It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Project Phoenix and new UK UFO files showing international interest among some government officials
page: 1share:
Section 1: This Introduction
As detailed below, I have been working behind the scenes to improve international cooperation regarding the sharing of digitized UFO material and, as a bit of fun for us all, have been arranging a relevant little project for January – Project Phoenix. I detail that project below (in Section 3 to Section 8).
To help give that project a little push, I have arranged for the following statement to be endorsed by numerous UFO researchers and prominent UFO skeptics. The ones that has endorsed it so far far include Jenny Randles, Hal Puthoff, Dr Kit Green, Bruce Maccabee, Rick Hilberg, Jan Aldrich, Barry Greenwood, Mark Rodeghier (of CUFOS), Frank Warren, Tim Printy, Jim Oberg, Robert Sheaffer, Lance Moody, Chris Rutkowski, Christopher O'Brien, Edoardo Russo, Dick Haines, John Schuessler (formerly of MUFON), James Carrion (formerly of MUFON), Tony Eccles (of BUFORA), Dr David Clarke, Paul Dean, Keith Basterfield, Jacques Scornaux of SCEAU-Archives OVNI and Mikhail Gershtein of Russia):
"We consider that making source materials about reports of 'UFOs' (including official documents, periodicals and relevant audio recordings) easily and freely available online is likely to contribute to the study of relevant physical, historical, psychological and sociological issues. If you are able to help with digitisation projects such as the one being conducted by the AFU in Sweden, we would appreciate you doing so".
But I want to begin by giving an evidence of the sort of material that I think is just lying around in various archives just waiting for someone to scan it and share it. This example relates to scans of new British UFO files (images of which, according to the rules of the National Archives in England as detailed below, I cannot publish on an open website but can share with others via a password-protected website).
During June 2017, the British Ministry of Defence released various further UFO files at the National Archives at Kew outside London, England. I considered it unfortunate that (unlike other recent releases of batches of UFO files) scans of these files were not released online, particularly because personally I found these new files more interesting than many of the previous batches. Some of this material has been seen before in earlier releases, some of it was overlooked by many because of it being scattered through various files and/or not accompanied by some of the new documents which put some of the earlier material in a new light.
For example, how many people knew each of the following which are documented in these files?
(a) UFO reports have been taken “seriously” by some of those in the Ministry of Defence in England, particularly by some of its “scientists and engineers” (see Footnote 1 below);
(b) A decision was taken in 1993 to classify a UFO study for the British Ministry of Defence and its output as “SECRET UK EYES B” explicitly “since a potential exists for political embarrassment” (see Footnote 2 below);
(c) The British Ministry of Defence in 1993 was aware from intelligence sources that “Russia believes that such phenomena exist and has a small team studying them” (see Footnote 3 below);
(d) The British Ministry of Defence was aware in 1993 that “an informal group exists in the US intelligence community” in relation to UFOs and that it was possible that this reflected “a more formal organization” or “more formal assessment activity” (see Footnote 4 below);
(e) In 1982, unnamed “US authorities” wished to have copies of any reports on a UFO incident which involved the launching of two USN F14 aircraft and the diversion of a RAF Phantom to “assist” a USAF aircraft to the south of Cyprus involved in a “UFO incident”. The few documents on this incident in the relevant file refer to various materials which are not included in the released material (see Footnote 5 below);
(f) A British Air Attache in Paris in 1977 reported in that “the French military authorities had found nothing of an aggressive nature in the sightings although their scientists had been unable to explain the phenomena” (see Footnote 6 below);
(g) The Ministry of Defence had learnt in relation to sightings over Belgium in 1990 “informally, that the view of the Belgian Air Force is that a craft of some sort was involved and that they maintain an open mind on the sightings, which remain unexplained” (see Footnote 7 below);
(h) A letter dated 7 June 1982 from the Italian Embassy to the Ministry of Defence requested a meeting “of approximately five days’ duration” to “discuss salient organizational points in the UFO sector” (see Footnote 8 below);
(i) the Australian Department of Defence had stated in relation to UFO reports that “a considerable amount of effort is spent investigating each report…” (see Footnote 9 below).
Footnote 1 : See Section 2(c)(xiii) below regarding File 13 - DEFE 24-3152, particularly extracts from the memo dated 6 February 1978 at Page 55 of that file and paragraph 9 of the memo dated 18 June 1995, classified “SECRET UK EYES A, at pages 215-222 of that file.
Footnote 2 : See Section 2(c)(xiii) below regarding File 13 - DEFE 24-3152, particularly a memo dated 18 October 1993 (at page 17 of that file) and a memo dated 2 December 1993 in similar terms.
Footnote 3 : See Section 2(c)(xiii) below regarding File 13 - DEFE 24-3152, particularly a memo dated 18 October 1993 (at page 17 of that file) and a memo dated 2 December 1993 (at page 176 of that file).
Footnote 4 : See Section 2(c)(xiii) below regarding File 13 - DEFE 24-3152, particularly a memo dated 18 October 1993 (at page 171 of that file) and paragraph 31 of a memo dated 18 June 1995 classified “SECRET UK EYES A”.
Footnote 5 : See Section 2(c)(xii) below regarding File 12 - DEFE 24-3129-1, particularly the documents at page 54 and 60 of that file.
Footnote 6 : See Section 2(c)(xiii) below regarding File 13 - DEFE 24-3152, particularly a memo dated 13 December 1977 (at pages 36-37 of that file)
Footnote 7 : See Section 2(c)(ii) below regarding File 2 - DEFE 24-2822-1, particularly a memo dated 8 June 1994 (at pages 176-177 of that file)
Footnote 8 : See Section 2(c)(xii) below regarding File 12 - DEFE 24-3129-1, particularly the letter dated 7 June 1982 from the Italian Embassy (at page 152 of that file).
Footnote 9 : See Section 2(c)(vi) below regarding File 6 - DEFE 24-2879-1, particularly the documents at pages 125-126.
I do not wish to imply that all Ministry of Defence officials thought that UFO reports were worth studying in any detail. Many didn’t. Some of you
will not be surprised to hear of internal comments such as “ufology is claptrap” (see memo dated 24 January 1979 at page 102 of File 13 - DEFE
24-3152 – detailed in Section 2(c)(xiii) below) and that the “MOD has no experts on UFOs – for much the same reasons as we have no experts on
levitation or black magic” (in a memo dated 17 May 1978 at page 57 of File 13 - DEFE 24-3152 – detailed in Section 2(c)(xiii) below).
My point is simply that there have been extremely disparate views of UFO reports within the Ministry of Defence (and other governments) for many years, but the public pronouncements issues by most of these officials have only reflected a rather dismissive view of ufology. Those public pronouncement, frankly, give rather false indication of the views held by some of those within government agencies around the world – as can be seen from these files. Whether those that have taken UFO reports seriously were right to do so is another matter.
The files are also interesting due to the number of obvious gaps in them, including transcripts and other material (including communications with American authorities) mentioned in the released documents but not included with them. (I have previously mentioned similar obvious gaps in UFO files released in the USA).
I took some images of several of the new documents in June using my smartphone and requested permission from the National Archives to post them online. That permission was refused.
Since then, I have been provided with much, much quality scans by a German journalist specializing in reports of UFOs. He kindly (indeed, enthusiastically) agreed to my proposal to make these scans available, if permission could be obtained from the National Archives at Kew. That German journalist would prefer to rename nameless. (I suggested to that German journalist that he might want me to include his name to ensure he gets proper credit for his sterling and patient work scanning all of these files, but he has said that he is not bothered about credit and would prefer his name is not mentioned – so I shall, of course, comply with his preference).
During the last six months, I have had sporadic contact with polite officials at the National Archives to seek clarification of the precise ambit of their rules and to find a way to make the material available to other researchers. Those officials have not departed from their initial refusal of permission for me to make the scans freely available online but I was able to clarify that:
(a) The prohibition on publication of images of the documents does not prevent me sharing those images on a password-protected website with other researchers, “provided that the recipients understand the issues with uploading to a website”. I have therefore reached the position with the National Archives that I can and will share the files on a password-protected website with fellow researchers that acknowledge the relevant issues with Crown Copyright, with the kind (indeed, enthusiastic) agreement of the German journalist that make the relatively high quality searchable scans of these files.
(b) The prohibition on publishing images of the documents does not prevent my posting quotes from text of the files. I clarified with the National Archives that this would extend to quoting the text of each and every document, even if this is generated automatically using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. I therefore spent a couple of days trying to convert the text of the scanned images into various other formats, but the OCR results varying from just about readable to complete rubbish. Having done quite a few experiments with these scans, I don’t think it is worth publishing the OCR text – so the sharing of scans on a private password protected website (to those that understand the need to respect Crown Copyright) seems the only practicable way forward.
There does not appear to be any restriction on the number of people with whom I can share the password to access the files, although posting that password openly on here would conceivably breach the relevant rule. If anyone wishes to contact me about these files, I can be reached via the ATS messaging system or by email (at [email protected]). The relevant password-controlled website is
As some of you know, I effectively quit public participation in ufology about a year ago in circumstances that were, well, less than pleasant. Since then, I’ve been inundated with messages of support and interesting material/contacts (including several members of the Aviary and those involved in Tom DeLonge’s To The Stars Academy) which have tempted me to get involved again. Also, I’d much rather have finished on a high note than in those circumstances. Hence my desire to push forward a project that I’d mentioned just before the unpleasantness which led to my withdrawal from public participation in UFO research – or at least a short-term (i.e. week-long) test of that project.
