|
||||||||||||||||||
|
The U.K. Government and UFOs By Julian J.A. Hennessey
In July 1967, the author received a communication from The Rt.
Hon. Harold Wilson, OBE PC MP, then Prime Minister of the
United Kingdom stating, "As reports of these objects
(UFOs) continue to appear from many parts of the world,
it is quite understandable that there should be a growing
interest in seeing some responsible effort made to seek
explanations of these phenomena."
Yet, whilst reports of UFOs continue to be made in the United
Kingdom, the Ministry of Defence fails to take cognizance of them
from a scientific standpoint and belie the words of the former
Prime Minister by claiming, according to Mr. Merlyn Rees,
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the
Royal Air Force, in August 1967, just one month later,
"Of the many reports received here...the vast majority have
proved to have very simple, even mundane explanations. The
number of unexplained reports is very small; and there is
nothing to indicate that we would not have discovered that
similar explanations applied to these unexplained reports
also, had we had sufficient and precise information to
work with."
If such contradictions existed on other more sensitive issues
of the day, a Minister or even a Government may well be forced
to resign. As it is, such a contradiction, on what the
Ministry considers is purely a defence matter, makes mockery
of the British principle of 'collective responsibility'.
On what premise does the Ministry investigate UFO reports?
According to a March 1970 letter from Lord Winterbottom,
a successor to Mr. Rees, "This Ministry investigates
reports of UFOs because of their possible implications for
the air defence of the United Kingdom."
Then, in May 1970, another letter from Lord Winterbottom, via Sir
John Langford-Holt MC, MP, stated, "The Ministry of Defence
has not carried out a general study on the scientific significance
of UFO reports; as you know our interest is in possible
defence aspects of reports." Therefore, without
studying reports from a scientific standpoint, the Ministry is
able to explain them away and, as we see, claims to have no
'unidentified' cases... a truly remarkable record which must
place the Ministry in a super-investigative class of its own.
Even when the U.S. Air Force's Project Blue Book closed down,
it officially listed 701 'unidentifieds'.
As in the United States, the then British Air Ministry began
investigating UFOs in 1947 when they first emerged into public
limelight following the now famous sighting by private pilot
Kenneth Arnold on 24th June of "nine peculiar-looking
aircraft" without tails, which flew in a chain-like line
and "swerved in and out the high mountain peaks"
north of Mount Rainier, Washington. In the United
Kingdom, the first reports to claim public attention were
made by Service personnel involved in the NATOs "Exercise
Mainbrace" which involved 8 NATO countries including
80,000 men, 1,000 planes and 200 ships under the direction
of Britain's Admiral Sir Patrick Brind. On 19th September
1952, during "Exercise Mainbrace," 3 Flight
Lieutenants and others from the Coastal Command Shackleton
Squadron H.Q. at Topcliffe, Yorkshire, England, were watching
a Meteor jet coming down at an altitude of 5,000ft to land
at Dishforth RAF Station when they first observed a silvery
circular-shaped object at an altitude of 10,000ft travelling
5 miles astern of the aircraft at a lower speed, but on the
same course. The object maintained a slow forward
speed for a few seconds and then started to descend in a
swinging pendulum fashion from left to right. The Meteor
turned to start its landing run and the object started to follow
it for a few seconds before it stopped its descent and hung in the
air rotating on its own axis. It then accelerated at
tremendous speed westwards, changed course, and disappeared
southeast within 15-20 seconds. Each eye-witness attested
that the subject was
about the size of a Vampire jet, and that they had never seen
anything like it before. After 11 weeks of intensive
investigation, the Air Ministry could offer no explanation
as to the identity of the object and when a question was put
to Mr. Ward, Secretary of State for Air, several years later,
he replied "No object was identified." Many other
reports were made by participants of the NATO Exercise, including
one by 6 RAF pilots who unsuccessfully attempted to intercept
a shiny spherical object that approached them from the direction
of the fleet in the North Sea. On the return to base,
one of the pilots looked behind and again observed the object
coming after him. On turning to intercept the object,
it sped once again into the distance and out of sight.
The object was tentatively identified as a balloon, but the
Air Ministry later admitted that it could not be positive.
On the 20th September, personnel on the U.S. Aircraft Carrier
Franklin D. Roosevelt observed another silvery spherical
object which was photographed in colour by reporter Wallace Litwin
who was taking shots of aircraft landing on the flight deck.
The series of photos, which have never been made publicly
available, were reported by the late Captain Edward J. Ruppelt,
the USAF UFO Project Chief, to have "turned out to be
excellent. He had gotten the superstructure of the
carrier in each one and judging by the size of the object
in each successive photo, one could see that it was moving
rapidly." No definite identification of the object
has been made by either the U.S. or U.K. authorities.
In the 1950s, one of the most prominent proponents of UFOs was
the late Air Chief Marshal Lord Dowding, former head of the
RAF Fighter Command during the Battle of Britain, who stated
in an article for the London Sunday Dispatch on
July 16th 1954, "I am convinced that these objects do
exist and that they are not manufactured by any nation on
earth. I can therefore see no alternative to accepting the
theory that they come from an extraterrestrial source."
This statement, coupled with the following account from the
London Reynolds News of June 16th 1954, caused great
consternation in the Air Ministry,
"In room 801 of what was once the Hotel Metropole, Britain's
Air Ministry is investigating Flying Saucers...and that's official...
At airfields all over Britain, fighter planes are kept ready to
intercept, and if necessary engage, any unidentified flying
object within combat range...(the room's) existence was admitted
last night by an Air Ministry spokesman. He disclosed that
it had been investigating Flying Saucer reports since 1947.
'We have something like 10,000 on our files,' he said."
Following these disclosures, which also showed that, as in the
United States, there were two factions in the Ministry pro
and con the existence of UFOs, which the author has had
indications exist to this present day, the Air Ministry began
to formulate its debunking policy akin to that of the United
States. Despite this, however, another RAF report hit
the headlines of the national press. On 4th October 1954,
a Meteor jet, piloted by Flt Lt J.R. Salandin of the 604 Fighter
Squadron, almost collided head-on with a huge metallic object
"shaped like two saucers pressed together, one inverted
on top of the other". At the last second, the
object flipped to one side at "tremendous speed".
Shortly before, two other objects had been sighted speeding
between two other Meteor jets that were in the vicinity.
No explanation was advanced by the Air Ministry. Through
Wing Commander Sir Eric E Bullus, MP, the author queried
related reports and received the following reply in December
1967 from Mr. Merlyn Rees, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of
State for Defence for the RAF,
"It is a well established
practice in government departments, as in most offices, to
dispose of papers
of transitory interest rather than to retain them indefinitely.
