5th August 2010

The 6th batch comprising 18 files is now available for download from:

The National Archives web site

Downloads are free for one month, after which there will be a charge of £3.50 per file.

There is also a podcast featuring Dave Clarke and 2 guides (a highlights guide and a research guide) available at the same link above.

The Information Commissioner has upheld an MoD decision to withold documents relating to the differences between their stated policy and public statements made by NicK Pope. The full text of the decision notice is available from The Informations Commissioner's web site (.pdf, 72K)

It relates to a request originally made to the MoD in April 2007 by Dave Clarke for documents concerning MoD discussion of statements made by Nick Pope in apparent contradiction of the stated MoD policy. It is a lengthy document, and it took over 3 years only to find in favour of the MoD's decision not to release the information.

The Information Commissioner points out that it was a delicately balanced judgement. Perhaps the deciding factor is identified in paragraph 26:

"Furthermore, the MOD advised in its letter to the Commissioner dated 6 January 2010 that the individual concerned [Nick Pope] has written to the MOD and asked for the information not to be released into the public domain. The Commissioner notes this and accepts that this is also a contributing factor to support the withholding of the information."

Nick was only aware of this request because Dave Clarke approached him, requesting his support for the request. So what is Nick trying to hide? A clue in the IC decision notice can be found at paragraphs 34 and 35:

"The Commissioner has examined this released document and compared it with the withheld information relevant to this current request. The Commissioner feels that the information being withheld is sufficiently different from the released information in that the withheld information is of a more personal and sensitive nature.

With regards to the suggestion by the complainant that the documents could be released in a redacted format, the Commissioner has considered this and believes that the documents would either make no sense to the reader or the subject matter and tone of the documents would be so obvious that the redactions would serve little purpose."

This is all very ironic, considering Nick publicly espouses support for Freedom of Information, but privately can be seen to be suppressing release where he thinks it might be contrary to his self-interest. How, for instance, does he reconcile the above with the following remarks attributed to him by the disclosure project:

"During my tour of duty in Secretariat Air Staff at the Ministry of Defense, I operated a very open policy with regard to the UFO issue. I made it my business to be quite open and honest about the official research and investigation that I was doing, and not to suppress any data on this. I believe that governments and the military, and indeed private researchers, politicians - whoever - should place everything in the public domain on this issue. Governments can't, I think, have it both ways. You cannot say on the one hand, as the party line often goes, that UFOs are of no defense significance, and then on the other, keep back some of the data.

You simply can't do that. You have to have it one way, or the other. And if, as governments consistently say when the politicians probe on this issue or when the media inquire, that there's really nothing to worry about, then okay, let's see all the data. Let's check that that decision is a valid one, reached through a proper methodology.

I, in support of that aim, believe that there should be a full disclosure of all information on UFOs held by governments all around the world. I think there are some encouraging signs that that's beginning to happen. I know, for example, that early in 2000 at a conference in San Marino, which was part sponsored by the Ministry of Tourism there, so it had an official flavor to it, the Italian Air Force actually sent a delegation on duty, in uniform, to talk about UFO cases received by the Italian Air Force and Ministry of Defense over the years. I'm also aware that this has happened in Chile. As I've said, my own efforts to try and be very open with this and to push data into the public domain as well, I hope, have taken the issue forward somewhat."

See Dave Clarke's blog for more detailed information:

Amongst the recently released MoD documents are records which clearly demonstrate the circumstances under which the MoD released the Rendlesham Forest documents.

Shortly after their release, Georgina Bruni and Nick Pope claimed the credit for their release was due to the efforts of Georgina and Lord Admiral Hill-Norton. Indeed, at Nick Pope's site:

(Link to article)

"I should first pay tribute to Lord Hill-Norton and Georgina Bruni, whose tireless efforts over the last few years have culminated in the release of these documents. Whether you�re a sceptic or a believer, anyone with a genuine interest in ufology should applaud the hard work that these two dedicated individuals have done, in their quest for the truth."

The paper trail showing the true means by which the Rendlesham file was released is discussed in detail at Dave Clarke's blog:

(Link to article)

Sadly, I predict that Nick Pope will not give the same applause to Dave Clarke as he erroneously did to Bruni and Hill-Norton in spite of the demonstrated facts. It would be uncharacteristic of him to let facts spoil a good story, or give credit where it is due.

A basic catalogue of the first 8 files released en-masse by the MoD on 14th May 2008 has now been completed and an overview of the file contents can be found here.

See the latest update on the South Wales Police helicopter report at

8th June 2008 UFO Incident

See the latest update at

8th June 2008 UFO Incident

See updated page at:

May 2008 MoD file release

The MoD finally decided to make all of their files about UFOs available to the public. See updated page at:

MoD to release 160 UFO files

Minor update 9th January 2008 - I was interviewed (briefly) on BBC Radio Scotland about the release, and Michael (webmaster at www.ufo-blog.com) has kindly extracted the relevant interview as an mp3 file. Although short, I feel it is still quite informative. It can be listened to at Michael's site

Please ignore my nervous stutter, and thanks to Michael!