As detailed below in Section 3 to 8, I am arranging a little experiment in international collaborative sharing of scanned UFO material in January (Project Phoenix). During that week, I will be making a coordinated push to encourage UFO groups to work together, to get volunteers (via popular discussion forums like ATS, Reddit and on Facebook) to go to various archives (official and private) to scan documents not currently available online, to encourage editors/authors of defunct publications to give their permissions for those publications to be scanned and to encourage those with existing scans to talk about the possibility of sharing their material openly (including addressing any permissions required, which can be pursued during that week). I would also like to attempt a crowd-sourced (NOT crowd-funded) effort in relation to UFO newspaper clippings and some other mini-projects which people could participate in from the comfort of their own home. I hope that some members of ATS will be interested in participating.
My point is simply that there have been extremely disparate views of UFO reports within the Ministry of Defence (and other governments) for many years, but the public pronouncements issues by most of these officials have only reflected a rather dismissive view of ufology. Those public pronouncement, frankly, give rather false indication of the views held by some of those within government agencies around the world – as can be seen from these files. Whether those that have taken UFO reports seriously were right to do so is another matter.
The files are also interesting due to the number of obvious gaps in them, including transcripts and other material (including communications with American authorities) mentioned in the released documents but not included with them. (I have previously mentioned similar obvious gaps in UFO files released in the USA).
I took some images of several of the new documents in June using my smartphone and requested permission from the National Archives to post them online. That permission was refused.
Since then, I have been provided with much, much quality scans by a German journalist specializing in reports of UFOs. He kindly (indeed, enthusiastically) agreed to my proposal to make these scans available, if permission could be obtained from the National Archives at Kew. That German journalist would prefer to rename nameless. (I suggested to that German journalist that he might want me to include his name to ensure he gets proper credit for his sterling and patient work scanning all of these files, but he has said that he is not bothered about credit and would prefer his name is not mentioned – so I shall, of course, comply with his preference).
During the last six months, I have had sporadic contact with polite officials at the National Archives to seek clarification of the precise ambit of their rules and to find a way to make the material available to other researchers. Those officials have not departed from their initial refusal of permission for me to make the scans freely available online but I was able to clarify that:
(a) The prohibition on publication of images of the documents does not prevent me sharing those images on a password-protected website with other researchers, “provided that the recipients understand the issues with uploading to a website”. I have therefore reached the position with the National Archives that I can and will share the files on a password-protected website with fellow researchers that acknowledge the relevant issues with Crown Copyright, with the kind (indeed, enthusiastic) agreement of the German journalist that make the relatively high quality searchable scans of these files.
(b) The prohibition on publishing images of the documents does not prevent my posting quotes from text of the files. I clarified with the National Archives that this would extend to quoting the text of each and every document, even if this is generated automatically using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. I therefore spent a couple of days trying to convert the text of the scanned images into various other formats, but the OCR results varying from just about readable to complete rubbish. Having done quite a few experiments with these scans, I don’t think it is worth publishing the OCR text – so the sharing of scans on a private password protected website (to those that understand the need to respect Crown Copyright) seems the only practicable way forward.
There does not appear to be any restriction on the number of people with whom I can share the password to access the files, although posting that password openly on here would conceivably breach the relevant rule. If anyone wishes to contact me about these files, I can be reached via the ATS messaging system or by email (at [email protected]). The relevant password-controlled website is
As some of you know, I effectively quit public participation in ufology about a year ago in circumstances that were, well, less than pleasant. Since then, I’ve been inundated with messages of support and interesting material/contacts (including several members of the Aviary and those involved in Tom DeLonge’s To The Stars Academy) which have tempted me to get involved again. Also, I’d much rather have finished on a high note than in those circumstances. Hence my desire to push forward a project that I’d mentioned just before the unpleasantness which led to my withdrawal from public participation in UFO research – or at least a short-term (i.e. week-long) test of that project.
As detailed below in Section 3 to 8, I am arranging a little experiment in international collaborative sharing of scanned UFO material in January (Project Phoenix). During that week, I will be making a coordinated push to encourage UFO groups to work together, to get volunteers (via popular discussion forums like ATS, Reddit and on Facebook) to go to various archives (official and private) to scan documents not currently available online, to encourage editors/authors of defunct publications to give their permissions for those publications to be scanned and to encourage those with existing scans to talk about the possibility of sharing their material openly (including addressing any permissions required, which can be pursued during that week). I would also like to attempt a crowd-sourced (NOT crowd-funded) effort in relation to UFO newspaper clippings and some other mini-projects which people could participate in from the comfort of their own home. I hope that some members of ATS will be interested in participating.
This thread is therefore in several Parts:
Section 1: This Introduction
Section 2 : New British UFO files
Section 2(a) : Restrictions on just making all UFO material freely available online
Section 2(b) : Negotiations with, and seeking clarifications from, the National Archives and others regarding enabling online access to the new British files
Section 2(c) : The new British UFO files
Section 2(c)(i) : File 1 - DEFE 24-2821-1 (“Air Traffic Control – Low Flying UFOs”)
Section 2(c)(ii) : File 2 - DEFE 24-2822-1 (“Air Traffic Control – Low Flying UFOs”)
Section 2(c)(iii) : File 3 - DEFE 24-2823-1 (“Air Traffic Control – Low Flying UFOs”)
Section 2(c)(iv) : File 4 - DEFE 24-2862-1 (“UFO Reports”)
Section 2(c)(v) : File 5 - DEFE 24-2863-1 (“Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) Copyright Issues…”)
Section 2(c)(vi) : File 6 - DEFE 24-2879-1 (“Unidentified Flying Objects – Reports – Correspondence”)
Section 2(c)(vii) : File 7 - DEFE 24-3122-1 (“Defence Policy Issues - UFOs”)
Section 2(c)(viii) : File 8 - DEFE 24-3124-1 (“ADGE – UFO Reports”)
Section 2(c)(ix) : File 9 - DEFE 24-3126-1 (“ADGE – UFO Reports”)
Section 2(c)(x) : File 10 - DEFE 24-3127-1 (“ADGE – UFO Reports”)
Section 2(c)(xi) : File 11 - DEFE 24-3128-1 (“ADGE – UFO Reports”)
Section 2(c)(xii) : File 12 - DEFE 24-3129-1 (“Admin + General – UFO’s”)
Section 2(c)(xiii) : File 13 - DEFE 24-3152 (“UFO Policy”)
Section 2(c)(xiv) : File 14 - DEFE 24-3154 (“UFO Policy”)
Section 2(c)(xv) : File 15 - DEFE 24-3156 (“UFO Policy”)
Section 3 : Project Phoenix – Introduction
Section 3(a) : Outline
Section 3(b) : Scanning statement
Section 4 : Project Phoenix – Volunteers to visit archives with camera/scanner/smartphone?
Section 4(a) : Volunteers for archives in New Zealand? Further government UFO files available
Section 4(b) : Volunteers for archives in Australia? Further government UFO files available
Section 4(c) : Volunteers for archives in the USA? Further government UFO files
Section 4(d) : Volunteers for archives in the USA? Private researchers’ files
Section 4(e) : Volunteers for archives in the UK? Private researchers’ files
Section 4(f) : Volunteers for further locations
Section 5 : Project Phoenix – Newspaper clippings – Potential crowd-sourcing (NOT crowd-funded…) project
Section 5(a) : Introduction
Section 5(b) : Tens of thousands of scans now on AFU website
Section 5(c) : Crowd-sourcing required splitting of scanned albums etc
Section 5(d) : Crowd-sourcing further clippings
Section 6 : Project Phoenix –Scanning further UFO newsletters/periodicals in English?
Section 7 : Project Phoenix – GOING GLOBAL (Stage 1): Connecting with UFO groups around the world interested in scanning UFO material and freely sharing it (where copyright and other restrictions allow…)
Section 7(a) : Existing connections:
Section 7(a)(i) : International/Sweden - The AFU
Section 7(a)(ii) : USA – CUFOS
Section 7(a)(iii) : USA - NICAP
Section 7(a)(iv) : USA – WISE
Section 7(a)(v) : USA - To The Stars Academy (Tom DeLonge)
Section 7(a)(vi) : UK – BUFORA
Section 7(a)(vii) : Australia - UAP Scientific Research
Section 7(a)(viii) : Australia - UFO Research (NSW)
Section 7(a)(ix) : New Zealand - UFOCUZ NZ
Section 7(a)(x) : France - SCEAU
Section 7(a)(xi) : Germany - GEP etc
Section 7(a)(xii) : Italy - CISU
Section 7(a)(xiii) : Russia/Ukraine – Global Archive UAP Study
Section 7(a)(xiv) : Northern Ireland - Niufos (Northern Ireland Ufo Society)
Section 7(a)(xv) : Brazil – Portal Fenomenum
Section 7(b) : Connecting with other relevant groups???
Section 8 : Project Phoenix : GOING GLOBAL (Stage 2): UFO FOIA requests outside the USA and UK?
