Skip to main content

Full text of "Project Condign"

See other formats


the national archives 



(c) crown copyright 



■ 



1ED 



MINISTRY OF DEFENCE 



MOD Form 329D 

(Revised 8/00) 
PPQ = 100 




2nd Review date 



Produced by MOD 

DSDA (PC) Ky. Tel: 0117 9376256 



•wrassiFTEff 



Registered File Disposal Form 



MOD Form 262F 

(Revised 9/01) 



FILE TITLE: (Main Heading - Secondary Heading - Tertiary Heading etc) 


Reference: 

(Prefix and Number) 1 

Part: ^ 




PROTECTIVE MARKING (including caveats & descriptors 







Date of last enclosure: 



Date closed: 



PART 1. DISPOSAL SCHEDULE RECOMMENDATION 

(To be completed when the file is closed)^ 

Destroy after . 

ForwgpHrJlNFO(EXP)-R after 
No recommendation 




FOR DEFENCE INFO(EXP)-R USE ONLY 



Date of 1 st review 
Reviewer's 



Date of 2nd review 

Reviewer's 
Signature: _ 



Forward Destruction Date 



PART 2. BRANCH REVIEW 

(To be fully completed at time of file closure) 

(Delete as appropriate) * 

a. Of no further administrative value and not worthy of permanent preservation. DESTROY IMMEDIATELY (Remember that TOP SECRET 

✓ 



and Codeword material cannot be destroyed locally and must be forwarded to INFO(EXP)-R. 
b. (i) To be retained until the end of the year for the following reason(s): 



LEGAL 

CONTRACTUAL 
FINANCE/AUDIT 
DIRECTORATE POLICY 



DEFENCE POLICY + OPERATIONS 
ORIGINAL COMMITTEE PAPERS 
MAJOR EQUIPMENT PROJECT 
OTHER (Specify) 



PPQ = 100 



(Continued overleaf) 



(ii) Key enclosures which support the recommendation are: 



(iii) At the end of the specified retention period the file is to be: 




Destroyed 

Considered by DR for 
permanent preservation 

c. Of no further administrative value but worthy of consideration by INFO(EXP)-R for permanent preservation. 



PART 3. lyyvMgi^i^^^^^^^^^^ot below C2/equivalent) 
Signaturl 



Name: 



Grade/Rank: 



CI. 



(Block Capitals) 
Date: 30 / 7 



Branch Title and Full Address: 



Tel No: 



PART 4 DESTRUCTION CERTIFICATE 

It is certified that the specified file has been destroyed. 
Signature: 



Name: 



Grade/Rank: 



(Block Capitals) 
Date: 



Witnessed by (TOP SECRET* and SECRET only) 
Signature: 



Name: 



Grade/Rank: . 



(Block Capitals) 
Date: 



*(FOR DR USE ONLY) 



Produced by DE&S Graphics and Photography, Bath. 



Page 1 of 3 



Section 40 



From: David Clarke SIS^ 
Sent: 23 July 2008 10:55 

To: gSJSESH 

Subject: Re: Cardiff UFO 



Dear 



Section 40 



Many thanks for your response dated 26 June. 

My story on the current media UFO hype is published in the current edition of Fortean Times, but 
you can read a version on my web-page here: 

h^p;//ww.drdavidclarke.co. , ok/news2.htm 

I trust your inbox is a little less troubled now the Sun appear to have dropped the story. 

Yours, 

David Clarke 



On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 9:20 AM, 
Dear Dr Clarke, 



Section 40 



I wrote: 



Thank you for your e-mail of 25 June 2008. 



The MoD has not received a report of this incident and has therefore not investigated the matter. 



Section 40 



DAS-FOI 
05-H-13 

MoD Main Building 
Whitehall 
London 
SW1A2HB 



23/07/2008 



Page 2 of 3 




From: David Clarke [mailto:BfSBnwiE 





Subject: Cardiff UFO 
Dear !519CT*!iK 

No doubt MoD will have had many inquiries regarding the alleged sighting of a UFO by the crew 
of a police helicopter in South Wales on 7/8 June. 

You may be interested to read this item on the BBC Wales news page posted yesterday, which 
provides a satisfying explanation for this and the other sightings, as Chinese lanterns released 
from a wedding party near Cardiff airport: 

Source: http://news.bbc,co.u^ 1 724.stm 

I understand from the media coverage that MoD has not (as of the weekend) received any formal 
report from South Wales police on the original incident. 

Can you confirm this remains the case? I would have expected this report, if such exists, to have 
been filed with the CAA as an airprox or 'Mandatory Occurence Report'. Have you received 
notification of such a report? 

If you have received a report does MoD intend to make further inquiries, or are satisfied there is 
no defence interest in this incident? 

This is more of a press inquiry than a formal FOI. I have been asked to write a short piece 



23/07/2008 



Page 3 of 3 

for the media and wish to ensure that I state the MoD's position on this matter clearly and 
directly. 

I would be grateful for any assistance you can provide. 
I look forward to hearing from you 
Yours Sincerely, 
Dr David Clarke 

David Clarke 

http: //www . drda vi d cl ark e . co . uk / 



23/07/2008 



•David Clarke News 2008 



Page 1 of 3 



David Clarke 
News 



July 2008 



WHY LET THE FACTS GET IN THE WAY OF A GOO D STORY? 

Silly Season: 'the summer month of August is traditionally viewed as journalism's silly 
season, in which there is very little news, allowing senior editorial staff in particular to take 
holidays. Politicians are in the middle of their long break from Parliamentary duty and 
government offices are short-staffed, suggesting nothing of major importance is likely to 
happen and resulting in the media turning to the reporting of more trivial matters.' (The 
Guardian, 31 July 2002). 

In July 2007 Britain's favourite tabloid tried to persuade us that a great white shark had 
visited the normally serene Cornish coast, complete with wobbly video clips showing 
sinister dark fins breaking the waves. The Sun's shark mania soon evaporated when it was 
revealed the footage was taken in Cape Town, not St Ives. 

In 2008 the silly season arrived earlier than usual and for most of June Jaws mania was 
swapped for an invasion by 'the Alien Army'. For certain sections of the media UFOs have 
now become perennial silly season fodder. Tabloid newspapers in particular will print 
anything UFO-related without any iota of critical scrutiny. As Nick Davies points out in Flat 
Earth News, this type of story is cheap and easy to cover and gives the punters what they 
want. 

During the spring of 2008, with the MoD files story simmering away and the imminent 
release of a new X-file movie, it was inevitable that UFOs would soon be back in force. As 
one UFO witness caught up in the hype told me: "a journalist intuitively seemed to 
understand this when he said to me: 'it's about time we had another UFO story.' " 

Add a flotilla of sky lanterns to the heady brew and - hey presto - a media-created UFO flap 
was upon us. For a full week in June The Sun filled its pages with exciting tales of UFOs 
bothering police helicopters and buzzing bemused squaddies. And when these tales dried 
up there was an army of eager readers on hand to stoke the embers by sending in their 
own grainy images of lights in the sky filmed on mobile phones and camcorders. 

This summer's UFO mania kicked off on 20 June with a Sun exclusive. The crew of the 
South Wales police helicopter were confronted by a 'flying saucer shaped' object as they 
approached their landing pad at just 500 feet. According to 'an anonymous source' the pilot 
had to bank sharply to avoid a collision above St Athan, near Cardiff International Airport, 
shortly after midnight on 8 June. The pilot then set off across the Bristol Channel in hot 
pursuit of the intruder, but had to turn back when fuel ran low over the North Devon coast. 
Most police copters carry hi-tech equipment such as surveillance cameras but nothing was 
captured on film which suggests this was a fleeting observation. Even stranger, although 
the UFO - described as 'circled by flashing sights' - was clearly visible to the naked eye, 
nothing could be seen through the crew's night-vision goggles. They reported their 
encounter to senior officers who then passed it "to Britain's UFO investigators." Within 
hours of publication on the Sun's website the story was republished around the world. 

The police, by now inundated with press inquiries, dismissed The Sun's story as factually 



http ://www.drdavidclarke. co . uk/ne ws2 .htm 



23/07/2008 



David Clarke News 2008 



Page 2 of 3 



^ inaccurate. They said the incident did occur but the crew simply saw an "unusual aircraft" 
not a "flying saucer". The force refused to release any further details of the crew's report but 
were quick to pour cold water on the more sensational claims made by The Sun's source. 
The copter had not chased the UFO across the Bristol Channel, nor had to take evasive 
action to avoid it, they added. Further details were provided by a spokesman for air traffic 
control at Cardiff airport. He confirmed the pilot had reported his sighting to the controller 
who immediately checked the radar tor anything unusual. But they could see nothing other 
than the helicopter. It appears the incident was quickly forgotten about until someone - The 
Sun's mysterious source - leaked an exaggerated version to the media. This was 
confirmed when it emerged that the Ministry of Defence and the Civil Aviation Authority had 
no knowledge of the sighting. To put it simply, if it was not reported to them directly, then as 
far as they were concerned there was lothing for them to investigate! 




Meanwhile BBC Wales r • t t - r v c ; - - - • : ■:■•.<-■ with a story f-om newlyweds Lucy 

and Lyn Thomas. The\ ; : , r.ky 'anterns released by guests at 

their wedding party. 7r ; j ebr * ; " bridge which is three miles 

southeast of St Athan, le =• r : . ( s paper lanterns, 2ft 6 in high 

(0.79m), behave exact - ^ea'c - t night have been 

the source of many UF e 3 "~ .3 couple purchased 

100 lanterns for the ev : tier : : ety regulations before 

going ahead. Thirty wi o m. The northwesterly 

winds that evening woi , lelicopter base. But 

The Sun - and the police ■-■ were ha mq nc.x c it. Hi 3 crew were very experienced and 

"we do NOT believe it r t h 1 J r - 1 ' ■ r . ■• ;:f ^ - ^ " an indig nant force spokesman 

told us. But whatever t •. v> - es that both a UFO and a fleet 

of sky lanterns happen c j',is ;>' : r ; \ ;ane time? 



Alien fleet over Shrc 

On 25 June The Sun v . , . . 1 ,,,n a ^aj. one splash to follow 

its UFO exclusive. This was cano <• ■ i;- ;\i ; p,unc footage of 13 UFOs "spinning in 
the skies" above a mi!i:, c. .' :• ' \ •> r:y^ Mark Proctor and three 



http://www.drdavidclarkrr.t. il r 



23/07/2008 



-David Clarke News 2008 



Page 3 of 3 



squaddies from the fir?; 'c :*••>!: ;• r 3c : 1 r : : r;;c ihe objects whilst on night patrol 
from Tern Hill barracks n; : r v]; 0: .v{.- ! > on 7 June, shortly before the Welsh 
incident. Cpl Proctor d( ;£ O : "' ' >; ; .;; cubes with multiple colours" that 

zig-zagged as they mov; au : t - < . '•:!•;- :o capture two on his mobile phone 

and the footage was la f x 3 :.' -r. \ l The-, paper had now found an expert, 

former MoD UFO desk-j<:ike} M;.,.'. • ho „h , k; help the paper keep the story 

running. Despite the lack of irsfer^st frcm h.-s 'or^t:; employers, he demanded the MoD 
launch "an official inqu.rt t . fh s :h t.c^, fetoig ,a.ok on that old chestnut, "the credible 
witness". Military observe s, nt* : • 13 lerc! ' . <n? good witnesses", and in his expert 
opinion the Shropshire U Os w : ? Se- r ; y i;: ;-v .xtj '~. jr meteors. This was indeed obvious, 
but why weren't the sp ; r r ; r f Ve • " :r ; : lo sooner had Pope put his neck 
on the block that Ten r! !; ' -■<:*.- ;•>•. "i: Ja^il i- r-arne up with the solution to the 
mystery. On three or fr : : i t t ■?r;\hs ha had hosted weddings where 

lanterns had been reie . : ; : - '• -ime- "We've had inquiries from 

residents before," he tc 1 t" • 1 t - r rr.e it's been classed as a UFO." 

Ever since former editor K-Wu-, h':J:-','-ri.Ae ■ :;st.\; t;-, e -, C:yng Boy legend The Sun's writers 
have had lots of tin erfai; .t, t: '«j tti ; ^tari; with . i s ola stories during the summer silly 

season. The journalistic c .; -he 1 ■ to^ i :,ood story?' was never more 

appropriate and oublia'ly- ungr- .:FD ' ;<p vw t .3a tne as part of the tabloid circus. 

Like the Crying Boy, this tti !: : r. ; •?••*'•'• « *y.r and as we write The Sun have 

set up a UFO camp at t u A cc* r ^ :v ! , y.r; 1 Mo r th Wales, scene of a classic 

1974 incident which '< r w^av^i "If anything happens," 

reported Sun hack KrJ ■'■-,<■■.: y - ' . '-a^opes, infra-red cameras, 

torches and meta* uete; - - :. ' ? ! '<■■ a'-asa aa' caa^e 'his much fuss just 

imagine what a ccricertc ; tflot: ic wi v - : v ; ;;f dedicated lantern launchers 
could do! 

The Sun - June 25 28, :>t;R it - WaV:,;, ; - i 25 June; BBC News 
Shropshire 25 ta a. 

http://www.thes'. aa : . r 
Additional medic. L":i:i 

http://www.fortea; ! [ i n;c' ;j .! .ata^a. r ../. ;.t aa { -a, 'ate mad tas. film! 
http://www.chan/iG-4.Cva .a^ :■ 1^' : . ,c,:,-i' >■■<:. .'.i : i'^^::.i;sy/brita;n+G3es+surge+in+sightingi 
http://tinyurl.cOiY.,''' ■JcsgT 
http://www.milte.-i' svk,..,:^: ..a'" i 



http ://www . drdav i d c ; ark c.co. uk/r> e \ ! at 



23/07/2008 



Page 1 of 2 



Section 40 



Section 40 



From: 

Sent: 26 June 2008 09:21 

To: 'David Clarke' 

Subject: Release-authorised: Cardiff UFO 

Dear Dr Clarke, 

Thank you for your e-mail of 25 June 2008. 
The MoD has not received a report of this incident and has therefore not investigated the matter. 



Section 40 



DAS-FOI 
05-H-13 

MoD Main Building 
Whitehall 
London 
SW1A2HB 



From: David Clarke [mailto:| 
Se nt: 25 June 20 08 11:27 
To: tj^drBSyTS™ 

Subject: Cardiff UFO 



DearBHSHSEi 



ection 40 



No doubt MoD will have had many inquiries regarding the alleged sighting of a UFO by the crew 
of a police helicopter in South Wales on 7/8 June. 

You may be interested to read this item on the BBC Wales news page posted yesterday, which 
provides a satisfying explanation for this and the other sightings, as Chinese lanterns released 
from a wedding party near Cardiff airport: 

Source: http://news. bbc .co.Uk /2 /hi/uk news/ w ales/747 1 72 4.stm 

I understand from the media coverage that MoD has not (as of the weekend) received any formal 
report from South Wales police on the original incident. 



Can you confirm this remains the case? I would have expected this report, if such exists, to have 
been filed with the CAA as an airprox or 'Mandatory Occurence Report'. Have you received 
notification of such a report? 

If you have received a report does MoD intend to make further inquiries, or are satisfied there is 
no defence interest in this incident? 



This is more of a press inquiry than a formal FOI. I have been asked to write a short piece 
for the media and wish to ensure that I state the MoD's position on this matter clearly and 
directly. 

I would be grateful for any assistance you can provide. 
I look forward to hearing from you 



26/06/2008 



Yours Sincerely, 
Dr David Clarke 



26/0-6/2008 



Dr David Clarke 




Section 40 




1 




EESSection 40 




KEitiiflSection 40 | 



Section 40 



Directorate of Air Staff - Freedom of Information 
Ministry of Defence f=j 

5 th Floor, Zone H ^ Art^u*** 
Main Building 

Whitehall i^/^ 
London SW1A 2HB 



11 April 2007 
FOI Request 
Dear! 



Sect! 



Section 40 



I wish to make a request under the Freedom of Information Act for information relating 
to MoD's internal discussions concerning public statements made by a former desk 
officer on the subject of UFOs. 

As you will no doubt be aware one of your predecessors, Mr Nick Pope, who was 
Sec(AS)2a from 1991-94, publicly declared his conversion to "a believer" in UFOs in 
1995 after he left the post {Mail on Sunday, 2 July 1995). In the following year a book he 
had written about UFOs, and his experience as a desk officer responsible for dealing with 
public inquiries about UFOs on behalf of MoD, Open Skies Closed Minds, was published. 
The book set out Mr Pope's belief that UFOs did pose a possible defence threat to the UK 
- in stark contrast to the publicly stated MoD policy (which remains in place today) that 
the phenomenon has been repeatedly judged, most recently by the DIS report on UAPs, 
to be "of no defence significance." 

I am fully aware that Mr Pope's statements, during his employment with the MoD, were 
made in a private capacity and that he was not authorised to speak on behalf of the MoD. 
I also appreciate that the Data Protection Act 1998 protects information of a personal 
nature. Nevertheless during his employment, and specifically in 1995-96, Mr Pope was a 
serving MoD officer and the stance that MoD decided to adopt in response to his very 
public statements - that were clearly in contrast to the department's stated line - must fall 
within the category of information defined as "in the public interest." 



1 



The Information Commissioner's guidance on the DP A is clear: "Information which is 
about the home or family life of an individual, his or her personal finances, or consists of 
personal references, is likely to deserve protection. By contrast, information which is 
about someone acting in an official or work capacity should normally be provided on 
request unless there is some risk to the individual concerned." (FOIA Awareness 
Guidance No 1, pg 3, Information Commissioner). As Mr Pope is a self declared "TV 
personality and former head of the MoD's UFO Project" I submit that such risks are 
minimal or non-existent. 

Furthermore, on pg 4 of the FOIA guidance note the Commissioner states: "It is often 
believed that the [DPA] prevents the disclosure of any personal data without the consent 
of the person concerned. This is not true. The purpose of the [DPA] is to protect the 
private lives of individuals. Where information requested is about the people acting in a 
work or official capacity then it will normally be right to disclose." 

I submit that: 

*Mr Pope was undoubtedly "acting in a work or official capacity" whilst in Sec (AS)2a 
1991-94 and that responsibility did not end in 1994 by virtue of the fact that he remained 
as a serving MoD officer during the period, in 1995-96, when his book was first 
published. 

*His personal views on UFOs and his conflict of opinion with his employers cannot be 
defined as "private" as his version of the events surrounding the publication of his book 
have been widely disseminated in interviews given and articles written by Mr Pope to the 
present day. 

*It must be in the public interest for documents relating to the MoD's internal 
deliberations on both Mr Pope's statements and on the contents of his book to be 
released, not least to provide the public with balance and context. At the moment all the 
public have is Mr Pope's version of the sequence of events leading to his "conversion" to 
UFO believer and the publication of his book. Mr Pope frequently articulates his version 
of this story and until recently he was frequently presented by the media as "the MoD's 
expert" on the subject, without official contradiction. Therefore, without the benefit of 
the official documentation relating to this period the public are unable to reach a balanced 
judgement about the accuracy of his stated version of the events surrounding the 
publication of his book. Once again, I submit it is undoubtedly in the public interest to 
release this information . 

Furthermore, it is my understanding that the manuscript of Mr Pope's first book was 
submitted to the MoD for vetting and was eventually approved by the Publication 
Clearance Branch (PCB) after changes had been made. I accept that the contents of the 
original MS and discussion relating to those changes rightly fall under Section 41 of the 
FOIA (Information provided in Confidence) and are rightly protected. However, that 
protection cannot be extended to cover specific matters which are already in the public 
domain by virtue of the fact that Mr Pope has discussed these matters publicly. For 



2 



example, in an interview published by the International UFO Reporter (fall 1996, pg 1 8) 
Mr Pope states: 

"There was a faction [in the MoD] that certainly didn't want the book to appear. I 
submitted the text to the [PCB]. . .to my utter amazement - and for the first time to 
my knowledge - the manuscript was returned with a short letter. . .It said a number 
of things, but the quote which stunned me most said that my manuscript was 
'completely unacceptable to MoD and quite beyond any suitable amendment.'" 

At the moment all we have is Mr Pope's version of this story. It must be in the public 
interest to release the relevant documents relating to the context of this statement. 

I am conscious of the £600 limit for central Government for the processing of a complex 
request of this nature. Therefore I have carefully constructed my specific request as 
follows in order to assist you in locating relevant material for release. 

My request, therefore, is for copies of MoD papers, records or other information relating 
to any or all internal discussion, policy and/or briefings in response to 1) public 
statements made to the media and 2) via the release of Open Skies Closed Minds by Mr 
Nicholas Pope during the period 1995-96. 1 wish you to include specific public interest 
material within the coverage of this request as follows: 

a) Any internal discussion relating to Mr Pope's public statements in the Mail on 
Sunday, 2 July 1995, The Independent 3 June 1996 and other press articles during 
1995-96 

b) Any specific discussion relating to Mr Pope's published statements that 
contradicted the department's officially stated policy on the subject of 
UFOs/UAPs, for example on the ET nature of UFOs and their supposed defence 
threat. 

c) Any papers, generated by MoD or its PCB branch, that relate to Mr Pope's public 
allegation that ". . .there was a faction [in the MoD] that certainly didn't want the 
book to appear." Specifically I request a copy of "the short letter" referred to in 
Mr Pope's interview with IUR which allegedly said his manuscript was 

^'"completely unacceptable to MoD and quite beyond any suitable amendment.'" 
, and an y related discussion which resolved this issue. As Mr Pope has spoken of 
jJ^T/T- this matter openly and in public it cannot be seriously argued that this material 
^ falls within the auspices of the DP A. 

J) 

jlS" I <r Mft three of these specific requests, within the umbrella of my main request, are - 1 

i£*submit - very much in the public interest and I believe the Information Commissioner 
. i j(would take the same viewpoint. 
[\r, ^ ' 

Ufi I look forward to receiving your response to this request and thank you for your attention 
to my letter. 



3 



Yours Faithfully, 



Dr David Clarke 



UNIDENTIFIED AERIAL PHENOMENA (UAP) IN THE UK AIR DEFENCE 



REGION - RESULT OF INTERNAL REVIEW 



Following a request for an Internal Review to be conducted, which specifically 
asked for the decision to withhold information under exemptions s.26 and s.27 
to be reviewed, some of the previously redacted sections from the UAP report 
have now been released. This has resulted in amendments to eleven of the 
previously released pages. 

The pages affected are as follows: 
1. Executive Summary: 

Executive Summary, final page. 

The distribution list of the UAP Report, found on the last page of the Executive 
Summary, has now been released. 

(Please see Executive Summary, page 22 of the Report on the FOI Disclosure Log 
(http://www.mod.uk/Defencelnternet/FreedomOflnformation/PublicationScheme/Sear 
chPublicationScheme/UaplnTheUkAirDefenceReaionExecutiveSummarv.htm) for the 
previously released (redacted) version of this page). 



2. Volume 1 : 

Volume 1, chapter 1, page 1, paragraph 2 
The words 'the CIA' have now been released. 

(Please see Volume 1 , Part A, page 9 of the Report on the FOI Disclosure Log) 
(http://www.mod.uk/Defencelnternet/FreedomOflnformation/PublicationScheme/Sear 
chPublicationScheme/UaplnTheUkAirDefenceRegionVolumel .htm) for the previously 
released (redacted) version of this page). 



3. Volume 1 : 

Volume 1 , chapter 5, page 4 

In the paragraph starting "The reasons affecting", the words " the possibility 

of " and " it is noted that the implications have already been briefed to the 

relevant MOD technology managers" have now been released. 

(Please see Volume 1, Part G, page 12 of the Report on the FOI Disclosure Log 
(http://www.mod.uk/Defencelnternet/FreedomOflnformation/PublicationScheme/Sear 
chPublicationScheme/UaplnTheUkAirDefenceRegionVolumel .htm) for the previously 
released (redacted) version of this page). 



4. Volume 2: 



Volume 2, Introduction page 1 

The 'Special Notice' on this page has now been released. 

(Please see Volume 2, Part A, page 3 of the Report on the FOI Disclosure Log 
(http://www.mod.uk/Defencelnternet/FreedomOflnformation/PublicationScheme/Sear 
chPublicationScheme/UaplnTheUkAirDefenceRegionVolume2.htm) for the previously 
released (redacted) version of this page). 



5. Volume 2: 

Volume 2, Working Paper 5, page 5-1, paragraph 1. 

The sentence "The incidence of visual occurrences of UAP sightings, together 
with their coincidental detection on radar is extremely low" has now been 
released. 

(Please see Volume 2, Part D, page 1 1 of the Report on the FOI Disclosure Log 
(http://www.mod.uk/Defencelnternet/FreedomOflnformation/PublicationScheme/Sear 
chPublicationScheme/UaplnTheUkAirDefenceReaionVolume2.htm ) for the previously 
released (redacted) version of this page). 



6. Volume 2: 

Volume 2, Working Paper 5, page 5-1, paragraph 3h. 

This paragraph has now been released, except for four minor redactions. 

(Please see Volume 2, Part D, page 1 1 of the Report on the FOI Disclosure Log 
(http://www.mod.uk/Defencelnternet/FreedomOflnformation/PublicationScheme/Sear 
chPublicationScheme/UaplnTheUkAirDefenceReaionVolume2.htm) for the previously 
released (redacted) version of this page). 



7. Volume 3: 

Volume 3, Executive Summary, Page 1 , paragraph 4. 

The following sentence from this paragraph has now been released: " Charged 

plasmas are capable of being transported at enormous speeds under the 
influence and balance of electrical charges in the atmosphere and they have a 
relatively short life ". 

(Please see Volume 3, Part A, page 8 of the Report on the FOI Disclosure Log 
(http://www.mod.uk/Defencelnternet/FreedomOflnformation/PublicationScheme/Sear 
chPublicationScheme/UaplnTheUkAirDefenceReaionVolume3.htm ^ for the previously 
released (redacted) version of this page). 



8. Volume 3: 



Volume 3, Executive Summary, Page 2, paragraph 7. 

The following sentence from this paragraph has now been released: " It is 

important to note that longer wavelength radars can detect those plasmas with 
lower electron densities which are, in fact, absorbers to microwave radars " 

(Please see Volume 3, Part A, page 8 of the Report on the FOI Disclosure Log 
(http://www.mod.uk/Defencelnternet/FreeclomOflnformation/PublicationScheme/Sear 
chPublicationScheme/UaplnTheUkAirDefenceReaionVolume3.htm) for the previously 
released (redacted) version of this page). 



9. Volume 3: 

Volume 3, Chapter 1 , page 3, paragraph 1 1 . 

The following sentence from this paragraph has now been released: "In summary 
there are several viable reasons why there are a number of UAP reports daily, 
probably of plasma-type entities, " 

(Please see Volume 3, Part B, page 3 of the Report on the FOI Disclosure Log 
(http://www.mod.uk/Defencelnternet/FreedomOflnformation/PublicationScheme/Sear 
chPublicationScheme/UaplnTheUkAirDefenceReaionVolume3.htm) for the previously 
released (redacted) version of this page). 



10. Volume 3: 

Volume 3, Chapter 1, page 4, paragraph 13(d). 

The following sentence from this paragraph has now been released: "Unlike 'solid' 
targets, for the electron density selected, the reflectivity is low " 

(Please see Volume 3, Part B, page 4 of the Report on the FOI Disclosure Log 
(http://www.mod.uk/Defencelnternet/FreedomOflnformation/PublicationScheme/Sear 
chPublicationScheme/UaplnTheUkAirDefenceReaionVolume3.htm) for the previously 
released (redacted) version of this page). 



11. Volume 3: 

Volume 3, Chapter 1, page 5, paragraph 21. 

The following sentence from this paragraph has now been released: "In summary 
there are several viable reasons why there are a number of UAP reports daily, 
probably of plasma-type entities, " 

(Please see Volume 3, Part B, page 5 of the Report on the FOI Disclosure Log 
(http://www.mod.uk/Defencelnternet/FreedomOflnformation/PublicationScheme/Sear 
chPublicationScheme/UaplnTheUkAirDefenceReaionVolume3.htm^ for the previously 

released (redacted) version of this page). 



12. Volume 3: 



Volume 3, Chapter 1, page 8, paragraph 27, first bullet. 

The following sentences from this paragraph have now been released (the first two 
with minor redactions): "Horizon Geometry - the inner rings around the sites at 
Figure 1-1 shows the horizon range rings for targets at XX altitude. Targets 
further away and those at less than XX altitude will not be seen". 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX "[These areas may or may not be those 
where visual witnesses happen to be present at the time]". 

(Please see Volume 3, Part B, page 8 of the Report on the FOI Disclosure Log 
(http://www.mod.uk/Defenceinternet/FreedomOflnformation/PublicationScheme/Sear 
chPubiicationScheme/UaplnTheUkAirDefenceReaionVolume3.htm ) for the previously 
released (redacted) version of this page). 



13. Volume 3: 

Volume 3, Chapter 4, page 3, paragraph 12. 

The following sentence from this paragraph has been partially released: "The 
Society for Scientific Exploration XXXXXXXXXXX have made a mid-1998 
statement to the effect that the topic of UFOs should be studied - only in that it 
might expose some new scientific information". 

(Please see Volume 3, Part E, page 3 of the Report on the FOI Disclosure Log 
(http://www.mod.uk/Defencelnternet/FreedomOflnformation/PublicationScheme/Sear 
chPubiicationSche m e/UaplnTheUkAirDefenceReaionVolume3.htm ) for the previously 
released (redacted) version of this page). 



The revised pages are as follows: 



Page 1 of 1 



Section 40 



Section 40 



From? 

Sent: 23 August 2006 09:56 
To: 'david clarke' 

Subject: lnternet-authorised:Freedom of Information 



Dear Dr Clarke, 

Further to my letter of 21 August I am now in a position to respond to the three outstanding questions in your 

letter of 27 th July 2006 relating to the 'UAP Report'. Following consultation with the subject matter experts in 
the Defence Intelligence Staff (DIS) and Counter Terrorism and UK Operations (CTandUKOps), I am able to 
provide you with the following information. 



As you are aware, following your request on 22 na May 2006 for copies of any comments that were made by the 
Branches who received a copy of the Report, a thorough search of all the relevant files was undertaken and no 

comments from these Branches was found (my letter to you reference 23-05-2006-100609-001 of 16 th June 
2006 refers). In response to your latest question, DIS staff have again undertaken a search of the relevant files 
and no correspondence from the Branches has been found. Therefore, it can be confirmed that no comments on 
the UAP Report were received. 

With regard to your question regarding any views expressed or action taken by DAO (now CTandUKOps) I can 
confirm that CTandUKOps have searched all their available records and have found no relevant information. 

As a result of the findings in the UAP report, the DIS no longer monitors and receives copies of UFO sighting 
reports. It is not considered contradictory that the DIS has a file on UAP/UFO policy. As you say earlier in your 
letter, the topic of UFOs is of great interest to the public and they continue to write. It is our duty to respond to 
letters from the public and these letters and responses (such as this one) are filed along with any newspaper 
reports which may have prompted the letters. 

I hope this is helpful. 

Finally, I should inform you that I will be on two weeks leave from 3 1 st August and shortly after my return in 
mid September I will be moving to a new post in the MOD. To insure that any future emails reach this office 
please use our office email address of das-ufo-office@mod.uk . Postal correspondence can be sent to this 
address and will be opened by my successor. 



Yours sincerely, 



Section 40 



Ministry of Defence 

Directorate of Air Staff - Freedom of Information 

5th Floor, Zone H, Desk 13 

Main Building 

Whitehall 

LONDON 

SW1 A 2HB 



e-mail:das-ufo-office@mod.uk 



23/08/2006 




From: tgEranSflKil l 

Directorate of Air Staff - Freedom of Information 
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE 



5 th Floor, Zone H, Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1A2HB 



Telephone 



e-mail 



(Direct dial) 

(Switchboard) 

(Fax) 

das-uf o-off ice @ mod , 



020 7218 2140 
020 7218 9000 



5T 



Dr David Clarke 



Section 40 



Our Reference 
03-08-2006-114552-004 

Date 

21 August 2006 



Dear Dr Clarke 

Thank you for your letter of 27 July 2006 in which you raised a number of questions regarding 
the 'UAP Report' and also submitted a new request for the release of the MoD file 'DI55/108/15', 
part 4. Your request has been considered as a request for information under the Freedom of 
Information Act (FOIA) 2000 and I can confirm that the Ministry of Defence does hold the 
requested information. 

As you correctly recall in your letter, your original request for this file was refused as to retrieve, 
extract and, where necessary, carry out redactions, would have been above the FOIA cost limit. 
This remains the case and, therefore, we are still unable to consider releasing the file in total. 
However, we have produced a summary of the subject areas which are covered in the file which is 
attached at annex. It is hoped that this will now enable you to be more specific about the 
information you are seeking and, if you wish, submit a further, more focused, request and specify 
exactly which subject area(s) you are interested in. We will then be pleased to look again at your 
request and, subject to it being within the FOIA cost limit, assess the releasibility of the relevant 
enclosures. 

You should also be aware that the FOIA regulations state that where two or more requests "relate, 
to any extent, to the same or similar information" and the requests are received within any period 
of sixty consecutive working days, the estimated cost of compliance is taken to be the total costs 
of complying with all of them. Therefore, should you submit a refined request for information 
based upon the attached summary and submit a further request for information from the file 
within the sixty working day period, your requests will be combined and work to process your 
requests will only be carried out up to the FOIA cost limit. 

The three questions you raised regarding the 'UAP Report' are currently being addressed and a 
separate reply will be sent to you in due course. 

If you are unhappy with the response or wish to complain about any aspect of the handling of this 
request, then you should contact the undersigned in the first instance. Should you remain 
dissatisfied, then you may apply for an internal review by contacting the Director of Information 
Exploitation, 6th Floor, MOD Main Building, Whitehall, SW1 A 2HB (e-mail Info-D@mod.uk). 



