Documents / Document
This MoD file, titled UFOs - Persistent Correspondence - Dr David Clarke, holds Dr David Clarke's Freedom of Information requests and emails to the Directorate of Air Staff from 2005 to 2008. Clarke asked for the DI55 report on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena in the UK Air Defence Region and for Rendlesham papers. He also sought records about Nick Pope. Other items include an internal review that released redacted passages on plasmas, the MoD's statement that it had no report of the 2008 South Wales police helicopter sighting, and a 2009 disposal form.
“UFO Research Society”3 pages
Read from the scan by GLM-OCR; expect the odd misread word.
# UNCLASSIFIED material or the classification would have been much higher. The use of s.27 for this paragraph is considered the correct and only one that should be used as disclosure of this paragraph could prejudice relations with the state concerned. - Volume 3-Miscellaneous Related studies, Chapter 1, page 5, paragraph 21- while this paragraph was previously redacted in whole, it has now been agreed to release some of paragraph 11, the opening phrase of paragraph 21 is the same as the opening phrase of paragraph 11 which will be released. As this was originally redacted following the advice of CT&UK Ops, if they are now content for the opening phrase in paragraphs 11 and 21 to be released, the DIS has no objection. - Volume 3- Miscellaneous Related Studies, Chapter 1, Page 7, second bullet. Redacted under s.26, should it be s.43? Is this knowledge that we do not want known, as we paid for it- and we do not wan to supply this to any competitors? This was redacted following the advice of CT&UK Ops and refers to the performance and characteristics of UK radar, disclosure of which could potentially prejudice the defence of the UK. It is considered that s.26 is the most appropriate exemption and that s.43 is not relevant in this case as radar manufacturers would be familiar with 'normal radar design'. - Volume 3- Miscellaneous Related Studies. Chapter 4, page 1, paragraph 3- is this s.26? It reveals DIS organisation- security. We consider that s.26 remains the correct exemption to use in this case. The guidance for handling intelligence-related requests for information advises that s.26 can be used for issues relating to MoD security. As disclosure of DIS organisation details would fall under MoD security, s.26 is therefore considered the most appropriate exemption. Paragraph 4- this was s.27, but should it be s.25? How was the information gathered? Presumably you mean s.23 and not s.25 ? The source of the information in this paragraph could not be established. However, it is not s.23 material or the classification would have been much higher. The use of s.27 for this paragraph is considered the correct and the only one that should be used as disclosure of this paragraph could prejudice relations with the state concerned. ## Paragraph 9- also s.27 but should it be s.25? How was it gathered? Presumably you mean s.23 and not s.25 ? The source of the information in this paragraph could not be established. However, it is not s.23 material or the classification would have been much higher. The use of s.27 for this paragraph is considered the correct and the only one that should be used as disclosure of this paragraph could prejudice relations with the state concerned. In regard to the following two points- these are on my understanding- and if you wish to disagree please let me know- if correct can they be released? - Volume 3-Miscellaneous Related Studies, Chapter 4, page 3, paragraph 12, while information regarding DIS, the CIA desk officer and DI51 must remain
Document, cited by the archive. The PDF is mirrored here; the original link is above. The text was read from the page images by GLM-OCR; expect the odd misread word. 160 pages are in the text index: search them above, or from the library's search.