DISCLOSURE / FILE
The UK Ministry of Defence's principal file on the December 1980 Rendlesham Forest sighting at RAF Bentwaters/Woodbridge, compiled from DS8 and Sec(AS) sources and released by The National Archives.
The UK Ministry of Defence's principal file on the December 1980 Rendlesham Forest sighting at RAF Bentwaters/Woodbridge, compiled from DS8 and Sec(AS) sources and released by The National Archives.
The file centers on Lt. Col. Charles Halt's 13 January 1981 USAF memo to RAF Bentwaters describing two security police patrolmen who, at approximately 0300L on 27 December 1980, saw a metallic, triangular object roughly two to three meters across in the forest behind RAF Woodbridge, with follow-up readings the next night of 0.1 milliroentgens in three ground depressions and on a nearby tree. DI55 and DI52 internal minutes from January–March 1981 record that neither directorate could offer an explanation, that Neatishead's radar camera recorder was switched off at 1527Z on 29 December 1980, and that the 0.1 mr reading was roughly ten times typical background. A 1998 Sec(AS) loose minute confirms the file was actually assembled around 1991–1994 from enclosures pulled from DS8/10/209 parts D through G, and that part H had been destroyed. Later correspondence (1992–1994) documents MOD handling of media requests, including a Central TV documentary, and a Defence Radiological Protection Service note that the recorded 0.1 mr level was "completely harmless."
Having canvassed DSTI for thoughts on this matter, DI55 cannot offer any explanation for the phenomena.p.11
The value of 0.1 milliroentgens (mr), I assume that this is per hour, seems significantly higher than the average background of about 0.015 mr.p.12
SOC/CRC Neatishead regret that the radar camera recorder was switched off at 1527Z on 29 Dec 80 and an examination of the executive logs revealed no entry in respect of unusual radar returns or other unusual occurrences.p.9
The level of radiation of 0.1 is completely harmless.p.18
Extracted text · Page 1
Page 1 · vision OCR
THIS FILE IS MADE AVAILABLE THROUGH THE DECLASSIFICATION EFFORTS AND RESEARCH OF: THE BLACK VAULT THE BLACK VAULT IS THE LARGEST ONLINE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT / GOVERNMENT RECORD CLEARING HOUSE IN THE WORLD. THE RESEARCH EFFORTS HERE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DECLASSIFICATION OF THOUSANDS OF DOCUMENTS THROUGHOUT THE U.S. GOVERNMENT, AND ALL CAN BE DOWNLOADED BY VISITING: HTTP://WWW.BLACKVAULT.COM YOU ARE ENCOURAGED TO FORWARD THIS DOCUMENT TO YOUR FRIENDS, BUT PLEASE KEEP THIS IDENTIFYING IMAGE AT THE TOP OF THE .PDF SO OTHERS CAN DOWNLOAD MORE!
Page 2 · vision OCR
the national archives (c) crown copyright
Page 192 · born-digital extraction
Above: US if. 111 fighter-bombers are based in Britain, and e..ertain variants have the ability to carry nuclear weapons. Could the UFO rumours associated with Rendlesham Forest be a ’disi nformation’ exercise to disguise some accident involving an aircraft with a nuclear bomb load from a airfield? areas are dotted Rendlesham If UFO do occur, such spots, located in would to see the base commander. was told, he called an internal one man who was of formation was sent to the before he had been scheduled to I t is difficult to evaluate and affair. Aside from and Dot no one Butler has talked to the base who have other wall of the information. All have come up a do have the of the the serviceman who turned to the USA. And there do appear to number local rum ours about an about odd ex- that occurred around the same in the of the forest. And if the relevant part of forest was burned u u when it is said to have tie in attitude of the coincidental. All of this this would seem the in Commission to be indicate some of how we sources to Brenda seem to be two could what conventional aircraft was to land in Forest - or an unconventional one did so. It is to recall that Bentwaters was one of the bases heath Within been only subsequent almost caused detonate. If such a was it was concealed from the for over this makes it conceivable that in an American aircraft did Forest and the fact because the air- a nuclear device. In which story might have been a convenient distraction truth. of famous case, so a nuclear was averted when a crash and at the Lakenheath base live nuclear weapons to 20 years. December crash into was craft was case the UFO used from the This leaves a however. be The area to be sure, so it is not that was not witnessed. But to remove the remnants of the crash would be a and difficult More it aircraft crash rumour local various members it be that a cover- up story - intended to conceal a UFO
Concatenated page-by-page transcript. Born-digital pages came through pdf.js; scanned pages were transcribed by Claude vision OCR. Pages marked unreadable failed multiple OCR retries (heavy redaction, microfilm artifacts, or blank separators) and are kept in place for audit.
THIS FILE IS MADE AVAILABLE THROUGH THE DECLASSIFICATION EFFORTS AND RESEARCH OF: THE BLACK VAULT THE BLACK VAULT IS THE LARGEST ONLINE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT / GOVERNMENT RECORD CLEARING HOUSE IN THE WORLD. THE RESEARCH EFFORTS HERE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DECLASSIFICATION OF THOUSANDS OF DOCUMENTS THROUGHOUT THE U.S. GOVERNMENT, AND ALL CAN BE DOWNLOADED BY VISITING: HTTP://WWW.BLACKVAULT.COM YOU ARE ENCOURAGED TO FORWARD THIS DOCUMENT TO YOUR FRIENDS, BUT PLEASE KEEP THIS IDENTIFYING IMAGE AT THE TOP OF THE .PDF SO OTHERS CAN DOWNLOAD MORE!
the national archives (c) crown copyright
FILE NOTE Although the cover of this file states that it was opened on 25 October 1982, it is clear that this was not the case. Sec(AS) was not in being at this time only being formed around early 1985 and therefore no file with a reference number starting with D/Sec (AS) could have been in existence in 1982. Although no record of when it was opened can be found, it is probable that it was created during the period 1991-94. The file itself is clearly a compilation file comprised primarily of documents that were removed from their original file and placed on this file. This would account for the non sequential enclosure numbers which may confuse readers. Enclosure 29 on page 14 lists which files many of the enclosures are believed to have originally come from. DAS-FOI 9 April 2008
RESTRICTED/UNCLASSIFIED MOD Form 329D
(Revised 3/83)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
SIR
2025
Opened
25 Oct 1982
Registered file number
D/Sec(AS) 12/2/1
Part No. A
1. Attention is drawn to the notes on the inside flap
2. Enter notes of related files on page 2 of this jacket.
DIVISION/ESTABLISHMENT/UNIT/BRANCH
Sec [ILLEGIBLE] 2a
SUBJECT Unidentified Flying Objects (U.F.O.'s)
Report of Sighting, Rendlesham Forest,
December 1980
Referred to | Date | Min/Encl | Referred to | Date | Min/Encl | Referred to | Date | Min/Encl | Referred to | Date | Min/Encl
[ILLEGIBLE handwritten entries throughout routing table]
Sent Out Date: [REDACTED] 1-11-00
Ext Section 40
From DR2e2
Bourne Ave. Hayes, Middx, UB3 1RF.
Section 40 3A3-8-4
[barcode]
FOR DRO USE ONLY
1st Review date
File Ref SEC(A3)12/2/1
Part A
2nd Review date
PA ACTION
(MOD Form 262F
must be completed)
[barcode] RCU000087176 [ILLEGIBLE]
RESTRICTED/UNCLASSIFIED
Printed in U.K. for H.M.S.O. 5/88 Ge 8085561 C 12,750 96 [ILLEGIBLE]M1 A copy of this file was requested under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information (the Code) in May 2001 by [REDACTED] [REDACTED] A copy was sent on 11 May 2001. Five documents were withheld under Exemptions of the Code. Two under Exemption 1 (Defence, Security and International Relations) and three under Exemption 2 (Internal opinion advice, recommendation, consultation and deliberation). Some details were obscured in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998. [REDACTED] appealed to the Department (DG Information (Exploitation)) against the decision to withhold these documents and the two withheld under Exemption 1 were released in September 2001. DG Info(Exp) upheld the Directorate of Air Staff (DAS) decision to withhold the remaining three documents under Exemption 2 and [REDACTED] was advised of his right to approach the Parliamentary Ombudsman if he was not satisfied with this decision. Further details can be found on D/DAS(Sec)/64/3/11 Part B. The file was also sent to other individuals who had learnt of its release and made requests for copies. One such individual, [REDACTED] [REDACTED] was sent the file on 9 November 2001. He also appealed against the decision to withhold the three documents under Exemption 2 of the Code and when his appeal was unsuccessful, decided to take the case to the Ombudsman. On 17 July 2002 the Ombudsman wrote to the Permanent Secretary with his decision. The three documents that had been withheld were correspondence between an MP and a Minister, two draft replies to ministerial correspondence and associated background notes. The Ombudsman commended the MOD on the release of the majority of this file (some 174 pages) and recognised the strength of argument that advice and recommendations contained in submissions to Ministers depended on candour for their effectiveness. He also agreed that these documents do fall under the scope of Exemption 2. However, in the particular circumstances of this case he recommended that the documents should nonetheless be released and the MOD accepted this decision. The remaining documents from this file were released to [REDACTED] on 24 July 2002. Further details of the Ombudsman case can be found on D/Sec(AS)/64/3/10 Part A. The Department also agreed to release the documents to all those other individuals from whom they had previously been withheld and letters were sent to 18 others on 25 July 2002. All enquirers after this date will receive a copy of the whole file. [REDACTED] DAS-LA-Ops+Pol1 [REDACTED] 1 August 2002
Copy taken from D/DS8/10/d09 - Part A on 26 Feb 2001
RAF LIAISON OFFICE (C110)
Royal Air Force Bentwaters Woodbridge Suffolk IP12 2RQ
Telephone Woodbridge [REDACTED]
MOD (DS8a) Your reference
Our reference BENT/019/76
AIR
Date 15 January 1981
UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS (UFO's)
I attach a copy of a report I have received from
the Deputy Base Commander at RAF Bentwaters con-
cerning some mysterious sightings in the Rendle-
sham forest near RAF Woodbridge. The report is
forwarded for your information and action as con-
sidered necessary. [REDACTED]
D H MORELAND
Squadron Leader
RAF Commander
Copy to:
SRAFLO, RAF Mildenhall
Copy sent to Ops(E)2b Sqn Ldr [REDACTED]
(also consulted by Ops(SS)2b. are: D155
PS/ACS (Ground)
Later establishments in
area.TO ATTN OF; SUBJECT; t DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE HEADQUARTERS 81ST COMBAT SUPPORT GROUP (USAFE) APO NEW YORK 09155 1 3 Jan 81 Unexplained Li TO: CC 1. Early in the morning of 27 Dec (approximately 0300L), two USAF securi police patrolmen saw unusual lights outsi the back RAF Woodbridge. Thinking an aircraft might have crashed or been rced down, they called for permission to go outside the gate to investigate. The on- flight ef responded 1 men to pro- on foot. The individuals reported seeing a strange glowing object in the forest. The object was described as bei~g metalic in appearance and triangular in shape, approximately two to three meters across mately two high. It illuminated the entire t with a whi light. The object itself had a pulsing red light on top and a bank(s) of blue 1 underneath. The obj was hovering or on 1 As the men a the ect, it maneuvered through the trees and disappeared. At this time the animals on a nearby farm went into a frenzy. The obj was briefly si appro xi ly an hour 1 r near back 2. The next found night (29 Dec ) the area of O. 1 11 i roentgen s were pression and near center A nearby tree had moderate (. toward the depressions. 1 1 2 II and 7 II i n d i we re si on ground. followi was checked for radiation. Beta/gamma readings with k readings in the three de- af triangle formed by sions. .07) readings on the si of the tree 3. Later in the night a sun-like light was seen through the trees. It nloved about and pu1 sed. At one point it appea to throw off gl ng rticles then five s rate whi ects and then dis appeared. Immediately fter, t s 1i objects were noticed in the sky, two obj to the north and one to the south, all of which were 100 the horizon. The moved rapidly in sharp angular movements and displayed red, and blue lights. The objects to the north a red to be elliptical through an 8-12 power lens. They then rned full circles. s to the north remai in the S r an hour or more. The object to the south was visible for two or three hours and beamed down a stream of light from time to time. Numerous indivi- duals, including the undersigned, witnessed the ivities in paragraphs 2 fi 4 C~S I. ~~ Lt Col, USAF Deputy Commander
Copy taken from D/DS8/10/204 - Part M on 26 Feb 2001
LOOSE MINUTE
D/DD Ops(GE)10/3 ←
DI 55
Copy to:
PS/ACS(G)(RAF)
UNEXPLAINED LIGHTS
1. During the preparation for the Lords Debate on UFOs on
18 Jan 1979, DI 55 [REDACTED] made contributions to Hd of S4(Air)'s
Draft Closing Address and Background note. Since the bulk of reports
of unusual sighting have been of a routine nature. However I
have been asked by DS8 if any other dept would have an interest
in the attached correspondence from the USAF Deputy Base Commander
at Bentwaters.
2. We would particularly like to know whether the readings of
radioactivity are unusual or whether they are within the normal
background range to be expected.
[REDACTED]
26 Jan 81
Sgn Ldr
Ops(GE)2b(RAF)
[REDACTED]
Encl: Dept of the Air Force letter 13 Jan 81LOOSE MINUTE
D/DD Ops(GE)/10/8
DS8 ←
UNEXPLAINED LIGHTS
Reference: A. D/DS8/72/1/2 dated 20 Jan 81.
1. At Reference you forwarded a report from RAF Bentwaters for
information and asked if anyone else might have an interest in the
content. You will see from the attached IM, I forwarded a copy
to DI55 and PS/ACS(G)(RAF). I have had no response.
2. SOC/CRC Neatishead regret that the radar camera recorder was
switched off at 1527Z on 29 Dec 80 and an examination of the executive
logs revealed no entry in respect of unusual radar returns or other
unusual occurrences.
3. I have spoken with Sqn Ldr Moreland at Bentwaters and he considers
the Deputy Base Commander a sound source. I asked if the incident
had been reported on the USAF net and I was advised that tape
recorders of the evidence had been handed to Gen Gabriel who happened
to be visiting the station. Perhaps it would be reasonable to ask
if we could have tape recordings as well.
[REDACTED]
16 Feb 81
Sqn Ldr
Ops(GE)2b(RAF)
[REDACTED]Copy taken from D/DS8/10/207 - Part M on 26 Feb 2001
MEMORANDUM MOD Form 4A
To DS8. From GE2b.
[stamp: 10 MAR 19...]
Date 9/3/81. Tel [REDACTED]
Your ref D/S8/72/1/2 dated 70/81 Our ref D/DDOPs(GE)/10/8
Subject UNEXPLAINED NIGHTS
1. Further to my LM at Ref dated 16 Feb
attached herewith copies of responses
from DI55(a) and DI 52 — with
an offer to pursue from the
letter.
[REDACTED]
[Signature]
(GE)2b(RAF)
[REDACTED][REDACTED]
LOOSE MINUTE
· 55/103/15/1
Ops (GE) 2b (RAF)
Copy to:
PS/ACS(G)(RAF)
UNEXPLAINED LIGHTS
Reference:
·A. D/DD Ops (GE)10/8 dated 26 January 1981.
1. Having canvassed DSTI for thoughts on this
matter, DI55 cannot offer any explanation for the
phenomena.
2. In answer to your specific inquiry regarding
the readings of radioactivity, please see the at-
tached correspondence from ADI/DI52.
3. If you wish to take up ADI/DI52's offer of
further assistance, please let me know.
[REDACTED]
2 March 1981 DI55(a)
[REDACTED]
Enc: DI52/106/10 dated 23 February 1981.Loose Minute
[REDACTED] DI52/106/10
[REDACTED] 2412
DI55a Attn [REDACTED]
Unexplained Lights
Reference: DI55/108/15/1
1. Like DI55, DI52 do not know of any serious explanation for the phenomena
described at reference.
2. Background radioactivity varies considerably due to a number of factors.
The value of 0.1 milliroentgens (mr), I assume that this is per hour, seems
significantly higher than the average background of about 0.015 mr. I would not
expect the variation in this to be much more than a factor of two, although it
might be greater for specific reasons.
3. If you wish to pursue this further I could make enquiries as to natural
background levels in the area. The way the US report is written, however,
suggests that 0.1 mr was greater than they expected.
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
ADI/DI52
23 February 1981Copy taken from File DS8/10/209 Part E on 2 February 200[?]
ND
LOOSE MINUTE
D/DD Ops(GE)/10/3
DS8 ← 0/209
UFO SIGHTING - RAF WOODBRIDGE DECEMBER 1980
1. At Reference you ask if the suggestion that the
USAF be asked for the tape recordings was followed up
by this Deputy Directorate. It was considered that the
tapes would reveal no better report than that already
received, and no further request was made. However, it
is considered that your approach to the RAF Liaison
officer, will produce any considered views on the event.
2. I believe your outlined response is the right one;
Neatishead, which is the Sector Ops Centre responsible
for that area had nothing unusual to report, and
nothing more substantive has come to light. I have
received no evidence that any radar reported unusual
tracks. [ILLEGIBLE] Randles appears to have "evidence of radar
trackin", and provided that it can be managed without
undermining our position, I would like to have a look
at this radar evidence.
[REDACTED]
2[ Mar 83
Sqn Ldr
Ops(GE)2b(RAF)
[REDACTED]Registered File Disposal Form MOD Form 282F
(Revised 8/95)
FILE TITLE: (Main Heading - Secondary Heading - Tertiary Heading etc)
UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS
Report of Sighting, Rendlesham Forest
December 1980
Reference:
(Prefix and Number):
D/Sec(AS)/12/2/1
Part: A
PROTECTIVE MARKING (including caveats & descriptors): RESTRICTED/UNCLASS
Date of last enclosure: 15/4/94 Date closed: 25 SEP 95
PART 1. DISPOSAL SCHEDULE RECOMMENDATION
(To be completed when the file is closed)
FOR CS(RM) USE ONLY
Destroy after ________ years □
Date of 1st review Date of 2nd review Forward Destruction Date
Forward to CS(RM) after ________ years □
Reviewer's Reviewer's
No recommendation □ Signature: Signature:
PART 2. BRANCH REVIEW
(To be completed not later than 4 years after the date of the last enclosure)
(Delete as appropriate)
a. Of no further administrative value and not worthy of permanent preservation. DESTROY IMMEDIATELY (Remember that TOP SECRET and Codeword material cannot be destroyed locally and must be forwarded to CS(RM)). □ ✓
b. (i) To be retained for ________ years (from date of last enclosure) for the following reason(s):
✓ ✓
LEGAL □ DEFENCE POLICY □
CONTRACTUAL □ ORIGINAL COMMITTEE PAPERS □
FINANCE □ OTHER (Specify) □ [_____________]
AUDIT □
(Continued overleaf)(ii) Key enclosures which support the recommendation are:
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
(iii) At the end of the specified retention period the file is to be:
Destroyed □
Considered by CS(RM) for
permanent preservation □ ✓
c. Of no further administrative value but worthy of consideration by CS(RM) for permanent preservation. □
PART 3. BRANCH REVIEWING OFFICER PART 4 DESTRUCTION CERTIFICATE
Signature: ____________________________ It is certified that the specified file has been destroyed.
Name: ________________________________ Signature: ____________________________
(Block Capitals)
Name: ________________________________
Grade/Rank: ____________ Date: ________ (Block Capitals)
(Not below HEO/equivalent)
Grade/Rank: ____________ Date: ________
Witnessed by (TOP SECRET* and SECRET only)
Signature: ____________________________
Name: ________________________________
(Block Capitals)
Grade/Rank: ____________ Date: ________
*(FOR CS(RM) USE ONLY)This minute should be kept
as the top enclosure.
LOOSE MINUTE
D/Sec(AS)/12/2/1
16 April 1998
MISSING ENCLOSURES PLACED ON FILE D/SEC(AS)/12/2/1 PT A
1. A close examination of the enclosures on this file
and closed files recalled from MOD archives has confirmed that
many enclosures have been removed from their original location.
The full details of the enclosures placed on D/Sec(AS)/12/2/1 are
as follows:
Enc no Removed from:
E132 - D/DS8/10/209 part D
E2 - D/DS8/10/209 part E
E121 - D/DS8/10/209 part E
E122 - D/DS8/10/209 part E
E159 - D/DS8/10/209 part E
E180 - D/DS8/10/209 part E
E1/1 - D/DS8/10/209 part F
E2 - D/DS8/10/209 part F
E6 - D/DS8/10/209 part F
E63 - D/DS8/10/209 part F
E64 - D/DS8/10/209 part F
E65 - D/DS8/10/209 part F
E66 - D/DS8/10/209 part F
E67/1 - D/DS8/10/209 part F
E67/2 - D/DS8/10/209 part F
E68/1 - D/DS8/10/209 part F
E73 - D/DS8/10/209 part F
E75 - D/DS8/10/209 part F
E81 - D/DS8/10/209 part F
E82 - D/DS8/10/209 part F
E83 - D/DS8/10/209 part F
E84 - D/DS8/10/209 part F
E85 - D/DS8/10/209 part F
E86 - D/DS8/10/209 part F
E87 - D/DS8/10/209 part F
E88 - D/DS8/10/209 part F
E89 - D/DS8/10/209 part F
E90 - D/DS8/10/209 part F
E91 - D/DS8/10/209 part F
E95 - D/DS8/10/209 part F
E96 - D/DS8/10/209 part F
E97 - D/DS8/10/209 part F
E98 - D/DS8/10/209 part F
E100/1 - D/DS8/10/209 part F
E100/2 - D/DS8/10/209 part F
E101/2 - D/DS8/10/209 part F
E104 - D/DS8/10/209 part F
E113 - D/DS8/10/209 part F
10/209- Vols. D-G
called for.
[REDACTED] 23.L01
Sean - Vols.
D/E/F.
Vol. C + G missing at Haps[ILLEGIBLE]E6 - D/DS8/10/209 part G
E7 - D/DS8/10/209 part G
E8 - D/DS8/10/209 part G
E9 - D/DS8/10/209 part G
E10 - D/DS8/10/209 part G
E12 - D/DS8/10/209 part G
E13 - D/DS8/10/209 part G
E14 - D/DS8/10/209 part G
E15 - D/DS8/10/209 part G
E16 - D/DS8/10/209 part G
E24 - D/DS8/10/209 part G
E25 - D/DS8/10/209 part G
E47 - D/DS8/10/209 part G
E48 - D/DS8/10/209 part G
E79 - D/DS8/10/209 part G
E80 - D/DS8/10/209 part G
E87 - D/DS8/10/209 part G
E88 - D/DS8/10/209 part G
E89 - D/DS8/10/209 part G
E90 - D/DS8/10/209 part G
E91 - D/DS8/10/209 part G
E92 - D/DS8/10/209 part G
E94 - D/DS8/10/209 part G
E96 - D/DS8/10/209 part G
E97 - D/DS8/10/209 part G
E98 - D/DS8/10/209 part G
E99 - D/DS8/10/209 part G
E104 - D/DS8/10/209 part G
E105 - D/DS8/10/209 part G
E108 - D/DS8/10/209 part G
E109 - D/DS8/10/209 part G
E114 - D/DS8/10/209 part G
E115 - D/DS8/10/209 part G
E125 - D/DS8/10/209 part G
E126 - D/DS8/10/209 part G
E127 - D/DS8/10/209 part G
E128 - D/DS8/10/209 part G
2. Enclosures 2, 3, 9, 25 and 26 appear to have been removed
from D/DS8/10/209 part H but that file has been destroyed and I am
unable to positively confirm this.
3. This file (D/Sec(AS)/12/2/1 part A) claims to have been
opened as a registered file on 25 October 1982. This is not
possible because Sec(AS) was not in being at that time. Sec(AS)
was previously DS8 until late '84/early '85. It is not possible to
ascertain exactly when this file was created.
[REDACTED]
SEC(AS)2
[REDACTED]E28
File Note,
Spoke to [REDACTED] at the Defence Radiological
Protection Service ([REDACTED]), re the radiation readings
recorded at the time of the Rendlesham Forest incident.
0.01 would be the general level of background radiation, so
the 0.1 recording is about 10 times what would be
normal.
However, military radiation detectors are geared for high level
readings, so low-level readings may be difficult to record
accurately, as the scale will be small at the bottom of the
meter. * We don't have details of what instrument was used.
It is just possible to hoax such an event. A university
lab might well have some radioactive source with a very
short half life, and could use it so as to give readings,
which would not be recorded a few days later.
The level of radiation of 0.1 is completely harmless.
[REDACTED]
15/4/94
* Especially if the needle was fluctuating.ATTN OF: ’.CD 13 ~\ DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE HEAOQUARIERS 81ST COMI3AT SUPPORT GROUP (USAFE) APO NEW YOR~~ 09155 SJJjJJECT; Unexplained Lights TO: RAF/CC .,,~. and 2 . found night (29 of o. 1 11 i sions and nearby tree the area vJe r’e cen d ra sions. 1/2" p and 711 on un . for radiation. vIi k rea n triangle ) read in s 3. It pa a in vJere about filovefnents north a turned to an r or hours duals, 2 1 i g h t \~J ass e e n int it a se ra white three star.;..l; one to t .obj-ects nloved a dbJ u~ 1 i 9 h t 9 h. a n 1 2 p 0 \~l E: e c ts. to’ the -.{10 r t h was visi from t i 01 e . sed the aetivities in lar r i vi - 1, USAF :..--- "LOOSE MINUTE D/Sec(AS)12/2/1 25 Jan 94 DPO(RAF) - [REDACTED] CENTRAL TV UFO DOCUMENTARY - REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ON RENDLESHAM FOREST 1. We spoke yesterday about Central TV's request for information on the UFO sighting in Rendlesham Forest in December 1980. 2. I have been through our file on this incident, and have drawn together an unclassified note based on previous MOD statements. This can be drawn upon in answering questions, or passed to Central TV in toto. I have also attached a copy of Lt Col Halt's report, which can be passed to Central TV. 3. As I mentioned yesterday, [REDACTED] is still in the Department, and works for the Housing Trust Team. I do not know what the rules are with regard to interviews with present or former officials, or whether it would be worthwhile having a word with her. I have not contacted her, but if you wish to do so, she is on [REDACTED] 4. Please let me know if you need anything else; as I mentioned, my understanding is that this documentary is to be much more serious than some of the more sensationalist programmes that have been produced in the past. I believe that it will be in our interests to be as helpful as we can, and to try and reflect the good relationship that we now have with many of the more serious UFO groups and researchers. There are still a few within the field who believe that the MOD is involved in a cover-up, and I think the more helpful and open we are, the less likely it is that this view will get an airing. [REDACTED] Sec(AS)2a [REDACTED]
are aware saw s on from RAF Fores t . Lt Base tted a on As UFO to was any out. No no come to which ters was no No unidenti object was seen on anything during the intruded in tion, and , and landed was near RAF UK We are aware are a number was was seen was tort about UFO the Orford Ness seen the trees. There were also suggestions that fireball activity might some of any MOD
Unexp1ai Li TO: cc 1. Early in security police RAF ~Joodbt"i 3. ter in the night a It nloved about and pu 1 icles and s . off 9 1 0 \~I i n 9 lar r i vi - USAF
E26
RAF LIAISON OFFICE
Royal Air Force Bentwaters Woodbridge Suffolk IP12 2RQ
Telephone Bentwaters [REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
Secretariat (Air Staff)2a
Room [REDACTED]
Ministry of Defence
Main Building
Whitehall
LONDON SW1A 2HB
BENT/1/2/AIR
8 July 1992
Dear [REDACTED]
UFO SIGHTING - DECEMBER 1980
Reference:
A. D/Sec(AS)12/2/1 dated 2 July 1992.
1. I refer to your letter at Reference A concerning the reported sighting of
a UFO on 27 December 1980. I have no records on this subject and the file to
which you refer has long since been destroyed.
2. However, I have spoken with our resident Historian from the 81st Tactical
Fighter Wing who has unearthed an article which I have photocopied for your
information. It all makes interesting reading.
Yours sincerely
[REDACTED]
Squadron Leader
RAF CommanderWoodbridge RAF/USAF Air Base 327 WOODBRIDGE RAF/USAF AIR BASE In December 1980 it is alleged that a grounded UFO was seen in the Rendlesham Forest area outside the back gates of RAF/USAF Wood- bridge in Suffolk, England. There are various, and conflicting, reports about what occurred on the night. According to the official report made by the Deputy Base Com- mander, Lieutenant-Colonel Charles Halt, two security police witnessed lights outside the back gate and called for permission to investigate on the grounds that an aircraft might have crashed. Three patrolmen were sent and they reported seeing a glowing object in the forest, described as triangular in shape, about 9 feet wide and 6 feet high, and emanating a powerful white light. Other reports detail blue and red lights at various points on the object. It was either hovering or standing on short legs and as the patrol approached, it manoeuvred away slowly through the trees on to a nearby farm (causing some disturbance in the animals there) before disappearing into the sky very quickly. However, the object was briefly sighted again about an hour later. Investigation the following day found three ground traces indicating possible landing leg depressions. However, there are other stories of events that night including one that the overall Commander of the base, Wing Commander Gordon Williams, was present at the investigation and also communicated with aliens that had been seen apparently carrying out repairs to the craft. It is alleged that many films and photographs were taken but that these were all confiscated by senior officers and have not been released. Investigators examining these claims have obtained interviews with two of the patrol who investigated the UFO, airman John Burroughs and a second airman who remains anonymous and is given the pseudonym of James Archer. Basically their stories agree with the Deputy Command- er's statement. Archer denies seeing aliens but saw shapes inside the object, to which he had approached within three feet, and commented, 'I don't know what they were but the shapes did not look human. Maybe they were like robots.' One of the security police at Woodbridge, Sergeant Adrian Bustinza, came forward after the publication of a book, Skycrash by Jenny Randles, Brenda Butler and Dot Street (see References and Background Material), and told his detailed version of events in the forest that night. Again, for the most part, his account basically agrees with that of Lieutenant-Colonel Halt. He describes the object as being seen through a yellow mist like 'nothing I have ever seen before', and comments that it was a tremendous size compared to the clearing it was in and that he was surprised it was able to fit into the area. One major discrepancy arises in his description, how- ever; he describes it as saucer-shaped rather than triangular-shaped, which would seem to be a very major disagreement considering both reports come from eye witnesses. There is allegedly a tape recording made by Lieutenant-Colonel Halt and his men while in the forest investigating the event and part of this has
328 Woodruff, R. S. been released by a former base commander at Woodbridge, Colonel Sam Morgan. On the tape various voices including Lieutenant-Colonel Halt's describe what they are supposed to be seeing as they pursue the object through the woods. When challenged by a former Chief of the Defence Staff, Admiral-of- the-Fleet Lord Hill-Norton, the Secretary of State for Defence, Michael Heseltine, through Lord Trefgarne, released the statement that 'the events to which you refer were of no defence significance'. As Lord Hill-Norton put it, there would seem to be some defence significance either in an unknown object's entering and possibly landing in British territory or, alternatively, a deputy base commander of an RAF/ USAF base filing a ludicrous and make-believe report. Lieutenant-Colonel (now Colonel) Halt has confirmed subsequently that this memorandum is legitimate. He also went on to say, 'There are a lot of things that are not in my memo.' WOODRUFF, R. S. In many people's eyes the quality of the witness to a UFO event is as important as the event itself. On that basis one sighting of three red lighted UFOs buzzing low over cars near Bethel in Vermont, USA should rank highly. Witnesses in other cars watched a police car ahead being buzzed. The police car contained a high State police official and the State pathologist, Dr R. S. Woodruff. Calculation by the police indicated that the speed of the UFOs was some 2,000 miles per hour. Despite the fact that the UFOs had come down precisely together in line of formation, slowed down and flown parallel to the ground, the Air Force explained that they were only meteors. WRIGHT PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE Wright Patterson Air Force Base in America is a name that frequently occurs in the pages of this encyclopedia and in the annals of UFO research. It is alleged that this base is the storehouse and examination facility for retrieved crash flying saucers and also for alien bodies. Other stories have it that Wright Patterson contains a 'quick reaction force' designed to retrieve downed saucers, a sort of SAS or SWAT team to deal with aliens. There is even an allegation that Senator Barry Goldwater attempted to gain entry to the base to examine UFO evidence but was refused by the then commanding officer, General Curtis LeMay. WYKOFF, LIEUTENANT ROBERT C. On 10 August 1950 Navy physicist Lieutenant Robert Wykoff, using Navy binoculars, watched a large disc-shaped UFO manoeuvring near Edwards Air Force Base, the scene of many such sightings.
From: [REDACTED] Secretariat (Air Staff)2a, Room [REDACTED]
E25
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
Main Building Whitehall London SW1A 2HB
Telephone (Direct Dialling) [REDACTED]
(Switchboard)
(Fax)
[REDACTED] Your reference
RAF Commander
RAF Bentwaters Our reference
Woodbridge D/Sec(AS)12/2/1
Suffolk Date
IP12 2RQ 2 July 1992
Dear Sqn Ldr [REDACTED]
1. I am writing concerning the background to the UFO sighting near RAF
Woodbridge on 27 December 1980, and the report that was subsequently made by the
USAF Deputy Base Commander, Lt Col Halt.
