Kent; ho·wever, they failed to make contact due to the excessive speed of the unidentified object. This was quite an incredible story not least due to the fact that it made so many mqjor national newspapers but also. because ofRAF standing orders, it is incredible that this story got out at all ! RAF personnel were under instruction not to divulge details of unidentified craft with design and performance parameters in excess of cutting edge technology. Yet here was an incident involving a craft with a speed in excess of anything attainable by the then state of the art, and what was more, just like Topcliffe and West Freugh, penetrating the UK's airspace with impunity. So what really happened on the evening of the 29th April 1957? At 08.07 pm that evening, the Duty Display Radar Controller at RAF Ventnor. Isle of Wight recieved a telephone call from an astronomer who lived at nearby Shanklin. A number of ci\ilians had noticed a very bright pinpoint of light to the south-east, elevation 75°, height, approximately 30.000 feet. Through x8 magnification field glasses, there appeared to be a secondary object: hmvever, the main one was metallic with light emanating from the centre and perimeter. The size of the object was variable. Sceptics of UFO stories often relate sightings of stationary lights to misidentification of Venus. In this incident, the sightings were not astronomical si nee the Duty Display Controller had the prescence of mind to contact RAF Beachy Head who subsequently confirmed two stationary returns in the Shanklin area. Apparently, the returns were described as being similar to "angels" which is a tenn for a little understood atmospheric phenomena relaing to ionic inversion 5 . By 08.20 pm, Beachy Head reported that one object had faded on the radarscope, a fact later confirmed by the ciYilian observers (RAF Ventnor, after repeated attempts got through to the astronomer at 09.10 pm). At 9.00 pm, it would seem that alarn1 bells were ringing as a third RAF station at St Margarets reported tv•o fast tracks heading in a south westerly direction toward the Isle of White. Although unable to get a visual, RAF Ventnor were able to track the unidentified objects by radar on advice from Beachy Head and gave a speed of 750 to 800 knots. This is equivalent to a speed of 860 to 920 mph and it would seem that the initial newspaper estimates of 1000 mph were a little exagerrated. We will see later the significance of this exagcrration. What of the interception? did the RAF really try to shoot down a flying saucer? The tmth is a little less sensational than that. Certainly, RAF Odiham did not scramble a squadron of Javelins and this fact is borne out by a secret telex message transmitted to DDI Tech from the R..t\F Station. Nevertheless. the telex message makes interesting reading and I have recreated the text in full.-
SECRET A0166 (AIR MINISTRY FOR DDI (TECH)) ODIHAM REPORT ON INTERCEPTION OF UNIDENTIFIED OBJECT ON THE NIGHT OF 29TH APRIL 1957 AT 20382 TWO JAVELIN AIRCRAFT .MISSION 48 AND 49 TOOK OFF FROM ODIHAM. TO CARRY OUT PRACTICE INTERCEPTIONS PD AT APPROX 2105Z HOPE COVE CALLED OFF MISION 48 TO INTERCEPT AN UNIDENTIFIED OBJECT AT 12 OCLOCK RANGE 12 MILES AT 50,000 FT MISSION 48 WAS THEN AT A .POSITION ABOUT SIX MILES SOUTHEASTOFYEOVIL AT 45000 FT HEADING 010 (M) ON REACHING 48000 FT .MISSION 48 WAS TOLD THAT THE OBJECT WAS THEN AT 12 OCLOCK 10 MILES PD ON REACHING 50000 FT MISSION 48 WAS TOLD THAT THE OBJECT WAS NOW IN THE DARK AND THAT HE WAS TO RETURN TO BASE PD IT WAS A CLEAR NIGHT Bl.JT THE CREW SAW NOTHING PD THE NAVIGATOR WAS UNABLE TO PICKUP ANYTHING ON HIS AI DURING THE PRACTICE INTERCEPTIONS HE HAD IviADE PICKUPS ON HIS PLAY MATE AT 14 MILES PD THE AIRCRAFT SUBSEQUENTLY LANDED AT ODIHAM AT 21302. In conclusion, it is clear from historically authenticated evidence that something unusual was in our skies on the night of April 29th 1957. Unusual metallic aerial phenomena was witnessed by several people near Shanklin and these observations were backed up by radarscope evidence. Furthermore, fast moving objects were seen on radar on an apparent rendevous course v.i.th the shape-shifting Shanklin craft. The newspaper reports on this incident were sufficient to generate a Parliamentary question, Mr Frank Beswick (Labour-Uxbridge) enquired.- To ask the Secretary of State for Air, what was the nature of the aircraft or other object sighted on the radar air defence screens on Monday night and which occasioned the despatch of aircraft ofFighter Command. A week later, another shot across the bows came from Major Patrick Wall (Conservative- Haltemprice).- To ask the Secretary of State for Air. how many unidentified flying objects have been detected over Great Britain this year as compared with previous years; and whether the object picked up by radar over the Dover Straits on 29th April has yet been identified. The Deputy Directorate of Intelligence had actually prepared briefings for the Secretary of State; however, it is interesting to note that a lot of briefing was going on behind the scenes. In a document marked SECRET, (File AIR 20/3920, refDDI (Tech)/S290/3~ Appendix 5) I quote the following statement.~ It is unfortunate that the Wigtownshire [West Freugh] radar incident fell into the hands of the press. The two other radar incidents have not been made public and reached us by means of official secret channels. We suggest that [Secretary of State} does not specifical(v refer to these incidents as radar sightings. Let us just pause for a minute and reflect on that last sentence, why would the Intelligence Department not want these incidents to be referred to as radar incidents ? It does not take a PhD to realise that radar returns are physical e\idence. and whilst radarscopes can give spurious readings. these faults can be quickly identified by a trained technician. If these returns are seen by more than one radar as was the case with St Margaret's Bay, chances are, they represent a genuine object. The underlying current was that the post-war generation of the 1950s had a lot offaith in radar as it had won us the Battle of Britain. They would haYe believed more in the physical reality of the unidentified craft than the possibility that the radars were at fault and this was in my opinion the reason for the ommission. You will note that Major WaH's question enquired about previous years incidents. This \vas considered a supplementary question in the brief prepared for the Minister and he was advised to draw attention to the fact that very few of the unusual objects reported remain unidentified for long. Had George Ward seen the unex-plained incidents of the previous year outlined on the Intelligence Minute
Sheet (Appendix 6), he may well have been very concerned. The minutes included brief descriptions of.· 1. Radar sighting by a navigator on a vulcan aircraft. 2. An unusual object on Lakenheath Radar which moved at between 2000 and 4000 knots. Venom scrambled in unsuccessful intercept. 3. Radar sighting at Weathersfield, momentary contact made by aircraft scrambled to investigate 4. A visual submitted by a member of the Royal Observer Corps A further brief description was made of an object seen on the screen at RAF Church Lawford which accelerated to a speed in excess of l400mph from a stationary position. The radar was not at fault since it was giving a standard return for another aircraft in the vicinity. This still left the MoD with the problem that the St Margaret's Bay radar returns had been reported to the press. At West Freugh, the explanation given was a Weather Balloon. Clearly, 860mph was a little excessive for this excuse. I will now hand you over to the Secret Ministerial Briefing Papers (Appendix 7) prepared for the Secretary of State for Air. To summarise the brief.- 1. The previous years reports were not included 2. Church Lawford was mentioned; however, it was "played doV~>n" to use MoD terminology in that no mention was made of the object's acceleration and contradictory to the minute sheet, it was implied that the equipment may have been faulty. 3. RAF Ventnor did pick up two returns on the night of the 29th April; however, the time was lO.OOpm (not true, it was 9pm, furthermore, the two intercepting Venoms had landed by 9.30pm). 4. They were high speed returns (750knots) picked up by RAF Ventnor; however, they v>ere re- assessed to be travelling at 600 knots by Hope Cove radar near Land's End. Note, this was a return at lO.OOpm travelling Westwards. RAF Ventnor's returns were travelling South Westerly at 9.00pm on an apparent rendezvous with the other object reported at Shanklin Bay. · Apparently, there were sixteen hunters on exercise between 9 and l0.30pm on the night of the 29th. The minister was essentially told that these were the mystery objects. If he was asked about the speed, he was instructed to say that the press reports of 900 to 1000 mph were in excess of those reported by the Control and Reporting System (Ventnor reported 860 to 920mph, still faster than an) thing we had then). Furthermore, no mention was made of the stationary objects in Shanklin Bay, nor was there any mention of the fact that Ventnor had been alerted to the returns by radar at RAF St Margarets. I must admit, when I first read the reports from File AIR 20/9321, I was convinced that the Ministerial Briefs were correct and that the St Margaret's Bay Incident was just a false alarm. Having correlated the information with documents from a second file AIR 20/9994 it became quite clear that this brief \vas a cover-up, this is amply demonstrated in the answers that Major Wall and Mr Beswick recieved (Hansard, 15th May 1957, 393/4).- Five flying objects reported tllis year are as yet unidentified compared with six last year, none in 1955, and six in 1954 (note: no mention of radar sightings!) The object sighted in the Channel on 29th April turned out to be two of a large number of Hunters of Fighter Command engaged on a training exercise. Their movements as observed on radar were somewhat unusual and aroused the suspicions of the radar defences. (iv) The Rendlesham Forest Incident.- Over a series of nights in December 1980, unidentified craft with design and performance parameters in excess of cutting edge technology '";ere seen by numerous military personnel at the twin USAF bases ofRAF Woodbridge and RAF Bentwaters. Strange identations were found on the ground in nearby Rendlesham Forest, at a location where a guard patrol had witnessed a small stmcturcd metallic craft. Radiation readings were taken from these indentations, whereupon, the Defence Radiological Protection Service calculated that the radiation was ten times higher than was normal for the area. The MoD maintains that this was an alleged
• incident; however, the document in Appendix 8 released by the US Department of Defence following a Freedom of Information request refutes this. (v.) Open Skies, Closed Minds 6 .- 1996 saw the publication of a book \Vritten by Mr Nick Pope, a civil servant who had worked at the MoD's UFO reporting desk, Secretariat (Air Stafi) 2a in Whitehall. The book Open Skies, Closed Minds was unprecedented in that for the first time, an individual with first hand e;..:perience ofUAP in the UK had spoken out against the current MoD policy. For the first time, incredible details were made available to the public; for example (a) on 5 November 1990, a squadron ofRAF Tornadoes flying over the North Sea were casually overtaken by a UFO and a report was filed and (b) on 31 March 1993, a triangular shaped UFO flew directly over two military bases and was seen by a guard patrol (RAF Cosford) and a Meteorological Officer (RAF Shawbury). The craft \vas marginally smaller than a Boeing 74 7 and was capable of moving very slowly and also displayed tremendous acceleration on a par with the RAF Lakenheath, RAF Topcliffe and RAF Church Lawford UFOs reported in the 1950s. Documentation disputing "'No Defence Significance" The Ministry of Defence is clear in its official policy that UFOs are of no defence significance and taken to its extreme, this is true in that no serious damage has been done to property. It is perhaps fortunate for us that in the last fifty years since sightings ofUAP have become commonplace, a "War of the Worlds" scenario has not materialised. That said, the "no defence significance" assertion seems out of place in a world where aircraft are diverted from task to intercept craft which clearly show design and performance parameters far in excess of our cutting edge technology and it would seem a terrible waste if Intelligence resources were utilised for something that was considered harmless. It is for these reasons that, historically at least, "no defence significance" does not hold water. It is more a case of"we are keeping a weary eye on the situation as it develops" which is the message that comes across in HQ Fighter Command Air Staff Instruction No. F/1 (Appendix 9) 7 • What of the situation today, clearly, it is unlikely that our Intelligence Services have stopped looking at UAP; however, there is no way of confirming this since the MoD cannot comment on these areas for national security reasons. Looking at the situation from another perspective, one could quote Defence Role One from the Statement on the Defonce Estimates 1996:* It is the MoD's job to ensure the protection and security of the United Kingdom and our Dependent Territories even when there is no major external threat Whereas Military Task 1.10 is more specific The integrity of British airspace in peacetime is maintained through a continuous Recognised Air Picture and air policing of the United Kingdom Air Defence Region. On numerous occassions to numerous MPs and members of the public, the MoD have said UFOs are of no defence significance; however, let us place this into perspective. Anything that compromises tl1e integrity of our airspace falls into Task L 10 and that includes anything that endangered our civilian airlines, be it directly or indirectly. It is a matter of official record held within the CAA Mandatory Occurrence Reporting Database (See Appendix IO) that UAP have indirectly imperilled civilian ailcraft through near misses. (i) A near miss over the Penninei.- A B737 was about 8 or 9 nautical miles south--east of Manchester Airport and descending from 4000 ft. Although dark (time 6.48pm, dare 6th January 1995), visibility was over lOKm. An unidentified wedge-shaped craft passed down the right hand side of the plane, so close in fact that the first officer instinctively "ducked" as it went by. The size of the unidentified object was estimated to be between tl1at of a light aircraft and a jetstream. Apart from the wedge- shape, other abnorn1al characteristics about the UAP \vere the lack of wake and sound. The Joint Airprox (P) Section of the CAA were unable to assess the degree of risk and cause of the incident; however, the Group was also anxious to emphasise that the report, submitted by two responsible airline pilots, was considered seriously and they ccmmended the pilots for their courage in submitting it, and their company , whose enlightened attitude made it possible. It was also noted that
such reports were often the object of derision; however, the Group hoped that a sufficient precedent had been set to encourage other pilots who e:-.-perience unusual sightings to come forward. (ii) The Kondair Trislander lncidenf.~ Actual collisions between aircraft and UAP are also a matter of official record with the Civil Aviation Authority. On the 24 August 1984, a Kondair Trislander carrying a revenue cargo was struck in mid-air and had to execute a forced landing. Three pieces of foreign metallic debris were found embedded in the aircraft; however, no details were released on their analysis and ex-perts from the Meteorological Office were adamant that it was not part of their Radio Sonde equipment. (iii) The AJcDonne/1 AlD-80 lncident 10 .-, On the night of April21, 1991, the crew of a McDonnel MD- 80 were concerned by an unidentified object passing in close proximity less than 1000 feet above the airliner (a near miss). The pilot said the object was light brown, round, 3 metres long and did not describe any means of propulsion. It is clear from the Mandatory Occurrence Reporting Abstracts in Appendix 5 that the above cases are only the tip of the iceberg. It is also clear that the presence of UAP on civil flight paths is a very real danger. For example, if a pilot panicked and yanked at the controls, this could put a large civilian airliner in serious peril. Perhaps the most telling aspect from the past that U AP were of defence interest came from the involvement of our Intelligence services. The Technical Branch of the Deputy Directorate of Intelligence were involved in recieving such reports as early as December 1953 11 • It seems that by November 1962 12 , reports from the public were being directed to S6 [fore-runner of Secretariat (Air Staff) 2a] and reports from service sources, including radar reports were dealt with by Tech Intelligence-Air 5b (aka AI (Tech)5b). Five years later, responsibility fell upon the Space Section in DI55 which was a branch ofthe Directorate of Scientific and Technical Intelligence (DSTI). it was clear from a memo issued by Sqdn Ldr. E Humpston (Appendix 11) that there was insufficient manpower to investigate UFOs to the "standard required". It is here that the trail goes cold; however, it would be inappropriate to assume that our Intelligence Services dropped investigations into UAP there and then. To all intents and purposes, the successor of DI55 is still probably operating for it is clearly the case that Defence Ministers, Generals, Heads of Intelligence etc have come and gone whereas craft that show superfluous design and performance parameters well in excess of cutting edge technology still continue to penetrate our airspace v.ith impunity. Conclusion How can we view the available evidence ? It is clear from the historically authenticated documentation released that unidentified craft with design and performance parameters in excess of cutting edge technology have penetrated our air defence region. It is also clear from the released documentation that these craft were not manufactured by any knmm earthbound civilization for we have still yet to prepare aerial craft that can rapidly accelerate to 1400 mph from a hover and we have still not mastered how to build aircraft that give radar returns the size of ships capable of hovering at 70,000 feet. To understand this better, in 1956, the Vulcan bomber was a prototype, in 1957, it entered service and by 1985 it was obsolete. Historically authenticated documentation has also attested to the fact that, in the 1950s, incidents involving UAP were "played dmm". Although it would be an inane prolepsis to judge the perpetrators by our modem standards given the Cold War scenario in the 1950s, there can no longer be a justification in not acknmvledging UAP or withholding further documentation.. Information from the 1960s has been hard to come by, the MoD has stated that an of the UFO files held by AI (Tech)5b ·were destroyed; however, this is about as likely as Hersey and Chase burning their notes on DNA or Darwin having thrown papers on his Origins of Species over the rail of The Beagle. Man's innate curiosity is such that when faced with the unknown his instinct is to try and control or eliminate it, what he learns. he does not readily throw to one side. However, knowledge is power, and what he learns, nor does he necessarily share with his fellow man. This latter characteristic can lead to man· s undoing. for example, we have seen how the reluctance by the MAFF to share details on BSE led to an unprecedented collapse in the UK's beef industry despite the
protestaions of many emminent scientists. A similar reluctance to share information on AIDS in the early 1980s led to further catastrophic results. Clearly, the way forward is an acknowledgement of the fact that unidentified aerial craft with design and performance parameters in excess of our cutting edge technology are penetrating our airspace. That does not necessarily mean we should acknowledge the existence of "Little Green Men., -honesty is the best policy and the honest answer is we just do not know who or what is piloting these craft. Nevertheless, an acknowledgement ofUAPby the Government would be the catalyst for industry and academia to divert much needed resources to this field. A fact generally recognised by Ne\v Labour is that unecessary secrecy leads to defective decision making and can undermine a Government's credibility. It is this recognition that formed the cornerstone of the recent White Paper on the Freedom of Information Act. This is the case "'ith UAP. We have seen from Sqdn Ldr. Humpston's Memo that the DSTI had insufficient manpower to investigate sightings and this begs the question what opportunities were missed ? what would we have found out had we put more resources into investigating UAP ? The crux of the matter is, UFOs are being witnessed all over the world, they are a global issue. An issue far too large for an undermanned Intelligence Unit to investigate, an issue too gargantuan to keep the lid on much longer and more seriously, an issue we may one day come to regret not having acknowledged and acting upon. Let us reflect on the term "global issue". UAP penetrating our airspace are something we have in common with Iraq, Iran, China, Libya, Israel, Chile, Brazil, Korea and probably with every other country in the world. Furthermore, the obvious extraterrestrial overtones serve to remind us that we all breathe the same air on this little spec of sand in the desert that is our cosmos, we all want what is best for our loved ones and we all want peace and stability. UAP could be the one thing that unites us. Source Material: 1. A Covert Agenda by Nicholas Redfern (Pub. Simon & Schuster 1997) 2. The Uninvited by Nick Pope (Pub. Simon & Schuster 1997) 3. PRO File: AIR 16/1199. Crown Copyright Exists. Sourced at Kew, Tel. 0181 876 3444 4. PRO Files: AIR 20/9320, AIR 20/9321 and AIR 20/9444. Crown Copyright Exists. 5. A I Mesenyashin, Journal ofElectrostatics, 36, 1995, pp 139-150 6. Open Skies, Closed Minds by Nick Pope (Pub. Simon & Schuster 1996) 7. PRO File: DEFE 31/118. Cro"'n Copyright Exists. 8. Airmiss Report No 2/95. Pro\>ided courtesy ofCAA 9. Document EW/684/08/14. Provided courtesy ofCAA 10. Press release issued by CAA 11. Reports on Aerial Phenomena by Flt. Lt. C P B Russel, 16 Dec 1953, PRO File: AIR 20/9994. Crown Copyright exists. 12. PRO File: AIR 2116918. Crown Copyright Exists. 13. PRO File: DEFE 31/119. Cro\'n Copyright Exists. .•
, PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE D/US of S/JS 5075/97/M MINISTRY OF DEFENCE MAIN BUILDING WHITEHALL LONDON SW1 A 2HB Telephone 0171 -2t ___ _ ___ _ ____ __ _ __ ,(Direct Dialling) 0171-21 69000 (Switchboard) lt January 1.998 Thank you for your letters of 12 June and 2 October to George Robertson concerning reports of 'unidentified flying objects ' . I am replying as this matter falls within my area of ~ responsibility. I am sorry for the delay in responding, however, your earlier letter was not received by my Department. By way of background I should explain that my Department examines any reports of 'unidentified flying object' sightl~gs ~ sent to us solely to establish whether what was seen might have some defence significance, namely, whether there is any evidence that the UK Air Defence Region might have been breached by hos~~le or unauthorized foreign military activity . Unless there are defence implications, and to date no 'UFO sighting' reported ~J us has revealed such evidence, we do not attempt to identify ~he precise nature of each report. We believe that down to eartj explanations could be found for these reports, such as aircra=~ lights or natural phenomena, if resources were diverted for ~j~s purpose but it would be an inappropriate use of defence resources to provide this kind of aerial identification service. Members of the public who are concerned that they have seen something that might represent a military threat to the United Kingdom can report the details of the incident to the nearest; ::<.AF station, police station, air traffic control centre or similar . The irrformation is then passcd ~'~ ~s my offi~ial3 ir. Secretar~at (Air Staff)2 who will examine the details, consulting Air Defence experts and others as necessary, to the extent of our specific interests only~ - Where there is no evidence to suggest a poten~ial military threat, no further action is taken. Members of the public can also leave details of 'UFO' sightings on ~he Secretariat (Air Staff) public enquiry line (0171 218 2~40) and Dafydd Wigley Esq MP
thes~ are hand~ed in a similar way. My Departm~nt does not t . rout1nely prov1de acknowledgements or contact w1tnesses who submlt reports of 'UFO' sightings and will only take further action if there is corroborating evidence of a matter of defence significance. It is sometimes the case that my Department's specific interest in a particular issue does not correspond with the wider- ranging interests of some members of the public. This is particularly the case with regard to 'UFO' matters. My Department has no interest or role with respect to 'UFO/flying saucer' matters or to the question of the existence or otherwise of extraterrestrial lifeforms about which we remain open-minded. To date my Department knows of nothing which substantiates the existence of these alleged phenomena. I should wish to assure you that the integrity of the United Kingdom's airspace in peacetime is maintained through continuous policing of the UK Air Defence Reqion by the Royal Air Force wh~ch remains vigilant for any potential military threat. With regard to any concerns held by your constituents, my Department would, of course, be happy to examine any evidence they might have. The address to which this should be forwarded is: Ministry of Defence Secretariat(Air Staff)2 Room 8245 Main Building Whitehall London SWlA 2HB I hope this clarifies the position. JOHN SPELLAR MP
I The mystery of the . ~. object in the,.%~~ Evegaing Stamulard Air R.e~rte1 The mystery of an unidenti- fied object plcll:ed up by a Royal Air Force radar screen at West. Freugh, Scotland, on Thursday, deepened today. Was U.n. weather balloon or was it something else ? An Air Ministry spokesman sald today: "We are stm l n v e s tlgatlng the reports .. There ls no further evidence yet." Yesterday the Air Ministry had no doubt about it. An official said then that they had checked with the radar station, and that the object . was a weather balloon. · which had been sent up from Aldergrove airfield. Northern Ireland. Telephone report Northern Ireland Is only 25 : mtles across t h e N o r t h · • Channel from West Freugh. RAF Intelligence otnc'ers who deal wlth reports or unidentified o b j e c t s have recelv~ a telephoned report from Wtng commander w. Whitworth, commanding officer of the West Freugh station. • . He is sending a full written report to the Alr Ministry. ' · 'Very high' Radar stations <Britain's watch against any surprlsc · atto,ckl are constantly manned. Other radar sets are used hi air traffic control and : are not on all the time. Objects which cannot be . identified are reported to the I Air Ministry. It is understood that the West Freugh object was plotted at a great height. J
<t209l2J tif AIR 1..oj<r;,J. 1 COP fill D.D.t .(feeh}/C,"O/J/ , ...... -4 I •• f ~\ 1, t1n t.l'll' ~rnins: ~! Ai>t'11 lt.th nd•r operr=t.Jra et Wr~et. F:reugh do-teeted unldentt.fh<'! objocta on. tha eor••M of t.Mt.r r-edaN, A f<W._.J'f !!It' tMa if'eid.,.nt l" !l••n 'borlo•. , 2. Th• old~ct """ t1rot obaOt"V(Id ~a o lttllti)n~t'7 t'e~tum """ 1-hc f'ercen .=,r o rJro.r- 111t \\alec:aLlooh.. Altb!)U8h lte nns• rt-CIOlnotd opvre<:i shl1 con•t~.nt (<)r about 10 t~irnatl!ll lh ht'laht ilpp.eu-cd to e.ltlll'r r~ •bout !)0,')00 to 70,()0fl rt. A soeuond. t"lul•r "il«< owltehc<! on ll'nd 4•het.~1 t.hll "ob1t>t:!t• at t.ha u:al!' r•n~r:e end height. '· Th• rsdor ucte uoed wen C*pbte or f'olbwlne obJectr' outo•ot!.ce.lty bcddee bdn( .. -.nuo.Ur oporett"4· Tbe ln(Gt"JD.''tbn h 1btal.Md ln tha rors or pobr t:Odr•!l~U• but H. elln 'b111 COIWl'rted to at•• ph.n pOaHhn lncuo ... tbn t~eth•r •1tl'l helaJl ta. Tt\ta 1ntor!rlllt1~1\ c,.n be fed lnto ·~lotti.cl& 'b::Jer:i ..tlt.eh d!11ptayc tl\e f!OCl.\l:)ft O( 'i~lt ¢bjo;"Jt bt ..0111\. d( KR •ll~t::tro-n!eillll,V oper•t~td P"ft• 'llhih the hd~tltt !K '""""" on a !bl!tn·. 4• 1'ht: wddentlf1c<i ob.teot •t'o tr,.e-ft9d on ttut pl.JtUna t~t\?lc, ll!o:ch rtdi~t.r ttdne owiteh~td Cll'l to the hbh ln turn. 'tO eheck ror 4iaeret)'enah•. After naalnhtlil •t IJn• •po\ ror fibcut t11n ur.irru\eo th.e pctn ,.,,ned plo111L;r ll\ 11 n .. z. Urj!c'-itln~ •n4 «r•c!uaU.r Sact't:cud llp4i«d. A. Sf!«od ch-t.cll: .,,, tA\:~n 'IIhleb sho...,.d a gr't:.nd •p:ua .,r ?0 a.p.h., tb« hdght •u ttr.m 54-.ono rt. !h •t t.l\i,a tb!8 JJ~.Mthe-r ndsr 11tn.Uon 20 $\l.lep IJ'Itlf, e~lppe-d vUh ttlr &UW! type orr;~.dor• t weo ••l:llld to GO~r-th for tho "o\).111trt". 1\ «flo .,a a picb,•.ti UfJ et tl\oll 1'111'1111! and 'otu·i,.tt p..,.en ortd tbt r'ed.Ar "•"' '"loc~~d...,.,. .. , ~. An•r th• '"ob.1.-et" h.•• trn.~ellod. •bout 20 Dll«a 1t. 1'!11ldt • v!l'ry •heorp turn •rd fUCICIIdlc4 ~ Cli)'WO e.B. at th• .llft tl114 1Mr~n1n& oped. Here the: «ports of the two r•~u ebthrwt a1rrer ln 4at.s!.h. The .,.., at 1\alocol.locl\ troehd on".:Jbj~t<lt• Cit. about 50,000 ft •'-' • •p,ud ar •'bout ?t,.O e.p .. h. •hlU the othfl" rotlo"f;IQI:\ !In "ob,fH\ 10 ~r •ob1octo'" •t. u, .• ooo rt. "" thll •ob,1vcta"' t.rauth4 to•t.~r4t thl' IIOC/11$1 nuf;&r all;a the o-pcr .. tor a•t.ech4 fOUl'" •object•" ~UJYlliC iP 11M .. t«t"n otloUt. ~ .. ()()() Jr.u'4e rroo eec:h othifr~ thh CJbuerrfttton ttu cot~ftnae4 litter t11 t.h8 other S'llld•rs, tor 'lth«n the ob1ect they qr-e ph-ottine pU11•4 aut Of f"*n&• tbey ._.l'ff •bh b 4eh•Ct r~r !~other n!IIIP'UI!"r obj;u:.tll b<trora tht"Y toco put:IHI. Gt>t ar -~ .. 1. fi WAG nut.-4 by th• r~r areruton th11t lhfl risut~ or th~ ~eho"" ..,"rt' el)Rstdoercll:.1 \&r«flr tl1#111 "Wl4 'h« U9"1'de;J froo n:~nt!t"l id.rerpft. 11':1 h.o:t thli')' ~!>tud.Se-n;t t111tt Us# p(U WAif rt••rrzr that of 11 tohip-"R eoho. ~. It h dr!dvced ri'":Js then rep:Jrtu tht>t Plt:)!etht~r- fbi! .•btecta "'re d4!tec.t«d by the three ri!Ldore.' At ltU\IIIi: ")119 or tne·~ r;).eJt t() ""' ..-\.U.t:u•le :tr 1n,NX' fl wttUe J"C8141Lnlf'R owrHhblJ rsht10'h"'r1 ln ulr.uth 9nd r.r>nr,~. AU of thotlle oto .. ~ta ~'~prened t<11 btr c•prtbb ·Jf cpa .d• cr about 2r.0 a.,.b. flotht.ne: 0'011 till! •"ld or phydoe\ c:tftlltr'UCitt.on or the olJjeetn oxcept th•t. they •'olre Yfll")' •frectt'"'• reflectoMl or rel!er v1CN"l•, lind t.bw.t. t.hey cr;vat. 1/11111'1 been Cl!;h.t"r t~-r cm'!lidel'"~l)te lli.t• Or' lflD•' (!01\Utvete:l to b.e Oltil19Ci&J.ly rood r•fleC::lOr!l"• g.. Therr 'ln•n ,.,t i:ft(t1rft to M Dny oiror,.;ft l.n th• ,!.c1nl\t nor •t::re thttu ""1 l'lldUorolos:tcel b•ll:t:)l\:1• &nn 1( Mll~ru~ !\I'd h"n 11'1 the l'lt"erl the~« 'lf'O'Uld not &CettUnt for tt,t" •ud4trrt ctlel'l!tf: )I' Ur~tlon l'tnd the lft"Ynnt!nt. *t hlgh vpdtl P.tl'lnot th• pr'HALting "ritd. 10. An:tth~r poht wbleh hllO been eonllidne-1 is thl't. tt'te ty~ or t"llld:~r Ul!le:d b c~t. 1 ·11-ble ,r lxkiAg onto haA'YLl.t eharnct4 ohudu. CtctUCI• or thb natta""" c:')Uld. ex.t.n.i up to the height. in otu•ation llrind c&\l"S"'l ellnun>:Gl.11 tl!if'$11! ~ehoPe o1n t~~ rad11r lltcu·c-enc~ lt is not thJJUght ho"'ner th:u:: th~fl tne1.1ttn-t """s Jue lo ttuch rh~·~ . /H.
· NOTES FOR MINISTER Mr. Stan Awbecy SECREr SECREr For the two years beginning 1st January, 1955, 64 reports were received. Nearly all have been ration~lly accounted for during the subsequent investigations. 2. so far this year, 15 reports have been received, including the faked photograph published in the "Daily Sketch" on 6th April, 1957. 3! The Ministry of Supply Bombing Trials Unit at West Freugb, Wigtownshire reported a radar sighting made on 4th April of an object which was tracked for 36 minutes 9 continually increasing in speed whilst losing height. Enquirtes so far made reveal that no Service or commercial aircraft was1n the vicinity at the time. It is possible that the object was a private aircraftt and enquiries on this point are still being made. The objs ct could not have been a balloon since it was moving against the wind~ 4. A reference to this report was contained in the "EVening News" and "EVening Standard" . on 6th April (cutting attached). If So of s~ is asked questions on this point, it is suggested that the reply should be on the following lines :- "That report is still being investigated~ and the cause has not yet been established. It may Viall nave been a private aircraft. 11 5. Two unidentified radar sightings are at present under investigation, viz :- /(i •.
I I a209320.tif /tiP-- 20 9"3?-0 D.D.l.(Teeh)/S29Q/ s .6 (Air. we .. t) With reference to y~ur lo~se ~inute 5tf/S.6 d~ted 11th April, 1957, it i~ r~erett<'d thnt rlue to ~n I)Vet•!Pie;ht thP. w .... t l"l""'llf:h, Wigto .. nAhire incident "'""' listed twice; onee as P new~pt'per retl'lrt end .,nee 1\1!' ,. r~dsr Rie:htin« under investiestion. The error in listin~ the incidP.ntPI ~e~ns thst there werP. f'iftun reports thia ye~r. Tha nt~wepaper reportu were.in r~"\ only two and Mt thNII lll!l j!ben. ?.. The four reports, omplifieAtionn ~f which you require, are se follows, Rl'dmr oightinpa under investigation (s) A report was recf!:l.ve:i from lby"l Air Force Church L11wt'ord on '.6th l~llireh, 1957 of e flieht:ine of nn unu11ual nature. The ob.lect move et n !!'peed timed ~R ~xce~d!ne 14~ m.p.h. This in itself WRF tmuAuRl ~~~ the object h~d aeceler~ted to thia speed from a ahti•>n"lj' pgl!li tion. No entpli!Ula tion """ yet been found tor this d&hting but\!'upph.,..,ntRry report, ineludintt A eery or the redor plot, w~" requ~sted ftnd hAs been received from Church Lawford this aftonnoon. (b) Sign.Ue from Ro:;al Air F?rce Shti:~M t!empton and Lal~enheeth on t9th March reported unusual reeponses Which did not reRemble th~$e rr~• conventionel mireraft. Aircr~t sent to find the object made no contact with Rnythine in tha Are~> of the re~ponse. The meteoroloeical office ~re Rt present tryine to find whether any unusuel phenomens were ohaerved by their atations in that area. •'\ It is poeoible that the response w~a due t:~ " seasonal phenoment known oe •Angels" llind "Anaprop• Which is a reeult of In•ermion and Reflection from the Ionosphere. (c) llinistry ·:Jt' Supply, B"mb Triets Unit, We"t Freugh, 1Hgt:>wnahire picl:ed up an unusual res~~nse fr?m an almost stAt~onary object on 4th April 1957: the object wes t~Aoked for thirty-six minutes continually increseint in speed while losing height. Enquiries, eo far, reveal that no 1ervice nor commercial aircraft were in the •icin1ty mt the time. We ere at present tryine to find out whether A private oirorort might have been in the ~re& .. t the time. '!'he pol"sibill. t.r of e balloon '""' been d!.tnine.ted becaue-e the obJect w~s proceedine egsinMt the wind. JieWtlll)ftO!fr ltepo~t (d) A review by the 'Dmil7 Worker' of ft boo~ recently pub11~hed on Germ•n •artime weeponn eonts!ned rcf~rences to 5 r.ermon flyin~ aeucer which was flown ~t a speed or t?.SO m.p.h. to e heieht or ~o.cno ft. '· The WigtawnPhi~ report referred to 1n para 5 of Jur minute ' of folder P.Q. 11,/57 i~ the e~e incident as rerorted in the new; cuttings forwarded with your ~nute end returned herewith. 4. lt is untortunste that the ffigtawnehire r~der incident fell into the han~s of the press. The two other red&r incidents nnve not been mAde public and reached u~ by mesn~ ar official eocre~ channels. We eugse~t thet s. of s. does not specificelly refer to these incidents oe rednr aiehtin!~· We suggest thPt in ~~nswerinl'! the ori~rtn&l questbn S. of S. ndltht reply:- wor the rirteen incHent!! re['Orted this .l''~"T ten heve been l.dentifi<~~d •~ eonventi<lnd ob.1ects, two contnin insufficient infort~~Rtion for identif'icetion a!1d thrl!le -re u!'l.fer in""stie~tbn.• ..,· "" .....
- 3SD1~7 ·vu~~~~~hL~~JJJJ~ MINUTE SHEET Air Ministry File No. 1' I ilt~ qr~ Is- C\ dLe~-1- /.::::.. ,/._ . 1 ' I~{;~~ <:""o '··- "· --dl,.;,_....., 6""- v~~..,. 7' ~1 ~v..\lr. La~ E?:H. &1 ~ t~ )~ ~-j }1$V\. ~~ ~~ c, ~~ J rv~ C.~ ~ ~ J10y'J- f'-"-" S L~ CVL 'J-.-q/1:;: ap;_t. J oJ!hJ-. (\ . .A~ e.o_Ai-t.L. ....... N ofl - f'L~ D.D.I. (Tecb.) g. I sb.ould be grateful tor advice on both parts of this question. I suggest that the definition of "UFO's detected" should be regarded as reasonably authen"!;icated and reliable reports, including. nadar reports, fQr which no satisfactory explanation bas been advanced. Thus tor 1955 and 1956 together (para.l o:t.your min.3 on P.Q.folder 193/57 attached) the maximum number would appear-to be G. I should be glad of figures for 1955, 1956 and 1957 to date, separately. 2. I understood from what A.c.A.S. (I.) said at the Air Staff meeting yesterday that reports of the incident of 29 April were still ~ collated. I should be glad of ~J /a H9<16J9 Wt.6l71S.SHA31G lOOM I/S1 Gp,!l-10 f, & C. Lt<!- COPVRIGHT- MOT TO 6E REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHICALLY --------------------- a full su.unary of what hfls been estnblished, together with your con..:lusions on the West E'reugh incident. 3· The full .roots will ot' course need to be given to s. of s. If there is sny question of releasing information of intelligence Vl'llue r will of course consult A.c.A.S.(I). 4. I should be glad of a reply as soon ss possible, and not later then 9 May. s.6. 2rid May, 192• (P,J, HUDSON) - 3 - In 1955 there were no unexplained incidents of unidentified flying ob.1ecte. In 1956 e total of six unidentified flying objects were received, Of thie total three were radar ~ightings. One was llUlde by the navigate of a Vulcan air01·aft but the captain was unable to make a visual sightin although the object approached the sircre.ft. The duration of the sighti g was 1 min 15 sees. Another, was a report of an unusual object on Lakenheath Radar which at first moved at a speed of between two and fm1r thousand knots and then remained stati·>nary at an high altitude, No visual contact was made with this object by the Venom sent to intercept it and other radars failed to pick it up. The third radar report was of an object on the screen ~t Wee.thersfield. One of the two aircraft sent to intercept made a momentary contactjthe other made no contact at ell. No other ground radars who scanned the area were able to find a trace of any ob_ject. The other three incidents are all visual sightings. One was submit ed by a member of the Royal Observer Corps. His deaoription of the ob,1ect "'"" not sufficient to identify it as any particular thing. It is though that what he saw may have been An aircraft but it is impossible to say so, c11.tegorically. Another report carne from a B,Sc. who gave a deacript on of an object which he saw some twelve thousand feet up. It i3 thought that this was a balloon but no verification could be made. The ~!eteorologio Office are certain that the ob,ect was not one of their balloons. The third of the reports came from a man who reported seeing a round object, emitting rippling circles, similar to heat or vibration waves, It is not known what this might have been. In 1957, four unidentified flying ob,lects have been repo:rted.. Of these, two are radar sightings and the other two, reports from the publi Of the radar eightings, one has received publiqity as the ~est Fre Incident". The other reached us by secret channels and ia not public knowledge. It came from R.A.F, Church Lawford, which rep:>rted an unueu ob,ject travelling at a very fast speed at e. great height. No explanatic has been·found for thie, as, in view of the ~peed and height, it could not have been any conventional aircraft, The redar may have bMn at fau but this ia unlikely as it performed a nonnel plot on a V type Aircraft while it was watching the U,F.O, Of the two"' reports from the public one ie thought to be a bal~oon -- but no confirmation can be obtained. 'fhe other contains insuff:Lcient -.__ information to be identified, '< " I' 't') /With
------------------------- MINUTE SHEET Air Ministry File No. ) Cont'd With reference to the telephone conversation between Mr. Hudson and the underdgned, no report has been made here of the Channel incident. A copy of the report on the Weet Freugh incident is attached to the P .Q. folder. D.D.I.("reoh) 8th May 1957 -4- I attach at 4A and 4B a draft Answer and Notes based on minute 3 and the enclosure relating to West Freugh (the contents o~ which are secret). The matter has also been discussed at some length with D. D. I. ( 1'ech). 2, The second part of tr~e Question is dealt wl.th on P, Q. Folder 220/57. Presumably the two Quest ions wi 11 be answer•ed together but, in any case the information provided on the two folders by s.6 will enable you, with suitable editing, to produce the Answers required. s.6 lJZ5/57 A.u.sl{ai ~ ~l~t)s- P.s. to D.u.s.r. (P.J. HUDSON) Mr. Beswick's Question about the object picked up by radar over the Channel on 29th April, which was originally down for answer last week, was deferred until tomorrow and we therefore have the opportunity of anewering it together with the stmilar Question from Major Patrick Wall. A combined answer ·to the two Questions is accordingly submitted at enclosure 5A. Notes for Minister are at enclosure 5B. "------· r.IA. ~ (E. P, Kl1USE)'· ., .. "' .. - i I I I I fPJ/f(_j._O/q31-( 3.')0'f>7 !Jlilll~lllilli 2 JJ j COPYRIGHT- MOT TO 8E R(PRODUCEO PHOTOGRAPHICAlLY WITHOUT Ptfli<JSSION !" ... NUMf.kH OF UliliJ:·.[L'V.L::t: '!\J err.; g;.· ·n;{l'£Q Tl1o t:;t..-l.l of five t.m1dent1i.ied flying objects f'OL' 1U57 iD composed {.ti. two rodal' sightiocs w1d three ropu1·t;.; .t L'ul:J tho puollc~ ~~~ J'tJe i'it·st of Ul6 t•adar sightincG wns Um so-culled ''\.est Fraugl1'' (ltift.ovmuhirai lnoident repor•ted l:y tile fi!'C;,:iJ u.t tho boeinni if. of r.'!cy; an object. \w .• s trocl\:od bJ two rnc.k,r ~.rt.ations movine N.i':s at. ho.qj1t.s Lot·;,ocm ;;o.c.n.l and 7u,u:~o 1t. 9 ancl r,ave rZol.dur ooiloon con:;ldorably lar•cor Ul<~.n tite operatot•:J Vn.iLlld iu..ve oxpoctoJ f'1•um u oonvonticl!al aii'O.re.t't. ;,t ono tine tile reportn o.r the incident CJention mo1'0 Lll.:.:.ll om~ ob,jeOt 1 ,,,nd poss1Uy tW mo.r:;.y as fi vo. 'i'11es c.:tm1ut lJ;Ne been metao.rologicnJ <.Hid bGC<L!JO \Jf tiloL . ;lz.e ll~i (l<.tl'liGl' i:JUCC0Stion taut u. nrivat.o ;Jrcn .a. ml.tlrL LH3 l:wolvo.l has uee:j l'O ;jocto;J. '-. • ' '[ILH'Cll l'l'O. :~mJt., ;:,IL.;_.· .. ~. 1 ·~orlr.<ll; l·:i t;>elr nuwro, OL' COUL·30 9 liLLlc j_ ' •.liiJ'.;H u.bu!lt tiW G1['.!1L1n! u• / L, :u~li •tl •••though they are pr>Jbably ,_.u capable of a natural explanation. Ono of ti!0I•l• from Qlasr;ow, was made b,y a boy of ten, wbo uwe u detailed description 10,000 ft. travellin~:: aL '(50 m.p.t1.; tl1e second? from a Cornish poslttla.ll who ~:Jaw a "dome-shaped object like a sliced enf', iu some,;hat less fi•ivolous, si:llCO tiw JiC•!Jtnli..!J is understood to llave received some basic trcLln:Ul£ in air•craft reco1)1ition while the third. in l·~ent,, is believed to have been a balloon, alU1vu01 lt;i...; c,,unot be confirmed. G. ,\s 1.itl1 ear·Llet· 'l'l;ying saucer" 'lueries, general suppleueutu,l'Y ~1cto:Jti ons might be answet>ed by pointing ouiJ Lilat vor·y few of the unusw.,l objects wllicll u.t'e rev:)f't,~;;u r•et1Iaill 11uidentified for long; and when they c~,nuot iJe e)q) lained, it may often be bOCuiJSe ine:..'s L:.; insufllclent ovidencG ro a. positive identific:J.tion. G. If Uen;ber; :NL£BGt that the fip1ra fer 1957 is ver'Y !Jl!;il, taldllt: into account the fact Lil; ,t iess LhLul 1i ve uouUw' Peput•ts are included in itt Ute repl.>· litil~itt t>o : ·- "llono'H'<;.L,lo : OLtbOl'U v;ill LouT in mlntl that the unexol~.:~.ined reports relatin~> to Ulis yei:.J.r <.~.re ~~till under iovestigl!l-t~on, .. and that ~;ome o1' L\Wi'i ma,y well be 1dent111e latel'. ' TJU; umr~C'l' JIGiiTED ON 1:!9I'tl J\ 1?..\:ill..! '7. 16 Hun tel's o:t' ! 1 irhter Comwa.nd were exercisinE betl·wen ~1 p.m. u.nd lU. ::;: 1 p. !!!. on
~w~L~ 7 ~. -~ ';-- 29th April. Two aircraft appeared on the radar screGns of Ventnor G.C.I. at about 10 p.m. (Since uircx>af.'t are not tracked inland, the r:.c.r. was not aware that the aircraft had, in fact, come from inside the 1 Jnited Kinr~dom). First estimations credited the aircrw:·t '<.i ti1 a very hiph speed (over r/50 KnOtS) and because it Vi£tB SUSpected that some- thing U11Usual had happened. t1.o Javelins v:llicll were in the air on patrol were in~:etructed to investirate. 'l'he two aix>craft. whose iwit;nt ,,as ullout 44,000 ft. were seen on the rada.t· :Jcr>een to part compan~r - one travelled Nortll-East (acLuully to Horsham Jt. Faith) and one almcut due .est. The two Javelins were directed towards the aircraft heading West- wards, but no interception 11as made, neither did the Javelins' radar detoct. any other aircraft. During tlle phase when tiw Juvolins \'.er•e beine homed on to the ''suspicloas" .ctircPaJt travelliur, West- n:i.l'ds, its i3peoJ · .. D.;; re-asse.;:;ed at <Lmething under 6~)0 knots. •illen it had lilOVod uut. to tile .. est of Iunds Elid, aud v;us movln1; to11ardu tile limlt of Hope Coves radar cover, tho Javelinu were ordered to abaU}Jtl the attempted intePception. 8. Subse(juent investigutionl:l by Fichter Command showed tllat the movement 01 tne two "suspicious" objectB. seen by the Ventnor radar. wa.s completely consistent v:i th tlle movements of two oi' the 16 Hunters of Fighter Command engaged on a training exercise. 't'.i.t,tOIJ hu.ve been correlated /l'li tll, ••
A~..t.:.."' I 4. ~ '-t- with uircrc.l.ft f'liLllt pl<J,wl, :wrl there is no doubt ttlat tt:.is was a Lcdse tde.rm. l:l. Press repol't:;; :>poke of ttle very high speed of the suspiciotJ.s objects. If questions are asked on this subject, it cun be said that the speeds reported in the i'ress ( 900 to 1,000 miles an hour) were in excess of Lllo:n:e reported by the Control and Reporting sysLem. 10& If Members ask wh · it is ttl:?ct two friendly ait•craft should ~;o have confused our radar defences as to bave clr·uwn on our defending aircraft on a false scent, it could be pointed out that there were a ver';}' larre number or movements tald.ng place at the time. c nJ tlllit in view of the fact tbat the aircraft were not positively lmown to be friendly. it v:o.s clearly better to deploy defending airct•aft an a nrucaution. 11. If 0. of J. is oiJked vilteUier the explanation o.clvar,ccd in tile WJ.JvJer :i.J ref arded as nroven, the reply could be l!tada ttJai.. tile times and radar tracks have been closely checked with the movements of the Hunter·s us r·eported by tlleir pilots. and the correlation l:J complete. 12. Hansard extracts 1'or I'ecent Questions about flying saucers and so Oll al'e uttactwd.
