UFO files from the UK government; DEFE 24/2058

8/7/2019 UFO files from the UK government; DEFE 24/2058

1/197

(c) 'C ro wn c o py r i g ' , h tw - r-


2/197


3/197


4/197

From:Directorate of Air Staff - Freedom of InformatioMINISTRY OF DEFENCEs" Floor, Zone H, Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1A 2HB

Telephone (Directdial) 02072182140(Switchboard) 02072189000(Fax)

Your Reference:Our Reference:DIDAS/64/2Date:25 February 2005

Dear~I am writing with reference to your report of an 'unidentified flying object', seen on 20 February2005, the details of which you left on our answerphone. This office is the focal point within theMinistry of Defence for correspondence relating to 'UFOs.'First, it may be helpful if I explain that the Ministry of Defence examines any reports of'unidentified flying objects' it receives solely to establish whether what was seenmight have somedefence significance; namely, whether there is any evidence that the United Kingdom's airspacemight have been compromised by hostile or unauthorised air activity.Unless there is evidence of a potential threat to the United Kingdom from an external militarysource, and to date no 'UFO' report has revealed such evidence, we do not attempt to identify theprecise nature of each sighting reported to us. We believe that rational explanations, such asaircraft lights or natural phenomena, could be found for them if resources were diverted for thispurpose, but it is not the function of the MOD to provide this kind of aerial identification service.Itwould be an inappropriate use of defence resources if we were to do so.The MOD does not have any expertise or role in respect of 'UFO/flying saucer' matters to thequestion of existence or otherwise of extraterrestrial Iifeforms, about which it remains totallyopen-minded. I should add that to date, the MOD knows of no evidence which substantiates theexistence of these alleged phenomena.With regard to your particular observation, I can confirm that we received eight other reports of'UFO' sightings for 20 February 2005, and two were from Somerset, Wilts, Dorset, Devon,Leicestershire, London and Cardiff in South Wales. Weare satisfied that there is no corroboratingevidence to suggest that the United Kingdom's airspace was breached by unauthorised aircraft.

Yours sincerely


5/197

.1

REPORT OF AN UNEXPLAINED AERIAL SIGHTING

1. Date and time of sighting. 20 February 2005(Duration of sighting.) No time given.

2. Description of object. A blue flash of light going across the sky.(No of objects, size, shape, colour,brightness, noise.)

3 . Exact position of observer. ~s indoors, looking out of herGeographical location. kitchen window, when she saw the light.(Indoors/outdoors,stationary/moving. )

4 . How object was observed. With the naked eye.(Naked eye, binoculars, otheroptical device, camera orcamcorder.)

5. Direction in which object was Not given.rust seen.(A landmark may be more helpfulthan a roughly estimated bearing.)

6 . Approximate distance. Not given.

7. Movements and speed. Was going quite fast.(side to side, up or down,constant, moving fast, slow)

8 . Weather conditions during Not given.observation.(cloudy, haze, mist, clear)

1


6/197

,

9. To whom reported.(Police, military, press etc)

10. Name, address and telephone noof informant.

11. Other witnesses.

12. Remarks.

13. Date and time of receipt.

Das answerphone.

Her husband.

Said that she had read about the light in thelocal paper - The Western, and realised,that that is what she saw when she had beenlooking out of her window.

25 February 200515.20L

2


7/197

Telephone (Directdial) 02072182140(Switchboard)(Fax)

FromDirectorate of Air Staff - Freedom of Information 1

. '

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE5th Floor, Zone H, Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1A 2HB

Your Reference:BamngtonSomerset Our Reference:D/DAS/64/2

Date:25 February 2005

De~I am writing with reference to your report of an 'unidentified flying object', seen on 20 February2005, the details of which you left on our answerphone. This office is the focal point within theMinistry of Defence for correspondence relating to 'UFOs.'First, it may be helpful if I explain that the Ministry of Defence examines any reports of'unidentified flying objects' it receives solely to establish whether what was seenmight have somedefence significance; namely, whether there is any evidence that the United Kingdom's airspacemight have been compromised by hostile or unauthorised air activity.Unless there is evidence of a potential threat to the United Kingdom from an external militarysource, and to date no 'UFO' report has revealed such evidence, we do not attempt to identify theprecise nature of each sighting reported to us. We believe that rational explanations, such asaircraft lights or natural phenomena, could be found for them if resources were diverted for thispurpose, but it is not the function of the MOD to provide this kind of aerial identification service.Itwould be an inappropriate use of defence resources if we were to do so.The MOD does not have any expertise or role in respect of 'UFO/flying saucer' matters to thequestion of existence or otherwise of extraterrestrial lifeforms, about which it remains totallyopen-minded. I should add that to date, the MOD knows of no evidence which substantiates theexistence of these alleged phenomena.With regard to your particular observation, I can confirm that we received seven other reports of'UFO' sightings for 20 February 2005, and they were from London, Leicestershire, Somerset,Wilts, Dorset, Devon and Cardiff in South Wales. Weare satisfied that there is no corroboratingevidence to suggest that the United Kingdom's airspace was breached by unauthorised aircraft.

Yours sincerely


8/197

e REPORT OF AN UNEXPLAINED AERIAL SIGHTING1. Date and time of sighting. 20 February 2005(Duration of sighting.) 09.45L2. Description of object. Saw an amazing blue light travelling very(No of objects, size, shape, colour, fast across the sky. Left a trail.

brightness, noise.)

3 . Exact position of observer. In her car.Geographicaiiocation.(Indoors/outdoors,stationary/moving. )

4. How object was observed. With the naked eye.(Naked eye, binoculars, otheroptical device, camera orcamcorder. )

5. Direction in which object was On an A road near Taunton.first seen.(A landmark may be more helpfulthan a roughly estimated bearing.)

6. Approximate distance. Not given.

7. Movements and speed. Just said travelling very fast.(side to side, up or down,constant, moving fast, slow)


1


9/197



Das answerphone.

. . . . .11. Other witnesses. Not given.

12. Remarks. Not given.

13. Date and time of receipt. 25 February 200511.30L

2


10/197

II

FromDirectorate of Air Staff - Freedom of Information 1MINISTRY OF DEFENCE5th Floor, Zone H, Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1A 2HB


Your Reference:YeovilSomerset Our Reference:DIDAS/64/2


DearI am writing with reference to your report of an 'unidentified flying object', seen on 20 February2005, the details of which you left on our answerphone. This office is the focal point within theMinistry of Defence for correspondence relating to 'UFOs.'First, it may be helpful if I explain that the Ministry of Defence examines any reports of'unidentified flying objects' it receives solely to establish whether what was seenmight have somedefence significance; namely, whether there is any evidence that the United Kingdom's airspacemight have been compromised by hostile or unauthorised air activity.Unless there is evidence of a potential threat to the United Kingdom from an external militarysource, and to date no 'UFO' report has revealed such evidence, we do not attempt to identify theprecise nature of each sighting reported to us. We believe that rational explanations, such asaircraft lights or natural phenomena, could be found for them if resources were diverted for thispurpose, but it is not the function of the MOD to provide this kind of aerial identification service.Itwould be an inappropriate use of defence resources if we were to do so.The MOD does not have any expertise or role in respect of 'UFO/flying saucer' matters to thequestion of existence or otherwise of extraterrestrial lifeforms, about which it remains totallyopen-minded. I should add that to date, the MOD knows of no evidence which substantiates theexistence of these alleged phenomena.With regard to your particular observation, I can confirm that we received five other reports of'UFO' sightings for 20 February 2005, and they were from London, Leicestershire, Somerset,Wiltshire and Cardiff, South Wales. Weare satisfied that there is no corroborating evidence tosuggest that the United Kingdom's airspacewas breached by unauthorised aircraft.