Section 8(a) : List of countries with a Freedom Of Information Act
Section 8(b) : Arranging requests and logistics
Section 9 : Postscript – New Avatar
I’ve explained some of my thinking in my previous items about:
(a) the desirability of making UFO source documents and publications freely available online in an attempt to improve the quality of UFO research, e.g. my thread FAST searching of major free online collections of UFO journals (or just browse/download them). As I have written elsewhere, the more easily available we make source material (for free), the less excuse there will be for researchers continuing to fail to go back to the source material rather than simply regurgitating/copying accounts in previous UFO books.
(b) other searchable PDF archives I've helped make available for anyone to freely download, such as UFO documents from the FBI (see FBI: “discs recovered”, Air Force “greatly concerned”, “at a complete loss” + more memos"), from Canada with the permission of the Canadian government (see Canadian disclosure: “UFO Found” and other documents/photos and Canadian PDFs – “At no time should it be made available to the public” + more official memos), Australia, with the permission of the Australian government (see, for example, Oz X-Files : “authenticated sighting”, “appear to be inexplicable”, USA “very interested" and New Zealand (see New Zealand X-Files : Official “fib”, superiors “mystified”, + Kaikoura “whitewash”), plus various out-of-print UFO publications (see, for example, Phil Klass: "Skeptics UFO Newsletter" now online (large collection) and about 30 other UFO magazine/journal collections).
Section 1: This Introduction
Section 2 : New British UFO files
Section 2(a) : Restrictions on just making all UFO material freely available online
Section 2(b) : Negotiations with, and seeking clarifications from, the National Archives and others regarding enabling online access to the new British files
Section 2(c) : The new British UFO files
Section 2(c)(i) : File 1 - DEFE 24-2821-1 (“Air Traffic Control – Low Flying UFOs”)
Section 2(c)(ii) : File 2 - DEFE 24-2822-1 (“Air Traffic Control – Low Flying UFOs”)
Section 2(c)(iii) : File 3 - DEFE 24-2823-1 (“Air Traffic Control – Low Flying UFOs”)
Section 2(c)(iv) : File 4 - DEFE 24-2862-1 (“UFO Reports”)
Section 2(c)(v) : File 5 - DEFE 24-2863-1 (“Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) Copyright Issues…”)
Section 2(c)(vi) : File 6 - DEFE 24-2879-1 (“Unidentified Flying Objects – Reports – Correspondence”)
Section 2(c)(vii) : File 7 - DEFE 24-3122-1 (“Defence Policy Issues - UFOs”)
Section 2(c)(viii) : File 8 - DEFE 24-3124-1 (“ADGE – UFO Reports”)
Section 2(c)(ix) : File 9 - DEFE 24-3126-1 (“ADGE – UFO Reports”)
Section 2(c)(x) : File 10 - DEFE 24-3127-1 (“ADGE – UFO Reports”)
Section 2(c)(xi) : File 11 - DEFE 24-3128-1 (“ADGE – UFO Reports”)
Section 2(c)(xii) : File 12 - DEFE 24-3129-1 (“Admin + General – UFO’s”)
Section 2(c)(xiii) : File 13 - DEFE 24-3152 (“UFO Policy”)
Section 2(c)(xiv) : File 14 - DEFE 24-3154 (“UFO Policy”)
Section 2(c)(xv) : File 15 - DEFE 24-3156 (“UFO Policy”)
Section 3 : Project Phoenix – Introduction
Section 3(a) : Outline
Section 3(b) : Scanning statement
Section 4 : Project Phoenix – Volunteers to visit archives with camera/scanner/smartphone?
Section 4(a) : Volunteers for archives in New Zealand? Further government UFO files available
Section 4(b) : Volunteers for archives in Australia? Further government UFO files available
Section 4(c) : Volunteers for archives in the USA? Further government UFO files
Section 4(d) : Volunteers for archives in the USA? Private researchers’ files
Section 4(e) : Volunteers for archives in the UK? Private researchers’ files
Section 4(f) : Volunteers for further locations
Section 5 : Project Phoenix – Newspaper clippings – Potential crowd-sourcing (NOT crowd-funded…) project
Section 5(a) : Introduction
Section 5(b) : Tens of thousands of scans now on AFU website
Section 5(c) : Crowd-sourcing required splitting of scanned albums etc
Section 5(d) : Crowd-sourcing further clippings
Section 6 : Project Phoenix –Scanning further UFO newsletters/periodicals in English?
Section 7 : Project Phoenix – GOING GLOBAL (Stage 1): Connecting with UFO groups around the world interested in scanning UFO material and freely sharing it (where copyright and other restrictions allow…)
Section 7(a) : Existing connections:
Section 7(a)(i) : International/Sweden - The AFU
Section 7(a)(ii) : USA – CUFOS
Section 7(a)(iii) : USA - NICAP
Section 7(a)(iv) : USA – WISE
Section 7(a)(v) : USA - To The Stars Academy (Tom DeLonge)
Section 7(a)(vi) : UK – BUFORA
Section 7(a)(vii) : Australia - UAP Scientific Research
Section 7(a)(viii) : Australia - UFO Research (NSW)
Section 7(a)(ix) : New Zealand - UFOCUZ NZ
Section 7(a)(x) : France - SCEAU
Section 7(a)(xi) : Germany - GEP etc
Section 7(a)(xii) : Italy - CISU
Section 7(a)(xiii) : Russia/Ukraine – Global Archive UAP Study
Section 7(a)(xiv) : Northern Ireland - Niufos (Northern Ireland Ufo Society)
Section 7(a)(xv) : Brazil – Portal Fenomenum
Section 7(b) : Connecting with other relevant groups???
Section 8 : Project Phoenix : GOING GLOBAL (Stage 2): UFO FOIA requests outside the USA and UK?
Section 8(a) : List of countries with a Freedom Of Information Act
Section 8(b) : Arranging requests and logistics
Section 9 : Postscript – New Avatar
I’ve explained some of my thinking in my previous items about:
(a) the desirability of making UFO source documents and publications freely available online in an attempt to improve the quality of UFO research, e.g. my thread FAST searching of major free online collections of UFO journals (or just browse/download them). As I have written elsewhere, the more easily available we make source material (for free), the less excuse there will be for researchers continuing to fail to go back to the source material rather than simply regurgitating/copying accounts in previous UFO books.
(b) other searchable PDF archives I've helped make available for anyone to freely download, such as UFO documents from the FBI (see FBI: “discs recovered”, Air Force “greatly concerned”, “at a complete loss” + more memos"), from Canada with the permission of the Canadian government (see Canadian disclosure: “UFO Found” and other documents/photos and Canadian PDFs – “At no time should it be made available to the public” + more official memos), Australia, with the permission of the Australian government (see, for example, Oz X-Files : “authenticated sighting”, “appear to be inexplicable”, USA “very interested" and New Zealand (see New Zealand X-Files : Official “fib”, superiors “mystified”, + Kaikoura “whitewash”), plus various out-of-print UFO publications (see, for example, Phil Klass: "Skeptics UFO Newsletter" now online (large collection) and about 30 other UFO magazine/journal collections).
edit on 21-12-2017 by IsaacKoi because: (no reason given)
Section 2 : New British UFO files
Section 2(a) : Restrictions on just making all UFO material freely available online
Unfortunately, it is not possible to simply upload all scanned UFO material.
The main restriction is simply one of copyright. Most UFO books and UFO journals in English have now been scanned, but obviously cannot simply all be posted online.
Also, witness details provided in confidence to UFO researchers cannot fairly be posted online as part of the wholesale scanning of UFO archives.
Finally, some information/material provided to me has been provided on the basis that it is to be kept secret until the person sharing the information gives permission. Usually, sadly, the information/material is less exciting than the person wishing to share that material with me seems to think and/or cannot be verified (or falsified) as long it is kept secret. But, nonetheless, if information is provided on the basis that I am to keep it confidential then I’m rather stuck with that condition.
In relation to the new British UFO files, the documents fall within the first of the above restrictions i.e. they are subject to copyright protection. Unlike in some other countries, documents generated by government officials in United Kingdom are subject to “Crown Copyright”. This means, in short, that images of relevant documents cannot be published (which includes posting them openly on the Internet) without the permission of the National Archives.
Section 2(b) : Negotiations with, and seeking clarifications from, the National Archives and others regarding enabling online access to the new British files
During the last six months, I have had sporadic contact with polite officials at the National Archives to seek clarification of the precise ambit of their rules and to find a way to make the material available to other researchers.
On 27 June 2017, I emailed the National Archives to ask for permission to post (on a non-commercial basis) photographs/scans I had made of a number of UFO documents released at the National Archives during the previous week. (This was before the German journalist mentioned above had provided his much more comprehensive and satisfactory scans…).
I mentioned that the relevant documents had attracted some press coverage during the previous few days. That press coverage has noted that, unlike previous recent releases of UFO documents, the latest batch has not been digitised by the National Archives. Relevant headlines on the websites of various tabloid newspapers included The Sun's headline on 23 June 2017 : "Britain’s X-Files is quietly released by the Ministry of Defence… but they’re making it VERY difficult to get hold of them". That item quoted Nick Pope (formerly of the Ministry of Defence) as commenting that “the fact that some files haven't been digitised, can't be downloaded, and can only be viewed in person at the National Archives will doubtless also generate conspiracy theories”.
Several other newspaper also noted that, unlike other recent releases of Ministry of Defence files on UFOs, this batch had not been digitized. For example, a Daily Mail headline commented that “strangely” these files had not been digitized “sparking conspiracy theories”.