2. I have attached a copy of a letter from one of your predecessors,
together with a copy of Lt Col Halt's report, and I have two requests:
a. If you have files going back this far, could I have a copy of the
original covering letter, BENT/19/76/Air dated 15 January 1981. I believe our
copy was archived some time ago.
b. I would be grateful if you would confirm that Lt Col Halt's report is a
genuine USAF report; this may sound a strange request, but over the years there
have been a very clever series of hoax documents produced on the subject of
UFOs. These often relate to official government/military knowledge of UFOs, and
often appear to be on official notepaper - presumably using genuine official
letters sent to members of the public, with the hoax text placed over the
genuine text, and then photocopied again. In the absence of all the background
papers, I am unsure as to the exact circumstances under which this report first
surfaced. I do not know what standard practice would be, but would such a
report not have been submitted on paper with a Bentwaters/Woodbridge address?
3. This may all seem like ancient history, but this alleged incident has
become the best known UFO story in the UK, being mentioned in dozens of books on
the subject (including one entire book relating the story of how USAF personnel
repaired a crashed flying saucer and communicated with its alien occupants!).
We still receive a steady stream of telephone enquiries and letters on the
subject even to this day.
Yours sincerely
[REDACTED]RAF LIAISON OFFICE
Royal Air Force Bentwaters Woodbridge Suffolk IP12 2RQ
[REDACTED]
Telephone Woodbridge [REDACTED]
Your reference
MOD(DS8a)
Our reference
BENT/19/76/Air
Date
25 October 1982
UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS (UFO's)
Reference:
A. BENT/19/76/Air dated 15 January 1981.
1. Under cover of reference A I forwarded you a copy of the Deputy
Base Commander's report concerning some unexplained lights and
sightings on 27/29 December 1980. Some time after the incident I
was approached by two women who claimed to be UFO investigators,
but I refused to confirm or deny their claims. A week ago I was
telephoned from New York by a [REDACTED] from Omnie Magazine.
He asked me questions about an article in a British UFO Magazine.
He claimed he was a serious UFO investigator and wanted to write an
objective article about the incident. I told him that whoever wrote
the article he described to me must have had a vivid imagination.
2. I have now managed to obtain a copy of the article and enclose a
copy for your information. The magazine is called "The Unexplained"
published weekly by:
ORBIS Publishing Ltd
[REDACTED]
The article was in Volume 9 Issue No 106.
3. I now anticipate a flood of enquiries and would be grateful for
some guidance on MOD Policy concerning UFO's.
[REDACTED]
D H MORELAND
Sqn Ldr
RAF Cdr.’ REPLY," TO ATTN DF: 13 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR HEAOOUAR J ERS 81 $ r co r’.’1 A T SUPPORT GROUP (USAFE) APO NEW YORK SUBJECT: Unexplained Li TO: cc 1 . (a 1 i in and triangular se \’J i k triangle ) read in was seen rou t it a a to throw ects ts n9 1 a r vi- s 1 , ;..--- ’. , .,.
From: [REDACTED] Secretariat (Air Staff)2a, Room [REDACTED]
E24
file copy
[REDACTED]
D/Sec(AS)12/2/1
5th August 1987
Dear [REDACTED]
Thank you for your letter dated 31 June which requested
information on the Rendlesham Forest "incident". As we mentioned to
you in our letter dated 16 May 1986 the only information that we have
on this alleged UFO sighting is the report by the Deputy Base
Commander of RAF Woodbridge, Lieutenant Colonel Charles Halt, USAF.
In case you haven't seen it before I attach a copy of the report
which may be of interest to you. You may recall that the sole
interest of the Ministry of Defence in reported sightings of UFOs is
to establish whether they have any bearing on the defence of the
country. We are satisfied that the events described in Lieutenant
Colonel Halt's report are of no defence significance.
I hope that this proves useful.
YC
[REDACTED][REDACTED] 4/8 Oil file
Halt.
E23
Draft response to [REDACTED] letter
of 31/6/87 is attached.
Lt.Col Halt's report of Jan '81 (see file)
has already been released by Sec(AS)
to a number of members of the public.
[REDACTED]
4/8.[REDACTED]
[REDACTED] has written about Rendlesham Forest on three other occasions. Our first
reply gave him our standard letter explaining our interest in UFO's [E67 Part A].
His second letter [E5 Part B] did not receive a reply. His third asked us to determine
whether or not the Rendlesham Forest incident involved a USAF "stealth" plane.
We answered a simple "NO". (E's 31+32 Pt B)
My reply to [REDACTED] again explains our policy on UFO's and as he appears not
to have a copy, I have included a copy of Lt Col Halt's report. This has been
released to other Ufologists in the past.
[REDACTED] [REDACTED]
15/07
Thank you. Would you pse locate Lt Col
Halt's report, + also the example of Examples : E17 pt A 12/2/1
its release to other ufologists in the past. E16 pt A 12/2/1
[REDACTED] (flagged)
15/7 there are plenty more.
[REDACTED] 15/7
[REDACTED][REDACTED] replied 05/08
[REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] per igli
31/6/87.
E21
Dear [REDACTED]
I have enclosed a photo, for which i think will amuse you.
I would be very grateful if you could send me any information
that you may have on the rendelsham forest case in "Dec 1980".
If you dont have any information in the ministery could you
tell me where to obtain some information on this case.
YOURS SINCERELY.
[REDACTED]
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
Sec.(AS)2
= 3 JUL 1987
FILE 12/ 2/1U Ministry of Defence here-No, Madam, it was just a Russian rocket breaking) up on re- ntry.tt The cartoon JAK is permission of the London "EVENING I I I I {LI I I r!/iJ , 0 I "’4 , ;- {c , ... o ~I 0 t>r I I ’.{c Q~ ’J I ~I - I a, I Ol~ ,0 17’ \ <1’ 0 ~*From: [REDACTED] Secretariat (Air Staff)2a, Room [REDACTED]
E20
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
Main Building Whitehall London SW1A 2HB
Telephone [REDACTED] (Direct Dialling)
(Switchboard)
[REDACTED] Your reference
Our reference D/Sec(AS)12/2/1
Date 21 August 1985
Dear [REDACTED]
Thank you for your letter of 9 July 1985. The Ministry of
Defence's interest in Unidentified Flying Objects (UFO's) was
explained to you by my predecessor, [REDACTED] in his letters of
19 June and 18 July 1984.
The only information we have on the alleged "UFO sighting" at
Rendlesham Forest in December 1980 is the report by Colonel Charles
Halt, of the United States Air Force. We are satisfied that the
events described are of no defence significance. We can find nothing
in our records to suggest that alleged eye-witnesses were interviewed
by the MOD, this is consistent with our normal practice when dealing
with UFO reports.
Yours sincerely
[REDACTED][REDACTED] PP's 10/209/1985
12/2/1 E19
Tele[REDACTED] Solicitor [REDACTED]
OUR REF: HH/MJC
YOUR REF: D/DS8/10/209
Ministry of Defence,
Main Building, Rm [REDACTED]
Whitehall, 9th July 1985
London.
SW1A 2HB
For the attention of [REDACTED].
Dear [REDACTED]
re: UFO Sighting at Rendlesham Forest
I would be grateful if you could kindly indicate to me if your Department
interviewed any of the alleged eye witnesses to the above incident and if
so, whom and the dates of such interviews.
Kind regards.
Yours sincerely,
[REDACTED]MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Sec(AS)2a, Room [REDACTED]
C18
Main Building Whitehall London SW1A 2HB
Telephone [REDACTED] (Direct Dialling)
(Switchboard)
[REDACTED] Your reference
New York 11572 Our reference D/Sec(AS)12/2/1
USA
Date 2 July 1985
Dear [REDACTED]
Your letter of 3 March 1985, addressed to the Office of Public
Information, has been passed to me for reply. I am sorry that you
received no reply to your earlier letter, however I can find no trace
of it in our records. You may find it useful if I explain that the
sole interest of the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence in reported
sightings of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs) is to establish
whether they have any bearing on the defence of the country.
There is no organisation in the Ministry of Defence appointed
solely for the purpose of studying reports of such objects, and no
staff are employed on the subject full time. The reports we receive
are referred to the staff in the Department who are responsible for
the air defence of the United Kingdom, and they examine the reports
as part of their normal duties.
Since our interest in UFOs is limited to possible defence
implications we have not carried out a study into the scientific
significance of these phenomena. Unless there are defence
implications we do not attempt to identify sightings and we cannot
inform observers of the probable identity of the object seen. The
Department could not justify the expenditure of public funds on
investigations which go beyond the pure defence interests.
We have to recognise that there are many strange things to be
seen in the sky, but we believe there are adequate explanations for
them. They may be satellite debris re-entering the earth atmosphere,
ball lightning, unusual cloud formations, meteorological balloons,
aircraft lights, aircraft at unusual angles or many other things.
The only information we have on the alleged "UFO sighting" at
Rendlesham Forest in December 1980 is the report by Colonel Charles
Halt, of the United States Air Force. We are satisfied that the
events described are of no defence significance.
Yours sincerely
[REDACTED]24
12/2/1
March 3, 1985
Office of Public Information
Ministry of Defence
Air Ministry section
London, England
Gentlemen:
In a letter dated November 18, 1984 I requested certain information
from your office in regard to a number of UFO incidents that occurred
in the immediate vicinity of the Bentwaters/Woodbridge NATO airbase
complex in the county of Suffolk, during the last week of December 1980.
It is most disappointing that to this date I have received NO reply.
It is my sincere hope that you will respond to the following questions;
1) Does your office confirm receipt of the letter from USAF Lt.
Col. Charles I. Halt, Deputy Base Commander, describing the UFO incidents?
2) Did your office conduct, or participate in, any further inquiry into
this matter? Also, does your office maintain a dossier on this matter?
3) Can you suggest any prosaic explanation for these specific incidents?
Sincerely,
[REDACTED]
Oceanside, New York 11572
U.S.A.MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Sec(AS)2a, Room [REDACTED]
E17
Main Building Whitehall London SW1A 2HB
Telephone [REDACTED] (Direct Dialling)
(Switchboard)
[REDACTED] Your reference
Our reference D/Sec(AS)12/2/1
Date 2 July 1985
Dear [REDACTED]
Thank you for your letter of 15 April. You may find it useful
if I explain that the sole interest of the United Kingdom Ministry of
Defence in reported sightings of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs)
is to establish whether they have any bearing on the defence of the
country.
There is no organisation in the Ministry of Defence appointed
solely for the purpose of studying reports of such objects, and no
staff are employed on the subject full time. The reports we receive
are referred to the staff in the Department who are responsible for
the air defence of the United Kingdom, and they examine the reports
as part of their normal duties.
Since our interest in UFOs is limited to possible defence
implications we have not carried out a study into the scientific
significance of these phenomena. Unless there are defence
implications we do not attempt to identify sightings and we cannot
inform observers of the probable identity of the object seen. The
Department could not justify the expenditure of public funds on
investigations which go beyond the pure defence interests.
We have to recognise that there are many strange things to be
seen in the sky, but we believe there are adequate explanations for
them. They may be satellite debris re-entering the earth atmosphere,
ball lightning, unusual cloud formations, meteorological balloons,
aircraft lights, aircraft at unusual angles or many other things.
The only information we have on the alleged "UFO sighting" at
Rendlesham Forest in December 1980 is the report by Colonel Charles
Halt, of the United States Air Force. We are satisfied that the
events described are of no defence significance. I enclose a copy of
Colonel Halt's report which may be of interest.
Yours sincerely
[REDACTED]TO U4 \.1f. 13 Jan DEPA r APO New 1 surru~ r CROUP {U$A;q ("")~ S U OJ ( C r : ts to: c 1. rly i securi ty .po 1 ice n25 file
[REDACTED] 12/2/1
April 15th.'85.
Dear Sir,
In the late 1970's my daughter saw
what could only be described as an unidentified
flying object over Accrington in Lancashire.
Since then I have met several people
who have had a similar experience, and I have
recently read a library book 'SKYCRASH'.
Over the past few years my interest in
this phenomina has increased, therefore I
wonder if you could let me have any further
information or copies of documents relating to
the incident in Rendlesham Forest in
December 1980?
Your co-operation would be much
appreciated.
Sincerely yours,
[REDACTED] [REDACTED]DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE HEADQUARTERS 81ST COMBAT SUPPORT GROUP (USAFE) APO NEW YORK 09755 REPLY TO ATTN OF: CD 13 Jan 81 SUBJECT: Unexplained Lights TO: RAF/CC 1. Early in the morning of 27 Dec 80 (approximately 0300L), two USAF security police patrolmen saw unusual lights outside the back gate at RAF Woodbridge. Thinking an aircraft might have crashed or been forced down, they called for permission to go outside the gate to investigate. The on-duty flight chief responded and allowed three patrolmen to pro- ceed on foot. The individuals reported seeing a strange glowing object in the forest. The object was described as being metalic in appearance and triangular in shape, approximately two to three meters across the base and approximately two meters high. It illuminated the entire forest with a white light. The object itself had a pulsing red light on top and a bank(s) of blue lights underneath. The object was hovering or on legs. As the patrolmen approached the object, it maneuvered through the trees and disappeared. At this time the animals on a nearby farm went into a frenzy. The object was briefly sighted approximately an hour later near the back gate. 2. The next day, three depressions 1 1/2" deep and 7" in diameter were found where the object had been sighted on the ground. The following night (29 Dec 80) the area was checked for radiation. Beta/gamma readings of 0.1 milliroentgens were recorded with peak readings in the three de- pressions and near the center of the triangle formed by the depressions. A nearby tree had moderate (.05-.07) readings on the side of the tree toward the depressions. 3. Later in the night a red sun-like light was seen through the trees. It moved about and pulsed. At one point it appeared to throw off glowing particles and then broke into five separate white objects and then dis- appeared. Immediately thereafter, three star-like objects were noticed in the sky, two objects to the north and one to the south, all of which were about 10° off the horizon. The objects moved rapidly in sharp angular movements and displayed red, green and blue lights. The objects to the north appeared to be elliptical through an 8-12 power lens. They then turned to full circles. The objects to the north remained in the sky for an hour or more. The object to the south was visible for two or three hours and beamed down a stream of light from time to time. Numerous indivi- duals, including the undersigned, witnessed the activities in paragraphs 2 and 3. CHARLES I. HALT, Lt Col, USAF Deputy Base Commander
I attach copies of two recent Parliamentary Questions on the
Ministry of Defence's interest in UFO reports, which you may be
interested in.
Yours sincerely
[REDACTED]Hansard Extract
13 March 1984
Cols 132 & 133
Unidentified Flying Objects
Sir Patrick Wall asked the Secretary of State for
Defence (1) how many alleged landings by unidentified
flying objects have been made in 1980, 1981, 1982 and
1983, respectively; and how many have been investigated
by his Department's personnel;
(2) how many unexplained sightings there have been in
1980, 1981, 1982 and 1983, respectively; and which of
these had been traced by radar and with what result.
Mr. Lee [pursuant to his reply, 9 March 1984, c. 728]:
For the years in question, the Ministry of Defence received
the following numbers of reports of sightings of flying
objects which the observer could not identify: 350, 600,
250, and 390. Reports of alleged landings are not
separately identified. The Department was satisfied that
none of these reports was of any defence significance and,
in such cases, does not maintain records of the extent of
its investigations.HANSARD EXTRACT 24 OCTOBER 1983 Col. 62 RAF Woodbridge (Alleged Incident) Sir Patrick Wall asked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he has seen the United States Air Force memo dated 13 January 1981 concerning unexplained lights near RAF Woodbridge; (2) whether, in view of the fact that the United State's Air Force memo of 13 January 1981 on the incident at RAF Woodbridge has been released under the Freedom of Information Act, he will now release reports and documents concerning similar unexplained incidents in the United Kingdom; (3) how many unexplained sightings or radar intercepts have taken place since 1980. Mr. Stanley: I have seen the memorandum of 13 January 1981 to which my hon. Friend refers. Since 1980 the Department has received 1,400 reports of sightings of flying objects which the observers have been unable to identify. There were no corresponding unexplained radar contacts. Subject to normal security constraints, I am ready to give information about any such reported sightings that are found to be a matter of concern from a defence standpoint, but there have been none to date.
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Sec(AS)2a, Room [REDACTED]
E16
Main Building Whitehall London SW1A 2HB
Telephone [REDACTED] (Direct Dialling)
(Switchboard)
[REDACTED] Your reference
Our reference D/Sec(AS)12/2/1
USA Date 28 June 1985
Dear [REDACTED]
Thank you for your letter of 25 March 1985. You may find it
useful if I explain that the sole interest of the United Kingdom
Ministry of Defence in reported sightings of Unidentified Flying
Objects (UFOs) is to establish whether they have any bearing on the
defence of the country.
There is no organisation in the Ministry of Defence appointed
solely for the purpose of studying reports of such objects, and no
staff are employed on the subject full time. The reports we receive
are referred to the staff in the Department who are responsible for
the air defence of the United Kingdom, and they examine the reports
as part of their normal duties.
Since our interest in UFOs is limited to possible defence
implications we have not carried out a study into the scientific
significance of these phenomena. Unless there are defence
implications we do not attempt to identify sightings and we cannot
inform observers of the probable identity of the object seen. The
Department could not justify the expenditure of public funds on
investigations which go beyond the pure defence interests.
We have to recognise that there are many strange things to be
seen in the sky, but we believe there are adequate explanations for
them. They may be satellite debris re-entering the earth atmosphere,
ball lightning, unusual cloud formations, meteorological balloons,
aircraft lights, aircraft at unusual angles or many other things.
The only information we have on the alleged "UFO sighting" at
Rendlesham Forest in December 1980 is the report by Colonel Charles
Halt, of the United States Air Force. We are satisfied that the
events described are of no defence significance. I can assure you
that there is no question of attempting to cover up any incident or
mishap, nor are we attempting in any way to obscure the truth. I
enclose a copy of Colonel Halt's report which may be of interest.NOTE [ILLEGIBLE]ase inform if your dept does have a procedure that can be arranged that would assure that any large volume of documents could be sent via Air Mail if yes the cost of mailing first class Air Mail I would like to arrange to recieve all documents that your dept can release to me this method if you can estimate the cost of this procedure then please reply have provided a return reply onvelope with Air Mail stamps on it for courtesy reply will mail the amount to pay for mailing via Air Mail of package first class if volume of documents is large or s small either amount I will be happy to forword the amount as instructed by the dept you work in thank you very much
from
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED] U.S.A.
file B45
12/2/1
MINESTRY OF DEFENSE
MAIN BUILDING WHITEHALL
LONDON ENGLAND SW1A-2HB
DEFENSE SECRETARIAT 8
[REDACTED]
Dear Sirs
I am presently involved in doing some background research into a book tilled Sky Crash
A Cosmic Conspiracy by Dot Street Brenda Butler and jenny Randles I would like to veri-
fy some basic facts discussed in this book as they were writeing about the MOD DS8 and
its capacity or involvement into the Rendlesham Forrest (UFO Unknown Lights) of Decem-
ber 27th and the 30th 1980 the copy of the report that they obtained from from the MOD
DS8 as it concerns your dept and I am asking of that particular report if a copy of th-
is report is available to the general public if requested / I am aware that the report
was sent by Squadron Leader Donald Moreland on January 14th 1981 to the MOD DS8 a copy
of this report will be enclosed with this letter plus additional version of that report
that should probably be regarded as not very accurate on details or facts surrounding
this case in particular also I understand that RAF Watten had picked up on their radar
and tracked this UFO to about fiftey miles south and to the east of Ipswich and in
the general vicinety of the Rendlesham Forrest after which they lost radar contact/this
occured on the night of December 27th 1980 and the radar recordings were examined by
USAF intelligence officers concerning this uncorrelated target /such recordings are
kept a few days before being reused this is a precaution against the unforseen such as
a air crash of an airplane / I believe a rumor circulating around the radar base was th-
at it was possible that a object that they had tracked had crash landed into the forre
st near Ipsworth .This had been a mettalic UFO ,a structured device of unknown origin/
Men who had gone out to confront the UFO from a nearby base had found the engine and
lights of their jeep failing as they got closer.They then had to continue on foot.The
object was on the ground for several hours before repairs could be undertaken by the
aliens who crewed it.During this period high ranking officers from the base went into
the forrest and the base commander himself /we assume Colonel Gordon Willians/ had conver-
sed with the occupants/It is no known what the radar men made of this tale , but it
was apparently told by a radar man to the authors.But the fact that they tracked a tar-
get which aroused conciderable interest in the USAF was certainly intriguing.
March 25th 1985about your dept there is a basic one page file for each UFO report that you would reci-
eve.now about regulations that direct persons to send UFO reports to your dept and can
I obtain a copy of these documents that exist that dictate guidlines a sort of official
document that informs police and military about why these reports are important to
the MOD DS8 and why this particular dept has ben chosen for this assignment of evaluat
ing of the UFO sighting reports that are sent through official channels
and is there any joint cooperation between your government and other NATO allies with
regards to this UFO phenomena and channeling of important data on specific UFO sighting
cases that warrant other NATO Allies being informed about progress in investigating a
particular case like the Rendlesam Forrest incidents that were highly documented and by
official channels and by higher ranking personnal were involved which is indeed very
unusual does your office ever conduct any field investigations on UFO sighting reports
looking into background of a particular sighting that has physical traces with photogr-
aphic evidence of a UFO and photos of the landing sight showing actual physical traces
left behind by the UFO and does your dept have a manual for refferance of different
catagorys of these UFOs like the MUFON field investigators manual which is a guide
explaining some of the differances between IFOs Identified Flying Objects Unid-
entified Flying Objects and basis rules to help determine catagory of the UFO sighting
what is your department step by step procedures for investigating these UFO sighting
reports where not secret I am very interested in obtaining some more detailed informat
ion on how a military base might be instructed in investigating a UFO sighting within
their own military base property or do they just send in a brief sighting report how
much details would be important to sufficiently investigate the UFO sighting to determ
ine the defense implications of that particular report and has the MI5 or MI9 intelli-
gence services ever been utilized to obtain more additional UFO reports this I underst
and is a possibility for additionnal UFO reports do you know of the British government
and weither its intelligence aparatus is doing any monitoring of the UFO phenomena for
possible intelligence information of some benifit to British military security am aware
that our National Security Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency are doing some
secret monitoring of the UFO phenomena for national security reasons which are concide-
red valid enough I wish to thank you for your kind and gracious assistance
that you will provide in your reply SINCERLY
Section 40
Signed [REDACTED]---------------from
[REDACTED]
-o
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE OFFICE OF SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS
CHIEF OF INFORMATION RELEASE
[REDACTED] WASHINGTON D.C. 20330-5025 MARCH 8th 1985
I am presently involved in some background research investigateing on a book titled Clear
Intent by Barry Greenwood and Larry Fawcett on page 224 of their book a report is discuss-
ed which originated from Kirckland AFB N.M. dated 2-9 Sept 80 OSI complaint form for offic-
ial use only 8 Aug 3 80 alledged sightings of Unidentified Aerial Lights in restricted tes-
t range the file # is 8017D93-0/29 I wish to ask if you can release the complete file unde-
r the Freedome of Information Act 5 USC552 and can I please recieve a copy of this file
the following incidents are on file at the British Minestry Of Defense their address is Ma-
in Building Whitehall London SW1A-2HB the present head of the UFO report recieving dept DS8
is [REDACTED] however not knowing how their government would respond to an inquiry
from a citizen of a foreign country about documents that the British Government might rega-
rd as sensitive enough as far as being of a high security nature a reply possibly would not
be given here concerning a official report probably regarded as confidential meaning not for
distribution to persons with out a security clearance I should point out that the report is
on page 218 of the book Clear Intent and on(page 22 and 23 of the book Sky Crash A Cosmic
Conspiracy by Brenda Butler Dot Street and Jenny Randles) the report has been photoduplica-
ted in its entirety in both books what I am interested in verifying here is the existence of
the report and possibly additional documents in the form of an open file this is the filed
report written as follows DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE HEADQUARTERS 81st Combat Support Group
RAF Bentwaters filed by Deputy Base Commander Lt, Col,USAF CHARLES I HALT dated January 13th
1981 subject Unexplained Lights 1. Early in the mourning of 27 Dec 80 (approximately 0300)
two USAF security police patroleman saw unusual lights outside the back gate at RAF Woodbrid-
ge. Thinking an aircraft might have crashed or been forced down, they called for permission
to go outside the gate to investigate. The on duty flight chief responded and allowed three
patrolmen to proceed on foot. The individuals reported seeing a strange bright object in the
forrest. The object was described as being metalic in appearance and triangular in shape ap-
proximately two to three meters across the base and approximately two meters high. It illum-
inated the entire forrest with a white light. The object itself had a pulsing red light on
top and a bank(s) of blue lights underneath. The object was hovering or on legs. As the pa-
trolmen approached the object it maneuvered through the trees and disapeared. At this time
the animals on a nearby farm went into a frenzy. The object was briefly sighted an hour lat-
er near the back gate. 2. The next day, three depressions one and a half inches deep and
seven inches in diameter were found where the object had been sighted been sighted on th g-
round. The following night (29 Dec 80) the area was checked for radiation. Beta/gamma readi-
ngs of 0.1 milliroentgens were recorded with peak readings in the three depressions and n-
ear the center of the triangle formed by the depressions. A nearby tree had moderate (.05-.0
7) readings on the side of the tree tword the depression.3. Later in the night a red sun
like light was seen through the trees. It moved about and pulsed. At one point it appeared
to throw off glowing particles and then broke into five seperate white objects and then di-
sapeared. Immediately thereafter,three star like objects were noticed in the sky, two obje-
cts to the north and one to the south, all of which were about ten degrees off the horizon.
The objects moved rapidly in sharp angular movements and displayed red, green and blue lig-
hts. The objects to the north appeared to be ecliptical through an 8 by 12 power lense.They
then turned to full circles. The object to the south was visable for two or three hours and
beamed a stream of light from time to time. Numerous individuals including the undersigned,
witnessed the activities in paragraphs 2 and 3
Signed CHARLES I HALT,Lt,Col, USAF Deputy Base Commander
----------------------------------------------------------the following personall were assigned at the joint RAF base of Bentwaters/Woodbridge duri- ng the Rendlesham forrest incidents of Dec 27th and 30th 1980 Lt, Col,Charles I Halt now Colonel Colonel Jack Cochran left in 1984 around spring Colonel now Brig,Gen, Ted Conrad left in left in 1981 Colonel Sam Morgan left in 1981 Colonel now Brigadier General Gordon Williams left in Jan 81 Major Malcolm Zickler left in jan 81 Captain Kathleen McCollom left in Jan 84 Colonel Soya left in jan 81 Sergeant Adrian Bustinza Jan 81 Airman 1st Class John Burrougs left in Jan 81 Airman 1st Class Steve Wilkins left possibly in Jan 81 Airman 1st Class Art Wallace Left in Jan 81 not his real name and he is no longer in the USAF now a civillian also on record by authors of Sky Crash A Cosmic Coverup Airman 1st Class James Archer left in Jan 81 witnessed UFO on Dec 27th 80 not his real name is on record of the authors of the book Sky Crask A Cosmic Conspiiracy by Brenda But- ler Dot Street and Jenny Randles Airman 1st Class Steve Roberts Security police patroleman witnessed the first si- ghting of Dec 27th 80 not his real name is known by the authors of Sky Crash A Cosmic Cov- erup Squadron Leader Donald Moreland British RAF base Commander during the UFO events Brigadier General Richard M Pascoe 25th Air Division left in spring of 84 the following reports of the Rendlesham forrest incidents was was recieved from a person who was stationed at Bentwaters RAFB during the second UFO event of 30 Dec 80 this person has asked the authors of Clear Intent not to use his real name so for the record he will be refered to as Art Wallace this is his view of the events typed exactly as printed on pages (214,215,216,217) of the Book Clear Intent Art Wallace was attched to the Bentwaters Air F- Orce Base as a Security Policeman. He had been assigned to the base for only a short period of time when at 1:00 A.M. on the night either on or near to 30 Dec 80 Airman Wallace was on duty at the Bentwaters flight line,a jeep pulled up.Two men a sergeant and a lieutenant,told Wallace to get in because they were going over to the motor pool.On the way over,Airman Walla ce and the sergeant were told to get gas powered "light-alls"(trailer mounted lights used to illuminate large areas).The lights were attched to the jeep,and the Bentwaters main gate wher e they met other vehicles.The convoy moved out tword the Rendlesham forrest a few miles away. Airman Wallace heard radio chatter mentioning names of people he knew plus OSI most likely a referance to the Air Force Office of Investigations.Airman Wallace saw security police as we- ll as members of the British Military stationed all along the way.They pulled onto a dirt roa d and drove about a mile into the Rendlesham Forrest,stopping at Airman Wallace referred to a s a staging point.The men were ordered to check their weapons in since they would not be taking them along Airman Wallace went into the woods with four other men led by a captain who had met them at the Bentwaters motor pool.As they approached a clearing in the woods,they not iced a brightness in the distance and the sound of helicopters overhead.Wallace noticed an airman crying at tbhe edge of the clearing with a medic attending him.This puzzled Airman Wallace as he couldnt imahine what might have been going on.The first thing the men noticed when they had a clear view view was the large movie cameras had been placed surrounding a field in the clearing.Many plainclothes personel were milling about watching something . The something was an object taking the appearance of a transparent aspirin tablet ,hovering about one foot off the ground.Airman Wallace estimated that the object was fiftey feet in dia meter and had a bright,pulsating,yellow mist inside it.It did not move from its position.
Airman Wallace and some of the men approached the object to within ten feet.Two cows in the f
ield d come over to the object according to Airman Wallace,appeared to be just staring at t
he object,oblivious to the security men in the area.A radio call was heard over a field radio
unit.A helicopter pilot said,here it comes.In the distance a red light appeared first behind
a pine tree,then in fron of it.The light quickly sped over to the asprin shaped object and
hovered at a position about twenty feet above it.After maintaining this position for a minute
,the red light broke up.No explosion occured in the conventional sense.The light merly broke
up into a shower of particles.Suddenly,in the place of the red light and and the aspirin shap
ed object another vehicle appeared.Airman Wallace said it was a domed disc,bright white in c
olor,with an intricately detailed surface much like the models used in movies like"star wars"
and"close encounters". It had two appendages on the lower flang of the disc which seem to be
the beginning of delta wingsbut not quite.Shadows were cast on the surface of the disc by som
e of the raised relief detail.Airman Wallace and the men with him walked around the object an
d noticed some interesting effects.Their own shadows were cast onto the object,probably by
the bright "light alls" in the field.Not only did their shadows bend upwards at the head but
but as they walked and stoped,the shadows would appear to advance one pace more then stop.Stu
nned and disbelieving of this effect,Airman Wallace and the others walked and stoped several
times,each time noyicing the effect repeat itself.Additionally,the third time that they tried
this a light came over the head of a shadow and moved from one head to another
Under hypnosis Wallace found his memory extending beyond tno point where the 'TV video light'
danced on the side of the UFO.He now saw aliens Wallace describes them clearly.There were
three and their height was about three or three and a half feet.Their heads were large and out
of proportion to their bodies.Their eyes were like inverted cats eyes, and the ear,nose and
mouth were all just slits.Two wore all over silver suits like an overall - the other,who seemed
to be the leader,wore a similar suit but blakish.He also had what looked like a long stick by
his side.It was apparently clinging to the suit,but their did not appear to be any belt or
fastening.The three aliens floated from the underside of the craft and onto the ground.Still
in a floating motion the one in black moved twords gordon williams,who Wallace insist was
close to the craft.He heard no words exchanged,but saw what might have been sign language.
Whilist this was happening there seemed to be a disturbance over the far side of the craft.
It was out of view and so Wallace could not see what was occurring,but he could tell from
the reaction of the men that something.And the aliens appeared to react too.Their eyes were
normally very small but at this point they responded by enlarging them They swelled up into
big circles and then returned to normal.After a few moments the contact with Williams proce
eded.Wallace was aware that the aliens had damaged their craft and that assistance was being
offered in its repair But he was simply mesmerized watching the conversation.Then one of the
other two aliens began to float over in the direction of the group of men of which Wallace
was one.Oh my god he's coming over to us Wallace recalls shouting.And then even the hypnosis
could produce nothing beyond blackness,untill the reawakening in the barracks
The debriefing occured that day following the night UFO encounter Wallace was picked up on
base by a black car with dark glass.He could not see where he was going,he felt as if he were
drugged because they made him get in and he did not want to.He felt very strange.The two men
wore dark suits and looked oriental.Neither spoke when he demanded to know where they were
taking him.But he felt a voice in his head say,'Dont be affraid. 'After getting out of the car
at an unknown location in the dark,Wallace was led down several flights of steel stairs.He was
now in a large room which housed the UFO,identical to the one he had seen in the forrest the
day before.But he was hastily led away from here into another room where several other men he
recognized from the encounterwere present.Everywhere aroud him was spotless and clean,like a
hospital.An officer then spoke verbally and told him not to worry as all would be explained.