DfPAI'HMfNl OF THE AIR fORCl: t~!:.t..l:O:.J.H'fC4S ll!!i; ({)• ·"'.q !.:JPf• ·• i ('.'..:;:~~.- iV3.~HJ APO fi~VY 't(.)1H. t\05~ l3 J<.~n 81 Unexplained lights RAF/CC 1. Early in the morning of 27 Dec 80 (approximately 0300t), t~:o US!\f security police patrolmen saw unusual lights outs ide the back gat~ tit RAF Woodbridge. Thinking an ail·craft might have era~ or been fcn:ed down, they called for permission to go outside the gate to lm·est:gat;;. The on-rlvty fl igM chief responded and allowed tiwee patrol!!:~~ ':·~ ~!·~· ceed on foot. The individuals reported seeing a strange gl01·1ing obj<!ct in thefo,·esi. The o!Jject was described as being metal ic in appear'3'1C(~ and triangular in shape, approdmately I:~Jo to three meters across rJ;., base and approximately tl-10 meters high. It illv1~inated the entin: fon~H with a w!lite light. The object itself had a pulsing red light on top 11nd a bank(s} of blue 1 ights underne.Hh. lhe object was hover-ing or on ln:;s. As the patro1tnen approached the object, H maneuven~d thro•Jgh the ue~:s and disappeared. At this time the animals on a n"."arby farm went into 11 frenzy. The object 1"as briefly sighted approximately an hour later n-:==t· the back gate. 2. The next day, three depressions 1 l/2" deep and 7" in diamet~r· \·mi·e found where the object had been sighted on the ground. The follo1·1inn. night {29 Dec 80) the area\\1/.IS checked ror radiation. Ueta/gamr,ra readings of 0.1 milliroentgens \>Jere\recorded vlith peak readings in the three de- pression!'. and ne>ar the center or the tl'iaogle formed by thl" df'pressions. A nearby tree had moderate (. 05- JJ7) readings on the side of the tree toward the depressions. 3. ldter in the night a red sun-like light \tas seen through the trees.. It JtiOved about and pulsed. At one point it appeared to thrott off glo•:liny particles and then broke into five separate white objects and then dis- appe.tred. [lll!rtetHately thereafter, thv·ee star-1 ike objects were· notice~ in the sky, two objects to the north and one to the south, all of which wue about 10° off the horizon. The obJects moved rapidly in sharp i!ngulill' movement!. and displayed red. green and b.lu~ ·1 ights. The objects to the north appeared .to be eHipHcal through ao 8-1£ power h~ns. They then turned to full circles. The objects to the .north remained in the sky for an hour or more. Tile object to thr:- south was visible for two or thn:e hours and beamed do\·1:1 a stream of light from time to time. f~~;merous illdlvi- duals, including the undersigned, ~~itnessed the ad1vHies in paragnd1s '7:/J]Jfd- C!~:~~ES 1 . ~~0~ I. t Col , tJ$:\F Oer.·u':.; Case Co1:manderReferefl' 4 .- r:n:~:_r 6 PUBLIC REC.QBQ.Q.EElQl; 1J 2! 31 41 5 31/tl'b t~-5Cfb3 I I I I j I 1 1 I, I I j, I ; COPYRIGHT· NOT TO BE AEPAOOUCEO PHOIOGRAPHlCALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION HEADQUARTERS FIGHTER COMMAND AIR ST.AF? INSTRUCTION NO. F/1 REPORTING OF UNUSUAL AIRCRAFT OR AERIAL PHENOMENA PART I - RADAR SIGH'l'INGS Introduction 6l .LJ I 1. This Inztruction replaces instructions previously promulgated~ letter. A copy of Part I of this instruction is to be imtnediately'ave.ilable to Squadron Co!llllla.nders of. Night/All Weather Squadrons, to "the Air Defence Controller a..t .A.J).O,C., to 'Master Controllers and Reporting Controllers at M.:a.s•a., and to Display Controlle.ra at Sa.tell.ite Radar Stations." a.nd. to Duty Staff a.nd Air Staff officers at Seotor and Command Headquarters. !!lllllediate Investigation 2. When a.n unusual phenomenon or track is ~bserved by radar. the occurrence is to be investigated immediately. This investigation Should endeavour to determine whether the phenomenon or track is due to:- (a) A technical fault. (b) A friendly aircraft previously unidentified. {c) Interference. (d) Meteorological conditions. (With reference to (b), the procedure for identifying aircraft, a.nd for reporting aircraft that remai:n unidentified, is le.id down in Headquarters Fighter Command Control and Reporting Prt~ced.ure !nstl:"'l.ot:!.ons. In ueas where. or at times when, the identification of sll aircraft is not carried out. a traok should be considered unusual if it is moving at a ground speed exceeding 700 knots or at an altitude exceeding 60,000 feet). Reporting 3. If the immediate investigation does not discover the cause of the track or phenomenon. a re~ort is to be made by Confidential Routine signal to Headquarters Fighter Command ~Ops. C. & R.) copies for informetion to Sector Headquarters, This report is to include:- (a) The appearance of the echo, (b) The ground speed and altitude of the echo. (o) Whether it is continuous or intermittent. (d) Its signal strength (strong • medium or wee.k) throughout the time of observation, including pick-up and fade points. (e) The range and bearing of these points. (f.) The type of radar used, (g) Whether confirmation was obtained from other types of radar. A copy of the record. sheets, together with a track tracing and the relevant P.D.S. film (where applicable) is to be sent by post. SECRET / f<nalysis- -fer.-. ps:.FC: PU6liC RECORD OFFICE 1 I 21 31 41 5 61 31/11 'b ~5Cfb3 1 I 2 I I I II I I f II II f I I I I COPYRIGHT · NOT TO aE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHICALLY WITHOUT f'EAMISS!ON ---- ---·----------- -2- Ana.lysis -·· .: ,', .. ,!. ·,j-, 4. Operations Branch Headquarter&. Fighter Command will ana:J.yae reports from uni-ts', -end if' an explanation ·cannot be found a rel'ort will be r~r.ed by Confidential Routine aigw· to Air Ministry (D.D.I.{Tech.)) • ·(information copy to Intelligence Branch. H.Q.~.c.). ' . . . c·. · :· Press Publicity :·.:1:· .•. . -~ ~~-- -·--~~·- ~ .. - 5. The Preas •are never to be·given information about unusual radar sightings. Unauthorised disclosures of 'this ~e will be ~iewed as offences .under the Official Secrets Acts. -· :".:· · (• /Part II A~~~· ... ~ 1 ~ ~-• P!Jfli.IQ El!;QQRQ QFF!Q~ , I 21 31 41 5 61 Refen~n 31 I /I ps.FE: 8' t~--5'lb3 L I 1 LLLI 1 I, I I I I 2 I I I I I COPYR!GHf ·NOT TO BE REPRODUCED PHOlOGAAPHICALlY WITHOUT PERMISSION PART II - VISUAL SIGHTINGS Introduction 6. A copy of Part II of this instruction is to be immediately available to all Station Collllll!Uldera, Squadron Commanders and Intelligence Qff'icers during working hours. and to Station Duty Officers and Duty Staff Officers at all other times. Sightinga by Service Personnel 7. (a) Aircraft. Should a. member of the Services, or of the Roy8l Observer Corps -observe an aircraft belonging to the Soviet.;;lil'O<if o~ ;o)lS' WAich . · • ·cannot ·be ""identified a.a friendly$ behaving in a manner .J.,ik~l;y. tq ,ca.ws_e suspicion, that is, flying other than.the flight pattern normally seen in the particular area, he is to report the sighting to his Station COOl!Dand.er. through his superior officer immediately. (b) Phenomena. Should a member·or the Services s~e an ~bjeqt in the sky for which he cannot account, he is to report it at once to the Station Commander through his superior officer. (c) Action by Commanding Officers. In botb cases (a) and (b) above, th~ Commanding Officer is to report the occurrence by telephone·to the appropriate Master Radar Station without delay, and is to initiate a. _ . sighting signal as detailed in paragraph (f) below.· He ia then to arrange the immediate interrogation of the witness/witnesses and to send a. report of the interrogation to all addressees of the sighting sig~.a~ soon as possible. ··· (d) Action by Airorew. Where aighttnga of suspicious aircraft or phenomena are made by aircrew when airborne, th~ are to report the occurrence immediately aa tollovrs:- (i) Crews of Fighter Aircraft~ To the appropriate Master Radar Station. (ii) Crews of Other Aircraft. To the appropriate Mester Radar Station if in radio contact, otberwJse to the appropriate Air Traffic Control autborit,y. (e) Action by Master Rada; Stations. When sightin~s are reported to a Master Radar Station under (o) and (d), (i) end (ii) above, the Master Controller or his ·deputy·is_to ensure that the radar is checked for any unidentified responses. If' the Master Radar Station has aircraft under control in the vicinity of the reported phenomena, those aircraft are to be diverted to investigate the phenomena. (f) Sighting Signal. The signal is to be graded nPriority Confidential" • addressed to Air Ministry, London (for the attention of D.D.I. (Tech.)), Headquarters Fighter Command and A.D.o,c., and repeated to Sector Headquarters. It ia to be set out as follows:- (i) The time ("Z") of the occurrence. (ii) The place where it waa observed (Georef, or distance and bearing from a town or R.A.F. Station). (iii) A detailed description of the aircraft or phenomenon (i.e .. size, shape, colour, movements or changes in appearance if any, ita estimated altitude• speed and course, and the duration of the observation)o /(iv) RESTRICTEDJ .. - P!..!61.1Q Bt:iQQBQ QFFIQ!; 5 Reference:- 31//1'6 1 I 21 3J 41 61 ps:_Ff £~.-5'1b3 1 I 2 1111111 I I I lUI COPYRIGHT· NOT TO BE REPA:OOUCEO PHOTOGAAPHICALtV WITHOUT PE~MISSION RESTRICTED ( iv) Whether the observer has been trained in aircraft recognition. (v) How many other people saw the phenomenon. Sightings of Phenomena by Civilians I I I 8. ShoUld a civ:Uiw·Z.eport to an R • .A.F. authority· that he hs.e observed a phenomenon, a signal as in paragraph 7(f}, but including the name and address of.the civilian. 'is to be despatched. It is also to be.followed,by·an amplifYing written report to all addressees in paragraph ?(f) as soon as practicable after the sighting. A letter of acknowledgement &na·thenks should be sent to the civilian, but any action taken as a result of' the report must not be disclosed either verbally or in writing. Press Publicity 9. Sightings by Service personnel, or.the action taken as a result of' sightings by civilian personnel, are in no oiroumstances to· be disclosed to the Press. Members of the Press are, if th~ make enquiries, to be referred to the Information Division of'· the Air Ministry• Whitehall Gardens, London, S.W.1. Entry in S~R.os. 10. Stations are to insert in S.R.Os. at intervals of' three months an order similar 'to the following:- (a) "Visual Sighting of Suspicious Aircraft or Aerial Phenomena (i) Unidentified Aircraft. Any_off'icer _or airman who sees an aircraft that he cannot identify is friendly is immediately to refer the sighting to his superior officer f'or guidance. . . ( ii) · Aerial Phenomena·. Likewise any officer or airman who observes in the sky a phenomenon or object 8o unusual that he considers it should be investigated, is to report it to hie superior officer. (iii) In no circumstances is any communication to be made to the Press without Air Ministry authority." 31st December, 1960 FC/3.48160/0ps. (c. & R.) FC/S. 42917/Int. .RESTRICTED
) SYSfvt.. . ...:~ 28 APR 97 ~ 'L' ....... d ..... · ,. i 'CJ PAGE 1 t~a ********************************************************************************* A/C Type Operator Regn Location Date Occnum P/Pub B737 200 BRITANNIA G-BAZG NR LEEDS 5 JUL 78 7802646F P CAA Narrative: UNIDENTIFIED BRIGHT LIGHT SEEN 11 O'CLOCK ABOVE ********************************************************************************* A/C Type Operator Regn B727 -100 DAN-AIR G-BAJW CAA Narrative: UFO OBSERVED PASSING 200FT BELOW A C MILAN CONTROL REPORTED "NO TRAFFIC. Location Date Occnum P/Pub VICENZA 19 SEP 79 7904369X P ********************************************************************************* A/C Type Operator Regn Location Date Occnum P/Pub B727 DAN-AIR G-BCDA VICENZA 11 JUN 80 8003311C P CAA Narrative: UFO PASSED CLOSE TO SUBJECT AIRCRAFT OBJECT APPEARED TO BE LIKE A FIGHTER AIRCRAFT DROP TANK. ********************************************************************************* A/C Type Operator Regn Location Date Occnum P/Pub B727 DAN-AIR G-BHNE LYON 13 FEB 81 8100542C P CAA Narrative: UNIDENTIFIED FOREIGN OBJECT SEEN ON A C RADAR A SIZEABLE OVAL SHAPED TARGET APPEARED ON RADAR CENTRE-LINE AT LIMIT OF RANGE TRACKING TOWARDS A/C AT VERY HIGH SPEED.NO VISUAL SIGHTING MADE. ********************************************************************************* A/C Type Operator Regn Location Date Occnum P/Pub B727 DAN-AIR G -BKCG DINKELSBUHI 12 JUN 82 8201614C S CAA Narrative: LARGE TRANSLUCENT OBJECT, APPROX 500FT LONG, OBSERVED AT 41000FT. ATCC REQUESTED SUBJECT A/C TO INVESTIGATE THIS OBJECT WHICH WAS FOUND TO HAVE THE FORM OF A DOUBLE RECTANGLE SURMOUNTED BY A GLOBE (EGG SHAPE) CROWNED BY A SILVER CONE. OBJECT OBSERVED BY ALL ON BOARD.
,. . I • ) I JYSt~.C3 28 APR 97 PAGE 2 ~ p-p2v._J.;._ >( l 0 'Z v{ 2 *\******************************************************************************* A/C Type Operator Regn Location Date Occnum P/Pub B137 200 DAN-AIR G -BKAP BRINDISI 21 JUN 82 8201671B P CAA Narrative: UNIDENTIFIED OBJECT SIGHTED BY PILOTS. OBJECT PASSED DOWN LEFT HAND SIDE AT SAME HEIGHT AS A/C (FL230) APPROX 2 MILES AWAY. BLACK SHINY DOUGHNUT SHAPE ABOUT THE SIZE OF A CAR. OBJECT WAS TUMBLING & JUDGED TO BE STATIONARY. *******************************************************************************~* A/C Type Operator Regn Location Date Occnum P/PuP BAC 111 500 BCAL G -AWYS FLORENCE 18 AUG 83 8302525A P CAA Narrative: UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECT SEEN BY CREW. LARGE BLACK OBJECT, BALLOON SHAPED WITH LARGE WHITE SPOT ON IT, OBSERVED 10NM SE OF FIRENZA. NO ATTACHMENTS TO OBJECT. SUPP INFO: ITALIAN CAA REPLIED NO MET BALLOON COULD POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN PRESENT AT THE INDICATED PLACE OR TIME. ********************************************************************************* A/C Type Operator Regn Location Date Occnum P/Pub B737 BRITANNIA G -AVRL AMBOISE 9 AUG 84 8402477A P CAA Narrative: GREEN FLARE SEEN DESCENDING LEFT TO RIGHT STRAIGHT AHEAD AT FL300. ********************************************************************************* A/C Type Operator Regn Location Date Occnum P/Pub TRISLANDER KONDAIR G -BDOS IPSWICH 24 AUG 84 8402680D P CAA Narrative: UK REPORTABLE ACCIDENT : A/C STRUCK OBJECT IN CRUISE. PROPELLER, FUSELAGE, COWLING & CONTROL RUNS DAMAGED. THE A/C WAS FLYING IN SLIGHT TURBULENCE WHEN A BUMP WAS FELT. JUST BEFORE DESCENT THE RIGHT ENGINE CONTROL WAS FOUND TO BE SEIZED SO AN ASYMMETRIC APPROACH & LANDING WAS EXECUTED. ON INSPECTION IT WAS APPARENT THAT THE LEFT PROPELLER HAD STRUCK AN UNIDENTIFIED OBJECT, PROPELLING IT THROUGH THE CABIN ROOF, WITH A PIECE EXITING THROUGH A WINDOW. THERE WERE SEVERAL HOLES IN THE FUSELAGE & DAMAGE TO THE ENGINE, AILERON & RUDDER TRIM CABLES. THREE PIECES OF FOREIGN METALLIC OBJECT WERE FOUND, INCLUDING A SMALL CYLINDRICAL MAGNET. THE UFO HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED. (AIB BULLETIN 10/84). SEE DIGEST 84/D/43. CAA CLOSURE: NO INFORMATION RECEIVED CONCERNING NATURE OR ORIGIN OF UFO.}:,! ~.-LI..Lii_,i__,\~L...Lh~.l \ . ,! '\ d l!C'1 10 !lf. 1\!;P!lODUC£0 PIIOlOGHf•.f'\l\C/LL\.¥ VJ\1H0lJ'l f'CRIA!SS\Otl r~ ~~\~t . . ..r. ~ WV };S'l'IGA'l'IGtl 01 UNIDEHTIJ'IKD FLYlliG OllJ I'.C3'S 1, It hue bean stated in the HouJe of Oowmons and in policy corrospcmdence in the Ministt-y of Dei·ence that all reported sichtin:_;a of Ul'Oa are inveatir,:nted by M.O,D, to tletotmino their cause ru1d to aaoeaa iS they constitute a military threat. The i•reaent procedure in J.I,O,D, is that all sightinge aro ohrumelled to S,4f(Air) who ia resi>onsible tor al.l cor.Jllunioationo with the public on tho so mnHera, S,4f(Air), in collabon~tion with the ,\,; .o.R., mnke prclimino.ry enquiries with Fy:Ungdnlea or R,s,n.s. :aou~h, for poasiblc satellite ei.:.;ht.!ngs, and with other or~anlsutionG who may be :flying aircra:rt or bulloona, or OI>erating cquipnwnt thP.t could cauoo optical phenomena gi vine rise to the ::i,£htint;a. In the Dlf'.jority of caaaa the a!ghtincs can be nt t;ri bu ted to these onuaoo and no further action is raquirad. ·-• In tho cuoou wllere no ilm:.ediato oatiefactor:r explanation c: m b,, dctarr.lin,Jd, i.e. they are truly unidentified flyinu objects, Uwn n.:;.'r.I. o.ro rocpired by L<,o.n. to c£uTy out further J.nv·;n !.1~;<' tio1w, Thone investigations wer:·o ori;~inully carried ou.t l•y · .. ,,Jl. InteL iccnoe {Air) hut they bt>cu.mo the res1Jonaibil! ty of '.111) bptcc Sedion in DI.:,5 .from the bet:;innine; of l>.'.ay 1967. After rue lvine UFO ai(.:;h~inga from S.4f(Ai:r) for a oomr,lete month, the Space Soot!on huve now had a chance to aesese the ma~-nitude o:f tho ~aok. It ia emphasised that the infourw.tion g!von J.n the reports is quHe inadequate for any dacioion to be made fl'Oill ttith!n the oi'fice, am:l if the task 1B to be done at all, rooxe details must be obtained from those members of the public who ori(;ino.ted the dchtingo. Tldo onn only be done i'rom r·oraona.l interviews as it ifl sure t;o involve the preJ•arn~ion of sketches, geogr,~phlo bearings, dl:::tal"icoo, heights. l!>ovements nnd further atutcL,onts, Armed with tl:i:; krtm·tletl£e the invcoti(.\a:tln~;; officer ,,;ou1d then be obligad. to n:wutm tht) Jacil.i tit>!; in tho locAl nrea, mwh ~t1 nir base a. univtJ.!'d ty c::<p<wimorttal arcat. <'"ld fartories, Md consider the r;revai:Ung meteorological oonditiona at the time for conditlons ~Which could poeeibly have given ri~::~e to tho phenornena. Finally, the luveotigaUng o.ffioer wouJ.d bo required to mQke hia decisions and write a rapo:rt Ol; the rc~lts of his inveatie;ations. It ie su:.;guutcd, l;herefo~·e, toot if the investigation ie to blo' carried out; in ncco1·d tdth the official policy eta.temcnta on the subject, 2-;. mnn dnya will be required for each inveaticntion. A total of n1 ilcJ \11 C e1:;ht.iJlG8 .t'·'Hluirinc; furl.her inventi ,ntion by JJ:;TI were ~··::c.Lvcd during t.lay '.967. J, h·om the ubovo, H iG uu,•ncnt thnt invootit:nt.iona into UFOa cannot be reearded as n part-tizne or secondary task• and thnt it ia completely beyond inclusion in the work schedule of the already overwo1·kcd and undernlannE:~d Space Section of DI. 55. Under these cirCUlllDtnnoca H is rec:onuuen~led that it be reco;;nioed that DSTI oamtet un'le1take th() Jnveetit:;ution of !H'Oa to the atani1ard reqUired bJ<" the ntakd policy on the subject, or, alternatively, rm officer aml t Letnspor.-t bo entabl.ishcd in n:;·n s:r•e()l lio:,JJy for this JlUrpoee. 7 ~ b Jtmo 196? ( r: • HU!tU <~T GU ) Sqdn,Ld.r. DI.')5 b, . "'From: Secretariat(Air Staff)2a1a, Room 8 ,,.. ~ MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Main Building, Whitehall, london SW1A 2HB Telephone {Direct dial) 0171 218 2140 (Switchboard) 0171 218 9000 (Fax) Your reference Our reference D/Sec(AS)/64/ 3 rnsea, Date North Humberside. g April1998 ...... ~----------------------------------- 1. Thank you for your recent letter addressed to the Prime Minister concerning "unidentified flying objects". Your letter has been passed to the Ministry of Defence and this office is the focal point within the MOD for correspondence of this nature. I have been asked to reply. 2. First I should explain that the Ministry of Defence examines any reports of "unidentified flying objects" it receives solely to establish whether what was seen might have some defence significance; namely, whether there is any evidence that the UK Air Defence Region might have been compromised by hostile or unauthorized foreign military activity. 3. Unless there is evidence of a potential threat to the United Kingdom from an external military source, and to date no "UFO" report has revealed such evidence, we do not attempt to identify the precise nature of each sighting reported to us. We believe ~ that rational explanations, such as aircraft lights or natural phenomena, could be found for them if resources were diverted for this purpose, but it is not the function of the MOD to provide this kind of aerial identification service. It would be an inappropriate use of defence resources if we were to do so. 4. The MOD does not have any expertise or role in respect of "UFO/flying sa~cer" matters or to the question of the existence or otherwise of extraterrestrial lifeforms, about which it remains totally open-minded. I should add that to date the MOD knows of no evidence which substantiates the existence of these alleged phenomena.MINISTERIAL CORRESPONDENCE UNIT Ref No /1998 Date 'I /4= jq t I The Secretary of State,/ has received the attached letter from a member of the public. It has not been acknowledged by this office. Please send a reply on behalf of the Minister concerned. All Ministers attach importance to such letters being answered promptly, your reply should therefore be sent within 20 working days of the date of this minute. If, exceptionally, this should prove impossible an interim reply should be sent within the same timescale. A new Open Government Code of Practice on Access to Government Information came into force on in January 1997. All replies to members of the public must be in accordance with the procedures set out in the Code. A full explanation of the Code of Practice is contained in DCI(Gen) 54/98· further information is available from DOMD on extensio Under the Citizens' Charter, Departments are now required to keep records of their performance. All branches and Agencies are required to keep information on the number of requests for information which refer to the Code of Practice including details of the correspondent and the nature and date of the reply. In addition, the Department is required to provide a record of the total number of letters from members of the public and provide statistics (which may be used on a valid sample) of its performance in providing replies within their published targets. As part of our monitoring procedure, random spot checks on the accuracy of your branch records on correspondence will be performed throughout the year. MB 6140 EXT
ref n• 1 ·? ~ -w~ __ Jl _ __ --... . L?~ · ...... 'i_ cT':o:-cc. ! C~n l::-1,;\..,d~ .. t,;j.t \~.... . . c-c"~l. "-~ {.,.1- r;.~ c·:. . . .;.>-li..,-'?->'1. 1 c., •. ..,_t:t, b ~-- - ( :tt.,._-.S ... ' . -~; .... x· .. · ~- - ·~~€.\ .':\ no. I ...... ., ~? ~ :;)!..,(·~1 Vi C>t"'-- .I .hcL(=\-:;..dt -- - -- ~---. ' 1 ~~~~~ - e~- __ l;~l~,\··\~. __ p~-:::e·:l:L. _~,~~/''"J . c;.~~- -~- _ _ t ___ ;;~ ~ - ~'":)\~ ~·~ ~-~~:.~~<;?;: - ~~' - ~,.-( _ ~~ I ' v:- -\.'::-.\ -- 'i ·s ~lyt t>.::~_>;\ , (;. ~ _ s t"c. .. ~ -~- ~.::~~'.?i~f""" _. J.r~--~ f~ : C J -~~~ -- ... ~~~--::- },_t ~""-..~~ '·i.. _ b~t£-- , ~.... v· ; 1 , ·-~----- -_ - ___ ;; __ -_} _,- . · - ~ .. -.T •. _ --..c _ - ___ : _ _ ·_·:_.~: - ~ _ - __ ,. _··= .:._ -:;: _ ,_ :_ :_ ,'_s _ ___ · _ ._ ... __ -._ . <:... _ . . _\- ..... \-... . .. _ , _ ··_- •• -.· • _ __ . •• J ~ -- ~L .~ ._ <::~ .. ~-:c-9 · _ , __ ~t c;r : rf.f~~ C-!~ .. ~~:- r~-:\.... , ~--- , _ ,_ ~~~ _ __ _ ....,. -\ _"l ~- - -- _ ~ _ _ ... ____ .._ .,.~- ~-c.-..~~~~ ... ~~~..; .!'..c_:. '-' --~- ..... ! t . l-. e.~ .. .... <:.. ... e)t..:~'(• .< ;.\t,.l, <""f ~. ,: ~-\.t,;;.;;.lJ. 'b,<:.-:;:;..a.t."! \V'\. l·a:,,;, .. c.>h . L .,_,!·~t-h .t-1'"!€... _ jD:.Q v-+. .c-.1>{-:o£t. \\-::· •,:;:>~ :~;) . , net . -~·1 1f...i,\ . .. .r "'""~ ;(,A ., ~~:--·~- c >.l ... \, .. . \-·\r,.;;?.P;: ,-r' 'j l rr 1 I I ' ... i ·f ~~O~f.? f.::C:._;'~~;lt :t~\ ~·:-\ii::~-- .\-:n ~·:.,~,,.t -t· ~·-C~.¥:\r:- .. C~t1.? . .f't:.f""t t1~::,.a \-.·$ c.lt c :::.. jr\dc S r<'::.a;.,.t::"l t-::f-' \>~ -- - L .-t Sf"""'-4'~\ fl '\ t~., ~t·v r ... 'f_ 1 1·-:-· k <C?~'i - s;; ~:q,.r-~:' iv,cc<'-u'ct . _ ~s . -t--t ... .._,.::,_,~\ be~~~ l-:'~ -:-}~2.. F::.lr-::ah.L<:2:)" -::\ . v .... ~~ -.2 ..:.k .U'".,,·;. . .-, _g\~ ... "··y::>f\q"' p.. .... ~ t;;J...;•~,. .ecY'u.1.. . \,..;_...,~ ~ .. ~tQ:._ rt_,~t-:: .n e;. "''' lt) i ~g> ~J >:.:'"--',:. • . 'AC1k,.S.. \•,;.,q, ... \ ·:'19.,.! .. >:"-';..,,.. _ \-?-~2..r.-.n, <:rY'< . \:·he-?..... .r ·-:.·d .. .t o . _ J7;"'v>oL H/•~'2. .. - ..... : l~:~Ji~ . . ; .. I ~J-~- ~--~: - - • - ..,- -- ,..$.~ ,.. . {.l( <~ r...,.. .. , 1... ........ \~.?._\ ,.. JI-( __ .':? _ .. -- '-""""·~"~r ..~. \.-·-::-. .. r:.V':\} .r<:f.';.Ct n (: -r - !· t. . ..)' ·-::t .. ~_ . .. .~ vl~rC:dt-.,Lct . ~-.. . 1 . cr·v-.. .. ! ( l ' ... : · . ~· h -r.:.~'!J t-Il'-··· '·l 6 ... . {t'l.• .. · • . .... b ... ___ , __ ,i ;; ·· {··.. • "~ From: Secretariat{Air Staff)2a1a, Room MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1A 2HB Eyemouth, Berwickshire. Telephone (Direct dial) 0171 218 2140 (Switchboard) ~ (Fax) -- Your reference Our reference D/Sec(AS)/64/3 Date 1- April 1998 1111111~------------~----------------------- 1. Thank you for "unidentified flying Kinloss. your letter of 11 March object" sighting of 29 regarding an January near RAF 2. I have looked back through our sighting report files and there were no sightings reported to the MOD for 29 January 1998 from anywhere in the UK. 3. You asked if there was any military aircraft activity in the area on the evening in question. I have made enquiries and have found that there were two F-15s from RAF Lakenheath conducting routine night time low level training in the general area, although not necessarily above or around RAF Kinloss... .. __ • - . • W ·II · • II British UFO Research Association TEL Dear As you know I am an investigator with B.U.F.O.R.A. who encourage, promote "and conduct unbiased. scientific research into the U.F.O. phenomena. I now wish to approach your department yet again, with r e gard to a r ecent sighting of lights or objects in the sky over an area near RAF Kinless Moray, Scotland. This si*hting took place on the 29th of January 1998 at precisely 21:05 hrs. The display was described as a brillian t wh i te/p in k colour . From thi s obje c t came a t ai l of a similar colour and a peculiar rumbling sound. The object was described as floating in the sky but suddenly shot straight up at an incredible speed until it became the size of the surrounding stars. Four witn e sses claim to have seen this obj e ct. Surprisingly , an object of similar dimen ti ons was seen a few days later being escorted by RAF aircraft near RAF Kinloss. Would it be possible for you to put forward a suggestion as to what t hese lights may have be l onged t6, f or exa mple helicopters, or was t here any military activity id that area on that ni ght? Information no matter how small can sometim~s be the utmost importance to us at B.U . F.O.R.A. I do real i se the Brit i sh St ealth progra mme is Top Secre t and ther efor e any information released by you will be of a l imited nature. I would now like to thank you aga i n for the time yo u have taken to r ead th i s let t er a nd I a wait your timely r eply. BUFOR A LIMITED. R.:gisr.:n:J Ofti .:.:: Regis t..: rc::tl und.:r the OAT r\ PROTECTION ACT London Postal AJdr.:ss: Co- ordinato r (BORDERS) R.:gist..:rcd in London 12J.J.<(!.J. Registration Number F0779::!04 BM BUFOR A, LO
. . ~ 'i. From: Secretariat(Air Staff)2a 1a, Room MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, Main Building, Whitehall, London. SW1A 2HB Telephone {Direct dial) 0171 218 2140 {Switchboard) {Fax) Your reference Our reference D/Sec(AS)/64/3 Date .:r April 1998 1. Thank you for your letter of 10 March regarding sightings of "unidentified flying objects" over the East Kilbride area, one of which was on 25 January. 2. First I should explain that the Ministry of Defence examines any reports of "unidentified flying objects» it receives solely to establish whether what was seen might have some defence significance; namely, whether there is any evidence that the UK Air Defence Region might have been compromtsed by hostile or unauthorized foreign military activity. 3. Unless there is evidence of a potential threat to the United Kingdom from an external military source, and to date no "UFO" report has revealed such evidence, we do not attempt to identify the precise nature of each sighting reported to us. We believe that rational explanations, such as aircraft lights or natural phenomena, could be found for them if resources were diverted for this purpose, but it is not the function of the MOD to provide this kind of aerial identification service. It would be an inappropriate use of defence resources if we were to do so. 4. I have looked back through our sighting report files and have found that there were no sightings reported to the Ministry of Defence for 25 January 1998 from anywhere in Scotland. I am unable to check whether any military aircraft were operating in the area on that date because you did not specify a time. However, you may wish to know that most military low flying training is carried out during daylight hours on weekdays. Certain locations, such as built-up areas like East Kilbride, are excluded from low flying training by Tornados or Jaguars. 'iaxs Sf vtcaJIOJ~,f\.~oD f)epartrnent Dear Sir or Madarn: arn vtr~ting to you in the, that you ma!/ be ab~e to he~p n~:e in rny ~nvest~gat~on ~nto several ,..,,..,;~t''"''~"' of jn the, sk~es over E.ast Lanarkshire. ~n an in rny capac~ty as a Field Researt~"1er for UFCl Scotland. h£3S rr1e bat~fjed as h,vci <•~''"'''<'"" 1 ''"' \fV~tnessf~S recaHed the interception of an object ,-;,,,.,r;·w,,f,.,,.,,~). of thr;;; aircraft stJQQ~'"sl:e:d ·During, this part!cuiar vvhEch o:ecurred on the of January this ·wjtnasses described hov:t one aircr{£1ft approache-d the object frorn a South towards the object while another two aircraft approached South-East on an intercept course. year (1 the tvvo difection: f~y~ng the object from a Acr~ording to witness statements, om; ex··rni!itary, the aircraft approached the object on their initiai "'i""'',.,,,..,.,, ar:d then vv[th~n a certa~n undeterrntttabie ra.nge~ aH three aircraft broke off and 1~ievl off dtsappe::~r~n.g frorn slg.ht. can/wiH the MoD confirm to me that the aircraft's intended intercspt target. as described, too!< p!ace. if appreciate are obv~ous~y but f VVOLJ1d rnuc~ appreciate any ~nforrnation you can supply me with. Ftekf Jiesean.A~er UFO Scotlandf Lincolnshire. - From r Staff)2a 1a, Room 8 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Main Building, Whitehall, london SW1A 2HB Telephone (Direct dial) 0171 218 2140 (Switchboard) 0 (Fax) Your reference Our reference D/Sec(AS)/64/3 Date 1- April 1998 1. Thank you for your letter of 7 March addressed to RAF Wittering concerning reports of "unidentified flying objects". Your letter has been passed to this office as we are the focal point within the Ministry of Defence for correspondence of this nature. 2. First 1 should explain that the MOD examines any reports of "unidentified flying objects" it receives solely to establish whether what was seen might have some defence 'significance; namely, whether there is any evidence that the UK Air Defence Region might have been compromised by hostile or unauthorized foreign military activity. 3. Unless there is evidence of a potential threat to the United Kingdom from an external military source, and to date no "UFO" report has revealed such evidence, we do not attempt to identify the precise nature of each sighting reported to us. We believe that rational explanations, such as aircraft lights or natural phenomena, could be found for them if resources were diverted for this purpose, but it is not the function of the MOD to provide this _kind of aerial identification service. It would be an inappropriate use of defence resources if we were to do so. 4. The MOD does not have any expertise or role in respect of "UFO/flying saucer" matters or to the question of the existence or otherwise of extraterrestrial lifeforms, about which it remains totally open-minded. I should add that to date the MOD knows of no evidence which substantiates the existence of these alleged phenomena.
With the compliments of Squadron Leader =====~~ Community Rela Royal Air Force Wittering PETERBOROUGH PE8 6HB
Oe~f S\:t cJ· t--\~<l~'-'-'~"' , 1: ~ou\~ \~ \:, .\,..-"~ vvr~\c. C>-_J I- ~ .. ~~~~J o\a.\c-: ... ~:;, .Ji.~Ct\ \10 ccu\clt .a. ;se .. "d. o~ w'-.... ... ~ c~e~/.e.~?~.<>Q~'--' ~Ac$ I """""ef l>r' v-.~C~ S0) l!fi.~S ,. , \<.A"-v"" .> QJc~ 1 ~~J (..~t~o w\....f?._, 'H<:i'""-1 ,J ~..,)~ fO>~~.C..t.q_ OA>...~ \n;,~. H:~e... Co'-"'..\'rt.;\, ?' L&v ,.t.e<!:.:vd 1 (ft,J cow\d Gbv ~ . ..,;:::,\7 \rc,_,n~U J O,t:f;;>c.A,(),'..;..":_) iv... ott:~~ .. u. \ S:~;-~J.<:C ~ Ac+ ~vl- wA\ L ·~ 'Q .r-cl\.1-~f"'-' \ .{;, r . yJou\~ ~&':X'J o._~.;~c .. ; \.a>_ (1)~-n~-~\ ~\t:l.~ S~-4~.. "' l~f.e.,,· ....,..7s.e.\f' ~~ C'¢> "'-'- ,1il/ ..., '""(\Q,""'" ( ~,1 J6~-t" f " <:!<:fir~ { 0 f.·aou (J<c.:?t <. ; lv~ (~.1:1.\ r;:' ,'-'U1._ A~.o.. 7 lv.e\~) \J~'J ~~((f~.C'-0~~~' "f~..,.~\-- ~\'-l'l\·--J<.. ""-<-- .. ...._.,..._vii_~
·:( Dear From: Secretariat (Air Staff) 2a 1 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1A 2HB Telephone (Direct dial) 0171 218 2140 (Switchboard) 0171 218 9000 (Fax) Your reference Our reference D/Sec(AS)/64/3 Date 3 April 1998 1. Thank you for your letter of 21 March in which you seek any information held by the Ministry of Defence on an incident which is alleged to have occurred in Llandrillo at some time during 1974. 2. I have seen Press and magazine articles which allege that a 'UFO' incident occurred near the Berwyn Mountains on 23 January 1974 and wonder if one such article has prompted your enquiry. 3. I can tell you that I have recalled the MOD's 'UFO' report files for January 1974 and can confirm that although the Department did receive five reports for 23 January 1974, none were from Wales or the surrounding area. I have also been able to establish that there were no military aircraft crashes in the UK on 23 January 1974. 4. I hope this is helpful. Yours sincerely,
Section 40 [REDACTED] London 24/3/97 Sir/ma'am/mrs Could you please help me. I am doing research into events which took place at [ILLEGIBLE]ownville in 1997. The only information I have at the moment is that deep-llo it in the middle of nowhere. Something came from but a big bang. I therefore at certain armed forces gave than best to be gone over and, decide mine kept off the hill, even the local police. Also, RAF experts came in a helicopter looking for pieces from a major that finding nothing. Why it was I feel tips [ILLEGIBLE] alleged life half fun. [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] several [ILLEGIBLE] and [ILLEGIBLE], [ILLEGIBLE] carrying 4 particles [ILLEGIBLE] up [ILLEGIBLE] 150 in [ILLEGIBLE] and [ILLEGIBLE] invisible. If you can pull up to any information hope the list expressive reports and findings I would be grateful. [ILLEGIBLE] Section 40 [REDACTED] MINISTRY OF DEFENCE SEC(AS) 2. 17 MAR 1998 FILE
Marnhull, Dorset. From: Secretariat(Air Staff)2a 1a, Room MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1A 2HB Telephone (Direct dial) 0171 218 2140 (Switchboard) (Fax) Your reference Our reference D/Sec(AS)/64/3 Date 3 April1998 1. Thank you for your recent letter addressed to Dorset County Council in which you have requested information on "UFO" sightings in Dorset. Your letter has been passed to the Ministry of Defence and this office is the focal point for correspondence of this nature. I have been asked to reply. 2 . First I should explain that the Ministry of Defence examines any reports of "unidentifi~d flying objects" it receives solely to establish whether what was seen might have some defence significance; namely, whether there is any evidence that the UK Air Defence Region might have been compromised by hostile or unauthorized foreign military activity. 3. Unless there is evidence of a potential threat to the United Kingdom from an external military source, and to date no "UFO" report has revealed such evidence, we do not attempt to identify the precise nature of each sighting reported to us. We believe that rational explanations, such as aircraft lights or natural phenomena, could be found for them if resources were diverted for this purpose, but it is not the function of the MOD to provide this kind of aerial identification service. It would be an inappropriate use of defence resources if we were to do so. 4. The MOD does not have any expertise or role in respect of "UFO/flying saucer" matters or to the question of the existence or otherwise of extraterrestrial lifeforms, about which it remains totally open-minded. I should add that to date the MOD knows of no evidence which substantiates the existence of these alleged phenomena. 5. I have enclosed a copy of a map which shows the geographical distribution of sightings around the United Kingdom reported to us during 1997. You will be able to see from this map that we did not receive many reports from the Dorset region.
