758 FILES·LAST 16D AGO

758Files276Intl159Lore132Papers314NodesLast disclosureLast16D AGO

DISCLOSURE / FILE

Howden Moor / Sheffield Incident, DEFE 24/1997 (March 1997 sonic boom and triangular craft reports)

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.

Brief

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).

Metadata

Agency: UK Ministry of Defence / Sec(AS)
Release: 2011-03-03
Type: PDF • .pdf
Length: 397 pages
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Programs: Flying Saucers Working Party, Joint Technical Intelligence Committee (JTIC), Directorate of Scientific Intelligence, RAF Cranwell Military Exploitation of Space Symposium
Tags: Howden Moor, Sheffield 1997, RAF Fylingdales, RAF Tornado 1990 North Sea, Flying Saucers Working Party 1951, UK Air Defence Region, Sec(AS)2a, JTIC, Public Records Act

Key points

Sec(AS)2a is identified as the focal point within the MoD for UFO correspondence, working out of Main Building, Whitehall.p.21
In a 12 May 1998 reply, the MoD states that pre-1967 UFO files were routinely destroyed after five years, and only from 1967 onward were UFO report files retained and transferred to the Public Record Office at the thirty-year point.p.12
The MoD confirms its standing policy that departmental interest in UFO reports relates solely to whether a sighting represents an incursion of the UK Air Defence Region by hostile or unauthorized foreign military activity.p.13
From 1 January 1995 to May 1998 the MoD recorded one UFO report from a military source and 1,470 from civilian sources.p.13
A 24 July 1996 Parliamentary Question from Martin Redmond MP asked about a 5 November 1990 incident in which a patrol of RAF Tornado aircraft over the North Sea were reportedly overtaken at high speed by an unidentified craft; Minister of State Nicholas Soames replied that no firm conclusions were drawn but the events were not judged to be of defence significance.p.14
Internal MoD correspondence in May 1998 confirms that the 1951 Flying Saucers Working Party Report could not be located in MoD holdings, and that related JTIC minutes sit at the PRO under DEFE 41/74, DEFE 41/75, and DEFE 10/496.p.18
A CS(RM)1 reviewer asked a US contact to approach the CIA in case a copy of the 1951 UK Flying Saucers Working Party Report survived at Langley, after spotting a reference in a CIA paper on the agency's role in UFO study 1947–90.p.18
The MoD told a correspondent that recent press claims of UFO sightings over the North Sea were 'incorrect and speculative,' that RAF Fylingdales had not tracked any UFOs on its radar, and that the RAF Cranwell 'Military Exploitation of Space' Symposium in June was not concerned with alleged UFO sightings.

Verbatim

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

Most interesting

The MoD's records branch in 1998 said that of more than 2,000 Joint Intelligence Bureau / Directorate of Scientific Intelligence reports issued between 1946 and 1992, only around 100 are known to have survived.
Before 1967, UK MoD UFO files were routinely destroyed after five years; the 30-year retention and PRO transfer rule only began after a 1967 policy change.
The 1951 Flying Saucers Working Party Report could not be found in MoD holdings in 1998, prompting a CS(RM) reviewer to ask a US contact whether a copy survived at CIA Langley.
JTIC minutes referencing the 1951 Working Party sit at the UK National Archives under DEFE 41/74, DEFE 41/75, and DEFE 10/496, with a related entry 'DSI/JTIC No 7 Unidentified Flying Objects' in DEFE 41/153.
An April 1998 Daily Express story claimed Phased Array radar at RAF Fylingdales tracked a battleship-sized craft over the North Sea moving at 24,000 mph for 15 minutes, a claim the MoD then publicly denied through Sec(AS)2a.

Cross-references

PDFDEFE 24/1959, MoD UFO Desk Reports 1981 (Rendlesham aftermath year)UK Ministry of Defence / Sec(AS)
PDFDEFE 24/2006, MoD UFO Desk Reports c.1998–2000 (Bonnybridge / Falkirk Triangle era)UK Ministry of Defence / Sec(AS)
PDFUFO Desk Final Records, DEFE 24/2465 (final tranche, June 2013)UK Ministry of Defence / Sec(AS)
PDFUFO Desk Closure Correspondence, DEFE 24/2453 (final tranche, June 2013)UK Ministry of Defence / Sec(AS)