I received a prompt and friendly (albeit, unfortunately) negative response from an official at the National Archives. By an email dated 28 June 2017, I was informed by the National Archives Library Manager that the reproduction of images of documents from The National Archives on an open website constitutes worldwide publication, and costs a one-off fee of £40.00 + £8.00 VAT. This fee covers the upload of between one and twenty TNA document images. The images “must be protected from unauthorised download at high resolution by a third party”. I was told that I could do this by “watermarking them, or by keeping the resolution to a level whereby the documents are legible for information and research, but are not of sufficient quality for commercial publication”.
Thus, apart from paying a fee for posting hundreds of documents on an “open website”, I would have to degrade the images.
As a lawyer, I was intrigued by the reference to publication on an “open website”. By an email on 28 June 2017, I sought clarification. I again received a prompt and helpful response. Part of that response was : “If the website is password-protected, no fee is payable, and you can also share on a one-to-one basis, provided that the recipients understand the issues with uploading to a website”.
On 17 November 2017, I imposed on the time of those at the National Archives again. I wanted to quickly check whether someone could transcribe scanned images of documents from the National Archives and post the transcriptions (not the images) online no matter how extensive the transcriptions. I explicitly asked whether someone can take hundreds of pages of scanned images and retype them (or run them through OCR software and extract the resulting text) and is then free to post the text alone in searchable PDF documents. I thought this was fairly clear from the guidance on page 4 of 14 in the guidance issued by the National Archives at the link below, but since this would involve some use of scanned images (albeit not the posting of those scanned images) I thought I'd just check the position of the National Archives:
www.nationalarchives.gov.uk...
I obtained confirmation on 17 November 2017 from the National Archives that I “may transcribe and publish the text of written material from The National Archives without charge, and without infringing copyright. This can be a short quote, or the complete work, as desired”.
So, while the National Archives officials have not departed from their initial refusal of permission for me to make the scans freely available online, I have been able to clarify that:
(a) The prohibition on publication of images of the documents does not prevent me sharing those images on a password-protected website with other researchers. I am therefore willing and able to do this, with the kind (indeed, enthusiastic) agreement of the German journalist that make the relatively high quality searchable scans of these files.
(b) The prohibition on publishing images of the documents does not prevent my posting quotes from text of the files. I clarified with the National Archives that this would extend to quoting the text of each and every document, even if this is generated automatically using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. I therefore spent a couple of days trying to convert the text of the scanned images into various other formats, but the OCR results varying from just about readable to complete rubbish. Having done quite a few experiments with these scans, I don’t think it is worth publishing the OCR text – so the sharing of scans on a private password protected website (to those that understand the need to respect Crown Copyright) seems the only practicable way forward.
Section 2(c) : The new British UFO files
Section 2(c)(i) : File 1 - DEFE 24-2821-1 (“C3I - Air Traffic Control – Low Flying UFOs”)
Size of file : 329 pages in PDF
Date range of documents: 15 March 1991 – 20 December 1992
Former reference in its original department : D/D AIR DEF/111/6/4 Part F
The first 122 pages or so are mainly UFO reports being communicated by the Royal Air Force to the Ministry of Defence under the subject-headings of “Aerial Phenomena” and “Report of an Unidentified Flying Object” (generally giving concise summaries of reports received by the RAF from members of the public). There is little indication within this file of any meaningful attempt to perform any assessment of the sighting reports – whether individually or collectively.
The standard form “Report of an Unidentified Flying Object” in this period includes a relatively small amount of space for basic information about the date, location, angle of sight and weather conditions. The form also asks about “Nearby objects” and includes a specific list of items in brackets, namely “Telephone lines, high voltage lines, reservoir, lake or dam, swamp or marsh, river, high buildings, tall chimneys, steeples, spires, TV or radio masts, airfields, generating plant, factories, pits or other sites with floodlights or night lighting”.
At pages 123-129, there are documents relating to reports of unidentified supersonic radar contacts detected in the vicinity of RAF Machrihanish in Scotland. A minute dated 19 February 1992 originally classified “Secret” notes that the “There may or may not be an Aurora project. I can find no one on the Air Staff or at desk level in the DIS who knows for sure that such a project exists, but it would not surprise them if it did. … If you wish to pursue this aspect further, your best course may be to consult CDI’s organisation”.
Pages 130-227 continue mainly with brief details of numerous UFO reports, generally with little or no comment on the relevant basic reports. Occasionally there is some discussion of whether or not relevant radar records are available (e.g. pages 164 and 166).
Pages 223-224, 228-233, 274 and 310-311 include discussion of the “Alitalia Incident” in which the pilot of an Alitalia aircraft (Captain Achille Zaghetti) reported a near-miss with a missile-type object on 21 April 1991 over Kent. The documents include a newspaper clipping from The Independent dated 6 May 1991 that refers to a Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) investigation into the reported near-collision.
Pages 255 and 265-266 refer to a reported sighting by pilots of Tornado aircraft over the North Sea on 5 November 1990, attaching an article from FSR (the Flying Saucer Review). The documents refer to recollections of confirmation “from DoD sources” as to the incident being a satellite re-entry. The relevant Ministry of Defence civil servant says he recalls that he “found it somewhat hard to accept that” and that at “the same locale UFOs also have been active”. The relevant article from FSR is from Volume 36, Number 2 (Summer, 1991) at page 10.
The 1990 Tornado aircrew sighting crops up in quite a few of the new files – as detailed below (including Pages 169 and 171-182 of DEFE 24/3127/1). This sighting has also been discussed in a recent blog post by Australian researcher Keith Basterfield. That blog post details press coverage of this incident in 2009 and 2011, showing the tendency of the media to recycle UFO stories – often in less detail than previous accounts. Taking this incident as an example, I’d note that the FSR article from May 1991 set out above refers to the possibility that the sighting was due to space debris from an old satellite re-entering the atmosphere and goes on to address that theory – e.g. by quoting from relevant pilots that were adamant that what they had seen was definitely not satellite debris – whereas some of the more recent discussions either do not refer to the space debris explanation at all or mention it without referring to the protests from some of those involved that this is not what they saw.
Page 294 of this file is a Civil Aviation Authority “Occurrence Report” in relation to a report by 4 passengers claiming to have seen a wingless projectile.
Section 2(c)(ii) : File 2 - DEFE 24-2822-1 (“C3I - Air Traffic Control – Low Flying UFOs”)
Date range of documents: 4 January 1993 – 30 January 1995
Size of file : 426 pages
Former reference in its original department : D/D AIR DEF/111/6/4 Part G
This file comprises mainly UFO reports being communicated by the Royal Air Force to the Ministry of Defence under the subject-headings of “Aerial Phenomena” and “Report of an Unidentified Flying Object” (generally giving concise summaries of reports received by the RAF from members of the public).
Pages 93-98 are relevant to the respective functions of AEW and GE in relation to UFO reports distributed to them by AS2.
Page 166 contains a direction to file the report in a wrong file number, resulting in one civil servant annotating the direction with “Does not exist!” resulting in another civil servant to respond “Welcome to the world of UFOs!!”., In my (rather subjective) view, British civil servants generally seem to display more of a sense of humour (or flippancy, depending on your viewpoint) in our UFO files than their counterparts in America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
A letter at Pages 173-174 from Secretary of State Malcolm Rifkind to Lord Hill-Norton (a member of the House of Lords with an interest in UFO reports and former Chief of the Defence Staff) regarding the UFO sightings over Belgium in March 1990 which states that “On the basis of the information now available our own Air Defence experts have confirmed that they would not have been concerned with these UFO reports”, although an internal memo dated 8 June 1994 at pages 176-177 states “we understand, informally, that the view of the Belgian Air Force is that a craft of some sort was involved and that they maintain an open mind on the sightings, which remain unexplained”.
I wonder what Lord Hill-Norton would have said if he had been told that the Ministry of Defence had learnt that the Belgian Air Force’s view was that “a craft of some sort was involved” in the relevant sightings. The Ministry of Defence’s correspondence was, um, somewhat selective in what it said. That correspondence with Lord Hill-Norton certainly was not a full and frank statement of the information and views known to the Ministry of Defence.
Pages 198-204 are a Q/A for a central TV interview, outlining the Ministry of Defence’s position on various issues relating to UFO reports.
Page 381 is a memo (presumably by Nick Pope) referring to sightings on 31 March 1993 (often referred to as the Cosford incident) that refers to, but expresses skepticism of, the decay of a Russian rocket as a potential explanation for those sightings. Pages 394-395 is a copy of a memo by Nick Pope (included in previous files) that concludes that “it seems that an unidentified object of unknown origin was operating in the UK Air Defence Region without being detected on radar; this would appear to be of considerable defence significance, and I recommend that we investigate further, within MOD or with the US authorities”.
For a relatively detailed skeptical account of the Cosford incident, see an article by Dave Clarke on his website.
Date range of documents: 4 January 1993 – 30 January 1995
Size of file : 426 pages
Former reference in its original department : D/D AIR DEF/111/6/4 Part G
This file comprises mainly UFO reports being communicated by the Royal Air Force to the Ministry of Defence under the subject-headings of “Aerial Phenomena” and “Report of an Unidentified Flying Object” (generally giving concise summaries of reports received by the RAF from members of the public).
Pages 93-98 are relevant to the respective functions of AEW and GE in relation to UFO reports distributed to them by AS2.