Yours sincerely


11/197


1. Date and time of sighting. 20 February 2005(Duration of sighting.) No time given.

2. Description of object. Noticed a greenlblue light go across the(No of objects, size, shape, colour, sky. Looked like it had a tail.brightness, noise.)

3. Exact position of observer. Outdoors, playing golf on the SherborneGeographical location. Golf Course in Dorset.(Indoors/outdoors,stationary/moving. )

4. How object was observed. With the naked eye.(Naked eye, binoculars, otheroptical device, camera orcamcorder. )

5. Direction in which object was Not given.first seen.(A landmark may be more helpfulthan a roughly estimated bearing.)


7 . Movements and speed. Was going quite fast.(side to side, up or down,constant, moving fast, slow)

8. Weather conditions during Not given.observation.(cloudy, haze, mist, clear)

1


12/197

. . .9. To whom reported.(Police, military, press etc)


Das answerphone.


12. Remarks.


YeovilSomerset

Three friends that were playing golf withhim witnessed it too.

that it could have been ameteonte as it looked like it wasdisintegrating as it was moving across thesky. Asked us, if anyone else had reportedthis green/blue light?


2


13/197



Your Reference:

MiddlesexOur Reference:DIDAS/64/2Date:24 February 2005

I am writing with reference to your report of an 'unidentified flying object', seen on 20 February2005, the details of which you left on our answerphone. This office is the focal point within theMinistry of Defence for correspondence relating to 'UFOs.'First, it may be helpful if I explain that the Ministry of Defence examines any reports of'unidentified flying objects' it receives solely to establish whether what was seen might have somedefence significance; namely, whether there is any evidence that the United Kingdom's airspacemight have been compromised by hostile or unauthorised air activity.Unless there is evidence of a potential threat to the United Kingdom from an external militarysource, and to date no 'UFO' report has revealed such evidence, we do not attempt to identify theprecise nature of each sighting reported to us. We believe that rational explanations, such asaircraft lights or natural phenomena, could be found for them if resources were diverted for thispurpose, but it is not the function of the MOD to provide this kind of aerial identification service.Itwould be an inappropriate use of defence resources if we were to do so.The MOD does not have any expertise or role in respect of 'UFO/flying saucer' matters to thequestion of existence or otherwise of extraterrestrial lifeforms, about which it remains totallyopen-minded. I should add that to date, the MOD knows of no evidence which substantiates theexistence of these alleged phenomena.With regard to your particular observation, I can confirm that we received four other reports of'UFO' sightings for 20 February 2005, and they were from London, Leicestershire, Somerset andCardiff, South Wales. Weare satisfied that there is no corroborating evidence to suggest that theUnited Kingdom's airspace was breached by unauthorised aircraft.

Yours sincerely


14/197


1. Date and time of sighting. 20 February 2005(Duration of sighting.) No time given.2. Description of object. A bright blue flash was seen in the sky.(No of objects, size, shape, colour,

brightness, noise.)

3. Exact position of observer. In his car on the A303 going pastGeographical location. Stonehenge.(Indoors/outdoors,stationary/moving. )


5. Direction in which object was Flying in a Westerly direction over ~first seen. A303. ~ J2 .0 \..:) ' (A landmark may be more helpfulthan a roughly estimated bearing.)


7. Movements and speed. Not given.(side to side, up or down,constant, moving fast, slow)


1


15/197

".


1O . Name, address and telephonenoof informant.

Das answerphone.

11. Other witnesses. Not given.

12. Remarks. He was driving near to Stonehenge and justhappened to look up when he saw the blueflash in the sky. Mentioned that it couldhave been a meteorite.

13. Date and timeof receipt. 24 February 200511.00L

2


16/197

. . REPORT OF AN UNEXPLAINED AERIAL SIGHTING1. Date and time of sighting. 20 February 2005

(Duration of sighting.) 09.45L2. Description of object. a swishing noise, like a

(No of objects, size, shape, colour, ;WUIl\. and looked up to find a brightbrightness, noise.) green light travelling from East to West. It

had a white trail and then it justdisappeared.

3 . Exact position of observer. Not given.Geographical location.(Indoors/outdoors,stationary/moving. )

4 . How object was observed. Not given.(Naked eye, binoculars, otheroptical device, camera orcamcorder.)

5. Direction in which object was Nr Minehead, Somerset.first seen.(A landmark may be more helpfulthan a roughly estimated bearing.)


7 . Movements and speed. Not given.(side to side, up or down,constant, moving fast, slow)


1

~oY-~ ' - j )'d.S \'0-'d o d.d . ( " Q . S S- - - -


17/197

. 1

9. To whom reported.(Police, military, press etc)10. Name, address and telephone no

of informant.

received an e.mail.


12. Remarks.


Not given.


2


18/197

From:Directorate of Air Staff - Freedom of Information 1MINISTRY OF DEFENCE5th Floor, Zone H, Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1A 2HB


Your Reference:Our Reference:DIDAS/64/2Date:22 February 2005

CardiffSouthWales

DearI am writing with reference to your report of an 'unidentified flying object', seen on 20 February2005, the details of which you left on our answerphone. This office is the focal point within theMinistry of Defence for correspondence relating to 'UFOs.'First, it may be helpful if I explain that the Ministry of Defence examines any reports of'unidentified flying objects' it receives solely to establish whether what was seenmight have somedefence significance; namely, whether there is any evidence that the United Kingdom's airspacemight have been compromised by hostile or unauthorised air activity.Unless there is evidence of a potential threat to the United Kingdom from an external militarysource, and to date no 'UFO' report has revealed such evidence, we do not attempt to identify theprecise nature of each sighting reported to us. We believe that rational explanations, such asaircraft lights or natural phenomena, could be found for them if resources were diverted for thispurpose, but it is not the function of the MOD to provide this kind of aerial identification service.Itwould be an inappropriate use of defence resources if we were to do so.The MOD does not have any expertise or role in respect of 'UFO/flying saucer' matters to thequestion of existence or otherwise of extraterrestrial lifeforms, about which it remains totallyopen-minded. I should add that to date, the MOD knows of no evidence which substantiates theexistence of these alleged phenomena.With regard to your particular observation, I can confirm that we received two other reports of'UFO' sightings for 20 February 2005, and that one was from London and the other fromLeicestershire. We are satisfied that there is no corroborating evidence to suggest that the UnitedKingdom's airspace was breached by unauthorised aircraft.Sorry I could not have been more help.

Yours sincerely


19/197

,. REPORT OF AN UNEXPLAINED AERIAL SIGHTING1. Date and time of sighting. 20 February 2005(Duration of sighting.) 09.50L2. Description of object. Bright blue object, broke into about three to

(No of objects, size, shape, colour, four pieces, before disappearing.brightness, noise.)


4 . How object was observed. Not given.(Naked eye, binoculars, otheroptical device, camera orcamcorder. )





1


20/197




Das answerphone.

Not given.

12. Remarks.


Not given.


2


21/197

. . - Freedom of Information 1MINISTRY OF DEFENCE5th Floor, Zone H, Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1A 2HB


Your Reference:

LondonOur Reference:DIDAS/64/2Date:22 February 2005

De~I am writing with reference to your report of an 'unidentified flying object', seen on 20 February2005, the details of which you passed to Leyton Police. This office is the focal point within theMinistry of Defence for correspondence relating to 'UFOs.'First, it may be helpful if I explain that the Ministry of Defence examines any reports of'unidentified flying objects' it receives solely to establish whether what was seen might have somedefence significance; namely, whether there is any evidence that the United Kingdom's airspacemight have been compromised by hostile or unauthorised air activity.Unless there is evidence of a potential threat to the United Kingdom from an external militarysource, and to date no 'UFO' report has revealed such evidence, we do not attempt to identify theprecise nature of each sighting reported to us. We believe that rational explanations, such asaircraft lights or natural phenomena, could be found for them if resources were diverted for thispurpose, but it is not the function of the MOD to provide this kind of aerial identification service.Itwould be an inappropriate use of defence resources if we were to do so.The MOD does not have any expertise or role in respect of 'UFO/flying saucer' matters to thequestion of existence or otherwise of extraterrestrial lifeforms, about which it remains totallyopen-minded. I should add that to date, the MOD knows of no evidence which substantiates theexistence of these alleged phenomena.With regard to your particular observation, I can confirm that we received two other reports of'UFO' sightings for 20 February 2005, and that one was from Leicestershire and the other fromCardiff, South Wales. Weare satisfied that there is no corroborating evidence to suggest that theUnited Kingdom's airspace was breached by unauthorised aircraft.Sorry I could not have been more help.

