Free UK UFO National Archives Documents

507 views

Published on

Free documents from the UK UFO National Archives. You have to pay for these now, but we have them! You can get all of them at no cost here: http://alien-ufo-research.com/documents/uk

Published in: News & Politics
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
507
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
113
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Free UK UFO National Archives Documents

  1. 1. the national archives (c) crown copyright
  2. 2. RESTRICTED/UNCLASSIFIED MOD Form 329D {Revised 8100) PPQ 100 = MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Dale opened (Date of first enclosure) DIVISION/ESTABLISHMENT/UNIT/BRANCH Attention is drawn to the notes on the Inside flap. 2. :t.$ E~ 1. Enter notes of related files on page 2 of this jacket :toos. [FULL ADDRESS & TELEPHONE NUMBER] [BLOCK CAPITALS] RECORD OF KEYWORDS: I I I I___________ l I___________ _ -----------~-----------l - 1': t :e Referred to r~~ .... · I ""'" to Date ·-., ~w, "" ~~rr..._ll st 7 ~ ;, ~ I""' c .... ~ ...... -L l ~ ~ . IC~~ ~~ 1. I , to~ ... - . ~ • : ' I ..,"·1·.) 1 ....... ~ ... :)_ • //I l I I< b'"i 7~ I ;,.~/ I'") C) l t -;/ / f-- ~ I p ~ l. ~) I ,. FOR ORO USE.ONLY 1st Review date 2nd Review dale PAACTION , (MOD Form 262F must be completed at the lime of file closure) Produced by MOD OSDA (PC) Ky. Tel: 0117 9376256 Date RESTRICTED/UNCLASSIFIEL. llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll . RCU001408282 T Min/ Encl
  3. 3. . From Directorate of Air Staff- Freedom of Information 1 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE 5th Floor, Zone H, Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1A 2HB Telephone (Direct dial) (Switchboard) 020 7218 2140 (Fax) Your Reference: Our Reference: D/DAS/64/2 Date: 12 September 2005 West Sussex Dear I am writing with reference to your report of an 'unidentified flying object', seen on 9 September 2005, the details of which you passed to Sussex Police. This office is the focal point within the Ministry of Defence for correspondence relating to 'UFOs.' First, it may be helpful if I explain that the Ministry of Defence examines any reports of 'unidentified flying objects' it receives solely to establish whether what was seen might have some defence significance; namely, whether there is any evidence that the United Kingdom's airspace might have been compromised by hostile or unauthorised air activity. Unless there is evidence of a potential threat to the United Kingdom from an external source, and to date no 'UFO' report has revealed such evidence, we do not attempt to identify the precise nature of each sighting reported to us. We believe that rational explanations, such as aircraft lights or natural phenomena, could be found for them if resources were diverted for this purpose, but it is not the function of the MOD to provide this kind of aerial identification service. It would be an inappropriate use of defence resources if we were to do so. The MOD does not have any expertise or role in respect of 'UFO/flying saucer' matters to the question of the existence or otherwise of extraterrestriallifeforms, about which it remains totally open-minded. I should add that to date, the MOD knows of no evidence which substantiates the existence of these alleged phenonena. With regard to your particular observation, I can confirm that we received no other reports of ' UFO' sightings for 9 September 2005 from anywhere in the UK. We are satisfied that there is no corroborating evidence to suggest that the United Kingdom' s airspace was breached by unauthorised aircraft. Sorry I could not be any help. Yours sincerely
  4. 4. • REPORT OF AN UNEXPLAINED AERIAL SIGHTING 9 September 2005 05.45L 1. Date and time of sighting. (Duration of sighting.) 2. There was one light in the sky, that burst Description of object. (No of objects, size, shape, colour, into four separate ones, before brightness, noise.) disappearing. 3. Exact position of observer. Geographical location. (Indoors/outdoors, stationary/moving.) Not given. 4. How object was observed. (Naked eye, binoculars, other optical device, camera or camcorder.) With the naked eye. 5. Direction in which object was first seen. (A landmark may be more helpful than a roughly estimated bearing.) The light was seen over Little Hampton, West Sussex. 6. Approximate distance. Not given. 7. Movements and speed. (side to side, up or down, constant, moving fast, slow) Not given. 8. Weather conditions during observation. (cloudy, haze, mist, clear) Not given. 1
  5. 5. • 9. To whom reported. (Police, military, press etc) 10. Name, address and telephone no of informant. 11. Other witnesses. Sussex Police were informed who then rang Das answerphone. 12. Remarks. 13. Date and time of receipt. Not given. Not given. 9 September 2005 11.30L 2
  6. 6. .. From· Directorate of Air Staff - Freedom of Information 1 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE 5th Floor, Zone H, Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1A 2HB Telephone (Direct dial) 020 7218 2140 (Switchboard) (Fax) Your Reference: Our Reference: D/DAS/64/2 Date: 8 September 2005 Chelmsford Essex I am writing with reference to your report of an 'unidentified flying object', seen on 3 September 2005, the details of which you passed to me during our conversation on the phone. This office is the focal point within the Ministry of Defence for correspondence relating to 'UFOs.' First, it may be helpful if I explain that the Ministry of Defence examines any reports of 'unidentified flying objects' it receives solely to establish whether what was seen might have some defence significance; namely, whether there is any evidence that the United Kingdom's airspace might have been compromised by hostile or unauthorised air activity. Unless there is evidence of a potential threat to the United Kingdom from an external source, and to date no 'UFO' report has revealed such evidence, we do not attempt to identify the precise nature of each sighting reported to us. We believe that rational explanations, such as aircraft lights or natural phenomena, could be found for them if resources were diverted for this purpose, but it is not the function of the MOD to provide this kind of aerial identification service. It would be an inappropriate use of defence resources if we were to do so. The MOD does not have any expertise or role in respect of 'UFO/flying saucer' matters to the question of the existence or otherwise of extraterrestriallifeforms, about which it remains totally open-minded. I should add that to date, the MOD knows of no evidence which substantiates the existence of these alleged phenomena. With regard to your particular observation, I can confirm that we received no other reports of 'UFO' sightings for 3 September 2005 from anywhere in the UK. We are satisfied that there is no corroborating evidence to suggest that the United Kingdom's airspace was breached by unauthorised aircraft. Sorry I could not help you in finding out what the object was. Yours sincere!y
  7. 7. v REPORT OF AN UNEXPLAINED AERIAL SIGHTING 3 September 2005 17.45L 1. Date and time of sighting. (Duration of sighting.) 2. saw a cylindrical shaped object, Description of object. tliat clianged colour from silver to black as (No of objects, size, shape, colour, brightness, noise.) it was moving across the sky. It then changed into a V shape before it disappeared. The object was extremely large, about 1OOft wide. 3. Exact position of observer. Geographical location. (Indoors/outdoors, stationary/moving.) Just said he was outside. 4. How object was observed. (Naked eye, binoculars, other optical device, camera or camcorder.) With the naked eye and then through 10/50 binoculars. 5. Direction in which object was first seen. (A landmark may be more helpful than a roughly estimated bearing.) The object was going from East to West over Little Waltham, Essex. 6. Approximate distance. 7. Movements and speed. (side to side, up or down, constant, moving fast, slow) Just said, it looked like it was above his head at one point, then moved into the distance. The object was moving from East to West across the sky very slowly. Looked like it was drifting. Then the object looked like it was moving horizontally and then was moving vertically up into the sky. 8. Weather conditions during observation. (cloudy, haze, mist, clear) A few clouds, but otherwise clear. l
  8. 8. • 9. To whom reported. (Police, military, press etc) 10. My personal work number was given to him by ~ being contacted by the CAA. He then rang me and informed me of his sighting. Name, address and telephone no of informant. 11. Other witnesses. His wife witnessed the object too. 12. Remarks. said that at times, while object, there were vapour trails. That is was also unusually large for a normal aircraft of any sort. It didn't have any lights or markings that he could decipher. Said it would have swamped a normal 7 September 2005 I got the call at 14.30L. 13. Date and time of receipt. l
  9. 9. Page 1 of 1 ~o'~~) ~ d.d.d.:,~ ~~~~. ..... .-~--~ . ·---~ . .~ --------··---··-----·--- -·-···--·-----·-·-·----·-~--------··-·~C~~;~ From: Cro Raf [cro.wadd@virgin.net] Sent: 05 September 2005 14:13 To: DAS-UFO-Office Subject: UFO report A local newspaper, the Louth Leader, have had a couple of calls about this. They seem to think the informants were quite sober and serious. We had no reports here but are further south. Our ATC was not manned Sunday evening in any case. The info I have is: date /time: Sun 4th Sep 05 2200 -2215 location: Above Louth, Lincolnshire description: 2 orange orbs seen outside with naked eye moved very slowly at first then very fast towards North sea clear night no concerts/out door functions in area (quiet market town) reported to - -of Louth Leader newspaper. not reporte~d a few RAF Stations, then the RPRO~ho contacted this office. - ould like to know if there was any flying in the area and if there was a logical explanation, hoping to do a follow up piece for the paper. Thank you, 05/09/2005
  10. 10. Page 1 of 1 • Sent: 07 September 2005 15:57 To: 'Cro Rat' Subject: Internet-Authorised: UFO Report. There could have been low flying in the area, but that would have been at a low height. No heights were given in the report. We do not investigate UFO sightings, as we have a limited interest in the subject.. We look at reports more for defence significance, i.e. that if the United Kingdom's airspace could have been compromised by unauthorised aircraft. Sorry I could not have been more help. Regards FOI1 MOD 5th Floor, Zone H Main Building Whitehall London SW1A 2HB Tel: 07/09/2005
  11. 11. Sent; 07 September 2005 12:28 To: Subject: FW: UFOs in Romford No UFO investigations or interest I assume in the following? ... another report from the Romford Gazette Mon 5 Sept shortly before 21 .00 Roneo Corner, Ho~hurch near Romford, Essex. I' Thanks Ministry of Defence Press Office Main Building 1.8.38 Whitehall London SW1A 2HB @mod.uk {l('_~ leo t0.QS" . ~ -..~ "T ~Q.. ~) ~,k ~ d~~ ~'f'.;>~~- 07/09/2005