Page 166 contains a direction to file the report in a wrong file number, resulting in one civil servant annotating the direction with “Does not exist!” resulting in another civil servant to respond “Welcome to the world of UFOs!!”., In my (rather subjective) view, British civil servants generally seem to display more of a sense of humour (or flippancy, depending on your viewpoint) in our UFO files than their counterparts in America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
A letter at Pages 173-174 from Secretary of State Malcolm Rifkind to Lord Hill-Norton (a member of the House of Lords with an interest in UFO reports and former Chief of the Defence Staff) regarding the UFO sightings over Belgium in March 1990 which states that “On the basis of the information now available our own Air Defence experts have confirmed that they would not have been concerned with these UFO reports”, although an internal memo dated 8 June 1994 at pages 176-177 states “we understand, informally, that the view of the Belgian Air Force is that a craft of some sort was involved and that they maintain an open mind on the sightings, which remain unexplained”.
I wonder what Lord Hill-Norton would have said if he had been told that the Ministry of Defence had learnt that the Belgian Air Force’s view was that “a craft of some sort was involved” in the relevant sightings. The Ministry of Defence’s correspondence was, um, somewhat selective in what it said. That correspondence with Lord Hill-Norton certainly was not a full and frank statement of the information and views known to the Ministry of Defence.
Pages 198-204 are a Q/A for a central TV interview, outlining the Ministry of Defence’s position on various issues relating to UFO reports.
Page 381 is a memo (presumably by Nick Pope) referring to sightings on 31 March 1993 (often referred to as the Cosford incident) that refers to, but expresses skepticism of, the decay of a Russian rocket as a potential explanation for those sightings. Pages 394-395 is a copy of a memo by Nick Pope (included in previous files) that concludes that “it seems that an unidentified object of unknown origin was operating in the UK Air Defence Region without being detected on radar; this would appear to be of considerable defence significance, and I recommend that we investigate further, within MOD or with the US authorities”.
For a relatively detailed skeptical account of the Cosford incident, see an article by Dave Clarke on his website.
Section 2(c)(iii) : File 3 - DEFE 24-2823-1 (“Air Traffic Control – Low Flying UFOs”)
Size of file : 16 pages
Date range of documents: 6 November 1995 - 21 January 1996
Former reference in its original department : D/D AIR DEF/111/6/4 Part H
This file includes a report from a pilot referred to in a handwritten annotation (on page 7) as being “slightly unusual”. The relevant report (at page 8) is dated 21 January 1996. It has an annotation at the bottom stating “CAS SUP HAS IMPOUNDED TAPES”.
Size of file : 16 pages
Date range of documents: 6 November 1995 - 21 January 1996
Former reference in its original department : D/D AIR DEF/111/6/4 Part H
This file includes a report from a pilot referred to in a handwritten annotation (on page 7) as being “slightly unusual”. The relevant report (at page 8) is dated 21 January 1996. It has an annotation at the bottom stating “CAS SUP HAS IMPOUNDED TAPES”.
Section 2(c)(iv) : File 4 - DEFE 24-2862-1 (“UFO Reports”)
Date range of documents : 16 November 1986 – 23 February 2001
Former reference in its original department : 2 GP(BP)/8872/10/ISTAR
Size of file : 177 pages
This file contains a considerable number of memos briefly considering whether any Air Defence (AD) activity a period of UFO reports could explain those reports and related discussions of impounding radar tapes for consideration.
A drawing of an alien is used as the header on several UFO reports from OPS WG RAF Leuchars to the MOD in 1999 (e.g. pages 18, 20 and 22).
A document dated 27 November 1997 (at page 43) mentions that “Policy is now only to follow these up if source is a ‘credible witness’ e.g. Police, airline pilots etc”.
Pages 83-109 include details of UFO reporting procedures.
Date range of documents : 16 November 1986 – 23 February 2001
Former reference in its original department : 2 GP(BP)/8872/10/ISTAR
Size of file : 177 pages
This file contains a considerable number of memos briefly considering whether any Air Defence (AD) activity a period of UFO reports could explain those reports and related discussions of impounding radar tapes for consideration.
A drawing of an alien is used as the header on several UFO reports from OPS WG RAF Leuchars to the MOD in 1999 (e.g. pages 18, 20 and 22).
A document dated 27 November 1997 (at page 43) mentions that “Policy is now only to follow these up if source is a ‘credible witness’ e.g. Police, airline pilots etc”.
Pages 83-109 include details of UFO reporting procedures.
Section 2(c)(v) : File 5 - DEFE 24-2863-1 (“Freedom Of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) Copyright Issues…”)
Former reference in its original department /IPR 2X/2/4/1
Date range of documents: June 2007 to August 2007
Size of file : 44 pages
This file contains various emails and documents discussing the policy and legal issues (including in relation to copyright, intellectual property rights and the Freedom Of Information Act 2000)
Former reference in its original department /IPR 2X/2/4/1
Date range of documents: June 2007 to August 2007
Size of file : 44 pages
This file contains various emails and documents discussing the policy and legal issues (including in relation to copyright, intellectual property rights and the Freedom Of Information Act 2000)
Section 2(c)(vi): File 6 - DEFE 24-2879-1 (“Unidentified Flying Objects – Reports – Correspondence”)
Size of file : 234 pages
Date range of documents: 19 November 1976 – 1 April 1977
Former reference in its original department : D/DS8/75/2/1A
This file includes a note of a meeting between representatives of S4 and DI55b on 25 May 1976 (pages 6-8). Page 6 contains a comment that the S4 files “contain very little of value to a serious scientific investigator”. The following page (page 7) has a comment that “Since investigations into the defence implications of alleged UFO sightings might involve highly classified material it was agreed that S4(Air) has no ‘need to know’ about the enquiries made by any specialist branch in the course of an investigation. It followed that detailed reports on such investigations could not be included in the S4 files which would ultimately be disclosed when UFO reports were opened to the public”.
Pages 19 to 21 relate to a Civil Aviation Authority “Occurrence Report” regarding a radar-visual UFO incident at Luton Airport on 20 March 1977.
Pages 125-126 contain a letter, forwarded by a member of the public, from the Australian Department of Defence about their position on UFOS, including a statement by them that “a considerable amount of effort is spent investigating each report…”.
Most of the remainder of the file comprises mainly correspondence with members of the public about their own sightings. Some of the correspondence is from individuals (including school children) asking about other people’s sightings. The file includes some witness statements prepared by the police and some material in relation to the Broadhaven school sighting of 1977.
Size of file : 234 pages
Date range of documents: 19 November 1976 – 1 April 1977
Former reference in its original department : D/DS8/75/2/1A
This file includes a note of a meeting between representatives of S4 and DI55b on 25 May 1976 (pages 6-8). Page 6 contains a comment that the S4 files “contain very little of value to a serious scientific investigator”. The following page (page 7) has a comment that “Since investigations into the defence implications of alleged UFO sightings might involve highly classified material it was agreed that S4(Air) has no ‘need to know’ about the enquiries made by any specialist branch in the course of an investigation. It followed that detailed reports on such investigations could not be included in the S4 files which would ultimately be disclosed when UFO reports were opened to the public”.
Pages 19 to 21 relate to a Civil Aviation Authority “Occurrence Report” regarding a radar-visual UFO incident at Luton Airport on 20 March 1977.
Pages 125-126 contain a letter, forwarded by a member of the public, from the Australian Department of Defence about their position on UFOS, including a statement by them that “a considerable amount of effort is spent investigating each report…”.
Most of the remainder of the file comprises mainly correspondence with members of the public about their own sightings. Some of the correspondence is from individuals (including school children) asking about other people’s sightings. The file includes some witness statements prepared by the police and some material in relation to the Broadhaven school sighting of 1977.
Section 2(c)(vii) : File 7 - DEFE 24-3122-1 (“Defence Policy Issues - UFOs”)
Date range of documents: 6 May 1997 – 15 March 2000
Size of file : 43 pages
Former reference in its original department : MO 9/18
Contains various documents discussing the pros and cons of giving interviews to the media about UFOs and other policy issues, including concern that about misrepresentations by some elements of the media. Much of this short file is related to correspondence with Lord Hill-Norton regarding UFOs.
Section 2(c)(viii) : File 8 - DEFE 24-3124-1 (“ADGE – UFO Reports”)
Date range of documents: 6 January 1995 – 21 November 1996
Size of file : 321 pages
Former reference in its original department : D/DAO1/13 Part A
This file contains unusually detailed analysis by the Ministry of Defence of radar plots relating to UFO sightings. The bulk of this file is devoted to a relatively detailed and lengthy analysis of radar-visual sightings on Saturday 5 October 1996 near Skegness and related “incorrect, ill-informed or speculative” media reports. One of the Ministry of Defence reports into this incident is stated to be the “result of almost full time, painstaking investigation over a period of 8 working days”. (There are a few documents relating to other incidents, e.g. pages 256-258 and 267-268 relate to the Rendlesham incidents in December 1980 and pages 250-251 relate to the sighting by a Tornado aircrew on 5 November 1990 and the sighting on 31 March 1993).
Date range of documents: 6 May 1997 – 15 March 2000
Size of file : 43 pages
Former reference in its original department : MO 9/18
Contains various documents discussing the pros and cons of giving interviews to the media about UFOs and other policy issues, including concern that about misrepresentations by some elements of the media. Much of this short file is related to correspondence with Lord Hill-Norton regarding UFOs.
