The official catalogue entry for the MoD's Rendlesham file. An open public record with redactions; record opening date 17 August 2009. Free to view at Kew, paid download online.
TNA's guide to the August 2009 release. Says DEFE 24/1948 covers the Rendlesham incident, that Halt's memo opens the file (p6), and that the MoD's final position statement is in DEFE 24/1970.
“They claimed a UFO had landed in the forest, leaving traces including markings on the ground and radiation.” source
OFFICIALDr David Clarke, consultant to The National Archives · 2009-08
TNA's own explanation of the Rendlesham files: the MoD could not explain the incident but judged it of no defence significance because nothing was seen on radar. Also quotes Lord Hill-Norton's objections and Michael Heseltine's denial of a cover-up.
“The file also shows the MoD were unable to explain the incident, but decided it was of "no defence significance" as no unidentified objects had been detected on radar at the time.” source
OFFICIALLt Col Charles I. Halt, Deputy Base Commander, USAF (transcription by Ian Ridpath) · 1981-01-13
Halt's one-page memo: lights and a ‘metallic’ triangular object seen by patrolmen, three depressions, beta/gamma readings, and star-like objects watched for hours. Unclassified; released under the US FOIA in June 1983.
“Numerous individuals, including the undersigned, witnessed the activities in paragraphs 2 and 3.” source
Transcription on Ian Ridpath's (sceptical) website; archive.org copy because his site has no https (live at http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/appendix.html). The original is in TNA file DEFE 24/1948 (p6, per TNA's guide).
CLASSIFIEDDeclassifiedFILE NO. 006SHEET 2 OF 4
Testimony
Interviews and witness statements: who, in what role, when and where it was said.
WITNESS81st Security Police Squadron, USAF (scans published by Ian Ridpath) · 1981-01-02
The five airmen's own statements on the first night. Buran's and Chandler's are dated 2 January 1981, the others undated. Burroughs and Cabansag describe following a ‘beacon’ light they came to identify as a lighthouse; Penniston's includes sketches of a small object.
Scanned images hosted with commentary by Ian Ridpath, a sceptic; obtained via Citizens Against UFO Secrecy in 1997. Archive.org copy (live at http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham2c.html). Our summary follows his descriptions; we have not transcribed the scans.
CLASSIFIEDDeclassifiedFILE NO. 006SHEET 3 OF 4
Press
Newspaper and magazine coverage, then and now. Linked, never copied.
Forester Vince Thurkettle on the ‘landing site’ and the lighthouse; John Burroughs on what he says he saw; former MoD desk officer Simon Weeden, via Dr David Clarke, on why the MoD took no further action.
“Once we had been through all the basic checks and found there was nothing seen on radar - no obvious explanation, no obvious threat to air defence - we decided no further action was needed,” source
Halt, 35 years on, says Bentwaters air traffic controllers gave him sworn statements about a fast object on radar, and alleges government disinformation. His claims as reported; no documents are published with them.
“They saw the object go across their scope -- a 60-mile scope -- in two or three seconds.” source
CLASSIFIEDDeclassifiedFILE NO. 006SHEET 4 OF 4
Analysis
Our own reading of the file, written from the sources on the other sheets. Opinion is marked as such.
The core of this file is unusually solid for a UFO case: a signed memo from a USAF deputy base commander, written statements from the airmen on the first night, and the MoD's own correspondence, now public at The National Archives. What those papers record is what the men said they saw: a strange glowing object in the forest, three depressions, radiation readings and lights in the sky. They do not record any identification.
The papers also record how little the MoD did with it. Halt reported almost two weeks late and in a low-key way; the MoD checked its radars, found nothing, and judged the matter of no defence significance. Sceptics, led by Ian Ridpath, argue the whole case dissolves into three ordinary lights: a bright fireball around 3 a.m. on 26 December, the Orford Ness lighthouse flashing through the trees, and stars low on the horizon. Local police who attended the first night reported seeing only the lighthouse.
Our label is Unexplained because the only official body that looked at the case, the MoD, closed it without saying what the lights were. The sceptical explanation is detailed and well argued but it is not an official finding, so the label is not Explained. The later, larger stories told by some witnesses decades on are not supported by the 1980–81 documents.
What it shows
That USAF personnel at RAF Woodbridge reported unexplained lights on two nights in December 1980, and that their deputy base commander put it in writing to the MoD.
That the MoD received the memo, checked its radars, found nothing, and decided the incident was of no defence significance.
That the case's paperwork is public: the MoD file is at The National Archives as DEFE 24/1948, and the memo has been public since 1983.
What it doesn't prove
That anything landed. The ‘landing marks’ were identified by local police and a forester as rabbit scrapes, and the radiation readings are disputed as normal background.
That there was a cover-up. The MoD's file shows a short, low-key check, not a hidden investigation.
Anything about the later stories. The 1980–81 statements describe lights; claims of touching a craft or radar tracks came years or decades later.
The other side
The sceptical case, made in detail by Ian Ridpath since 1985, is that the airmen saw three ordinary things: a brilliant fireball over southern England around 3 a.m. on 26 December, the Orford Ness lighthouse flashing between the trees, and bright stars low in the sky. Local police called out on the first night reported seeing only the lighthouse. On this reading the case is not unexplained at all, only unofficially explained.
The leading sceptical analysis, first published in The Guardian in 1985 and updated since: a fireball, the Orford Ness lighthouse and stars; landing marks as rabbit scrapes; radiation at background level.
“At its most basic, the case comes down to the misinterpretation of a series of nocturnal lights – a fireball, a lighthouse, and some stars.” source
Archive.org copy: the site has no https (the https address failed with an SSL error); live at http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham.html.
Presents the Suffolk police letter on the officers called to the forest on the first night; the full constabulary file was released under the UK FOI Act in January 2005. The officers saw only the lighthouse.
“the only lights visible to the officers visiting the incident were those from Orford light house” source
The quoted line is from the Suffolk police letter as reproduced on Ridpath's page. Archive.org copy (live at http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/police.html).
TO VERIFY Candidates, not yet checked
Halt's notarised affidavit of June 2010 (he states he believes the objects were extraterrestrial): seen only via Ian Ridpath's critique and fan sites; no primary copy found.
Jim Penniston's later account (a notebook and a ‘binary code’ received from the craft): only on fan sites and tabloid-style coverage; not used.
Halt's audio tape of the second night: transcript exists on ianridpath.com/ufo/halttape.html; not opened or used here.
Date of the MoD's ‘final position statement’: TNA's 2009 podcast script says it was written for Lord Trefgarne in 1995; Ridpath dates the Trefgarne briefing to October 1985 (DEFE 24/1925, pp. 115–116). Check against the file.
Reports (2011) that some MoD Rendlesham files were destroyed: seen only in a Wikipedia copy; no primary source opened.
TNA's UFO page nationalarchives.gov.uk/ufos now redirects to the UK Government Web Archive, which refused our request (HTTP 405).
Found, but not linked to a source we trust. Not on the sheets until they are.