^tf you are still unhappy following an internal review, you may take your complaint to the 
^pformation Commissioner under the provisions of Section 50 of the Freedom of Information 
Act. Please note that the Information Commissioner will not normally investigate your case until 
the MOD internal review process has been completed. Further details of the role and powers of 
the Information Commissioner can be found on the Commissioner's website, 
http://www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk . 

Yours sincerely, 



Section 40 



Annex A to 
03-08-2006-114552-004 



SUMMARY OF CONTENTS OF FILE DI55/108/15 - Part 4 'UFO Policy' 

The file covers the period December 1971 to December 1996. The subject areas covered by the 
contents of the file is as follows: 



Copies of newspaper and magazine articles relating to UFOs. 

Correspondence relating to the 'UAP' report/study (some or all of which is likely to have already 
been released through previous requests). 

Letters from the public and correspondence relating to UFO programmes on the TV and radio, 
and articles in newspapers. 

MoD correspondence concerning public access to UFO files. 

Ministerial correspondence relating to the House of Lords debate on UFOs 1979 (some or all of 
which is likely to have been released through previous requests). 

UFO sightings correspondence (some of which is likely to have been released through previous 
requests). 

General MoD correspondence relating to UFO policy and procedures (all pre 1979). 



On win, Linda Mrs 



From: 


david clarke 


Section 40 1 


Sent: 


27 July 2006 09:47 


To: 


■Section 40 




Subject: 


He: FOIA request 



Attachments: 



MoDFOIJuly06.doc 




MoDFODuly06.doc 
(29 KB) 

27 July 2006 

Dear 

Please find attached a letter including a Freedom of Information request. 
Yours , 

David Clarke 



1 



Dr David Clarke 



Section 40 



Section 40 



Directorate of Air Staff - FOI 

Ministry of Defence 

5 th Floor, Zone H 

Main Building 

Whitehall 

London SW1A 2HB 

27 July 2006 

FOI Request - UAP Report 
Dear g 

Thank you for your letters of 16 June in response a) to my Freedom of Information Act 
request dated 22 May 2006 and b) my follow-up questions relating to the UAP report. 
This letter includes some further questions plus a fresh FOI request. 

My questions relate to issues arising from the completion and circulation of the UAP 
report in the year 2000 which I feel remain a little ambiguous. 

Firstly, I am puzzled by the seeming lack of reaction or interest from the various MoD 
branches copied in on sections of the report, under the cover letter 4 December 2000. 
Given the fact that the author spent three years producing a detailed report in an attempt 
to resolve a problem which had persisted since the '50s, I would have expected at least 
some brief comment on the findings and recommendations from the addressees who 
received a copy. Is it the case that none of the branches listed expressed any interest or 
views in respect of the findings? 

Secondly, I note in your letter dated 16 June that you say the report's findings were sent 
to DAO/UKADGE who would have been responsible for passing on the specific 
recommendations concerning "Potential UAP Hazards to Aircraft" (Vol 3, Chapter 2 of 
the report) to the CAA (and presumably the RAF). Given that fact, do DAO hold any 
record in their files of action taken in response to these recommendations or views 
expressed with respect to the report's findings? 

Thirdly, I note that the Key Recommendation of the UAP report was that "it should no 
longer be a requirement for DI55 to monitor UFO reports as they do not. . .provide 
information useful to Defence Intelligence." Given that finding, I draw your attention to 
your response to my request of 22 May for "a list of files or records held by DIS which 
have the acronym 'UAP' in the title." In your letter of 16 June you list four DI 55 files, 



titled "UAP Policy", the third which was opened in December 2000 (the same month the 
findings were delivered) and closed in March 2004, and the fourth opened in March 2004 
and which remains open. 

/ Could you explain why, if the DIS interest in this subject ended in 2000, and reports were 
no longer sent to them, that department continues to maintain files on the subject to this 
day? It appears somewhat contradictory that a department which professes to have no 
interest in UFOs/UAPs after 2000 continues to maintain a policy file on the subject. 

y Finally, I wish to make a request under the Freedom of Information Act for a paper copy CC*^ 
of part, or whole, of the DI 55 Policy file D/D/DI55/1 08. 1 5 Pt 4, which covers the period ^ ^ ^ 
1971-96. 

You may recall that I originally made a request for this file as part of an earlier FOI 
~£> request in 2005. In your response dated 23 August 2005 you explained the file contains 
more than two hundred pages, some of which are classified. My request was rejected by 
DIS because it was deemed that the costs of copying, examining and removing sensitive, 
irrelevant or personal information from every page of their file would exceed the limit. 

C I do appreciate how time consuming the processing of a document of this kind must be. 
■ However, Section 16 of the FOIA requires departments to provide an applicant with 
advice and assistance in cases such as this, especially where other options could be 
negotiated for the release of the information. 

( o I would also point out that the UAP report itself, at more than 600 pages (double the 
length of the request I am currently making) also exceeded the £600 limit but 
nevertheless was processed because it was deemed to be in the public interest to make the 
contents available publicly. 

{ ( I hardly need to point out the considerable amount of public interest in the subject of 
UFOs, particularly in the wake of the release by MoD of the UAP report (which remains 
ranked in the top 5 documents in your 'Disclosure Log'). I believe the contents of this 
UFO policy file are equally of interest both to the public and for purposes of academic 
research, as the contents frame the background against which the UAP report was 
commissioned and produced. 

7-. I also believe it is important for the MoD not to be seen to be with-holding information 
on a subject of public interest, such as UFOs, which is often forms the ground, in itself, 
for baseless allegations of cover-ups. 

3> Therefore I would like MoD/DIS to reconsider the decision to reject my request and/or 
consider one or more of the following options as a compromise response: 



a) release of part of the file within the £600 limit; for example, enclosures covering 
the period 1971 to 1990 (noting that the processing of the documents from the 
1970s should not require much expense in redaction as they fall within the old 30 



year rule and would have to be considered for TNA release if they were not 
associated with younger enclosures). 

b) I agree to pay costs incurred above the £600 limit for processing of the whole file 
(if MoD supply an estimate in advance). 

c) MoD supply a list of the titles/subject matter of enclosures which could form the 
basis for a subsequent request more tightly focussed upon specific area of interest 
identified. 

I hope you will take the points above into due consideration in your response to my 
request. In the meantime, I look forward to hearing from you, 



Yours sincerely, 



Section 40 



FroriV 

Sent: 

To: 

Cc: 

Subject: 



S"2 



Section 40 




03 August 2006 09:08 


ISection 40 


1 






HtTUhUs etc. 



Section 40 



Dr David Clarke has made several requests to the MOD on UFOs but I haven't seen this 
one. However, he sometimes submits requests dir ect to the ar ea of the Department that 

I of Directorate Air Staff 



the^sa 


lbject. I am also sending this 


to 
rom 






ection 


you let 





Section 40 



received this directly 



not yet 



Section 40 



;he AIT? He is on 



Section 40 



This seems typical of Dr Clarke - once he has a list of any files, he will follow up. 
He then looks at the copy addressees on correspondence that is released to him and 
submits requests asking them to trawl for files - that sort of thing. He is 
frustrated with MOD because it is known that some info is held in our "asbestosed" 
files and cannot be looked at so, if he has not asked FCO before, he may have gone to 
them because he has exhausted his trail with MOD. If they do have files on UFOs, 
you'd better warn them to be in for a long slog! 



Regards 



Section 40 



Original Message- 

From: ~ 
Sent: 
To: 

Subject : UFOs etc. 




[mailto : 



FCO have r eceived a request for file titles re. UFOs (full text below) - have you had 
the same? Requestor name is Dr David Clarke. Grateful if you could let me know if you 
have - we're not treating as a RR formally, just co-ordinating responses. 
Many thank s, 

' I wish to make a request under the Freedom of Information Act for a list of records 
held by the Foreign & Commonwealth Office that contain information relating to the 
subject of: 



Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs) - please note that information on the subject might 
also be held under the key- words "Flying Saucers" (popularly used during the period 
1947-1970) and/or "Aerial Phenomena." 

Please could you search for information held on this topic/theme under these three 
themes /key- words, relating to any foreign country 

My period of interest is anytime from 1947 to present. I am aware that records prior 
to mid-1970s may have been transferred to The National Archives but I would be 
interested to know if the FCO retain any files in department relating to this subject 
area. 



Please note this request is not for copies of material held. The request is for a list 
of files, records or material held on this topic so that I will be able to narrow my 
request for specific material in any future FOI request.'. 



This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the 

1 



* addressee (s) . Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. 
If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender 
by return e-mail. 

Interoet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message could be intercepted 
and read by someone else. Please bear that in mind when deciding whether to send 
material in response to this message by e-mail. 

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded 
and retained by the Department For Constitutional Affairs. E-mail monitoring / 
blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a 
responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and 
their contents . 



2 



UNOlEAiSetlEtED 



LOOSE MINUTE 



D/DI BCR CG/1 0/4/3/1 3/59 



August 2006 



Info Access Pol 2 



RELEASE OF PIS REPORT - UNIDENTIFIED AERIAL PHENOMENA (UAP1 IN THE UK 
AIR DEFENCE REGION - INTERNAL APPEAL 



1 . Your email to DAS-FOI of 2 nd August regarding the UAP report internal appeal asked for 
clarification on a number of issues. Following discussions with DIS FOI staff and the subject 
matter expert, our comments in response are as follows: 



• While the author can obviously be withheld under s.40 as we can not find him 
to ask his permission, can it also be withheld under s.24-National Security- as 
he may be targeted to obtain secret information that we have with held and he 
may inadvertently release? 

We do not consider that s.24 National Security is an appropriate exemption to use in 
this case. If it is considered that the author of the report maybe targeted, the use of 
exemption s.38 Health and Safety is considered a more appropriate exemption. 



• The name of the company currently withheld under s.43- as DIS still use this 
company is it withheld so that this is not known? If so, this is not s.43 but s.24 
and must be stated as such. 

The name of the company was withheld to prevent disclosure of its relationship with 
the DIS. Release of this information may prejudice the commercial interests of the 
company. In addition, disclosure of the company's name may inadvertently lead to 
the name of the author of the report being disclosed. It is considered that in this case 
s.43 remains the correct exemption to use. 



• In Volume 2, working paper no. 5. Page 5-3, paragraph 9. This has been 
redacted under s.26 Defence, but is this really the case- or is it possibly 
commercial? This would therefore be s.43. It gives away the key reasoning 
which we have paid for and should it just be given out to others- it could be 
argued that others could produce the same information butt should we point 
them in the right direction? 

This paragraph was redacted following the advice of CT&UK Ops. Since it concerns 
the performance of UKADGE radars in reflecting plasmas it is considered that s.26 is 
the only appropriate exempt to use and can see no reason why s.43 should be cited. 

• In Executive Summary, page 3, paragraph 1 1 has been redacted under s.27, but 
this should have been s. 26 or possibly s.23, as the information is an 
assessment and could be from intelligence sources. 

Presumably this refers to the Executive Summary in Volume 3 ? The source of the 
information in this paragraph could not be established. However, it is not s.23 v 



UNCbASStfitED 



material or the classification would have been much higher. The use of s.27 for this 
paragraph is considered the correct and only one that should be used as disclosure 
of this paragraph could prejudice relations with the state concerned. 



Volume 3-Miscellaneous Related studies, Chapter 1, page 5, paragraph 21- 
while this paragraph was previously redacted in whole, it has now been agreed 
to release some of paragraph 11 , the opening phrase of paragraph 21 is the 
same as the opening phrase of paragraph 11 which will be released. 

As this was originally redacted following the advice of CT&UK Ops, if they are now 
content for the opening phrase in paragraphs 1 1 and 21 to be released, the DIS has 
no objection. 



Volume 3- Miscellaneous Related Studies, Chapter 1, Page 7, second bullet. 
Redacted under s.26, should it be s.43? Is this knowledge that we do not want 
known, as we paid for it- and we do not wan to supply this to any competitors? 

This was redacted following the advice of CT&UK Ops and refers to the performance 
and characteristics of UK radar, disclosure of which could potentially prejudice the 
defence of the UK. It is considered that s.26 is the most appropriate exemption and 
that s.43 is not relevant in this case as radar manufacturers would be familiar with 
'normal radar design'. 



Volume 3- Miscellaneous Related Studies. Chapter 4, page 1, paragraph 3- is 
this s.26? It reveals DIS organisation- security. 

We consider that s.26 remains the correct exemption to use in this case. The 
guidance for handling intelligence-related requests for information advises that s.26 
can be used for issues relating to MoD security. As disclosure of DIS organisation 
details would fall under MoD security, s.26 is therefore considered the most 
appropriate exemption. 



Paragraph 4- this was s.27, but should it be s.25? How was the information 
gathered? 

Presumably you mean s.23 and not s.25 ? The source of the information in this 
paragraph could not be established. However, it is not s.23 material or the 
classification would have been much higher. The use of s.27 for this paragraph is t/ 
considered the correct and the only one that should be used as disclosure of this 
paragraph could prejudice relations with the state concerned. 



Paragraph 9- also s.27 but should it be s.25? How was it gathered? 

Presumably you mean s.23 and not s.25 ? The source of the information in this 
paragraph could not be established. However, it is not s.23 material or the 
classification would have been much higher. The use of s.27 for this paragraph is 
considered the correct and the only one that should be used as disclosure of this 
paragraph could prejudice relations with the state concerned. 



In regard to the following two points- these are on my understanding- and if 
you wish to disagree please let me know- if correct can they be released? 
Volume 3-Miscellaneous Related Studies, Chapter 4, page 3, paragraph 12, 
while information regarding DIS, the CIA desk officer and DI51 must remain 



UNtGk&eSiFIED 



UNCt^BSPtED 



redacted- the information regarding the statement made in mid 1998 by the 
society of scientific exploration is already in the public domain: 
http://www.scientificexoloration.ora/ise/abstracts/v12n2a1.oho- "The panel 
nevertheless concluded that it would be valuable to carefully evaluate UFO 
reports since, whenever there are unexplained observations, there is the 
possibility that scientists will learn something new by studying these 
observations". 

We are content for the last sentence in this paragraph to be released except for the 
wording in brackets which refers to the work of DI51 . This should be redacted under 
s.26. 



• Volume 3-Miscellaneous Related Studies, Chapter 4, Page 3, paragraph 14, the 
final sentence of which has been redacted under s.27, this also is in the public 
domain: the following report was carried out by the University of Colorado 
under contract from the US Air Force. 

http://www.ncas.org/condon/text/s6chap07.htm It states: Basic plasma 
research is vital in many technological areas. In the field of communication, 
problems arise in connection with radio and radar transmission through 
plasma regions such as the ionosphere and the ionized sheath surrounding re- 
entering spacecraft. Laboratory efforts are under way to control the reactions 
of nuclear fusion for power generation. If successful, present experiments may 
lead to efficient sources of power which do not require fossil fuel or fissionable 
materials. In the field of space technology, engineers are developing low thrust 
ion rocket engines to propel the next generation of interplanetary spaceships. 

It is considered that the last sentence in paragraph 14 should remain redacted under 
s.27. The sentence in the UAP report specifies which country has initiated plasma 
related programmes. Unless the University of Colorado has specifically revealed the 
fact the USA has initiated these programmes, then it should remain withheld. Your 

extract above "Basic plasma research is vital in many technological areas " does 

not disclose this fact. 



Annex A- Introduction Paragraph- this was redacted under s.27, but should this 
have been either s.23 or s.26 as we do not know how the information was 
gathered. 

Presumably this refers to Volume 3, Annex A, page A-2, paragraph 2 ? The last 
sentence in this paragraph was redacted under s.26, not s.27. 



2. If you require any further information, or clarification on any of the above, please 
contact me. 



Section 40 



Dl BC R CG3 
WH306^~ 



Section 40 



UrWL^SIFIED 



Page 1 of 2 



Section 40 



Section 40 



02 August 2006 14:24 



Section 40 



From: 
Sent: 
To: 

Subject: FW: Clarke-UFO 

Follow Up Flag: Follow up 
Flag Status: Red 



Please see the message below from 
bits she is referring to. Please can we discuss? 

Regards 



ouflO r C appeal. I only have a redacted copy of the report so I don't know which 



BO 


40 




From: 









Se nt: 02 August 2006 14:06 
SubjertfoarkeSf 



HijgsBflsG 

After much discussion at this end between David Wray and CTUKOps S01 Air, there are several redactions that will now be 
released- but before this is possible there are several more things we need to clarify. 

Dr Clarke has obviously asked for the name of the author and the company responsible for the report. 

• While the author can obviously be withheld under s.40 as we can not find him to ask his permission, can it also be 
withheld under s.24-National Security- as he may be targeted to obtain secret information that we have with held and he 
may inadvertently release? 

• The name of the company currently withheld under s.43- as DIS still use this company is it withheld so that this is not 
known? If so, this is not s.43 but s.24 and must be stated as such. 



• In Volume 2, working paper no. 5. Page 5-3, paragraph 9. This has been redacted under s.26 Defence, but is this really 
the case- or is it possibly commercial? This would therefore be s.43. It gives away the key reasoning which we have paid 
for and should it just be given out to others- it could be argued that others could produce the same information butt 
should we point them in the right direction? 

• In Executive Summary, page 3, paragraph 1 1 has been redacted under s.27, but this should have been s. 26 or possibly 
s.23, as the information is an assessment and could be from intelligence sources. 

• Volume 3-Miscellaneous Related studies, Chapter 1 , page 5, paragraph 21 - while this paragraph was previously 
redacted in whole, it has now been agreed to release some of paragraph 1 1 , the opening phrase of paragraph 21 is the 
same as the opening phrase of paragraph 1 1 which will be released. 

• Volume 3- Miscellaneous Related Studies, Chapter 1, Page 7, second bullet. Redacted under s.26, should it be s.43? Is 
this knowledge that we do not want known, as we paid for it- and we do not wan to supply this to any competitors? 

• Volume 3- Miscellaneous Related Studies. Chapter 4, page 1 , paragraph 3- is this s.26? It reveals DIS organisation- 
security. 

Paragraph 4- this was s.27, but should it be s.25? How was the 

information gathered? 

Paragraph 9- also s.27 but should it be s.25? How was it gathered? 



07/08/2006 



Page 2 of 2 



In regard to the following two points- these are on my understanding- and if you wish to disagree please let me know- if correct 
can the^p released? 

• Volume 3-Miscellaneous Related Studies, Chapter 4, page 3, paragraph 12, while information regarding DIS, the CIA 
desk officer and DI51 must remain redacted- the information regarding the statement made in mid 1998 by the society of 
scientific exploration is already in the public domain: 

hMl/lwwv^cimt^ 1 .php- 'The panel nevertheless concluded that it would be 

valuable to carefully evaluate UFO reports since, whenever there are unexplained observations, there is the possibility 
that scientists will learn something new by studying these observations". 

• Volume 3-Miscellaneous Related Studies, Chapter 4, Page 3, paragraph 14, the final sentence of which has been 
redacted under s.27, this also is in the public domain: the following report was carried out by the University of Colorado 
under contract from the US Air Force, http://www.ncas.org/condon/text/s6chap07.htm It states: Basic plasma research 
is vital in many technological areas. In the field of communication, problems arise in connection with radio and radar 
transmission through plasma regions such as the ionosphere and the ionized sheath surrounding re-entering 
spacecraft. Laboratory efforts are under way to control the reactions of nuclear fusion for power generation. If 
successful, present experiments may lead to efficient sources of power which do not require fossil fuel or fissionable 
materials. In the field of space technology, engineers are developing low thrust ion rocket engines to propel the next 
generation of interplanetary spaceships. 

Finally: 

• Annex A- Introduction Paragraph- this was redacted under s.27, but should this have been either s.23 or s.26 as we do 
not know how the information was gathered. 

If this is ok, once we have checked all of these details, I will email you the full list of redactions that it has now been agreed to 
release. 

I didn't want to email the full list at once and have it get too confusing. If you want the list earlier please let me know and I can 
send it in another email. 

I hope this all makes sense, any problems please contact me. 
Thanks for all your help. 



Section 40 



Info- Access Pol2 



Main Building, Level 6. Zone E. Desk 09 



Phone 




Section 40 
















Email 


Section 40 




©mod. i 



07/08/2006 



Page 1 of 2 



Section 40 






Fro# 


Section 40 







Sent: 
To: 

Subject: 



02 August 2006 16:24 



Section 40 



FW: 20060802 R Info-Access advice re Clarke 



Sectit^fflSection 



requests 



Attachments: 19-01-2006-123339-012 Response.doc 



Section 



40 



Please see sranw errlgj below not quite what I was expecting re BfSMfly Clarke. We can discuss on Friday, 

unless you decide never to come back and to emigrate to Clacton, in which case can you please give me your forwarding 
address !!! 



Section 4 



I 



Section 40 



From 

Se nt: 02 August 2006 16:13 
To: 

Subject: 20060802 R Info-Access advice re Clarke 



SecticESfflSection 



ests 



Section 40 



it was good to talk. 



As I mentioned, I spoke with EHSffl and glad to report my initial advice wasn't too far off course. Just to recap, we 
recommend the following course of action for each of the two topics we discussed; 



Dr Clarke 



Section 40 



requests 



We feel there is a need to assist the applicant, and in doing so consider what the ICO might reasonably consider to be 
helpful. We can't really ask the requesters to be more specific when we know they don't know what is in the files, and so 
I would propose that you review the contents of the file and provide a list or short summary of the broad contents. You 
are then quite within your rights to ask the applicanUo be mor e specific. If he does not, then the case can be closed. I 
note in some of the paperwork you gave me thal^^Jstateo' she was trying to establish MOD policy on UFOs between 

uld use oi 



1 970 and 2000 - is there a standard line we couTi 



'on this? 



They are likely to come back, possibly appeal - that is their right and out of our hands BsBBS inc J Concur with the need 
here to take a somewhat firmer line in such cases, and the way we would propose doing this here is to be quite specific 
about the what the fees include, you should be aggregating his requests (to you and to DAS), and that he will be 
restricted (by the Act) to submitting subsequent requests for the same/similar information at the minimum of 60 day 
intervals. These points should be reflected in the letter to him, in a firm manner. This approach should stand up to 
Internal Review and any further appeal. You should consult with DAS on this. I will be happy to review a draft if you 
would like. Please see attached response where the 60 days were referred to. 



Section 4C 



I found the original request f rom SSffiBEE : 07-06-2006-092522-003 : 1 request any and all files, paperwork, 
documents, photographs, etc, regarding theinvestigation, operational use of, and discussion of the process known as 
"remote viewing", and also note a second request from him (I presume it's the same person) o n 12-07-2006- 110222-005 : 
UFO's. What I'm not sure about is the latter the same as the question he posed in his email to BfiBBSff on 8 July where 
he acknowledged you had nothing on remote viewing and now wanted info of UFO's. Only sighificanufsonieoneelse is 
dealing with the 12-07 requesUinc^ou respond separately to the 8-07 email. I presume it would be BBBTPBEiH 
anyway. The latter part of {gBBBSBEil l email to BBBBIil taiks about physic warfare, and it is not cleartomeinnis is a 
third request or if it relates to the remote viewing requHtr 

First point of clarification here is, is the term "remote viewing" the recognised term that we use, or are we inferring what 
he means from the phrase remote viewing? 

In hindsight, I think it would more appropriate to conduct a fuller analysis of what you may have, its direct relevance to the 
original request, and consideration of any sensitivities BEFORE writing back to the applicant. We agree that we need to 
come clean with the applicant. [There are a number of good reasons for this - it was a genuine mistake, we may hold 
relevant info, there may be a future similar request, not doing so would be criticised at appeal etc.] Consultation with 
NSLG may indeed be wise once this has happened, but let's see. You may wish to conduct your own consultation to 
establish the wider view. An idea of how much was spent would be useful in this debate, and I would recommend you 



18/08/2006 



Page 2 of 2 



start some enquiries on this. Should it be assessed that there would be media interest in any release then obviously 
update the Press Office and Top of the Shop to alert them. 

Hope j^phelps. 



Sectior 



Section 40 



Info-Access-Pol 1 
MB 06-E-1 1 
MoD Main Building 
Whitehall 

London SW1 A 2HB 



tel : 
fax 



Section 40 



l@mod.uk 



18/08/2006 



Section 40 



Section 40 



Frc© 

Sent: 02 August 2006 1 4:06 
To: 



Subject: Clarke-UFO 



Page 1 of 2 



■ / 



After much discussion at this end between David Wray and CTUKOps S01 Air, there are several redactions that will now 
be released- but before this is possible there are several more things we need to clarify. 



Dr Clarke has obviously asked for the name of the author and the company responsible for the report. 



• While the author can obviously be withheld under s.40 as we can not find him to ask his permission, can it also be 
withheld under s.24-National Security- as he may be targeted to obtain secret information that we have with held 
and he may inadvertently release? 

• The name of the company currently withheld under s.43- as DIS still use this company is it withheld so that this is 
not known? If so, this is not s.43 but s.24 and must be stated as such. 



• In Volume 2, working paper no. 5. Page 5-3, paragraph 9. This has been redacted under s.26 Defence, but is this 
really the case- or is it possibly commercial? This would therefore be s.43. It gives away the key reasoning which 
we have paid for and should it just be given out to others- it could be argued that others could produce the same 
information butt should we point them in the right direction? 

• In Executive Summary, page 3, paragraph 1 1 has been redacted under s.27, but this should have been s. 26 or 
possibly s.23, as the information is an assessment and could be from intelligence sources. 



• Volume 3-Miscellaneous Related studies, Chapter 1 , page 5, paragraph 21- while this paragraph was previously 
redacted in whole, it has now been agreed to release some of paragraph 1 1 , the opening phrase of paragraph 21 
is the same as the opening phrase of paragraph 1 1 which will be released. 

• Volume 3- Miscellaneous Related Studies, Chapter 1 , Page 7, second bullet. Redacted under s.26, should it be 
s.43? Is this knowledge that we do not want known, as we paid for it- and we do not wan to supply this to any 
competitors? 

• Volume 3- Miscellaneous Related Studies. Chapter 4, page 1 , paragraph 3- is this s.26? It reveals DIS 
organisation- security. 

Paragraph 4- this was s.27, but should it be s.25? How was the 

information gathered? 

Paragraph 9- also s.27 but should it be s.25? How was it 

gathered? 



In regard to the following two points- these are on my understanding- and if you wish to disagree please let me know- if 
correct can they be released? 



• Volume 3-Miscellaneous Related Studies, Chapter 4, page 3, paragraph 12, while information regarding DIS, the 
CIA desk officer and DI51 must remain redacted- the information regarding the statement made in mid 1998 by the 
society of scientific exploration is already in the public domain: 
http://www. scientificexploration. or g /jse/abstracts/v12n2a 1 .php- 'The panel nevertheless concluded that it would 
be valuable to carefully evaluate UFO reports since, whenever there are unexplained observations, there is the 
possibility that scientists will learn something new by studying these observations". 



• Volume 3-Miscellaneous Related Studies, Chapter 4, Page 3, paragraph 14, the final sentence of which has 
been redacted under s.27, this also is in the public domain: the following report was carried out by the University 
of Colorado under contract from the US Air Force, http ://www . ncas .org/condon/text/s6chap07. htm It states: Basic 
plasma research is vital in many technological areas. In the field of communication, problems arise in connection 
with radio and radar transmission through plasma regions such as the ionosphere and the ionized sheath 
surrounding re-entering spacecraft. Laboratory efforts are under way to control the reactions of nuclear fusion for 
power generation. If successful, present experiments may lead to efficient sources of power which do not require 
fossil fuel or fissionable materials. In the field of space technology, engineers are developing low thrust ion rocket 
engines to propel the next generation of interplanetary spaceships. 



18/08/2006 



Page 2 of 2 



finally: 



• Annex A- Introduction Paragraph- this was redacted under s.27, but should this have been either s.23 or s.26 as 
! do not know how the information was gathered. 



If this is ok, once we have checked all of these details, I will email you the full list of redactions that it has now been 
agreed to release. 

I didn't want to email the full list at once and have it get too confusing. If you want the list earlier please let me know and I 
can send it in another email. 



I hope this all makes sense, any problems please contact me. 
Thanks for all your help. 



Section 40 



lnfo-AccessPol2 



Main Buildi ng, Level 6, Zone E , Desk 09 
Phone 



ISection 40 



Email 



Section 40 



l@mod.uk 



18/08/2006 




Section 40 



From 

Directorate of Air Staff - Freedom of Information 
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE 
5 th Floor, Zone H, Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1A2HB 




Telephone 



e-mail 



(Direct dial) 

(Switchboard) 

(Fax) 

das-ufo-office@mod. 



020 7218 2140 
020 7218 9000 



Dr David Clarke 



Our Reference 
23-05-2006-100609-001 



Date 

16* June 2006 



Section 40 



Dear Dr Clarke, 

I am writing to provide a response to your Freedom of Information request contained in your 
letter of 22 nd May 2006. The rest of this letter has been addressed in my previous letter of 
16 th June 2006. You requested copies of correspondence from the MoD Branches that commented 
on the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) report, copies of correspondence 'arising from 
subsidiary recommendations' and a list of files or records held by the Defence Intelligence Staff 
(DIS) which contain the acronym 'UAP' in the title. I can confirm that the Ministry of Defence 
does hold some information on this subject. 

With regard to your request for "copies of correspondence arising from DIST's request to a 
number of MoD branches (covering letter of UAP report, dated 4 December 2000) for "comments 
you may wish to make on the [UAP] report... please direct such comment to AD/DI55". All 
accessible files for the period in question have been scrutinised, but no correspondence from the 
MoD Branches who were invited to comment on the report has been found. 

Concerning your request for "copies of any correspondence arising from the "subsidiary 
recommendations" made on pg 1 1 of the UAP Report Executive Summary (February 2000) 
namely that "The flight safety aspects of the findings should be made available to the appropriate 
RAF Air Defence and other military and civil authorities which operate aircraft, particularly those 
operating fast and at low altitude". Could you confirm these findings were passed to the DAO and 
CAA and if so what specific recommendations have been made to aircrew as a result". 
The report was distributed to the addressees as outlined in the covering letter (D/DIST/1 1/10 
dated 4 December 2000). No further correspondence regarding the 'subsidiary recommendations' 
has been found on the accessible files for the period in question. I can, however, confirm that the 
findings of the report were sent to DAO (Directorate of Air Operations) as UKADGE (UK Air 
Defence Ground Environment) was a post within DAO. DIS did not send the report directly to 
the CAA . Any further dissemination of the report would have been the decision of the addressees 
concerned and consultation with the DIS would not have been required. 

You also requested a list of files or records which are held by the DIS which have the acronym 
'UAP' in the title. The following files have been identified as relevant to this request: 

DI5 1/272/1 5/1 Part 1 - New Techniques Non-Conventional Phenomena UAP - date opened - 
unknown, date closed April 1997. Location: Archives. 



D/DIST/108/15 Part 6 - UAP Policy - dates covered June 2000 to December 2000. Location: 
pld War Office Building. 



D/DIST/108/15 Part 7 - UAP Policy - dates covered December 2000 to March 2004. Location: 
Old War Office Building. 

D/DIST/108/15 Part 8 - UAP Policy - dates covered March 2004 - still open. Location: 
Old War Office Building. 

No other files or records have been identified with the acronym 'UAP' in their title. 

I hope this is helpful. If you are unhappy with the response or wish to complain about any aspect 
of the handling of this request, then you should contact the undersigned in the first instance. 
Should you remain dissatisfied, then you may apply for an internal review by contacting the 
Director of Information Exploitation, 6th Floor, MOD Main Building, Whitehall, SW1A 2HB 
(e-mail Info-XD@mod.uk). 

If you are still unhappy following an internal review, you may take your complaint to the 
Information Commissioner under the provisions of Section 50 of the Freedom of Information 
Act. Please note that the Information Commissioner will not normally investigate your case until 
the MOD internal review process has been completed. Further details of the role and powers of 
the Information Commissioner can be found on the Commissioner's website, 
htt p://www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk 



Yours sincerely, 




Section 40 



From: 

Directorate of Air Staff - Freedom of Information 
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE 
5 th Floor, Zone H, Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1- 



Telephone 



e-mail 



(Direct dial) 
(Switchboard) 
(Fax) 

das-ufo-office@mod.i 



020 7218 2140 
020 7218 9000 



Dr David Clarke 



Section 40 



Our Reference 
D/DAS/64/3/11 

Date 

16th June 2006 



Dear Dr Clarke 

Further to my email of 24 May, I am now in a position to provide you with an substantive 
response to your request for the three outstanding documents originally requested in your letter of 
26 l September 2005 and the results of our review of the decision to withhold paragraph 3 from 
DIST's letter of 4 th December 2000. I will also address your questions in your email of 
13 th June. A response to your new FOI request (23-05-2006-100609-001) will be provided 
separately. Your request for an internal review of our decision to withhold information from the 
UAP report in accordance with Sections 26 and 27 of the FOIA has been passed to the Directorate 
of Information Exploitation and they will respond to you separately when the review is complete. 

With regard to the three outstanding documents requested in your letter of 26 September 2005, 1 
can advise you that DI55/108/15 dated 22nd January 1997 has already been sent to you with my 
letter of 23 rd August 2005. This document was one of "three associated papers" detailed in 
paragraph (2) of that letter. You also asked for copies of two other documents from 1993 and 
1996 which relate to the UAP study. Following a detailed search of the accessible files, it has 
been determined that the two documents which are referred to as references B and C in the letter 
DI55/108/15 dated 22nd January 1997, are actually incorrectly referenced. The documents 
referred to are in fact D/DI55/162/40 dated 11 th December 1996 and D/Sec(AS)12/l dated 
16 th November 1993. It is considered that this was an error by the author of the 22 nd January 1997 
letter and was made as the two documents referred to were found on file D/DI55/108/15 and the 
author referred to them without checking the references. Although you were informed in my letter 
of 23 rd November 2005 that the first two documents had been found, the second document was in 
fact the DI55/162/40 letter of 1 1 th December 1996. The third document had, at that time, not been 
found as it was not then known that the document of 16 th November 1993 was incorrectly 
referenced. 

