Incidente de Rendlesham Forest (1980) — expediente del MoD británico
⚠ Texto extraído por OCR de la fuente oficial — puede contener errores de reconocimiento. El documento original es la autoridad.
THIS FILE 1S MADE AVAILABLE THROUGH THE DECLASSIFICATION EFFORTS AND RESEARCH OF:
rr oT Y * N TPATVT ‘aa
~
- ad s st 736. v ed i)
THE BLACK VAULT IS THE LARGEST ONLINE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT / GOVERNMENT
RECORD CLEARING HOUSE IN THE WORLD. THE RESEARCH EFFORTS HERE ARE RESPONSIBLE
FOR THE DECLASSIFICATION OF THOUSANDS OF DOCUMENTS THROUGHOUT THE U.S. GOVERNMENT,
AND ALL CAN BE DOWNLOADED BY VISITING:
HTTP://WWW_BLACKVAULT.COM
YOU ARE ENCOURAGED TO FORWARD THIS DOCUMENT TO YOUR FRIENDS, BUT
PLEASE KEEP THIS IDENTIFYING IMAGE AT THE TOP OF THE
-PDF SO OTHERS CAN DOWNLOAD MORE!
the national archives
(c) crown copyright
FILE NOTE
Although the cover of this file states that it was opened on 25 October 1982, it is clear
that this was not the case. Sec(AS) was not in being at this time only being formed
around early 1985 and therefore no file with a reference number starting with D/Sec
(AS) could have been in existence in 1982. Although no record of when it was opened
can be found, it is probable that it was created during the period 1991-94
The file itself is clearly a compilation file comprised primarily of documents that were
removed from their original file and placed on this file. This would account for the non
sequential enclosure numbers which may confuse readers. Enclosure 29 on page 14
lists which files many of the enclosures are believed to have originally come from.
DAS-FOI
9 April 2008
{
RESTRICTED/UNCLASSIFIED
MINISTRY OF DEFENC
XN
MOD Ferm 329D
Sf aR (Revised 3/83).
spew
1. Attention is
drawn io the
notes on the
Inside flap
2. Enter notes of
related files oa
page 2 of this
Jacket.
SERN ONT Ss INIT/BRANCH
\ /
Referred to Date
Min/
Enel
Min/
Referred to Encl
Date
Referred to
Mins
Encl
Min/
Encl
Referred to
Date
FOR DRO USE ONLY
ist Review date
ia Section fg
” From DR2e2
AVE BRLG (RSUMIL Bi aE
2nd Review date
File Ket, 3EC(AS)12/2/1
soesees ban n
1 Jone.
PA ACTION
|
(MOD Form 262F
must be completed) . seseeeneee sof
|
RESTRICTED/UNCLASSIFIED
Sent Out Date: QR
.. Bourne Ave. Hayes,
a
RCU000087 176
{- Meog
Middx, UB3 IRF.
an
T
Printed in U.K. tor H.M.S.O. 5/88 Ga. woeEs6) C 12,750 95 KLHA
M1
A copy of this file was requested under the Code of Practice on Access to
Government Information - _ in -_ 2001 my
A copy was sent on 11 May 2001. Five documents were withheld under
Exemptions of the Code. Two under Exemption 1 (Defence, Security and
International Relations) and three under Exemption 2 (Internal opinion advice,
recommendation, consultation and deliberation). Some details were obscured in
accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998.
BED appeatea to the Department (DG Information (Exploitation)) against
the decision to withhold these documents and the two withheld under Exemption
1 were released in September 2001. DG Info(Exp) upheld the Directorate of Air
Staff (DAS) decision to withhold the remaining three documents under
Exemption 2 andBQeieeaé was advised of his right to approach the
Parliamentary Ombudsman if he was not satisfied with this decision. Further
details can be found on D/DAS(Sec)/64/3/11 Part B.
The file was also sent to other individuals who had learnt of its release and made
requests for copies. One such individual, ECC
Section 40 sent the file on 9 November 2001. He also appealed
against the decision to withhold the three documents under Exemption 2 of the
Code and when his appeal was unsuccessful, decided to take the case to the
Ombudsman.
On 17 July 2002 the Ombudsman wrote to the Permanent Secretary with his
decision. The three documents that had been withheld were correspondence
between an MP and a Minister, two draft replies to ministerial correspondence
and associated background notes. The Ombudsman commended the MOD on
the release of the majority of this file (some 174 pages) and recognised the
strength of argument that advice and recommendations contained in submissions
to Ministers depended on candour for their effectiveness. He also agreed that
these documents do fall under the scope of Exemption 2. However, in the
particular circumstances of this case he recommended that the documents should
nonetheless be released and the MOD accepted this decision. The remaining
documents from this file were released to BEQMNRA@ on 24 July 2002. Further
details of the Ombudsman case can be found on D/Sec(AS)/64/3/10 Part A.
The Department also agreed to release the documents to all those other
individuals from whom they had previously been withheld and letters were sent
to 18 others on 25 July 2002. All enquirers after this date will receive a copy of
the whole file.
1 August 2002
“ry Wher POM VIIIB/10/LO4Y — fenk & on RG teh OO! .
RAF LIAISON OFFICE -
Royal Air Force Bentwaters Woodbridge Suffolk 1P122RQ.
nan i
Your reference
MOD (DPs8a) Our reference BENT/019/76
AIR
Date 7 January 1981
UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS (UF@'S)
I attach a copy of a report I have received from
the Deputy Base Commander at RAF Bentwaters con-
cerning some mysterious sightings in the Rendle-
sham forest near RAF Waodbridge. The report is
forwarded for your i ation and action as con-
sidered necessary.
D H MORELAND
Squadron Leader
RAF Commander
Copy to:
SRAFLO, RAF Mildenhall
Loy gah bt Ops k
(-Wo la-gilher ke.
, Ops (Se) I. are diss
PSP ACS (Crme3)
)
keGee ene nese
a
REPLY TO
ATIN OF
SUBJECT:
To:
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
HEADQUARTERS 81ST COMBAT SUPPORT GROUP (USAFE)
APO NEW YORK 09755
cD 13 Jan 81
Unexplained Lights
RAF/CC
1. Early in the morning of 27 Dec 80 (approximately 0300L), two USAF
security police patrolmen saw unusual lights outside the back gate at
RAF Woodbridge. Thinking an aircraft might have crashed or been forced
down, they called for permission to go outside the gate to investigate.
The on-duty flight chief responded and allowed three patrolmen to pro-
ceed on foot. The individuals reported seeing a strange glowing object
in the forest. The object was described as being metalic in appearance
and triangular in shape, approximately two to three meters across the
base and approximately two meters high. It illuminated the entire forest
with a white light. The object itself had a pulsing red light on top and
a bank(s) of blue lights underneath. The object was hovering or on legs.
As the patrolmen approached the object, it maneuvered through the trees
and disappeared. At this time the animals on a nearby farm went into a
frenzy. The object was briefly sighted approximately an hour later near
the back gate.
2. The next day, three depressions 1 1/2" deep and 7" in diameter were
found where the object had been sighted on the ground. The following
night (29 Dec 80) the area was checked for radiation. Beta/gamma readings
of 0.1 milliroentgens were recorded with peak readings in the three de-
pressions and near the center of the triangle formed by the depressions.
A nearby tree had moderate (.05-.97) readings on the side of the tree
toward the depressions
3. Later in the night a red sun-like light was seen through the trees.
It moved about and pulsed. At one point it appeared to throw off glowing
particles and then broke into five separate white objects and then dis-
appeared. Immediately thereafter, three star-like objects were noticed
in the sky, two objects to the north and one to the south, all of which
were about 10° off the horizon. The objects moved rapidly in sharp angular
movements and displayed red, green and blue lights. The objects to the
north appeared to be elliptical through an 8-12 power lens. They then
turned to full circles. The objects to the north remained in the sky for
an hour or more. The object to the south was visible for two or three
hours and beamed down a stream of light from time to time. Numerous indivi-
duals, including the undersigned, witnessed the activities in Paragraphs
2 and 3.
CHARLES I. HALT, Lt Col, USAF
Deputy Base Commander
pd tolen frown 19/088 [1U/BOY - Tot OK ae rete
(ge OOSE MIUTE
-
B/DD Gos(GE)10/3 “SS
DI 55
Copy to:
PS/ACS(G) (RAF)
round note.
have been of a rovti
DS8 if any other dept wou!
dence from the USAF
Dept of the Air Force letter 13 Jan 81
Ene
\ OSE MINUTE
D/DD Ops(GE)/10/8
(PLAINED LIGH'S
Reference: A. D/DS8/72/i/2 dated 20 Jan 81.
attacacd
ave had
content
to DI55
2. SOC/CRC J
switched off at
logs revealed no entry
unusual occurrences.
ound
oun mS . I
net and I was ad
TEcovd é
to be v ting che station.
if we could have tape recordi
6 Feb 61
DIDEB/1O/HOT — Fant ry om ae mee mur, -
Copy Caen from / 10]
dEMORANDUM
oD, “Nahohi sate) ik your i Dpboncdleld
Sub
: veel Gas a eh
AM at cof ue lb
Os Kore gon
Boies
Se Pontes fue
a
Bhtion 40
>» DIE2 do not know of
efere:
2. Backsround vadjoactivity varies
@he value of 4 wmilliroentgens nr),
expect the variation
i be greater for « ifie re:
to pursue this further I could
is in the area the US report is
0.1 ur wes & ected.
23 February 1931
Cy lulon from Filo DS8/10/209 FALE m2 Febrsang 2
ence you ask
for t
MOD Form 262F
Registered File Disposal Form : (Revised 8/95)
FILE TITLE: (Main Heading - Secondary Heading - Tertiary Heading etc) “ Reference Kumbe
Qn Cer Furjue SBTeCTS vein Namen
Ropeck of Got, Gleslon Forscle Os. as)/ fe]
Decorbe \V9S0 i
PROTECTIVE MARKING (including caveats & descriptors): este. eTeo UNCLASS
Date of last enclosure: is/4[9¢ Dato dosed 5 << SEP SoS
PART 1. DISPOSAL SCHEDULE RECOMMENDATION FOR CS(RM) USE ONLY
(To be completed when the file is closed) v y
Destroy after years. [-_] _ :
Date of 1st review. Date.of 2nd review.. Forward Destruction Date.