Section 2(c)(viii) : File 8 - DEFE 24-3124-1 (“ADGE – UFO Reports”)
Date range of documents: 6 January 1995 – 21 November 1996
Size of file : 321 pages
Former reference in its original department : D/DAO1/13 Part A
This file contains unusually detailed analysis by the Ministry of Defence of radar plots relating to UFO sightings. The bulk of this file is devoted to a relatively detailed and lengthy analysis of radar-visual sightings on Saturday 5 October 1996 near Skegness and related “incorrect, ill-informed or speculative” media reports. One of the Ministry of Defence reports into this incident is stated to be the “result of almost full time, painstaking investigation over a period of 8 working days”. (There are a few documents relating to other incidents, e.g. pages 256-258 and 267-268 relate to the Rendlesham incidents in December 1980 and pages 250-251 relate to the sighting by a Tornado aircrew on 5 November 1990 and the sighting on 31 March 1993).
edit on 21-12-2017 by IsaacKoi because: (no reason given)
Section 2(c)(ix) : File 9 - DEFE 24-3126-1 (“ADGE – UFO Reports”)
Date range of documents: 1 October 1997 – 15 November 1999
Size of file : 189 pages
Former reference in its original department : D/DAO1/13 Part C
Most of this file comprises UFO reports being communicated by the Royal Air Force to the Ministry of Defence under the subject-headings of “Aerial Phenomena” and “Report of an Unidentified Flying Object” (generally giving concise summaries of reports received by the RAF from members of the public – including pilots of civil aircraft).
Page 23 : A Ministry of Defence civil servant comments (in a memo entitled "UFO Report - 10 Mar 99") : "It is certainly better watching the sky than watching Chelsea play!"
Page 31 : Refers to having “impounded” 3 radar tapes for the purpose of examining recorded radar data.
Pages 45, 47, 49 include the alien header on material from OPS WG RAF Leuchars
At page 67 onwards there is material including discussion of Parliamentary Questions (particularly by Lord Hill Norton), including the comment (at page 67) that one draft reply to Lord Hill Norton “tries, once more, to explain to Lord Hill-Norton that we are not reliant on ‘UFO’ reports to maintain the integrity of UK Airspace”.
Date range of documents: 1 October 1997 – 15 November 1999
Size of file : 189 pages
Former reference in its original department : D/DAO1/13 Part C
Most of this file comprises UFO reports being communicated by the Royal Air Force to the Ministry of Defence under the subject-headings of “Aerial Phenomena” and “Report of an Unidentified Flying Object” (generally giving concise summaries of reports received by the RAF from members of the public – including pilots of civil aircraft).
Page 23 : A Ministry of Defence civil servant comments (in a memo entitled "UFO Report - 10 Mar 99") : "It is certainly better watching the sky than watching Chelsea play!"
Page 31 : Refers to having “impounded” 3 radar tapes for the purpose of examining recorded radar data.
Pages 45, 47, 49 include the alien header on material from OPS WG RAF Leuchars
At page 67 onwards there is material including discussion of Parliamentary Questions (particularly by Lord Hill Norton), including the comment (at page 67) that one draft reply to Lord Hill Norton “tries, once more, to explain to Lord Hill-Norton that we are not reliant on ‘UFO’ reports to maintain the integrity of UK Airspace”.
Section 2(c)(x) : File 10 - DEFE 24-3127-1 (“ADGE – UFO Reports”)
Date range of documents: 16 November 1999 – 13 August 2001
290 pages
Former reference in its original department : D/DAO1/13 Part D
This file includes some discussion of the implementation of the Freedom Of Information Act, which does not appear to have been universally popular with Ministry of Defence civil servants. One of them annotated a relevant document with the comment “Let’s just have a permanent open day!!” (page 14).
The file includes further correspondence with Lord Hill Norton.
Pages 93-165 are extracts from the Condign Report.
Page 134 relates to the activities of other nations relating to UAPs
Pages 169 and 171-182 relate to the Tornado aircraft sighting on 5 November 1990.
Date range of documents: 16 November 1999 – 13 August 2001
290 pages
Former reference in its original department : D/DAO1/13 Part D
This file includes some discussion of the implementation of the Freedom Of Information Act, which does not appear to have been universally popular with Ministry of Defence civil servants. One of them annotated a relevant document with the comment “Let’s just have a permanent open day!!” (page 14).
The file includes further correspondence with Lord Hill Norton.
Pages 93-165 are extracts from the Condign Report.
Page 134 relates to the activities of other nations relating to UAPs
Pages 169 and 171-182 relate to the Tornado aircraft sighting on 5 November 1990.
Section 2(c)(xi) : File 11 - DEFE 24-3128-1 (“ADGE – UFO Reports”)
Date range of documents: 1 September 2001 – 22 October 2002
Former reference in its original department : D/DAO1/13 Part E
Size of file : 80 pages
Most of this file comprises UFO reports being communicated by the Royal Air Force to the Ministry of Defence under the subject-headings of “Aerial Phenomena” and “Report of an Unidentified Flying Object” (generally giving concise summaries of reports received by the RAF from members of the public – including police officers and pilots).
Pages 10-16 include discussion of the Tornado aircrew sighting on 5 November 1990 and the alleged existence of video of that sighting. A Wing Commander comments (on page 12) that “Although stealth technology was in its infancy at the time, it is possible (but I think very unlikely) that such aircraft could have been operating covertly in our airspace”.
This file contains correspondence and discussion relating to retention of relevant records and destruction of documents deemed to lack sufficient importance for preservation (e.g. pages 40-50, 67-70).
Date range of documents: 1 September 2001 – 22 October 2002
Former reference in its original department : D/DAO1/13 Part E
Size of file : 80 pages
Most of this file comprises UFO reports being communicated by the Royal Air Force to the Ministry of Defence under the subject-headings of “Aerial Phenomena” and “Report of an Unidentified Flying Object” (generally giving concise summaries of reports received by the RAF from members of the public – including police officers and pilots).
Pages 10-16 include discussion of the Tornado aircrew sighting on 5 November 1990 and the alleged existence of video of that sighting. A Wing Commander comments (on page 12) that “Although stealth technology was in its infancy at the time, it is possible (but I think very unlikely) that such aircraft could have been operating covertly in our airspace”.
This file contains correspondence and discussion relating to retention of relevant records and destruction of documents deemed to lack sufficient importance for preservation (e.g. pages 40-50, 67-70).
Section 2(c)(xii) : File 12 - DEFE 24-3129-1 (“Admin + General – UFO’s”)
Date range of documents: 13 May 1982 – 2 January 1983
Former reference in its original department : D/DDOPS(GE) 10/8/J
Size of file : 178 pages
Page 54 is a document dated 29 October 1982 entitled “UFO INCIDENT 19 OCT 82” about a “UFO incident which occurred on 19 Oct 82, when a USAF aircraft flying in the Eastern Mediterranean to the south of Cyprus reported an unidentified aircraft flying alongside it”. The document refers to the launching of two USN F14 aircraft from a carrier and the diversion of a RAF Phantom to “assist”. It also refers to film of radar pictures. While the document indicates that investigations were continuing, it contains a comment that that “We have a strong suspicion that the ‘UFO was a mirage effect …”. Despite that view, the document nonetheless refers to arrangements to have a transcript made of a tape recording, the production of prints of “each useable frame” from a relevant film and concludes that “The US authorities wish to have copies of any reports which might result from your studies. We will arrange for them to receive a copy of the voice transcript”. A further document at page 60 appears to relate to this incident, but the relevant images and transcript do not appear within the file. Dr David Clarke wrote an article about this sighting a few days after the new files were released in June 2017 which commented that “The results of the joint UK/US investigation do not appear in the file”. This incident also featured in an article in The Sun newspaper at that time, which stated that “Radar film, tapes and transcripts of the distress call were also analysed by intelligence officers - but removed from the files”. More recently, Keith Basterfield wrote a blog post this incident which included his comment that “This certainly appears to be an intriguing case. However, we are lacking a copy of the transcript of the voice recording, and copies of prints made from the 'film of the 280SU radar picture’”..
Page 152 is a letter dated 7 June 1982 from the Italian Embassy to the Ministry of Defence requesting a meeting “of approximately five days’ duration” to “discuss salient organizational points in the UFO sector”. Page 151 is a memo dated 19 June 1982 containing the Ministry of Defence’s internal comments on that request, stating that a 5 day visit “would be vastly excessive – one day should be enough (unless you intend to reveal any dark secrets which you have kept hidden from DS8)”. That internal memo goes on to discuss (with tongue apparently firmly in cheek…) the fact it would not “be too unpleasant” for to visit colleagues in Rome in October and that “we really ought to arrange to visit our colleagues in Paris and indeed the other NATO capitals. An international conference or symposium would also be useful – Venice perhaps would be a suitable location”. A handwritten annotation suggests that “No doubt the Italians are looking to come here in Oct for the same reasons!”. A memo from ADI/DI55, dated 2 July 1982, states “We would be hard pushed to spend more than about five minutes on this subject let alone the five days suggested: The facts are that although all reports are treated seriously, we do not more than read and file them, taking note of incidents where is any degree of correlation between 2 or more reports”. In a recent blog article on some of these documents, Australian researcher Keith Basterfield commented that “The file is silent on whether the visit actually occurred, and if so what outcomes were achieved”.