A copy of D/Sec(AS)12/l dated 16 th November 1993 was also sent to you with my letter of 23 
August 2005 and is referred to at paragraph (1) of that letter as enclosure 85 from file 
D/Sec(AS)12/l Part A. The remaining document (DI55/162/40) has been examined and we have 
determined that this can now be released. Please find a copy enclosed with this letter. Some 
details have been withheld in accordance with FOIA Absolute exemption S.40 (Personal 
Information) and Qualified exemption S.43 (Commercial Interests). Under the terms of the 
FOIA, in the case of Qualified exemption S.43, we are required to conduct a Public Interest Test 
on the information that is being withheld. This is to determine whether there is a greater public 
interest in releasing the requested information or in withholding the information under the 



relevant exemption. This test has been applied and it has been decided that the balance of public 
Interest lies in maintaining the exemption and therefore withholding disclosure. Although we 
appreciate that disclosure of this information would have provided more background information 
on the UAP report, disclosure would reveal details of a particular company who has had contracts 
with the DIS which, if disclosed, would be likely to prejudice current and future commercial 
relations between the company concerned and the Ministry of Defence. You will also notice that 
some minor details have been removed, these consist of office addresses, telephone numbers and 
unique job titles. This information is not considered relevant to the contents of the report and we 
believe its removal does not prejudice the understanding of the report. 

If you are unhappy with our decision to withhold this information, or you wish to complain about 
any aspect of the handling of this request, then you should contact the undersigned in the first 
instance. Should you remain dissatisfied, then you may apply for an internal review by contacting 
the Director of Information Exploitation, 6 th Floor, MOD Main Building, Whitehall, SW1 A 2HB 
(e-mail: Info-XD(5),mod. uk). 

If you are still unhappy following an internal review, you may take your complaint to the 
Information Commissioner under the provisions of Section 50 of the Freedom of Information 
Act. Please note that the Information Commissioner will not normally investigate your case until 
the MOD internal review process has been completed. Further details of the role and powers of 
the Information Commissioner can be found on the Commissioner's website, 
http://www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk . 

As requested, we have also reviewed the letter D/DIST/1 1/10 dated 4 th December 2000 to see 
whether previously withheld information can now be released. As you will be aware, this 
document was released in response to your earlier FOI request concerning the DIS decision to no 
longer receive UFO reports. Paragraph 3 and a few words in paragraph 4 were removed because 
they were not relevant to that request. Given your subsequent FOI request for a copy of the UAP 
report and its release, we have reviewed this decision and decided that this information can now 
be released. The classification previously removed at the top and bottom of the letter can also now 
be revealed, but have been over-stamped to reflect the fact that the document has been 
downgraded. Please find enclosed a fresh copy of this document with this information revealed. 
The details of the author of the letter are still covered by FOI A Absolute exemption S.40 and 
therefore remain redacted. 

Finally, with regard to your email of 1 3 June 2006 in which you asked about UFO file releases at 
The National Archives, I should inform you that once files are transferred from the MOD it is for 
the TNA to manage their release. The last two collections TNA made of MOD records in March 
and May 2006 did not include any pieces which obviously contain UFO information, nor any for 
DEFE 24 where future such releases are anticipated. I understand that TNA will be holding a 
press event at the end of June when they will highlight some of the new releases. All newly 
released records should also appear in their catalogue around this time. 

Yours sincerely, 



Section 40 



S.40 




From: XX^XXXXXXXXXXXXXX! 
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE DI55X Room XXX 
Old War Office Building Whitehall 
LONDON SW1A 2EU 



Telephone (Direct Dialling) 

( Switchboard ) 

(Fax) 



0171-218-XXXX 

0171-218-9000 

0171-218-XXXX 




S.40 X.XXXXXXXX 



Our reference D/DI55/162/40 



Date 11 December 1996 




eos- XXXXXXX 



CONTRACT NNR2/366 




1 . I have decided to use spare funds under this contract to 
begin to database our UFO (UAP) reports. As discussed please 
design a suitable ACCESS based system that should at least 
record: 



a. A discrete event number for each incident. 

b. Details of location(s), including any potential 
military or economic targets. 

c. Times and dates. 

d. Details of person (s) reporting the event and 
witnesses . 

e. Details of the event to include size, shape, 
colour, speed(s), noise, other effects such as effects 
on electronic equipment or ignition systems 

g. A categorisation of the event as follows: 

1 - Probable NATO/civilian aircraft. 

2 . - Probable space-associated event such as 
meteor, re-entry vehicle or planet. 




3. - Probable hoax or publicity stunt. 

V< 

4. - Unidentified. 

f. Any possible explanation, such as military 
exercises etc. 

2. Because of the sensitivity of this activity it most be 
conducted on a strict need-to-know basis at SECRET UK EYES B 
level. The activity will be known as PROJECT CONDINE. 

Co rSt> t(fsJ 

3. You have complete access to the UFO/UAP file series and may 
remove them on a temporary basis to XX XX XXXXXxXXX X 



40 



XXXXXXJK 



LOOSE MINUTE 




D/DIST/lVlO /K/Hl^ 



4 December 2000 




DCDI 
DG(R&T) 
ADGE 

IFS(RAF) (FSATC) 
HQ MATO (OPS (LF) 1) 
AD/DI51 

Copy to: AD/DI55 

UNIDENTIFIED AERIAL PHENOMENA (UAP) - DI55 REPORT 

1 . The DIS has received copies of UAP sighting reports from Sec(AS) for about 30 years. Until 
recently these have been filed with only a cursory look at the contents by DI55 to discover whether 
anything of intelligence value could be determined. However, it was obvious that any value from the 
sighting data could only be derived by carrying out a Study of a significant sample of the reports. 
Consequently, over the past 2 years DI55, under low priority tasking, has compiled a database of 
information taken from reports received between 1987 and 1997, and has carried out an analysis 
based on data statistics. A report is now available. With the exception of DG(R&T), who receives 
the full report, other addressees are being provided with the Executive Summary only, which details 
the main findings of the Study. Should you require the full report, or parts of it, contact details are 
given on page 3 of the Summary. 

2. The main conclusion of the Study is that the sighting reports provide nothing of value to the 
DIS in our assessment of threat weapon systems. Taken together with other evidence, we believe that 
many of the sightings can be explained as: mis-reporting of man-made vehicles; natural but not 
unusual phenomena, and natural but relatively rare and not completely understood phenomena. It is 
for these reasons that we have taken the decision to do no further work on the subject and will no 
longer receive copies of sighting reports. 

3. In addition to this major conclusion! however, the study produced subsidiary findings which 
will be of interest to addressees. The potential explanations of UAP sightings, the characteristics of 
natural atmospheric phenomena and the consequences of sightings from aircraft will be of interest 
to those responsible for flight safety. Similarly the characteristics of some of the phenomena with 
respect to their detection on UKADR systems will be of interest to both the ADGE and flight safety 
staff. Finally, DG(R&T) will be interested in those phenomena associated with plasma formations, 
which have potential applications to novel weapon technology. 

4. Although we intend to carry out no further work on the subject, we would value any comments 
you may wish to make on the report. Please direct such comments to AD/DI55. Finally, while most 
of the report is classified at only RESTRICTED UKEO, we hardly need remind addressees of the 
media interest in this subject and consequently the sensitivity of the report. Please protect this subject 



T 



SECRETUK EYESt)kLt a 




L 

accordingly, and discuss the report only with those who have a need to know. 



XXXXXXXXX 

~ DIST 

XKKXXXXXX 

Enclosure: 



^^^• HQ ^ TO '- Executive Summary 
UKADGE - Executive Summary and Volume 3 

DGR&T, ADl/55, AD1/51 - Executive Summary and Volumes 1,2 and 3 



i • r -2 



I — wLE 



SECRET \ JK RYPQ n Nl Y 



Section 40 



From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 



Section 40 



13 June 2006 13:02 
RE : FOIA request 



if 

INS®/' 



It's a pity Dr Clarke feels that he is unable to wait until the press event at the end 
of June! 

Looking at the pick-up details from the last two collections - March and May 06-1 
see no UFO files. 



Section 



40 



Original Message- 

From: 

Sent: 13 June" 
To: 




Subject: FW: FOIA request 



Section 40 



Please see below the latest email from Dr Clarke. 

How are you doing with Dr Clarke's request and the papers outstanding from 
nTsearlier request? . I am happy to continue to correspond with him and send the final 
reply to his request unless you would rather answer this request yourself. Please let 
me know which it is to be. 



Would appreciate your advice regarding the files transferred to TNA as 
mentioned by Dr Clarke. 

Regards 




Original Message 

From: david clarke [mailto: 
Sent^OJune 200^0: 11 
To: I 

Sub] ec^^^e^FOIA^reques t 

13 June 2006 
Dear 



Section 40 



Section 40 



Thanks for your email dated 24 May and the update on my most recent letter and FOI 
request . 

I note that the fresh request has been passed to DIS for action. 

Does this mean, that DIS will reply/respond to me directly, or will you continue to 
deal with correspondence? 

I look forward to an update on the outstanding DIS papers from my earlier FOI request. 

Finally, I wondered if you have any information on any imminent releases of UFO- 
related files at TNA. You will be aware that the last substantial release was back in 
Jan 2005. 

I spoke to the TNA Press Office last week and was told that a number of MoD files in 
the DEFE and AIR categories are due to be opened on 29 June. Do you know if any of 



1 



these are likely to include UFO related records? 
David Clarke 



Original Message 

From: flPKKTSl^H 
To : " d avid clark e " < 
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006' 4 : 02 PM 
Subject: FOIA request 





M@mod . uk> 


Section 40 


1 



Dear Dr Clarke 

Thank you for your message and the attachment . I have also received the 
copy of your letter which you put in the post . 

A copy of your letter has been sent to the Director General of 
Information, Access section who deal with MOD Internal reviews and they 
will contact you separately regarding the first part of your letter. 

With regard to your new FOI request, I have recorded this and as you 
have requested information held by DIS rather than DAS, I have passed it 
to DIS for action. For your information this request has been allocated 
the FOI case number of 23-05-2006-100609-001. 

You also mentioned some documents from previous FOI requests which you 
have still not received. I was informed that DIS were examining these in 
November 2005 and I am afraid they seemed to have got forgotten while we 
were working on many requests, including the UAP report. I apologise for 
this. I have asked DIS to look at these papers again and advise me on 
their release. I will write to you again as soon as I have some news. 

Finally, with regard to your comments about the information the MOD 
holds regarding the UFO sighting in 1990, I should explain that RAF 
Fylingdales do track space debris and would have been aware of the brake 
up of the satellite. Indeed, I made some enquiries with RAF Fylingdales 
in November 2005 in response to an FOI request f rom [s^Kf!ffl!E!51l I an< i 
they confirmed that they had records of "one satell iti~whi oh— decayed on 
5 November 1990. The object was SCC number 20925, International 
Designator 90094 C, Gorizont 21 platform. The object had a radar cross 
section of about 5.0 square metres and its destruction by burning in the 
Earth's atmosphere would have been visible from the ground. The actual 
decay time is unknown, but has been calculated to be between 1700 and 
2100." While RAF Fylingdales are always helpful in providing us with 
information should we request it, they are not required to inform DAS or 
DAO every time they track such debris which they do on a daily basis. As 
you will be aware, our only interest in UFO sighting reports is to 
establish whether there is evidence of a threat to UK airspace, not to 
provide an aerial identification service. We do not therefore contact 
RAF Fylingdales every time we receive a sighting report. 

I hope this is helpful. 

Yours sincerely, 



Section 40 



Directorate of Air Staff - Freedom of Information 



Original Message 

From: david clarke [mailto: 
Sent^22Mav 200e^r7: 3 2 
To : 



Section 40 



Subject: FOIA request 



Section 40 



2 



Importance : High 
2mka.y 2006 



Dear 



Section 



Please find attached response following up your letter of 
28 April and including a fresh FOI request. 



I have also posted a copy of this request today which you 
should receive shortly. 

Further to our telecon last week I mentioned that a group 
in the Netherlands had completed a thorough investigation 
of the 1990 sighting made by RAF Tornado aircrew. 

The results of their findings can be seen at the following 
link: 

http: / /www. uf onet .nl/nieuws/ tornado/ index2 .html 
(you may have to click on the UK flag to obtain a 
translation to English) . 

As I explained the UFO sighted by the Tornado crews 
is clearly explained here as a misinterpretation of the 
burning debris from the Soviet Proton-Gorizont 
rocket body. 

It is a pity that MoD records on this case do not 
appear to contain any information upon this 
explanation. I'm sure that either DAO or RAF Fylingdales 
would have been aware of the presence of the space 
debris at the relevant time. 



I notice with amusement that Mr P has again cited the 
Tornado sighting in the context of "unidentified" UFOs 
in his article in the Daily Express on 15 May, again 
under the byline of "Ministry of Defence UFO Project." 



Yours sincerely, 
David Clarke 



3 



Section 40 



From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 



Section 40 



david clarke 
13June200(n2jTf 

Re: FOIA request 



13 June 2006 
Dear 



Section 40 



Thanks for your email dated 24 May and the update on my most recent letter and FOI 
request . 

I note that the fresh request has been passed to DIS for action. 

Does this mean that DIS will reply/respond to me directly, or will you continue to 
deal with correspondence? 

I look forward to an update on the outstanding DIS papers from my earlier FOI request. 

Finally, I wondered if you have any information on any imminent releases of UFO- 
related files at TNA. You will be aware that the last substantial release was back in 
Jan 2005. 

I spoke to the TNA Press Office last week and was told that a number of MoD files in 
the DEFE and AIR categories are due to be opened on 29 June. Do you know if any of 
these are likely to include UFO related records? 

Yours , 

David Clarke 



Original Message 

From: EBSII!l!Bi^^ WBWB3mod . uk> 
To: "david clarke" « II li^^^^^^M 

Sent: Wednesday, Ma y 24, 2006 1 4:02 PM 
Subject: FOIA request 



Dear Dr Clarke 

Thank you for your message and the attachment. I have also received the 
copy of your letter which you put in the post . 

A copy of your letter has been sent to the Director General of 
Information, Access section who deal with MOD Internal reviews and they 
will contact you separately regarding the first part of your letter. 

With regard to your new FOI request, I have recorded this and as you 
have requested information held by DIS rather than DAS, I have passed it 
to DIS for action. For your information this request has been allocated 
the FOI case number of 23-05-2006-100609-001. 

You also mentioned some documents from previous FOI requests which you 
have still not received. I was informed that DIS were examining these in 
November 2005 and I am afraid they seemed to have got forgotten while we 
were working on many requests, including the UAP report. I apologise for 
this. I have asked DIS to look at these papers again and advise me on 
their release. I will write to you again as soon as I have some news. 

Finally, with regard to your comments about the information the MOD 
holds regarding the UFO sighting in 1990, I should explain that RAF 
Fylingdales do track space debris and would have been aware of the brake 
up of the satellite. Indeed, I made some enquiries with RAF Fylingdales 



1 



in November 2005 in response to an FOI request from Brwimikhw I and 

thfK confirmed that they had records of "one satellite whicfiTdecayed on 
5^Prember 1990. The object was SCC number 20925, International 
Designator 90094 C, Gorizont 21 platform. The object had a radar cross 
section of about 5.0 square metres and its destruction by burning in the 
Earth's atmosphere would have been visible from the ground. The actual 
decay time is unknown, but has been calculated to be between 1700 and 
2100." While RAF Fylingdales are always helpful in providing us with 
information should we request it, they are not required to inform DAS or 
DAO every time they track such debris which they do on a daily basis. As 
you will be aware, our only interest in UFO sighting reports is to 
establish whether there is evidence of a threat to UK airspace, not to 
provide an aerial identification service. We do not therefore contact 
RAF Fylingdales every time we receive a sighting report. 



I hope this is helpful . 
Yours sincerely, 



5 



ection 40 



Directorate of Air Staff - Freedom of Information 



Original Message 

From: david clarke [mailto 
Sen tj_22 May 2006 17:3 2 
To 



Subject: F01A request 
Importance : High 



Section 40 



22 May 2006 
Dear ^^IfeMm 

Please find attached response following up your letter of 
28 April and including a fresh FOI request. 

I have also posted a copy of this request today which you 
should receive shortly. 

Further to our telecon last week I mentioned that a group 
in the Netherlands had completed a thorough investigation 
of the 1990 sighting made by RAF Tornado aircrew. 

The results of their findings can be seen at the following 
link: 

http: / /www. uf onet .nl/nieuws/ tornado/ index2 .html 
(you may have to click on the UK flag to obtain a , 
translation to English) . 

As I explained the UFO sighted by the Tornado crews 
is clearly explained here as a misinterpretation of the 
burning debris from the Soviet Proton-Gorizont 
rocket body. 

It is a pity that MoD records on this case do not 
appear to contain any information upon this 
explanation. I'm sure that either DAO or RAF Fylingdales 
would have been aware of the presence of the space 
debris at the relevant time. 



I notice with amusement that Mr P has again cited the 
Tornado sighting in the context of "unidentified" UFOs 
in his article in the Daily Express on 15 May, again 
under the byline of "Ministry of Defence UFO Project." 



Yours sincerely, 



David Clarke 



2 




Dear Dr Clarke 



Thank you for your message and the attachment . I have also received the copy of your 
letter which you put in the post. 

A copy of your letter has been sent to the Director General of Information, Access 
section who deal with MOD Internal reviews and they will contact you separately 
regarding the first part of your letter. 

With regard to your new FOI request, I have recorded this and as you have requested 
information held by DIS rather than DAS, I have passed it to DIS for action. For your 
information this request has been allocated the FOI case number of 
23-05-2006-100609-001. 



You also mentioned some documents from previous FOI requests which you have still not 
received. I was informed that DIS were examining these in November 2005 and I am 
afraid they seemed to have got forgotten while we were working on many requests, 
including the UAP report. I apologise for this. I have asked DIS to look at these 
papers again and advise me on their release. I will write to you again as soon as I 
have some news . 



Finally, with regard to your comments about the information the MOD holds regarding 
the UFO sighting in 1990, I should explain that RAF Fylingdales do track space debris 

and would have been aware of the brake up of the satellite. Indeed, I made some 

enquiries w ith RAF Fylingdales in November 2005 in response to an FOI request from 15551 
g^MlMlflllB and they confirmed that they had records of "one satellite which decayed on 
5 November 1990. The object was SCC number 20925, International Designator 90094 C, 
Gorizont 21 platform. The object had a radar cross section of about 5.0 square metres 
and its destruction by burning in the Earth's atmosphere would have been visible from 
the ground. The actual decay time is unknown, but has been calculated to be between 
1700 and 2100." While RAF Fylingdales are always helpful in providing us with 
information should we request it, they are not required to inform DAS or DAO every 
time they track such debris which they do on a daily basis. As you will be aware, our 
only interest in UFO sighting reports is to establish whether there is evidence of a 
threat to UK airspace, not to provide an aerial identification service. We do not 
therefore contact RAF Fylingdales every time we receive a sighting report. 



I hope this is helpful. 
Yours sincerely, 



Section 40 



Directorate of Air Staff - Freedom of Information 



Original Message 

From: david clarke [mailto: 
Se nt: 22 May 2006 17:3 2 
To 



Section 40 



Section 40 



Subject: FOIA request 
Importance : High 



22 May 2006 



Dear 



Please find attached response following up your letter of 
28 April and including a fresh FOI request. 

I have also posted a copy of this request today which you should receive shortly. 



1 



Father to our telecon last week I mentioned that a group in the Netherlands had 
depleted a thorough investigation of the 1990 sighting made by RAF Tornado aircrew. 

The results of their findings can be seen at the following 
link: 

http: //www.ufonet .nl/nieuws/tornado/index2 .html 

(you may have to click on the UK flag to obtain a translation to English) . 

As I explained the UFO sighted by the Tornado crews is clearly explained here as a 
misinterpretation of the burning debris from the Soviet Proton-Gorizont rocket body. 

It is a pity that MoD records on this case do not appear to contain any information 
upon this explanation. I'm sure that either DAO or RAF Fylingdales would have been 
aware of the presence of the space debris at the relevant time. 

I notice with amusement that Mr P has again cited the Tornado sighting in the context 
of "unidentified" UFOs in his article in the Daily Express on 15 May, again under the 
byline of "Ministry of Defence UFO Project." 

Yours sincerely, 

David Clarke 



2 



Dr David Clarke 



Section 40 



Section 40 



Directorate of Air Staff - FOI 

Ministry of Defence 

5 th Floor, Zone H 

Main Building 

Whitehall 

London SW1A 2HB 

22 May 2006 

FOI Request - UAP Report -2b -C 1 ■1ccS-Cf\\^0~OC>\ 
Dear {SHSHBT 



Thank you for your letter of 28 April and for the copy of the DI55 report "Unidentified 
Aerial Phenomena in the UK Air Defence Region." 

I do appreciate the amount of scrutiny this document has received and indeed I am 
pleased with the final result. 

I have now had the opportunity to scrutinise the document carefully, especially in relation 
to information removed under the various qualified exemptions to the FOIA. I have noted 
the reasoning you have employed using the public interest test, but feel there are grounds 
to test this decision under the FOI legislation, particularly with regards to Section 27. 

As a result, I wish to request an internal review of the decision to redact information 
under a) Sections 26 and b) Section 27. Please take these specific points into account 
when carrying out this review: 

*The distribution list and number of copies [Executive Summary] has been 
redacted and marked "not relevant." However, in the DIS letter dated 4 December 
2000 released under a previous FOI in 2005 the distribution list has not been 
removed. This anomaly suggests the reviewer has either been over-zealous or was 
unaware the distribution list had already been released. In my opinion the 
distribution list is hardly "not relevant" as it shows who received the report and 
who didn't, which is most certainly in the public interest. 

*In Vol 1, pg 1, par 2 [Main Report] 'Historical Background' a line has been 
removed under Section 27 relating to the US Robertson Panel study of UFOs 
carried out in 1953. The context in which the material removed appears makes it 
obvious that the redaction relates to the CIA sponsorship of the study, a fact 




which has been publicly acknowledged by the US authorities since 1966. For this 

reason I fail to understand how it can be argued this information could prejudice / 

relations with the USA. This example suggests to me that other material redacted » 

under Section 27 elsewhere in the document is also likely to be in the public \«&*^yt£ jtf 7 

domain. t 

Further to my original FOI request of 1 September 2005 could I alsojiraw your attention 
to Request No 3 which asked for "a copy of DI5 5/ 108/ 15/22 January 1997" and two other 
DI55 documents dated 1993 and 1996 relating to the UAP study. In your letter of 23 
November 2005 you say that "DIS staff have located the first two documents and are 
currently considering release. They have been unable to locate a copy of the third 
document on their files." Could you provide an update a) on progress with regards the 
release of these outstanding documents and b) progress on my request for you to 
reconsider your decision to delete paragraph 3 from DIST's letter of 4 December 2000 
(referred to in your letter 23 November 2005, paragraph 4). 



In addition, I wish to make a further FOI request, directed at the Defence Intelligence 

Staff (DIS), as follows: 33 , $-2Q0k -IOO bC c ] -OQ\ £*f 2 ' TlA ^" 

1. Please provide me with copies of correspondence arising from DIST's request to a 
number of MoD branches (covering letter of UAP report, dated 4 December 2000) for 
"comments you may wish to make on the [UAP] report... please direct such comments to 
AD/DI55." This request was directed at six branches who received copies of sections of 
the report and/or the summary, namely DGR&T, DCDI, IFS(RAF), DI5 1 , UKADGE and 

HQ MATO. It would appear that correspondence received may be filed with DIS, \ j ,„ ' L , tt , ^ 
possibly in DI/DI55/108/15 Pt 6-7 (UFO Policy 2000-present). ^ ' ^1 ^ 

2. Further to request (1) could you supply copies of any correspondence arising from the 
"subsidiary recommendations" made on pg 1 1 of the UAP Report Executive Summary 
(February 2000) namely that: "The flight safety aspects of the findings should be made 
available to the appropriate RAF Air Defence and other military and civil authorities 
which operate aircraft, particularly those operating fast and at low altitude." Could you 
confirm these findings were passed to the DAO and CAA and if so what specific 
recommendations have been made to aircrew as a result. 

3. Could you supply a list of files, records or any other material relating to the subject of 
Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) held by the DIS. Please include the titles and 
dates covered and current location of files. This request relates only to files or records 
containing the acronym UAP in their title as opposed to UFO. 

I am aware that some of the documents covered in request (1) may be classified and will 
need to be downgraded before they can be released to me. I would be grateful therefore if 
you could provide me with an estimate of the likely timescale involved in this process. I 
look forward to hearing from you, 



Yours sincerely, 



23 MAY 2008 



Dr David Clarke 



Section 40 



Section 40 



Directorate of Air Staff - FOI 

Ministry of Defence 

5 th Floor, Zone H 

Main Building 

Whitehall 

London SW1A 2HB 

22 May 2006 

FOI Request - UAP Report 



DearKjgfBn 40 



Thank you for your letter of 28 April and for die copy of the DI55 report "Unidentified 
Aerial Phenomena in the UK Air Defence Region." 

I do appreciate the amount of scrutiny this document has received and indeed I am 
pleased with the final result. 

I have now had the opportunity to scrutinise the document carefully, especially in relation 
to information removed under the various qualified exemptions to the FOIA. I have noted 
the reasoning you have employed using the public interest test, but feel there are grounds 
to test this decision under the FOI legislation, particularly with regards to Section 27. 

As a result, I wish to request an internal review of the decision to redact information 
under a) Sections 26 and b) Section 27. Please take these specific points into account 
when carrying out this review: 

*The distribution list and number of copies [Executive Summary] has been 
redacted and marked "not relevant." However, in the DIS letter dated 4 December 
2000 released under a previous FOI in 2005 the distribution list has not been 
removed. This anomaly suggests the reviewer has either been over-zealous or was 
unaware the distribution list had already been released. In my opinion the 
distribution list is hardly "not relevant" as it shows who received the report and 
who didn't, which is most certainly in the public interest. 

*In Vol 1, pg 1 , par 2 [Main Report] 'Historical Background' a line has been 
removed under Section 27 relating to the US Robertson Panel study of UFOs 
carried out in 1953. The context in which the material removed appears makes it 
obvious that the redaction relates to the CIA sponsorship of the study, a fact 



which has been publicly acknowledged by the US authorities since 1966. For this 
reason I fail to understand how it can be argued this information could prejudice 
relations with the USA. This example suggests to me that other material redacted 
under Section 27 elsewhere in the document is also likely to be in the public 
domain. 

Further to my original FOI request of 1 September 2005 could I also draw your attention 
to Request No 3 which asked for "a copy of DI55/108/15/22 January 1997" and two other 
DI55 documents dated 1993 and 1996 relating to the UAP study. In your letter of 23 
November 2005 you say that "DIS staff have located the first two documents and are 
currently considering release. They have been unable to locate a copy of the third 
document on their files." Could you provide an update a) on progress with regards the 
release of these outstanding documents and b) progress on my request for you to 
reconsider your decision to delete paragraph 3 from DIST's letter of 4 December 2000 
(referred to in your letter 23 November 2005, paragraph 4). 

In addition, I wish to make a further FOI request, directed at the Defence Intelligence 
Staff (DIS), as follows: 

1 . Please provide me with copies of correspondence arising from DIST's request to a 
number of MoD branches (covering letter of UAP report, dated 4 December 2000) for 
"comments you may wish to make on the [UAP] report... please direct such comments to 
AD/DI55." This request was directed at six branches who received copies of sections of 
the report and/or the summary, namely DGR&T, DCDI, IFS(RAF), DI5 1 , UKADGE and 
HQ MATO. It would appear that correspondence received may be filed with DIS, 
possibly in DI/DI55/108/15 Pt 6-7 (UFO Policy 2000-present). 

2. Further to request (1) could you supply copies of any correspondence arising from the 
"subsidiary recommendations" made on pg 1 1 of the UAP Report Executive Summary 
(February 2000) namely that: "The flight safety aspects of the findings should be made 
available to the appropriate RAF Air Defence and other military and civil authorities 
which operate aircraft, particularly those operating fast and at low altitude." Could you 
confirm these findings were passed to the D AO and C AA and if so what specific 
recommendations have been made to aircrew as a result. 

3. Could you supply a list of files, records or any other material relating to the subject of 
Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) held by the DIS. Please include the titles and 
dates covered and current location of files. This request relates only to files or records 
containing the acronym UAP in their title as opposed to UFO. 

I am aware that some of the documents covered in request (1) may be classified and will 
need to be downgraded before they can be released to me. I would be grateful therefore if 
you could provide me with an estimate of the likely timescale involved in this process. I 
look forward to hearing from you, 



Yours-sincerelv 



or 



Unwin, Linda Mrs 



From: 
Sent: 
To: 

Subject: 



24 May 2006 16:02 
'david clarke' 

Internet-authorised: FOIA request 



Dear Dr Clarke 

Thank you for your message and the attachment. I have also received the copy of your 
letter which you put in the post . 

A copy of your letter has been sent to the Director General of Information, Access 
section who deal with MOD Internal reviews and they will contact you separately 
regarding the first part of your letter. 

With regard to your new FOI request, I have recorded this and as you have requested 
information held by DIS rather than DAS, I have passed it to DIS for action. For your 
information this request has been allocated the FOI case number of 
23-05-2006-100609-001. 

You also mentioned some documents from previous FOI requests which you have still not 
received. I was informed that DIS were examining these in November 2005 and I am 
afraid they seemed to have got forgotten while we were working on many requests, 
including the UAP report. I apologise for this. I have asked DIS to look at these 
papers again and advise me on their release. I will write to you again as soon as I 
have some news . 

Finally, with regard to your comments about the information the MOD holds regarding 
the UFO sighting in 1990, I should explain that RAF Fylingdales do track space debris 

and would have been aware of the brake up of the satellite. Indeed, I made some 

enquiries with RAF Fylingdales in November 2005 in response to an FOI request from fSBion 40 
|55SnHiCt] ^B an d they confirmed that they had records of "one satellite which decayed - on 
5 November 1990. The object was SCC number 20925, International Designator 90094 C, 
Gorizont 21 platform. The object had a radar cross section of about 5.0 square metres 
and its destruction by burning in the Earth's atmosphere would have been visible from 
the ground. The actual decay time is unknown, but has been calculated to be between 
1700 and 2100." While RAF Fylingdales are always helpful in providing us with 
information should we request it, they are not required to inform DAS or DAO every 
time they track such debris which they do on a daily basis. As you will be aware, our 
only interest in UFO sighting reports is to establish whether there is evidence of a 
threat to UK airspace, not to provide an aerial identification service. We do not 
therefore contact RAF Fylingdales every time we receive a sighting report. 

I hope this is helpful. 

Yours sincerely, 

Directorate of Air Staff - Freedom of Information 



Original Message 

From: david clarke [mailto: 
S en t: 22 May 2006 17:3 2 
To: I 



^pr.tinn 40 



Sub ject : FOlA request 
Importance : High 



Section 40 



22 May 2006 



Dear 



Section 



Please find attached response following up your letter of 
28 April and including a fresh FOI request. 



I have also posted a copy of this request today which you should receive shortly. 



1 



Further to our telecon last week I mentioned that a group in the Netherlands had 
completed a thorough investigation of the 1990 sighting made by RAF Tornado aircrew. 

The Results of their findings can be seen at the following 
link: 

http: //www. ufonet.nl/nieuws/tornado/index2 .html 

(you may have to click on the UK flag to obtain a translation to English) . 

As I explained the UFO sighted by the Tornado crews is clearly explained here as a 
misinterpretation of the burning debris from the Soviet Proton-Gorizont rocket body. 

It is a pity that MoD records on this case do not appear to contain any information 
upon this explanation. I'm sure that either DAO or RAF Fylingdales would have been 
aware of the presence of the space debris at the relevant time. 

I notice with amusement that Mr P has again cited the Tornado sighting in the context 
of "unidentified" UFOs in his article in the Daily Express on 15 May, again under the 
byline of "Ministry of Defence UFO Project." 

Yours sincerely, 

David Clarke 



2 




FrorH 

Sent: 
To: 



Subject: 



david clarke [^^Q 
22 May 2006 i7:32 
Unwin, Linda Mrs 
FOIA request 





Importance: 



High 




MoDFOIMay06.doc 
(38 KB) 



22 May 2006 



Dear 



Please find attached response following up your letter of 
28 April and including a fresh FOI request. 

I have also posted a copy of this request today which you should receive shortly. 

Further to our telecon last week I mentioned that a group in the Netherlands had 
completed a thorough investigation of the 1990 sighting made by RAF Tornado aircrew. 

The results of their findings can be seen at the following 
link: 

http: //www. ufonet.nl/nieuws/tornado/index2 .html 

(you may have to click on the UK flag to obtain a translation to English) . 

As I explained the UFO sighted by the Tornado crews is clearly explained here as a 
misinterpretation of the burning debris from the Soviet Proton-Gorizont rocket body. 

It is a pity that MoD records on this case do not appear to contain any information 
upon this explanation. I'm sure that either DA0 or RAF Fylingdales would have been 
aware of the presence of the space debris at the relevant time. 

I notice with amusement that Mr P has again cited the Tornado sighting in the context 
of "unidentified" UFOs in his article in the Daily Express on 15 May, again under the 
byline of "Ministry of Defence UFO Project." 

Yours sincerely, 

David Clarke 



1 



Dr David Clarke 



Section 40 



Section 40 



Directorate of Air Staff - FOI 
Ministry of Defence C=) 
5 th Floor, Zone H ^ 
Main Building 
Whitehall 

London SW1A 2HB 

22 May 2006 

FOI Request - UAP Report 
Dear CTSanifl 

Thank you for your letter of 28 April and for the copy of the DI55 report "Unidentified 
Aerial Phenomena in the UK Air Defence Region." 

I do appreciate the amount of scrutiny this document has received and indeed I am 
pleased with the final result. 

I have now had the opportunity to scrutinise the document carefully, especially in relation 
to information removed under the various qualified exemptions to the FOIA. I have noted 
the reasoning you have employed using the public interest test, but feel there are grounds 
to test this decision under the FOI legislation, particularly with regards to Section 27. 

