0:00:02 > 0:00:061,000 years of history under one roof -
0:00:06 > 0:00:11The National Archives, a treasure house of secrets,
0:00:11 > 0:00:15the records of extraordinary times and people.
0:00:15 > 0:00:18These files are this nation's story,
0:00:18 > 0:00:20our shared past.
0:00:20 > 0:00:24Documents housed here were highly classified,
0:00:24 > 0:00:28intended for the eyes of only the privileged few,
0:00:28 > 0:00:33protected from your sight for decades, but not now.
0:00:37 > 0:00:43I've been granted special access to files once kept hush-hush.
0:00:43 > 0:00:48I'll unearth amazing tales from our hidden history.
0:00:48 > 0:00:53Forget what you've been told. These documents tell the truth.
0:01:04 > 0:01:08Coming up in this programme, a letter from Jack the Ripper.
0:01:10 > 0:01:12"I have laughed when they look so clever
0:01:12 > 0:01:15"and talk about being on the right track.
0:01:15 > 0:01:17"How can they catch me?"
0:01:17 > 0:01:19This isn't a straightforward psychopath
0:01:19 > 0:01:22who has no understanding of human emotion or empathy
0:01:22 > 0:01:25and so it's someone we would think of as pure evil.
0:01:25 > 0:01:29Wartime poster, post-war conspiracy theory.
0:01:29 > 0:01:32The explosive hypothesis of why Kitchener vanished.
0:01:32 > 0:01:35He proposed that Kitchener had actually been murdered
0:01:35 > 0:01:38and the sinking of the Hampshire was deliberate.
0:01:40 > 0:01:42And is the truth in here?
0:01:42 > 0:01:47The top-secret government files on unidentified flying objects.
0:02:00 > 0:02:04State documents may be classified confidential,
0:02:04 > 0:02:07secret, top-secret.
0:02:07 > 0:02:11No wonder conspiracy theories abound.
0:02:11 > 0:02:15Are conspiracies behind our most enduring mysteries?
0:02:16 > 0:02:20Well, none has endured like this one,
0:02:20 > 0:02:22the shadow solitary figure
0:02:22 > 0:02:26stalking the gas-lit streets of Victorian London,
0:02:26 > 0:02:30selecting his victims with meticulous care,
0:02:30 > 0:02:31disembowelling them
0:02:31 > 0:02:33in cold blood
0:02:33 > 0:02:37and taunting the police with cryptic clues.
0:02:37 > 0:02:39He remains our best-known
0:02:39 > 0:02:41serial killer,
0:02:41 > 0:02:45but our image of him is based mainly on a letter
0:02:45 > 0:02:50which may be a hoax or may be from the killer.
0:02:50 > 0:02:53And here I have that very letter
0:02:53 > 0:02:56delivered to London's Central News Agency
0:02:56 > 0:03:00on September the 27th, 1888
0:03:00 > 0:03:05shortly after two prostitutes had been murdered and mutilated.
0:03:05 > 0:03:08It starts with the words Dear Boss
0:03:08 > 0:03:13and ends with the signature Jack the Ripper.
0:03:14 > 0:03:17"I keep on hearing the police have caught me,
0:03:17 > 0:03:19"but they won't fix me just yet.
0:03:19 > 0:03:21"I've laughed when they look so clever
0:03:21 > 0:03:24"and talk about being on the right track.
0:03:24 > 0:03:26"How can they catch me?"
0:03:27 > 0:03:32'But the final paragraph is the most unnerving of all
0:03:32 > 0:03:33'because it makes a prediction.'
0:03:35 > 0:03:38"The next job I do, I shall clip the lady's ears off
0:03:38 > 0:03:42"and send them to the police officers just for jolly.
0:03:42 > 0:03:44"Wouldn't you?
0:03:44 > 0:03:46"My knife's so nice and sharp,
0:03:46 > 0:03:51"I want to get to work right away if I get a chance."
0:03:51 > 0:03:54Three days later, two more butchered women
0:03:54 > 0:03:57were found in London's East End
0:03:57 > 0:04:00and an ear of one of the victims - Catherine Eddowes -
0:04:00 > 0:04:02had been partially severed.
