01.07.2014 Views

1 - The Black Vault

1 - The Black Vault

1 - The Black Vault

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Untitled Document<br />

• ~"'")(t~<br />

<strong>The</strong> Rendlesham MoD file: Some Preliminary Thoughts<br />

Jenny Randles<br />

<strong>The</strong> release of this file to David Clarke in May 2001 is of considerable interest,<br />

given the prominence of the Rendlesham Forest case in UFO thinking. But It also<br />

has great significance in terms of other modern British incidents - for we might<br />

now hope to get better official information on them without having to walt 30<br />

years and find re-investigation badly compromised.<br />

This recognition may be more important long term than the release of the files on a case<br />

that was already of diminishing import in terms of scientific UFO evidence - as obvious from<br />

'<strong>The</strong> UFOs that Never Were' written two years before this file was released.<br />

However, Rendlesham has held - and will still hold - a vice-like grip on most UFOiogists<br />

because it offers them the lure of being 'the big one' - a single case that could change the<br />

world. And so any information that helps to illuminate the path towards resolution is to be<br />

welcomed.<br />

Yet, of course, whilst this file does not add much to any resolution of the case itself, and, it<br />

will always be arguable whether it even reflects the sum total of official knowledge on both<br />

sides of the Atlantic (with some no doubt suspecting hidden files may yet lurk somewhere<br />

unannounced) it is of great value. This is especially because of the picture that it paints<br />

about the approach of the MoD's public visage to UFO investigation.<br />

<strong>The</strong>re are no great surprises in the image that it portrays. But there is great interest<br />

because we now have clear, on the record, data from the MoD that all sensible people<br />

should accept as being truthful - at least within the purview of those compiling the reports.<br />

Indeed - I would submit - these records would not be untruthful. <strong>The</strong>y may not be complete<br />

(indeed the MoD have admitted to withholding some files) but they will be honest. <strong>The</strong> MoD<br />

simply would not lie on open record. It would be too potentially destructive for any<br />

government caught doing so.<br />

Ralph Noyes - himself a senior figure in the MoD who dealt with UFOs and who ran DS 8 at<br />

one point in his career - taught me from our various discussions that if the powers that be<br />

do not want to say something then they do not lie. <strong>The</strong>y just don't say it. If they do say it<br />

then you can<br />

confidently assume that it is basically true.<br />

As such it is proper that we consider this MoD file not as offering untruths but as providing<br />

genuine pointers towards what happened.<br />

Here is a summary of the key things that seem to emerge from the new information and<br />

my thoughts about them- based as yet on only a study of the summary. I will probably add<br />

more when I examine the full report.<br />

1: <strong>The</strong> dating of the Events<br />

<strong>The</strong>re is no question in my mind - and has not been since one of the three original<br />

witnesses (John Burroughs) told me this in 1989 - but these two events occurred in<br />

Rendlesham Forest in the early hours of 26 December and overnight on 27/28 December.<br />

<strong>The</strong>re were other minor sightings at other times (many caused by airmen who were aware<br />

of the gossip from around base and so went skywatching in the forest determined to see<br />

'the UFOs' for<br />

themselves). But the Rendlesham legend revolves around these two nights.<br />

http://www.flyingsaucery.corn/Rendlesham/comjen1.htm 22/10/01

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!