Common questions

What is Howden Moor / Sheffield Incident, DEFE 24/1997 (March 1997 sonic boom and triangular craft reports)?: 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.
What does Howden Moor / Sheffield Incident, DEFE 24/1997 (March 1997 sonic boom and triangular craft reports) reveal?: Sec(AS)2a is identified as the focal point within the MoD for UFO correspondence, working out of Main Building, Whitehall. In a 12 May 1998 reply, the MoD states that pre-1967 UFO files were routinely destroyed after five years, and only from 1967 onward were UFO report files retained and transferred to the Public Record Office at the thirty-year point.…
Which agency produced Howden Moor / Sheffield Incident, DEFE 24/1997 (March 1997 sonic boom and triangular craft reports)?: Howden Moor / Sheffield Incident, DEFE 24/1997 (March 1997 sonic boom and triangular craft reports) is a primary-source record from UK Ministry of Defence / Sec(AS). Its original classification was UNCLASSIFIED.
When is Howden Moor / Sheffield Incident, DEFE 24/1997 (March 1997 sonic boom and triangular craft reports) dated?: Howden Moor / Sheffield Incident, DEFE 24/1997 (March 1997 sonic boom and triangular craft reports) is dated 1996-1998. It was declassified 2011-03-03.
What programs and topics appear in Howden Moor / Sheffield Incident, DEFE 24/1997 (March 1997 sonic boom and triangular craft reports)?: Howden Moor / Sheffield Incident, DEFE 24/1997 (March 1997 sonic boom and triangular craft reports) references Joint Technical Intelligence Committee (JTIC), Directorate of Scientific Intelligence, RAF Cranwell Military Exploitation of Space Symposium, Howden Moor, Sheffield 1997 and RAF Fylingdales.

SharePost Reddit

loading viewer...

Extracted text · Page 1

Howden Moor / Sheffield Incident, DEFE 24/1997 (March 1997 sonic boom and triangular craft reports)

Page 1 Page 2 Page 397

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.

Full transcript397 pages · 90,663 words›

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.

Page 1vision 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 2vision OCR

the national archives

(c) crown copyright

Page 3born-digital extraction

DISCLOSURE / FILE

Howden Moor / Sheffield Incident, DEFE 24/1997 (March 1997 sonic boom and triangular craft reports)

← Files

DISCLOSURE / FILE

Howden Moor / Sheffield Incident, DEFE 24/1997 (March 1997 sonic boom and triangular craft reports)

Brief

Metadata

Agency: UK Ministry of Defence / Sec(AS)
Release: 2011-03-03
Type: PDF • .pdf
Length: 397 pages
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Programs: Flying Saucers Working Party, Joint Technical Intelligence Committee (JTIC), Directorate of Scientific Intelligence, RAF Cranwell Military Exploitation of Space Symposium
Tags: Howden Moor, Sheffield 1997, RAF Fylingdales, RAF Tornado 1990 North Sea, Flying Saucers Working Party 1951, UK Air Defence Region, Sec(AS)2a, JTIC, Public Records Act

Key points

Sec(AS)2a is identified as the focal point within the MoD for UFO correspondence, working out of Main Building, Whitehall.p.21
In a 12 May 1998 reply, the MoD states that pre-1967 UFO files were routinely destroyed after five years, and only from 1967 onward were UFO report files retained and transferred to the Public Record Office at the thirty-year point.p.12
The MoD confirms its standing policy that departmental interest in UFO reports relates solely to whether a sighting represents an incursion of the UK Air Defence Region by hostile or unauthorized foreign military activity.p.13
From 1 January 1995 to May 1998 the MoD recorded one UFO report from a military source and 1,470 from civilian sources.p.13
A 24 July 1996 Parliamentary Question from Martin Redmond MP asked about a 5 November 1990 incident in which a patrol of RAF Tornado aircraft over the North Sea were reportedly overtaken at high speed by an unidentified craft; Minister of State Nicholas Soames replied that no firm conclusions were drawn but the events were not judged to be of defence significance.p.14
Internal MoD correspondence in May 1998 confirms that the 1951 Flying Saucers Working Party Report could not be located in MoD holdings, and that related JTIC minutes sit at the PRO under DEFE 41/74, DEFE 41/75, and DEFE 10/496.p.18
A CS(RM)1 reviewer asked a US contact to approach the CIA in case a copy of the 1951 UK Flying Saucers Working Party Report survived at Langley, after spotting a reference in a CIA paper on the agency's role in UFO study 1947–90.p.18
The MoD told a correspondent that recent press claims of UFO sightings over the North Sea were 'incorrect and speculative,' that RAF Fylingdales had not tracked any UFOs on its radar, and that the RAF Cranwell 'Military Exploitation of Space' Symposium in June was not concerned with alleged UFO sightings.