In view of the mundane explanations which are found to apply to
reports of unidentified flying objects, these papers are only
retained for five years and are then destroyed. It is
not the practice of the Ministry of Defence to destroy
important records and, if the investigation of the reports
to which Mr. Hennessey refers had brought to light anything
of significance of matters contained in reports and papers of
this nature which are now 10-15 years old or in speculating
about the explanations which were found to apply when the
reports were investigated."
Thus, while no public explanation was ever made to account for
these reports, the official records no longer exist for
study by scientists. The Ministry alleges that
"mundane" explanations account for past reports
leaving none of "significance". However,
even when the U.S. Air Force's sponsored University of
Colorado Scientific Study of UFOs
investigated a case which is a perfect illustration that the Ministry has destroyed
papers of scientific "significance", and shows that
there is "value" in disputing "10-15"
year old reports" which should have been subjected to
rigorous scientific investigation and not a "limited"
defence one. The following details are extracted from
a lengthy excellent account presented by the late Dr James
E. McDonald to the Symposium on UFOs at
the 134th Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science
on 27th December 1969; The initial UFO reports centred around
Bentwaters RAF Station, located about six miles east of Ipswich,
near the coast, while much of the subsequent action centres
around Lakenheath RAF Station, located some 20 miles northeast
of Cambridge. Sculthorpe RAF Station also figures in the
account. GCA radars at two of those three stations were
involved in the ground radar sightings, as was an RTCC radar
unit at Lakenheath. The entire episode extended from
about 2130Z, August 13, to 0330Z, August 14, 1956.
Owing to the complexity in detailing the sequence of events,
the following is a summary of the scientifically provocative
features found by Dr McDonald:
(1) At least three separate instances occurred in
which one ground-radar unit, GCA Bentwaters, tracked some
unidentified target for a number of tens of miles across
its scope at speeds in excess of Mach 3. Since even
today, 14 years later, no nation has disclosed military
aircraft capable of flight at such speeds (we may exclude
the X-15), and since that speed is much too low to fit any
meteoric hypothesis, this first feature is quite puzzling.
(2) In one instance, about a dozen low-speed (order of
100 mph) targets moved in loose formation led by three closely-spaced
targets, the assemblage yielding consistent returns over a path
of about 50 miles, after which they merged into a single large
target, remaining motionless for some 10-15 minutes, and
then moved off-scope. Under the reported wind conditions,
not even a highly contrived meteorological explanation invoking
anomalous propagation and inversion-layer waves could account
for this sequence observed at Bentwaters.
(3) One of the fast track radar sightings at Bentwaters, at
2255Z, coincided with visual observations of some very-high-speed
luminous source seen by both a tower operator on the ground
and by a pilot aloft who saw the light moving in a blur below
his aircraft at 4000ft altitude. The radar-derived speed
was given as 2000-4000mph. Again, meteors won't fit such
speeds and
altitudes, and may exclude aircraft for several evident reasons,
including absence of any thundering boom that would surely have been
reported if any near hypothetical 1956-vintage hypersonic device
were flying over Bentwaters at less than 4000ft that night.
(4) Several ground observers at Lakenheath saw luminous
objects exhibiting non-ballistic motions, including dead stops and
sharp course reversals.
(5) In one instance, two luminous white objects merged
into a single object, as seen from the ground at Lakenheath.
This wholly unmeteoric and unaeronautical phenomenon is actually
a not-uncommon feature of UFO reports during the last two
decades.
(6) Two separate ground radars at Lakenheath, having
rather different radar parameters, were concurrently observing
movements of one or more unknown targets over an extended
period of time. Seemingly stationary hovering modes were
repeatedly observed, and this despite use of MTI. Seemingly
"instantaneous" accelerations from rest to speeds
of order of Mach 1 were repeatedly observed. Such motions
cannot readily be explained in terms of any known aircraft
flying then or now, and also fail to fit known electronic
or propagation anomalies.
(7) In at least one instance, the
official report on USAF files makes clear that an unidentified
luminous target was seen visually from the air by the pilot
of an interceptor while getting simultaneous radar returns
from the unknown with his nose cone radar concurrent with
ground-radar detection of the same unknown. This is
scientifically highly significant, for it entails
three separate detection-channels all recording
the unknown object.
(8) In at least one instance, there
was simultaneous radar disappearance and visual disappearance
of the UFO. This is akin to similar events in other
known UFO cases, yet is not so easily explained in terms of
conventional phenomena.
(9) Attempts of the interceptor to close on one target
seen both on ground radar and on the interceptor's nose radar,
led to a puzzling, rapid interchange of roles as the unknown
object moved into tail-position behind the interceptor.
While undergoing radar observation from the ground, with
both aircraft on and unidentified object clearly displayed
on the Lakenheath ground radars, the pilot of the interceptor
tried unsuccessfully to break the tail chase over a time of
some minutes. No ghost-return or multiple-scatter
hypothesis can explain such an event.
Of this case, based on lesser details than was available to Dr
McDonald, the Colorado Study concluded that the "probability
that at least one genuine UFO was involved appears to be
fairly high." As Dr McDonald rightly pointed out,
"the Lakenheath case exemplifies a disturbingly large
group of UFO reports in which the apparent degree of scientific
inexplicability is so great that, instead of being ignored
and laughed at, those cases should all along since 1947 have
been drawing the attention of a large body of the world's
best scientists" It would be interesting to know
what "mundane" answers the Ministry of Defence
found for the Lakenheath case! Almost two months later,
on 9th October, Captain Jimmie J. Pollock, Flight Commander
of the 55th Fighter Bomber Squadron, and Lt James W. Beisheim, 55th
FBS Armament Officer, and their wives, made four ground-visual
sightings at Little Easton, Essex of UFOs. First sighting
was a bright yellow-orange object which faded to dim red and
disappeared. He later saw what appeared to be the same
object two more times. His second sighting was
over an hour in length. During this period a second
similar object was seen to approach the first object, and then
disappear. During the hour period the object climbed very
slowly west. The final observation was only two or three
minutes. The first object was round, elongating
occasionally to two round objects one above the other and had
rays shooting from it, five or six rays predominating with
smaller rays between. Once or twice a broader or longer
ray, yellow in colour, and varying in length three to six times
the diameter of the object, appeared. When the object
elongated or became two round objects, the one above was
always smaller. The Air Intelligence Information Sheet
of this case rated Captain Pollock as "very reliable",
but, it apparently never reached the United States, for the
top right hand corner contained a rubber-stamped 'DESTROY'.