GEOGRAPHICA~ OF DISTRIBUTig AERIAL UNEXPLAINEREPORTED SIGHTINGSNISTRY OF TO THE MiN 1997 DEFENCE
CORPORATE SERVICES David Jenkins • Director ~~~~~'l~;g-~~~~!!l!~CJJ!mlla'"~!lmmli~.!llfil!i'<f;JI':!:!.!ii~,/Pl!:!Mlii!S~~W~.:o>~lt;l!~ll'iilllii'~:R~/BRi;:~/a~S!'l.l.!lii!CO'~i!!$llliiP~~~~.t Peter Drummond • County Emergency Planning Officer County Hall• Colliton Park • Dorchester • DTl lXJ • Tel: (01305) 251000 • Direct Line: (01305 or 01202) 224510 Fax: (01305 or 01202) 224108 • Minicom: (01305) 267933 • DX8716 Dorchester Ministry ofDefence Your ref Attn DPR (RAF) I SIO Room 0358 Alyrej: ORG/!0/3 Main Building Whitehall London SWIA 2HB Dear Sir INFORMATION ON UFOS Askfor: Peter Drummond Date: 18 February 1998 On advice from my Royal Air Force Regional Liaison Officer, may I request that you respond direct to the attached letter seeking information about unidentified flying objects in Dorset? Your assistance is much appreciated. UFOQ2.SAM
.• Dorset U.F.O. Research Network (D.U.F.O.R.N.) Telephone~ ~ Ji ~ 1 -'(' -' If ,}if·""'~> ~;r;, ' I {.,.From: Secretariat(Air Staff)2a1a, Room MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1A 2HB Telephone (Direct dial) 0171 218 2140 (Switchboard) 0171 218 9000 (Fax) Your reference Our reference D/ Sec(AS)/ 64/3 Date 2. Apri11998 1. Thank you for your letter of 3 March to the Secretary of State for Defence regarding "unidentified flying objects". Your letter has been passed to this office as we are the focal point within the Ministry of Defence for correspondence of this nature. I have been asked to reply. 2. First I should explain that the Ministry of Defence examines any reports of "unidentified flying objects" it receives solely to establish whether what was seen might have some defence significance; namely, whether there is any evidence that the UK Air Defence Region might have been compromised by hostile or unauthorized foreign military activity. 3. Unless there is evidence of a potential threat to the United Kingdom from an external military source, and to date no "UFO" report has revealed such evidence, we do not attempt to identify the precise nature of each sighting reported to us. We believe that rational explanations, such as aircraft lights or natural phenomena, could be found for them if resources were diverted for this purpose, but it is not the function of the MOD to provide this kind of aerial identification service. It would be an inappropriate use of defence resources if we were to do so. 4. The MOD does not have any expertise or role in respect of "UFO/flying saucer" matters or to the question of the existence or otherwise of extraterrestrial lifeforms, about which it remains totally open-minded. I should add that to date the MOD knows of no evidence which substantiates the existence of these alleged phenomena. 5. You asked whether there were any recently released documents relating to "UFO" sighting reports. As is the case with other government files, MOD files are subject to the provisions of the Public Records Act of 1958 and 1967. This Act of Parliament states that official files generally remain closed from public viewing for 30 years after the last action has been taken. It was generally the case that before 1967 all "UFO" files were destroyed after five years, as there was insufficient public interest in the subject to merit their permanent retention. However since 1967,
following an increase in public interest in this subject "UFO" report files are now routinely preserved. Any files surviving from the 1950s and early 1960s which did survive are already available for examination by members of the public at the Public Record Office, Ruskin Avenue, Kew, Richmond, Surrey, TW9 4DU. Files from 1967 onwards will be routinely released to the Public Record Office at the 30 year point. 6. I hope this explains the MOD's limited interest in reports of so-called "UFOs".
MINISTERIAL CORRESPONDENCE UNIT Ref No 17 6 91998 Date l ?:.. ~~ / q g' The Secretary of State,/ has received the attached letter from a member of the public. It has not been ·acknowledged by this office. Please send a reply on behalf of the Minister concerned. All Ministers attach importance to such letters being answered promptly, your reply should therefore be sent within 20 working days of the date of this minute. If, exceptionally, this should prove impossible an interim reply should be sent within the same timescale. A new Open Government Code of Practice on Access to Government Information came into force on in January 1997. All replies to members of the public must be in accordance with the procedures set out in the Code. A full explanation of the Code of Practice is contained in DCI(Gen) 54 98· further information is available from DOMD on extension Under the Citizens' Charter, Departments are now required to keep records of their performance. All branches and Agencies are required to keep information on the number of requests for information which refer to the Code of Practice including details of the correspondent and the nature and date of the reply. In addition, the Department is required to provide a record of the total number of letters from members of the public and provide statistics (which may be used on a valid sample) of its performance in providing replies within their published targets . As part of our monitoring procedure, random spot checks on the accuracy of your branch records on correspondence will be performed throughout the year. MB 6140 EXT
3rd March 1995. [REDACTED] MINISTER OF STATE FOR THE ARMED FORCES 12 MAR 1998 [REDACTED] Waltham Cross, Hertfordshire, [REDACTED] Dear Sir, 1762 I am writing to request a information on any recently released documents or reports on unidentified aerial phenomena such as military UFO sightings. I ask you to treat this letter with an open mind and not dismiss it. Can you categorically deny that the British government has no knowledge of any conspiracy to cover up information on UFOs, and that there is not currently engaged in any such activities. I look forward to hearing from you. Yours Sincerely, [REDACTED] PARLIAMENTARY BRANCH 12 MAR 1998 ROOM 6134 MAIN BLDG RECEIVED 11 MAR 1998
Secretariat{ Air Staff)2a 1a, R MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1A 2HB Telephone {Direct dial) 0171 218 2140 (Switchboard) 01 71 218 9000 (Fax) j££31!£! j !£ j Your reference Our reference D/Sec(AS)/64/3 Date 2 April1998 1. Thank you for your letter of 29 February. 2. You asked how you can make contact with Mr Nicholas Pope. In my last letter, dated 21 January, I provided you with the address of Mr Pope's publishers (Simon & Schuster Ltd., West Garden Place, Kendal Stree~, London, W2 2AQ) through whom you can write to him. 3. I am afraid I am unable to assist you with. your questions regarding missing trawlers.N te/ 29/2/98 [REDACTED]
Hull
[REDACTED]
Dear [REDACTED] / I am wrighting
to you because I wont to
know an address of a
member of the (M/O/D)
Mr Nick Pope.
I also wont to know
about three trawlers that
whent missing in 24
years ago the year 1974
or near there.
The names of the three
trawlers are
• MV Artic Galliard
• MV lord nelson
• MV Invincible
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
SEC (AS) 2
-5 MAR 1998
FILEthey were used in
a spying network
The project name.
Project Intelligence gathering.
Did ~~the~~ the Ships all
have Some cand of Steath
technology on board because
in them days it was
a one off chance for
a trawler not to be
seen by a u-boat at all
They was a man
Called [REDACTED]
to who was also involved
who got a christmas
Card off the (M/O/D) in
1965 the christmas Card
Said!
with best whiskes
for christmas + newyear
from
[REDACTED]Then it is Signed by
a [REDACTED] one is
[REDACTED] related
to mr Nick pope only
you can answer that
Could you Check thought
the (M/O/D) recolection files
for this past incident.
yours [REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
PS
Please wright back + Thankyou
for reading my letter.From: Secretariat(Air Staff}2a 1a, Ro MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Main Building, Whitehall, London SW 1A 2HB Telephone (Direct dial) 0171 218 2140 (Switchboard) (Fax) Your reference Our reference D/Sec(AS)/64/3 Date 2 Apri11998 1. Thank you for your recent letter in which you have asked about an "unexplained" aerial sighting in Hull. 2. I have looked back through our sighting report files and I can confirm that the Ministry of Defence did not receive any reports for 16 January 1998 in Hull or the surrounding areas.
[REDACTED]
Section 40
[REDACTED]
Hall
Section 40
Dear [REDACTED]
[REDACTED] We are writing
to you about a (uifio) sighting
in hall down Caldane on the 96/1st/98
What we are asking is Could you
please have a look in your
C(uifio) files and tell us if they
has been any reports of a Sighting
in Britian / Hull on the 16 January98
at 7.50pm
When I Say one (uifio) they was
Sevel.
yours
Section 40
Section 40 = [REDACTED]
Psy
Please wright back!
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
SEC(AS)2
13 MAR 1998- ... ·-"'"" From: Secretariat(Air Staff)2a 1a, Room MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1A 2HB R .. Telephone (Direct dial) 0171 218 2140 (Switchboard) 0171 218 9000 (Fax) Your reference Our reference 0/Sec(AS)/64/3 Date 2 April1998 1. Thank you for your letter of 2 March in which you have asked for further information on events which are alleged to have occurred near Rendlesham Forest in December 1980. 2. As my letter to you of 11 February explained, unless there is evidence of a potential threat to the United Kingdom from an external military source, the MOD does not seek to provide an explanation for each sighting reported to us. From Departmental records available for the period in question, we have established that all available information was looked at at the time by air defence experts who were satisfied that nothing had occurred to suggest that the UK Air Defence Region had been breached by unauthorised foreign military activity on the nights in question. 3. I am not aware of any information that would answer your latest questions. 4. I should like to assure including the effectiveness of constantly evolving and we are defence capabilities fully meet the the integrity of the UK Air Defence 'la.JfS Siv\~ 1 you that Defence technology, our air defence systems, is confident that our current air air defence threat and protect Region.
- _,. Dear REDCAR, Cl..~EVLAND , 2nd March 1998. Thank you for your letter dated lith february 1998, which responded to my request for info:rmation on the llteruHesha.m forest, incident .If the object seen near rendlesham forest · in decet!$ber 1980, was of no defence significance and no breach of the united kingdom 9 s, air defence occured then the object must have originated in the united, kingdom and must be known to the MOD. I would like to know if RAF Bentwaters disaster preparedness and, Bioenv Lromental office wa s notifi~d of tru~· tncident · and if any of , the following were reported by the USAF • .I . unel ping Hand" a. "Coverd Wagon" ;>. nl"aded Giant~ 1 ~ ~ ~~ .l\\'tr oken Arrow'' ___ ·;:..:. I would be greatfull for any information you could g::i.ve mc ~ or any, coruents your office may have* Thank you for your time.
Canterbury Kent From: Secretariat {Air Staff) 2a1 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Main Building, Whitehall, london SW1A 2HB Telephone (Direct dial) (Switchboard) (Fax) Your reference Our reference DjSec(AS)/64/3 Date 2 April 1998 1111111~----------------------------------------- De a 1. Thank you for your letter of 27 February, which concerns an alleged 'unidentified flying object' sighting near the home of the former Home Secretary, Michael Howard on 8 March 1997. 2. The Ministry of Defence's sole remit as far as reports of 'unidentified flying objects' are concerned is to establish whether what was seen might have some defence significance; namely, whether there is any evidence that the UK Air Defence Region might have been compromised by hostile or unauthorized foreign military activity. Unless there is evidence of a potential threat to the United Kingdom from an external military source we do not attempt to identify the precise nature of each reported incident. 3. Once the MOD Air Defence staff established there was no evidence to suggest that an unauthorized incursion of the UK Air Defence Region occurred on 8 March 1997 the MOD's interest in the alleged incident ceased. The Home Office has informed this office that no security incident occurred at Mr Howard's home on 8 March 1997. Yours sincerely,UFOMEK UFO Monitors East Kent Co-ordinator: [REDACTED] Section 40 Folkestone, Kent: [REDACTED] Canterbury, Kent: [REDACTED] Date: 27/1/98 Dear [REDACTED] As you are aware, my colleague [REDACTED] has been corresponding with your office for the last 12 months, regarding the sighting by multiple witnesses of a large unidentified aerial triangular shaped object in an area of East Kent called 'Burmarsh', adjacent to Dymchurch and Romney Marsh in the early hours of 8th March, 1997. Further to these multiple sightings at Burmarsh, we were given information that the said same object was observed by two 'credible' witnesses in the immediate vicinity, hovering apparently motionless above the private residence of the then Home Secretary and Folkestone MP, Michael Howard. It is quite clear from your response, that this incident was being first of all, denied and then quite obviously 'played down' by your department. This is evident as the correspondence between ourselves and the Kent County Constabulary has, in some cases, contradicted your often condescending replies. Contrary to popular belief, 'ordinary' people who have an interest in the UFO subject, are not always the lunatics you would like portrayed to the public. Those of us who are responsible, intelligent members of society refute such a suggestion and do NOT believe that every unidentified light/craft seen in the skies over the UK is necessarily of 'alien' origin. Indeed, we are quite aware that upwards of 98% of all sightings are proved to be mis-identified aircraft etc. In fact, UFOMEK have been instrumental in providing down to earth explanations of alleged UFO sightings that have been reported to us. We now know that an incident did take place on the 8th March, 1997, and that the security contingent at Mr. Howard's residence were indeed aware of such an incident, and responded. This we know to be FACT. We have now received written confirmation from the Kent County Constabulary. I would appreciate a less condescending response from you or your superior than we have had of late, and look forward to such. Yours sincerely, [REDACTED] (Coordinator UFOMEK) MINISTRY OF DEFENCE SEC (AS) 2 - 2 MAR 1998 [REDACTED]
Classification: Caveat: Covering: F Slgs 927 (Rev 2195) Facsimile Transmission Cover 'Sheet Serial Number: Transmission: Document Reference : Date: Total number of pages including this one: 2 Time: From: To: Fax Number: D\\ Authorised by: Transmitted by: Rank Name Appointment Rank Name Tel Number Signature: Signature: Subject: ___ As agreed, for information I have attached a summary of the Ministry of Defence's polic~ect of reports of 'unidentified flying objects'. 111111111111 is a persistent correspondent and is well aware o~ne MOD ' s policy . There is no need, therefore, to go into our policy in your reply. Should you receive any other requests regarding the MOD ' s policy on 'UFOs', please advise the correspondents to wri~e to this office at the following address: As Min ""l""s =t ""e =rs in helpful if you your reply. Secretariat (Air Staff )2a Ministry of Defence Room 8245 Main Building Whiteha l l London SWlA 2HB has frequently written to MOD and Home Office recent months, for completeness it would be most would send me a copy of his letter and a copy of Classification: Caveat: Covering:
MOD INTEREST IN "UFO" SIGHTINGS The Ministry of Defence has no interest or role with respect to 'UFO/flying saucer' matters, or to the question of the existence or otherwise of extraterrestrial lifeforms about which it remains open-minded. To date, however, the MOD is unaware of any evidence which proves that these phenomena exist. The Ministry of Defence examines any reports of 'UFO' sightings it receives solely to establish whether what was seen might have some defence significance; namely is there any evidence that the UK Air Defence Region might have been compromised by hostile or unauthorized foreign military activity. The reports are examined, with the assistance of the Department's air defence experts as required. Unless there is evidence of a potential threat to the United Kingdom from an external military source, and to date no "UFO" sighting has revealed such evidence, we do not attempt to identify the precise nature of each sighting reported to us. We believe that down to earth explanations could be found for these reports, such as aircraft lights or natural phenomena, if resources were diverted for this purpose but it would be an inappropriate use of defence resources to provide this kind of aerial identification service.
.... .. Secretariat<Air Staff) Fax **Transmit Conf.Report ** 1 Apr '98 11:54 Secretariat<Air Staff)---> No. 1880 Mode NORMAL Time 1'10" Pages 2 Page<s> Result 0 K
~k.s ~ E:;J ~~ I~ From Secretariat( Air Staff)2a 1 , Room 8 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1A .2HB Brighouse West Yorkshire Telephone (Direct dial) (Switchboard) (Fax) ~~~~~ Your reference Date 27 March 1998 ----~--------------------- Dear 1. I refer to my letter of 25 March in which I said that I had not been able to locate any files which would assist me in answering your query about an incident which is alleged to have occurred in January 1974. 2. The search has continued and I have now received a file containing details of sightings of 'unidentified flying objects' reported to the Ministry of Defence in January 1974. 3. I can advise you that although the Department did receive five reports for 23 January 1974, none were from Wales or the surrounding area. 4. I hope this is helpful.
From Secretariat( Air Staff)2a 1a, Room _ MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1A 2HB Telephone (Direct dial) 0171 218 2140 (Switchboard) 01 71 21 8 9000 (Fax) Your reference Our reference D/Sec(AS)/64/3 Date ZT-March 1998 1. Thank you for your letter of 2 March in which you have asked about the Ministry of Defence's policy regarding reports of "unidentified flying objects". This office is the focal point within the MOD for correspondence of this nature. 2. The Ministry of Defence examines any reports of "unidentified flying objects" it receives solely to establish whether what was seen might have some defence significance; namely, whether there is any evidence that the UK Air Defence Region might have been compromised by hostile or unauthorized foreign military activity. 3. Unless there is evidence of a potential threat to the United Kingdom from an external military source, and to date no "UFO" report has revealed such evidence, we do not attempt to identify the precise nature of each sighting reported to us. We believe that rational explanations, such as aircraft lights or natural phenomena, could be found for them if resources were diverted for this purpose, but it is not the function of the MOD to provide this kind of aerial identification service. It would be an inappropriate use of defence resources if we were to do so. 4. I hope this explains our position. 'lCJJS ~/
.. ' .. 2 March, 1998 Ministry Of Defence Sec(AS)2a MOD Main Building Whitehall London SW1A2HB To Whom It May Concern: L Wekingham_____:__:__j Berkshire 0 Subject: Unidentified Flying Aircraft/Objects I have written you this letter about your official position on the subject of Unidentified Flying Aircraft/objects, and the possibility of contact with extra-terrestrial biological entities, I would like any information you have regarding this subject, you can email me it at: jQftn-- - . I would also like to know if you still investigate this subject, even after the stereotype of the press, of which I hope you treat in a professional manner. Respectfully, IIIII PUFORI
21 February 1998 Whitehall LONDON SW1A2HB Dear fOr DpVI\ epJt ~ furp:lSQSI ~ Ul.fur its r'tU.bl'dOO 01\ .p;·U>.. b~l4- pit. t __ _..._ ... _...,..._ ,_.....,---·~~~,.......--.~ '"" " '-·-- ~""'~"'· ·-.,,.- I would like to add my voice to the groundswell of public opinion concerning an open policy on unidentified aerial phenomena. I am aware of your Department's official policy that "To date, the MOD remains unaware of any evidence which proves that "UFO/flying saucers" or extraterrestriallifeforms exist". However, if you read my attached article on the Operation Mainbrace Incident, I am sure you will agree, this policy is now obsolescent. Nor is this the only incident on record to have come out of the Public Record Office. I would be grateful if the Ministry of Defence would reword its official policy to the more updated.- "It is a matter ofPublic Record that intelligently controlled unidentified craft with design and performance parameters that far exceed current state of the art aircraft design have on occasion being witnessed by military/civilian aircrew/personneL These unidentified craft are also on occasion penetrating the UK air defence region." Under the Code of Practice on access to Government Information, I sense it would also be constructive if. in future, when military units witness unidentified aerial phenomena that full details of the sighting be made public in the fonn of a televised press conference. This type of openess would also be an excellent demonstration of the Government's commitment to a Freedom of Information Bill. I am grateful for your kind c-Onsideration of my requests for open Government. I believe by working in partnership with the people in this way, our Government would be recognised by people at home and abroad as pioneers in the progressive development of modern democracy.
A Very Secret History 1952 was a landmark year in the history of the Twentieth Century. Britain had a change of monarch, UN forces were fighting in Korea. General Batista seized power in Cuba, Emil Zatopek of Czechoslovakia won three medals at the Helsinki Olympics and President Truman dedicated The Nautilus, the worlds frrst nuclear submarine. September also had its share of the years events. In Washington, The McCarthy Witchunts were in full swing and even Charlie Chaplin was denied a US Visa pending a disloyalty enquiry. Meanwhile, Alfred He!Shey and Martha Chase confirmed the hereditary nature of DNA in a report published on the 20th. Communism and The Soviet Union were perceived as a grave threat and on the 18th September, the Danes and the US disclosed the building of a huge airbase at Thule in Greenland; meanwhile, the NATO allies were also conducting a huge exercise in the North Sea and North Atlantic. Dubbed "Mainbrace", the exercise used the military resources of Britain, USA, Canada, Norway, Demnark, France, Netherlands and Belgium. Whilst details of all these events are available in any standard college history textbook; disturbingly, details of a11 incident that occurred during Operation Mainbrace have only recently been made available through the auspices of The Public Record Office at Kew. As part ofthe Royal Air Force's involvement in Mainbrace, No 269 Squadron were posted to RAF Topcliffe on Yorkshire. It was whilst at Topcliffe that several members of this squadron \vitnessed a silver disc type unidentified flying object on the 19th September. Fit Lt Kilburn, the senior officer among the men filed a full report which was posted to HQ No 18 Group and dated 20th September 1952, the contents of which are summarised below. The witnesses observed a Gloster Meteor descending at 500 feet at RAF Topcliffe in Thirsk, Yorkshire during Operation Mainbrace. The time was 7.10pm and the date was 19 September 1952. a UFO was seen approximately 5 nriles astern at approx. 15000 feet and described as circular and silver in colmrr, it was moving at a slow speed on a similar course to tl1e Meteor and then began a descent S\vinging in a pendular motion not too dissimilar to that of a falling sycamore leaf. The descending Meteor had tUrned towards Dishforth and the UFO, whilst still descending, appeared to follow suit The pendulous motion then ceased and the o~ject initiated a rotary motion about an axis perpendicular to its horizontal plane before disappearing in a westerly direction and turning on a south easterly bearing. The witnesses stated that its movements were not identifiable with anything that they had seen in the air and acceleration was in excess of that of a shooting star. The duration of the incident was 15 to 20 seconds. The sighting was also backed up by a 11umber of civilian witnesses outside of the base. Source Material: 1. A Covert Agen<.!a by Nicholas Redfern (Pub. Simon & Schuster 1997) 2. Chronicle of The 20th Century (CD By Dorling Kindersley Ltd, London, 1996) 3. PRO File: AIR 16!1199. Crown Copyright Exists. Sourced at Kew, Tel. 0!81 876 3444
Thu 26 Mar, 1998 9:38 mailbox standard Page 1 26/03/98 Hd of CS(RM)l RE: Hill-Norton letter to USofS [ Intended: sent: 26/03/98 at 8:33 Delivered: 26/03/98 at 8:33 To: OMD/AD(Management),SEC(AS)2 cc: Ref: /GUID:D901711FOCC4D111B39400005A422BE6 From: Hd of CS(RM)l Auth by: Subject: RE: Hill-Norton letter to USofS Text: Priority: Normal Reply Request [ ] SEE PAGE View Acknowledge [ UN C LAS&J.f.d&Eh Attachments [ 1) Codes [ J
UNCLA~~~J~o have only one small change to background note. Para 11, last sentence to read "Additionally, Air Historical Branch holds key Air staff papers including some 2,6 of Operational Record Books (ie RAF Station diaries)." UNCLAi SbitEdio
From Secretariat{Air Staff)2a 1a, Ro MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, Main Building, Whitehall, London. SW1A 2HB Telephone (Direct dial) 0171 218 2140 (Switchboard) 0171 218 9000 (Fax) Your reference Our reference D/Sec(AS)/64/3 Date J.b March 1998 1. Thank you for your recent letter addressed to the Prime Minister regarding "unidentified flying objects". Your letter has been passed to the Ministry of Defence and this office is the focal point within the MOD for correspondence of this nature. I have been asked to reply. 2. First I should explain that the Ministry of Defence examines any reports of "unidentified flying objects" it receives solely to establish whether what was seen might have some defence significance; namely, whether there is any evidenc~ that the UK Air Defence Region might have been compromised by hostile or unauthorized foreign military activity. 3. Unless there is evidence of a potential threat to the United Kingdom from an external military source, and to date no "UFO" report has revealed such evidence, we do not attempt to identify the precise nature of each sighting reported to us. We believe that rational explanations, such as aircraft lights or natural phenomena, could be found for them if resources were diverted for this purpose, but it is not the function of the MOD to provide this kind of aerial identification service. It would be an inappropriate use of defence resources if we were to do so. 4. You stated you would like to visit the Public Record Office to look through MOD "UFO" report files. You will wish to know that as is the case with other government files, MOD files are subject to the provisions of the Public Records Act of 1958 and 1967. This Act of Parliament states that official files generally remain closed from public viewing for 30 years after the last action has been taken. It was generally the case that before 1967 all "UFO" files were destroyed after five years, as there was insufficient public interest in the subject to merit their permanent retention. However, since 1967, following an increase in public interest in this subject, "UFO" report files are now routinely preserved. Any files surviving from the 1950s and early 1960s which did survive are already available for examination by members of the public at the Public Record Office 1 Ruskin Avenue, Kew, Richmond, Surrey 1 TW9 4DU. Files from 1967 onwards will be routinely released to the Public Record Office at the 30 year point.... -~ MINISTERIAL CORRESPONDENCE UNIT To ;<;0£ c~s) '2._ RefNo_ · ------~1~19~9~8 Date 2--(3(~L The attached letter(s) which the Prime Minister has received has been forwarded to this Department for official action. No.10's letter codes are as fo1lows: A e- c The letter has been acknowledged by No.10. Please send a full reply within 20 working days. The letter .has been acknowledged by No.10. Please consider whether there is anything which can usefully be said to the correspondent and action accordingly. No acknowledgement has been sent. In this case, however, it is obviously important that both an acknowledgement and a full reply are sent. Unless specifically asked to do so, there is no need for you to copy your replies to this office. A new Open Government Code of Practice came into force on January 1997. All replies to members of the public must be in accordance with the procedures set out in the Code. A full explanation of the Code of Practice is contained in 48/97; further information is available from DOMD on extension Under the Citizens' Charter, Departments are now required to keep record of their performance. All branches and Agencies are required to keep information on the number of requests for information which refer to the Code of Practice including details of the correspondent and the nature and date of the reply. In addition, the Department is required to provide a record of the total number of letters from members of the public and provide statistics (which may be based on a valid sample) of its performance in providing replies within their published targets. As part of our monitoring procedure, random spot checks on the accuracy of your branch records on correspondence will be performed throughout the year. MINISTERIAL CORRESPONDENCE UNIT MB 6140 EXT
.. . TONY BLAIR PRIMEMINISTER DEAR MR Blair CHRISTCHURCH DORSET ~ I have been an investigator into the UFO phenomena for several years and I also do research for BUFORA, recently I have been looking into reports concentrating around the houses of parliament and which MP,s have seen strange lights or UFOs. I would very interested to hear your views on this subject as I feel that the tag of lunatic fringe has been given to investigators and witnesses who report such sightings. I would also like the opportunity to visit the public record office and to gain access to records about such reports. Thank you for your time and I look forward to hearing from you. Yours sincerely
MA 01453 USA Dear From Secretariat (Air Staff) 2a 1 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1A 2HB Consultant UFO Forum Telephone (Direct dial) 0171 218 2140 (Switchboard) 0171 218 9000 (Fax) Your reference Date ZS: March 1998 1. Thank you for your letter of 28 January forwarded to this office by the British Embassy in Washington, in which you sought information on the way the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence handles reports of 'unidentified flying objects'. 2. The UK MOD examines any reports of 'unidentified flying objects' it receives solely to establish whether what was seen .·· 11\i,ght have some defence. significanoei namely, whether there is any evidence that the UK Air Defence· Region might have been compromised by hostile or unauthorized foreign military activity. 3. Unless there is evidence of a potential threat to the United Kingdom from an external military source, the UK MOD does not attempt to identify the precise nature of each reported incident. We believe that down to earth explanations could be found for these reports, such as aircraft lights or natural phenomena, if resources were diverted for this purpose but it would be an inappropriate use of defence resources to provide this kind of aerial identification service. 4. The UK MOD has no expertise or role in respect of 'UFO/flying saucer' matters or to the question of the existence or otherwise of extraterrestrial lifeforms, about which it remains open-minded. I should add that to date the UK MOD knows of no evidence which substantiates the existence of these alleged phenomena. 5. Contrary to media and some public misconceptions, the UK MOD does not have a dedicated 'UFO' office nor the resources to assist the public with research into the so-called 'UFO' phenomenon. There are no staff in the UK MOD who work on this subject full time. Secretariat (Air Staff) provides advice to Ministers, the Department and the public on a wide range of issues in support of RAF activities and operations. Within these terms of reference, Sec(AS)2 acts as the nominated UK MOD focal point for handling queries, sighting reports and correspondence on the subject of 1
.. 'UFOs'. Any reports received are assessed, in consultation with the Department's air defence experts as required, to determine whether there is defence interest. 6. I hope this is helpful in explaining the limited interest that the UK MOD has with respect to the ' UFO' phenomenon. \ 1· l ~. ,.,~~ .. V\ ~ f?\. eJ1.e-.. i ... ..--c"? ·-'t : ----- · . - . -·--- ·--···· ·--~It::::-.) /\ ·--;? ~-~i 'i.,r- ~~~ Yours sincerely, 2
03/05/98 08:24 BDS WASHINGTON N0.027 1;101 ~~·~ ~·----------- '-.;:.•· DATE: 4 March 1998 TO: FAX: FROM: Wg Royal Air Force Staff British Embassy 3100 Massachusetts Avenue NW \AI!:I4~nal"llr'l'tnl'\ DC 20008-3688 Tel: Fax: E-mail: FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET REF: BDS/RAF/505112 l RoomMB824S Air3 MJCBOSOFf NETWORK UfO FORUM Please find attached the letter on UFOs we discussed in our last telecon. I apologise for the delay in forwarding it to you. Quite simply, 1 have been snowed under with matters Iraq and latterly, I welcomed the opportunity to get out on the road for a week to visit some of my exchange officers. As I mentioned, I have sent probably respond to him direct in due course. policy issue!! a holding reply and explained that 'MOD' would to you, Kerry and good luck with tJDs thorny
08:24 BDS WASHINGTON ~ •ftej•III.W8rk IFIFar• ,lnfllllllltlrs censulllat Deferwe Attache Embassy of the United Kingdom ofOteat Britain and Northern lreland 3100 Massaclmsetts Awnue, NW Washington. DC Dear Sir. N0.027 Gl02 Januaiy 28, 1998 My name is-...d I serve as a MiJitmy .t\f&iis CunsubnttD the Miorosoft Network (MSN) Unidentified ~(UFO) Forwn. As you are probably aware. the Microsoft Netwodc is one of1he 1aJEest Intmnet providen; in the United States. The purpose of the UFO Forum is to provide Microsoft Netwark subsmibers and others informaiion about 'this very oontrovemial phenomenon. It is the position of the FotUm to adopt a postuie of complete neuttatity as to the explanation of what constitutes the UFO phenomenon. We neither aeoept nor reject the plethora of theories that abound with regard to UFOs. We regularly feature guesm at OW' FOJUDl Website who represent the full gamut of1houghtwith regard to Urology. At this time we are oompiling data with regard fD how various govemment& in the world .regard the phenomena and if they have an otJicial pt)Aition regarding the subjeet of Unidentified Plying Objects. It would be examnely helpful to us, if you could b.tMtiy share with us your govemment•s position regarding UFOs espedally with regauJ to hoW that impacts upon your defeme estabti&hment. Do you, for instance. have a systematic n:sponse if a UFO i$ reported? lB there an~.,.- o.t&e tbat deals with alleged reports m :righting$ of UFOs'l Is auy researoh being conducted by your government to attempt find an explanation for the phenomenon? Your .input is very valuable to us. I can assure you that we are not a "c:mckpot" or fi:inae o.rganization,.we are tnere'ly assembling data on a topio1hatmiltion& of people world.-wide find very interesth\g. Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
From: Secretariat (Air Staff) 2a 1 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1A 2HB UFO Magazine Quest Publications International Ltd Wharfebank House Wharfebank Business Centre Ilkley Road Oteley LS21 3JP Dear Telephone (Direct dial) 0171 218 . 2140 (Switchboard) 0 (Fax) Your reference 1. Thank you for your letter of 24 February concerning reports of unidentified lights over the city of Leeds on 2 February 1998. Your letters to the LATCC (Mil) West Drayton and RAF Leeming have been passed to this office as the MOD focal point for correspondence of this nature; please accept this as a reply to all three letters. 2. As you will know, the Ministry of Defence examines any reports of 'unidentified flying objects' it receives solely to establish whether what was seen might have some defence significance; namely, whether there is any evidence that the UK Air Defence Region might have been compromised by hostile or unauthorized foreign military activity. Unless there is evidence of a potential threat to the United Kingdom from an external military source, we do not attempt to identify the precise nature of each reported incident. We believe that down to earth explanations could be found for these reports if resources were diverted for this purpose but it would be an inappropriate use of defence resources to provide this kind of aerial identification service. 3. You will wish to know I am sure thatthe MOD did not receive any reports of 'unidentified flying objects' for ~~ebruary 1998 from anywhere in the country. I can assure you that the integrity of the UK's airspace in peacetime is maintained through continuous policing of the UK Air Defence Region by the Royal Air Force which remains vigilant for any potential external military threat. We are confident that our current air defence capabilities fully meet any perceived threat . Yours sincerely,
From: Secretariat (Air Staff} 2a1 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1A 2HB gaz ne Quest Publications Wharfebank House Wharfebank Business Ilkley Road Oteley LS21 3JP Dear \/ .. . ,.. . ..,. .. :> _ ,../ /..-- _ ./.- International Ltd Centre Your reference Our reference D/Sec(AS)/64/3 Date March 1998 1. Thank you for your letter of 24 February concerning reports of unidentified ~ lights over the city of Leeds on 2 February 1998. Your letters GR-,~:tfre.--eam e-,-stl'bjeet:, to the LATCC (Mil) West Drayton and RAF Leeming have been passed to this office as the MOD focal point for correspondence of this nature; please accept this as a reply to all three letters. a' .. ~t. ..... l - 2. As you ; know, the Ministry of Defence examines any reports of 'unidentified flying objects' it receives solely to establish whether what was seen might have some defence significance; namely, whether there is any evidence that the UK Air Defence Region might have been compromised by hostile or unauthorized foreign military activity. Unless there is evidence of a potential threat to the United Kingdom from an external military source, we do not attempt to identify the precise nature of each reported incident. We believe that down to earth explanations could be found for these reports if resources were diverted for this purpose but it would be an inappropriate use of defence resources to provide thi s kind of aeri al i dentification service. / . ..-· · ";~ --~:~ I- ear-r--eon- f - ,i.±;.m-.- that the MOD did not receive any reports of (,__ ~~~~ -~ -~-~~~;~~~l ying objects' for 2 February 1998 ~ ~~~anywhere in ~-- 7..&C4 -- - _.-- .. - ------- ----··-r· .. -\- ---- - ------- - ------r··;,;~=~~-:-~--~ '-·-- • · ~.,oc 1 c·..:;;UL.A. ,_,,,),&,., .• ::s<::::> ___ ... :------ y· o · u ·- r ··-s ··" s'ncerely, ..._ ___ _______ - -- ··-- .. ---- -· -·-- ----- . ------ ... ...... --------- ~ - ~- .L.
UFO MAGAZINE Quest Publications International Ltd Wharfebank House Wharfebank Business Centre llkley Road Otely, LS21 3JP UFO HAGA2tNE THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE ••• Your Ref: Our Ref: INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE AGENDA, THE UFO DIRECTORY, UFO MAGAZINE VIDEO COLLECTION, PHOTOGRAPHIC LIBRARY, NEWSCLIPPING SERVICE, UFO INTELLIGENCE RECORDS, CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING Tel: [01943] 850860 (41ines) Fax: [01943] 850637 e-mail UFOMAG@QuestPub.Demon.CO.UK Ministry of Defence AS (Sec) 2a Main Building Whitehall 24 February 1998 London SW1A2HB Alleged UFO Sighting - 2 February 1998 -Leeds Area Dear Sir/Madam Following as many as 100 hundred eye-witness accounts of two unidentified bright lights seen moving slowly over the city of Leeds on 2 February 1998, (at approximately 5.30-5.45pm) would you be so good as to answer a number of questions from some quite baffled residents? The lights, described as 'two large white spheres' were reported moving from a southwesterly direction - heading northeast. The passed directly over the Leeds Ring Road, over Headingley, then towards Garforth. Several observ- ers state a low humming noise emanated from the lights, whilst around 90% of the witnesses reported no shape which could have indicated an aeroplane or perhaps an airship. Anumber of the witnesses are trained observers. One gentleman served with Bomber Command during \'V'WII, whilst another flew Hawker Hunter aircraft in the RAF. Interestingly, one of the gentlemen claimed an object was visible yet he could see through the device! Local newspaper, television and radio companies in Leeds and district have been inundated with reports from two independent observers captured the lights on video - one a security man in Kippax, the other, from Wortley. I have acquired the latter recording which does indeed show two strobe lights pulsating in unison - indicating they are attached to the same airborne object. The video tape has also picked-up the strange humming noise. However, what is strange is that a number of observers claim that the lights hovered for around five minutes - directly over the city, then parted company- one east, one west! In every case the witnesses state the lights were moving very slowly. The video tape is valuable evidence and supports this conclusion. Continued- Head Office: UFO Magazine, Quest Publications International Ltd, Wharfebank House, Wharfebank Business Centre, llkley Road, Otley, Near Leeds, LS21 1AE, England. Registered Company No. 2377181. Registered for VAT: 651764464. Tel: [01943]850860 (31ines). Fax: [01943]850637 Directors: Available in ovel' ao countPies woP/dwlde. FoP an infoPmatlon and media pack, telephone Ol' tax any of the above tines fM
FoTlowing further enquiries it is apparent the lights moved towards Leeds from the north of Manchester. We are 'rrently chatting the progress of the lights on 0/S maps from eye-witness accounts/reports made to other organisa- uons and media outlets. The lights were seen and reported around 5.15pm north of Manchester, observers to the west of Bradford saw the lights at 5.25pm, residents in Dewsbury at 5.30pm; and finally, dozens of witnesses made reports between 5.30-5.45pm. Whilst it is difficult to ascertain its height, the video evidence shows two extremely bright lights moving over south- west Leeds. Thankfully the observer managed to capture the comer of his house, this combined with the lights provides data which can be evaluated. What is slightly concerning to the residents is the close proximity these lights travelled to an incoming aircraft at around 5.35pm. Residents in Headingley allege the unknown lights moved directly over an aeroplane heading to- wards Yeadon. Others thought an accident was immanent For your attention I have attached a number of newspaper cuttings which do afford some background to the events. I would ask that you co-operate in this matter, providing our organisation which air traffic movements over north of England airspace. Furthermore, I am confident that between Leeds ATC and Manchester ATC these lights would have been picked-up on radar. On a local level, I am making enquiries with all relevant authorities. There is probably a very mundane explanation to these events, and I think it is in the interest of everyone concerned that we identify the lights and issue a statement at the very earliest opportunity. On a more personal note, we are quite prepared to show you the recording. Additionally, when our enquiries are complete, I will submit a report to rr. yourornce. I would also like to request copies of all alleged UFO reports or 'air incidents' submitted to the MoD on the date in question -2 February 1998. Thank you for your valuable time and assistance in this matter. I look forward to hearing from you shortly. Director
JARY 1998 L George's vi eo mystery EIGHTEEN years in the British Army had not prepared George llickinson for what he saw in the skies over Leeds. But father-of-five Mr llickinson, now a security guard, had the forethought to train a security camera on the two strange bright lights he saw and record them. Now he fears he'has a mystery on his hands worthy of the X Files. Mr llickinson, 42, of Kippax. Leeds, is a former tank warrant officer with the Royal Dragoon Guards and describes himself as a man with his feet firmly on the ground. But he said: "There were two objects in the i sky which I can't · e UFO MYSTERY: George Hickinson and, inset, his video image explain and no one else • who I have shown the started recording at 5.35pm videotape to can explain . and the two lights remained "The lights were stationary for static for about five minutes a few minutes so I decided to before moving off. turn a security camera on West Yorkshire Police said them." they had no calls to report of Mr llickinson's colleague, Ken strange goings-on in the sky. Hague, 52, was standing Yorkshire urologist Nigel outside watching the bright Mortimer said one possible lights while Mr IDckson was explanation was that if a recording events. was travelling towards the Mr Hague said today: "There . had talked about UFOs, I would security camera it would look was not a sound as they started have called them idiots, but I as if it was stationary for a few to move off. They climbed into don't know now." minutes. One of the two lights the night sky and just shot The incident happened on could have been a reflection, he · away. Up until then, if anybody Monday February 2. The video added.
.AN.~;;' cotipl~"l '.the ·.· · .... _ ...... ,"' ... tn@r .', .............. J~ ... ~~·¥~~ .... • saw through tbe .., ........... ..,. · ·~~~ie ,_, .. , ....... ,,, e'r:·':·c'"~venue, watch&l)Miwe as what belit:!v~<t6~.b~'·it UFO · · · · · · · ' . th . h . ' ·, ...... ~~;~~~ .~rl.~~~;, ' r5~~~~~ ;~,~~~~:~ ; '· ~~~~:~~?;le~:· ·lsVallll.dll].·(:laJU.I ~St~:r ~~~~~;~~~~~;~3~·· pJW,e '~ f£~. r.". ·,. h lg. s planes or heli . ,, they would < have 'been' . ., surely have crash becatisethey Blaekley ~p-ea;;, . . , ·. . .. ca,~gh~, · . . :.f:Yf? 1M. Mouday, • :.,c, ·~·· . \vere. so close to~her. ''I've never " "Some · serious .. investigation 1He •PJJt,.,thij Plwn~:,.AowJ'!, $id :seen anything.Jil{ethat before. · • work will have to be done on:the shouted to' his. 37~y~r-old ·wife · · "The· lights diqn't make any . case due to the number ofj!imilar AnnieJ jwho 1)Vin'~ i'Q.~ an insur7. noise. until they )Were overhead sighti$;" 'i < . f 0 , ·; •·• i an:CI;l fll'~,:to ~iriok at the strange and only then . make. a Anyone With 'sirililar spotting light;S'§;'k~elling to'~Alldenshaw ' 'slight humming. .a bit 1~1;1 ~ cqp.~t J?al!l ~fll!t 1,1n 9142!\ fromthe'directionof Mimcheswr, r .'an .electr;ic ·. shav py ll1<>\'ed 3309~4;.;,1 . . :. . ; , .', ,,,l ... ..,. ................. .;.;~ ... ll""'!'l"" ""-·-~'".~·:~'"'...,~"·'"'•·'!';~~1 ....... n···.··a••··} ~~~-·· ·- . .._ __ . ~--~t;..#"-·.···-· ,.,, ......••YORKSHIRE EVENING POST FRIDAY 20 FEBRUARY 1998 Night of the UFOs More YEP readers say they saw lights BY RICHARD ALLAN NEW video evidence, and a wealth of eyewitness accounts have raised fresh questions about UFOs spotted over West Yorkshire. The Yorkshire Evening Post has been inundated with calls since it published a story this week about former RAF [ILLEGIBLE] who captured what he believes is a UFO on video. [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] HOAXERS [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] Orange [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] 'WE HAVE PLAYED THE TAPE 30 TO 50 TIMES. THERE ARE TWO GIANT WHITE STROBE LIGHTS FLASHING IN UNISON' [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [Photo caption — group of five people] IS THERE SOMETHING OUT THERE? From left: Amanda Kelly, Ann Wilson, Margaret Adams, Keith Adams. An object in the night sky they saw. [Bottom left photo caption] g SKY AT NIGHT: The video shot by Ken Field of Leeds shows two mysterious bright lights [Bottom right caption] UPDATE: Martin Smith, 14, of [ILLEGIBLE] where he saw a UFO in [ILLEGIBLE] READER OFFER Evening Post READER OFFER Seed House A greenhouse and propagating unit all in one!