0:04:02 > 0:04:07How do I feel about this extraordinary bit of paper?
0:04:07 > 0:04:09Without this,
0:04:09 > 0:04:13this killer would not have gone into history as Jack the Ripper,
0:04:13 > 0:04:17probably the most notorious serial killer
0:04:17 > 0:04:19in British legal history.
0:04:19 > 0:04:22And then - horrible thought -
0:04:22 > 0:04:24this may actually be the handwriting,
0:04:24 > 0:04:26this may be the work
0:04:26 > 0:04:30of that mass killer, that perverted mind.
0:04:36 > 0:04:40On the other hand, it could be a fake.
0:04:40 > 0:04:42The police weren't sure at the time
0:04:42 > 0:04:46and experts have debated its authenticity for decades.
0:04:48 > 0:04:51It's all added to the sense of mystery
0:04:51 > 0:04:55which continues to fascinate right up to the present day.
0:05:00 > 0:05:03Today, Jack the Ripper is big business.
0:05:03 > 0:05:08His legend has spawned books, movies, merchandise,
0:05:08 > 0:05:11even walking tours like this.
0:05:11 > 0:05:14But none would exist without that letter
0:05:14 > 0:05:15now lying in the Archive.
0:05:17 > 0:05:19So, you are, at most, going to get
0:05:19 > 0:05:21maybe six inches radius pool of light
0:05:21 > 0:05:23around just the base of each lamppost
0:05:23 > 0:05:25and other than this kind of flickering puddle of light,
0:05:25 > 0:05:29the rest of these alleyways would be plunged into a thick, inky darkness.
0:05:29 > 0:05:32So dark, in fact, to the point where you wouldn't even be able
0:05:32 > 0:05:34to see your own hands in front of your face.
0:05:34 > 0:05:37And I like to think that that's the perfect environment
0:05:37 > 0:05:40for the world's first highly publicised
0:05:40 > 0:05:43and internationally recognised serial killer
0:05:43 > 0:05:45to begin his Autumn of Terror.
0:05:47 > 0:05:50Does recounting the story of Jack the Ripper
0:05:50 > 0:05:54teach us history or merely prolong a hoax?
0:05:54 > 0:05:56Retired detective Trevor Marriott
0:05:56 > 0:06:00believes that the infamous letter was written not by the murderer,
0:06:00 > 0:06:03but by a journalist with an eye for a headline.
0:06:03 > 0:06:07The prime suspect, I think, was a man by the name of Thomas Bulling
0:06:07 > 0:06:10who worked for the Central News Agency.
0:06:10 > 0:06:12Well, of course the Central News Agency
0:06:12 > 0:06:13is where the Ripper letter -
0:06:13 > 0:06:16the Dear Boss letter - was actually delivered to.
0:06:16 > 0:06:18And so, clearly, whoever wrote the letter
0:06:18 > 0:06:21and had it delivered to the Central News Agency
0:06:21 > 0:06:25would have actually known that it would have got maximum exposure,
0:06:25 > 0:06:29as against somebody just sending it to one of the other newspapers
0:06:29 > 0:06:32that were in and around London at the time.
0:06:33 > 0:06:37A reporter making things up? Surely not.
0:06:37 > 0:06:38But let's say he did.
0:06:38 > 0:06:42Let's say he wrote the letter to create an artificial link
0:06:42 > 0:06:47between a series of random murders to create a sensational story.
0:06:47 > 0:06:49It still doesn't explain this.
0:06:51 > 0:06:54The letter predicts that there may be mutilation
0:06:54 > 0:06:56of the ears of the next victim
0:06:56 > 0:06:59and in the interval, the next victim has been mutilated.
0:06:59 > 0:07:02Isn't that suggestive that the letter is genuine?
0:07:02 > 0:07:04No, I don't think it is, to be totally honest.
0:07:04 > 0:07:07I think when you look at the ear,
0:07:07 > 0:07:11it was just probably a very lucky coincidence.
0:07:11 > 0:07:13In such a small sort of area,
0:07:13 > 0:07:16you had something like about 70,000 residents.