  12. 12. REPORT OF AN UNEXPLAINED AERIAL SIGHTING 1. Date and time of sighting. (Duration of sighting.) August2005 Time not given. 2. said that there was this Description of object. (No of objects, size, shape, colour, bubble like thing in the sky. brightness, noise.) 3. Exact position of observer. Geographical location. Outdoors. (Indoors/outdoors, stationary/moving.) 4. How object was observed. With the naked eye. (Naked eye, binoculars, other optical device, camera or camcorder.) 5. Direction in which object was frrst seen. Not given. (A landmark may be more helpful than a roughly estimated bearing.) 6. 7. Approximate distance. Not given. Movements and speed. The bubble like thing flashed across the sky very quickly. (side to side, up or down, constant, moving fast, slow) 8. Weather conditions during observation. Not given. (cloudy, haze, mist, clear) 1
  13. 13. .. 9. To whom reported. (Police, military, press etc) 10. Das answerphone. Name, address and telephone no of informant. 11. Other witnesses. Not given. 12. Remarks. Not given. 13. Date and time of receipt. 1 September 2005 10.40L 2
  14. 14. From: Directorate of Air Staff- Freedom of Information 1 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE 5th Floor, Zone H, Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1A 2HB Telephone (Direct dial) (Switchboard) 020 7218 2140 (Fax) Your Reference: Rotherham South Yorkshire Our Reference: D/DAS/64/2 Date: 1 September 2005 Dear I am writing with reference to your report of an 'unidentified flying object', seen on 6, 13, 20 August 2005, the details of which you passed to this office. This office is the focal point within the Ministry ofDefence for correspondence relating to 'UFOs.' First, it may be helpful if I explain that the Ministry of Defence examines any reports of 'unidentified flying objects' it receives solely to establish whether what was seen might have some defence significance; namely, whether there is any evidence that the United Kingdom's airspace might have been compromised by hostile or unauthorised air activity. Unless there is evidence of a potential threat to the United Kingdom from an external source, and to date no 'UFO' report has revealed such evidence, we do not attempt to identify the precise nature of each sighting reported to us. We believe that rational explanations, such as aircraft lights or natural phenomena, could be found for them if resources were diverted for this purpose, but it is not the function of the MOD to provide this kind of aerial identification service. It would be an inappropriate use of defence resources if we were to do so. The MOD does not have any expertise or role in respect of 'UFO/flying saucer' matters to the question of the existence or otherwise of extraterrestrial Hfeforms, about which it remains totally open-minded. I should add that to date, the MOD knows of no evidence which substantiates the existence of these alleged phenomena. With regard to your particular observation, I can confirm that we received one other report of a 'UFO' sighting for 13 August 2005, and that one was from Gatwick, Sussex. We are satisfied that there is no corroborating evidence to suggest that the United Kingdom's airspace was breached by unauthorised aircraft. Yours sincerely
  15. 15. ' • REPORT OF AN UNEXPLAINED AERIAL SIGHTING 1. 2. Previous three Saturdays (6'", 13m and 20 August 2005). Between 22.00- 23.30L Thin band of cloud with beams oflight Description of object. (No of objects, size, shape, colour, coming down. Lights moved from side to brightness, noise.) side like search lights. Date and time of sighting. (Duration of sighting.) 3. Exact position of observer. Geographical location. (Indoors/outdoors, stationary/moving.) Indoors at home. 4. How object was observed. (Naked eye, binoculars, other optical device, camera or camcorder.) Naked eye. 5. Direction in which object was frrst seen. (A landmark may be more helpful than a roughly estimated bearing.) Seen from 3 miles away. Lights were near Doncaster. 6. Approximate distance. 3 Miles away. 7. Movements and speed. (side to side, up or down, constant, moving fast, slow) Side to side. 8. Weather conditions during observation. (cloudy, haze, mist, clear) Cloudy 1
  16. 16. 9. To whom reported. (Police, military, press etc) Civil Aviation Authority our number. 10. Name, address and telephone no of informant. Rotherham South Yorkshire 11 . Other witnesses. 12. Remarks. This happens at this time every Saturday night~honed the Police and they suggesl might be laser lights from a night club. said there are night clubs in Doncaster. 13. Date and time of receipt. 23 August 2005 10.30L 2
  17. 17. , • From Directorate of Air Staff - Freedom of Information 1 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE 5th Floor, Zone H, Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1A 2HB Telephone (Direct dial) (Switchboard) 020 7218 2140 020 7218 9000 (Fax) Your Reference: Ripon North Yorkshire Our Reference: D/DAS/64/2 Date: 1 September 2005 De~ I am writing with reference to your report of an 'unidentified flying object', seen 21 August 2005, the details of which you passed to RAF Leeming. This office is the focal point within the Ministry of Defence for correspondence relating to 'UFOs.' First, it may be helpful if I explain that the Ministry of Defence examines any reports of 'unidentified flying objects' it receives solely to establish whether what was seen might have some defence significance; namely, whether there is any evidence that the United Kingdom's airspace might have been compromised by hostile or unauthorised air activity. Unless there is evidence of a potential threat to the United Kingdom from an external source, and to date no 'UFO' report has revealed such evidence, we do not attempt to identify the precise nature of each sighting reported to us. We believe that rational explanations, such as aircraft lights or natural phenomena, could be found for them if resources were diverted for this purpose, but it is not the function of the MOD to provide this kind of aerial identification service. It would be an inappropriate use of defence resources if we were to do so. The MOD does not have any expertise or role in respect of 'UFO/flying saucer' matters to the question of the existence or otherwise of extraterrestrial lifeforms, about which it remains totally open-minded. I should add that to date, the MOD knows of no evidence which substantiates the existence of these alleged phenomena. With regard to your particular observation, I can confirm that we received no other reports of 'UFO' sightings for 21 August 2005 from anywhere in the UK. We are satisfied that there is no corroborating evidence to suggest that the United Kingdom's airspace was breached by unauthorised aircraft. Sorry I could not be any help.
  18. 18. 24/88/85 . Fax 17:32 rh. ~ .. . .. • Pg: REPORT OF AN UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECT Send to: MOD Sec(AS) 2a During working hours til : MOD~ FAX ~ Outside working hours: UNCLAS SignaJ to MOOUK AIR SIC Z6D Date, Time & Duration of Sighting. 2. I ft...V... Cr 0 5 Vtt.J~A'( lSOL Description of Object (No of objects, size, shape, colour, brightness). ~OV..N{), ~oTB~~ S.~"'f~:o S~lt../Y ~.c. tvETA.I..-IC. Exact Position of Observer. Location. indoor/outdoor, stationary/moving. How Observed (Naked eye, binoculars, ,:, : .· other optical device, still or video/movie). irection on which Object first seen (A landmark may be more useful than a ·· bad estimated be Angle of Sight (Estimated heights are unreliable) . . · Distance (By reference to landmark). ~y£ N(lr..V(E'/ NoT t<NOwN a known Movements (Changes in e , F & G may . . be of more use than estimates of Course . . . and ...... r l......r l • Mat Conditions during Observations ··•· (Moving clouds, haze. mist etc). Nearby Objects (Telephone Lines, High , ,::- , Voltage Lines, Reservoir, lake or Dam. ,. · : : Swamp or Marsh, River, High Buildings, · Tall Chimneys, Steeples, Spires, TV or Radio Masts, Airfields, Generating Plant, Factories, Pits or other sites with ~ e-HI SUi'J.S+HNt:. <-L.EA~ S ,( 1e.5 f+..ss~....J~P- A&c.AA.{::f . ~ LL.OW ,N ~ "'.tcb..f-T e" F- L£E.M.I ,., rr .b~.ny oA:~~oNS Name & address of Informant. UFO_REP.DOC o~ 1 cftt 1
  19. 19. .e From: Directorate of Air Staff- Freedom of Information 1 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE 51h Floor, Zone H, Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1A 2HB Telephone (Direct dial) (Switchboard) 020 7218 2140 (Fax) Your Reference: Our Reference: D/DAS/64/2 Date: 24 August 2005 Dear I am writing with reference to your report of an 'unidentified flying object', seen 23 August 2005, the details of which you left on our answerphone. This office is the focal point within the Ministry of Defence for correspondence relating to 'UFOs.' First, it may be helpful if I explain that the Ministry of Defence examines any reports of 'unidentified flying objects' it receives solely to establish whether what was seen might have some defence significance; namely, whether there is any evidence that the United Kingdom's airspace might have been compromised by hostile or unauthorised air activity. Unless there is evidence of a potential threat to the United Kingdom from an external source, and to date no 'UFO' report has revealed such evidence, we do not attempt to identify the precise nature of each sighting reported to us. We believe that rational explanations, such as aircraft lights or natural phenomena, could be found for them if resources were diverted for this purpose, but it is not the function of the MOD to provide this kind of aerial identification service. It would be an inappropriate use of defence resources if we were to do so. The MOD does not have any expertise or role in respect of 'UFO/flying saucer' matters to the question of the existence or otherwise of extraterrestrial lifeforms, about which it remains totally open~minded. I should add that to date, the MOD knows of no evidence which substantiates the existence of these alleged phenomena. With regard to your particular observation, I can confirm that we received no other reports of 'UFO' sightings for 23 August 2005 from anywhere in the UK. We are satisfied that there is no corroborating evidence to suggest that the United Kingdom's airspace was breached by unauthorised aircraft. Sorry I could not be any help in your quest to find out what these objects were. Yours sincerely
  20. 20. REPORT OF AN UNEXPLAINED AERIAL SIGHTING 23 August 2005 No time given. 1. Date and time of sighting. (Duration of sighting.) 2. that there were 8-10 circular Description of object. that looked quite low in the (No of objects, size, shape, colour, sky. They were uniform shape, small and brightness, noise.) opaque. The things/objects were near to the car for the rest of the journey back to their house. They had been there, near her for a long time. 3. Exact position of observer. Geographical location. (Indoors/outdoors, stationary/moving.) In her car driving North of Derbyshire. 4. How object was observed. (Naked eye, binoculars, other optical device, camera or camcorder.) With the naked eye. 5. Direction in which object was fll'st seen. (A landmark may be more helpful than a roughly estimated bearing.) Coming from the direction of Scarborough, driving North of Derbyshire. 6. Approximate distance. 7. Movements and speed. (side to side, up or down, constant, moving fast, slow) said that the objects were quite low over her car and the fields at the side of the road. They were moving very slow and low over and around and behind her car. At one point, she said all of the objects seemed to be following her, as she drove home. At times too, they looked like they were going up and down in the sky. 8. Weather conditions during observation. (cloudy, haze, mist, clear) Said the conditions were quite clear, that there was good visibility, hence why she could see them so clearly. 1