But he then feels he lost consciousness again as his next memory is of waking up and being
given breakfast.After the food he was taken to a room where there were rows of chairs and a
small platform with a big screen on it.Seven men including himself,were sat there.All had been
out in the forrest that night.An officer,whom Wallace did not recognise,then onto the platform
and explained that they were about to see some film and be informed as to why they were thereThe fil was a collection of movie clips apparently taken from aircraft.They showed UFOs in
pursuit of military planes and spanned many years,beginning with Second World War footage.
One scene was of a craft in a huge hangar somewhere.After the show the lights came on and
nothing was said.Wallace felt very calm and relaxed and again as if he were drugged.But through
a glow shining at the back of the screen he saw a small figure.It was only in sillouette,masked
by the material,but it was evidently an alien!The alien proceeded to explain who it was,where it
came from and why it was on earth.This it did straight into Art Wallace's mind no words were
spoken.Wallace could not recall the name or origin of the alien,ever under hypnosis.But he
could remember the reason supposedly offered for its visit.The aliens were here to educate
mankind.But only certain people had been selected to recieve this knowledge.The seven men in the
room were some who had been chosen.Others had been chosen before and there were a number of
aliens doing similar things elsewhere.They had been on earth for a very long time,watching over
and guiding the human race.Great changes were due soon.Some had happened already.Others were yet
to come and Wallace and the others intended for intended for the purpose,would have a big part
to play in these.More information would be given when these changescame closer.But they should
have no no fear,because the aliens were going to watch over their their proteges
now this version has a high degree of strangeness in the explanation of why the aliens had
alledgedly made contact with Wallace I believe this view shiuld be taken with a grain of salt
or several grains of salt I believe it highly possible for some contact in the futre between
humans and some alien intelligent life forms but the way that might occure is another area for
discussion the Wallace version is not acceptable in my view of reality I dont think such a
meeting could possibly take place under those circumstances perhaps in some distant time we may
meet alien intelligent life forms but we need more time to develope our world space exploration
programs perhaps more world cooperation in space will lead to more advances in space exploration
but until then we can be satasfied for the present that there are possible intelligent life form
s out there we only have to get there and I believe with our shuttle program we are in the right
direction this space program gets several countries involved in vareous projects that benefits
everyone involved this is a very good step in achieving long term space research goals that will
eventually lead to some possible futre contact with alien life forms either below or at
our level or much higher in intelligence than the human occupants of the water planet earth as
far as the UFO phenomena is concerned there many interesting theories as to why alien life
forms as some of the close encounter cases that are well researched seem to point to some inte
rest in our planetary biology and the varied life forms that inhabit our planet including but
not exclusively humans I think that if a scientist does research on a lower form of inteligent
life his standard rule might be not to alter the conditions of that given species in the proc
ess of doing his biological research so that true scientific studies can be conducted on that
particular biological life form this does not seem to be the case in the UFO contact cases the
aliens are only partly succesfull in their endeaver to alledgedly conduct their human study
the more documented case historys indicate the persons alledgedly abducted are able to remember
their abduction with the assistance of specialized hypnosis regression thus their presence has
become known to persons in addition to the alledged person abducted by the aliens this con
flicts with our own ideas of and experience of what happens when superior intelligence contacts
lower forms of life the results are usually very unfortunate the lower form of life usually
looses his identity his culture something like when the preditor prey scenario when the preditor
is virtually eliminated with his natural enemy gone his balance of population overproduces the
unplanned introduction of pest control methods can lead to a unbalance in nature so the natural
means that exist do work as with humans if we made an uncontrolled contact with a vastly super
ior intelligent life form many thousands of years in advance of our selves the consequences
might destroy our civilization and culture and result in the destroying of any human nationality
that we have today so planned contact with humans is possible but limited contact at best is
the best approach at the present
Signed [REDACTED]MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
MAIN BUILDING WHITEHALL LONDON SW1A 2HB
Telepho[REDACTED] (Direct Dialling)
[REDACTED]chboard)
PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE
FOR THE ARMED FORCES
D/US of S(AF)DGT/6210 19 June 1985
Dear Peter,
You wrote to Michael Heseltine on 1 May 1985 about the sighting
of an unidentified flying object near RAF Woodbridge in December
1980. Michael has asked me to reply as UFO questions fall within
my responsibilities.
I do understand your concern and I am grateful to you for having
taken the trouble to write. I do not believe, however, that
there are any grounds for changing our view, formed at the time,
that the events to which you refer were of no defence significance.
You may recall the House of Lords debate on UFOs in 1979 (Hansard,
19 January 1979). I attach an extract of what I said on that
occasion. Whilst I respect the views of those who differ from me
on this matter I am bound to say that nothing I have seen since
then has led me to change the views I myself expressed.
yours,
David.
Lord Trefgarne
[ILLEGIBLE]
[ILLEGIBLE]
Admiral of the Fleet the Rt Hon Lord Hill-Norton GCBReference................................
12/4 copy to: 12/2/1c
M5
APS/US of S(AF)
through Sec(AS)2 [REDACTED]
1. US of S(AF) will recall recent correspondence on this matter
with Lord Hill-Norton and Rt Hon Merlyn Rees MP. In both cases he
took the line that we have nothing to add to what had already been
said on the Woodbridge incident. Indeed, this was the line taken in
previous correspondence with David Alton (See M3). The enclosed
draft reply to Mr Alton once more follows this approach.
2. Mr Alton specifically requested a copy of the MOD official
reply to Mr Noyes' last letter. This is enclosed, together with an
earlier letter to which it refers. There is no objection to passing
this correspondence to Mr Alton.
3. You may wish to note that Mr Alton has apparently passed on
both letters sent by Lord Trefgarne on 19 March 85, even though one
of these was intended to be for his information only.
[REDACTED]
12 June 1985
Sec(AS)2a
[REDACTED]DRAFT
D/US of S(AF)/DGT 5173 June 1985 .
Thank you for your letter of 16 May to Michael Heseltine
enclosing one from Mr R Noyes. You asked to see a copy of the
Department's reply to Mr Noyes' letter of 25 February 1985 and this
is enclosed, together with earlier correspondence to which it refers.
As I pointed out in my letter of 19 March, the MOD concerns
itself only with the defence implications of reported UFO sightings.
In this context, the report submitted by Col Halt in January 1981 was
examined by those in the Department responsible for such matters and,
as I have made clear in the past, it was considered to have no
defence significance. We have since seen nothing to alter this view
and there is nothing I can usefully add to the comments made in
Sec(AS)'s letter or Mr Noyes.
Lord Trefgarne
David Alton Esq MP
Job No 2-24I r I f 11 i f f r h u in h. I M N t in plY, I uld 1 Mr let r ur t th th vid J . Mi S te 1 t i J
HOUSE OF COMMONS
LONDON SWIA OAA
16th May 1985
Dear Michael,
I enclose a letter I have received from Mr R Noyes following on
from enquiries I first raised with your Department in March.
I read Mr Noyes letter with great interest and it seems to me that
the points he raises are quite reasonable and merit a reply.
I should be most grateful if you could let me have your comments
and if you could let me see a copy of the reply to Mr Noyes' own
letter to your Department dated 25th February 1985.
Yours sincerely,
David Alton.
David Alton, MP.
The Rt. Hon. Michael Heseltine, MP.
Secretary of State
Ministry of Defence
Main Building
Whitehall
London SW1 2HB[REDACTED]
14th May, 1985
David Alton, Esq., MP,
House of Commons,
Westminster,
London SW1
Dear Mr. Alton,
[REDACTED] has kept me informed about her corres-
pondence with you on the unusual incidents which were reported to the Ministry
of Defence by USAF authorities at RAF Woodbridge in January 1981. I have also
seen Lord Trefgarne's letters to you of 19th March.
[REDACTED] decided to write further to you about this puzzling
and disquieting case, and she referred to me her enclosed letter of 31st March,
which is addressed to you, in the hope that I might be able to add useful comm-
ents. Much to my regret I have had to spend much time out of London on other
business in recent weeks and it is only now that I am able, very belatedly, to
send on [REDACTED] letter to you.
My own background, in brief, is that I served in the Ministry of
Defence from 1949 to 1977, leaving in the grade of Under Secretary of State.
From 1969 to late in 1972 I headed a Division in the central staffs of the MOD
which had responsibilities for supporting RAF operations. This brought me into
touch with a proportion of the many reports which the Department receives about
unidentified traces in British airspace.
I believe that [REDACTED] is right to remain very dissatisfied
with the official line which the MOD has adopted on the Rendlesham Forest incid-
ents of December 1980. I have myself said so on a number of public occasions,
and I have pursued the matter in correspondence with the MOD - wholly without
success.
At the risk of burdening you with an excessive amount of paper, I
attach the most recent of my letters to the Ministry of Defence. You will see
that this is dated 25th February 1985. I have so far received no answer, despite
reminders. On a previous occasion it took the Department three and a half months
to send me a wholly perfunctory reply.
[REDACTED] claims much collateral evidence for her own views; on
this I am not competent to comment. My own position is, quite simply, that an
extraordinary report was made to the Ministry of Defence by the Deputy Base
Commander at RAF Woodbridge early in 1981; that the very existence of this report
was denied by the MOD until persistent researchers in the US secured its release
under the American Freedom of Information Act in 1983; and that the MOD's resp-
onses to questions since that time have been thoroughly unsatisfactory.
I cannot accept Lord Trefgarne's view that there is no Defence
interest in this case. Unless Lt.Col. Halt was out of his mind, there is clear
evidence in his report that British airspace and territory were intruded upon
by an unidentified vehicle on two occasions in late December 1980 and that no
authority was able to prevent this. If, on the other hand, Halt's report cannot
be believed, there is equally clear evidence of a serious misjudgement of events
by USAF personnel at an important base in British territory. Either way, thecase can hardly be without Defence significance.
The dates in question are now rather remote, but I doubt that
this should be taken to excuse the very perfunctory manner in which Lord
Trefgarne has dealt with your letter. I hope that you may feel able to
pursue the matter further, either in correspondence or in a PQ. The essence
of the questions to be pressed seems to me to lie in my preceding paragraph.
Seen in these terms, [REDACTED] article in the GUARDIAN (which Lord
Trefgarne rather surprisingly falls back upon) is wholly irrelevant. If the
USAF really are capable of hallucinations induced by a lighthouse which must
surely be very familiar to them, then I shudder for that powerful finger
which lies upon so many triggers...
My own letter to the MOD (enclosed) raises other more detailed
questions. But I do not suggest that you should necessarily concern yourself
with them, anyway at this stage. It would be nice if the MOD would answer
letters, of course ! But the essence of the Defence interest which I suggest
a responsible Member of Parliament might reasonably raise lies in the argument
I have tried to present above.
If I can be of any assistance in discussion with you, I am at
your disposal.
Yours sincerely,
Ralph Noyes
(Ralph Noyes)[REDACTED]
31 March 1985
Dear Mr Alton,
Thank you for your enclosures (undated) which reached me on 30th inst.
May I comment on the reply of Lord Trefgarne to yourself.
His letter is virtually a word-for-word repeat of the standard MoD line (it must save
money to keep churning them out of the word processor!) However, he does add a couple
of points not previously noted. These are the specific references to not covering up
"any incident or mishap" and not "in any way to obscure the truth". That said, and it
presumably being true, I would have thought that it was of interest to know from the
MoD why they only have the memo from Col Halt (and note he is refered to in Trefgarne
letter as Colonel Halt, his rank now, although on the memo he is Lt.Col.).
Bear in mind that this incident (whatever it was) occurred on BRITISH soil (not base
land) and just outside the perimeter fence of an RAF owned base. Consequently British
citizens have a right to expect to have been kept informed of matters, especially as
then British commander (Squadron Leader Donald Moreland) was specifically on base for
that purpose.
YET - according to the MoD stance - we are lead to believe the following data was at
no time made available...VIZ
(i) The tape recording made by Halt, the base security chief and several other senior
officers,which describes in detail the taking of soil samples,tree samples,photograph
radiation readings,infra-red readings etc AT THE SITE ON BRITISH SOIL. Subsequently
(as the tape records) a "UFO" reappeared. This tape is in our hands and Moreland
personally told me in January 1984 (several months before we got it from the US
commander in America) that he was aware of its existence.
How come the MoD have no copy? How come the activities recorded on it took place on
British soil without MoD knowledge? How come Moreland never advised the MoD of this
vital evidence?
(ii) The photographs and samples recorded on the tape (which is officially accepted as
genuine by the US) are,again,crucial evidence.Under a recent Freedom of Information
(US) request they have been admitted and are likely to be made available in theUSA
very shortly. Again, I think we are entitled to ask why the MoD appear not only to be
unaware of these but have no copies or copies of the analysis results which must
accompany them. Again Moreland was aware that these samples and photographs were taken
IF, as the MoD contend, the events do not bear any relationship to a secret test or
experiment (and if they do they have lied both to you,as an MP, and to me) then that
is an admission that they involve an Unidentified Object (which is all I contend the
UFO to be). Indeed in the letter to me of 13 April 1983 DS 8 do say that the lights
are unidentified and have "no explanation".
It seems to me that there are questions here concerning the inter-relation between
the US Air Force on British soil and our country IF, as contended, several senior
officers from a USAF base can be involved in protracted work outside the base and on
British land without such facts being known by the MoD or the results of their work
being made available.
It is an interesting question as to who legally owns the samples of allegedlyirradiated soil and tree bark taken from BRITISH land (owned by the Forestry Commiss- in fact)! I doubt very much that the USAF have carte blanche approval to do what th- like on our shores. And if they do I for one am very concerned about it! Finally,you will note that the official response makes no reference to the lighthousei normal background radiation theories propounded by [REDACTED] in the Guardian (on thi strength of almost no evidence). Yet the Trefgarne letter to you does try to convince you this is the answer, Neither the MoD nor the USAF will accept the lighthouse theory officially because the- are as well aware as I am that it is easily refutable by the facts. [REDACTED] actually stated on television (in a debate with myself)(5 March 1985) that he regarded his investigation as more objective.His investigation, as he admitted, has consisted of interviewing not a single one of the 17 eye-witnesses from the USAF now traced as being present during the events.Instead it consisted of speaking to one forestry worker who found some holes in the ground one month after the sightings and has presumed they might have been connected! I have spoken to that worker also, on the site itself, and he is less than convinced of his theory himself. None of this takes into account the various BRITISH CIVILIAN eye-witnesses who saw the events,some in positions where it is literally impossible to see the lighthouse, others looking in the opposite direction from it, and one who had the decidely curious experience of the "lighthouse" flying right over the top of his house! I am trying to force no explanation onto anybody. But frankly the lighthouse idea is utterly ridiculous and the MoD must know that. Besides which - what does it do to the USAF/RAF/MoD inter-relationship if all these senior officers (base commander, deputy commander,chief security officer, on-duty night command officer and control tower chief amongst them!) do not know what a lighthouse looks like,wh ch has stood five miles from one of our bases for decades and still stands today? It seems to me this proffers defence implications should these men (or men like them) ever be put into a situation where they have to defend this land! In connection with which comes the question of the radiation. [REDACTED] insists this was ordinary background stuff.The forest was not irradiated, The "peak" readings in the alleged ground traces (samples taken) are quoted as seven-tenths on the point five scale.And I am reliably informed these are significant. But again - assuming they are not - are we to take it that none of these senior USAF officers have received any training in radiation monitoring? If so - are YOU satisfied to leave them in charge of cruise missiles and nuclear weapons on our shores? I know that I am not happy, and I am convinced that such factors pose even more serious defence implications than if a genuine bona-fide UFO was involved. The MoD have steadfastly refused to make any comment on these matters.Perhaps you,Mr Alton, can get them to do so? I pass this letter to Ralph Noyes for forwarding to you,with a letter I trust he will write you. Ralph,as former head of the DS 8 section handling UFO enquiries, knows th- situation better than I ., supports our call for more information on this affair, and will I hope open your eyes to the truth about what is being obscured here. Please do not be put off. There are important civil liberties issues at stake.
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
MAIN BUILDING WHITEHALL LONDON SW1A 2HB
Telepho[REDACTED] ... (Direct Dialling)
[REDACTED]tchboard)
PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE
FOR THE ARMED FORCES
D/US of S(AF)DGT 4884 11 June 1985
Dear Mr Rees,
Thank you for your letter of 14 May which enclosed a further
letter from [REDACTED].
I am afraid I have little to add to what I said in my letter of
20 February 1985 in reply to your original enquiry on this matter.
We remain satisfied that the events reported by Colonel Halt on
13 January 1981 are of no defence significance. The report was,
like all other UFO reports, examined at the time by those in the
Department responsible for the air defence of the UK and we have
since seen nothing to alter our views.
Turning to [REDACTED] request for copies of all UFO reports we
have received since 1980, I am afraid that the Department could
not justify the effort involved in acceding to this request.
However, [REDACTED] will already know that we are prepared to
release reports of specific incidents to interested parties and,
if he has any particular reports in mind, [REDACTED] can obtain
copies of these from Sec(AS)2 in my Department, whose address is
room[REDACTED]inistry of Defence, Main Building, Whitehall SW1A 1HB.
Yours sincerely,
Trefg—.
Lord Trefgarne
Rt Hon Merlyn Rees MPD/O Air Def/3/6/3-909
From: GE3
To: Sec(As)2a
Subject: UFO SIGHTING 27 DEC 80
1- We discussed and 9 agreed to forward copies
of relevant correspondene
2 Regrettably, the tasking letter from MOD referred to
an incident on 29 Dec 80, therefore the replies from
Neatishead and Eastern Radar are probably worthless.
Unit radar recordings are not held for 4 years
consequently we are back where we started!
[REDACTED]
Wg Cdr
GE3
[REDACTED]
31 o.UNCLASSIFIED
Royal Air Force
Neatishead Norwich Norfolk NR12 8YB
Telephone NORWICH [REDACTED]
Please reply to the Officer Commanding
Your reference
MOD (Ops(GE)2b(RAF)) Our reference NEAT/12/1/AIR
Date 3 Feb 81
UNEXPLAINED LIGHTS
Reference:
A. D/DD Ops (GE)/10/8 Dated 26 Jan 81. E26.
1. At Reference A you asked us to provide a statement of radar observations,
or lack of them, regarding a reported sighting of airborne phenoma on the
evening of 29 Dec 80.
2. I regret that, in accordance with local procedures, our radar camera
recorder was switched off on cessation of normal flying activities at 1527Z
on 29 Dec 80. An examination of executive logs revealed no entry in respect
of unusual radar returns or other unusual occurrences.
[REDACTED]
Sqn Ldr
for OC
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
- 9 FEB 1981
DD OPS (GE) RAF
UNCLASSIFIED4 )02/3/Air Eastern Radar
RAF Watton
Watton [REDACTED]
MOD(Air)
Ops (GE) 2b (RAF) 26 Feb 81
UNEXPLAINED LIGHTS - RAF BENTWATERS
References: [REDACTED]
A. Telecon Sqn Ldr [REDACTED]/Sqn [REDACTED] 23 Feb 81.
B. D/DD Ops (GE)/10/8 dated 26 Jan 81.
1. At Reference A we confirmed that the film of the
reported sighting in Reference B was at fault. We have
now developed the film on the days prior to and after
the reported phenomena - regrettably both films were
also faulty.
2. On the night of the reported sighting our controller
on duty was requested to view the radar; nothing was
observed. The facts are recorded in our log book of that
night
[ILLEGIBLE]
1 MAR1981
[ILLEGIBLE]
[REDACTED]
Sqn Ldr
for OC
[REDACTED]
12/3[REDACTED]
UNCLASSIFIED
7274
RAF Neatishead
Eastern Radar
RAF Watton
D/DD Ops(GE)/10/8
26 January 1981
UNEXPLAINED LIGHTS
1. The Deputy Base Commander of RAF Bentwaters
has reported sightings of airborne phenomena on the
evening of 29 Dec 80 in the Reudlesham forest area
near Woodbridge. We would appreciate a statement
of radar observations, or lack of them, in the area
and at the time concerned.
[REDACTED]
Squadron Leader
Ops(GE)2b(RAF)
UNCLASSIFIEDFrom: [REDACTED], Secretariat (Air Staff)2a, Room [REDACTED] E10
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
Main Building Whitehall London SW1A 2HB
Telephone [REDACTED] (Direct Dialling)
[REDACTED](Switchboard)
Mr R Noyes Your reference
[REDACTED]
Our reference
D/Sec(AS)12/3 —
Date 15 May 1985
Dear Mr Noyes
Thank you for your letter of 25 February 1985, addressed to
[REDACTED] who, as I believe you now know, has left this division
(now Sec(AS)). I am sorry that I have not been able to reply before
now. Thank you also for sight of the extracts from your proposed
book.
In his letter of 20 March 1984, [REDACTED] explained the
MOD's position regarding Colonel Halt's reports on events near RAF
Woodbridge in 1980, and I have little to add to the views Brian
expressed. I know from your letter that you are well aware of the
limited extent of the MOD's interest in the subject. Nonetheless,
there are, perhaps, one or two points which I should make. Firstly,
whilst I cannot, of course, comment on the proportion of UFO
sightings which are not reported, I can assure you that those which
are reported to local police forces and to the Civil Aviation
Authority should all be passed on to this division of the MOD. We
treat all these reports seriously in case they show anything of
defence interest. However, we have never found any reason to believe
that, in the defence context, such reports warrant more detailed
research. Equally, since our interest extends only as far as defence
of the UK, there has never been any formal liaison with other
Governments.
Turning to your specific questions about the Woodbridge
incident, I can assure you that no unidentified object was seen on
any radar recordings during the period in question, and that the MOD
has no knowledge of the tape-recording or cine film you mention. As
we have said in the past, the report sent by Colonel Halt was
examined by those in the Department responsible for the air defence
of the UK and since then there has been nothing to alter the view
that there was no defence significance to the incident.
Yours sincerely
[REDACTED][REDACTED]
Defence Secretariat 8 Room[REDACTED]
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
Main Building London SW1A 2HB
Telephone[REDACTED](Direct Dialling)
[REDACTED](Switchboard)
[REDACTED]
USA
Our reference
D/DS 8/10/209 —
Date 28 November 1984
Dear [REDACTED]
I have seen the alleged report of a 'UFO' landing near RAF Bentwaters which you
referred to in your letter, but I am afraid that it is a forgery. Although
apparently written on official Ministry of Defence paper (I have only seen a photo-
copy), it is most certainly not an official document and its contents bear no
relation to our policy towards reported sightings of 'Unidentified Flying Objects'.
Obviously I have no idea where it came from or why it was written and can only
conclude that it was intended by someone as a joke.
In fact, our interest in reported sightings of 'UFOs' is very limited.
We are concerned solely with whether these reports reveal anything of defence
interest, such as intruding aircraft and if we are satisfied that they do not
we take our investigations no further. There is no organisation in the MOD
appointed solely for the purpose of studying UFO reports and no staff are employed
on the subject full time. The reports we receive are referred to the staff respons-
ible for the air defence of the United Kingdom, who examine them as part of their
normal duties.
We did receive a report by Col Charles Halt of the USAF, of some lights seen outside
RAF Bentwaters in December 1980, I attach a copy, although you may well have already
seen it. The Department satisfied itself at the time that the lights were of
no defence significance and took matters no further. We did not attempt to
identify what might have been seen, but I can assure you that there is no evidence
whatsoever that anything intruded into British airspace or landed outside RAF
Bentwaters.
I hope you find this helpful.
Yours Sincerely
[REDACTED]S4/Section 40
FROM: [Section 40] DEFENCE SECRETARIAT 8
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
Main Building Whitehall London SW1A 2HB
Telephone [Section 40] (Direct Dialling)
(Switchboard)
[Section 40]
Your reference
Our reference
D/DS8/10/209
Date
4 September 1984
Dear [Section 40]
Thank you for your letter of 18 July.
I should first of all point out that the sole interest of the Ministry of Defence
in reported sightings of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs) is to establish whether
they have any bearing on the defence of the country.
There is no organization in the Ministry of Defence appointed solely for the purpose
of studying UFOs, and no staff are employed on the subject full time. The reports
we receive are referred to the staff in the Department who are responsible for the
air defence of the United Kingdom, and they examine the reports as part of their
normal duties.
Since our interest in UFOs is limited to possible defence implications we have not
carried out a study into the scientific significance of these phenomena. Unless
there are defence implications we do not attempt to identify sightings and we
cannot inform observers of the probable identity of the object seen. The Department
could not justify the expenditure of public funds on investigations which go beyond
the pure defence interests.
The only information we have on the alleged "UFO sighting" at Rendlesham Forest
in December 1980 is the report by Colonel Charles Halt, of the United States Air
Force, of lights seen outside RAF Woodbridge. A copy of this is enclosed. We
are satisfied that the events described are of no defence significance.
I am also enclosing with this copies of 2 recent Parliamentary Questions, which you
may be interested in.
Yours Sincerely
[Section 40]10 Sept 84.
[stamp: MINISTRY OF DEFENCE / D.S.8 / 25 JUL 1984 / FILE 10/209/1]
[Section 40]
18/July/84.
Dear Sir,
I am sending this letter with ref to my interest in the
events surrounding the Rendlesham Forest UFO incident in
Suffolk Dec/80. I am studying this case, as it is of some
significance. And I would be oblidged if you could send
me some additional information regards this incident?
As I was informed by a certain person that some files
on the Rendlesham case had been despatched to investigat-
ors involved etc , via freedom of information act.
Hoping you are able to reply.
Yours Sincerely,
[Section 40]From: Squadron Leader [Section 40] RAF
RAF LIAISON OFFICE File 10/201 63
Royal Air Force Bentwaters Woodbridge Suffolk IP12 2RQ
Telephone Woodbridge [Section 40] No Action
[Section 40]
Defence Secretariat Div 8[stamp: MINISTRY OF DEFENCE / D.S.3 / 23 AUG 1984 / FILE] Your reference
Ministry of Defence [Section 40]
Main Building
Our reference
Whitehall
BENT/[ILLEGIBLE]/AIR
LONDON
Date
SW1A 2HB
21 August 1984
Dear [Section 40]
Further to my telecon of yesterday I enclose
a copy of the request from 'Cable News Network'
on information concerning our "UFO" incident of
1980.
At the moment I have no involvement but I would
not be surprised to find the British interest
revived.
Yours
[Section 40]~._...~_ __._ ._0- ......_....,.. _’,,"_ .____~..~-_ __ ___ ___~-,.~. ----:- ;~’:" ’~ ~ _,# ’ ,bY "50 D ftHE RADAY JZ t’t 233/64 rli! ," ’i’ CI1$IHU. TEL EPH<,..,E C(J,H/ER SA TI O~.s CAN REVEAL CLASS (f I EO tHFORftA Tl ON THROUGH Cn~lE6SHESS - IhPATiEHCE - AWD TRYIHG TO TALK ~ROU"D. ;I.’ .:o"" ’.’/" .~~ .,.-:.... . ".: ’,,_<; I ",".s:rQ-’ , c, .....i..-... ~... ,..,.- - .~:i... ~~ ~i1’~ ~"’GAAft"C l 23,315. U.-UUUU--RUDOYJ A. ZH~ UfJUUU ~-- o P 2U1100% AUC 14 fF. HQ U5 fE I "STEI" r:- ~UDvYJA/ lrFU RAF l’J!f IHJ1H~itfAl3tiifRAF Sr- I; IU.:tlif& ~1. aJ ; ’QUERY FRO" CN" T6 RE UFO S I CHT ING( S ) t REfEIENCE TELECOM BtTUEEN "AJ MCCOLLiSTERJ HQ USQFE/PAft, AHO CAPT ~~RZtNSKIJ lfFU/PA, 20 AUG 84* $R"ESUSJ, 2 QSAf/P~" HAS RECEIVED A WRITtEN REQUEST FRO" CHUCk DE CARO OF t~9LE HEWS "ETVOR~ fOR 1"FOR"ATI0N ABOUT AN ALLEGEO UFO SIGHTING AT luF EHTUATERS OH 2? DEC 1960. THE CN" REPORTER HAS A COpy OF A tETfER DATED 13~JA"at FR THETHEH- EPUTY BASE CO""AHOER AT RAF 8[~ru~tER6 WHItH IEP’ITS OK THE tHCrOENT. THE 13 JAN 11 LETTER WAS A~~R[S6EO TO 3Af/CC. OSAf/PAft HAS ASKED US TO HELP THEft RESPONO TO S ~E 20 U(STIOH6 POSED IV CM". WE HEED Y~UR ASSISTANCE IN FLESHING ~~T THE RESPONSES. WOULD APPRECIATE 11TfW/PA, THROUGH 3AF/PA, ’rO~IOE US THE 8EST REir~"SES P~SSIBtE T~ THE fOLL WIHG QUESTIONS. 6’ir WOULD liPPRECIATf: THE ANSWERS BY 23 AVe .. c)R SI,)(JttER [fPOSSIBlE. THE OUfST!(fHSt\REJ c:tB tEl/PA"11 EN T W ATE R~.,Ja’:LLF.ALL_._ ’UL E’.U~ Ll JJkllPAll PA _,~,t .@ P ~E 2 RHrQA~ ~ I1 UHCLRS Q-~’ EXRCTLY HOW "~HY U"E~PlATHED LIGHTS/SIGHTIMGS OCCURRED? Q-2; ~VER THE C U SE ~F H~W "ANY A~S DID INCIDENTS OCCUR? Q-I~ .10 USAf 8ECOitTY POLItE CORDON OFF THE AREA SPECIFIEO IN tT’tOt MALT’S RCPOR" Q-4t u"~r UNITS UE~E INVOLVEO 1M THE SIGHTtNGS? WERE ARYl Uti HS THERE? Q~’J WAS THE.E A HELPIKG HAN~, COYER EO W~GOM, FAOED GIANT OR ’P~~EN ARROW REPORTED OR REP~Rr CE"ERATeO BV THE INCIDENT? Q-~t DID GEN. G~ROOH VtLlIA"S "tTHESS THE INCIDENT? If 80, UHY trD HALT ~RrTE A REPORT? ;-" VllL GE"ER~L UILLIA"S WRITe AN .FFICIAL STATE"EHT ABOUT ~!S IHYOLYEftEMT VITH THE IHCIDEHt FOR CN"? 6-6: H~~ K~"Y USRF PERSONNEL WITNESSED THE SICHTIHGS? Q-9’ DiD SECUIITY P~LtCE nAJOR ZEICLER WITNESS THE I"CI0E"T1 Q-IDJ DID SGT. JO M BURROUGHS WITNESS THE IHCIDENT? 0-11: w~s tHERE A ~lEUTEHA~T ENGLANO IN THE SECURITY POLICE ~"ii it Ii’ li~iWail~1 iT’ll Tll .RD Dll Hi WI1"ISa tHE IKtlQ[MT1 ’~llt ~".f ftli thi tU~ftt.t UNITS ANt DUTY stATIONS OF GENERAL ~’~~I.~~. ..~.~.~ ’ft~T. @ T ,u~~.,.~~, ~I~ ~t.~~.. AH~ L’ .ij.L~H.’ 0-t3. WERE THERE us., OISAstER r_EPAREOHESSI EOO OR NUCLEAR , ) ,’Qt 3 RMfQAAA~Oal UHCLAS W[JPOHS "AHA’EKEH1 TEA~S OISPATCHED TO THE SICHT OF THE I"CIOE"T? ~R( THEaE to’IE& OF THEtR REPORTS IN USAf FILES? IF SO. WHICH UMITS MrlV( THE FILES? Q-t~t WHAt UHIT OR WHAT PE~$OHHEL TOOK THE RADIOACT[YITY fiE~DJ"’$ REF~_REO TO 1M LT CO, HALt., REPORT’ UNAT UNIT OR PERSONNEL
* V MSG # TIME RADAY IMMERIA
3232 1618 233/84
ANY CASUAL TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS CAN REVEAL CLASSIFIED INFORMATION THROUGH
CARLESSNESS - IMPATIENCE - AND TRYING TO TALK AROUND.
ORUZYUM RHFQAAALO87 2331616-UUUU--RUDOVJA.
ZHR UUUUU
O P 201700Z AUG 84
FM HQ USAFE RAMSTEIN AB GE//PAM//
TO RUDOVJA/81TFW RAF BENTWATERS UK//PA//
INFO RUDOVFA/3AF RAF MILDENHALL UK//PA//
BT
UNCLAS
SUBJ: QUERY FROM CNN TO RE UFO SIGHTING(S)
1 REFERENCE TELECON BETWEEN MAJ MCCOLLISTER, HQ USAFE/PAM, AND CAPT
WRZINSKI, 81TFW/PA, 20 AUG 84, SAME SUBJ
2 OSAF/PAM HAS RECEIVED A WRITTEN REQUEST FROM CHUCK DE CARO OF
CABLE NEWS NETWORK FOR INFORMATION ABOUT AN ALLEGED UFO SIGHTING AT
RAF BENTWATERS ON 27 DEC 1980. THE CNN REPORTER HAS A COPY OF A
LETTER DATED 13 JAN 81 FROM THE THEN-DEPUTY BASE COMMANDER AT RAF
BENTWATERS WHICH REPORTS ON THE INCIDENT. THE 13 JAN 81 LETTER WAS
ADDRESSED TO 3AF/CC. OSAF/PAM HAS ASKED US TO HELP THEM RESPOND TO
SOME 20 QUESTIONS POSED BY CNN. WE NEED YOUR ASSISTANCE IN FLESHING
OUT THE RESPONSES. WOULD APPRECIATE 81TFW/PA, THROUGH 3AF/PA,
PROVIDE US THE BEST RESPONSES POSSIBLE TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS.