Yours sincerely


22/197


1. Date and time of sighting. 20 February 2005(Duration of sighting.) 10.00L

2. Description of object. Saw a light in the sky.(No of objects, size, shape, colour,brightness, noise.)


4. How object was observed. Not given.(Naked eye, binoculars, otheroptical device, camera orcamcorder. )





1


23/197

. - . . .-1

9. To whom reported.(Police, military, press etc) Leyton Police Control Room who thenpassed it to the Das answerphone.





2


24/197



Your Reference:Winkleigh Our Reference:

DIDAS/64/2Date:22 February 2005

I am writing with reference to your report of an 'unidentified flying object', seen on 21 February2005, the details of which you left on our answerphone. This office is the focal point within theMinistry of Defence for correspondence relating to 'UFOs.'First, it may be helpful if I explain that the Ministry of Defence examines any reports of'unidentified flyingobjects' it receives solely to establish whether what was seenmight have somedefence significance; namely, whether there is any evidence that the United Kingdom's airspacemight have been compromised by hostile or unauthorised air activity.Unless there is evidence of a potential threat to the United Kingdom from an external militarysource, and to date no 'UFO' report has revealed such evidence, we do not attempt to identify theprecise nature of each sighting reported to us. We believe that rational explanations, such asaircraft lights or natural phenomena, could be found for them if resources were diverted for thispurpose, but it is not the function of the MOD to provide this kind of aerial identification service.Itwould be an inappropriate use of defence resources if we were to do so.The MOD does not have any expertise or role in respect of 'UFO/flying saucer' matters to thequestion of existence or otherwise of extraterrestrial lifeforms, about which it remains totallyopen-minded. I should add that to date, the MOD knows of no evidence which substantiates theexistence of these alleged phenomena.With regard to your particular observation, I can confirm that we received two other reports of'UFO' sightings for 21 February 2005, and that one was from Middlesex and the other from- Shropshire. We are satisfied that there is no corroborating evidence to suggest that the UnitedKingdom's airspacewas breached by unauthorised aircraft.Sorry I could not have been more help.

Yours sincerely


25/197

.REPORT OF AN UNEXPLAINED AERIAL SIGHTING

c1. Date and time of sighting. 21 February 2005

(Duration of sighting.) 09.56L2. Description of object. Said he spotted an object in the sky.

(No of objects, size, shape, colour,brightness, noise.)


4 . How object was observed. Not given.(Naked eye, binoculars, otheroptical device, camera orcamcorder. )





1


26/197


10. Name, address and telephoneof informant.

Das answerphone.


12. Remarks.

13. Date and timeof receipt.

Not given.


2


27/197


~

From:Directorate of Air Staff - Freedom of InformatiMINISTRY OF DEFENCE5th Floor, Zone H, Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1A 2HB

Your Reference:LeicesterLeicestershire

Our Reference:DIDAS/64/2Date:22 February 2005

DearI am writing with reference to your report of an 'unidentified flying object', seen on 20 February2005, the details of which you left on our answerphone. This office is the focal point within theMinistry of Defence for correspondence relating to 'UFOs.'First, it may be helpful if I explain that the Ministry of Defence examines any reports of'unidentified flying objects' it receives solely to establish whether what was seen might have somedefence significance; namely, whether there is any evidence that the United Kingdom's airspacemight have been compromised by hostile or unauthorised air activity.Unless there is evidence of a potential threat to the United Kingdom from an external militarysource, and to date no 'UFO' report has revealed such evidence, we do not attempt to identify theprecise nature of each sighting reported to us. We believe that rational explanations, such asaircraft lights or natural phenomena, could be found for them if resources were diverted for thispurpose, but it is not the function of the MOD to provide this kind of aerial identification service.Itwould be an inappropriate use of defence resources if we were to do so.The MOD does not have any expertise or role in respect of 'UFO/flying saucer' matters to thequestion of existence or otherwise of extraterrestrial lifeforms, about which it remains totallyopen-minded. I should add that to date, the MOD knows of no evidence which substantiates theexistence of these alleged phenomena.With regard to your particular observation, I can confirm that we received t w 6 other reports of'UFO' sightings for 20 February 2005, and that one was from London and the other from Cardiff,South Wales. We are satisfied that there is no corroborating evidence to suggest that the UnitedKingdom's airspace was breached by unauthorised aircraft.Sorry I could not have been more help.

Yours sincerely


28/197

. .


1. Date and time of sighting. 20 February 2005(Duration of sighting.) No time given.2. Description of object. Said she saw an object in the sky, although,(No of objects, size, shape, colour, thinking about it now, said that it could

brightness, noise.) have been a meteorite.

3. Exact position of observer. Not given.Geographical location.(Indoors/outdoors,stationary/moving. )

4. How object was observed. Not given.(Naked eye, binoculars, otheroptical device, camera orcamcorder.)



7 . Movements and speed. The object was going really fast across the(side to side, up or down, sky.constant, moving fast, slow)


1


29/197

. . . . . . . 'I . _

9. Towhom reported.(Police, military, press etc)

10. Name, address and telephonenoof informant.

Das answerphone.


12. Remarks.

13. Dateand timeof receipt.

Not given.


2


30/197

MINISTRY OF DEFENCEs" Floor, Zone H, Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1A 2HBTelephone (Directdial) 02072182140(Switchboard) 02072189000

(Fax)

Your Reference:Our Reference:D/DAS/64/2Date:22 February 2005

DearI am writing with reference to your report of an 'unidentified flying object', seen on 21 February2005, the details of which you left on our answerphone. This office is the focal point within theMinistry of Defence for correspondence relating to 'UFOs.'First, it may be helpful if I explain that the Ministry of Defence examines any reports of'unidentified flying objects' it receives solely to establish whether what was seen might have somedefence significance; namely, whether there is any evidence that the United Kingdom's airspacemight have been compromised by hostile or unauthorised air activity.Unless there is evidence of a potential threat to the United Kingdom from an external militarysource, and to date no 'UFO' report has revealed such evidence, we do not attempt to identify theprecise nature of each sighting reported to us. We believe that rational explanations, such asaircraft lights or natural phenomena, could be found for them if resources were diverted for thispurpose, but it is not the function of the MOD to provide this kind of aerial identification service.Itwould be an inappropriate use of defence resources if we were to do so.The MOD does not have any expertise or role in respect of 'UFO/flying saucer' matters to thequestion of existence or otherwise of extraterrestrial lifeforms, about which it remains totallyopen-minded. I should add that to date, the MOD knows of no evidence which substantiates theexistence of these alleged phenomena.With regard to your particular observation, I can confirm that we received two other reports of'UFO' sightings for 21 February 2005, and that one was in-Shropshire and the other from Devon.We are satisfied that there is no corroborating evidence to suggest that the United Kingdom'sairspace was breached by unauthorised aircraft.Sorry I could not have been more help.

Yours sincerely


31/197

. . . ._ , . "REPORT OF AN UNEXPLAINED AERIAL SIGHTING

1. Date and time of sighting. 21 February 2005(Duration of sighting.) 10.00L2. Description of object. Just said she saw something.