  21. 21. ' 9. To whom reported. (Police, military, press etc) 10. Name, address and telephone no of informant. 11. Other witnesses. 12. Remarks. 13. Date and time of receipt. Das answerphone. As she said that the objects, apart following her, were swapping from side to side of the car. That they followed her right to her house and hovered over it for some time. She said she was nervous not knowing what these things were or what to expect, and that they were very weird. They didn't look like lasers from a nightclub or anything along those lines. Would like us to explain to her what are or what could be! 24 August 2005 11.30L 2
  22. 22. ..-··-·· "" " -,--·-,.. t • FILE NOTE The UK Airprox Board have confirmed that this was likely to be a meteorological balloon from Reading. The Pilot has been informed and has withdrawn his report. No further action required. 25th August 2005
  23. 23. I0 "' < • ;_ • "'- ,_. '1IR FRANCE 3co · .· AFR2569 etitl( -77N17'' ,_, . • J-~ YEu.o ,.,. 6311 E145/W lAS5 F270 SFD/F250 OPR/RA E F270 T450EGCC ~,..C, H£, ~ CYLINbeic:..M. SIH-f:(; LFPG
  24. 24. --------------------~M~DAS • 17 AUG 2005 FilE Unidentified Flying Object (UFO) Reports Report of Unidentified Flying Object Date I~ A"~ o,S Time nu Sighting Duration Description of Object 10 S&coNDS ,.., 'T.) 2 .... ~ £.tiHC,14. Col.O"'&, y~ .... <;""PE- CJ.tU-...ICAL. NC1r A BoAu..~~ ... ~. Exact Position of Observer 0 ""!&AS IN&Sf -~ f~Cf' Fc..'3oo How Object was Observed ~I..•TT Direction in which Object was First Seen Angular Elevation of Object ~IJWir I., " ' . . . . •F ;.~~ "'~ ........ I 'T:) • , f"OV ,..,,. W'OIUI( VEw "T"~&( ID•ctcJi'CT ~,wS, 1...61~&.. -----~ ~--------- Distance of Object from Observer N'I>T Movement of Object """"'.... .., ...n. ~'T' ·~ Sf'o'T" .....,.,a c Nr ' Meteorological Conditions During Observations Nearby Objects To Whom Reported Name of Informant loi:wo.,..a~ 2.ts• Pl'r1SIIL~ fMC. ,........ ~~""'~ A't'C 'P'C..OT Address oflnformant ..."'" Background Information on Informant that may be Volunteered oF' AFit ..:-- '2.SG'l / Other Witnesses LACC/ATC/GENICHK/1621 NOH •• Version 2.3 01/02/05 Page2 of 3
  25. 25. • Date of Receipt of Report Time of Receipt of Report Actions Complete report of UFO with as many details as possible and send to Tim;;;•-----1 FOil Telephone details immediately and leave a message on 0207 218 2140. LACC/ATCIGEN/CHK/1621 Version 2.3 01102105 Page 3 of 3
  26. 26. 17/88/85 Fax fr0111 Cover Letter To: From: UK AIRPROX BOARD Comment: Start Time: 17-08-2005 Pages: 2 (except this sheet) Fax number: 09:32a.m. 89:37 Pg: 1
  27. 27. Fax f.,roM : 17/88/85 16-AUG..' OS(TUE) 17:01 CAA SAFETY DATA DEPARTMENT ll-t2/o (!~~ 89:37 FAX: Pg: P 001 . ASR Air Safety Report 4. DATE et heure approximative de 1'4dnemeat: De:MAN o urc 6. Lieu 7. Abeam WOO VOR. SO NM bcfDIC ER4 (ill) : : VMC • • 0 kt 0 Nebuloll~ 17.W/ .151....- llplllea1if I MACH: 1013 Turbulences · Faible vertical : Mainticn 18. Altitude : FL 30000 Ft autopilote : ON Altitude PA-DV : ON 2 lar«aa : HDO automanettc : NC train : uP voleta : 0 (aeacnp1non. a.=tiona cor.rectives en anglais pour les AJRPROX. RIATC ct RA TCAS aurvcnus ll'~ger : •rotrcms : OFF et t&ultat) en While cruiling. a UFO erouod our route (more likely a drone. no me& balloon), oppolite direction, same height/leVel. A ma.oeuvns to avoid was not pcrfonnable due 10 lhc quic.knes& of crossing. We left the object on the left hand side, and roughly distant from IS metera.JD me estimated around 2-3 metcn wide. ATC informcdof event
  28. 28. Fax fro. 17/88/85 i 6-AUG> 05.-· ..l;~..-.--..-----J CAA SAFETY DATA DEPARTMENT . 89:37 F'AX Pg: 3 P. 002 Eapke omithologlque : Nombre d'oileaax ape11111 : Plla... d'attems-.e alluu* s N0111bre d'olaeaux louda&i : Pilote IVIrd de TaDiedeloiiiiDIS Ia........., d'Gisqus:: CASE 26. AIRPROX I RECLAMATION ATC Gllemaat de l'autre ATC 1 1 ~ectolre boi1loDfale de ~ldolre horlzoatale de J•a•tnATC: Dean l'autre ATC : de"''"" : Stpal6ll'ATC (orpalame): Von ladleatlf d'apptl s Oap: &apandoa miDimal M'Uall: Alerte TCAS : RA lllh1a Eieve &blduvre d'QHemeld : batructions /Into• ATC : OUJ AFR2S69 Friquence: AIIUude alllorill8e : S.pradoa llliDimal llerlzoatal: lSS dcgr6 . 0 ft Aucune lfi•••llA: D6vlatlon fertleale liRA NON 0 0,01 NM 0 JUift: RAetalt: QueltloD PN: IUponae AII qGeltlou cia PN : Adnue de Npoa..: 27- TVIliULENCE ll-fOUDROIEMENT Deeerlptton du foudrolemeat: a) VJS1JBLLB: c...,rlltiquea 11u plliaomme: b)AUDmvB: c)ODBtJRS: Conf~nt l J•oPSl.4~. tout incident qui a meniiC6 • ou lllllit pu mcniiF' Ia slicurite du vol doit !tre d&lar6 "' moyen ac cc fonnu1airc et transmia par Full1ASV dfnl un dtlai de 48 bcwa, 1 'oriJinal6tant lranlmil par courri« ou via le dossier de vol • d) AtlTRES RBMARQUES : . COOBPQNNIIJ DU SAY'C£ ASIJ REGIONAL -ASV I ASK~ NANTES Atlan~UENAIS Cedex M....et.r~aa =Fua E-mail2~~t@~ ·-·-- - - - _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ __ __ _ ____!_
  29. 29. . .. .. ! From: Directorate of Air Staff - Freedom of Information MINISTRY OF DEFENCE 5th Floor, Zone H, Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1 A 2HB Telephone (Direct dial) (SwitChboard) (Fax) 020 7218 2140 020 7218 9000 Your Reference: Our Reference: D/DAS/64/2 Date: 15 August 2005 I am writing with reference to your report of an 'unidentified flying object', seen 7 August 2005, the details of which you passed to me during our phone conversation. This office is the focal point within the Ministry of Defence for correspondence relating to 'UFOs.' First, it may be helpful if I explain that the Ministry of Defence examines any reports of 'unidentified flying objects' it receives solely to establish whether what was seen might have some defence significance; namely, whether there is any evidence that the United Kingdom's airspace might have been compromised by hostile or unauthorised air activity. Unless there is evidence of a potential threat to the United Kingdom from an external source, and to date no 'UFO' report has revealed such evidence, we do not attempt to identify the precise nature of each sighting reported to us. We believe that rational explanations, such as aircraft lights or natural phenomena, could be found for them if resources were diverted for this purpose, but it is not the function of the MOD to provide this kind of aerial identification service. It would be an inappropriate use of defence resources if we were to do so. The MOD does not have any expertise or role in respect of ' UFO/flying saucer' matters to the question of the existence or otherwise of extraterrestrial lifeforms, about which it remains totally open-minded. I should add that to date, the MOD knows of no evidence which substantiates the existence of these alleged phenomena. With regard to your particular observation, I can confirm that we received no other reports of 'UFO' sightings for 7 August 2005 from anywhere in the UK. We are satisfied that there is no corroborating evidence to suggest that the United Kingdom's airspace was breached by unauthorised aircraft. Sorry I could not be any help. Yours sincerely
  30. 30. v • REPORT OF AN UNEXPLAINED AERIAL SIGHTING 7 August 2005 21.30L 1. Date and time of sighting. (Duration of sighting.) 2. There were four oblongs that were equally Description of object. (No of objects, size, shape, colour, spaced. They also looked like bright lights. He took a video of the oblong objects on brightness, noise.) his mobile phone, but when he looked back at the picture, they were not there, but there was a black square wobbling in the shot. 3. Exact position of observer. Geographical location. (Indoors/outdoors, stationary/moving.) Stationary in the police car. 4. How object was observed. (Naked eye, binoculars, other optical device, camera or camcorder.) With the naked eye. 5. Direction in which object was first seen. (A landmark may be more helpful than a roughly estimated bearing.) Seen very high up over the town of Kirby. 6. Approximate distance. Not given. 7. Movements and speed. (side to side, up or down, constant, moving fast, slow) Not given. 8. Weather conditions during observation. (cloudy, haze, mist, clear) It was dusky. 1
  31. 31. ---------------- ------------. Merseyside rang my number after I had left it for him and told me the details of his sighting. He had rung some other area in the MOD and they had put him through to my area too. 9. To whom reported. (Police. military. press etc) I 0. Name, address and telephone no of informant. 11. Other witnesses. The Constable that was with him in the car. 12. Remarks. said that this was a strange witnessed and could we explain to him what it could be. I told him that we do not investigate sightings. 13. Date and time of receipt 15 August 2005 10.45L 2
  32. 32. • REPORT OF AN UNEXPLAINED AERIAL SIGHTING 1. Date and time of sighting. (Duration of sighting.) 2. Didn't see the object, but said that it Description of object. (No of objects, size, shape, colour, sounded like a 1930's airship. It was very brightness, noise.) noisy, like it was being powered by an engine of some sort, and there was a low humming noise as it passed over the house. Also sounded like there were low frequency propellers on the craft. Didn't sound at all like a helicopter or a normal airliner or private plane. Exact position of observer. Indoors, looking out of his bedroom window. Geographical location. (Indoors/outdoors, stationary/moving.) 3. 11 August 2005 02.00L 4. How object was observed. (Naked eye, binoculars, other optical device, camera or camcorder.) Didn't observe it, just heard it. Has heard the noise before a few times. 5. Direction in which object was first seen. (A landmark may be more helpful than a roughly estimated bearing.) Was going across the town called Hurst, which is between Reading and Slough. Was going from West to East. 6. Approximate distance. Sounded like it was just above the house. 7. Movements and speed. (side to side, up or down, constant, moving fast, slow) Seemed to be going very slow, by the noise that he could hear, like a droning engine. Was going about 40 knots. 8. Weather conditions during observation. (cloudy, haze, mist, clear) Not given, although at the time of the sighting, would have been dark. 1
  33. 33. 9. To whom reported. (Police, military, press etc) Das answerphone. 10. Name, address and telephone no of informant. 11. Other witnesses. His girlfriend the night before, had heard the same noise. 12. Remarks. 13. Date and time of receipt. he is a retired RAF pilot and .....-nr<>T<> pilot and said that he may sound mad, but him and his girlfriend do hear this noise some nights, and he would love to know what it is. He said that the craft took about 2 minutes to fully pass over his house. 11 August 2005 14.20L 2