Date range of documents: 13 May 1982 – 2 January 1983
Former reference in its original department : D/DDOPS(GE) 10/8/J
Size of file : 178 pages
Page 54 is a document dated 29 October 1982 entitled “UFO INCIDENT 19 OCT 82” about a “UFO incident which occurred on 19 Oct 82, when a USAF aircraft flying in the Eastern Mediterranean to the south of Cyprus reported an unidentified aircraft flying alongside it”. The document refers to the launching of two USN F14 aircraft from a carrier and the diversion of a RAF Phantom to “assist”. It also refers to film of radar pictures. While the document indicates that investigations were continuing, it contains a comment that that “We have a strong suspicion that the ‘UFO was a mirage effect …”. Despite that view, the document nonetheless refers to arrangements to have a transcript made of a tape recording, the production of prints of “each useable frame” from a relevant film and concludes that “The US authorities wish to have copies of any reports which might result from your studies. We will arrange for them to receive a copy of the voice transcript”. A further document at page 60 appears to relate to this incident, but the relevant images and transcript do not appear within the file. Dr David Clarke wrote an article about this sighting a few days after the new files were released in June 2017 which commented that “The results of the joint UK/US investigation do not appear in the file”. This incident also featured in an article in The Sun newspaper at that time, which stated that “Radar film, tapes and transcripts of the distress call were also analysed by intelligence officers - but removed from the files”. More recently, Keith Basterfield wrote a blog post this incident which included his comment that “This certainly appears to be an intriguing case. However, we are lacking a copy of the transcript of the voice recording, and copies of prints made from the 'film of the 280SU radar picture’”..
Page 152 is a letter dated 7 June 1982 from the Italian Embassy to the Ministry of Defence requesting a meeting “of approximately five days’ duration” to “discuss salient organizational points in the UFO sector”. Page 151 is a memo dated 19 June 1982 containing the Ministry of Defence’s internal comments on that request, stating that a 5 day visit “would be vastly excessive – one day should be enough (unless you intend to reveal any dark secrets which you have kept hidden from DS8)”. That internal memo goes on to discuss (with tongue apparently firmly in cheek…) the fact it would not “be too unpleasant” for to visit colleagues in Rome in October and that “we really ought to arrange to visit our colleagues in Paris and indeed the other NATO capitals. An international conference or symposium would also be useful – Venice perhaps would be a suitable location”. A handwritten annotation suggests that “No doubt the Italians are looking to come here in Oct for the same reasons!”. A memo from ADI/DI55, dated 2 July 1982, states “We would be hard pushed to spend more than about five minutes on this subject let alone the five days suggested: The facts are that although all reports are treated seriously, we do not more than read and file them, taking note of incidents where is any degree of correlation between 2 or more reports”. In a recent blog article on some of these documents, Australian researcher Keith Basterfield commented that “The file is silent on whether the visit actually occurred, and if so what outcomes were achieved”.
Section 2(c)(xiii) : File 13 - DEFE 24-3152 (“UFO Policy”)
Date range of documents: 1971 Dec 09 - 1996 Dec 11
Former reference in its original department : DI55/108/15 PART 4 VOLUME 1
Size of file : 261 pages
Pages 36-37 contain a Ministry of Defence memo dated 13 December 1977 which includes information from the British Air Attache in Paris that “the French military authorities had found nothing of an aggressive nature in the sightings although their scientists had been unable to explain the phenomena”. One of those involved in considering Ministry of Defence policy regarding UFOs at that time mentions (in a further memo at Page 5) that he had had his own sighting in 1958 while in the USA. He states that he reported that sighting to an air traffic control reporting centre “who accepted my observation as if it were something quite routine!”.
This file also contains a good example of the schizophrenic contrasts in the views and contents of the official documents from the Ministry of Defence. One Ministry of Defence memo states “We should certainly continue to treat UFO reports seriously …” (memo dated 6 February 1978 at Page 55). The statement that the Ministry of Defence took UFO reports “seriously” can be contrasted with the comment just a few pages later in the same file that the “MOD has no experts on UFOs – for much the same reasons as we have no experts on levitation or black magic” (at page 57, in a memo dated 17 May 1978). Another memo in the same file goes further, with a comment that “ufology is claptrap” (memo dated 24 January 1979 at page 102).
This files includes several documents relating to the House of Lords debate on UFOs and relevant discussion of Lord Clancarty.
A memo at Page 72 from June 1978 includes the comment that “Undoubtedly a very small proportion of sightings reports will defy rational explanations but within MOD AFD we have neither the staff, information nor the time to investigate fully all reports”.
Pages 113-114 relate to the suggestion by Italian officers that they have a 5 day meeting with the Ministry of Defence regarding UFOs.
Page 120 is a memo dated 15 July 1983 from DS8 to another part of the Ministry of Defence includes a statement that “Although DS8 are the interface between MOD and the public I have no idea about how the reports are handled once they are received by you”.
Page 122 is a memo from AD/DI55 which states that “DI55 regularly receives the reports, but with the current manpower situation we can do little other than skim through them and file. They do provide the occasional flash of (unintended) humour to brighten our lives; very occasionally they pose an interesting puzzle which we cannot follow up”.
Pages 133-135, 137-138 and 141-144 relate to the Rendlesham incident, including the comment that “it is highly unlikely that any violation of UK airspace would be heralded by such a display of lights”. Page 138 has a (possibly tongue-in-cheek) comment : “DI55c : The Director says you are the expert on ‘aliens’! Perhaps you would attend the meeting”.
Date range of documents: 1971 Dec 09 - 1996 Dec 11
Former reference in its original department : DI55/108/15 PART 4 VOLUME 1
Size of file : 261 pages
Pages 36-37 contain a Ministry of Defence memo dated 13 December 1977 which includes information from the British Air Attache in Paris that “the French military authorities had found nothing of an aggressive nature in the sightings although their scientists had been unable to explain the phenomena”. One of those involved in considering Ministry of Defence policy regarding UFOs at that time mentions (in a further memo at Page 5) that he had had his own sighting in 1958 while in the USA. He states that he reported that sighting to an air traffic control reporting centre “who accepted my observation as if it were something quite routine!”.
This file also contains a good example of the schizophrenic contrasts in the views and contents of the official documents from the Ministry of Defence. One Ministry of Defence memo states “We should certainly continue to treat UFO reports seriously …” (memo dated 6 February 1978 at Page 55). The statement that the Ministry of Defence took UFO reports “seriously” can be contrasted with the comment just a few pages later in the same file that the “MOD has no experts on UFOs – for much the same reasons as we have no experts on levitation or black magic” (at page 57, in a memo dated 17 May 1978). Another memo in the same file goes further, with a comment that “ufology is claptrap” (memo dated 24 January 1979 at page 102).
This files includes several documents relating to the House of Lords debate on UFOs and relevant discussion of Lord Clancarty.
A memo at Page 72 from June 1978 includes the comment that “Undoubtedly a very small proportion of sightings reports will defy rational explanations but within MOD AFD we have neither the staff, information nor the time to investigate fully all reports”.
Pages 113-114 relate to the suggestion by Italian officers that they have a 5 day meeting with the Ministry of Defence regarding UFOs.
Page 120 is a memo dated 15 July 1983 from DS8 to another part of the Ministry of Defence includes a statement that “Although DS8 are the interface between MOD and the public I have no idea about how the reports are handled once they are received by you”.
Page 122 is a memo from AD/DI55 which states that “DI55 regularly receives the reports, but with the current manpower situation we can do little other than skim through them and file. They do provide the occasional flash of (unintended) humour to brighten our lives; very occasionally they pose an interesting puzzle which we cannot follow up”.
Pages 133-135, 137-138 and 141-144 relate to the Rendlesham incident, including the comment that “it is highly unlikely that any violation of UK airspace would be heralded by such a display of lights”. Page 138 has a (possibly tongue-in-cheek) comment : “DI55c : The Director says you are the expert on ‘aliens’! Perhaps you would attend the meeting”.
Pages 146 onwards contain material relating to the Condign Report. and another
Ministry of Defence study of UFOs. There is very little about that other Ministry of Defence study (apparently abandoned, possibly before much was
actually done) in the released files. I don’t recall anyone previously mentioning that other study, by the Ministry of Defence’s “Science 3
(Air)” department. A memo dated 25 February 1988 refers to “the study you are undertaking on UFO events” and previous discussions, although
Science 3 (Air) subsequently wrote on 24 March 1988 (with a palpable sense of relief) that it “become clear that there is no requirement for Science
3(Air) to undertake work on UFO sightings” and that “the subject has been deleted from its task list”.
A memo dated 10 August 1993 (on page 167) in relation to the justifications for performing a study of UFOs includes the comment “…we have a remit that we have never satisfied”. The same memo comments (at page 170) that “The national security implications are considerable. We have many reports of strange objects in the skies and we have never investigated them”. The same page include a comment that “If reports are taken at face value then devices exist that do not use conventional reaction propulsion systems, they have a very wide range of speeds and are stealthy. I suggest that we could use this technology, if it exists”.
A memo dated 18 October 1993 (at page 171) states “I am aware, from intelligence sources, that Russia believes that such phenomena exist and has a small team studying them. I am also aware that an informal group exists in the US intelligence community and it is possible that this reflects a more formal organisation”. That memo stated that “Since a potential exists for political embarrassment the study and output will be graded SECRET UK EYES B”. A related document (at page 174) notes that “There may be a long term requirement for additional studies post the production of the report and the data base”.