1


32/197

... l



Das answerphone.


12. Remarks.


Not given.


2


33/197

From:Directorate of Air Staff - Freedom of InformationMINISTRY OF DEFENCE5th Floor, Zone H, Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1A 2HB

Telephone (Directdial)(Switchboard)(Fax)

Your Reference:ChivnalShropshire Our Reference:D/DAS/64/2


De~I am writing with reference to your report of an 'unidentified flying object', seen on 21 February2005, the details of which you left on our answerphone. This office is the focal point within theMinistry of Defence for correspondence relating to 'UFOs.'First, it may be helpful if I explain that the Ministry of Defence examines any reports of'unidentified flying objects' it receives solely to establish whether what was seenmight have somedefence significance; namely, whether there is any evidence that the United Kingdom's airspacemight have been compromised by hostile or unauthorised air activity.Unless there is evidence of a potential threat to the United Kingdom from an external militarysource, and to date no 'UFO' report has revealed such evidence, we do not attempt to identify theprecise nature of each sighting reported to us. We believe that rational explanations, such asaircraft lights or natural phenomena, could be found for them if resources were diverted for thispurpose, but it is not the function of the MOD to provide this kind of aerial identification service.Itwould be an inappropriate use of defence resources if we were to do so.The MOD does not have any expertise or role in respect of 'UFO/flying saucer' matters to thequestion of existence or otherwise of extraterrestrial lifeforms, about which it remains totallyopen-minded. I should add that to date, the MOD knows of no evidence which substantiates theexistence of these alleged phenomena.With regard to your particular observation, I can confirm that we received two other reports of'UFO' sightings for 21 February 2005, and that one was from Middlesex and the other fromDevon. We are satisfied that there is no corroborating evidence to suggest that the UnitedKingdom's airspacewas breached by unauthorised aircraft.Sorry I could not have been more help.

Yours sincerely


34/197

.. -;A, JREPORT OF AN UNEXPLAINED AERIAL SIGHTING1. Date and time of sighting. 21 February 2005

(Duration of sighting.) No time given.2. Description of object. Small silver objectlball with a tail on it.



4. How object was observed. With the naked eye.(Naked eye, binoculars, otheroptical device, camera orcamcorder.)



7 . Movements and speed. The silver ball was going very fast.(side to side, up or down,constant, moving fast, slow)


1


35/197

. .' ,9. To whom reported.(Police, military, press etc)


Das answerphone, twice.

ChivralShropshire


12. Remarks.


Wasn't a plane.


2


36/197

From:Directorate of Air Staff - Freedom of InformationMINISTRY OF DEFENCE5th Floor, Zone H, Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1A 2HB


Your Reference:Our Reference:D/DAS/64/2Date:22 February 2005

West GlamorganSouth Wales

DearI am writing with reference to your report of an 'unidentified flying object', seen in 2005, thedetails of which you left on our answerphone. This office is the focal point within the Ministry ofDefence for correspondence relating to 'UFOs.'First, it may be helpful if I explain that the Ministry of Defence examines any reports of'unidentified flying objects' it receives solely to establish whether what was seen might have somedefence significance; namely, whether there is any evidence that the United Kingdom's airspacemight have been compromised by hostile or unauthorised air activity.Unless there is evidence of a potential threat to the United Kingdom from an external militarysource, and to date no 'UFO' report has revealed such evidence, we do not attempt to identify theprecise nature of each sighting reported to us. We believe that rational explanations, such asaircraft lights or natural phenomena, could be found for them if resources were diverted for thispurpose, but it is not the function of the MOD to provide this kind of aerial identification service.Itwould be an inappropriate use of defence resources if we were to do so.The MOD does not have any expertise or role in respect of 'UFO/flying saucer' matters to thequestion of existence or otherwise of extraterrestrial lifeforms, about which it remains totallyopen-minded. I should add that to date, the MOD knows of no evidence which substantiates theexistence of these alleged phenomena.With regard to your particular observation, I can't confirm whether we received any other reportsof 'UFO' sightings on the day you saw the 'UFO', as you did not forward this office, a date ortime of the sighting. We are satisfied that there is no corroborating evidence to suggest that theUnited Kingdom's airspace was breached by unauthorised aircraft.Sorry I could not have been more help.

Yours sincerely


37/197


1. Date and time of sighting. No date or time given.(Duration of sighting.)2 . Description of object. Just said she saw something.(No of objects, size, shape, colour,

brightness, noise.)



5 . Direction in which object was Not given.flrst seen.(A landmark may be more helpfulthan a roughly estimated bearing.)




1


38/197

1 '" '.... \



Das answerphone.


12. Remarks.


Not given.


2


39/197


1. Date and time of sighting. 11 February 2005(Duration of sighting.) No time given.2. Description of object. just said that it was a 'UFO'.



4. How object was observed. Not given.(Naked eye, binoculars, otheroptical device, camera orcamcorder. )





1


40/197



RAP Wyton, who then in turn, rang theanswerphone and passed the info on to us.




2


41/197

Fax fro", : 15/82/85 15:37 Pg: 2

" Report of Unidentified F1ying Objecta) Date, Time and Duratioo of Sighting.\~ ~ ~6~A -A ;-\.( ~O ~ J t>1~ S - l() 1 A , ~ L t 1 ( \DescriptioD of Object -L A U ~t:uoJ (,O~hll\t. S ~ A . p ( - - -)

c) Exact Position ofl~~ lik('''f&''~~ P o lIJ1How Observed

lD " - " I l t. .IH 1nr k l.f;h lG t K )l. . . .. d)

f ~ ~ S ' ~H1e) Direction in which Object was Flrst Seen~t-~1C \ \ O L 1 ~ ~~~it) Angular Elevation of Object

PrPf lO) (U~ \1c1( :t,1 1 ,(1 )0 f{ b(~Ltr l6I1Jt ~L()M I \ 'O\J~ ( ,LO ubg) Distance of Object from Observer

~a1 \ l . ~ n w t Jh) Movements of Object

h~~ttN ~ ~ '" ~ ~ i tA .b lAA\,L'1j) Meteorological Conditions During Observations.~) (Ctl l tN1 \ I t f , \ \ \ L l i ' '1 ~ g _ ~Nearby Objects J

t 1 iLL,S I~ 'S

SCO/F/I10 I ss ne : 1 30 August 1996

k)

1) To WhomReportedtL'tb( (.Okra ~ \ .W - b

m) Name and Address of Infonnant1f1t.:

n) A ny Backgr01md Information on the Informant that may be Volunteeredb t~ 1 ' 1 0 1 ~~i.l~~ 16 ~ , U.~btl1Ht- lNt1 .Uf~(e 1 AP()\. .~t i(&~~ ftl-

0) Other witnesses ~)r. - l A . " " WA.tlk~1 bff1{ . ,~ l r ~ ~ L I C \ J t - ~ MAt(.~~ t G - P o 1 t1~ ; L - 1'1 ~'1 ~A " t ~ftN I \ t - i Ct,tt-lAffp) Date and Time of Receipt of Report

1 ~ ~ ~ t 1 > l \ A ~ t ~ 2 b o 1 V t . 0 1 1 b . .