  34. 34. From: Directorate of Air Staff - Freedom of Information 1 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE 5th Floor, Zone H, Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1A 2HB Telephone (Direct dial) (Switchboard) (Fax) ..._ 020 7218 2140 Your Reference: Our Reference: D/DAS/64/2 Date: 11 August 2005 Walthamstow London I am writing with reference to your report of an 'unidentified flying object', seen on 10 August 2005, the details of which you left on our answerphone. This office is the focal point within the Ministry of Defence for correspondence relating to 'UFOs.' First, it may be helpful if I explain that the Ministry of Defence examines any reports of 'unidentified flying objects' it receives solely to establish whether what was seen might have some defence significance; namely, whether there is any evidence that the United Kingdom's airspace might have been compromised by hostile or unauthorised air activity. Unless there is evidence of a potential threat to the United Kingdom from an external source, and to date no 'UFO' report has revealed such evidence, we do not attempt to identify the precise nature of each sighting reported to us. We believe that rational explanations, such as aircraft lights or natural phenomena, could be found for them if resources were diverted for this purpose, but it is not the function of the MOD to provide this kind of aerial identification service. It would b e an inappropriate use of defence resources if we were to do so. The MOD does not have any expertise or role in respect of 'UFO/flying saucer' matters to the question of the existence or otherwise of extraterrestrial lifeforms, about which it remains totally open-minded. I should add that to date, the MOD knows of no evidence which substantiates the existence of these alleged phenomena. With regard to your particular observation, I .can confirm that we received no other reports of ' UFO' sightings for 10 August 2005 from anywhere in the UK. We are satisfied that there is no corroborating evidence to suggest that the United Kingdom's airspace was breached by unauthorised aircraft. Sorry I could not have been any help. Yours sincerely
  35. 35. .. REPORT OF AN UNEXPLAINED AERIAL SIGHTING 1. Date and time of sighting. (Duration of sighting.) 2. Description of object. The object was the size of a jumbo jet and (No of objects, size, shape, colour, was silver. brightness, noise.) 3. Exact position of observer. Geographical location. (Indoors/outdoors, stationary/moving.) indoors looking out of her living room window. 4. How object was observed. (Naked eye, binoculars, other optical device, camera or camcorder.) With the naked eye. 5. Direction in which object was first seen. (A landmark may be more helpful than a roughly estimated bearing.) The object was flying to the right, towards Walthamstow College, Walthamstow. Was in the flight path that small planes take to London City Airport, also in the direction of Stratford. 7--~~----~--------~ said 'some distance away'. ~~~----------------------- 10 August 2005 18.30L 6. Approximate distance. 7. Movements and speed. (side to side, up or down, constant, moving fast, slow) The object was flying very low and going relatively fast. 8. Weather conditions during observation. (cloudy, haze, mist, clear) Not given. 1
  36. 36. .. 9. To whom reported. (Police, military, press etc) 10. Name, address and telephone no of informant. 11 . Other witnesses. 12. Remarks. 13. Date and time of receipt. Das answerphone. Not given. it was flying too low and be a normal aircraft. She rung was Heathrow Airport for some advice. Didn't say what they said. That it seemed to her, that flying that low could be dangerous. Wondered if we could inform her of what it was? 11 August 2005 10.45L
  37. 37. From: Directorate of Air - Freedom of Information MINISTRY OF DEFENCE sth Floor, Zone H, Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1A 2HB Telephone (Direct dial) (Switchboard) (Fax) 020 7218 2140 020 7218 9000 jS&ttiS! I 43[ Your Reference: Our Reference: D/DAS/64/2 .Date: 8 August 2005 Dear I am writing with reference to your report of an 'unidentified flying object', seen in 2005, the details of which you left on our answerphone. This office is the focal point within the Ministry of Defence for correspondence relating to 'UFOs.' First, it may be helpful if I explain that the Ministry of Defence examines any reports of 'unidentified flying objects' it receives solely to establish whether what was seen might have some defence significance; namely, whether there is any evidence that the United Kingdom's airspace might have been compromised by hostile or unauthorised air activity. Unless there is evidence of a potential threat to the United Kingdom from an external source, and to date no 'UFO' report has revealed such evidence, we do not attempt to identify the precise nature of each sighting reported to us. We believe that rational explanations, such as aircraft lights or natural phenomena, could be found for them if resources were diverted for this purpose, but it is not the function of the MOD to provide this kind of aerial identification service. It would be an inappropriate use of defence resources if we were to do so. The MOD does not have any expertise or role in respect of 'UFO/flying saucer' matters to the question of the existence or otherwise of extraterrestrial lifeforms, about which it remains totally open-minded. I should add that to date, the MOD knows of no evidence which substantiates the existence of these alleged phenomena. With regard to your particular observation, I can't confirm whether we received any other reports of 'UFO' sightings on the day you saw the 'UFO', as you did not forward this office on the answerphone, a specific date or time of the sighting. We are satisfied that there is no corroborating evidence to suggest that the United Kingdom's airspace was breached by unauthorised aircraft. Yours sincerely
  38. 38. r • REPORT OF AN UNEXPLAINED AERIAL SIGHTING Date and time not given. 1. Date and time of sighting. (Duration of sighting.) 2. Description of object. Just said saw a UFO. (No of objects, size, shape, colour, brightness, noise.) 3. Exact position of observer. Geographical location. (Indoors/outdoors, stationary/moving.) In the car driving on the A12 from Colchester down to London. 4. How object was observed. (Naked eye, binoculars, other optical device, camera or camcorder.) With the naked eye. 5. Direction in which object was first seen. (A landmark may be more helpful than a roughly estimated bearing.) Just outside of Colchester, Essex on the A road. 6. Approximate distance. Not given. 7. Movements and speed. (side to side, up or down, constant, moving fast, slow) Not given. 8. Weather conditions during observation. (cloudy, haze, mist, clear) Not given. l
  39. 39. 9. To whom reported. Das answerphone. (Police, military, press etc) 10. Name, address and telephone no of informant. 11. Other witnesses. Not given. 12. Remarks. Just said that it was definitely a sighting of something that was not a plane. 13. Date and time of receipt. 8 August 2005 14.30L 2
  40. 40. MINISTRY OF DEFENCE 51h Floor, Zone H, Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1A 2HB Telephone (Direct dial) (Switchboard) 020 7218 2140 020 7218 9000 (Fax) Your Reference: Our Reference: D/DAS/64/2 Date: 9 August 2005 Lichfield Staffordshire - Dear I am writing with reference to your report of an 'unidentified fly1ng object', seen in August 2005, the details of which you passed to Staffordshire Police. This office is the focal point within the Ministry of Defence for correspondence relating to 'UFOs.' First, it may be helpful if I explain that the Ministry of Defence examines any reports of "unidentified flying objects' it receives solely to establish whether what was seen might have some defence significance; namely, whether there is any evidence that the United Kingdom's airspace might have been compromised by hostile or unauthorised air activity. Unless there is evidence of a potential threat to the United Kingdom from an external source, and to date no 'UFO' report has revealed such evidence, we do not attempt to identify the precise nature of each sighting reported to us. We believe that rational explanations, such as aircraft lights or natural phenomena, could be found for them if resources were diverted for this purpose, but it is not the function of the MOD to provide this kind of aerial identification service. It would be an inappropriate use of defence resources if we were to do so. The MOD does not have any expertise or role in the respect of 'UFO/flying saucer' matters to the question of the existence or otherwise of extraterrestrial lifeforms, about which it remains totally open-minded. l should add that to date, the MOD knows of no evidence which substantiates the existence of these alleged phenomena. With regard to your particular observation, Staffordshire Police did not inform me of the date that you saw the 'UFO', so I can not confirm whether there were any other sightings on the day you saw the 'UFO'. We are satisfied though, that there is no corroborating evidence to suggest that the United Kingdom's airspace was breached by unauthorised aircraft. Yours sincerely
  41. 41. • REPORT OF AN UNEXPLAINED AERIAL SIGHTING August 2005 No time given. 1. Date and time of sighting. (Duration of sighting.) 2. The object was circular and was a dull Description of object. (No of objects, size, shape, colour, orange colour/light. Was the size of a brightness, noise.) medium aircraft. 3. Exact position of observer. Geographical location. (Indoors/outdoors, stationary/moving.) Outdoors at a concert in Staffordshire. 4. How object was observed. (Naked eye, binoculars, other optical device, camera or camcorder.) With the naked eye. 5. Direction in which object was first seen. (A landmark may be more helpful than a roughly estimated bearing.) 6. Approximate distance. j I It flew over the stage and the crowds. Was about 40 miles away, once it had : tlown past. I 7. Movements and speed. (side to side, up or down, constant, moving fast, slow) 1 The object moved in a straight line across the sky very fast, was 3-4 seconds. i 8. Weather conditions during observation. (cloudy, haze, mist, clear) - ! ' I ' : It was very cloudy. I I ' I
  42. 42. 9. To whom reported. (Police, military, press etc) 10. Name, address and telephone no of informant. 11. Other witnesses. 12. Remarks. 13. Duty Officer at who then in tum left a message on the Das answerphone for me to ring him back to retrieve the details of the sighting. Date and time of receipt. His friends witnessed the object too, but he didn't say how many of them saw it. that he had been in the army, s the different sizes of aircraft. That this was definitely something that could not be identified. There was a laser show going on at the concert at the ; same time of the sighting, but everyone ' agreed that the orange, round light that 2
