Our agent at that time, Perry Knowlton in New York City, was friends with Ramsey Clark, the former U.S. Attorney General. He set up a meeting with us, and I met with Mr. Clark in person. He said to me, “I’m going to make some phone calls for you,” but he says, “I’m going to tell you this―after knowing everything―they say it was because you talked about nuclear weapons, that’s all.”
Mr. Clark said, “People in England suspected there were nukes there all the time. I will tell you this: your passport was suspended because of the other things you’ve talked about,” and he wouldn’t elaborate any more. He made two phone calls, and the Department of State, with apologies, said it was an error.
So, we’ve tried to do our best. I’d be willing to speak and swear to this in front of any congressional body. I have great respect for my country, and I think it is the people’s right to know.
[See Appendix 7 for supporting document.]
Lord Hill-Norton is a five-star Admiral and the former head of the British Ministry of Defense.
I know a good bit about the Bentwaters incident. I’ve interviewed a number of the people who took part in it, and what I have decided after careful thought, is that there are only two explanations for what happened that night in Suffolk. The first is that the people concerned―including Colonel Halt, who was, at the time, the Deputy Commander of the Base, and a lot of his soldiers―claim that something from outside the Earth’s atmosphere landed at their air force base. They went and stood by it; they inspected it; they photographed it.
The following day they took tests on the ground where it had been and found radioactive traces; they reported this. Colonel Halt wrote a memorandum, which was sent to our Ministry of Defense. He has appeared on British television at least once, to my knowledge―possibly more often―in which he has repeated, effectively, what he said in that memorandum. What he said is what I have just described. That is one explanation―that it actually happened as Colonel Halt reported.
The other explanation is that it didn’t happen. In that case, one is bound to assume that Colonel Halt and all of his men were hallucinating.
My position is perfectly clear―either of those explanations is of the utmost defense interest. It has been reported and claimed―and I, myself, have raised it to ministers at the Defense Ministry in this country―that nothing they have been informed about regarding UFOs is of defense interest. Surely, to any sensible person, either of those explanations cannot fail to be of defense interest. That the Colonel of an American Air Force Base in Suffolk and his military men are hallucinating when there are nuclear-armed aircraft on the base―this must be of defense interest.
And, if indeed what he says took place, did take place―and why on Earth should he make it up―then, surely, the entry of a vehicle from outer space (and certainly not manmade) to a defense base in this country also cannot fail to be of defense interest. It simply isn’t any good for our ministers―and the Ministry of Defense in particular―to say that nothing took place that December night in Suffolk, or that it is not of defense interest. It simply isn’t true.
Since my name has become connected with UFO matters in quite a big way in this country, and in one or two other countries too, I have frequently been asked why a person of my background―a former Chief of the Defense Staff, a former Chairman of the NATO Military Committee―why I think there is a cover-up, or what the reasons may be for government’s wishing to cover up the facts about UFOs. A number of explanations have often been put forward. The most frequent, and perhaps the most plausible, is the government’s concern (which is primarily that of the United States, and that of my own country) over the public’s reaction if they were told the truth―which is that there are objects in our atmosphere which are technically miles in advance of anything that we can deploy, that we have no means of stopping them coming here, and that we have no defense against them, should they be hostile.
I believe governments fear that if they did disclose those facts, people would panic: people would rush about and jam switchboards like they did that famous day in New Jersey, when there was a spoof that the Martians had landed―people will go mad, and they will jump up and down.
I don’t believe that at all―I’ve said so in print. I do not believe that people today, in the twenty-first century, are going to panic at that sort of information. After all, they have put up with the introduction of nuclear weapons and the destruction of two Japanese cities 50 years ago. They take as a matter of course that we can land vehicles on Mars―land to the precise instant, forecast years before. So why should they panic? They are much more interested in doing the pools or the lottery. They would shrug their shoulders and take it as a matter of course. Anyway, they don’t trust politicians, in my experience.
What I’d like to say is that there is a serious possibility that we are being visited―and have been visited for many years―by people from outer space, from other civilizations; that it behooves us to find out who they are, where they come from, and what they want. This should be the subject of rigorous scientific investigation, and not the subject of rubbishing by tabloid newspapers.
It seems to me that the Bentwaters incident is a classic case where an apparent intrusion into our airspace―and indeed, a landing in our country―occurred, which was witnessed by serious-minded people in the military―responsible people, doing a responsible job.
And, Bentwaters is, in a sense, a benchmark for how not to deal with these matters in the future.
[Our deepest gratitude goes to James Fox for sharing this interview.]
Daniel Sheehan, Attorney. As an associate under Floyd Abrams in the First Amendment Division, he represented NBC News and the New York Times. He was also one of the defense attorneys for the New York Times in the Pentagon Papers case, one of the trial lawyers in F. Lee Bailey’s office representing James McCord in the Watergate burglary defense, and was chief counsel in the Karen Silkwood case.
I served as Chief Counsel for the United States Jesuit Headquarters in Washington, D.C. in their National Social Ministry office, which is their public policy office dealing with major policy issues. I served there from 1975 to 1985 under Superior General Pedro Arrupe, the Father General from Rome. And it was during that period of time that these particular events occurred.
In January of 1977, I received a telephone call from Marsha Smith, the Director of the Science and Technology Division of the Congressional Research Service of the United States Congressional Library. She had been contacted by the Science and Technology Committee of the House of Representatives and had been informed that President Jimmy Carter had contacted the congressional staff in order to conduct a major investigation undertaken by the United States Congress. It seems, after being sworn in, the new president had asked the still-in-place Director of Central Intelligence, George Bush Sr., for access to the classified documents relating to Unidentified Flying Objects and the potential existence of extraterrestrial intelligence.
George Bush Sr. refused to release the information, stating, “If you want to have this information, I’m not going to give it to you on my watch. If you want to proceed before having your own DCI put in place, you would have to follow the following procedure. You’d have to go to the United States Congress, to the Science and Technology Committee of the House of Representatives, and ask them to undertake a process by means of which the Congress can get certain documents declassified. They can ask for a declassification process to be undertaken.”