42/197

l



Your Reference:

BrightonOur Reference:D/DAS/64/2Date:15 February 2005

Yours sincerely

De~I am writing with reference to your report of an 'unidentified flying object', seen in 2005, thedetails of which you left on our answerphone. This office is the focal point within the Ministry ofDefence for correspondence relating to 'UFOs.'First, it may be helpful if I explain that the Ministry of Defence examines any reports of'unidentified flying objects' it receives solely to establish whether what was seen might have somedefence significance; namely, whether there is any evidence that the United Kingdom's airspacemight have been compromised by hostile or unauthorised air activity.Unless there is evidence of a potential threat to the United Kingdom from an external militarysource, and to date no 'UFO' report has revealed such evidence, we do not attempt to identify theprecise nature of each sighting reported to us. We believe that rational explanations, such asaircraft lights or natural phenomena, could be found for them if resources were diverted for thispurpose, but it is not the function of the MOD to provide this kind of aerial identification service.Itwould be an inappropriate use of defence resources if we were to do so.With regard to your particular observation, I can't confirm whether we had any other reports of'UFO' sightings on the day you saw the 'UFO', as you did not forward this office, a date or timeof the sighting. We are satisfied that there is no corroborating evidence to suggest that the UnitedKingdom's airspace was breached by unauthorised aircraft.


43/197

. .


1. Date and time of sighting. Didn't give date or time of sighting. Seen(Duration of sighting.) sometime in 2005.

2. Description of object. Not given.(No of objects, size, shape, colour,brightness, noise.)







1


44/197



Das answerphone.




2


45/197


"1. Date and time of sighting. Ten years ago. ~~C\6).(Duration of sighting.)2 . Description of object. Just said a UFO.(No of objects, size, shape, colour,brightness, noise.)



5 . Direction in which object was Not given.first seen.(A landmark may be more helpfulthan a roughly estimated bearing.)




1


46/197


Das answerphone.

10. Name, address and telephone no Didn't give name.of informant.

Wootton BassettWiltshire


12. Remarks.


Not given.


2


47/197

Telephone (Direct dial) 02072182140(Switchboard)(Fax)

. .From:Directorate of Air Staff - Freedom of Information 1MINISTRY OF DEFENCE5th Floor, Zone H, Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1A 2HB

Your Reference:

London Our Reference:DIDAS/64/2Date:10February 2005

DearI am writing with reference to your report of an 'unidentified flying object', seen on 8 February2005, the details of which you left on our answerphone. This office is the focal point within theMinistry of Defence for correspondence relating to 'UFOs.'First, it may be helpful if I explain that the Ministry of Defence examines any reports of'unidentified flying objects' it receives solely to establish whether what was seenmight have somedefence significance; namely, whether there is any evidence that the United Kingdom's airspacemight have been compromised by hostile or unauthorised air activity.Unless there is evidence of a potential threat to the United Kingdom from an external militarysource, and to date no 'UFO' report has revealed such evidence, we do not attempt to identify theprecise nature of each sighting reported to us. We believe that rational explanations, such asaircraft lights or natural phenomena, could be found for them if resources were diverted for thispurpose, but it is not the function of the MOD to provide this kind of aerial identification service.Itwould be an inappropriate use of defence resources if we were to do so.The MOD does not have any expertise or role in respect of 'UFO/flying saucer' matters to thequestion of existence or otherwise of extraterrestrial lifeforms, about which it remains totallyopen-minded. I should add that to date, the MOD knows of no evidence which substantiates theexistence of these alleged phenomena.With regard to your particular observation, I can confirm that we received no other reports of'UFO' sightings for 8 February 2005 from anywhere in the UK. We are satisfied that there is nocorroborating evidence to suggest that the United Kingdom's airspace was breached byunauthorised aircraft.

Yours sincerely


48/197

1


1. Date and time of sighting. 8 February 2005(Duration of sighting.) 22.55L

2. Description of object. There was a massive light. The object was(No of objects, size, shape, colour, shaped like an iron.brightness, noise.)

3. Exact position of observer. Indoors, in the living room.Geographicaiiocation.(Indoors/outdoors,stationary/moving. )


5. Direction in which object was In the distance over Orpington, London.first seen.(A landmark may be more helpfulthan a roughly estimated bearing.)


7. Movements and speed. She said, watched it for ten minutes and it(side to side, up or down, hadn't moved, so they went to bed.constant, moving fast, slow)

8. Weather conditions during Not given, although it was night time.observation.(cloudy, haze, mist, clear)


49/197

" '



Das answerphone.

11. Other witnesses. Her husband.

12. Remarks. Just said it didn't do anything, just sat inthe sky, and they could see it quite clearly.Got fed up watching it, and they were tired,so just went to bed, so she didn't know if itmoved or not.


2


50/197

T0"d iljlOl . :, . - '. ",.".~, .~. '. . .. :', ....; .. v.~

~ .Report of Unid~nti~edFlyingObject

..-.I

a) Date, Time and Duration of ~ighti~. D f D 7 . . . . 0 -5~ G c 9! : ,10'70

b) DescriptiOJ.1' of Objecte , l..~~ 5A-V\c ec) Exact Positionof " JI ~ N' --(~ 7 1 1 It-/... i N E ,!.) F 5-nR. L . - I NC ,,d) How Observed G'I6" of - Y I1/~o ~sc ~~Q~1l... ,c) Dilution in which Object w~ Fir~ Seen. N t;;-

g) Distance of Object f("olXa ObsCfVe~I 1'(\' t . .-E-h) Movements of Object N o" ef...fNt'/j) Meteorological ContlitioJls Dq,.ing 0bsen'iatiuus f'l o c ~o(.\'DS


51/197

From:Directorate of Air Staff - Freedom of Information 1


Your Reference:PortadownBelfast

Our Reference:D/DAS/64/2Date:1 February 2005

Dear~I am writing with reference to your report of an 'unidentified flying object', seen on 24 January2005, the details of which you reported to Belfast Int . Airport and RAF Aldergrove. This office isthe focal point within the Ministry of Defence for correspondence relating to 'UFOs.'First, it may be helpful if I explain that the Ministry of Defence examines any reports of'unidentified flying objects' it receives solely to establish whether what was seenmight have somedefence significance; namely, whether there is any evidence that the United Kingdom's airspacemight have been compromised by hostile or unauthorised air activity.Unless there is evidence of a potential threat to the United Kingdom from an external militarysource, and to date no 'UFO' report has revealed such evidence, we do not attempt to identify theprecise nature of each sighting reported to us. We believe that rational explanations, such asaircraft lights or natural phenomena, could be found for them if resources were diverted for thispurpose, but it is not the function of the MOD to provide this kind of aerial identification service.Itwould be an inappropriate use of defence resources if we were to do so.The MOD does not have any expertise or role in respect of 'UFO/flying saucer' matters to thequestion of existence or otherwise of extraterrestrial lifefonns, about which it remains totallyopen-minded. I should add that to date, the MOD knows of no evidence which substantiates theexistence of these alleged phenomena.With regard to your particular observation, I can confirm that we received no other reports of'UFO' sightings for 24 January 2005 from anywhere in the UK. We are satisfied that there is nocorroborating evidence to suggest that the United Kingdom's airspace was breached byunauthorised aircraft.

Yours sincerely


52/197

. .

AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLBELFAST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

Date ?>i.J./Q \ .REPORT OF AN UNIDENTIFIED OBJECTA. Date, Time and duration of sighting ..e\ 1 . ' . J . o . ~ . . : - : -.?$~.. --::'.~ ~ . I . , , : - ! ~ : .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . .. . . .. . . .. . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .: ~ ~ s - - /0 MvS .' .B. Description of Object:- ...\.? 4.l4-If[$ ~~.V. t . f ! . . i f r : ~ ~ ~ . . " S.t. ' : 1 . .......................................................................................................................

............................................................................................ " .c. Exact Position of Observer:- ..HQ.y .~ ~ AT. P '~A :o .q~ ~ : ..................................... " .D. How Observed? ~1(eO G'1F"........................................................................................

E. Direction in which Object was first seen:- :3~~.9.~ ~~ ~.~Tfi. .:.) 0

F. Angular Elevation of Object:- ~].O'.::-:-:-.q . p . .G. Distance of Object From Observer:- UIJ I(. / 1. .) 0 ( ,. ) IV.........................................................................

