It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

MoD UFO Files Release Programme: New Releases Revealed via Rendlesham Incident FOI Response

page: 1
16

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 04:03 PM
link   
It has come to my attention that there is conflicting information re the Ministry of Defence's UFO files release programme.

On the 21st June 2013 The National Archives released what was widely reported to be the final tranche of MoD UFO files.



21 June 2013

The National Archives has today released its tenth and final tranche of UFO files, containing 4,400 pages of UFO policy, correspondence and UFO sighting reports covering the final two years of the Ministry of Defence's UFO Desk (from late 2007 until November 2009).

www.nationalarchives.gov.uk...

However, on the 30th July 2014 the MoD Air Command Secretariat stated, in a response to a FOI request regarding the Rendlesham Incident, that:



Noting the continued interest in the topic of UFOs by the general public, the MOD in 2010, decided to publish all remaining files relating to this matter to The National Archives (TNA). The programme to publish all remaining files is nearing an end with all files identified and being prepared for onward release to the TNA. The scheduled end date for this programme is December 2014.

www.gov.uk...

This would seem to indicate that there are, in fact, further releases to come from the MoD UFO files...


As an aside: there was another response to a Rendlesham FOI request in June 2014: www.gov.uk...

It's interesting to note that in both of these responses the MoD indicate they have records in their possession that are not in the public domain.




posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 04:20 PM
link   
a reply to: HotblackDesiato

More stuff on Rendlesham-- release date scheduled for Dec, 2014….

DYNAMITE !

They better stick to their word. Disclosing more nothing now would be sacrilegious.



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: HotblackDesiato

Interesting find


Here's hoping for a little Christmas present from the MoD come December , It'll be interesting to see if these missing files add anything new to the case.



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 05:12 PM
link   
This could all be down to "administrative error" in government and files getting lost of misplaced.


Or documents that were previously still classified for a number of other reasons.

Although it is also possible that this has been prompted by one of the main witnesses, John Burroughs, who has been researching into the case. He has claimed that 6 more documents relating to Rendlesham remain unreleased after his scrutinisation of documents including the Condign Report.

see here : www.abovetopsecret.com...

Somehow I doubt we'll find any real smoking gun in any future release. But I won't give up hope!
edit on 7/9/14 by mirageman because: typos



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 02:33 AM
link   
a reply to: mirageman




Somehow I doubt we'll find any real smoking gun in any future release.

Agreed , all we can hope is it's something new and not just repetition of other stuff already out there.



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 06:09 AM
link   



It's interesting to note that in both of these responses the MoD indicate they have records in their possession that are not in the public domain.


It was a military base wasn't it? Is all information pertaining to a military base usually in the public domain by default?



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 07:48 AM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted




Is all information pertaining to a military base usually in the public domain by default?

No , but the information relating to the Rendlesham Incident is , or so we thought.



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 08:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: uncommitted




Is all information pertaining to a military base usually in the public domain by default?

No , but the information relating to the Rendlesham Incident is , or so we thought.


I understand what you are saying, but could information about personnel at the base, vehicles, weaponry etc. at the time of the alleged incident be what has not yet disclosed?



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted

I don't know , the files could be anything from the mundane to the slightly less mundane but whatever they are I doubt it will be the Christmas present we would all like them to be.

I await there release with interest but no excitement or anticipation , at least that way I'm open to surprise



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 06:03 AM
link   
a reply to: HotblackDesiato

The Rendlesham forest incident has always held my attention, so any info pertaining to said event is music to my ears. Great find!


Did the binary code related to the airman not turn out to be longitude and latitude references pertaining to the fabled isle of Hy Brasil?

www.therendleshamforestincident.com...



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 02:09 AM
link   
On the 11th September 2014, in a response to a FOI request regarding documents titled 'UFO Policy', the MoD confirmed that 18 files are being prepared for onward release to TNA by December 2014; where they are expected to take approx. 9 months to process before being released to the public.

The following are the 18 files to be released:

DAIRDEF/111/6/4 C31 AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL LOW FLYING UFOS
D/DAIRDEF/111/6/4 C3I AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL LOW FLYING UFOS
D/DAIRDEF/111/6/4 CSI AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL LOW FLYING UFOS
D/DDOPS(GE)/10/8 ADMIN + GENERAL UFOS
D/DAO1/13 ADGE UFO REPORTS
D/DAO1/13 ADGE UFO REPORTS
D/DAO1/13 ADGE UFO REPORTS
D/DAO1/13 ADGE UFO REPORT
D/DAO1/13 ADGE UFO REPORTS
D/IPR2X/2/4/1 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 (FOI) COPYRIGHT ISSUES CONCERNING INTERNET PUBLICATION REPORTS OF UFO SIGHTINGS
2GP(BP)/88772/10/ISTAR UFO Reports
M9/18 Defence Policy Issues UFOs
D/DS8/75/2/1 UFO Reports Correspondence
D/DI55/108/15 UFO Policy 1971-96
D/DI55/108/15 UFO Policy 1996-2000
D/DI55/108/15 UAP Policy June-Dec 2000
D/DI55/108/15 UAP Policy Dec 2000-March 2004
D/DI55/108/15 UAP Policy March 2004

www.gov.uk...


