Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Interview With Two British Police Officers Describing UFO Encounter in 1967


Recommended Posts

This is a very rare interview given by two British police officers back in 1967 who described on camera their UFO encounter. Truly amazing and it relates very much to the more recent sightings because the officers described the characteristics of this object. It made no sounds(!), it moved at great speeds(!), and the acceleration away from them was terrific(!).

The video is short and the link:

The story has been covered by the BBC 20 years ago!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/devon/news_features/2004/ufos.shtml

The officers were visited by someone from the MoD (Ministry of Defense) and were asked to keep the story to themselves because they were serving officers at that time and were reminded of the Official Secrets Act.

Sgt Roger Willey and Pc Clifford Waycott were on their way back to their police station when they were diverted to an investigation which they've never been able to solve.

I don't know if they are still alive but when the BBC revisited their case in 2004 there was no official explanation and they were still waiting for something logical to be added after so many years.

They said:

"We've just gently been asked to sweep it under the carpet. It didn't happen - that's what they said. But we know what we saw."

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, MrAnderson said:

This is a very rare interview given by two British police officers back in 1967 who described on camera their UFO encounter. Truly amazing and it relates very much to the more recent sightings because the officers described the characteristics of this object. It made no sounds(!), it moved at great speeds(!), and the acceleration away from them was terrific(!).

The video is short and the link:

The story has been covered by the BBC 20 years ago!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/devon/news_features/2004/ufos.shtml

The officers were visited by someone from the MoD (Ministry of Defense) and were asked to keep the story to themselves because they were serving officers at that time and were reminded of the Official Secrets Act.

Sgt Roger Willey and Pc Clifford Waycott were on their way back to their police station when they were diverted to an investigation which they've never been able to solve.

I don't know if they are still alive but when the BBC revisited their case in 2004 there was no official explanation and they were still waiting for something logical to be added after so many years.

They said:

"We've just gently been asked to sweep it under the carpet. It didn't happen - that's what they said. But we know what we saw."

 

The skeptics will just say that Cops are prone to mistakes just like anyone else.  I've been down this road before. The "sweep it under the rug" statement  seems to be a recurring event with Cops, or military. Then there's the threats from Gov't agents to military personnel, as well as civilians. Why make threats if it's much adoo about nothing?

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hankenhunter said:

The skeptics will just say that Cops are prone to mistakes just like anyone else.  I've been down this road before. The "sweep it under the rug" statement  seems to be a recurring event with Cops, or military. Then there's the threats from Gov't agents to military personnel, as well as civilians. Why make threats if it's much adoo about nothing?

 

And why anyone should care what the skeptics have to say. It's the police officer who are the center of attention and their testimony is very important. If the case wasn't important there would be no need for someone from the MoD to visit them and ask them to keep quiet. Something has been going on in that area.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MrAnderson said:

And why anyone should care what the skeptics have to say. It's the police officer who are the center of attention and their testimony is very important. If the case wasn't important there would be no need for someone from the MoD to visit them and ask them to keep quiet. Something has been going on in that area.

Here's another mystery. If these objects are some kind of black ops secret project, why are they seen flying over heavily populated areas, military installations, and navy exercises at sea? Are they stupid, as well as super smart?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Hankenhunter

Did you watch the video?

See how clear and confident are in their descriptions.

Did you notice the common characteristics between their sightings and other sightings?!

No sounds, moving at greet speeds, and the second officer to the right of the screen says the acceleration away from them was terrific.

When asked if they are sure about what they saw in both the interview and later on by the BBC, they said they know what they saw.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Hankenhunter said:

Here's another mystery. If these objects are some kind of black ops secret project, why are they seen flying over heavily populated areas, military installations, and navy exercises at sea? Are they stupid, as well as super smart?

This is a great question to which I have no good answer.

The other important observation is that as time passes the capabilities of these objects are not becoming available to the next generations. The sighting in 1967 was as mysterious as an identical sighting at this moment in time

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, MrAnderson said:

@Hankenhunter

Did you watch the video?

See how clear and confident are in their descriptions.

Did you notice the common characteristics between their sightings and other sightings?!

No sounds, moving at greet speeds, and the second officer to the right of the screen says the acceleration away from them was terrific.

When asked if they are sure about what they saw in both the interview and later on by the BBC, they said they know what they saw.

Yes, I watched it. They were very matter of fact explaining what they saw. I found their acct. believable. I highly doubt that anyone in that time period had access to that kind of technology. Thanks for posting this. I hadn't seen this one before.

Edited by Hankenhunter
Content
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Hankenhunter said:

Yes, I watched it. They were very matter of fact explaining what they saw. I found their acct. believable. I highly doubt that anyone in that time period had access to that kind of technology. 