Forward to CS(RM) after. years ml ~ re nn enn ee ~
SPITS Reviewer's Reviewers if f
No recommendation . [a]. | Sinature: Signature:
PART 2. BRANCH REVIEW ;
(To be completed not later than 4 years after the date of the last enclosure)
(Belete as appropriate) } a. v
a. Of no further administrative value and not worthy of permanent preservation. DESTROY IMMEDIATELY, (Remember that TOP SECRET, fe
and Codeword material cannot be destroyed locally and must be forwarded to CS(RM)). - OSH a
b. (Tobe retained for years (from date of last enclosure) for the following reason(s):
v v
LEGAL C] DEFENCE POLICY |
CONTRACTUAL EJ ORIGINAL. COMMITTEE PAPERS CF
FINANCE C OTHER (Specify) oO [ ]
AUDIT fe]
(Continued overleaf)
(ii) Key enclosures which support the recommendation are:
(ii) At the end of the specified retention period the file is to be:
Destroyed LJ
Considered by CS(RM) for
permanent preservation” [_|
¢. Ofno further administrative value but worthy of consideration by CS(RM) for permanent preservation.
Ls
PART 3. BRANCH REVIEWING OFFICER PART 4 DESTRUCTION CERTIFICATE
Signature: itis certified that the specified file has been destroyed.
Signature:
Name:
(Block Capitals) Name:
Grade/Rank: Date: (Block Capitals)
(Not below HEO/equivalent) GradelRantc Date:
Witnessed by (TOP SECRET* and SECRET only)
Signature:
Name:
(Block Capitals)
Grade/Rank: Date:
"(FOR CS(RM) USE ONLY)
soutd bo k
LOOSE MINUTE
D/Sec(AS) /12/2/1
16 April 1998
MISSING EN IRES PLACED ON FILE D/SEC(A: 12/2/1 PT
1. A close examination of the enclosures on this file
and closed files recalled from MOD archives has confirmed that
many enclosures have been removed from their original location.
The full details of the enclosures placed on D/Sec(AS)/12/2/1 are
as follows:
Enc no Removed from:
E132 —- D/DS8/10/209 part D
E2 - D/DS8/10/209 part E
E121 - D/DS8/10/209 part E
E122 —- D/DS8/10/209 part E
E159 — D/DS8/10/209 part E (0205 Vds » D-@
E180 - D/DS8/10/209 part E
El/l —- D/DS8/10/209 part CoMknch fos
E2 - D/DS8/10/209 part \
E6 — D/DS8/10/209 part 40
E63 - D/DS8/10/209 part 23 .Lor \
E64 - D/DS8/10/209 part
E65 — D/DS8/10/209 part
E66 — D/DS8/10/209 part
E67/1 —- D/DS8/10/209 part
E67/2 —- D/DS8/10/209 part
E68/1 - D/DS8/10/209 part
Seon _ Your,
E73 — D/DS8/10/209 part -
E75 - Dipse/10/209 part D/éefe.
E81 — D/DS8/10/209 part
E82 -— D/DS8/10/209 part
E83 - pypse/10/309 part
E84 - D/DS8/10/209 part '
E85 — D/DS8/10/209 part Yol. C+ 6 Mees cal He y
E86 - D/DS8/10/209 part _
E87 — D/DS8/10/209 part
E88 — D/DS8/10/209 part
E89 - D/DS8/10/209 part
E90 - D/DS8/10/209 part
E91 — D/DS8/10/209 part
E95 — D/DS8/10/209 part
E96 — D/DS8/10/209 part
E97 — D/DS8/10/209 part
E98 -— D/DS8/10/209 part
E100/1 - D/DS8/10/209 part
E£100/2 - D/DS8/10/209 part
E101/2 - D/DS8/10/209 part
E104 - D/DS8/10/209 part
E113. - D/DS8/10/209 part
ap a ap yp yp fp YY YY YY FY YY FY FY FY
E114
E115
E125
E126
E127
E128
2.
unable to positively confirm this.
3.
D/DS8/10/209
Dyps8/10/209
D/DS8/10/209
D/DS8/10/209
D/DS8/10/209
D/DS8/10/209
D/DS8/10/209
D/DS8/10/209
D/DS8/10/209
D/DS8/10/209
D/DS8/10/209
D/DS8/10/209
D/DS8/10/209
D/DS8/10/209
D/DS8/10/209
D/DS8/10/209
D/DS8/10/209
D/DS8/10/209
D/DS8/10/209
D/DS8/10/209
D/DS8/10/209
D/DS8/10/209
D/DS8/10/209
D/DS8/10/209
D/DS8/10/209
D/DS8/10/209
D/DS8/10/209
D/DS8/10/209
D/DS8/10/209
D/DS8/10/209
D/DS8/10/209
D/DS8/10/209
D/DS8/10/209
D/DS8/10/209
D/DS8/10/209
D/DS8/10/209
D/DS8/10/209
Enclosures 2, 3,
part
part
part
part
part
part
part
part
part
part
part
part
part
part
part
part
part
part
part
part
part
part
part
part
part
part
part
part
part
part
part
part
part
part
part
part
part
AAVDANDAAAAANAANANAANANDANANAANAAARAARAAAAARAAAAAAAA
9, 25 and 26 appear to have been removed
from D/DS8/10/209 part H but that file has been destroyed and I am
This file (D/Sec(AS)/12/2/1 part A) claims to have been
opened as a registered file on 25 October 1982. This is not
possible because Sec(AS) was not in being at that time. Sec(AS)
was previously DS8 until late '84/early '85. It is not possible to
ascertain exactly when this file was created.
SEC nad
£23
File_Nde
Ooh val |e lhe_poocal eal Sechguoh tadibon, 60 —
he thak lotro whut wail Je
howe. ae
L Redo $1 low = hook te ray he daa breed _—
heeweh 88 the seer be sell ab he Mong te
— sgh vell ase se. redvabve some wi _a veg
_— shat half Ife, wheal a aT b_pe_vedleyy ,
Wal pall net Ieee foe da Mor _
ATIN OF:
SUBJECT:
To:
“RePly TO
oO
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
HEADQUARTERS 8151 COMSAT SUPPORT GROUP (USAFE)
APO NEW YORK 09755
Unexplained Lights
RAF/CC
1. Early in the morning of 27 Dec 80 (approximately 0300L), two USAF
security police patrolmen saw unusual lights outside the back gate at .
RAF Woodbridge. Thinking an aircraft, might have crashed or been forced :
down, they called for permission to go outside the gate to investigate.
The on-duty flight chief responded and allowed three patrolmen to pro-
ceed on foot. The individuals reported seeing a strange glowing object
in the forest. The object was described as being metalic in appearance
and triangular in shape, approximately two to three meters across the
base and approximately two meters high. It jlluminated the entire forest
with a white light. The object itself had a pulsing red light on top and
a bank(s) of blue lights underneath. The object was hovering or on legs
As the patrolmen approached the object, it maneuvered through the trees
and disappeared. At this time the animals on a nearby farm went into a
frenzy. “The object was briefly sighted approximately an hour later near
the back gate.
2. The next day, three depressions 1 1/2" deep and 7" in diameter were
found where the object had been sighted on the ground. The following
night (29 Dec 80) the area was checked for radiation. Beta/gamma readings
of 0.1 milliroentgens were recorded with peak readings in the three de-
pressions and near the center of the triangle formed by the depressions.
A nearby tree had moderate (.05-.07) readings on the side of the tree
toward the depressions
3. Later in the night a red sun-like light was seen through the trees.
At one point it appeared to throw off glowing
particles and then broke into five separate white objects and then dis-
It moved about and pulsed.
appeared. Immediately thereafter,
three star-like objects were noticed
in the sky, two objects to the north and one to the south, all of which
were about 10° off the ho
rizon.
The objects moved rapidly in sharp angular
movements and displayed red, green and blue lights. The objects to the
north appeared .to be ettiptical through an 8-12 power lens. They then
The objects, to the.north rémained in the sky for
an hour or more. The object to the south was visible for two or three
hours and beamed down a stream of light from time. to time. Numerous indivi-
duals, including the mes witnessed the aetivities in paragraphs
turned to full circles.
2 and 3.
ML oe
CHARLES I. HALT, Lt Col,
Deputy Base Commander
USAF
x 7, kes
LCOSE MINUTE
D/Sec(AS)12/2/1
25 Jan 94
CENTRAL TV_UFO DOCUMENTARY - REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ON RENDLESHAM FOREST
1. We spoke yesterday about Central TV’s request for information on the UFO
sighting in Rendlesham Forest in December 1980.
2. I have been through our file on this incident, and have drawn together
an unclassified note based on previous MOD statements. This can be drawn upon
in answering questions, or passed to Central TV in toto. I have also attached a
copy of Lt Col Halt’s report, which can be passed to Central TV.
3. As I mentioned yesterday, Section40 | is still in the Department, and
works for the Housing Trust Team. I do not know what the rules are with regard
te interviews with present or former officials, or whether it would be
wocthwhile having a word with her. I have not contacted her, but if you wish to
dc so, she is on [Section 4@
4. Please let me know if you need anything else; as I mentioned, my
urderstanding is that this documentary is to be much more serious than some of
the more sensationalist programmes that have been produced in the past. I
believe that it will be in our interests to be as helpful as we can, and to try
and reflect the good relationship that we now have with many of the more serious
UFO groups and researchers. There are still a few within the field who believe
that the MOD is involved in a cover-up, and I think the more helpful and open we
are, the less likely it is that this view will get an airing.
Sec(AS)2a
UFO SIGHTING AT RENDLESHAM FOREST
We are aware that on 27 and 29 December 1980 a number of personnel from RAF
Woodbridge saw strange lights in the vicinity of the base, in Rendlesham Forest.
Lt Col Charles Halt USAF, the Deputy Base Commander, submitted a report on these
events, which was passed to the Ministry of Defence. As is the case with all
UFO reports submitted to the MOD, Lt Col Halt’s report was examined carefully by
those staff responsible for the air defence of the United Kingdom. No evidence
was found of any threat to the defence of the United Kingdom, and no further
investigations were carried out. No further information has come to light which
alters our view that the sightings of these lights was of no defence
significance.