WE WOULD APPRECIATE THE ANSWERS BY 23 AUG 84, OR SOONER IF POSSIBLE.
THE QUESTIONS ARE:
PAGE 2 RHFQAAALO87 UNCLAS
Q-1: EXACTLY HOW MANY UNEXPLAINED LIGHTS/SIGHTINGS OCCURRED?
Q-2: OVER THE COURSE OF HOW MANY DAYS DID INCIDENTS OCCUR?
Q-3: DID USAF SECURITY POLICE CORDON OFF THE AREA SPECIFIED IN
LT COL HALT'S REPORT?
Q-4: WHAT UNITS WERE INVOLVED IN THE SIGHTINGS? WERE AAVS
UNITS THERE?
Q-5: WAS THERE A HELPING HAND, COVERED WAGON, FADED GIANT OR
BROKEN ARROW REPORTED OR REPORT GENERATED BY THE INCIDENT?
Q-6: DID GEN. GORDON WILLIAMS WITNESS THE INCIDENT? IF SO, WHY
DID HALT WRITE A REPORT?
Q-7: WILL GENERAL WILLIAMS WRITE AN OFFICIAL STATEMENT ABOUT
HIS INVOLVEMENT WITH THE INCIDENT FOR CNN?
Q-8: HOW MANY USAF PERSONNEL WITNESSED THE SIGHTINGS?
Q-9: DID SECURITY POLICE MAJOR ZEIGLER WITNESS THE INCIDENT?
Q-10: DID SGT. JOHN BURROUGHS WITNESS THE INCIDENT?
Q-11: WAS THERE A LIEUTENANT ENGLAND IN THE SECURITY POLICE
UNIT AT RAF BENTWATERS AT THE TIME AND DID HE WITNESS THE INCIDENT?
Q-12: WHAT ARE THE CURRENT UNITS AND DUTY STATIONS OF GENERAL
WILLIAMS, COLONEL HALT, SGT BURROUGHS, MAJ ZIEGLER AND LT ENGLAND?
Q-13: WERE THERE USAF DISASTER PREPAREDNESS, EOD OR NUCLEAR
PAGE 3 RHFQAAALO87 UNCLAS
WEAPONS MANAGEMENT TEAMS DISPATCHED TO THE SIGHT OF THE INCIDENT?
ARE THERE COPIES OF THEIR REPORTS IN USAF FILES? IF SO, WHICH UNITS
HAVE THE FILES?
Q-14: WHAT UNIT OR WHAT PERSONNEL TOOK THE RADIOACTIVITY
READINGS REFERRED TO IN LT COL HALT'S REPORT? WHAT UNIT OR PERSONNELESTABLISHED THE GEOMETRY OF THE INDENTATIONS ON THE GROUND? WHERE
ARE THEIR OFFICIAL MEASUREMENTS AND REPORTS?
Q-15: WERE THERE ANY NON-NATO PERSONNEL INTERVIEWED OR SEEN AT
HE SITE OF THE INCIDENT? COULD THESE PERSONNEL HAVE BEEN ASSOCIATED
WITH THE UNEXPLAINED LIGHTS?
Q-16: WERE OSI PERSONNEL DISPATCHED TO THE INCIDENT SITE? DID
OSI INTERVIEW LT COL HALT, SGT LARRY WARREN, AIRMAN STEVEN LA PLUME,
GENERAL WILLIAMS, MAJOR ZEIGLER, LIEUTENANT ENGLAND OR SGT BURROUGHS?
Q-17: WILL THE USAF PROVIDE A LIST OF USAF PERSONNEL WHO
WITNESSED THE INCIDENT?
Q-18: WHAT ARE THE REASONS THAT WILLIAMS, HALT AND BORROUGHS
GAVE FOR NOT GRANTING OFFICIAL INTERVIEWS?
Q-19: ARE THERE PHOTOGRAPHS, TAPE RECORDINGS, VIDEOTAPES,
DRAWINGS OR DESCRIPTIONS OF ANY KIND IN USAF FILES? IF NOT, TO WHAT
AGENCY OR AGENCIES HAVE THE FILES BEEN TRANSFERRED?
PAGE 4 RHFQAAALO87 UNCLAS
Q-20: WERE PERSONNEL FROM CIA, DIA, NSA, USAF INTEL, OR NSC
NOTIFIED ABOUT LT COL HOLT'S SIGHTINGS? WHY? DID THE SECAF VISIT
RAF BENTWATERS IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE INCIDENT? WHY? DID ANY SECAF
STAFF ACCOMPANY THE SECAF? WHO WERE THEY?
3 YOUR ASSISTANCE IN THIS PROJECT IS APPRECIATED.
BT
#L087
NNNN[Section 40] From: [Section 40] Defence Secretariat 8 File (6123)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Rm [Section 40]
Main Building Whitehall London SW1A 2HB
Telephone [Section 40] (Direct Dialling)
(Switchboard)
[Section 40]
Your reference
Our reference
D/DS8/10/209-767
Date
18 July 1984
Dear [Section 40],
Thank you for your letter of 28 June. I am afraid that there really is very little
more I can say in answer to the two main questions you ask.
We received Colonel Halt's report regarding the lights seen in Renllesham Forest,
near RAF Woodbridge, and the opertaional staff have satisfied themselves that there
was nothing in the report which gave rise to any concern from a defence point of view.
In these circumstances, and I apologise if this was not quite clear in my earlier
letter, we make no attempt whatsoever to establish what was seen. I can therefore
make no official comment on what was seen, or try to guess what it might have been,
but, as I said, there is absolutely no evidence that anything had either intruded
into UK airspace or landed near RAF Woodbridge.
As to your second question, no Government Department or official body, apart from
the Ministry of Defence, has any interest in these reports, and the interest of the
Ministry of Defence is very strictly limited, in the way I described.
Yours Sincerely,
[Section 40][Section 40]
Telephone: [Section 40] Solicitor [Section 40]
OUR REF: HH/SL
YOUR REF: D/DS8/10/209
28th June, 1984
For the attention of [Section 40] [stamp: MINISTRY OF DEFENCE / D.S. / 2 JUL 1984 / FILE]
Ministry of Defence,
Defence Secretariat 8,
Room [Section 40]
Main Building,
Whitehall,
LONDON SW1A 2HB
Dear [Section 40],
I thank you for your letter of the 19th instant with its enclosures.
If I might refer to the last paragraph of your said letter and refer
you to Colonel Halt's report, of which I have a copy, you will obviously
observe that of the three numbered paragraphs thereof, paragraphs numbered 1
and 2 relate to "a strange glowing object...... metallic in appearance and
triangular in shape approximately two to three metres across the base and
approximately two metres high.......hovering or on legs" - since you say
that you have satisifed yourself that nothing in Colonel Halt's report was
of significance from a defence point of view I assume that you are aware of and
can explain to me what this object was!
You then go on to say that there is no evidence of anything having
"intruded" into British air space and "landing" near R.A.F. Woodbridge and
therefore am I to take this to mean that the vehicle referred to in paragraph
numbered 1 of Colonel Halt's report has been identified by you and that you
are satisifed that it was not an "intruder" i.e. it had the consent of
H.M. Government, directly or indirectly, to be there?
I am sure you will take my point that there is a great deal more
referred to in Colonel Halt's report than mere "lights" since the report
clearly describes a substantive craft which obviously left marks bearing
witness to its presence (see paragraph No. 2 of Colonel Halt's letter).
If I may be permitted to continue, I would like now to refer to
the second paragraph of your letter to me wherein you state that your Ministry
is solely concerned with matters of a "defence" interest, which I accept,
and perhaps you would kindly confirm, as I understand to be the case, that
whilst your Ministry's interest is solely in connection with anything that
might be held to be a threat to our national security, there is another "wing"
of Government or State, or a "wing" controlled by the Government, which does
have an interest in those objects that fly about, which have no defence
implications (i.e. are not a threat to national security) and which are not
what the man in the street would regard as conventional aircraft, meteorite,
satelite, ball lightening, comet or any atmospheric phenomina.
At this stage I hope you will not be offended of my enquiring
as to whether you, [Section 40] replied to my letter from your own knowledge
and file or whether the reply to me was passed from others to your good-self,
i.e. is the reply yours or are you acting as a "go-between"?[Section 40]
Telephone: [Section 40] Solicitor [Section 40]
OUR REF: - 2 -
YOUR REF:
I feel that I do owe you some explanation as to how and why I am
involved in the subject of unidentified flying objects and I would mention
that, if you can spare me another few more minutes, my interest in this
subject commenced some six years ago, when, as a total cynique, I investigated
a sighting in Wales for the purpose of giving a talk to a discussion group,
of which I was then and still am a member, on the subject of U.F.O.'s.
I started out to prepare this talk "tongue in cheek" and, indeed
my visit to Wales (actually Anglesey) was made in the same frame of mind
but I have to say that I returned with a somewhat different point of view.
Since that time I have been involved, along with colleagues whose
acquaintance I was to make, in the research of a small but significant number
of sightings and I find that, although I have never seen anything myself,
the more that I delve into this subject the more convinced I become that
there is a craft of unknown origin, or at least of an origin unknown to
the great mass of mankind, which flies about this planet motivated by a
purpose at which I can only guess.
The questions that one has to ask oneself are to what extent does
Government know more than the man in the street and conceal from him such
knowledge and is one under a public duty to enlighten the man in the street
not only as to the possibility of such concealed information but also
as to its content?
The dilemma that one faces is whether or not it is in the
interests of the man in the street to be aware of what is going on or
whether it is in his interests not to know and clearly, the answer to this
must depend on the reasons for concealment i.e. whether the same is in
the public good and, as such, an exception from the normal rule that the
public is entitled to know what is going on or whether concealment from
the public is [strikethrough: not] (in their interests since it is designed solely to protect,
perhaps, limited sectional interests e.g. that of the oil industry against
the introduction of a new plentiful and cheap means of fuel.
I subscribe to the "middle of the road" view that the public are entitled
to know something of that which is going on but as yet cannot make a decision
as to whether they are entitled to full disclosure since I have to concede
that there may be wiser heads than mine who have genuine bone fide reasons for
concealment, of which I may not be aware, but which are clearly in the public
interest.
Much of what I have said may well be meaningless to you and I
suspect it will be if you are merely replying to me from information which
is passed on to you from elsewhere, and from a source to which you yourself
do not have access.
However, I feel as a matter of courtesy that I owe you some explanation
of my involvement in the topic of U.F.O.'s which I suspect is a relative term,
since what may be totally unidentifiable to one person may be partially
identifiable or recognisable to another.
Finally, having outlined in short general terms my philosophy and
thinking on the subject, I would be grateful to receive your specific reply[Section 40]
Telephone: [Section 40] Solicitor [Section 40]
OUR REF: - 3 -
YOUR REF:
to the points I have raised relating to Colonel Halt's report and that
Department of State which does concern itself with those craft when the
same are considered not to be a Defence issue.
Thanking you in anticipation.
Kind regards.
Yours sincerely,
[Section 40][Section 40]
From: [Section 40] Defence Secretariat 8 Room [Section 40] (E126)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
Main Building Whitehall London SW1A 2HB
Telephone [Section 40] (Direct Dialling)
(Switchboard)
[Section 40]
Your reference
Our reference
D/DS8/10/209-770
Date
18 July 1984
Dear [Section 40]
Thank you for your letter of 4 July. I am sorry that
you appear to have found my last letter, of 22 June,
disappointing. However, I have nothing to add to my
explanation of the Ministry of Defence's interest in so
called UFO reports and I suggest that there is little
point in continuing this correspondence.
Yours Sincerely,
[Section 40]WIGAN·ARIEL·PHENOMENA·INVESTIGATION·TEAM: (E125)
[drawing of UFO] [Section 40]
DATE. 4th July 1984 W/44/MD. To [Section 40]
DEAR [Section 40]
I yet again find myself writing to you, somewhat
dissapointed this time. I recived your last letter only to find my questions
Unanswered and your reply was Inadequate.(Totally)
(1) RENDELSHAM FOREST INCIDENT: After reading Col HALTs report: How did the
MOD SATISFIE Thereselves that there was No Defence Implications Please
Explain the conclusion and how it was reached.!
(2) MOD RELEASE FILES: Why Do you NOT keep To your policy As IN Section
3 of your Letter to me dated 6th June 1984. Send me One report file
Such as the one you released to UFologist [Section 40] & And Author/
UFologist [Section 40] if you find yourself Unable to realeose the file
I would like an explanation.
In your reply I would be greatful if it Contained more than nine lines
of TOTAL Jargon and repeats of what you have stated In previous letters.
I look forward to an half decent answer - many thanks.
Yours Sincerely
[Section 40] [Section 40]
ON BEHALF OF WAPIT
Wigan
DIRECTORS: [Section 40] Council: [Section 40][Section 40] From: [Section 40] Defence Secretariat 8: File (6115)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE DS8, Room [Section 40]
Main Building Whitehall London SW1A 2HB
Telephone [Section 40] (Direct Dialling)
(Switchboard)
[Section 40]
Your reference
Our reference
D/DS8/10/209-748
Date
22 June 1984
Dear [Section 40]
I am sorry that I forgot to enclose the copy of Col Halts report with my previous
letter. I am therefore including it with this. As to the remainder of your
letter, we received no report of an "unidentified flying object" near Cwmbran on
14 September 1982, and as I have said before we do not have the resources to
search through our files for any reports we may have received from the Wigan area,
for a particular year. The reports we receive have so far proved to be of no
interest from a defence point of view, so this would in any event fall well outside
our defence responsibilities.
Yaws Sincerely,
[Section 40]
ENC:WIGAN·ARIEL·PHENOMENA·INVESTIGATION·TEAM: (E114)
Center for UFO Studies, [Section 40]
OUR reference. WPT/L2/MD
OUR reference D/DS8/10/209.
Dear [Section 40]
Thankyou for your reply to my last letter to your department.
In your reply to me you wrote, find Enclosed a Copy of Colonel Halt's report, apparentley
on further Inspection of your reply NO report was to be found In the envelope.
Please Could your Amend this by sending the Copy to us as stated- many thanks.
In Section 3 of your letter you stated, and I quote, We will realease the details of particular
specified reports on request'. Then to your policy I would like to ask on behalf of our Investigators
for the MOD file Investigation of the September 14th 1982 Sighting at CWMBRAN, your department
are reported has to Covering this Case by a well known Ufo Association, we would be well
pleaed if you Could help us in anyway with this Case. Here at WAPIT, we do Now Understand that
your department do not ATTEMPT to Identify UFOs/ARIEL Phenomena Unless it Causes Concern from
DEFENCE point of View. Back to Section 3 again, you do keep the details/files of Cases reported
to you, this being the thing that Intreats me - If this is so- Then why is this Information NOT
Issued over to Serious Investigation teams! for example, I myself on behalf of WAPIT requested
formation files on Certain Cases such as the RENDELSHAM Forest Incident - the Complete
file - and all we recive is NOTHING!- Then may I ask why you have a policy to CONSIDER realeaseing
files of Specified reports, when you dont for some reason wish to keep to this policy? OR
evidently SWAY away from the GENUINE requests made?. May I make it Clear In NO Way are
we saying this is a dilliberate SWAY from the so-called MOD Policy. Once more I must point out
that your department do NOT Investigate UFOs - So how you know the sightings will NOT be
Vestigated Unless files are made open to Ufologist - So that they Can get on with their Job
of Investigation and Evaluation of the Phenomena observed.- That is why we must have
Co-operation through all our network Channels. for the Ufologist to Continue with a Case
he must obtain as much Information as possible to do his Job of Evaluation well. ( I hope your
agree with me on this Point?).May I enquire what Reports you recived in 1983 for the Wigan AREA a persentage
number out of the 390 you recived...
May I now take time to thankyou sincereley (I feel sure it is DUE) for the
co-operation, time and Consideration you have given me sofar.
We are Investigators of a Phenomena which at present remains Unidentified and
We try Very hard to keep our Investigation of the subject OBJECTIVE and detailed
(which I am sure you will appreciate). Once again I thank you and the department,
and I look forward to your speedy reply...
Yours sincerely
[Section 40] [Section 40]
· ON BEHALF of WAPIT-WIGAN.
DUPLICATE CoPy available from// File 11BC Pg 940// Ref WPT/L2/MD/ - D-DS8/10/209 // 6th JUNE 1984.X
From: [Section 40] Defence Secretariat 8 Room [Section 40] File (6109)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
Main Building Whitehall London SW1A 2HB
Telephone [Section 40] (Direct Dialling)
(Switchboard)
[Section 40]
Your reference
Our reference
D/DS8/10/209-722
Date
19 June 1984
Dear [Section 40]
Thank you for your letter of 4 June; I am sorry that we did not reply when you
first wrote in March.
The letter you enclosed with yours is very interesting, but I have to say that
it is a forgery. Although apparently written on Ministry of Defence headed
paper it is most certainly not an official document and, as I shall explain,
its contents bear no relation to our policy towards reported sightings of
"Unidentified Flying Objects". Obviously I have no idea where it came from
or why it was written, and I can only conclude that it is intended as a joke.
In fact, the Ministry of Defence's interest in reported sightings of UFOs is
very limited. We are concerned solely with whether these reports reveal
anything of defence interest, such as intruding aircraft, and if we are
satisfied that there are none we take our investigations no further. There
is no organization in the MOD appointed solely for the purpose of studying
UFO reports, and no staff are employed on the subject full time. The reports
we receive are referred to the staff responsible for the air defence of the
United Kingdom, who examine them as part of their normal duties.
We did receive a report from Col Charles Halt of the USAF of lights which
had been seen outside RAF Woodbridge . This was confirmed by John Stanley,
Minister of State for the Armed Forces in answer to a written Parliamentary
Question from Sir Patrick Wall MP on 24 October last year. A copy of this
is attached for your information. The Department satisfied itself at the
time that nothing in the report was of significance from a defence point of
view. What the explanation for the lights is I do not know. However, I can
assure you that there is absolutely no evidence of anything having intruded
into British airspace and 'landing' near RAF Woodbridge.
Yours Sincerely,
[Section 40][Section 40]
( phone [Section 40] Solicitor [Section 40]
OUR REF: HH/SL
YOUR REF:
RECORDED DELIVERY
4th June, 1984
[Section 40]
Head of D.S.8.,
Ministry of Defence,
Main Building,
Whitehall,
London SW1.
Dear [Section 40]
re: U.F.O. Sighting in Rendlesham Forest of December 1980.
I enclose a copy of a letter which was sent to me in January of this year,
together with a copy of the front of the envelope containing the same,
and would be grateful to receive your observations thereon.
Thanking you in anticipation.
Kind regards.
Yours sincerely,
[Section 40]
Copy totted
12 June
[stamp: MINISTRY OF DEFENCE / D.S.8 / 6 JUN 1984 / FILE][REDACTED]
U.K EYES 'B'
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1A 2HB
Telephone (Direct Dialling) [Section 40]
(Switchboard) [Section 40]
THE MAJORITY OF REDACTIONS ON THIS PAGE ARE ON THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT
Dear [REDACTED],
As you know, OSI has completed a report on the landing of
a craft of unknown origin crewed by several entities near RAF Bentwaters on
the night of December 29/30 1980.
Interestingly, OSI reports that the entities were
approximately 1½ metres tall, wore what appeared to be nylon-coated pressure
suits, but no helmets. Conditions on the night were misty, giving the
appearance that the entities were hovering above ground level.
Tape recordings were made on which the entities are heard
to speak in an electronically synthesized version of English, with a strong
American accent. Similar transmissions intercepted irregularly by NSA since
1975.(See attached - Flag A)
According to OSI, entities had claw-like hands with three
digits and an opposable thumb.
Despite original reports (Flags B - G), OSI said the craft
was not damaged but landed deliberately as part of a series of visits to
SAC bases in USA and Europe. Reports that craft was repaired by US
servicemen or was taken on to the base are not confirmed by OSI.
Landing is not considered a defence issue in view of the
overt peaceful nature of the contact, but investigations by DS8 are to be
continued on [REDACTED] authority. Precautionary plan for counter-
information at a local level involving [REDACTED] and a [REDACTED]
[REDACTED], is strongly recommended.
Sincerely
[REDACTED]PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL [Section 40] [postmark stamp] [10p stamp]
[Section 40] From: [Section 40] Defence Secretariat 8 Room [Section 40] File. (6105)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
Main Building Whitehall London SW1A 2HB
Telephone [Section 40] (Direct Dialling)
(Switchboard)
[Section 40]
Your reference
Our reference
D/DS8/10/209-730
Date
19 June 1984
Dear [Section 40]
As I have explained previously, the MOD's only interest in so called "UFO
sightings" is to establish whether they reveal anything of defence interest.
Once we are satisfied that they do not, we do not consider them further. In
the case of the lights seen outside RAF Woodbridge, we were satisfied that
there were no defence implications. If you followed the press articles on
the Woodbridge incident you will have seen the results of a good deal of
investigative journalism which turned up quite rational and down to earth
explanations for what was seen. As I recall one favourite explanation was
the light from the Orfordness lighthouse. What the truth is I do not know;
as explained, we do not attempt to investigate reports to a point at which
a positive explanation can be made. I can assure you, though, that there is
no question of anything having intruded into British airspace and "landed"
near RAF Woodbridge.
I am afraid that I cannot help you with the information you requested
concerning the 8 alleged sightings in 1978. Whilst we are prepared to
release individual reports if they are readily available and easily to hand
we do not have the staff or resources to mount extensive searches through
our records and it was never our intention to provide a research service
for members of the public.
Yours Sincerely,
[Section 40]YUFOS RESEARCH DIVISION (6104)
[logo: two globes with rings]
Reply Lotted
12 June
[Section 40]
Defence Secretariat 8, [Section 40]
Ministry of Defence,
Main Building, Whitehall
London, SW1A 2HB
Your Ref: D/DS8/10/209
Our Ref: W1
6/June/1984
Subject: Unidentified Flying Objects 146
Dear [Section 40] e75 PtF.
Thank you for your letter dated 11/5/1984 in relation to my question regarding
an official investigation by the MOD in response to the high level of purported
sightings of UFOs in the Yorks/Lancs area. e94 Pt F.
Turning to a much more recent letter aquired by this organisation from the MOD.
I would appreciate your own thoughts regarding a letter forwarded to your dept.
from Col. Charles Holt, Deputy Base Commander at RAF Woodbridge. He obviously is
convinced an unknown flying object was in the vicinity of the base, do you not
feel that the implications behind such a statement warrant an official enquiry?
I have a letter from [Section 40], Captain, USAF, Chief, Public Affairs
Division, that states, "we have no official interest in what may have happened,
especially since the lights were seen off base". (17.10.83). Your letter forwarded
to one of our researchers clearly proves some investigation was carried out by
USAF personnel, i.e. paragraph 2.:-
"The next day, three depressions 1 1/2" deep and 7" in diameter were found
were the object had been sighted on the ground. The following night (29.12.
80) the area was checked for radiation. Beta/gamma readings of 0.1 milliro-
entgens were recorded with peak readings in the three depressions and near
the centre of the triangle formed by the depressions. A nearby tree had
moderate (.05-07) readings on the side of the tree towards the depressions".
I feel this is more than speculative talk, the document is ample evidence that
unknown craft were operating in British Airspace. Therefore one can only reach
the disturbing conclusion that the British and American Governments are aware of
the nature and logic which revolves around this phenomenon.
As a member of the British public I feel the subject of UFOs should be investigate
totally. 4000 CIA and American Secret establishment documents prove without a
shadow of a doubt, an official interest. I think the well used phrase by the MOD
[Publishers of QUEST]From: [REDACTED] Defence Secretariat 8
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Room [REDACTED] File. (699
Main Building Whitehall London SW1A 2HB
Telephone [REDACTED] (Direct Dialling)
[REDACTED] (Switchboard)
[REDACTED]
Your reference
Our reference
D/DS 8/10/209-688
Date
6 June 1984
Dear [REDACTED]
You wrote again on 16 May with further questions on the Ministry of Defence's policy
towards the reports we receive of flying objects which the observer could not
identify. I shall take your questions in turn.
First you asked about the number of reports we have received. For each of the years
since 1978 we received the following number: 1978 - 750, 1979 - 550, 1980 - 350,
1981 - 600, 1982 - 250, 1983 - 390.
As to your second question, our policy is that we will consider releasing the details
of particular, specified reports, on request, if the information is easily identifiable
and readily to hand. We do not have the resources, though, to go through our files
for all reports from Wigan since 1980.
Your third question concerned the lights seen in Rendel ShamForest in December 1980,
as reported by Colonel Halt of the Unites States Air Force. As you may have gathered
from Mr Stanley's answer in Hansard of 24 October 1983, we received this report and
satisfied ourselves that it contained nothing of defence interest. In case you have
not seen it, I enclose a copy of Colonel Halt's report.
Finally, I explained in my previous letter that so long as there is nothing in the
report to cause concern from a defence point of view (and there never has been) we
make no attempt to identify what was seen.
Yours Sincerely
[REDACTED][REDACTED] From: [REDACTED]
Defence Secretariat 8
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Room [REDACTED] File (697
Main Building Whitehall London SW1A2HB
Telephone [REDACTED] (Direct Dialling)
[REDACTED] (Switchboard)
[REDACTED]
Your reference
Our reference
D/DS8/10/209-664
Date
31 May 1984
Dear [REDACTED]
You wrote to me again on 19 May with further questions
about our policy towards reports of 'Unidentified
Flying Objects'.
We receive our reports from a variety of sources, but
principally from the police, RAF Stations and civil
airfields. These bodies send on to us any reports they
receive from members of the public of flying objects
which the observer could not identify, so that operational
staff here can check for possible defence implications.
However, as Mr Stanley explained in his Parliamentary
answer of 24 October last year, no report we have received
has ever been of concern from this point of view. That
includes Colonel Halt's report of lights in Rendlesham
Forest.
Yours Sincerely
[REDACTED][stamp: MINLST... D... 24 MAY 1984 FILE] (698
WIGAN ARIEL PHENOMENA INVESTIGATION TEAM:
CENTER for
UFO STUDIES. [REDACTED]
May 16th 1984.
REF. UFO/Further Investigation.
Dear sir, £25 Ref.
Regarding your Last Letter Dated 24th April 1984.
What We here at the Center for UFO Studies Would Like
to know is:-
① Could we have the total Numbers of UFO Sighting's
For the years 1978-1979-1980- 81-82-83-84 ?
② We Also beleive and have been told that the MOD
released Case Files to fellow British UFO researchers
[REDACTED] Is one who recived one. So why do
other Investigators in the phenomena, not Get any DATA
even when required ?. Such As Our Investigation Team.
③ Rendlesham Forest Case (MOD) Could we have the
Case and what Conclusion you reached ?.
④ Have All UFO Sightings for the years 1982-1983 Been
Identified by MOD or outside sources ?..
We hope you will be able to help with our questions as it is
of Upmost Importance that we get our Fact's right, so there is no
misunderstanding between us all, Cooperation is the Essance.
Thankyou Very much for your Help, and may we send our best wishes
for the future.
Yours Sincereley
[REDACTED]
on Behalf of WAPIT- WIGAN.From [REDACTED] Defence Secretariat 8
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE File. (694
Main Building Whitehall London SW1A 2HB
Telephone [REDACTED] (Direct Dialling)
[REDACTED] (Switchboard)
[REDACTED]
Your reference
Our reference
D/DS8/10/209-648
Date
25 May 1984
Dear [REDACTED]
Thank you for your two letters, of 7 and 8 May.
In your letters you asked whether we had any information concerning three
reported sightings of flying objects which the observer could not identify. The
only one of these for which I could find a report was the one on 27 December 1980,
at RAF Woodbridge. I am therefore attaching a copy of a report by Colonel Charles Halt
of the United States Air Force, which is the only information we have on this.
You may also be interested in the two attached Parliamentary Questions.
Yours Sincerely
[REDACTED]YUFOS RESEARCH DIVISION
[stamp: MINLST... D... 14 MAY International Communications FILE]
[REDACTED] [REDACTED]
Defence Secretariat 8, Overseas Liaison Officer
Room [REDACTED]
Ministry of Defence, [REDACTED]
Main Building,
Whitehall,
London SW1A 2HB.
DATE:8.5.84.
Dear Sir/Madam,
Could you please forward any information that you have on the following
reports of Unidentified Flying Objects.
1) Date and time of sighting:Friday the 11th of July 1980,3.30 am.
Description of object:A large flattened oval shaped object,Colour yellow
then blue/white then changed back to yellow.
Position of observers:Soyland Moor between Littleborough and Todmordan
North Yorkshire,England.
How Observed:Naked eye only.
Direction object first seen:North.
Weather conditions:Cold and clear with Moon and stars visible.
Names of observers:Police Constable [REDACTED] and Police Constable
[REDACTED]
2) Second report.
Date:December the 27th 1980 at 3am.
Description of object:Metallic triangular object,2/3 meters across its
base and 2 meters high.One red light on top with
a row of blue lights underneath.The object was on
some sort of "legs".
Position of observers:Tangham wood,near USAF base at RAF Woodbridge,Suffolk
England.
How observed:Naked eye and 8-12 power lense.
Direction object seen:North.
P.T.O.
Publishers of [QUEST logo]Angle of sight:10 degrees above the horizon,just above tree top level
and on the ground.
Distance:Not determined.
Movements:Object came down through trees in a multitude of colours and
landed on the ground.When moving off it manouvered between trees
Weather conditions:Not determined.
Names of observers: Lt Colonel Charles I Halt,deputy commander of the
USAF 81st Tactical Flying Wing.Plus both British
and American Air Force personel.
I would appreciate all the information that your department has on the
two UFO reports that I have mentioned.
If there is any cost involved for the above reports I will be only too
pleased to oblige.
Hopefully I will recieve your reply before too long,untill then I am,
Yours Sincerely,
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED] OLO.DS/8/D
From: [REDACTED] Defence Secretariat 8 File (680
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Room [REDACTED]
Main Building Whitehall London SW1A 2HB
Telephone [REDACTED] (Direct Dialling)
[REDACTED] (Switchboard)
[REDACTED]
Your reference
Our reference
D/DS8/10/209-639
Date
22 May 1984
Dear [REDACTED]
I am afraid that previous references to us having released sixteen reports of
flying objects which the observer could not identify from the South Wales area
appear to have been mistaken. In fact we released only fifteen such reports.
I enclose, though, the one report I think you are missing to complete the "set".
You also asked about Lt Col Halt's report on the lights which were seen near RAF
Woodbridge on 27 December 1980. Mr Stanley's answer in Hansard of 24 October 1983,
of which you have a copy, made it clear that we received a copy of this report and
satisfied ourselves that it contained nothing of defence interest. I have nothing
to add to that.
Yous Sincerely
[REDACTED][REDACTED]
5th MAY
[stamp: MINITR. OF DEFE... 1 4 MAY.1984]
Dear [REDACTED]
Thank you very
much for your letter of 4th May
and the UFO reports. I requested
16 reports which you did mention
in the letter, but on inspection
I counted only 14, would it
be possible to be also sent
these remaining two to complete
the set following the last one:
(A 191765 83 5 minutes OVER SWANSEA
AIRPORT?) You informed me that
my request as a "Serious inquirer"
does not come into the category
you were thinking of on a
"Specific sighting. Therefore enclosed.2
with this letter is a document
which may UFO clubs know about
could you tell me the following
1. Is the document a true statement
of happenings 27, 28 29, Dec 1980.
2. did the ministry investigate the
claim of a supposed UFO landy at
a USA base woodbridge suffolk if so,
what were their findings. I look
forward too possibly recieving the
two missing reports. please excuse
my persistance.