As a result, I wish to request an internal review of the decision to redact information 
under a) Sections 26 and b) Section 27. Please take these specific points into account 
when carrying out this review: 

*The distribution list and number of copies [Executive Summary] has been 
redacted and marked "not relevant." However, in the DIS letter dated 4 December 
2000 released under a previous FOI in 2005 the distribution list has not been 
removed. This anomaly suggests the reviewer has either been over-zealous or was 
unaware the distribution list had already been released. In my opinion the 
distribution list is hardly "not relevant" as it shows who received the report and 
who didn't, which is most certainly in the public interest. 

*In Vol 1, pg 1, par 2 [Main Report] 'Historical Background' a line has been 
removed under Section 27 relating to the US Robertson Panel study of UFOs 
carried out in 1953. The context in which the material removed appears makes it 
obvious that the redaction relates to the CIA sponsorship of the study, a fact 



which has been publicly acknowledged by the US authorities since 1966. For this 
reason I fail to understand how it can be argued this information could prejudice 
relations with the USA. This example suggests to me that other material redacted 
under Section 27 elsewhere in the document is also likely to be in the public 
domain. 

Further to my original FOI request of 1 September 2005 could I also draw your attention 
to Request No 3 which asked for "a copy of DI5 5/ 108/ 15/22 January 1997" and two other 
DI55 documents dated 1993 and 1996 relating to the UAP study. In your letter of 23 
November 2005 you say that "DIS staff have located the first two documents and are 
currently considering release. They have been unable to locate a copy of the third 
document on their files." Could you provide an update a) on progress with regards the 
release of these outstanding documents and b) progress on my request for you to 
reconsider your decision to delete paragraph 3 from DIST's letter of 4 December 2000 
(referred to in your letter 23 November 2005, paragraph 4). 

In addition, I wish to make a further FOI request, directed at the Defence Intelligence 
Staff (DIS), as follows: 

1. Please provide me with copies of correspondence arising from DIST's request to a 
number of MoD branches (covering letter of UAP report, dated 4 December 2000) for 
"comments you may wish to make on the [UAP] report.. .please direct such comments to 
AD/DI55." This request was directed at six branches who received copies of sections of 
the report and/or the summary, namely DGR&T, DCDI, IFS(RAF), DI51, UKADGE and 
HQ MATO. It would appear that correspondence received may be filed with DIS, 
possibly in DI/DI55/108/15 Pt 6-7 (UFO Policy 2000-present). 

2. Further to request (1) could you supply copies of any correspondence arising from the 
"subsidiary recommendations" made on pg 1 1 of the UAP Report Executive Summary 
(February 2000) namely that: "The flight safety aspects of the findings should be made 
available to the appropriate RAF Air Defence and other military and civil authorities 
which operate aircraft, particularly those operating fast and at low altitude." Could you 
confirm these findings were passed to the DAO and C AA and if so what specific 
recommendations have been made to aircrew as a result. 

3. Could you supply a list of files, records or any other material relating to the subject of 
Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) held by the DIS. Please include the titles and 
dates covered and current location of files. This request relates only to files or records 
containing the acronym UAP in their title as opposed to UFO. 

I am aware that some of the documents covered in request (1) may be classified and will 
need to be downgraded before they can be released to me. I would be grateful therefore if 
you could provide me with an estimate of the likely timescale involved in this process. I 
look forward to hearing from you, 



Yours sincerely, 




Section 40 



From: | 

Directorate of Air Staff - Freedom of Information 
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE 



5 in Floor, Zone H, Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1A2HB 




Telephone 



e-mail 



(Direct dial) 
(Switchboard) 

< Fax > ^ 
das-ufo-office@mocTOK 



020 7218 2140 
020 7218 9000 



Section 40 



Dr David Clarke 



Section 40 



Our Reference 

26-09-2005-091240-001 

Date 

28 April 2006 



Dear Dr Clarke 

Please find enclosed a copy of the report entitled Unidentified Aerial Phenomena in the UK Air 
Defence Region written in December 2000 as you requested on 1 September 2005, in accordance 
with the Freedom of Information Act 2000. I apologise for the length of time this request has 
taken, but the meticulous scrutiny this document has received has enabled us to release the vast 
majority of the report and I hope you will be pleased with the final result. 

The report consists of 465 pages divided into four parts, three Volumes and an Executive 
Summary. While we have endeavoured to release as much information as possible, it has been 
necessary to remove some information and where this is the case the appropriate Section of the 
Freedom of Information Act has been indicated beside the redaction. The Sections and the reasons 
for their use are given below. Sections 26, and 27 are qualified exemptions and in accordance 
with the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act we have looked at the balance of public 
interest for and against disclosure for each Section. Details of the public interest test and our 
conclusions are also detailed below. 

Section 26 (Defence) - This information consists of details of the operation and performance of 
UK Air Defence radar. In favour of disclosing this information is the public interest in promoting 
understanding of the RAF's ability to detect and effectively respond to potential threats in UK 
airspace. It is important to recognise public anxiety with regard to possible attacks on the UK, 
particularly from acts of terrorism and the need to reassure the public that everything possible is 
being done to protect them. However, this public interest has already been served to a 
considerable extent by the publication of the Sixth Report of the House of Commons Defence 
Committee in 2002. In the report the Committee outline the measures the Government takes to 
protect the public from terrorist activity including threats from the air. 

Against the limited public interest in disclosure, is a countervailing public interest which favours 
withholding the information in order to preserve the effectiveness of the UK's air defences. The 
release of this information could be of significant value to the planning of an attack on the UK, 
including from terrorism. There is therefore a strong public interest in preserving the RAF's 
ability to defend the British mainland through the effectiveness of its air defences, and we 
therefore conclude that the balance of the public interest is firmly in favour of withholding the 
information in accordance with Section 26(l)(a) & (b). 



«tion 27 (International Relations) - This information consists of information about or 
plied by another nation. In favour of disclosing this information is the public interest in 
understanding the exchange of information between the UK and other nations. 

Against the public interest is the need to maintain the UK's ability to effectively share and receive 
information from our allies, concerning issues of mutual benefit, with a degree of confidentiality. 
The release of this information is, likely to prejudice the future exchange of such information and 
may also damage the UK's relationship with that nation. We therefore conclude that the balance 
of public interest is in favour of withholding this information in accordance with Section 27(1 )(a) 
&(3). 

Section 40 (Personal Information) - This information contains personal data about the author of 
the report and members of the public who have reported UFO sightings. This information is 
exempt under Section 40 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and is covered by the Data 
Protection Act 1998. Section 40 is an absolute exemption and therefore requires no public interest 
test. 

You will also notice that some minor details have been removed because they are not relevant to 
your request. These consists of office addresses, telephone numbers and unique job titles. This 
information is not relevant to the contents of the report and we believe its removal does not 
prejudice the understanding of the report. The titles of significant branches such as DI55 and 
Sec(AS)2a have not been removed. 

I hope you will find this useful. If you are dissatisfied with our decision to refuse this information 
or you wish to complain about any aspect of the handling of this request, then you should contact 
the undersigned in the first instance. Should you remain dissatisfied, then you may apply for an 
internal review by contacting the Director of Information Exploitation, 6th Floor, MOD Main 
Building, Whitehall, SW1 A 2HB. (e-mail: Info-XD@mod.ukV 

If you are still unhappy following an internal review, you may take your complaint to the 
Information Commissioner under the provisions of Section 50 of the Freedom of Information Act. 
Please note that the Information Commissioner will not normally investigate your case until the 
MOD internal review process has been completed. Further details of the role and powers of the 
Information Commissioner can be found on the Commissioner's website, 
http://www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk . 

I should also inform you that the information supplied to you continues to be protected by the 
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. You are free to use it for your own purposes, including 
any non-commercial research you are doing and for the purposes of news reporting. Any other 
reuse, for example commercial publication, would require the permission of the copyright holder. 
Most documents supplied by the Ministry of Defence will have been produced by government 
officials and will be Crown Copyright. You can find details on the arrangements for re-using 
Crown Copyright from the Office of Public Sector Information at: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/click- 
use/index.htm . Information you receive which is not subject to Crown Copyright continues to be 
protected by the copyright of the person, or organisations, from which the information originated. 
You must ensure that you gain their permission before reproducing any third party (non Crown 
Copyright) information. If you intend to use this information for commercial publication or are 
unsure whether permission is required, please write to the following address for advice: 



Section 40 



™ellectual Property Rights Group - Policy 

MOD Abbey Wood 

Stoke Gifford 

Bristol 

BS34 8JH 

We appreciate that this document is likely to be of interest to a wider public audience and it is our 
intention to place an electronic version in the Freedom of Information Publication Scheme on the 
MOD website (www.mod.uk V We have taken into account your request to have time to read and 
digest the report before it is made available in the Publication Scheme and have agreed to allow 
you andgggfBBEilM a short period of exclusive sight of the report. The report will be available 
for viewing in the Publication Scheme from Monday 1 5 th May 2006. 



Yours sincerely, 



Section 40 



D/DAS/63/3/1 1 

26 April 2006 

PS/US of S 

Copy to :DAS-XO 

Dl BCR CG AD 

DCT&UKOps - SOI Airspace Integrity 
DGMC-D News- Armed Forces 4 
Info-AccessOpsAD 



FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT - RELEASE OF PIS REPORT ON 
UNIDENTIFIED AERIAL PHENOMENA (UAP) IN THE UK AIR DEFENCE 
REGION 



ISSUE 

1 . The release of a DIS-commissioned study into Unidentified Aerial 
Phenomena in the UK Air Defence Region in response to a request under the 
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). 

RECOMMENDATION 

2. Minister to note the release of a document that is likely to attract media and 
public attention. 

TIMING 

3. Urgent. The report is to be released into the public domain on 28 April 
2006 and will be revealed in the MOD Freedom of Information Publication 
Scheme on 15 th May 2006. 

BACKGROUND 

4. Since the introduction of the FOIA on 1 January 2005, the Directorate of 
Air Staff, as the lead branch, has received a large number of requests for 
information on reported 'UFO' sightings in UK air space. Several documents 
have been released in response to these requests, one of which referred to a 
DIS study entitled 'Unidentified Aerial Phenomena in the UK Air Defence 
Region'. DAS have now received requests from two members of the public 
(one of which is an academic researcher) requesting copies of this study 
report. 

5. The study was commissioned by DIST to ascertain whether there was any 
evidence of a threat to UK air space from Unidentified Aerial Phenomena. 
DI55 regularly received copies of UAP sighting reports and had formed the 
view that none of them presented any threat to UK airspace. Neither had any 
of the reports indicated any potential new technologies which may have been 
of defence interest. DI55 therefore were of the view that they had no need to 
receive these reports, but in order to establish whether UFO reports had any 
value to Defence Intelligence and whether there was a requirement for 
Defence Intelligence Staff to see them in the future, they decided to 




commission a study into the reports that had been received. The study was 
caniecU>uUluiirm the period December 1996 to March 2000 by a contractor, 

(who was employed in DIST and the report was completed in 
December 2000. Although this was only one of several tasks in which the 
contractor was engaged, he produced a very comprehensive report (three 
volumes and an Executive Summary). The conclusion was that there was no 
evidence of threats to UK airspace and no new technologies which may have 
been of defence interest. Most aerial phenomena could be easily explained. It 
was then decided that DI55 would cease to receive UAP sighting reports. 
Since December 2000, these reports have not been forwarded to DIS. 

6. It is understood that this is the most detailed study that has been 
undertaken by the Ministry of Defence into unidentified aerial phenomena in 
UK air space. As it is a unique report and in view of the continuing high profile 
of the 'UFO' phenomenon, it is expected that the release of the report into the 
public domain will create media and public interest. 

7. The contractor wrote the first two volumes of the report with a view to their 
release, but the third volume was classified SECRET UK Eyes Only because 
it contained sensitive information concerning the UK Air Defence Region. The 
report has been scrutinised by the subject matter experts in DIST, Dl BCR, 
CT&UK Ops and DAS and it is considered that the report can be downgraded 
to UNCLASSIFIED. However, several sections of the report have been 
withheld in accordance with Sections of the FOIA. These are as follows; 

5.26 - Defence - Information which may be likely to compromise the defence 
of the British Isles. 

5.27 - International Relations - Information which would prejudice relations 
with other States. 

S.40 - Personal Information - Personal data were living individuals can be 
identified from the information. Also covered by the Data Protection Act 1998. 

8. The information withheld relates to UK air defence radar performance, 
UAP studies in other countries, potential military use of UAPs and personal 
details of the report's author and contributors and members of the public who 
have submitted 'sighting' reports. It should also be noted that the report 
contains reference to unexplained RAF aircraft accidents and although some 
information has been withheld, it has been determined that under the FOIA, 
there are no justifiable grounds to withhold the information in total. This 
section is also likely to attract media and public interest. 

PRESENTATIONAL ISSUES 

9. In anticipation of the expected reaction of the release of the report, 
suitable press lines have been prepared and these are attached for attention 
of the MOD Press Office. 

1 0. The report is to be released to the requesters in hard copy but, in view of 
the anticipated level of interest and number of new requests for copies, the 




report has been scanned and will be posted on the MOD Freedom of 
Information website on the 15 th May, where it can be viewed and downloaded 
by the general public. 



Section 40 



DAS-FOI 



Section 40 



Authorised by: 



Section 40 



DAS-SeoAD 
5-H-15 



Section 40 



Release of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena in the UK Air Defence Region 



Report - Possible Press / Public Questions 



What is the MOD'S role in relation to reported UFO (UAP) sightings? 
The MOD examines any UFO sighting reports it receives solely to establish 
whether there is any evidence to suggest that UK airspace has been 
compromised by hostile or unauthorised air activity. Unless there is such 
evidence the MOD does not attempt to positively identify what was seen. 



What is the Defence Intelligence Staff's role in relation to UFOs (UAP). 
Until December 2000, the DIS examined UFO sighting reports received by 
MOD to see if they contained any information of value in DIS's task of 
analysing the performance and threat of foreign weapons systems, nuclear, 
chemical and biological warfare programmes and technologies and emerging 
technologies. 



If the MOD has no particular interest in UFOs (UAP), why did the DIS 
undertake such an extensive study? Was it to investigate if aliens were 
visiting us? 

The study was not conducted to establish the possibility of extraterrestrial 
visitors. Prior to 2000 UFO reports were copied to the DIS in case they were 
useful to the work of the DIS. During a policy review in 2000, the DIS wished 
to establish once and for all the potential value, if any, of UFO (UAP) sighting 
reports to Defence Intelligence. 



When was the study done and why was it kept secret? 
The study was conducted between December 1 996 and March 2000. The 
report contains sensitive information concerning the UK Air Defence Region 
and was therefore classified Secret and given a limited distribution. Until the 
introduction of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, all government records 
were closed from public viewing for a period of 30 years after the last action 
was taken in accordance with the Public Records Act 1 958 and 1 967. 



What is the aim of this study? 

To ascertain whether there is any evidence of a threat to the UK and to 
identify any potential military technologies of interest. 



How much did it cost the taxpayer? 

It is not possible to provide details of the cost of producing the report. The 
author was initially employed as a contractor and commenced work on the 
report in December 1996. The author was employed on a part-time basis and 
divided his time between working for the DIS and working on his company 's 
business. The author left his company on early retirement in IcHSnBBKiM 
following which he was employed as a consultant for the DIS until completion 
of the report in March 2000. During the period December 1996 to March 2000, 



producing the report was only one of several tasks in which the author was 
engaged, it is, therefore, not possible to determine how much of his time was 
divided between producing the report and his other tasks. 



Why was the MOD secretly studying UFOs when you have said on many 
occasions you are not interested in the subject / is not taken seriously, 
etc. 

As we have advised on many occasions, the MOD has no role or expertise 
regarding the existence or otherwise of extraterrestrial life-forms and does not 
study such alleged phenomena. This study was conducted only to establish 
whether UFO reports had any value to Defence Intelligence and whether 
there was a requirement for the Defence Intelligence Staff to see them in the 
future. Given the conclusion it was decided that there was no such 
requirement and since December 2000, UFO reports have not been 
forwarded to the DIS. 



What are the conclusions of the Study / does it say we are being visited 
by ET and if not how can you be sure? 

Based on all the available evidence remaining in the Department (reported 
over a 30 year period) the MOD concluded that the UFO sighting reports did 
not have any significant Defence Intelligence value. The study was not 
conducted for the purpose of establishing the existence of extraterrestrial life- 
forms. The MOD remains open-minded but to date we know of no evidence 
that substantiates the existence of these alleged phenomena. 



Why has the MOD decided to release this information now - what led to 
the decision? 

The MOD received a Freedom of Information request for a copy of this report. 
The MOD has embraced the spirit of open government and despite the size 
and original classification, staff have taken great care to ensure that the 
majority of this large report is made available. Sections have been withheld 
only where the information is covered by FOIA exemptions, and it is 
considered that it is not in the public interest to release it. 



Has the database of UFO reports on which this report is based still 
available and if so, will the MOD be publishing it? 
When it was decided that there was no intention to add further data to the 
database and the study report was completed, the database was destroyed. 
The report does however give details of the construction of the database and 
provides some screen shots of the fields used. 



Does this mean the MOD is no longer interested in UFOs? Who do 
people ring now if they want to report seeing something in the sky? 
This study led to the decision that the DIS no longer had a requirement to see 



reported UFO sightings, but during the policy review in 2000 it was decided 
that the Directorate of Air Staff would continue to receive reports and forward 
those to air defence experts when it was felt that they may be of some interest. 
Anyone wishing to report their sighting to the MOD can do so by any of the 
following means; 



Write to: Ministry of Defence 

Directorate of Air Staff - Freedom of Information 

5 th Floor, Zone H 

Main Building 

Whitehall 

London 

SW1A2HB 



Telephone: 020 7218 2140 (24 hour answerphone, please leave your name 
and a contact address). 



Fax: 



Section 40 



E-mail: das-uf o-off ice @ mod . u k 



What about 9/1 1 ? Shouldn't the MOD be taking all reports of 
unidentified objects seriously given the ongoing terrorist threat? Isn't 
this the wrong time to take your eye off the ball? 
The MOD takes its duties to defend UK airspace extremely seriously. 
The integrity of the UK's airspace in peacetime is maintained through 
continuous surveillance of the UK Air Policing Area by the Royal Air Force. 
This is achieved by using a combination of civil and military radar installations, 
which provide a continuous real-time "picture" of the UK airspace. Any threat 
to the UK Air Policing Area would be handled in the light of the particular 
circumstances at the time (it might, if deemed appropriate, involve the 
scrambling or diversion of air defence aircraft). These measures are not 
connected to, or dependent on, the MOD receiving UFO reports from the 
public. 



Is Nick Pope aware of this report, and if so did he have any input into it? 
No, Nick Pope would not have had any input into this report and would not 
have been aware of it. He left the department which deals with UFO matters 
in 1 994 and this study was part of a policy review between 1 996 and 2000. 



The report suggests that there is a possibility that unexplained RAF 
aircraft accidents or near miss incidents may have been caused by the 
sudden appearance of UFOs (UAP). Why was this not considered when 
these were first investigated? [Volume 1, Chapter 4, Paragraphs 19-21] 
During investigations into aircraft accidents and near miss events, all available 
evidence is examined. The possibility that the aircrew could have been 
surprised or startled by the sudden appearance of an object (identified or 



unidentified) in their vicinity is taken into consideration. In the course of this 
study RAF Aircraft Accidents over a 30 year period were examined to identify 
those where aircraft had impacted the surface, due to what appeared to be 
sudden and inappropriate control inputs by the crew. It was concluded that for 
various reasons as detailed in the report none of these could be directly 
correlated with evidence of UFO sightings. 



Dl BCR/1 0/4/3/1 3/59 



24 April 2006 

PS/CDI (p) 
MA/DCDI 
MA/DGIC 
Dl P&R 

Copy: 
Dl SA 
Dl ST 
Dl OPS 
DTIO 
Dl CAC 

DIST-GM QMS AD 



FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT - RELEASE OF PIS REPORT ON 
UNIDENTIFIED AERIAL PHENOMENA (UAP) IN THE UK AIR DEFENCE 
REGION 



ISSUE 

1 . The release of a DIS-commissioned study into Unidentified Aerial 
Phenomena in the UK Air Defence Region in response to a request under the 
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). 

RECOMMENDATION 

2. DIS Management Board members to note. 
TIMING 

3. The report is to be released into the public domain by 28 April 2006. 
BACKGROUND 

4. Since the introduction of the FOIA on 1 January 2005, the Directorate 
of Air Staff (DAS), as the lead branch, has received a large number of 
requests for information on reported 'UFO' sightings in UK air space. Several 
DAS documents have been released in response to these requests, one of 
which referred to a DIS study entitled 'Unidentified Aerial Phenomena in the 
UK Air Defence Region'. A request has been received for a copy of the study. 

5. The study was commissioned by DIST to ascertain whether there was 
any evidence of a threat to UK air space from Unidentified Aerial Phenomena. 
DI55 regularly received copies of UAP sighting reports and had formed the 
view that none of them presented any threat to UK airspace. Neither had any 
of the reports indicated any potential new technologies which may have been 
of defence interest. DI55 therefore were of the view that they had no need to 
receive these reports, but in order to establish whether UFO reports had any 
value to Defence Intelligence and whether there was a requirement for 



Defence Intelligence Staff to see them in the future, they decided to 
commission a study into the reports that had been received. The study was 
canlec^uUluNng the period December 1996 to March 2000 by a contractor, 

I who was employed in DIST and the report was completed in 
December 2000. Although this was only one of several tasks in which the 
contractor was engaged, he produced a very comprehensive report (three 
volumes and an Executive Summary). The conclusion was that there was no 
evidence of threats to UK airspace and no new technologies which may have 
been of defence interest. Most aerial phenomena could be easily explained. It 
was then decided that DI55 would cease to receive UAP sighting reports. 
Since December 2000, these reports have not been forwarded to DIS. 

6. It is understood that this is the most detailed study that has been 
undertaken by the Ministry of Defence into unidentified aerial phenomena in 
UK air space. As it is a unique report and in view of the continuing high profile 
of the 'UFO' phenomenon, it is expected that the release of the report into the 
public domain will create media and public interest. 

7. The contractor wrote the first two volumes of the report with a view to 
their release, but the third volume was classified SECRET UK Eyes Only 
because it contained sensitive information concerning the UK Air Defence 
Region. The report has been scrutinised by the subject matter experts in DIST, 
Dl BCR, DAS and CT&UK Ops and it is considered that the report can be 
downgraded to 'Unclassified'. However, several sections of the report have 
been withheld. 

8. Under the FOIA, 23 exemptions may be used to withhold information. 
The following exemptions have been cited: 

a. S.26 - Defence - information which would be likely to compromise the 
defence of the British Isles. 

b. S.27 - International Relations -information which would prejudice 
relations with other States. 

c. S.40 - Personal Information - personal information such as names 
and addresses. 

9. The information withheld relates to UK air defence radar performance, 
UAP studies in other countries, potential military use of UAPs and personal 
details of the report's author and contributors and members of the public who 
have submitted 'sighting' reports. It should also be noted that the report 
contains reference to unexplained RAF aircraft accidents and although some 
information has been withheld, it has been determined that under the FOIA, 
there are no justifiable grounds to withhold the information in total. This 
section is also likely to attract media and public interest. 

1 0. Under the FOIA, for exemptions 26 and 27, we are required to conduct 
a Public Interest Test (PIT). A PIT is required to balance the factors for and 
against disclosure of the exempt information and to determine whether 



disclosure of the information is in the public interest. The PIT has been 
completed and it has been determined that disclosure of the exempt 
information is not in the public interest and should be withheld. The basis for 
this decision was that to disclose the exempt information would reveal 
information on the performance and limitations of UK air defence radar and 
thereby could prejudice the defence of the UK and could harm international 
relations with other countries by disclosing their work on UAPs and related 
programmes. 

11. In anticipation of the expected reaction to the release of the report, 
suitable press lines are being prepared and the MoD Press Office will be 
informed. A copy of the first draft of the press lines is attached. An updated 
version is being prepared by DAS and will be completed by 28 April. 

1 2. The report is to be released to the requester in hard copy but, in view 
of the anticipated level of interest and number of new requests for copies of 
the report, the report will be scanned and posted onto the MoD Freedom of 
Information website where it can viewed and downloaded by the general 
public. 

1 3. The report is very large jDuUfanyaddressees woul d like to see a copy, 
it can be viewed by contacting^EBEOBBDI BCR CG3,2SIi3jEi 



Way Ahead 

14. We intend to release the report by 28 April 2006 and have a copy of 
the report available on the MoD Freedom of Information website by 5 May 
2006. 



Section 40 




PI BCR CG AD 




Section 40 





Release of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena in the UK Air Defence Reqio 
Report - Possible Press / Public Questions (=) 

What is the MOD'S role in relation to reported UFO (UAP) sightings? 

The MOD examines any UFO sighting reports it receives solely to establish 
whether there is any evidence to suggest that UK airspace has been 
compromised by hostile or unauthorised air activity. Unless there is such 
evidence the MOD does not attempt to positively identify what was seen. 



What is Defence Intelligence staff role in relation to UFOs (UAP). 

Until December 2000, DIS examined UFO sighting reports received by MOD 
to see if they contained any information of value in DIS's task of analysing the 
performance and threat of foreign weapons systems, nuclear, chemical and 
biological warfare programmes and technologies and emerging technologies. 



If the MOD has no particular interest in UFOs (UAP), why did DIS 
undertake such an extensive study? Was it to investigate if aliens were 
visiting us? 

The study was not conducted to establish the possibility of extraterrestrial 
visitors. Prior to 2000 UFO reports were copied to DIS in case they were 
useful to the work of the Defence Intelligence Staff. During a policy review in 
2000, DIS wished to establish once and for all the potential value, if any, of 
UFO (UAP) sighting reports to Defence Intelligence. 



When was the study done and why was it kept secret? 

The study was conducted between December 1996 and March 2000. The 
report contains sensitive information concerning the UK Air Defence Region 
and was therefore classified Secret and given a limited distribution. Until the 
introduction of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, all government records 
were closed from public viewing for a period of 30 years after the last action 
was taken in accordance with the Public Records Act 1 958 and 1 967. 



What is the aim of this study? 

To ascertain whether there is any evidence of a threat to the UK and to 
identify any potential military technologies of interest. 



How much did it cost the taxpayer? 

The study was carried out between December 1996 and March 2000 by one 
contractor. Details of the exact cost of the study are unavailable. 



Why was the MOD secretly studying UFOs when you have said on many 
occasions you are not interested in the subject / is not taken seriously, 
etc. 



As we have advised on many occasions, the MOD has no role or expertise 
regarding the existence or otherwise of extraterrestrial life-forms and does not 
study such alleged phenomena. This study was conducted only to establish 
whether UFO reports had any value to Defence Intelligence and whether 
there was a requirement for Defence Intelligence Staff to see them in the 
future. Given the conclusion it was decided that there was no such 
requirement and since December 2000, UFO reports have not been 
forwarded to DIS. 



What are the conclusions of the Study / does it say we are being visited 
by ET and if not how can you be sure? 

Based on all the available evidence remaining in the Department (reported 
over a 30 year period) the MOD concluded that the UFO sighting reports did 
not have any significant Defence Intelligence value. The study was not 
conducted for the purpose of establishing the existence of extraterrestrial life- 
forms. The MOD remains open-minded but to date we know of no evidence 
that substantiates the existence of these alleged phenomena. 



Why has the MOD decided to release this information now - what led to 
the decision? 

The MOD received a Freedom of Information request for a copy of this report. 
The MOD has embraced the spirit of open government and despite the size 
and original classification, staff have taken great care to ensure that the 
majority of this large report is made available. Sections have been withheld 
only where the information is covered by FOIA exemptions, and it is 
considered that it is not in the public interest to release it. 



Has the database of UFO reports on which this report is based still 
available and if so, will the MOD be publishing it? 

When it was decided that there was no intention to add further data to the 
database and the study report was completed, the database was destroyed. 
The report does however give details of the construction of the database and 
provides some screen shots of the fields used. 



Does this mean the MOD is no longer interested in UFOs? Who do 
people ring now if they want to report seeing something in the sky? 

This study led to the decision that DIS no longer had a requirement to see 
reported UFO sightings, but during the policy review in 2000 it was decided 
that the Directorate of Air Staff would continue to receive reports and forward 
those to air defence experts when it was felt that they may be of some interest. 
Anyone wishing to report their sighting to the MOD can do so by any of the 
following means; 



Write to: Ministry of Defence 

Directorate of Air Staff - Freedom of Information 



5 tn Floor, Zone H 
Main Building 
Whitehall 
London 
SW1A2HB 



Telephone: 020 7218 2140 (24 hour answerphone, please leave your name 
and a contact address). 



Fax 



Section 40 



E-mail: das-uf o-off ice @ mod . u k 



What about 9/1 1 ? Shouldn't the MOD be taking all reports of 
unidentified objects seriously given the ongoing terrorist threat? Isn't 
this the wrong time to take your eye off the ball? 

The MOD takes its duties to defend UK airspace extremely serious. 
The integrity of the UK's airspace in peacetime is maintained through 
continuous surveillance of the UK Air Policing Area by the Royal Air Force. 
This is achieved by using a combination of civil and military radar installations, 
which provide a continuous real-time "picture" of the UK airspace. Any threat 
to the UK Air Policing Area would be handled in the light of the particular 
circumstances at the time (it might if deemed appropriate, involve the 
scrambling or diversion of air defence aircraft). These measures are not 
connected to, or dependent on, the MOD receiving UFO reports from the 
public. 



Is Nick Pope aware of this report, and if so did he have any input into it? 

No, Nick Pope would not have had any input into this report and would not 
have been aware of it. He left the department which deals with UFO matters 
in 1994 and this study was part of a policy review between 1996 and 2000. 



The report suggests that there is a possibility that unexplained RAF 
aircraft accidents or near miss incidents may have been caused by the 
sudden appearance of UFOs (UAP). Why was this not considered when 
these were first investigated? [Volume 1, Chapter 4, Paragraphs 19-21] 

During investigations into aircraft accidents and near miss events, all available 
evidence is examined. The possibility that the aircrew could have been 
surprised or startled by the sudden appearance of an object (identified or 
unidentified) in their vicinity it taken into consideration. In the course of this 
study RAF Aircraft Accidents over a 30 year period were examined to identify 
those where aircraft had impacted the surface, due to what appeared to be 
sudden and inappropriate control inputs by the crew. It was concluded that for 
various reasons as detailed in the report none of these could be directly 
correlated with evidence of UFO sightings. 



Confirmation of Booked Visit 



HosJAetails : 



Host Name : 
Department : 
Building : 
Contact No. 1 : 
Contact No. 2 : 



Section 40 



DAS 

MAIN BUILDING 




Location : 



5-H-13 



Page 1 of 1 




Visit Details : 



Booking Ref. : 



18456 



Location : 



Entrance : 



NORTH DOOR 



Date : 



28/04/2006 



Time : 



09:00 



Length of Visit : 1 day 



Reason : 



MEETING WITH DAS-FOI 



Visitor Details : 



Name : 



DAVID CLARKE 



Company : 
Nationality : 
Telephone : 



PRIVATE RESEARCHER 



BRITISH 



Email : 



Visitor Badge : 



ESCORTED 1 DAY 



Classification : 



UNCLASSIFIED ESCORTED 



Status : 



Expected 



http://sisys.ameywhitehall.r.mil.iik/genvcs/Start.asp 



27/04/2006 



Section 40 



From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 
Importance: 



david clarke 
21 April 2006 14:32 



Sectioi 



ection 40 



Re: Freedom of Information Request 
High 



21 April 2006 



Dear 



Section 4(| 



Just to follow-up our telecon on Wednesday re the imminent release of the DIS UFO 
report . 

As I believe I mentioned to you, I will travelling to London early next Friday, 28 
April, to spend two days working at the British Library. 

Assuming the report is cleared for release on Tuesday, or Wednesday, would it not be 
more convenient - and save postal charges - if I was to collect my copy from you 
directly, at the MoD main building on Friday morning? 

If you could let me know if this would be acceptable, I will make the necessary 
arrangements and would expect to be at Trafalgar Square for around 10.30-llam. 

A further point arising from our conversation: with regards to the covering letter to 
me you plan to upload to the Publication Scheme. If you recall I requested that, in 
order to make clear who it was who made the FOI request which led to the release of 
- - ^ this report, my name (but not my address) should be left on the covering letter. 

\jnder the DPA I presume written consent is required for this to happen, so I hereby 
give th at consent. 
_Jfl 40] 

K#tty e~aiscussed, given the fact that BftffllMiKliM and I requested this report in 
September 2005 I hope that MoD will allow us some time to read and digest its contents 
etc before you add the document to the online Publication Scheme. 



m 



Secti 



Thankyou for your continued assistance with this matter, 



David Clarke 



1 



Page 1 of 1 



Section 40 



From: 



Sent: 10 April 2006 14:27 

Subject: lnternet-authorised:Freedom of Information Request 
Importance: High 

Dear Dr Clarke 

Further to my e-mail of 31 March, I am writing to inform you that there will be a slight delay to the release of the UAP 
report. In my earlier e-mail I said it would be released before Easter, but I have now been informed by DIS staff that due 
to staff absences and some reproduction difficulties this will not now be possible. I have been assured that we will be in a 
position to send the documents to you during the week beginning the 24 th April. I apologise for this delay. I will inform 
you by e-mail when the documents have been placed in the post. In the meantime, if you have any questions, please 
give me a call. 

Yours sincerely, 



Section 40 



Ministry of Defence 

Directorate of Air Staff - Freedom of Information 
10 th April 2006 




10/04/2006 



Page 1 of 1 




To: 



Sent: 



From: 





31 March 2006 09:54 




Subject: lnternet-authorised:Freedom of Information Request 
Dear Dr Clarke 

I writing to provide you with an update on the release of the DIS UAP report. 

