View source

__TOC__
== MoD’s UFO Study – “The Condign Report” ==

=== 1. What evidence has been made public about earlier studies of UFOs by the British Government? ===

Prior to 2001 the UK Government’s position was that it had never funded any scientific or military study of the tens of thousands of UFO reports received by the Ministry of Defence (MoD). But in May that year, following two years of research, Dr David Clarke and Andy Roberts obtained a copy of a report by the Flying Saucer Working Party, established on the recommendation of Sir Henry Tizard in 1950. The conclusions of the working party, delivered to a meeting of the DSI/JTIC at MoD in June 1951, were used to brief Winston Churchill following the UFO flap in Washington DC in July the following year.

The Working Party’s remit was limited and its report, a mere six pages in length, was classified “Secret – Discreet.” The report examined just three sightings in depth, all reported by RAF personnel, dismissing them as misidentifications and optical illusions. Its conclusions were that all UFO reports could be explained and recommended no further work should be carried out on the subject until solid evidence came to light.

During the summer and autumn of 1952 a further wave of UFO sightings occurred both in the USA and in Europe during the NATO Operation Mainbrace. Shortly afterwards the Air Ministry’s Assistant Chief of Air Staff (Intelligence) delegated responsibility for UFOs to a section in his intelligence organisation. The earliest policy document to survive from 1952-53, classified “Secret”, specified that “all reports from all sources are to be sent to A.I.3(Tech)3 in the Deputy Directorate of Intelligence (Technical).” These included reports of unidentified aircraft and objects both from service sources and members of the public. The document stated that “an annual report summarising all UFO sightings by types is to be submitted to DDI (Tech).” (TNA ref: DEFE 31/118)

None of these annual summaries have survived before 1956. However, an analysis of 80 reports received up to 1954 formed the basis for an article published in the Air Ministry Secret Intelligence Summary (AMSIS) Vol 10/3 in March 1955. AMSIS was classified “Secret – UK Eyes Only.” However, the full report containing a detailed analysis – which ran to 10,000 words – has not been found in the defence archives and MoD claims it has not survived to the present day. Its security classification is unknown.

The conclusions were, however, alluded to in a reply to a Parliamentary Question on ‘flying saucers’ by Major Patrick Wall MP on 4 May 1955. Wall had asked if the Air Ministry was prepared to publish its “report on flying saucers” that he had been informed, via a contact, had been completed.

In reply, the Under Secretary of State for Air (George Ward) said that: 

“Reports of ‘flying saucers’ as well as any other abnormal objects in the sky, are investigated as they come in, but there has been no formal inquiry. About 90 percent of the reports have been found to relate to meteors, balloons, flares and many other objects. The fact that the other 10 percent are unexplained need be attributed to nothing more sinister than lack of data.”

The residue of 10 percent of reports that remained “unexplained” (or, as the Ministry preferred, “insufficient information”) explains their decision to continue collecting UFO reports which continued for a further 45 years. The reasons given in the AMSIS article were that “there is always the chance of observing foreign aircraft of revolutionary design.” This factor remained a concern for intelligence agencies until the end of the Cold War. But the AMSIS author was careful to qualify this statement with the caveat : “…as for controlled manifestations from outer space, there is no tangible evidence of their existence.”

The limited and fragmentary analyses completed between 1951 and 1955 do not constitute a study of UFO data on par with the resources allocated in the USA to Project Blue Book. Neither was there ever any British equivalent of the fully funded study by the University of Colorado, commissioned by the United States Air Force in 1966-67. The Colorado study, popularly known as “the Condon report” was published in 1969. It was based upon analysis of 12,618 reports investigated by Project Blue Book between 1947 and 1969, of which 701 were unexplained. 

Ironically, one of these unexplained incidents was the classic radar/visual from RAF Bentwaters-Lakenheath in Suffolk. But the British Government claims the file on this case, which occurred in 1956, was destroyed in 1961 because it was deemed to be of no significance, along with many other papers relating to UFO incidents investigated by DDI (Tech). The main findings of the US study, popularly known as the Condon Report, was that:

About 90% of all UFO reports prove to be plausibly related to natural phenomena 
Nothing had come from the study of UFOs in the past 21 years that added to scientific knowledge. 