Yours sincerely
[REDACTED][ILLEGIBLE top right annotations] DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [left margin: CT 10 16 DT] CO 13th Jan 81 SUBJECT: Unexplained Lights TO: RAF/CC 1. Early in the morning of 27 Dec 80 (approximately 0300L), two USAF security police patrolmen SAW unusual lights outside the back gate at RAF Woodbridge. Thinking an aircraft might have crashed or been forced down, they called for permission to go outside the gate to investigate. The on-duty flight chief responded and allowed three patrolmen to pro- ceed on foot. The individuals reported seeing a strange glowing object and triangular in shape, approximately two to three meters across the base and approximately two meters high. It illuminated the entire forest with a white light. The object itself had a pulsing red light on top and a bank(s) of blue lights underneath. The object was hovering or on legs. As the patrolmen approached the object, it maneuvered through the trees and disappeared. At this time the animals on a nearby farm went into a frenzy. The object was briefly sighted approximately an hour later near the back gate. 2. The next day, three depressions 1 1/2" deep and 7" in diameter were found where the object had been sighted on the ground. The following night (29 Dec 80) the area was checked for radiation. Beta/gamma readings of 0.1 milliroentgens were recorded with peak readings in the three de- pressions and near the center of the triangle formed by the depressions. A nearby tree had moderate (.06-.07) readings on the side of the tree toward the depressions. 3. Later in the night a red Sun-like light was seen through the trees. It moved about and pulsed. At one point it appeared to throw off glowing particles and then broke into five separate white objects and then dis- appeared. Immediately thereafter, three star-like objects were noticed in the sky. Two objects to the north and one to the south, all of which were about 10° off the horizon. The objects moved rapidly in sharp angular movements and displayed red, green and blue lights. The objects to the north appeared to be elliptical through an 8-12 power lens. They then turned to full circles. The objects to the north remained in the sky for an hour or more. The object to the south was visible for two or three hours and beamed down a stream of light from time to time. Numerous indivi duals, including the undersigned, witnessed the activities in paragraphs 2 and 3. [signature] CHARLES I. HALT, Lt Col, USAF Deputy Base Commander
[REDACTED]
[stamp: CONT... OF DEFEN...
22 MAY... 1984 FILE]
Your ref: D/DS8/10/209. May 19th., 1984
[REDACTED]
Defence Secretariat 8, Room [REDACTED]
Ministry of Defence,
Main Building,
Whitehall,
LONDON, SW1A 2HB.
Dear Sir/Madam,
Thank you for your letter of the 10th instant, which was very
informative.
With reference to the 'Hansard' extract for 13th. March last, my
colleagues and I were wondering whether you could kindly provide OSEAP
with a breakdown of the sources for the UFO reports your Department
received from 1981 to 1983. It seems quite remarkable that you have received
so many, whilst OSEAP, and others, have received none.
In fact, OSEAP has received no reports for approximately 18 months!
Hence our interest in some old, interesting cases.
So, if at all possible, we would like to know from what channels the
MOD gets its reports in such great numbers.
Coming to Rendlesham, would you confirm that an unidentified aerial
craft hovering very near to a Tactical Combat Base must surely have defence
implications? The facts, as reported by Col. Halt would seem to give some
cause for concern. One does not feel reassured by the nature of the
Secretary of States for Defence's reply in Hansard for 24th. October last.
Once again, thank you for your cooperation in these matter.
Yours truly,
[REDACTED]
for OSEAP.From: [REDACTED] Defence Secretariat 8, Room [REDACTED] File. (691
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
Main Building Whitehall London SW1A 2HB
Telephone [REDACTED] (Direct Dialling)
[REDACTED] (Switchboard)
[REDACTED]
Your reference
Our reference
D/DS8/10/209-611
Date
10 May 1984
Dear [REDACTED]
Thank you for your recent letters on the subject of reported UFO sightings.
I am sorry to have been some time replying.
To take your general question first, it has now been decided not to publish
the reports of alleged UFO sightings we receive. As you may know, we get
several hundred of these each year and to prepare them for publication would
be a considerable editorial task, for which we have neither the staff nor
resources. This would also fall well outside our defence responsibilities.
However, for some time we have been prepared to release the details of
particular reports to serious enquirers provided the information was easily
identifiable and readily to hand. That continues to be our policy.
As to your questions about specific 'incidents', I am afraid that neither the
first, third nor fourth of those you mentioned was reported to the Ministry
of Defence, so I am unable to help with those. The only information we have
on the lights seen in Rendlesham Forest is the report by Colonel Halt of
the United States Air Force. You will probably already have seen this, but
in case you have not I enclose a copy.
You may also be interested in the enclosed Parliamentary Questions on the
Ministry of Defence's interest in alleged UFO sightings.
Yours Sincerely
[REDACTED]O.S.E.A.P.,
[REDACTED]
[stamp: ...8MAY... FILE]
30th. April, 1984
Defence Secretariat Division 8,
Ministry of Defence,
Main Building,
Whitehall,
LONDON, SW1A 2HB.
Dear Sir/Madam,
re: release of information on UFO Reports.
Regarding the above matter, until early this year I had received
courteous replies to my enquiries from your Department.
However, my colleagues and myself are somewhat perturbed that you
have apparently ceased to respond to any letters from this quarter. Indeed,
this year I have written on behalf of OSEAP on three occasions: 22nd. January,
13th. March and 23rd. March.
Following reports in the press, however accurate, we were led to
believe that you were supplying information where possible in response to
enquiries from serious bodies. OSEAP is one such organisation and feels
that the least you could do is to write and confirm your Department's
position on the matter being discussed. Surely it would be just a matter of
good manners, even though you will have more important matters to attend to.
Yours faithfully,
[REDACTED][REDACTED]
[stamp: MINITR... OF DEFEN... 4APR8... FILE]
23rd. March, 1984
Defence Secretariat Division 8,
Ministry of Defence,
Main Building,
Whitehall,
LONDON, SW4A 2HR.
Dear Sir/Madam,
re: release of information on UFO reports.
Following my letter to your department of the 13th. inst., I would
like your comments on a front page article that appeared in 'THE ADVERTISER'
for March 16th. It concerns the release of 46 reports to BUFORA and contains
the following: "So it is interesting now to see that a Government department
is now willing 'to consider providing reports on specific incidents to serious
inquiries', writes [REDACTED].
On behalf of my colleagues I would ask your criteria for serious inquiries
and their acceptance.
If the newspaper report is correct then I take this opportunity to ask
your department on the following cases:-
1. Llanerchymedd, Anglesey 1st. Sept., 1978. (OSEAP was
involved in the main investigation of the incidents
and subsequently produced a special report).
2. Rendlehsam Forest. (Highly publicised in the press
but seemingly lacking substance. Although not
initially involved, OSEAP has become interested
in the case after paying this area a visit last
year).
3. Llandrillo, Clwydd 23rd. Jan., 1974. (OSEAP followed
this incident up last year which involved aerial lights
and earth tremors. Although these may not be connected).
4. South Stacks, Holyhead, Anglesey: 4th. Feb. 1974. (Due to
nearness, in time, to the previous incident OSEAP has
become interested in the washing-up on the shore of a
plane-like object. The RAF and Aberporth Range
Establishment said it was not theirs and the Navy's
underwater research base at Portsmouth was sent a
drawing. The object was 9' long, with a wingspan of
5', with a black aluminium body and the remnants of an
aerial.)
I trust that you will kindly supply any information you are able on the
above incidents. I hardly need remind you that OSEAP is a serious investigative
team.
Finally, I would ask your department if you have had any connections with
a mysterious UFO group called: APEN, or a [REDACTED] who resides in Redcar
and is supposedly a representative of the same.
Yours truly [REDACTED] on behalf of OSEAP.
[REDACTED]OSEAP,
[REDACTED]
[stamp: MINI T OF DEFENCE D.S.8 30 JAN1984 FILE]
22nd. January, 1984
Defence Secretariat Division 8,
Ministry of Defence,
Main Building,
Whitehall,
LONDON, SW1A 2HB.
Dear Sir/Madam,
Re: release of information relating to UFO reports.
Just a line to say my colleagues and I are still interested in your
Department's position on the above matter.
Therefore, may we again ask you what is being done with the information,
if anything?
Yours truly,
[REDACTED]
for OSEAP.OSEAP,
[REDACTED]
[stamp: MINITR OF DEFENCE 19 MAR 1984 FILE]
Your ref:- D/DS8/10/209. 13th. March, 1984
Defence Secretariat Division 8,
Ministry of Defence,
Main Building,
Whitehall,
LONDON, SW4A 2HB.
Dear Sir/Madam,
Further to my letter of 22nd. January last and the report in the
5th. March issue of the Daily Express, I once again would ask your department's
position in relation to the release of information relating to UFO reports.
I would again stress the need for caution in releasing this type of
material. Not only because of 'national security' considerations, but also
of the type of person who might have access to it. You will be aware that
'distortion of the facts' is endemic within so-called UFO research circles.
Hoping that this communication is received favourably, I am
Yours faithfully,
[REDACTED]
for OSEAP.[REDACTED]
From: [REDACTED] Defence Secretariat 8; File (648
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, Room [REDACTED]
Main Building Whitehall London SW1A 2HB
Telephone [REDACTED] (Direct Dialling)
[REDACTED] (Switchboard)
[REDACTED]
Your reference
Our reference
D/DS8/10/209-517
Date
24 April 1984
Dear [REDACTED],
Thank you for your letter of 9 March 1984. Your suggestion that the Ministry of
Defence has documents relating to the alleged UFO sighting at RAF Woodbridge in
December 1980, other than Colonel Halt's report, is quite mistaken.
Perhaps I ought to explain that the sole interest of the Ministry of Defence in
reported sightings of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs) is to establish whether
they have any bearing on the defence of the country.
There is no organisation in the Ministry of Defence appointed solely for the purpose
of studying UFOs, and no staff are employed on the subject full time. The reports
we receive are referred to the staff in the Department who are responsible for the
air defence of the United Kingdom, and they examine the reports as part of their
normal duties.
Since our interest in UFOs is limited to possible defence implications we have not
carried out a study into the scientific significance of these phenomena. Unless
there are defence implications we do not attempt to identify sightings and we
cannot inform observers of the probable identity of the object seen. The Department
could not justify the expenditure of public funds on investigations which go beyond
the pure defence interests.
We have to recognise that there are many strange things to be seen in the sky, but
we believe there are adequate explanations for them. They may be satellite debris
re-entering the earth atmosphere, ball lightning, unusual cloud formations,
meteorological balloons, aircraft lights, aircraft at unusual angles or many other
things. There is certainly no evidence that alien spacecraft have landed on the
planet. Although we have not carried out our own studies, we are aware of independent
studies into the UFOs, notably by the University of Colorado published in 1969. This
concluded that 90% of all UFOs reported could be plausibly related to ordinary
phenomena.
I attach copies of 2 recent Parliamentary Questions on the Ministry of Defence's
interest in UFO reports. I am returning your stamped addressed envelope.X
Yous Sincerely,
[REDACTED]
ENCS:bufora
British UFO Research Association
U.F.O. Investigator for Suffolk
[REDACTED]
[stamp: 13 MAR 1984 ... A... L.D... /S....]
Defence Secretariat Division 8.
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
Main Building Whitehall
London
SWIA 2HB. 9th March 1984.
[margin annotations: Asset Fee......
Fc01......
H......
A......
P......
F......
R.C......]
RE:- WOODBRIDGE INCIDENT DEC '80.
Dear Sir/Madam,
I have been informed that a certain amount of
UFO Documents are being released.
As I am a credited UFO Investigator for BUFORA, 'BRITISH UFO
RESEARCH ASSOCIATION'.
I would be grateful if you could assist me with my enquiries.
For the past 3years Ihave been one of the main investigators
on the Woodbridge incident in December 1980.
We the investigators, the other being [REDACTED], now
know that Photographs,Tape recording and signed witnesses
statements Do exist. Our source of information being reliable.
We have been informed that the Ministry of Defence has Docu-
mentatoin on the said mention case.
We received Col Charles I Holt's report via the Freedom of
Informations Act, in the United States.
This report was first sent to the MoD, by Sqn Leader Donald
Moreland. the MoD eventually sent a copy to the US Air Force
in the United States. We have been informed that Col Halts
report is but only a brief account of the incident and a full
report has been made .
We would be gratefull if you would provide us with the latter
also other Documentation on the Woodbridge incident.
I have enclosed just one of many Documents we have received.
The enclosed being from the Air Force Headquaters 513th
Combat Support Group (U.S.A.F.E.).
We look Forward to your Acknowledgement of this Letter.
YOURS SINCERELY
[REDACTED]
DIRECTOR OF INVESTIGATION [REDACTED][seal] DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE HEADQUARTERS 513TH COMBAT SUPPORT GROUP (USAFE) APO NEW YORK 09127 [REDACTED] Ardmore, Pennsylvania 19003 14 June 1983 Dear [REDACTED] I am pleased to be able to respond to your request for information dated 7 May 1983. As you may now know, the 513th Combat Support Group provides document management services for Headquarters, Third Air Force. After extensive effort, we are able to successfully answer your four separately directed requests for information concerning unexplained lights on 27 December 1980. It might interest you to know that the US Air Force had no longer retained a copy of the 13 January 1981 letter written by Lt Col Charles I. Halt. The Air Force file copy had been properly disposed of in accordance with Air Force Regulations. Fortunately, through diligent inquiry and the gracious consent of Her Majesty's government, the British Ministry of Defence and the Royal Air Force, the US Air Force was provided a copy for you. We trust this adequately explains the initial inability to provide a favorable response. As you also asked, we have attached such documentation as we had concerning the processing of your several FOIA requests as of receipt of your 7 May 1983 request. Sincerely, [signature] PETER W. BENT, Colonel, USAF Commander Document #4
[REDACTED]
From: [REDACTED] Defence Secretariat 8; File (625
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
Main Building Whitehall London SW1A 2HB
Telephone [REDACTED] (Direct Disling)
[REDACTED] (Switchboard)
[REDACTED]
Your reference
Our reference
D/DS8/10/209-525
Date
[ILLEGIBLE] April 1984
Dear [REDACTED]
Thank you for your letter of 31 January. I am sorry to have taken so long
before replying.
I should first of all point out that the sole interest of the Ministry of Defence
in reported sightings of UFOs is to establish whether they have any bearing on the
defence of the country.
There is no organization in the Ministry of Defence appointed solely for the purpose
of studying UFOs, and no staff are employed on the subject full time. The reports
we receive are referred to the staff in the Department who are responsible for the
air defence of the United Kingdom, and they examine the reports as part of their
normal duties.
Since our interest in UFOs is limited to possible defence implications we have not
carried out a study into the scientific significance of these phenomena. Unless
there are defence implications we do not attempt to identify sightings and we
cannot inform observers of the probable identify of the object seen. The Department
could not justify the expenditure of public funds on investigations which go beyond
the pure defence interests.
We have to recognize that there are many strange things to be seen in the sky, but
we believe there are adequate explanations for them. They may be satellite debris
re-entering the earth atmosphere, ball lightning, unusual cloud formations,
meteorological balloons, aircraft lights, aircraft at unusual angles or many other
things. There is certainly no evidence that alien spacecraft have landed on the
planet. Although we have not carried out our own studies, we are aware of
independent studies into the UFOs, notably by the University of Colorado published
in 1969. This concluded that 90% of all UFOs reported could be plausibly related to
ordinary phenomena.
I attach copies of two recent Parliamentary Questions on the Ministry of Defence's
interest in UFO reports.
Yous Sincerely
[REDACTED]WIGAN·ARIEL·PHENOMENA·INVESTIGATION·TEAM:
[Image of flying saucer drawing]
DATE: JANUARY 31st 1984 V: To/MOD, DEPT, S4 (AIR) main Building
-2-
FILE
REF.. UFO Investigations.
Dear sir/madam,
With refrence to U.F.O Investigations which your
department have been dealing with from 1980 up to present time 1984.
So could you kindly supply us with our following requests for
Information.
1. UFO Cases for Wigan 1980- onwards
2. Official Evaluation of the Bentwaters, Suffolk sighting 27/12/1980.
3. The overall opinon of your depts, Investigations(do UFOs exsist?)
(Not flying saucers with green men Inside.)
4. CONDON Committee report (USA) Could you supply us with it/or where
would we be able to obtain it from.
5. Any International Contact addresses you Could supply us with.
Many thanks for your co-operation, time and trouble.
Yours sincerely
[REDACTED]
Director - WAPIT - WIGAN
DIRECTORS: [REDACTED] Council [REDACTED]From: [REDACTED] Defence Secretariat 8 File 616
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Room [REDACTED]
Main Building Whitehall London SW1A 2HB
Telephone [REDACTED] (Direct Dialling)
[REDACTED] (Switchboard)
Your reference
[REDACTED] Our reference
D/DS8/10/209-518
Date
24 April 1984
Dear [REDACTED]
Thank you for your letter of 12 March. Since [REDACTED], my predecessor here,
last wrote to you it has been decided not to publish the reports of alleged UFO
sightings we receive. As you may know, we receive hundreds of these reports each
year and to prepare them for publication would involve a great deal of editorial
work, for which we have neither the money nor the staff. This would, in any case,
fall outside our defence responsibilities. It is also not possible for you to be
allowed privileged access to these reports. Although they contain no classified
papers they are, like all Ministry of Defence files, subject to the Public Records
Act. Under this Act official files are, in general, to remain closed for 30 years
after the last action has been taken on them.
You may be interested in the two attached Parliamentary Questions on the MOD's
interest in reports of alleged UFO sightings.
Yours Sincerely,
[REDACTED][REDACTED] Dear Sirs, We have corresponded on many occasions in the past regarding your low-key investigation into UFO sightings.I am fully conversant with your policy and appreciate the difficulties under which you labour. You will realise,if you check back through my records,that I have no grand illusions about UFOs.I do not believe you are covering up evidence of an alien invasion.Essentially,I believe that 90% (plus) of sightings are readily explicable As for the rest,the solutions lie in terms of novel atmospheric and psychological phenomena.Some of these phenomena have decided scientific value,and since they represent the harnessing of radiating energy have (both in my view and that of a number of scientists who work with me) potential to offer economic advantages to those who study them. For this reason I have been urging the department since 1978 to release the files you hold to the scientific community,since the problem (as you freely admit) is one much more of a scientific nature than of a defence concern. In October 1982 you wrote to me advising that a decision had been taken to release data and you were currently contemplating the best way by which this might be achieved. I kept this to myself at the time,since I did not wish to prejudice your decision with receipt of numerpus claims.However,you gave me a statement to make public some months later and several sample reports from South Wales.These were in lieu of the case I specifically requested. Recently,I was approached by the Sunday Observor,who planned to do an article on the MOD and UFOs. I gave them full cooperation, to the maximum of my ability, since I felt this was the right kind of influential source to discuss the matter publicly. I had no control over Martin Bailey's conclusions (which I think were reasonably fair),but it is difficult to do this when I have incomplete data.Had I been in possession of more documents I could have possibly helped the paper give an even more fair appraisal. In February 1983 myself and [REDACTED] published an article "The Neglected Science of UFOs" in New Scientist.You may peruse this,since it adequately reflects my position on the matter.I think this demonstrates that I am not making out- landish claims, and that cooperation between us could be to mutual advantage. You must realise the problems caused when unscrupulous sources wrongly promoted the essence of the Woodbridge Air Base (December 1980) sighting,in the News of the World last year.This generated public relations headaches I am sure.And the real truth was in no sense given.After a lot of work on the case I know that a UFO and aliens were not responsible for the events of that night. Following our New Scientist article [REDACTED] and I were approached by a scientific publishers (Blackwell) and commissioned to write a book that reflects the history of science and its dealings with the UFO phenomenon.A section of this deals with official government policy towards UFO science (in the USA and here). In this way a few thousand words on the British MOD policy have been included.
2..
I have brought this to your attention before, in a letter that did not receive
a reply. We feel that this book will be influential,reaching as it does the
scientific community (ie it will not be a mass market paperback).It would be an
ideal opportunity to help one another.That is,you offering data to us, and we
offering a good public relations job for you. This we would be delighted to do.
Whilst the book is largely complete we can delay a little while,if there is
promise of significant new data.
When I first discussed the document release with your department,almost 18 months
ago,I requested privileged access to the files.I suggested that I would be happy
to sign the official secrets act,or any other waiver you may require to protect
the identity of the people who have written to you, which you explained to me as
the main problem in clearing the data for release. Surely such a committment on
my part would be sufficient?
I supported my application with reference to [REDACTED],who acts as my opposite
number in Australia (we are coordinators of national investigations).Prior to the
granting of the Freedom of Information Act in Australia he was offered access (on
terms similar to those I suggest) to all the cleared documents.He was then
encouraged to report on this as widely as possible in the UFO media. This he did,
very fairly I might add.His reports (which I have if you wish to see them) have
had a number of significant advantages.
(1) They have effectively demolished the 'cover-up' myth,by showing in detail
the full truth of the file content.
(2) They have eased the burden of enquiries that the government would have received
by presenting this material,through Bill, to the people who required it.
(3) They allowed a person with the UFO background knowledge (that your team do not
have) to act in a public relations capacity for the government.In other words
all enquiries are deflected to him,and he is in a position to respond to them.
This is an effective system that has worked well. Of course,I realise it was
precipitated by the imminence of Freedom of Information there.No doubt the
Australian government wished to avoid what took place in the USA,where law suit
after law suit (using the F.O.I.act) has been tabled in order to obtain perceived
documents.
[REDACTED]
I asked [REDACTED] to endorse my claim for similar treatment, which he did.
One problem you raised was that there are many UFO groups here,and that sponsorship
of me might leave you open to requests from the others.But surely you are able to
make a value judgement and appreciate that most groups lack knowledge,experience,
and a credible public relations position. I have been a full-time worker in this
field for six years and have established a public relations position.I also have
hopefully demonstrated that I am capable of expressing the situation objectively,
without wild suppositions or illogical assumptions.
I am in the position to report to the UFO community,as [REDACTED] did.In this
way I could help you. What is more,via the book [REDACTED] and I could truly provide
a beneficial service to both science and yourselves. [REDACTED]
You did say that if a substantial delay,further to the one already in effect in
late 1982,were to take place,then you would seriously consider this proposal.
As it would now appear that you have concluded (I think reasonably) that there is- 3.. just too much information to release it all, then this might make the suggestion even more advantageous. Can I please ask you to contemplate such a move. It is in my interests to present the realities of the UFO problem to the scientific community,and to try to educate the UFO enthusiasts (based upon the facts). It is in your interests to ease the public relations burden,whilst being as open as possible. It will not be easy to demonstrate that you are not withholding vital information. To do so effectively we must start now. There may not be a Freedom of Information Act here at the present, but as you must know it is feasible. If it comes,it would be well to have prepared, just as they did in Australia. In which case I believe that my proposition must have merit. Yours sincerely, [REDACTED]
LOOSE MINUTE
D/DS8/10/209-467
10 Apr 84
AD MOD Sy 1
CORRESPONDENCE FROM [REDACTED]
1. I attach a letter and attachments we recently received from a [REDACTED]
for your information and whatever action you think necessary.
2. As you will see, [REDACTED] has sent us a copy of a letter which purports
to be a report of landing of a UFO crewed by several "entities" near RAF
Bentwaters in 1980. This letter is clearly a forgery. Although it is written
on MOD headed paper it is most certainly not on official document.I do not want to
be too alarmist about what could be simply a harmless joke, but this could prove
rather embarrassing if it ever found its way to a newspaper. The News of the World
ran a very sensational story in October last year, alleging that a UFO had landed
near RAF Bentwaters. They based this on a report by a USAF Colonel of some
unexplained lights near the base, which they had managed to get hold of. They
would no doubt seize on this letter as further "proof" that something had happened.
There could also be Parliamentary interest. Sir Patrick Wall MP has recently
asked 2 questions on the MOD's interest in UFO reports and might ask questions
about this. In the worst case, then, this letter could cause a good deal of
unnecessary and unwelcome bother.
3. [REDACTED] addressed the letter to [REDACTED] my predecessor in this
post, because he had spoken to her shortly after the News of the World story
appeared: my phone number has become fairly well known amongst UFO spotters. The
reference to DS8 in the text of the letter is also easily explained; anyone who
has received a letter explaining our policy on UFO reports would know that DS8
are the responsible division, although we do not, contrary to what the letter
suggests, carry out investigations.
4. By way of background, I attach a note explaining the limited extent of our
interest in UFO reports and the 2 recent PQs. I should, of course, be happy to
speak to you about this.
[REDACTED]
DS8
[REDACTED][REDACTED] Solicitor [REDACTED]
OUR REF: HH/SL
YOUR REF:
DS17[REDACTED]
RECORDED DELIVERY
30th March, 1984
For the attention of [REDACTED]
Ministry of Defence,
Main Building,
Whitehall,
LONDON SW1A 2HB
Dear [REDACTED]
re: UFO Matters and Rendlesham Forest Sighting.
I enclose a copy of a letter which I received in January, together with
a copy of the front of the envelope which contained the same, and would be grateful
to receive your comments thereon.
Thanking you in anticipation.
Yours faithfully,
[REDACTED][ILLEGIBLE] U.K EYES 'B'
[Royal crest]
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1A 2HB
Telephone (Direct Dialling) [REDACTED]
(Switchboard) [REDACTED]
THE MAJORITY OF REDACTIONS ON THIS PAGE ARE ON THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT
Dear [REDACTED],
As you know, OSI has completed a report on the landing of
a craft of unknown origin crewed by several entities near RAF Bentwaters on
the night of December 29/30 1980.
Interestingly, OSI reports that the entities were
approximately 1½ metres tall, wore what appeared to be nylon-coated pressure
suits, but no helmets. Conditions on the night were misty, giving the
appearance that the entities were hovering above ground level.
Tape recordings were made on which the entities are heard
to speak in an electronically synthesized version of English, with a strong
American accent. Similar transmissions intercepted irregularly by NSA since
1975.(See attached - Flag A)
According to OSI, entities had claw-like hands with three
digits and an opposable thumb.
Despite original reports (Flags B - G), OSI said the craft
was not damaged but landed deliberately as part of a series of visits to
SAC bases in USA and Europe. Reports that craft was repaired by US
servicemen or was taken on to the base are not confirmed by OSI.
Landing is not considered a defence issue in view of the
overt peaceful nature of the contact, but investigations by DS8 are to be
continued on [REDACTED] authority. Precautionary plan for counter-
information at a local level involving [REDACTED] and a [REDACTED]
[REDACTED], is strongly recommended.
Sincerely
[REDACTED]PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL [REDACTED] [Postmark stamp] [16p stamp]
of Defence ) is to establish the of zation in Mini of Defence and no staff .are sol the for full to we receive, are the and es. in UFOs is 1imited into the sci ications of the the ble defence of these we have seen. on there are to be seen in the be cloud rcraft unusual eS"t are studi the Universi d be to
Hansard Extract
13 March 1984
Cols 132 & 133
Unidentified Flying Objects
Sir Patrick Wall asked the Secretary of State for
Defence (1) how many alleged landings by unidentified
flying objects have been made in 1980, 1981, 1982 and
1983, respectively; and how many have been investigated
by his Department's personnel;
(2) how many unexplained sightings there have been in
1980, 1981, 1982 and 1983, respectively; and which of
these had been traced by radar and with what result.
Mr. Lee [pursuant to his reply, 9 March 1984, c. 728]:
For the years in question, the Ministry of Defence received
the following numbers of reports of sightings of flying
objects which the observer could not identify: 350, 600,
250, and 390. Reports of alleged landings are not
separately identified. The Department was satisfied that
none of these reports was of any defence significance and,
in such cases, does not maintain records of the extent of
its investigations.HANSARD EXTRACT
24 OCTOBER 1983
Col. 62
RAF Woodbridge (Alleged Incident)
Sir Patrick Wall asked the Secretary of State for
Defence (1) if he has seen the United States Air Force
memo dated 13 January 1981 concerning unexplained
lights near RAF Woodbridge;
(2) whether, in view of the fact that the United State's
Air Force memo of 13 January 1981 on the incident at RAF
Woodbridge has been released under the Freedom of
Information Act, he will now release reports and
documents concerning similar unexplained incidents in the
United Kingdom;
(3) how many unexplained sightings or radar intercepts
have taken place since 1980.
Mr. Stanley: I have seen the memorandum of 13
January 1981 to which my hon. Friend refers. Since 1980
the Department has received 1,400 reports of sightings of
flying objects which the observers have been unable to
identify. There were no corresponding unexplained radar
contacts. Subject to normal security constraints, I am
ready to give information about any such reported
sightings that are found to be a matter of concern from a
defence standpoint, but there have been none to date.[RAF crest]
RAF LIAISON OFFICE
Royal Air Force Bentwaters Woodbridge Suffolk IP12 2RQ
Telephone Woodbridge [REDACTED] 01209
[REDACTED]
Defence Secretariat Div 8a Your reference
Ministry of Defence
Main Building Our reference
Whitehall BENT/6/AIR
LONDON Date
SW1A 2HB 30 March 1984
Dear [REDACTED]
Further to your letter D/DS8/10/209 dated
17 November 1983, enclosed is the pre-
advertising for a book on the "Rendlesham
UFO". Most of the advertising is erroneous
but it will no doubt stir up another hornet's
nest!
[REDACTED]
Squadron Leader
RAF Commander
Copy to: HQ 3AF/SRAFLOThis book wilJexplain the meaning of that significant stateme ,’t. Furthermore, the been given infonnation and documentation by the Britjsh Ministry, who for the first time clean about. their involvement in the UFO subject. This could be the book. which finally ends the cover up. In of the and documented, evidence. presented, there can be no S fail to attract controversy and huaesales. The British. edition will published in the summer of 1984,. and the ripples following publication will spread across the world. ORDER FORM Send no money now,but return this . today to: Neville Spearman Limited, The Priory Gate, Friars Street, Sudbury, Suffolk. We will advise bill you when of Sky Cralh are available. . .. t u’ here. ....................... ......... I w.ould like to receive my copy lies of Sky Cralh.Please immediately when I will send. you my remittance. My Name My Address .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. ... .. . . .... . . If . if . .. .. .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . ’. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ’. TheWorfd’s First officially confirmed Encounter A Cosmic Cove U p
.. superior world know this their representatives. met. with aliens elsewhere? And is this but finally , about to be These are strong For this book promises to .be important ever written But the implications beyond ourpersonaJ or tigationposes questions of the the future of the world. The case begins with an blip on a radar screen at a joint civil and air near RendleshamForest in Suffolk in the last few of 1 is by InteUigenceOfficerswho tell (in fantastic story.F rom this dent confirmatory .information out ora which lies in the fore. of this trickle to a torrent, the accounts It is clear an event, unsurpassed. in the . history the UFO. phenomenon, hasoccured on British under the of numerous military ’personnel the Air including some .of very high rank. As the investigation continued to bring new witnesses and information to light, a point was reached where the number r,f civilian and military) described two encounters. within three days. .The overwhelmiJ g.This has best documented UFO incidents ofait time. And. it involves two encounters. with an and undeniably physical, craft. which. had come into the .... not, it would for the first . time! It. were One. at least, of the military irrefutable evidence of a durina which the entities held a with a officer. craft had been damaged and was placed under military the aliens repairs enabling them. to In thcir including synlmetrical trace to visual nnd audit ry were immediatcly placed under traces themselves ",’ere subsequently the authorities in a calculated nlanner. All of these within half a mile the fence of a front~line NATO air base. This joint US Air and I~^F is on alert and is stafTed by anti-tank I tis shielded by one of the tightest radar net\\’orks in the Of course. this significance. . But it one this book. For the events have USA. Documentation to prove The extent of this confirmation the investigative team. For the first thnc a terrifying UFO close encounter is omcially confirmed by the Ministry of Defence and the Pent.agon. ~{aving thl1>From: [REDACTED] Defence Secretariat 8 File 610
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
Main Building Whitehall London SW1A 2HB
Telephone [REDACTED] (Direct Dialling)
[REDACTED] (Switchboard)
Air Commodore [REDACTED] MVO RAF Your reference
Air Attache
British Embassy Our reference
Bonn D/DS8/10/209-390
BFPO 19 Date
21 March 1984
Dear Air Commodore [REDACTED]
REQUEST FOR UFO INFORMATION
1. Thank you for your letter of 2 March. I do apologise for not having replied to
your earlier letter which enclosed a request from the editor of the CEWAP Journal
for information on last October's "News of the World" report about alleged unidenti-
fied sightings outside RAF Woodbridge.
2. The report mentioned in the newspaper article was, indeed, sent to MOD but I
am afraid that much of the story printed by the "News of the World" was, to say the
least, exaggerated. There was no question of any contact with "alien beings", no
unexplained radar contacts and no evidence that anything had landed in the forest.
3. It may help if I explain the very limited interest which MOD has in so-called
UFO reports. Our sole concern is to establish whether they reveal anything of defence
interest (intruding aircraft, for example) and we do not pursue our investigations
beyond the stage at which we are satisfied that there are no defence implications. As
far as the Woodbridge incident is concerned, the Department satisfied itself at the
time that there was no reason to consider that the alleged sightings had any defence
significance.
4. MOD has never denied that strange things may be seen in the sky, but we believe
that there are perfectly normal explanations for these,such as falling satellite
debris, unusual cloud formations or aircraft lights. If[REDACTED] followed articles
printed elsewhere in the British press after last Autumn's report in the "News of the
World" he will have seen a number of attempts to explain the alleged sightings in more
down to earth terms. As I recall, one favourite possibility was that the light seen
came from the Orfordness lighthouse.