The MoD have responded to an FoIA request by Dave Clarke, and it provides an interesting insight into their attitude to FoIA and UFO researchers, and the reasons behind the decision to release the files. Read more at:

Contaminated records and the release of the DI55 files

Following pressure from David Clarke and possibly encouraged by the release of the French Space Agency UFO files, the MoD are to release 30 years worth of UFO records created by the secretive Defence Intelligence 55 department. Amongst these are some which didn't pass through the "public" UFO desk. For the full story, see:

Dave Clarke's personal web site

Written Answers to Questions [26 March 2007]

26 Mar 2007 : Column 1360W

Mr. Ingram: It is not possible to provide accurate details as to the cost of producing the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena report as this was one of several tasks that were included within a single contract and detailed costings for each of these tasks is not available. However, it is estimated that the overall cost was approximately ?50,000.

The author of the report was a contractor and was employed by the Defence Intelligence Staff (DIS) on a long-term contract. Further details of the author, including the name, are being withheld under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998.

The report was circulated within the DIS and to other branches of the Ministry of Defence and RAF. As recommended by the report, the DIS ceased to monitor unidentified aerial phenomena sighting reports (and therefore reaped a saving in staff time) as they contained no information of Defence Intelligence interest and no further action was taken."

The response avoids answering some key points. What credentials did the author of the report have to write such a report? Why were the conclusions about plasma representing a (minor) risk to air traffic not circulated? Why was DAS (the public focal point for UFO reports) not informed about Condign or it's conclusions? The Condign team will continue to try and find answers to these questions and to identify the author.

Also, see the Guardian article from 22nd February at Guardian online

In 2001, David Clarke and Andy Roberts discovered the existence and secured the release of the Flying Saucer Working Party report, but some parts were retained under Section 3(4) of the Public Records Act pending permission to release the relevant sections from "interested parties". Dave Clarke followed up on this and the retained sections have now been made available. The transcriptions below relate to paragraph 4 of the first page of the report, the redacted version of which can be viewed here. The newly-released text is in bold letters.

"...specialist consultants. By the courtesy of C.I.A., Washington, we have been enabled to study two reports (Project "Sign" and Project "Grudge")...."

"....the beginning of 1949. We have been informed by the C.I.A. that, in order to avoid undue stimulation of a subject that has already received too much public and professional interest, nearly all copies of these reports have been destroyed, and we have been particularly requested to exercise discretion as to their use."

Condign team-members Gary Anthony and Dave Clarke jointly authored an article for the August edition of IUR (Vol 30, No 4). The full article (5 Mb, Adobe Acrobat) can now be downloaded from the following link. Thank you to Mark Rodeghier of CUFOS for providing the file.

IUR Vol. 30 Issue 4 Condign article, August 2006

Documents released to Andy Roberts and Dave Clarke show beyond any doubt that the MoD were considering taking steps to prevent the public from finding out about Defence Intelligence interest in UFOs. Exactly what those steps might have entailed has not been disclosed, but options would include retention beyond the usual 30-year period required by the Public Records Act. For more details, read an article from The Guardian at:

Guardian online

THE CONDIGN REPORT
BRITAIN’S SECRET U.F.O STUDY

Following a successful appeal for a review by Dave Clarke, the MoD have released some of the previously retained paragraphs from the condign report. These are available on-line at the MoD web site:

http://tinyurl.com/rjrsm

There are one or two items of minor interest, nothing of breathtaking importance. It is interesting to see what the MoD thought was sensitive to start with though.

Following up on some loose ends, Dave Clarke submitted a further FoIA request on 22nd may. His questions and the MoD responses are as follows:

'1. Please provide me with copies of correspondence arising from DIST's request to a number of MoD branches (covering letter of UAP report, dated 4 December 2000) for "comments you may wish to make on the [UAP] report...please direct such comments to AD/DI55."'

response:
'All accessible files for the period in question have been scrutinised, but no correspondence from the MoD Branches who were invited to comment on the report has been found.'

'2. Further to request (1) could you supply copies of any correspondence arising from the "subsidiary recommendations" made on pg 11 of the UAP Report Executive Summary (February 2000) namely that: "The flight safety aspects of the findings should be made available to the appropriate RAF Air Defence and other military and civil authorities which operate aircraft, particularly those operating fast and at low altitude." Could you confirm these findings were passed to the DAO and CAA and if so what specific recommendations have been made to aircrew as a result.'

response:
'The report was distributed to the addressees as outlined in the covering letter (D/DIST/11/10 dated 4 December 2000). No further correspondence regarding the 'subsidiary recommendations' has been found on the accessible files for the period in question. I can, however, confirm that the findings of the report were sent to DAO (Directorate of Air Operations) as UKADGE (UK Air Defence Ground Environment) was a post within DAO. DIS did not send the report directly to the CAA. Any further dissemination of the report would have been the decision of the addressees concerned and consultation with the DIS would not have been required.'

From the above, it seems likely that the addressees were not sufficiently inspired by the report to offer any comment on it, and that the health and safety aspects of the risks to civil and military aircraft were not conveyed to either military or civilian pilots.

In addition, Dave Clarke also requested a review of the decision to withold information from the covering letter which was sent out with the Condign report to other MoD departments, and his request succeeded. The new versions of the letter are now available on-site (the first two documents at HERE) - if the old versions appear, press "F5" on your keyboard to refresh the screen while displaying the document.

Watch this page for further updates!