A memo dated 2 December 1993 (at page 176) stated – in terms similar to the document at page 171 - “I am aware, from intelligence sources, that Russia believes that such phenomena exist and has a small team studying them. I am also aware that an informal group exists in the US intelligence community and it is possible that this reflects a more formal assessment activity”.
A memo dated 18 June 1995 (at pages 215-222), classified “SECRET UK EYES A”, includes the following:
(a) In paragraph 8, a statement that “Sec (AS) 2 acts as a ‘front’ for MOD and accepts questions and reports from various civilian organisations and passes information to us”.
(b) In paragraph 9, a comment that in an internal meeting “the scientists and engineers present treated to topic seriously while non scientists (or those without a physical science background) made the usual jokes about little green men and mass hallucination!”.
(c) In paragraph 12(a) : “Rendlesham Forest : In the early 80’s a UAP landed outside of RAF Benwaters in a forest … There seems no doubt that something very strange occurred. …”.
(d) In paragraph 24, in a section entitled “The US Dimension”, the memo refers to discussions with a source (which has been redacted) during which “I have been told that an ‘unofficial’ grouping exists between the agencies” (presumably, although not certainly, referring to members of the Aviary).
(e) In paragraph 26, in a section entitled “The Russian Dimension”, the memo states that some source (which has been redacted) had “confirmed that at least until the early 90’s a small team studied UAPs at Ramenskoye”.
(f) In paragraph 31, an explanation that the proposed work on UFO reports “would be classified SECRET UK EYES B, mainly to avoid leakage of the fact that we were studying UAPs and any perceived MOD embarrassment”.
At page 240 is a letter from DI55c to OC Ops Wing at RAF Lyneham, which asks for a captain of a Hercules aircraft to be interviewed about a reported sighting of a large triangular object on 7 March 1996. DI55c stated that “Large delta UAPs have been reported from several locations. The Belgium MOD has confirmed that they attempted to intercept one but the F-16s could not match the performance”. The letter referred to a reluctance to report incidents because of the perceived consequences but assurances were given that “we do not use drugs, alien women, electrodes or brainwashing! We are only after facts.”
A memo dated 10 August 1993 (on page 167) in relation to the justifications for performing a study of UFOs includes the comment “…we have a remit that we have never satisfied”. The same memo comments (at page 170) that “The national security implications are considerable. We have many reports of strange objects in the skies and we have never investigated them”. The same page include a comment that “If reports are taken at face value then devices exist that do not use conventional reaction propulsion systems, they have a very wide range of speeds and are stealthy. I suggest that we could use this technology, if it exists”.
A memo dated 18 October 1993 (at page 171) states “I am aware, from intelligence sources, that Russia believes that such phenomena exist and has a small team studying them. I am also aware that an informal group exists in the US intelligence community and it is possible that this reflects a more formal organisation”. That memo stated that “Since a potential exists for political embarrassment the study and output will be graded SECRET UK EYES B”. A related document (at page 174) notes that “There may be a long term requirement for additional studies post the production of the report and the data base”.
A memo dated 2 December 1993 (at page 176) stated – in terms similar to the document at page 171 - “I am aware, from intelligence sources, that Russia believes that such phenomena exist and has a small team studying them. I am also aware that an informal group exists in the US intelligence community and it is possible that this reflects a more formal assessment activity”.
A memo dated 18 June 1995 (at pages 215-222), classified “SECRET UK EYES A”, includes the following:
(a) In paragraph 8, a statement that “Sec (AS) 2 acts as a ‘front’ for MOD and accepts questions and reports from various civilian organisations and passes information to us”.
(b) In paragraph 9, a comment that in an internal meeting “the scientists and engineers present treated to topic seriously while non scientists (or those without a physical science background) made the usual jokes about little green men and mass hallucination!”.
(c) In paragraph 12(a) : “Rendlesham Forest : In the early 80’s a UAP landed outside of RAF Benwaters in a forest … There seems no doubt that something very strange occurred. …”.
(d) In paragraph 24, in a section entitled “The US Dimension”, the memo refers to discussions with a source (which has been redacted) during which “I have been told that an ‘unofficial’ grouping exists between the agencies” (presumably, although not certainly, referring to members of the Aviary).
(e) In paragraph 26, in a section entitled “The Russian Dimension”, the memo states that some source (which has been redacted) had “confirmed that at least until the early 90’s a small team studied UAPs at Ramenskoye”.
(f) In paragraph 31, an explanation that the proposed work on UFO reports “would be classified SECRET UK EYES B, mainly to avoid leakage of the fact that we were studying UAPs and any perceived MOD embarrassment”.
At page 240 is a letter from DI55c to OC Ops Wing at RAF Lyneham, which asks for a captain of a Hercules aircraft to be interviewed about a reported sighting of a large triangular object on 7 March 1996. DI55c stated that “Large delta UAPs have been reported from several locations. The Belgium MOD has confirmed that they attempted to intercept one but the F-16s could not match the performance”. The letter referred to a reluctance to report incidents because of the perceived consequences but assurances were given that “we do not use drugs, alien women, electrodes or brainwashing! We are only after facts.”
Section 2(c)(xiv) : File 14 - DEFE 24-3154 (“UFO Policy”)
Date range of documents: 13 June 2000 – 12 December 2000
Former reference in its original department : DI55/108/15 PART 6
Size of file : 81 pages
This file includes correspondence about the release of UFO files, an event being held to publicize the release of Georgina Bruni’s book on the Rendlesham incidents, the Condign Report and a relatively small number of UFO reports.
In relation to the content of the Condign Report, a memo dated 1 December 2000 (at page 62) notes that “… DG(R&T) will be interested in those phenomena associated with plasma formations, which have potential applications to novel weapon technology”.
Page 68 relates to the Tornado aircrew sighting on 5 November 1990.
Date range of documents: 13 June 2000 – 12 December 2000
Former reference in its original department : DI55/108/15 PART 6
Size of file : 81 pages
This file includes correspondence about the release of UFO files, an event being held to publicize the release of Georgina Bruni’s book on the Rendlesham incidents, the Condign Report and a relatively small number of UFO reports.
In relation to the content of the Condign Report, a memo dated 1 December 2000 (at page 62) notes that “… DG(R&T) will be interested in those phenomena associated with plasma formations, which have potential applications to novel weapon technology”.
Page 68 relates to the Tornado aircrew sighting on 5 November 1990.
Section 2(c)(xv) : File 15 - DEFE 24-3156 (“UFO Policy”)
Date range of documents: 27 April 2004 – 7 May 2004
Size of file : 5 pages
Former reference in its original department : DI55/108/15 PART 8
This very short file relates to the release of UFO files. A memo dated 27 April 2004 (at pages 3-4) notes that a concern had been raised that the Ministry of Defence’s release of UFO reports “would mean that we would be committed to the release of military reports of possible incursions into the UK Air Policing Area”. The memo went on to say that “However, D UK-SO1 Air has confirmed that such incidents are not classed as UFO reports or reported in the same way”.
Date range of documents: 27 April 2004 – 7 May 2004
Size of file : 5 pages
Former reference in its original department : DI55/108/15 PART 8
This very short file relates to the release of UFO files. A memo dated 27 April 2004 (at pages 3-4) notes that a concern had been raised that the Ministry of Defence’s release of UFO reports “would mean that we would be committed to the release of military reports of possible incursions into the UK Air Policing Area”. The memo went on to say that “However, D UK-SO1 Air has confirmed that such incidents are not classed as UFO reports or reported in the same way”.
new topics
-
Democrats send letter to Biden urging him to ratify Equal Rights Amendment
US Political Madness: 3 hours ago
top topics
-
Reprehensible Behavior
US Political Madness: 15 hours ago, 11 flags -
This is adorable you guys!
General Chit Chat: 14 hours ago, 8 flags -
Defending the need for adherence to Old Testament commandments under the new covenant of Christ
Conspiracies in Religions: 16 hours ago, 5 flags -
Democrats send letter to Biden urging him to ratify Equal Rights Amendment
US Political Madness: 3 hours ago, 1 flags
active topics
-
Defending the need for adherence to Old Testament commandments under the new covenant of Christ
Conspiracies in Religions • 25 • : nugget1 -
Rant. I am sick of people saying the police are revenue raising.
Rant • 13 • : PorkChop96 -
Only two Navy destroyers currently operational as fleet size hits record low
Military Projects • 23 • : Bluntone22 -
Light from Space Might Be Travelling Instantaneously
Space Exploration • 28 • : Lazy88 -
More Bad News for Labour and Rachel Reeves Stole Christmas from Working Families
Regional Politics • 9 • : covent -
Democrats send letter to Biden urging him to ratify Equal Rights Amendment
US Political Madness • 2 • : VariedcodeSole -
Post A Funny (T&C Friendly) Pic Part IV: The LOL awakens!
General Chit Chat • 7914 • : Cymru -
George Stephanopoulos and ABC agree to pay $15 million to settle Trump defamation suit
Mainstream News • 25 • : Echo007 -
-@TH3WH17ERABB17- -Q- ---TIME TO SHOW THE WORLD--- -Part- --44--
Dissecting Disinformation • 3713 • : 777Vader -
Reprehensible Behavior
US Political Madness • 10 • : nugget1