One can't help but wonder if the Lakenheath case hadn't already
given too many headaches for another puzzling report to be
submitted.
The first indication that the author had that the Ministry
practiced a policy of destroying its UFO papers, came in June
1967, during a telephonic conversation with Mr. W. F. Allen,
a High Executive Officer at the Ministry, who confirmed that
all reports prior to 1959 (an embarrassing period when Service
reports made news headlines) had been destroyed including
the "unsolved" cases. He stated that there
was no sense in keeping reports over 10 years old because
no scientist could possibly explain them today. As
already illustrated, Mr. Allen's surmise is incorrect.
Confirmation of this statement was sought through Wing
Commander Sir Eric Bullus, MP, and in August 1967, Mr.
Mervyn Rees replied,
"All Ministry of Defence papers, however, are retained
only for a specific period once action is complete.
The period relates to the importance of the papers and in the
case of unidentified flying objects is five years. Thus,
only reports which have been received since 1962 are currently
retained. Nevertheless, should it appear that a report
was of special significance, then the papers would, of
course, be retained for more than five years. This has
not yet been found to be necessary. In the circumstances,
I cannot comment on the object said to have been observed over
London Airport in 1959. We have no records of the
other incidents in which Mr. Hennessey refers in paragraph
7 of his letter and I assume that these also took place before
1962. We have maintained a separate statistical record
of incidents dating back to 1959 but I regret that I cannot
comment on statistics relating to the period between 1947
and 1956."
Being convinced from personal investigation of reports that
the Ministry was destroying records that were of great interest
to the scientific community, the writer was fortunate to
obtain the assistance of a prominent long-standing Member
of Parliament, Sir John Langford-Holt MC, MP, who took this
matter and others relating to the University of Colorado
Study up with Lord Winterbottom at the Ministry of Defence.
It was about this time that the USAF-sponsored University of
Colorado Scientific Study of UFOs came under attack from
John G. Fuller in a LOOK magazine April 30 1968
article entitled "The
Flying Saucer Fiasco".
In the article, Mr. Fuller published extracts from a memorandum
written by Dr. Robert Low, Project Co-ordinator of the Colorado
Study, which revealed that the Study was established in such a way
that it could only have a negative result. During a
visit to the Ministry of Defence, the author discussed with
members of S.4f (Air), the section handling UFO reports, whether,
on his visit there, Dr. Low had requested details of cases, the reply
was "No". The following confirmation letter was
received in February 1968, from Mr. W. F. Allen of the Ministry.
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
In May 1968, the author wrote to the Rt. Hon. Harold Wilson
expressing his concern about the scientific validity and purpose of
the Study and received the following reply from Mr. L. W. Akhurst
of the Ministry of Defence,
"I have been asked to reply to your letter of 30th April
addressed to the Prime Minister about the University of Colorado
UFO Project. We are, of course, aware of speculation about
the purpose of this project. But, as I told you on the
telephone the other day, we have received no information to
support the view that this project is not a serious study.
As far as I know the study will not be completed for a month
or two."
The writer then submitted extracts from the U.S. Congressional
Record in which Congressman Edward G. Roush raised doubts about the
study and Mr. Akhurst replied,
"Thank you for your letter of 18th May. We found the
extracts from the Congressional Record very interesting.
In essence the speeches made by Mr. Roush express doubts about and call for an investigation into the conduct of the University of Colorado project on UFOs. No firm conclusions are drawn. Our attitude to unidentified flying object reports is based mainly on our own experiences but, like Mr. Roush, we have an open mind on the possibilities of new evidence and are interested in seeing the results of any projects sponsored by other countries. In considering what weight we give to the conclusions of any projects we would, of course, take into account, inter alia, the reliability of the study group. So far as the Colorado project is concerned, you have drawn attention to doubts about its objectivity. The contacts we have had so far do not support these doubts. As regards further action by the United Kingdom, I am sure you will understand that we must not overlook a basic responsibility not to use public money to duplicate efforts elsewhere, particularly in a field where positive proof is so noticeably lacking. At present we see no need for further action by the United Kingdom."
Therefore, the fact that two scientists, Drs Levine and Saunders,
had been fired from the Colorado project and the personal assistant
to its head, Mrs. M. L. Armstrong had resigned, had
no effect on the Ministry's opinion that the project was a
scientifically valid one.
Following the publication of the Colorado Study Report of UFOs
in full, a review of it by Dr J. Allen Hynek was published
in the April 1969 issue of the Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientist. In the words of Dr Hynek, the report was,
"...a strange sort of scientific paper," which "does
not fulfill the promise of its title." He continued,
"Physical scientists who know Edward U. Condon (Project Director)
through his work in molecular physics and quantum mechanics will find
the hand of the master strangely missing in The Scientific Study
of Unidentified Flying Objects. Not only is his talent for
organizing and deftly attacking a problem unapparent, but,
for example, he is not listed as having personally looked into any
of the 95 cases to which various members of the rather fluid
committee addressed themselves...While devoted in the large part
to exposing hoaxes or revealing many UFOs as misindentifications
of common occurrences, the book leaves the same strange, inexplicable
residue of unknowns which has plagued the USAF investigation
for 20 years. In fact, the percentage of "unknowns"
in the Condon report appears to be even higher than the Air Force
investigation (Project Blue Book) – which led to the Condon
investigation in the first place."
Dr Hynek also mentioned provocative statements that were buried
deep in the report which
"do not support its overall
conclusion that UFO studies do not offer a fruitful field in which
to look for major scientific discoveries...The cases...are glaringly
there...an outright challenge to human curiosity, the foundation
stone of scientific
progress. It is difficult to understand why the National
Academy of Sciences has fully endorsed Dr Condon's opinion
that no further work on the UFO phenomenon should be done"
On the 17th December 1969, the U.S. Secretary for Defence
announced the termination of Project Blue Book, citing the findings
of the Colorado report and Air Force experience as the reasons
for closure. Concerned that the Ministry of Defence would
follow the policy of the U.S. Department of Defence and close
its own investigation and destroy its records, the author
discussed the matter with Sir John Langford-Holt MC MP, who already
had taken up the matter of the Ministry destroying its records, and
he sent the following letter to Lord Winterbottom,
"I note that the U.S. Air Force has closed its U.F.O. Project
Blue Book. As it has been your Ministry's policy to follow
closely the policy of the U.S. in this field, I presume that you
will close all investigations into and assessments of U.F.O.s
in this country. Under these circumstances I would like two
assurances and one piece of information. Firstly, I would
like to be assured that no records of U.F.O.s have,
or will be, destroyed. Secondly, as the reports and evaluations
have been considered by H.M.G. to be of no significance, will you
make available to reputable scientific bodies who wish to study the
matter any material you have. Lastly, I should like to know
after what period of time these reports are to be made public, like
other records."