  43. 43. From: -Freedom of Information 1 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE 5th Floor, Zone H, Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1A 2HB Telephone (Direct dial) (Switchboard) {Fax) 020 7218 2140 020 7218 9000 Your Reference: Our Reference: D/DAS/64/2 Date: 4 August 2005 East Sussex Dear I am writing with reference to your report of an 'unidentified flying object', seen 3 August 2005, the details of which you passed to West Drayton. This office is the focal point within the Ministry of Defence for correspondence relating to 'UFOs.' First, it may be helpful if I explain that the Ministry of Defence examines any reports of 'unidentified flying objects' it receives solely to establish whether what was seen might have some defence significance; namely, whether there is any evidence that the United Kingdom's airspace might have been compromised by hostile or unauthorised air activity. Unless there is evidence of a potential threat to the United Kingdom from an external source, and to date no 'UFO' report has revealed such evidence, we do not attempt to identify the precise nature of each sighting reported to us. We believe that rational explanations, such as aircraft lights or natural phenomena, could be found for them if resources were diverted for this purpose, but it is not the function of the MOD to provide this kind of aerial identification service. It would be an inappropriate use of defence resources if we were to do so. The MOD does not have any expertise or role in the respect of 'UFO/flying saucer' matters to the question of the existence or otherwise of extraterrestriallifeforms, about which it remains totally open~minded. I should add that to date, the MOD knows of no evidence which substantiates the existence of these alleged phenomena. With regard to your particular observation, I can confirm that we received no other reports of 'UFO' sightings for 3 August 2005 from anywhere in the UK. We are satisfied that there is no corroborating evidence to suggest that the United Kingdom's airspace was breached by unauthorised aircraft. Sorry I could not have been more help. Yours sincerely
  44. 44. • REPORT OF AN UNEXPLAINED AERIAL SIGHTING 3 August 2005 OO.OOL 1. Date and time of sighting. (Duration of sighting.) 2. Description of object. Seven red and white flashing lights were (No of objects, size, shape, colour, moving around near the sea. Didn't have a brightness, noise.) particular shape. 3. Exact position of observer. Geographical location. (Indoors/outdoors, stationary/moving.) Indoors, looking out of her window. 4. How object was observed. (Naked eye, binoculars, other optical device, camera or camcorder.) With the naked eye. 5. Direction in which object was nrst seen. (A landmark may be more helpful than a roughly estimated bearing.) Near the sea, flying over the inland hills at the back of her house near Peacehaven, East Sussex. 6. Approximate distance. Not given. 7. Movements and speed. (side to side, up or down, constant, moving fast, slow) The lights were moving in circles in an erratic type of way. They were stopping and starting and were continually flashing. 8. Weather conditions during observation. (cloudy, haze, mist, clear) Not given, but was midnight, so would be dark. 1
  45. 45. To whom reported. Flight Lieutenant (Police, military, press etc} 9. Drayton who then 10. Name, address and telephone no of informant. 11. Other witnesses. Not given. 12. Remarks. concerned and seemed ~.51•·•"u. ..u, because one of the lights broke off from the others and was flying 13. Date and time of receipt. straight towards her house and then flew over the top of it. Flight Lieutenant ~ that there was n1'n•",.,'" on radar. 4 August 2005 10.30L 2
  46. 46. REPORT OF AN UNEXPLAINED AERIAL SIGHTING 2 August 2005 22.15L 1. Date and time of sighting. (Duration of sighting.) 2. that there were two Description of object. (No of objects, size, shape, colour, oujects his house. They circled brightness, noise.) above it about five times. 3. Exact position of observer. Geographical location. (Indoors/outdoors, stationary/moving.) He was stationary outdoors filming the objects on his camcorder. 4. How object was observed. (Naked eye, binoculars, other optical device, camera or camcorder.) With the naked eye and then a camcorder. 5. Direction in which object was f'lrst seen. (A landmark may be more helpful than a roughly estimated bearing.) Not given. 6. Approximate distance. As before, just above his house. 7. Movements and speed. (side to side, up or down, constant, moving fast, slow) Not given. 8. Weather conditions during observation. (cloudy, haze, mist, clear) Not given. 1
  47. 47. . Das answerphone. 9. To whom reported. (Police, military, press etc) 10. Name, address and telephone no of informant. 11. Other witnesses. Not given. 12. Remarks. Just said he couldn't believe he had objects above his house, so went inside, got his camcorder and filmed them. 13. Date and time of receipt. 3 August 2005 11.30L 2
  48. 48. v ~ 6tt~ 0 • REPORT OF AN UNEXPLAINED AERIAL SIGHTING 1. Date and time of sighting. (Duration of sighting.) Date and time of sighting not given. 2. Just said that she saw two UFOs but didn't Description of object. (No of objects, size, shape, colour, know at first who to contact. brightness, noise.) 3. Exact position of observer. Geographical location. (Indoors/outdoors, stationary/moving.) Not given. 4. How object was observed. (Naked eye, binoculars, other optical device, camera or camcorder.) Not given. 5. Direction in which object was first seen. (A landmark may be more helpful than a roughly estimated bearing.) Not given. 6. Approximate distance. Not given. 7. Movements and speed. (side to side, up or down, constant, moving fast, slow) Not given. 8. Weather conditions during observation. (cloudy, haze, mist, clear) Not given. 1 ---- ~~ ~.~·
  49. 49. .. 9. To whom reported. (Police, military, press etc) 10. Name, address and telephone no Woman, but did not give name. of informant. 11. Other witnesses. Not given. 12. Remarks. Just said she was not mad and knew what she had seen, and the two UFOs were certainly not planes. 13. Date and time of receipt. Das answerphone. 29 July2005 11.30L 2
  50. 50. -Freedom of Information 1 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE 5th Floor, Zone H, Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1A 2HB Telephone (Direct dial) (Switchboard) 020 7218 2140 (Fax) Your Reference: TylaGarw Our Reference: D/DAS/64/2 Date: 29 July2005 Dear- I am writing with reference to your report of an 'unidentified flying object', seen in 2005, the details of which you left on our answerphone. This office is the focal point within the Ministry of Defence for correspondence relating to 'UFOs.' First, it may be helpful if I explain that the Ministry of Defence examines any reports of 'unidentified flying objects' it receives solely to establish whether what was seen might have some defence significance; namely, whether there is any evidence that the United Kingdom's airspace might have been compromised by hostile or unauthorised air activity. Unless there is evidence of a potential threat to the United Kingdom from an external source, and to date no 'UFO' report has revealed such evidence, we do not attempt to identify the precise nature of each sighting reported to us. We believe that rational explanations, such as aircraft lights or natural phenomena, could be found for them if resources were diverted for this purpose, but it is not the function of the MOD to provide this kind of aerial identification service. It would be an inappropriate use of defence resources if we were to do so. The MOD does not have any expertise or role in respect of 'UFO/flying saucer' matters to the question of the existence or otherwise of extraterrestrial lifeforms, about which it remains totally open-minded. I should add that to date, the MOD knows of no evidence which substantiates the existence of these alleged phenomena. With regard to your particular observation, I can't confirm whether we received any other reports of 'UFO' sightings on the day you saw the 'UFO', as you did not forward this office on the answerphone, a specific date or time of the sighting. We are satisfied that there is no corroborating evidence to suggest that the United Kingdom's airspace was breached by unauthorised aircraft. Sorry I could not have been more help. Yours sincerely
  51. 51. • REPORT OF AN UNEXPLAINED AERIAL SIGHTING 1. Date and time of sighting. (Duration of sighting.) Date and time not given. 2. Description of object. Not given. (No of objects, size, shape, colour, brightness, noise.) 3. Exact position of observer. Geographical location. (Indoors/outdoors, stationary/moving.) Not given. 4. How object was observed. (Naked eye, binoculars, other optical device, camera or camcorder.) Not given. 5. Direction in which object was first seen. (A landmark may be more helpful than a rough! y estimated bearing.) Not given. 6. Approximate distance. Not given. 7. Movements and speed. (side to side, up or down, constant, moving fast, slow) Not given. 8. Weather conditions during observation. (cloudy, haze, mist, clear) Not given. 1
  52. 52. ------------------------------ 9. To whom reported. (Police, military, press etc) --------------------------, Das answerphone. 10. Name, address and telephone no of informant. 11. Other witnesses. Not given. 12. Remarks. Not given. 13. 28 July2005 14.30L Date and time of receipt. 2
  53. 53. •· , From: MINISTRY OF DEFENCE 5th Floor, Zone H, Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1A 2HB Telephone (Direct dial) (Switchboard) 020 7218 2140 020 7218 9000 (Fax) Your Reference: Cardiff South Wales Our Reference: D/DAS/64/2 Date: 29 July 2005 I am writing with reference to your report of an 'unidentified flying object', seen in 2005, the details of which you left on our answerphone. This office is the focal point within the Ministry of Defence for correspondence relating to 'UFOs.' First, it may be helpful if I explain that the Ministry of Defence examines any reports of 'unidentified flying objects' it receives solely to establish whether what was seen might have some defence significance; namely, whether there is any evidence that the United Kingdom's airspace might have been compromised by hostile or unauthorised air activity. Unless there is evidence of a potential threat to the United Kingdom from an external source, and to date no 'UFO' report has revealed such evidence, we do not attempt to identify the precise nature of each sighting reported to us. We believe that rational explanations, such as aircraft lights or natural phenomena, could be found for them if resources were diverted for this purpose, but it is not the function of the MOD to provide this kind of aerial identification service. It would be an inappropriate use of defence resources if we were to do so. The MOD does not have any expertise or role in respect of 'UFO/flying saucer' matters to the question of the existence or otherwise of extraterrestrial Hfeforms, about which it remains totally open-minded. I should add that to date, the MOD knows of no evidence which substantiates the existence of these alleged phenomena. With regard to your particular observation, I can't confirm whether we had any other reports of 'UFO' sightings on the day you saw the 'UFO', as you did not forward this office on the answerphone, a specific date or time of the sighting. We are satisfied that there is no corroborating evidence to suggest that the United Kingdom's airspace was breached by unauthorised aircraft. Sorry I could not have been more help.
  54. 54. • REPORT OF AN UNEXPLAINED AERIAL SIGHTING Date and time not given. 1. Date and time of sighting. (Duration of sighting.) 2. Not given. Description of object. (No of objects, size, shape, colour, brightness, noise.) 3. Exact position of observer. Geographical location. (Indoors/outdoors, stationary/moving.) Not given. 4. How object was observed. (Naked eye, binoculars, other optical device, camera or camcorder.) Not given. 5. Direction in which object was first seen. (A landmark may be more helpful than a roughly estimated bearing.) Not given. 6. Approximate distance. Not given. 7. Movements and speed. (side to side, up or down, constant, moving fast, slow) Not given. 8. Weather conditions during observation. (cloudy, haze, mist, clear) Not given. 1