Ne unidentified object was seen on radar during the period in question, and
there was no evidence of anything having intruded into UK airspace, and landed
near RAF Woodbridge.
We are aware that there are a number of theories circulating about these UFO
sightings. One theory was that what was seen was the beam of the Orford Ness
lighthouse, with distortions being caused by the beam having been seen from
through the trees. There were also suggestions that fireball activity might
explain some of the lights.
In the absence of any hard evidence, the MOD remains open-minded about these
sightings.
REPLY TO
ATIN OF:
SUBJECT:
To:
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
HEADQUARTERS 81ST COMBAT SUPPORT GROUP (USAFE)
APO NEW YORK 09755
cb # ee ee aN
Unexplained Lights ne se
RAF/CC
1. Early in the morning of 27 Dec 80 (approximately 0300L), two USAF
security police patrolmen saw Unusual lights outside the back gate at
RAF Woodbridge. Thinking an aircraft, might have crashed or been: forced
down, they called for permission to go outside the gate to investigate.
The on-duty flight chief responded and allowed three patrolmen to pro-
ceed on foot. The individuals reported seeing a strange glowing object
in the forest. The object was described as being metalic
in appearance
and triangular in shape, approximately two to three meters across the
base and approximately two meters high. It j]luminated the entire forest
with a white light. The object itself had a pulsing red 1
ight on top and
a bank(s) of blue lights underneath. The object was hovering or on legs.
As the patrolmen approached the object, it maneuvered through the tree
and disappeared. At this time the animals on a nearby farm went into a
frenzy. The object was briefly sighted approximately an hour later near
the back gate.
2. The next day, three depressions 1 1/2" deep and 7" in
diameter were
found where the object had been sighted on the ground. The following
night (29 Dec 80) the area was checked for radiation. Beta/gamma readings
of 0.1 milliroentgens were recorded with peak readings in
the three de-
pressions and near the center of the triangle formed by the depressions.
A nearby tree had moderate (.05-.07) readings on the side
toward the depressions.
of the tree
3. Later in the night a red sun-like light was seen through the trees
It moved about and pulsed. At one point it appeared to throw off glowing
particles and then broke into five separate white objects
and then dis-
appeared. Immediately thereafter, three star-like objects were noticed
in the sky, two objects to the north and one to the south, all of which
were about 10° off the horizon. The objects moved rapidly in sharp angular
movements and displayed red, green and blue‘lights. The objects to the
north appeared .to be ettiptical through an 8-12 power lens. They then
turned to full circles. The objects, to the-north remained in the sky for
an hour or more. The object to the south was visible for
hours and beamed down a stream of light from time to time.
two or three
Numerous indivi-
duals, including the a witnessed the activities in paragraphs
2 and 3
Mn Lt Col, USAF
Deputy Base Commander
RAF LIAISON OFFICE
Royal Air Force Bentwaters Woodbridge Suffolk IP12 2RQ
Telephone Bentwaters SEC
Secretariat (Air Staff)2a
Room 0
Ministry of Defence BENT/1/2/AIR
Main Building
Whitehall
LONDON SW1A 2HB g July 1992
UFO SIGHTING - DECEMBER 1980
Reference:
A. D/Sec(AS)12/2/1 dated 2 July 1992.
1. I refer to your letter at Reference A concerning the reported sighting of
a UFO on 27 December 1980. I have no records on this subject and the file to
which you refer has long since been destroyed.
2. However, I have spoken with our resident Historian from the 8lst Tactical
Fighter Wing who has unearthed an article which I have photocopied for your
information. It all makes interesting reading.
Yours sincerely
Squadron Leader
RAF Commander
Woodbridge RAF/USAF Air Base 327
WOODBRIDGE RAF/USAF AIR BASE
In “ecember 1980 it is attuged that a grounded UFO was seen in ihe
Rendlesham Forest area outside the back gates of RAF/USAF Wood-
bridge in Suffolk, England.
There are various, and conflicting, reports about what occurred on the
night. According to the official report made by the Deputy Base Com-
mander, Lieutenant-Colonel Charles Halt, two security police witnessed
lights outside the back gate and called for permission to investigate on the
grounds that an aircraft might have crashed. Three patrolmen were sent
and they reported seeing a glowing object in the forest, described as
triangular in shape, 2bout 9 feet wide and 6 feet high, and emanating a
powerful white light. Other reports detail blue and red lights at various
points on the object. It was either hovering or standing on short legs and as
the patrol approached, it manoeuvred away slowly through the trees on to
a nearby farm (causing some disturbance in the animals there) before
disappearing into the sky very quickly. However, the object was briefly
sighted again about an hour later.
Investigation the following day found three ground traces indicating
possible landing leg depressions.
However, there are other stories of events that night including one
that the overall Commander of the base, Wing Commander Gordon
Williams, was present at the investigation and also communicated with
aliens that had been seen apparently carrying out repairs to the craft.
It is alleged that many films and photographs were taken but that these
were all confiscated by senior officers and have not been released.
Investigators examining these claims have obtained interviews with two
of the patrol who investigated the UFO, airman John Burroughs and a
second airman who remains anonymous and is given the pseudonym of
James Archer. Basically their stories agree with-the Deputy Command-
er’s statement. Archer denies seeing aliens but saw shapes inside the
object, to which he had approached within three feet, and commented, ‘I
don’t know what they were but the shapes did not look human. Maybe
they were like robots.’
One of the security police at Woodbridge, Sergeant Adrian Bustinza,
came forward after the publication of a book, Skycrash by Jenny Randles,
Brenda Butler and Dot Street (see References and Background Material),
and told his detailed version of events in the forest that night. Again, for
the most part, his account basically agrees with that of Lieutenant-Colonel
Halt. He describes the object as being seen through a yellow mist like
‘nothing I have ever seen before’, and comments that it was a tremendous
_- size compared to the clearing it was in and that he was surprised it was able
to fit into the area. One major discrepancy arises in his description, how-
~ ever; he describes it as saucer-shaped rather than triangular-shaped, which
= Would seem to be a very major disagreement considering both reports
_ come from eye witnesses.
_ There is allegedly a tape recording made by Lieutenant-Colonel Halt
sand his men while in the forest investigating the event and part of this has
328 Woodruff, R. S.
been released by a former base commander at Woodbridge, Colon
Morgan. On the tape various voices including Lieutenant-Colons
describe what they are supposed to be seeing as they pursue th
through the woods.
When challenged by a former Chief of the Defence Staff, A
the-Fleet Lord Hill-Norton, the Secretary of State for Defence, Mi
Heseltine, through Lord Trefgarne, released the statement that
events to which you refer were of no defence significance’.
As Lord Hill-Norton put it, there would seem to be some defe1
significance either in an unknown object’s entering and possibly lan
in British territory or, alternatively, a deputy base commander of an.
USAF base filing a ludicrous and make-believe report. Lieutenant-
(now Colonel) Halt has confirmed subsequently that this memorandun
legitimate. He also went on to say, ‘There are a lot of things that are not
my memo.’
WOODRUFF, R. S.
In many people’s eyes the quality of the witness to a UFO event i
important as the event itself. On that basis one sighting of three red ligh
UFOs buzzing low over cars near Bethel in Vermont, USA should r
highly. Witnesses in other cars watched a police car ahead being buzze
The police car contained a high State police official and the Sta
pathologist, Dr R. S. Woodruff. i
Calculation by the police indicated that the speed of the UFOs was so
2,000 miles per hour. z
Despite the fact that the UFOs had come down precisely together in
of formation, slowed down and flown parallel to the ground, the Air Fi
explained that they were only meteors.
WRIGHT PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE
Wright Patterson Air Force Base in America is a name that frequen!
occurs in the pages of this encyclopedia and in the annals of UFO res
It is alleged that this base is the storehouse and examination facil
retrieved crash flying saucers and also for alien bodies. .
Other stories have it that Wright Patterson contains a ‘quick reat
force’ designed to retrieve downed saucers, a sort of SAS or SWATt
deal with aliens.
There is even an allegation that Senator Barry Goldwater attemp!
gain entry to the base to examine UFO evidence but was refused
then commanding officer, General Curtis LeMay.
WYKOFF, LIEUTENANT ROBERT C.
On 10 August 1950 Navy physicist Lieutenant Robert Wykoff, v
Navy binoculars, watched 2 large disc-shaped UFO manoeuvrins
Fdwards Air Force Base, the scene of many such sightings.
an bes
From: Section 40} Secretariat(Air Staff)2a, ReenSection i)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
Main Building Whitehall London SW1A 2HB
Telephone (Direct Dialling)
(Switchboard)
(Fax)
RAF Commander
RAF Bentwaters Our reference
Woodbridge D/Sec(AS)12/2/1
Suffolk Date
IP12 2RQ 2 July 1992
/
1 I am writing concerning the background to the UFO sighting near RAF
Woodbridge on 27 December 1980, and the report that was subsequently made by the
USAF Deputy Base Commander, Lt Col Halt.
2. I have attached a copy of a letter from one of your predecessors,
together with a copy of Lt Col Halt’s report, and I have two requests:
a. If you have files going back this far, could I have a copy of the
original covering letter, BENT/19/76/Air dated 15 January 1981. I believe our
copy was archived some time ago.
b. I would be grateful if you would confirm that Lt Col Halt’s report is a
genuine USAF report; this may sound a strange request, but over the years there
have been a very clever series of hoax documents produced on the subject of
UFOs. These often relate to official government/military knowledge of UFOs, and
often appear to be on official notepaper - presumably using genuine official
letters sent to members of the public, with the hoax text placed over the
genuine text, and then photocopied again. In the absence of all the background
papers, I am unsure as to the exact circumstances under which this report first
surfaced. I do not know what standard practice would be, but would such a
report not have been submitted on paper with a Bentwaters/Woodbridge address?
3. This may all seem like ancient history, but this alleged incident has
become the best known UFO story in the UK, being mentioned in dozens of books on
the subject (including one entire book relating the story of how USAF personnel
repaired a crashed flying saucer and communicated with its alien occupants!).
We still receive a steady stream of telephone enquiries and letters on the
subject even to this day.
