IUR I nt e rnationa l UFO Repo r t e r Fall 200 1 Volume 26, Number 3 AN ANALYSIS OF ANGEL HAIR 1947-2000 A t 2 :0 0 p.111. 011 O c tob e r 2 2. 19 7 3. in Sudbiu y, Massachu se us. a c hild ran inlll the hou.1 · e callin g t o hi s m o th e r to cotn e o utsid e 10 s e e "th e bi gg e s t spid e r11· e b in the 1 m rld. ·· Th e moth e r di . , · co F e r e d in h e r ya rd a s ih •e l : \ · -lrhit e 1 re b - l i k e materi a l cm·e rin g hu s he s a nd han g in g J im n th e tr ee s. A s s h e l oo k e d tmrard th e s k y , sh e w itn esse d a s hin y . s ilv e n · . s ph e ri c al o bj ec t mo P in g o .f f o th e w e st a s m o r e < ~ { thi s w eb- like s u bs t c 111 ce f e ll.fi" o m the s k r f o r an o th e r tw o h o ur s . Th e 1\'itn e s.\ ' t oo k sampl e s on co n s tru c tion pap e r an d pl a ce d th e m in a g la ss j ar an d into th e r eji- i ge rator wkin g th e m to a l oc allab o rm 01 :r fo r e xamin a ti o n. Th e ma t eria l wa s ll'hit e an d translucent a nd di111inishin g mpidl y . Thi s i s a mi c ro sc opic ph o to o f th e s ub s tanc e. ( N J CAP , UFO lnl'esti g at o r. Ma r c h 19 7 4 )
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
7/30/2019 2001 Fall IUR - Jenny Randles on Rendlesham File
TI·IF. L ocKHEE i l UFO CASE, 1953 IJy Joel Carpenter ............................................................................................. ............ . 3
A. \ M L\'SIS OF ,\.,\ICF.I. BAlK, 1947- 2000 by Brian Boldman .......................................................................................... . 10
R F.'IIli.ESI·IM I F Til E B RIT ISII MoD FILE by Jenny Randles ................................................................................... 21
L E'IT ERS ................... .. ................... .... ............................................................................. . ............. ........................... ........ ... . . .. 26
\-V IIAT UOES ,, IIAI.F-CE'ITLIH' OF 1-rr r. 'SE UFO I>ISI'LAY by Michael D. Swords .................................................. 27
OF INTERF-rr To CUFOS A s s o ................................. ........................ ......................................................................... 35
lntemational UFO Reporter (ISSN 0720-17-IX) is p u b l i ~ h c dquarterly h) 1he J. Allen Hynek Center for UFO t u d i 2-157
Wc\1 Avenue. Chicago. lllinob 60659. All
re'erved. Reproduction without p e n n i prohibited.
the so p of various recent cases from a January 1983 nap.
But my request for information on Rendlesham still fell on
of ficially deaf ea rs-until the 0 11111i art icle appea red. This
changed everything. On April 13, 1983. the MoD wrote to
me and finally acknowledged th at the case had occurred and
that "no explanation was forthcoming .. It is true to say thatthey probably had no option but to do so by this da te. A fter
all , one of their own officers had j ust admitted the same
thing in a newsstand magaz ine. Had that not occurred. it is
di fficul t to know whether the M oD would havc just gone on
refusing to o f fer commen t like before .
A t much the same time in th e US. the UFO political
action group CAUS-using a statement from witness Larry
Warren who had recently spo ken to Larry Fawcett and
Barry Greenwood about his role in the case-applied via
the Freedom of Information Ac t for case Ii les. They re
ceived a similar admission of th e incident from the USAF
about two weeks after my leucr from the MoD. and in May
1983 put in an o ff icial reques t for fi les to back it up. In June
1983 this turned up the one-page memo signed by Col. Halt
that summarized the case. Th is was the memo forwarded by
Sq uadron L eader Moreland to the MoD back in mid Janu
ary 198 1. about three weeks artcr the incidents.
However, the M oD stil l dec lined to release th is memo
to myse l f or an y other Brit ish cit izen due to the U.K.