5. I am sorry that I cannot be more helpful. I am afraid that there are no official
photographs of RAF Bentwaters and RAF Woodbridge of the type sought by [REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
(for [REDACTED]) (doc)From: [REDACTED] Head of Defence Secretariat 8
[Royal crest]
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1A 2HB
Telephone (Direct Dialling) [REDACTED]
(Switchboard) [REDACTED]
D/DS 8/10/209
R N Noyes Esq
9 Oakley Street
London SW3 5NN 20 March 1984
Dear Ralph,
I do apologise for not replying earlier to your corres-
pondence about the alleged unexplained sightings at RAF Woodbridge
in 1980. As [REDACTED] may have explained when you spoke
to him, we have had staff changes in the relevant section of DS 8
and have been under a lot of pressure generally. However, that
does not excuse the delay for which I hope you will accept my
sincere regrets.
I am afraid, however, that there is very little information
I can give you in answer to your questions about RAF Woodbridge.
I am not sure whether DS 8 had responsibility for the MOD
interest in UFO matters in your day but, if it did, you will
remember how very limited MOD's interest is in such reports.
Our sole concern is to establish whether they reveal anything of
defence interest (intruding aircraft, for example) and we do not
pursue our investigations beyond the stage at which we are satis-
fied that there are no direct defence implications.
As far as the Woodbridge incident is concerned, John
Stanley, Minister for the Armed Forces confirmed in answer to
a written Parliamentary Question from Sir Patrick Wall MP
on 24 October last year, that MOD had, indeed, received the
USAF report to which you refer. The Department satisfied
itself at the time that there was no reason to consider that the
alleged sightings had any defence significance.
That is not to say, however, that Colonel Halt and the
other personnel mentioned in the report were,/as you suggest/
suffering from hallucinations. Speaking personally, I can
accept that people do from time to time see things in the sky
which they find difficult to explain. I am sure your will lordships
agree that in many cases normal explanations come to light,
such as falling meteorites or satellite debris, unusual cloudThe press has carried
formations or aircraft lights. If you followed the press
articles on the Woodbridge incident last Autumn you will have
seen the results of a good deal of investigative journalism
which turned up rational and down-to-earth explanations for
what was seen. As I recall, the light from the Orfordness
lighthouse was one favourite possibility. What the true
explanation is, I do not know; as I said earlier, MOD does
not attempt to investigate reports to the point at which a
positive identification can be made. I can assure you,
however, that there is no evidence of anything having intruded
into British airspace and 'landing' near RAF Woodbridge.
Kind regards
Yours sincerely
[REDACTED][REDACTED] E8
17th January, 1984
[REDACTED]
Head of DS8,
Ministry of Defence, [MOD stamp: 18 JAN 1984 / FILE]
Main Building,
Whitehall SW1
Dear [REDACTED]
I wrote to you on 7th November last year about an
incident alleged to have occurred at RAF Woodbridge in December 1980. I
sent you a reminder on 2nd December. I have not received a reply or an
acknowledgement to either of these letters although nearly two and a half
months have elapsed since I first wrote.
I trust it has not become the policy of the Ministry
of Defence to reply only to questions pressed by an MP.
The matters raised in my letters seem to me of public
importance. I am not alone in thinking so. I hope I shall now shortly
receive your comments.
In case my previous letters have been subject to some
mishap in the post I am sending this to you by recorded delivery.
Yours sincerely,
[signature]
(R.N. Noyes)[MOD crest]
Defence Secretariat Division 8a
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
Main Building Whitehall London SW1A 2HB
Telephone[REDACTED] (Direct Dialling)
[REDACTED] (Switchboard)
[REDACTED] Your reference
Our reference
D/DS8/10/209-986
Date
7 December 1983
Thank you for your letter of 14 November.
I have made further enquiries about the date of the alleged sightings at
RAF Woodbridge in 1980 but as the incident is now almost three years old we can
only rely on the dates given in Lt Col Halt's letter dated 13 January 1981. We
have no knowledge of any local constabulary involvement.
I can confirm no investigations were carried out by the Ministry of Defence until
Lt Col Halt's report was received and there is no truth in the story that radar
records have been confiscated. In fact, no unidentified object was seen on radar
during the period in question. I
As regards the star-like objects referred to in Lt Col Halt's report, I have
already explained that once the Ministry of Defence was satisfied that there was
nothing of defence interest in the sightings no further investigations were
conducted.
I hope this will help to clarify the points you raised.
[REDACTED]
Per [REDACTED][REDACTED] G7
2nd December, 1983
[REDACTED]
Head of DS8,
Ministry of Defence, [MOD stamp: 5 DEC 1983 / FILE]
Main Building,
Whitehall, SW1
Dear [REDACTED]
I wonder whether you can yet let me have a reply
to my letter to you of 7th November about an alleged incident at RAF Woodridge
in December 1980 ?
Since I wrote to you I have been shown a copy of a
letter issued by the US Department of the Air Force in June this year. I
attach a photocopy. This indicates that the Ministry of Defence have for some
time been aware of the report made by Lt.Col. Halt, of which I sent you a copy
with my previous letter.
If I may again say so, Lt.Col. Halt's report really
does seem to require some comment by the Ministry of Defence, considering
the Defence importance of RAF Woodbridge and its USAF element.
Yours sincerely,
[signature]
(R.N. Noyes)
Attachment: Photocopy of US Dept. of the Air Force letter of 14 June 1983[USAF seal]
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
HEADQUARTERS 513TH COMBAT SUPPORT GROUP (USAFE)
APO NEW YORK 09127
[REDACTED]
Ardmore, Pennsylvania 19003 14 June 1983
Dear [REDACTED]
I am pleased to be able to respond to your request for information dated
7 May 1983. As you may now know, the 513th Combat Support Group provides
document management services for Headquarters, Third Air Force. After extensive
effort, we are able to successfully answer your four separately directed requests
for information concerning unexplained lights on 27 December 1980.
It might interest you to know that the US Air Force had no longer retained
a copy of the 13 January 1981 letter written by Lt Col Charles I. Halt. The
Air Force file copy had been properly disposed of in accordance with Air Force
Regulations. Fortunately, through diligent inquiry and the gracious consent of
Her Majesty's government, the British Ministry of Defence and the Royal Air
Force, the US Air Force was provided a copy for you. We trust this adequately
explains the initial inability to provide a favorable response.
As you also asked, we have attached such documentation as we had concerning
the processing of your several FOIA requests as of receipt of your 7 May 1983
request.
Sincerely,
[signature]
PETER W. BENT, Colonel, USAF
Commander
[* The document referred to is not attached. A copy was enclosed with
Mr. Noyes's letter to [REDACTED] d/d 7 November 1983]From Squadron Leader D H Moreland RAF
RAF LIAISON OFFICE
Royal Air Force Bentwaters Woodbridge Suffolk IP12 2RQ
Telephone Woodbridge [REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
Defence Secretariat Div 8a Your reference
Ministry of Defence
Main Building Our reference
Whitehall BENT/19/76/Air
London Date
SW1A 2HB 30 November 1983
Dear [REDACTED] D/209.
The enclosed letter was sent to the Base
Commander here, and I forward it for any
action you consider necessary.
They didn't teach me about the Sub-Dwarfs
Solar System when I studied Astro Navigation
at Navigation School!
[REDACTED]
D H MORELAND
Sqn Ldr
RAF Cdr
Encl.16 Nov. 83
E100/2
Dear Sir
I hope you will forgive a letter from a complete stranger but wish to express to you a very serious matter.
Around your Base and several more in Suffolk and Norfolk you have seven different peoples from outer space planets watching every move that is made by your forces. These seven peoples from these planets are very kind and advanced cultures and would and would like to meet you all from each Airforce base to speak to you about many dangers that face our whole planet. I know three of these creatures, or peoples very well. Two of them come from the main Sequence - Sub-Dwarfs Solar System, a neighbouring Solar System in the vicinity of our own Sun. One of these peoples are named the Krxyzcs from the second planet out from the Star Kruger 60B and the next is the Cock-Et--Tarros the third planet out from the star Barnards and one is from our own Solar System Pluto; The Plutonions I know well.
Now within the next 3 months perhaps possibly before that they will give you a kind of a demonstration to prove to you all that they are serious with regard to meeting some of your High Ranking Officers. The way they will prove to us is by speaking through your sophisticated Radio systems and at times abducting High Ranking Men from your Bases, and they will be doing the same in other countries including Russia.
Sir, I beg of you not to make fun of this letter as it is the truth as Heaven is my Judge and this matter I can help you with.
10/209/1
[REDACTED]
THE BASE COMMANDER
U.S. AIR FORCE
R.A.F. WOODBRIDGE
SUFFOLK
yours faithfully
[REDACTED][postmark: TONNER? / 17 NOV / 1983 / KENT]
Be properly addressed
POSTCODE IT
THE BASE COMMANDER
U.S. AIR FORCE
R.A.F. WOODBRIDGE
SUFFOLKom Squadron Leader D H Moreland RAF
E1647
RAF LIAISON OFFICE
Royal Air Force Bentwaters Woodbridge Suffolk IP12 2RQ
Telephone Woodbridge [REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
Defence Secretariat Division 8a Your reference
Ministry of Defence
Main Building Our reference
Whitehall BENT/19/76/Air
London SW1A 2HB
Date
25 November 1983
[stamp: DEFENCE / D.S.8 / -1 DEC1983 / FILE 10209]
[handwritten signature]
Dear [REDACTED]
Thankyou for your letter and enclosure concerning the unexplained lights seen at Woodbridge during December 1980. The incident is now almost 3 years old and no one here remembers it clearly. All we have is Lt Col Halts' letter dated 13 January 1981.
A study of this letter shows that the first sighting was at 0300 hrs on 27 Dec 80 and that the second sighting was on the night of 29 Dec 80.
I have no knowledge of any local constabulary involvement.
Yours sincerely
[REDACTED][MoD crest]
Defence Secretariat Division 8a
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
Main Building Whitehall London SW1A 2HB
Telephone [REDACTED] (Direct Dialling)
[REDACTED] (Switchboard)
Sqn Ldr D H Moreland RAF Your reference
RAF Liaison Office
RAF Bentwaters Our reference
Woodbridge D/DS8/10/209-1873
Suffolk IP12 2RQ Date
17 November 1983
Dear Squadron Leader
I attach a copy of a letter received from
a member of the public following publication of
the News of the World reports on the Woodbridge
"UFO" sightings.
[REDACTED] has written twice before on this
subject and now alleges that the date given in
Lt. Col. Halt's report of the initial sighting as
being on 27 December 1980 is inaccurate. I would be
grateful for your comments on this.
I would also be grateful if you could discover
whether the second sighting mentioned in the report
took place on the same night or a subsequent night,
and if so, the date of the second sighting.
Yours sincerely
[REDACTED]Your ref D/DS8/10/209
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
MoD
Main Building
Whitehall [stamp: FILE / 16|NOV|183 / FILE 10209]
SW1A 2HB 1983 November 14
Dear [REDACTED]
In response to yours of Nov 10, I have confirmed with Suffolk Constabulary that they were called to the scene of the Woodbridge UFO at 4.11 am on December 26, 1980. They said that all they could see was the lighthouse. They were called out again at 10.30 am on Dec 26 to examine the reported landing marks. There seems little doubt that the date of Dec 27 given in Col Halt's letter (of which I have a copy) is wrong. This also casts doubt on the second date he gives for the later events. If your investigators were looking into events on Dec 29 and 30, as I understand was the case, they were almost certainly concentrating on the wrong day(s). Perhaps the whole case needs re-investigation.
I had hoped not to trouble you again on this subject, but there are a couple of points that perhaps you could clarify for me. Firstly, it is being said that an investigation including confiscation of radar records began before the Halt memo was even written. Do you know this to be true? Secondly, I should be interested to know what your own investigators thought was the probable cause of the "star-like objectsM" that Col Halt reported in the final para of his letter.
Yours sincerely,
[REDACTED][MoD crest]
Defence Secretariat Division 8a
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
Main Building Whitehall London SW1A 2HB
Telephone [REDACTED] (Direct Dialling)
[REDACTED] (Switchboard)
[REDACTED] Your reference
Our reference
D/DS8/10/209-1843
Date
10 November 1983
Dear [REDACTED]
Thank you for your letter of 26 October and your notes on the Woodbridge UFO case.
My only comment on your explanation of the incident is the date on which the sighting took place. I can only confirm that the date given on the report sent to us by Lt Col Halt was 27 December as stated in the News of the World article. There is, however, little substance in much of that article; there is no confirmation that a UFO landed, there was no question of contact with "alien beings" and no unidentified object was seen on radar.
The report was handled in the Ministry of Defence in accordance with normal procedures ie it was passed to staff concerned with air defence matters who examine such reports to satisfy themselves that there are no defence implications. In this instance MOD was satisfied that there was nothing of defence interest in the alleged sightings.
As regards the question of releasing files, I explained in my letter of 19 October that Ministry of Defence files are subject to the Provisions of the Public Record Acts and are not therefore released to the public until 30 years have elapsed after the last action taken on them. I am no aware of any precedent set in the past with regard to the release of UFO files in this country. I am sorry, therefore, that we cannot accede to your request.
Yours sincerely,
[REDACTED][REDACTED] (86)
[REDACTED]
7th November 1983
Mnose Break!
[REDACTED]
9/11
[stamp: -9 NOV1983 / FILE [ILLEGIBLE]]
[REDACTED]
Head of DS8,
Ministry of Defence,
Main Building,
Whitehall, SW1
[handwritten signature]
Dear [REDACTED]
You'll find if you check your records that I occupied that 'hot seat' of yours in DS8 from 1969 to 1972 (subsequently retiring as AUS(L) in 1977). So I'm not writing to you in any frivolous expectation that you'll have much time to spare for what may well strike you as a relatively unimportant enquiry - I well remember the rate at which more urgent stuff crosses that desk of yours ! But if you can help, I'd be grateful.
I'm currently in touch with Lord Hill-Norton (former CDS) and Patrick Wall MP about that odd report of some alleged 'UFO' nonsense at RAF Woodbridge and thereabouts in late December 1980. You may have seen the (characteristically) sensational cover which THE NEWS OF THE WORLD gave to this elderly event in their issues of 2nd and 9th October this year. (And for all I know, you were the luckless chap who drafted the written Answer which was given to Patrick Wall on 24th October - if it wasn't DS4 ??).
I merely come into the picture because I'm currently writing a book (pretty cool and sceptical) about the UFO 'thing': it's certainly a phenomenon, at least to the extent that the public continue to work themselves up about it from time to time; my own treatment of it is that it's a pretty example of modern myth in the making (among some other current myths); and I think I've hooked a publisher for this modest essay.
But Peter Hill-Norton has rather set me back on my haunches by taking the Woodbridge 'event' with a degree of seriousness, and I've since seen the full text of the report made by Lt.Col. Halt, Deputy USAF Base Commander, on 13 January 1981. This was released in America earlier this year under the Freedom of Information Act by the Department of the Airforce. The releasing letter astounded me (and Peter Hill-Norton et al.) by saying: "The Air Force file copy had been ... disposed of... Fortunately, through ... the gracious consent of ... the British Ministry of Defence ... the US Air Force was provided with a copy ..."
I wonder if you'd be kind enough (within security limits) to let me know what you can in answer to the following questions.
a. Did the MOD indeed get a copy of Lt.Col. Halt's report of
13 January 1981 ?
b. If so, did it correspond with the attached photocopy which has been
released in the US ? (Sorry for atrocious copy !).
c. The report implies either that Halt (et al.) was the subject of
hallucinations or that something not explained in the report intrudedinto British and ’landed’ in British on 27 and 29 December 1980. Which of these alternatives does the MOD embrace ? d. Neither alternative is particularly us would wish our col in the of vital weapons) to be deceived by illusory none of us would welcome evidence that and can be intruded upon with . Whichever of the two views the MOD adheres to, what been Lt.Col Halt’s was received ? for you with these interest is the one I’ve mentioned: I’m a book. that broader are involved. Somebody or other may to them further the public arena. I hope (and, as a former Head of DS8, I believe !) that reasonable answers can be (R.N. ) Enclosure of dated 13 1981
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE HEADQUARTERS 81ST [ILLEGIBLE] SUPPORT GROUP (USAFE) APO NEW YORK [ILLEGIBLE] REPLY TO ATTN OF: CD 13 Jan 81 SUBJECT: Unexplained Lights TO: RAF/CC 1. Early in the morning of 27 Dec 80 (approximately 0300L), two USAF security police patrolmen saw unusual lights outside the back gate at RAF Woodbridge. Thinking an aircraft might have crashed or been forced down, they called for permission to go outside the gate to investigate. The on-duty flight chief responded and allowed three patrolmen to proceed on foot. The individuals reported seeing a strange glowing object in the forest. The object was described as being metalic in appearance and triangular in shape, approximately two to three meters across the base and approximately two meters high. It illuminated the entire forest with a white light. The object itself had a pulsing red light on top and a bank(s) of blue lights underneath. The object was hovering or on legs. As the patrolmen approached the object, it maneuvered through the trees and disappeared. At this time the animals on a nearby farm went into a frenzy. The object was briefly sighted approximately an hour later near the back gate. 2. The next day, three depressions 1 1/2" deep and 7" in diameter were found where the object had been sighted on the ground. The following night (29 Dec 80) the area was checked for radiation. Beta/gamma readings of 0.1 milliroentgens were recorded with peak readings in the three depressions and near the center of the triangle formed by the depressions. A nearby tree had moderate (.05-.07) readings on the side of the tree toward the depressions. 3. Later in the night a red sun-like light was seen through the trees. It moved about and pulsed. At one point it appeared to throw off glowing particles and then broke into five separate white objects and then disappeared. Immediately thereafter, three star-like objects were noticed in the sky, two objects to the north and one to the south, all of which were about 10° off the horizon. The objects moved rapidly in sharp angular movements and displayed red, green and blue lights. The objects to the north appeared to be elliptical through an 8-12 power lens. They then turned to full circles. The objects to the north remained in the sky for an hour or more. The object to the south was visible for two or three hours and beamed down a stream of light from time to time. Numerous individuals, including the undersigned, witnessed the activities in paragraphs 2 and 3. [signature] CHARLES I. HALT, Lt Col, USAF Deputy Base Commander Document 45
[X mark]
[MoD crest]
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE WHITEHALL LONDON SW1A 2HB
TELEPHONE [REDACTED]
DIRECT DIALLING [REDACTED]
D/S of S/210/83 } November 1983
[stamp: MINISTRY OF DEFENCE / D.S.8 / -4 NOV 1983 / FILE 16|209]
[handwritten signature] Internals:
Head of DS8
D of Ops(A Def)(RAF)
Thank you for your letter of 19th October enclosing the one attached from your constituent, [REDACTED]
I can assure you that there is not a grain of truth in the allegation that there has been a "cover up" about alleged UFO sightings.
As you will recall from your time as Minister for the Royal Air Force, reports of alleged sightings are examined by operations staff to see whether there is any interest from a defence point of view. No such interest was found in the case of the incident reported in the "News of the World" of 2nd October, or in any of the other sightings reported in the UK. In the "News of the World" incident there was in fact no question of any contact with "alien beings", nor was any unidentified object seen on radar.
My Department's interest remains solely in the implications for the air defence of the UK, as you may have seen in John Stanley's answer in the House on 24th October (copy attached) to a question about the "News of the World" report.
[handwritten signature]
Michael Heseltine
The Rt Hon Merlyn Rees MPYUFOS RESEARCH DIVISION
[globe logo]
Mr Merlyn Rees M.P. E96
c/o House of Commons,
Westminster,
London. [REDACTED]
10/10/83.
Dear sir,
As an investigator for the Yorkshire UFO Society I have been investigating the UFO phenomenon for the past two years in and around the Batley-Morley area.
I have recently read with great interest the articles which appeared in the News of the World on October 2nd and October 9th regarding a UFO which landed in Suffolk and was "covered up" by the ministry of defence.
These two articles only confirm what has been widely believed for some time, and that is that the M.O.D are involved in a tremendous "cover up" on all UFO phenomenon in the British Isles.
It is on this matter of a "cover up" that I urge you to raise the question of why the M.O.D are "covering up" information pertaining to UFOs, in the House of Commons at the first opportunity on my behalf.
As a public organisation the Yorkshire UFO Society believes that the general public have the right to know the truth about UFOs, and I feel it is about time the M.O.D came clean and stopped this silly charade when saying they have no official interest in UFOs, but they still continue to hide the truth from the public.
Only when more voices are aired against the M.O.D cover up, then and only then will they release all the information they have been suppressing for years.
Hopefully you will be able to help me with my request for the release of information and I hope to hear from you soon.
Yours Sincerely
[REDACTED]
DATA RESEARCH,
The Yorkshire UFO Society.E5
HANSARD EXTRACT
24 OCTOBER 1983
Col. 62
RAF Woodbridge (Alleged Incident)
Sir Patrick Wall asked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he has seen the United States Air Force memo dated 13 January 1981 concerning unexplained lights near RAF Woodbridge;
(2) whether, in view of the fact that the United States Air Force memo of 13 January 1981 on the incident at RAF Woodbridge has been released under the Freedom of Information Act, he will now release reports and documents concerning similar unexplained incidents in the United Kingdom;
(3) how many unexplained sightings or radar intercepts have taken place since 1980.
Mr. Stanley: I have seen the memorandum of 13 January 1981 to which my hon. Friend refers. Since 1980 the Department has received 1,400 reports of sightings of flying objects which the observers have been unable to identify. There were no corresponding unexplained radar contacts. Subject to normal security constraints, I am ready to give information about any such reported sightings that are found to be a matter of concern from a defence standpoint, but there have been none to date.
(E95)[stamp: MINISTRY OF DEFENCE / D.C.8 / 31 OCT 1983 / FIR -- 10|209]
[REDACTED] [REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
MoD
Whitehall SW1A 2HB 1983 October 26
Dear [REDACTED]
Thank you for your letter of October 19. In reponse I enclose a paper summarizing my own investigations into the Woodbridge UFO case. You will see that I have painted a rather different picture from that in the News of the World. If anyone has any comments on this paper, I should be pleased to hear them.
I appreciate that it is not normal practice to release MoD files, but I understand that the precedent has been set with regard to one or two files of UFO cases. In view of the continuing public interest in the Woodbridge case, plus the need to prevent an awful lot of wasted time if there really is a straightforward solution, I would hope that an exception can be made. I for one would accept a censored account of the conclusions. If your office does reconsider lifting the veil of secrecy over this case, I do hope you will let me know immediately.
Yours sincerely,
[REDACTED][X mark] E90
1983 October 18 [REDACTED]
Tel: [REDACTED]
AN EXPLANATION OF THE WOODBRIDGE UFO - A SUMMARY
On October 2, 1983, the News of the World reported the alleged landing of a UFO outside RAF Woodbridge in Suffolk at Christmas 1980. Prime documentary evidence of the event consists of a letter from the deputy base commander, Charles I. Halt, which was published by the News of the World. The News of the World also interviewed an eye witness, a former security guard given the pseudonym of Art Wallace.
In outline, the story is that two patrolmen reported seeing unusual lights in the sky at 3 a.m. Subsequently they reported seeing a strange object among the trees of a nearby forest that pulsed and "illuminated the forest with a white light". Next day, three depressions in the ground were found. Later that night, the colonel himself was witness to a "sun-like light seen through the trees" and three star-like objects in the sky.
The facts of the matter are these:
1. The date of December 27 given in the NoW is evidently wrong. Police records reveal that they were called to the scene at 4.11 a.m. on December 26. They have no record of any further calls on December 27 or thereafter.
2. Records of the British Astronomical Association's meteor section show that at 2.50 a.m. on the morning of December 26, 1980, a brilliant fireball (a piece of natural debris from space) burned up in the atmosphere over southern England. Witnesses reported it as being comparable in brightness to the Moon, which was then three-quarters full. Anyone seeing this spectacular event could easily conclude that an object was crashing to the ground.
3. Shortly after publication of the NoW story, local forester Vincent Thurkettle realized that a line drawn from the back gate of RAF Woodbridge through the alleged UFO landing site points directly towards the lighthouse at Orford Ness. On the night of October 6-7 1983 [REDACTED] visited the site with [REDACTED] and confirmed that the pulsating lighthouse beam does indeed appear to hover among the trees near ground level and lights up the forest with a white light. Although the lighthouse is 5 miles away, it is so brilliant that it appears much closer. An observer moving through the forest could easily conclude that the pulsating lighthouse was also moving. If a UFO had been present as well as the lighthouse, the witnesses should have seen not one but two pulsating lights in their line of sight.
continued -[REDACTED] Woodbridge UFO 2
The flashes from the lighthouse were videotaped by a BBC camera crew for an item transmitted on Breakfast Time TV. In an interview in The Times on October 3, [REDACTED] noted that the site was covered with 75-ft-high pine trees 10 ft apart at the time of the alleged landing. He attributed the indentations in the ground to rabbits.
4. When local police arrived at the scene on the night of the alleged landing they found nothing untoward. According to the police account, the only lights they could see were those of the Orford lighthouse. Next day they examined the indentations in the forest and concluded that they were probably made by an animal. Air Traffic Control received reports of "aerial phenomena" over southern England that night. By coincidence, in addition to the 3 a.m. fireball, the Russian Cosmos 749 rocket had re-entered the atmosphere over southern England at 21.07 on the night of December 25, and was widely seen.
5. Although it is not clear from the NoW account, it seems that the last paragraph of Col. Halt's letter refers to events on the following night. He says: "A red sun-like light was seen through the trees. It moved about and pulsed." Either this is the lighthouse again, or we are asked to believe that a second UFO landing occurred on the same site. Col. Halt's "star-like objects...10 degrees off the horizon" were probably just that - stars. The reported "angular movements" are attributable to movements in the observer's eye (the autokinetic effect, familiar when watching a stationary star) and the "[green and blue lights" are an effect caused by simple twinkling when a star is low in the sky. The object to the south that remained visible for 2 to 3 hours and which "beamed down a stream of light from time to time" is almost certainly Sirius, the brightest star in the sky.
Conclusion: Observers who interpreted the 2.50 a.m. fireball as a craft descending into the forest outside RAF Woodbridge might subsequently regard the unexpected appearance of the lighthouse as the same object that had landed. Once they were convinced that something strange was happening, the witnesses could then easily misinterpret other natural phenomena as UFOs. Such behaviour is common in UFO cases. In short, the details of this case for which a reliable account exists are subject to straightforward, rational explanation.
NB: These notes are for private circulation only and are not for publication or quotation without the express permission of the author.
[REDACTED] 1983 October 18r HANSARD EXTRACT 24 OCTOBER 1 98) Col. b2 RAli’,y{ ood bridge(AI ;g ~I ddent) ;~:-_ - ;t-{~sl"’;- .>< Sir Patd k ’VaU asked the Secretary of State for Ddence 0) if he has seen the Un l?d Stales Air Force memo dated 13 Janmuy 1981 concerning unexplained near RAP \V8(}~bridge; (2) whether, in v \\l of the fact that the United State’s Air Force memo of 13 Janum)’ 1981 on the incident at RAF Woodbridge has been released uDd(~r tbe Freedom of lnfonnation Act, he wi!! now relea,~t reports and q~~umel~~ concerning sjmilar lm~’\,f11ained incidents in the muted I....i’figdom;A/} (3) how many unexplained sightings or radar intercepts have taken place since 1980;y’ 1\11’. Stanley: I have seen the memorandum of 13 .t nuary 198] to which my hon. Friend refers. Sil1ce t?80 the Department h*s received 1,400 reports of sigbting~ of flying objects wbkh the observers have been unable to identify. There were 110 corresponding unexplained radar cQptacts.Subject to normal security constraints, I am rdady to give information about any such reportt’d sightings that are found to !;Ie it matter of concern from a deferi .~ standpoint, but thei’Chave been none to date. ~.-..) ~ "Reference PQ 7607C
[handwriting: FL. E88]
+1
M1
PRoRITY
This non-oral question has been allocated to
Minister(AF) for answer.
2. Would you please supply a draft reply and background note,
together with any relevant Hansard extracts and Press cuttings,
to reach this office at the time shown on the front cover.
3. Please submit a copy of the draft answer to PS/USofS(AF)
when returning this, allowing sufficient time for USofS(AF)
to comment.
[REDACTED]
Office of Minister(AF)
Room [REDACTED] Main Building
Extension [REDACTED]
21-10-83
M2
APS/Minister(AF) (thro' DUS(Air))
Copy to:
APS/US of S(AF)
Ops(GE)2(RAF)
1. I have placed opposite a draft reply to PQ 7607C.
2. The same background note has been provided for PQ 7608C
and PQ 7609C.
[REDACTED]
21 October 1983 Head of DS.8
[REDACTED]
CODE 18-77PQ 70670 SIR PATRICK. WALL. (CONSERVATIVE) (BEVERLEY) Sir Patrick Wall - To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he has seen the United States Air Force memo dated 13 January.1981’~ concerning unexplained lights near RAFWoodbridge. SUGGESTED ANSWER (Mr Stanley) Yes.
Background’ Note These three questiorsfollow from the News article of 2 October 1983 (Annex A) describing an alleged UFO sighting by USAF personnel at RAF Woodbridge in Suffolk on 27 December 1980. The report of 13 January 1981 (AnnexB)exam ned by the Air Staff and DB 8. It was concluded that there was nothing of defence interest in the alleged sighting. ." There was, of course, no question of any contact with’ "alien beings,r<nor was any unidentified object seen on any radar recordings, as alleged in the News of the World. A BBC investigation into the incident following publication ’of the News or the World Article concluded that a possible explanation for the lights seen by the USAF personnel was the pulsating light of the Orfordness lighthouse some 6-7 miles away. The sole interest of the MOD in UFO reports is to establish whether they reveal anything of defence interest (eg intruding aircraft). MOD investigations are not pursued beyond the point at which we are satisfied that a report has no defence implications. No attempts are made to identifya:d catalogue the likely explanationf’or individual reports. Last year, Lord Long, during a debate initiated by the Earl Clancarty, said that he would look into the possibility of publishing such reports as are received by the Ministry of I...
Defence. US of 8(AF) has now decided to-release’ compilations of reports. They will be published on a quarterly basis and will be. available to members of the public to cover costs. US of S(AF) had planned to make an announcement short’ly in the House of Lords through an arranged PQ. Pending arrangements for an announcement in the Lords, US of S(AF) agreed that we should indicate the decision in the Commons.
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE HEADQUARTERS 81ST COMBAT SUPPORT GROUP (USAFE) APO NEW YORK 09755 REPLY TO ATTN OF: CD 13 Jan 81 SUBJECT: Unexplained Lights TO: RAF/CC 1. Early in the morning of 27 Dec 80 (approximately 0300L), two USAF security police patrolmen saw unusual lights outside the back gate at RAF Woodbridge. Thinking an aircraft might have crashed or been forced down, they called for permission to go outside the gate to investigate. The on-duty flight chief responded and allowed three patrolmen to proceed on foot. The individuals reported seeing a strange glowing object in the forest. The object was described as being metalic in appearance and triangular in shape, approximately two to three meters across the base and approximately two meters high. It illuminated the entire forest with a white light. The object itself had a pulsing red light on top and a bank(s) of blue lights underneath. The object was hovering or on legs. As the patrolmen approached the object, it maneuvered through the trees and disappeared. At this time the animals on a nearby farm went into a frenzy. The object was briefly sighted approximately an hour later near the back gate. 2. The next day, three depressions 1 1/2" deep and 7" in diameter were found where the object had been sighted on the ground. The following night (29 Dec 80) the area was checked for radiation. Beta/gamma readings of 0.1 milliroentgens were recorded with peak readings in the three depressions and near the center of the triangle formed by the depressions. A nearby tree had moderate (.05-.07) readings on the side of the tree toward the depressions. 3. Later in the night a red sun-like light was seen through the trees. It moved about and pulsed. At one point it appeared to throw off glowing particles and then broke into five separate white objects and then disappeared. Immediately thereafter, three star-like objects were noticed in the sky, two objects to the north and one to the south, all of which were about 10° off the horizon. The objects moved rapidly in sharp angular movements and displayed red, green and blue lights. The objects to the north appeared to be elliptical through an 8-12 power lens. They then turned to full circles. The objects to the north remained in the sky for an hour or more. The object to the south was visible for two or three hours and beamed down a stream of light from time to time. Numerous individuals, including the undersigned, witnessed the activities in paragraphs 2 and 3. [signature] CHARLES I. HALT, Lt Col, USAF Deputy Base Commander
EXTRACT FROM HOUSE OF LORDS HANSARD -- 7TH APRIL 1982
(E84)
UFO Sighting Reports: Security
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many of the 2,250 sightings of UFOs reported to the Ministry of Defence in the years 1978-81 were, and still are, classified for reasons of security.
Viscount Long: None, my Lords.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: My Lords, I thank my noble kinsman for that Answer. May I ask him two questions? First, what did he mean when he said in his Answer on, I think, 4th March that reports of sightings that were considered to be of interest to defence were in fact classified? Secondly, what procedures may be open to individuals or organisations who would like to see the reports?
Viscount Long: My Lords, with regard to the latter part of my noble friend's supplementary question, there is no reason why he should not come and see the reports. Not many of them come in because not many people actually report sightings. There is no cover up in that respect. As for the first part of my noble friend's supplementary question, I stick to what I said earlier.