* Further extensive study of UFO sightings was not justified in the expectation that science would be advanced thereby 
* No evidence had come to light in the study to indicate that UFO sightings might represent a threat to the defence of the USA 
* The US Department of Defence should continue to handle UFO reports in its normal surveillance operations without recourse to special units such as Project Blue Book.

Following the UFO flap of 1967 the British Government was under intense pressure to set up a similar funded project, and decided in future to preserve its records on UFO incidents. In November 1967 the head of MoD Secretariat S4(Air), James Carruthers, produced a detailed briefing for the Secretary of State for Air, Merlyn Rees MP. In it he said the MoD had kept a statistical analysis of reports received since 1959 “and has found no evidence to suggest [UFOs] have other than the most mundane explanations.” He said the MoD “does not consider that a separate study by other [UK] Government departments or by a university or other independent organisation would produce results to justify the expenditure, time, effort and money involved.” (TNA ref: DEFE 31/119) Again in 1978, in a briefing to colleagues prior to the House of Lords UFO Debate, his successor as head of S4 (Air), Patrick Stevens, stated clearly: “There has been no British scientific enquiry into UFOs.” (TNA ref: AIR 20/12966). 

This situation continued through the 1980s and ‘90s despite several attempts by staff in DI 55, which is the branch of the Defence Intelligence Staff responsible for UFOs, to establish a basic database of reports they had received. 

=== 2. So why did the MoD decide to set up a study of UFOs in 1998 and how did this come to light in 2006? ===

News of the secret MoD study emerged as a result of a long-running correspondence between Dr David Clarke and desk staff at Directorate of Air Staff (DAS), the MoD secretariat responsible for UFOs in the present day. Civilian staff at DAS are employed on a number of administrative tasks in support of the RAF, one of which is to act as the focal point for UFO inquiries from members of the public (the significance of this point will be become clear in due course).

In July 2001 Dr Clarke asked DAS if the MoD’s Defence Intelligence Staff (known as the DIST) kept records or files relating to their consultation with the DAS secretariat on UFOs. The answer was: 

“As part of the MoD’s assessment of aerial sightings, reports were copied as appropriate to the Directorate of Intelligence Scientific and Technical (DIST). Towards the end of 2000, DIST decided that these reports were of no defence interest and should no longer be sent to them. The branch still retains files containing reports received up to 4 December 2000.”

Following up this intriguing response, Dr Clarke asked: 

“Can MOD provide a statement explaining the reasoning behind DIST’s decision? Does this mean the Defence Intelligence staff are no longer interested in receiving UFO reports from service sources (i.e. aircrew, radar stations) or does the decision relate entirely to reports from the public? What would happen if a UFO incident occurred today that was judged to be of ‘defence interest’?” 

The DAS reply, dated 26 October 2001, reads:

“Reports of sightings, comprising brief records and letters from the public, were sent to DIST in case they contained any information of value relating to their primary role of analysing the performance and threat of foreign weapons systems, nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programmes and emerging technologies. These records, whether from members of the public or service sources, have not proved valuable. For this reason DIST [towards the end of 2000] decided the records should no longer be sent to them. This decision covers material from service and civilian sources.You ask ‘what would happen if a ‘UFO’ incident occurred today that was judged to be of defence interest.’ Reports may be sent to Air Defence staff (who are not located in the DI area) for assessment…To date no ‘UFO’ report has been judged to be of defence interest.” 

The DIST had been routinely listed on the distribution for UFO reports received by MoD since May 1967. Since that time, the DIST branch DI 55, who were responsible for ballistic missiles and space technology, had been consulted routinely by S4 (Air) and its successors DS8, Sec(AS) and DAS – the MoD’s public focal point for UFO matters – on UFO incidents where further investigations or inquiries were deemed necessary. The decision by DIST/DI 55 to remove themselves from the distribution list for UFO reports received after December 2000 was a surprising one. In effect it marked the end of involvement by the Defence Intelligence Staff in the collection and analysis of UFO reports that could be traced all the way back to the deliberations of the Flying Saucer Working Party in 1950. 