  55. 55. .. One Crashed in Russia! 9. To whom reported. Das answerphone. (Police, military, press etc) 10. Name, address and telephone no of informant. 11. Other witnesses. Not given. 12. Remarks. Not given. 13. Date and time of receipt. 28 July 2005 14.30L 2
  56. 56. • Telephone (Direct dial) (Switchboard) 020 7218 2140 (Fax) Your Reference: Our Reference: D/DAS/64/2 Date: 29 July2005 De~ I am writing with reference to your report of an 'unidentified flying object', seen 23 June 2005, the details of which you put in correspondence to the MOD. This office is the focal point within the Ministry of Defence for correspondence relating to 'UFOs.' First, it may be helpful if I explain that the Ministry of Defence examines any reports of 'unidentified flying objects' it receives solely to establish whether what was seen might have some defence significance; namely, whether there is any evidence that the United Kingdom's airspace might have been compromised by hostile or unauthorised air activity. Unless there is evidence of a potential threat to the United Kingdom from an external source, and to date no 'UFO' report has revealed such evidence, we do not attempt to identify the precise nature of each sighting reported to us. We believe that rational explanations, such as aircraft lights or natural phenomena, could be found for them if resources were diverted for this purpose, but it is not the function of the MOD to provide this kind of aerial identification service. It would be an inappropriate use of defence resources if we were to do so. The MOD does not have any expertise or role in respect of UFO/flying saucer' matters to the question of the existence of extraterrestriallifeforms, about which it remains totally open-minded. I should add that to date, the MOD knows of no evidence which substantiates the existence of these alleged phenomena. With regard to your particular observation, I can confirm that we received no other reports of 'UFO' sightings for 23 June 2005 from anywhere in the UK. We are satisfied that there is no corroborating evidence to suggest that the United Kingdom's airspace was breached by unauthorised aircraft. Sorry I could not have been more help in your quest to find out what the object was. Yours sincerely
  57. 57. • ., .. V ** TO BE GIVEN A IDGH PRIORITY ** • . ~ ~~~UYt>.) • TREAT OFFICIAL CORRESPONDENCE TORefNo . cc. . Date 5&4~' /2005 22-. ] - oS- The Prime Minister/SofS!Min(AF)IMin(DP)IUSofS/MOD• has received the attached correspondence from a member of the public, which this office has neither retained nor . acknowledged. Please send a reply on behalf of the PM!Minister/Department•. Ministers attach great importance to correspondence being answered promptly, and your reply ·. - ·snowa be sent witliiir15worklng-dayntftbe-above-ate; It: ex."Ceptionally;-this-should-prove impossible, an interim reply should be sent within the same timescale. You should be aware that No 10 periodically calls for a sample of letters sent by officials on the PMs behalf for his perusal. Most correspondence involves some form of request for information- even if it is only a request for clarification of Government policy- and is therefore covered by the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) from January 2005. In general, if you meet the deadline for responding to correspondence, and comply with any reqtiests for information. there is no need to do anything differently as this will meet the requlrementsofthe Act. However, ifthe correspondence requests information which is not already in the public domain, and which might need to be withheld, then you should treat it as a FOIA request, track it using the Access to Information toolkit, aild comply with the separate FOI guidance from DG Info (see · http://aitportalldefault.aspx for details). However, the deadline for responding to correspondence · will still apply. If you are in any doubt as to whether a piece of correspondence should be treated as an FOIA request, you should ask your FOI Focal Point or refer to the guidance produced by DG Info. . It is vital that ·branches ensure they have simple systems to record and track Correspondence received from members of the public. This information should be regularly inonitored and reviewed against the targets for answering cOrrespondence published in the Spending Review 2000 Service Delivery Agreement for the Ministry of Defence. · As part of our monitoring procedure, random spot checks on the accuracy of your.branch records on correspondence will be performed throughout the year. · Ministerial Correspondence Unit Floor 5, Zone Main Whitehall, SWlA 2HB Detailed guidance on handling TO Correspondence can be found on the Defence Intranet at http:l/ml:lill.defence.mcd.uklmln..parVPar/Brch/l'OGuJd.htm If you do not have access to the Intranet, please infonn the Ministerial Correspondence Unit ** TO BE GIVEN A HIGH PRIORITY ** • Delete as appropriate. () lli'YtiSTOJI IN ...oi'Ui Revised January 2005 * *
  58. 58. • STAPLEFORD NOTTIN~ 16th ,T uly 200 5 T he C or~espondence Unit Ministry of Defence Flo~ 5 Zon e A Hv. in Bui ldings 'ihi tehall London Sft/1 A 2HB T o •·vhom it may c oncere n. ()n tl1e 2Jrd of Jtme 2005 I SAil A UFO . I can .say this on oath, Bible held to my h ea rt. Every Sunday morning I go to my Methodist Church ... a nd love eve r y ~e cond. After the s e rvice we ' val.k into the adj oining h a ll to h a ve tea, c<i>ffee, biscuits ;1nd companionship. Birthdays , any announcement - all take pL1.. ce there. And I made the mistake of telling them all my amaz in g experie nc e of seeing this UFO . To my distress, there arc som.e people l'iho have not believed me. It has left me dreadfully upset. On the other hand, some fri e nds t h.e re have said: "If ~. ys so , t :·, en i t is ru e .,, I rang the P o l ice q nd spoke to them on three occas*ons. r ng Nottin gham Airport, and had amazin g co -o peration fro 1 the ~ om I mentio n in my Hri te-u p . But I have not been ~~ contact any of the UFO g roups she found pho e numbers for. I I Ny son, ~s aid : " ': rite it all down, 't<'lum . " h ve written it all down. So Seve ral people , even af'.t er rending my A tat ernent a nd see . ng my rou g h sketche s, h a ve said that, if anyone else had als seen them, they wo uld have be lieved. '."hich, as y ou mi g t imagine, cuts me in two. I have delib e r a tely not g on e to the pres s. bel ef', not publicity . Church friend, ~t old me t h at he d a u g hter sa'" a UFO e le ven ye n rs ago, hut di d n' t tell anyone until she l ea nt others had .seen it. ·M window cle a ner s ; - - 8 y y ea. s age , nnd c n lled hi R wi :fe to loo k . F' riend aw one in Yorkshire many years ago •.. And not one o ~em mentioned it, pretty s ure th e y wouldn't be believed. I r a n g the Library to s ee if they couJd r ive me the ad d re ss of the Air Ministry •.. T hey came u p with yours. I enclose my st ateme nt a nd ske tch. I so dearly want to be b e li eve d, and wonder if, in a ny way, vou could help. T •1. ank you . state me nt and s krt ch es encloR e d Sincerely, ( ld dOv , a ged
  59. 59. • .Z:?~ ~' U~·e. '.2 Ot'S' z~ J".-L ... f.~ .. ,. /-:· . i.. ~..Jut ~sat; ~""'<W . t«.-~1• t'8 r4e tor,.-v- s· i"f, patt~d· 4- f.eJK~ ~A: t Gq~jWr n (qrl$£-!f~. /t€-~~4111... /,;y r 4J 4/Yq~lf/.ftf(. J -~r:. i W j;(le'- notn-1. 1 t - ,·f;vng '"-j C.of~~lt.o 48 I S'JA..f on_ ~~~~ o i s~~", V! PlJM<- i'tJ 9'tra ~:~ m-L"5'1 .r~ ,.or w~ fhJ ~ fo dlll'-f cr~h ~j /;/D I Wt4'1' ,.tt -tnmttl C't 1'4/, · us:, .b~t( ; J.tXY'-$I.t.,. 1 · 1-Wl-f'll·ftof.,..ttt'-'1'1 ·'YJ.j f f:J, J IA"flft_ I . J'tu..ssect_ ~ t-_wo (J'Irrt-· ~ ht:iJii r, ;-o~·ef G~l.. t'JE , . V ~-' J ctt~tf_ ~. ~. fl...a~. ~~ fie~ ,vQ.f ~to Wt1Ji I c.(lll./4 r-e-lt:ft thtu &t~C..tt r~ t'rH.J ~r 1 aim·a.Jr.. J (8Jtlti4 .,.. ue A«J ~~doP4 tiP qff-l. r/(.1, fiJ C.t;,, ov 6-e tow. Tif.t"l wu .w- t-4-;l o-v a, C. ,(te. C.J t,.t- M · .rlt~~~. tl.~ 'fJ""• 6-tJe..t· /'(1 11J'fWI"' c. "".J ,.,;...~ fflc,._Ja,--: hUJ'~;.hH. lk"- ,.lt-e ~~ '11.01-<.: r/, ~ M t~t~ I i, f /,r ,.C 11 V~fl( f"o t/.-e kj- tWt41 .l !f 1 ,.{-(; "r(t/ u;Jlr. r-t,J;6fue«: AJ 4 -;,, ~~~1,: /JI.e.. . 'the $~ ,., t:J m61ft c t ~ u d u_,. We ~ .. IHJ<:c ,.., /J hf_rll ,.. ~tl/ • ,.l..t ,.,, ""~ . t~f A kt~t-wt!AH. t:;"'-"~'''"J we~ rki/J/. No li•M. " s I JJt: ,.c tv tl', .1om -t H. Wr.} ( t:HI< fr r h£ f1~ _,;,.~ Dj th.e- h:Jt£fJ ~-M"' '''"~ tJiaw,. w ewtt,, w {O"J ~« l6Z<'i,-t sti~. rfle 9h_.PjM-' t:Wvvt. M' r'-t IHIJ;~'~"j.J t>f_ .,"t,;s t:Wop ~t I /~e,~re,f. ftt~- . f»1lL I .was 111e~1- tftt:r tAr t. c-t b<c"' .so~ ttCJw sft.~' f~- ~.e(plc"-:J .t'h ~~·- H~t,( n tM/"6 · ~,. u:.- wo~;tfa. t1 PW"~ c~,.,4 < , ... , . " , /- 6 !: _ .. -b_ t?,L-~- 1-'f "', tt 41" wRAr/JUI. ·
  60. 60. 'Z A' Joon CDnt~ t'l o-W't1 J flr,l ~~~ tlii~ ltt:.d .,rtw~DI t-~ 'Ie h ,~t II! •• • ov WCt I! fe./e/ __ . . Qg r-l£e ~Cul-t. cjJ t6 rh.e /~WI-- -· ~ t;€-t! ~ ~/0'41., tUmc.,_,at./:Jit ·_ptteri. fsi a ~w s~conol. ~ wt:t c. .Mt/e ()(,-t b~~e VC van ;&4e D( 4 tA-Oji.,.L/. . I 1ec, l ,u.c( tlta.r, ,-4~c~lf ouc ,..J wt.h (~., ~/~ lic.ti !J<~,.. n& so~ "M- (!.ll_ . All' l . J>O'V,PT"; r:_HA.,.- Sanrt I m ctll.l rrtj SHAJ>bW ~~ I(N£.V. WI·TH.6liT A ~lrp J~&N A I V F- c. . . ~ lt. It/ I f'HI'tt-tlf rla.t (btc./ ;>t~ /.t'u, s ra1?rt~t,. t- c nl!( wot1. t>i .,/-( 11( •'"I ~~ /~ · ft' ,( .h-i~,. lffi.J tn(YYt g y 4: h ~J I, N().. I in jY_I ':J ce/"4:, rhAt' tl.t ;n:t.-c~ df/r(){,.f* heCt.~t.tt ~- pt~,t•"'-"'1- €11~ W~f/ -t.IJ.t fD /hbll_,, l'f~A £:.. yof(um 4A t CM~ Mill sfotni on · "':} /Jt:cfl PI~ .$ ,..,,, I (&'I(. {111 . Ct. fW~ .Jfo/~1'1. 1M 14 /Jf; '~It PH "'f ,-1,~ Ow-tt: h-e wh ;t' 1'~ LtZf#j/ sfto/>1 ~"lOll{~ ~ CtN / lanult~. . ·.· · f.bllc< W i r I. i~ ft. w (l( '?t 9 I 4,~ry jv>' fYc rl..e 11-t.J<t ~/c.e .-t c¥1 1 ~~~e~ ... ~wl' rt-tt~f/ g~t· ~;,.._ I /'lion-tel m.:f SOft Cq"'h/l<tt.~ aNte Pt.no~t t[;,~ Mu..r~t-- tit~ N t.•-.. I UpttVtO Mt tU. t:~tf>~"e. H-t /" ~.. tt hill /1e t.~~.•wf /1M l'nt AoPlt~~'r ~"' dl1'4.,. ~·t, tte r~t_tf..!Tt-<« YJt1 /;~fm:;J 88-c Rlll'f·~·# ~t*'t· ffl ~li .r:- ~ W i di I 1t>lff. '-'!It~ Sa :Ill ..,.&uv; w 1,.,, I } _ . li ~ 0~ ~,;~(.fi-:J /~"t.J[h/<', ~ (0"1-td-- ·,.. ,t# . ~:J r( ;~.. ~h,;e,~ I l'fm,/)(.t,/ll'tnnl ~ I I I I i
  61. 61. • . J
  62. 62. .. • I JH rur, ( A#1p, ...4 ~ . 11.-lwJ. 1' ~ a11 :i} a.9 11;, . ftik .JeJ I r, '"'J.c.wt,-1" - rAM .J ,.._,._..~ ~~ v~.... tkWMf~l/.' ~tc.A ,C,-f. w,H I, 1-'1 """ ~'~~j be1 , wl.,v., tltt t.~~h Wt/<t I'{ ¢ I 'J r 'J h#I<J ~j P.t~ If lc Wtt.ll / I cc-u.l61 hCUI'~ ~(-,,~~~ m,"' C<fl~~/: tu11 . tit.< fli'<" (Cz-t"J~ . f/.z;"J 1." c• ~'::J .>h·wl?c( JJltJ~ ~ """"<- If~ ct;u(Dt f.t tNt/~ J u-tu"'llf Wlit.-rt U' "'.;gtw tuw-t C~~t~~iJI<~..t ru;tti datU ,..,.,,t-~,.-." tcb,,..- ~ .41111 I C4Jt.,il{ ft. A<l~ (/(./Jcr.bu licw ffle fAPb $/tl'l- off u~., i f-twtl. Wt.rfb ~ I ll-t.t;r o{ ,_,,, -· " a. 1 &v.-t""' , M- "* "'I cct ry>ee ~~ 4 r ~ t;J}J>I.IV:':) /" ; I' t.r .s-t , """ J. AU w/1{()~ ~ JOt-4111~, · On. flu fq(t,W;~ .51M1ofc:J I e/~C'/~1( r, /-((1 m.J C~w~L Y,<,l• ..-~1 wt. "ftR. h IW~ Ct.w' l--ee/ u/IH 4fo.r tM. fHe, dU~ril;rer{ A11 t,,. btwra IS ;J 5tNiu. I If' -lit c.e~ (S 1}- t,'W>'J' ~;le11 t ~ fu 11,-k<JL IM'"".:J .t::."''""" &Y ,,~ n '*'· I wislu.~t 1 4417/,'r 1-t~l.t .. e. ow w ~:, 1 rc- ICu)' Jl..tt It t. j""" 1-~""7 etvrrl. - f>wr .sCtt:JII:i'//~J fl'("r; f4t< to m:;u 'f? .