The following reply was received from Lord Winterbottom in March
1970.
|
|
||||||||||||||||
 View Letter as .Pdf Document
Thus, for the first time in its history of investigating UFOs since
1947, the Ministry is to retain its UFO files without destroying
them after a 5-year period. Although not available to the
public for 30 years, it has left the door open for the papers to
be studied by a scientific organisation of high standing.
It is only hoped that every report,
including radar and Service ones, will be available without
exception.
The question still remained, however, whether the Ministry still
considered the Colorado report to be scientifically valid.
From the review by Dr Hynek, any many other subsequent ones by
other scientists in scientific publications, it is
clear the report was not accepted by science as the final word
in the UFO controversy. Letters to Sir John Langford-Holt
MC MP, solicited the following reply from Lord Winterbottom in
May 1970,
"...The best available scientific opinion seems to be that
contained in the Report of the Scientific Study of Unidentified
Flying Objects conducted by the University of Colorado,
which was published in 1969. The general conclusion of that
report, which was endorsed by the panel of the National Academy
of Sciences, is that nothing has come from the study of UFOs
in the past 21 years that has added to scientific knowledge
and that further extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be
justified in the expectation that science will be advanced
thereby. The Colorado Study Group reached this conclusion
after examining many cases including reports on the incidents
referred to by Mr. Hennessey. I am sorry I cannot be more
helpful."
One year later, in May 1971, Mr. L. W. Akhurst of the Ministry's
S.4f (Air) wrote the author,
"The Report by the University of Colorado on Unidentified
Flying Objects was endorsed by the National Academy of Sciences
and we accept that this august body would not have done so had it
considered the study scientifically unreliable. As you know
the Ministry of Defence has not carried out a general study of
the scientific significance of UFO reports, our
interest is in possible defense aspects, but our experience of UFO
reports is consistent with the findings of the Colorado Study.
Based on our own experience then we accept these findings."
The letter of Lord Winterbottom infers that the Ministry has
studied the Colorado study, this being the case, why did he
merely dismiss the Lakenheath case, which I had detailed to
him earlier, by referring merely to the general conclusions of
the Report's Summary. Had he, or a member of his Department,
taken the time to look up the case in the Report, he would
have read the Colorado investigator's conclusion which states,
"...the probability that at least one genuine UFO case
was involved appears to be fairly high.". The Ministry
has also, but possibly unwisely, jumped on the bandwagon of
those who believe that an endorsement by the National Academy of
Sciences makes the Colorado Report scientifically valid and
beyond reproach. On this point, there is absolutely
no evidence that the Academy panel did any independent checking
of its own; and none of that 11-man panel had any significant
prior investigative experience in this area. One should
also bear in mind that the National Academy of Sciences has been
regarded as losing its credibility in its role as government
adviser on scientific matters. Former U.S. Secretary of the
Interior, at an annual December meeting of the American Association
for the Advancement for Science, described the Academy as a
"virtual puppet of the government," and urged citizen
groups to challenge the Academy's reluctance to oppose establishment
policy "on controversial public issues. Although
Mr. Udall's remarks were not aimed at the UFO problem, it nevertheless
challenges the ability of, what the Ministry termed an
"august body" to make scientific assessments, independent
of establishment policy and therefore the validity of its endorsement
of the Colorado Report. The writer conveyed these points to
Lord Winterbottom and stated, "There can be no doubt that the
Condon Report and its Academy endorsement have exerted a highly
negative influence on clarification of the long-standing UFO problem
and I would be glad to learn if the Ministry of Defence still intends
to accept the Report's findings." In February 1972, a
reply was received from Mr. Antony
Lambton, successor to Lord Winterbottom, via Mr. Julian Ridsdale
MP,
"In his letter, Mr. Hennessey also questions the credibility of
the US National Academy of Sciences in its role of government adviser
on scientific matters. I can confirm that, in our view, the
National Academy of Sciences remains a highly reputable body which
is not tied to the US Government, although it often carries out
work for that government. We know of no reason to discredit
the work done by the panel from the National Academy of Sciences
in reviewing the report on UFOs by the University of Colorado."
This endorsement still stands today.
During 1967, the author and a colleague personally investigated a
number of selected UFO reports out of the many hundreds that were
extensively reported in the national press. These
investigations, deliberately made after those by the Ministry,
gave a valuable insight as to the 'thoroughness' with which the
Ministry conducted theirs. It is interesting to note that
the Ministry never operated on an immediate capability basis, but
waited until press interest had died down before making a
foray into the field. One report investigated was made by
a Wing Commander W. A. Cox and his wife. W/Cmdr Cox is a
reliable witness of solid character and high standing in his local
community, who served 36 years in the Royal Air Force.
On the evening of 24th October 1967, the W/Cmdr and his wife were
visiting a relative and had watched the news on television that had
included an interview of two policemen concerning their 90 mph
patrol car chase of an unidentified light in the sky over Devon.
After the news, they both watched another programme for a short
while and decided it was time to leave. At the door, Mrs.
Cox jokingly remarked to her sister, "I am going to look
for lights in the sky tonight on my way home." At 2146
hours whilst W/Cmdr Cox was driving along the Cadnam to Fordingbridge
Road in Hampshire, his wife noticed seven lights in a 'V' formation
in the sky to the north of their position. Trying to draw
them to her husband's attention, W/Cmdr Cox immediately retorted,
"Oh rubbish!" and continued to drive for a further
quarter of a mile before his wife's persistence made him pull
the car into a lay-by. The following is part of a transcript
from the author's personal interview with W/Cmdr and Mrs. Cox:
W/CMDR COX ...And then I looked across to the north and,
sure enough, there were these lights, so I wound the car window
down and had a look. Then I got out of the car, we both did,
and leant on the roof and watched them. Now, I thought,
and said at the time, that they were a squadron of helicopters,
this is what they looked like to me with landing lights on.
But, then I looked at them more closely, this could not have
been so because landing lights don't show sideways so brightly,
they are downward lights.
MRS. COX: Well, in any case there wasn't any noise, was there?
W/CMDR: There was no noise. There was not enough
movement for them to be helicopters, so we just dismissed it.