LMJ157/0ps 27 Feb 98 Sec(AS)2al ALLEGED UFO SIGHTING - LEEDS AREA (2 Feb 98) 1. With reference to our telephone conversation of today, I am forwarding the letter that I received concerning the above sighting. 2. As agreed, I have not replied to FltLt A/OC E&ATS (LATCC(Mil)) Ext-on 401
UFO MAGAZINE UFO HAGAZfNt Quest Publications International Ltd THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE ••• Wharfebank House Wharfebank Business Centre llkley Road Otely, LS21 3JP Your Ref: Our Ref: INTERNATIONAL COIUfERfNCE AGENDA, THE UfO DIRECTORY, liFO MAGAZINE VIDEO COLLECTION, PHOTOGRAPHIC LIBRARY, NEWSCLIPPING SERVIGE, UFO INTELLIGENCE RECORDS, ClASSIFIED ADVERTISU\IG Tel: [01943] 850860 {41ines) Fax: [019431 850637 e-mail UFOMAG@QuestPub.Demon.CO.UK Officer Commanding Emergency & Air Traffic Sqd. London Air Traffic Control Centre (Military) 24 February 1998 West Drayton Middlesex Alleged UFO Sighting • UB79AU 2 February 1998 ·Leeds Area Dear Sir Following as many as 100 hundred eye-witness account'> of two unidentified bright lights seen moving slowly over the city of Leeds on 2 February 1998, (at approximately 5.30-5.4Spm) would you be so good as to answer a number of questions from some quite baffled residents? The lights, described as 'two large white spheres' were reported moving from a southwesterly direction- heading northeast. The passed directly over the Leeds Ring Road, over Headingley, then towards Garforth. Several observ- ers state a low humming noise emanated from the lights, whilst around 90% of the witnesses reported no shape which could have indicated an aeroplane or perhaps an airship. Anumber of the witnesses are trained observers. One gentleman served with Bomber Command during WWII, whilst another flew Hawker Hunter aircraft in the RAP. Interestingly, one of the gentlemen claimed an object was visible yet he could see through the device! Local newspaper, television and radio companies in Leeds and district have been inundated with reports from two independent observers captured the lights on video -one a security man in Kippax, the other, from Wortley. I have acquired the latter recording which does indeed show two strobe lights pulsating in unison -indicating they are attached to the same airborne object. The video tape has also picked-up the strange humming noise. However, what is strange is that a number of observers claim that the lights hovered for around five minutes - directly over the city, then parted company - one east, one west! In every case the witnesses state the lights were moving very slowly. The video tape is valuable evidence and supports this conclusion. Continued- Head Office: UFO Magazine, Quest Publications International Ltd, Wharfebank House, Wharfebank Business Centre.llkley Road, Otley, Near Leeds, LS21 1AE, England. Registered Company No. 2377181. Registered for VAT: 651764464. Tel: [01943]850860 (31ines). Fax: [01943]850637 Directors: Available in ovel' ao countrle 'l'ldwidli.FOI' an lntol'mation and media pack, telephone Of' tax any of thB above Unes TMF;llowing further enquiries it is apparent the lights moved towards Leeds from the north of Manchester. We are 1rrently charting the progress of the lights on 0/S maps from eye-witness accounts/reports made to other organisa- tions and media outlets. The lights were seen and reported around 5.15pm north of Manchester, observers to the west of Bradford saw the lights at 5.25pm, residents in Dewsbury at 5.30pm; and finally, dozens of witnesses made reports between 5.30-5.45pm. Whilst it is difficult to ascertain its height, the video evidence shows two extremely bright lights moving over south- west Leeds. Thankfully the observer managed to capture the corner of his house, this combined with the lights provides data which can be evaluated. What is slightly concerning to the residents is the close proximity these lights travelled to an incoming aircraft at around 5.35pm. Residents in Headingley allege the unknown lights moved directly over an aeroplane heading to- wards Yeadon. Others thought an accident was immanent. For your attention I have attached a number of newspaper cuttings which do afford some background to the events. I would ask that you co-operate in this matter, providing our organisation which air traffic movements over north of England airspace. Furthermore, I am confident that between Leeds ATC and Manchester ATC these lights would have been picked-up on radar. On a local level, I am making enquiries with all relevant authorities. There is probably a very mundane explanation to these events, and I think it is in the interest of everyone concerned that we identify the lights and issue a statement at the very earliest opportunity. On a more personal note, we are quite prepared to show you the recording. Additionally, when our enquilies are complete, I will submit a report to your office. Thank you for your valuable time and assistance in this matter. I look forward to hearing from you shortly.
JARY 1998 L George's vi eo mystery ,:. EIGHTEEN years in the British Army had not prepared George llickinson for what he saw in the skies over Ueds. But father-of-five Mr llickinson, now a security guard, had the forethought to train a security camera on the two strange bright lights he saw and record them. Now he fears he has a mystery on his hands worthy of the X Files. Mr llickinson. 42, of Kippax, Leeds, is a fonner tank warrant officer with the Royal Dragoon Guards and describes himself as a man with his feet firmly on the ground. But he said: "There were two objects in the .sky which I can't e UFO MYSTERY: Geor9e Hickinson and, inset, hi.s video image explain and no one else who I have shown the videotape to can explain . "The lights were stationary for a few minutes so I decided to turn a security camera on them." Mr llickinson's colleague, Ken Hague, 52, was standing outside watching the bright lights while Mr Hickson was recording events. Mr Hague said today: "There . was not a sound as they started to move off. They climbed into the night sky and just shot away. Up until then, if anybody had talked about UFOs, I would have called them idiots, but I don't know now." The incident happened on Monday February 2. The video started recording at 5.35pm and the two lights remained static for about five minutes before moving off. West Yorkshire Police said they had no calls to report of strange goings-on in the sky. Yorkshire ufologist Nigel Mortimer said one possible explanation was that if a was travelling towards the security camera it would look as if it was stationary for a few minutes. One of the two lights could have been a reflection, he .. added.
AN Ashto~.~n8io 11- er_ . .whO' · •· i;potted ·· -~~,_._-.i-......__.::.__;;...;:,:_, 0 tc :strange . ·glowing lights in the sky over her home -wa.S -amazed .when she. datllghtelrhad read a similar account in the ltep_9rter and · Chronicle. p.-).hl.)!. ...... .t .}).®&4»-
YORKSHIRE EVENING POST FRIDAY 20 FEBRUARY 1998
[Left column — separate article, partial text visible at right margin:]
[ILLEGIBLE]e taken in Scot-
land, 17
west, 13
Islands,
eastern
[ILLEGIBLE]eks in
and 12
west,
[ILLEGIBLE]k, man-
[ILLEGIBLE]f Black
ment-
remain-
lighting
[ILLEGIBLE]y wish
[ILLEGIBLE]ices for
re as fol-
1,060
1,200 in
1,060
1,600 in
1,655
March
66,221
March
60
5,402 in
43,381
March
393
March
average
up from
[ILLEGIBLE]ut Eng-
gland,
at 96 per
making
less than
all
[ILLEGIBLE]le said:
going for the
[ILLEGIBLE]d after
[ILLEGIBLE]he music
late 19th
[ILLEGIBLE]the Do[ILLEGIBLE]
[ILLEGIBLE]g for the
[ILLEGIBLE]
hown the
at in the
rations.
pardise a
shopping
Night of the UFOs
More YEP
readers
say they
saw lights
BY RICHARD ALLAN
NEW video evidence and a
wealth of eye-witness accounts
have raised fresh questions
about UFOs spotted over West
Yorkshire.
The Yorkshire Evening Post has been
inundated with calls since it published
the story of security guard George
Hickinson who filmed two unexplained
bright lights in the Leeds sky.
UFO-watcher Mark Birdsall believes
the mysterious lights which appeared
on Monday, February [ILLEGIBLE] are the
strongest evidence of UFOs in the city
for [ILLEGIBLE] years.
Mark believes this month's sightings
rival July 23, 1953, when dozens of eye-
witnesses reported seeing a huge white
sphere hanging over Leeds.
His views are based on 22 seconds of
film shot this month by Leeds resident
Ken Field.
Hovering
Video stills from the tape clearly
show two very bright lights hovering
in the sky.
Ken, of Walkers Green, Lower Wort-
[ILLEGIBLE], said: 'My wife Pauline was outside
and called me to look at the lights. I got
[the] camcorder and focused on the
object.'
'All I can tell you is that definitely
[ILLEGIBLE] isn't an aircraft. I have never seen an
aircraft with lights brighter than a
[ILLEGIBLE].'
Mark said: 'We have played the tape
20 to 30 times and there are two giant
white strobe lights flashing in unison.'
'Whatever this thing is it's very,
very low in the sky, maybe 1,500 to
3,000ft.'
Mark, who runs an Otley-based UFO
magazine, has written to the Ministry
of Defence asking whether military
planes were active over Leeds that
[ILLEGIBLE].
He said: 'It's doubtful that some-
thing military would fly over the city
that low using a normal Leeds flight
path.'
'The video footage will enable us to
determine what we're dealing with but
it's the biggest event in Leeds in the
1990s.'
UFO expert and author Timothy
Good, due to give a lecture at Leeds
University on the evening of February
[ILLEGIBLE], has been called in by Mark to look
at the Leeds UFO evidence.
Martin Best, who works for British
Telecom, saw the strange lights as he
walked home that evening.
'I was walking home when I saw
these lights in the sky. They were in
my view and heading towards me from
the south west.'
'As they passed overhead I could see
there was no shape in the object.'
'When it came towards me it took
the colouring of the sky and I could see
through it, as if it was opaque.'
'There was no noise except a very
dull whirr,' said Martin, who lives in
Red Hall View, Whinmoor.
'I have never seen anything like it
before. It was very, very strange and it
made me a bit uneasy and apprehensive.'
Pensioner and RAF veteran Denis
Vevers says he was amazed by what he
saw from the doorstep of his home in
Manston Grove, east Leeds.
'What I saw mesmerised me. I just
couldn't understand it.'
The former air-gunner, a self-
confessed sceptic, says the lights he
saw that night remained stationary at
first before moving away slowly.
'I'm a sceptic and I'm still sceptical
but the lights were there and it wasn't
an aeroplane.'
In Meanwood, Margaret Rolls and
her friends watched the same bright
lights in the sky above them.
'WE HAVE PLAYED THE TAPE 20 TO 30
TIMES. THERE ARE TWO GIANT WHITE
STROBE LIGHTS FLASHING IN UNISON'
● IS THERE SOMETHING
OUT THERE?
From left,
Edna Lolly,
Margaret
Rolls, Alan
Adamson
and
Margaret
Adamson
who all saw
an object in
the night
sky over
Leeds
JAMES HARDSITY
Margaret, who viewed the mysteri-
ous object through binoculars, has
never seen anything like it before and
is convinced the lights did not belong
to a military aircraft.
Carolyn Clark, who works at the
Parcelforce National Enquiry Centre at
Bridge House in Leeds, saw the lights
as she left work.
Orange
'These lights were like rectangles
with rounded corners and were orange.
They made no sound as far as I could
detect and were perfectly still. I didn't
stay long enough to see them move
away, but I had the feeling they weren't
your usual mode of air transport.'
● Anyone who wishes to see Timothy
Good at Leeds University on Monday
night should telephone 0800 088 7281 for
details.
● UNEASY: Martin
Best, in a
ginnel near
his home in
Whinmoor,
Leeds,
where he
saw a UFO
DAN OXTOBY
● [ILLEGIBLE] ● NIGHT: The video shot by Ken Field of Leeds shows two mysterious bright li[ILLEGIBLE]
READER OFFER Evening & Post READER OFFER
Seed House
A mini greenhouse
and propagating
unit all in one!
FOR JUSTFlight Lieutenant UFO Maga zine Quest Publications Interna tional Ltd Wharfebank House Wharfebank Business Centre Ilkley Road Otely LS21 3JP Dear RAF 2390/2/PR 4-- ·, March 1998 I am writing in response to your letter dated 24 February 1998 about an alleged UFO sighting on 2 February 1998 in the Leeds/Manchester area. I regret that I am unable to identify anything which may relate to the sightings and have therefore forwarded your letter to the Ministry of Defence (Air Secretariat) who deal with such matters.
Wharfebank House Wharfebank Business Centre llkley Road Otely, LS21 3JP THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE.;; · Your Ref: Our Ref: INTERNATIONAL CONFBlfi'JC£ ACfNDA, m£ UFO DIRECTORY, UFO 'MACAZIN£ VIDEO COLLECTION, PHOJOCRAPHIC liBRARY, 1\!EWSCUPPING SBlVICE, UFO INTRUGfNCE RECORDS, CLASSifi£D ADVERTISING Tel: (01943] 850860 {4 lines) Fax: (01943] 850637 e-mail UFOMAG@QuestPub.Demon.CO.UK Officer Commanding RAF Leeming Northallerton G-nd t4 . 104-SE 26'0 .55~ -br Heo-dt~ \~ 24 February 1998 North Yorkshire DL7 9NJ Alleged UFO Sighting • 2 February 1998 -Leeds Area Dear Sir Following as many as 100 hundred eye-witness accounts of two unidentified bright lights seen moving slowly over the city of Leeds on 2 February 1998, (at approximately 5.30-5.45pm) would you be so good as to answer a nu111ber of questions from some quite baffled residents? .·_: The lights, described as 'two large white spheres' were reported moving from a southwesterly direction- heading northeast. The passed directly over the Leeds Ring Road, over Headingley, then towards Garforth. Several observ- ers state a low humming noise emanated from the lights, whilst around 90% of the witnesses reported no shape which could have indicated an aeroplane or perhaps an airship. A number of the witnesses are trained observers. One gentleman served with Bomber Command duting WWII, whilst another flew Hawker Hunter aircraft in the RAF. Interestingly, one of the gentlemen claimed an object was visible yet he could see through the device! Local newspaper, television and radio companies in Leeds and district have been inundated with reports from two independent observers captured the lights on video - one a security man in Kippax, the other, a from Wortley. I have acquired the latter recording which does indeed show two strobe lights pulsating in unison - indicating they are attached to the same airborne object. The video tape has also picked-up the strange humming noise. However, what is strange is that a number of observers claim that the lights hovered for around five minutes - directly over the city, then parted company- one east, one west! In every case the witnesses state the lights were moving very slowly. The video tape is valuable evidence and supports this conclusion. Continued- Head Office: UFO Magazine. Quest Publications International Ltd. Wharfebank House. Wharfebank Business Centre,llkley Road, Otley, Near Leeds, LS21 1AE, England. Registered Company No. 2377181 . Registered for VAT: 651764464 . Tel: [01943)850860 (31ines). Fax: (01943)850637 Directors: Available In ovet' 30 countrtefivoi'IIIWfde;tor an lntol'matlon and melfia pack, telephone or tax any of the above Onesapparent the lights are jrrently charting the progress of the lights on 0/S ·maps from eye-witness accounts/reports made to other organisa" tions and media outlets. The lights were seen and reported around 5.15pm north of Manchester, observers to the west of Bradford saw the lights at 5.25pm, residents in Dewsbury at 5.30pm; and finally, dozens of witnesses made reports between 5.30-5.45pm. Whilst it is difficult to ascertain its height, the video evidence shows two extremely bright lights moving over south- west Leeds. Thankfully the observer managed to capture the corner of his house, this combined with the lights provides data which can be evaluated. What is slightly concerning to the residents is the close proximity these lights travelled to an incoming aircraft at around 5.35pm. Residents in Headingley allege the unknown lights moved directly over an aeroplane heading to- wards Yeadon. Others thought an accident was immanent. For your attention I have attached a number of newspaper cuttings which do afford some background to the events. I would ask that you co-operate in this matter, providing our organisation which air traffic movements over north of England airspace. Futthermore, I am confident that between Leeds ATC and Manchester ATC these lights would have been picked-up on radar. On a national level, I am making enquiries with the Ministry of Defence and West Drayton. There is probably a very mundane explanation to these events, and I think it is in the interest of everyone concerned that we identify the lights and issue a statement at the very earliest opportunity. On a more personal note, we are quite prepared to show you the recording. Additionally, when our enquiries are complete, I will submit a report to your ot11ce. I would like to request any reports submitted to RAF Leeming on the date in question. It's not often we have reason to contact Leeming, indeed, the last time such an incident occurred was in 1983, we eventually identified the UFO after a major investigation, hopefully we can do the same in this case. Thank you for your valuable time and assistance in this matter. I look forward to hearing from you shortly. &tree tor
r JARY 1998 L George's vi eo mystery EIGHTEEN years in the British Army had not prepared George Hickinson for what he saw in the skies over Leeds. But father-of-five Mr Hickinson, now a security guard, had the forethought to train a security camera on the two strange bright lights he saw and record them. Now he fears he has a mystery on his hands worthy of the X Files. Mr Hickinson, 42, of Kippax, Leeds, is a former tank warrant officer with the Royal Dragoon Guards and describes himself as a man with his feet firmly on the ground. But he said: "There were two objects in the .sky which I can't e UFO MYSTERY: GeorSe Hickinson and, inset, his video image explain and no one else • who I have shown the videotape to can explain . "The lights were stationary for a few minutes so I decided to turn a security camera on them." Mr Hicldnson's colleague, Ken Hague, 52, was standing outside watching the bright lights while Mr Hickson was recording events. Mr Hague said today: "There was not a sound as they started to move off. They climbed into the night sky and just shot away. Up untif then, if anybody had talked about UFOs, I would have called them idiots, but I don't lmow now." The incident happened on Monday February 2. The video started recording at 5.35pm and the two lights remained static for about five minutes before moving off. West Yorkshire Police said they had no calls to report of strange goings-on in the sky. Yorkshire ufologist Nigel .. Mortimer said one possible . explanation was that if a plane was travelling towards the security camera it would look as if it was stationary for a few minutes. One of the two lights could have been a reflection, he added.
J ' ~ Q ~ c..-. ~ ~ ~ '-.) ~ ~ :z .-'\ ... --------- ; Mvst.ertous-llDb:tt~ ~s·"_ ... _~·-~e::.~·~<··e_,·;-<·n·, .. - ... : .. ·:·1·· ~n_·-_'_ .. _.~- 1 h. ·e·· ·n~·~-~g· .. ·a· "·~--- ~ ." ' •• I, ,., ' • J " ~ 0 ..._ ~, ~ .. T ' . '' . . ' ,; : '. .; t . . : : l . . ,·. : . ;. ·:. I . . . •' ~ i . ' 1 I , _..';' -~?·j { 1 ~!'1,! ; # 1 ...:..· J: ~ ) ,,. 'l .~: .. ~ .... .s·n<i·rl~ ~ ·~~ .•; 'if~~: ..c--,-~al "!. ~ l!~,ttf~.: ~,!~:; "' ·t. ~ t..l", 1 tt-~ l•1 ·~.i'd)tt~~.<! I ·a~T ... ,., ~'l'·· · •. :.,., .... -~) . .-.·:r··· , .. , ... ·'·'·(·•· ...•. ':-~ .. ~-ilia.~-- h' JU~'.· ··. :f_..audens. h. a~~~~ •!&u':,. .,.,,. ...... ~.,; .• d 'ro:..'ri. ,., .... ;.- ... z:. ; 1 .~fiq~. . ·\M'K ·~·.· C'oupl(~·< are'·'bonhig· n ~ pQ~·~f?:~N.A: · 0 ~}1~T,lf.'{r.. ~..:u1 fli\>fr -- . . . ·.:K.rr.:- lt r- . .•.• ~ .. . • t!li-"" ':the ·.·truth .Lis •.<-out .. •They.iwentcout ·t,~jncirbltC!t,,'Jno~~1~.·) .e'";f .. d . · tli~r¢' ·:;~,~t.~~r.(j . t~f!y.{ .. ~J~r:~!n":'fiv :{~~~-light$ ' ~::!:roni!n~FJ}!~ . ·~·.,. .._. d' saw two globes· of "There ':"/.ere t · halliL.oLJ~oli!L..~. ~ ~.n ~ .~1. ts w,M~~~ J..rHiiitnt'; ·.r-,2·;~i4-b._·£;bri~!it:··~~ 1 u ts ht9!~~~'~l!:~."":':t.·.·or..,. s;.11f~it ?!~~enif}an · . n: . ~~ r ..... t. . . ..< .• ~ ..... ~ ,..~,.'1:tJO'Iing'•ve~J'·BO y, t 6·1!8 '-l!l,;.i-~- ., IIi· .. ·. light ;u': ~~'" ~glidfng' thdleft:moved oVtr on t,'l;p o ,($ .,_n,ou •. ?n 1; _ • . • t hr h h ki .... , .. ,,. ··.···othero····'!· -,.,,. l''h'''•'; J· llrbuVaidh·.~esC:ttbetiir. _ .. : t . oug t ~ s es. "They both ~id~~too'41ttle"' seen.r:l - -hH:t ,;~ ~k<N:i-~<Jt_;!ffo•''; ~~-f:Ul~~ritpe Clarke, ~~·:la9.n~ts o~,~_tthe·m:a-r:·~t'-1 -.l-ater that~sn,t~tel'lns ~end Kmgfisher·- Avenue, botK:~~~iHIMiiliing petfectly.m -time:" ~ar.k;_. M~linehef~::~ watch~jn aw_e as what they,;..;;tAe.Y ~ne_ ... _Ae .. veri!J•hun~fcet desrr~?ed· ··ex~tly_r..,.Whatr,.·.t~ b 1 . · .. b. · • UFO · ed ,, ·,u1 .. tl~eunt!.-• ':1 . • •• . , . Clarke shad seen .. v. r.1'fl ,, " . e Ieve ~ e a mov Steven said: "\fe live on-~he Paul Quest, a member.;~ the over therr home. . flight path and ~ve seen plerity Manchester . . A;~QmaloW] . Steven, 42, an 111dependent of aircraft go over our home. Phenomena Investigation Team, recor.d prod~;~cer, was on t~e "lf the li~hts, belonged to said a number ~f UFO reports phgne _to a fnend on an ups.t.airs planes or hehcopt.ers they would have been recetved :fr~m· the extension when Jhe.bnght hghts surely have crashed because they Blackley area. • . ~- ·. · caught his eye last Monday. were so close together. I've never "Some serious investigation He put. ,the phone down and seen anything like that before. work will have to be done on the shouted to his 37 -year-old wife "The lights didn't make any case due to the number of similar Annie; who works -for an insur- noise until they ~ere overhead sightings." , • , . . ··· ance firm, to look at the strange and only then dif· they make a Anyone With similar 'sjJotting lights tra~elli~g to Audenshaw slight hu!Dining oise a bit like can contact Paul Q\test onJll426, from the d1rectwn of Manchester.. an electnc :shave ...'rhey mo~ed 330924.,) , , , .; 1 ::. ,,, ; Q~hnl"' _:~ .. 1< !!'!~ .. ,.. ··- ........ ~3'1'>~~--~,~~-nJ. -"1~W.fHDJ'«:', IN I"";:~~.• -ne taken . . in Scot· iaweekS ~d,;l7 1 west, 13·>~·~··,...,,,. .. ..,,,...~""-~'l'·'• idlands: • ' ~:J;i~~i;~~~~~::'~~·¥ 'eastern ,~ Neeks in ,and"·12 nwe5t.. ck man;' of,Black :omment· · irenrulin~§IJ~~)ut~~F(j81sootlednT,.o~~,A 1ile :hoice my, there ations of iing~pqf · .iirhomes ;?'.~ ' - . ' ifq.p~ fl,n,d- . " :Jley.wiSh · by the "' th'at. ;e; the gov~ al'actvisers,'; tent·tO See~ illed. down .. xx>r:9Qn,~;; . ~t. who vili~ed: ~~:~t~~eri· . ous object through binoc~s. has · never seen anything like it before and • . is convinced the lights did not .. belong : to ·a military aircraft •.. /~ , .. z. • · · · Carolyn Clark, who wprks ·at the Parcelforce National Enquiry Centre at Bridge House in Leeds, saw the lights as she left wo~Onmge:·~i~t:·.~ .' ·. , "These lights· we~ •like'\~tangles with rounded corners and Were orange. , They-made.no·sound'a(~:ru;·:r could~. detect and·were· perf~t;stuFJ! didn'L ·stay long enough to see them 'move ·. -away, but I had the feeling they weren't your usual mode of air transport.'~ • Anyone who wishes to see Timothy Good at Leeds University'on.Monday night should telephone 0800Jl68.728l for : details. · ·. · · · · · ·· :;; · . !
.. Secretariat( Air Staff)2a 1, Room MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1A 2HB Telephone (Direct dial) 0171 218 2140 (Switchboard) 0171 218 9000 (Fax) Your reference Our reference D/Sec(AS)/64/3 Br ghouse, Date llllilliif_k_s_h_i_r_e __ . ____________________________ ~-~---M-a-rc_h_1_9-98------------------ Dear 1. Thank you for your letter of 11 January in which you asked for information on an incident which is alleged to have occurred in January 1974, which you believe might be 'UFO-related'. I am sorry for the delaying in responding to you. 2. First I should explain that the Ministry of Defence examines any reports of 'unidentified flying objects' it receives solely to establish whether what was seen might have some defence significance; namely, whether there is any evidence that the UK Air Defence Region might have been compromised by hostile or unauthorized foreign military activity. 3. Unless there is evidence of a potential threat to the United Kingdom from an external military source, and to date no 'UFO' report has revealed such evidence, we do not attempt to identify the precise nature of each sighting reported to us. We believe that rational explanations, such as aircraft lights or natural phenomena, could be found for them if resources were diverted for this purpose, but it is not the function of the MOD to provide this kind of aerial identification service. It would be an inappropriate use of defence resources if we were to do so. 4. The MOD does not have any expertise or role in respect of 'UFO/flying saucer' matters or to the question of the existence or otherwise of extraterrestrial lifeforms, about which we remain totally open-minded. I should add that to date the MOD knows of no evidence which substantiates the existence of these alleged phenomena . s. With regard to your particular request I have checked the listings of files which have been forwarded to MOD archives since 1974 and have been unable to identify any files which might 1
contain information relevant to your enquiry. I have, however, been able to establish that there were no military aircraft crashes in the UK on 23 January 1974. 6. I am sorry I am unable to help you further. If at some stage in the future any relevant paperwork on this subject comes to light I will of course contact you again. Yours sincerely, 2
Brighouse Dear Sir or Madam, I am writing to enquire if your department of the MOD has any infmmation on the following event: Date: Location: Event: Night of23/24 January 1974 Berwyn Mountains, central Wales. Specifically the area around Cader Berwyn and the town of Llandrillo Some type of event took place on the mountain and in the area which, according to witnesses, involved among other things, the military sending a search team out, RAF involvement from their mountain rescue unit at RAF Valley on Anglesey. It was said that this was a 'UFO' related incident and that the MOD was aware of it, as evidenced by the military activity. Obvi.ou.sly there must be some record of this event and I wondered if your department has any knowledge of this event in its files. If not could you suggest any departments it would be worth contacting. Thankyou for your help. This matter is to be the subject of a forthcoming book and I appreciate any assistance or comment you can give. . M~~~mr:«Y t~ 4 ~)l£fiihti 2
····"' NCL~~ ED/IJNCI:AS-51FIED MINISTRY OF DEFENCE 2- Enclosure Jacket No. ... ............. DATE OPENED .................................................... ........................... . SUBJECT: l{j!l) \1\LL- ~(.).\ ~\ Rt. ~ ~ Cf- CJ llEb -Fl L6S . Referred to Date Referred to N 0 TE S MOD Form 1740 Date 1. A Temporary Jacket will only be used when the Registered File is not available. 2. The contents of a Temporary Jacket must be incorporated in the Registered File at the earliest opportunity, and this incorporation recorded on a transit slip or file record sheet. 3. The movements of Temporary Jackets are recorded by the Registry. Transit is to be recorded on transit slips as for Registered Files. DOWNGRADING (to be completed when the jacket is incorporated in the Registered File) This jacket may be downgraded to:- RESTRICTED UNCLASSIFIED on .............. ....................................................... . (insert date) Certifying Officer ................................................. .. .................. ... .. ............................................. .......... .. ........ ........................... . Appointment Date.......................................... ..... .. and Branch ...................................................................................... .. uNc L JRf!SlflmTE 0 /UNGI:AS·SI-FI-fD.._ rv~ 1 · C."¥ ~lJ •. ..l I</ Minister of State for Defence Procurement MINISTRY OF DEFENCE WHITEHALL LONDON SW1 A 2H Telephone ect Dialling) 071·21 89000 (Switchboard) From: THE RT HON DR THE LORD GILBERT D/Min(DP)/JWG/MP/3842/97/M / b October 1997 Thank you for your letter of 22 September concerning the alleged events at Rendlesham Forest of December 1980. From Departmental records available from that period we have found no evidence to suggest that this Department contacted Lieutenant Colonel Charles Halt following receipt of his memo of January 1981 recording "Unexplained Lights" in the area in December 1980. Some 16 years after the event we can only conclude, therefore, that it was not considered necessary to make further enquiries in the light of the lack of any evidence to suggest that the UK's Air Defence Region had been compromised by unauthorized foreign military activity. It was then, and is still the case, that MOD does not routinely contact witnesses wh~ submit reports of "unexplained" aerial sightings. Follow-up action is only deemed necessary if there is corroborating evidence to suggest an unauthorized incursion of the UK Air Defence Region or other evidence of a matter of defence concern. I hope this clarifies the position. ~ ~q_'_ Admiral of the Fleet The Lord Hill-Norton GCB dppsMb39/pe/3842hillno/a n/cs
Minister of State for Defence Procurement MINISTRY OF DEFENC WHITEHALL LONDON S Telephone 071-21 89000 {Switchboard) From: THE RT HON DR THE LORD GILBERT D/Min(DP)/JWG/MP/4290/97/M \if-November 1997 Thank you for your further letter of 22 October about the alleged events at Rendlesham Forest of the nights of 27-29 December 1980. Officials here had previously drawn my attention to the memo written by Colo~el Halt. I am afraid, however, that there is nothing further I can add. From surviving Departmental records we remain satisfied that nothing of defence significance occurred on the nights in question. L{o~JG .s\ '\C:P-s.:V .. .> .' ',,;,. .. ,~. ! SEl Admiral of the Fleet The Lord Hill-Norton GCB J[f615 (~~~~ ~ H-IJ ~ !, COVERING SECRET/CONFIDEMT"lAL/RE-S'f'RICTED/MA-NAGBMENT/ REFERENCE D/US of S/JS 2.'3/1 / o . \)o ~"' \). \ . ·\\ \-. \ I am attaching a letterjm±rtttte from L_ o \ 0' \-\ \J..J" - \"~ c:-. (\ t::> '-·-- .................. ............... ., . to ... S R\\ ...................... . dated .. !> . . ·. ~? .... S.~ ....... . Will you please consult other Departments, divisions and branches as necessary and submit advice, together with a draft reply, in order to reach US of S not later tha n I am sending copie s of this to: ~ 1 l"}\· s . -- ~\ ( • ~ ·-~ ..... ~· .... --.·· \ .. J •• \'-. c· ( \ " . .._ ., V. ',-.:.. 'J. i ''·-" \_.. \' . ' .... ~\.\) + ~ ·.--. :-- • .. -.~..{. •• . · •• "" "'>\ ,\ "'"' ' \ !"-. r"' ·~~\ ~ ~ '~ \"-.,._ \ """ \_ \ .. ., .. ... ····· ·'-. · ·· ··~" · ..... \\ \;, _ ( ___ _ . '( ~l\, _ t ''\ ".\ ;:<~'0 . ; . ·· . ~ - - ~--- . • -.:~). },. \ . . '"' ...... . . . . , '\., . . ..... .. .. "\ ...... . \\ .. . .. . . . . . . . ~ .. . . . ~..,. . ~ . .. ·'\ \ • ~ " • " • 11 .o o ot < • ~ " " • • . • • \I The Open Government: Code of Practice came into force on 4 Apr i 1 1994 and you should ensure t hat replies to members of the public are provided in accordance with its procedures . r, Date: (. __ \ P S o f S HB6 215 ~ CHOTS: ~Hailbox/ l ~p-) ( . )t-]{k2 ::.s. \ ~J:I~' IJ n ru ~j)> ·~ f n vJ ----- Ofl--V~ . J /\4/V'- 0-- I ({yJ ' \J &J'b ' 0>§' ~ Admiral of the Fleet The Lord Hill-Norton GCB - \ ~ ):- t.ion 40 -\\-v·O . r PEHSONAL 1'he r-< L FJr)n Georg e Robert sen M.P Sec retary of State Mini strv of Defence Ma in Bulld 1ng Wh i tehal Lo ndon Sl-Yll1 2HB A ,L ~.. . ,A C~:j, '\ _,\ s ~/ ()U rna)• ~(n(;t.v, I ha \l (~ ftJ r s c ~ r n t. ~:~ 'lt-~ ~(: t rs t ake n f i 1-<~ t-:~ ~ -~r- , J i ·; t .( ~~ r e st. 1r! t"l'te· 1.S S l 1e C ) f u. r l : :ltii ~h () _ t- 1 ::.: r:.~ c{ fJ t: ~ r l E::t r .:-J t i () rt s (J f tl- j t- ~ Uh i-\ J __ r Def e nc e Re gi o n by u ni de nt Lf~ed cr 2f t . For th e most . pa t·t yo ur <).f .f j_ (_ :ii-JJs r e f er t cJ Lhc~s( _ :~ :;r 1 ;~"-~ . c1 ~? r 1t~s d.B 7 ' C F'()' 1 ~ ..; . · \ ·;.;h t. i.nq s;- a r1 ri t ~ hi.:.-:..; Jan q u.a q f.: ~ e n s u r ,_ : :_-: : -.._-, t. i·1 .::l \:. s ;1\ ~: t·1 i:.~ \ / t~ n l ~:~; ,: 3 c ~ -::~ h r:'{ cd. J ·y' .-:-::: \ :· f~"l r r - ~t.J r s Ll c~d t) y t .. h.e:.-:; s E :~ l " ~i . .c.J 1. .1 s nif.~d ·1.. d ( ) 1~ } :; · y ·t he E 2; t. <.·1 b .:1 j _ _ s l· t·r ~~ ~: ~ . n t . as ' . · ~ rn 1. s J .. o. c : :: n \la.r.t ou:-;;; -·· ,j."' U l . (J n d F·hc~n()fn f : :·n a . . .. r b a. l :•.-.~; a .. t.dr t . l- r E:~ r e l ~·3 ;:.t ht::-tt~d c~ ~.)r c ~ (J.f c:. ~ '-..r '" :~ n!.:-:-:;1 ..i ... n C' J u.d. i r1q in c~ .l. ci (:' n i. s \V t; r .~· r t: ~ · u r1 c () 1 · rt:: J , ... :. ~ t . f; d t .. ci r l.·J e t:. ;;;:; h d \/ !.' ·~ b ( : ~- f 1 r:. d . ( -:- Lr ~ ~ ~ ct t~ d. o n r {::.t.d.a t#r d. n -:J n .;\F (Jj_r c t·d{L s c c ~ _~:un .bl c · d i n .. -;! LL!-; n q_~ rL _ :-3 ·f ·· c: i. ni. .-. er-~= r~r: t. t he c: r·a . .:LL :? · v-,-hi:..:..i.·i -:",_ :Jn rl( JL b(:"' ~-=- ;c-_; t~xr ~ i. -::J i r1 (: d. /\ {j i_ i i.nl.Je. r <;f t .h c:~se b .. d \ l r-:: c: c) rn <::.:: L.c .l. '- 'J ht L l" ! . r r.)~_ tJ i 1 d .;__~· dr£:~ fu .i sL tJ< l ~ ; ~ )( ;:t r ~ ~."Jund f i \ !· e (J f }' f) !1 c t.-v· (~-~ .c (:: c .!. (J ;~ ~ ::s :if i. e el. . ;:~ :_ L h c j_ e \/ '~~: 1 1.'..1 f s (. -: c .. r· (:• L j \.) ri. t" h . i. r :: :;-:; l. J t·} j E·~ ~ - - t ; , _-:tv ct J . .l ,~3 iJ J e at t h . ~.: - ~ F' .t t l :: J - ~- (_ ·. · J~: r .:. 1 ! ~ ( ) r d () _ C f .t. i... ~ t:::( .i .. n .h.t:.:.tv' • ·r hi:-;; b t- .L n ~ : :-~ ,- () 1. l.'J \: : ~ tJ <:t r t· .. nl(::· rl 'L :3 e c.: r (= ~- t a .t~ i. a t .J V <.) ti.r i) t'ft .:~ rt :. rn r:-: n L C d t .i !-f_:lc1·uc?st.s f <) r OE·' () ~ .. fl f (• rt:l .. :-x ·t ~c ~r 1 ··· t.. !. tne· . td.ki .. r1q l J_ J: .i q 1\/ C J: ; ) ('\ ' ' (~-~ ! . . h~~ :~J~~---E~ _~:L~~-1~~-~:.r~~:L.-. ---~! . .f e c!d. tf..~~~:; hifllr !7- ~ 1 )?c57..51 t ,_. . .. 2 .f::.;eenr~.-:; t:-.t.J rnc~ Lhdt. Lil(~:rf-:_~ 1.!3 d. VJd_y t() .3-.-\/C)J.cj this bu.r·cien, a;1cJ ;-:J-!. Lll(-_' St:.:Jntr~ t .i.L:c~ dt:.:'d .I t.\J _; Lh sc>rne c>f f).;.::- i n (3 rna ci f~ ~ ~~1 \/ (:-1 ;-_- (_~ fr)r dnd_ .: ................ , ................ . d 1 j Rt~CfJrcl f\c~t-~-:; 1 J_n Sf.Jj_te.:-.. ()f Lh.e: 1rJ Yc·at· HuJr:0'', d··parLmenta.t l:"!''cords m.:tna<J<::rnent sl>d'f . ..:,: (~J)~~:. __ i)llr:~-t!J(:~d. t\-) Jc1e.·nt.i.fv d.isc~J::-r~te.· blc1cks ()f fi .. 1c-s Su.c~ll --J n!(:>vc~ v./(JU1(J t>e gr·e~:itl· ... / df:1!~~:cE~Clt:.:~·L(:-~{1 i.:Jk;,' .d ser tctts i.nt.: .. ~1-,~S.t. :n 1 ;~: i,:~~ .. •"':~,r~.l;J, ... ,,._:--."t __ ..,. ntit~-..:; ;_'~:--:! (_)f VcHl.t' Ct~I:J(~l t.Iocn~~ .. ::. t.'..>tnJL. ~ .~,, ~··- t() CJrJ<::_•rl c;\~)\'t.::-rnJn('rtt. ' l. -_:;t_l.C)nqJy Ut'C:(_) t.il1Jt fv1()rc~ qt?n(--'r~_J J 1:;.., _, H\d'/ l SSU.t vour staff - p;-efe:-·.d.:)y :-; }.1< :' (' .!. d ! fr-om v,·:itbJ.n Lhe ,_i :-; CJ f";F·d; J .. -·"f.'fi·~~ C 1 V L l '.} U ( y U U ~\' j_ j J fj fl cJ t fl C I'!: ( /,,I \.. ),; I 1''-' ....... I 1 ' ' \ I _.)., ' ! .• '' .~ j i I 1'J''f / ./ "' \ -UN C LAS£jfMHt:9:o < i!IJ •' Mon Mar, 1998 15:12 mailbox standard Page 1 DATE FROM SUBJECT CODES 16/03/98 OMD/AD(Management) Letter from Lord Hill-Norton (U/C) [ ] Intended: sent: 16/03/98 at 12:44 Delivered: 16/03/98 at 12:45 To: SEC(AS)2,Hd of CS(RM)l CC: Ref: /GUID:6F51E340BABCD1119C7000A02461F4C4 From: OMD/AD(Management) Auth by: Subject: Letter from Lord Hill-Norton (U/C) Text: Priority:, Normal Reply Request [ ] SEE PAGE View Acknowledge ( ] UNCLA S.~@gQ o Attachments ( 2] Codes ( ]
UN C L~&blr:lilD Attached is a skeleton draft brief and reply to Hill-Norton (produced in CSV8 and Unclassified). As you will see, it needs a lot of fleshing out, and I would be grateful for your inputs as indicated, plus any other thoughts that you might have. My initial view is that the message should be that we will consider early release or some programme leading to early release, subject to the constraints that you might identify. Happy to discuss particular points, but grateful for responses by COP Thurs 19 Mar. copy of the letter is being faxed to you. Many thanks, UNCLA&stii"iErlEb
LOOSE MINUTE D/DOMD/2/3 Mar98 PS/USofS Copy to: APSjSotS PS/Min(AF) PS/Min(DP) PS/DUS{CM) DGMO HdSec(AS) [DISN] Hd CS(RM) LORD HILL-NORTON: REQUEST FOR RELEASE OF FILES Reference: A. DjUSofS/JS 28/1/0 dated 9 Mar 98 Issue 1 . How to respond to the request from Lord Hill-Norton for the release of an. closed files on the subject of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP). Recommendation 2. That USofS responds in terms of the attached draft letter. Timing 3. Routine. Background 4. Lord Hill-Norton_ [Sec AS - grateful for some background on his interest in this topic.) Pointing to the public interest in this topic and the forthcoming Freedom of Information Act, he has requested that all~losed files OA-~e-subjoot...aH:JAPs be released now. 'Uf=D ' 5. [Sec(AS) - grateful for a description of what you retain and why] Under existing commitments to openness, staff are already encouraged to identify discrete blocks of records of more than ordinary interest to the public, which could be released to the Public Record Office ahead of the normal 30 year point. Staff were recently reminded of this requirement in reissued instructions on Open Government (DCI GEN 54/98). Given the number of enquiries that Sec(AS) receive on the subject of UAPs, it would seem to be a strong candidate for early release of files. [Sec(AS)/CS(RM)- UN C LAS6blitffiocomments on feasibility and constraints of releasing files, including volume, resources required, need to withhold personal info, Public Record Acts procedures.] 6. The options therefore are: 1.[1mmediate release of files as requested.] 2.Higher priority placed on the review of the appropriate files, with the aim of securing their early release. 3.Continuation of current practice [what is that?] 7. In the light of the discussion above, it is recommended that [my initial view is that some form of programme to secure early release of these files would be justified, but I would welcome Sec(AS)/CS(RM) views. If this was to occur, then it might be something that the press would take an interest in and we should need to consider a press line] 8. [Comments on the briefing suggested in Hill-Norton's final para??] DOMD UNCLA~&Yi~ n
DRAFT REPLY FROM USofS TO THE LORD HILL-NORTON Thank you for your letter of 3 March in which you request the release of closed files relating to Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP). As you are no doubt aware, this Department holds records of_ [info as per para 5 of brief]. As you quite rightly point out, staff are encouraged to identify blocks of records that can be released to the Public Record Office before the thirty year point [CS{RM) • any recent example worth quoting?]. In this case, [constraints as per para 5 of brief]. [Nevertheless, given the undoubted public interest in this topic, I have asked that greater resources be devoted to the review of the files in question, with a view to their early release (need to be more specific if possible about what and when)]LOOSE MINUTE D/DOMD/2/3 Mar98 PS/USofS Copy to: APSfSofS PS/Min(AF) PS/Min(DP) PS/DUS(CM) DGMO Hd Sec(AS) [DISN] Hd CS(RM) LORD HILL-NORTON: REQUEST FOR RELEASE OF FILES Reference: A. D/USofS/JS 28/1/0 dated 9 Mar 98 Issue 1. How to respond to the request from Lord Hill-Norton for the release of all closed files on the subject of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP). Recommendation 2. That USofS responds in terms of the attached draft letter. Timing 3. Routine. Background 4. Lord Hill-Norton_ [Sec AS- grateful for some background on his interest in this topic.] Pointing to the public interest in this topic and the forthcoming Freedom of Information Act, he has requested that all closed files on the subject of UAPs be released now. 5. [Sec(AS) -grateful for a description of what you retain and why] Under existing commitments to openness, staff are already encouraged to identify discrete blocks of records of more than ordinary interest to the public, which could be released to the Public Record Office ahead of the normal 30 year point. Staff were recently reminded of this requirement in reissued instructions on Open Government {DCI GEN 54/98). Given the number of enquiries that Sec(AS) receive on the subject of UAPs, it would seem to be a strong candidate for early release of files. [Sec(AS)/CS(RM) - UNCLA~~lfR~ ncomments on feasibility and constraints of releasing files, including volume, resources required, need to withhold personal info, Public Record Acts procedures.] 6. The options therefore are: 1.[1mmediate release of files as requested.] 2.Higher priority placed on the review of the appropriate files, with the aim of securing their early release. 3.Continuation of current practice [what is that?] 7. In the light of the discussion above, it is recommended that [my initial view is that some form of programme to secure early release of these files would be justified, but I would welcome Sec(AS) JCS(RM) views. If this was to occur, then it might be something that the press would take an interest in and we should need to consider a press line] 8. [Comments on the briefing suggested in Hill-Norton's final para??] DOMD UNCLA~~f"d ~l;t o
UNCLASSJfiUiBEn DRAFT REPLY FROM USofS TO THE LORD HILL-NORTON Thank you for your letter of 3 March in which you request the release of closed files relating to Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP). As you are no doubt aware, this Department holds records of_ [info as per para 5 of brief]. As you quite rightly point out, staff are encouraged to identify blocks of records that can be released to the Public Record Office before the thirty year point [CS(RM) - any recent example worth quoting?]. In this case, [constraints as per para 5 of brief]. [Nevertheless, given the undoubted public interest in this topic, I have asked that greater resources be devoted to the review of the files in question, with a view to their early release (need to be more specific if possible about what and when)] UNCLAiiSlifEdFD
Mon 23 Mar, 1998 13:51 mailbox standard Page 1 DATE FROM SUBJECT CODES 17/03/98 Hd of CS(RM)l LORD HILL-NORTON: REQUEST FOR [ ) Intended: Sent: 17/03/98 at 13:50 Delivered: 17/03/98 at 13:51 To: OMD/AD{Management) CC: SEC(AS)2 Ref: /GUID:ADE6A525DlBADlllB39200005A422BE6 From: Hd of CS(RM)1 Auth by: Subject: LORD HILL-NORTON: REQUEST FOR RELEASE OF FILES Text. Priority: Normal Reply Request [ J attached my contribution. SEE PAGE View Acknowledge [ J UNCLA~ &YR kE.S o Attachments Codes [ 1] ]UNCLA~~l~ Loose Minute CS(RM) /4/6/37 March 1998 OMD /AD(Management) Copy to: SEC(AS)2 LORD HILL-NORTON: REQUEST FOR RELEASE OF FILES Reference; D/DOMD/2/3 dated March 1998 1. You asked for inputs to enable to you to provide PS/USofS with a background brief and a draft reply to Lord Norton-Hill. Current review arrangements 2. Unlike the USA the Ministry of Defence has a well-established review programme (in line with Public Record Office guidance) which ensures records are reviewed to enable release after 30-years. The US experience by comparison is to rely on FOI applications to trigger release rather than a structured approach to review. With the result that millions of papers over 30 years old, a large number from World War II, have not been released 3. MOD's key review occurs around the 25 year point - we are therefore examining records from the early to mid 1970s - and invQives the review of files surviving earlier branch and CS(RM) reviews. Some tg. % of records revieweq at this point ( for 1997/98 450 linear feet or approximately 4,500 files) survive the selection process. These have to be listed and cleaned (catalogued and, if necessary, conservation work carried out) before acceptance by the PRO. UFO files awaiting release (and transfer to the PRO) 4. At the present time we have some 55 files relating to ufos prepared for the PRO. With release dates from 1999 thru' 2003. All, bar one, appear to have originated from predecessors of Sec(AS). The one exception a Met Office file from 1970. In addition, another 12 files await listing/cleaning with an expected release date of 2004. Public Records Act and early release 5. The PRA has always provided for the release of records at dates other than the normal point ie at the start of the 31st year. Section 5(1) allows the Lord Chancellor to approve extensions or reductions in the closure period. The point should be made that as in the case of closure .beyond the normal point releases in advance of 30 years require the formal approval of the Lord Chancellor. 6. Noting that 55 files await release a submission could be made to Lord Irving to effect their early release. Assuming sensitivity not an issue PRO advice [obtained without identifying the subject currently under discussion] suggests we should
UN C LAS&dfafr:B:n allow for a minimum 12 weeks from the date of the submission to the lord Chancellor before assuming files are generally available to the public. Sensitivity 7. A degree of sensitivity has been attached to these records over the years. Both in the context of the internal distribution lists and with the lapsing of this concern with the question of personal sensitivity. 8. The 11 30 year rule" is a well established, and well recognised by the public, closure period. The White Paper on Open Government accepted that there might be circumstances when records would be closed for longer than 30 years ie contains information supplied in confidence; contains information about individuals, the disclosure of which would cause distress or endangerment. Discussions with Sec(AS) a few years ago accepted that the 30 year closure period would be sufficient to protect the personal privacy of correspondents. 9. Should it be felt this is still the case we would be required to remove any information that would UNCLA&&! TRI:EB:n
UNCLAIS8ni~@ identify correspondents before the release of these files. Potentially several thousand enclosures (55 files x 100 enclosures) would need to be examined and sanitised before the action outlined in paragraph 6 (above). This could only be done at the expense of other work (see below). Identification of other records relating to ufos 1 0. The release of what is a comparatively convenient package of files from our point of view would not satisfy researchers who want to see the ureal ufo records" released. To identify other related records would present resource implications. 11 . Records surviving local branch review are routinely passed to one of the two main MOD archives. At Hayes, where records classified up to SECRET are stored, some 30,000 linear feet (say 300,000 files) are currently earmarked for second review between 1998 thru' 2017. Records are stored by date of review and within that by branch. There is no thematic index and in the absence of specific file references it would be a major exercise trawling through attempting to identify relevant records. Although, Sec(AS) should be able to provide some file references, which would assist identification, for their more recent files and possibly for those of DS8. Any records identified would have to be reviewed for sensitivity. 12. Additionally, records might be stored elsewhere in MOD. For example Air Historical Branch maintains a store of key Air Staff papers that are routinely passed to CS(RM) at the normal review point. An essential set of papers is the Operational Record Books {RAF Station diaries), approximately 2,600 boxes are held by AHB. All are preservable, they generally cover a five year period and because they record RAF sorties could be relevant to this current exercise. Experience of early releases to date 13. The White paper on Open Government identified a number of initiatives that subject to resources would lead to more records being released. One being to give consideration to the release of blocks of records in advance of 30 years being one. To date very few records have been released early. I estimate perhaps fewer than 1 00 files and these have tended to be oddments. Although one small collection of records covering certain trials conducted by Porton Down up to the mid-1970s is being prepared for transfer to Kew and should be available to researchers towards the end of the year. Acquisition policy of the PRO 14. Although not pursued with my contact at Kew we need to be certain if it is decided to release these records early the PRO will accept them. The PRO has, on occasions, rejected records for preservation and our review programme takes into account not only the requirements of the national archive but also the interests of the more specialist museums {the PRA allows for records to be 11 presented" to other institutions with the approval of the Lord Chancellor). Summary 14. a. Section 5(1) of the Public Records Act, 1958, provides for the release of recordsin advance of the normal period ie the 30 year subject to the Lord Chancellor's approval. b. Subject to residual sensitivity a number of MOD files containing correspondence from the public on this subject, covering the period 1968 thru• 1973 (for normal release 1999 thru'2004}, could be included in the January 1999 releases. c. A commitment to extend the release beyond those already processed would involve a major exercise identifying relevant records stored in the main archives and possibly other locations. Such an exercise would require a reallocation of resources resulting in the disruption to our structured review, list and transfer program. d. The possibility that the PRO will not accept what could be considered a significant collection of trivia. Hd CS(R- M) ~ 1 ~~ MTAS/3 ~
Loose Minute D/Sec(AS)/64/3 25th March 1998 DOMD - Copy to: Head of CS(RM)1 LORD HILL-NORTON REQUEST FOR EARLY RELEASE OF CLOSED FILES Reference: D/USofS/JS/28/1/0 dated 9 March 1998 1. We have spoken a number of times about the letter Norton and the remit to provide PS/USofS with a draft said I would weave our contribution in with this is attached. ~----~ from Hill- y. I response; 2. I am copying this in parallel to I •rr4me has not yet cleared it. You will, perhaps, want to assur~ inis t ers that Sec(AS) and CS(RM) have contributed to, and are content with, the finished piece. Perhaps you could let me know if you intend any changes of substance . 3. I am afraid it is a rather lengthy reply, but it is important to explain to Ministers that the Hill-Norton request is only a small part of the much wider issue concerning early release of files. 4. I have mentioned to PS/USofS that I am responsible for the failure to meet the deadline! Sec(AS)2 MB8247 CHOTS: FAX
Loose Minute D/DOMD/2/3 Mar 98 PS/USofS Copy to: APS/SofS PS/Min(AF) PS/Min(DP) PS/DUS(CM) DRAFT DGMO Head of sec(AS) DISN Head of CS(RM) LORD HILL-NORTON: REQUEST FOR EARLY RELEASE OF 'UFO' FILES Reference: D/USofS/JS 28/1/0 dated 9 Mar 98 ISSUE 1. How to respond to the request from Lord Hill-Norton for the release of all closed files on the subject of 'unidentified flying objects'. RECOMMENDATION 2. That USofS responds in terms of the attached draft letter. TIMING 3. Routine. BACKGROUND 4. Lord Hill-Norton's request cannot be considered in isolation and the fundamental issue of the Department's overall policy in the light of the forthcoming Freedom of Information Act must also be addressed. Departmental Records 5. The MOD has a well-established, structured, review programme (in line with Public Record Office (PRO) guidance) which ensures records are reviewed to enable release after 30 years. The us by comparison relies on applications under their Freedom of Information (FOI) Act to trigger release and, as a result, millions of papers over 30 years old have not yet been released. 6. MOD's key review occurs around the 25 year point and involves files surviving earlier branch and CS(RM) reviews. some 12% of records survive this selection process (c4,500 files for 1997/98) and must be catalogued and conserved (cleaned) before acceptance by the PRO and release at the 30-year point. 'UFO' Files
7. A decision was taken in 1967 in the light of increasing public interest in 'UFOs' that these files should be retained. Closed files over 30 years old (including any remaining from years prior to 1967) have already been released. As part of their ongoing structured review programme, CS(RM) has some 55 'UFO' files with planned release dates of 1999-2003 ready for the PRO. A further 12 (release date 2004) currently await listing/cleaning. CS(RM) does, of course, have many Departmental files on a wide range of subjects at various stages of listing and cleaning but none in sufficient number by subject to comprise similar packages. Public Record Act (PRA) and Early Release 8. Under existing commitments to openness, Departmental officials are encouraged to identify discrete blocks of records of more than ordinary interest to the public which could be released to the PRO ahead of this time (staff were recently reminded of this in reissued instructions on Open Government- DCI GEN 54/98). section 5(1) of the PRA has provisions for the release of records at dates other than the normal 30 year point subject to the Lord Chancellor's approval. Permission for early release of the 55 files mentioned above could be sought if it was judged that sensitivity was not an issue. Sensitivity 9. A degree of sensitivity has been attached to 'UFO' files because sighting reports were passed to the Defence Intelligence Branch (DI55) to ascertain any intelligence of a terrestrial nature and because reports and letters contain personal details of members of the public. Open Government accepts that there might be circumstances where records could be closed for longer than 30 years (contains information supplied in confidence; contains information about individuals, the disclosure of which would cause distress or endangerment) but the public interest/public confidentiality aspects of 'UFO' business has been effectively managed on the basis that a 30-year closure period provides sufficient protection for the personal privacy of correspondents. 10. There are no security concerns about early release of 'UFO' files. There are three options for dealing with personal privacy concerns: a. obtain permission from members of the public on an individual basis to the release of their details (an extremely time consuming process); b. remove personal details (the processed files at para 7 above would require examination of 55x100 enclosures and sanitizing as necessary); c. agree that a shorter period, say 25 rather than 30 years, was acceptable for protection of privacy. Identification of Possible 'UFO'-related Files 11. A number of 'ufologists' believe that key information about 'UFOs' is held on files other than those containing reports and public correspondence and are, therefore, keen to see files on a
wide range of Air Force related issues. Identifying such files would be difficult. The MOD archives at Hayes contains some 300,000 files currently earmarked for review between 1998-2017. They are stored by date of review and, within that, by Branch; there is no thematic index and, without specific file references (and many Branches have reorganised a number of times during the last 30 years) a major resource effort would be required to locate and examine them. Additionally, Air Historical Branch holds some 2,600 boxes of key Air Staff papers including Operational Record Books (ie RAF Station diaries). Lord Hill-Norton 12. Lord Hill-Norton, aged 83 and Chief of the Defence staff from 1971-1973, has a long-standing interest in 'UFOs'. He was a member of the (long defunct) House of Lords All-Party 'UFO' study Group and has written the forewords for at least two books on the subject. Over the years he has supported individual 'ufologist' causes and, more recently, tabled PQs about an alleged 'UFO' incident in 1980 outside RAF Woodbridge/RAF Bentwaters (Rendlesham Forest) subsequently writing because the Department was not prepared to review decisions made at that time. 13. Ministers will know that the Department's interest in 'UFOs' is limited to establishing whether there is any associated evidence of an unauthorized incursion of the UK Air Defence Region by foreign military activity, and that to date the Department knows of no evidence to support the existence of 'UFO/flying saucers'/extraterrestrial lifeforms. It is frequently the case that our limited interest does not correspond with the wide- ranging non-defence related enthusiasms of a minority of the public who continue to lobby for the diversion of defence resources for their own aims. summary of Issues 14. To summarise: a. The Department manages a structured review programme for the release of closed files at the 30-year point; b. Section 5(1) of the 1958 Public Records Act provides for the early release of records subject to the Lord Chancellor's approval. c. A reduction from 30 to 25 years for release of 'UFO' sighting report and public correspondence files would be possible if personal privacy was not deemed to be a concern. d. A commitment to identification and early release of closed files (including those concerning or possibly related to 'UFO' reports and correspondence) beyond those already processed would involve significant resource effort and severely disrupt the Department's structured review programme. OTHER POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION 15. There are, of course, other defence related topics that attract vociferous supporters looking for greater access to
Departmental papers under the FOI Act and early release of 'UFO' files to satisfy a minority interest group could set a precedent. It is Sec(AS)'s experience that releasing information does not stem the tide of correspondence. The reverse is true as many correspondents seek to challenge decisions made 30-50 years ago. 16. Sec(AS) is already considering the implications of the forthcoming Freedom of Information Act and how it might impact on the Department's limited interest in the subject of 'UFOs'. They are progressing a number of issues as part of this work, not least the interests of the Air Defence and Defence Intelligence staffs. They are seized of the need to take full account of public interest in this subject. Sec(AS) will be advising further in due course. 17. The PRO has, on occasion, rejected files for preservation and release. The Department's review programme therefore takes into account not only the requirements of the national archive, but also considers the interests of the more specialist museums. Should the PRO decline to accept 'UFO' files (they could be viewed as a large amount of trivia) the Department would have to decide how their contents might be made available to the public, and seek the Lord Chancellor's approval for the method chosen. CONCLUSION 18. As a goodwill gesture, the release date for closed 'UFO' files could be reduced from 30 to 25 years and the 55 files mentioned at para 7 above could be made available at the January 1999 point. This is, however, unlikely to satisfy Lord Hill- Norton who is looking for the release of all 'UFO' files. His request would need to be treated as a special case (and there is no justification for this) to warrant the reallocation of the significant resources required to achieve this and would adversely affect the Department's structured review programme. The draft provided is therefore couched in conservative terms in order not to raise Lord Hill-Norton's expectations.
