“UFO Files”45 pages
- p. 3 ## Registered File Disposal Form
FILE TITLE: (Main Heading - Secondary Heading - Tertiary Heading etc) UFOs - Persistent Correspondence…
- p. 4 …are:
# UFO related documents
## (iii) At the end of the specified retention period the file is…
- p. 6 …Cardiff UFO
## Dear Section 40
No doubt MoD will have had many inquiries regarding the alleged…
- p. 8 …file movie, it was inevitable that UFOs would soon be back in force. As one UFO…
- p. 10 …The paper had now found an expert, former MoD UFO desk-jockey Nicola Haze, who was…
- p. 11 …Cardiff UFO
Dear Dr Clarke,
Thank you for your e-mail of 25 June 2008.
The…
- p. 21 …It is not considered contradictory that the DIS has a file on UAP/UFO policy. As…
- p. 22 …As you correctly recall in your letter, your original request for this file was refused as…
- p. 24 # SUMMARY OF CONTENTS OF FILE DI55/108/15 - Part 4 'UFO Policy'
The file covers the…
- p. 26 …Given that fact, do DAO hold any record in their files of action taken in response…
- p. 27 …I believe the contents of this UFO policy file are equally of interest both to the…
- p. 29 …If they do have files on UFOs, you'd better warn them to be in for…
- p. 36 …I request any and all files, paperwork, documents, photographs, etc, regarding the investigation, operational use of…
- p. 40 …All accessible files for the period in question have been scrutinised, but no correspondence from the…
- p. 43 …about UFO file releases at The National Archives, I should inform you that once files are…
- p. 45 …You have complete access to the UFO/UAP file series and may remove them on a…
- p. 48 …Finally, I wondered if you have any information on any imminent releases of UFO-related files…
- p. 51 …Finally, I wondered if you have any information on any imminent releases of UFO-related files…
- p. 57 …be filed with DIS, possibly in DI/DI55/108/15 Pt 6-7 (UFO Policy 2000…
- p. 59 …be filed with DIS, possibly in DI/DI55/108/15 Pt 6-7 (UFO Policy 2000…
- p. 64 …be filed with DIS, possibly in DI/DI55/108/15 Pt 6-7 (UFO Policy 2000…
- p. 88 …I couldn't help but notice your remark about there being no "UFO Project."
When Section…
- p. 89 …I couldn't help but notice your remark about there being no "UFO Project."
When Section…
- p. 95 …Could we clear up the ambiguity surrounding the status of the 21 DI55 UFO files (see…
- p. 98 …opportunity to check out any of the UFO files available there, you may find the attached…
- p. 99 # UFO RECORDS HELD BY THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES (TNA)
## Key:
## Name of department/branch/creator
NA Class…
- p. 107 …files containing 'edited copies' of UFO reports begins 1975, ends 1980
AIR 2/18949. UFO reports…
- p. 110 …Could we clear up the ambiguity surrounding the status of the 21 DI55 UFO files (see…
- p. 111 …DI55 UFO files
DI/DI55/108/15/1Pt9 UFO Incident Reports period not known
DI/DI55…
- p. 113 …For instance, I wondered if it is possible for DIS to confirm that the UFO files…
- p. 120 …AIR 20/12966 was transferred to TNA in October and this was the only UFO file…
- p. 121 …Freedom of Information requests
AIR20/12966 was the only UFO file transferred in Oct (that I…
- p. 122 …Are you aware of any other UFO-related files from this period which have been collected…
- p. 124 …Are you aware of any other UFO-related files from this period which have been collected…
- p. 126 …I believe at one time the possibility of a UFO in the area was suggested by…
- p. 128 …The report examined UFO sighting reports from 1987 to 1997. The report was written in December…
- p. 129 …Indeed today, I often speak to Section 40 to check the status of UFO files and…
- p. 133 …The report examined UFO sighting reports from 1987 to 1997. The database was destroyed after the…
- p. 134 …Indeed today, I often speak to Section 40 to check the status of UFO files and…
- p. 144 …Interestingly I have found on my UFO policy file a draft PQ answer which was sent…
- p. 145 …file enclosures between the years 1980 to 1996 for documents relating to the Rendlesham Forest UFO…
- p. 150 …data,
D/sec(AS)12/3-uFO Corrapondine
- File Dl55/108/15 Pt 4 runs from…
- p. 151 …Red
## Section 40
This is quite a big job, but here is some data,
- File DI55…
- p. 158 …a database of UFO/UAP material drawn from their archive of 22 files dating back to…
- p. 159 …file enclosures between the years 1980 to 1996 for documents relating to the Rendlesham forest UFO…
# D/DI BCR CG/10/4/3/13/59
*** August 2006
## Info Access Pol 2
RELEASE OF DIS REPORT - UNIDENTIFIED AERIAL PHENOMENA (UAP) IN THE UK AIR DEFENCE REGION - INTERNAL APPEAL
1. Your email to DAS-FOI of $ 2^{\mathrm{nd}} $ August regarding the UAP report internal appeal asked for clarification on a number of issues. Following discussions with DIS FOI staff and the subject matter expert, our comments in response are as follows:
- While the author can obviously be withheld under s.40 as we can not find him to ask his permission, can it also be withheld under s.24-National Security- as he may be targeted to obtain secret information that we have with held and he may inadvertently release?
We do not consider that s.24 National Security is an appropriate exemption to use in this case. If it is considered that the author of the report maybe targeted, the use of exemption s.38 Health and Safety is considered a more appropriate exemption.
- The name of the company currently withheld under s.43- as DIS still use this company is it withheld so that this is not known? If so, this is not s.43 but s.24 and must be stated as such.
The name of the company was withheld to prevent disclosure of its relationship with the DIS. Release of this information may prejudice the commercial interests of the company. In addition, disclosure of the company's name may inadvertently lead to the name of the author of the report being disclosed. It is considered that in this case s.43 remains the correct exemption to use.
This paragraph was redacted following the advice of CT&UK Ops. Since it concerns the performance of UKADGE radars in reflecting plasmas it is considered that s.26 is the only appropriate exempt to use and can see no reason why s.43 should be cited.
- In Volume 2, working paper no. 5. Page 5-3, paragraph 9. This has been redacted under s.26 Defence, but is this really the case- or is it possibly commercial? This would therefore be s.43. It gives away the key reasoning which we have paid for and should it just be given out to others- it could be argued that others could produce the same information butt should we point them in the right direction?
- In Executive Summary, page 3, paragraph 11 has been redacted under s.27, but this should have been s.26 or possibly s.23, as the information is an assessment and could be from intelligence sources.
Presumably this refers to the Executive Summary in Volume 3 ? The source of the information in this paragraph could not be established. However, it is not s.23