W/CMDR: ...as soon as we finished looking at these
objects, we got back here and it is 4 to 5 minutes away, no
more. I looked at the time straight away because I decided to
ring up the police, this is why I know the time within 10 minutes.
MYERS: Why did you call the police?
W/CMDR: Because the police had been pooh poohed about what
they had and hadn't seen, I thought it is only fair to let an
outsider ring up. I rang the police and told them this, I said
in case you don't feel too happy about this thing, because the police
had been pulled over the coals, here is an
outsider who has also seen something, so you can make them laugh at
that. This was my attitude and the only reason for telling
them.
W/CMDR: Of course the police had been doing some ringing
around Boscombe Down and Larkhill ranges to find out whether there
was any lights going up or any aircraft, and they said there was
none. When I said they might been choppers, they rang up Middle
Wallop, but there were no choppers up.
HENNESSEY: Do you know what sort of response they got from
Larkhill? (an artillery range on Salisbury Plain)
W/CMDR: Yes, earlier in the evening, much earlier.
HENNESSEY: What is your reaction to the possibility that these
could have been flare illuminating projectiles of the type fired
by 25 pounders?
W/CMDR: If you fire any projectiles of any sort, you first
of all have upward movement if you see the light as it lights and
then a slow descent. If it is on a parachute, it has a fast
descent, this did neither, it could either be something going away
from us very very fast indeed, so that the light disappeared, or it
could be a very powerful light being switched off.
HENNESSEY: You said that three of the lights departed or
seemed to fade first.
W/CMDR: Yes that's right. They appeared to be a very
good formation of lights and made me think it was helicopters, because
it was a very good formation. But they were a stationary formation,
this is the thing that also made me think they were helicopters when, suddenly,
three on the right broke away as three and the lights went out.
HENNESSEY: When you say broke away, did you actually see them move?
W/CMDR: They moved away.
HENNESSEY: You actually saw them move away?
W/CMDR: They moved away. They didn't move away all
three together, they moved away in a higgeldy piggeldy manner as though
they could have each been an individual something. Now if they had been
flares, they would have fallen at the same rate, wouldn't they? But these
went up and around, they did not fall in a pattern.
HENNESSEY: So looking straight at them, they would have moved to the
right?
W/CMDR: Yes, to the right, upwards and away as though they
were individually controlled. As soon as they did that, the remaining
four lights formed a perfect formation of a plus sign and, this is the other
thing that struck me, it was such a perfect formation, that it looked as though
it was controlled. Whether it was radio controlled equipment or not,
I do not know, but this is what it appeared to be. These four lights went
out absolutely simultaneously as though you had a large object with one stuck on
four points and it went away from you, it could happen like that. It was
from one source it looked to me.
MYERS: And after that it was completely blank when those final lights
had gone?
W/CMDR: As soon as the lights had gone, we noticed the lights of
Salisbury, you know the lights in the sky, not the actual lights themselves.
W/CMDR: And so we know the precise position they were, and I
reckon that Boscombe Down (Aircraft Experimental Research Establishment)
and Larkhill are away to the west of where we saw these, in fact I know
they are.
At this point I will quote from the letter of Mr. L. M. Akhurst,
of 29th January 1968, in which he gave to W/Cmdr Cox the Ministry's
findings; in order that we can see W/Cmdr Cox's reaction further
on tape;
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
HENNESSEY: So far as you are concerned, Larkhill and
Boscombe Down are not visible. If they had any flares
up at the time, they would not be in the direction that you
had seen the objects?
W/CMDR: I very much doubt it, but Boscombe
Down is so laughable, that it was an aircraft landing is absolutely
stupid. The clouds were low although it was very
clear up to whatever height the clouds were, because we could
see the moon, but it was very low on the horizon over on the east.
But you certainly would not have seen an airplane,
that is absolutely certain.
HENNESSEY: The aircraft landed at 2144 hours (confirmed
to me in writing by the Senior Air Traffic Controller at Boscombe)
and your sighting started at 2146, so the aircraft was not
in the air at the time.
W/CMDR: I would not have seen that anyway.
HENNESSEY: What is your reaction to the Ministry's letter?
W/CMDR: Well, I was going to write to them and say
lay this on... this light business, the flare business and get
an aircraft to land at Boscombe Down and come down here and I
will accompany you to the spot, we will then have a look and
see. Now that is a scientific check in my opinion.
If they say that this is so, well it is very easy for them to
lay it on, no difficulty at all. We could have had a
neutral observer as well, they have got my report as you have
and they could say this is what you said then.
MYERS: You can't change that!
W/CMDR: You can't change that, this is what you
are looking at now, we think it is similar or otherwise.
I mean I am quite happy if they say there you are, but this is
what they ought to do and, until they do, I think
this is the biggest load of tripe that I've heard in a long
time.
HENNESSEY: You are definite about the length of time
of the observation?
W/CMDR: You can't be definite about the length of
time.
HENNESSEY: But you think you were reasonably accurate?
W/CMDR: From the time that my wife first saw it to
the time the lights went out, I would say it was approximately
six minutes. I could let you say four minutes and let you
get away with it.
HENNESSEY: If I said it was ninety seconds?
W/CMDR: But if you said it was ninety seconds, I would
say you just weren't there and just didn't know what you were
talking about.
HENNESSEY:M That it what the Ministry said to us, it was
just ninety seconds. (This information was given us during
an interview at the Ministry of Defence with some of the
investigators who also indicated that they considered W/Cmdr
Cox an unreliable witness. The wife's testimony seems
to have been forgotten or ignored).
W/CMDR: Yes, well look at this, it was quarter of
a mile before I
stopped the car, I then lowered my window and looked out
at them. I then stopped the car engine, opened the door,
got out, walked behind it, leant on the roof, and looked
across it. if that is ninety seconds!
All the points made by W/Cmdr Cox's were substantiated by the
author and colleague who retraced the route taken by Cox and
followed the actions described. All timing was consistent
with W/Cmdr Cox's estimate that he observed the objects for
6 minutes. The investigators also visited the Hampshire
Constabulary Police Station at Fordingbridge, Larkhill School
of Artillery and Boscombe Down, all of whom gave later written
confirmation proving that, whatever W/Cmdr Cox and wife
did see, it was certainly not flares or the landing lights of
a Hastings aircraft coming down to land at Boscombe Down.