Official Sec rets Ac t: a ra ther absurd pos i tion since the
USAFwere now stating th at they only got a copy to release
to Ameri ca n ci tizens owing to help from the MoD.
ln 1985 Ra y Boeche of M UFON Nebraska was able to
squeeze more documents from the USAF. although these
:.;;.,·:J.f· cu
.... R.U/ C(
I. '" !N' '10"" ' "9 of 11 tf ( ~ O)UOt.), l- " t.Ufe c Y r l l / PO.I .t Pttn:thwn U 1o1 \ l ' l i U t . ~ S lt'if!U c . . , o , , ~ tt-. 'i'l'f t
W l l t o c ~ r i O t j e fh in '-tn9 tn l i rcr &rt lt1qht t i n t cruh.a or filft111
Oo..,, t l l ~ t t C & l l tor ! Q f \ ta 90 ow ts 1dt t.he 9U t to H l ' l t H q . a ~ •T/'lr 0 1 ' 1 · fll9"1t c:,,., f't'lt'OnMd o ~ t ~ l ll ovtJJ ~ H r ~ 1
11'1 forc n . Tht GbJ •c t ... " ' c : r l t ~ d n :W1ng ne t. I it tn ""'frtrc:e
t n.o h n q u '" Utp t , t t>CI1'6"t N lioiJ t .. t o thr ee: •crou th e
ttu &1\d • COn:t . nu tl; , ~ ntUr-1 MIJfrl h tl lwnlnufd '""' tfltlf'r fc,..u• l ll'l t VOlt Z• l ttiH h· . Of)jt< t h l t lt 1\.14 1 £ t t . ~ h h u ; ru l t . ; Oft top •n d
! C.n\(' ) o f )l ue 11gt'th ¢ t l ' f t t U Jlt.c. G j c-tt "-11 '0 IIO•c, . lnt .,,. ~ h 9\ .'"\ t " ~ t Ott ro l nth t Q(Ir(ti Cntd tAt obJ« t . tt t : . t v . , t r u s r o w ~ ~ t"t tf'l'd
4 ~ r - U • " t 4 J.t t" H :l nt t flt ,JI'lt ,-..i s on • nr&ro1 f 1 m . . . , . ,1nu
1: : . : " ~ ; , J t c t "'U Of'1tf11' ~ ~ ~ t . l : > ~ r 4 <'1 t - . o h ttr 't .tr
l f i>C n11 1( dt)', tn , ., . O " ' \ I ) .'1 ' 4t t P en1 J ' '"' • ' l l l t l ~ r ""t f l'fO\Ma " ' ' l f ~ " t tflt ObJCc t , . , . ~ :.Ce" t l ~ h t f 4 on t» t ; ro lolt'·d The tollco-1n9fl19f)t (19 Ot:cC tc ) tfrlc .t.r•.t "'-1\ h r r&tHH t ()' ru ot n'f)
11l l l 't'Ot"l9tM .,ofrf retorC-•.:I .. 't" Pu • rcad"1 ' '" tt•• tl'tN't"' c.e·£tre n t (;'! \ ._u,. Htt ~ t e r o f t •• -,1 t "-f 4t-Preu tc:ta
: o : : ~ ~ · ~ : : : : i ' : ~ ~ J t t ( .05o- ?I I ~ l n ~ ) on tflt ~ I c e o "I t :r t t ·
Col. Halt's memo. Jwwary 13. 1981.
we re not ve ry illuminating. consisting of mos tl y in ternal
memos advising staff on how to answe r questions posed by
journal ists on the case. Several fi les were withheld for
sec urity reasons. On appea l one of these was released to
Boeche. It was a teletype message in which the operator had
drawn a line of little p a c e ~ and aliens on top, presumably as a joke. It seems likely thi s was the reason for the
initial dec ision to withhold the fil es as the message content
seems innocuous.
As for the MoD. they continued to ma intain a discrete
silence desp ite lots of pressure. In 1984 Ral ph oyes (a
reti red Unde r Sec retary who had been long assoc iated
with the MoD UFO study and whom I had persuaded that
there was a case to answer) and I succeeded in convincing
a crusad ing Member of Pari iament (David AI 'On) to de
mand answe rs from the government. A lthough exchanges
of information went on between A lton and the Defense
Minister, LordTrefgarne. the end result was that both A lton
and Noyes were give n ust as mu ch of a runaround as I wa s!