Yowes 5 meet ;
ae a
Recycled Paper
. g RAF LIAISON OFFICE € [SS
Royal Air Force Bentwaters Woodbridge Suffolk 1P12 2RO a
Telephone Woodbridge
— : ‘Yourteference
MOD(DS8a)
Our reference
BENT/19/76/Air
Date
Lf October 1982
UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS (UFO's)
Reference:
A. BENT/19/76/Air dated 15 January 1981.
1. Under cover of reference A I forwarded you a copy of the Deputy
Base Commander's report concerning some unexplained lights and
sightings on 27/29 December 1980. Some time after the incident
was approached by two women who claimed to be UFO investigators,
but I refused to confirm or deny their cleims. A week ago I was
telephoned from New York by EmSection40 Een Omnie Magazine.
He asked me questions about an article a Bri h UFO Magazine. |
He claimed he was a serious UFO investigator and wanted to write an
objective article about the incident. I told him that whoever wrote
the article he described to me must have had a vivid imagination.
e. I have now managed to obtain a copy of the article and enclose a
copy for your information. The magazine is called "The Unexplained"
published weekly by:
ORBIS Publishing Ltd
The article was in Volume 9 Issue No 106.
3. I now anticapate a flood -of enquiries would be grateful for
some guidance on MOD Policy concerning UP :
D H MORELAND
Sqn Lar
RAF Cdr
REPLY. TO.
ATIN OF:
SUBJECT:
To:
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
HEADQUARTERS 61ST COMBAT SUPPORT GRCUP (USAFE)
APO NEW YORK 09755
cD 13 Jan 81
Unexplained Lights
RAF/CC
1. Early in the morning of 27 Dec 80 (approximately 0300L), two USAF
security police patrolmen saw unusual lights outside the back gate at
RAF Woodbridge. Thinking an aircraft might have crashed or been ferced ?
down, they called for.permission to go outside the gate to inves
The on-duty flight chief responded and allowed three patrolmen ¢:
ceed on foot. The individuals reported seeing a strange glowing object
in the st. The object was described as being metalic in appearance
and triangular in shape, approximately two to three meters across the
base and approximately two meters high. It illuminated the entire forest
with a white light. The object itself had a pulsing red light on top and
a bank(s) of blue lights underneath. The object was hovering or on legs
As the patrolmen approached the object, it maneuvered through the trees
and disappeared. At this time the animals on a nearby farm went into a
frenzy. The object was briefly sighted approximately an hour later near
the back gate.
ate,
2. The next day, three depressions 1 1/2" deep and 7" in diameter
found where the object had been sighted on the ground. The following
night (29 Dec 80) the area was checked for radiation. Beta/gamma readings
of 0.1 milliroentgens were recorded with peak readings in the three de-
pressions and near the center of the triangle formed by the depressions.
A nearby tree had moderate (.05-.07) readings on the side of the tree
toward the depressions.
3. Later in the night a red sun-like light was seen through the trees
It moved about and pulsed. At one point it appeared to throw off glowing
particles and then broke into five separate white objects and then dis-
appeared. Immediately thereafter, three star-like objects were.noticed
in the sky,. two objects to the north and one to the south, all of which
were about 10° off the horizon. The objects moved rapidly in sharp angular
movements and displayed red, green and blue ‘lights. The objects to the
north appeared to be elliptical through an-8-12 power lens. They then
turned to full circles. The objects to the north remained in the sky for
an hour or more. The object to the south was visible for two or three
hours and beamed down a stream of light from time to time. Numerous indivi-
duals, including the undersigned, witnessed the activities in paragraphs
2 and 3.
CHARLES I. | » Lt Col, USAF
Deputy Base Commander
From: Section 40, | Secretariat (Air Staff)2a, Foon ESP >)
D/Sec(AS)12/2/1
= August 1987
r= 0
Thank you for your letter dated 31 June which requested
information on the Rendlesham Forest “incident". As we mentioned to
you in our letter dated 16 May 1986 the only information that we have
on this alleged UFO sighting is the report by the Deputy Base
Commander of RAF Woodbridge, Lieutenant Colonel Charles Halt, USAF.
In case you haven't seen it before I attach a copy of the report
which may be of interest to you. You may recall that the sole
interest of the Ministry of Defence in reported sightings of UFOs is
to establish whether they have any bearing on the defence of the
country. We are satisfied that the events described in Lieutenant
Colonel Halt's report are of no defence significance.
I hope that this proves useful.
xe
[Sect 40
a ol 4, @
See poe AR
Sh Silele1 we attadrod |
Lt Col Hairs iepert gy Jan'P( (co fle)
hoo already bon MMooed by gec (A)
toa nombur § monty Sf te pubic .
Pi 40
als .
ee ee TE
rephy gore Sian an Standorwd Celle eplevin'g our interest mt up's |B) Pee Al,
Hic cocond otter JES fart B] Ad na receive © we ghg de psi atlad ucts .
Ate ning
bhoter a Hd He Rueda, forett woileup miived a UAE ” pheatte." dae
el
be annvacd a Angie “not (ES 3ir82 8) i
pay sopay 9 MMU oe oor pig se UO ad ae ha yp i
fp have A copy, t hrame sneentted a copy, §. UO Hayle ont Ft has been
acleaied fo otra Hbolagi ce ww fe (rm.
Section Sect iam
Aho Yu. Wotd you pe locate UCI 7?)
trou repatr AAO HQ Grape. Exemopce + EI? pA tefai
WS xetOnn2 bo Shy vfslogists we The post: Ele pA rafal
Bricvo ( faeged)
a 1
Section 40
nephred as [ox
BBB tion 40
I have enclos
@ phote, fer which i think will amuse vou.
T wouid be very grateful if vou could
send me any information
th
you may have on the rend
sham forest case in "Dec 1980".
if you cont have information in the ministery could
informat ion gs
vor
tell me where to
peel DA lene Ash eememnrmny
_t
aap
L
Edgar Hatvany
4
/ a : Me peas ; 4
“ Ministry of Defence here—No, Madam, it was just a Russian rocket breaking up on re-entry.” x¢
The cartoon by JAK is reproduced by kind permission of the London “EVENING STANDARD" (22/Nov/68)
From: Sections Secretariat (Air Staff)2a, Room Eig 40
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
Main Building Whitehall London SW1A 2HB
Telephone (Direct Dialling)
(Switchboard)
Your reference
Ourroferenc® ys se0(AS)12/2/10~
Pato 2/ August 1985
. =
Thank you for your letter of 9 July 1985. The Ministry of
Defence's interest in Unidentified Flying Objects (UFO's) was
explained to you by my predecessor, Sa in his letters of
19 June and 18 July 1984.
The only information we have on the alleged "UFO sighting" at
Rendlesham Forest in December 1980 is the report by Colonel Charles
Halt, of the United States Air Force. We are satisfied that the
events described are of no defence significan We can find nothing
in our records to suggest that alleged eye-witnessescwere interviewed
by the MOD, this is consistent with our normal practice when dealing
with UFO reports.
Va wo Sete rely
OUR REF:
YOUR REF:
PPS i , “EOD
HH/MJC
D/DS8/10/209
Ministry of Defence,
Main Building, BlSection fd
Whitehall,
London.
SW1A_2HB
9th July 1985
ear SS
re: UFO Sighting at Rendlesham Forest
I would be grateful if you could kindly indicate to me if your Department
interviewed any of the alleged eye witnesses to the above incident and if
so, whom and the dates of such interviews.
Kind regardse
Yours sincerely,
QE
Sec(AS)2a, Room 40
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE , pect}
Main Building Whitehall London SW1A 2HB
Telephon (Direct Dialling)
(Switchboard)
Your reference
Our reference
New York 11572 Dato
USA Z July 1985
D/See(AS)12/2/1-~
Your letter of 3 March 1985, addressed to the Office of Public
Information, has been passed to me for reply. I am sorry that you
received no reply to your earlier letter, however I can find no trace
of it in our records. You may find it useful if I. explain that the
sole interest of the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence in reported
Sightings of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs) is to establish
whether they have any bearing on the defence of the country.
There is no organisation in the Ministry of Defence appointed
solely for the purpose of studying reports of such objects, and no
staff are employed on the subject full time. The reports we receive
are referred to the staff in the Department who are responsible for
the air defence of the United Kingdom, and they examine the reports
as part of their normal duties.
Since our interest in UFOs is limited to possible defence
implications we have not carried out a study into the scientific
Significance of these phenomena. Unless there are defence
implications we do not attempt to identify sightings and we canno.
inform observers of the probable identity of the object seen. The
Department could not justify the expenditure of public funds on
investigations which go beyond the pure defence interests.
We have to recognise that there are many strange things to be
seen in the sky, but we believe there are adequate explanations for
them. They may be satellite debris re-entering the earth atmosphere,
ball lightning, unusual cloud formations, meteorological balloons,
aircraft lights, aircraft at unusual angles or many other things.
The only information we have on the alleged "UFO sighting" at
Rendlesham Forest in December 1980 is the report by Colonel Charles
Halt, of the United States Air Force. We are satisfied that the
‘events described are of no defence significance.
Yours sincerely
|
March 3, 1985
Office of fablic Luformation
Ministry if Defence
Air Ministry section
London, ngland
Gentlemen:
Ino letter dited November 18, 1984 L reguested cerlain informaian
from your office in regard te «number of VEO incidents that occurred
in the immediate cin t of the Bentwater/ Wordbridge NATO airbase
complet in the county 0 Suftalk, during He’ lact wall of December 1980.
Tris mast disupprivting tha Hicdate I have received NO reply
Tt is my sincere hope that you will respond tithe Fillowing questions;
) tes eur fhe oufim receipt of the leHer from USAF Lt
Col. Charles . Hal, Depity Base Commander, describing the VEO incidents?
pD) Did your of Fice conduct, or pectic ale ity an Further in qui inte
this matter? Alsy does yer of fice vein a dessier on this matter?
3) Can yw suggest aay preseic explonation fir these specific incidests?
Sincerel
Oceanside, New Yor 1572.
U.S.A.
EI?
Sec(AS)2a, Room 0
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE pein
Main Building Whitehall London SW1A 2HB
Telephone (Direct Dialling)
(Switchboard)
Your reference
Our reference 7306 (AS)12/2/1~
pao Z duly 1985
Thank you for your letter of 15 April. You may find it useful
if I explain that the sole interest of the United Kingdom Ministry of
Defence in reported sightings of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs)
is to establish whether they have any bearing on the defence of the
country.