The whole report including Volumes 1 , 2, 3 and the Executive Summary, (a final total of 465 pages) has now been 
examined and where applicable sensitive information has been removed. DIS staff and myself are currently making one 
final read through the documents to make sure that we have not missed any sensitive information and then we should be 
able to release the documents to you. We are aiming to send this information very soon and certainly before Easter. 
I apologise for the length of time this is taking, but I am sure you will be glad to hear that the careful consideration of this 
material is going to result in the release of the vast majority of the report, with a comparatively small amount of redaction. 
Where information is to be withheld, this will be explained in my covering letter. 

I hope this is helpful. 

Yours sincerely, 



Directorate of Air Staff - Freedom of Information 




31 March 2006 



10/04/2006 



Unwin, Linda Mrs 





From! 
Sent: 
To: 



david clarke Igfcralwi 
21 March 2006 18:31 




Subject: 




Re: FOI Request 



Dear 




a 



Thank you for your email of 20 March and for answering my various comments in detail. 

I apologise if I have misinterpreted the information regarding the author of the UAP 
report. The information relating to him being RAF aircrew relates to a paragraph in 
the 3-page letter which I presumed was written by the author of the report to Sec (AS) 
and dated 22 January 1997, which you released last year in response to my last FOI 
request. This contains a paragraph (no 8) which reads: 

"...this leads to another important point, that of the current public UFO 
questionnaire format - which was 'invented' in the 1950s (I know because I filled one 
in myself after a sortie when flying in the RAF at the time) . " 

However, it's possible that he was flying in the RAF in some other capacity than 
aircrew. But as I'm sure you can see, that is the implication when read at face value. 

Thanks also for sending me a copy of the article in Focus and for the definitive 
statement concerning the non-existent "UFO Project." 

I look forward to hearing from you when work on the document is completed (hopefully 
soon) . Please .could you convey my thanks and appreciation to all concerned. 

Yours sincerely 

Dr David Clarke 



1 



Page 1 of 1 



Section 40 



Frorr^(^ 

Sent: 
To: 



Section 40 



20 March 2006 16:09 



;tion 40 



Subject: lnternet-authorised:FOI Request 
importance: High 



Dear Dr Clarke 

Thank you for your e-mail of 13 March containing comments about the contents of my e-mail of 8 March. I will address 
these in the same order as your message. 

First, with regard to your remarks about the whereabouts of the author of the report, I can confirm he was not an MOD 
employee or RAF Aircrew. He was a contractor working for a private company, who was temporarily employed by the 
MOD as a consultant. In order to answer your questions, DIS did take the trouble to contact his employer who advised 
that he had retired and they had no forwarding address. As he was neither an employee of the MOD or in the RAF, the 
MOD does not hold any pension details for him. 



As for your comments regarding information from the report that is to be redacted / withheld, I can assure you that all of 
those involved in considering the report for release are keen to ensure that as much information as possible is released 
and information is only redacted where absolutely necessary. A great deal of time and effort has (and still is) being 
expended, particularly by DIS staff, in order to check the contents with the Departments subject matter experts and others 
where necessary, where the report contains information that is still potentially sensitive. Any information that is redacted 
will be withheld in accordance with appropriate sections of the Freedom of Information Act and the reason for this will be 
explained in the covering letter which will be sent with the report. Your right of appeal against any of these decisions will 
also be explained in this letter. With regard to your remarks about the interpretation members of the public may put on 
any information withheld, we are fully aware of the public interest in UFO information and the fact that the public may 
make assumptions and allegations about the MOD'S motives. However, we believe it is far more important in the general 
interest of the public that the MOD does not release information that could cause harm to the defence of the UK. 

Finally, you mentioned our article in Focus magazine and the remark about the "UFO Project". I can confirm that to our 
knowledge, there is and never has been any such "Project". Nick Pope also wrote an article for Focus, which appeared in 
the same addition, below ours. However, this is not the same as the one shown on 
the Virtually Strange website. As requested, I have sent you a copy of the March issue in the post today. 



I hope this is helpful. 
Yours sincerely, 



Section 40 



Ministry of Defence 

Directorate of Air Staff - Freedom of Information 

5th Floor, Zone H, Desk 13 

Main Building 

Whitehall 

LONDON 

SW1A2HB 



e-mail:das-ufo-office@mod.uk 



20 th March 2006 



31/05/2006 



Page 1 of 2 



Section 40 



Section 40 



From: 

Sent: 

To: 



16 March 2006 09:54 



Section 40 



Subject: FW: FOI Request 
j 

Here is the latest e-mail from Dr Clarke. In answer to his remarks in paragraphs 2 and 3 I propose to say the following. 
Para 2 

With regard to your remarks about the whereabouts of the author of the report, I can confirm he was not an MOD 
employee 

or RAF Aircrew. He was a contractor working for a private company, who was temporary employed by the MOD as a 
consultant. 

In order to answer your questions, DIS did take the trouble to contact his employer who advised that he had retired and 
they 

had no forwarding address. As he was neither an employee of the MOD or in the RAF, the MOD does not hold any 
pension details for him. 

Para 3 

As for your comments regarding information that is to be redacted / withheld from the report, I can assure you that all of 
those involved in 

considering the report for release are keen to ensure that as much information as possible is released and information is 
only redacted 

where absolutely necessary. A great deal of time and effort has (and still is) being expended, particularly by DIS staff, in 
order to check 

the contents with the Departments subject matter experts and others where necessary where the report contains 
information that is still 

potentially sensitive. Any information that is redacted will be withheld in accordance with appropriate sections of the 
Freedom of Information Act 

and the reason for this will be explained in the covering letter which will be sent with the report. Your right of appeal 
against any of these 

decisions will also be explained in this letter. With regard to your remarks about the interpretation members of the public 
may put on any 

information withheld, we are fully aware of the public interest in UFO information and the fact that the public may make 
assumptions and 

allegations about the MOD'S motives. However, we believe it is far more important in the general interest of the public that 
the MOD 

does not release information that could cause harm to the defence of the UK. 

Please let me know what you think. I will not send a response to him, until I hear from you. 

Regards 



Section 4 




DAS-FOI 
5-H-13 


1 





Original Message 

From: david clarke [mailto: 
Sen t: 13 March 2006 16 : 51 
To: 

Sub j ect : Re : FOI Request 



Dear 



Section 40 



Thank you for your email and attachment dated March 8, in reply to my 
request for an update on progress with my FOI request. 

The answers provided were indeed very useful and I'm conscious of 
not asking anything else that might cause any further delays in the 



20/03/2006 



processing of my request. However, I must say I find the reply to 
ql concerning MoD being unable to trace the whereabouts of the 
auAr of the UAP report a little difficult to believe. As a former 
MoD^employee/RAF aircrew he must have a forwarding address 
for pensions and even if that's not the case the private company he 
worked for must be known and contactable. 

Other than that point, I do hope that DIS and your experts are 
aware that any material that is redacted or with-held from this 
report - for whatever good reason - will be interpreted as more 
evidence of a "cover up" or whitewash by the believer brigade. 
For that reason, I will have to challenge those deletions so I'm 
hoping that everything they redact is absolutely necessary, rather 
than a case of being over-cautious. 

On a lighter note, I was interested to read the article "The Truth 
is Out there" from Focus magazine, which has been posted on 
the MoD websi te, containing an interview with yourself and 
£c£f!n?t!iE!S!IHI It's good to see your office playing a proactive role 
in this way and I hope we'll see more of it in future. 

I couldn't help but notice your remark about there being no 
"UFO Project. " 

When BgMftlEiU l notified members of the UFO Updates news 
group about his article in the same issue, he neglected to mention 
the article which interviews members of your office. He also 
posted a version of his article which opens with the line 

"...the Ministry of Defence's UFO Project see: 

http: //www. virtuallystrange.net/uf o/updates/2 006 /mar/mll-003 . shtml 

Could you confirm that this line did not appear in the published 
article in Focus. 

This might seem a little niggly, but there seems 

to be quite a contradiction going on, with one person saying there 
was and is a "UFO Project" and the official line being that there 
isn't and never was such a thing. 

Could you send me an original copy of the March issue of the 
magazine for my files? 

yours sincerely 

Dr David Clarke 



20/03/2006 



Section 40 







Fronfll 

Sent: 
To: 

Subject: 



david Clarke bWJU.Hill 
13 March 20 06T6:5t ^ 



Request 



Dear 



Sectior 



ho 



f 



Thank you for your email and attachment dated March 8, in reply to my request for an 
update on progress with my FOI request. 

The answers provided were indeed very useful and I'm conscious of not asking anything 
else that might cause any further delays in the processing of my request. However, I 
must say I find the reply to 

ql concerning MoD being unable to trace the whereabouts of the author of the UAP 
report a little difficult to believe. As a former MoD employee/RAF aircrew he must 
have a forwarding address for pensions and even if that's not the case the private 
company he worked for must be known and contactable. 

Other than that point, I do hope that DIS and your experts are aware that any material 
that is redacted or with-held from this report - for whatever good reason - will be 
interpreted as more evidence of a "cover up" or whitewash by the believer brigade. 
For that reason, I will have to challenge those deletions so I'm hoping that 
everything they redact is absolutely necessary, rather than a case of being over- 
cautious . 

On a lighter note, I was interested to read the article "The Truth is Out there" from 
Focus magazine^wh^jhlias been posted on the MoD website, containing an interview with 
yourself and HsHBiRKSM It's good to see your office playing a proactive role in 
this way and 1 hope we' 11 see more of it in future. 

I couldn't help but notice your remark about there being no "UFO Project." 



When BWHMiEfHM notif ied members of the UFO Updates news group about his article in the 
same issue, he neglected to mention the article which interviews members of your 
office. He also posted a version of his article which opens with the line 

"...the Ministry of Defence's UFO Project see : 

http : //www. virtual lystrange .net/uf o/updates/2006/mar/mll-003 . shtml 

Could you confirm that this line did not appear in the published article in Focus. 

This might seem a little niggly, but there seems to be quite a contradiction going on, 
with one person saying there was and is a "UFO Project" and the official line being 
that there isn't and never was such a thing. 

Could you send me an original copy of the March issue of the magazine for my files? 
yours sincerely 
Dr David Clarke 



\ 



Section 40 



Section 40 



Sectior 









1 



Page 1 of 1 




Subject: UAP Report 



fggjji|40j 

Please find attached details of the results of my consultation with Wing Com mandet !gi53lMiKi] W(DCT& UKQds-SOI 
Airspace Integrity) regarding the radar information we identified at the meeting. I have only included those where he has 
indicated information that should be removed. I hope this helps with your redaction of t he report. If you spot anything else 
while you are going through it, please let me know and I will check it with {gfHSlBB 



Regards 

DAS-FOI 
5-H-13 




01/06/2006 



UAP REPORT - REDACTION 

Volume 1 

Page ii - Paragraph 2, Line 2 - Redact from "only being necessary ".to the 

end of the paragraph. 

Chapter 4, Page 8 - Paragraph 26, Line 5 - Redact from "Rarely is a radar 
contact " to the end of the paragraph. 

Chapter 5, Page 2 -Paragraph 6, Line 2 -Redact from "when using "to 

the end of the paragraph. 

Chapter 5, Page 2 - Paragraph 7, Line 1 - Redact from "There are some " to 

the end of the sentence. 



Annex B, Page B-2- Redact "{Sfgwra^T signature block 



Section 40 



Annex B, Page B-3, Paragraph M - Redact ' 
redact '15!3Sft!S!iETi] 

Annex B, Page B-5, Pa ragraph 12 - Redact " 
Redact "JSHSSsBE" 



Section 40 ^■aamHSection 



Section 40 



Volume 2 

Working Paper No.5, Page 5-1, Paragraph 1 - Redact from "The incidence of 
visual " to the end of the sentence. 

Working Paper No.5, Page 5-1, Paragraph 3d. - Redact from "and secondly, may 
exceed the "to the end of the paragraph. 

Working Paper No.5, Page 5-1, Paragraph 3f. - Redact the whole paragraph. 

Working Paper No.5, Page 5-1, Paragraph 3h. -Redact the whole paragraph. 

Working Paper No.5, Page 5-2, Paragraph 4. - Redact the whole paragraph 
including 4a, b & c. 

Working Paper No.5, Page 5-3, Paragraph 9. - Redact the whole paragraph 
including 9a & b. 

Working Paper No.5, Page 5-4, Paragraph 19. - Redact from "Further rejection 
would come "to end of the paragraph. 



Volume 3 

Page ii, Paragraph 1, Line 4 - Redact from "In particular, the text 
end of the paragraph. 



"to 



Executive Summary, Page 1, Paragraph 1, - Redact the whole of the second bullet 
point. 

Executive Summary, Page 1, Paragraph 4, - Redact the whole paragraph. 

Executive Summary, Page 2, Paragraph 5, - Redact the first line 
"UKADR targets". 

Executive Summary, Page 2, Paragraphs 6, 7 & 8 - Redact each whole paragraph. 

Volume 3 - Miscellaneous Related Studies, Chapter 1, Pagel, Paragraph 1 - 

Redact whole paragraph entitled Smoke reflections. 

Volume 3 - Miscellaneous Related Studies, Chapter 1, Page 2, Paragraph 3 - 

Redact the whole paragraph. 

Volume 3 - Miscellaneous Related Studies, Chapter 1, Page 2 & 3, Paragraph 7- 

Redact from "As an example, for a radar " to the end of the paragraph. 

Volume 3 - Miscellaneous Related Studies, Chapter 1, Page 3, Paragraph 11- 

Redact the whole paragraph. 

Volume 3 - Miscellaneous Related Studies, Chapter 1, Page 4, Paragraph 13(d). 

Redact the whole paragraph. 

Volume 3 - Miscellaneous Related Studies, Chapter 1, Page 5, Paragraph 17- 

Redact the whole paragraph. 

Volume 3 - Miscellaneous Related Studies, Chapter 1, Page 5, Paragraph 21- 

Redact the whole paragraph. 

Volume 3 - Miscellaneous Related Studies, Chapter 1, Page 6, Paragraph 22, 

Line 4- Redact from "The following paragraphs " to the end of the 

paragraph. 

Volume 3- Miscellaneous Related Studies, Chapter 1, Page 6, Paragraph 24- 

Redact the whole paragraph. 

Volume 3- Miscellaneous Related Studies, Chapter 1, Page 7, First bullet - 

Redact the whole paragraph. 

Volume 3- Miscellaneous Related Studies, Chapter 1, Page 7, Second bullet, Line 

3 - Redact from "Further, it should be noted "to line 14 "pulse to pulse". 

Line 20 - Redact from "The increase in signal "to "of about33%". 

Volume 3- Miscellaneous Related Studies, Chapter 1, Page 7, Third bullet- 
Redact the whole paragraph. 



Volume 3- Miscellaneous Related Studies, Chapter 1, Page 8, Paragraph 25, 

Lines 12 - 21- Redact from "Having made this point, "to "coverage for a 

short period". 

Volume 3 - Miscellaneous Related Studies, Chapter 1, Page 8, Paragraph 26 - 

Redact the whole paragraph. 

Volume 3 - Miscellaneous Related Studies, Chapter 1, Page 8, Paragraph 27, 
First bullet - Redact the whole paragraph entitled Horizon Geometry. 

Volume 3 - Miscellaneous Related Studies, Chapter 1, Page 8, Paragraph 27, 

Second bullet - Redact the first line from "Occasions when both " to "are 

very rare". 

Volume 3 - Miscellaneous Related Studies, Chapter 1, Summary, Page 8, 
Paragraph 28 - Redact from the beginning of the paragraph to line 9 " special tasks". 



Volume 3 - Miscellaneous Related Studies, 

Remove the whole page. 


Chapter 1, 


Page 10 


Volume 3 - Miscellaneous Related Studies, 

Remove the whole page. 


Chapter 1, 


Page 11 


Volume 3 - Miscellaneous Related Studies, 

Remove the whole page. 


Chapter 1, 


Page 13 


Volume 3 - Miscellaneous Related Studies, 

Remove the whole page. 


Chapter 1, 


Page 14 


Volume 3 - Miscellaneous Related Studies, 

Remove all of these pages. 


Chapter 1, 


Pages 15, 16 & 17 


Volume 3 - Miscellaneous Related Studies, 

Redact the whole paragraph. 


Chapter 2, 


Page 2, Paragraph 8 


Volume 3 - Miscellaneous Related Studies, 


Chapter 3, 


Page 1, Paragraph 1 



Redact from Line 2 - "First, it was — "to end of paragraph " UK RFW 

programme". 

Volume 3 - Miscellaneous Related Studies, Chapter 3, Page 3, Paragraph 8 

Redact from "Radar Decoys "to end of paragraph entitled Plasma Cloaking. 

Volume 3 - Miscellaneous Related Studies, Chapter 3, Page 4 

Remove the whole page. 

Executive Summary 

Page 3, Paragraph 4 - Redact from "considers why some "to "and 

hence". 



Page 7, Paragraph 13, First bullet - Redact the whole paragraph. 



Page 1 of 1 



Section 40 



Section 40 



Froml 

Sent: 08 March 2006 1 3:23 
To: 

Subject: lnternet-authorised:FOI Request 



3o 



Dear Dr Clarke 

I am writing concerning your message requesting an update on progress with your FOI request. 

As discussed, I meet with DIS last week to discuss any remaining areas of concern regarding the contents of the UAP 
report and its preparation for release. During the meeting a few issues arose where there is still some concern about 
sensitive information and we are currently seeking the advice of the Department's experts in the areas affected. We hope 
this will not take too long to complete and I will let you know when we can be more certain about a date for release. In the 
meantime DIS staff are preparing the remaining documents for release. 



Please see attached the answers to the questions you asked in your email of 23 February. I hope you find these useful. 
The time taken to research and provide answers to these questions has diverted DIS from the task of preparing the the 
UAP report, so if you have any further questions, it would be helpful if you could wait until you have seen the released 
documents. This would allow staff to concentrate on preparing the report and you may find that the answers to your 
questions could be amongst the released material. 

I hope this is helpful. I will contact you again when I have any news about a date for release. 



Yours sincerely, 



Section 40 



Ministry ofDefence 

Directorate of Air Staff - Freedom of Information 

5th Floor, Zone H, Desk 13 

Main Building 

Whitehall 

LONDON 

SW1A2HB 



e-mail:das-ufo-office@ mod.uk 



31/05/2006 



PR CLARKE - SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTIONS: 



1 . Would it be possible to correspond with and/or interview the author of the report? The 
report is an important and historically important document and from my point of view as a 
historian it is important to record aspects of its production for posterity. While I am aware of 
the sensitivity of the work of the DIS, I would point out that I have traced an interviewed a 
number of other former DIS employees who have been involved in UFO work on the 
understanding that my questions do not touch upon areas related to national security. I have 
undertaken to protect their identity and my work is for research purposes only, and will not be 
published without permission. The author of the UAP report is clearly someone with a long- 
standing knowledge of this subject dating back to the 1 950s, who has an RAF background 
and has acted as an advisor on aspects of the topic for MoD for some time. When the report 
is in the public domain, there is little doubt that he will be traced by the media. Therefore 
would it not be better to have him speak to a sympathetic academic rather than door-stepped 
by a journalist? As I understand he may no longer work for MoD would it be possible to 
forward a letter to him on my behalf? 



The author of the report was employed by the Ministry of Defence as a 
contractor and consultant until his departure in 2000. The author is now in 
retirement and, despite making enquiries, we have been unable to trace his 
whereabouts. It is therefore not possible to forward any correspondence to him. 



2. Could we clear up the ambiguity surrounding the status of the 21 DI55 UFO files (see 
Attachment A). It is my understanding that a large proportion of these files (Pts 36-51 , 
covering years 1987-1997) were utilised by the author of the report as a statistic sample in the 
UAP database. Your letter of 23 November 2005 suggests it is like these files "are amongst 
the DIS files which are now subject to asbestos contamination." However, as some of these 
files (those relating to policy) were later found to have escaped contamination, could DIS 
make another check so we can be certain as to the status of these outstanding files. 

We have checked the files listed in attachment A to your email of 23 rd February 
2006 and it is confirmed that all the files in the list (the files which were used in 
the compilation of the UAP report) are in the contaminated archives. However, 
the sighting reports would only have been copies of reports which DAS receive. 
The DAS sighting files have not been contaminated, but you should be aware 
that there are 20 paper files covering this period and we have no way of 
knowing which particular reports were used for the database. 



3. Could we also establish the status of the UAP database. In what form did it exist (i.e. as a 
computer programme?) and has it definitely been destroyed? If so, why? Was it destroyed for 
any particular reason? 

The UAP database was in the form of an 'Access' database. It is confirmed that 
the database has been destroyed, this was in accordance with the commercial 
and security procedures in place at the time. All hard copy extracts of the 
database have also been destroyed. 



4. A question I feel the Press will certainly ask (see Attachment B) is how much in the way of 
public funds were spent on the production of this report. If precise figures have not been kept 
(as the report was part of a larger contract) is it possible to estimate how has been spent, 
based upon similar projects undertaken by MoD? 

It is not possible to provide details of the cost of producing the report. The 
author was initially employed as a contractor and commenced work on the 
report in December 1996. However, producing the report was only one of 
several tasks in which he was engaged and it is not possible to determine how 
much of his time was divided between producing the report and his other tasks. 
In addition, the author only spent 50-60% of his working week on these tasks 
(this time was split between working in London and working at his company's 
offices). The remaining percentage of his time was spent working on his 
company's business. The author left his company on early retirement in EHSflB! 
ggjgnSB fcliowing which he was employed as a consultant for the DIS until 
completion of the report in March 2000. 



5. Who has had sight of this report in terms of senior officials and/or ministers at the Ministry 
of Defence? 

The report was not passed to any MoD Ministers. The report was distributed to 
only three senior officials within the MoD and Royal Air Force at Director level 
or above. 



6. Further to my email dated 23 February, I should have mentioned one Additional question 
for DIS relating to the UAP report. I noted that in the three page paper dated 22 January 1997 
produced by the author of the report (which you released in August last year), he refers to the 
UAP project as "Project Condign." 

Could DIS confirm that "Condign" was the word used to describe the project during the period 
1997-2000. If so, is there any significance in the choice of the word? The similarity to 
"Condon" (the name of the USAF study, completed in 1969) is striking and I wondered if that 
was why this name was chosen. 

It is confirmed that 'Condign' was the word used to describe the report. The 
word 'Condign' was randomly generated and any similarity with the word 
'Condon' is purely coincidental. 



Section 40 



Sent: 
To: 

Subject: 
Importance: 



david clarke EraalBRI 
07 March 2006 17:15 



ection 40 



5 




Re: FOI Request 
High 



7 March 2006 
Dear 



Section 40 



I'm writing to ask for an update following the meeting you had concerning my FOI 
request for the UAP report last week. I hope that progress was made and that you might 
soon be in a position to release the redacted report. 

Thanks for your help with this request and I look forward to hearing from you, 
Yours sincerely 
Dr David Clarke 



1 



# 




Subject: 



From 
Sent: 
To: 




Re: FOI Request 



J 3:1 4 




Importance: 



High 




TNAUFO.doc (68 
KB) 



24 February 2006 



Dear 




Further to my email dated 23 February, I should have mentioned one additional question 
for DIS relating to the UAP report. I noted that in the three page paper dated 22 
January 1997 produced by the author of the report (which you released in August last 
year), he refers to the UAP project as "Project Condign." 

Could DIS confirm that "Condign" was the word used to describe the project during the 
period 1997-2000. If so, is there any significance in the choice of the word? The 
similarity to "Condon" (the name of the USAF study, completed in 1969) is striking and 
I wondered if that was why this name was chosen. 

Finally, if you do get around to visiting TNA and get the opportunity to check out any 
of the UFO files available there, you may find the attached list of use. I put this 
together when I was preparing the Research Guide to the UFO records at Kew last year 
and I have kept it under revision so that it is as comprehensive in coverage as 
possible. 

Yours sincerely 

Dr David Clarke 



1 



UFO RECORDS HELD BY THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES (TNA) 



Key : 

Name of department/branch/creator 

NA Class reference - File title/description of file [approx date of opening] - 
[Former MoD reference in parenthesis: where known] 

mf = microfilm 



Date 



AIR 1/2455 
AIR 1/2456 
ADM 131/119 
AIR 1/561/16/15/62 
AIR 1/562/16/15/66 
WO 158/989 



Passage of a Zeppelin over Sheerness, 1912 

Unidentified aircraft over Sheerness, 1912 

Spies: Floating Lights on Dartmoor, 1915 

Reports of false alarms or rumoured air raids, 1914-16 

Reports on alleged enemy signalling in Britain, 1915 

Intelligence Circular No 6: Alleged enemy signalling, 1916 



World War 2 aerial phenomena ('foo-fi2hters'): 1940-1944 

AIR 2/5070 Phenomena: Enemy defences: Bomber Command, 1940-42 

AIR 20/4725 Phenomena: Enemy defences 1940-42 

AIR 20/2076 Phenomena: Enemy defences 1 942-44 

AIR 14/288 No 1 15 Squadron News Sheet 'Bang On' - Phenomena 1943 m/f 

AVIA 7/1070 Unusual responses observed near Cherbourg, 1941 

AVIA 7/1300 Abnormal echoes observed on South Coast, 1941-45 

Rocket Projectiles: 'Ghost Rocket' phenomena: 1946 



FO 371/56988 
FO 188/537 
FO 371/56951 
FO 188/572 
DEFE 40/493 
AIR 40/2843 



Alleged projectiles seen over Sweden 
Aerial projectiles 

Rocket projectiles and flying missiles observed over Sweden 

Projectiles VI and V2 bombs (2 parts) 

Directorate of Scientific Intelligence minutes, 1946-7 

2 nd report on missile activity over Scandinavia 1946 (with map) 



Flvins Saucers/Unidentified Flvins Objects 



DEFE 41/117 
DEFE 41/118 



Unorthodox aircraft 
Unorthodox aircraft 



1949- 50 

1950- 52 



Flying Saucer Working Party - minutes, memos and final report 
DEFE 19/9 Scientific Intelligence [retained file] 

[CSA/ALPH/51] 



DEFE 41/152 
DEFE 41/153 
DEFE 41/74-76 
DEFE 44/1 19 



1948-60 



DSI/JTIC Minutes [copy] 1950 
DSI/JTIC Minutes [copy] 1 95 1 -52 

DSI/JTIC Minutes (originals) 1 950-54 

DSI/JTIC Report No 7: Unidentified Flying Objects 1951 



1 



T\H?T7T7 11 /I IO 

DErb 31/110 


UFO policy: 


1 0^1 1 0A.1 




rT\T/<</yin/0/1 T)+ 11 

|L)l/j3/4U/y/l rt 1J 




Dbri} J 1/1 iy 


UFO policy: 


iyo / 




[Ul/5j/4U/y/l rt zj 




TYnUTJ 11/1 £1 

UrlrJi j 1/1 03 


UrU Reports. Di jj 


iy /y 




[DI/DI55/108/15/lPt21] 




DEFE 31/164 


UFO Reports: DI 55 


1979 




[DI/DI55/108/15/lPt22] 




DEFE 31/165 


UFO Reports: DI 55 


1979 




[DI/DI55/108/15/1 Pt23] 




DEFE 31/166 


UFO Reports: DI 55 


1979 




[DI/DI55/108/15/1 Pt24] 




DEFE 31/167 


UFO Reports: DI 55 


1979 




[DI/DI55/108/15/1 Pt25] 





Air Ministry: S6 (Air) and D.D.L (Tech); 1950-64 



AIR 20/7390 



AIR 16/1199 



AIR 22/93 



AIR 20/9320 



AIR 20/9321 



AIR 20/9322 



AIR 20/9994 



Unidentified Aircraft/Objects: prepared for Air Ministry 
1950-53: includes reports by Wing Commander R. Cartmel, signal 
from RAF Topcliffe to Air Ministry, 1952, briefings on 
unidentified aircraft tracked by radar over English Channel, 7 
October 1953. 

[II/l 27/3/48 DD OPS (AD) 58] m/f 

Flying Saucers: occurrence reports by service personnel and 
civilians at RAF Topcliffe, 1952 
[IIHI/1 1 8/1/1 7/Top/CI6/Air] m/f 

Air Ministry Secret Intelligence Summary, March 1955: "Flying 
Saucers. . .An Object was Reported." [Draft copy in DEFE 31/1 17] 
m/f 

PQ 17 April 1957 (Stan Awbery); Notes provided for Ministers 
use: UFO reports in 1956/57 including Lakenheath, West Freugh, 
Church Lawford, Bempton, Lakenheath. Newscuttings, 1957 
[MR 008614/193] m/f 

PQs 15 May 1957 (Patrick Wall/Frank Beswick), briefings by S6 
and D.D.I. (Tech), notes on radar trackings of UFO and scramble 
of aircraft from RAF Odiham, 29 April, 1957. 
[MR 008614/213] m/f 

PQs (Frank Beswick), object reported over Dover Straits leading 
to scramble of fighters from RAF Odiham; briefings by S6 to US 
ofS, 29 April 1957 
[MR 008614/220] m/f 

Reports on Aerial Phenomena: HQ Southern Sector, reports on 
aerial phenomena, reports and radar track tracing sheets from RAF 
Ventnor, 29 April and 29 July 1957. Miscellaneous RAF orders 
relating to reporting of aerial phenomena, 1953, 1954 and 1956. 
[IIH/273/10/4] m/f 



2 



AIR 2/18564 



Miscellaneous 

FO 371/74712 

FO 371/81093 
PREM 1 1/855 

AVIA 65/33 
CAB 157/27 & 31 

AVIA 7/3738 
AIR 16/1485 
WO 195/14802 
BJ 5/311 



RAF West Freugh: UFO report. Request to release information on 
UFO report, 1971; D.D.I. (Tech) and S6 minutes relating to 'flying 
saucers' 1957-60. 
[AF/CX 1295/72] 



Riots in Quito following broadcast of HG Well's story 'War of the 
Worlds' 1949 

Flying Saucers over Asmara airport, Ethiopia 1950 
Winston Churchill: question to SOS for Air on flying saucers, 
reply from Lord Cherwell; correspondence between Sir Anthony 
Montague Browne and Duncan Sandys MP, Defence Minister, 
1952 m/f 

Canadian Project Y: Vertical take-off aircraft (with photos) 
Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) Minutes, 'aerial phenomena,' 
1957, 1959 

Angels: Investigation of effects on ground radars, 1955-69 
[RGR/390/01 PtA] 

'Angels' on Type 80 radar: angels and bird migrations on Western 
Europe 1958 [RAF Fighter Command report] 
Radar & Signals Advisory Board: Spurious echoes on radar: a 
survey, 1959 

UFOs: Meteorological Aspects 1968-70 

[AF/M396/68] 



Air Ministry; S6 (Air) 1961-64 & MoD; S4 (Air): 1964-79 

AIR 2/16918 



AIR 2/17318 
AIR 2/17526 
AIR 2/17527 
AIR 2/17982 
AIR 2/17983 
AIR 2/17984 
AIR 2/181 17 
AIR 2/18183 
AIR 2/18565 
AIR 2/18871 



UFOs: correspondence and news cuttings 
[AF/X59/64 pt 5 (ID/47/272 pt 5)] m/f 
UFOs: correspondence and news cuttings 
[AF/X59/64 pt 6] m/f 

UFOs: correspondence and news cuttings 
[AF/X59/64 pt 7] m/f 

UFOs: correspondence and news cuttings 
[AF/X59/64 pt 8] m/f 

UFOs: correspondence and news cuttings 

[AF/X59/64 pt 9] m/f 

UFOs: correspondence and news cuttings 
[AF/X59/64 pt 10] m/f 

UFOs: correspondence and news cuttings 

[AF/X59/64ptll]m/f 

UFOs: memos & correspondence 

[AF/CX38/67 Pt 3] 

UFOs: correspondence and news cuttings 
[AF/7463/72 Pt 2] m/f 
UFOs: correspondence 
[AF/7463/72 Pt3] 
UFOs: correspondence 



1961-63 

1963 

1964 

1964- 65 

1965- 66 
1966 

1966- 67 
1967 
1968-69 
1970-71 
1972 



3 



[AF/7463/72 Pt V] 



ATT? 9/1 8879 
/\lrv LI 1 oo /Z 


urub. curicopuiiucxicc 




1079 1"K 




TAF/74^4/7? Pt 11 

L-TVF/ /tUt/ l v I 1J 






ATR 9/1 887^ 


T T h fie • r'Atrpct^ntin AH(^p 
UfUo. CUilCISpUxxU.CIlL'C 




107^ 74 




r AVn&fuLHJ Pt TT1 






ATR 9/1 8874 


urwo. cuixcoLJUxxiicxxC'C 




1 074.75 
l y 1 t— / j> 




[AF/7464/72 Pt III] 






ATR 9/18090 


UFOs: correspondence 




1075 

x y i j 




[AF/7464/72 Pt IV] 






ATR 9/18Q91 


UFOs: correspondence 




1076 




[AF/7464/72 Pt 5] 






ATR 90/1 1619 


UFOs: memos & correspondence 




1 067-68 




[MR073414] 






AIR 2/19086 


UFO policy: 




1970-75 




[AF/3459/75] 






AIR 2/19117 


UFOs: BBC Radio Oxford programme 


1972-73 




[AF/S4f(Air)422] 






AIR 2/191 19 


UFOs: Man Alive programme: BBC 2 TV 


1971-72 




[AF/419] 






AIR 2/19125 


Reported sightings of UFOs, RAF Partington 


1967-1973 




[PAT(Ops)/3/ll/AirPart 1] 






AIR 2/19126 


Statistical Analysis of UFOs 




1967-1973 




[S4f(Air)U/506] 






AIR 2/19173 


Aircraft Accident Report: Lightning F6 XS894 


1970-72 




5 Squadron: Capt William Schaffner 






Ministry of Defence: S4 (Air) (UFO sighting reports) 1967-79 




AIR 2/181 15 


UFO reports 


January-May 


1067 
i y\j i 




[AF/CX38/68 Pt 1] 






AIR 2/181 16 


UFO reports 


May-July 


1067 
i y\j i 




[AF/CX38/67 Pt 2] 






AIR 20/11887 


UFO reports 


August 


1067 




[ID/48/44/AF/S4f(Air)507] 






AIR 20/1 1888 


UFO reports 


September 


1067 




[ID/48/44/AF/S4f(Air)508] 






AIR 20/1 1889 


UFO reports 


October 


x y\j i 




[ID/48/46/Pt lAF/S4f(Air)509] 






AIR 20/1 1890 


UFO reports 


October 


1067 




[ID/48/67/Pt 2AF/S4f(Air)509] 






AIR 20/1 1891 


UFO reports 


November 


1067 
l y\j I 




[ID/48/67/Pt 2AF/S4f(Air)510] 






AIR 20/1 1892 


UFO reports 


December 


1967 




[ID/48/67/Pt 2AF/S4f(Air)510] 






AIR 20/1 1694 


UFO reports 


January 


1968 




[ID/48/69 AF/S4f(Air)512] 






AIR 20/1 1695 


UFO reports 


February 


1968 




[ID/48/70 AF/S4f(Air)513] 






AIR 20/1 1894 


UFO reports 


March 


1968 




[ID/48/71 AF/S4f(Air)514] 







4 



A TD in/1 1 QCK 

A1K zU/ 1 1 oyj 


UrU reports 


/\pni 


1 068 




rin/ism ath/qawait-^i si 
[JLU/48/ /z Ar/;vH\Airpi jj 






A n? on/1 1 806 


uru reports 


\Act\r 

lviciy 


1968 




[iL//4o/ / J Ar/;341\Airpioj 






A TD 1 QOT 

A1K ZU/ 1 1 ©y / 


UFO reports 


June 






[lD/4o/ /4 Ar/l54HAlrjJ 1 / J 






ALK ZU/ 1 1 oyo 


UFO reports 


juty 






[1JJ/45/ /j Ar/,Vfi(Airpioj 






A TD OA/1 1 COO 

AiK zu/ 1 1 syy 


UFO reports 


AUgUSt 


1 068 




[ID/48/76 AF/S4f(Air)519] 






AIR 20/1 1900 


UFO reports 


September 


1968 




rTD/48/77 AF/S4fTAiri5201 






ATP 90/1 1 Q01 
AIK ZU/ i 1 7U 1 


uru rcpoi io 


WttUU CI 


1068 




riD/48/78 AF/S4fCAir)5211 






ATP 90/1 100? 