Nobody was wi lling to say anything beyond a repetit ive.
sheep-l ike comment that the MoD did not believe there
were any defense implication. behind this case.
Noyes and I argued with the MoD that such a sugges
ti on made no sense. If the UFO was rea l and unidentified
and it intrud ed into British ai r space, of course there were
defense implications. I f it was not rea l and senior USAF
officers in charge of aNATO base were thus see ing th ings
that didn't ex ist and chasing them across British so il . then
that, too, clearly was no inconsequential matter. But all thi s
proved to no avail.
THE BREAKTHROUGH
As with many aspec tsofBriti ·h government. whereofficial
sec recy is a way of l ife. things ha ve not chan ged rapid ly.
But, given the closer association w ith the European Com
munity in recent years and pressure from Brit ish cit izens
upset by what they see asold rash oned secrecy. th egovern
men t has mad e plans to introduce aFreedom of Information
Act that would allow documentation to be released .
At present. M oD Ii les are located at the Public Record
Office in Kew. but only opened up to the publ ic after 30
years has elapsed fo llow ing the last action take n on the file
(in the Rcndlesham case that would mean 30 years after1985). For well over a year the Bri tish government has been
pri va tely advising their intention to alter the pattern and
re lease UFO material well ahead of time owing to the
imminence of the Freedom of' Information Ac t ( li kely to be
passed in 2002). Although several British ufologists (my
se l f included) ha ve known this since late 1999. we had
decided not to talk openly about i t for fear or undermining
dec isions that had to yet to be transformed into ac tion.
There was good reason ror this, as we had run into
problems before. In 1982, I had tried (w i th ass i stance from
Bi ll Chalker who had recentl y bee n granted access to Ai r
Force fi les in his nat ive A ustralia) to persuade the MoD that
IUR + r-" 1. 2001
22
7/30/2019 2001 Fall IUR - Jenny Randles on Rendlesham File
shop window whereby they arc vi. ible to the public and dea l
with inquiries and can offer official answers. But these
answers and <ny in depth study behind a report (wheneve r
thi s ra rely happens) are dictated from above in the chain of
command - which the Air Staff. naturally. trus t imp licit ly.
Consequentl y, i fa sighting occur!> and is reported to the A ir
Staff. they may end the member of he public a stock reply
("we inves tigate to es tab li h i f here are any defense impli
cations.'' and o on) and then may say nothing else . as Air
Staff prefer not to en ter the UFO minefi eld unless they have
no choice.
Air staff respon!>e!> to a witness who presl.es them wi ll
rarely be spec i fic. except in the nega ti ve. i.e . "we ha ve been
unable to identify any air exe rcises operat ing at the time:·
and rarely would they say what they said to me in April
1983-that a major case is considered to be un ex plained
since thi s invites the assumption that they are conti rming
tha t UFOs are real. Of course. in the str ict sense they arc
doing so . where by UFO we mean simply an unidentif ied
phenomenon. But since most people equate a UFO wi th analien spaceship. the MoD knows the risks with aying too
much.
For spec if ic answers the Air St<Lff will a l w a depend
upon the outcomeor an inves tiga rion by their assoc iate !>ta ft"
(such as DST I) and can only report what the DSTI choo. e
to tell them. It is likely that the DSTI would be circumspect
in what they reveal to these civil se rvams. Consequently.
you mu st always read between the lines ofcommunications
be twee n A ir Staff and the public and the ones from more
agencic!> and the A ir Staff they arc advising.
The A ir Staffhones tl y report what they consider is the
truth and i f sil ly ufologists start bleating about cover-ups
and real UFOs lurking behind cases . they can shake theirhead. at thi sev ident paranoia and say -w ithout ever need
ing to lie- that so far as the A ir Staffknow this u t isn' t the
case. Because as far as they know it isn' t. But they do not
necessaril y know all that there is to know abo ut a case.