There is no organisation in the Ministry of Defence appointed
solely for the purpose of studying reports of such objects, and no
staff are employed on the subject full time. The reports we receive
are referred to the staff in the Department who are responsible for
the air defence of the United Kingdom, and they examine the reports
as part of their normal duties.
Since our interest in UFOs is limited to possible defence
implications we have not carried out a study into the scientific
significance of these phenomena. Unless there are defence
implications we do not attempt to identify sightings and we cannot
inform observers of the probable identity of the object seen. The
Department could not justify the expenditure of public funds on
investigations which go beyond the pure defence interests.
We have to recognise that there are many strange things to be
seen in the sky, but we believe there are adequate explanations for
them. They may be satellite debris re-entering the earth atmosphere,
ball lightning, unusual cloud formations, meteorological balloons,
aircraft lights, aircraft at unusual angles or many other things.
The only information we have on the alleged "UFO sighting" at
Rendlesham Forest in December 1980 is the report by Colonel Charles
Halt, of the United States Air Force. We are satisfied that the
events described are of no defence significance. I enclose a copy of
Colonel Halt's report which may be of interest.
Yours sincerely
REPLY TO
ATIN OF
supstcr:
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
HEADQUARILES SIST COMBAT SUPPORT CROUP (USAFE)
APO NEW YORK 0735
cp ; 13 Jan 81
Unexplained Lights
RAF/CC
1. Early in the morning of 27 Dec 80 (approximately 0300L), two USAF
security police patrolmen saw unusual lights outside the back gate at
RAF Woodbridge. Thinking an aircraft might have crashed or been forced
down, they called for permission to go outside the gate to investigate.
The on=duty flight chief responded and allowed three patrolmen to pro-
ceed on foot. The individuals reported seeing a strange glowing object
in the forest. The object was described as being metalic in appearance
and triangular in shape, approximately two to three meters across the
base and approximately two meters high. It jlluminated the entire forest
with,a white light. The object itself had a pulsing red light on top and
a bank(s) of blue lights underneath. The object was hovering or on legs
As the patrolmen approached the object, it maneuvered through the trees
and disappeared. At this time the animals on a nearby‘ farm went into a
frenzy. The object was briefly sighted approximately an hour later near
the back gate.
2. The next day, three depressions 1 1/2" deep and 7" in diameter were
found where the object had been sighted on the ground. The following
night (29 Dec 80) the area was checked for radiation. Beta/ganma readings
of 0.1 milliroentgens were recorded with peak readings in the three de-
pressions and near the center of the triangle formed by the depressions
A nearby tree had moderate (.05-.07) readings on the side of the tree
toward the depressions.
3. Later in the night a red sun-like light was seen through the trees
It moved about and pulsed. At one point it appeared to throw off glowing
Particles and then broke into five separate white objects and then dis-
appeared. Immediately thereafter, three star-like objects were noticed
in the sky, two objects to the north and one to the south, all of which
were about 10° off the horizon. The objects moved rapidly in sharp anguler
movements and displayed red, green and blue lights. The objects to the
north appeared to be elliptical through an 8-12 power lens. They then
turned to full circles. The objects to the north remained in the sky for
an hour or more. The object to the south was visible for two or three
hours and beamed down a stream of light from time to time. Numerous indivi-
duals, including the undersigned, witnessed the activities in Paragraphs
2 and 3.
tie
LES 1. MALT, Lt Col, USAF
Deputy Base Commander
REPLY TO.
ATIN OF,
subsects
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
HEADQUARILRS 8151 COMBAT SUPPORT GROUP (USAFC)
APO NEW YORK 04755
cp : 13 Jan 8}
Unexplained Lights
RAF/CC
1. Early in the morning of 27 Dec go (approximately 0300L), two USAF
security police patrolmen saw unusual lights outside the back gate at
RAF Woodbridge. Thinking an aircraft might have crashed or been forced
down, they called for permission to go outside the gate to investigate.
The on-duty flight chief responded and allowed three patrolmen to pro-
ceed on foot. The individuals reported seeing a strange glowing object
in the forest. The object was described as being metalic in appearance
and triangular in shape, approximately two to three meters across the
base and approximately two meters high. It jlluminated the entire forest
with a white light. The object itself had a pulsing red light on top and
a bank(s) of blue lights underneath. The object was hovering or on legs.
As the patrolmen approached the object, it maneuvered through the trees
and disappeared. At this time the animals on a nearby“farm went into a
frenzy. The object was briefly sighted approximately an hour later near
the back gate.
2. The next day, three depressions 1 1/2" deep and 7" in diameter were
found where the object had been sighted on the ground. The following
night (29 Dec 80) the area was checked for radiation. Beta/ganma readings
of 0.1 milliroentgens were recorded with peak readings in the three de-
pressions and rear the center of the triangle formed by the depressions.
A nearby tree had moderate (.05-.07) readings on the side of the tree
toward the depressions. .
3. Later in the night a red sun-like light was seen through the trees
It moved about and Pulsed. At one point it appeared to throw off glowing
Particles and then broke into five separate white objects and then dis-
appeared. Immediately thereafter, three star-like objects were noticed
in the sky, two objects to the north and one to the south, all of which
were about 10° off the horizon. The objects moved rapidly in sharp anguler
movements and displayed red, green and blue lights. The objects to the
north appeared to be elliptical through an 8-12 Power lens. They then
turned to full circles. The objects to the north remained in the sky for
an hour or more. The object to the south was visible for two or three
hours and beamed down a Stream of light from time to time. Numerous indivi-
duals, including the undersigned, witnessed the activities in paragraphs
2 and 3-
LES I. WALT, Lt Col, USAF
Deputy Base Commander
I attach copies of two recent Parliamentary Questions on the
Ministry of Defence's interest in UFO reports, which you may be
interested in.
Yours sincerely
14 March 1984
Cols 132 & 1
i ; Unidentified Flying Objects
4 Sir Patrick Wall asked the Secretary of State for
Defence (1) how many alleged landings by unidentified
flying objects have been made in 1980, 1981, 1982 and
1983, respectively; and how many have been investigated
by his Department's personnel; -
(2) how many unexplained sightings there have been in
1980, 1981, 1982 and 1983, respectively; and which of
these had been traced by radar and with what result.
Mr. Lee [pursuant to his reply; 9 March 1984, c. 728):
For the years in question, the Ministry of Defence reccived
the following numbers of reports of sightings of flying
objects which the observer could not identify: 350, 600,
250, and 390. Reports of alleged landings are not
separately identified. The Department was satisfied that
none of these reports was of any defence significance and,
in such cases, does not maintain records of the extent of
its investigations. .
—
HANSAND ExrkAcr
2h, COPOBER 1985
RAF Woudbridye (Allege
ident)
ed the Sceretry of State for
> (1) if he has secu the United States Air Voree
anemio Gated 13 Jauuny 1981 concerning unexplained
iphts near RAB Woodbridys :
view of the fact that the United State's
incu vf 13 January 1981 on the incidental RAE
Yoosbridge Ins been released under the Freedom of
Information Act, he will now release reports: and
dovuments concernit imilar uacaptained incidents in the
United Kingdom;
@) how many uni
have (1
Iained sightings or radar interes 7
Ken place since 1980.
. Mr. Stanley: 1
January 198) to wl
the Department hi
flying obizcts v
identity. T)
< memorandum of 13
ace 1980
© seen t
re NY correspon:
cl to normal secu ints, 1 ain
Hout any such reported
nutter of concern fram a
-delence staadpoint, but there have been none to date.
6/0
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE S°°¢4S)22. Room MMIMD
Main Building Whitehall London SW1A 2HB
Teleph (Direct Dialling)
(Switchboard)
Your reference
oO
Dis @® 12 [afr
Ze June 1985
USA
Rese Perens
Thank you for your letter of 25 March 1985. You may find it
useful if I explain that the sole interest of the United Kingdom
Ministry of Defence in reported sightings of Unidentified Flying
Objects (UFOs) is to establish whether they have any bearing on the
defence of the country.
There is no organisation in the Ministry of Defence appointed
solely for the purpose of studying reports of such objects, and no
staff are employed on the subject full time. The reports we receive
are referred to the staff in the Department who are responsible for
the air defence of the United Kingdom, and they examine the reports
as part of their normal duties.
Since our interest in UFOs is limited ‘te possible defence
implications we have not carried out a study into the scientific
significance of these phenomena. Unless there are defence
implications we-do not attempt to identify sightings and we cannot
inform observers of the probable identity of the object seen. The
Department could not justify the expenditure of public funds on
investigations which go beyond the pure defence interests.
We have to recognise that there are many strange things to be
seen in the sky, but we believe there are adequate explanations for
them. They may be satellite debris re-entering the earth atmosphere,
ball lightning, unusual cloud formations, meteorological balloons,
aircraft lights, aircraft at unusual angles or many other things.
The only information we have on the alleged "UFO sighting" at
Rendlesham Forest in December 1980 is the report by Colonel Charles
Halt, of the United States Air Force. We are satisfied that the
events described are of no defence significance. I can assure you
that there is no question of attempting to cover up any incident or
mishap, nor are we attempting in any way to obscure the truth. I
enclose a copy of Colonel Halt's report which may be of interest.