Note: these include files from RAF radar operators and Defence Intelligence staff, so may contain some interesting material.
edit on 25-9-2014 by HotblackDesiato because: Added note.

edit on 25-9-2014 by HotblackDesiato because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-9-2014 by HotblackDesiato because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-9-2014 by HotblackDesiato because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-9-2014 by HotblackDesiato because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Just read Nick Popes comments re: this on openminds website, and he says that some files will come from RAF radar specialists and the "ultra secret" Defence Intelligent Staff so he thinks there may be " some fascinating revelations to come." I sure hope so!



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 06:07 AM
link   
An interesting addendum to this thread is that the MoD admission to withholding 18 UFO/UAP files, and their future release, appears to be prompted by John F. Burroughs, USAF Tech Sgt. (ret.) — he of Rendlesham Forest Incident fame.

In a press release, dated 15th May 2014, Burroughs states that, in response to a FOI request he made, the MoD admitted to holding 6 UFO/UAP policy papers that "have been held back from the National Archives and remain classified". He made a follow-up FOI request and in the MoD response they revise their position by stating that they are, in fact, "still maintaining 18 UAP documents as classified".



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 07:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: uncommitted




Is all information pertaining to a military base usually in the public domain by default?

No , but the information relating to the Rendlesham Incident is , or so we thought.


I understand what you are saying, but could information about personnel at the base, vehicles, weaponry etc. at the time of the alleged incident be what has not yet disclosed?


This was almost 35 years ago.

Any 'sensitive' information from that time would no longer matter this long after the fact.

And if this 'sensitive' information had anything to do with experimental craft, that in itself is arguably more explosive than ET having flown and landed one of their craft, as it show we had technology way back then, that defied our mainstream understanding of physics, flew without conventional engines or fuels, and was able to perform extraordinary feats of flying and speeds.

If we had that kind of technology back then and held it back from the world, it would prove climate change is a lie, peak oil is a lie, exotic propulsion and energy generation is fact and people around the world are dying and suffering from want for no reason other that it is part and parcel of the energy charade keeping the world using fossil fuels, when we don't have to.

That is an entirely bigger can of worms than a simple visit to Earth by an ET probe craft, which frankly these days, is a pretty tame concept imo.



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 07:06 PM
link   
Every time "Secret Files" of this sort are released to the public, its a huge let down. It will end up telling us nothing new.

And some of it will likely be sanitized beyond recognition.



posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: data5091
Just read Nick Popes comments re: this on openminds website, and he says that some files will come from RAF radar specialists and the "ultra secret" Defence Intelligent Staff so he thinks there may be " some fascinating revelations to come." I sure hope so!


We'll soon see if Nick Pope is merely hyping this up

As I linked earlier in the thread, Dr. David Clarke (consultant for the National Archives) wrote on Facebook in May 2014.




The 'stunning revelation' that MoD is with-holding six UFO policy files is a load of old cobblers. The names and titles of those files are contained in the papers released by the National Archives in 2012-13. Gary Anthony and I made FOI requests for these files way back in 2006. MoD agreed to release them at that time and I have a complete copy of the DI55 UFO Policy file covering 1971-1996 sitting here on my desk. The 6 files will, however, be released during 2014. —

David Clarke, Facebook, May 21, 2014

With more on the story : examiner.com




I have looked through a large number of the released archives and so far there is no smoking gun amongst them. ( a smoking railway sleeper, supposedly burnt by a UFO in Widnes in 1996 remains the closest we got to that!). So I am not expecting any great revelation from these documents.

However sometimes a little snippet of interesting information gets out here and there. That's probably what we'll get.



edit on 3/10/14 by mirageman because: typo



posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: HotblackDesiato

Did the binary code related to the airman not turn out to be longitude and latitude references pertaining to the fabled isle of Hy Brasil?

www.therendleshamforestincident.com...


Well that's if you believe Jim Penniston really did touch a craft that no one else saw and got a download of binary information. The binary code needed decoding to English ASCII and the co-ordinates given look more like they were meant to be for somewhere in the town of Woodbridge. I'll refer you to Rob48 in another thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Oct, 5 2014 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vrill
Every time "Secret Files" of this sort are released to the public, its a huge let down. It will end up telling us nothing new.


I found seeing how certain sections of the ministry were run to be quite enjoyable. Also, it was interesting to see how many of members of the public, especially the repeat offenders, were burning up taxpayers money with their ridiculous correspondence. And the discussions about Nick Pope were rather enjoyable.



originally posted by: mirageman
As I linked earlier in the thread, Dr. David Clarke (consultant for the National Archives) wrote on Facebook in May 2014.


If there was ever such as thing as a disinfo agent, intentionally or unintentionally, it's Dr. David Clarke. I have no time for anything he says; a pathological sceptic of the worst kind, masquerading as "open minded".



new topics

top topics



 
16

log in

join