Dr Clarke passed this information to colleagues at The Observer newspaper who published a story titled: “Spies admit it: There’s no aliens out there” in its online edition on 4 November 2001. See: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,587309,00.html 

We suspected that a further study of some kind had been produced by the MoD in the period immediately before this decision was taken in 2000. Therefore, in 2004 Dr Clarke and colleagues Joe McGonagle and Gary Anthony decided to use the UK’s new Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), due to arrive on 1 January 2005, to request copies of correspondence between DIST and the ‘UFO desk’ (now renamed DAS) from the relevant period, circa 1998-2000. We were also aware from earlier correspondence that an MoD “policy review” on UFOs had taken place in January 1997. We suspected that whatever had led DIST to abandon UFO work may have originated in the correspondence generated by this last policy review. And our speculations were correct!

In January 2005 requests were made by David Clarke, under the FOIA, for copies of documents relating to:

a) the 1997 MoD review of policy on UFOs
b) documents relating to the DIST decision to no longer receive reports from October 2000 
Documents from a) were released in June 2005 but a number of relevant pages originating with the DIST were initially with-held as they were classified SECRET and required security clearance before they could be released.

All the documents, including a copy of the Loose Minute dated 4 December 2000 announcing the completion of the DI 55 study, were released to Dr Clarke in a letter dated 23 August 2005.

With the existence of the DI 55 study now revealed, in September 2005 Dr Clarke and Gary Anthony placed further requests using the FOI to secure a copy of the full report, the executive summary and associated correspondence. The report was finally released in April 2006. 

=== 3. What have we discovered about the report? Who commissioned it? Who wrote it and why? ===

From 1978 onwards UFO reports continued to arrive at MoD where they were copied to a list of specialist branches. In addition to Sec(AS) or DAS as it became, these included “air defence” branches such as Ops (GE) 2b (RAF), DI 55, Science 3 (RAF) and, in some cases, the Meteorological Office. But these branches - were never allowed to follow up the reports or undertake any study of the material as this was deemed to contradict public statements that MoD had no interest in the subject. 

In 1986, under great secrecy, staff at Science 3(RAF), an MoD branch – a now defunct scientific support branch – drew up a plan to produce a computerised database of UFO reports. Their proposal was supported by DI 55. But when news of the plan leaked to Sec(AS) in February 1988 officials were furious and demanded that all work on the database must stop. A handwritten note found in policy documents released in 2005 reads:

“Spoke to [Science 3] explaining that this could be very embarrassing for us and urging caution. It is exactly what we (and Ministers) have been saying for years we do not do, and could not justify!”

As a result of this intervention the DI55 officer backed down and sent a memo to the Director General of Scientific & Technical Intelligence (DGSTI) on 11 March 1988 which read:

“I understand that when Sec(AS)2 heard about the study, they decreed that all work should cease as it was in contravention of Ministerial statements to the effect that UFOs did not pose a threat to the UK, and that resources would not be diverted from more important work to investigate UFO incidents.”

Striking a note of disappointment and annoyance, he added: 

“I also understand that there was some concern about public reaction if knowledge of the work being undertaken emerged in the media.”

DI55’s intention, he explained, was that Science 3’s database and report would provide “the definite UK position on the subject [UFOs] and that it could be used for many years to respond to PQs [Parliamentary Questions] and the like. However, it now seems that all work must stop.” Following this debacle, Science 3 was removed from the list of branches who received copies of UFO reports. A terse minute from its director, dated 24 March 1988, reads: 

“As of now the subject is removed from Science 3 (Air)’s field of professional interest and the subject has been deleted from its task list.” 

Clearly he had been visited by the “Men from the Ministry”!