1968 




TTD/4R/79 AF/S4iTAir>5221 






ATR 70/1 1606 


w X V/- 1 vUUl tij 


1~S Wvvlil L/ vi 


1968 




TID/48/80 AF/S4ff Air)5231 






ATP 9H/19n^^ 
AIK ZU/ 1ZUJJ 


uru reports 


i dnudry 






r \V/<iAW AirK9A TTVAR/RIl 
[Ar/o41\Airpz4 lL//4o/olJ 






A TP 9H/1 9fKA 
AiK ZU/ 1ZUD0 


uru reports 


r eoruary 


iyoy 




[Ar/o4T(Airpzj 1D/40/OZJ 






A TP 9fi/1 90^7 
AIK. ZU/ 1ZUJ / 


uru reports 


iviarcn 


1 Q6Q 

iyoy 




[Ar/.VfI{AirpzO JJJ/48/oJj 






ATP 90/190^8 
AiK ZU/ lZUJO 


uru reports 


A nnl 

Apni 


1 06Q 










ATP 9ft/19fKQ 
AIK ZU/ lzujy 


uru reports 


ividy 


1 Q60 




[Ar/o41|AlFpzo iLJ/4o/oJj 






atp 9H/1 in^n 
AIK ZU/ 1ZU0U 


UFO reports 


June 


iyoy 




[Ar/;>4i\Airpzy iu/4o/ooj 






A TD OH/1 1fi£1 

AiK Zu/lZUOl 


UFO reports 


July 


iyoy 




[Ar/o4l^AirjDjU lJJ/48/o/J 






A TP 9/V1 9H/i9 
AiK ZU/ 1ZU0Z 


UFO reports 


August 


iyoy 




[AF/S4f(Air)531 ID/48/88] 






AIR 20/12063 


UFO reports 


September 


1969 




[AF/S4fl[Air)532 ID/48/89] 






ATR 20/12064 


T TFO rpnnrts: 




1969 




[AF/S4f(Air)533 ID/48/90] 






AIR 20/12065 


v> A W 1 vUUi lO 


NnvptnriPT 


1969 




[AF/S4f(Air)534 ID/48/91] 






ATR 20/12066 


T TRO rpnrvrtQ 




1969 




[AF/S4f(Air)535 ID/48/92] 






AIR 20/12067 


UFO reports 


January 


1970 




[AF/S4f(Air)536 ID/48/93] 






AIR 20/12297 


UFO reports 


February 


1970 




[AF/S4f(Air)537 ID/48/94] 






AIR 20/12298 


UFO reports 


March 


1970 




[AF/S4f(Air)538 BD/48/94] 







5 



A TO OH/1 90QQ 
AIK ZU/ YAZyy 


uru repons 


April 


1 Q7H 
iy /u 




T A T*/CM-fif AiiA^'SQTrV.dQ/Q^I 

[Ar/o4HAir^jjyiiJ/4o/yjj 






A TO On/1 Tif\f\ 
AIK ZU/ 1ZJUU 


uru repons 


iviay 


1 Q7H 

1 27 /U 










a to on/ioim 
A1K ZU/lZJUl 


UFO repons 


June 


1 Q7n 
iy /u 




r AF/QAfVAtV^^AI TTV4 8/071 
[Al7o4T^Alr/j41 lu/48/y/J 






a to on/iomo 
AIK ZU/ IZjUZ 


uru repons 


July 


1 Q7n 
iy /u 




[A17&4I(A1FP4Z JU/'+o/yoJ 






atd in/n^m 
AIKzU/IZJUj 


UFO reports 


August 


1 o7n 
iy /u 




[AF/S4f(Air)543 ID/48/99] 






AIR 20/12304 


UFO reports 


September 


1970 




r AF/S4flfAir~>'544 TD/48/1 001 






ATP 90/1 T^OS 
rVliv ZU/ 1/jUj 


uru rcpon» 


uciuoer 


1 Q70 

17 /U 




rAF/S4fYAir>545 ID/48/1011 

1 / v 1 1 ^Jl 1 1 / VI 1 / J i J J_l_xf lull 






/\1IV ZU/ lZJUO 


uru rcpui li> 


vsKj v emu ci 


1 Q70 










ATR 90/1937^ 
/\1JV ZU/ lZj /O 


uru rcpuria 


jL/CCCIIIDCI 


1 070 

17 /U 




TAF/5206/10 Pt 2 MR 1 161711 

1 Zi._L / J £,\J\jl 1U i l Z. J.VJLLV 1 1U1 / 11 






A TO 1H/1TJ77 

A1K ZU/ 1 Z J / / 


urO reports 


January 


1 071 

iy / 1 




V~XT\IAQ /1 ACT 

L1D/48/1U0J 






ATO 1A/n?7Q 

AlK ZU/1Z3 /o 


UFO reports 


February 


1 QT1 

iy /i 




rirv/i Q/1 A/£i 
[1U/48/1UOJ 






ATO Ofl/1 017Q 
AlK. ZU/ 1Z J Iy 


uru^ repons 


lviarcn 


1 Q71 

iy / 1 




ITTV4C/1 H71 
[JJJ/4o/ 1U / J 






ato on/io^sn 

AIK ZU/ IZjoU 


uru repons 


•i 

Apnl 


1 07 1 

iy / 1 




nrV/iQ/i nsi 

[IJJ/^o/ lUoJ 






ATR On/1 9^81 
AIK ZU/ 1 Z J o 1 


1 1-4 11 ■fd-t^^-ft'C 

uru reports 


lvidy 


1 Q71 

iy / 1 




rirvyic/i noi 
[iu/48/ 1 uyj 






A TO OA/1 Old 
AIK ZU/ 1Z38Z 


UFO reports 


June 


1 071 

iy / 1 




[ID/48/ 1 1UJ 






A TO OH/1 TJOl 

AIK ZU/lZioJ 


UFO reports 


July 


1 00"1 

iy /i 




TTTV/IG/I 111 
[11J/45/ 1 1 1 J 






A TO on/1 Ol QA 

AIK ZU/ 1ZJo4 


UFO reports 


August 


1 OT1 

iy / 1 




rTTV/l Q/1 101 
[IU/48/ 1 IZJ 






ATO On/IO'JQ^ 

AIK ZU/ IZjoj 


UFO reports 


September 


1 QT1 

iy /i 




[iU/48/ 1 1 J] 






ATO On/IO^SA 
AIK ZU/ iZjoO 


uru repons 


uciooer 


1 Q71 

iy / 1 




rTTV4Q/1 1A1 
[JLU/4o/ 1 14J 






ATR Oft/10387 
AIK ZU/ lZjo / 


uru reports 


iNovemuer 


1 071 

iy / 1 




l"m/4Q/1 1 ^1 
[1JJ/45/ 1 1 Dj 






ato on/ioics 

AIK ZU/ IZjoo 


UFO reports 


December 


1 071 

iy / 1 




nn/48/i 1 at 

[IU/48/ 1 10J 






AIR 20/12399 


UFO reports 




1971-72 




[ID/47/274 Pt 4] 






AIR 20/12400 


UFO reports 


January 


1972 




[ID/48/117] 






AIR 20/12401 


UFO reports 


February 


1972 




[ID/48/118] 






AIR 20/12402 


UFO reports 


March 


1972 




[ID/48/119] 







6 



ATT? 9f>/1 lift 1 ? 
AlK ZU/ 1Z4UJ 


uru reporio 


A r^ri 1 

jrVpiil 


1979 










A TP 9fi/1 94flA 
AlK ZU/ IZ'H-H- 


uru reporia 


lvLay 


1979 










ATP 9ft/19An^ 
Alls. ZU/ lZfUJ 


uru rcpurio 




1972 




|_±.L// to/ 






An? 9ft/i940fi 

AiK. ZU/ 1 ZH-UO 


uru rcpui to 


Tnlv 


1979 




rrn/J.s/1 9^1 






ATP 90/19407 
Allv ZU/ 1 ztu / 


uru rcpui la 


A ii mict 


1979 




[ID/48/124] 






AIR 20/12408 


UFO reports 


September 


1972 




riD/48/1251 






ATR 90/19409 

/vllv jLxjI 1 Z;Tuy 


w x vy i vuui to 


OrtrVhftr 


1972 




[ID/48/126] 






ATR 20/12410 

iVllv £*\JI lz>TlU 




No vem Her 


1972 




[ID/48/127] 






ATR 20/1241 1 


T FFO re^nnrte 

VJ X V_/ 1 vUvl Llj 


December 


1972 




[ID/48/128] 






ATP 90/1 9^44 

Alls. ZU/ IZJH't 


urui cpui is> 


J allUaX y 












A TP 90/1 9^4^ 
AlK ZU/ IZj'fj 


uru reports 


reoruary 


1 07"? 




[1U/45/ 1 JUJ 






ATP 90/1 9^4^ 
AiK ZU/ 1ZJ40 


uru reports 


iviarcn 


iy / j 










A TP 90/1 9^47 
AIK. ZU/ 1Zj4 / 


uru repons 


April 


1 07^ 

ly / j 










ATR 90/1 9S48 

AlK ZU/ lZJHO 


uru icpuiLo 


ivxay 


107^ 










ATR 90/1 9^40 
AlK ZU/ IZJH? 


uru rcporio 


J U.I1C 


1 07^ 










ATR 90/19S^0 

AlK ZU/ 1ZJJU 


uru icpuiio 


Tnlv 


107^ 

iy / j 




rTD/4S/1^Sl 

|_1JL//*tO/ 1 J-Jj 






ATR 90/19^^1 
AIK. ZU/ 1Z J J 1 


uru reports 


An m i o+ 


1 07^ 

ly 1 J 




[ID/48/136] 






ATR 20/1 2552 




SI pnfpm Vi pr 

UvU IVlXiUvl 


1973 




[ID/48/137] 






AIR 20/12553 


UFO reports 


October 


1973 




[ID/48/138] 






AER. 20/12554 


UFO reports 


November 


1973 




[ID/48/139] 






AIR 20/12555 


UFO reports 


December 


1973 




[ID/48/140] 






AIR 2/19083 


UFO reports 


January 


1974 




[AF/584] 






AIR 2/18950 


UFO reports 


February 


1974 




[AF/585] 






AIR 2/18951 


UFO reports 


March 


1974 





r A T?/^Q£1 

[Ar/jooJ 






A TT> ^ /I ono 

A1K 11 1 oyjZ 


UFO reports 


•i 

April 


1 Q7/1 
ly It 




[Ar/J5 /J 






A TT> 0/1 OQ^I 

AiK 27 loyji 


uru reports 


ividy 


1 074 
ly /H 




r A T?/C QQl 

[Ar/jooJ 






A TD 0/1 OQ^/I 

AIK 2/10504 


UFO reports 


June 


1 074 
ly fr 




[AT/ Doyj 






AIK Z/loyjj 


UFO reports 


juiy 


1 074 
iy /H- 




[Ar/jyuj 






A TD /1 CO^A 

AIK z/loyDO 


UFO reports 


August 


1 Q1A 
ly Ih 




[AF/591] 






AIR 2/18957 


UFO reports 


September 


1974 




TAF/S921 

1 Al / J 7Z,J 






ATP 9/1 CQ'vC 

/\1IY LI 1 07J0 


lj r v_/ r cpui io 




1074 




/ J7JJ 






ATR 9/1 8050 


urui cpui ib 


in u v emu ci 


1074 




TAF/SQ41 






ATR 9/1 8060 


uru icpuiio 


F) pr* p-m n pt* 


1974 




rAF/5951 






ATP 9/1 fiQAI 

AiK Li i oyo 1 


uru reports 


j dnuary 


1 07^ 

17/ J 




r a rrKQ/n 






A TD 0/1 0Q6O 

AiK 27 1 oyoz 


UFO reports 


r ebruary 


1 07^ 

iy id 




[Ar/Dy / J 






A TD 0/1 QO^I 

AIK 11 1 oyo J 


UFO reports 


lviarcn 


1 07^ 

iy / z> 




f A "EV^OQl 

[Ar/jyoJ 






A TD O /1 

AIK Z7 1 oyt)4 


UFO reports 


April 


1 Q7^ 

iy / j 




[Ar/Dyyj 






A TP 1/1 8Q6^ 

AIK 11 isyoj 


UFO reports 


May 


1 07^ 

ly IJ 




r a tr/£nm 






A TP 9/1 fiQ66 

/viK z/ 1 oyoo 


uru reports 


June 


1 07^ 

ly 1 J 




r a tt/^ai i 
[Ar/oUlJ 






A TD 0/1 0n/C7 

AIK z/ 1 oyo / 


UFO reports 


July 


1 07^ 

iy / j 




r a Tzi/^nii 
[Ar/ouzJ 






A TD T /1 QQ6Q 

AIK z/ i oyoo 


UFO reports 


December 


1 07^ 

iy id 




r a T7/An*7i 
[Ar/ou/j 






ATP 9/1 8Q6Q 

Airs, z/ 1 oyoy 


uru reports 


January 


1 076 

ly IO 




r ATT/£f>81 

[Ar/OUoJ 






ATP 9/1 SQ7A 
AIK LI loy /U 


uru reports 


rcDluary 


1 Q76 
iy /O 










ATP 9/1 8071 
jrVlxv Z/ 1 07 / 1 


u r \j i cpui io 


IVlal CI1 


1076 




fAF/Aim 






ATR 2/1 8972 


T TFO T*pr>r>rt<s 

V-/ X V-/ 1 ^ L/V71 lo 


Anril 


1976 




[AF/611] 






AIR 2/18973 


UFO reports 


May 


1976 




[AF/612] 






AIR 2/18974 


UFO reports 


June 


1976 




[AF/613] 






AIR 2/18975 


UFO reports 


September 


1976 




[AF/616] 






AIR 2/18976 


UFO reports 


October 


1976 



8 





l/Vr/Ol / J 




ATT? 9/1 8Q77 
/VLK. LI 1 oy 1 1 


uru rcpuria 


^TrwfHTilif^r 1 07^ 
in \j v cinuci i y i \j 




[/\r/01oj 




A TP 9/1 SQ78 
ALK. Z7 I oy 1 o 


uru reports 


lyCC-CIIlDCi 1 " / U 








TYRPP 04/1 9HA 
UCrCj Zf7 IZVO 


T T T7 (~~\ c * 1? fvt**4/~\Y*to on/i pnrrAcr\AH /i pupa 

urwS. Jtvcporis dnu cuircopoiiuciivc 


1077 
1 " / / 




rn/DSR/7V?/1 Pt Rl 






T T H il **P>1"**/"V**tC! 

U P W I CpUI lo 


Totliior^/_lM[Q\/ 1 Q77 




m/<i4f AirW?n Pt Al 

L_L// k5*T^r\lI JO/ ^/ J JT i .rYJ 








Tiinf^-^PTvtf^mhfM* 1 077 
j U-Iivs ocpiciiiud \.y 1 1 




rTV<\4f AirW?/'* Pt Rl 




rypFF 94/1 90S 

UHfD Zt7 1ZUJ 


uru repui io 


/ir* t/~\ r*» pr_ 1™^ p./" P>TY*i V*t f^r* 1 Q77 

wuhjuci i/ctcuiuci iy / / 








■nFFT? 94/1 907 
UEr C Zf/ 1 ZU / 


ur w repurio dim C/Oricaponuciicc 


Clrtc\hf*r 1 077 Mnrrh 1 07R 








r\CT7T3 94/190fl 

Uhrh, z4/ Izyu 


uru Kepons 


January-March ly/o 




[JD/USo/ 1 of 111 rt JJJ 




TYETJC 94/1 9ftQ 

jjurn Z4/ izuy 


T TT70 T? a«At4o 

UrvJ ivcpons 


Arwnl \Act\r 1 Q7£ 




nn/n<iR/7V?A Pt fi 




nFFT? 94/1 91 fl 


U .T W I cpiJI lo 


Timp. AnaiiQt 1078 




[D/DS8/75/2/3 Pt F] 




DEFE 24/1291 


UFO reports 


September-October 1978 




[D/DS8/75/2/2 Pt G] 




DEFE 24/1211 


UFO reports 


November 1978 




[D/DS8/75/2/3PtH] 




DEFE 24/1212 


UFO reports 


December 1978 




[D/DS8/75/2/3PtJ] 




AIR 20/12966 


UFOs: Parliamentary interest 


Sept 1978-January 1979 




[HdS4(Air)/BF82] 




[sequence of files containing 'edited copies' of UFO reports begins 1975, ends 1980] 


AIR 2/18949 . 


UFO reports: edited copies 


August 1975- June 1976 




[AF/447] 




DEFE 24/977 


UFO reports: edited copies 


July 1976- April 1977 




[D/DS 8/75/2/2A] 




DEFE 24/978 


UFO reports: edited copies 


April-September 1977 




[D/DS 8/75/2/2B] 




DEFE 24/979 


UFO reports: edited copies 


September-December 1977 




[D/DS 8/75/2/2C] 




DEFE 24/1208 


UFO Reports: edited copies 


January-March 1978 




[D/DS8/75/2/2 Pt D] 




DEFE 24/1288 


UFO Reports: edited copies 


March- August 1978 




[D/DS8/75/2/2PtE] 




DEFE 24/1289 


UFO Reports: edited copies 


August-October 1978 




[D/DS8/75/2/2PtF] 





Air Defence DP Ops (RAF) 

DEFE 71/3 UFOs: Reports 1975-77 



9 



[AF/CX1 528/72 Pt 2] 
DEFE 71/4 UFOs: Reports 1977 

[AF/CX1528/72Pt3] 

DEFE 71/33 Flying and Operations: Air Traffic Control and UFOs 1977-78 

[D/IPS(RAF)/42/10/3] 



Database copyright Dr David Clarke 2006 



10 



Section 40 



From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 
Importance: 



3^av200j^^ 

nJiy^Omequest 
High 




Attachment A.doc Attachment B.doc 
(25 KB) (25 KB) 



-Original Mfissans- 



Section 40 



From: 

Sent: 24 February 2006 08:48 



Section 4 



As discussed, here is Dr Clarke's e-mail fonowinq my conversation with him yesterday. 
I can not answer his questions, but maybe HslSfi ecu id . With regard to questions he has 
suggested that might be asked by the pressfT have already started to draft some press 
lines, so I will continue to draft these incorporating those he has suggested. 

During my conversation with Dr Clarke he mentioned the likely media interest when the 
report is released and I said that we anticipated that one of the questions might be 
"why are you releasing the report now" . I said that we would say that it was in 
response to an FOI request but not give his name. He said he was happy for us to give 
his name and say it was part ofhi^rwoing academic research. This morning I have 
also received an e-mail from BBBBiliKiM I who is the other person waiting for these 
documents (and in touch with Dr Clarke) and he also has no objection to us giving his 
name. 



Please give me a call if you want to talk about any of this. 
Regards 



Section 



40 



DAS -FOI 



Original Message 

From: david clarke [mailto 
Sent: 23 February 2006 20:0T 



Section 40 



To: 








Sub; 


'ec t : — Rei — 


FOI Request 



Dear 



Sectior 



Ho 



Further to our telecon earlier today regarding the release of the UAP 

report, here is a short list of questions for the attention of the DIS people at your 
forthcoming meeting. I mentioned some of these during our conversation. 

I've also attached a list of questions (attachment B) that may be helpful 
both for yourself and DPO when drawing up a Press briefing for future use when the 
report becomes public knowledge. I have had some experience dealing with the media on 
the subject of UFOs and these are just some of the questions I believe they will ask. 

Questions for DIS on behalf of Dr David Clarke: 



1. Would it be possible to correspond with and/or interview the author of 

the report? The report is an important and historically important document and from 



1 



»my point of view as a historian it is important to record aspects of its production 
for posterity. While I am aware of the sensitivity of 

the|^prk of the DIS, I would point out that I have traced an interviewed 
a rSBroer of other former DIS employees who have been involved in UFO work on the 
understanding that my questions do not touch upon areas related to national security. 
I have undertaken to protect their identity and 

my work is for research purposes only, and will not be published without 
permission. The author of the UAP report is clearly someone with a long-standing 
knowledge of this subject dating back to the 1950s, who has an RAF background and has 
acted as an advisor on aspects of the topic for MoD for some time. When the report is 
in the public domain, there is little doubt that he will be traced by the media. 
Therefore would it not be better to have him speak to a sympathetic academic rather 
than door-stepped by a journalist? As I understand he may no longer work for MoD would 
it be possible to forward a letter to him on my behalf? 

2. Could we clear up the ambiguity surrounding the status of the 21 DI55 

UFO files (see Attachment A) . It is my understanding that a large proportion of these 
files (Pts 36-51, covering years 1987-1997) were utilised by the author of the report 
as a statistic sample in the UAP database. Your letter of 23 November 2005 suggests it 
is like these files "are amongst the DIS files which are now subject to asbestos 
contamination." However, as some of these files (those relating to policy) were later 
found to have escaped contamination, could DIS make another check so we can be certain 
as to the status of these outstanding files. 

3. Could we also establish the status of the UAP database. In what form 

did it exist (i.e. as a computer programme?) and has it definitely been destroyed? If 
so, why? Was it destroyed for any particular reason? 

4. A question I feel the Press will certainly ask (see Attachment B) is 

how much in the way of public funds were spent on the production of this report. If 
precise figures have not been kept (as the report was part of a larger contract) is it 
possible to estimate how has been spent, based upon similar projects undertaken by 
MoD? 

5. Who has had sight of this report in terms of senior officials and/or 
ministers at the Ministry of Defence? 

That's all and thanks for fielding these questions on my behalf. I hope 

the meeting goes well and there are no major obstacles remaining in the process of 

release. I look forward to hearing from you in due course, 

Yours sincerely, 



Dr David Clarke 



2 



Attachment A: 

DI55 UFO files 

DI/DI55/108/15/1 Pt9 
DI/DI55/108/15/1 Pt 32 
DI/DI55/108/15/1 Pt 34 
DI/DI55/108/15/1 Pt35 
DI/DI55/108/15/1 Pt 36A 
DI/DI55/108/15/1 Pt36B 
DI/DI55/108/15/1 Pt 37 
DI/DI55/108/15/1 Pt 38 
DI/DI55/108/15/1 Pt39 
DI/DI55/108/15/1 Pt40 
DI/DI55/108/15/1 Pt41 
DI/DI55/108/15/1 Pt42 
DI/DI55/108/15/1 Pt43 
DI/DI55/108/15/1 Pt44 
DI/DI55/108/15/1 Pt45 
DI/DI55/108/15/1 Pt46 
DI/DI55/108/15/1 Pt47 
DI/DI55/108/15/1 Pt48 
DI/DI55/108/15/1 Pt49 
DI/DI55/108/15/1 Pt50 
DI/DI55/108/15/1 Pt 51 



UFO Incident Reports 
UFO Incident Reports 
UFO Incident Reports 
UFO Incident Reports 
UFO Incident Reports 
UFO Incident Reports 
UFO Incident Reports 
UFO Incident Reports 
UFO Incident Reports 
UFO Incident Reports 
UFO Incident Reports 
UFO Incident Reports 
UFO Incident Reports 
UFO Incident Reports 
UFO Incident Reports 
UFO Incident Reports 
UFO Incident Reports 
UFO Incident Reports 
UFO Incident Reports 
UFO Incident Reports 
UFO Incident Reports 



period not known 
Feb 1978- Jan 1983 
June 1983-Mar 1985 
April 1985-Dec 1986 
Dec 1986-Nov 1987 
Nov 1987-July 1988 
Aug 1988-July 1989 
July-Dec 1989 
Jan 1990- June 1991 
June 1991 -Jan 1992 
Feb 1992- April 1993 
April-Oct 1993 
Oct 1993- Jan 1994 
Jan-May 1994 
June-Nov 1994 
Nov 1994-May 1995 
June 1995- Jan 1996 
Feb- July 1996 
Aug-Oct 1996 
Nov 1996-Dec 1997 
Jan 1997-2002 



Attachment B 

UAP Report: Possible questions from the media 

1) How much did it cost the taxpayer? 

2) What are the conclusions/does it say we are being visited by ET and if not how can 
you be sure? 

3) Why was this report written - was it to investigate if aliens were 
visiting us? 

4) When was this study done and why was it kept secret? 

5) Why are the MoD secretly studying UFOs when you have said on many occasions 
you are not interested in the subject/it is not taken seriously, etc 

6) Why is the MoD releasing this report now - what's led to the decision? 

7) Who wrote this report and what is his/her background? Can we interview 
him/her? 

8) Is the person who wrote this report the MoD's "UFO expert"? Why was he/her 
chosen to write it? 

9) Does this mean the MoD is no longer interested in UFOs? Who do people ring 
now if they want to report seeing something in the sky? (this requires an 
explanation of differing responsibilites of DIS and DAS) 

10) What does this tell us about the Rendlesham incident? 

11) Does the report contain information about (famous UFO incident)? 

12) What about 9/11? Shouldn't the MoD be taking all reports of unidentified 
objects seriously given the ongoing terrorist threat? Isn't this the wrong time to take 
your eye off the ball? 

13) Which high ranking MoD or Government minsters have read this report, and/or to 
whom was the report circulated? 

14) Was it sent to any foreign Governments (i.e. the Americans) for advice? Have 
you discussed the conclusions with the Americans? 



15) Is B Hware of this report, and if so did he have any input into it? 



Section 40 



From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 



21 February 2006 16:38 



^FOfRequest 



As discussed. 



Original Message 

From: david clarke [mailto 
Sent^2]^ebruary 2006 16 : TO 

Subject: Re: FOI Request 



Section 40 



Dear 



Section 40 



Thanks for your email dated 20 February and for providing an update on progress with 
my Freedom of Information request. I'm pleased to hear substantial progress is now 
expected and I hope it will be possible to obtain a copy of the full report by the 
middle of March as you predict . 



I have a number of questions related to the release which you might usefully be able 
to answer seeing as you are due to meet representatives from the DIS next Tuesday. For 
instance, I wondered if it is possible for DIS to confirm that the UFO files used to 
draw the database are indeed among those contaminated by asbestos. If it's convenient 
to speak on the phone before then could you suggest a time I could call you. 

In the meantime, thanks again for all the work you have put into processing this 
substantial response to my request. 



Yours , 



David Clarke 



1 



Page 1 of 1 



Section 40 






Fro^n 


Section 40 




V £ 



Sent: 31 May 2006 t5:24 

to: gHgysuKuil 

Subject: F>W: UAP Report 



Section 40 



Section 40 



From: 

Se nt: 20 Febro, 



2QQ6 14:42 



Subject: UAP Report 



Section 



As discussed Wg Cdr| 



Section 40 



(DCT&UKOps-Airspace Integrity) has asked for the following to be redacted from 



Volume 3 of the UAP report. 



Page 2 Para 5 Remove the first line. 

Para 6 Remove the whole paragraph. 

Para 7 Remove the whole paragraph 

Para 8 Remove the whole paragraph 

Page 3 Para 7 Remove the last sentence 

Page 6 Para 24 Remove the whole paragraph 

Page 8 Para 27 Horizon Geometry Remove the whole paragraph 

Page 9 Para 28 Remove paragraph to line nine special tasks. 

Pages 10-11 Remove the whole page. 

Pages 13-17 Remove the whole page 

Page 14 Remove the whole page. 



With regard to Volume 2 - Working Paper 9 (low flying charts) my colleagues in Low Flying have confirmed that these 
are ok to release, all this information is already in the public domain. 

With regard to Volume 2 - Page F-4 the reference to the Rendlesham Forest incident, I think that ufologists might get a 
bit excited because it has been alleged that there were above average levels of radiation in the Forest, but I see no good 
reason to redact this. 




31/05/2006 



Dear Dr Clarke 

Further to my message of 27 January, I am writing to provide an update on progress with yo 
Freedom of Information request. Most of the sensitivity issues have now been resolved and I 
have a meeting scheduled with DIS staff for the 28 th February to finalise the records for 
release. The records will then be redacted to remove any withheld information, photocopied 
and sent to you. Given the number of individual documents to be processed we estimate that 
you should have this information by mid March. Should there be any problems or further 
delays I will let you know. In the meantime, your patience is greatly appreciated. 

With regard to the question you raised in your e-mail of 26 January regarding the cost of 
producing this report, I can inform you that DIS have searched all their available records and 
have been unable to locate any such details. 

I hope this is helpful. 




Ministry of Defence 

Directorate of Air Staff - Freedom of Information 

5th Floor, Zone H, Desk 13 

Main Building 

Whitehall 

LONDON 

SW1A2HB 

e-mail:das-uf o-office@mod.uk 



20 February 2006 



Section 40 



From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 
Importance: 



27January200^5|ai 
Internet-authorised: FOI Request 
High 



Dear Dr Clarke 

Consideration of the UAP Report papers is currently ongoing and it appears that our 
initial estimate of the end of January release might have been a little optimistic. 
However, we are keen to release as much of the report as possible and there are now 
just a few issues concerning the sensitivity of certain sections of the Report still 
to be determined. Once this is complete and any withhe ld information is removed, 
copies will be made and sent to yourself and j^^5BSiE51^B 1 am unable to be certain as 
to exactly when this will be, but as soon as L T^have any firm news, I will let you 
know. 

With regard to your request for information about the costs involved in the production 
of the Report, this information is not held on DAS files, so I have passed your 
enquiry to the DIS staff. I will write to you again regarding this matter. 



Yours sincerely. 




Ministry of Defence 
Directorate of Air Staff - Freedom of Information 



27 January 2006 

-Original Message- 



david clarke [mailto 
12 :59 s 



From 
Sen 
To 

Sub j ect : Re : FOI Request 
Importance : High 



Dear 



Section 40 



A belated happy New Year to you. 

I am writing to follow up our pre-holiday conversation with regards to my FOI request 
for the UAP Report. In your last email dated 20 December you mentioned that "we should 
be in a position to release the information by the end of January. " 



I wonder if that remains the position and if you could provide an update on progress. 

Also, would it be possible for you to provide me with an estimate of cost involved in 
the production of this report during the period 1998-2000 as it clearly involved a 
considerable amount of work. I gather from the documents already released that it was 
paid for via an ongoing, unrelated contract within DIS. However, I'm sure one of the 
questions that will inevitably be asked is "how much did it cost?" Is it possible to 
provide an estimate? 



Yours sincerely, 
David Clarke 



1 



Dear Dr Clarke 

Thank you for the Christmas card. 

As promised I am writing before the Christmas break to provide you with an update on 
progress with your FOI request for the UAP Report. 

DIS staff have now examined Volumes 1 , 2 and 3, and the Executive Summary, from a 
Security / technical perspective and the DIS FOI focal point is now checking the information 
from an FOI perspective. We hope this task will be completed in early to mid January 2006 
and we should be in a position to release the information by the end of January. Although it 
was first thought that it may be possible to release the Executive Summary ahead of the full 
report, it has now been decided to look at all the papers together and have just one release. 
Early indications are that most of these documents are likely to be released. 

I apologise for the length of time this is taking, but we are keen to release as much of the 
report as possible and great care needs to be taken to consider each document. I will, of 
course, contact you as soon as I know anything more definite about when and how this 
information will be released. In the meantime, if you have any questions, please e-mail me or 
give me a call. 

With best wishes for a happy Christmas. 



Section 40 



Ministry of Defence 

Directorate of Air Staff - Freedom of Information 

5th Floor, Zone H, Desk 13 

Main Building 

Whitehall 

LONDON 

SW1A2HB 

e-mail:das-ufo-off ice@mod.uk 




20 December 2005 



Page 1 of 3 



Section 40 



Section 40 



From: 

Sent: 1 6 December 2005 1 1 :50 
To: 
Cc: 

Subject: RE: FOI Request - Dr David Clarke 




Section 40 



DearjSlEiESI 

Thank you for your email. 



believe 



48een in touch with you about the first point. 