  63. 63. . < ' ' • ;9 ':j 411-<"J'f t-~ oUf;ct- w'-M- htJ,PJ>i~"- hi9 rec.'!:J ~p61J;f,J,, f, w_,u .. r- c~-tNit>•-' '!! .fN:'!! ~ &l'rllc ,..,~ - '{9:~ U"'1 r.t ..,.- jtew a../ tJj' r~/.f.. It!¢. , (J 1-tz:~ Tki'. J16 r"r""'', fl.4~, f'l<> W"''~', <t-c. $;; .. .. ICuw.tdllj, 3- l'f, Z3.r-< J~owu _ , . 00 I 0 0 , I /"0 0 Z
  64. 64. From: Directorate of Air Staff- Freedom of Information 1 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE 5th Floor, Zone H, Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1 A 2HB Telephone (Direct dial) (Switchboard) 020 7218 2140 020 7218 9000 (Fax) Your Reference: Our Reference: D/DAS/64/2 Date: 13 July 2005 Gloucestershire Dear I am writing with reference to your report of an 'unidentified flying object', seen this week beginning 11 July 2005, the details of which you left on our answerphone. This office is the focal point within the Ministry of Defence tor correspondence relating to 'UFOs.' First, it may be helpful if I explain that the Ministry of Defence examines any reports of 'unidentified flying objects' it receives solely to establish whether what was seen might have some defence significance; namely, whether there is any evidence that the United Kingdom's airspace might have been compromised by hostile or unauthorised air activity. Unless there is evidence of a potential threat to the United Kingdom from an external source, and to date no 'UFO' report has revealed such evidence, we do not attempt to identify the precise nature of each sighting reported to us. We believe that rational explanations, such as aircraft lights or natural phenomena, could be found for them if resources were diverted for this purpose, but it is not the function of the MOD to provide this kind of aerial identification service. It would be an inappropriate use of defence resources if we were to do so. The MOD does not have any expertise or role in respect of 'UFO/flying saucer' matters to the question of the existence or otherwise of extraterrestrial lifeforms, about which it remains totally open-minded. I should add that to date, the MOD knows of no evidence which substantiates the existence of these alleged phenomena. With regard to your particular observation, I can confirm that we received no other reports of 'UFO' sightings for this week beginning 11 July 2005 from anywhere in the UK. We are satisfied that there is no corroborating evidence to suggest that the United Kingdom's airspace was breached by unauthorised aircraft. Sorry I could have not been more help. Yours sincerely
  65. 65. , .. • L REPORT OF AN UNEXPLAINED AERIAL SIGHTING 11/12 July 2005 23.30L 1. Date and time of sighting. (Duration of sighting.) 2. Description of object. (No of objects, size, shape, colour, brightness, noise.) 3. Exact position of observer. Geographical location. (Indoors/outdoors, stationary/moving.) Not given. 4. How object was observed. (Naked eye, binoculars, other optical device, camera or camcorder.) With the naked eye. 5. Direction in which object was fll'st seen. (A landmark may be more helpful than a roughly estimated bearing.) Over Nailsworth in Gloucestershire. 6. Approximate distance. 7. Movements and speed. (side to side, up or down, constant, moving fast, slow) Going quite fast. 8. Weather conditions during observation. (cloudy, haze, mist, clear) Not given. said that both evenings, een strange lights in the sky. said that the lights were at a titude. 1
  66. 66. 9. To whom reported. (Police, military, press etc) 10. Name, address and telephone no of informant. Das answerphone. 11 . Other witnesses. His brother and some of their neighbours, plus people were ringing him up and asking what it was, as he is in a UFO Research group. 12. Remarks. Says can the MOD explain to him, what he and many others are witnessing? 13. Date and time of receipt. 13 July 2005 11 .30L 2
  67. 67. L--- • REPORT OF AN UNEXPLAINED AERIAL SIGHTING ~ t= '~~-~ ~'<'~ ~ 1. Date and time of sighting. (Duration of sighting.) Date not given. 09.34L 2. Description of object. (No of objects, size, shape, colour, brightness, noise.) The lady said that the object looked like a telegraph pole. 3. Exact position of observer. Geographical location. (Indoors/outdoors, stationary/moving.) Just said outdoors. 4. How object was observed. (Naked eye, binoculars, other optical device, camera or camcorder.) With the naked eye. 5. Direction in which object was ftrst seen. (A landmark may be more helpful than a roughly estimated bearing.) In West Devon, over the village of Chevithome. 6. Approximate distance. Not given. 7. Movements and speed. (side to side, up or down, constant, moving fast, slow) Not given. 8. Weather conditions during observation. (cloudy, haze, mist, clear) Not given. 1 (). '012.X'-- - ·----
  68. 68. r From: Directorate of Air Staff- Freedom of Information 1 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE 5th Floor, Zone H, Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1 A 2HB Telephone (Direct dial) (Switchboard) 020 7218 2140 020 7218 9000 (Fax) Your Reference: Our Reference: D/DAS/64/2 Date: 6 July2005 Dear I am writing with reference to your report of an 'unidentified flying object', seen on 4 July 2005, the details of which you passed to Durham Tees Air Traffic Control, who then in turn, passed it to our Department. This office is the focal point within the Ministry of Defence for correspondence relating to 'UFOs.' First, it may be helpful if I explain that the Ministry of Defence examines any reports of ' unidentified flying objects' it receives solely to establish whether what was seen might have some defence significance; namely, whether there is any evidence that the United Kingdom's airspace might have been compromised by hostile or unauthorised air activity. Unless there is evidence of a potential threat to the United Kingdom from an external source, and to date no 'UFO' report has revealed such evidence, we do not attempt to identify the precise nature of each sighting reported to us. We believe that rational explanations, such as aircraft lights or natural phenomena, could be found for them if resources were diverted for this purpose, but it is not the function of the MOD to provide this kind of aerial identification service. It would be an inappropriate use of defence resources if we were to do so. The MOD does not have any expertise or role in respect of 'UFO/flying saucer' matters to the question of the existence or otherwise of extraterrestrial lifeforms, about which it remains totally open-minded. I should add that to date, the MOD knows of no evidence which substantiates the existence of these alleged phenomena. With regard to your particular observation, I can confirm that we received no other reports of 'UFO' sightings for 4 July 2005 from anywhere in the UK. We are satisfied that there is no corroborating evidence to suggest that the United Kingdom's airspace was breached by unauthorised aircraft. Sorry I could not have been more help.
  69. 69. • REPORT OF AN UNEXPLAINED AERIAL SIGHTING 1. Date and time of sighting. (Duration of sighting.) 2. It was a triangular object, and the point of Description of object. (No of objects, size, shape, colour, it, was sort of rounded. The object was brightness, noise.) silent and had no lights of any description. 3. Exact position of observer. Geographical location. (Indoors/outdoors, stationary/moving.) 4 July 2005 2l.OOL were outdoors in ~ 4. How object was observed. (Naked eye, binoculars, other optical device, camera or camcorder.) With the naked eye. 5. Direction in which object was first seen. (A landmark may be more helpful than a roughly estimated bearing.) The object flew right over their heads going in an Easterly direction from the direction of Middlesbrough. 6. Approximate distance. Not given, just said object flew over their heads below cloud cover. 7. Movements and speed. (side to side, up or down, constant, moving fast, slow) T he object was moving slowly above them. 8. Weather conditions during observation. (cloudy, haze, mist, clear) Was a quite a clear night, just a bit overcast. The odd cloud etc. 1
  70. 70. 9. To whom reported. (Police, military, press etc) 10. Name, address and telephone no of informant. 11. Other witnesses. 12. Remarks. left the report with Durham ees ey Airport, Air Traffic Control, who then left the message on Das answerphone. 13. Date and time of receipt. that it was definitely not a normal aircraft, as she could see it quite clearly. 5 July 2005 16.00L 2
  71. 71. MINISTRY OF DEFENCE 5th Floor, Zone H, Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1 A 2HB Telephone (Direct dial) (Switchboard) 020 7218 2140 020 7218 9000 (Fax) Your Reference: Our Reference: D/DAS/64/2 Date: 15 June 2005 St Neots Cam.bs Dear I am writing with reference to your report of an 'unidentified flying object', seen on 8 June 2005, the details of which you e.mailed to the Public Ministers office. This office is the focal point within the Ministry of Defence for correspondence relating to 'UFOs.' First, it may be helpful if I explain that the Ministry of Defence examines any reports of 'unidentified flying objects' it receives solely to establish whether what was seen might have some defence significance; namely, whether there is any evidence that the United Kingdom's airspace might have been compromised by hostile or unauthorised air activity. Unless there is evidence of a potential threat to the United Kingdom from an external source, and to date no 'UFO' report has revealed such evidence, we do not attempt to identify the precise nature of each sighting reported to us. We believe that rational explanations, such as aircraft lights or natural phenomena, could be found for them if resources were diverted for this purpose, but it is not the function of the MOD to provide this kind of aerial identification service. It would be an inappropriate use of defence resources if we were to do so. The MOD does not have any expertise or role in respect of ' UFO/flying saucer' matters to the question of the existence or otherwise of extraterrestriallifeforms, about which it remains totally open-minded. I should add that to date, the MOD knows of no evidence which substantiates the existence of these alleged phenomena. With regard to your particular observation, I can confirm that we received no other reports of 'UFO' sightings for 8 June 2005 from anywhere in the UK. We are satisfied that there is no corroborating evidence to suggest that the United Kingdom's airspace was breached by unauthorised aircraft. Sorry I could not have been more help. Yours sincerely
  72. 72. . **TO BE GIVEN A IDGH PRIORITY** 102N . DAS 0. ............ 14 JUN i(jij5......... CORRESPONDENCE yA~ To __________{ .AJ r.J2.f . ~----------cc. TORefNo_4_l_8'1--___ /2005 , t.fJJN OS Date-.:...--~-----The Prime Minister/Sots/Min(AF)!Min(DP)/USoffi/MOD* has received the attached correspondence from a member ofthe public,·which this office has neither retained nor acknowledged. Please send a reply on behalf of the PMIMinister!Department*. Ministers attach great importance to correspondence being answered promptly, and your reply should be sent within 15 working days of the above date. It: exceptionally, this should prove impossible, an interim reply should be sent within the same timescale. You should be aware that No-i6-periodically-calls for a-sample ofletters sentby-officials·oo the-PM's behalf for·his perusal. Most correspondence involves some form of request for information- even if it is only a request for clarification of Government policy- and is therefore covered by the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) from January 200S. In general, if you meet the deadline for responding 10 correspondence, and comply with any requests for information, there is no need to do anything differently as this will meet the requirements of the Act. However, if the correspondence requests information which is not already in the public domain, and which might need to be withheld, then you should treat it as a FOIA request, track it using the Access to Information toolkit, and comply with the separate FOI guidance from DG Info (see http://aitportalldefault.aspx for details). Howev~, the deadline for responding to COlTeSpOlldeDce will still apply. If you are in any doubt as to whether a piece of correspondence should . e treated b as an FOIA request, you should ask your FOI Focal Point orrefer to the guidance produced by DGinfo. . It is vital that branches ensure they have simple systems to record and track correspondence. received from members of the public. This infolmati.on should be regulady monitored and reviewed against the targets for answering correspondence published in the Spending Review 2000 Service Delivery Agreement for the Ministry of Defence. As part of our monitoring procedure, random spot checks on the accuraeyof your branch reeords on correspondence will be performed throughout the year. Ministerial Correspondence Unit Floors. Zone Main SWlA 2HB DH: Minister:ial O:>rr~;pondesx:e; Dctaikd pldaoce 00 hanclliDg TO CotitSjiOI'Ideacoe C1D be 10ulld oo 1he DefeDce ...... at1111p:/ 11Rttln.~.lltfHI.~.htlll If you do DOt haw ac:cees 1o the IDtJaoet, pleue inform the MiDilt«ial Conspoodenco Uilit. **TO BE GIVEN A IDGH PRIORITY** • Delete as appropriate. 0 --- * *
  73. 73. . AObEmail e ----. Page 1 of 1 . ~-------·-···-·-·-··----·--···- ----------·--··-····-------·····---·--·-·---···-··--···--···-----·--·-<>------ -..--.- ------·--- -----·- -·- -·--·----- ----..·- From: ~l.com Sent: 10 June 2005 19:30 To: public@ ministers.mod.uk Subject: Unusual sighting over St Neots Cambridgeshire- 8.6.05 Dear Sirs Ij m contacting you to report the sighting of a strange object in the sky above St Neots, Cambridgeshire on Wednesday 8 June 2005. My daughter and 3 friends said they could see a uline11 in the sky at approximately 4.45p. When I looked up to where they were pointing I could clearly see the object. It looked like a rod. It seemed to move around and at times I could only see the end of it which looked like a dot. My daughter got me her binoculars and I could see the rod more clearly- it appeared to shine silver when the sun caught it but was dark grey to the naked eye. It was slightly pointed at one end. It moved up and down in the sky and sometimes appeared to disappear. There were glider planes in the sky also (I counted 3 while looking at the object) and they appeared to fly under it giving the impression that the object was higher in the sky than the planes. I watched the object for about 15-20 mins but then had to answer the phone, by which time it had disappeared. I happened to mention the sighting to some people at work and 2 colleagues confirmed that they also saw the object about 30 mins earlier than me but it looked a lot bigger and appeared to spiral down and then rise again several times. They also thought it looked metalic but was lower in the sky. Their sighting was also shared by both adults and children at the local after school club (where they work). I'm not sure whether this is the correct place to report such a sighting but I feel I need to share this information to an official body. Please feel free to contact me if you need any additional information. St Neots 13/06/2005
  74. 74. From Directorate of Air -Freedom of Information 1 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE 5th Floor, Zone H, Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1 A 2HB Telephone (Direct dial) (Switchboard) (Fax) 020 7218 2140 020 7218 9000 Your Reference: St Neots Cambridgeshire Our Reference: D/DAS/64/2 Date: 6 June2005 Dear I am writing with reference to your report of an 'unidentified flying object', seen on 4 June 2005, the details of which you passed to Cambridgeshire Police, who then in turn, passed it to our department. This office is the focal point within the Ministry of Defence for correspondence relating to 'UFOs.' First, it may be helpful if I explain that the Ministry of Defence examines any reports of 'unidentified flying objects' it receives solely to establish whether what was seen might have some defence significance; namely, whether there is any evidence that the United Kingdom's airspace might have been compromised by hostile or unauthorised air activity. Unless there is evidence of a potential threat to the United Kingdom from an external source, and to date no 'UFO' report has revealed such evidence, we do not attempt to identify the precise nature of each sighting reported to us. We believe that rational explanations, such as aircraft lights or natural phenomena, could be found for them if resources were diverted for this purpose, but it is not the function of the MOD to provide this kind of aerial identification service. It would be an inappropriate use of defence resources if we were to do so. The MOD does not have any expertise or role in respect of 'UFO/flying saucer' matters to the question of the existence or otherwise of extraterrestriallifeforms, about which it remains totally open-minded. I should add that to date, the MOD knows of no evidence which substantiates the existence of these alleged phenomena. With regard to your particular observation, I can confirm that we received no other reports of 'UFO' sightings for 4 June 2005 from anywhere in the UK. We are satisfied that there is no corroborating evidence to suggest that the United Kingdom's airspace was breached by unauthorised aircraft. Sorry I could not have been more help.