THE R ENDLESHAM FILE
The UFO files of organiza tions li ke DST I are not often
~ e d . Some data- mos tl y communications from DSTI
or a defense in tell igence unit internally to the Air Staf f
in reply to que. tions- are contained within A ir Staff fil es
that do ge t re leased. But not the inrernal fi les of the intel li
gence agencies themse lves. which li kely would be more
revealing. In other words. any M oD file on UFO:-. is prob
ably ju st reporting one part of the story. The fi le. even so.
not without and can illuminate matters. but it may
not nece!>sari ly be the last word on gove rnmen t i n t e rAnd it iswi th Rcndlesham. We now have a lil e that
paints a fascinat ing pic ture of a team of civi l
lloundering wi th a UFO case that is clearly beyond their
remi t and of only minimal interest. at least pa rt ly because
they be l ieve their own pu blicity th at UFOs arc a
What we don' t necessarily have in the released fi le is the
HOD (f)SBa)
. [ I( .RAF UAJSON OFFICE ( ; :
Rcy>IA . I r - OenrNJton WOOdbrlclgo Sllltoll< I 12lRO
•-w- >m..,m 2257
0... . . . . ._. BE!iT/0 19/76
A!!-.,... I f l411•ary 1981
D E N T ! F I E D FLYING 08JF.CTS (U70 'a )
r e . ' : : - . : ~ e h a c o ~ · :e;"':'=: ! ~ . . a · n : : : o c e e i · : : ; , ~ ,_..,_the Deputy i!<lse CCCI::I4nder ot RAT Bentw&:ers ~ ~ ~ :ce:ninq some cysterlous s i ;h t inqs in the ~ n d l es h ~ ~ f o r o s ~ nea: RAFff:bridqe. ra per: is! o r ~ a r ~ a d !o r i . t l o ~ and action at con-sidered necessary.
Cooy to :
SRAE'LO, RAP Hilc!onhall
D H XOIU:LAN DSq1ladron Lea<1erRAr Comnando r
J I'('(
.. -.. .._
r•; /Ac l (, .... , 1
- · " ' · • . \ .. , ......(...._.. ..
Moreland's cm·er nole. January 15. /981.
whole story. although whether we arc only missing a few
minor pieces <>r a major pa rt of the pun h: revolve), around
how we interpret some of the that the c l c a ~ e d lile
mu st cause us to ask.
Th e starting point. Chronologically the fi le onJanuary 15. 1981. with the cover note sent by Squad ron
Leade r Moreland to accompany Halt's report to the MoD .
This is 2 1clays af'ter the f irst sighting- the alleged landing
witnessed by three USAF personnel inside the fores t. Ac-
cording to the fi le it is the fi rst time that the MoD were even
made aware o f the case. But wa. it? This is the big
that we must face.
Among other things. the Rendlesham events involve
poss ible ir radiation of the area by a landed UFO. thi s in an
area of a Bri tish forest used by man y dog walkers and
picnickers. It is irrelevant as to whether it actually was
irradiated to any sign itican t degree. The report shows this
conclusion was made by Halt and hi!> orticers taking read
ings wi th Geiger u m sample!>. etc . activities we ll
beyond their jurisdiction. (It seems unlikely they could
have done this without M oD approval.) They do th is -IX
hours after the fi rst incident and yet o s e d l y only bother
to ofl ieially report i t to London by letter three wee ks later.
Thi s is odd.
One mu t wonder how man y British i t i ; wa ndered
through a fores t thought to be irradiated during thi s period.
suffering potential conseq uences? Even if . as later events
sugges t. they were at no real risk. that had to be a clear
R +- F\U ~ 0 ( 1 12-1
7/30/2019 2001 Fall IUR - Jenny Randles on Rendlesham File
comments on my article . I went on to publish the Omni
art icle tha t appeared three months later.
T his period (October 1982 to Janu ary 1983) coincided
exactly with the period when the Mo D was w ri ting to me to
tell me that they planned to e a ~ e UFO ti les . and then over
the nex t fi ve months sent me vari ous recent case files as
swee teners. Whether this is coinciden ce is not certain.
The MoD res ponded to the sq uad ron leaders <.:Once rns
and told M oreland to stick to a standard reply with detail ed
ad vice on stock answers that the Ai r Staff would send out.
The precise wording suggested to use was. " I understand
that M oD did receive a report from base personnel of a UFO
sighting near RA F Ben twatcrs on 27 Dece mber 1980. The
report was dea lt with in accordance with normal proce
dures : it was not considered to indicate an ything of defence
interes t. T here was no quest ion of any contact with ·alien
beings ...