0:07:17 > 0:07:19'Since the Dear Boss letter
0:07:19 > 0:07:21'has been good for business over the years,
0:07:21 > 0:07:25'presumably the leader of this tour thinks it's genuine.'
0:07:25 > 0:07:27And what do you make of that letter?
0:07:27 > 0:07:30I think it's very neat.
0:07:30 > 0:07:33I think it's a very kind of...
0:07:33 > 0:07:35It's a bit served up on a plate kind of thing.
0:07:35 > 0:07:39I think it most likely probably was the work of a journalist.
0:07:47 > 0:07:50I'd like to seek out other points of view.
0:07:50 > 0:07:55Donna Youngs is a criminologist and psychological profiler.
0:07:57 > 0:08:00The kinds of particular details...
0:08:00 > 0:08:02For example, in the letter,
0:08:02 > 0:08:04the offender talks about putting the blood
0:08:04 > 0:08:06into a ginger beer bottle
0:08:06 > 0:08:09rather than simply talking about putting it into a bottle.
0:08:09 > 0:08:13Now, those sorts of details are often indicators of truthfulness,
0:08:13 > 0:08:17of somebody who really has gone through that experience.
0:08:17 > 0:08:20If the letter that I've seen signed Jack the Ripper
0:08:20 > 0:08:24is genuinely from the killer, why would he write a letter?
0:08:24 > 0:08:26The personalities of the sorts of people
0:08:26 > 0:08:29that can do these sorts of crimes
0:08:29 > 0:08:33means that, actually, they would find it excruciatingly painful
0:08:33 > 0:08:37not to be at the centre of the attention that they're creating.
0:08:37 > 0:08:40They'll be excited about getting away with it
0:08:40 > 0:08:42and they may even be insulted
0:08:42 > 0:08:45at the possibility that the police think it's somebody else.
0:08:45 > 0:08:47Extraordinary.
0:08:47 > 0:08:49What do you take from the letter
0:08:49 > 0:08:52in terms of the personality of the writer,
0:08:52 > 0:08:54the sort of background of the writer?
0:08:54 > 0:08:57The handwriting is actually very elegant.
0:08:57 > 0:09:01As psychologists, we like to look at what the purpose of the letter was,
0:09:01 > 0:09:03what the individual was trying to achieve,
0:09:03 > 0:09:05to tell us something about that individual.
0:09:05 > 0:09:10This letter is gleeful and is seeking to say that
0:09:10 > 0:09:13they're not actually ashamed of what they've done,
0:09:13 > 0:09:15which, in turn, suggests that they do indeed,
0:09:15 > 0:09:18in fact, actually recognise that what they've done
0:09:18 > 0:09:21is something that other people would find horrific.
0:09:21 > 0:09:23This isn't a straightforward psychopath
0:09:23 > 0:09:26who has no understanding of human emotion or empathy,
0:09:26 > 0:09:29but it is someone who knows that what they've done is very wrong
0:09:29 > 0:09:33and so it's someone we would think of as pure evil.
0:09:33 > 0:09:34- Pure evil?- Yes.
0:09:38 > 0:09:42The Ten Bells pub, famous because the Ripper's final victim -
0:09:42 > 0:09:45Mary Jane Kelly - was often seen drinking in there,
0:09:45 > 0:09:48also walking around the outside looking for her next client.
0:09:50 > 0:09:53Is it worse than you thought, the details?
0:09:53 > 0:09:55The details, yeah, yeah.
0:09:55 > 0:09:58He shined it down on the ground and indeed, this woman is dead.
0:10:03 > 0:10:05- That was a great tour. Great tour.- Thank you.
0:10:05 > 0:10:08I understand it so much better than I did before,
0:10:08 > 0:10:11the horror and the fact that it all happened in such a small area.
0:10:11 > 0:10:14Thank you for sharing the horror with me. Wow.
0:10:14 > 0:10:17'The mystery surrounding Jack the Ripper's identity
0:10:17 > 0:10:20'has led to many conspiracy theories.
