On the 9th of April I wrote to the Air Ministry in London requesting an interview with an officer who was conversant with the "Flying Saucer Mystery". Not so very long ago, the very idea of doing this would immediately have resulted in one "being labelled "daft". But time and an awful lot of very convincing reports of "U.F.O's" (Unidentified Flying Objects, the military term for "Flying Saucers") have changed things more than somewhat. In short, my request was granted and I travelled down to London in the (very) small hours of the morning full of optimism.
I had arranged to meet a fellow "Saucerer" on the A.M. steps at 10 a.m. We met as arranged and marched boldly up the imposing looking steps and through the glass doors. We were directed to the left and came to a quite ordinary looking ''enquiry desk". Our appointment was confirmed so we wended our hopeful way up an escalator, into a lift (self operated) and up another four floors. On this floor we "encountered" another desk and here we had to fill in a form. This done to the gentleman's satisfaction we were taken along more corridors until we at last arrived at the office.
Inside was an ordinary (everything was ordinary in the A.M.) desk which was occupied by three or four telephones and a handsome looking individual, dressed in "civvies". Somehow it wasn't quite what I had expected but we were invited to "pull up a couple of chairs and make ourselves comfortable."
So our interview which lasted for over two hours began. I WASN'T "tongue-tied" as I expected to be and the questions simply flowed out in orderly array. For me to recite all the questions we asked the officer would simply confuse the layman; they weren't technical questions but to anyone who hadn't made a study of saucer sightings they wouldn't mean anything at all.
My first question concerned a sighting which took place in Scotland only last October; October 28th to be exact. The object came to within twenty yards of the observer at an altitude of only 50ft. I was especially interested in this sighting for I had investigated it personally. However I was doomed to disappointment. I had sent all the details of the case I had obtained to the A.M. some time ago but in answer to my question regarding the result of their investigation I was told that the A.M. does not investigate "second hand sighting reports." I was rather surprised at this for the A.M., had actually asked me for further details. We made arrangements to have photostatic copies of letters written to me by the person concerned, these would be forwarded to the A.M; the red tape would be cut and the wheels of investigation set in motion. I was promised that such results that COULD be released would be sent on to me. I had to be content at that.
We also had to be content with promises concerning two other sightings. We wanted the results of the A.M's investigation into the sighting made by young Steven Darbishire who lives near Coniston in Lancashire. This sighting you will remember was remarkable because of the photograph Steven obtained. The second sighting was that made by a "part time" R.A.F. flyer. He was Flt. Lt. Salandin. "The thing had a bun shaped top, a flange like two saucers in the middle and a bun underneath. It could not have been very far off for it more than filled my windscreen." This was part of Salandin's statement. The "man from the A.M." didn't know the answer to either of these two sightings. We did get a promise of any forthcoming information however. I was beginning to feel a little disgruntled, we were doing all the talking and getting nowhere at all. Maybe we were giving HIM information?
I decided to stick to sightings however, surely I would get an answer sometime. I asked about another "air to air" sighting. This time it involved the pilot and co-pilot of a Portugese (sic) "Skymaster" which was flying between Dunsfold and Epsom. Following is the pilot's description: "It was long, shaped like a cigar and silvery as though made from aluminium. It flashed past, just under our nose and at tremendous speed."
I DID get an answer to this one, but it nearly resulted in me falling from my chair. "Yes, that sighting was investigated, I was told, the A.M. is quite satisfied that what the pilot actually saw was one of those long toy balloons." To the layman this doesn't seem to fit: to the serious saucer student it sounds just plain "daft". I couldn't accept this and I made great haste to say so. I went at length into the details why I couldn't accept it. A restatement of the first reply was my only reward.
We tried two more sightings and the pattern changed somewhat. Answers we got all right but were told we mustn't repeat them let alone print the information we had been given. This was because the answers contained secret material. The quotation regarding the official secrets act was duly recited and there the matter ended.
I was still on sightings and I decided to try my luck with the "Thing Which Blazed Over Britain." Many of you will remember this incident. It occurred on March 24th, 1955. It hit the headlines in many newspapers the next day. It was given various descriptions and was seen from many different parts of Britain. Quite a number of witnesses described it changing colours, "Red, turning blue or green" was the description given in the Manchester "Daily Dispatch." A certain amount of evidence tended to show that it changed direction. Arthur Constance was so convinced that he had something that he made up an 18,000 word report and presented it to the A.M. So, I popped the question. I received the answer I might have expected. It was a meteor, Greenwich observatory said so. I had no intentions of arguing with the Greenwich observatory at that moment so that too I let drop.
I tried just one more sighting: that which took place at the glider championships at Lasham in Kent. It hadn't been reported to the A.M.
I changed my method of attack (if you could call it that at its best).
The following are most of the other points we covered:
1) The A.M. do NOT co-operate with other countries on the saucer problem. I listed five other countries which had official investigations in progress. There was no comment from the A.M.
2) I asked for NUMBERS of cases solved and unsolved so that some significance could be drawn from the percentages published by the A.M. Percentages by themselves, I remarked meant nothing at all. "Numbers are not available", said the A.M.
3) There is NOT a separate body within the A.M. which investigates U.F.O's.
I was mildly surprised at one statement and this was that the Ministry were most anxious to avoid the development of a similar situation to that which prevailed in the U.S.A. at the moment.
I asked, out of curiosity more than anything else if he (the official) was privately interested in the subject. He replied in the negative but added that this was probably because he was so indoctrinated with official procedure. (He had held his present post since 1946). He didn't know any other A.M. officials who were privately interested either.
He didn't think there was much chance of the report made out by the A.M. ever being made public.
Looking back on the whole interview; it was obvious that he hadn't told us all that he knew. Most of the answers came from "stock".
We were both reminded that to print anything we had been told not to could land us in serious trouble and what is more, our chances of obtaining further interviews at the A.M. would be zero. One thing is certain: The A.M. ARE SERIOUSLY INTERESTED IN THE SAUCER PROBLEM, and they will continue to investigate all reports of U.F.O's.
We were shown to the door at approximately 12.40 p.m. and. left after being invited to, "call again if you think we can help you." The promise of information on the three sightings we had asked about was also renewed. I am now anxiously awaiting those reports.
D. Wightman.