The Earl of Kimberley: My Lords, can my noble friend say why, when I previously asked a supplementary question, he said that the figures had got lost on the way to the Ministry, whereas today he says that they are there and available for anyone to see? Can he therefore place them in the Library for all of us to see?
Viscount Long: My Lords, I will look into that and find out whether it is possible for your Lordships to see them. I should like all of your Lordships to see them in the Library, if possible.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, may I ask the Government whether they think that any of these UFOs are manned spacecraft coming from a planet outside the solar system, as is believed by the "ufologists"?
Viscount Long: My Lords, the noble Lord can believe that; anything is possible.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, do I understand that the noble Viscount the Minister in his reply to the original Question does not deny that UFOs exist? Is it possible — I use the word "possible" very carefully, but deliberately — that all the information is well-known to the Ministry of Defence, but that for diplomatic and other reasons it is not prepared to make an announcement?
Viscount Long: No, my Lords, it is not prepared to make an announcement because it has not got the facts to make an announcement with authority behind it.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, the Question asks about 2,250 sightings. The noble Viscount says that there are very few sightings reported to the Ministry of Defence. Does that mean to say that the figure in the Question is incorrect?
Viscount Long: No, my lords, it was on the original assumption that there are probably many sightings that are not reported to the Ministry of Defence. That is what I was really referring to. Therefore, at this stage what we have said is that we have got.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, I should like to clear up that point. The Question refers to 2,250 sightings "reported" to the Ministry of Defence. The Question I was asked was, "Is that figure correct, or not?"
Viscount Long: That is correct, my Lords, up to this moment.
Lord Wade: My Lords, may I ask which Ministry is responsible for UFOs?
Viscount Long: None, my Lords. Reports come into the Ministry of Defence, and anyone can take them from there.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, has anybody yet found an empty beer can marked, "Made in Centaurus", or any similar object? Until they have, will the Ministry deal with these matters with very considerable scepticism, please?
Viscount Long: My Lords, I am not the Minister for conservation, if it is a question of beer cans.
Lord Morris: My Lords, if something is said to be unidentified, how can it possibly be said to exist?
Viscount Long: A very good question, my Lords.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether any of the unidentified flying objects are Ministers who are fleeing from the Cabinet just now?
Viscount Long: No, my Lords.
The Earl of Clancarty: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount whether he is aware of a Ministry of Defence document concerning UFOs, which was published in the July 1978 issue of a journal called Viewpoint Aquarius? Furthermore, he is aware that under the heading of "Contacts" there were listed 18 names, and alongside each name there was given the town which was the location of the supposed occurrence? There were also given classifications and a date and time relating to each name. Is the noble Viscount aware that there was a tremendous distribution of the document to other Government departments, and to NORAD and the CIA? I should like to ask whether in this case the word "contacts" means close encounters?
Viscount Long: Yes, my Lords, I have the document here, and it has nothing to do with the Ministry of Defence. It is made up to look rather like a Christmas menu. Its existence in the Ministry of Defence has been denied on television. Someone else has made it up. It is not a Ministry of Defence document — not the way it is made up, like a Christmas menu.p. 69 British Citizens: [4 MARCH 1982] Overseas Supplements 1370
House of Lords
Thursday, 4th March, 1982.
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Derby): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
British Citizens: Overseas Supplements
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many British citizens received British Expatriates Supplementation Scheme or Overseas Service Aid Scheme supplements in 1979 and in 1981 and what further changes are planned.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the average number of British citizens receiving British Expatriates Supplementation Scheme or Overseas Service Aid Scheme supplements in 1979 was 4,083. In 1981, the comparable figure was 2,975. The numbers have fallen steadily since 1970 and reductions are expected to continue at about 10 per cent. per annum over the next few years. No changes in terms of service are planned at the moment.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Minister whether he has read the Answer given by his colleague to a similar Question which I put in December? The Answer, which I paraphrase, was that the numbers had fallen because local indigenous people had now become sufficiently trained to take those positions. If the noble Lord has looked since at these figures, would he agree that this is not an adequate answer and that this is a deliberate policy by the Government to reduce the number of British citizens who are given supplements to work overseas? Would the noble Lord further agree that this is causing very great difficulty to universities, to technical colleges and to a whole range of national activities in the Commonwealth?
Lord Trefgarne: No, I do not agree with that, my Lords. I have indeed studied the Answer which my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale gave to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, at the end of last year. The reasons which my noble friend then gave remain correct.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: But surely the figures which have been given this afternoon, if I heard correctly, have reduced the number by about 25 per cent. in two years. Does this not entail a great reduction in British influence all over the Commonwealth? And is the noble Lord aware that particularly in the recruitment of the requisite trained staff?
[HL 15 M2]
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the numbers have indeed declined, as I described in the original Answer and as was referred to at the time of the earlier Question at the end of last year. But one has to remember that these schemes are operated in the closest consultation with the various Governments concerned, and they sometimes choose to use the aid funds for other purposes.
Unidentified Flying Objects: Sightings
3.4 p.m.
The Earl of Clancarty: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many reports have been received by the Ministry of Defence on unidentified flying objects (UFOs) in each of the last four years, and what action has been taken in each case.
Viscount Long: My Lords, in 1978 there were 750 sightings; in 1979 there were 550 sightings; in 1980, 350 sightings; and in 1981, 600 sightings. All UFO reports are passed to operations staff who examine them solely for possible defence implications.
The Earl of Clancarty: My Lords, while thanking the noble Viscount for that Answer, may I ask him whether or not it is a fact that over 2,000 authenticated UFO reports were published last year in the national press? If so, were they accepted or passed on to the Ministry of Defence? And what happened to them?
Viscount Long: My Lords, they did not all get to the Ministry of Defence. I have just informed your Lordships of the numbers sighted. If the noble Earl is suspicious that the Ministry of Defence is covering up in any way, I can assure him that there is no reason why we should cover up the figures which he has mentioned if they are true. The sole interest of the Ministry of Defence in UFO reports is to establish whether they reveal anything of defence interest — for example, a Russian aircraft or an unidentified aircraft — which might have breached our security systems. That is the sole reason why we are interested in the reports.
Lord Wynne-Jones: My Lords, does the Answer given mean that since there has been a Conservative Government the UFOs have done a U-turn and departed?
Viscount Long: Not according to my reading, my Lords.
The Earl of Kimberley: My Lords, as my noble friend said that 600 UFOs had been officially reported or acknowledged by the Ministry of Defence in 1981, may I ask him how many of those sightings still remain unidentified and were not subject to security, or were Russian aeroplanes, or anything like that?1371 Unidentified Flying [LORDS] Objects: Sightings 1372
Viscount Long: My Lords, I do not have those figures. They disappeared into the unknown before them.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount whether the present Government adhere to the view of the previous Government which I put forward when I replied to the debate three years ago in your Lordships' House, that most of these so-called sightings can be accounted for as natural phenomena?
Viscount Long: Yes, my Lords, they can be. Many of them are accounted for in one way or another, but nobody has got a really constructive answer for all of them.
Lord Hill-Norton: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount whether or not it is true that all the sighting reports received by the Ministry of Defence before 1962 were destroyed because they were deemed "to be of no interest"? And if it is true, who was it who decided that they were of no interest?
Viscount Long: My Lords, my reply to the noble and gallant Lord — I was wondering whether he was going to say that the Royal Navy had many times seen the Loch Ness monster — is that since 1967 all UFO reports have been preserved. Before that time, they were generally destroyed after five years.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, can the noble Viscount tell us whether, out of these thousands of sightings which he has mentioned, there has been a single one which suggested any menace to our defences? In the circumstances, is not an awful lot of time being wasted on this nonsense?
Viscount Long: My Lords, I think Her Majesty's Government are waiting for an invitation from them to discuss these problems.
Mr. Anatoly Shcharansky: Representations
3.9 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that Anatoly Shcharansky has for the past 15 months been undernourished, tortured and frequently placed in punishment cells, and in October 1981 had his prison sentence increased by 3 years for his refusal to plead guilty to a charge of which he has always maintained his innocence; and whether they will request the Soviet Government to state whether they intend to keep him in those uncivilised conditions until he relents or dies.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government remain gravely concerned about the plight of Anatoly Shcharansky and are disturbed by recent reports of his ill-treatment. We have raised this case with the Soviet authorities on many occasions, both in direct bilateral contact and at the Madrid review meeting. We shall continue to take a close interest in Mr. Shcharansky's case, and to make representations as suitable opportunities arise.
Lord Renton: My Lords, may I thank my noble friend not only for that Answer but for the action which he and the Foreign Office have been and are taking with regard to Shcharansky's plight? May I ask my noble friend whether or not the Soviet Government's failure, as shown by the treatment of Shcharansky and others, to honour their Helsinki undertakings diminishes their credibility in relation to all other matters in which they say they are seeking agreement and on which they would like to be believed?
Lord Trefgarne: If I may say so, my Lords, my noble friend has put his finger on the nub of the problem. How can we believe what they say in negotiations such as the IMF negotiations, the MBFR negotiations as they are called in Vienna, or in any other forum for that matter, when they do not do what they said they would do at Helsinki in 1976?
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, in view of the rumours, which are probably well founded, that Mr. Brezhnev is about to retire, could a message from your Lordships' House be sent to him through the Soviet Embassy wishing him for the remainder of his life — and we hope he has many years left yet — peace and contentment and asking whether, as a gracious act upon his retirement, he will ensure that Mr. Shcharansky is treated as a civilised person?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I would certainly be willing to send another message to the Soviet Union about Mr. Shcharansky if I thought it would have any effect. As to the future of Mr. Brezhnev, I believe that that is a matter for them to decide for themselves.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, would it not help if the western nations ceased providing wheat to the Soviet Union, at a time when they are finding themselves short, until they cease to carry out such inhuman activities against individuals and sovereign States?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the failure of the Soviet agricultural industry is now plain for all to see, but I am not sure that the interests of the West are served by starving them out.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, in view of the fact that the treatment of Shcharansky seems to be a serious violation of human rights, has the matter been raised before the sub-commission on human rights at the United Nations?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not certain that the matter has been raised before that particular body but certainly it has been raised before all the others I mentioned. There could be a good opportunity for doing as the noble and learned Lord suggests.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Mr. Shcharansky is a very distinguished computer scientist? Will he therefore consider a reduction inReference PQ 7608C
[handwriting: FL E83]
M1
PRoRITY
This non-oral question has been allocated to
Minister(AF) for answer.
2. Would you please supply a draft reply and background note,
together with any relevant Hansard extracts and Press cuttings,
to reach this office at the time shown on the front cover.
3. Please submit a copy of the draft answer to PS/USofS(AF)
when returning this, allowing sufficient time for USofS(AF)
to comment.
[REDACTED]
Office of Minister(AF)
Room [REDACTED] Main Building
Extension [REDACTED]
21-10-83
M2
APS/Minister(AF) (thro' DUS(Air))
Copy to:
APS/US of S(AF)
Ops(GE)2(RAF)
1. I have placed opposite a draft reply to PQ 7608C.
2. The same background note has been provided for PQ 7607C
and PQ 7609C.
[REDACTED]
21 October 1983 Head of DS 8
[REDACTED]
CODE 18-77PQ.7608C SIR PATRICK WALL (CONSERVATIVE) (BEVERLEY) Sir Patrick Wall - To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether, in view of the fact that the United States’ Air Force memo 0:(.13 January 1981 on the incident .at RAF Woodbridge has been rJ31eased under.the Freedom of Information Act, he will now release reports and documents concerning similar unexplained incidents in the United Kingdom. ’.. SUGGESTED ANSWER (M!’ Stanley) This has been considered. It is the intention to publish reports.
Background Note three questiomfollow from article of 2 October 1983 (Annex A) describing an alleged UFO sighting by USAF personnel at RAF Woodbridge in Suffolk on 27 December .1980. The report of 13 January 1981 (Annex B) examined by Air Staff andDS 8. It was concluded that there was nothing of defence interest in the alleged sight~ng. II! There was, of course, no question of any contact with "alien beings" nor was any unidentified object seen on any radar recordings, as alleged in the News of the World. A BBC investigation into the incident following publication of the News or the World Article concluded that a possible explanation for the lights seen by the USAF personnel was the pulsating light of theOrfordness lighthouse some 6 - 7 miles away. ....~ The sole interest of the MOD in o reports is to establish whether they reveal anything of defence interest (egintruding aircraft). MOD investigations are not pursued beyond the point at which we are satisfied that a report has no defence implications. No attempts are made to identify ad catalogue the likely explanation for individual reports. Last year, Lord Long, during a debate initiated by the Earl Clancarty, said that he would look into the possibility of publishing such reports as are received by the Ministry of /.. .
- Defence. US of S(AF) has now decided to.release compilations of reports. They will be published on a quarterly basis and to cover costs. US of S(AF) had planned to make an announcemerit short’lyin the House of Lords through an arranged PQ. Pending arrangements for an announcement in the Lords, US of S(AF) has agreed that we should ’indicate the decision in the Commons.
Defence Secretariat Division 8
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
Main Building Whitehall London SW1A 2HB
Telephone [REDACTED] (Direct Dialling)
[REDACTED] (Switchboard)
[REDACTED] Your reference
Our reference
D/DS8/10/209
Date
19 October 1983
Dear [REDACTED]
Thank you for your letter of 9 October concerning the
alleged UFO landing near RAF Woodbridge.
I should explain that it is not the policy of the
Ministry of Defence to release its files to members of
the public. All MOD files are subject to the provisions
of the Public Records Act which lay down that in
general official files are to remain closed until 30
years have elapsed after the last action taken on them.
It would not, therefore, be possible to accede to your
request.
I can, however, confirm that no unidentified object was
seen on any radar recordings during the period in
question and that the News of the World article was
inaccurate on this point.
Yours sincerely
[REDACTED]Defence Secretariat Division 8a
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
Main Building Whitehall London SW1A 2HB
Telephone [REDACTED] (Direct Dialling)
[REDACTED] (Switchboard)
[REDACTED]
Your reference
Our reference
D/DS8/10/209
Date
4 October 1983
Dear [REDACTED]
Your letter of 2 October has been passed to me for reply.
I can confirm that the Ministry of Defence did receive a report from base
personnel of a UFO sighting near RAF Woodbridge on 27 December 1980.
(This was the report published by the News of the World on 2 October 1983).
The report was dealt with in accordance with normal procedures ie it was
passed to staff concerned with air defence matters who examine such reports
to satisfy themselves that there are no defence implications. In this
instance MOD was satisfied that there was nothing of defence interest in the
alleged sightings. There was no question of any contact with "alien beings"
nor was there any confirmation that an object had landed in the forest.
You may be interested to know that the BBC recently carried out its own
investigations into the incident and concluded that the UFO was nothing more
sinister than the pulsating light of the Orfordness Lighthouse some 6 or 7
miles away through the trees.
Yours sincerely
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED][Section 40]
[MINISTRY OF DEFENCE stamp]
D.S.8
12 OCT 1983
FILE 10/209
[REDACTED]
RAF Press Office
Ministry of Defence
Whitehall
London SW1A 2HB
[REDACTED]
1983 October 9
Dear Sirs,
As you may have seen on BBC TV's Breakfast Time programme
on Friday October 7, I visited the site of the alleged
UFO landing outside Woodbridge Air Force station in
Suffolk and found that the pulsating bright light seen
among the trees was apparently nothing more alien than
the lighthouse at Orford Ness, which does indeed illumi-
nate the forest near Woodbridge with a white light,
as the letter from USAF Lt Col Charles Halt describes.
In view of the immense public interest in this case
following the News of the World article (and, I believe,
further coverage this week), and mindful of the fact
that it would be important to establish the lighthouse
theory if it is true, I wonder if you would now consider
releasing the MoD investigation file on this case, as I
understand that you have done with other cases before
now? I would certainly be prepared to pay any reasonable
administration charge that this might entail.
I should also welcome comments on the apparent radar
sighting of a UFO at about the time of the Woodbridge
incident.
Yours sincerely,
[REDACTED][REDACTED] I suggest a minor amendment to the defensive line. Otherwise fine. Pls go ahead. [REDACTED] 6/10. [REDACTED] News of the World Article on UFOs. +/ We spoke yesterday about the attached article. I have since instituted investigations and attach a press line and Q&A brief which I propose sending to the DPO. This will hopefully put them on the right track should there be further inquiries. The News of the World story appears to be one fabrication after another. Lt Col. Halt has not spoken to anyone from the News of the World nor has he been told his career would be in jeopardy if he talked about the incident. The report has not been classified top secret by the USAF - the only report prepared by the USAF is that contained on our files and which is unclassified. The alleged interview with Sqn Ldr. Moreland is also a fabrication. He stated that " to the best of my knowledge Lt. Col. Halt is a very genuine person" but gave no details of any conversation he had had with Halt nor did he say "whatever it was, it was able to perform feats in the air which no known aircraft is capable of doing." As regards the information allegedly provided by the former security policeman this is completely untrue. The personnel who went into the forest to investigate the lights went on foot- not in a jeep. Only three patrolmen entered the forest, contrary to the report of more than 200 RAF and USAF personnel being present. There was never any question of alien beings. Nor is there any truth in the statement that "Art Wallace" and others were interviewed
by the CIA and told to keep quiet. The
US authorities did not carry out any
such investigations but left MOD to carry
out its own investigations.
Ops(GE) has checked the question of
radar traces with NATO who have
informally stated that nothing was
seen on any radar recordings although
they did receive a report of a sighting from
a civil aircraft.
The unfortunate point about the
article is the fact that MOD refused to
comment on the grounds that it was a
matter for the USAF while USAF were saying
it was a matter for MOD- an ideal support
to the theory of a MOD cover up!
[REDACTED]
3/10LOOSE MINUTE
D/DS8/10/209-356
6 Oct 83
DPO(RAF)
NEWS OF THE WORLD ARTICLE: UFO SIGHTING AT
RAF WOODBRIDGE
1. Following the coverage given by the News of the
World on 2 October 1983 to the alleged UFO Sighting
at RAF Woodbridge on 27 December 1980 and the follow-
up promised for 9 October we have drawn up a
defensive press line and short Q & A brief for use by
yourselves.
2. If you receive further enquiries from the press
which you are unable to answer from the briefing
provided please do not hesitate to contact me. The
report in the News of the World that MOD and USAF both
referred callers to the other will have done nothing
but confirm suspicions widely held in UFO circles that
we are engaged in a cover-up!
[REDACTED]
DS8a
[REDACTED]UFO INCIDENT AT RAF WOODBRIDGE 27 DECEMBER 1980
Defensive Press Line
I can confirm that the Ministry of Defence did receive a report from base
personnel of a UFO sighting near RAF Woodbridge on 27 December 1980. (This
was the report published by the News of the World on 2 October 1983). The
report was dealt with in accordance with normal procedures ie. it was passed
to staff concerned with air defence matters who examine such reports to
satisfy themselves that there are no defence implications. In this instance
MOD was satisfied that there was nothing of defence interest in the alleged
sightings. There was no question of any contact with "alien beings".
Q1. Did the US authorities investigate the incident?
A1. No. Once the report had been sent to the Ministry of Defence the US
authorities carried out no further investigations. [Investigations of
UFO reports in the UK are carried out by the Ministry of Defence; the
USAF has no responsibility in such matters].
Q2. Was Col Halt told to keep quiet?
A2. No. Lt Col Halt has not been told to keep quiet about the incident nor
has he been informed that his career could be in jeopardy.
Q3. Was the object tracked on radar?
A3. No. No unidentified object was seen on any radar recordings during the
period in question.,l @) r \, " 11~IE TII\1ES MOND/Vi" oc:-:rC) ErZ :3 i 983 ",-"_",~",_""~",,:,,,,,,~_.,,,,,,,",,’,,,,",,,,,.,",,.,..,,,...",,,...1.>=or....~~,...__....,,=:,,,,,,,.~=-.""""",,,,,,,’~"’’’’’’’~’’’’’,..,~~~.’’’’’’_’’’’ 0-;’ "’-’ ’’’’’.’ .,,,.’-"’’’’.._.........__~._.’’’’’~~,,.~........,..........~....’’’’"_’’’.....’’’’’’’’’’.......,~..-’’’=>-,,.....,..,..__~.o<’~.,.",,~-.-.~~.______.,.,-..-..~~_~->;...,..~ Earthly beings: Mr Vincent Thurkettle and his dog at the forest site of the Christmas , ",: UFO "landing". ’ ’ , Dowri’to earth "approach to a UFO From Alfm Hamilton, Woodbridge ’ , The first being en untered bken a fair fent of mn-igation yesterday was, clad in corduoy to get among tlmt lot." troUS’ rs ar..d black wellingtons. He pointed to indentations in He came, he said, uot frro outer the ground that might ha,’e space, but HIe Forestry Com- been made by the feet of a far- mission. flls name was not the Lr velled craft. "Rabbits", he Mekon, but Vincent Thur- said. "They dig for fuotS." kettle. But, surely, the searchers The’ second being closely reported burn marks oil the resembled a co e dog, and was surrounding trees and radiation too busy chasing sticks to in the grOlmcl? 1evita c. "The burns were the marks we put on the tree~ for feHing. "This is the site", said the And as for radiation, a cmft first being, gesturing around a from outer space is going to use rough acreage of stumps and a far more sophisticated form tc gs. "When the’ UFO -is of propulsion." supposed t6 have landed the A third being, who said he whole area was covered bv was David Boast, and a Corsican pines 75ft tall and gamekeeper, was quoted in the only 10ft apart. It would have News of the World as saying shop draw ulled their istol, mess 1; of rhkh , of JEW d he nder’ ,triet ’orne "kers -ns. that nent had "as a The mission ’was to seek a close encounter, preferably of the third kind, but any kind would do. The place was a vast clearing deep in the 10,000 acres of Aldewood Forest, Suffolk, where, according to ye,! terda,y’s N WS of the World, an alien spac ci"aft hmdc at Christmas, 1930, n",w among the trees, left imprints on the groimd, and vau;.;hed Wl!-Y \’/Inm the United States Air l1;ecce from Wood~ bridge bas~, half a mile away, came out to investigate. W nessesm, accurding to the paper, haxe since greatly elabornted on the event, speak- ing of beings in silvery suits who practised levitation. :es a one din ~the J be :d at ,her, per lade leek Iyed, in is the "om Tory move on holiday vote la\v y Th t I ’"11 e ’n " 4.~ }~, "!!J "’I) _I!I -, , , a C ler LiliIo. term o i 1f~ ~ !1’i\ ~ Y b’t !liP f.G\S. t9tPI~ "_.,1iliJ.1J J1liL~~w \,V ~.’ ~ ~’ij. ....~/..1I Conservative MPs believe By Our Political Reporter that !’..lrs Margaret Thatcher The Govt’mmcllt is expected may soon be stung into 10 ~\rln(1unce ne,~t week !hr.t it restating her determination to wi!! legis!ate to give holid",y- !cad the party for a third term of makns post.it yotes at the next office. gcndaJ clcn on. This foHows seVCtD! reports "Hnis,~rs and 1\1Ps were SU wsting that S~)rrH~ MPs ,are ~trll k durin~ th !;cncmJ C!CC-, pnvately cxpressmg t!1’;: VieW 1iun carooaii;n by "the di:;srrtis.. thnt. she ~,:ay ~ s~ ~nd d~)\vf1~ an factio11 o( Ui( :>~ \\"ho ’i’vcr.-: g’JiCi; I~ opin:on VOH.:ect !or the iif~t tirnc j’, b" -n h(j:;,hy 01 Tnnr’ { "I’.! publlc!y OJ1 Saturday bv a ....... ’.,....; .’. ~~ ~..~. 1 ’.1~’ .’ ’,,,,t..I. ~; -’J _; ~ "t.t.. .. ’1r.~ k"’f- il"I’~ \VC’-~’ "10t ,,’l;rnv,.r{ Q vote 1-\ QCO’" j .,~a{l,il..~ ,’,,!ChtJC’ilCL....L l"~; .....J t.c.;.n C;~ ;:;.~_~~ut~i;;~s. fi~~);y~ ’r~)ry ;t~~-.(<i~ 1 (’1’itchlc;!’., k" ::t1l)P:} for th;~ t ;-~r1v con.fc"(’i}<:e f 1’.11’ (n~cL!t;Y~.., ’\’l~~t and .L....~,,\ ~:_~H. ". _ _1_ ,’1 i o,....t."-,-{ ,~>,..f;n ,...-t ..~~ ~ n_.’ en{ rei: r,;"t ~:(’. . is .C" -,- !u. :";~; -.:T .~:,- Margaret, those that loathe her and me." Asked if he was thinking in tcrms cf a su es~or Mr I CIitchley replied: "ln re’ilsingJy I so", He went on: "I think she will not run for a third fuH term I in i 987-88." I QU<~$tioned later h;,;, soec’.t-I h:~{::,"d on pos~’.ibl’t suc~{~$~or;;) saYi,ag: "{f thc, !e ’~cr:;hip. \vt::f.e ! 10 (’r:~:j ~l.~ i;jt.,~lHS PO~~~l,t Hi i~n’~~’ It I ViOiJ~\1 :):; Sir (,:.>)Hn;v tl()\\’c \-,..ho v{ot.:d h{: "Ui. ~ r;~-ttl_Ln.1i t SUCU~3:;Gr but if it :< t’;).. ~i;.I’ ~ ~ i f: wI-II fell huw cattle lj~micked near his house on the night in (IIJestiou. "There are no cattle anywhere near here", he told me. ";This is It forest." Neither the first nor tiie third being could recall am- thing untoward on the night in question, except that it was Christmas. \’JfOi pim of ach ’r yea1 sell( for had con’ pro1 T that rise! the seve acce log mor reef’ seete Se day uni... pers scho arou prey local TI was. said com’ i.1uth rcstr, fit, who ated StJIUi er ’J pOpl’ dent part is a 1 a d trem, ofw, He few aloof such cxclu MJ aiel! the i \vent well-r the Jitt!e studi! \verc \vas 11 HardliIlers in Sf’fP keep IJo\’ver The levers of power in the Scottish National Party remain firmlv in the hands of the hard!lne "independence. no’,h- h,,! less" faction. Ekc ons hdd at~ the end of the patty’s ! rtyninth annual confe i1CC, on the island rc:;ort of H..othesay’ ~d the, \\’ceket d’t produced dmost a cleml sweep 01’ th:: i~’~~p’r~)tanr. I:[1rt;’ offit:cs for 1:h{,,: I tnmtwo;t(lS,S. ~~~~(trly aU of th~~ i~nd :;; J \’: ’;:;()p~1i~.c;t~ \.vhn ’-H1.;"\<~/’i . ili: o’ hCj uni"" Sdh’( mile;; ....f...} ,Vi ~l~,S(’:i[~I.[~J LTD. .0’ l’oCT 10 \, , IN>’ORMAflGN REfP.I"’VAl. EiW:’:E . DATE ’ ,2 v i J.’_i -- . < -,-~,---;",------:~~,,;,,\, . 1 N’ ..’ , "~~_ :"..~~_. . ., _ ~ _ _ , e64 ) . . ., ", ’ , !)’’-/ .0’ ~. ~ ~’~V,: O. r. , ~.. ri- hi ’.’ ~,i~.’ : ’; ’. ’J’. .. ,’W.~, -’, ".6:36 4~9?~ .~,_ "~- , ’. .. . ’rL ON SUNDAY .~.......- --...----,,; ..- "~ -. " ’edw on our sttld nt . : ~ . ’. , Radio Moscow- if we wr.nted the ~pes ’and cumed. them downstra,ight a.way: A typical. example’ is this extr:a.ct from Soviet Press Review: ’Alter the deliberate provocation with the South Korean plane it must seem that the Reagan a.dministration has beaten ail I"ei:ords of hypocrisy’ and di:;tortion of facts. Yevgenity Ruschov says in Prnvda: Moscow Ls pouring millions ot rou4 bles into it.’> battle With Western broadcasting.’ ;;pending- more in four- days jamming tile BBC World S !"’,ice transmissions to the Soviet Union than the BBC Ru&>ian service’s annual budge~ . o Anti-Western propagan a. could be- beamlKi on future sate11ite TV to BrHJ.sh homes because of a. loophole in. International law on copyright. By GRAEME GOURLAY RUSSIA is’ using British’ university radio stations, in. a major propaganda earn"; paign. For the past two years State- run Radio Moscow. has been’ sending tapes f ’news and a.rts programmes to most of the 19 campus’ radio stations run by students. Many of these. stations. which are licensed by the Home Office have broa.dcast the propaganda tapes. unedited. But others have re!usIKi to use the heavy-hand<;d and biaslKi reports. Last week. while, Mrs Thateher was g on the West to <fight a battle of . RUSSIA ~"",<""""""",.....,;,,,,,,~ ideas’ against Communism. tWQ-thirds ot,: the campU3 radio stations were gett g free tapes from Moscow; Among tho.$t! sent to’ Nottingham, ’Unlversity. were Soviet., Viewpoint. Sov etr Press Review a.nd Life in the’ USSR. , Programme controller Jeff Owen said yesterday: ’We get a.bout five tapes a. week. We occa.5ioI1a!ly u..se them - mai11.ly the arts a.nd culturnl pro- gramme$. Of course. some is just boring propaganda. but other bits are qulte int<?resting: Stirling University’s man:<.ger Doug Monis said the tapes were ’pretty atrocious’ but they were used now. a.nd then. ’ , But at Kent University, a student spokesman said: ’We were asked by’ SUNDA Y PEOPLE ~ llFO DID N T lJUVD JiV SUFFOLK I ? nd that’s official CLAIMS that a UFO landed in an East Anglian pine for~st were dismissed as " pie in tha s!<y," last night. Ti1~ mysterious crMt Is said to have landad near an Arne~tcan Airfarcs base at WOOdbridge, Suf1olk, two years ago, I t lit up the. Ylhole of noarby Sang!1am Woods with a dau!ing whits light. !3ut w 2n two .’\merj~an airmen on guard duty went to iml :Higa, , the II hovering oblect" sUddenly sped away and vanished. Later, there was lalk at slivery beams emerging from a 30ft wide flying saucer, burn marks an trees ;tnd strange lines In the ground. The strange affair Is recounted In a new bcok written. by a mem- bor ot the 8ritish UFO Society.. But Forestry Commission officer Vincs Th!.!rkettle. v:t:o lilies ne<lr t~e woods. said: h I carried out my own inyesti;;atio;J anJ I am 5.::115’ ned tfl. so-;:aHod evidenc9 ’N~.a blown up out ot aU proportion. "The burns ’Hare made by .. rorestal’ to mark out tr::es for fel- ling and depressions In tha ground looked like r<tbbit scrap" ing3. , "( havo lived and worked In Ihe (orest for five years and I’ve never sean any spactmen. I t’s mora Pie In tha sky than flying saucers." A police spokesm n sa i d I "American fiyers often drJp para- chut nares which people mistJ.KQ fvr UfOs." i I I I I I ~.""..-~-.- (,<Q ’\ ’-.,’ <.1 I -- IT ’--
MEDIASCAN LTD. INFORMATION RETRIEVAL SERVICE C1 · 636 4890 DATE 02 OCT 1983 SUNDAY EXPRESS I saw UFO land / —American officer A SENIOR American Air Force officer reported sighting a UFO landing in Suffolk during Christmas 1980, the Ministry of Defence confirmed last night. Lieut-Colonel Charles L. Halt, deputy commander of the USAF 81st Tactical Wing at RAF Woodbridge, told of seeing a "red, sun-like light" near the air base in the early hours of December 27. A Defence Ministry spokesman said: "There was a 'sighting' by an officer in the USAF. He was off-duty and off the base. He made a report and submitted it via the RAF commander at Woodbridge to the Ministry of Defence." Sir John Nott, who became Minister of Defence within a fortnight of the reported sighting, said last night: "I know nothing about it. Certainly I never saw any report about a UFO landing. I don't believe in UFO's, anyway." Another former Minister of Defence, Sir Ian Gilmour, said: "I should think this is absolute rubbish." NEWS OF THE WORLD We must be told SOMETHING strange happened out there in the forest on that wintry night in December, 1980. Our fully documented Page 1 report of a UFO landing in Suffolk cannot be shrugged away. At every turn our investigators met an official wall of silence—yet nobody disputed the basic facts. Someone in authority, particularly in the Ministry of Defence, has the answer. It is time we were told. SUNDAY MIRROR FLYING SAUCER 'LANDS IN BRITAIN' Sunday Mirror Reporter A FLYING saucer landed on a top secret American air base in an English forest, says an amazing report just released by US air force chiefs. "They say the UFO "ringed with portholes and blue flashing lights" came down on the main runway of USAF Woodbridge, Suffolk. It zoomed over Tangham Forest three nights in succession, and landed "at least once". The huge metallic craft was spotted by guards who found deep impressions on the ground. Unexplained radiation was also reported nearby. The incredible documents, drawn up by USAF Colonel Charles Holt, says the sightings were reported to the Pentagon three years ago. They have come to light now after the release of classified documents. Forestry workers yesterday told of "strange, unconfirmed reports" of a UFO in the area. (2d)
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
HEADQUARTERS THIRD AIR FORCE (USAFE)
RAF MILDENHALL, SUFFOLK IP28 8NF
3AF/10/1/Org Mildenhall [REDACTED]
MOD(DS8a)
Main Building
Whitehall
London
SW1A 2HB 15 Apr 83
UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECT
Reference:
A. D/DS8/10/209 dated 11 April 1983.
1. Thank you for your letter at Reference and the Enclosure from [REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
2. The radar at Upper Heyford did not track an unidentified flying object
on 15 March 1983 as alleged. As reported to me the events were as follows:
Just after dusk, a local reporter for the Reading Evening
Post telephoned the tower at Upper Heyford and asked if they
could see "lights" at the opposite side of the airfield. The
controllers assistant, after checking, told the reporter that the
duty crew could indeed see the "lights" and that they did not know
what they were-but they could have been some airfield lights,
traffic within the airfield or traffic outside the airfield. The
telephone conversation then terminated.