0:10:20 > 0:10:23'It was a powerful politician, a famous author,
0:10:23 > 0:10:28'a member of the royal family, even a woman.
0:10:28 > 0:10:31'But the question of who wrote the Dear Boss letter
0:10:31 > 0:10:34'has prompted nearly as much debate.
0:10:34 > 0:10:37'Certainly, my very short investigation
0:10:37 > 0:10:40'shows that even seasoned experts are split.
0:10:42 > 0:10:45'But as with all good detective stories,
0:10:45 > 0:10:47'there's an extra twist.'
0:10:48 > 0:10:50The letter I held in my hand
0:10:50 > 0:10:54may have been written by history's most notorious murderer,
0:10:54 > 0:11:00one of the most vicious killers of any place, any time.
0:11:00 > 0:11:02That letter disappeared from the official files
0:11:02 > 0:11:05at the beginning of the 20th century
0:11:05 > 0:11:09and turned up again almost exactly a century
0:11:09 > 0:11:12after the Ripper stalked these dark streets,
0:11:12 > 0:11:16sent anonymously to Scotland Yard.
0:11:16 > 0:11:19We don't know who wrote it, we don't know who stole it,
0:11:19 > 0:11:25we don't know who sent it back and it gives me the creeps.
0:11:29 > 0:11:33Nothing breeds conspiracy theories
0:11:33 > 0:11:37more than the mysterious death of a famous person
0:11:37 > 0:11:41and when the body is lost at sea and in the fog of war,
0:11:41 > 0:11:44suspicions reach new depths.
0:11:46 > 0:11:51'The document I'm looking at now reveals a conspiracy theory
0:11:51 > 0:11:54'featuring one of our most iconic military leaders.'
0:11:56 > 0:11:59"Your country needs you."
0:11:59 > 0:12:02We can conjure up a picture of the moustachioed Lord Kitchener
0:12:02 > 0:12:04in his military uniform
0:12:04 > 0:12:08because he appeared in a highly successful recruiting poster
0:12:08 > 0:12:10at the beginning of the Great War.
0:12:10 > 0:12:14Like many of those recruits, he died in the conflict
0:12:14 > 0:12:18when the cruiser HMS Hampshire hit a mine in the North Sea.
0:12:20 > 0:12:23The government claimed that the sinking of the ship
0:12:23 > 0:12:26was nothing more than a chance of war.
0:12:26 > 0:12:29But the fact that Kitchener's body was never recovered
0:12:29 > 0:12:31fuelled suspicion.
0:12:31 > 0:12:35Some claimed foul play saying that the cruiser was sabotaged
0:12:35 > 0:12:39with everyone from German spies to Irish rebels being blamed.
0:12:40 > 0:12:43It was even suggested that there had been a plot
0:12:43 > 0:12:48involving the former First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill.
0:12:48 > 0:12:50Most people dismiss such rumours,
0:12:50 > 0:12:54but a few became super conspiracy theorists.
0:12:54 > 0:12:58None greater than one Frank Power
0:12:58 > 0:13:06who, in 1926, summoned an immense mass meeting.
0:13:06 > 0:13:11Frank Power made no secret at all of his suspicions.
0:13:11 > 0:13:14"I'm going to suggest to you on the strongest evidence
0:13:14 > 0:13:18"that there was internal treachery on the Hampshire.
0:13:18 > 0:13:20"I say there was proof of that.
0:13:20 > 0:13:24"There was another internal explosion on the Hampshire
0:13:24 > 0:13:27"which sounded the death knell of all these men.
0:13:27 > 0:13:30"Nobody ever knew exactly what happened.
0:13:30 > 0:13:34"The officials did hold an inquiry, but no-one was punished."
0:13:35 > 0:13:38Frank Power effectively claimed that Kitchener,
0:13:38 > 0:13:41whose image had led the Empire into war,
0:13:41 > 0:13:44was bumped off by his own side.
0:13:44 > 0:13:48He caused a media sensation, but could he be trusted?
0:13:49 > 0:13:51He was quite a showman.