It was unthinkable for British Police officers to lie at that time and especially come up with 'crazy' stories like this one. You can never be 100% sure about what happened and if they said the truth or lied but chances are they described what they saw.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ell said:

Video / testimony is not very informative.

There is another article I posted from the BBC dating back to 2004.

I found the short interview truly amazing because it's very rare to find officers who are willing to speak on camera at that time.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Ell said:

Video / testimony is not very informative.

What would you consider informative? A landing on your front lawn?

Edited by Hankenhunter
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Hankenhunter said:

The skeptics will just say that Cops are prone to mistakes just like anyone else.  I've been down this road before. The "sweep it under the rug" statement  seems to be a recurring event with Cops, or military. Then there's the threats from Gov't agents to military personnel, as well as civilians. Why make threats if it's much adoo about nothing?

 

And go through a lot of trouble to debunk a case. Even the most compelling ones. Too many reports over the years to just write off just because of its bizarre nature. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Hankenhunter said:

What would you consider informative? A landing on your front lawn?

That would do it.

These UFO sightings leave to much to the imagination... and we all know there is plenty of that when it comes to this topic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Hazzard said:

That would do it.

These UFO sightings leave to much to the imagination... and we all know there is plenty of that when it comes to this topic. 

But then you would be in the same boat as believers, and no one but believers would give you the benefit of the doubt. Or would you refuse to tell it here for fear of being ostracized? See what I'm getting at here? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, MrAnderson said:

Did you watch the video?

See how clear and confident are in their descriptions.

Did you notice the common characteristics between their sightings and other sightings?!

No sounds, moving at greet speeds, and the second officer to the right of the screen says the acceleration away from them was terrific.

When asked if they are sure about what they saw in both the interview and later on by the BBC, they said they know what they saw.

Let me point you to one of the many cases of witness testimony and video evidence telling completely different stories. There are countless others involving multiple officers with cases such as misidentification of suspects, wrongful convictions, false incident reports, fabricated evidence, etc - all where the truth would not be exposed if it were not for bodycam evidence. 

https://www.police1.com/officer-shootings/officer-confuses-a-falling-acorn-for-a-gunshot-here-is-why-it-can-easily-happen-again

"The deputy later stated he thought the sound was a gunshot from a suppressed weapon. He also believed he had been shot because he felt an impact on his torso, and his legs suddenly lost their normal function."

"In fact, the deputy had not been shot and the suspect was unarmed."

"...the deputy in this case was a graduate of West Point, an officer in the US Army’s Special Forces and was twice deployed to tours in Afghanistan. Without knowing more, the deputy certainly seems like someone with the proper background to thrive in a high-stress environment."

Edited by csspwns
  • Thanks 2
  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, csspwns said:

Let me point you to one of the many cases of witness testimony and video evidence telling completely different stories. There are countless others involving multiple officers with cases such as misidentification of suspects, wrongful convictions, false incident reports, fabricated evidence, etc - all where the truth would not be exposed if it were not for bodycam evidence. 

https://www.police1.com/officer-shootings/officer-confuses-a-falling-acorn-for-a-gunshot-here-is-why-it-can-easily-happen-again

"The deputy later stated he thought the sound was a gunshot from a suppressed weapon. He also believed he had been shot because he felt an impact on his torso, and his legs suddenly lost their normal function."

"In fact, the deputy had not been shot and the suspect was unarmed."

"...the deputy in this case was a graduate of West Point, an officer in the US Army’s Special Forces and was twice deployed to tours in Afghanistan. Without knowing more, the deputy certainly seems like someone with the proper background to thrive in a high-stress environment."

It doesn't look to be one of these cases. Why don't you want to discuss a case where the witnesses are very reliable and know what they saw.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, MrAnderson said:

It doesn't look to be one of these cases. Why don't you want to discuss a case where the witnesses are very reliable and know what they saw.

Reliable witnesses that know what they saw???😄

That is about as far from credible evidence and the scientific method as we can get.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Hazzard said:

Reliable witnesses that know what they saw???😄

That is about as far from credible evidence and the scientific method as we can get.

Let's face it. The scientific method is great...if you can get the scientists to investigate it. Most won't for fear of ostrasizing from colleagues, loss of funding from donors, or job loss. The same thing can be applied to the existence of spirit.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Hazzard said:

Reliable witnesses that know what they saw???😄

That is about as far from credible evidence and the scientific method as we can get.

The two police officers are reliable witnesses who know what they saw. You can't apply the scientific method when their sighting lasted for a short period of time and cannot be repeated. It's a sighting and we are not in a scientific laboratory. Other sightings are captured on videos and are photographed, not this one.