"x NOTE
f¢ ‘ase inform if your dept does have
@ procedure that can be arranged that
would assure that any large volume of
documents could be sent via Air Mail
if yes the cost of mailing first class
Air Mail I would like to arrange to
recieve all documents that your dept can
release to me this method if you can
estimate the cost of this procedure then
please reply have provided a return reply
onvelope with Air Mail stamps on it for
courtesy reply will mail the amount to pay
for mailing via Air Mail of package first
class if volume of documents is large or =
small either amount I will be happy to
forword the amount as instructed by the
dept you work in thank you very much
Ls
ANS
fz]
oSeAe
MINESTRY OF DEFENSE
MAIN BUILDING WHITEHALL
LONDON ENGLAND SW1A~2HB
DEFENSE SECRETARIAT 8 Mareh 25th 1985
Dear Sirs
I am presently involved in doing some background research into a book tilled Sky Crash
A Cosmic Conspiracy by Dot Street Brenda Butler and jenny Randles/I would like to veri-
fy some basic facts discussed in this book as they were writeing about the MOD DS8 and
its capacity or involvement into the Rendlesham Forrest (UFO Unknown Lights) of Decem=
ber 27th and the 30th 1980/ the copy of the report that they obtained from from the MOD
DS8 as it concerns your dept and I am asking of that particular report if a copy of th-
is report is available to the general public if requested /T am aware that the report
was sent by Squadron Leader Donald Moreland on January 14th 1981 to the MOD DS8 a copy
of this report will be enclosed with this letter plus additional version of that report
that should probably be regarded as not very accurate on details or facts surrounding
this case in particular also I understand that RAF Watten had picked up on their radar
and tracked this UFO to about fiftey miles south and to the east of Ipswich and in
the general vicinety of the Rendlesham Forrest after which they lost radar contact /this
occured on the night of December 27th 1980 and the radar recordings were examined by
USAF ‘intelligence officers concerning this uncorrelated target ‘such recordings are
kept a few days before being reused this is a precaution against the unforseen such as
a air ¢rash of an airplane ‘y believe a rumor circulating around the radar base was the
at it’was possible that a object that they had tracked had crash landed into the forre
st neat Ipswitch .This had been a mettalic UFO ,a structured device of unknown origin
Men who had gone out to confront the UFO from a nearby base had found the engine “and
lights of their jeep failing as they got closer,They then had to continue on foot.The
object Was on the ground for several hours before repairs could be undertaken by the
aliens who crewed it.During this period high ranking officers from the base went into
the forrest and the base commander himself we assume Colonel Gordon Willians \had conve=
rsed with the occupants tt is no known what the radar men made of this tale , but it
was apparently told by a radar man to the authors.But the fact that they tracked a tar=-
get which aroused conciderable interest in the USAF was certainly intriguing.
fabout your dept there is a basic one page file for each UFO report that you would reci-
eve.now about regulations that direct persons to send UFO reports to your dept_and can
I obtain a copy of these documents that exist that dictate guidlines a sort of official
document that informs police and military about why these reports are important to
the MOD DS8 and why this particular dept has ben chosen for this assignment of evaluat
ing of the UFO sighting reports that are sent through official channels
and is there any joint cooperation between your government and other NATO allies with
regards to this UFO phenomena and channeling of important data on specific UFO sighting
cases that warrant other NATO Allies being informed about progress in investigating a
particular case like the Rendlesam Forrest incidents that were highly documented and by
official channels and by higher ranking personnal were involved which is indeed wery
unusual “does your office ever conduct any field investigations on UFO sighting reports
looking into background of a particular sighting that has physical traces with photogr-
aphic evidence of a UFO and photos of the landing sight showing actual physical traces
left behind by the UFO and does your dept have a manual for refferance of different
catagorys of these UFOs like the MUFON field investigators manual which is a guide
explaining some of the differances between IFOs Identified Flying Objects Unid=
entified Flying Objects and basis rules to help determine catagory of the UFO sighting”
what is your department step by step procedures for investigating these UFO sighting ,
reports where not secret I am very interested in obtaining some more detailed informat
ion on ‘how a military base might be instructed in investigating a UFO sighting within
their own military base property or do they just send in a brief sighting report how
much details would be important to sufficiently investigate the UFO sighting to determ
ine the defense implications: of that particular report and has the MIS or MI9 intellie
gence services ever been utilized to obtain more additional UFO reports this I underst
and is a possibility for additionnal UFO reports do you know of the British government
and weither its intelligence aparatus is doing any monitoring of the UFO phenomena for
possible intelligence information of some benifit to British military security am aware
that our National Security Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency are doing some
secret monitoring of the UFO phenomena for national security reasons which are concide-
red valid enough I wish to thank you for your kind and gracious assistance
that you will provide in your reply SINCERLY
ot
trom
-O
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE OFFICE OF SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS
CHIEF OF INFORMATION RELEASE
WASHINGTON D.C. 20330-5025 MARCH 8th 1985
I am presently involved in some background research investigateing on a book titled Clear
Intent by Barry Greenwood and Larry Fawcett on page 224 of their book a report is discuss-
ed which originated from Kirckland AFB N.M. dated 2-9 Sept 80 OSI complaint form for offic-
ial use only 8 Aug 3 80 alledged sightings of Unidentified Aerial Lights in restricted tes-
t range the file # is 8017D93-0/29 I wish to ask if you can release the complete file unde-
rv the Freedome of Information Act 5 USC552 and can I please recieve a copy of this file
the following incidents are on file at the British Minestry Of Defense their address is Ma-
in Building Whitehall London SW1A=2HB the present head of the UFO report recieving dept DS8
is Section 40. | however not knowing how their government would respond to an inquiry
from a citizen of a foreign country about documents that the British Government might rega=
rd as sensitive enough as far as being of a high security nature a reply possibly would not
be given here concerning a official report probably regarded as confidential meaning not for
distribution to persons with out a security clearance I should point out that the report is
on page 218 of the book Clear Intent and on(page 22 and 23 of the book Sky Crash A Cosmic
Conspiracy by Brenda Butler Dot Street and Jenny Randles) the report has ben photoduplica-
ted in its entirety in both books what I am interested in verifying here is the existence of
the report and possibly additional documents in the form of an open file this is the filed
report written as follows DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE HEADQUARTERS 81st Combat Support Group
RAF Bentwaters filed by Deputy Base Commander Lt, Col,USAF CHARLES I HALT dated January 13th
1981 subject Unexplained Lights 1. Early in the mourning of 27 Dec 80 (approximately 0300)
two. USAF security police patroleman saw unusual lights outside the back gate at RAF Woodbrid-
ge. Thinking an aircraft might have crashed or been forced down, they called for permission
to go outside the gate to investigate. The on duty flight chief responded and allowed three
patrolmen to proceed on foot. The individuals reported seeing a strange bright object in the
forrest. The object was described as being metalic in appearance and triangular in shape ap-
proximately two to three meters across the base and approximately two meters high. It illum=
inated the entire forrest with a white light. The object itself had a pulsing red light on
top and a bank(s) of blue lights underneathe The object was hovering or on legse As the pa-
trolmen approached the object it maneuvered through the trees and disapeared. At this time
the animals on a nearby farm went into a frenzy. The object was briefly sighted an hour lat=
ter near the back gate. 2. The next day, three depressions one and a half inches deep and
seven inches in diameter were found where the object had been sighted been sighted on th e-
round. The following night (29 Dee 80) the area was checked for radiation. Beta/gamma readi=
ngs of 0.1 milliroentgens were recorded with peak readings in the three depressions and n-
ear the center of the triangle formed by the depressions. A nearby tree had moderate (.05-.0
7) readings on the side of the tree tword the depressiome3e Later in the night a red sun
like light was seen through the trees. It moved about and pulsed. At one point it appeared
to throw off glowing particles and then broke into five seperate white objects and then di-
sapeared. Immediately thereafter,three star like objects were noticed in the sky, two obje=
cts to the north and one to the south, all of which were about ten degrees off the horizons
The objects moved rapidly in sharp angular movements and displayed red, green and blue lig-
hts. The objects to the north appeared to be ecliptical through an 8 by 12 power lense.They
then turned to full circles. The object to the south was visable for two or three hours and
beamed a stream of light from time to time. Numerous individuals including the undersigned,
witnessed the activities in paragraphs 2 and 3
Signed CHARLES I HALT,Lt,Col, USAF Deputy Base Commander
the following personall were assigned at the joint RAF base of Bentwaters/Woodbridge duri-
ng the Rendlesham forrest incidents of Dec 27th and 30th 1980
Lt, Col,Charles I Halt now Colonel Colonel Jack Cochran left in 1984 around spring
Colonel now Brig,Gen, Ted Conrad left in left in 1981
Colonel Sam Morgan left in 1981
Colonel now Brigadier General Gordon Williams left in Jan 81
Ma jor Maleolm Zickler left in jan 81
Captain Kathleen McCollom left in Jan 84
Colonel Soya left in jan 81
Sergeant Adrian Bustinza Jan 81
Airman lst Class John Burrougs left in Jan 81
Airman Ist Class Steve Wilkins left possibly in Jan 81
Airman lst Class Art Wallace Left in Jan 81 not his real name and he is no longer in the
USAF now a civillian also on record by authors of Sky Crash A Cosmic Coverup
Airman !st Class James Archer left in Jan 81 witnessed UFO on Dec 27th 80 not his real
name is on record of the authors: of the book Sky Crask A Cosmic Conspiiracy by Brenda But-
ler Dot Street and Jenny Randles
Airman lst Class Steve Roberts Security police patroleman witnessed the first si-
ghting of Dec 27th 80 not his real name is known by the authors of Sky Crash A Cosmic Cov-
erup
Squadron Leader Donald Moreland British RAF base Commander during the UFO events
Brigadier General Richard M Pascoe 25th Air Division left im spring of 84
the following reports of the Rendlesham forrest incidents was was recieved from a person
who was stationed at Bentwaters RAFB during the second UFO event of 30 Dec 80 this person
has asked the authors of Clear Intent not to use his real name so for the record he will be
refered to as Art Wallace this is his view of the events typed exactly as printed on pages
(214,215,216,217) of the Book. Clear Intent Art Wallace was attched to the Bentwaters Air F=
erce Base as a Security Policeman. He had ben assigned to the base for only a short period
of time when at 1:00 A.M. on the night either on or near to 30 Dec 80 Airman Wallace was on
duty at the Bentwaters flight line,a jeep pulled up.Two mem a sergeant and a lieutenant,told
Wallace to get in because they were going over to the motor pool.On the way overoAirman Walla
ce and the sergeant were told to get gas powered “light-alls"(trailer mounted lights used to
illuminate large areas).The lights were attched to the jeep,and the Bentwaters main gate wher
e they met other vehicles.The convoy moved out tword the Rendlesham forrest a few miles awaye
Airman Wallace heard radio chatter mentioning names of people he knew plus OSI most likely a
treferance to the Air Force Office of Investigations.Airman Wallace saw security police as we=
11 as members of the British Military stationed all along the way,They pulled onto a dirt roa
d and drove about a mile into the Rendlesham Forrest,stopping at Airman Wallace referred toa
$s a staging point.The men were ordered to check their weapons in since they would not be
taking them along Airman Wallace went into the woods with four other men led by a captain who
had met them at the Bentwaters motor pool.As they approached a clearing in the woods,they not
iced a brightness in the distance and the sound of helicopters overhead Wallace noticed an
airman crying at tbhe edge of the clearing with a medic attending him.This puzzled Airman
Wallace as he couldnt imahine what might have been going oneThe first thing the men noticed
when they had a clear view view was the large movie cameras had been placed surrounding a
field in the clearingeMany plainclothes personel were milling about watching something «
The something was an object taking the appearance of a transparent aspirin tablet ,hovering
about one foot off the groundeAirman Wallace estimated that the object was fiftey feet in dia
meter and had a bright,pulsating,yellow mist inside it.It did not move from its position.