But the impetus to produce a database of cases which could form the basis for a definitive study did not end in 1988. And curiously, it was DI 55 who continued to champion the cause for a fully funded study of UFOs in the face of continued attempts by the “UFO desk” – Sec(AS) - to place obstacles in its path.

On 1 June 1993 the DI55 desk officer wrote to his new opposite number in Sec(AS)2a, Nick Pope, who was already noted as being more sympathetic to the subject than his predecessors: 

“You may be interested to hear that at long last I have had some funds allocated for serious UFO research. The study will include a review of our data, the construction of a database, a detailed review of specified incidents and recommendations for the future…Needless to say we do not want this broadcast and it is for your information only.”

A follow up minute from DI 55 to Sec(AS), dated 18 October 1993, makes some fascinating revelations concerning intelligence interest both in the USA and Russia. The DI 55 officer writes:

“A cursory glance at [our] files indicates that over the years a large amount of data has been accumulated. We have never therefore established if UAP’s exist and, if they do, whether or not they pose a defence threat to the UK, Some recent events, and a cursory examination of the files indicate that the topic may be worthy of a short study.”

And he added:

“I am aware, through intelligence sources, that Russia believes that such phenomena exist and has a small team studying them. I am also aware that an informal group exists in the US intelligence community and it is possible that this reflects a more formal organisation…It is difficult to meet our remit of advising on possible threat implications since we have never studied the topic of UAPs [Unidentified Aerial Phenomena].”

But despite initial optimism DI 55 said it could not afford to divert any of its desk officers to examine UFO files “to determine whether we should apply any significant effort to the matter.” They went on to propose the employment an outside contractor – a person “well known to DI 55” – who could be offered the task as an extension on an existing defence contract. This would, they said, avoid having to put the project out to tender which:

“….would potentially expose the study to too wide an audience…since a potential exists for political embarrassment.”

DI55 attached a draft copy of the proposed contract for the UFO study which specified the employment of:

“….a degree level engineer, with a [technical intelligence?] background, to prepare an Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) database” 

Part of his remit would be to produce technical reports as required. He would be based at the Old War Office building and receive security screening from DI 55. At this point, the contract – which it was envisaged would last up to one year – was fully funded and had three main outcomes: 
the production of a database 
the production of a report 
possible follow-on activities as directed by DI55 
But even at this early stage the project hit a familiar obstacle – cuts in defence funding – and the initiative did not go ahead. DI 55 made two further attempts in 1995 to gain approval for funding but the timing clashed with the onset of a Defence Study, deemed more important than UFOs, and the project was shelved yet again. 

Nick Pope left the post of Sec(AS)2a in the summer of 1995 and his successor, Kerry Philpott, was far less positive about the merits of the UFO study. But the papers make clear that Philpott and her superior, M.J. Fuller, the head of Sec(AS) were unaware of further developments for a further two years. The head of Sec(AS) only received notification of plans to initiate a new UFO database as a prelude to a study when he embarked upon an internal review of UFO policy early in 1997. 

But by this stage, the original fully funded DI55 contract proposed in 1993 had been dramatically reduced in size and scope. It was now decided that work on the UFO study should take place within an existing defence contract with no additional money allocated to cover the UFO element. When the existing DI 55 officer retired late in 1996, responsibility for the study passed to a defence contractor who, perhaps significantly, had a background in the RAF and technical intelligence.

The contractor’s SECRET memo to Sec(AS) dated 22 January 1997 outlines the new terms of reference for the project, now codenamed CONDIGN. It involved the production of a computerised database from scratch, drawing upon information contained in 22 DI 55 files dating back to 1975. Once the database was populated his task was to make a “categorisation” or arrive at any possible explanation of UAP events. These would be examined in the final report. The expert emphasised that he wished to keep “a low profile”, writing to Sec(AS) as follows:

“…as …..[deleted] ……one could imagine the embarrassment to…. [deleted] if my activities were media knowledge – especially as they would undoubtedly soon link these with my other known activities on……..and probably connect my long-standing involvement with DI55 – which we also wish to avoid….”

