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.
“International UFO Reporter”20 pages
## Section 40 From: Section 40 Sent: 02 August 2006 14:24 To: Section 40 Subject: FW: Clarke-UFO Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Red ## Section Please see the message below from Section 40 Dr C appeal. I only have a redacted copy of the report so I don't know which bits she is referring to. Please can we discuss? ## Regards ## Section From: Section 40 Sent: 02 August 2006 14:06 To: Section 40 Subject: Clarke-UFO ## Hi Section 40 After much discussion at this end between David Wray and CTUKOps SO1 Air, there are several redactions that will now be released- but before this is possible there are several more things we need to clarify. Dr Clarke has obviously asked for the name of the author and the company responsible for the report. - 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? - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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? - Volume 3- Miscellaneous Related Studies. Chapter 4, page 1, paragraph 3- is this s.26? It reveals DIS organisation- security. Paragraph 4- this was s.27, but should it be s.25? How was the
Document, cited by the archive. The PDF is mirrored here; the original link is under it. The text was read from the page images by an OCR model; expect the odd misread word. 160 pages are in the text index: search them above, or from the library's search.