DRAFT REPLY TO LORD HILL-NORTON Thank you for your letter of 3 March in which you request the release of closed files containing information about alleged sightings of 'unidentified flying objects'. As you know, my Department has only a very limited interest in the sightings that are reported to us as unidentified aerial phenomena. The White Paper on the forthcoming Freedom of Information Act has generated correspondence from a number of people and organisations each with their own specific interests and all keen to see a greater openness in respect of a wide range of defence and defence related topics. My Department has a structured programme to release closed files after 30 years. Whatever the merits of individual requests for the early release of files I must take full account of the overall implications of diverting resources from the programme before agreeing to them. I am sorry but I cannot at this time give an undertaking that the files you ask for will be released early but I shall write to you again when we have given further consideration to the matter.
- Loose Minute D/Sec(AS)/64/3 25th March 1998 DOMD - copy to: Head of CS(RM)1 LORD HILL-NORTON REQUEST FOR EARLY RELEASE OF CLOSED FILES Reference: D/USofS/JS/28/1/0 dated 9 March 1998 1. We have spoken a number of times about the Norton and the remit to provide PS/USofS wi said I would weave our contribution in with this is attached. letter from Hill- ly. I response; 2. I am copying this in parallel to ~ e has not yet cleared it. You will, perhaps, want to assure ~i n ist ers that Sec(AS) and CS(RM) have contributed to, and are content with, the finished piece . Perhaps you could let me know if you intend any changes of substance. 3. I am afraid it is a rather lengthy reply, but it is important to explain to Ministers that the Hill-Norton request is only a small part of the much wider issue concerning early release of files. 4. I have mentioned to PS/USofS that I am responsible for the failure to meet the deadline!
Loose Minute D/DOMD/2/3 Mar 98 PS/USofS copy to: APSjSofS PS/Min(AF) PS/Min(DP) PS/DUS(CM) DRAFT DGMO Head of Sec(AS) DISN Head of CS{RM) LORD HILL-NORTON: REQUEST FOR EARLY RELEASE OF 'UFO' FILES Reference: D/USofS/JS 28/1/0 dated 9 Mar 98 ISSUE 1. How to respond to the request from Lord Hill-Norton for the release of all closed files on the subject of 'unidentified flying objects'. RECOMMENDATION 2. That USofS responds in terms of the attached draft letter. 3. Routine. BACKGROUND 4. Lord Hill-Norton's request cannot be considered in isolation and the fundamental issue of the Department's overall policy in the light of the forthcoming Freedom of Information Act must also be addressed. Departmental Records 5. The MOD has a well-established, structured, review programme (in line with Public Record Office (PRO) guidance) which ensures records are reviewed to enable release after 30 years. The us by comparison relies on applications under their Freedom of Information (FOI) Act to trigger release and, as a result, millions of papers over 30 years old have not yet been released. 6. MOD's key review occurs around the 25 year point and involves files surviving earlier branch and CS(RM) reviews. Some 12% of records survive this selection process (c4,500 files for 1997/98} and must be catalogued and conserved (cleaned) before acceptance by the PRO and release at the 30-year point. 'UFO' Files7. A decision was taken in 1967 in the light of increasing public interest in 'UFOs' that these files should be retained. 1 closed files over 30 years old (including any remaining from years jprior to 1967) have already been released. As part of their / ongoing structured review programme, CS(RM) has some 55 'UFO' I files with planned release dates of 1999-2003 ready for the PRO. , / A further 12 (release date 2004) currently await listing/cleaning. v CS(RM) does, of course, have many Departmental files on a wide range of subjects at various stages of listing and cleaning but none in sufficient number by subject to comprise similar packages. Public Record Act (PRA) and Early Release 8. Under existing commitments to openness, Departmental officials are encouraged to identify discrete blocks of records of more than ordinary interest to the public which could be released to the PRO ahead of this time (staff were recently reminded of this in reissued instructions on Open Government- DCI GEN 54/98). Section 5(1) of the PRA has provisions for the release of records at dates other than the normal 30 year point subject to the Lord Chancellor's approval. Permission for early release of the 55 files mentioned above could be sought if it was judged that sensitivity was not an issue. Sensitivity 9. A degree of sensitivity has been attached to 'UFO' files because sighting reports were passed to the Defence Intelligence Branch {DI55) to ascertain any intelligence of a terrestrial nature and because reports and letters contain personal details of J~members of the public. Open Government 'accepts that there might be circumstances where records could be closed for longer than 30 years (contains information supplied in confidence; contains information about individuals, the disclosure of which would cause distress or endangerment) but the public interest/public confidentiality aspects of 'UFO' business has been effectively managed on the basis that a 30-year closure period provides sufficient protection for the personal privacy of correspondents. 10. There are no security concerns about early release of 'UFO' files. There are three options for dealing with personal privacy concerns: a. obtain permission from members of the public on an individual basis to the release of their details (an extremely time consuming process); b. remove personal details (the processed files at para 7 above would require examination of 55x100 enclosures and sanitizing as necessary); c. agree that a shorter period, say 25 rather than 30 years, was acceptable for protection of privacy. Identification of Possible 'UFO'-related Files 11. A number of 'ufologists' believe that key information about 'UFOs' is held on files other than those containing reports and public correspondence and are, therefore, keen to see files on a Iwide range of Air Force related issues. Identifying such files would be difficult. The MOD archives at Hayes contains some 300,000 files currently earmarked for review between 1998-2017. They are stored by date of review and, within that, by Branch; there is no thematic index and, without specific file references (and many Branches have reorganised a number of times during the last 30 years) a major resource effort would be required to locate and examine them. Additionally, Air Historical Branch holds some 2,600 boxes of key Air Staff papers including Operational Record Books (ie RAF Station diaries). Lord Hill-Norton 12. Lord Hill-Norton, aged 83 and Chief of the Defence Staff from 1 1971-1973, has a long-standing interest in 'UFOs'. He was a /member of the (long defunct) House of Lords All-Party 'UFO' Study / Group and has written the forewords for at least two books on the I subject. over the years he has supported individual 'ufologist' 1 J causes and, more recently, tabled PQs about an alleged 'UFO' incident in 1980 outside RAF Woodbridge/RAP Bentwaters (Rendlesham Forest) subsequently writing because the Department was not prepared to review decisions made at that time. 13. Ministers will know that the Department's interest in 'UFOs' is limited to establishing whether there is any associated evidence of an unauthorized incursion of the UK Air Defence Region by foreign military activity, and that to date the Department knows of no evidence to support the existence of 'UFO/flying saucers'jextraterrestrial lifeforms. It is frequently the case that our limited interest does not correspond with the wide- ranging non-defence related enthusiasms of a minority of the public who continue to lobby for the diversion of defence resources for their own aims. summary of Issues 14. To summarise: a. The Department manages a structured review programme for the release of closed files at the 30-year point; b. Section 5(1) of the 1958 Public Records Act provides for the early release of records subject to the Lord Chancellor's approval. c. A reduction from 30 to 25 years for release of 'UFO' sighting report and public correspondence files would be possible if personal privacy was not deemed to be a concern. d. A commitment to identification and early release of closed files (including those concerning or possibly related to 'UFO' reports and correspondence) beyond those already processed would involve significant resource effort and severely disrupt the Department's structured review programme. OTHER POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION 15. There are, of course, other defence related topics that attract vociferous supporters looking for greater access to
Departmental papers under the FOI Act and early release of 'UFO' files to satisfy a minority interest group could set a precedent. It is Sec(AS)'s experience that releasing information does not stem the tide of correspondence. The reverse is true as many correspondents seek to challenge decisions made 30-50 years ago. 16. Sec(AS) is already considering the implications of the forthcoming Freedom of Information Act and how it might impact on the Department's limited interest in the subject of 'UFOs'. They are progressing a number of issues as part of this work, not least the interests of the Air Defence and Defence Intelligence staffs. They are seized of the need to take full account of public interest in this subject. Sec(AS) will be advising further in due course. 7. The PRO has, on occasion, rejected files for preservation and release. The Department's review programme therefore takes into account not only the requirements of the national archive, but also considers the interests of the more specialist museums. Should the PRO decline to accept 'UFO' files (they could be viewed as a large amount of trivia) the Department would have to decide how their contents might be made available to the public, and seek the Lord Chancellor's approval for the method chosen. CONCLUSION 18. As a goodwill gesture, the release date for closed 'UFO' files could be reduced from 30 to 25 years and the 55 files mentioned at para 7 above could be made available at the January 19 99 point . 'f'll!.§LJ:·-~.L-.ll.Q.Yl~Y~~~_~ __ J.!.J}]jJi~J,y~_!.Q __ §_C:?-J-J:§.:!=.Y.~Q!:d .Jiill.:: .. Norton who is looking for the release of all 'UFO' files. Hi~ ""-reques-r:···w:ou:'ltt···rref!er·"tcr·:oe·--:cr-ea tecr··-a-s~-·a:·-speciaT'"··c:is_e.-Tanct there is no justification for this) to warrant the reallocation of the significant resources required to achieve this and would adversely affect the Department's structured review programme. The draft provided is therefore couched in conservative terms in order not to raise Lord Hill-Norton's expectations.
DRAFT REPLY TO LORD HILL-NORTON Thank you for your letter of 3 March in which you request the release of closed files containing information about alleged sightings of 'unidentified flying objects'. As you know, my Department has only a very limited interest in the sightings that are reported to us as unidentified aerial phenomena. The White Paper on the forthcoming Freedom of Information Act has generated correspondence from a number of people and organisations each with their own specific interests and all keen to see a greater openness in respect of a wide range of defence and defence related topics. My Department has a structured programme to release closed files after 30 years. Whatever the merits of individual requests for the early release of files I must take full account of the overall implications of diverting resources from the programme before agreeing to them. I am sorry but I cannot at this time give an undertaking that the files you ask for will be released early but I shall write to you again when we have given further consideration to the matter.
.... •' UNCLA~SI:IR~o Fri ~, Mar, 1998 13:11 mailbox standard Page 1 DATE FROM SUBJECT CODES 27/03/98 Hd of CS(RM)1 Hill-Norton reply (U/C) [ Intended: sent: 27/03/98 at 12:59 Delivered: 27/03/98 at 12:58 To: OMD/AD(Management) CC: SEC(AS)2,C+L(F+S)L1 Ref: /GUID:B208711FOCC4D111B39400005A422BE6 From: Hd of CS(RM)1 Auth by: Subject: Hill-Norton reply (U/C) Text: Priority: Urgent Reply Request [ ] SEE PAGE 2 View Acknowledge [ ] UNCLA~frl<§J;b Attachments [ 1] Codes [ ]
UNCLA~tlrd~ o ~ llowing discussion with Hd CS(RM) we have just a few minor changes to your drafts. para 8, line 9 - delete "conserving" substitute "conservation action". para 11, line 1 - delete "key". lines 3/4 - delete "Identifying such files would be difficult." line 9- amend to " ... a major resource effort would be required to sift through to identify files that might be of interest to ufologists." Draft letter to Lord H-N. para 1, line 1 -delete "closed". para 3, 2nd sentence to read "My Department has a well established review programme to release files after 30 years in accordance with the terms of the Public Records Act, 1958 and 1967." UNCLA~Jf"J~~o
,a; · Fri 27 Mar, 1998 14:53 mailbox standard Page 1 27/03/98 OMD/AD(Management) Hill-Norton reply (U/C) ] Intended: Sent: 27/03/98 at 11:29 Delivered: 27/03/98 at 14:44 To: SEC(AS}2,Hd of CS(RM)l CC: Hd of CS(RM),C+L(F+S)L1 Ref: /GUID:B28D3A974CCSD1119C7500A02461F4C4 From: OMD/AD(Management) Auth by: Subject: Hill-Norton reply (U/C) Text: Priority: Normal Reply Request [ ] SEE PAGE 2 View Acknowledge ( ] Attachments Codes [ 2] ]
UN C LA &<I ~Irit fi:IU: o Attached is my draft advice to USofS (not yet cleared with DOMD). Grateful for any comments this afternoon - please let me know if that will not be possible. ~ thank you for the legal advice; are you happy with what I have put at the end of para 10. Many thanks for the advice & assistance.
LOOSE MINUTE D/DOMD/2/3 Mar98 PS/USofS Copy to: APS/SofS PS/Min(AF) PS/Min(DP) PS/DUS(CM) UN C LA&Sdn Hi& DGMO DDC&L(F&S) Legal HdSec(AS) DISN HdofCS(RM) LORD HILL-NORTON: REQUEST FOR RELEASE OF FILES Reference: A. D/USofS/JS 28/1/0 dated 9 Mar 98 Issue 1. How to respond to the request from Lord Hill-Norton for the release of all closed files on the subject of ' unidentified flying objects'. Recommendation 2. That USofS responds in terms of the attached draft Jetter. Timing 3. Routine. Background 4. Lord Hill-Norton, aged 83, and Chief of the Defence Staff from 1971- ·-4973, has a long-standing interest in 'UFOs'. He was a member of the (long defunct) House of Lords All-Party 'UFO' Study Group and has written the forewords for at least two books on the subject. Over the years he has supported individual 'UFO' causes and late last year, tabled PQs about an alleged 'UFO' incident in 1980 outside RAF WoodbridgefRAF Bentwaters (Rendlesham Forest), subsequently writing because the Department was not prepared to review decisions made at that time. Pointing to the public interest i~ic and the forthcoming Freedom of lnfo~n A~, he has requested that all closed files on the subject of 1 t1FOSI:ie released now. 5. Ministers will know that the Department's interest in 'UFOs' is limited to establishing whether there is any associated evidence of an unauthorised incursion of the UK Air Defence Region by foreign military activity, and that to date the Department knows of no evidence to support the existence of alien spacecraft or extraterrestriallifeforms. Departmental Records 6. The MOD has a well-established review programme (in line with Public UNCL~5'5lRED
UNC~f~ D Record Office (PRO) guidance), which ensures that records are reviewed to enable release after 30 years. MOD's key review occurs around the 25 year point and involves files survMng earlier branch and Central Services(Records Management - CS(RM)) reviews. Some 12% of records survive this selection process (of the order of 4,500 files each year) and must be catalogued and conserved before acceptance by the PRO and release at the 30-year point. 7. Under existing commitments to openness, staff are already encouraged to identify discrete blocks of records of more than ordinary interest to the public, which could be released to the Public Record Office ahead of the normal 30 year point. Staff were.recently reminded of this requirement in reissued instructions on Open Government (DCI Gen 54/98). The Public Recorq Act has provisions for the release of records atdates other than the normal 30 year point, subject to the Lord Chancellor's approval. 'UFO' Files 8. A decision was taken in 1967 in the light of increasing public interest in 'UFOs' thaf these files should be retained. Closed files over 30 years-old (including any remaining from years prior to 1967) have already been released. As part of their continuing structured review programme, CS(RM) has some 55 files relating to 'UFOs' with planned release dates of 1999-2003 ready for the PRO. A further 12 {release date 2004) currently await listing/ conserving. CS(RM) does, of course, have many Departmental files on a wide range of subjects at various stages of listing and conserving but none in sufficient number by subject to comprise similar packages. 9. The PRO has, on occasion, rejected files for preservation and release. The Department'sreview programme therefore takes into account not only the requirements of the national archive, but also considers the interests of the more specialist museums. Should the PRO decline to accept 'UFO' files (they could be viewed as a large amount of trivia) the Department would have to decide how their contents might be made available to the public, and seek the Lord Chancellor's approval for the method chosen . . t. 1 0. There are no security concerns about early release of 'UFO' files. A degree of sensitivity has been attached to them, however, because reports and letters contain personal details of members of the public. The public interestjpublic confidentiality aspect of 'UFO' business has been effectively managed qn the basis that a 30-year closure period provides suffici.~ot protection for the personal privacy of correspondents. Permission for early release of the 55 files mentioned above could be sought, however: and there are three options for dealing with the personal privacy concerns: a. obtain permission from members of the public on an individual basis to the release of their details;---. b. remove ersonal detail {the 55 processed files would require ~ ~ .. ~wn£~"\.nt'"~~~. 0~.!~~-~~<?~SUf~~O~ ~ d.A~ c. agree that a shorter period, say 25 rather than 30 years, was acceptable for proteCtion of privacy. The first method would be time-consuming and probably impractical, particularly in the case of the oldest files; the second would be possible, but would represent a considerable diversion of resources for CS(RM). Preliminary legal advice on the third option suggests that MOD would be protected against any charge of breaching confidentiality if documents were""' A 1 released in advance of 30 years because early release is provided for in the dr'f\J ew 1r:: Public Record Act. :;;;;:::::::: 11. A number of 'ufologists' believe that key information about 'UFOs' is held on files other than those containing reports and public correspondence and are, therefore, keen to see files on a wide range of Air Force related issues. Identifying such files would be difficult. The MOD archives at Hayes contains some 300,000 files currently earmarked for review between 1998-2017. They are stored by date of review and, within that, by Branch; there is no thematic index and, without specific file references (and many Branches have reorganised a number of times during the last 30 years) a major resource effort would be required to locate and examine them. Additionally, Air Historical Branch holds key Air Staff papers including some 2,600 bo~es of Operational Record Books (RAF Station diaries). !here are, of course, other AJJ <2..-;) defence-related topics that attract interest and early release of 'UFO' files to ~ satiSfy one intere§t group could spark similar requests from others._ t \- ,.. Conclusion v-.~'::::) ::_~ s.e.- Aa;.5 \- 12. . In the light of the discussion above, it is recommended that, subject to f\ 0 ~ confirmation of legal advice about confidentiality, CS(RM) takes steps towards ).)M~ effecting early release of the 55 files that have already been identified (together ·~ with the additional12 under preparation). Given the uncertainties involved in VJ the possible need for sanitisation of personal details, obtaining the Lord ~\.~ . \pt_. \- Qse.- ~ \.ss~ UNC 4&~f~ D ~ r~UNCLA~til~ Chancellors approval and the PRO's reaction to.accepting the files, it would be wise to be cautious about any time-scale in responding to Lord Hill-Norton. This is reflected in the draft lette~ache~B.M) w .il{.stdY~e..io...due..cour:se_ . . . . ~a..o.Yic..O.mEtofth~.Qroc~.a...)An appropriate press plan to accompany ~ny-~ ~release In due coursB'would be essential in order to maximise the im~ ~re~~-----7;_:--- ~•s~tt (.o fn .. ? NH61~ lc..b . -tii:, ":_:) VE- wo. .. J:; .I ~\; ..,Lu ~3 -:~ tl.a B~\ci .-D C\.._t.,.d ~s. 11'0 ill ~ (' \A. a...~"· \. ' ft- \. . ~{::) . A_' ......._; ~~ ~uc0t ~ .s d--1\. \:\Q.. . c\.u .. o ~d t (\ ' rp. a:=e :: ~ ~tt :::-t Q MOt--e. , UN C LAt&SlfrdG£)UN C LA~Sbliilffio DRAFT REPLY FROM USofS TO THE LORD HILL-NORTON Thank you for your letter of 3 March in which you request the release of closed files containing information about alleged sightings of •unidentified flying '· objects•. ~"~NO-~ \ As you know, my Department has only a very limited interest in the ~iRfJ$ o~~·s. vr 1hat a=e reported to us~ ~rt1~e1 ial ~henet,tena. The White Paper on the forthcoming Freedom of Information Act has generated correspondence from a number of people and organisations each with their own specific interests and all keen to see a greater openness in respect of a wide range of topics. My Department has a structured programme to release closed files after 30 years. Whatever the merits of individual requests for the early release of files, therefore, I must take tun account of the overall implications of diverting resources from the programme before agreeing to them. Whilst I have asked th~~h~J~!~s t.~~- - YQ!:JJI?~ as.{s~Q!Qr.~~--QQD§J£t~r~9L~~r:!l r~e, I cannot at this time give an ·---- .... _____ _ undertaking that this will be possible. I shall, however, write to you again when ·~c ••• \ } I have given further consideration to the matter. U NCLA~fMiQ, .~-·· , .... -""' /' ././ • ~ \..:.~ em_~ COl'~SL~~ G ~~ .. . A.~N._~ ?\- c:J{)~~ ~"'-.o ~~. ts 1Lo c - ~t: l-+~·\\- ,jew-~ ~'v-~o\ rf?v I .Mon 30 Mar, 1998 17:20 mailbox standard Page 1 DAT ~F~R=O~M~~------~~~~S~U~B~J~E~C~T~~----~--~~~--------~C~O~D~E~S __ ___ 30/03/98 OMD/AD(Management) Lord Hill-Norton reply (U/C) [ Intended: sent: 30/03/98 at 16:56 Delivered: 30/03/98 at 16:56 To: cc: Ref: From: Subject: Text: SEC(AS)2,Hd of CS(RM)l Hd of CS(RM),DOMD /GUID:5956DDODD5C5D1119C7500A02461F4C4 OMD/AD(Management) Auth by: Lord Hill-Norton reply (U/C) Priority: Urgent Reply Request [ ) SEE PAGE 2 View Acknowledge [*] UNCLA~~IFIED Rf' STRICTED Attachments ( 1] Codes [ ]
UNCL~ t~ IID I have discussed the draft submission that I sent to you the other day with DOMD. He is unhappy with the draft, feeling that it is unduly defensive and that it does not go far enough addressing the question put by Hill-Norton of whether we could immediately release all closed files on the subject. His main points and questions are: a. Why can't we consider releasing all "ufo" files - even up to the present? If there is some issue about the most recent files, what might be a feasible date - files more than a year old, 2 years old or what? Are there any legal objections to this, eg PRA rules or sensitivity of personal information? Or an exemption under the Code? b. If there are no legal objections to such early release, are there any other implications, eg the diversion of resources? Under the Code, we could claim that it would take a disproportionate effort (exemption 9). But if we believe that it would involve a significant diversion of resources, can we quantify the effort involved? Grateful for your thoughts on the above, I am pursuing an extension to this Weds with USofS's office. UNCLASSIFIED RESTRICTED
UNCLASSIFIED RESTRICTED Tue 3J ~ar, 1998 9:25 mailbox standard Page 1 DATE FROM SUBJECT CODES 31/03/98 Hd of CS(RM)1 Intended: FW: Lord Hill-Norton reply (U/C) I Sent: 31/03/98 at 9:22 To: SEC(AS)2A1 Delivered: 31/03/98 at 9:22 CC: Ref: /GUID:965628BCD1C5D111B39500005A422BE6 From: Hd of CS(RM)1 Auth by: Subject: FW: Lord Hill-Norton reply (U/C) Text: Priority: Normal Reply Request [ ] SEE PAGE View Acknowledge ( ] UNC~~f~ D Attachments Codes [ 1] ]
From: Sent: To: Subject: is a hidden copy for you and reflects my initial the questions raised by DMOD. 40 Hd of CS(RM)1 31 March 1998 09:20 Hd of CS(RM) RE: Lord Hill - Norton reply (U/C) thought the "silly season" was months away! But as the ear y release of all "ufo" related files has been raised we cannot avoid formally raising the matter with Q. I have spoken to Immediate reaction "very unhappy" at the prospect of su 6h a re l ease. Particularly concerned that it would lead to the selection of records on a reactive basis (with lobby groups determining what should be kept) rather than through a considered review programme. He will seek further advice and give us the PRO formal view l ater today. On resources: This has already been covered. I advised OMD that records are not stored thematically, but by date of review and then by branch. There are some 300,000 files for second review covering the next 20 years . Additionally, there are records stored elsewhere in MOD some stores we know about ie AHB, DIS. There may be others elsewhere e.g. RAF stations, regional Met Offices, DERA. Answer - Sec(AS) to issue a DCI to identify caches (this is getting very silly). To commit ourselves to releasing "ufo" records other than those already prepared for Q would require a major diversion of existing resources both for review and listing. In the case of the later priority would be given to processing these records to the certain detriment of others. Also, if MOD makes any commitment to release these files early what about the knock-on effect elsewhere ie CAA. Finally, we can never be sure files that may be relevant have not been missed. A weakness that is sure to be exploited by researchers. UNCLA~~!~
Wed 1 Apr, 1998 13:37 mailbox log Page 1 Sent: 01/04/98 at 13:35 To: OMD/AD(Management) CC: Ref: 968 Subject: LINES TO TAKE - MOD INTEREST IN REPORTS OF 'UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS' Text: ~ ~ Take as Requested. Priority: Urgent Reply Request [ ] View Acknowledge [*] Delivery Acknowledge [*] Attachments [ 1] Codes [ ]
MOD INTEREST IN "UFO" SIGHTINGS * MOD examines any reports of 'UFO' sightings it receives solely to establish whether what was seen might have some defence significance. * Defence significance constitutes evidence that UK Air Defence Region might have been compromised by hostile or unauthorized foreign military activity. * Unless there is evidence of a potential threat to the UK from an external military source MOD does not attempt to identify the precise nature of each sighting reported. * MOD believes down to earth explanations could be found for reports if resources were diverted for this purpose but an inappropriate use of defence resources to do so. * MOD has no expertise or role with respect to 'UFO/flying saucer' matters. * MOD keeps an open mind about the existence of extraterrestrial lifeforms but to date knows of no evidence which substantiates this phenomenon.
- "' _ ,, ... . Tl 2 Apr, 1998 9:21 mailbox standard Page 1 02/04/98 OMD/AD(Management) UFOs - Hill-Norton [ Intended: SEC(AS)2 Sent: 02/04/98 at 9:20 Delivered: 02/04/98 at 9:20 To: SEC(AS)2,Hd of CS(RM)l CC: C+L(F+S)L1,CPO,OMD14 Ref: /GUID:OB1A86F077C9D1119C7500A02461F4C4 From: OMD/AD(Management) Auth by: Subject: UFOs - Hi l l-Norton Text: Priority: Normal Reply Request [ ] SEE PAGE 2 View Acknowledge [*] """'T"-"'". OC>...,..Jw,_ ... l .. Attachments Codes [ ~ ..... :.\:;;. 1"5. d--e.C:b...J. f.:::p +L.~s ···- \ Me...-·'(,.:,.,. .... _...~ • ..A_~., .. ,.. =- .. ..QJ !>. 'I ~.,.,.l'e.,.L~ . 2] ] f • t.:;~ j-.,~~.., ...... ~ I ,, t::~<··~ A•;..or,"\.."-J:!l ,j _, ......... ;.~~-· I,J ........... ~\h.,. ;(' ..... ~ · ·.t~~-=~.(~h · ,.,.,~:;) \ ~, \ ............... ,; "'· · ~.! '~Ar....:.::Grateful for your comments on this draft - I think that we are getting there! My aim is to get the submission to PS/USofS tomorrow morning. For CPO: IIIIIIFUijrateful for any comments on the (defensive) news brlef. Thanks
LOOSE MINUTE D/DOMD/2/3 Apr 98 PS/USofS Copy to: APS/SofS PS/Min(AF) PS/Min(DP) PS/PUS RESTRICTED UNCLASSIFIED RESTRICTED - POLICY PS/DUS(CM) DGMO Hd Sec(AS) DISN DDC&L(F&S) Legal Hd of CS(RM) LORD HILL-NORTON: REQUEST FOR RELEASE OF FILES Reference: A. D/USofS/JS 28/1/0 dated 9 Mar 98 Issue 1 . How to respond to the request from Lord Hill-Norton for the release of all closed files on the subject of 'unidentified flying objects'. Recommendation 2. That USofS responds in terms of the attached draft letter. Timing 3. Routine. Background 4. Lord Hill-Norton, aged 83, and Chief of the Defence Staff from 1971-1973, has a long-standing interest in 'UFOs'. He was a member of the (long defunct) House of Lords All-Party 'UFO' Study Group and has written the forewords for at least two books on the subject. Over the years he has supported individual 'UFO' causes and late last year, tabled PQs about an alleged 'UFO' incident in 1980 outside RAF Woodbridge/ RAF Bentwaters (Rendlesham Forest). He subsequently wrote to Minister(DP) complaining that the Department was not prepared to review decisions made at that time. Pointing to the public interest in this topic and the forthcoming Freedom of Information Act, he has requested that all closed files on the subject of UFOs be released now. 5. Ministers will know that the Department's interest in 'UFOs' is limited to establishing whether there is any associated evidence of an unauthorised incursion of the UK Air Defence Region by foreign military activity. Departmental Records
UN C LAI&SbfilttiD 6. The MOD has a well-established review programme (in line with Public Record Office (PRO) guidance), which ensures that records are reviewed to enable release after 30 years. MOD's key review occurs around the 25 year point and involves files surviving earlier branch and Central Services(Records Management- CS(RM)) reviews. Some 12% of records survive this selection process (of the order of 4,500 files each year) and must be catalogued and conserved before acceptance by the PRO and release at the 30-year point. 7. Under existing commitments to openness, staff are already encouraged to identify discrete blocks of records of more than ordinary interest to the public, which could be released to the Public Record Office ahead of the normal 30 year point. Staff were recently reminded of this requirement in reissued instructions on Open Government (DCI Gen 54/ 98). The Public Record Act has provisions for the release of records at dates other than the normal 30 year point, subject to the Lord Chancellor's approval. 8. The PRO has, nevertheless, on occasion rejected files for preservation and release . The Department's review programme therefore takes into account not only the requirements of the national archive, but also considers the interests of the more specialist museums. Should the PRO decline to accept 'UFO' files (they could be viewed as a large amount of trivia) the Department would have to decide how their contents might be made available to the public, and seek the Lord Chancellor's approval for the method chosen. 'UFO' Files 9. A decision was taken in 1967 in the light of increasing public interest in 'UFOs' that these U t\ft T~~~ I ff1~Y
RESTRICTED UNCLASSIFIED RESTRICTED - POLICY files should be retained. Closed files over 30 years old (including any remaining from years prior to 1967) have already been released. In considering Lord Hill-Norton's request for the release of all closed files, I took as a starting premise that, in the spirit of openness, and given the undoubted public interest in this subject, we should try to meet it. However, after discussion with CS{RM) and Secretariat(Air Staff- Sec{AS)), the Division mainly involved, I have concluded that to do so would carry considerable resource implications, in particular in the effort needed to identify, review and sanitise files. This could not be attempted without significant disruption to the normal process of record reviewing or the provision of additional staff. By way of illustration, it is estimated that the review of currently identified Sec(AS) files alone (held by the Division itself or at Hayes) would require some 6 man-months. Furthermore, whilst there may be no security concerns about early release of 'UFO' files, a degree of sensitivity has been attached to them because reports and letters contain personal details of members of the public. 10. However, as part of its continuing structured review programme, CS(RM} has some 55 files relating to 'UFOs' with planned release dates of 1999-2003 ready for the PRO. A further 12 (release date 2004) currently await listing/conserving. With a view to going some way to meeting Lord Hill-Norton's request without an unreasonable diversion of resources/ permission for early release of these files could be sought. Subsequent releases of such files would therefore be at the 25-year point. The confidentiality aspect of 'UFO' files has been effectively managed on the basis that a 30-year closure period provides sufficient protection for the personal privacy of correspondents. There are three options for dealing with the personal privacy concerns relating to earlier release: a. obtain permission from members of the public on an individual basis to the release of their details; b. remove personal details {the 55 processed files would require examination and sanitisation of some 5500 enclosures}; c. agree that a shorter period, say 25 rather than 30 years, was acceptable for protection of privacy. The first method would be time-consuming and probably impractical, particularly in the case of the oldest files; the second would be possible, but would represent a considerable diversion of resources for CS(RM}. Preliminary legal advice on the third option suggests that MOD would be protected against any charge of breaching confidentiality if files were released in advance of 30 years as long as the new period (eg 25 years) had been properly approved by the Lord Chancellor in exercising his statutory discretion in accordance with the Public Record Act. However, there is also a requirement on Departments that consideration is given to whether releasing information gained from members of the public might constitute a breach of good faith/ and this would have to be considered for the files in question. 11. Even if agreed, such a move would, of course, be unlikely to UN C L IJiJ8idfihlii DUN C~Sffi: IE D satisfy the 'UFO' community which would be convinced that other files were being withheld, and it could spark similar requests from other interest groups. Nevertheless, it has merit as a sign of a commitment to openness, it need not act as a precedent and, given the resource implications, would not commit the Department to more widespread release in response to other requests. Conclusion 12. In the light of the discussion above, it is recommended that, subject to confirmation of legal advice about the protection of third party confidentiality, CS(RM) takes steps towards effecting early release (probably in January 1999, along with the next batch of releases to the PRO) of the 55 files that have already been identified, together with the additional 12 under preparation. Given the uncertainties involved in the possible need for sanitisation of personal details, obtaining the Lord Chancellor's approval and the PRO's reaction to accepting the files, I recommend that a holding reply, along the lines of the attached draft, is sent to Lord Hill-Norton at this stage. Some defensive press lines are also attached should Lord Hill-Norton wish to make something of this reply. An appropriate news brief to accompany any release in due course will be essential. CS(RM) will advise in due course on the outcome of the review/release process. ~ NH619 - RESTRICTED - POLICY UNCLASSIFIED RESTRICTED
RESTRICTED UN~LASSIFIED RESTRICTED - POLICY DRAFT REPLY FROM USofS TO THE LORD HILL*NORTON Thank you for your letter of 3 March in which you request the release of files containing information about alleged sightings of 'unidentified flying objects'. As you know, the Ministry of Defence has only a very limited interest in the sightings that are reported to us as unidentified aerial phenomena. MOD has a well-established review programme to release files after 30 years in accordance with the terms of the Public Records Acts, 1958 and 1967. Whilst I am prepared to consider on their merits individual requests for the early release of files, therefore, I must take full account of the overall implications, including the diversion of resources from the review programme, and the need to protect information provided in confidence by members of the public, before agreeing to them. Nevertheless, in the light of the Government's commitment to greater openness, and given the public interest in this matter, I have asked that some files that would be due for release to the Public Record Office in the next few years be considered for earlier release. This will require some work, including for example, the need to check whether personal details of members of the public should be protected. At this time, therefore, I cannot give an undertaking that such early release will be possible. I shall, however, write to you again when the necessary work has been completed and the way ahead is clear.