Verbatim

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

Most interesting

The MoD's records branch in 1998 said that of more than 2,000 Joint Intelligence Bureau / Directorate of Scientific Intelligence reports issued between 1946 and 1992, only around 100 are known to have survived.
Before 1967, UK MoD UFO files were routinely destroyed after five years; the 30-year retention and PRO transfer rule only began after a 1967 policy change.
The 1951 Flying Saucers Working Party Report could not be found in MoD holdings in 1998, prompting a CS(RM) reviewer to ask a US contact whether a copy survived at CIA Langley.
JTIC minutes referencing the 1951 Working Party sit at the UK National Archives under DEFE 41/74, DEFE 41/75, and DEFE 10/496, with a related entry 'DSI/JTIC No 7 Unidentified Flying Objects' in DEFE 41/153.
An April 1998 Daily Express story claimed Phased Array radar at RAF Fylingdales tracked a battleship-sized craft over the North Sea moving at 24,000 mph for 15 minutes, a claim the MoD then publicly denied through Sec(AS)2a.

Cross-references

PDFDEFE 24/1959, MoD UFO Desk Reports 1981 (Rendlesham aftermath year)UK Ministry of Defence / Sec(AS)
PDFDEFE 24/2006, MoD UFO Desk Reports c.1998–2000 (Bonnybridge / Falkirk Triangle era)UK Ministry of Defence / Sec(AS)
PDFUFO Desk Final Records, DEFE 24/2465 (final tranche, June 2013)UK Ministry of Defence / Sec(AS)
PDFUFO Desk Closure Correspondence, DEFE 24/2453 (final tranche, June 2013)UK Ministry of Defence / Sec(AS)

Common questions

What is Howden Moor / Sheffield Incident, DEFE 24/1997 (March 1997 sonic boom and triangular craft reports)?: 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.
What does Howden Moor / Sheffield Incident, DEFE 24/1997 (March 1997 sonic boom and triangular craft reports) reveal?: Sec(AS)2a is identified as the focal point within the MoD for UFO correspondence, working out of Main Building, Whitehall. In a 12 May 1998 reply, the MoD states that pre-1967 UFO files were routinely destroyed after five years, and only from 1967 onward were UFO report files retained and transferred to the Public Record Office at the thirty-year point.…
Which agency produced Howden Moor / Sheffield Incident, DEFE 24/1997 (March 1997 sonic boom and triangular craft reports)?: Howden Moor / Sheffield Incident, DEFE 24/1997 (March 1997 sonic boom and triangular craft reports) is a primary-source record from UK Ministry of Defence / Sec(AS). Its original classification was UNCLASSIFIED.
When is Howden Moor / Sheffield Incident, DEFE 24/1997 (March 1997 sonic boom and triangular craft reports) dated?: Howden Moor / Sheffield Incident, DEFE 24/1997 (March 1997 sonic boom and triangular craft reports) is dated 1996-1998. It was declassified 2011-03-03.
What programs and topics appear in Howden Moor / Sheffield Incident, DEFE 24/1997 (March 1997 sonic boom and triangular craft reports)?: Howden Moor / Sheffield Incident, DEFE 24/1997 (March 1997 sonic boom and triangular craft reports) references Joint Technical Intelligence Committee (JTIC), Directorate of Scientific Intelligence, RAF Cranwell Military Exploitation of Space Symposium, Howden Moor, Sheffield 1997 and RAF Fylingdales.

SharePost Reddit

loading viewer...

Extracted text · Page 1

Howden Moor / Sheffield Incident, DEFE 24/1997 (March 1997 sonic boom and triangular craft reports)

Page 1 Page 2 Page 397

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.

Full transcript397 pages · 90,663 words›

Page 1vision 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 2vision OCR

the national archives

(c) crown copyright

Page 3born-digital extraction

- (\..-, "':;.....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 ............ ...... _._ ...... ............ ........... .