I am very happy for you to continue to correspond with Dr Clarke as DAS are the policy lead and you have 
established a relationship already. It's best that he has one POC in MOD! 



On the redaction points,^35lhf^ already checked the first two volumes from a security /techn ical perspective, 
and has agreed to redact Vol 3 which does need some technical data redacted JcEfSHBTv /i ! i tie checking them 
from an FOI perspective. For example, we have seen some references to other nations, which might need 
redacting. We hope to have completed this task by early January. 



As it will be a one-off publication, creating a new class under the publication scheme may be unnecessary. 
Instead of placing the reports on the MOD'S publication scheme, we could place them in the MOD'S FOI 
Reading Room which is available at the www.mod.uk website. Info-Access views would be welcome. 



I am happy to host a meeting here in early January once we have done the work| 
come of course. Please ring me if you have any other points. 

Have a good (UFO-free) Christmas! 



|iQi$l4@w elcome to 



Section 40 



DI BCR CG AD 



Section 40 



Section 40 



From J 

Sent: 15 December 2005 12:09 
To: I 

Cc: 

Subject: RE: FOI Request - Dr David Clarke 



Section 40 







Dear 



Section 



Thank you for this. I thought BraSiwiKil ^M was your FOI focal poin^ nd hav e copied my e-mails to her, 
so I apologise for sending them to the wrong place. I will deal with fc j r^ffi it future. 



All of the information Dr Clarke has asked for in this request is DIS material and not held by DAS. However, 
Dr Clarke has been corresponding with me about UFOs almost continuously for over 5 years and we have 
released a lot of information to him. In order to stop him starting a similar long chain of correspondence with 
yourselves and so I can keep track of what information he has been given I thought it best that your response 
comes through me rather than directly to him. If you would prefer to correspond directly with him, please let 
me know. Otherwise I believe that you are best placed to decide on what can be released from these 
documents (with the input of any other parties as you see fit) and the use of any exemptions. You would then 
need to redact any information which is to be withheld. As the FOIA is an entitlement to information not 
documents it would be acceptable to provide a digest of releasable information but given the number of 
documents involved it may be more practical to provide copies (redacted where necessary). I would then be 



20/12/2005 



Page 2 of 3 



tffeappy to draft a response to Dr Clarke (and the other applicant who is interested in these papers) which of 
^^ourse I will clear with you. I will give some thought to press lines, although until we know exactly what will be 
released (or withheld) I will not know what to cover. Maybe we can discuss this immediately prior to the 
release of the information. I think at the very least we should inform both our heads of branch and DG Info- 
AccessAD about the release. We do not get many PQsonUFOs these days, but it may be worth informing 
US of S just in case. I will discuss this with my AD,^M^WJ5M In the meantime, I will send the two 
applicants a holding letter. 

EbpuJ® over to me the Executive SummarWth e orig inal) to the UAP report, plus a copy about two weeks 
agg I will arrang e to get th e original back to !5BBH8li 

I see you plan for|5!5ltor?dKpk the report and decide on any use of exemptions^ ^poke toE3S v'erstejray 
(before I got your e-mail) and he said it had all been handed over to you and {SBBB f^r action as he did not 
have time to deal with it. I got the impression he did not think this was anything to do with him now, but maybe 
I misunderstood this. 

With regard to publishing this information after release, the best place for this is the MOD FOI Publication 
Scheme. As you probably know, all new classes of information require the permission of the Information 
Commissioner so we will have to speak to Info-Access about this. When I released the Rendlesham Forest 
papers into the PS there were a few technical problems because of its size (175 pages). I understand your 
report is over 300 pages so depending on how much is released there could be some difficulties. Scanned 
information also has to be in a certain form (PDF I believe). I have a contact in Info-Access who deals with 
the Publication Scheme so I will have a chat with them. 

I think a meeting in the new year when you have a clearer idea of what is (and is not) to be released, would 
be a good idea. I am back in office on 3 January and could book a meeting room in MB if that suits you. 

Please give me a call if you need to chat about any of this. 

Regards 



SectiorB 



DAS-FOI 



From: 

Sent: 14 December 2005 16:21 
To:| 



Section 40 



Cc:| 

Subject: FW: FOI Request - Dr David Clarke 



Dear ^22: 

Hftajild 4t}ave now had an opportunity to discuss this request. May I suggest that future requests for 
informatio n under the FO I Act would probably be best directe d through the DIS FOI Focal Point which at the 
moment is EcESflTSliEill Dl BCR CG3, rather than directly to [gf-%H51i 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^m 

I think we will probably be able to release most of the material in the reports to the respondent. However, 
redacting them and preparing them for publication will take time and will not be possible within 20 working 
days or within the £600 limit. We therefore plan to do this over the Christmas period and hope to have 
something ready by the end of January. 

In addition, as you acknowledge in your minute, this report is likely to receive substantial press coverage, and 
we need to plan more carefully how it will be handled. We (all) need to be thinking of press lines. Should we 
consider advising Ministers and senior staff? 



The plan at the moment is for 5ra*S i::i odMtet the reports and let me have his views on exemptions. The 
redacted versions will then need to be scanned in so that they are readily available in soft copy if we are to 
put them on the MOD website. 

I would be grateful for your views on the division of labour as DAS lead on UFOs but we are the experts with 
the information. Perhaps a meeting in the New Year to discuss the way ahead would be useful. 



Section 40 



PI BCR CG AD 




20/12/2005 



Dear Dr Clarke 

Further to my e-mail yesterday, I have now received advice from 




transfer of UFO related files to The National Archives. 

AIR 20/12966 was transferred to TNA in October and this was the only UFO file transferred. 
At present there are no further scheduled collections, and the MOD is not expecting any 
further transfers before Christmas. 

With regard to the traditional big new year releases at TNA, I understand that following the 
implementation of the FOI Act records are now released throughout the year, following 
transfer from Government departments and TNA preparation. There may, however, be some 
new year releases because some government departments such as the Cabinet Office and 
No.10, normally only transfer their records to TNA during the last few months of the year. 

I hope this is helpful. 

Yours sincerely, 



Section 40 



Directorate of Air Staff - Freedom of Information 



24 ,n November 2005 



Section 40 



From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 





Section 40 





24 November 2005 08:58 

RE : F r eedo m of Information requests 



AIR20/12966 was the only UFO file transferred in Oct (that I can identify) 



It is my understanding that there are no big new releases - although I suspect that 
some Cabinet Office and No 10 files which are normally only transferred during the 
last few months of the preceding year might received a splash. 



Section 



40 

_riainal Messaae- 

From: 

Sent: ' 24 November 2005 08:25 
To: 

?'reeaom of Information requests 




Thanks. Was this the only UFO file collected in October? 

Does this mean that pieces are now opened throughout the year following transfer and 
TNA preparation and there is no big new year releases anymore? . 



From: 
Sent: 
To: 



-Original Message- 



November 



07:41 



Sub J ect : RE : Freedom of Information requests 



Section 40 



AIR 20/12966 was transferred in October. 

I'm not anticipating another pick-up before Christmas, therefore no further "UFO" 
transfers . 



In any case with FOI the "new year" release arrangement has effectively lapsed! 

ol 



-Original Message- 





ection 40 




23 November 2005 '. 



To:[aWJIMLlUII 

Subject-: — FW-^Freedom of Information requests 
Importance : High 



Section 



&0 



Please see the final two paragraphs of Dr Clarke's latest e-mail. I would be grateful 
for your advice. 



Section 



[ 



DAS- FOI 



Original Message 

From: david clarke [mailto 



Section 40 



1 



Sent :23November2005 15:08 

d^Becti Re: Freedom of Information requests 
Importance : High 



23 November 2005 
Dear BBSnSRl 



Thank you for your informative email received today and attached letter. 
I do indeed appreciate your efforts 

to take this matter forward since my communication of 29 October. 



I understand that it might be awhile before it is possible to release the 
full 317 pages/3 volumes of the DIS 

report, but I'm pleased that a decision has been taken to release it in 
as full as form as possible. 

In the meantime I would hope and expect, as you suggest, that the 20 -page 
Executive Summary could be 

released ahead of the full report. Is it possible to provide some 
estimate as to when this summary might be 

available? I would like to discuss this in further detail and wonder if 
you have a direct line where you could 
be reached later this week. 

Finally, I noticed that a file under the newly-raised ref number AIR 
20/12966 has appeared on the TNA 

catalogue during the last week. On checking the full details it appears 
this file is the former MoD reference 

Hd S4(Air)BF82 - UFOs: Parliamentary interest 1978-79 relating to the 
House of Lords debate that was 

the subject of one of my requests to you earlier this year. 

Are you aware of any other UFO-related files, from this period which have 
been collected by TNA since I 

last inquired about this matter during the summer? I understand that a 
period of 50 days elapses before 

files collected are opened at Kew, but I wondered if you are aware of any 
groups of UFO-related files that 

are likely to be opened by TNA to coincide with the traditional 1 January 
date next year. 



Thanks once again, 
Dr David Clarke 



2 



Page 3 of 3 



From: 

Se nt: 24 November 2005 1 2:52 
To: bM«W«liEKM M 

Subject: FWTFdl Request - Dr David Clarke 
Importance: High 



ft 



Can we have a chat about this. 
jjn 40 



Section 40 



From] 

Sent: 22 November 2005 15:29 
To:| 

Cc:[ 

Subject: FOI Request - Dr David Clarke 
Importance: High 



Section 40 







Secti 


jn 40 







Please see attached. 
bEBUfili 

DAS-FOI 
5-H-13 



Section 40 



20/12/2005 



Section 40 



From~ 

Sent: 
To: 

Subject: 
Importance: 



Section 40 



23 November 2005 16:53 
'david clarke' 

Internet-authorised: Freedom of Information requests 



High 




Dear Dr Clarke 

Thank you for your e-mail. 

I hope we will be in a position to release some (if not all) of the Executive Summary 
within the next two weeks. I am sorry I can not be more precise but this is a DIS 
document and only they can decide on release. Unlike the Flying Saucer Working Party 
report which was over 50 years old when released, this document is less than 5 years 
old and some of the information is still potentially sensitive. It must, therefore, be 
given very careful consideration before release. I will keep you informed of any 
progress . 



My direct telephone number is [SisMiMiKlM I This is not the UFO line for the public, 
so I would be grateful if you Tteep this" for your use only. I have a meeting tomorrow 
between 14.30 -15.30, otherwise I am here between 0800-1630. 



Finally, I have forwarded your message concerning files transferred to TNA to j^jHjE 



fytyi advice. I will contact you again regarding these when I have a response. 
Regards 

Directorate of Air Staff - Freedom of Information 
23 November 2005 



23 November 2005 
Dear ^SJ 40 

Thank you for your informative email received today and attached letter. 

I do indeed appreciate your efforts to take this matter forward since my communication 

of 29 October. 

I understand that it might be awhile before it is possible to release the full 317 
pages/3 volumes of the DIS report, but I'm pleased that a decision has been taken to 
release it in as full as form as possible. 

In the meantime I would hope and expect, as you suggest, that the 20-page Executive 
Summary could be released ahead of the full report. Is it possible to provide some 
estimate as to when this summary might be available? I would like to discuss this in 
further detail and wonder if you have a direct line where you could be reached later 
this week. 

Finally, I noticed that a file under the newly-raised ref number AIR 

20/12966 has appeared on the TNA catalogue during the last week. On checking the full 
details it appears this file is the former MoD reference Hd S4(Air)BF82 - UFOs: 
Parliamentary interest 1978-79 relating to the House of Lords debate that was the 
subject of one of my requests to you earlier this year. 

Are you aware of any other UFO-related files from this period which have been 
collected by TNA since I last inquired about this matter during the summer? I 
understand that a period of 50 days elapses before files collected are opened at Kew, 
but I wondered if you are aware of any groups of UFO-related files that are likely to 
be opened by TNA to coincide with the traditional 1 January date next year. 

Thanks once again, 



1 



Dr David Clarke 



LOOSE MINUTE 1 J Jp 1 ' 

D/DAS/64/3/1 1 ^felfB^S 
22 November 2005 



DIST-GM QMS AD 



Copy to: DI BCR CG2 
DAS- Sec AD 



FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST - PR DAVID CLARKE 

1) I am writing concerning Dr Clarke's Freedom of Information request for a copy of the 
report produced by DIS in December 2000 entitled "Unidentified Aerial Phenomena in the UK 
Air Defence Region", Volumes 1, 2 and 3 and the Executive Summary. I have now read the 
Executive Summary which you proposed to release ahead of the Volumes and while I do not 
profess to understand the technical or scientific information, I have the following comments for 
your consideration. 

2) The summary contains references to what can and can not be seen on UK Air Defence 
Radar and discusses the possibility that our airspace could have been penetrated by potentially 
hostile objects. I think we shouldthereforeshow the Summary (and relevant parts of the 
report) to Wing CommandeiS&Ti'MtjEpg^J CT and UK Ops - Airspace Integrity for an 
opinion on how sensitive this is now. I note UKADGE 1 (predecessor to CT&UK Ops) was on 
the original distribution of these documents, so it is possible that they also have a copy on their 
files. 

3) There are references to flight safety aspects and a suggestion that past unexplained RAF 
aircraft fatal accidents could have been caused by the pilot being startled by the sudden 
appearance of an unidentified object immediately ahead of the aircraft. This could be 
interpreted as the MOD questioning the judgement of Boards of Inquiry convened to 
investigate these accidents and suggesting there may have been factors not taken into account. 
The fatal Mull of Kintyre Chinook accident in 1994 in which the pilots were found grossly 
negligent is still topical and DAS continue to receive FOI requests and correspondence from 
those campaigning to clear the pilots names. I believe at one time the possibility of a UFO in 
the area was suggested by some of the campaigners as a possible cause. 

4) The summary also contains reference to plasma formations / technologies and "exotic 
technologies". You may recall when releasing the DIS letter dated 4 December 2000 
(D/DIST/1 1/10) in response to Dr Clarke's earlier request we removed paragraph 3 as not 
relevant to the request. The main concern was that it mentioned that plasma formations have 
potential applications to novel weapons technology which you thought might still be sensitive 
and as it did not directly relate to Dr Clarke's request at the time, it was removed. Dr Clarke 
has asked us to reconsider the withholding of this paragraph and it seems pointless to continue 
to withhold it if we are going to release this information in the Executive Summary. 

5) If you intend to release the Executive Summary in advance of the full (or partial) 
release of the Volumes of the report, care must be taken not to release information in the 



Executive Summary which may be withheld on release of the Volumes. This might be difficult 
to determine before you have read through all of the Volumes, but I suggest if there is a 
possibility that something might be withheld from the Volumes it should be withheld from the 
Executive Summary even if only temporarily. This could be made clear to the applicant and the 
information can always be released later with the Volumes if necessary. 

6) The Executive Summary is currently classified SECRET UK EYES ONLY. Can you 
confirm that there is nothing in the Summary or the Volumes (where referred to in the 
Summary) which warrants this classification and caveat. If there is, these sections should be 
withheld for the same reason that the classification was applied. 

7) I note that this report was originally distributed to a number of other interested branches. As 
the originator it is of course your decision whether it is released, but do you think the copy 
addressees should be consulted about the release of information concerning their areas?. 

8) The release of the final report of the DGSTI Flying Saucer Working Report No. 7 from 1951 
generated a lot of interest with UFO enthusiasts when it was released and I expect that they are 
likely to get even more excited about this report which is far more detailed and less than 

5 years old. Prior to release I think we should have some lines to take / defensive press lines 
ready. 

9) I hope this is helpful. Dr Clarke and the other FOI applicant awaiting these papers, have 
been waiting for these documents for some time, so if possible I would like to get some news 
to them by the end of this week. Please give me a call if you need to discuss further. 



Section 40 



DAS-FOI 
5-H-13 



Section 40 




Section 40 



From: 

Directorate of Air Staff - Freedom of Information 

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE 



5 th Floor, Zone H, Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1A 




Telephone 



e-mail 



(Direct dial) 
(Switchboard) 
(Fax) 

das-uf o-off ice @ mod . lil 



020 7218 2140 
020 7218 9000 



Dr David Clarke 



Section 40 



Your Reference 

Our Reference 
D/D AS/64/3/11 

Date 

23 November 2005 



Dear Dr Clarke 



Thank you for your e-mail dated 29 October. Please accept my apologies for the delay in 
replying and sending you the information you are seeking. Most of this information is not held by 
this branch and I am therefore having to consult others about release, which is taking rather longer 
than I would wish. While I am not yet in a position to give you a full response, I can provide you 
with an update. 

First with regard to your request for copies of the UAP Report, Volumes 1, 2 and 3, and the 
Summary, I have been advised that the study is entitled "Unidentified Aerial Phenomena in the 
UK Air Defence Region" and comprises 4 volumes (including the Executive Summary). These 
consist of the following approximate number of pages (some single sided, some double sided); 
Volume 1 (1 17 pages), Volume 2 (150 pages), Volume 3 (47 pages) and the Executive Summary 
(20 pages). The report examined UFO sighting reports from 1987 to 1997. The report was written 
in December 2000 and the database was destroyed on completion of the report. It is likely that the 
sighting reports which formed the basis of the report are amongst the DIS files which are now 
subject to asbestos contamination. Defence Intelligence Staff are currently considering the release 
of the Report and Executive Summary and have indicated that itJbat they believe they will be able 
to release most of these papers. However, as the report is currently classified SECRET, is less 
than five years old, and taking into account the number of individual papers for consideration this 
may take a while to complete. It might be possible to release the Executive Summary ahead of the 
Volumes and if this is the case, I will write to you again. 

You also requested a copy of DI55/1 08/1 5/22 dated January 1997, D/DI55/108/15 dated 1 1 
December 1996 and D/DI55/108/15 dated 16 November 1993. DIS staff have located copies of 
the first two documents and are currently considering release. They have been unable to locate a 
copy of the third document on their files. 

In your letter of 1 September you asked us to reconsider our decision to delete a) previous security 
classifications and b) paragraph 3 from the DIST's letter of 4 December 2000. 1 should inform 
you that when we receive requests for information or copies of documents which were given 
security classifications when they were created, we first have to consider why the particular 
classification was applied and if it is still appropriate. If the information remains sensitive it is 
likely to be withheld under an exemption of the FOI Act. If not, the document can be downgraded 
to unclassified and the original classification is removed because it is no longer applicable. In this 
instance I can understand why you would be interested in the original security classification and I 



am able to confirm that it was given the classification of SECRET. With regard to the paragraph 
Horn DIST's letter of 4 December 2000 this was removed because it contains potentially 
sensitive information that is not relevant to your request. I have however, asked DIS to revisit this 
paragraph in light of the possible release of the report and I will write to you again regarding this 
matter. 

With regard to your comments concerning how DAS was informed of the DIS decision, I have 
searched our UFO Policy file for the period and there is no document specifically concerning this 
issue. I can therefore only assume that we were informed by telephone. 

You also asked if the DI55 Policy file D/DI55/105/15 Pt 4 contained any documents dated 
between 1981 and 1984 relating to the report received from the USAF at RAF Woodbridge 
concerning the Rendlesham Forest incident. The file runs from 1971 to December 1995 and the 
only relevant document it contains is a poor quality copy of Lt Col Halt's memo which has 
already been released into the public domain. 



With regard to your question conceming^ieexchaneeofcorrespondence between! 




and BBSBBKiB |in August 1983 and tSHflUflllUZll ^comment that she had checked to see 
whether, a file had been retained. I can confirm that I have checked D/DS8/1 0/209 Part F again, 
but it contains no further notes or correspondence about this matter. I should add that it is quite 
possible that ESEfSflffliCill Bdid not formally write to Defence Records but sim ply telephon ed 
them to check whether the file had been retained. Indeed today, I often speak to BwfwiKih o 
check the status of UFO files and these conversations are not always documented. 

Finally, as requested in your e-mail message of 29 October, we asked the former office of Air 
Chief Marshall Sir Anthony Bagnall to forward your letter to him at his home address. We have 
recently received a message that the Air Chief Marshall is grateful for your letter but he has 
nothing further to add to the debate. I do not know whether he will choose to reply to you 
separately. 

I hope this is helpful. I will write to you again as soon as I have anything further to add. 

Yours sincerely, 



Section 40 



Page 1 of 1 



Section 40 



Section 40 



From: 

Sent: 1 7 November 2005 1 3:44 

Subject: RE: FOI Policy - Security Classifications 




Section 40 



Thanks. The only problem is this was Secret UK Eyes Only. The document was originated and held by DIS 
(DAS were not on the original distribution) who downgraded it and authorised its release to Dr Clarke. I have 
sent your e-mail to DIS for advice. 



Sectic 



bo 



DAS-FOI 



From:lsfS!Sn!5iiE!iM 

Se nt: lTNbvember 200 5 11:32 

Subject: RE: FOI Policy - Security Classifications 



Section 



We see no problem with telling the applicant unless there were sensitivities with the original classification (i.e. 
it is UK Eyes only or something similar) If this is not the case then I don't see that being a problem. 

Regards, 



Section 



Section 40 



Info- Acces sPoll 
3/E/11 



Section 40 



From :gg!iu2jjU!U 

Se nt: 17 November 2005 11: 26 

to:^3S3SEH1 I 

Subject: FOI Policy - Security Classifications 
Importance: High 




Do you know if there is any particular policy regarding the removal of security classifications from released 
documents?. We have released some documents which were originally classified SECRET but following a 
FOI request were downgraded by the originating branch to unclassified. On release the original security 
classification was redacted because it no longer applied and was not therefore relevant. The applicant is a 
social historian and has asked if he can be told what the original classification was. 

m 

DAS-FOI 
5-H-13 



Section 40 



17/11/2005 



Page 1 of 1 



Section 40 



From: 



Section 40 



Sent: 1 7 November 2005 1 3:39 
To: 



Section 40 



Subject: FW: FOI Policy - Security Classifications 



SectiorM 



Re para 4 of my draft reply to Dr Clarke, please see my e-mail below and Info-Access advice about telling him 
what the original security classification was on the Dl letter dated 4 December 2000. The only problem seems 
to be that it was UK Eyes Only. Is the UAP Report and Executive Summary also UK Eyes Only? 



Sectior 



FromL 
Se nt: 17 November 20 05 11:32 
Toi bkMMililill 

Subject: RE: FOI Policy - Security Classifications 



Sectior 



We see no problem with telling the applicant unless there were sensitivities with the original classification (i. 
it is UK Eyes only or something similar) If this is not the case then I don't see that being a problem. 



Regards, 



40 



I nfo-Acce ssPoM 
IB 6/E/ l 



Section 40 



From a 

Se nt: 17 November 2005 11 :26 

To:la£!SnSRE?i1^^^^H 

Subject: FOI Policy - Security Classifications 
Importance: High 



Section 4 



Do you know if there is any particular policy regarding the removal of security classifications from released 
documents?. We have released some documents which were originally classified SECRET but following a 
FOI request were downgraded by the originating branch to unclassified. On release the original security 
classification was redacted because it no longer applied and was not therefore relevant. The applicant is a 
social historian and has asked if he can be told what the original classification was. 

|40 



DAS-FOI 
R-H-13 



Section 40 



17/11/2005 



Page 1 of 1 



Section 40 



Section 40 



Section 40 



From: 

Sent: 14 November 2005 1 5:01 

To: 

Subject: FW: FOI & UFOs 




Section jj 



Oops! It must of scrambled my brains typing this. Here it is. 



Section 40 



From : kftwIMifcliH 

Se nt: 14Nbvember 200 5 14:58 

To:(sg5ii5GE9^M 

Subject: RETFdl & UFOs 



Nothing attached unless the aliens ate it. 

tol 



Section 



Fromd 

Se nt: 14 November 2005 14:50 

To:(s£fSfflS1iE?S1H 

Subject: FOITS^UFOs 



Please see attached an interim reply to Dr Clarke's FOI requests. I would be grateful for any comments you 
may have before I send it to him. 

Regards 



Sectior 


i 40 







5-H-13 



Section 40 



14/11/2005 



DRAFT 



Dear Dr Clarke 

Thank you for your e-mail dated 29 th October. Please accept my apologies for 
the delay in sending you the information you are seeking. Most of this 
information is not held by this branch and I am therefore having to consult 
others about release, which is taking rather longer than I would wish. While I 
am not yet in a position to give you a full response, I can provide you with an 
update. 

First with regard to your request for copies of the UAP Report, Volumes 1 , 2 
and 3, and the Summary. I have been advised that the study comprises 4 
volumes (including the Executive Summary). These consist of the following 
approximate number of pages (some single sided, some double sided); 
Volume 1 (1 17 pages), Volume 2 (150 pages), Volume 3 (47 pages) and the 
Executive Summary (20 pages). The report examined UFO sighting reports 
from 1987 to 1997. The database was destroyed after the report was written, 
so it is not possible to say what fields it contained for UAP entries. It is likely 
that the sighting reports which formed the basis of the report are amongst the 
DIS files which are now subject to asbestos contamination. Defence 
Intelligence Staff are currently considering the release of the Report and 
Executive Summary and have indicated that it is likely that they will be able to 
release most of these papers. Given the number of individual papers for 
consideration this may take a while to complete, but we are hopeful that it 
might be possible to release the Executive Summary ahead of the Volumes, 
maybe as early as this week. I will, of course, keep you informed of any 
progress. 

You also requested a copy of DI55/1 08/1 5/22 dated January 1997, 
D/DI55/1 08/1 5 dated 11 December 1996 and D/DI55/1 08/1 5 dated 
16 November 1993. DIS staff have located copies of the first two documents 
and are currently considering release. They have been unable to locate a 
copy of the third document on their files. 

In your letter of 1 September you asked us to reconsider our decision to 
delete a) previous security classifications and b) paragraph 3 from the DIST's 
letter of 4 December 2000. 1 should inform you that when we receive requests 
for information or copies of documents which were given security 
classifications when they were created, we first have to consider why the 
particular classification was applied and if it is still appropriate. If the 
information remains sensitive it is likely to be withheld under an exemption of 
the FOI Act. If not, the document can be downgraded to unclassified and the 
original classification is removed because it is no longer applicable. In this 
instance I can understand why you would be interested in the original security 
classification and I am able to confirm that it was given the classification of 
SECRET UK EYES ONLY. With regard to the paragraph 3 from DIST's letter 
of 4 December 2000 this was removed because it contains potentially 
sensitive information that is not relevant to your request. I have however, 



asked DIS to revisit this paragraph and will write to you again regarding this 
matter. 



With regard to your comments concerning how DAS was informed of the DIS 
decision, I have searched our UFO Policy file of the period and there is no 
document specifically concerning this issue. I can therefore only assume that 
we were informed by telephone. 

You also asked if the DI55 Policy file D/DI55/1 05/1 5 Pt 4 contained any 
documents dated between 1981 and 1984 relating to the report received from 
the USAF at RAF Woodbridge concerning the Rendlesham Forest incident. 
The file runs from 1971 to December 1995 and the only relevant document it 
contains is a poor quality copy of Lt Col Halt's memo which has already been 
released into the public domain. 



With reg ard to 
between 



Section 40 



our question concerning the exchange of correspondence 



and 



Section 40 



I in August 1 983 and 



SectionH 



Icomment that she had checked to see whether, a file had been 
retained. I can confirm that I have checked D/DS8/1 0/209 Part F again, but it 
contains no further notes or correspondence about this matter. I should add 



that it is quite possible that 



Section 40 



| did not formally write to Defence 



Records but simply telephoned them to check wheth er the file had been 
retained. Indeed today, I often speak to EBSBBEil lto check the status of 
UFO files and these conversations are not always documented. 



Finally, as requested in your e-mail message of 29 October, we asked the 
former office of Air Chief Marshall Sir Anthony Bagnall to forward your letter to 
him at his home address. We have recently received a message that the 
Air Chief Marshall is grateful for your letter but he has nothing further to add to 
the debate. 

I hope this is helpful. I will write to you again as soon as I have anything 
further to add. 



Yours sincerely, 



Page 1 of 1 



Section 40 



Section 40 



From: 

Sent: 08 November 2005 1 1 :27 

to: ^S23Qi^^| 

Subject: RE: FOI & Dr Clarke 



rains 

Page Count 

The 4 volume report has the following approx page count (numbers refer to physical sheets of paper some 

are double sided some are single sided) 

Exec Summary 20 pages 

Vol 1 117 

Vol 2 150 

Vol 47 



Total 334 



These were written with release in mind are restricted, apart from Vol 3 which is secret because it contains 
performance values of UK ADR radars. It is my intention to put this report into the release scheme, so I think 
we can promise release of most it. The report examined sighting reports from 1987 to 1997; these were input 
into a relational database. Before you ask the database was destroyed after the report was written and the 
sighting reports which formed the basis have probably been released via the PRO, but you need to check. 

The result from the examination of the sighting reports was that there was no longer a requirement for DI55 to 
monitor UAP reports as they do not demonstrably provide information useful to defence Intelligence. I 
understand Hd Sec (AS) was advised and we stopped getting the reports. 



Section 40 



ection 40 



From:E3 

Se nt: 03 November 2005 12:09 

Subject: FOI & Dr Clarke 
Importance: High 



Sorry, its time to tackle Dr Clarke's FOI request ( I now have a further hastening e-mail from him). 

I have got a bit lost as to where we are with his requests / questions so to recap I have written the attached 
notes. I would be grateful if you could address asap the areas where I have indicated something for your 
action. 

If you wish to discuss any issues regarding the potential release of any of this information, please give me a 
call. I am happy to arrange a meeting room if you would rather come over and go through anything with me. 



Regards 



Section 40 



DAS-FOI 
5-H-13 



Section 40 



08/11/2005 



Section 40 



From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 



Section 40 



07 November 2005 10:34 




FW: Freedom of Information request 



We'll need to say in response to Clarke that we have passed the letter ACM Bagnall. 
He is grateful for the letter but he has nothing further to say on the subject ...or 
something along those lines. 



Section 



From: EgRBKI 


551 




Sqn Ldr 


Sen 
To: 






05 10:19 


Section 40 





Subject : FWl Freedom of Information request 

sHSM40 

To close the loop on this one 
Many thanks 



Section 40 



Squadron Leader 
DCRS PA4 
F12 z 



Section 40 



Section 40 



tel: 
fax: 



Section 40 



Original Message 

From: ajc b [mailto| 
Sent^O^November 2005 09:48 
To : BBSnBBKiB |sqn Ldr 

Subnect: RE: Freedom of Information request 



shanks . I do not intend to get involved in the Clarke correspondence. The 
line should be that I am aware that he has written but I have nothing to add to the 
debate. Thanks again ajcb 



jction 40 



Section 40 



Sqn Ldr 



Section 40 



7 Nov 2005 09:32:16 



>From: 

>To : " ajc b" 

>Subject: Freeao m or m tormation request Date: Mon, 
>-0000 
> 

>Sir, 
> 

>I believe the email below gives the definitive wrt David Clarke's 
>request, it is up to you whether you wish to respond with a personal 
>perspective, you are under no obligation to do so. Please let me know 
>if there is anything else you wish me to do for you on this. 
> 

>Dates as requested: Chile: 4-9 Apr, Turkey 19-22 Apr 
> 

>Hope this helps 



Section 40 



> Squadron Leader 



1 



oDCRS PA4 
>MB Z 

w 



K D 37 



>f ax: 
> 

> 



Section 40 



>Sen t: 07 November 2005 09:13 
>To : I SgfgnSBBil^B Sqn Ldr 

>Cc: 

> Subje ct:" ~RE : ' f reedom of Information request 



Section 



>I spoke to 



Sectior 



|4fiw 1 Nov about this. I do not believe this should be 
>treated as an FOI request, and I see no need to involve the current 
>ACAS. David Clarke has had all the papers from the MoD that relate to 
>the matter, and he is now seeking to get a personal perspective from 
>the then ACAS. David Clarke often uses this technique as part °^^^s^ 
>research. Given that ACM Bagnall has retired, I left it with EfSSPSfiETi 
>that all we were obliged to do was pass the letter on to Sir Anthony . 
>It is entirely for him if he chooses to reply. If he wants to we would 
>be happy to assist in preparing some background material for him. All 
>I want to be able to do is advise David Clarke that we have passed the 
>letter on. 
> 

>I hope this clarifies our approach. 
> 

>Regards , 



Section 40 



>DAS 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 



- AD ( Secretariat ) 



J Sqn Ldr 
ar 2005 08:51 



Imm I'Hi.wiH.'l'l^ I 1 1 Ldr 

>Subnect: FW: Freedom of Information request 



Section 40 



>I would be grateful for some advice on the attached email trail wrt 
>this FOI, as stated below I believe from my understanding of the rules 
>that this should be answered by the present incumbent of the post? 
> 

>I have spoken to Sir Anthony who has not previously seen anything on 

>this matter 

> 

>Many thanks for your help 



Section 40 



> Squadron Leader 

>DCRS PA4 

>MB F12 Z K D 37 







>f ax: 


Section 40 







> 
> 



>From 
>Sent 
>To 



01 November 2005 14:24 



Section 40 



2 



>Cc 

>Sub^£Ct 



Section 



Section 40 



FW: 



Sqn Ldr 

Freedom of Information request 



>I have passed your request and advice to Sqn LdrBta&USjljwho was MA2 to 

>the former and VCDS and holds his current contact details. Please 
>could you provide advice on the question which she has posed below? 
> 

>Many thanks 
> 



Section 40 



Section 40 



>APS2 VCDS/ 2 nd PTLC; 
>MB05-F-21 

> 

>Assistant Private Secretary 
>Vice Chief of Defence Staff & 
>2nd Permanent under Secretary 
> 

>Mini stry of Defence 
>Tel : 



Section 40 



> 
> 

> 

>From 



Section 40 



Sqn Ldr 



>Sent: 01 November 2005 14:11 



>To: 








> Subject : RE: 


Freedom of Information request 



Section 40 



>Thank you for sight of the information below. Sir Anthony is currently 
>in the US and I have left an email message and also a message for him 
>to contact me on his return. 

