|
The media have
made much of the MoD acknowledging that UFOs exist, courtesy of the May
2008 disclosures of 'MoD UFO Files' via the National Archives - the
files covering "a wide range of UFO-related documents covering the years
1978–2002."
Of course
the release of files isn't something new, but access has been made
easier by the FoIA.
Perhaps invariably,
the media managed to make considerable mileage out of certain cases that
seemed guaranteed to create/continue ridicule the subject, one paper
managed to conclude that UFOs "were indeed seen by professionals and
professional nutters" - what lazy reporting! One such case being
the Alfred Burtoo CE3K case at Aldershot in 1983, although the media
were apparently unaware of (or couldn't be bothered to research) the
details of this case - such as the witness' name - which have been known
in UFOlogy circles for many years!
So, moving away from the speculation and
hype of the media, what information has been released amongst the 1960-ish
pages* of info, and what to they really tell us - if anything?
*Many pages are illegible, or apparently
blank, due to scans being made from poor-quality originals. Some of the original file pages are
repeated (some several times) for no obvious reason - I think the
correspondence on the meeting between Lords Hill-Norton and Trefgarne
appears 5 times!
Well, there are plenty of letters between
the MoD and or its departments such as Secretariat AS.2(a) (later to
replaced as the MoD's front-end of UFO data collection by the infamous
UFO Desk) and individuals, as well as with UK researchers* and
various UFO research groups of the time, many of which are now long
gone - some of the correspondence is a reminder of how amateur some
groups were.
*While names have been censored, some of
the individuals are fairly obvious. There is some bizarre material in
the correspondence over one prominent researcher, who was alleged to
have credentials that were "mildly pornographic"!
In the vast majority
of files the names and addresses have been suitably censored of course;
an obvious exception is correspondence between Ralph Noyes (long serving
MoD staff member, retiring when an Under Secretary) and RAF Rudloe
Manor - Noyes didn't bother directing correspondence to AS.2(a), he
wrote directly to Rudloe. Another
name left on documents is that of Lord Hill-Norton, relating to a summary of his
meeting with Lord Trefgarne - a meeting which apparently ruined someone's
summer as they had to do some preparatory work... Within memos on
this meeting there is an interesting dismissal of the
importance - from a defence significance perspective - of the Bentwaters/Woodbridge
case of December 1980 and the subsequent Halt Memo; in many respects one
cannot disagree with the comments as expressed.
These views are not repeated in later papers on the Rendlesham Incident;
perhaps inevitably cases such as the Rendlesham Forest Incident feature at more length, although
the information disclosed here has been in the public domain for many
years - and much of the disclosure here amounts to clippings on the
incident from various newspapers and other publications.
There are a number of original reports being
reported directly to the MoD by individuals, researchers and groups.
Invariably - and not unexpectedly - where any belated acknowledgement or reply
is given (or at least disclosed), these simply elicit a courtesy reply
from the MoD, complete with the usual statement of '..you may like to
know the MoD's only
interest in UFOs is to determine any defence significance...' etc.
Of more curiosity are a collection of
sighting summary reports (and report forms) from various ATCs and RAF
stations of sightings reported to them by the public (sometimes via the
local police); from a local interest viewpoint there are report sheets
from RAF Brize Norton in 1984. This chain of reporting is
following an operational procedure, although there were (are?) different
forms used to forward 'UFO' reports against 'low flying' complaints.
The majority of the these reports are
entitled "Aerial Phenomena" reports, and the witness is referred to as
an "Informant"; indeed there are examples of very 'biased' report
writing, such as one instance where the writer deems that the
'informant' "did not sound mentally to be all there" - truly astonishing
objectivity! A
notable feature of so many of these reports is the lack of strangeness
(many LITS reports etc) and a lack of detail, or at least recorded
detail. That said, the report format
was hardly extensive in the data it sought to record - only 12 data
fields relating to the observation! 'Civilian' sighting forms of amateur
research groups were/are extensive in comparison.
One report from RNAS Culdrose on 13-Sep-1985
is interesting, as it did prompt a response requesting Culdrose's "view
on the need for further action" - subsequent dialogue is not apparent or
disclosed...
Another curious case and report was not of a UFO, but an AAC report (from AAC
Middle Wallop) of crop circles (actually one of the first
satellite pictograms) at Clatford in August 1985, that AAC personnel had
investigated and photographed on the ground. Certainly a reminder of how
long crop circles have been around us, and also a reminder that in the
early days of the phenomena the military - informally if not formally/officially -
had an interest in them. The Mod appear to infer an interest in such
circle events if they had been made by the landing gear of some sort of
aircraft... Other than correspondence on a request on original
photos/negatives from AAC personnel - that had been 'lost' by AS.2(a) - subsequent dialogue on
the matter is not apparent or disclosed...
In view of the 'Sky Circle' type of reports
that have been received by UFO groups since the mid-1990s, there is a
report from Bransholme, Humberside that is of interest, as that occurred
on 8-Sep-1985, but describes spinning beams of light and circles of
lights - so similar types of event were around 10 years earlier than
perhaps we thought.
One file that appears to have no relevance
relates to a lengthy hand-printed letter proposing a means of preventing
engine/fuel tank fires in aircraft - the inference is that this was from
a 'serial informant' who had previously written about UFO matters.
Going back to earlier files within the
disclosed documents, there is some interesting correspondence prior to
the House of Lords debate (prompted by Lord Clancarty - Brinsley Le Poer
Trench) in 1979. There was clearly time and effort spent to discredit
the debate by referring to Clancarty's varied and assorted views on flying saucers
and aliens - covered in his many books. Thanks to the formality of
British institution, staff were able to research and prepare responses
to Clancarty's likely points; indeed there is mention of the intent to
"demolish" one of Clancarty's cases, the infamous 'disappearance into a
cloud' of the Norfolk Battalion at Gallipoli in 1915. The intent
was
to dismiss this case as an illusion; it is now known of course that the
alleged UFO abduction was a myth/legend that covered up a wartime
atrocity. Also
from an earlier date (in this case 1978) is a draft - it is not obvious
who was to review the draft - of a proposed article for the RAF's RAF
News. RAF publications (including the earlier RAF Flying Review)
regularly featured articles on flying saucers and UFOs - and indeed
'man-made' flying saucer designs that were around at the time.
The overall feel of reviewing most of the
report summaries is like reviewing the sightings database of a UFO
research group. Yes, there is a lot of data, but there are no
consequent analyses,
results or conclusions.
The disclosure certainly demonstrates that
contrary to public statements on such matters over many years and
decades, the
MoD and/or its departments were following a standard operation procedure
in collecting reports; from this they clearly had an
official - if informal- interest in UFOs.
However, in terms of information there is very little that we have not known
for many, many years. Certainly there is no suggestion or
acknowledgement that 'UFO' equates to ET and/or his spaceship - a false
connection that is leapt to by all-too-many people in UFOlogy.
Perhaps the MoD are being truthful in
stating that they are only interested in UFOs if they demonstrate a
defence significance? Sorry, but one does
not defend one's realm on a retrospective basis! One can only ignore
intrusions of airspace if one already knows that the 'unidentified' poses
no defence significance...
|