Page 13born-digital extraction

Parliament 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

Page 15born-digital extraction

• '., 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?

Page 18born-digital extraction

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.

Page 30born-digital extraction

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 .~

Page 32born-digital extraction

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 03/20/9812:21:47

Page 33born-digital extraction

of 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

Page 34born-digital extraction

· 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 i

Page 35born-digital extraction

1 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.

Page 37born-digital extraction

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 32

Page 39born-digital extraction

"'""""'~"--.....,..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/ / l

Page 40born-digital extraction

GIF 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.

Page 41born-digital extraction

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.

Page 71born-digital extraction

. 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 1

Page 93vision OCR

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 12

Page 99born-digital extraction

~ 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 31

Page 100born-digital extraction

maj 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

Page 101born-digital extraction

-----------•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

Page 102vision OCR

...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.

Page 103vision OCR

•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

Page 104born-digital extraction

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

Page 107born-digital extraction

. .. 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

Page 114born-digital extraction

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".

Page 121born-digital extraction

~_.,, 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.

Page 122born-digital extraction

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

Page 123born-digital extraction

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

Page 124born-digital extraction

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.-

Page 125born-digital extraction

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

Page 126born-digital extraction

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

Page 127born-digital extraction

• 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

Page 128born-digital extraction

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

Page 129born-digital extraction

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. .•

Page 130born-digital extraction

, 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

Page 133born-digital extraction

<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.

Page 135born-digital extraction

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.• ..,· "" .....

Page 137born-digital extraction

- 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

Page 143born-digital extraction

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:mander

Page 144born-digital extraction

Referefl' 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

Page 146born-digital extraction

• 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) RESTRICTED

Page 149born-digital extraction

,. . 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.

Page 150born-digital extraction

}:,! ~.-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, . "'

Page 153born-digital extraction

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 ;; ·· {··

Page 164born-digital extraction

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.

Page 168born-digital extraction

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,

Page 181vision OCR

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]

Page 189born-digital extraction

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

Page 192born-digital extraction

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.

Page 195born-digital extraction

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

Page 201born-digital extraction

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

Page 202born-digital extraction

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

Page 205vision OCR

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!

Page 207born-digital extraction

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 TM

Page 211vision OCR

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 JUST

Page 213born-digital extraction

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 Ones

Page 214born-digital extraction

apparent 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

Page 216born-digital extraction

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"";:~~.• -

Page 218born-digital extraction

.. 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

Page 225born-digital extraction

/ 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 ,_

Page 236born-digital extraction

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

Page 238born-digital extraction

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 records

Page 242born-digital extraction

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

Page 243born-digital extraction

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

Page 248born-digital extraction

7. 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 I

Page 249born-digital extraction

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 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

Page 250born-digital extraction

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.

Page 258born-digital extraction

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 . . 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~

Page 271born-digital extraction

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 D

Page 275born-digital extraction

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

Page 283born-digital extraction

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 the

Page 287born-digital extraction

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

Page 296born-digital extraction

UNCLA 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

Page 301born-digital extraction

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 a

Page 302born-digital extraction

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

Page 309born-digital extraction

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~

Page 314born-digital extraction

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

Page 345born-digital extraction

.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 .. !

Page 361born-digital extraction

TEL: 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

Page 363born-digital extraction

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.

Page 364born-digital extraction

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-

Page 365born-digital extraction

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-

Page 366born-digital extraction

-· --- · -··- . 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-

Page 367born-digital extraction

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-

Page 368born-digital extraction

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 -

Howden Moor / Sheffield Incident, DEFE 24/1997 (March 1997 sonic boom and triangular craft reports)

Brief

Metadata

Key points

Verbatim

Most interesting

Cross-references

Related topics

Common questions

Howden Moor / Sheffield Incident, DEFE 24/1997 (March 1997 sonic boom and triangular craft reports)

Howden Moor / Sheffield Incident, DEFE 24/1997 (March 1997 sonic boom and triangular craft reports)

Howden Moor / Sheffield Incident, DEFE 24/1997 (March 1997 sonic boom and triangular craft reports)

Brief

Metadata

Key points

Verbatim

Most interesting

Cross-references

Related topics

Common questions

Howden Moor / Sheffield Incident, DEFE 24/1997 (March 1997 sonic boom and triangular craft reports)