  75. 75. • REPORT OF AN UNEXPLAINED AERIAL SIGHTING I. Date and time of sighting. (Duration of sighting.) 4 June 2005 00.30L 2. Description of object. (No of objects, size, shape, colour, brightness, noise.) The object looked like a red dim light. 3. Exact position of observer. Geographical location. (Indoors/outdoors, stationary/moving.) Not given. 4. How object was observed. (Naked eye, binoculars, other optical device, camera or camcorder.) Not given. 5. Direction in which object was first seen. (A landmark may be more helpful than a roughly estimated bearing.) Flying easterly over St Neots, Cambridgeshire. 6. Approximate distance. Not given. 7. Movements and speed. (side to side, up or down, constant, moving fast, slow) The object was going very fast and was zigzagging across the sky, and was there for about five to six seconds. 8. Weather conditions during observation. (cloudy, haze, mist, clear) Not given, although as the sighting was seen at midnight, it would have been very dark. l
  76. 76. 9. To whom reported. (Police, military, press etc) 10. Name, address and telephone no of informant. 11. Other witnesses. 12. Remarks. 13. Date and time of receipt. Cambridgeshire Police who then in tum left a message on Das answerphone. Not given. said the object/dim red light, was than any plane. By the erratic way it was moving too, said that it must be something else. Said he isn't a UFO believer, but this dim light moving in the sky was very strange and was · that could not be 6 June 2005 10.30L 2
  77. 77. . . From: -Freedom of Information 1 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE 5th Floor, Zone H, Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1A 2HB Telephone (Direct dial) (Switchboard) 020 7218 2140 (Fax) Your Reference: Abbey Wood Kent Our Reference: D/DAS/64/2 Date: 6 June 2005 I am writing with reference to your report of an 'unidentified flying object', seen on 27 May 2005, the details of which you left on our answerphone. This office is the focal point within the Ministry of Defence for correspondence relating to 'UFOs.' First, it may be helpful if I explain that the Ministry of Defence examines any reports of 'unidentified flying objects' it receives solely to establish whether what was seen might have some defence significance; namely, whether there is any evidence that the United Kingdom's airspace might have been compromised by hostile or unauthorised air activity. Unless there is evidence of a potential threat to the United Kingdom from an external source, and to date no 'UFO' report has revealed such evidence, we do not attempt to identify the precise nature of each sighting reported to us. We believe that rational explanations, such as aircraft lights or natural phenomena, could be found for them if resources were diverted for this purpose, but it is not the function of the MOD to provide this kind of aerial identification service. It would be an inappropriate use of defence resources if we were to do so. The MOD does not have any expertise or role in respect of 'UFO/flying saucer' matters to the question of the existence or otherwise of extraterrestriallifeforms, about which it remains totally open-minded. I should add that to date, the MOD knows of no evidence which substantiates the existence of these alleged phenomena. With regard to your particular observation, I can confirm that we received no other reports of 'UFO' sightings for 27 May 2005 from anywhere in the UK. We are satisfied that there is no corroborating evidence to suggest that the United Kingdom's airspace was breached by unauthorised aircraft. As to your question of the pilot ofthe aircraft reporting the object to this Department, we have had no reports from the pilot about the sighting you saw that day, flying parallel with the airliner.
  78. 78. • REPORT OF AN UNEXPLAINED AERIAL SIGHTING 1. Date and time of sighting. (Duration of sighting.) 2. Description of object. Was a small white object that was moving (No of objects, size, shape, colour, parallel with an airliner. brightness, noise.) 3. Exact position of observer. Geographical location. (Indoors/outdoors, stationary/moving.) Outdoors, but stationary looking up, over the cliffs. 4. How object was observed. (Naked eye, binoculars, other optical device, camera or camcorder.) With the naked eye. 5. Direction in which object was frrst seen. (A landmark may be more helpful than a roughly estimated bearing.) Over Westcliffe? in Kent, overlooking the cliffs. The direction the airliner and object were travelling, were as if they were coming back from Holland. 6. Approximate distance. Not given. 7. Movements and speed. (side to side, up or down, constant, moving fast, slow) The object was going the same speed as the airliner as it was right by it's side. 8. Weather conditions during observation. (cloudy, haze, mist, clear) Said it was quite cloudy. That the object disappeared behind clouds quite a few times. Then after a few minutes, disappeared altogether. 27 May2005 15.15L 1
  79. 79. .. Das answerphone. 9. To whom reported. (Police, military, press etc) 10. N arne, address and telephone no of informant. 11. Other witnesses. Not given. 12. Remarks. Just said that he saw the aeroplane first and then noticed a strange white, round object flying next to it. Wondered if the airline pilot had noticed it, or had reported it to our department? 13. Date and time of receipt. 3 June 2005 14.30L 2
  80. 80. MINISTRY OF DEFENCE 5th Floor, Zone H, Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1 A 2HB Telephone (Direct dial) (Switchboard) (Fax) 020 7218 2140 Your Reference: New Malden Our Reference: D/DAS/64/2 Date: 7 June 2005 De~ I am writing with reference to your report of an 'unidentified flying object', that you saw, the details of which you left on our answerphone. This office is the focal point within the Ministry of Defence for correspondence relating to 'UFOs.' A letter was sent to your previous address, on the 19 May 2005, you can't have received it. First, it may be helpful if I explain that the Ministry of Defence examines any reports of 'unidentified flying objects' it receives solely to establish whether what was seen might have some defence significance; namely, whether there is any evidence that the United Kingdom's airspace might have been compromised by hostile or unauthorised air activity. Unless there is evidence of a potential threat to the United Kingdom from an external source, and to date no ' UFO' report has revealed such evidence, we do not attempt to identify the precise nature of each sighting reported to us. We believe that rational explanations, such as aircraft lights or natural phenomena, could be found for them if resources were diverted for this purpose, but it is not the function of the MOD to provide this kind of aerial identification service. It would be an inappropriate use of defence resources if we were to do so. The MOD does not have any expertise or role in respect of 'UFO/flying saucer' matters to the question of the existence or otherwise of extraterrestrial lifeforms, about which it remains totally open·minded. I should add that to date, the MOD knows of no evidence which substantiates the existence of these alleged phenomena. With regard to your particular observation, I can't confirm whether we had any other reports of 'UFO' sightings on the day you saw the 'UFO', as you did not forward this office on the answerphone, a specific date or time of the sighting. We are satisfied that there is no corroborating evidence to suggest that the United Kingdom's airspace was breached by unauthorised aircraft. You mentioned about a newspaper saying that our Department had a research team. As mentioned in my letter above, we do not investigate into UFO sightings, so a research team is not required.
  81. 81. .. The newspaper is incorrect in it's information, and should have asked this Department as in to what work we undertake, before publishing what it thought was correct information. 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 Defence Region would be handled in the light of the particular circumstances at the time (it might be deemed appropriate, involve the scrambling or diversion of air defence aircraft). From that perspective, reports provided to us of 'UFO' sightings are examined, but consultation with air defence staff and others as necessary is considered only where there is sufficient evidence to suggest a breach of UK air defence. The vast majority of reports we receive are very sketchy and vague. Only a handful of reports in recent years have warranted further investigation and none revealed any evidence of a threat Also, you asked for advice on how you could apply to join this office. MOD civil servants are generally posted every 2-3 years to undertake duties in a wide variety of areas within the Department Staff with appropriate experience to carry out the broad range of tasks associated with general RAF secretariat work may be posted to serve in Das. Should you wish to become a MOD civil servant you may wish to look for job vacancies at your local employment office. However, I should emphasize that joining the civil service as a MOD employee would be no guarantee of a posting to Das. Hope this will be helpful. Yours sincerely
  82. 82. ---------------- .. ----- - - - --------------------------------------,----------- .. Telephone (Direct dial) (Switchboard) (Fax) 020 7218 2140 020 7218 9000 Your Reference: Brixton Hill London Our Reference: D/DAS/64/2 Date: 19 May 2005 Dear~ I am writing with reference to your report of an 'unidentified flying object', that you saw, the details of which you left on our answerphone. This office is the focal point within the Ministry of Defence for correspondence relating to 'UFOs.' First, it may be helpful if I explain that the Ministry of Defence examines any reports of 'unidentified flying objects' it receives solely to establish whether what was seen might have some defence significance; namely, whether there is any evidence that the United Kingdom's airspace might have been compromised by hostile or unauthorised air activity. Unless there is evidence of a potential threat to the United Kingdom from an external source, and to date no 'UFO' report has revealed such evidence, we do not attempt to identify the precise nature of each sighting reported to us. We believe that rational explanations, such as aircraft lights or natural phenomena, could be found for them if resources were diverted for this purpose, but it is not the function of the MOD to provide this kind of aerial identification service. It would be an inappropriate use of defence resources if we were to do so. The MOD does not have any expertise or role in respect of 'UFO/flying saucer' matters to the question of the existence or otherwise of extraterrestrial lifeforms, about which it remains totally open-minded. I should add that to date, the MOD knows of no evidence which substantiates the existence of these alleged phenomena. With regard to your particular observation, I can't confirm whether we had any other reports of 'UFO' sightings on the day you saw the 'UFO', as you did not forward this office on the answerphone, a specific date or time of the sighting. We are satisfied that there is no corroborating evidence to suggest that the United Kingdom's airspace was breached by unauthorised aircraft. Also, you asked for advice on how you could apply to join this office. MOD civil servants are generally posted every 2-3 years to undertake duties in a wide variety of areas within the Department. Staff with appropriate experience to carry out the broad range of tasks associated
  83. 83. with general RAF secretariat work may be posted to serve in Das. Should you wish to become a MOD civil servant you may wish to look for job vacancies at your local employment office. However, I should emphasize that joining the civil service as a MOD employee would be no guarantee of a posting to Das. Hope this will be helpful. Yours sincerely

×