Airman Wallace and some of the men approached the object to within ten feetsTwo cown in the f£
ield d come over to the object according to Airman Wallace,appeared to be just staring at t
he object,oblivious to the security men in the areasA radio call was heard over a field radio
uniteA helicopter pilot said,here it comes.In the distance a red light appeared first behind
a pine tree,then in fron of iteThe light quickly sped over to the asr‘rin shaped object and
hovered at a position about twenty feet above it.sAfter maintaining this position for a minute
athe red light broke up.No explosion occured in the conventional senseeThe light merly broke
up into a shower of particlessSuddenly,in the place of the red light and and the aspirin shap
ed object another vehicle appeared.Airman Wallace said it was a domed disc,bright white inc
olor,with an intricately detailed surface much like the models used in movies like"star wars"
and"close encounters It had two appendages on the lower flang of the disc which seem to be
the beginning of delta wingsbut not quite.sShadows were cast on the surface of the disc by som
e of the raised relief detail.sAirman Wallace and the men with him walked around the object an
d noticed some interesting effects,Their own shadows were cast onto the object,probably by
the bright “light alls" in the field.Not only did their shadows bend upwards at the head but
but as they walked and stoped,the shadows would appear to advance one pace more then stop.Stu
nned and disbelieving of this effect,Airman Wallace and the others walked and stoped several
times,each time noyicing the effect repeat itselfsAdditionally,the third time that they tried
this a light came over the head of a shadow and moved from one head to another
Under hypnosis Wallace found his memory extending beyond tno point where ene ‘TV video light’
danced on.the side of the UFO.He now saw aliens Wallace describes them clearly.There were
three and their height was about three or three and a half feetoTheir heads were large and out
of proportion to their bodies.sTheir eyes were like inverted cats eyes, and the ear,nose and
mouth were ail just slits.Iwo wore all over silver suits*like an overall’-the other ,who seemed
to be the leaderywore a similar suit but blakish.He also had what looked like a long stick by
his sideoIt was apparently clinging to the suit,but their did not appear to be any belt or
fasteningoThe three aliens floated from the underside of the craft and onto the ground.Still
ina floating motion the one in black moved twords gordon williams,who Wallace insist was
close to the crafteHe heard no words exchanged,but saw what might have been sign languages
Whilist this was happening there seemed to be a disturbance over the far side of the crafte
It was out of view and so Wallace could not see what was occurring,but he could tell from
the reaction of the men that something.And the aliens appeared to react tooeTheir eyes were
normally very small but at this point they responded by enlarging them They swelled up into
big circles and then returned to normaleAfter a few moments the contact with Williams proce
eded.Wallace was awere that the aliens had damaged their craft and that assistance was being
offered in its repair But he was simply mesmerized watching the conversation.Then one of the
other two aliens began to float over in the direction of the group of men of which Wallace
was onésOh my god he's coming over to us Wallace recalls shoutingsAnd then even the hypnosis
could produce nothing beyond blackness,untill the reawakening in the barracks
The debriefing occured that day following the night UFO encounter Wallace was picked up on
base by a black car with dark glass.eHe could not see where he was going,he felt as if he were
drugged because they made him get in and he did not want toeHe felt very strange.The two men
wore dark suits and looked oriental.Neither spoke when he demanded to know where they were
taking himeBut he felt a voice in his head say,'Dont be affraid. ‘After getting out of the car
at an unknown location in the dark,Wallace was led down several flights of steel stairs.He was
now in a large room which housed the UFO,identical to the one he had seen in the forrest the
day before.But he was hastily led away from here into another room where several other men he
recognized from the encounterwere present.Everywhere aroud him was spotless and clean,like a
hospital.An officer then spoke verbally and told him not to worry as all would be explained.
But he then feels he lost consciousness again as his next memory is of waking up and being
given breakfasteAfter the food he was taken to a room where there were rows of chairs and a
small platform with a big screen on it.Seven men including himself,were sat there.All had been
out in the forrest that nightoAn officer,whom Wallace did not recognise,then onto the platform
and explained that they were about to see some film and be informed as to why they were there
The fi. was a collection of movie clips apparently taken from aircraft.They showed UFOs in
pursuit of military planes and spanned many years,beginning with Second World War footages
One scene was of a craft in a huge hangar somewhere.After the show the lights came on and
nothing was saideWallace felt very calm and relaxed and again as if he were druggedsBut through
a glow shining at the back of the screen he saw a small figure.It was only in sillouette,masked
by the material,but it was evidently an alien!The alien proceeded to explain who it was,where it
came from and why it was on eartheThis it did straight into Art Wallace's mind no words were
spoken.Wallace could not recall the name or origin of the alien,ever under hypnosissBut he
could remember the reason supposedly offered for its visitsThe aliens were here to educate
mankind.sBut only certain people had been selected to recieve this knowledge.The seven men in the
room were some who had ben chosen.Others had been chosen before and there were a number of
aliens doing similar things elsewhereoThey hac been on earth for a very long time,watching over
and guiding the human race.Great changes were due soon.Some had happened already.Others were yet
to come and Wallace and the others intended for intended for the purpose,would have a big part
to play in thesesMore information would be given when these changescame closer.But they should
have no no fear,because the aliens were going to watch over their their proteges
now this version has a high degree of strangeness in the explanation of why the aliens had
alledgedly made contact with Wallace I believe this view shiuld be taken with a grain of salt
or several grains of salt I believe it highly possible for some contact in the futre between
humans and some alien intelligent life forms but the way that might occure is another area for
discussion the Wallace version is not acceptable in my view of reality I dont think such a
meeting could possibly take place under those circumstances perhaps in some distant time we may
meet alien intelligent life forms but we need more time to develope our world space exploration
programs perhaps more world cooperation in space will lead to more advances in space exploration
but until then we can be satasfied for the present that there are possible intelligent life form
s$ out there we only have to get there and I believe with our shuttle program we are in the right
direction this space program gets several countries involved in vareous projects that benefits
everyone involved this is a very good step in achieving long term space research goals that will
eventually lead to some possible futre contact with alien life forms either below or at
our level or much higher in intelligence than the human occupants of the water planet earth as
far as the UFO phenomena is concerned there many interesting theories as to why alien life
forms as some of the close encounter cases that are well researched seem to point to some inte
rest in our planetary biology and the varied life forms that inhabit our planet including but
not exclusively humans I think that if a scientist does research on a lower form of inteligent
life his standard rule might be not to alter the conditions of that given species in the prec
ess of doing his biological research so that true scientific studies can be conducted on that
particular biological life form this does not seem to be the case in the UFO contact cases the
aliens are only partly succesfull in their endeaver to alledgedly conduct their human study
the more documented case historys indicate the persons alledgedly abducted are able to remember
their abduction with the assistance of specialized hypnosis regression thus their presence has
become known to persons in addition to the alledged person abducted by the aliens this con
flicts with our own ideas of and experience of what happens when superior intelligence contacts
lower forms of life the results are usually very unfortunate the lower form of life usually
looses his identity his culture something like when the preditor prey scenario when the preditor
is virtually eliminated with his natural enemy gone his balance of population overproduces the
unplanned introduction of pest control methods can lead to a unbalance in nature so the natural
means that exist do work as with humans if we made an uncontrolled contact with a vastly super
ior intelligent life forn many thousands of years in advance of our selves the consequences
might destroy our civilization and culture and result in the destroying of any human nationality
that we have today so planned contact with humans is possible but limited contact at best is
the best approach at the present
Blt
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE H
MAIN BUILDING WHITEHALL LONDON SWIA 2HB i
le Dialing)
hboard)
PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE
i
FOR THE ARMED FORCES |
D/US of S(AF)DGT/E20 {4 June 1985
Dear [ee,
You wrote to Michael Heseltine on 1 May 1985 about the sighting
of an unidentified flying object near RAF Woodbridge in December
1980. Michael has asked me to reply as UFO questions fall within
my responsibilities.
|
|
I do understand your concern and I am grateful to you for having
taken the trouble to write. I do not believe, however, that
there are any grounds for changing our view, formed at the time,
that the events to which you refer were of no defence significance.
You may recall the House of Lords debate on UFOs in 1979: (Hansard,
.. 19 January 1979). I attach an extract of what I said on that
occasion. Whilst I respect the views of those who differ from me
on this matter I am bound to say that nothing I have seen since
then has led me to change the views I myself expressed.
Lord Trefgarne
Admiral of the Fleet the Rt Hon Lord Hill-Norton GCB
Reference.....sescceecesereresseseeseeseeebesenees
2(4 copy 12 /2|
APS/US of S(AF)
1. US of S(AF) will recall recent correspondence on this matter
with Lord Hill-Norton and Rt Hon Merlyn Rees MP. In both cases he
took the line that we have nothing to add to what had already been
Said on the Woodbridge incident. Indeed, this was the line taken in
previous correspondence with David Alton (See M3). The enclosed
draft reply to Mr Alton once more follows this approach.
’
2. Mr Alton specifically requested a copy of the MOD official
reply to Mr Noyes’ last letter. This is enclosed, together with an
earlier letter to which it refers. There is no objection to passing
this correspondence to Mr Alton.
3. You may wish to note that Mr Alton has apparently passed on
both letters sent by Lord Trefgarne on 19 March 85, even though one
of these was intended to be for his information only
IZ June 1985
Sec(AS)2a
DRAFT.
D/US of S(AF)/DGT 5173 June 1985:
Thank you for your letter of 16 May to Michael Heseltine
enclosing one from Mr R Noyes. You asked to see a copy of the
Department's reply to Mr Noyes' letter of 25 February 1985 and this
is enclosed, together with earlier correspondence to which it refers.