Work began on the database early in 1997 and continued until 2000 when the report was completed. “Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) in the UK Air Defence Region” consisted of four volumes and contained 460 pages. The report examined more than 3,000 reports made to MoD between 1987 and 1997. Its distribution was strictly limited to a tiny number of defence and intelligence branches of MoD. At this point the computerised database used to draw it up was destroyed.

=== 4. Why do the Defence Intelligence Staff use the phrase UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena) rather than UFO? ===

One version of the acronym UAP [with the meaning ‘Unidentified Atmospheric Phenomenon’] was coined by UFOlogist Jenny Randles in her discussions with the American astronomer Dr J. Allen Hynek during the late 1970s. Hynek acted as consultant to Project Blue Book and created the famous UFO classification system that included Close Encounters of the First, Second and Third Kind. Jenny recalls that:

“…we talked about his classification scheme and how I felt it needed to be updated. I argued that UAP was a better term to use in order to interest scientists because it presumed less and was more accurately descriptive than UFO, which, both by its use of the word object and by years of presumed application now inferred a material craft, usually a spacecraft, in many people's minds. Whereas, as he and I knew, most UFOs never had the remotest likelihood of being such a thing but still deserved to be recognised. I used it a lot on my lectures after that point. In December l980 I addressed the House of Lords UFO Study Group in Westminster and certainly used the term there.”

In UFO Study (1981) Jenny defines UAP (pronounced ‘whap’) as a term: 

“more valid than UFO for the phenomenon we are studying….Unidentifiable [sic] implies it is not presently explicable to any observer and atmospheric phenomenon covers all possibilities for origin (both natural and artificial) and thus implies nothing.”

It is therefore curious to find that, apparently simultaneously, the term UAP was being used by the MoD’s Defence Intelligence Staff. UAP can be found in some intelligence documents dating from the mid-1960s but the acronym recurs again during the mid-1990s under similar terms of reference. In a Loose Minute headed “Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) Policy” dated 25 April 1997 the head of DIST, referring to the acronym UFO used by his opposite number in Sec(AS), writes:

“…an immediate difficulty arises over the use of the term ‘UFO’. This term is discredited in some circles and I think that consistent use of UAP would be much more satisfactory. This would then avoid an immediate association with ‘extraterrestrial’ phenomena and the difficulty which arises in trying to distinguish whether events are ‘extraterrestrial’ or not, a judgement which we are strictly incapable of making. While analysis may enable MoD to identify some phenomena, those that remain are by definition ‘unidentified’ rather than ‘extraterrestrial.’”

Did Britain’s chief of defence intelligence have copies of Jenny’s UFO books in his personal library? This might seem unlikely, until you become aware of the contents of another ‘Secret’ memo from his office, dated 1995, that includes the line:

“I have several books at home that describe our [DI 55’s] supposed role of ‘defender of the earth against the alien menace’ – it is light years from the truth!”

Returning to the UFO/UAP issue, in a minute headed “Unidentified Flying Objects – Policy’ dated 13 May 1997, Sec(AS) head Mr M.J. Fuller insists that UFO be retained, in public at least:

“You say that you would prefer the term ‘UAP’ rather than ‘UFO’. Presentationally this would give us some problems. To the vast majority of the public – and it is the public we deal with – ‘UFO’ with all its ‘extraterrestrial’ connotations is the only one they recognise. Most are not interested in the difference and, to avoid any more confusion in their minds, we shall continue with ‘UFO.’”

To which DIST responded on 28 May:

“UFO/UAP. I note that you will continue to use the term ‘UFO’ and appreciate your logic. We prefer to use the term UAP internally to DI(ST) since I believe that it more accurately describes this topic.”

Despite this internal spat, the internal use of UAP by DIST persisted and was finally used in the title of the DI 55 study completed in December 2000. 