In March 1968, I submitted through Wing Commander Sir Eric
E. Bullus MP, our findings to the Ministry of Defence requesting
their comments. In May 1968, the following reply was received
from Mr. Merlyn Rees;
"We have not heard from Wing Commander Cox since we told
him of our findings in January. This exchange of views
was, of course, a personal one between Wing Commander Cox and
the Department and, as Mr. Hennessey has been told by the Department
on a number of occasions, we do not discuss with third parties
the detailed information included in such exchanges without
the consent of the member of the public concerned. However,
I can tell you that in reaching our conclusions we took into
account all the information provided to us both in writing and
verbally by Wing Commander Cox about the time and duration of
the incident, the distance and bearings and the description
of the lights. We also took account of the experience
in observation Wing Commander Cox must have accumulated over
the years. Mr. Hennessey's personal assessment of the
information which he has obtained does not give us cause to
amend our views."
Need more be said about the Ministry's 'thoroughness' and
'open-mindedness' in investigating UFO reports. It is
clear that the Ministry was unable to positively identify the
objects because its investigating methods were unsatisfactory.
It made unwarranted assumptions and disregarded important
relative information given by the eyewitnesses.
As a classic example of the Ministry's 'shotgun' type examination,
for which the U.S. Air Force was a past master, the author
investigated a 1967 case in which thirteen H.M. Coastguards
observed a large UFO for a 20-minute period which was circled
by a jet interceptor. The Ministry at first explained
the object as car headlights on a cloud until they realized that
the time of the sighting was near noon midday and not midnight.
The UFO was subsequently listed as a "probable balloon"
(capable of flying diagonally into a strong wind) but, even more
surprising to the writer, the Ministry could not identify
the jet nor where it came from! This case was
also discussed during the author's visit to the Ministry when
Mr. Cassells, then head of S.4f(Air), admitted that the Ministry
had been "a little embarrassed" here. Due to
a "mix-up", the radar film of the object and intercepting
aircraft was destroyed before they could get to it. However,
the film could not have shown anything untoward or it would have
been retained. A talk with the radar operator revealed that
he had observed nothing unusual on scope. It was now
impossible to identify the interceptor or where it came from.
Drawings of the UFO suggested it was a high-altitude balloon.
The question of the Ministry's inability to positively identify
the object was taken up. In an October 1967 letter, Mr. W. F.
Allen of the Ministry stated, "As far as the Berry Head
sighting is concerned, as we cannot positively state that the object
was a
balloon its identity must obviously remain unknown. We have
no record of any RAF aircraft being in the vicinity at the time
and nothing was observed by radar which gave any concern from
the air defence point of view." In October 1969,
Mr. L. W. Akhurst wrote, "We have received no further
information about this report and the position is as stated
in our letter of 4th October 1967. That is, the drawings
seen in the Ministry of Defence suggest that the object may
have been a high altitude balloon." Then, in May
1971, he wrote, "The category in which a report is
placed depends on the particular circumstances; this could
mean that a report referred to as 'probably a balloon' could
be placed in the 'Balloon' category." Thus,
statistically, the H.M. Coastguards' report became a
"Balloon"
Another case, which is on interest from the point of view
that no official body was interested in investigating, despite
its puzzling nature, occurred on 11th September 1967, when an Air
Ferry DC-6, piloted by Captain F. E. C. Underhill, a training Captain
of British United Airways on loan to Air Ferry, observed a dark
object in the west travelling across his flight path parallel
with the Pyrenees, Spain. At the time, Captain Underhill
was at an altitude of 16,000ft and estimated the object to be
about 60 miles ahead at an altitude of 25,000ft. The following
is part of a transcript of a tape-recorded interview by the author:
CAPT UNDERHILL: I want to go back to answering your
questionnaire here. First of all, the distance (of the object
at first sighting) would be 55 miles, as by Mr. Hope (First Officer),
and the second one, likewise, would be 17.05 GMT, again as
recorded by Mr. Hope. The estimate of speed, well I
find this very difficult...ultrasonic, well up in the thousands,
before that I wouldn't be able to say, other than the fact
that I've watched very high-speed performance aircraft, but never
saw anything as fast as this. It was really going too fast,
it really drew my attention to it. Above that, it was
just a black speck.
You asked me to answer what happened when I reported it. Now on the question of reporting it, I am not sure of the procedure, to be absolutely honest, in this particular case and I've never had anything like this before. I called up Manston (Manston RAF base) and they said would I phone them as soon as I got down. I phoned up the Duty Officer there, he then said he was extremely interested and that he would like details of which he took down over the phone, so I never actually filled in a complete report. The whole thing was done over the phone to him, which was more or less exactly the same as I told you, with a description of which he took all down. He was the Duty Officer and in fact was extremely interested at the time because he said he experienced something similar to this a number of years ago when he was with Transport Command over the Mediterranean. ...I'll now deal with your second one (question), which there was this effort from the Air Ministry. Now I would like to say right away, unless, of course, they have got something I don't know about, but I would have said right from the start it was not mistaken for an aircraft
In an October 1967 letter, the Ministry stated, "We have
been unable to positively identify the object seen by the crew
of a DC-6 aircraft but on its face-value this report has no
defence implications for the United Kingdom. It
may possibly have been an aircraft seen in an unusual attitude."
CAPT UNDERHILL: This was not something which seen...you know,
an aircraft seen in an unusual attitude. The only time
it looked like an aircraft, at any stage, was when it was in
this turn and the First Officer said, "It looks like a
formation" and we all stared at it and said "well it
could be you know"...because it was probably the shape,
you know how a formation sort of wheels and sort of gets this
shape out of it (indicating a triangle shape with his hands)...
sort of black and in the distance. But, when it came
nearer, to me there was no doubt that it was nothing
like an aircraft anyway, but the fact that it was
sort of up in this attitude (here he indicated that the
point of the cone-shaped object was at a 2 o'clock position)
with the pointed part sticking up here (almost vertical),
I can't possibly see how it could have been, unless it was
something we have no knowledge of whatsoever.
HENNESSEY: Was there any report made at all to Barcelona?
CAPT UNDERHILL: Yes I did. Actually, I called up
Barcelona and asked them if they had any knowledge of any other
activity in the area at the time. They said they would
call back and said they had no knowledge, they were a bit
vague. We were in touch with Barcelona, but I thought
they might pass it on to the Americans who have got quite an
extensive radar set-up, I believe, there in Spain. I thought
that they might have done some liaison..this went through my
mind. I did not expect the Spanish to deal with it, but the
Americans who are operating there from a number of NATO airfields,
I thought they probably would have been able to do something.