UNCLASSIFIED RESTRICTED UNCLASSIFIED RESTRICTED - POLICY UNCLASSIFIED RESTRICTED
RESTRICTED UNCLASSIFIED RESTRICTED - POLICY News Brief Subject: Early Release of II UFO II Files Source: Branch: DOMD Officer: Tel: BACKGROUND In a letter to SofS dated 3 Mar 98, Lord Hill-Norton requested early release of all closed files on the subject of 11 UF0s 11 • USofS, in responding, explained that release of all files was not possible, partly for resourcing reasons, but that the Department would consider the early release of files that were due to be presented to the Public Record Office over the next few years. However, to do this required some additional consideration, and he could not, therefore, give a firm undertaking. He did undertake to write back to Lord Hill-Norton when a final decision has been made. (A separate news brief will be provided at that time). The purpose of this brief is to provide some lines to take should Lord Hill- Norton decide to publicise this reply. KEY MESSAGE In line with the Government's commitment to greater openness, and in view of the public interest, MOD is considering whether some files related to the subject of 11 UFOs 11 could be released to the Public Record Office in advance of the normal 30 year point. KEY POINTS TO SUPPORT THE MESSAGE * Some additional work is required, for example, to ensure that we do not breach third party confidentiality (much of the material in question has been provided by members of the public). * No final decision on early release has therefore yet been taken. * (If raised) Lord Hill-Norton has made a request for files to be released, but staff are already encouraged to identify discrete blocks of records of more than ordinary interest to the public which could be released to the Public Record Office (PRO) ahead of the normal 30 year point. [For CS(RM): have any records ever been released under this procedure?] * MOD already has a well-structured programme to release files to the PRO after 30 years. The recent White Paper on Freedom of Information stated the Government's view that the 30 year rule should not be reduced, as meeting the considerable costs for earlier release of all historical records was not considered to be the best use of scarce public resources. SUBSIDIARY POINTS
* * * * UNCL~W<t~ MOD examines any reports of "UFO n sightings it receives solely to establish whether what was seen might have some defence significance. Defence significance constitutes evidence that UK Air Defence Region might have been compromised by hostile or unauthorised foreign military activity. Unless there is evidence of a potential threat to the UK from an external military source, MOD does not attempt to identify the precise nature of each sighting reported. MOD has no expertise or role with respect to the question of extraterrestrial lifeforms and it would be an inappropriate diversion of defence resources to investigate this issue. l-'~W§S- 1 M E!D'
··" UN C LASSUR.LEBo Thu 2 Apr, 1998 12:44 mailbox standard Page 1 SEC(AS)2 Sent: 02/04/98 at 12:32 Delivered: 02/04/98 at 12:32 To: SEC(AS)2,0MD/AD(Management) CC: C+L(F+S)L1,CPO,OMD14 Ref: /GUID:E76028BCD1C5D111B39500005A422BE6 From: Hd of CS(RM)l Auth by: Subject: RE: UFOS - Hill-Norton Text: Priority: Normal Reply Request [ ] SEE PAGE View Acknowledge [ ] UN GWt.&&ldE ~E D Attachments Codes [ 1] ]
, Paul, I have the following comments: Para 5 - delete "conserved" insert "conservation action taken" Para 8 - last sentence to read "Should the PRO decline to accept "UFO" files (they are viewed, by Kew, as trivia) ..... might be made available to the public, this may mean seeking the Lord Chancellor's approval for transfer to a museum." Para 9- 2nd sentence- "Files over ..... been released." Para 10 - as I mentioned at yesterday's meeting we are uneasy with the preliminary legal advice on personal sensitivity which suggests the matter rests with CS(RM). If unchanged we will opt to sanitize papers being released in advance of normal, long established release point. News Brief: I have no examples of early releases as previously only oddments, rather than blocks of files, have been involved. We are though preparing MOD's first block of records for release. The release of which is almost certain to attract publicity. You may be aware of this matter as the apparent delay in transferring this material to Kew has been the subject of a letter from Matthew Taylor MP to the Lord Chancellor, which in h been referred to MOD (MIN(AF) to reply) [DOMD on eire]. UNCL~t~~
Thu 2 Apr, 1998 10:43 mailbox log Page 1 DATE TO SUBJECT 02/04/98 OMD/AD(Management) LORD HILL-NORTON: REQUEST FOR Sent: 02/04/98 at 10:40 To: OMD/AD(Management) CC: Hd of CS(RM)l Ref: 1721 Subject: LORD HILL-NORTON: REQUEST FOR RELEASE OF FILES Text: Priority: Urgent Reply Request [ ] View Acknowledge [*] Delivery Acknowledge [*] CODES Attachments [ 1] Codes [ ]
LOOSE MINUTE DjSec(AS)/64/3 2 Apr 98 OMD/AD(Management) I Copy to: Head of CS(RM)l LORD HILL-NORTON: REQUEST FOR RELEASE OF FILES 1. Thank you for forwarding the latest draft submission for the above mentioned subject. I am replying in absence. 2. Head of Sec(AS) is entirely content with the revised drafts. [original signed]
UNCLAS ~ ~~66>£ Eo D/DOMD/2/3 3April1998 PS/USofS Copy to: APSJSofS PS/Min(AF) PS/Min{DP) PS/PUS PS/DUS(CM) DGMO Hd Sec(AS) DISN DDC&l(F&S) legal HdofCS(RM) LORD HILL-NORTON: REQUEST FOR RELEASE OF FILES Reference: A. D /USofS/ JS 28/1/0 dated 9 Mar 98 (not to all) Issue 1. How to respond to the request from lord Hill-Norton for the release of all closed files on the subject of 'unidentified flying objects'. Recommendation 2. That USofS responds in terms of the attached draft letter. Timing 3. Routine. Background 4. lord Hill-Norton, aged 83, and Chief of the Defence Staff from 1971- 1973, has a long-standing interest in 'UFOs'. He was a member of the (long defunct) House of lords All-Party 'UFO' Study Group and has written the forewords for at least two books on the subject. Over the years he has supported individual 'UFO' causes and late last year, tabled PQs about a 'UFO incident in 1980 outside RAF WoodbridgejRAF Bentwaters {Rendlesham Forest). He subsequently wrote to Minister(DP) complaining that the Department was not prepared to review decisions made at that time. Pointing to the public interest in this topic and the forthcoming Freedom of Information Act, he has requested that all closed files on the subject of UFOs be released now. 5. Ministers will know that the Department's interest in 'UFOs' is limited to establishing whether there is any associated evidence of an unauthorised incursion of the UK Air Defence Region by foreign military activity. Departmental Records 6. The MOD has a well-established review programme (in line with Public Record Office (PRO) guidance), which ensures that records are reviewed to UNCLA~nkli~UNCLAS&JJih:E:Qn enable release after 30 years. MOD's key review occurs around the 25 year point and involves files surviving earlier branch and Central Services(Records Management- CS(RM)) reviews. Some 12% of records survive this selection process (of the order of 4,500 files each year) and must be catalogued and conservation action taken before acceptance by the PRO and release at the 30-year point. 7. Under existing commitments to openness, staff are already encouraged to identify discrete blocks of records of more than ordinary interest to the public, which could be released to the Public Record Office ahead of the normal 30 year point. Staff were recently reminded of this requirement in reissued instructions on Open Government (DCI Gen 54/98). However, in considering proposals for a Freedom of Information Act, Ministers decided not to reduce the general 30 year period, in part for reasons of cost. The Public Record Act has provisions for the release of records at dates other than the normal 30 year point, subject to the Lord Chancellor's approval. 8. The PRO has, nevertheless, on occasion rejected files for preservation and release. The Department's review programme therefore takes into account not only the requirements of the national archive, but also considers the interests of the more specialist museums. Should the PRO decline to accept 'UFO' files (they are viewed by Kew as trivia) the Department would have to decide how their contents might be made available to the public; this may mean seeking the Lord Chancellor's approval for transfer to a museum. 'UFO' Files 9. A decision was taken and an undertaking given in 1967 in the light of increasing public interest in 'UFOs' that these files should be retained. Files over 30 years old (including any UN C L ~~~ ftffe EfOUCY
RESTRICTED UNCLASSIFIED RESTRICTED - POLICY remaining from years prior to 1967) have already been released. In considering Lord Hill-Norton's request for the release of all closed files, I took as a starting premise that, in the spirit of openness, and given the undoubted public interest in this subject, we should try to meet it. However, after discussion with CS(RM) and Secretariat(Air Staff- Sec(AS)), the Division mainly involved, I have concluded that to do so would carry considerable resource implications, in particular in the effort needed to identify, review and sanitise files. This could not be attempted without significant disruption to the normal process of record reviewing or the provision of additional staff. By way of illustration, it is estimated by CS(RM) that the review of currently identified Sec(AS) UFO files alone {held by the Division itself or at Hayes) would require some 6 man-months. Furthermore, whilst there may be no security concerns about early release of 'UFO' files, a degree of sensitivity has been attached to them because reports and letters contain personal details of members of the public. 10. However, as part of its continuing structured review programme, CS(RM) has some 55 files relating to 'UFOs' with planned release dates of 1999-2003 ready for the PRO. A further 12 {release date 2004) currently await listing/conserving. With a view to going some way to meeting Lord Hill- Norton's request without an unreasonable diversion of resources, permission for early release of these files could be sought. Subsequent releases of such files would therefore be at the 25-year point. The confidentiality aspect of 'UFO' files has been effectively managed on the basis that a 30-year closure period provides sufficient protection for the personal privacy of correspondents. There are three options for dealing with the personal privacy concerns relating to earlier release: a. obtain permission from members of the public on an individual basis to the release of their details; b. remove personal details (the 55 processed files would require examination and sanitisation of some 5500 enclosures); c. agree that a shorter period, say 25 rather than 30 years, was acceptable for protection of privacy. The first method would be time-consuming and probably impractical, particularly in the case of the oldest files; the second would be possible, but would represent a considerable diversion of resources for CS(RM). Preliminary legal advice on the third option suggests that MOD would be protected against any charge of breaching confidentiality if files were released in advance of 30 years as long as the new period (eg 25 years) had been properly approved by the Lord Chancellor in exercising his statutory discretion in accordance with the Public Record Act. However, there is also a requirement on Departments that consideration is given to whether releasing information gained from members of the public might constitute a breach of good faith, and this would have to be considered for the files in question. 11 . Even if agreed, such a move would, of course, be unlikely to satisfy the 'UFO' community which would be convinced that other files were being withheld, and it could spark similar requests from other interest groups. Nevertheless, it has merit as a sign of a commitment to openness, it need not act as a precedent and, given the resource implications, would not commit theDepartment to more widespread release in response to other requests. Conclusion 12. In the light of the discussion above, it is recommended that, subject to confirmation of legal advice about the protection of third party confidentiality, CS(RM) takes steps towards effecting early release (probably in January 1999, along with the next batch of releases to the PRO) of the 55 files that have already been identified, together with the additional 12 under preparation. Given the uncertainties involved in the possible need for sanitisation of personal details, obtaining the Lord Chancellor's approval and the PRO's reaction to accepting the files, I recommend that a holding reply, along the lines of the attached draft, is sent to Lord Hill-Norton at this stage. Some defensive press lines are also attached should Lord Hill-Norton wish to make something of this reply. An appropriate news brief to accompany any release in due course will be essential. CS(RM) will advise in due course on the outcome of the review;release process . • NH619 uNc L~"5l lfJI~ POLICY = = =--.J
RESTRICTED UNCLASSIFIED RESTRICTED - POLICY DRAFT REPLY FROM USofS TO THE LORD HILL-NORTON Thank you for your letter of 3 March in which you request the release of files containing information about alleged sightings of 'unidentified flying objects'. As you know, the Ministry of Defence has only a very limited interest in the sightings that are reported to us as unidentified aerial phenomena. MOD has a well-established review programme to release files after 30 years in accordance with the terms of the Public Records Acts, 1958 and 1967. Whilst I am prepared to consider on their merits individual requests for the early release of files, therefore, I must take full account of the overall implications, including the diversion of resources from the review programme, and the need to protect information provided in confidence by members of the public, before agreeing to them. Nevertheless, in the light of the Government's commitment to greater openness, and given the public interest in this matter, I have asked that some files that would be due for release to the Public Record Office in the next few years be considered for earlier release. This will require some work, including for example, the need to check whether personal details of members of the public should be protected. At this time, therefore, I cannot give an undertaking that such early release will be possible. I shall, however, write to you again when the necessary work has been completed and the way ahead is clear.
uNc LAS$ 1fifi£@'ED UN C LA~§~f ~ tffio- POLICY UNCLA~Jf~g~
RESTRICTED UNCLASSIFIED RESTRICTED - POLICY News Brief Subject: Early Release of 11 UFO" Files Source: Branch: DOMD Officer Tel: 81994MB BACKGROUND In a letter to SofS dated 3 Mar 98, Lord Hill-Norton requested early release of all closed files on the subject of 11 UF0s 11 • USofS, in responding, explained that release of all files was not possible, partly for resourcing reasons, but that the Department would consider the early release of files that were due to be presented to the Public Record Office over the next few years. However, to do this required some additional consideration, and he could not, therefore, give a firm undertaking. He did undertake to write back to Lord Hill-Norton when a final decision has been made. (A separate news brief will be provided at that time). The purpose of this brief is to provide some lines to take should Lord Hill-Norton decide to publicise this reply. KEY MESSAGE In line with the Government's commitment to greater openness, and in view of the public interest, MOD is considering whether some files related to the subject of "UFOs" could be released to the Public Record Office in advance of the normal 30 year point. KEY POINTS TO SUPPORT THE MESSAGE * Some additional work is required, for example, to ensure that we do not breach third party confidentiality (much of the material in question has been provided by members of the public). * No final decision on early release has therefore yet been taken. * (If raised) Lord Hill-Norton has made a request for files to be released, but staff are already encouraged to identify discrete blocks of records of more than ordinary interest to the public which could be released to the Public Record Office {PRO} ahead of the normal 30 year point. * MOD already has a well-structured programme to release files to the PRO after 30 years. The recent White Paper on Freedom of Information stated the Government's view that the 30 year rule should not be reduced, as meeting the considerable costs for earlier release of all historical records was not considered to be the best use of scarce public resources. SUBSIDIARY POINTS * MOD examines any reports of "UF0 11 sightings it receives solely to establish whether what was seen might have some defence significance. U NC~.£~@£ 0.. * * * Defence significance constitutes evidence that UK Air Defence Region might have been compromised by hostile or unauthorised foreign military activity. Unless there is evidence of a potential threat to the UK from an external military source, MOD does not attempt to identify the precise nature of each sighting reported. MOD has no expertise or role with respect to the question of extraterrestriallifeforms and it would be an inappropriate diversion of defence resources to investigate this issue. u ,eye[~ CS59 F1~v
PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE The Lord Hill-Norton GCB Admiral of the Fleet House of Lords London SWlA OPW MINISTRY OF DEFENCE MAIN BUILDING WHITEHALL LONDON S Telephone 0171-21 ..•............... (Direct Dialling) 0171-21 89000 (Switchboard) us c f s J) lS t: "D l.::>M 0 APsj SofS 1 'fs/MrN(!ir} Ps/rvtiAJ(jJ~; Ps:/Pusl PS/JJI)s (CMJ, uG-JMc I H,IA S"frt (AS), D}Sl\.1. 6 C.x: l UJ.s} ltb 0 f (5 ( Q/vl) D/US of S/JS 28/1/0 t April 1998 Thank you for your letter of 3 March in which you request the release of files containing information about alleged of 'unidentified flying objects'. As you know, the Ministry of Defence has only a very limited interest in the sightings that are reported to us as unidelltified aerial phenomena. MOD has a well-established review programme to release files after 30 years in accordance with the terms of the Public Records Acts, 1958 and 1967. Whilst I am prepared to consider on their merits individual requests for the early release of files, I must take full account of the overall implications, including the diversion of resources from the review programme, and the need to protect information provided in confidence by members of the public, before agreeing to them. Nevertheless, in the light of the Government's commitment to greater openness, and given the public interest in this matter, I have asked that some files that would be due for release to the Public Record Office in the next few years be considered for earlier release. This will require some work, including, for example, the need to check whether personal details of members of the public should be protected. At this time, therefore, I cannot give an undertaking tha.t such early release will be possible. I shall, however, write to you again when the necessary work has been completed and the way ahead is clear. JOHN SPELLAR MP
C 0 V E R I N G KEY PAPERS F R MEETING WITH DOMD AND CS RECORDS MANAG EARLY RELEASE OF 'UFO' REPORT FILES DETAILS OF MEETING: 1000 HRS, ROOM 7257, WED 1 APRIL 1998 Those Attending: DOMD TAB A: TAB B: TAB C: TAB D: CS(RM)l - comments to Head of note at TAB B e~ (TAB C). DOMD's second draft (which we have not yet responded to. Sec(AS) response to DOMD's first draft background note and reply to the Lord Hill Norton letter (our response incorporated CS(RM)1's input).
From: Sent: To: Subject: --~- ( .~'JOT To uo f"'- ~] his is a hidden copy for you and reflects the questions raised by DMOD. Hd of CS(RM)l 31 March 1998 09:20 Hd of CS(RM) RE: Lord Hill-Norton reply (U/C) initial thought the "silly season" was months away! But as the ear y release of all "ufo" related files has be~n raised we cannot avoid formally raising the matter with (~~I have spoken to ~ Immediate reaction "very unhappy" at the prospect of su~ase. Particularly concerned that it would lead to the selection of records on a reactive basis (with lobby groups determining what should be kept) rather than through a considered review programme. He will seek further advice and give us the PRO formal view later today. On resources: This has already been covered. I advised OMD that records are not stored thematically, but by date of review and then by branch. There are some 300,000 files for second review covering the next 20 ye~rs. Additionally, there are records stored elsewhere in MOD some stores we know about ie AHB, DIS. There may be others elsewhere e.g. RAF stations, regional Met Offices, DERA. Answer - Sec(AS) to issue a DCI to identify caches (this is getting very silly). To commit ourselves to releasing "ufo" records other than those already prepared for Q would require a major diversion of existing resources both for review and listing. In the case of the later priority would be given to processing these records to the certain detriment of others. Also, if MOD makes any commitment to release these files early what about the knock-on effect elsewhere ie CAA. Finally, we can never be sure files that may be relevant have not been miss~~akness that is sure to be exploited by researchers. ~ RESTRICTED
UNCLA S&ldTi~ o .. _ _____ ..------ ; I have discussed the draft submission that I sent to you the other day with DOMD. He is unhappy with the draft, feeling that it is unduly defensive and that it does not go far enough to addressing the question put by Hill-Norton of whether we could immediately release all closed files on the subject. His main points and questions are: a. Why can't we consider releasing all "ufo" files- even up to the present? If there is some issue about the most recent files, what might be a feasible date - files more than a year old, 2 years old or what? Are there any legal objections to this, eg PRA rules or sensitivity of personal information? Or an exemption under the Code? b. If there are no legal objections to such early release, are there any other implications, eg the diversion of resources? Under the Code, we could claim that it would take a disproportionate effort (exemption 9). But if we believe that it would involve a significant diversion of resources, can we quantify the effort involved? Grateful for your thoughts on the above, I am pursuing an extension to this Weds with USofS's office.
UNCLA~~riHt :Q: o Attached is my draft advice to USofS (not yet cleared with DOMD). Grateful for any comments this afternoon - please let me know if that will not be possible. ~ thank you for the legal advicei are you happy with what I have put at the end of para 10. Many thanks for the advice & assistance. UN C L~iilc61U> !L~ u ~ Nr2.vJ ~ z-
LOOSE MINUTE D/DOMD/2/3 Mar98 PS/USofS Copy to: APS/SofS PS/Min(AF) PS/Min(DP) PS/DUS(CM) DGMO Hd Sec(AS) DISN DDC&L(F&S) Legal HdofCS(RM) LORD HILL-NORTON: REQUEST FOR RELEASE OF FILES Reference: A. D/USofS/JS 28/1/0 dated 9 Mar 98 Issue 1. How to respond to the request from Lord Hill-Norton for the release of all closed files on the subject of ' unidentified flying objects'. ' Recommendation 2. That USofS responds in terms of the attached draft letter. Timing 3. Routine. Background .4. Lord Hill-Norton, aged 83, and Chief of the Defence Staff from 1971- · :t 973, has a long-standing interest in 'UFOs'. He was a member of the (long defunct) House of Lords All-Party 'UFO' Study Group and has written the forewords for at least two books on the subject. Over the years he has supported individual 'UFO' causes and late last year, tabled PQs about an alleged 'UFO' incident in 1980 outside RAF WoodbridgejRAF Bentwaters (Rendlesham Forest), subsequently writing because the Department was not prepared to review decisions made at that time. Pointing to the public interest in t · · d the forthcoming Freedor:n of lnfo~don ~· he h~s . re uested that all closed es on ru be released now. 5. Ministers will know that the Department's interest in 'UFOs' is limited to establishing whether there is any associated evidence of an unauthorised incursion of the UK Air Defence Region by foreign military activity, and that to date the Department knows of no evidence to support the existence of alien spacecraft or extraterrestriallifeforms. Departmental Records 6. The MOD has a well-established review programme (in line with Public
Record Office (PRO) guidance), which ensures that records are reviewed to enable release after 30 years. MOD's key review occurs around the 25 year point and involves files surviving earlier branch and Central Services{Records Management- CS{RM)) reviews. Some 12% of records survive this selection process (of the order of 4,500 files each year) and must be catalogued and conserved before acceptance by the PRO and release at the 30-year point. 7. Under existing commitments to openness, staff are already encouraged to identify discrete blocks of records of more than ordinary interest to the public, which could be released to the Public Record Office ahead of the normal 30 year point. Staff were recently reminded of this requirement in reissued instructions on Open Government (DCI Gen 54/98}. The Public Record Act has provisions for the release of records at dates other than the normal 30 year point, subject to the Lord Chancellor's approval. 'UFO' Files 8. A decision was taken in 1967 in the light of increasing public interest in 'UFOs' that these files should be retained. Closed files over 30 yearsold {including any remaining from years prior to 1967) have already been released. As part of their continuing structured review programme, CS(RM) has some 55 files relating to 'UFOs' with planned release dates of 1999-2003 ready for the PRO. A further 12 {release date 2004) currently await listing/ conserving. CS(RM) does, of course, have many Departmental files on a wide range of subjects at various stages of listing and conserving but none in sufficient number by subject to comprise similar packages. 9. The PRO has, on occasion, rejected files for preservation and release. The Department's UNCLMStfitmiDUNCLA S.Sltt t~ review programme therefore takes into account not only the requirements of the national archive, but also considers the interests of the more specialist museums. Should the PRO decline to accept 'UFO' files (they could be viewed as a large amount of trivia} the Department would have to decide how their contents might be made available to the public, and seek the Lord Chancellors approval for the method chosen. 0 ,J.,r!>IL . r I . 10. There are no security concerns about early release of)'UFO' files. A degree of sensitivity has been attached to them, however, because reports and letters contain personal details of members of the public. The public interest; public confidentiality aspect of 'UFO' business has been effectively managed on the basis that a 30-year closure period provides suffici~ot protection for the personal privacy of correspondents. Permission for early release of the 55 files mentioned above could be sought, however; and there are three options for dealing with the personal privacy concerns: a. obtain permission from members of the public on an individual basis to the release of their details·~~ b. remove ersonal detail (the 55 processed files would re~ ~ ~ - - ~~Jia~~~~. ~500~nclosl!!'.~~o : -~~ c . agree that a shorter period, say 25 rather than 30 years, was acceptable for protection of privacy. The first method would be time-consuming and probably impractical, particularly in the case of the oldest files; the second would be possible, but would represent a considerable diversion of resources for CS(RM) . Preliminary legal advice on the third option suggests that MOD would be protected against any charge of breaching confidentiality if documents were"-' A 1 released in advance of 30 years because early release is provided for in th~ ~ \J e_,.._r ~ Public Record Act, - ;:;;;;:o::::: 11. A number of 'ufologists' believe that key information about 'UFOs' is held qn files other than those containing reports and public correspondence and are, therefore, keen to see files on a wide range of Air Force related issues. Identifying such files would be difficult. The MOD archives at Hayes contains some 300,000 files currently earmarked for review between 1998-2017. They are stored by date of review and, within that, by Branch; there is no thematic index and, without specific file references (and many Branches have reorganised a number of times during the last 30 years) a major resource effort would be required to locate and examine them. Additionally, Air Historical Branch holds key Air Staff papers including some 2,600 boX,es of Operational Record Books (RAF Station diaries). There are. of course, other AJJ e.~ defence-relate · at attract interest and earl release of 'UFO' files to sa 1sfy one interest group could spar s1m1 ar requests from others. , ~ \- -) \A~l S~SL."" Conclusion ::J ~::::== 12. In the light of the discussion above, it is recommended that, subject to confirmation of legal advice about confidentiality, CS(RM) takes steps towards effecting early release of the 55 files that have already been identified (together with the additional12 under preparation). Given the uncertainties involved in the possible need for sanitisation of personal details, obtaining the Lord UNCLASSIFIED RESTRICTED
Chancellor's approval and the PRO's reaction to accepting the files, it would be wise to be cautious about any time-scale in responding to Lord Hill-Norton. This is reflected in the draft letter_attache.d.._CS,(RM) WiR advi..§.e_io_due..cour:se on be outcome of the process_.s.An appropriate press plan to accompany an~ . release in due course'would be essenttal in order to maximise the impact <>..!,____/ ~~~el~ase . - ----::?. -·-.- r3~ (D Ct. • ? NH619 \e..b- ~ ·0 u-e- uo......t. t \ tc "'-',LU oJ'-~ C: F tta Bo~~ . . D 0.~ .~ ~:s lrO ill rr -~ r ~ 0-A ~~ ~~ ~\)cvt ~ s eN\ t\a.. c\Q_ a ~d b l\ · 'fl- #!!'""' = ~ QJl 0 ""'0 t--e. . UNCLA~~J£J£ 9: o
DRAFT REPLY FROM USofS TO THE LORD HILL-NORTON Thank you for your letter of 3 March in which you request the release of closed files containing information about alleged sightings of 'unidentified flying objects'. ti-\~~0...~ I As you know, my Department has only a very limited interest in the ~ 0 ~<r'Jc... 1n.t: are reported to us* as-wFtkler ttified ete1 ial pheno; 1 1ene. The White Paper on the forthcoming Freedom of Information Act has generated correspondence from a number of people and organisations each with their own specific interests and all keen to see a greater openness in respect of a wide range of topics. My Department has a structured programme to release closed files after 30 years. Whatever the merits of individual requests for the early release of files, therefore, I must take full. account of the overall implications of diverting resources from the programme before agreeing to them. Whilst I have asked th~~ -!he _ ~les tt::!~! _ YQ!! h?~ ~t<~d forJ?~-~Qfl_!idered for ~a!.!Y.. relf:!!Se, I cannot at this time give an -- --·--------, undertaking that this will be possible. I shall, however, write to you again when -~ I have given further consideration to the matter. ·10, ~~~ ~~ LOt-s LAQ.n..2:J 0 ~~o.J.J., /\uN..~ ?)-- c..(o~~ ~\Q._n ~lt.fl (S. ILo (::- - ~\:: Wt\- No-r~ ~'y-"-Q_al r~V I
Loose Minute D/Sec(AS)/64/3 25th March 1998 Copy to: Head of CS(RM)1 LORD HILL-NORTON REQUEST FOR EARLY RELEASE OF CLOSED FILES Reference: D/USofS/JS/28/1/0 dated 9 March 1998 1. We have spoken a number of times about the letter from Hill- Norton and the remit to provide PS/USofS with a draft re ly. I said I would weave our contribution in with response; this is attached. 2. I am copying this in parallel to lllll 1~ ffi e has not yet cleared it. You will, perhaps, want to assure Mlnls ers that Sec(AS) and CS(RM) have contributed to, and are content with, the finished piece. Perhaps you could let me know if you intend any changes of substance. 3. I am afraid it is a rather lengthy reply, but it is important to explain to Ministers that the Hill-Norton request is only a small part of the much wider issue concerning early release of files. 4. I have mentioned to PS/USofS that I am responsible for the failure to meet the deadline!
Loose Minute D/DOMD/2/3 Mar 98 PS/USofS Copy to: APS/SofS PS/Min(AF) PS/Min(DP) PS/DUS(CM) DRAFT DGMO Head of Sec(AS) DISN Head of CS(RM) LORD HILL-NORTON: REQUEST FOR EARLY RELEASE OF 1 UF0 1 FILES Reference: D/USofS/JS 28/1/0 dated 9 Mar 98 ISSUE 1. How to respond to the request from Lord Hill-Norton for the release of all closed files on the subject of 'unidentified flying objects'. RECOMMENDATION 2. That USofS responds in terms of the attached draft letter. TIMING 3. Routine. BACKGROUND 4. Lord Hill-Norton's request cannot be considered in isolation and the fundamental issue of the Department's overall policy in the light of the forthcoming Freedom of Information Act must also be addressed. Departmental Records 5. The MOD has a well-established, structured, review programme (in line with Public Record Office (PRO) guidance) which ensures records are reviewed to enable release after 30 years. The us by comparison relies on applications under their Freedom of Information (FOI) Act to trigger release and, as a result, millions of papers over 30 years old have not yet been released. 6. MOD's key review occurs around the 25 year point and involves files surviving earlier branch and CS(RM) reviews. Some 12% of records survive this selection process (c4,500 files for 1997/98) and must be catalogued and conserved (cleaned) before acceptance by the PRO and release at the 30-year point. 'UFO' Files
7. A decision was taken in 1967 in the light of increasing public interest in 'UFOs' that these files should be retained. Closed files over 30 years old (including any remaining from years prior to 1967) have already been released. As part of their ongoing structured review programme, CS(RM) has some 55 'UFO' files with planned release dates of 1999-2003 ready for the PRO. A further 12 (release date 2004) currently await listing/cleaning. CS(RM) does, of course, have many Departmental files on a wide range of subjects at various stages of listing and cleaning but none in sufficient number by subject to comprise similar packages. Public Record Act (PRA) and Early Release 8. Under existing commitments to openness, Departmental officials are encouraged to identify discrete blocks of records of more than ordinary interest to the public which could be released to the PRO ahead of this time (staff were recently reminded of this in reissued instructions on Open Government- DCI GEN 54/98). section 5{1) of the PRA has provisions for the release of records at dates other than the normal 30 year point subject to the Lord Chancellor's approval. Permission for early release of the 55 files mentioned above could be sought if it was judged that sensitivity was not an issue. sensitivity 9. A degree of sensitivity has been attached to 'UFO' files because sighting reports were passed to the Defence Intelligence Branch (DI55) to ascer'tain any intelligence of a terrestrial nature and because reports and letters contain personal details of members of the public. Open Government accepts that there might be circumstances where records could be closed for longer than 30 years (contains information supplied in confidence; contains information about individuals, the disclosure of which would cause distress or endangerment) but the public interest/public confidentiality aspects of 'UFO' business has been effectively managed on the basis that a 30-year closure period provides sufficient protection for the personal privacy of correspondents. 10. There are no security concerns about early release of 'UFO' files. There are three options for dealing with personal privacy concerns: a. obtain permission from members of the public on an individual basis to the release of their details (an extremely time consuming process); b. remove personal details (the processed files at para 7 above would require examination of 55x100 enclosures and sanitizing as necessary); c. agree that a shorter period, say 25 rather than 30 years, was acceptable for protection of privacy. Identification of Possible 'UFO'-related Files 11. A number of 'ufologists' believe that key information about 'UFOs' is held on files other than those containing reports and public correspondence and are, therefore, keen to see files on awide range of Air Force related issues. Identifying such files would be difficult. The MOD archives at Hayes contains some 300,000 files currently earmarked for review between 1998-2017. They are stored by date of review and, within that, by Branch; there is no thematic index and, without specific file references (and many Branches have reorganised a number of times during the last 30 years) a major resource effort would be required to locate and examine them. Additionally, Air Historical Branch holds some 2,600 boxes of key Air staff papers including Operational Record Books (ie RAF Station diaries). Lord Hill-Norton 12. Lord Hill-Norton, aged 83 and Chief of the Defence staff from 1971-1973, has a long-standing interest in 'UFOs'. He was a member of the (long defunct) House of Lords All-Party 'UFO' Study Group and has written the forewords for at least two books on the subject. over the years he has supported individual 'ufologist' causes and, more recently, tabled PQs about an alleged 'UFO' incident in 1980 outside RAF Woodbridge/RAF Bentwaters (Rendlesham Forest) subsequently writing because the Department was not prepared to review decisions made at that time. 13. Ministers will know that the Department's interest in 'UFOs' is limited to establishing whether there is any associated evidence of an unauthorized incursion of the UK Air Defence Region by foreign military activity, and that to date the Department knows of no evidence to support the existence of 'UFO/flying saucers'/extraterrestrial lifeforms. It is frequently the case that our limited interest does not correspond with the wide- ranging non-defence related enthusiasms of a minority of the public who continue to lobby for the diversion of defence resources for their own aims. summary of Issues 14. To summarise: a. The Department manages a structured review programme for the release of closed files at the 30-year point; b. Section 5(1) of the 1958 Public Records Act provides for the early release of records subject to the Lord Chancellor's approval. c. A reduction from 30 to 25 years for release of 'UFO' sighting report and public correspondence files would be possible if personal privacy was not deemed to be a concern. d. A commitment to identification and early release of closed files (including those concerning or possibly related to 'UFO' reports and correspondence) beyond those already processed would involve significant resource effort and severely disrupt the Department's structured review programme. OTHER POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION 15. There are, of course, other defence related topics that attract vociferous supporters looking for greater access to
Departmental papers under the FOI Act and early release of 'UFO' files to satisfy a minority interest group could set a precedent. It is Sec{AS)'s experience that releasing information does not stem the tide of correspondence. The reverse is true as many correspondents seek to challenge decisions made 30-50 years ago. 16. Sec{AS) is already considering the implications of the forthcoming Freedom of Information Act and how it might impact on the Department's limited interest in the subject of 'UFOs'. They are progressing a number of issues as part of this work, not least the interests of the Air Defence and Defence Intelligence staffs. They are seized of the need to take full account of public interest in this subject. Sec{AS) will be advising further in due course. 17. The PRO has, on occasion, rejected files for preservation and release. The Department's review programme therefore takes into account not only the requirements of the national archive, but also considers the interests of the more specialist museums. Should the PRO decline to accept 'UFO' files (they could be viewed as a large amount of trivia) the Department would have to decide how their contents might be made available to the public, and seek the Lord Chancellor's approval for the method chosen. CONCLUSION 18. As a goodwill gesture, the release date for closed 'UFO' files could be reduced from 30 to 25 years and the 55 files mentioned at para 7 above could be made available at the January 1999 point. This is, however, unlikely to satisfy Lord Hill- Norton who is looking for the release of all 'UFO' files. His request would need to be treated as a special case (and there is no justification for this) to warrant the reallocation of the significant resources required to achieve this and would adversely affect the Department's structured review programme. The draft provided is therefore couched in conservative terms in order not to raise Lord Hill-Norton's expectations.DRAFT REPLY TO LORD HILL-NORTON Thank you for your letter of 3 March in which you request the release of closed files containing information about alleged sightings of •unidentified flying objects'. As you know, my Department has only a very limited interest in the sightings that are reported to us as unidentified aerial phenomena. The White Paper on the forthcoming Freedom of Information Act has generated correspondence from a number of people and organisations each with their own specific interests and all keen to see a greater openness in respect of a wide range of defence and defence related topics. My Department has a structured programme to release closed files after 30 years. Whatever the merits of individual requests for the early release of files I must take full account of the overall implications of diverting resources from the programme before agreeing to them. I am sorry but I cannot at this time give an undertaking that the files you ask for will be released early but I shall write to you again when we have given further consideration to the matter.