Police officers are reliable witnesses and you can't have anything better. There is no reason for them to lie and to risk their jobs and reputations. The year is 1967 and it would be unthinkable to fabricated stories for fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, MrAnderson said:

It doesn't look to be one of these cases. Why don't you want to discuss a case where the witnesses are very reliable and know what they saw.

This is one of those cases. The main difference here is that there's bodycam footage that disproved a "reliable witness." I don't discuss cases where the only evidence is witness testimony because there's no unbiased evidence to corroborate that with. The logical fallacy that you're employing is appeal to authority. Do you have an issue with relying on higher standards of evidence beyond the proven-to-be unreliable witness testimony? 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, csspwns said:

This is one of those cases. The main difference here is that there's bodycam footage that disproved a "reliable witness." I don't discuss cases where the only evidence is witness testimony because there's no unbiased evidence to corroborate that with. The logical fallacy that you're employing is appeal to authority. Do you have an issue with relying on higher standards of evidence beyond the proven-to-be unreliable witness testimony? 

You re in the wrong thread I am afraid. If you want to discuss your own case then why don't you post the story somewhere else.

I am not appealing to authority. That's false.

The police officers are reliable witnesses with no motivation to lie about what they saw and risk their careers and reputations.

They have been explaining their sighting to the ITN reporter and that's all. Nothing less and nothing more.

If would be great to have video evidence but it was 1967. Even in our times it's difficult to capture these phenomena on video because you don't have much time to react.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, MrAnderson said:

You re in the wrong thread I am afraid. If you want to discuss your own case then why don't you post the story somewhere else.

I am not appealing to authority. That's false.

The police officers are reliable witnesses with no motivation to lie about what they saw and risk their careers and reputations.

The case I posted is relevant to your point about police officers being reliable witnesses. Case in point, I've proven how a police officer's testimony is unreliable after comparing the bodycam footage with the officer's reactions in the moment.

 @Saru Is the case I posted irrelevant to this discussion? If so, please let me know and I will refrain from posting similar cases in the future.

14 minutes ago, MrAnderson said:

They have been explaining their sighting to the ITN reporter and that's all. Nothing less and nothing more.

If would be great to have video evidence but it was 1967. Even in our times it's difficult to capture these phenomena on video because you don't have much time to react.

In our time compared to past times, the amount of unexplainable mass and enormous-sized UAP sightings (such as those over cities, this is due to all cities having cameras everywhere), has only decreased with the advent of quality video-recording technology. There are also zero peer-reviewed / scientifically confirmed cases of crafts moving at extraordinary speeds and despite numerous claims, nothing captured on camera has been conclusive. The existing UAPs are all confined to the "low-information zone" where data limitations exist such as recorded objects being at max viewing distance from cameras - thus rendering them unidentifiable, missing frames of reference for providing reliable velocity and position data, non-existent 1:1 radar data and video footage corroboration (this would be the highest standard of evidence, sadly nonexistent). All objects where quality data exists to analyze them have been identified as mundane. 

It's 2024, we have automatically recording devices almost everywhere, the point of not having much time to react is quite irrelevant unless modern-day UAPs have a fetish for only showing up in remote areas where only a handful of people can witness them. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, csspwns said:

The case I posted is relevant to your point about police officers being reliable witnesses. Case in point, I've proven how a police officer's testimony is unreliable after comparing the bodycam footage with the officer's reactions in the moment.

 @Saru Is the case I posted irrelevant to this discussion? If so, please let me know and I will refrain from posting similar cases in the future.

It serves the purpose of demonstrating that police officers are not infallible witnesses, they can make mistakes.

That said, their testimony - like that of pilots and astronauts - does tend to hold more weight than that of the average witness.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, MrAnderson said:

When asked if they are sure about what they saw in both the interview and later on by the BBC, they said they know what they saw.

If they knew what they saw, it wouldn't have been a UFO ;)

Surely the point is that they don't know what they saw?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, Saru said:

That said, their testimony - like that of pilots and astronauts - does tend to hold more weight than that of the average witness.

I know that some would like to think so, but for me, who worked with and known pilots all my life simply dont agree with this... and neither do they.

As for cops... we have those in the family (and friends) and I dare to say the same for them.

Only human... and by that I mean they are all as prone to EXACTLY the same mistakes and misidentifications as the next guy.

I have previously told a couple of stories here about my pilot colleagues (and my own) UFO sightings, and how wrong we ended up beeing.  @MrAnderson

Edited by Hazzard
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The topic was locked
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.