Introduction to NOUFORS

What's New


Michel M. Deschamps - Director

Personal Sightings

Sightings Archive

Newspaper Archive


UFO Characteristics

UFO Physical Traces

Animal Mutilations

UFO Occupants

Crop Circles

Audio Clips



and UFOs

Military Officers
and UFOs

Scientists and UFOs

Astronauts and UFOs

Pilots and UFOs

Cops and Saucers

Celebrities and UFOs

Who's Who in

Skeptics and Debunkers

Encyclopedia of Terminology and Abbreviations

Kidz' Korner




Cosford RAF UFO Landing
Date: December 10, 1963
Location: Cosford RAF, United Kingdom

At around 11.30pm on the evening of December 10, 1963, a dome-shaped UFO touched down on the Royal Air Force base facility at Cosford, near Wolverhampton, bathed the surrounding area in a beam of green light, and was seen at close quarters by at least two RAF apprentices. At least, that has been the accepted story for the last three decades.

Source: 'Cosford: An Enduring Mystery,' Nick Redfern

Cosford: An Enduring Mystery
by Nick Redfern

In 1995, the Royal Air Force facility at Cosford, near Wolverhampton, is probably known for its huge museum which is home to an impressive collection of vintage military and civil aircraft. More than thirty years ago, however, Cosford became briefly famous for an entirely different reason.

At around 11.30 p.m., on the evening of December 10, 1963, a dome-shaped UFO touched down on the base, bathed the surrounding area in a beam of green light, and was seen at close quarters by at least two RAF apprentices. At least, that has been the accepted story for the last three decades.

In accordance with the British Government's 'thirty year ruling,' the Ministry of Defence's eighty page file on the case has recently been declassified and is now available for inspection at the Public Record Office. Its contents make for interesting reading.

Rumours that something extraordinary had occurred at the base surfaced almost immediately, but it was not until early January 1964 that matters escalated. On January 9, Wilfred Daniels, a UFO investigator from Stafford, had the opportunity to speak with Reverend B.G. Henry, the Chaplain at RAF Cosford, and duly put to him a number of questions relative to the alleged close encounter.

We cannot be sure what was actually said during the course of their brief conversation (both men recalled their 'chat' in markedly different ways), but a controversy was created which raged for months.

In an April 13, 1964 letter to Waverney Girvan, editor of Flying Saucer Review magazine, Wilfred Daniels reported: "Flight Lieutenant Henry said that publication of his name would cause him trouble; that it was 'more than his job was worth' to arrange a meeting between me and the two RAF apprentices; that he really ought not to be talking to me about it at all; that security had dropped right down on the whole thing."

For his part, Reverend Henry's recollection were somewhat opposed to those of Daniels. A letter from Flying Officer R.A. Roberts at Cosford, to the Air Ministry at Whitehall, stated that Flight Lieutenant Henry "categorically denies all sttaments attributed to him." Flying Officer Roberts further added that the chaplain was "seriously considering taking legal action."

To his credit, Waverney Girvan resolved to get to the bottom of the mystery, and fired off a barrage of letters to both Cosford and the Air Ministry. As Girvan pointed out to the staff at Cosford, several contradictory explanations had been offered by the authorities to explain the encounter: 'Nothing at all', 'two drunk apprentices', 'a hoax', and, somewhat amusingly, 'a British Railways steam train' were the various theories mooted by the Air Ministry in its attempts to squelch interest in the case.

Smelling a rat, Girvan gave the incident pride of place in the next issue of Flying Saucer Review, and wrote a lenghty article on the case in the Kensignton News and West London Times. Commenting on the Government's 'self-contradictory explanations', Girvan said: 'What is it that the Air Ministry is trying so desparately to hide?'

Preferring to keep its head down, the Air Ministry fumed behind closed doors. Of particular concern to the Air Ministry, the media persisted in promotong the case: '...the Express and Star of Wolverhampton, in spite of seeking the Station's views, reported the boys' claim....,' grumbled the Ministry in an internal memorandum of March 12, 1964.

By May of that same year, the controversy had begun to die down and normality returned to RAF Cosford. The pro-UFO facrtions continued to champion the case, while the Air Ministry was more than happy to play the matter down.

So, what exactly did happen on that long gone winter's evening in December 1963? On the plus side, Waverney Girvan was a much-respected individual, well-known for his diligent researches. In addition, Wilfred Daniels had served in the military at the level of Captain - an equally credible source. Moreover, it is a proven fact that the Air Ministry did offer a variety of contradictory explanations in its attempt to dismiss the case.

On the other hand, the negative aspects of the case have to be addressed. Flight Lieutenant Henry was adamant that he had been mis-quoted by Wilfred Daniels; the possibility of him taking legal action was discussed in inter-departmental memos. Furthermore, a hand-written note which originated with the Air Ministry stated that with respect to the two apprentices who reported seeing the UFO: 'I believe the two boys in question wanted to get out of the servive - and we should not have been sorry to see them go.'

However, if nothing untoward occurred, why did the Air Ministry feel the need to offer a variety of ever-changing explanations as it sought to diffuse both public and media interest in the event?

In the final analysis, whatever truth lies behind the alleged 1963 UFO encounter at RAF Cosford, of only one thing we can be truly certain: with the release of the Government's eighty page file on the incident, the decades-old controversy looks certain to re-surface.


Nick Redfern is perhaps the UK's leading researcher into Government involvement with UFO cases.


Source: http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case57.htm
No infringement intended. For educational purposes only.