A ll fair enough. except that on the strength of the
evidence in released fi le. it becomes rather difficult to
ju st ify that the case had no defense interest when this ad vice
was be ing given to M oreland. The " ev idence' ' for no
defense interest boil s dow n to the A ir Sta f f sending ou t a
memo in January 198 1asking intell igence staf f fo r advice.
getting precious little back. being told by their relevant
radar base that their fi lm was use less. then be ing advised
that higher than normal radiation seemed to ha ve been
recorded in the woods by a senior o ff ice r but then not
actually pursuing thi s matter to the point of veri fy ing i f his
posed any threat to local cit izens.
In other wo rds. at bes t the released documents disc lose
a sloppy. diso rganized attempt to disprove that there were
defense impli ca tions. A ll the MoD staff did was talk to
DS TI and Dl 55 and get told that they didn' t have a cluewhat had bee n seen. Whether in the process these sc ienti tic
intell igence staff did eliminate defense poss ibi l ities (li ke a
terrorist reconn aissance mi ss ion). and i f so how they did it.
must presumably be locked in the fi les of DST I and ce r
tainl y is not re vea led in the Rendlesham fi le ju st released .
Thus. Ai r Sta ll assured the RAF commander at
Bentwaters that he should tell the British public there wa
no defense threat from th is case because nobody had told
them that . uch a defense threat did ex ist. But in truth all th ey
had been told is that no or intell ige nce o ff icer had
a clue what had taken place. Oh. and by the way. the
rad iation li gures looked a bi t high.
Nuclear issues. One wonderful piece of commentary iscontained in a letter dated November 9. 1982, from the Ai r
Staff to Squad ron Leader Mo reland. As noted he was a bi t
conce rn ed by rny raisi ng o f the nuclear accident theo ry
so mething I do not today regard as li kely. but that was a
viable candidate in 1982. That Moreland was more both
ered by th i. than by the UFO story is itse lfin teresr ing but not
surprising. In 1982 the USAF was tryi ng to bring crui se
miss iles into Britain and facing a major peace campaign
aga inst them. And Bentwaters had nuclear weapons but
local people hadn 't been to ld.
M IMS7RY OF DEFENCE
M.-. Bw'a.no h : t " ~ lor.OOtl SW1A 2MB
lo...,._ tf.;. • 2 6 3 8 1 ~ n . l ' ...... .11 t eoeo '"" '. _ . . ,
g"M'fJi5/2· rt+
q ~ ~ < " O 1962
'(),"""- si....1..... L;,....ri. J . c . ~ L ()'0\1 ror TOV.: l •:tr,:- l ' t ~ 9 / 1 . 6 / o .. 25 tk t obt .n1: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ; . . r ; ; o ; . t r ; ~ t ~ ~ K ' , b i n o d (th ~ t } " . o r - ~ a c : r ,
i) . !.X>:Pz: line on VPO•c a ae ! ollO'd'o1 .
t; Cur :solo 1ntorn t 1:-. tbo vro • t . e ' b :-e-orted .. , 112 tct h o e ~ fththo:- ~ ! ' ; hcv r . l ! . r ~ \ ' n ! l . n.'lr d e o f • ~ r e of
Letterfi'OIII MoD 10 Moreland. Nol'emher 9. 1982.
In rep ly to More land' s concern s Peter Watkins ( the
Nick Pope equivalent in 1982) told the commander that I
was one of hi regulars. Then he sugges ted th at Mo reland
should in reply to any journalists eire a parl iamentary
written answer given on Jan uary 28. 198 1. that " no accidents have occur red involving ... damage to nuclear
weapons containi ng fiss ile material on U .K. tetTitory. . . . . .
Th e Air Staf f added that i f someone ment io ns "t he
Lakcnhea th incident " (as I had. where a ri re at this base in
July 1956 cau sed a near disaster to a we apons storage area).
then to reassure that duri ng thi s event "no nuclear materia ls
we re invol ved' ' -as th e U.S. authori ties had assured the
M oD was true.
But, in awell -tempered perspect iveonufology. W atkins
concluded. " I wou ld not expect ufologists to pursue either
IUR + F AI. I. 2001
31
7/30/2019 2001 Fall IUR - Jenny Randles on Rendlesham File