As I pointed out in my letter of 19 March, the MOD concerns
itself only with the defence implications of reported UFO sightings.
In this context, the report submitted by Col Halt in January 1981 was
examined by those in the Department responsible for such matters and,
as I have made clear in the past, it was considered to have no
defence significance, We have since seen nothing to alter this view
and there is nothing I can usefully add to the comments made in
See(AS)'s letter or Mr Noyes.
Lord Trefgarne
David Alton Esq MP
Job No 2-24
HOUSE OF COMMONS
LONDON SWIA OAA
16th May 1985
I enclose a letter I have received from Mr_R Noyes following on
from enquiries I first raised with your Department in March,
I read Mr Noyes letter with great interest and it seems to me that
the points he raises are quite reasonable and merit a reply.
I should be most grateful if you could let me have your comments
and if you could let me see’a copy of the reply to Mr Noyes’ own
letter to your Department dated 25th February 1985,
Yeurs sincerely,
awid
David Alton, MP,
The Rt. Hon. Michael Heseltine, MP.
Secretary of State
Ministry of Defence
Main Building
Whitehall
London SW1 2HB>
14th May, 1985
David Alton, Esq., MP, ‘
House of Commons,
Westminster,
London SW1 .
Dear Mr. Alton,
has kept me informed about her corres-
pondence with you on the unusual incidents which were reported to the Ministry
of Defence by USAF authorities at RAF Woodbridge in January 1981. I have also
seen Lord Trefgarne's letters to you of 19th March.
decided to write further to you about this puzzling
and disquieting case, and she referred to me her enclosed letter of 3lst March,
which is addressed to you, in the hope that I might be able to add useful comm-
ents. Much to my regret I have had to spend much time out of London on other
business in recent weeks and it is only now that I am able, very belatedly, to
send on letter to you.
My own background, .in brief, is that I served in the Ministry of
Defence from 1949 to 1977, leaving in the grade of Under Secretary of State.
From 1969 to late in 1972 I headed a Division in the central staffs of the MOD
which had responsibilities for supporting RAF operations. This brought me into
touch with a proportion of the many reports which the Department receives about
unidentified traces in British airspace.
I believe Bfasection40 | is right to remain very dissatisfied
with the official line which the MOD has adopted on the Rendlesham Forest incid-—
ents of December. 1980. I have myself said so on a number of public occasions,
and I have pursued the matter in correspondence with the MOD - wholly without
success.
At the risk of burdening you with an excessive amount of paper, I
attach the most recent of my letters to the Ministry of Defence. You will see
that this is dated 25th February 1985. I have so far received no answer, despite
reminders. On a previous occasion it took the Department three and a half months
to send me a wholly perfunctory reply.
Section 40 | claims much collateral evidence for her own views; on
this I am not competent to comment. My own position is, quite simply, that an
extraordinary report was made to the Ministry of Defence by the Deputy Base
Commander at RAF Woodbridge early in 1981; that the very existence of this report
was denied by the MOD until persistent: researchers in the US secured its release
under the American Freedom of Information Act in 1983; and that the MOD's resp-
onses to questions since that time have been thoroughly unsatisfactory.
I cannot accept Lord Trefgarne's view that there is no Defence
interest in this case. Unless Lt.Col. Halt was out of his mind, there is clear
evidence in his report that British airspace and territory were intruded upon
by an unidentified vehicle on two occasions in late December 1980 and that no
authority was able to prevent this. If, on the other hand, Halt's report cannot
be believed, there is equally clear evidence of a serious misjudgement of events
by USAF personnel at an important base in British territory. Either way, the
case can hardly be without Defence significance.
The dates in question are now rather remote, but I doubt that
this should be taken to excuse the very perfunctory manner in which Lord
Trefgarne has dealt with your letter. I hope that you may feel able to a‘
pursue the matter further, either in correspondence or in a PQ. The essence «
of the questions to be pressed seems to me to lie in my preceding paragraph.
Seen in these Corny, ERM article in the GUARDIAN (which Lord
Trefgarne rather surprisingly falls back upon) is wholly irrelevant. If the
USAF really are capable of hallucinations induced by a lighthouse which must
surely be very familiar to them, then I shudder for that powerful finger
which lies upon so many triggers...
My own letter to the MOD (enclosed) raises other more detailed
questions. But I do not suggest that you should necessarily concern yourself
with them, anyway at this stage. It would be nice if the MOD would answer
letters, of course ! But the’essence of the Defence interest which I suggest
a responsible Member of Parliament might reasonably raise lies in the argument
I have tried to present above.
If I can be of any assistance in discussion with you, I am at
your disposal.
Yours sincerely,
(Ralph Noyes)
31 March 1985
Dear Mr. Alton,
Thank you for your enclosures (undated) which reached me on 30th inst.
May I comment on the reply of Lord Trefgarne to yourself.
His letter is virtually a word-for-word repeat of the standard MoD line (it must save
money to keep churning them out of the word processor$) However, he does add a couple
of points not previously noted. These are the specific references to not UYovering up
“any incident or mishap" and not "in any way to obscure the truth". That said, and it
presumably being true, I would have thought that it was of interest to know from the
MoD why they only have the memo from Col Halt (and note he is refered to in Trefgarne
letter as Colonel Halt, his rank row, although on the memo he is Lt.Col.).
Bear in mind that this incident (whatever it was) occurred on BRITISH soil (not base
land) and just outside the perimeter fence of an RAF owned base. Consequently British
citizens have a right to expect to haye been kept informed of matters, especially as
then British commander (Squadron Leader Donald Moreland) was specifically on base for
that purpos:.
YET - according to the MoD stance — we are lead to believe the following data was at
no time made ayailable...VIZ
(i) The tape recording made by Halt, the vase security chief and several other senior
officersjwhich describes in detail the taking of soil samples,tree samples ,photograph
radiation readings,infra-red readings etc AT THE SITE ON BRITI, SOIL. Subsequently
(as the tape records) a "UFO" reappeared. This tape is in our hands and Moreland
personally told me in January 1984 (several months before we got it from the US
commander in America) that he was aware of ivs existence.
How come the MoD haye no copy? How come the activities recorded on it took place on
British soil without MoD knowledge? How come Moreland never advised ¢+he MoD of this
vital evidence?
(ii) The photographs and samples recorded on the tape (which is officially accepted a
genuine by the US) are,again,crucial evidence.Under a recent Freedom of Information
(US) request they have been admitted and are likely to be made available in theUSA
very shortky. Again, I think we are entitled to ask why the MoD appear not only +o be
unaware of these but have no copies or copies of the analysis results which must
accompany them. Again Moreland was aware that these samples and photographs were take:
IF, as the MoB contend, the events do not bear any relationship to a secret test or
experiment (and if they do they have lied both to you,as an MP, and to me) then that
is an admission that they involve an Unidentified Object (wkich is all I contend the
UFO to be). Indeed in the letter to me od 13 April 1983 Ds 8 do say that the lights
are unidentified and haye "no explanation".
It seems to me that there are questions here concerning the interrelation between
the US Air Force on British soil and our country IF, as contended, several senior
officers from a USAF base can be involved in protracted work outside the base and on
British land without sumh facts being known by the MoD or the results of thear work
peing made available.
It is an interesting question as to who legally owns the samples of allegedly
irrédiated soil and tree bark +aken from BRITISH land (owned by the Forestry Commi
in fact)! I doubt very much that the USAF have carte blamche approval to do what th
like on our shores. And if they do I for one am very concerned about it!
Finally,you will note that the official response makes no reference to the lighthous:
normal packground radiation theories propounded by Section 40 _| in the Guardian’ (on +)
strength of almost no evidence). Yet the Trefgarne letter to you does try to convince
you this is the answer,
Neither the MoD noe the USAF will accept the lighthouse theory officially because the
are as well aware as I am that it is easily refutablbe by the facts.
actually stated on television (in @ debate with myself) (5 March 1985) that he
regarded his investigation as more objective.His investigation, as he admitted, has
consisted of interviewing not a single one of the 17 eye-witnesses from the USAF now
traced as being present during the events.Instead it consisted of speaking to one
forestry vorker who found some holes in the ground one month after the sightings and
has presumed they might have been connected! I have spoken to that worker also, on
the site itself, and he is less than conoinced of his theory himself.
eye-witnesses who saw
None of this takes into account the various BR
the events,some in positions where it is literally impossible to see the lighthouse,
others looking in the oppoSite direction from it, and one who had the decidely
curious experience of the "lighthouse" flying right over the top of his houses
I am trying to force no explanation onto anybody. But frankly the lighthouse idea
is utterly ridiculous and the MoD must know that.
Besides which - what does it do to the USAF/RAF/MoD inter-relationship if all these
senior officers (base commander, deputy commander,chief security officer, on-duty
night command officer and control tower chief amongst them) do not know what a
lighthouse looks like, wh ch has stooé five miles from one of our bases for decades
and still stands today?
It seems to me this proffers defence implications should these men (or men like them
ever be put into a situation where they have to defend this lands
In connection with which comes the question of the radiation. Section 4(eteaaae this
was ordinary background stuff.The forest was not irradiated, The "peak" ieadings in
the alleged ground traces (samples taken) are quoted as seven-tenths on the point
five scale.And I am reliably informed these are significant.
But again - assuming they are not - are we to take it that none of these senior
USAF officers have received any training on radiation monitoting? If so - are You
satisfied to leave them in charge of cruise missiles and nucke2r weapons on our
shores?
I know that I am not happy, and I am convinced that such factors pose eyen more
serious defence implications than if a genuine bona-fide UFO was involved. The MoD
have steadfastly refused to make any comment on these matters.Perhaps you,Hr Alton,
can get them to do so?
I pass this letter to Ralph Noyes for forwarding to you,with a letter I trust he wil
write you. Ralph,as former head of the DS 8 section handling UFO enquiries, knows th
situation better than I -» Supports our call for more information on this affair,
and will I hope open your eyes to the truth about what is being obscured heres
Please do not be put off. There are important civil liberties issues at stake.
. MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
MAIN BUILDING WHITEHALL LONDON SW1A 2HB
Teleph .. (Direct Dialling)
ichboard)
PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY
Fuente: The National Archives (Reino Unido) (dominio público) · PDF (vía The Black Vault) ↗ · ver en el archivo de Nodriza