5. What is the significance of the classification “Secret” applied to the UAP Report?

The MoD has stated publicly on many occasions over the past 40 years that the topic of UFOs was not classified. The material released at the TNA suggests, however, that on occasions when UFO reports impinged upon other areas that were covered by security – for example, the capabilities of defence radars – they could become subject to the Official Secrets Act (OSA). For example, an Air Ministry document from 1960 states clearly:

“The Press are never to be given information about unusual radar sightings…unauthorised disclosures of this type will be viewed as offences under the Official Secrets Act.” (DEFE 31/117)

In the UK there are two levels of security classification for official documents: Secret and Top Secret. In 1998 the MoD released a group of Top Secret documents which refer to UFOs at The National Archives. These are the minutes of the DSI/JTIC committee, 1950-51 which refer to the Flying Saucer Working Party. The FSWP report itself was classified "Secret/Discreet” and the Air Ministry Secret Intelligence Summary was classified “Secret – UK Eyes Only.”

In Hansard, House of Lords, 25 January 2001, Lord Hill-Norton asked “what is the highest classification that has been applied to any MoD document concerning UFOs” The reply was: 

“A limited search through available files has identified a number of documents graded Secret. The overall classification of the documents was not dictated by details of specific sightings of ‘UFOs.’”

Hill-Norton followed up his question with another on 3 May asking “why the UFO documents referred to were classified secret; whether these documents had any caveats attached to them; and what was the reason for any such caveats.” The answer came: 

“One document was classified ‘Secret’ with a ‘UK Eyes Only’
caveat because it contained information about the UK air defence ground environment that could be of significant value to hostile or potentially hostile states. Associated correspondence was given the same classification. Generally, however, notifications of and correspondence on the subject of ‘UFO’ sightings are unclassified.”


=== 6. Was the “UFO desk” (Nick Pope’s former post at Sec(AS)) made aware of the existence and conclusions of the DI 55 study? ===

Ironically, in view of the dispute over the term UFO and the ongoing confusion over who within MoD had “need to know” on the topic, it is significant that Sec(AS) were not included in the distribution list of MoD branches who received copies of the report. 

According to the DIST minute of 4 December 2000 announcing completion of the study, only the Director General (Research & Technology) along with DI 55 and DI51 received copies of all four volumes. DG(R&T) was, in 2000, Mr Mike Martin CBE, who later became the MoD’s Science and Technical Director. According to the Civil Service Yearbook (2004) this post “supports the Chief Scientific Adviser and provides scientific advice including technical scrutiny of equipment projects.”

The UK Air Defence Ground Environment (UKADGE) received the Executive Summary and Volume 3 which contains “sensitive” material related to the limitations of UK radar in the detection of UAPs. 

Summaries of the UAP Report were sent to the Deputy Chief of Defence Intelligence (DCDI), to the Inspectorate of Flight Safety (RAF) and to HQ MATO [Military Air Traffic Organisation, RAF Uxbridge], which ceased to exist in 2001 following a merger with Strike Command. Significantly, in their covering letter DIST added: 

“…while most of the report is classified as only SECRET we hardly need remind addressees of the media interest and consequently the sensitivity of the report. Please protect accordingly, and discuss the report only with those who have a need to know.”

Sec(AS) – renamed DAS in 2001 - was conspicuous by its absence from this privileged distribution list. Presumably this was because someone at a higher level in the pecking order felt they had no “need to know.” This may well be a direct result of the activities of the former Sec(AS) desk officer Nick Pope who had gone public with his pro-UFO beliefs in 1996, a period which coincided with the doubling of the workload for the UFO desk staff.

In November 2005 David Clarke asked DAS staff how, if they were not included in the distribution of the report, they learned of DIST’s decision. The reply, dated 23 November 2005 stated: 

“I have searched our UFO Policy file for the period and there is no document specifically concerning this issue. I can therefore only assume that we were informed by telephone.”

So much for claims that Sec(AS) were the central focal point for all UFO matters within the Ministry of Defence!


== Copyright ==

'''Copyright David Clarke 2006'''


== External Links ==

* [http://www.uk-ufo.org/condign/condbg.htm Original Article on Dr. David Clarke's Homepage]

[[Category:UFO Articles]]