H. Movements of Object:-'tOwA:'t20 S 'IPrG- IVvV...................................................................................................J. Meteorological Conditions during Observations:- ~. ~.~ $< :1 .: .

K. Nearby Objects:- A . J t c;

AAlFORMI128 Issue 1 06/11100


53/197


1. Date and time of sighting. 31 January 2005(Duration of sighting.) 05.00L

2. Description of object. A bright orange ball, like a star in the sky.(No of objects, size, shape, colour, Had sort of spiderish legs coming off of it.brightness, noise.)







1


54/197

. .9 . To whom reported. Reported to the West Glamorgan Police,

(Police, military, press etc) who then rang Das answerphone.

to. Name, address and telephone no Port Talbotof informant. West GlamorganSouth Wales



13. Date and time of receipt. 31 January 200510.20L

2


55/197


1. Date and time of sighting. Not given.(Duration of sighting.)2 . Description of object. Said the object looked like a parachute(No of objects, size, shape, colour, flare.

brightness, noise.)

3 . Exact position of observer. Out in the sea, near the Welsh Coast.Geographical location.(Indoors/outdoors,stationary/moving. )

4. How object was observed. Naked eye.(Naked eye, binoculars, otheroptical device, camera orcamcorder.)





1


56/197

9 . To whom reported. Welsh Coast Guard reported the sighting to(Police, military, press etc) the West Glamorgan Police who then rangDas answerphone.

10. Name, address and telephone no Swanseaof informant. West GlamorganSouth Wales




2


57/197


1. Date and time of sighting. Not given.(Duration of sighting.)2. Description of object. Looked like a parachute flare.(No of objects, size, shape, colour,

brightness, noise.)






8 . Weather conditions during Was clear.observation.(cloudy, haze, mist, clear)

1


58/197

9 . To whom reported. West Glamorgan police who left a message(Police, military, press etc) on Das answerphone.1 0 . Name, address and telephone no Port Talbotof informant. West GlamorganSouth Wales




2


59/197

- . , .,MINISTRY OF DEFENCEs" Floor, Zone H, Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1A 2HB


Your Reference:

BirminghamWest Midlands- Our Reference:DIDAS/64/2Date:28 January 2005De~I am writing with reference to your report of an 'unidentified flying object', seen on 5 September2004, the details of which you e.mailed to the Public Ministers office, who then in turn passed itto us. This office is the focal point within the Ministry of Defence for correspondence relating to'UFOs.'First, it may be helpful if I explain that the Ministry of Defence examines any reports of'unidentified flying objects' it receives solely to establish whether what was seen might have somedefence significance; namely, whether there is any evidence that the United Kingdom's airspacemight have been compromised by hostile or unauthorised air activity.Unless there is evidence of a potential threat to the United Kingdom from an external militarysource, and to date no 'UFO' report has revealed such evidence, we do not attempt to identify theprecise nature of each sighting reported to us. We believe that rational explanations, such asaircraft lights or natural phenomena, could be found for them if resources were diverted for thispurpose, but it is not the function of the MOD to provide this kind of aerial identification service.Itwould be an inappropriate use of defence resources if we were to do so.The MOD does not have any expertise or role in respect of 'UFO/flying saucer' matters to thequestion of existence or otherwise of extraterrestrial lifeforms, about which it remains totallyopen-minded. I should add that to date, the MOD knows of no evidence which substantiates theexistence of these alleged phenomena.With regard to your particular observation, I can confirm that we received one other report of a'UFO' sighting for 5 September 2004 and that was in Barry, South Wales. We are satisfied thatthere is no corroborating evidence to suggest that the United Kingdom's airspace was breached byunauthorised aircraft.Sorry I could not have been more help.


60/197

J. ..,,

Yours sincerely


61/197

. ** TO BE GIVEN A HIGH PRIORITY **

2 :' '~ ~ 2005TREAT OFFICIAL CORRESPONDENCE I' ' : ' : = - = = = : : : " . ' 7 _ 1 "

l f t ETo '-Df')S. ( l . : f \ ) - -P~Pcc,

TO Ref No t~ 1 2 0 0 5Date __ 2_J.;_~_'_ ! _ '_ w _ , . - _ J _

The Prime Minister/SofSlMin(AF)/Min(DP)/USofS/MOD* has received the attachedcorrespondence from a member of the public, which this office has neither retained noracknowledged. Please send a reply on behalf of the Plvl/Minister/Department",Ministers attach great importance to correspondence being answered promptly, and your replyshould be sent within 15 working days of the above date. If, exceptionally, this should proveimpossible, an interim reply should be sent within the same timescale. You should be aware thatNo 10 periodically calls for a sample ofletters sent by officials on the PM's behalf for hisperusal.Most correspondence involves some form of request for information - even if it is only a requestfor clarification of Government policy - and is therefore covered by the Freedom of InformationAct (FOIA) from January 2005. In general, if you meet the deadline for responding tocorrespondence, and comply with any requests for information, there is no need to do anythingdifferently as this will meet the requirements of the Act. However, if the correspondencerequests information which is not already in the public domain, and which might need to bewithheld, then you should treat it as a FOIA request, track it using the Access to Informationtoolkit, and comply with the separate FOI guidance from DG Info (seehttp://aitportalldefault.aspx for details). However, the deadline for responding to correspondencewill still apply. If you are in any doubt as to whether a piece of correspondence should be treatedas an FOIA request, you should ask your FOI Focal Point or refer to the guidance produced byDGInfo.Itis vital that branches ensure they have simple systems to record and track correspondencereceived from members ofthe public. This information should be regularly monitored andreviewed against the targets for answering correspondence published in the Spending Review2000 Service Delivery Agreement for the Ministry of Defence.As part of our monitoring procedure, random spot checks on the accuracy of your branchrecords on correspondence will be performed throughout the year.

Ministerial Correspondence UnitFloor 5, . 1A 2HB

Detailed guidance on handling TO Correspondence can be found on the Defence Intranet at ht tp t/ imain.defence .mod .uk /min . . ..ar / /Par/BrchITOGuid ,h tmIf you do not have access to the Intranet, please inform the Ministerial Correspondence Unit.** TO BE GIVEN A HIGH PRIORITY **

Delete as appropriate. ()Revised January 2005
http://aitportalldefault.aspx/http://aitportalldefault.aspx/


62/197

,, .:

Page 1 of2

~

From:Sent:To:Subject:

~Ii.co.uk24 January 200512:[email protected] REPORTImportance: High

FOR THE PERSONAL ATTENTION OFThe Right Hon. GEOFF HOON MP,Secretary of State for DefenceDear Sir, ~ N,- tv~ UL.,~ t- .J-- +~6-CJL,'Further to my two e-mails of the 21 and 24 September 04, I still await aresponse from the MOD staff. Please find below a copy ofthe main e-mail Isent at the time.I would prefer not to send anything in the post as it is a sensitive matter.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = - - = = = = = = = =From:~i.co.uk Add to address bookTo: [email protected]:Subject: URGENT - OBSERVATION REPORTSend: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 15:58:43 +0100

I HAVE NOT YET HAD ANY RESPONSE TO MY ORIGINAL E_MAILSEE BELOW>-- Original Message -->Date: Tue, 21 S& 2004 15:38:06 +0100>From_@tit~ li.co.uk>Subject: OBSERVATION REPORT>To: [email protected]>>>Hello,>>1 wish to report the following observation to you, but I would like toprovide>a FULL report as soon as possible on an official form:>>On Sunday morning 5 September 2004 at 10:24 BST, from my home address as>below, I was viewing the moon through my binoculars on a bright clear morning,>when I noticed a small object traverse across the face of the moon. Itwas

