MOD Reply to our letter

Here follows the transcript of Ms Philpot's reply to a letter sent to her on 16th March by ORTK UK coordinator Mr John Holman.

You will notice it's formal and non committal style. It is also worth noting that much of it's contents seem to contradict information already made public by Nick Pope, Ms Philpot's predecessor at the MOD.

It seems to me, that they do not really have an 'official policy' and that their replies are usually muddled and not really knowing what their exact stance is.


MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
Miss K Philpott, Secretariat(Air Staff ) 2a, Room 8245,
Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1A 2HB
Telephone (Direct Dialling) 0171 2182l40
(Switchboard) 0171 2189000

Mr J Holman                             Your reference
20 Newton Gardens
Ripon                                   Our reference
North Yorkshire                         D/Sec(AS)12/3
HG4 lQF                                 Date: 5 April 1995

Dear Mr. Homan,

1.    Thank you for your letter of l6th March.

2. First I feel it important to explain once more the precise
responsibility that the Ministry of Defence has in connection with
the subject of unexplained aerial phenomena, to clear up any
lingering misconceptions. The MOD and HM Forces have responsibility
for the defence of the United Kingdom. In order to carry out that
responsibility we must ensure that we remain vigilant for any
potential threat, from whatever source. It is therefore quite
proper that we look at reports of unexplained aerial phenomena in
order to establish whether what was seen is of defence significance.
If no threat is discerned, and in connection with unexplained aerial
phenomena this has been the case in all instances to date, we make
no further attempt to investigate and establish exactly what may
have been seen.

3. As such, we do not have any direct interest, expertise or role
in respect of UFO/"flying saucer" matters, or those relating to the
existence or otherwise of extraterrestrial lifeforms, about which
we remain totally open-minded. We therefore in fact fully concur
with your statement in paragraph 3 that "the MOD's role in
maintaining the security of the United Kingdom has little to do
with the UFO subject".

4. Moving on to other points you raise in your letter I can confirm
that the document entitled "International Roswell Initiative" which
you enclosed with your letter of 27 February to Lord Henley was
passed to this office. As the explanation in my second paragraph
should have made clear, the incident to which this material refers
falls outside this Department's area of responsibility, and
therefore I have no comment on the document.

5. You refer to the 'UFO' sightings over Belgium in l990. In view
of their location and the lack of any indication that any threat
was posed, the Belgians decided not to notify any other country and
the UKwas not made aware of these detections. They occurred outside
the UK Air Defence Region and there is no record of any detections
having been made on any British system. When this matter was raised
by a member of the public last year, our experts confirmed that
there was no reason to question the judgement made by the Belgian
authorities at the time.

6. You asked why letters from the public directly addressed to
Ministers on the subject of "UFOs" are always answered by this
office. All letters from the public sent to Ministers on any topic
are routinely passed to the section with responsibility for the
matter addressed for official reply; in the case of unexplained
aerial phenomena, this office would respond. You will appreciate
that the volume of correspondence sent to Ministers is extremely
high, as such they generally only personally reply to letters sent
by Members of Parliament, peers and so on.

7. With reference to paragraph 3 of your letter it is incorrect to
say that the MOD has "decided that UFOs do not represent a threat
to the defense and security of the United Kingdom"; this is a clear
misrepresentation of our stated position. To reiterate once more,
the MOD remains properly vigilant for any potential source of
threat; however, it remains the case that to date no "UFO"
sightings has ever thrown up evidence of a physical threat to the
UK.

8. I am afraid that your assertion that we would wilfully
manipulate files to ensure that they would not be released to the
Public Records Office in the proper fashion does not deserve a
response. I have already explained in my letter of 8 March that the
terms of the Public Records Act apply to all Departmental files,
including those in this office relating to reports of unexplained
aerial phenomena.

9. I hope that this letter will serve to clear up any remaining
misconceptions.

Yours sincerely,
(signature: M Philpott)

Add a comment to this article

I am sorry to report that no further comments are to be left for articles here. We thank you for past comments. This feature has been disabled.


Home	Blog	Computing	Security	Software	Misc	Wildlife	Links	Feedback		Section Index