3. The US authorities at Upper Heyford reiterate that at no time did they
track on the airfield radar any unidentified target. It is my belief that the
reporter in question did not ask the right questions in the first place and has
completely misinterpreted the answer he received.
[REDACTED]
Wg Cdr
SRAFLO
[75th UNITED STATES AIR FORCE ANNIVERSARY seal]
READY THEN READY NOWFrom Squadron Leader D H Moreland RAF
RAF LIAISON OFFICE
Royal Air Force Bentwaters Woodbridge Suffolk IP12 2RQ
Telephone Woodbridge [REDACTED]
MOD(DS8c)
(Attn: [REDACTED])
Your reference
Our reference
BENT/19/76/Air
Date
9 May 1983
Dear [REDACTED]
The UFO sighting in the Rendlesham Forest
continues to excite attention. For your
information I enclose copies of the latest
newspaper articles on the subject.
Sincerely
[REDACTED]Mystery of alleged UFO landing in forest CLAIMS that an extra-terrestrial trio with a faulty flying saucer have visited Suffolk are being probed by UFO investigators. Officialdom, they claim, has drawn a shroud of secrecy around the alleged incident . . . apart from a Defence Ministry letter which has given the probe fresh headway. WITNESS Investigators Dot Street and Brenda Butler are trying to unravel what has become known in UFO enthusiasts' circles as the Rendlesham Forest Mystery. They say their inquiries have included a graphic description of the alleged night-time incident given to them by an eye-witness U.S. serviceman. The name of their key witness however is a closely guarded secret . . . they guaranteed him anonymity when he recounted his unearthly claims. His amazing allegation is that three "entities" were seen with their spacecraft which had landed about two miles from Woodbridge Airbase in a remote part of Rendlesham Forest. He claims they were about three feet tall, dressed in silver suites and were "levitating" in shafts of light. The key witness, who has since returned to the United States, claimed that an unarmed party of base personnel watched the visitors carry out repairs to their craft which later took off. Dot and Brenda told the Woodbridge Reporter that their 2½ year probe was being hampered by a top level hush-hush policy. "We have contacted the USAF and the Ministry of Defence time and time again but they just will not tell us anything," said Dot, who is area investigator for the British UFO Research Association. "They will not deny that anything happened that night, but on the other hand that will not say much at all about it," she said. "If it was something to do with an aircraft or anything like that why don't they tell us as much and we would leave it alone . . . all I am is a UFO investigator." Last month however the investigation made some headway. The Ministry of Defence conceded in a letter that "unusual lights" were seen near the base at the time of the alleged incident — late December 1980. The letter said, "I can confirm that USAF personnel did see unusual lights outside the boundary fence in the early morning of December 27, 1980, but no explanation for the occurence was ever forthcoming." There was "no question" of there being a cover-up for a crashed aircraft or the testing of "secret devices" — which was suggested by Dot and Brenda. The letter concluded, "Nor was there any contact with 'alien beings'." Until the letter was received the Ministry had simply replied to inquiries with a blunt "We cannot help you in your quest" reply, said Dot and Brenda. A Defence Ministry spokesman told the Woodbridge Reporter that reports of unexplained lights in the area at the time were investigated. "We are certainly interested in sightings of anything unusual in so far as any security implications are concerned. When we have satisfied ourselves through our sources and our own investigations that there was no security implications we are no longer interested. "In this particular case we were satisfied that that was the case." A USAF spokesman said, "Everytime I hear about this it becomes more elaborated. All we know is that some people on duty that night saw some lights in the sky which I understand were seen in other parts of the country too. "We know of nothing else but people always think we are hiding something when we say that, but we are not." Whatever the answer Dot and Brenda plan to continue their probe and are preparing a book about it which they hope will be published next year. They appealed for information on the alleged incident and guaranteed that all calls would be treated in confidence. Dot can be contacted on Lowestoft 84606 and Brenda can be contacted on Leiston 830757. WOODBRIDGE REPORTER Froday, 6 May 83 FRONT PG A copy of the eye witness's drawing of the craft he claimed to have seen in Rendlesham Forest estimated width was 30 feet.
Duo still on trail of mysterious 'U.F.O. landing' in forest CLAIMS that an extra-terrestrial trio with a faulty flying saucer have visited Suffolk are being probed by UFO investigators. Officialdom, they claim, has drawn a shroud of secrecy around the alleged incident near the RAF base at Woodbridge ... but now a Defence Ministry letter has given the probe fresh headway. The Ministry has conceded that "unusual lights" were seen near the base at the time — late December 1980. The letter said, "I can confirm that USAF personnel did see unusual lights outside the boundary fence in the early morning of December 27, 1980, but no explanation for the occurence was ever forthcoming." There was "no question" of there being a cover-up for a crashed aircraft or the testing of "secret devices". The letter concluded, "Nor was there any contact with 'alien beings'." Story by JOHN GRANT seen near the base at the time from the Woodbridge airbase — late December 1980. in a remote part of Rendlesham Forest. He claims they were about three feet tall, dressed in silver suits and were "levitating" in shafts of light. The key witness, who has sence returned to the U.S., claimed that an unarmed party of base personnel watched the visitors carry out repairs to their craft which later took off. Dot and Brenda told the Star that their 2½ year probe was being hampered by a top level hush-hush policy. "We have contacted the USAF and the Ministry of Defence time and time again but they just will not tell us anything," said Dot, who is area investigator for the British UFO Research Association. "They will not deny that anything happened that night, but on the other hand they will not say much at all about it," she said. Until the letter was received the Ministry had simply replied to inquiries with "we cannot help you in your quest" reply, said Dot and Brenda. A Defence Ministry spokesman told the Star that reports of unexplained lights in the area at the time were investigated. "We are certainly in- terested in sightings of anything unusual in so far as any security implications are concerned. When we have satisfied ourselves through our sources and our own investigations that there was no security implications we are no longer interested. "In this particular case we were satisfied that that was the case." A USAF spokesman said, "Everytime I hear about this it becomes more elaborated. All we know is that some people on duty that night saw some lights in the sky which I understand were seen in other parts of the country too. "We know of nothing else but people always think we are hiding something when we say that, but we are not." Whatever the answer Dot and Brenda plan to continue their probe and are preparing a book about it which they hope will be published next year. They appealed for information on the alleged incident and guaranteed that all calls would be treated in confidence. Dot can be contacted on Lowestoft 84606 and Brenda can be contacted on Leiston 830757. The witness's drawing of the craft he claimed to have seen in Rendlesham Forest. Its estimated width was 30 feet. Brenda Butler, left, and Dot Street on the site of the alleged landing of the spaceship in Rendlesham Forest. EVENING STAR
[REDACTED]
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Defence Secretariat Division 8a
Main Building Whitehall London SW1A 2HB
Telephone [REDACTED] (Direct Dialling)
[REDACTED] (Switchboard)
Wg Cdr [REDACTED]
SRAFLO
RAF Mildenhall
Suffolk
IP28 8NF
Your reference
Our reference
D/DS8/10/209 -1401
Date
13 May 1983
Dear [REDACTED]
INCIDENT AT RAF WOODBRIDGE - DECEMBER 1980
1. Following our telephone conversation about the incident at RAF Woodbridge
on 27 December 1980 I wrote to Miss Randles and I attach a copy of my letter.
2. You will see that she has now written again seeking further information
about the incident and in particular has requested a copy of the report held on
our files. The only report we have is that prepared by Lt Col Halt the
Deputy Base Commander at RAF Woodbridge and I am therefore writing to ask you to
seek the views of the USAF to disclosure of that report or a sanitised version of
it. If the USAF would only be prepared to allow release of a sanitised version
it would be helpful to know which parts they would wish me to delete. In addition,
I would be grateful to know whether the USAF would be willing for me to say that
they did investigate the incident.
3. Thank you for your assistance with the recent UFO correspondence.
Yours aces
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
HEADQUARTERS THIRD AIR FORCE (USAFE)
RAF MILDENHALL, SUFFOLK IP28 8NF
[MINISTRY OF DEFENCE stamp: D.S.8 23 MAY 1983 FILE 10/209]
3AF/12/Org Mildenhall [REDACTED]
MOD(DS8)
Main Building
Whitehall
London
SW1A 2HB 18 May 83
INCIDENT AT RAF WOODBRIDGE - DECEMBER 1980
References:
A. D/DS8/10/208 dated 13 May 1983.
B. Telecon [REDACTED] 17 May 1983.
1. Thank you for your letter at Reference A and Enclosures. I said
in the telephone conversation at Reference B that it will be some little
time before we can get a decision on the release of the report by Lt Col
Holt. In fact, the decision to allow the release might have to come from
Secretary of State for Defence's office particularly if any security or
intelligence implications are read into the reported sighting.
2. I will let you know of developments as they occur.
[REDACTED]
Wg Cdr
SRAFLO
[75th UNITED STATES AIR FORCE ANNIVERSARY seal]
READY THEN READY NOW[REDACTED]
Defence Secretariat Division 8
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
Main Building Whitehall London SW1A 2HB
Telephone [REDACTED] (Direct Dialling)
[REDACTED] (Switchboard)
[REDACTED]
Your reference
Our reference
D/DS8/10/209-1270
Date
13 April 1983
Dear [REDACTED]
Thank you for your recent correspondence on the subject of UFOs.
As regards your offer to summarise the reports held by this Department there
really is very little to summarise. I attach a copy of a blank report form
showing the type of information we require together with a couple of examples
of completed reports (with the name and address of the informant deleted for
reasons of confidentiality). I am sure you will agree that, although we hold
a large number of reports, each one is indeed very brief.
Turning now to your interest in the sighting at RAF Woodbridge in December 1980,
I can confirm that USAF personnel did see unusual lights outside the boundary
fence early in the morning of 27 December 1980 but no explanation for the
occurrence was ever forthcoming. There is however, no question of the account
being a cover-up for a crashed aircraft or testing of secret devices as you
suggest, nor was there any contact with "alien beings".
I understand that an article on the Woodbridge sighting has been published
in the magazine "OMNI" (Vol 5 No.6) in which you may be interested.
Yours sincerely
[REDACTED]LOOSE MINUTE
D/DS8/10/209 -1178
Ops(GE)(RAF)
UFO SIGHTING - RAF WOODBRIDGE DECEMBER 1980
1. You may recall that in December 1980 two USAF security patrolmen saw unusual
lights at the back gate of RAF Woodbridge and on investigation found a brightly
lit triangular object either hovering or on legs.
2. You began investigations into the incident and suggested asking the USAF
for tape recordings (your D/DD Ops(GE)/10/8 of 16 Feb 81 refers) but
unfortunately our files do not appear to show the outcome of your investigations.
3. I attach a copy of a letter received from one of our more regular UFO
correspondents in which she seeks advice as to the Ministry's position on this
incident, that we made investigations but that we could find no explanation for
the lights. Is this a true reflection of the facts or did we, in fact, come up
with anything more substantive?
4. Any help you could give in replying to [REDACTED] letter would be much
appreciated.
[REDACTED]
6 Mar 83
DS8
[REDACTED][MINISTRY OF DEFENCE stamp: D.S.8 - 1 MAR 1983 FILE 10/209] [REDACTED] February 28 1983 Dear [REDACTED] Further to your letter to me of 20 January 1983 (your ref: D/DS8/10/209); the subject UFOs. I trust you have received my subsequent letter to this (addressed to [REDACTED]) wherin I suggested that you might consider lodging the files you hold with a recognised scientific establishment. Here they could be accessable (in arrangement) to serious researchers, and their use could be adequately controlled. I really think this makes sense because the volume of data you must hold would make it very difficult to release other than summaries in printed form and often access to the full materials might be essential for scientific study. A number of possible sources for locating these files, eg a university, come to mind. Indeed there have been a number of interested responses to the article on UFOs by myself and [REDACTED] (New Scientist,10 Feb 1983) to which I refer you for illustration of my,hopefully,serious and none-sensationalist position on this topic I am well aware that to you UFO data is barely of interest and, as it does not seem to directly impinge on defence implications, of relatively low priority.However, I hope you also see that whilst 90% of these reports are unquestionably explicable there are reports that seem to offer probative data to scientists.Work that you, of course, have neither the facilities nor the resources to handle. It should be your concern that you hold this data, faithfully reported by individuals who would like something done. And I am delighted at your decision to make the material accessable for research. Presumably it will be in your interests to cultivate a mood whereby UFO reports are not made to you, but to a scientific establishment (another advantage of lodging the files there).You could naturally rely upon the UFO community to transmit reports to you which might suggest defence implications.That is, if you are fair by serious investigators serious investigators will naturally be fair by you. And we too, of course, have the interests of Britain at heart and would not wish you to be unaware of any cases that might involve defence implications.Even though, as you have pointed out to me previously, none of your studies so far have produced such implications. You have promised to advise me when you have taken a decision to release data, which is why I was somewhat surprised to learn that you have supplied to some colleagues of mine in Bristol data on cases in South Wales.I would, therefore, very much like an update on the current position please.For the last few years whilst writing to you I have stressed that I want to help put across your true position to the public (with which I have some influence as a full-time writer of UFO books and articles). But for this purpose I do need your help in return, of course. I see from the current issue of FLYING SAUCER REVIEW, for example, that much is said about your alleged cover-up and it is towards correcting this view with the facts (if you will openly give them) that I am concerned. Hence my previous requests to be granted access to the data prior to release so that I might present a fair review in the UFO literature and defuse such commentary. Finally, on the question of defence implications, I would wish to advise you of an accretion of data concerning an incident which appears to have taken place at the US Air Force base at Woodbridge,Suffolk,in December 1980.It is of some concern to me that you have not been able to offer any statement on this event, because on face value the evidence does suggest that somebody is hiding something. Now I have published some of the material supplied to me (and gathered myself) in the UFO literature, primarily because in lieu of any other reason I believe the information should be told.But understand my position here. I have no wish to do anything injurious to British defence and if I was offered any reason (however roundabout) which suggested the case should simply be dropped then I would do so. For example, it is possible that the UFO story is covering either an accident or
test of some secret device (either by British or American sources).Therefore, to continually stress this in a UFO context (which is how it has been reported) and yet inevitably have to mention such none-UFO explanations as these possibilities might be against this nations interests. Yet what else can I do, since I have no such reason to argue in this way and feel myself duty bound to discuss the matter in case it genuinely has gone un-noticed and yet may be of potential importance? Very briefly, on this case, we have first-class hard evidence (which we could of course give to the national press but have had no desire to so do) that something occurred (during the last three days of the month, possibly December 29, 1980). This includes evidence of radar tracking of the unexplained object, its 'landing' in Rendlesham Forest and a number of independant testimonies that relate to a quite fantastic account of what supposedly happened after that. It is impossible for me and the couple of other people in possession of these full facts not to accept that a genuine event did occur and naturally we are more than a little concerned that (a) it has not been admitted to and (b) you profess to know nothing about it. As I said, the evidence is strong (almost,I might say, categorically probative) and could (if we chose to discuss the full facts in the right way outside the limited circulation we have done so far) lead to quite an outcry about cover-ups. Personally, I believe you must have very good reason for doing what you are doing about this incident, and that may have nothing to do with UFOs per se. However, please see my position and recognise my dilemma. I want to do the right thing. I am not expecting a reply saying anything specific about this event, but you may be able to offer advice about the problem I face. I have this data that seems probative. You do not seem to want it and claim to know nothing about it. I cannot just sit on it because it appears to be too important. Yet if I make a big issue out of it national security may suffer. I would add that the story behind these events indicates that there was contact between military sources and an other intelligence (which is not alien spaceships in the nuts and bolts sense) but which is an indigenous intelligence to planet earth which in fact is way beyond us in terms of most capacities and therefore represent the real rulers of our world. This account does merge with data offered by other sources to me (in confidence) including government officials in this country and abroad. I have never published it and have actually played down the possibility in my books. I am not saying I believe it. But I am saying that I have heard it from so many sources that I do have to listen. And it does make a great deal of sense out of many things. The UFO subject is complex and to represent it fairly very difficult. I so very much do want to do the right thing.But I am beginning to doubt if I am doing the right thing. Can you offer any advice? Yours sincerely, [REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
Defence Secretariat Division 8
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
Main Building Whitehall London SW1A 2HB
Telephone [REDACTED] (Direct Dialling)
[REDACTED] (Switchboard)
Wg Cdr [REDACTED]
SRAFLO
RAF Mildenhall
Bury St Edmunds
Suffolk
Your reference
Our reference
D/DS8/10/209-1177
Date
15 March 1983
Dear [REDACTED]
UFO SIGHTING -- RAF WOODBRIDGE DECEMBER 1980
I attach a copy of a letter received from one of our more regular UFO correspondents
regarding an incident at RAF Woodbridge in December 1980. I also attach a copy of
the USAF report prepared after the incident.
I would be grateful if you could ascertain how far the USAF investigated the incident
and what were the outcome of these investigations. I would also be grateful if you
could find out what has been the USAF's public line on the incident and whether they
have denied knowledge of it as suggested by [REDACTED]
Any help you can provide in replying to [REDACTED] letter would be much appreciated.
Yours sincerely
[REDACTED][REDACTED] [MINISTRY OF DEFENCE stamp: D.S.8 - 1 MAR 1983 FILE [ILLEGIBLE]] [REDACTED] February 28 1983 Dear [REDACTED] Further to your letter to me of 20 January 1983 (your ref: D/DS8/10/209); the subject UFOs. I trust you have received my subsequent letter to this (addressed to [REDACTED]) wherin I suggested that you might consider lodging the files you hold with a recognised scientific establishment. Here they could be accessable (in arrangement) to serious researchers, and their use could be adequately controlled. I really think this makes sense because the volume of data you must hold would make it very difficult to release other than summaries in printed form and often access to the full materials might be essential for scientific study. A number of possible sources for locating these files, eg a university, come to mind. Indeed there have been a number of interested responses to the article on UFOs by myself and [REDACTED] (New Scientist,10 Feb 1983) to which I refer you for illustration of my, hopefully, serious and none-sensationalist position on this topic I am well aware that to you UFO data is barely of interest and, as it does not seem to directly impinge on defence implications, of relatively low priority. However, I hope you also see that whilst 90% of these reports are unquestionably explicable there are reports that seem to offer probative data to scientists. Work that you, of course, have neither the facilities nor the resources to handle. It should be your concern that you hold this data, faithfully reported by individuals who would like something done. And I am delighted at your decision to make the material accessable for research. Presumably it will be in your interests to cultivate a mood whereby UFO reports are not made to you, but to a scientific establishment (another advantage of lodging the files there). You could naturally rely upon the UFO community to transmit reports to you which might suggest defence implications. That is, if you are fair by serious investigators serious investigators will naturally be fair by you. And we too, of course, have the interests of Britain at heart and would not wish you to be unaware of any cases that might involve defence implications. Even though, as you have pointed out to me previously, none of your studies so far have produced such implications. You have promised to advise me when you have taken a decision to release data, which is why I was somewhat surprised to learn that you have supplied to some colleagues of mine in Bristol data on cases in South Wales. I would, therefore, very much like an update on the current position please. For the last few years whilst writing to you I have stressed that I want to help put across your true position to the public (with which I have some influence as a full-time writer of UFO books and articles). But for this purpose I do need your help in return, of course. I see from the current issue of FLYING SAUCER REVIEW, for example, that much is said about your alleged cover-up and it is towards correcting this view with the facts (if you will openly give them) that I am concerned. Hence my previous requests to be granted access to the data prior to release so that I might present a fair review in the UFO literature and defuse such commentary. Finally, on the question of defence implications, I would wish to advise you of an accretion of data concerning an incident which appears to have taken place at the US Air Force base at Woodbridge, Suffolk, in December 1980. It is of some concern to me that you have not been able to offer any statement on this event, because on face value the evidence does suggest that somebody is hiding something. Now I have published some of the material supplied to me (and gathered myself) in the UFO literature, primarily because in lieu of any other reason I believe the information should be told. But understand my position here. I have no wish to do anything injurious to British defence and if I was offered any reason (however roundabout) which suggested the case should simply be dropped then I would do so. For example, it is possible that the UFO story is covering either an accident or
test of some secret device (either by British or American sources).Therefore, to continually stress this in a UFO context (which is how it has been reported) and yet inevitably have to mention such none-UFO explanations as these possibilities might be against this nations interests. Yet what else can I do, since I have no such reason to argue in this way and feel myself duty bound to discuss the matter in case it genuinely has gone un-noticed and yet may be of potential importance? Vety briefly, on this case, we have first-class hard evidence (which we could of course give to the national press but have had no desire to so do) that something occurred (during the last three days of the month, possibly December 29, 1980). This includes evidence of radar tracking of the unexplained object, its 'landing' in Rendlesham Forest and a number of independant testimonies that relate to a quite fantastic account of what supposedly happened after that. It is impossible for me and the couple of other people in possession of these full facts not to accept that a genuine event did occur and naturally we are more than a little concerned that (a) it has not been admitted to and (b) you profess to know nothing about it. As I said, the evidence is strong (almost,I might say, categorically probative) and could (if we chose to discuss the full facts in the right way outside the limited circulation we have done so far) lead to quite an outcry about cover-ups. Personally, I believe you must have very good reason for doing what you are doing about this incident, and that may have nothing to do with UFOs per se. However, please see my position and recognise my dilemma. I want to do the right thing. I am not expecting a reply saying anything specific about thes event, but you may be able to offer advice about the problem I face. I have this data that seems probative. You do not seem to want it and claim to know nothing about it. I cannot just sit on it because it appears to be too important. Yet if I make a big issue out of it national security may suffer. I would add that the story behind these events indicates that there was contact between military sources and an other intelligence (which is not alien spaceships in the nuts and bolts sense) but which is an indigenous intelligence to planet earth which in fact is way beyond us in terms of most capacities and therefore represent the real rulers of our world. This account does merge with data offered by other sources to me (in confidence) including government officials in this country and abroad. I have never published it and have actually played down the possibility in my books. I am not saying I believe it. But I am saying that I have heard it from so many sources that I do have to listen. And it does make a great deal of sense out of many things. The UFO subject is complex and to represent it fairly very difficult. I so very much do want to do the right thing.But I am beginning to doubt if I am doing the right thing. Can you offer any advice? Yours sincerely, [REDACTED]
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
HEADQUARTERS 81ST COMBAT SUPPORT GROUP (USAFE)
APO NEW YORK 09755
REPLY TO
ATTN OF: CD 13 Jan 81
SUBJECT: Unexplained Lights
TO: RAF/CC
1. Early in the morning of 27 Dec 80 (approximately 0300L), two USAF
security police patrolmen saw unusual lights outside the back gate at
RAF Woodbridge. Thinking an aircraft might have crashed or been forced
down, they called for permission to go outside the gate to investigate.
The on-duty flight chief responded and allowed three patrolmen to pro-
ceed on foot. The individuals reported seeing a strange glowing object
in the forest. The object was described as being metallic in appearance
and triangular in shape, approximately two to three meters across the
base and approximately two meters high. It illuminated the entire forest
with a white light. The object itself had a pulsing red light on top and
a bank(s) of blue lights underneath. The object was hovering or on legs.
As the patrolmen approached the object, it maneuvered through the trees
and disappeared. At this time the animals on a nearby farm went into a
frenzy. The object was briefly sighted approximately an hour later near
the back gate.
2. The next day, three depressions 1 1/2" deep and 7" in diameter were
found where the object had been sighted on the ground. The following
night (29 Dec 80) the area was checked for radiation. Beta/gamma readings
of 0.1 milliroentgens were recorded with peak readings in the three de-
pressions and near the center of the triangle formed by the depressions.
A nearby tree had moderate (.05-.07) readings on the side of the tree
toward the depressions.
3. Later in the night a red sun-like light was seen through the trees.
It moved about and pulsed. At one point it appeared to throw off glowing
particles and then broke into five separate white objects and then dis-
appeared. Immediately thereafter, three star-like objects were noticed
in the sky, two objects to the north and one to the south, all of which
were about 10° off the horizon. The objects moved rapidly in sharp angular
movements and displayed red, green and blue lights. The objects to the
north appeared to be elliptical through an 8-12 power lens. They then
turned to full circles. The objects to the north remained in the sky for
an hour or more. The object to the south was visible for two or three
hours and beamed down a stream of light from time to time. Numerous indivi-
duals, including the undersigned, witnessed the activities in paragraphs
2 and 3.
[signature]
CHARLES I. HALT, Lt Col, USAF
Deputy Base CommanderFrom: [REDACTED] Defence Secretariat, Division 3
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
Main Building Whitehall London SW1A 2HB
Telephone [REDACTED] (Direct Dialling)
(Switchboard)
Squadron Leader D H Moreland Your reference
RAF Commander
RAF Bentwaters Our reference
Woodbridge D/DS8/75/2- 794
Suffolk IP12 2RQ Date
9 November 1982
Dear Squadron Leader Moreland,
1. Thank you for your letter (Bent/19/76/Air) of 25 October and
the attached article from 'The Unexplained' (the author is in fact
one of my regular correspondents).
2. MOD's line on UFO's is as follows:-
a. Our sole interest in the UFO sightings reported to us is
to check whether they have any relevance to the air defence of
the UK.
b. Reports are referred to staff concerned with the air defence
of the UK who examine them as part of their normal duties. Once
they are satisfied that the sighting has no defence implications,
they do not attempt to make a positive identification of the object
c. While we recognise that there are many strange things to be
seen in the sky, we believe that there are perfectly natural
explanations for them - satellite debris, aircraft lights, etc. -
and that there is no need to advance the hypothesis of alien spare
craft to account for them.
3. Concerning the Bentwaters UFO in particular, I suggest that you
adopt the following line:
a. I understand that MOD did receive a report from base personnel
of a UFO sighting near RAF Bentwaters on 27 December 1980. The
report was dealt with in accordance with the normal procedures
(see 2b above); it was not considered to indicate anything of
defence interest.
b. There was no question of any contact with 'alien beings'.
4. As for the allegations in the article that the UFO story was
simply a cover-up for a crash of an aircraft carrying a nuclear device,
you may like to remind any questioners of the Written Answer given in
Hansard for 28 January 1981 from Mr Pattie, then Under Secretary of
State for the RAF: "No accidents have occurred involving ...
damage to nuclear weapons containing fissile material on United Kingdomterritory." If they mention the Lakenheath incident, which the
article drags in for good measure, again there is a Parliamentary
Statement on which you could draw, namely a Written Answer from
Mr Pym, then Secretary of State for Defence, on 9 November 1979:
".... the United States authorities have already stated that no
nuclear materials were involved either within the crashed aircraft
or in any buildings affected by the resulting fire". I would not
expect 'Ufologists' to pursue either of these angles any further;
if they do I suggest you refer them to us. Incidentally, it is
clear that the author did not look at a map if she supposes that
Lakenheath is "a few miles north" of Bentwaters!
5. I hope this is helpful to you and that Bentwaters does not
become East Anglia's answer to Warminster.
Yours sincerely,
[REDACTED]
2Reply sent.
E 132
RAF LIAISON OFFICE
Royal Air Force Bentwaters Woodbridge Suffolk IP12 2RQ
Telephone Woodbridge [REDACTED]
MOD(DS8a) [stamp: MINISTRY OF DEFENCE / D.S.8 / 27 OCT 1982 / FILE]
Your reference
Our reference
BENT/19/76/Air
Date
25 October 1982
UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS (UFO's)
Reference:
A. BENT/19/76/Air dated 15 January 1981.
1. Under cover of reference A I forwarded you a copy of the Deputy
Base Commander's report concerning some unexplained lights and
sightings on 27/29 December 1980. Some time after the incident I
was approached by two women who claimed to be UFO investigators,
but I refused to confirm or deny their claims. A week ago I was
telephoned from New York by a [REDACTED] from Omnie Magazine.
He asked me questions about an article in a British UFO Magazine.
He claimed he was a serious UFO investigator and wanted to write an
objective article about the incident. I told him that whoever wrote
the article he described to me must have had a vivid imagination.
2. I have now managed to obtain a copy of the article and enclose a
copy for your information. The magazine is called "The Unexplained"
published weekly by:
ORBIS Publishing Ltd
[REDACTED]
The article was in Volume 9 Issue No 106.
3. I now anticipate a flood of enquiries and would be grateful for
some guidance on MOD Policy concerning UFO's.
[REDACTED]
D H MORELAND
Sqn Ldr
RAF Cdr4It whom demand strict ’for fear of insist that the lid on that if it were made had out would consequences. are true even of the cases Leonard the in this He has collected a whole series of American retrievals are known in least - the - has an The expanse of Rendlesham Forest, in Suffolk, set in flat, lonely Local saw lights into the forest and Forestry Commission workers fou nd scorched trees. reports coi ncided with sensational stories from a local air base, telli ng of a UFO one of the most But we are recent crashes? Or the ones not in a desert lie the us and Bentwaters. These elements of the NATO defence and would be of in the event of any war. Betwe’en 27 of made from around the town of Leiston. lear power station is and some very close encounters have been re- corded in this Brenda Butler and Dot local for the British UFO Research ed the one witness observed a brilliant white
for 20 minutes or around the one of as to so of base of inform- ation to her. He said that a UFO come down in the about 2 miles kilomet- from the base. seems this was on December. The contact, a visited the scene the base commander and Above: the ufologists who studied the wave of independent UFO reports centred on the Rendlesham Forest area: Dot Street (left) and Brenda Butler at the where they estimate a brightly lit object, by a local farmer, must have descended. The Rendlesham case is more for research than the classic ’retrieval’ cases the the reports were contemporary with the incidents tht the area who seem events,
,It one of the in his local man said he in ’some- air base. An A-1 0 attack of the us Air Force. According to an informant from the USAF base at aircraft of this type were sent over the area of UFO encounter the after it to monitor The aircraft is at very Left: the area of Suffolk that includes Rendlesham and the nearest town, The arou nd the forest is some of the loneliest in Britain. Two versions of the UFO encounter story are current: to one, the landed in the forest in the area marked the red star; according to the other, it landed on the
.. 11 ,. u told otherwise when officers from the base came to interview him later. Local had it that the base affair. Brenda Butler also discovered that in workers found that some tree tops in the - in the where the was seen to descend - were scorched. this to the air base and were that should not the two women with the He Like all us Air Force bases in Britai n, top area. The that warn off intruders are backed up sentries and high-security fences. If out of the the normal functioning the base in December 1980, it the forest the commander. the area where for an outsider to find out about it. But an insider tell Brenda Butler about an conversation between and silver-suited aliens the old driven on a forest Their inter- of the events may owe to an excited On this visit and later ones, Butler Street found local inhabitants who that there had been much the forest stories of house on and several base admitted that from knew about the it is not at all what had that new as a number of new assertions into at this that that local cattle and that the UFO stood on 30 rumour, United The Commission was tacted. At first some workers there of part of the it
Above: US if. 111 fighter-bombers are based in Britain, and e..ertain variants have the ability to carry nuclear weapons. Could the UFO rumours associated with Rendlesham Forest be a ’disi nformation’ exercise to disguise some accident involving an aircraft with a nuclear bomb load from a airfield? areas are dotted Rendlesham If UFO do occur, such spots, located in would to see the base commander. was told, he called an internal one man who was of formation was sent to the before he had been scheduled to I t is difficult to evaluate and affair. Aside from and Dot no one Butler has talked to the base who have other wall of the information. All have come up a do have the of the the serviceman who turned to the USA. And there do appear to number local rum ours about an about odd ex- that occurred around the same in the of the forest. And if the relevant part of forest was burned u u when it is said to have tie in attitude of the coincidental. All of this this would seem the in Commission to be indicate some of how we sources to Brenda seem to be two could what conventional aircraft was to land in Forest - or an unconventional one did so. It is to recall that Bentwaters was one of the bases heath Within been only subsequent almost caused detonate. If such a was it was concealed from the for over this makes it conceivable that in an American aircraft did Forest and the fact because the air- a nuclear device. In which story might have been a convenient distraction truth. of famous case, so a nuclear was averted when a crash and at the Lakenheath base live nuclear weapons to 20 years. December crash into was craft was case the UFO used from the This leaves a however. be The area to be sure, so it is not that was not witnessed. But to remove the remnants of the crash would be a and difficult More it aircraft crash rumour local various members it be that a cover- up story - intended to conceal a UFO