24/0112005
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


63/197

.,, , Page 2 of2

>metallic in appearance and travelled from just left of the moon, acrosseits face near its 'equator', to some distance from the moon on the right,>then disappeared from view. If the moon was regarded as the size of a 10p>coin, the object was about 2-3mm wide, with a domed top and bottom.>>1 have e-mailed these details to the Civil Aviation Authority>who suggested the following postal address for an MOD contact regarding>flying craft - is this an up-to-date address? ->>DAS (AD4)>Room668>Ministry of Defence>Metropole Building>Northumberland Avenue>LONDON>WC2N 5BP>>Regards,

>>Te1 Mobile -

24/01 /2005


64/197

Page 1 of 1

Sent: 31 January 2005 15:44To: ~Ii.co.uk'Subject: Internet-Authorised: UFO Report

I did not receive your e.mails of 21 and 24 September 2004, to this office, that is the focal point of 'UFO's,until last Tuesday 25 January 2005, as your e.mails were forwarded to the wrong department.I have forwarded you a response, for which I sent today in the post, you should receive it very soon.Hope this will be of help.Yours sincerely

31101/2005


65/197

iCK.. g~c/2 C5t:,\ ;-r - Q ~l:"Q ~", t ,

TREAT OFFICIAL CORRESP

.** TO BE GIVEN A HIGH PRIORITY **- - - - - - _ . - - - . - - - - . - - - - ~10 2No.. ~ .~ S /E- A IL

G . " " " " " f ! " ~ < ! 1 " ~ " ' ! ' )3 1 J A N .2 0 0 5

Tocc.

TO Ref No / ().; 7 /2005Date ? { .- J . ~ Gj

The Prime MinisterISofS/Min(AF)lMin(DP)IUSofSIMOD* has received the attachedcorrespondence from a member of the public, which this office has neither retained noracknowledged. Please send a reply on behalf of the PMlMinisterlDepartment*.Ministers attach great importance to correspondence being answered promptly, and your replyshould be sent within 15 working days of the above date. If, exceptionally, this should proveimpossible, an interim reply should be sent within the same timescale. You should be aware thatNo 10 periodically calls for a sample ofletters sent by officials on the PM's behalf for hisperusal.Most correspondence involves some form of request for information - even if it is only a requestfor clarification of Government policy - and is therefore covered by the Freedom of InformationAct (FOIA) from January 2005. In general, if you meet the deadline for responding tocorrespondence, and comply with any requests for information, there is no need to do anythingdifferently as this will meet the requirements of the Act. However, if the correspondencerequests information which is not already in the public domain, and which might need to bewithheld, then you should treat it as a FOIA request, track it using the Access to Informationtoolkit, and comply with the separate FOI guidance from DG Info (seehttp://aitportalldefault.aspx for details). However, the deadline for responding to correspondencewill still apply. If you are in any doubt as to whether a piece of correspondence should be treatedas an FOIA request, you should ask your FOI Focal Point or refer to the guidance produced byDGInfo.It is vital that branches ensure they have simple systems to record and track correspondencereceived from members of the public. This information should be regularly monitored andreviewed against the targets for answering correspondence published in the Spending Review2000 Service Delivery Agreement for the Ministry of Defence.As part of our monitoring procedure, random spot checks on the accuracy of your branchrecords on correspondence will be performed throughout the year.

Ministerial Correspondence UnitFloor 5, Zone Main SWIA 2HB

D etailed gu id an ce o n h an dlin g T O C orr esp on den ce c an b e f oun d on th e D efen ce I ntran et at ht tp:/ /main.de!ence.mod.uklmin_parl /ParIBrchITOGuid.htmI f you d o n ot h av e ac cess to th e I ntran et, p lease in fo rm th e M in ister ial C orr esp on den ce U n it.** TO BE GIVEN A HIGH PRIORITY **

D el ete a s a p pr op ria te .

R ev is ed J an uar y 2 0 0 5

(_ )
http://aitportalldefault.aspx/http://main.de%21ence.mod.uklmin_parl/ParIBrchITOGuid.htmhttp://main.de%21ence.mod.uklmin_parl/ParIBrchITOGuid.htmhttp://aitportalldefault.aspx/


66/197

_. . . . _ .. _ . . . . . - . . . .

tt:To:Subject:

~1 i .CO_uk2 7 J an ua ry 2 00 51 2:0 [email protected] ATTENTIONImportance: High

Dear Si rs,I have stil l not recieved any response to the correspondence I sent to you on the 24January 20 05.Pl ease can you deal wi th the Observation matter described bel ow and respond .T hank you.For security reasons, I do not wish to use the post to send a full report of thematter - perhaps a MO D or local mi li tary officer could vi si t my home to obtain a ful lreport. T he government sti l l need s to fulfi l its i nternational obl i gati ons i n thesematters regard less of whether or not the UK government itself wishes to acknowled ge orrecord such incid ents.

EmaiLoca,--_._v=-on theO rd nance Survey

Dear Sir,Further to my two e-mai ls of the 21 and 24 September 04, I stil l await a response fromyour staff. Pl ease find below a copy of the main e-mai l I sent at the time.

Birmingham, or

From:~cal i .co.uk Add to add ress bookT o: d ~ ~efence. mo d .u kCc:Subject: URGENT - O BSERVATION REPO RTSend : Fri, 24 Sep 20 04 15:58:43 +010 0I HAVE NOT YET HAD ANY RESPONSE TO MY ORIGINAL E_MAIL SEE BELOW>-- O ri ginal Message -->Date: Tue, 21 Sep 20 0 4 15:38:06 +0 100>From:l;cali.co.uk>Subj~e~AT IO N REPORT>To: [email protected]>Hello,>>I wish to report the foll owi ng observation to you, but I woul d l i ke toprovide>a FULL report as soon as possibl e on an offici al form:>>On Sunday morning 5 September 20 04 at 10 :24 BST, from my home ad dress>as below, I was viewing the moon through my binoculars on a bright>clear morning, when I noticed a smal l object traverse across the face>of the moon. Itwas>metal l i c i n appearance and travel led from j ust l eft of the moon, across>its face near its 'equator', to some d istance from the moon on the>right, then d i sappeared from view. If the moon was regarded as the size>of a l O p coi n, the object was about 2-3mm wid e, wi th a d omed top and bottom.>

1
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


67/197

'>I\ 1

have':-mai l ed these detai l s to the Civil Avi ati on Authority ~who suggested the fol l owi ng postal add ress for an MO D contactflying craft - is thi s an up-to-date ad d ress? -. . . ._ S (AD4)>Room 668>Mi nistry of Defence>Metropol e Bui ld ing> No rth um be rl an d A ve nu e>LONDON>WC2N 5BP>

>Ad d re~s -~. Birmingham,>L oca tl .o n ->O rdnance S Grid Ref -- - ->>Tel Mobile

Book yourself something to look forward to i n 20 05.Cheap fli ghts - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/travel/flights/Bargain hol i d ays - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/travel/holidays/

2
http://www.tiscali.co.uk/travel/flights/http://www.tiscali.co.uk/travel/holidays/http://www.tiscali.co.uk/travel/holidays/http://www.tiscali.co.uk/travel/flights/


68/197


Telephone (Directdial) 02072182140(SWitchboard) 02072189000(Fax)

Your Reference:WhitstableKent

Our Reference:DIDAS/64/2Date:28 January 2005

DearI am writing with reference to your report of an 'unidentified flying object', seen in January 2005,the details of which you left on our answerphone. This office is the focal point within the Ministryof Defence for correspondence relating to 'UFOs.'First, it may be helpful if I explain that the Ministry of Defence examines any reports of'unidentified flying objects' it receives solely to establish whether what was seen might have somedefence significance; namely, whether there is any evidence that the United Kingdom's airspacemight have been compromised by hostile or unauthorised air activity.Unless there is evidence of a potential threat to the United Kingdom from an external militarysource, and to date no 'UFO' report has revealed such evidence, we do not attempt to identify theprecise nature of each sighting reported to us. We believe that rational explanations, such asaircraft lights or natural phenomena, could be found for them if resources were diverted for thispurpose, but it is not the function of the MOD to provide this kind of aerial identification service.Itwould be an inappropriate use of defence resources if we were to do so.The MOD does not have any expertise or role in respect of 'UFO/flying saucer' matters to thequestion of existence or otherwise of extraterrestrial lifeforms, about which it remains totallyopen-minded. I should add that to date, the MOD knows of no evidence which substantiates theexistence of these alleged phenomena.With regard to your particular observation, I can't confirm whether we had any other reports of'UFO' sightings, on the day you saw the 'UFO', as you did not forward this office, a date or timeof the sighting. We are satisfied that there is no corroborating evidence to suggest that the UnitedKingdom's airspace was breached by unauthorised aircraft.