As I say, to my mind there was no doubt about it whatsoever that,
whatever it was, it was controlled, this you know was
apparent to me. The fact that it came across at an angle,
did a turn and came at us from about here (raising hand to
slightly above eye-level) and dropped down. Initially when
we saw it, it was higher than us, I would not like to say how
much higher, a few thousand feet at least, but then it came
down and passed below us.
HENNESSEY: Did it slow down?
CAPT UNDERHILL: Yes it did, slowed right down actually.
HENNESSEY: You had the impression though that it had seen
your aircraft?
CAPT UNDERHILL: Well, this is what really impressed me..but
I mean, you know, I could be guessing, but to me it was under
control. Whether he had seen us or not, I don't know, but the
fact that he was coming very fast along here, then slowed right
down as it came into the turn, then, of course, you can't check
on speed when it was coming head-on towards you, but as it
came past us, there was very little motion on it in actual
fact. There did not appear to be any real speed at all.
We were all so engrossed in looking at this thing that I never
thought..I undid my strap and sort of leaning across, but I didn't
think of the fact we ought to cut the auto pilot out and turn the
airplane or do anything like this, but I should have done if I
thought more..everything was happening and we were all sort of
rivetted on this thing and I just didn't do anything about
it.
HENNESSEY: Were there any markings on it?
CAPT UNDERHILL: We couldn't tell because it was in the
base, anyway it was just beginning to get about dusk and it was
on the port wing and we were on the starboard. It was
lighter than it is now (dusk), but it was a sort of evening
haze. You could tell it had this silver appearance and
appeared to be metallic, even still define it, but you couldn't
identify anything else and.. after that it had a completely rounded
bottom. We all agreed on everything there and then, excepting
we couldn't make out whether it was completely rounded.
In this case, had the DC-6 been approached by a conventional
aircraft, no doubt a strong protest would have been made by
some official U.K. body, but, because it was unconventional,
nobody was interested, including the Board of Trade responsible
for civil aviation matters. The author contacted Project
Blue Book to see whether U.S. radars in Spain had picked up any
UFOs, but the reply from a Major Hector Quintanilla was
negative. Yet, it is interesting to note, Mr. Merlyn Rees,
Parliamentary Under-Secretary for State for Defence for the RAF,
stated in Parliament on 8th November 1967, "We have complete
radar coverage to a very great height all over these islands and have
access to that over Europe, and none of this leads us to believe
in any sense that this is anything else than something which we
know nothing about." Indeed! Either radar
in Europe has blind spots, which is not a happy prospect, or the
Ministry here and abroad are 'in the know'. In December
1967, the following letter was received from Mr. R. Broadbent,
Deputy Director of Flight Safety (B) of the Board of Trade,
"Thank you for your letter about the near collision between
an unidentified flying object and a DC-6 aircraft of Air Ferry.
We have sent it to the Director of Civil Air Traffic Operations
who looks after these matters and he has asked me to say that,
since the incident occurred over a foreign country, it may
take a little time to get details."
The author's interest was aroused in what role, if any, the Board
of Trade had in UFOs. In October 1967, the author received
the following statement from Mr. J. H. Riddoch, Under-Secretary
for the Aviation Safety & General Division of the Board
of Trade,
"Before the Board of Trade could define their nature and
extent of their interest, more positive interest would be required
than is available now about the characteristics, behaviour and
intentions of any such objects that are proved to exist."
The author then placed a number of specific questions to
the Board and received the following reply from Mr. J. R. Neill,
Director of Flight Safety,
"There are no special rules or authorizations applicable to
any such objects. Rules of the Air which are made under the
authority of the Air Navigation Order prohibit the low flying
of aircraft. Any reports of aircraft flying in breach of these
regulations are considered by the Board of Trade and when
appropriate are referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions
for proceedings in the Courts. No reports concerning
unidentified flying objects have been received by the Board
of Trade. The answers to the questions you put are as
follows:-
From the above, it was clear that the Board has no interest in
UFOs. Therefore civil aviation pilots have no rulings as
to whom they should report any such observations. In May 1968,
whilst investigating combined visual-radar tracking of a UFO over
Northern Island, the author received a letter from the Board of
Trade Air Traffic Control at Belfast Airport which stated, in part,
"...4. You may be interested to know that Air Traffic
Service Units have, since February 1968, instructions to report
details of U.F.O.s to the Military Aeronautical Information Service
at Uxbridge and these details will be recorded." Therefore,
four months after the author's enquiries into Board of Trade
involvement, or rather non-involvement, in the UFO problem.
A rather remarkable coincidence! In May 1968, following
numerous but unsuccessful telephone enquiries for details about
the work of MAIS Uxbridge, the author wrote them and received
the following reply from Mr. L.W. Akhurst of the Ministry of
Defence in June 1968, a whole month later, "I am writing to
let you know that MAIS Uxbridge has passed on to me your letter
of 19th May about UFOs. Any reports received by MAIS
Uxbridge are passed on to the Ministry of Defence. You
are, of course, aware of our position on the release of
or access to documents." A further letter from Mr.
Akhurst was received in May, 1971,
"With regard your enquiry about ATC radar reports, I cannot recall
when we last received one. As I told you in my letter of
25th March 1971 we received none in 1970. It is true that
reports received by ATC centres from, for example, members of
the public are normally routed through MAIS to MOD. This
line of communication was arranged by the ATC authorities and
is, I assume, organisationally convenient for them. MAIS
has no direct responsibility for investigating UFO reports
but does provide MOD with information as required."
Through Sir John Langford-Holt MC MP, I put a number of questions
to the Board of Trade and the following reply was received from
The Minister for Trade in May 1971,
"NATCS units have instructions that, in the event of
a report concerning an unidentified flying object, they should
obtain as much as possible of the information required to complete
a prescribed report form. The details are to be passed by
telephone to the parent Air Traffic Control Centre (ATCC), while
the completed report form is forwarded to the Ministry of
Defence. The ATCC is required to give the details without
delay to the Military Aeronautical Information Service.
These instructions were first issued in January 1968, and published
in the Manual of Air Traffic Control. I enclose copies of
the relevant pages from the manual, which include the report
form. The NATCS does not keep statistics of these reports
once they have been passed on this way, but I understand that Anthony
Lambton has recently written you about reports received by his
Department during 1970. I would suggest that he may be able
to supply similar information for earlier years should you so
wish, and am copying this letter to him."
The following is from the Manual of Air Traffic Control No. A.T.C.1
No. 2 part 1-19 Chapter 5;
5.5 Reporting of Unidentified Flying Objects
5.5.1. In the event of a report concerning an unidentified flying
object being received by an ATS unit the following action should
be taken.