> 

>I have looked at the attached letter and spoken to our FOI rep, I 
>thought that it was the current incumbent of a post who should answer 
>any request not someone who was in post a considerable number of years 
>ago, but this may well be my ignorance of the rules. I cannot gauge 
>Sir Anthony's response but I wonder whether it is normal practice to 
>pass on such requests to our senior men when they have departed? Can I 
>ask if you have sought a response from ACAS' office as I know that is 
>something he will ask. 
> 

>I will let you know as soon as I have managed to speak to Sir Anthony 
> 



Section 40 



> Squadron Leader 

>DCRS PA4 

>MB F12 Z K D 37 



nn 40 


Section 40 









>1 

>f ax: 
> 

> 

>Fromd 

>Se nt: 31 October 2005 16:20 
>To :j5HSnBBEill 1 Sqn Ldr 

> Subject: FW: 1 Freedom of Information request 

>Importance: High 

> 



Section 40 



>This is the letter which I mentioned to you earlier - you were going to 
>check whether Sir Anthony had received the original note. I don't have 
>forwarding details, so could I ask you to pass it on? 
> 

>Sir Anthony is under no obligation to answer the request and many of 



3 



othe factual questions raised will have been answered through Dr 
>Cla^e's other numerous requests of the Department. The relevant 
>h<4Bpcan provide any background on the issue if this is required. 

>Thanks 



Section 40 



team 



Section 40 



>APS2 VCDS/2 nd PUS 
>MB05-F-21 

> 

>Assistant Private Secretary 
>Vice Chief of Defence Staff & 
>2nd Permanent under Secretary 
> 

>Mini strv of Defence 
>Tel : 



Section 4C 



section 40 



>From: 

>Sent: 31 October 2005 12:39 
>To: CDS-Registry 

>Subject: FW: Freedom of Information request 

>Importance: High 

> 

>F0R MA/VCDS 



>A member of my team has received an e-mail from a regular 

>correspondent, Dr Clarke - an academic who has taken an interest in the UFO 
phenomenon . 

>Much of the e-mail concerns an F0I request that we are dealing with, 

>but within the e-mail (highlighted) , Dr Clarke asks if we can forward 

>the enclosed letter from him to the former VCDS, ACM Bagnall. There is 

>a suggestion that he wrote earlier but did not receive a reply. I 

>forward the letter to you to decide if you wish to forward on to ACM Bagnall. 

> 

>Happy to discuss if you wish. 



>Regards , 

> 



Section 40 



ion 40 



>DAS-AD ( Secretariat ) 
>MB 05-H-15 87065MB 
> 

> Original Message- 

>From: david clarke [mailtol 
>Sen t: 29 October 2005 11 : 4?— 

>to : 

> Subject: Re: Freedomof Information request 
>Importance: High 
> 

>29 October 2005 
> 

>DeaJ 

> 

>This is a belated reply following up your email of 26 September. Since 
>our last communication I have moved to a new academic post at Sheffield 
>Hallam University which will allow me to specialise and teach in the 
>areas of Open Government and FOI that interest me but have only just 
>begun to catch up on correspondence. 
> 

>I wondered if it would be possible to provide me with an update on 
>progress with a) the outstanding requests from my 2nd FOI request and 
>also progress with b) the new request I made for the DIS report on UAPs 
>made on 26 September; I understand I was due a response on this 
>specific request on 25 October. 



Section 40 



4 



*-In addition I wondered if you could assist me by forwarding the 
>at^«^ied 

>le^^r to Air Chief Marshal Sir Anthony Bagnall who I understand 
>retired recently from the MoD. As you can see the letter is dated 10 
>August and this was the dated I posted it to him c/o the MoD Main 
>Building. I have not heard anything since and wondered if it had indeed 
>reached him. 
> 

>I would be grateful if your department were able to pass this on to ACM 
>Bagnall on my behalf. You will be aware that he was ACAS at the time of 
>the "Cosford incident" and other related UFO incidents in 1993-4 that 
>have been the subject of my recent FOI ' s and I would like to obtain his 
>considered opinion on this subject in hindsight. 
> 

>I hope you are well and look forward to hearing from you, 
> 

>Yours sincerely 
> 

>Dr David Clarke 

> 

> 

> 

> « File: Bagnall.doc » 



MSN Messenger 7.5 is now out. Download it for FREE here, 
http : / /messenger . msn .co.uk 



5 



Page 1 of 1 



Section 40 



Section 40 



From: 

Sent: 07 November 2005 16:27 
To: 




Section 40 



Subject: RE: FOI & Dr Clarke 



I've made start on your questions 
Q1 

a) Do you hold the Executive Summary? YES 

b) Is this a large document? 20 pages 

c) Is it classified? YES secret but could declassified. 



Q2 

All could be declassified for release except part of Vol 3 which gives the performance of UK radars 
Q3 

DI55/108/15/22 January 1997 Got and can be declassified 
D/DI55/108/15 dated 11 December 1996 Got and can be declassified 
D/DI55/108/15 dated 16 November 1993 No copy on my files 

AndQ5 

The database was destroyed once the project ended, only the report remains. 



Had to stop to do some real work. 



Section 


40] 


From 









Sent: 03 November 2005 12:09 

Subjecc^^R^r Clarke 
Importance: High 



Sectio 


i 40 







Sorry, its time to tackle Dr Clarke's FOI request ( I now have a further hastening e-mail from him). 

I have got a bit lost as to where we are with his requests / questions so to recap I have written the attached 
notes. I would be grateful if you could address asap the areas where I have indicated something for your 
action. 



If you wish to discuss any issues regarding the potential release of any of this information, please give me a 
call. I am happy to arrange a meeting room if you would rather come over and go through anything with me. 



Regards 



Section 40 




DAS-FOI 
5-H-13 




Section 40 




I 



08/11/2005 



Page 1 of 1 



* 



Section 40 



Section 40 



From: 
Sent: 
To: 

Subject: FOI & Dr Clarke 
Importance: High 



03 November 2005 12:09 



Section 40 



Sorry, its time to tackle Dr Clarke's FOI request ( I now have a further hastening e-mail from him). 

I have got a bit lost as to where we are with his requests / questions so to recap I have written the attached 
notes. I would be grateful if you could address asap the areas where I have indicated something for your 
action. 



If you wish to discuss any issues regarding the potential release of any of this information, please give me a 
call. I am happy to arrange a meeting room if you would rather come over and go through anything with me. 

Regards 



DAS- FOI 



DAs-FOl 

5-H-13 




Section 40 







04/11/2005 



Pr Clarke's outstanding r equests and questions 



FOI request le tter dated 26 September 2005 

1. A copy of the Executive Summary, Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) - 
DI55 Report, referred to in DIST letter, D/DIST/11/10 dated 4 December 2000. 



Section 



Do you hold the Executive Summary? Is this a large document? Is it 

classified? 

Whether this is released may depend on whether you are willing to release 
Volumes 1-3 of the report. 

2. A copy of Volumes 1, 2 and 3 of the UAP Report referenced in the above letter. 



Sectio 



Have you looked at these to see if they can be released? Have you any 



initial thoughts on release? 

3. A copy of the terms of reference for the UAP Report, referenced in 
DI55/108/15/22 January 1997 as follows: D/DI55/108/15 dated 11 December 1996 
and D/DI55/108/15 dated 16 November 1993. 



Sectio 



you hold these documents? If so, have you looked at them to see if 
they can be released? 

4. With reference to request (2) please could you provide an advance summary of 
the title and table of contents of the three individual volumes. This will enable 
me to narrow my request should it exceed the £600 limit allowed under the 
FOIA. 



Section 



JAbte from your e-mail of 29 September that you do have the contents 
pages and could provide this in advance as Br Clarke requested. However, I 
think these should not be released until you know whether you are going to 
release the three volumes of the Report. It would not be wise to tell him what is 
in the volumes if there is a chance the information will be withheld. If you 
choose to withhold only certain sections, reference to these should also he 
removed from the contents pages (something which would be impossible if he 
had these in advance). 

5. Please could you provide a list of all data fields possible for a UAP entry in the 
project database? 



Section 



pagain this may depend on whether the report, volumes etc are going to be 
released. 



Letter dated 1 September 2005 



6. I wish to request that MOD conduct an internal review of the decision to 
delete a) previous security classifications and b) paragraph 3 from the DIST's 
letter of 4 December 2000. 

rajM- a) Before release this document was downgraded so the security 
classification was removed as it was no longer applicable, but I can see why Dr 
Clarke may be interested in what it originally was. Again whether there Is any 
harm in releasing this may depend on (1) whether the Report is going to be 
released and (2) Do you see any problems with the fact that the letter (and maybe 
the Report ) was classified SECRET UK EYES ONLY. Interestingly I have 
found on my UFO policy file a draft PQ answer which was sent to us by DIS on 
17 January 2001 it reads: 

POSSIBLE ANSWER TO PO03511 

The DIS has applied the classification, of SECRET UK EYES ONLY to a 
recent report on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena {UAP). The DIS has 
received copies of UAP sightings for about 30 years. These were filed 
without analysis. Recently, a low priority study was conducted to 
database the reports and carry out an analysis. The main conclusion was 
that the sightings provided nothing of value to DIS in the assessment of 
weapon systems and that sightings can be explained as misreporting of 
man-made vehicles, natural but not unusual phenomena and natural but 
relatively rare and not completely understood phenomena. A decision has 
been made not to carry out any further work on the subject. The overall 
classification of the report was dictated by the analysis material included 
on the UK Air Defence Ground Environment otherwise it is UK 
RESTRICTED. 



I have been unable to find this particular PQ on the Parliamentary website and 
there is no further reference to it on our files. I therefore do not know whether 
this was given as the final answer, but if so it seems the existence of the Report 
and it's classification is already in the public domain. 

b) Paragraph 3 was removed after a discussion between ourselves as it did not 
seem, relevant to the request and contained potentially sensitive information 

abou t weapons systems. Could you have another look at this and if you still wish 
this to be withheld we may have to look for an appropriate FOi exemption. 

7. 1 noticed that DAS or it's predecessor Sec(AS)2 were not included in the 
distribution of the DIST letter of 4 December 2000. Presumably, DAS will have 
been notified of the decision in a separate document? If that is the case, please 
may I have a copy of that document? 

If'do not have any letters on my Policy file that show DIS wrote to us to 
inform us of this decision (we were DAS 4 A (SEC) at the time). The only 
reference we have to it is a LM to DAO ADGE1 dated 12 January 2001 that 
states ~ Recently we have been informed by DISS that they no longer wish to see 



the very small selection of reports from credible witnesses that we have been 
sending them". Do you have anything on your policy file that shows we were 
told in writing? If not, I can only assume we were told over the telephone. 

8. File D/DI55/108/15 Pt 4 - 1 wish to modify my request to encompass a search 
of the file enclosures between the years 1980 to 1996 for documents relating to 
the Rendlesham Forest UFO incident. I would be particularly interested to see 
any documents dated between 1981 and 1984 relating to the report received from 
the USAF at Woodbridge. This may contain the description "Unexplained 
Lights" or UFO report from RAF Woodbridge" as the case is described in the 
Sec(AS) file released in 2002. 

SERB! I mie from your e-mail of 29 September that you hold three documents 
which mention the Rendlesham Forest incident. The Lt Col Halt memo has 
already been released. The other two papers may not be relevant to the request. 
Between 1980 and the release of our file in 2002 there has been lots of public, 
press and ministerial interest in this case and there is therefore bound to be 
papers dotted throughout our files which mention Rendlesham (I think your two 
papers could fall into this category). 1 do not think this is what Dr Clarke is 
looking for. I think he is seeking contemporary documents (or those produced 
soon after) w hich shed further light on the events and might have been missed 
when our file was released. 



9. Could DIS confirm a) that the chronological dates of enclosures in the DI55 
file cover the years 1971-1996 (these appear on the description of the file you 
supplied in a list attached to a letter dated 2004) and b) the file was not among 
those searched by DAS staff in 2001-2 when MOD assembled the contents of the 
Rendlesham file now available on the Publication Scheme. 

Hi I note from your e-mail of 29 September that this file covers 1971 to 
December 1995. I w ill inform Dr Clarke of this, b) 1 do not think that this file 
was amongst those searched for papers on Rendlesham, but as there appears to 
be hardly any additional papers, I do not think this matters. 

10. With regard to your letter of 21 July 2005 in response to my requests you 

enclosed two copies of letters copied fromfteflle D/DS8/10/209 Pt F 

Presumably, prior to 26 August 1983 § ^exchanged memos with 

D efence Recor ds and received a reply which allowed her to frame her response 
tod55B*l ^^B . This would presumably be filed between enclosures E40 and £58. 
Could you please provide a copy of the relevant papers. 



Section 40 



I have checked the file and there is no such correspondence. ggjgjjSUIj^l 

may well have just telephoned Defence Records. I will inform Dr Clarke. 



Section 40 



From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 
Importance: 



david clarke I 
29 October 2005 11:47 



Section 40 



Re: Freedotn of Information request 
High 




Bagnall.doc (32 KB] 

29 October 2005 
Pear|j»|*f».<l»^m 

This is a belated reply following up your email of 26 September. Since our last 
communication I have moved to a new academic post at Sheffield Hallam University which 
will allow me to specialise and teach in the areas of Open Government and FOI that 
interest me but have only just begun to catch up on correspondence. 

I wondered if it would be possible to provide me with an update on progress with a) 
the outstanding requests from my 2nd FOI request and also progress with b) the new 
request I made for the DIS report on UAPs made on 26 September; I understand I was due 
a response on this specific request on 25 October. 

In addition I wondered if you could assist me by forwarding the attached letter to Air 
Chief Marshal Sir Anthony Bagnall who I understand retired recently from the MoD. As 
you can see the letter is dated 10 August and this was the dated I posted it to him 
c/o the MoD Main Building. I have not heard anything since and wondered if it had 
indeed reached him. 

I would be grateful if your department were able to pass this on to ACM Bagnall on my 
behalf. You will be aware that he was ACAS at the time of the "Cosford incident" and 
other related UFO incidents in 1993-4 that have been the subject of my recent FOI ' s 
and I would like to obtain his considered opinion on this subject in hindsight. 

I hope you are well and look forward to hearing from you, 

Yours sincerely 

Dr David Clarke 



Original Message 

From: 
To: 

Sent f Monday, September 26, 2005 9:00 AM 
Subject: Freedom of Information request 



MSection 40 

ISection 40 



Dear Dr Clarke 



Thank you for your two emails, the first concerning information already 
sent to you and the second a new FOI request. I have just returned from 
leave, so apologise for not replying to your earlier email when it 
arrived. 

I will write to you shortly regarding the points raised in your first 
letter. I have sent the details of your FOI request to the DIS staff as 
the branch responsible for this information and I will let you have an 
update on progress as soon as possible. 



1 



Your sincerely, 



Section 40 



Section 40 







Ministry of Defence 

Directorate of Air Staff - Freedom of Information 

5th Floor, Zone H, Desk 13 

Main Building 

Whitehall 

LONDON 

SW1A 2HB 

e-mail : das-ufo-office@mod.uk 
26 September 2005 



2 




Dr David Clarke 


Section 40 








EHI Section 40 




e-mail: Is^RRfflSEIill 



10 August 2005 

Dear Air Chief Marshal Sir Anthony Bagnall 

I have asked the Ministry of Defence to forward this letter to you as I understand that you 
recently retired as Vice Chief of the Defence Staff. 

I am working on a post-doctoral project at the University of Sheffield which is examining 
the evolution of Ministry of Defence policy towards the subject of unidentified flying 
objects. In particular, I am researching the relationship between media and public interest 
in UFOs and how this was reflected in MoD policy. 

I should point out am not concerned with the existence, or otherwise, of a "real" 
phenomenon (as opposed to misidentifications of known objects) and I am fully aware 
that MoD's interest was restricted to establishing if UFO reports had defence 
implications, i.e. as intruder aircraft. 

The specific question I wish to ask relates to the period in which you served as Assistant 
Chief of Air Staff at MoD, which according to your biography was late 1992 - July 1994. 
This happens to coincide with a time when a number of accounts were published by the 
media, and questions asked by MPs, concerning stealthy triangular-shaped flying objects 
that were said to have been seen, both visually and on radar - and on one occasion 
photographed - near RAF Machrihanish in Scotland. On an earlier occasion a similar 
object, accompanied by a KC-135 and F-l 1 Is, was reportedly sighted from an oil rig in 
the North Sea by a trained ROC observer and reported widely in the media. 

Papers I have obtained under the Freedom of Information Act (FoIA) show these stories 
were also circulating within the MoD secretariat responsible for UFOs and among the Air 
Staff late in 1992 and early 1993. They suggest that AC AS and his opposite number in 
the USA were also concerned by reports in Janes' Defence Weekly and The Scotsman 
newspaper which claimed the sightings might relate to the alleged US "black project" 
aircraft Aurora which some media reports claimed had been operating in UK airspace. On 
several occasions this matter was raised in the House of Commons and the answer given 
was that no permission had been given and no aircraft of this type had visited. 



1 



However, briefing papers prepared for ministers who answered the PQs, suggest the Air 
Staff and DIS were equally "in the dark" concerning the existence, or otherwise, of 
Aurora. One notes that "there is no knowledge in MOD of a black programme of this 
nature, although it would not surprise the relevant desk officers in the Air Staff and DIS 
if it did exist." 

The FoIA papers suggest that enquiries were made by the MoD at a high level in the US 
and the answer came back that no such aircraft existed. One memo from the British Air 
Attache in Washington dated 22 December 1992 addressed to AC AS, London, states "the 
whole affair is causing considerable irritation with HQ US AF and any helpful comments 
we can make to defuse the situation would be appreciated." 

In addition I gather these rumours led the US authorities to seek advice from our own Air 
Attache on whether "the earlier alleged sightings in Scotland could be attributed to the 
[RAF] Vulcan display aircraft" or indeed to a black project of British origin! 

I gather that your answer to both questions was "no." 

The papers released under FoIA indicate this matter came to your attention once again in 
April 1993 when a cluster of reports describing a "triangular-shaped" UFO were made to 
the Air Staff secretariat from a number of places in England and Wales. On this occasion 
it seems that in hindsight the "UFO" which caused so much concern to the desk officer at 
the Air Staff Secretariat was actually a piece of space debris re-entering the earth's 
atmosphere. 

There does not appear to be any definitive resolution to this matter that is clear and 
apparent from the papers that have emerged as the result of my inquiries. Were the 
sightings made around RAF Machrihanish ever accounted for as aircraft or natural 
phenomena, to your knowledge? I would also be interested to know what view you take 
on the subject of Aurora/black projects of US origin being the origin of UFO reports in 
the British Isles during your tour of duty. Is this theory likely in hindsight? 

In addition, I would also be interested to know what your personal viewpoint is on the 
subject of UFO reports received by the MoD during this period. Were you aware of the 
policy on this subject or of the quality and quantity of reports received by the Air Staff 
secretariat? Do you feel the subject should be treated seriously or do you feel this is a 
subject that is of no interest to the defence authorities? 

I look forward to hearing from you and wish you a long and productive retirement. 
Yours Faithfully, 



2 



Section 40 



I npnlngiru I mi HmI putting hark tn ynn nn th jfi~ 




From: BEftHMi 
Se nt: 29 September 20 05 11:44 

SuDjeS^En^5n<equest 



40 



This is quite a big job, but here is some data, 

• File DI55/1 08/1 5 Pt 4 runs from 1 971 to Dec 1 995 

• Rendlesham Forest incident iu t i 

o Poor quality photocopy of 13 Jan 81 Report form Lt Col Halt Deputy Base —M^^y 1/ ^=*W 
■ , commander 'Unexplained Lights'. ?*f% 

i ... V e W^e. — o Briefing Note for Ministerial interview Central TV - This is one of yours »- ^Jas^J^ 
Co', ,r\ D/Sec(AS)/12/3 2 June 1986 - 1 . 

te> f'X) ,- n/Sec(AS)/12/3 26 Sep 85 which is a brief for Lord Trefgarnes meeting with -iMjfy «£ 

iUr iM<Mf im> We^Tord Hill-Norton- with mentions the incident. 

The 3 vol study into our sighting records comprises 35 mm of paper (it's thick). I can get the ftt tc, &c/^]) 
contents pages to you but not electronically. Ps/M<\ (l§ 



From:j 

Se nt: 27 September 2005 14:55 
Subject: RE: FOI Request 



Sectio 



i 40 



Thanks. 



The public have always been more interested in UFO/UAP issues than we in the MOD are. I 
guess it is human nature to be curious about things that are not explained and many like to 
believe in government cover ups and conspiracies. 

Dr Clarke is a social historian who has a degree in Culture and Tradition and is interested in 
the beliefs people have and what influences them to believe the things they do (ie 
media). UFOs is his pet subject and he has been studying the history of the subject and 
MOD'S involvement for about five years now. I think he is fascinated with this database 
because we have always maintained that we only examine sighting reports to see if they 
show any evidence of anything of defence significance and beyond this we do not try 
positively identify what was seen, yet here we were compiling a database and attempting to 
do just that. 



I look forward to seeing what you have in due course. 



Regards 



DAS-FOI 



From: BiA«MiliWl 

Sent: 27 September 2005 13:56 



Page 1 of 2 





Sent: 
To: 

Subject: 



29 September 2005 1 1 :44 



Section 40 




RE: FOI Request 
Follow Up Flag: Follow up 
Flag Status: Red 



Sectionw 



This is quite a big job, but here is some data, 

• File DI55/108/15 Pt 4 runs from 1971 to Dec 1995 

• Rendlesham Forest incident 

o Poor quality photocopy of 1 3 Jan 81 Report form Lt Col Halt Deputy Base commander 
'Unexplained Lights'. 

o Briefing Note for Ministerial interview Central TV - This is one of yours D/Sec(AS)/12/3 2 June 
1986 

o D/Sec(AS)/12/3 26 Sep 85 which is a brief for Lord Trefgarnes meeting with Lord Hill-Norton- 
with mentions the incident. 

The 3 vol study into our sighting records comprises 35 mm of paper (it's thick). I can get the contents pages to 
you but not electronically. 

40] 



From :g£fiUlSUU!j| 

Sentj27Septemter 2005 14:55 

Subject: RE: FOI Request 
sf?Jon 40 

Thanks. 

The public have always been more interested in UFO/UAP issues than we in the MOD are. I guess it is 
human nature to be curious about things that are not explained and many like to believe in government cover 
ups and conspiracies. 

Dr Clarke is a social historian who has a degree in Culture and Tradition and is interested in the beliefs people 
have and what influences them to believe the things they do (ie media). UFOs is his pet subject and he has 
been studying the history of the subject and MOD'S involvement for about five years now. I think he is 
fascinated with this database because we have always maintained that we only examine sighting reports to 
see if they show any evidence of anything of defence significance and beyond this we do not try positively 
identify what was seen, yet here we were compiling a database and attempting to do just that. 

I look forward to seeing what you have in due course. 



Regards 



n 40 



DAS-FOI 



Section 40 



From J 

Se nt: 27 September 20 05 13:56 

Subject: RE: FOI Request 



SectiorH 



Read the enclosures and I'll see what I can get you this week, but I'm only in one day. He is a most 



03/11/2005 



Page 2 of 2 



^Inquisitive; I wonder why a topic such as UAP will so little substance merits the effort. 



Section 40 



Section 40 



From: 

Se nt: 26 September 2005 11:41 

Subject: FOI Request 
Importance: High 



SectionM 



Please see attached a new Freedom of Information request from Dr David Clarke which I received this 
morning. As we predicted he is now interested in documents about the UAP database set up by DIST. As all 
of the documents listed in this request are DIS generated / held, I would be grateful if you would see if DIS still 
hold these documents and if so, can they be released?. For the sake of consistency and to make sure I keep 
an eye on what is being released on this subject, if you do hold this information please could I ask that it is 
released (or refused) through this office rather than direct to Dr Clarke. 

While I was on leave, Dr Clarke also sent me another letter concerning information already sent to him (copy 
attached). Some of this covers information now requested in the above FOI request. However, as you will see 
from paragraph 4 he is also asking us to reconsider our decision to remove original security classifications 
and paragraph 3 from the DIST letter dated 4 December 2000. I propose we say that paragraph 3 is about 
an unrelated DIS issue and not relevant to his request, we will not therefore be releasing it. You may 
however, wish to consider the sensitivities of that paragraph and what FOI exemption might be used to 
withhold it, in case he challenges this. I would be grateful for any comments you may have about this. With 
regard to the original security classifications, these were removed, as they are no longer relevant because the 
documents have been downgraded. Please let me know if you see any difficulty with informing Dr Clarke what 
the original security classifications were. 

In paragraphs 8 and 9 of Dr Clarke's letter he has also clarified what information he wishes to request from 
the DI55 Policy File, D/DI55/108/15 Part 4. You will recall that he originally asked for a copy of the whole file. 
Please could you also let me have your response to this request. 

The 20 day response time under the FOIA will expire on 24 October 2005. Dr Clarke has asked for an 
estimate of the length of time it is likely to take to respond to his requests. I would be grateful if you could let 
me know when you think we should be able to send a reply, particularly if we are likely to exceed the 20 day 
limit. 



Any questions please give me a call on 
Regards 



Section 40 



DAS-F 
5-H-13 
MB 



03/11/2005 



Dear Dr Clarke 

Thank you for your two emails, the first concerning information already sent to you and the 
second a new FOI request. I have just returned from leave, so apologise for not replying to 
your earlier email when it arrived. 

I will write to you shortly regarding the points raised in your first letter. I have sent the details 
of your FOI request to the DIS staff as the branch responsible for this information and I will let 
you have an update on progress as soon as possible. 



Your sincerely, 



Section 40 







Section 40 



Ministry of Defence 

Directorate of Air Staff - Freedom of Information 

5th Floor, Zone H, Desk 13 

Main Building 

Whitehall 

LONDON 

SW1A2HB 

e-mail:das-uf o-office@mod.uk 



26 September 2005 




Tel 



Section 40 



Section 40 



Directorate of Air Staff - FOI 

Ministry of Defence 

5 th Floor, Zone H 

Main Building 

Whitehall 

London SW1A 2HB 



26 September 2005 
FOI Request - IFOs 

Dear 



Sectior 



40 




1 wish to make a request under the Freedom of Information Act as follows. Please 
provide me with paper copies of the following material: 



1 . A copy of the Executive Summary, Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) - DI55 
Report, referred to in DIST letter, D/DIST/1 1/10 dated 4 December 2000 

2. A copy of Volumes 1,2 and 3 of the UAP Report, referenced in the DIST letter (1). 

3. A copy of the terms of reference for the UAP Report, referenced in DI55/108/1 5 22 
January 1997 as follows: D/DI55/108/15 dated 1 1 December 1996 andD/DI55/108/15 
dated 16 November 1993. 



^ With reference to request (2) please could you provide an advance summary of the title 
and table of contents of the three individual volumes. This will enable me to narrow my 
request should it exceed the £600 limit allowed under the FOIA. 

<^ Please could you also provide a list of all data fields possible for a UAP entry in the 
project database? 

I understand these documents may be classified and will need to be downgraded before 
they can be released to me. I would be grateful therefore if you could provide me with an 
estimate of the likely timescale involved in this process. I look forward to hearing from 
you, 



Yours sincerely, 



Section 40 



Section 40 



From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 
Importance: 



Sectior 



david clarke I 
26 September 2005 08:2ti 



edom of Information request 



High 




MoDFOISep05.doc 
(32 KB) 



26 September 2005 



Dear 



Section 4 



Please find attached a fresh FOI request, as referred to in my letter of 
1 September . 

I look forward to hearing from you in due course. 

I have also sent a hard copy version of this request under today's date. 
Yours sincerely 
David Clarke 



1 



Dr David Clarke 



Section 40 



SSection 40 



Section 40 



Directorate of Air Staff - FOI 

Ministry of Defence 

5 th Floor, Zone H 

Main Building 

Whitehall 

London SW1A 2HB 



26 September 2005 
FOI Request - UFOs 
Dear[335E33 



I wish to make a request under the Freedom of Information Act as follows. Please 
provide me with paper copies of the following material: 

1. A copy of the Executive Summary, Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) - DI55 
Report, referred to in DIST letter, D/DIST/1 1/10 dated 4 December 2000 

2. A copy of Volumes 1, 2 and 3 of the UAP Report, referenced in the DIST letter (1). 

3. A copy of the terms of reference for the UAP Report, referenced in DI55/108/15 22 
January 1997 as follows: D/DI55/108/15 dated 11 December 1996 and D/DI55/108/15 
dated 16 November 1993. 



With reference to request (2) please could you provide an advance summary of the title 
and table of contents of the three individual volumes. This will enable me to narrow my 
request should it exceed the £600 limit allowed under the FOIA. 

Please could you also provide a list of all data fields possible for a UAP entry in the 
project database? 

I understand these documents may be classified and will need to be downgraded before 
they can be released to me. I would be grateful therefore if you could provide me with an 
estimate of the likely timescale involved in this process. I look forward to hearing from 
you, 



Yours sincerely, 



* 

* 






Section 40 










From: 





Sent: 
To: 

Subject: 
Importance: 



01 September 



e: Freedom of Information request 
High 



MoDletterSept05.d 
oc (34 KB) 



Dear 



Section 40 



I attach my response to your letter of 23 August 2005 enclosing the outstanding papers 
from my FOI requests . 

Yours sincerely 

Dr David Clarke 



1 



Z^o^-TjocS- izS^i+Z -col 



Dr David Clarke V v 



Section 40 



Tel: 



Section 40 



Section 40 



Directorate of Air Staff - FOIA 

Ministry of Defence 

5 th Floor, Zone H 

Main Building 

Whitehall 

London SW1A 2HB 

1 September 2005 
Your ref:D/D AS/64/3/11 



Dear 



Section 40 



Thank you for letter of 23 August 2005 enclosing the outstanding papers from the 
Freedom of Information request I made on 19 January this year. I found these of great 
interest and I wish to thank you for your patience and detailed attention to all my 
questions and requests for information. 

As I am sure your department are aware, these documents reveal that DIS, between 1998- 
2000, sponsored the production of a database of UFO/UAP material drawn from their 
archive of 22 files dating back to the 70s (presumably being those now subject to 
asbestos contamination). It also produced a detailed report (consisting of three volumes 
with an executive summary), the conclusion of which led to the decision in October 2000 
to bring DI55 interest in reports of "aerial phenomena" to an end. 

The summary and contents of this report are of interest both for the purposes of academic 
study and to the public in general. I intend to write to you again towards the end of 
September and make the DIS report the subject of my next application under the Freedom 
of Information Act. It would be helpful in the construction of my request if you could 
provide advice and guidance as to the page length of the report and summary. 
Specifically, I would be grateful if you could advise whether a request for a copy of the 
full report and summary could be met within the £600 limit imposed by the Act. 

In the meantime, I wish to request that MoD conduct an internal review of the decision to 
delete a) "previous security classifications" and b) paragraph 3 from the DIST's letter of v ( - r £>' f 
4 December 2000. I believe there is a clear public interest in the disclosure of the <? c ^ a ^ 
security classification of this document as a prerequisite to the release of the full report. ^ 
You will be aware that MoD has stated consistently that the topic of UFOs was not in 



> 



J 



itself classified. If that is the case, I can see no valid reason to conceal the security 
classification of this document. 

I noticed that DAS or it's predecessor Sec(AS)2 were not included in the distribution of ^iA 1 
the DIST letter of 4 December 2000. Presumably, DAS will have been notified of the /^%.\»h 
decision in a separate document? If that is the case, please may I have a copy of that 
document? 



With regards to the requests made under my second FOI request dated 17 June 2005: 

Firstly, with reference to my request for a copy of the DI55 Policy file, D/DI55/108/15 Pt 
4. 1 do appreciate the time and costs involved in preparing whole files for release, and the 
costs already incurred in answering the other requests made on 17 June. 

You helpfully suggest that DIST staff would assist if I was looking for something specific 

from this file. Therefore, I would like to modify that request to encompass a search of the 

file enclosures between the years 1980 to 1996 for documents relating to the Rendlesham /yj^^u 

forest UFO incident. I would be particularly interested to see any documents dated ^ H ' 

between 1981 and 1984 relating to the report received from the USAF at Woodbridge. 

These may contain the description "Unexplained Lights" or "UFO report from RAF 

Woodbridge" as the case is described in the Sec(AS) file released in 2002. 

Could DIS confirm a) that the chronological dates of enclosures in the DI 55 file cover 
the years 1971-1996 (these appear on the description of the file you supplied in a list , .* o ^ 

attached to a letter dated 2004) and b) the file was not among those searched by DAS v\ *, ^ 0( £ 
staff in 2001-2 when MoD assembled the contents of the Rendlesham file now available " z% 
on the Publication Scheme. 

Secondly, with regards to my 2 nd FOI requests la &b, covered by your letter of 21 July 
2005. In response to these requests you enclosed copies of two letters copied from the 
file D/DS8/10/209 Pt F - General briefs & reports, UFO correspondence 1983-84, 
namely: 



• E39 a letter from Jenny Randies dated 1 August 1983 requesting a copy of the 
MoD file on the Lakenheath-Bentwaters UFO incident of 1956 



E52 a reply from 



Section 40 



|of DS8 dated 26 August 1983 in which she 
writes: ". . .1 have checked to see whether, by chance, the file relating to that 
period had been retained in spite of the general policy in force at that time. . ." 



Presumably, prior to 26 August 1983 



Section 40 



sxchanged memos with Defence 



Records and received a reply which allowed her to frame her response tol 
This would presumably be filed between enclosures E40 and E58. Could you please 
provide a copy of the relevant papers covering this important internal discussion. 



,.Vi 



CI/? 



I trust these two requests can be accommodated within the £600 limit allowed for my 2 1 
FOI request made on 17 June 2005. 

I am grateful for the time and attention given to these requests and do appreciate your 
attention to these matters. 



Yours sincerely,