Yours sincerely


69/197


1. Date and time of sighting. (Didn't give a date or time of sighting on(Duration of sighting.) the answerphone).

2 . Description of object. Just said that she saw strange lights in the(No of objects, size, shape, colour, sky.brightness, noise.)







1


70/197

. .



Das answerphone.


12. Remarks.


Not given.

27 January 200514.30L

2


71/197

- Freedom of InformationMINISTRY OF DEFENCE5th Floor, Zone H, Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1A 2HB

Telephone (Direct dial)(Switchboard)(Fax)

02072182140020 7218 9000-Your Reference:

Chatteris Our Reference:D/DAS/64/2Date:20 January 2005

De~I am writing with reference to your report of an 'unidentified flying object', seen in January 2005,the details of which you left on our answerphone. This office is the focal point within the Ministryof Defence for correspondence relating to 'UFOs.'First, it may be helpful if I explain that the Ministry of Defence examines any reports of'unidentified flying objects' it receives solely to establish whether what was seen might have somedefence significance; namely, whether there is any evidence that the United Kingdom's airspacemight have been compromised by hostile or unauthorised air activity.Unless there is evidence of a potential threat to the United Kingdom from an external militarysource, and to date no 'UFO' report has revealed such evidence, we do not attempt to identify theprecise nature of each sighting reported to us. We believe that rational explanations, such asaircraft lights or natural phenomena, could be found for them if resources were diverted for thispurpose, but it is not the function of the MOD to provide this kind of aerial identification service.Itwould be an inappropriate use of defence resources if we were to do so.The MOD does not have any expertise or role in respect of 'UFO/flying saucer' matters to thequestion of existence or otherwise of extraterrestrial lifeforms, about which it remains totallyopen-minded. I should add that to date, the MOD knows of no evidence which substantiates theexistence of these alleged phenomena.With regard to your particular observation, I can't confirm whether we had any other reports of'UFO' sightings on the day, you saw the 'UFO', as you did not forward this office, a date or timeof the sighting. We are satisfied that there is no corroborating evidence to suggest that the UnitedKingdom's airspace was breached by unauthorised aircraft.

Yours sincerely


72/197


1. Date and time of sighting. (Didn't give date or time of the sighting on(Duration of sighting.) the answerphone).

2. Description of object. Just said that she was reporting a sighting,(No of objects, size, shape, colour, and that was it. No other info was given.brightness, noise.)







1


73/197

. . . .



Das answerphone.


12. Remarks.


Not given.

20 January 200511.30L

2


74/197

- Freedom of Information 1MINISTRY OF DEFENCEs" Floor, Zone H, Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1A 2HB


Your Reference:

Stoke-on-TrentStaffordshire

Our Reference:DIDAS/64/2Date:17January 2005

I am writing with reference to your report of an 'unidentified flying object', seen on 15 January2005, the details of which you reported to Staffordshire Police. This office is the focal pointwithin the Ministry of Defence for correspondence relating to 'UFOs.'First, it may be helpful if I explain that the Ministry of Defence examines any reports of'unidentified flying objects' it receives solely to establish whether what was seenmight have somedefence significance; namely, whether there is any evidence that the United Kingdom's airspacemight have been compromised by hostile or unauthorised air activity.Unless there is evidence of a potential threat to the United Kingdom from an external militarysource, and to date no 'UFO' report has revealed such evidence, we do not attempt to identify theprecise nature of each sighting reported to us. We believe that rational explanations, such asaircraft lights or natural phenomena, could be found for them if resources were diverted for thispurpose, but it is not the function of the MOD to provide this kind of aerial identification service.Itwould be an inappropriate use of defence resources if we were to do so.The MOD does not have any expertise or role in respect of 'UFO/flying saucer' matters to thequestion of existence or otherwise of extraterrestrial lifeforms, about which it remains totallyopen-minded. I should add that to date, the MOD knows of no evidence which substantiates theexistence of these alleged phenomena.With regard to your particular observation, I can confirm that we received no other reports of'UFO' sightings for 15 January 2005 from anywhere in the UK. We are satisfied that there is nocorroborating evidence to suggest that the United Kingdom's airspace was breached byunauthorised aircraft.

Yours sincerely


75/197

REPORT OF AN UNEXPLAINED AERIAL SIGHTING1. Date and time of sighting. 15 January 2005

(Duration of sighting.) 23.15L2. Description of object. Just said it was a flying saucer.(No of objects, size, shape, colour,

brightness, noise.)







1


76/197




Staffordshire Police,Das answerphone.

12. Remarks.

Not given.

Not given.


2


77/197



Your Reference:

St. ClementsOur Reference:D/DAS/6412Date:17 January 2005

I am writing with reference to your report of an 'unidentified flying object', seen on 14 January2005, the details of which you left on our answerphone. This office is the focal point within theMinistry of Defence for correspondence relating to 'UFOs.'First, it may be helpful if I explain that the Ministry of Defence examines any reports of'unidentified flying objects' it receives solely to establish whether what was seen might have somedefence significance; namely, whether there is any evidence that the United Kingdom's airspacemight have been compromised by hostile or unauthorised air activity.Unless there is evidence of a potential threat to the United Kingdom from an external militarysource, and to date no 'UFO' report has revealed such evidence, we do not attempt to identify theprecise nature of each sighting reported to us. We believe that rational explanations, such asaircraft lights or natural phenomena, could be found for them if resources were diverted for thispurpose, but it is not the function of the MOD to provide this kind of aerial identification service.Itwould be an inappropriate use of defence resources if we were to do so.The MOD does not have any expertise or role in respect of 'UFO/flying saucer' matters to thequestion of existence or otherwise of extraterrestrial lifeforms, about which it remains totallyopen-minded. I should add that to date, the MOD knows of no evidence which substantiates theexistence of these alleged phenomena.With regard to your particular observation, I can confirm that we received one other report of a'UFO' sighting for 14 January 2005, and that was in Leeds, West Yorkshire. We are satisfied thatthere is no corroborating evidence to suggest that the United Kingdom's airspace was breached byunauthorised aircraft.

Yours sincerely


78/197


1. Date and time of sighting. 14 January 2005(Duration of sighting.) (Time not given).2. Description of object. Said it was a bright light.(No of objects, size, shape, colour,

brightness, noise.)


4. How object was observed. With the naked eye.(Naked eye, binoculars, otheroptical device, camera orcamcorder.)

5. Direction in which object was The object was flying over St. Clements,rust seen. Cornwall.(A landmark may be more helpfulthan a roughly estimated bearing.)


7 . Movements and speed. The bright light was heading towards earth,(side to side, up or down, quite quick through the cloud base.constant, moving fast, slow)

8. Weather conditions during Cloudy.observation.(cloudy, haze, mist,

UFO files from the UK government; DEFE 24/2058

Documents