5.5.2. The ATSU receiving the report shall obtain as much as
possible of the information required to complete the report
form shown at Appendix "F" and pass all details by
telephone to the watch supervisor at the parent ATCC (Scottish
ATCC, Preston ATCC or London ATCC). The completed form
shall be sent by the originating ATSU to the Ministry of Defence
(AFOR), Royal Air Force, Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1.
5.5.3. The Watch Supervisor at ATCC concerned shall pass all
details without delay via the operational telephone network
to the Military Aeronautical Information Service section at
West Drayton. If it is necessary to use the GPO network
the information should be passed to West Drayton 4077 extension
5343.
5.5.4. Such reports shall be entered in the ATC log.
In May 1971 the author, through Sir John Langford-Holt MC MP,
again queried the Board to establish whether separate instructions
were given the Board of Trade's radar operators about reporting
UFOs and whether different reporting forms were used.
The following reply, addressed to Sir John's Private Secretary, was
received from Mr. R. J. Ager, Private Secretary to the Minister for
Trade, in November 1971,
"The only instructions to air traffic controllers concerning unidentified
flying objects are those published in the Manual of Air Traffic Control about
which the Minister informed Sir John in his letter of 21 May. No special
form is used for this purpose but the report is required to be made on the lines
of the Appendix F to the Manual which was copied to Sir John. While the
Ministry of Defence take film records of radar displays at some units this is
not for the purpose of gathering information about unidentified flying objects.
There is no requirement for such recordings at our civil air traffic control units,
at which incidentally there have been no UFO reports over the past two years."
On 8th September 1971, the author paid a visit to the LATCC (Military) and was
permitted to view some UFO records, which were kept on well-stocked files,
and was given photostat copies of reports that related to current investigations
being undertaken by the author. During his visit, the author was informed
that there had been quite a "deal of activity in the South East" which
kept the "fighter chaps busy." Other information obtained included
the fact that some reports, depending on their nature, were teletyped to the
Ministry of Defence Operations Room with copies to the Royal Air Force Strike
Command at High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire and marked 'PRIORITY'.
It is not known what action is taken on them immediately thereafter. In
December 1971, the author made an application for permission, as an accredited
investigator for Dr J. Allen Hynek of the Northwestern University, to review future
such reports received at LATCC (Military) as received from ATCs without
necessarily knowing how these were investigated nor the conclusions of the
Military of Defence. In December 1971, Mr. A. N. Davis DSO, DFC,
then the section head of S.4(air), replied,
Thank you for your letter of 19th December about UFO reports. I know of
your visit to the LATCC (military) on 8th September but I must confess that I am
at a loss to know how on that visit you managed to see UFO reports received
26/27th October 1971. No doubt you will be aware that on the 25th November
the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force
wrote to Mr. Julian Ridsdale M.P., who had taken up a question on your behalf,
advising him that UFO records remain closed to public scrutiny until they become
available under the rules laid down
in the Public Records Act. i.e. at the end of thirty years. I regret therefore
that I cannot accede to your request periodically to view reports of UFO
sightings received by MAIS. In view of this ruling there will be no
point in our meeting to discuss the matter further."
View Letter as .Pdf Document
Another avenue of information was again closed.
In October 1971, the author personally handed in a letter to the private residence of
Lord Carrington, Secretary of State for Defence, pointing out "inherent
shortcomings" of the Ministry's policy in handling the UFO problem
as follows:
Firstly, the Ministry does not appear to operate on an immediate capability basis. Often, witnesses in major cases were not interviewed until weeks after making their report. The value and validity of doing so is certainly in question. The Ministry has stated in the House (of Commons) that it is often difficult to assess what a witness observed several days later, let alone several weeks.
Secondly, judging from my correspondence with the Ministry,
it appears unable to positively identify an extremely high number of the
reports made. Yet the annual statistics never support this fact.
UFOs listed as "probable balloons" suddenly become definite
balloons statistically. Cases have even occurred where the Ministry
was even unable to identify jet interceptors involved.
Thirdly, explanations given witnesses are often more puzzling to
them than the nature of the UFO reported. In many cases, the witnesses,
often trained competent observers, have regarded these Ministry explanations
as an insult to their intelligence and certainly would never again report any
other such observation to the Ministry. My discussions with airline pilots
revealed that a majority of them would never make a report to the Ministry
for fear of ridicule. A highly unsatisfactory situation caused by the
present policy.
Fourthly, once an explanation has been given, the Ministry will not, even
when the evidence has been presented to the contrary, review its findings if
the evidence presented does not fit in with theirs. It has a strong tendency
to ignore valid points in the statements of witnesses simply because it does
not support what they think is the probable cause of the sighting.
Lastly, the Ministry only investigates the air defence implications of reports
and admits that it has never carried out a study into their scientific implications.
Scientists or serious UFO researchers have no access to these unclassified reports
on file. Indeed, it is only over the recent years that such reports are
permanently retained. Previously they were destroyed after a 5-year
period.
From the above, it is clear that, in the first instance, a major public relations problem
exists. My opinion is certainly not an isolated one, a prominent scientist,
who visited the then Air Ministry for a discussion of UFOs, stated to me in a
tape-recorded conversation, "I am probably speaking treason here, but
there seems no point to follow things up and no basic rapport between the
British Air Ministry and the public...they say the public be damned!"
The same attitude has not changed six years later! If one accepts the above
as the only "true" picture, which is how the public now sees it, then the
Ministry's investigation is one of gross incompetence that endangers National
security. However, my observations lead me to believe that it is not the
only investigation."
The author's letter was personally acknowledged by Lord Carrington in November
1971,
"Thank you for writing me on 24th and 26th October expressing your concern
about material available to UFO researchers. Since this is a matter for the Air
side of the Department I have passed your letter to Mr. Lambton, the Under Secretary
of State for the Royal Air Force, for action. You should be hearing from his
office shortly."
At the end of November 1971, Mr. Antony Lambton replied via
Mr. Julian Ridsdale MP as follows,
|
|
||||||||||
|
View Page One of Letter as .Pdf Document
|
|
|||||
|
View Page Two of Letter as .Pdf Document
|
|
|||||
|
View Page Three of Letter as .Pdf Document
Julian Hennssey's article ends here. Not long after it was
written, a series of events led to his gradual withdrawal
from UFO research. As outlined in the Hennessey
Introduction, the competing needs of work and family
life, along with the closing down of NICAP, led to a cessation of his UFO
research. Julian left behind a rich collection of historically
important UFO material which will be highlighted further in
due course.
|