U NCL~~ Jfc~~ Tue 8 Sep, 1998 16:12 mailbox standard Page 1 DATE FROM SUBJECT CODES 08/09/98 Hd of CS(RM)1 LORD HILL-NORTON - FOLLOW-UP REPLY [ J Intended: Sent: 08/09/98 at 15:06 Delivered: 08/09/98 at 15:07 To: OMD/AD(Management) CC: Hd of CS(RM) Ref: /GUID:41C85F1CA244D211B3AA00005A422BE6 From: Hd of CS(RM)l Auth by: Subject: LORD HILL-NORTON - FOLLOW-UP REPLY Text: Priority: Normal Reply Request [ ] SEE PAGE View Acknowledge [*] UN C LA 3-Sffid~fi o Attachments Codes [ 2] ]
If you cast your minds back six months Lord Hill-Norton wrote to SofS seeking the release of all closed "ufo" files. DOMD was tasked with the lead at that time providing USofS with a holding reply whilst CS(RM) sought legal advice on the question of third party confidentaliy. On the basis of advice recently received I have prepared the attached draft note and reply for Minister. Comments please by UN C LASSiditEdF)o
Loose Minute CS(RM)/4/6/37 September 1998 PS{USofS Copy to: APS/SofS PS/Min(AF) PS/Min(DP) PS/PUS UNCLA~~S o DRAFT PS/DUS(CM) DDC&L(F&S)Legal DGMO DMOD Hd Sec (AS) DISN LORD HILL-NORTON: REQUEST FOR RELEASE OF FILES Reference: A. D fUSofS 1 JS 28/1 /0 dated 9 March 1998 (not to all) B. D /DOMD /2/3 dated 3 April1998 1. To provide Lord Hill-Norton with the outcome of our consideration of his request for the early release of files on the subject of •unidentified flying objects•. Recommendation 2. That USofS responds in terms of the attached draft letter. Timing 3. Routine. Background 4. Lord Hill-Norton, aged 83, and Chief of the defence Staff from 1971-73, has a long standing interest in "UFOs". He was a member of the (long defunct) House of Lords All-Party "UFO Study Group and has written the forewords for at least two books on the subject. Over the years he has supported individual "UFO" causes and late last year, tabled PQs about a "UFO" incident in 1980 outside RAF WoodbridgejRAF Bentwaters (Rendlesham Forest). He subsequently wrote to Minister (DP) complaining that the Department was not prepared to review decisions made at that time. He has subsequently (Sec(AS) any further examples you wish to Include?]. '::!" 4. He approached the department earlier this year (undercover of Reference A) pointing to the public interest in this topic and to the forthcoming Freedom of Information Act, requesting that all closed files on the subject of UFOs be released in advance of the normal, 30 year point. 5. Ministers will know that the Department's interest in "UFOs" is limited to establishing whether there is any associated evidence of an unauthorised incursion of the UK Air·BefeRee~egion by foreign military activity. a.u"" Departmental Records 6. The MOD has a well established review programme (in line with Public Record Office (PRO) guidance) which ensures that records are reviewed to enable release after 30 years. UNCLASSlditffio7. Typically, CS(RM) formally reviews in excess of 13,000 linear feet of records each year (in the region of 130,000 files) of which around an estimated 4,500 files are earmarked for permanent preservation at the PRO. Before transfer to Kew all require cataloguing and conservation action, in addition if sensitivity is an issue, appropriate submissions are prepared to seek the Lord Chancellor's agreement for closure beyond 30 years. "UFO• Files 8. Since 1967 it has been MOD policy to earmark •uto• files for preservation, with just over 30 files in the public UN C L & &&H ilii£)
domain. The limited nature of these files generally in the form of reports to the Department by members of the public has lead to the general belief that the MOD continues to hold, and withhold beyond the 30 year point, a considerable cache of files on this subject, particularly files covering intelligence aspects of the phenomenon. This is not the case. 9. By way of a holding reply USofS advised Lord Hill-Norton that although we were unable to agree to the release of all closed UFO files an undertaking was made to consider the early release of those files which were in an advance stage of preparation for transfer to the PRO (ie 55 files prepared and a further 12 awaiting listingjconservation). 10. In recent months the PRO has been involved in their largest consultation exercise that has lead to the publication of a new aqusitition policy. Although there is no suggestion that the 67 •ufo" files at various stages of preparation will be rejected by the PRO the routine acceptance of this kind of "trivial" record by Kew is doubtful. Outcome of our review 11. Three options have been considered: (1) obtain permission from members of the public on an individual basis to the release of their details; (2) remove personal details (the 55 processed files would require further examination and sanitisation of some 5,500 enclosures}; (3) agree that a shorter period, say 25 rather than 30 years, was acceptable for protection of privacy. The first option had previously been considered time-consuming and, given the fact that we would be attempting to trace individuals whose addresses were 25 plus years old, impractical. Option two, is possible, but would represent a major diversion of resources. For the third option advice was sought from MOD's Legal Advisers. We are advised, "there is an implied override of the Department'S duty to protect third party confidentiality by use of the 30 year rule under the [Public Record] Act. Release of records pertaining to that period are, therefore, not a problem. However, Legal Adviser is of the view that this implied override probably does not extent to earlier release periods. _ she has advised, therefore that to be on the safe side, records released prior to the 30 year point should be sanitised_.. Legal Adviser's duty is to protect the Department insofar as possible from the risks of legal action and therefore her legal advice is to err on the side of caution, given that the legal position is not at all clear cut." Conclusion 12. In the light of legal advice, and having previously rejected options one and two, it is recommended USofS advise Lord Hill-Norton that we intend making no changes to the existing arrangement where-by "ufo" files are transferred to the PRO for release at the 30 year point. '"' ,. '9 I Hd CS(R,ML___, MTA8/3~
DRAFT REPLY FROM USofS TO THE LORD HILL-NORTON Further to my letter dated 7 April1998 I can now advise you ~f the 1 putcome of our consideration of • ("""'1'-tl "'~- the release of a number of files relating to . alle~-aet~of •unidentified flying objects•. You will recall I advised you that whilst I was prepared to consider on their merits individual requests for the early release of files, resource considerations and the need to protect information provided in confidence by members of the public had first to be investigated. The various options open to the MOD have now been considered. We plan to make no change to the existing routine release of "UFO" report files at the normal 30 year point, subject of course the Public Record Office continued willingness to accept the material. Although there are a number of "ufo" files, containing correspondence between officials and members of the public, at various stages of preparation for transfer to the PRO we are mindful of our responsibility to protect third party confidentiality, a concern endorsed by our legal advisers. Release ahead of the 30 year point would only be possible by the removal of all data that would reveal the identity of correspondents. Such an activity would only be possible through a major diversion of resources. A diversion I am unable to justify. I am sorry to give you what will be a disappointing reply. UNCL~fr ij¥ Q,Thu 10 Sep, 1998 9:34 Sent: 10/09/98 at 9:33 To: Hd of CS(RM)l cc: Ref: 1978 mailbox log Page 1 Subject: LORD HILL-NORTON: REQUEST FOR RELEASE OF FILES Text: Priority: Normal Reply Request [ ] View Acknowledge [*] Delivery Acknowledge [*] ·~. Attachments [ 1] Codes [ ]
LOOSE MINUTE D/Sec(AS)/64/3 10 Sep 98 Hd of CS(RM)1 LORD HILL-NORTON: REQUEST FOR RELEASE·OF FILES 1. Thank you for your E-mail of 8 Sep, enclosing your proposed draft submission to USofS and a draft reply for the Minister to send to Lord Hill-Norton. 2. I have a few small suggestions: (First) Para 4 At end of para 4 insert: "[He subsequently] tabled a further seven PQs on the MOD's 'UFO' reporting procedures during July and August and has since written to Minister (DP) seeking further clarification of an answer. " Para 5 Change " the UK Air Defence Region If to " ... the UK' s airspace ... " Draft Letter from USofS to Lord Hill-Norton '· ,~',· Para One Delete: " ... the alleged activities ... "and replace with 11 ••• reports ... 11 3. We are content with the remainder as drafted. [original signed] Sec (AS ) .• z 1 a 1 1•ll1 MB824s !. : m CHOTS: ~ECTA~Al
Tue 15 Sep, 1998 19:01 mailbox standard Page 1 15/09/98 OMD/AD(Management) [ ] Intended: Sent: 15/09/98 at 17:34 Delivered: 15/09/98 at 18:09 To: Hd of CS(RM)l CC: SEC(AS)2 1 0MD14 Ref: /GUID:404066F1A04BD2119CA200A02461F4C4 From: OMD/AD(Management) Auth by: Subject: Lord Hill-Norton Text: Priority: Normal Reply Request [ ] SEE PAGE View Acknowledge [ ] Attachments [ 1] codes ( ] .< /
LOOSE MINUTE D/DOMD/2/3 15 Sep 98 Hd of CS(RM) 1 Copy to: Sec(AS)2 OMD14 UN C LA~f:rl@~ LORD HILL-NORTON: REQUEST FOR RELEASE OF FILES 1. Thanks for a sight of your draft submission to USofS on the final reply to Lord Hill-Norton on the question of the early release of "UF0 11 files (your e-mail of 8 Sep). Whilst I am disappointed that we are unable to make any early releases of information, if our legal advice is that we have a duty of confidentiality, then we have to abide by that advice. I think that USofS would, however, appreciate advice on what is meant by a .. major diversion of resources .. , ie approximately how many man-hours would be required to examine and sanitise the material in question and/or the effect on CS(RM). 2. On the general layout of the submission, I believe that it could be much shorter, as the present draft merely repeats a lot of the original submission. I suggest, for example, that (the first) para 4 need only keep the first sentence. After para 5, I suggest that you go straight into something along the lines of: .. In his submission dated 3 April (Ref B), DOMD advised that_ 11 followed largely by a summary of para 12 of our original submission, plus discussion of the three options. Para 7 of your draft could also go. Finally, I recommend rewriting the legal advice so that it is an integral part of the submission rather than, as at present, a quotation, eg (assuming the following is an accurate summary): For the third option, advice was sought from MOD's Legal Advisers. Their advice is that the Public Record Act gives an implied override of the Department's duty to protect third party confidentiality by use of the 30 year rule. Release of records pertaining to that period is not, therefore, a problem. However, this implied override probably does not \ extend to earlier release periods, and the Department would be at risk o L of legal action [for breach of confidence??] if it released documents containing the personal details of members of the public before the 30 year point. We have therefore concluded that, having rejected options (a} and (b), we are unable to make a block release of files prior to their transfer to the PRO. A draft letter to Lord Hill-Norton to this effect is attached. 3. In the draft letter, I suggest you refer to his letter 11 0f 11 7 April. I also suggest deleting the third para , and in the fourth para deleting 11 a concern endorsed by our legal advisers .. (as he is speaking for the whole Department). At the end of the existing fourth para, you could add: 11 Nevertheless, these files will continue to be released routinely at the normal 30 year point, subject to the continued willingness of the PRO to accept the material. 11
4. Hope that it helpful, happy to discuss further, or to go over another draft. OMD/- NH617 RESTRICTED
, ., . r, Wed 16 Sep, 1998 9:36 mailbox log Page 1 DATE TO 15/09/98 Hd of CS(RM)1 I I Sent: 15/09/98 at 16:16 To: Hd of CS(RM)1 CC: Ref: 1987 SUBJECT LORD HILL-NORTON SUBMISSION Subject: LORD HILL-NORTON SUBMISSION Text: of DOMD phon ting her comments on 1s comments to your submission. She didn't have the papers in front of her and was too busy anyway so she asked him to side-copy his comments to you to her (if you see what I mean!!). I'll call you straight away when we've seen them to confirm h hasn't said anything we disagree with·. ·. Hope · this makes sense Pri ority: Normal Reply Request [ ] View Acknowledge [*] Delivery Acknowledge [*] .·• . , I. ·. '. Attachments Codes [
Wed 16 Sep, 1998 9:37 Sent: 16/09/98 at 9:36 To: Hd of CS(RM)1 CC: Ref: 1988 mailbox log Page 1 .·,. Subject: LORD HILL-NORTON: REQUEST FOR RELEASE OF FILES Text: ~ urther to my E-mail of yesterday afternoon, having now read DOMD's comments I have no difficulty with any of them. Priority: Normal Reply Request [ ] View Acknowledge [*] Delivery Acknowledge [ ] .·... :. ·' . . ·., • . t .. -".· Attachments Codes [ ] ]
UNCL~nHiB '1 Thu 24 Sep, 1998 12:05 mailbox standard Page 1 DATE FROM SUBJECT CODES 24/09/98 Hd of CS(RM)1 Intended: Hd of SEC(AS) LORD HILL -NORTON: REOOUEST FOR Sent: 24/09/98 at 11:30 Delivered: 24/09/98 at 11:33 To: PS/USofS(Personal) CC: PSSECRETARY OF STATE,MIN(AF)-APSl/Personal,MIN(DP)APSl(PERSONAL) + Ref: /GUID:FCF251EBBB4FD211B3AB00005A422BE6 From: Hd of CS(RM)1 Auth by: Subject: LORD HILL -NORTON: REQQUEST FOR RELEASE OF FILES Text: has seen and approved the following Priority: Normal Reply Request [ ] SEE PAGE View Acknowledge [*] UNCLASBdiikE£io Attachments [ 1] Codes [ ]
Loose Minute CS(RM)/4/6/37 September 1998 PS/USofS * Copy to: APS/SofS * PS/Min(AF) * PS/Min(DP) * PS/PUS * UNCLAS8*~En PS/DUS(CM) DGMO Hd Sec (AS) DISN * * * * DDC&L(F&S)Legal DMOD PRO IDO * * * LORD HILL-NORTON: REQUEST FOR RELEASE OF FILES Reference: A. 0/USofS/JS 28/1/0 dated 9 March 1998 (not to all) B. D/DOMD/2/3 dated 3 April1998 * CHOTS only 1. To provide Lord Hill-Norton with the outcome of our consideration of his request for the early release of files on the subject of "unidentified flying objects". Recommendation 2. That USofS responds in terms of the attached draft letter. Timing 3. Routine. Bacground 4. Lord Hill-Norton, aged 83, and Chief of the Defence Staff from 1971-73, has a long standing interest in "UFOs". He approached the department earlier this year (undercover of Reference A) pointing to the public interest in this topic and to the forthcoming Freedom of Information Act, requesting that all closed files on the subject of UFOs be released in advance of the normal, 30 year point. 5. In his submission dated 3 Apri11998 (reference B) DOMD advised that in the region of 55 files were held with planned releases dates of 1999-2003, in addition a further 12 (with a release date of 2004) were in the early stages of preparation for transfer to the PRO. These files concern correspondence from members of the public reporting such occurrences, therefore question of personal confidentiality had to be resolved. Outcome of our review 6. Three options have been considered: (1) obtain permission from members of the public on an individual basis to the release of their details; (2) remove personal details (the 55 processed files would require further examination and sanitisation in the order of 5,500 enclosures); (3) agree that a shorter period, say 25 rather than 30 years, was acceptable for protection
of privacy. The first option was considered time-consuming and, given the fact that we would be attempting to trace individuals whose addresses were 25 plus years old, impractical. Option two, is possible, but would represent a major diversion of resources as each file would have to be re- reviewed, a note made of every page requiring extraction/deletion of personally sensitive information and for these actions to be carried out. It is estimated some 200 man hours would UNCLA~~~ o
be required and so as not to adversely affect our existing review and transfer programme the task spread over a six month period. For the third option advice was sought from MOD's Legal Advisers. Their advice is that the Public Record Act gives an implied override of the Department's duty to protect third party confidentially by use of the 30 year rule. Release of records pertaining to that period are, therefore, not a problem but the Department would be at risk of legal action for breach of confidence if it released documents containing the personal details of members of the public before the 30 year point. We have therefore concluded that, having rejected options (a) and (b), we are unable to make a block release of the files before the 30 year point. A draft letter to Lord Hill-Norton to this effect is attached. ~ MTA8/3 0 UNCLASSIFIED RESTRICTED
DRAFT REPLY FROM USofS TO THE LORD HILL-NORTON Further to my letter dated 7 April 1998 I can now advise you of the outcome of our consideration of the release of a number of files relating to reports of "unidentified flying objects". You will recall I advised you that whilst I was prepared to consider on their merits individual requests for the early release of files, resource considerations and the need to protect information provided in confidence by members of the public had first to be investigated. Although there are a number of "ufo" files, containing correspondence between officials and members of the public, at various stages of preparation for transfer to the PRO we are mindful of our responsibility to protect third party confidentiality. Release ahead of the 30 year point would only be possible by the removal of all data that would reveal the identity of correspondents. Such an activity would only be possible through a major diversion of resources. A diversion I am unable to justify. Nevertheless, these files will continue to be released routinely at the normal 30 year point, subject to the continued willingness of the PRO to accept the material. I am sorry to give you what will be a disappointing reply.
uNc LA1fr s r~ l cTE ~ JHNetAsstflfo ~OUC>f uNc LAS ~~l'R I CTE 0 ttJNttASSiftEfJ POL\LY. . ,·· ; . '\ . ~ ( '"' '·~~· .
From: Secretariat( Air Staff)2a 1a, Room MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, Main Building, Whitehall, London. SW1A 2HB Telephone (Direct dial) (Switchboard) (Fax) Your reference Our reference D/Sec(AS)/64/3 Date J5 March 1998 1. I am writing with reference to your message left on the Secretariat (Air Staff) answerphone regarding an "unidentified flying object" seen whilst driving in Cheam on the evening of 10 March. This office is the focal point within the Ministry of Defence for correspondence of this hature. 2. First I should explain that the Ministry of Defence examines any reports of "unidentified flying objects" it receives solely to establish whether what was seen might have some defence significance; namely, whether there is any evidence that the UK Air Defence Region might have been compromised by hostile or unauthorized foreign military activity. 3. Unless there is evidence of a potential military threat, and to date no "UFO" report has revealed such evidence, we do not attempt to identify the precise nature of each sighting reported to us. We believe that rational explanations, such as aircraft lights or natural phenomena, could be found for them if resources were diverted for this purpose, but it is not the function of the MOD to provide this kind of aerial identification service. It would be an inappropriate use of defence resources if we were to do so. 4. With regard to your particular observation, I have looked back through our sighting report files and can confirm that we received no other reports of "UFO" sightings for 10 March from anywhere in the UK, and we are satisfied that there is no corroborating evidence to suggest that the United Kingdom's airspace was ·breached by unauthorised military aircraft. 'lrors ~ W»d OA. td+ \ 2_ pk: 6' (2)1\C. • 82{ \ - ..::;::::::;::---~-·---- · From: Secretariat {Air Staff) 2a1 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1A 2HB Telephone (Direct dial) 0171 218 2140 (Switchboard) 0171 218 9000 (Fax) #22i!Si! I3 j Your reference Our reference D/Sec(AS)/64/3 Date z..s March 1998 Dear 1. I refer to your letters to RAF Brize Norton and RAF Stanbridge of 16 March concerning the subject of 'unidentified flying objects'. Your letters have been passed to this office for reply as the MOD focal point for handling correspondence of this nature. 2. You should by now have received my letter to you of even reference dated 17 March which set out the MOD's policy on reports of 'unidentified flying objects'. I am returning the two saes forwarded with your letters. Yours sincerely,WITH THE COMPLIMENTS OF THE COMMUN1TY RELATIONS OFFICER Flight Lieutenant Royal Air Force Brize Norton Carterton Oxfordshire OX !8 3LX
Public Relations Office RAF Brize Norton Oxfordshire Dear Beds 16 March 1998 I am the area investigator for BUFORA (British UFO Research Association) and I am investigating the reported sightings of a UFO in the area ofLinslade/Leighton Buzzard on the following occasions:- 25 October 1996 at 9pm 22 October 1997 at 10.45pm 4 November 1997 at 7.20pm 6 November 1997 at 6pm Besides these sightings I now tmderstand that there have been some more recent sightings in the same area. When sightings of this nature are passed to this organisation we try to eliminate any obvious explanation that there might be such as weather, police helicopters or aircraft movements by the RAF etc. Therefore I would be grateful for your help in telling me whether RAF Brize Norton had any aircraft flying from its base in the above areas during the dates and times given above. If aircraft were flying could you please give me as many details as you can ie aircraft types etc. If no aircraft were flying from RAF Biize Norton could you please confirm the status of the base ie whether any aircraft do, or have, flown from there or whether it is purely an administrative centre. Any help that you can give would be gratefu1ly received. 1 enclose a SAE for your reply.
.RAFSEE/20 141 /9/Sy I J Mar 98 Secretary (Air Staff) 2a UNSOLICITED MAIL - BRITISH UFO RESEARCH ASSOCIATION Reference: A. Telecon~ated 18 Mar 98 . Refe~ your departmental advice following the receipt of a letter by RAF Stanbridge fron~ofthe British UFO Research Association dated 16 Mar 98, who requested a response to his earlier letter dated 11 Jan 98. As advised, neither RAF Stanbridge or RAFSEE Henlow have responded to the letters, but have enclosed them for your action and reply to l§i~ l as you agreed. Cpl RAF Police Enclosures: 1. 2. Letter from Letter from dated 11 Jan 98. dated 16 Mar 98.
.. \ Flt RAF Stanbridge Stan bridge Beds Dear Flt Beds 16 March 1998 I wrote to you on the 11 January 1998 regarding some reported sightings of UFO's in the Linslade/Leighton Buzzard area on the following dates:- 25 October 1996 at 9pm 22 October 1997 at l0.45pm 4 November 1997 at 7.20pm 6 November 1997 at 6pm As yet I have not received a reply and although I understand that you will be busy carrying out your normal duties I would be grateful if you could spare the time for a reply. I enclose a copy of the original letter in case it has been lost. Thank you. Yours Sincerely
., 11 January 1998 Flt RAF Stanbridge Stanbridge Beds Dear Fit I am the area investigator for BUFORA (British UFO Research Association) and I am investigating the reported sightings of a UFO in the area of Linslade/Leighton Buzzard on the following occasions:- 25 October 1996 at 9pm 22 October 1997 at 10.45pm 4 November 1997 at 7.20pm 6 November 1997 at 6pm In addition to these sightings I now tmderstand that there have been some more recent sightings in the same area. When sightings of this nature are passed to this organisation we try to eliminate any obvious explanation that there might be such as weather, police helicopters or aircraft movements by the RAF etc. With this in mind I would be grateful for your help in telling me whether RAF Stanbridge has any aircraft flying from it's base and, if so, whether any such aircraft were flying in the above areas during the dates and times given above. If aircraft were flying could you please give me as many details as you can ie aircraft types etc. If no aircraft were flying from RAF Stanbridge could you please confirm the status of the base ie whether any aircraft do, or have, flown from there or whether it is purely an administrative centre. Any help that you can give would be gratefully received. I enclose a SAE for your reply. Y oms Sincerely
en, Fife. - From: Secretariat(Air Staff)2a 1a, Room MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, Main Building, Whitehall, London. SW1A 2HB Your reference Our reference DjSec(AS)/64/3 Date J.~ March 1998 1. I am writing with reference to your recent report of an unexplained aerial sighting which you observed on 16 March 1998. The details of your report have been passed from RAF Leuchars to this office as we are the focal point within the Ministry of Defence for correspondence relating to "unidentified flying objects." 2. First I should explain that the Ministry of Defence examines any reports of "unidentified flying objects" it receives solely to establish whether what was seen might have some defence significance; namely, whether there is any evidence that the UK Air Defence Region might have been compromised by hostile or unauthorized foreign military activity. 3. Unless there is evidence of a potential military threat, and to date no "UFO" report has revealed such evidence, we do not attempt to identify the precise nature of each sighting reported to us. We believe that rational explanations, such as aircraft lights or natural phenomena, could be found for them if resources were diverted for this purpose, but it is not the function of the MOD to provide this kind of aerial identification service. It would be an inappropriate use of defence resources if we were to do so. 4. With regard to your particular observation, I have looked back through our sighting report files and can confirm that we received no other reports of "UFO" sightings for 16 March from anywhere in the UK, and we are satisfied that there is no corroborating evidence to suggest that the United Kingdom's airspace was breached by unauthorised military aircraft. ,, '4~ \ 2 et 6--- f:AAL , 8"5 - or;;:::~.-----·--~----
Methill, Fife. .... From: Secretariat(Air Staff)2a1a, Room MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, Main Building, Whitehall, london. SW1A 2HB Telephone (Direct dial) 0171 218 2140 {Switchboard) 0171 218 9000 {Fax) Your reference Our reference D/Sec(AS)/64/3 Date J~ March 1998 1. I am writing with reference to your recent report of an unexplained aerial sighting which you observed on 16 February 1998. The details of your report have been passed from RAF Leuchars to this office as we are the focal point within the Ministry of Defence for correspondence relating to "unidentified flying objects." 2. First I should explain that the Ministry of Defence examines any reports of "unidentified flying objects" it receives solely to establish whether what was seen might have some defence significance; namely, whether there is any evidence that the UK Air Defence Region might have been compromised by hostile or unauthorized foreign military activity. 3. Unless there is evidence of a potential military threat, and to date no "UFO" report has revealed such evidence, we do not attempt to identify the precise nature of each sighting reported to us. We believe that rational explanations, such as aircraft lights or natural phenomena, could be found for them if resources were diverted for this purpose, but it is not the function of the MOD to provide this kind of aerial identification service. It would be an inappropriate use of defence resources if we were to do so. 4. With regard to your particular observation, I have looked back through our sighting report files and can confirm that we received no other reports of "UFO" sightings for 16 February from anywhere in the UK, and we are satisfied that there is no corroborating evidence to suggest that the United Kingdom's airspace was breached by unauthorised military aircraft. f:Q{XY\A: V\.Gtd CN\ b q-- \ 2 p~t; f~-- eV\e b~ · ! l·~ From Secretariat (Air Staff) 2a 1 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1A 2HB Telephone (Direct dial) 0171 218 21 40 (Switchboard) ~ (Fax) - Your reference Our reference DjSec(AS)/64/3 Date 23 March 1998 Dear 1. Thank you for your letter of 14 February addressed to the Secretary of State for Defence concerning geostationary satellites. Your letter has been passed to Secretariat (Air Staff) and I have been asked to reply. 2. As explained by the former Under Secretary of State for Defence, Earl Howe, in his letter to your MP Mrs Bottomley of 14 February 1996, although there are a number of geostationary satellites positioned above the United Kingdom at any given time the satellites are not capable of causing the physical effects you appear to be suffering from. 3. A visit to your GP might help assuage any anxieties you have in respect of the physical symptoms you appear to be experiencing. Yours sincerely,
.•: :: fl. MINISTERIAL CORRESPONDENCE UNIT To SQ_c_ (A-CO) 2_ Ref No /1998 Date .D-o~~/ q,5 The Secretary of State,/ has received the attached letter from a member of the public. It has not been acknowledged by this office. Please send a reply on behalf of the Minister concerned. All Ministers attach importance to such letters being answered promptly, your reply should therefore be sent within 20 workipg days of the date of this minute. If, exceptionally, this should prove impossible an interim reply should be sent within the same timescale. A new Open Government Code of Practice on Access to Government Information came into force on in January 1997. All replies to men1bers of the public must be in accordance with the procedures set out in the Code. A full explanation of the Code of Practice is contained in DCI(Gen) · further information is available from DOMD on extension Under the Citizens' Charter, Departments are now required to keep records of their performance. All branches and Agencies are required to keep information on the number of requests for information which refer to the Code of Practice including details of the correspondent and the nature and date of the reply. In addition, the Department is required to provide a record of the total number of letters from members of the public and provide statistics (which may be used on a valid sample) of its performance in providing replies. within their published targets. ·' As part of our monitoring procedure, random spot checks on the accuracy of your branch records on correspondence will be P erformed throughout the year. · ·-..-..~ .... , .. "-···-······· · - ·· ·~; .. ..... · .. . Ml~~t:STHY OF DEFENCE l MB6140 EX- ('f~c · ~A C.·\ ... , ~1': \. -'i~! t, i ll $'A '1l I':'F; ~'-'~•t·. fa.iJ ¥ ~r; lj('j,j!'lj ,,l'~[REDACTED]
Surrey
[REDACTED]
14-2-98
Rt. Hon. J. Robertson.
Defence Secretary,
Ministry of Defence,
Main Building Whitehall London.
Dear Sir,
Please read all of this
letter and don't think it to be a
load of schizophrenic nonsense.
I have been persecuted on and
off since as long ago as 1985 by
an English geostationary satellite
which it is obvious to me is military
therefore, everything that the satel-
lite is capable of should be known(2)
to you. Of course the satellite's
capabilities are top-secret. The
War House, when Parliamentary
Under-Secretary of State for
Defence, said in a letter to my
M.P. Rt. Hon. Virginia Bott-
omley two years ago that satellites
were not [REDACTED] capable of doing
what I claimed of them. Yet the
persecution has continued since
then. He didn't do anything secretly
to put a stop to it.
I will enumerate a few of my
experiences from the satellite. At
their earliest in a longer list at
later date. In 1985 I learnt that
the satellite knew my thoughts, both
words and pictures. I woke up to(3) me ways running from a dream, hearing an artificial voice com- menting on what I was dreaming. Over the years I have connected with the satellite a lot, either by speaking aloud or merely by thinking words. I have been struck down unconscious several times in my house. I've often in-laid on my ff, for several hours from induc- ed pains in my joints. I have had a lot of damage done to the skin on my lower legs. I have had in- duced growth occur rapidly. Two in my mouth and one on the top of my gullet were later made to largely shrink. A later growth on the top of my gullet remains. I am
(4)
currently experiencing induced break-
down. During the week beginning
4-2-98 the quality of my eyesight
deteriorated rapidly, quite a lot.
I am convinced this was caused by
the satellite. The deteriorated vision
remains. It is not the first time
there has been a sudden change
with my vision.
Only a person with full know-
ledge of the capabilities of the
geostationary satellite I have been
writing about is going to believe
my claims. I don't see how such a
satellite could not be under the
control of the Ministry of Defence.
I request of you that you take
steps to put a stop to the activitieof the people persecuting me with
the satellite.
I await your reply.
Yours sincerely,
[REDACTED]RESTRICTE.D/UNCLASSIFIED MINISTRY OF DEFENCE DIVISION/DIRECTORATE/BRANCH: \ Enclosure Jacket No ..... 1 .. ·~ '') qg- DATE OPENED ......... .\.•; .<;;~ .. ~-~~- .. ~ .................................... . SUBJECT: Referred to Date Referred to Date N 0 TE S 1. A Temporary Jacket will only be used when the Registered File is not available. 2. The contents of a Temporary Jacket must be incorporated in the Registered File at the earliest opportunity, and this incorporation recorded on a transit slip or file record sheet. 3. The movements of Temporary Jackets are recorded by the Registry. Transit is to be recorded on transit slips as for Registered Files. DOWNGRADING (to be completed when the jacke_t is incorporated in the Registered File) This jacket may be downgraded to:- RESTRICTED UNCLASSIFIED on ..................................................................... .. {insert date) Certifying Officer ................................................................................................................ .. ...................................................... Appointment Date ................................................. and Branch ........ ....................... .... .............. ... ...... ............... .. ......... .. . RESTRICTED/UNCLASSIFIEDLOOSE MINUTE D/Sec(AS)/64/3 18 Mar 98 D Info(P&P) - copy to: Sec(AS)la LETTER FROM You spoke on 9 Mar about a chap called~ IIIIIIIJo/ho had you to discuss an 'incide~ occurred near Sheffield on 24 Mar 97. At the time aid that~'incident' had also been the subject of correspondence from and that we wou~d re 1 as soon as we were in a posit1on to o so. In view of assertion that he is a news reporter, we feel it waul e more appropriate for the reply to come from within the D Info empire. Accordingly, I attach a ~~natory draft for you to send, along with a copy of ~ -- letter.
DRAFT LETTER TO Thank you for your letter of 2 March about RAF activity near Sheffield on 24 March 1997. When we spoke a few weeks ago, I said that we would write to you as soon as we were in a position to do so. I hope you find the following information useful . Our records show that there were no military aircraft booked to fly at low level over Derbyshire or South Yorkshire on the evening in question. I cannot comment on the suggestions that there was a high level of military jet activity as too much time has elapsed for us to be able to carry out any kind of meaningful investigation . I can however tell you that we received no reports from members of the public of any military aircraft activity in or around the Peak District that evening. In addition, our flight safety records show that there were no military aircraft accidents anywhere in ' the United Kingdom on the day in question. As to the involvement of RAF aircraft in a Search and Rescue operation, I can confirm that a Sea King from Leconfield did spend some 3~ hours searching the area at the request of South Yorkshire Police. That search, which was carried out after what were described to our Rescue Coordination Centre at RAF Kinloss as "sightings of flashes and sounds of explosions in the Peak District" was called off after nothing was found. I should add that the civil police have primacy for all Search and Rescue operations on land. In our telephone conversation, you mentioned that there had been reports of two sonic booms in the area earlier on the day in question . We have no record of this, and it would appear that no- one contacted this Department about the booms at the time. Given that nearly a year has elapsed, as with the reports of military jet activity near Dronfield and Chesterfield it would not be possible for us to investigate the matter now.
Walkley 2 March, 1998 Dear Sir /Madam. -~ .. ~.~cfENCE :C (AS) 2 ~ - ::; . ~ I;:) \JO A ~ ·-. __ ,_,.,.,,, - .. · ..... ...... , .,_·~- --- -~ I L~ - ·- .,=-"·"='-' "'" · "'~., -,_,. _""' . __ ., I am a news reporter working for Sheffield's evening paper The Star and have been investigating an incident which occurred on the western outskirts of the city on March 24, 1997, which was initially believed to have been a air disaster involving a light plane. A brief TV documentary on the subject has since appeared on BBC 1 in October last year, but the truth behind what caused the incident remains a mystery. hen12e this letter to you. On the night in question between 10.10 and l0.15pm up to 40 separate groups of witnesses contacted police and emergency services to report seeing a low-flyj_n_g_ .Qbje _Gt~hich they believed was a low-flying aircraft in distress near the South Yorkshire village of Bolsters tone. At least two witnesses saw the object appear to disappear behind trees over Margery Hill. at the highest point of the Peak District moors west of Sheffield, which conicided with a report of an "explosion" heard by gamekeepers at the hamlet of Strines, nearby. Subsequently, South Yorkshire Police initiated a full search and rescue operation -costing thousands of pounds in public money- involving seven Peak District Mountain rescue teams, the West Yorkhire Police helicopter and. I understand, RAF search and rescue helicopters from RAF Kinloss and RAF Leconfield. After searching more than 40 square miles of moorland around the Howden reservoirs west of Bolsterstone, the police called off the search after 17 hours as no crash site was discovered and no civil aircraft had been reported missing. Today. the police and civilian rescue teams remciin open-minded about the cause of the incident, but a number of theories have been advanced from a drug-running operation involving a light aircraft to the misidentification of a
' r bolide meteor burning up in the earth's atmosphere. Police logs of calls made to them by members of the public suggest there was a high-level of activity involving ll_!!lit~.J~tS. in the Derbyshire/South ---- . Yorkshire area immediately preceding the "aircrash" on the moors. A number of inidividuals claim to have seen RAF Tornadgjets flying northwards ---· - -·· towards the Peak District from the north Derbyshire towns of Dronfield and Chesterfield between 9.45 and lOpm shortly before the "aircrash". However. police say direct contact they made With the RAF at the time of the incident suggested there was no military activity in the area at the time. I would be interested to hear any suggestions or theories you may have which could shed light on the mystery which remains unresolved one year later. I enclose anSAE and look forward to hearing from you, :"•VO.. .j t....._ ~ :}";- \ h,:.--o"- (l_ u... ... "'-~<A 1\...J· t::... :J ~ .... , '- e~y .. ·"-~ · ~o.: - ~'-_.j ~ C"\S2. \ool.. ._.,c- \.e.J \-. "'-~'"'-' 'l ~~"-:::> "'-? ;) <::rot>' c:- ~ "'~\.~~ J. .. .~ .. \ ~ ' ·~ ... '\.' -·"-..) ·•""
.HQ 11118 Gp SARIMRS . Fax 10 Mar '98 9:17 P.01101 . uktLASHfiEQ , •.·. ·· ··.·, JOt~. ··~.i~ ' I . . ' \ : : . . . : . . ... ' . .. . . :.. .' ., ' .. . :_.: 'oP.toN I lE ,·" :' . ; C ~ · N ··, .•l:. I .. ..,..., WI__, & ..., , . . '· . 'I ' : ' •' o ~ . · ... : . : . : . . .. . :· . ,, ' . ·: . .. ·.· .· ... . zo · ~ s·aNDET LECONFtrtLo·· .. · .: .~ . . .. · .. at 2!=·u:. s4·6·z MMf 97 .. . ~ '•'; ;• .... ' Free DTG From To Act RDUT!N£ Info: ROU1INE 2!HiB40Z M~R .97 ··: · Z02 SQNDET LEtDNfitLti ~. ·rUG i ECJ 1 . · : ;:· 7B· SQN. FAU{LAND s i'oi'AS PR££1WlCk lCJ HPJ . · ... . ': ' . ,. ' . ' ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ii. ~RCC:K FO,ttH R 1~0 nio2· E ·-so.M: nEt ..-s.EA · Ht'Ncili .. Ec~:>i'!F IELD irWN ::::4 HA~ ~7 a. S.VORkS POLICE 22SO!ARCCK 225S/LECONFIELO 232S C. CIV!I..ANO !EXf'LOSIO.'NlMIL/NILlSK . ~7:2-!ft;S /4.7 NM/235'~ 0. CftUOH!MilfNIL/30~~i~i-~L- · · E. NOTHIWG FOUNO F. SEARCH!VOB GINIL 6. SK 272 i&~ G230fNIL/LECONFIELO 0255/3 HRS 30 M!NS NIGHT H. KrRKUP COOPEft SDUMOY SCOTT:·R129 SCRAMSlED TO SIGHTINGS OF FLftSHES ANO SOUNp. OF ~XPLOS[ONS IN THE PEAK DISTRICT. VARIOUS AREA'S '5Ef\RCHS:ti U'S ING · !IH/G"S. · A.f•fu .. MO.t.Hii-i\7: FOUND. POLICE 42 I'lL SO DN ·zcENE. St:iirH:fHNG IHlH ·FL:l'R, ·.ftLS . .tf.NO:tHIMS FOUND. AF.TE~ FP>CE: TO FACE SIUEF WITH LOCAL Mf!T .' :il.i~S RTS ;· EKCE:l! .. E.Ni COO~ FRD!i f<,:iL!Cit: 4:2:. HF COHHS UNWORKABLE . . J. ARCCK FORM R1qQ CuH~LtTE . . . . · •' . ~-------_ .... ________ ___ ..._ _____________ ~-"!""-.- .---w...""""- .... _-~ .... ----..------ .... ----------.--- .... ----· Actton Distrib~i~~n Addressee H~ 1111~ GP WORTHWQO Code.· .. · A·t 1·i ~ :n-1.Jt :r! cer · ..:: ICJ.' .. ~{tt ·.CQJHR.OLLER '' · ... t(p~;i' -: · · Ailt CONTR'OLLE'R . .. ·· .· ·. _: ::. . . . Ret~ll!:'val IHST ~H7SG - - ---------------------------~~~~~-~--~~--~~~~~---------~-------------------- Information Distribvtion .. te GP . ftS,A· . _____ w- ______ ..,_~--:.~ ~- ..... --:::-:.=-::.===-=- .... -o.=~---------~-'111!"----------------- .. ,----------------·- ... . : ..... L .. !-t i~ You asked us to look into the 'incident' mentioned in the attached letter. The basic facts are pretty much as related in the letter. There was indeed some RAF SAR involvement in a search carried out in the area, after an 'explosion' was reported to the civil Police. A Sea King from Leconfield was involved, but the search was called off after nothing was found. The attached "Form R" confirms this information, although it should be noted that the RAF search lasted 3~ hours not the 17 hours alluded to in the letter. Sec(AS)la advise that there were no aircraft accidents - either military or civilian - reported in that location on the day in question. Neither were there any sonic events reported to us that day.
Walkley 2 March, 1998 Dear Sir /Madam, I am a news reporter working for Sheffield's evening paper The Star and have been investigating an incident which occurred on the western outskirts of the city on March 24, 1997, which was initially believed to have been a air disaster involving a light plane. A brief TV documentary on the subject has since appeared on BBC 1 in October last year, but the truth behind what caused the incident remains a mystery, hence this letter to you. On the night in question between 10.10 and 10.15pm up to 40 separate groups of witnesses contacted police and emergency seiVices to report seeing a low~flying object which they believed was a low-flying aircraft in distress near the South Yorkshire village of Bolsterstone. At least two Witnesses saw the object appear to disappear behind trees over Margery Hill, at the highest point of the Peak District moors west of Sheffield, which conicided With a report of an "explosion" heard by gamekeepers at the hamlet of Strines, nearby. Subsequently, South Yorkshire Police initiated a full search and rescue operation - costing thousands of pounds in public money - involving seven Peak District Mountain rescue teams, the West Yorkhire Police helicopter and, I understand, RAF search and rescue helicopters from RAF Kinloss and RAF Leconfield. After searching more than 40 square miles of moorland around the Howden reservoirs west of Bolsterstone, the police called off the search after 17 hours as no crash site was discovered and no civil aircraft had been reported missing. Today, the police and civilian rescue teams remaiJ:?. open-minded about the cause of the incident, but a number of theories have been advanced from a drug-running operation involving a light aircraft to the misidentification of a
bolide meteor burning up in the earth's atmosphere. Police logs of calls made to them by members of the public suggest there was a high-level of activity involving military jets in the Derbyshire/South Yorkshire area immediately preceding the "aircrash" on the moors. A number of inidividuals claim to have seen RAF Tornado jets flying northwards towards the Peak District from the north Derbyshire towns of Dronfield and Chesterfield between 9.45 and lOpm shortly before the "aircrash". However, police say direct contact they made with the RAF at the time of the incident suggested there was no military activity in the area at the time. I would be interested to hear any suggestions or theories you may have which could shed light on the mystery which remains unresolved one year later. I enclose an SAE and look forward to hearing from you, r '"""'-,'::) L-.A. t :) .. t .. \ t\v "'\)"- tL j.L '"' .lAs,. ~ 1-\, .... ,J- ;:;::.. 0 · Si:h: t. ~~·S ~ .)~ ··· """' ~ .,.~ J)..,....\ .~--J..
2 March. 1998 Dear Sir/Madam, .Jc~ENCE :C (AS) 2 - s ' I am a news reporter working for Sheffield's evening paper The Star and have been investigating an incident which occurred on the western outskirts of the city on March 24. 1997, which was initially believed to have been a air disaster involving a light plane. A briefTV documentary on the subject has since appeared on BBCI in October last year. but the truth behind what caused the incident remains a mystery. hence this letter to you. On the night in question between 10. 10 and 10.15pm up to 40 separate groups of witnesses contacted police and emergency services to report seeing a ~ng _obje _<;:!_~vhich they believed was a low-flying aircraft in distress near the South Yorkshire village of Bolsterstone. At least two witnesses saw the object appear to disappear behind trees over Margery Hill. at the highest point of the Peak District moors west of Sheffield, which conicided with a report of an "explosion" heard by gamekeepers at the hamlet of Strines, nearby. Subsequently, South Yorkshire Police initiated a full search and rescue operation - costing thousands of pounds in public money- involving seven Peak District Mountain rescue teams, the West Yorkhire Police helicopter and. I understand. RAF search and rescue helicopters from RAF Kinloss and RAF Leconfield. After searching more than 40 square miles of moorland around the Howden reservoirs west of Bolsterstone, the police called off the search after 17 hours as no crash site was discovered and no civil aircraft had been reported missing. Today. the police and civilian rescue teams remain open-minded about the cause of the incident, but a number of theories have been advanced from a drug-running operation involving a light aircraft to the misidentification of a
bolide meteor burning up in the earth's atmosphere. Police logs of calls made to them by members of the public suggest there was a high-level of activity involving milttc.!!YJ~ts in the Derbyshire/South ~~---- - ········ Yorkshire area immediately preceding the "aircrash" on the moors. A number of inidividuals claim to have seen RAF Tornadg_Jets flying northwards ---· - -· towards the Peak District from the north Derbyshire towns of Dronfield and Chesterfield between 9.45 and lOpm shortly before the "aircrash". However, police say direct contact they made with the RAF at the time of the incident suggested there was no military activity in the area at the time. I would be interested to hear any suggestions or theories you may have which could shed light on the mystery which remains unresolved one year later. I enclose an SAE and look forward to hearing from you, ~~s .,..., ~~, ,,_ ~ "'~L\.~~~ l"•v-.~ i.-.;. ~ :)o f.\ {\..,."""()\,. U... I.L. ~..t..,l:_.;-\ ~-J- -,::;:..." ~ . ... ; ~ (i c.~: ... t- •• :..,.. ~--- ... ,y :...:::.'"')·RESTRICTED/UNCLASSIFIED RESTRICTED/UNCLASSIFIED
Bedford Beds Dear From Secretariat (Air Staff) 2a 1 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1A 2HB Your reference Our reference D/Sec(AS)/64/3 Date \+March 1998 1. I refer to your letter of 11 January addressed to RAF Stanbridge, which concerns the subject of 'unidentified flying objects'. Your letter has been passed to this office for reply as the MOD focal point for handling correspondence of this nature. 2. First I should explain that the Ministry of Defence examines any reports of 'unidentified flying objects' it receives solely to establish whether what was seen might have some defence significance; namely, whether there is any evidence that the UK Air Defence Region might have been compromised by hostile or unauthorized foreign military activity. 3. Unless there is evidence of a threat to the United Kingdom from an external military source, and to date no 'unidentified flying object' sighting has revealed such evidence, we do not attempt to identify the precise nature of each reported incident. We believe that down to earth explanations could be found for these reports, such as aircraft lights or natural phenomena, if resources were diverted for this purpose but it would be an inappropriate use of defence resources to provide this kind of aerial identification service. 4. You will wish to note that the MOD did not receive any 'UFO' reports in the Linslade/Leighton Buzzard or surrounding areas on the dates you listed in para 1 of your letter. I am returning your sae as we have our own postal arrangements . Yours sincerely, Enc.
.. UNCLAi.~fin Royal Air Force Signals Engineering Establishment RAF Henlow Bedford shire SG16 6DN Telephone: Hitchin 851515 (RAFTN: 95381) Ext: Secretary (Air Staff) 2a Room 8245 MOD Main Building Whiteha11 London Your Reference: Our Reference: RAFSEE/20141/9/SY Date: H.:. Feb 98 UNSOLICITED MAIL- BRITISH UFO RESEARCH ASSOCIATION Reference: A Letter from British UFO Research Association dated 11 Jan 98. l§:ection 4_QJ During Jan 98 by Fit r:t- an Administrative Officer currently employed at RAF Stanbridge. Flt Lt has not responded to this letter, only foiWarded it to the RAF Police Fit, RAFSEE Henlow who parent RAP Stanbridge for all matters security. Following the advise of the Central Security Cell, RAP P&SS(UK) I have enclosed the original letter for your action. ~e any further information regarding this incident please do not hesitate to contact me on Ext _.,~ RAF Police Enclosure: 1. British UFO Research Association letter dated 11 Jan 98, outer envelope and self addressed envelope
British UFO Research Association Ht~ RAF Stanbridge Stanhrldge Bedli! Dea;,r Fit I am the area investigator tor BUFORA (British UFO Research Association) and I am in:vestigating the reported sigh.tings of a lJFO in the area ofLi:nslade/Leighto:n Buzzard on the :toHowing occasio .ns:~ 25 O"toher 1996 at 9p.m. 22 Octoh{;-r at 10.45pm. 4 N"""ifember 19.97 at 7.20pm 6 November 199'7 at 61)11!.1 In addition to these tiightings I now understand that there have been some 1110re recent sightings in the sarne area. When sightings of this nature are p£!.ssed to thJ.s org:misation we try to elim.in.ate any obvious explanation that there tr~ight be such as weather, llolice helicopters or aircraft mm.'em.et~:ts. by th© Ri-\F f::tc. \Vith thl§ in mind I would be grateful for your help in teHing 1-ne whether RAF St<mhddge has; any aircraft flying from it's base and, if r10, whether any such aircrr.d.l: ~/ere tlying in the above areas during the dates and times given above. If aircraft were :flying could you please g.iv;;; me a.s many details as yml can ie aircraft types etc. If no aircraft were Hying f±om Pu<\F Stanhridge could you please confinn the status of fhe base ie wheth:::r tuty aircraft do, or rmve, flo·wn :tro:m there or ·~~lhether it is pur~;ly au ad.mimstrative ce:ntre .. Any help thai you ct.n give woiJ.ld be gratefhlly received. I enclose a Slill fur your reply. Yours Sincerdy BUFORA LIMITED. Registered Office: Registered 1mder the DATA PROTECTION ACT London Postal Address: rgess Hill , Sussex Registered in London 1234924 Registration Number F0779204 BM BUFORA , LONDON~~~~~Amesbury Salisbury Dear From: Secretariat (Air Staff) 2a1 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1A 2HB Telephone (Direct dial) (Switchboard) (Fax) Your reference Our reference D/Sec(AS)/64/3 Date 17 March 1998 1. Thank you for your letter of 15 February addressed to the Secretary of State for Defence concerning an object you saw in the sky on 15 August 1997. Your letter has been passed to this office for reply, as the MOD focal point for correspondence of this nature. 2. First I should explain that the Ministry of Defence examines any reports of 'unexplained' aerial sightings it receives solely to establish whether what was seen might have some defence significance; namely, whether there is any evidence that the UK Air Defence Region (ADR) might have been compromised by hostile or unauthorized foreign military activity. 3. Unless there is evidence of a potential threat to the United Kingdom from an external military source we do not attempt to identify the precise nature of each reported incident. We believe that down to earth explanations could be found for these reports if resources were diverted for this purpose but it would be an inappropriate use of defence resources to provide this kind of aerial identification service. 4. You may wish to note that the MOD did not receive any other •unexplained' aerial sighting reports in your immediate or surrounding areas on 15 August 1997. Furthermore, there was no evidence to substantiate an unauthorized incursion of the UK ADR by foreign military activity. Yours sincerely,
[REDACTED] Can we discuss this please? [REDACTED] [ILLEGIBLE signature]
i'lF~ E J.. F<cJtle(~·t.·:scJrl <Defence Secretary) Ministry of Defence i''i<:ii-n I3ui 1 di r·1g 'J ~)~! , ... ! t t {·~' i'1 -:~( 1 1 'J Lon don. 8W1A 2HB. Dear Mr Robertson, the night time sky. ~~if'~~ OfDERNCt SEC fAst! 18 FEB m~(} The date and time of thi~ sighting was 15th Aug The sighting came about as follow s: I was observi ng a slow Satell ite c:,:.~7 ,. " ' comir1g from the Sout h-South east, which was going to the North-North east , at the ti me l was following it with 10 x 50 wide ang le binoc ulars. When the satellite just went in to the East-North east section, a very large bla0k object came from the Nort h-North east , it passed righ t over the sat~lli te, whic h remained in fu ll v iew all the ti me. got into the Sout 1 1-South east sectio n of the sky, it must have picked up I was able to see this very large object was a dull grey in cclou r 1 its shape was jus t like a large lump of rock. As this object too k up som e 75% of the fiel d of view , I had to do some form of calculati on to get an ind i cation as to its size . came out at 12,200mts, th e width at 8,600mts. However , having received inf o rmation from USSPACECOM ( Courtsey of the CI A history dept ) with var ious or biting levels of debris and the Space Shuttle 1 I then had to rev ise the calculati on. I then made the length 27~45 0mts a nd the width 18,300mts... 1 1s was based upon the new orbiting level of the lowest Satellites. The orbiting level of the ace Shuttle is 187miles, the levels of the space debris, and spent rockets 1s 500miles, the lowest satellites are in the region of 300miles for their orbit path. someone in your dept could work out the correct Using 10 x 50 wide angle binoculars, field ot view 122mts at 1,000mts. The object at a hei of 300miles- 480kms. ·rt-tf£.1 'i I,'H: t, t CJOk l.tp: 7~5·.~: CJ·{:: t·.h e -t· :l -;::.;; '1 c~ (:)··~: "·l f~~ ~"·J i n 1 ,:;?n qth .I. .. " ~f!"'j i.7? CJ!:J j i;~;::c t. t:. CJt::rk Uf:i :.:JCJ};~ c-f thf!.'~ + i ~"'' '1 .... o-f \f :i f::t;,) i f"f li•l J. d ·i" !·"· .l:, ~-! c. 'I " My main concern is, this could be a small asteroid that has come into a low orbit, and could art to break up due to the pull of the Earths gravity, or it could impact in one lump causing untold loss of life. not to mention the serious damage to property. I hope you will be le to advise me as to the size of this object, I department will kindly send me the information on how to work out the size of an object at a given height,with binocular s1ze being used at that time. Has our UK Defence em got this object 1 must have this one, its too dam big to miss. I can receive a favourable reply. Phenomenon Researcher.LOOSE MINUTE D/Sec(AS)/64/3 13 Mar 98 Ministerial Correspondence Unit LETTER TO THE HOME OFFICE FROM A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC 1. You asked Sec(AS)2 to reply to the attached letter from a member of the public to the Home Office. We have looked carefully at this and I am afraid we are unable to do so. 2. Although the subject of the letter is 'UFOs', the writer is specifically seeking information from the Home Office about any involvement they might have in respect of investigations, whether they have in place any emergency planning procedures to deal with 'landed and crashed 'UFOs', and for their comment about the alleged early release of what appears to be a RESTRICTED Home Office document attached to the letter. 3. The letter writer, and we have explained to lm on limited interest in 'UFOs'. It Home Office that he wants their comments nothing to say, it cannot be for Sec(AS) behalf. frequently writes to us of occasions the MOD's from the letter to the and, even if they have to answer on their 4. I am sorry for the delay but I should be grateful if you could return the letter to the Home Office explaining why MOD cannot take it on.
MINISTERIAL CORRESPONDENCE UNIT Ref No 0 93 9/1998 Date______ The Secretary of State,flt~ (}{t\cE,has received the attached letter from a member of the public. It has not been acknowledged by this office. Please send a reply on behalf of the Minister concerned. All Ministers attach importance to such letters being answered promptly, your reply should therefore be sent within 20 workipg days of the date of this minute. If, exceptionally, this should prove impossible an interim reply should be sent within the same timescale. A new Open Government Code of Practice on Access to Government Information came into force on in January 1997. All .replies to members of the public must be in accordance with the procedures set out in the Code. A full explanation of the Code of Practice is contained in DCI(Gen) 4~r information is available from DOMD on extension - Under the Citizens' Charter, Departments are now required to keep records of their performance. All branches and Agencies are required to keep information on the number of requests for information which refer to the Code of Practice including details of the correspondent and the nature and date of the reply. In addition, the Department is required to provide a record of the total number of letters from members of the public and provide statistics (which may be used on a valid sample) of its performance in providing replies within their published targets. As part of our monitoring procedure, random spot checks on the accuracy of your branch records on correspondence will be performed throughout the year. MB 6140 EXT MINISTRY OF DEFENCE · SEC(ASJ2 1! fH: HJ~IJ FUTEL: PAGER Walsall Uest Midlands 27 JAN _9_8 Dear Sir/Hadam, 0939 My name is rently employed as a journalist an . most strange story was told to me regarding the al ed (and I stress, alleged) involvement on the part of the Home Office in the investigation of UFO reports and sightings. The source of this account supplied me with the names of two people employed at the Home Office and who, allegedly again, valved in these investigations. One of those two, responded to my inquiries and advised me that he was aware that his name was being linked with the UFO subject, but that this was total fabricatio and there was not a shred of truth to this story. In view of authoritative statement, I was (and stil am) happy o accept this. However, the source who alleged to me that the Home Office was to a degree involved in the UFO subject, maintained that the HO had in place emergency procedures to deal with, and I quote, 'landed and crashed UFOs', and that such procedures were very similar to those HO procedures in place to deal with crashed and radioactive space satellites on UK soil. Whilst I accept that this sounds very much like something from the X-Files, I asked for some form of confirmation of these very extreme claims, and was within 3 days supplied with a copy of the enclosed 'Restricted' Home Office document on crashed satellite incidents. Given that the document is only 19 years old, I can only assume that my source for this account has access to HO files which have not been released under the terms of the '30 Year Ruling'. You will note that the last but one page of the document refers to a--- at the Ministry of Defen~e bein a point of cont~me Office. At the time, was head of a division called S4f(Air). By the MOD'sai!liSSion, Sl~f(Air) was one of three or four MOD departments which investigated UFO sightings on behalf of the MOD in the 1970's. I am sure you can understand the implications of all this, and I would appreciate an authoritative statement with respect to (a) the UFO allegations concerning the Home Office; (b) the claims that the Home Office has in place emergency procedures for dealing with UFO incidents in the same way that crashed satellite incidents would be dealt with; and (c) the possible
unauthorised release of Home Office papers. Your assistance in this matter is most gratefully appreciated. Yours faithfully,
Our reference! Your rejertTU:e! For Action: For Information: Dear Sir Introduction UN C L iAf& "S lf j&1 iE£ r E ;) HOME OFFICE Queen Anne's Gate, Lo:r,moN, SWlH 9AT Direct line: o I-iI 3 Switchboard: OI-2I3 3000 20 April 1979 Chief Officers of Police in England and Wales Chief Fire Officers in England and Wales Chief Executives/Clerks of - The Greater London Council and all County Councils in England and Wales • ;9 The Common Council of the City of London, London Borough Councils and all District Councils in England and Wales Home Office Circular No ES 5/1979 Satellite Accidents -w-c:tt.. ~- !t;;t~1. Follo~ng the descent of a nuclear-powered Soviet satellite in Canada on 24 January 1978, consideration bas been given to contingency arrangements for dealing ~th the possibility of a similar incident in the United Kingdom. It is recognised that the likelihood of such an accident is remote. Moreover, the additional hazards to life !rom nuclear-powered satell~te~ are very small and are limited to potential exposure to radioactive debris following accidental re-entry. Nevertheless, the special considerations that affect the use of nuclear materials and the safety standards applied to them make it prudent to devise plans to deal with such an incident on United Kingdom territory, should it ever occur. 2. A crash involving a satellite which Yas not powered by nuclear fuel would present problems which would fall to be dealt with through normal major accident procedures. This circular is therefore concerned only with contingency arrangements for dealing with the crash of a satellite which is known to be nuclear-powered or whose energy source has not been established (but see paragraph 21 for reporting arrangements for non-nuclear space objects). Similar circulars are being issued by the Scottish Office and Nc..rth~rn Ireland Office. Features of a Satellite Accident 3. In the absence of extensive experience it is difficult to make any firm assumptions about the features of a satellite accident. A major problem is that the prediction of the location of a satellite's point of return to earth is very difficult. Although it is likely that y~owledge - 1 - 'Restricted' Home Office files pertaining to the crash and recovery of radioactive space debris.
of changes in the orbital pattern vhich might lead to premature return to earth would be available many hours or even days before re-entry occurred, it would not be such that a reasonably accurate prediction of the final orbit over the earth could be made until 12-24 hours before impact. Even then forecasts of the precise point of re-entry along this track might still be in error by thousands of kilometres. It is therefore probable that accurate warning would not be available until a few minutes before impact, and it is possible that there m.ight be no wa:rnizlg at all. 4. On re-entry into the earth' a atmosphere, the behaviour of the satellite would largely be determined by its mechanical construction. Some satellites are designed in such a way that they will disintegrate on re-entry; others are so designed that fairly large components will remain intact on entering the earth's atmosphere. The debris from a crashing satellite might thus vary from minute dust particles to heavy and sizeable objects, and the latter might include the radioactive source - but any part might be radioactive. 5. Although the parameters of the orbit of a crashing satellite can be fairly closely defined, debris might fall over an area 2000 kilometres long by 200 kilometres vide. It would not therefore be possible to alert police forces on a selective basis; in the event of a warning that a satellite might crash in or near the United Kingdom, all police forces would have to be alerted. 6. The crash of a nuclear-powered eatelli te would present particule.r problems such as - a. there would be a possible radiation hazSrd, the degree of which could not be determined in advance; b. debris from the crashed satellite might be scattered over a very large area, perhaps the greater part of the country; c. individual pieces of debris might be very small, yet each might present a small radiation hazard. There would be no explosion of the type associated with the detonation of an atomic bomb. Contincency Arrangements 7. If the malfunctioni.Dg of a satellite became kno'Wll before it came out of orbit the Ministry of Defence (l'!OD) would be responsible for arranging for the preparation of an assessment - 2-
UN Oh.ASS~i£0. ··~ of the possible risks to the United Kingdom. A Govermnent de~iaion would then be sought on whether the police should be alerted and whether a public statement should be made. If such action were decided on, overall responsibility for the measures to deal vi th an incident would be exercised from a central control point in Whitehall, in a Jll8l1Iler similar to procedures already established to handle a terrorist incident and with similar ltixdsterial and senior official representation from all the Government Departments concerned. Warni.Dg to the police would be given by means of a broadcast over the Police National Computer (PNC) system. The focal point for the collection of scientific data would be the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment (AVRE), Aldermaaton, which would in conjunction vi th the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) arrange for appropriate scientific and technical advice to be made available to central Government and to police forces vho might be involveJ. 8. On receipt of the warning message, police forces should arrange to gather reports of debris. Chief fire officers should be inforrood of the warning and asked to notify the police promptly of any reports which they may receive. Fire service personnel are trained to fight fires involving radioactive sources and have a limited range of equipment for the detection of radiation; they are able to eon:fi:rm the presence of some but not &11 types of radioactivity, and are not able therefore to say authoritatively that debris is not radioactive. 9. When reports of suspected or actual locations have been received, the police should take such steps as may be needed locally to prevent people ente~ areas which may be dangerous because of radioactive 1Ji4terial (see also paragraph 15 below). For advice as to the dangers of radioactivity and for the examination and disposal of suspect material they should call upon the National Arrangements for Incidents involving Radioactivity (the NAIR scheme). Under this the i.Dmed.iate attendance of the Stage-r1 contact is requested, followed if necessary by calling out the Stage 2 establishment (Home Office Circulars ES 7/1972 and ES 3/1977). The 'NJ.IR representatives should advise local police on their own initiative until contact is established with, and scientific and technical advice received from, AWRS an~or NRPB under the arrangements described in paragraph 7. All persons should be told to keep well away from possible radioactive debris. Although highly unlikely, some large pieces of debris might have radiation fields of significance over distances of the order of 100 metres, and some limited evacuation might be necessary; widespread continuous contamination is, however, unlikely. Advice on the degree of evacuation required would be available in the first instance from the NAIR representatives - 3-
-· --- · -··- . and subsequently from representatives of the AWRE and the NRPB. In the case of damage requiring rescue or fire fighting o]?erations, the possible hazard from radioactivity should be borne .in mind and existing disaster plana relating to rescue operations in suoh circumstances should be implemented as appropriate. 10. Details of all findillgs of material which the police have reason to believe is satellite debris should be reported immediately, together with a brief outline of the action taken and quoting a unique reference number identifyi.Dg the police force concerned. Such reports should be sent via the me system to New Scotland Yard (from where they will be passed to the central control point) in accordance with standard proforma headings - see Annex A. This rill enable a nationwide picture of confirmed sightings to be built up and consideration to be given to the need for specialist assistance. The central control point will pass the reports received to the scientific data centre at AWRE (paragraph 7 above). If debris is expected over a considerable area of the country it may be necessary to set up a field operations centre to provide overall direction of both land and air searches, and this centre would operate within general directions provided by the central control point. Special communications equipment available at the central control point could be deployed locally if there were a need to reinforce facilities in particular areas. 11. If the warning time was only a matter of minutes, it would not be possible to alert police forces before reports of falling debris began to come in. A PNC broadcast would, however, be sent as soon as possible and a subsequent message vould confirm that the central control point arrangements had been established. The reports required under paragraph$ above should then be passed immediately to the control point! o 12. If no warning at all vera received, the :first indication that a satellite had crashed might be reports to the police of debri.s. In many cases such reports might prove to be false or it might be possible to estab!fsh immediately that the debris could not have come from a satellite. 'Whenever a report of debris has been confirmed, however, and there are no valid .reasons for believing that the debris could not have formed part of a satellite, the action outlined in paragraph 9 above should be taken and the central control point should be notified immedi te contact is the Duty Officer on Action would then be taken to bring the control point arra.ngemanta into operation if necessary. Sear¢h for Unreported fragments 13. Since much of the debris would be very small many of the fraements would not be sighted and unnoticed irradiated debris might be scattered over e.n area of thousands of square - 4-
UNCL~fil ~EID:TED kilometres. A major search operation might have to be mounted to locate radioactive fragments. Whether to mount a searcb., and if so what area should be covered, would be decided by the central control point. Arrangements would be made to deploy, using the framework of the NAm scheme, the resources of every available technical support service, including teams from MOD, NRPB, United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA), British Nuclear Fuels Limited (BNFL) and the Electricity Generatillg Boards, using specialist aircraft and vehicle search techniques. In rural areas the moat effective initial search to locate major sources of radioactivity might be from the air. Police forces would then be asked to organise ground searches of specific areas under arrangements by the central control point or forward operations centre and with the advice of AVRE and NRFB staff's. Recovery of Fragments 14. Special arrangements would be made centrally under AWRE advice tor the recovery of all fragments, when they had been located and examined, and these would be notified to the police forces concerned. Where, in the interests of public safety, and an · sod.enti£d.c·advice,a fragment is removed from the point of impact, the central control point should be informed where it is to be stored while awaiting recovery. Public Warning about R.adioaotitltv 15. It is !or the Government to decide whether, aDd if so by what means, a public warning of danger from radioactivity should be given. In reaching that decision, the need to prevent unnecessary alarm would be carefully considered. Chief Officers should therefore ensure that nothing is done locally to anticipate a Government statement. PreBS apd Publicitr 16. It is essential that those dealing locally with a satellite aceident and the Government team in Whitehall should not issue inconsistent statements. Chief Officers should ensure that all local press- enquiries are directed to a senior officer at force headquarters, vho is briefed to deal with them, working in close liaison with Government Information Officers who would make appropriate arrangements to co-ordinate the national dissemination of' information from Whi tehs.ll. - 5-
UNCLASS~FIE ·Q ~·· · ·-·--·"' Extra Costs 17. International law makes provision for a country in which a satellite falls to ·be reimbursed for any damage and other costs arising from the incident. In order to establish facts and enable costs to be calculated, for inclusion in any claim ·submitted by the United Kingdom, police forces (and fire and local authorities) should keep a record of all debris found and all action taken from the receipt of the warning message (or, if no warning message is given, from the receipt of the first reports of falling debris) until the incident is closed. Claims Procedure 18. The Government is under an obligation to consider claims from the general public for injury or death following a nuclear accident and there is already a registration procedure in existence for this purpose. In the event of a nuclear powered satellite acciden.t a Government announcement would be published_/ about how to obtain registration forms to provide information 1V assistance in looking into claims for compensation by those in the affected area at the relevant time. Communications 19. As indicated in paragraph;l, 0 reports will be sent via the PNC terminal in New Scotland Yard and from there, depending on the volume of traffic, by Telex or by co~rier to the central control point. Any general directions issued by the control point will be sent by these means. ~ 20. Messages addressed to the central control point should be confined to operational matters concerning the search for debris, public control, etc. Any enquiry about subsidiary administrative matters arising in consequence of the operations envisaged J.n this circular should be addresse F6 Division - The x number is additional ~------~ back code HOHQOC G) may be activated to handle such messages ex~lusively when the need arises Non-nuclear debris from space 21. As indicated in paragraph 2, the contingency arrangements set out . in this circular are applicable to the crash of a satellite kno*n or believed to be carrying radioactive material. Nuclear powered sateJ.li tes are few but many non-nuclear satellites and other space debris are in orbit and there is continuing likelihood of such objects falling from space and par~•f them survivi ng re-entry to the atmosphere and landing on the earth's surface. Though the likelihood - 6 -
UNCLASS$Fn!XntTED is small the police may become aware of such debris if the fall is observed and reported to them. In that event it would be appreciated if chief officers would inform the Ministry of Defence so that the object may be examined and if possible identified. The point of contact at the Ministry of Defence Head of S4f(Air) 9 Ministry of Defence Whitehall, London SW1A 2HB (tel no Yours faithfully
l;Z;-5 ANNEX A SATELLITE ACCIDENT REPORT PROFORMA To be reported via the Police National Computer terminal in New Scotland Yard to the Government Central Control Point (See paragraph 9). ADDRESSEE - 02B6 SATELLITE .llim BRAVO DELTA ECHO FOXTROT GOLF HOTEL INDIA ll::2..m (state ns.me of force). Date/Time (state ONE, time of sighting; TWO, time report submitted). Reference No (state local unique ref no *). Exact location of debris (giving grid reference and map sheet number where possible; otherwise by direction and distance from easily identified point on Ordnance Survey map). Pescription (state rough size and shape, material, whether radioactive). Casua1ties/Damnge (brief description of dea~ seriously injured ani damage to property) • .!! (etate location: telephone number if available, of guide to lead inYestigator to incident). Action (state what action taken locally or proposed and any other relevant information). Assis}AAge already at or ordered to scene, other than police. A§sist~e Required (state type and approximate number • * It will be very important, in making initial reports and to assist subsequent action and enquiries, to identify each finding of possibly dangerous debris by means or a reference number unique to that finding. The reference number, when allocated, should be notified to those concerned with action on the spot as well as to the central government control point. - 1 -
'/ -- -~ · """ From Secretariat {Air Staff) 2a 1 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Main Building, Whitehall, london SW1A 2HB Dear Telephone (Direct dial) (Switchboard) (Fax) ~~~~~ Your reference Our reference D/Sec(AS)/64/3 Date \0 March 1998 1. Thank you for your letter of 12 February concerning the subject of 'unidentified f to obJects' the content of which has been noted. and I am replying on her behalf. s currently on leave 2. I should like to clarify one particular point. As llllllllllll explained we look at any reports of 'unidentified flyin~ received by the MOD to determine whether there is evidence of defence significance, namely whether the UK Air Defence Region has been compromised by hostile or unauthorized foreign military activity. Unless there is evidence of a potential threat to the United Kingdom from an external military source we do not attempt to determine the precise nature of each seemingly inexplicable sight in the sky. I am afraid it simply would not be an acceptable use of defence resources to do this. Yours sincerely,"' S~~rPt~ri~t (~ir ~t~ff) ?ft1~, Rt)C)~~1 g '/ 4 ~;- I t4i l"'l 1 ~~t,t')f' ttf rh~f' (i~ril~P ;. am for ces Minister, Dr J er etll 7 ll s er1 it'1t.er~'\t_1~~w· <:.>11 S !f~Ct 1 f:!r iie~l r---enti t~ I had hoped wi r.'mn~2,nt tl1at the Minister would have en more willing to talk 1'1i s t l .. lft\ 1 €- B· 'S t C,l: (ili t ~? nee . this I assume C·lJ'Il.t:.JUStl};j> t"lO't'~~ <,·v~rfl~Ett~v~ le~~\St t'\r-Jo milit:i..~~:-y· es.tal:r1iSllrt1.$E:r~ts c'tl 30/31 1.993 not constitute a · official line ls ng of ·no ev1 extraterrestrials.
Dear From: Secretariat {Air Staff) 2a1 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Main Building, Whitehall, london SW1A 2HB Telephone (Direct dial) (Switchboard) (Fax) Your reference Our reference D/Sec(AS)/64/3 Date I O March 1998 1. Thank you for your letter of 28 January addressed to the Prime Minister concerning reports of 'unidentified flying objects'. Your letter has been passed to the Ministry of Defence and I have been asked to reply. 2. The MOD examines any reports of 'unidentified flying objects' it receives solely to establish whether what was seen might have some defence significance; namely, whether there is any evidence that the UK Air Defence Region might have been compromised by hostile or unauthorized foreign military activity. 3. Unless there is evidence of a potential threat to the United Kingdom from an external military source, and to date no 'unidentified flying object' sighting has revealed such evidence, we do not attempt to identify the precise nature of each reported incident. We believe that down to earth explanations could be found for these reports, such as aircraft lights or natural phenomena, if resources were diverted for this purpose but it would be an inappropriate use of defence resources to provide this kind of aerial identification service. 4. I hope this explains the position. Yours sincerely,f MINISTERIAL CORRESPONDENCE UNIT ,SiJ 1< CAS )l To _____ ~~-~~=--~~--~·--"~--~-=~-- RefNQ 0 9 7 9/1998 The attached letter(s) which the Prime Minister has received has been forwarded to this Department for official action. No.10's letter codes are as follows: B The Jetter has been acknowledged by No.lO. Please send a full reply within 20 working days. The letter has been acknowledged by No.lO. Please consider whether there is anything which can usefu11y be said to the correspondent and action accordingly. No acknowledgement has been sent. In this case, however, it is obviously important that both an acknowledgement and a full reply are sent. Unless specifically asked to do so, there is no need for you to copy your replies to this office. A new Open Government Code of Practice came into force on January 1997. All replies to members of the public must be in accordance with the procedures set out in the Code. A full explanation of the Code of Practice is contai~ed ~en) 48/97; further information is available from DOMD on extensm~ Under the Citizens' Charter, Departments are now required to keep record of their performance. All branches and Agencies are required to keep information on the number of requests for information which refer to the Code of Practice including details of the correspondent and the nature and date of the reply. In addition, the Department is required to provide a record of the total number of letters from members of the public and provide statistics (which may be based on a valid sample) of its performance in providing replies within their published targets. As part of our monitoring procedure, random spot checks on the accuracy of your branch records on correspondence will be n"•··rnr·rn~•n throughout the year. MINISTERIAL CORRESPONDENCE UNIT MB6140 EXT-
28/1/98 Section 40 PRIME MINISTER'S CHRISTMAS CARD SECTION BEDMINSTER BRISTOL Section 40 Dear Mr Blair, 0979 I have recently become interested in a very important phenomenon currently occurring all over the world and one of which as yet I can't seem to find a credible argument against. I refer to the growing number of documentaries into sightings currently being reported. As leader of the country I am sure that you will have had these reports brought to your attention. I Understand that as far as National Security goes you wont be able to give me all the information, however I'm sure that you will be glad to shed some light upon the situation. Sincerely Yours. Section 40 [REDACTED] Section 40 MOD depree. Say up on UFOs.
•· From: Secretariat (Air Staff) 2a 1 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1A 2HB Telephone (Direct dial) 0171 218 2140 (Switchboard) 0171 218 9000 (Fax) Your reference Our reference D/Sec{AS)/64/3 Date \O March 1998 Dear 1. Thank you for your letter of 25 January in which you ask whether the Ministry of Defence received any reports of 'unexplained' aerial sightings on 19 January in the Staffordshire area. 2. First I should explain that the MOD examines any reports of 'unidentified flying objects' it receives solely to establish whether what was seen might have some defence significance; namely, whether there is any evidence that the UK Air Defence Region might have been compromised by hostile or unauthorized foreign military activity. 3. Unless there is evidence of a potential threat to the United Kingdom from an external military source, and to date no 'unidentified flying object' sighting has revealed such evidence, we do not attempt to identify the precise nature of each reported incident. We believe that down to earth explanations could be found for these reports, such as aircraft lights or natural phenomena, if resources were diverted for this purpose but it would be an inappropriate use of defence resources to provide this kind of aerial identification service. 4. I can confirm that the MOD did not receive any reports of 'unidentified flying objects' for anywhere in the country for 19 January. Yours sincerely,-~ '· ..... - Ministry ofDefence AFO R.A.F Main Building Whitehall London SWIA2HB Dear Sirs MyRef 98/2 25 January 1998 I have been given this address via the Civil Aviation Authority who state that any response to answers I seek of them will he dealt with on their behalf and of that of the RA.F./M.O.D. and w111 be fOrthcoming from your office. In essence, I am seeking confirmation that both the Civil Aviation Authority and RAF./IVLO.D. have no knowledge of and have no concern relating a sighting of a yet unidentified flying object witnessed by residents in the County of Staffordshire on 19 January 1998. I am specifically concerned witha-halfhour period from 23.50 p.m.- 00.20 -a.m. The visual sightings took place in the locations of Little Haywood and Milford and centred the sightings over the Shugborough Estate. ( Grid Ref SJ. 99200E I 22500N ) The reports approximate height at 3000 - 4000 ft but may not be accurate though as such would be within the likely zone of influence of the Manchester - Birmingham civil air corridor to my knowledge.
; In the interests of the witnesses concerned, I would welcome answers to the following points: 1. Were any reports received by the C.A.A. either by pilots or public relating a visual sighting or radar capture of an unknown object for the stated times ? 2. Were the RA.FJM.O.D. notified from any source of any unusual activity for the times stated? 3. Do the M.O.D. have an interest in the above stated reports as indicated in the articles of 22 January and 23 January 1998- Stafford Express & Star (copies attached)? 4. Were any RA.F. or N.AT.O. aircraft in the vicinity at the times stated? A simple "yes" or 11 no" will suffice though should you wish to offer explanation for your answers, any comments will be welcomed. I look forward to your reply in due course Yours faithfully Enc.
Express & Star, Friday, January 23, 1998 UFO sighting adds to mystery A pyramid-shaped UFO seen flying over a 1 Staffordshire village is similar to previous r· sightings in Stafford and Derby, according to investigators of the phenomenon. Investigator Graham r----------- Allen, of the Staffordshire UFO Group, said the description of the sighting over The Haywoods did not match that of any military or civilian aircraft in the area. He has published a study of the sighting with a sketch of the "craft". He said descriptions of the UFO matched a sighting reported over GEC in Stafford in November. Berkswich councillor John Francis, an engineer and plane expert, saw the object through his bedroom window and followed it with binoculars. He described it like a pyramid with lights down : one side turning on its axis. Councillor Francis said he had been a sceptic before the sighting at about 11.50pm on Monday. The MoD said there were no military aircraft in the area at the time.
Express & Star, Thursday, January 22, 1998 ----------------------, Reports of UFO probed Startled residents of a I Staffordshire village - including a parish councillor - claim they have spotted a pyramid-shaped UFO flying over their homes. Claims by people in The Haywoods are now being investigated by l\tlinistry of Defence UFO experts. Berkswich Parish Coun- cillor John Francis, an engi- neer and plane expert, saw the object through his bedroom window. "It was like a pyramid with lights down one side turning on its own axis," he said. "I had not seen anything like that before. It seemed to stay in one position before ( moving very fast into another." He said he rang Stafford- shire UFO Group, who con- .firmed that there had been similar sighting at about the same time.
Dear From: Secretariat (Air Staff) 2a 1 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1A 2HB Telephone (Direct dial) (Switchboard) (Fax) Your reference Our reference D/Sec(AS)/64/3 Date \ 0 March 1998 Thank you for your letter of 10 February, concerning reports of "unexplained" aerial sightings, the content of which has been noted. Yours sincerely,
~taff)2a1a Room 8245 MoD Main Building Whitehall, london, SW1A2HB February 10, 1998 Thank you for your letter of the 19 th January and the 1997 map of locations. Generating an OHP film of the 1996 data to enable it to be laid on top of the 1997 data was the only useful activity I could think to apply to the map. So that is what I did. This highlighted two tenuous features. :- 1} A line of crosses running roughly from Caemarvon in the west across Great Orme running just south of and parrallel the Ribble estuary across country to wards Whitby and Robin Hoods bay. 2) A second line roughly parallel to 1 above running from the lizard Peninsula across the UK and leaving just south of the Wash. I enclose an updated graph of MoD Unknowns for your records. Are you able to advise if any UK sightings are associated with Radio Frequency emissions in the region of 2500 to 3500 MHz ( 2.5 to 3.5 GHz) range? Sincerely,
... \. . .. .f."J . . " 1\l 0 0 0 0 0 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 "" 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 .. 1978 1979 1980 "'0 1981 m (Q 1982. (I) _,. 1983. 1984 1985. 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 (...) 0 0 """ 0 0 llli l o I s· ~~ g{ n;·; ..., w' jm ~! I <I> i I i5· : (/> I ~ I L":::: ~_! .., 0) -..! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0> 0 0 c " c :::Jj (f) ~ ::r :::Jj ([) 0 (!) :e ..... _, ;:;! (') fJ) ..... ::r ru (I) Us ::l. f.O • <n .... U) CD ....ai>·· ·' ' .... . \ , ·•;# From: Secretariat {Air Staff) 2a1 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1A 2HB Telephone (Direct dial) 0171 218 2140 (Switchboard) 017 1 21 8 9000 (Fax) Your reference Our reference D/Sec(AS)/64/3 Exeter Date Devon :J March 19 9 8 ..... ~-------------------------------------- Dear 1. Thank you for your recent letters to lllllllllll concerning "unidentified flying objects", one undate~ere on 2 February, and the other dated 4 March. I am replying as [ Se- \ is currently on leave. 2. As explained in her letter to you of 22 January, the Ministry of Defence examines any reports of "unidentified flying objects" it receives solely to establish whether what was seen might have some defence significance; namely, whether there is any evidence that the UK Air Defence Region might have been compromised by hostile or unauthorized foreign military activity. Unless there is evidence of a potential threat to the United Kingdom from an external military source we do not attempt to identify the precise nature of each reported incident. 3. When the Ministry of Defence was informed of the events which are alleged to have occurred at Rendlesham Forest/RAF Woodbridge in December 1980, all available substantiated evidence was looked at in the usual manner by those within the MOD/RAF with responsibility for air defence matters. The judgement was that there was no indication that a breach of the United Kingdom's air defences had occurred on the nights in question. As there was no evidence to substantiate an external military threat to the United Kingdom no further investigation into the matter was necessary. Although a number of allegations have subsequently been made about these reported events, nothing has emerged over the last 17 years which has given us reason to believe that the original assessment made by this Department was incorrect. 4. I hope this is helpful. Yours sincerely,[REDACTED]
Exeter
Devon
Ref: UFO incident at Rendlesham
Forest / Woodbridge, Bettings [REDACTED]
Air-Air Base, 28/12/80.
04/03/1998
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
SEC(AS)2
+8 MAR 1998
FILE
Dear [REDACTED]
I am writing in regards to why you have not answered my
letter dated 31st January 1998, regarding the UFO incident at
Rendlesham Forest located near Woodbridge British/U.S. Airforce
base, 28th December 1980.
I am aware of the M.O.D's official line on matters regarding UFOs,
that are a threat and cannot be explained basically ignore it.
However I do not like being ignored. I would simply like an answer
from you, even if it's " we have no record of the incident" or the usual
bump!
I would like to remind you that there was a radio recording
made at the time which I have listened to, which has been
declared an anomaly by the M.O.D. As I stated in my previous
letter, I would mention a conlufied flying object near
Britsezon nuclear stock pile here (at the time) to very real
impact, and you stated " no known UFO report has shown a
threat to date".
I would be grateful if you could answer on this issue.
Yours Sincerely
[REDACTED]
(Copy Made)• - ·· ·----····---·-···· --+···-- .. ............ ... _................ .. . ......................................... .. ................ _ ....... _ ..... _. . ..... ......... ..... ... -. ...... _, . ... , ... . ~:::,:J..':g=z~t;;::t.! ....... ............ ..................... __ ... _ _ ......................... _._,. ... _-\··- -·---··"•"'""""""""'--"""''"""""""-'""""'"" __ , __ , ______ ,.,, __ _,,. ................................. - ... ~ ...... ~ ............. ~.- -- -·----- ···- - --···· ~k£1.(;.{:~ ... -- ... "' " " "". . ....... ......... ......... .... . i . ... , ..... ; ' ' ~- 1 ----· - -~- ---- --~ ·····------------·- ----- ~ ~ - ~ -~ -~ - --- --·~ --- ---- --····· --·------- -- .. - - ---- ~ ---- -·- --- --~-----~ ·-·-----···-- - -----·-· ·- - -~ .. .... /-:_ ! /.LI'<cl•~ {· ':l'''l .... , !;'t;.<t&: .... ,,P-d.: ........ ·. : .t/ -r .. i-l .-£~: .. t[,ttt£ . .... .. .. ... -- - ----- -- --- ...... .................... ........... .._ ....... ............. _ .. _ __ ___ - -- ---- ----------·"-------------------- ---------- ------ --- --- :}' "'f "'"" ' ·-;---- . _ ___ _____ _, .. .. .,, .... - .-- .. · ---- ~"" , .. . !.. ... · ·- • , _,._ • • ••• • · •· - •·· - · -•' • '' ' " • 'W·'-' -- ~- --~·· ·- • 1 . ""'l'""'"" -~ -------"' - -- - -- ~- ----~~- - - -- - ----t-- ~-- - . ~ --- -·-- ---- ---------·-- ----- . - ··-·-·---·------ ·- ~--···- J ,,.,., .. , ,~··· • •· • ••~" -~ ·· ·· •••••• •-•·• • . •••• · ·•· n,o•••· ·· ••• ""'•+•• ·~·~ ···· ~·•"' ~~--;~~J ~~; ~-~ ~:, ~ .: ;, .Z~tf~ - ·· •·~~- -··-~ · · ~··~··"'- .4 • From: Secretariat (Air Staff} 2a 1 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1A 2HB Telephone (Direct dial) (Switchboard) (Fax) Your reference Our reference Walsall ~t:ec(AS)/64/3 West Midlands /o March 1998 111111~--------------------~---------------- Dear 1. Thank you for your letter of 2 February. 2. The number of reports of 'unexplained' aerial sightings received by the Ministry of Defence for 1997 was 425. 3. Your letter asks for details of 'UFO' files transferred to the Public Record Office this year. You will be aware from your own research on this subject the information you seek will be available from an examination of the lists of records preserved. These lists are of course readily available to the public at Kew.
I have written to ()11 SSV(~ t tJ_F() ' ·i,.~~~ · .•. } -..... .. .,....,. ·;,, . :t si~ rnt~ of L t stry of De e in 1997? ") ('" .~,c. ..... 1 d.ocument s :f i C.(~ , ~(i:~\~, Sl!C.h ft - 2.2. occasions concern :r 0 f :r orts re 6 {)X: 7 assistance in this matter.03 MAR '98 14:03 FROM CS CRM) P.01/01 As you know it was generally the c~e that before 1967 an ufo files were routinely destroyed after five years, on the grounds there was no long term interest in this subject. However since 1967, following an increase in public interest a decision was taken that MOD's ufo report files should be retained and transferred to the Public Record Office in accordance with the terms of the Public Records Act, 1958 and 1967. You will also be aware from your own research on this subject the information you now seek will be available from an examination of the lists of reeords preserved. These lists arc of course readily available to the public at Kew. You may also be interested to learn the PRO has produced a list offiles released on 1his subjecL .. - I\. ** TOTAL PAGE.01 **
Tue ; Mar, 1998 11:06 mailbox log Page 1 DATE TO SUBJECT CODES ~0~3~/~0~3.~/~9~8~H~d~o~f~C=S~(~RM~)~1~----1111111111111~L=E~T~T=E=R~--------------~--------~ Sent: 03/03/98 at 9:41 To: Hd of CS(RM)l CC: I tried to phone you but no reply. Thought I'd send an l instead. Hopefully speak to you later. Priority: Urgent Reply Request [ ] h-oM·. that you've lost yo now only known as View Acknowledge [*] Delivery Acknowledge [*] cs (T2M) \ _ als from your CHOTS ? Attachments Codes [ 1] ]
' i You may recall I spoke to you about our plans to tell any members of the public who write in asking for the references of files which have been released to the PRO at the turn of the year, that details should be obtained from the PRO. Well, as expected constitutional. The re has written his annual in his letter asks: "Could you advise me of the various file numbers of the UFO documents released into the public domain at the Public Record Office, Kew, this year? I understand that there maybe 6 or 7 such files covering the approximate period of 1966-8/9." As I think I mentioned to you, as we are at the 30 year anniversary of the decision to keep all "UFO" report files, now would seem~nt to start this policy. I propose to respond to 11111111111 on this point in the following way: "As you know it was generally the case that before 1967 all 'UFO' files were destroyed after five years, as there was insufficient public interest in the subject to merit their permanent retention. However since 1967, following an increase in public interest a decision was taken that all MOD 'UFO' report files should be retained in the public interest. It is now 30 years since that decision was made and we can expect a steady stream of 'UFO' report files to be released at their 30 year point to the Public Record Office. Details of the new releases should be obtained by contacting the PRO directly." Can you think of a better way of expressing this? Of course if he doesn't get them from me he may try to get them from you. Can we discuss when you've a moment. I also have our comments on the we can discuss on your return. draft response which
Dear From· Secretariat (Air Staff) 2a1 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Main Building, Whitehall, london SW1A 2HB Telephone (Direct dial) 0171 218 2140 (Switchboard) (Fax) Your reference Our reference D/Sec(AS)/64/3 Date it March 1998 1. Thank you for your faxes of 6th February and 15 January. 2. As you already know, the MOD's interest in any reports it receives of 'unidentified flying objects' is limited to establishing if what was seen might have some defence significance, namely whether there is any evidence that the UK Air Defence Region might have been compromised by hostile or unauthorized foreign military activity. I can confirm that there is no evidence to substantiate an incident of this nature in the Burmarsh area on 8 March last year. Unless there is evidence of an external military threat the MOD makes no attempt to identify what might have been seen and does not provide members of the public with an aerial identification service. 3. In principle, the whole of the United Kingdom is available for military low flying activity but some locations, such as restricted airspace around civil airfields, glider sites, certain major industrial sites and the larger centres of population, are excluded. Yours sincerely,
Thank you for your fax of 6th February and 15 January. MOD's interest in any reports it receives of objects' is limited to establishing if what was seen might have some defence significance, namely whether there is any evidence that the UK Air Defence Region might have been compromised by hostile or unauthorised foreign military activity.~~ less there is any evidence of an external military ' threat and, to date, no report has revealed such evidence, the MOD makes no attemp'f;. to identify what might have been seen and does f i not provide memebrs of the public with an aerial identification \.-1 I service. r-- t i In principle, the whole of the United Kingdom is available for \ ~M~:~~....r"",..~~...._.~;.,~ - ' military low flying activity but~ locations, ~!:!CJi. Aa~ ma,~ f\ l=A:F~*If ea:s; &~-;~ ~~cted airspace a;::~~~t;,,~~~ ~~ -~;;,~ 4 , ~~Y~l~ -- airfields, !I glider sites~~tmajor industrial sites_ ~ are excluded. I ~·- f t . •. ' ·. . - .Jii!-------""----------·---·----- i ~ ~~~~~~:~=~~.:J;eJ e_ a .sa~ _ · :E~1~e-~ :ffii~tt>~~ 7··_- - , - i , ~ ' -· -- - . ......*'", ---- r ~, / , _ .. ~-----":.~- ,/ \ ...,,.. 't r f_l.} • l ~~ -·~ •/ ·;...,.~ ' ' ' J "-- ~-- - ' ....• / ' l~-:~~~~-::~~~~;~~~~;;;:;~~;~:~ ~f.i~~~§~!>?i~iiZ~tf~-F~n:~rL·"~~~(~ .. ~~}~~ -~~ -- 1 ~ ~ .. ~ ,# ~\~&~_~~:~ --~- -_. __ ;;_~.::""'. -~~; _i~,~~ ~-~~ -~ ~ -~;j=. ~ - ~--1}; .;:p:~ ~ -- -- ~';;::;::::::::::::.::::::=.-:::~:::::::.:..~--~~--~-~--"""""'"'~·"'~-"-~~----~·=~,~-~-..-~
' ' 06 / 92 '98 14:41 E-Mail: Fax Cover Sbeet Tv: - Secretariat (AS)2a Phone: 0 171 218 2140 Fax: From: Date: 06-02-98 Page$ including this cover: 2 'I Subject: My tax of 15~0 1-98 Comrnents: As three weeks have passctl since I sent my orjginal fax regarding unusual aerial activity neat former Hume Secrcl.ary Michael I toward's house in Kent, I wondered if I could give you a gentle reminder of my quc...:;tions by re-sending the original. ~cr request for information to . your office ( April '97) was forwarded to - fllr a rcspon~. which he ~"pplied in three days. Therefore. J wonder if I should address any quc~tions to him ratherthan (AS) 2a. I would appreciate a clarification regarding to whom I should send any questions. On a related matter, is there a puli~.,;y of operating an airspace restriction ncar such a senior politician's home and if so, is there u similar restriction over nuclear power stations or indeed powcl' slutic.ms in general '! '('. ~: ~:.J' li 01•• 15/01 '98 17:54 'fm St'Crelnria1 (AS)2n1 J¥brn«~! 0 171 :ITH 2140 O.llte: 1 15...\H-98 Pag~~&~n~hi~ing this t:•Jvet'! l Snbj~t: tlnusmd ~u~ri~d ~u:thiJy ~W('f llunnaNh inl\:eut ( :vnrcn~il:li~ !fti'~ per.iod 7ti: (~evfnth) to tho gil; ~t ~ i ghf.h) ofM!!rch i ~>7, I have tec.c1vt~d n~ports irorn 5-eveml snurt:,~s of H lflrge trkttlg,u!u.r cmfl soon lnHtering QV\;r Hurmarsh and the :'>tirn:ttmdinu ::lte<l it1dndhw J :vmne-. 'The:: rnnioritv oftbe mfmHS p.iare the: tinwsc.ah~ of <t<<''"-"'' ;,v,,-.."''<> ':'~:",r.l ;· \. · .,: _.. r,L~(·:, . b.:~·u;·:~"'" {'!1 i){j l.-.;,·. ~ .... 1 j~13 1(', 1,.,.,~, 1 ,.,., ~.t....": oth .{-..>,~t\-th\ -, . .:rc"-"•-)'\..· 'lt.··'I''C-n~.,;:y t.:t-.1 w . r.:... 111.1\~ lT~ -u ... '\: 't.~"""'\Y"IC"''u '· .._l".'\. ln~.-. un\.'\ . ...,~ , .... ~ lJ.h) .;/h ~~~ o '··'''-e,t _ ,, .r .. 'I he dl~scr1ption of tht~ -.:ntft :>ten Hl dose qmuters hy one partk:ula.!' '\'Vitm,-ss i~ unlike any ajn.:mft of which I am av.·an:: and 5C.::.ms t<J have b~h1wed as 'if 'it was 6fl airship of tmkno'.vn type. lgnmi.ng the iiutc. iful n(Jti<m that this was a UFQ h'1 ~he porttl:~r &~!lSI:~ of the term. the dear 1ndt<:al ion is that ft (.~lassifi(Jd or unknown air Vt11til::.lo wns operating at i<>W ltwd. during t.bis tx:rio<l Can ynu C{>nllrm that no af:ri.al. achvity ~mh.;r (~uthorlscd or unauthorised wnk phl<~e (m or m~ar thig hK~ation (>VId' th<~ period stated ? 61Ministry of Defence Secretariat {Air Staff) 2 Room 3iiMQ 'a '2.. 4-6"" Main Building Whitehall London SWlA 2HB Dear . · ~s of 6 ~eh ~c:1 I am writing to acknowledge receipt of your leJ:t:r'~:srnplaint of ......... ~5.J~ ... :2.~ al¥ettt rnilit2';;r aircraft a: ti ~'· We aim to reply to such letters/complaints within four working weeks from date of receipt. However, owing to current administrative difficulties it may not be possible to reply to you within this timescale. Nevertheless, you may be assured that you will receive a substantive reply as soon as is practicable.