0:13:51 > 0:13:55I mean, initially, he proposed that Kitchener hadn't actually died
0:13:55 > 0:13:57on the Hampshire - a double had gone down -
0:13:57 > 0:14:00and then people asked to see the body of the real Kitchener.
0:14:00 > 0:14:03He couldn't produce a real body so then he changed his tact
0:14:03 > 0:14:05to saying Kitchener had actually been murdered
0:14:05 > 0:14:08and the sinking of the Hampshire was deliberate.
0:14:10 > 0:14:14The government struggled to dismiss Frank Power as a nobody
0:14:14 > 0:14:16since he had an audience.
0:14:16 > 0:14:20He started off writing a column for the Sunday Referee, a popular journal
0:14:20 > 0:14:22and his column about various conspiracy theories
0:14:22 > 0:14:25to do with Kitchener became wildly successful.
0:14:25 > 0:14:28He started trying to make films about Kitchener's demise
0:14:28 > 0:14:30and he was making money and getting fame.
0:14:32 > 0:14:34But the more Power peddled his claim
0:14:34 > 0:14:38that Kitchener had been murdered, the more the public wanted proof.
0:14:38 > 0:14:40"Where's the body?" they demanded.
0:14:40 > 0:14:46Well, in 1926, he claimed to have found it in a grave in Norway
0:14:46 > 0:14:50and he vowed to bring it back for a hero's burial in Britain.
0:14:54 > 0:14:58This news captivated the nation and the newspapers.
0:14:59 > 0:15:02"Kitchener's grave found.
0:15:02 > 0:15:05"Great soldier's remains brought to England,"
0:15:05 > 0:15:09says the Referee on August the 8th, 1926
0:15:09 > 0:15:12in an article by...Frank Power.
0:15:13 > 0:15:15The nation held its breath.
0:15:17 > 0:15:21But Power had overlooked a very important point -
0:15:21 > 0:15:24you can't bury a body in Britain without a certificate.
0:15:25 > 0:15:29You can't issue the certificate without examining the body
0:15:29 > 0:15:33and you can't examine the body if it's locked in a coffin.
0:15:33 > 0:15:36The Metropolitan Police naturally became interested
0:15:36 > 0:15:40and when the coffin arrived in London,
0:15:40 > 0:15:42they examined it.
0:15:42 > 0:15:48"When the lid was unscrewed, there was...nothing in the shell
0:15:48 > 0:15:52"but traces of a substance like tar."
0:15:52 > 0:15:56But then, as the fraud is revealed,
0:15:56 > 0:15:59the tone of the press changes completely.
0:15:59 > 0:16:02The Sunday Express, 22nd of August.
0:16:02 > 0:16:05"The Kitchener outrage -
0:16:05 > 0:16:10"gambling on a hero's coffin, dicing on his shroud."
0:16:10 > 0:16:15There was a clear message from the British press to Mr Frank Power -
0:16:15 > 0:16:18this country does not need you.
0:16:37 > 0:16:40Here's a mystery for you to solve.
0:16:40 > 0:16:43What sort of person leaves the comfort of his home
0:16:43 > 0:16:48to set up camp in the freezing, pitch-black darkness
0:16:48 > 0:16:53with only a vacuum flask and a soggy sandwich for company
0:16:53 > 0:16:56and accessorised by a pair of binoculars?
0:16:56 > 0:16:59The sad life of an ex-MP?
0:16:59 > 0:17:02No, the real answer is out of this world.
0:17:04 > 0:17:09The wonders of the stars and planets at night...
0:17:10 > 0:17:13..that some people are looking for
0:17:13 > 0:17:18and discover something altogether weird.
0:17:18 > 0:17:21In December 1980, there were reports
0:17:21 > 0:17:26of unexplained lights over Rendlesham Forest in Suffolk.
0:17:26 > 0:17:29The sightings occurred over two nights.
0:17:29 > 0:17:34It is Britain's most famous unidentified flying object incident.
0:17:34 > 0:17:38The Ministry of Defence said it would not investigate
0:17:38 > 0:17:42as the event posed no threat to national security.
0:17:42 > 0:17:45The truth, however, is in here,
0:17:45 > 0:17:50in MOD files that remained secret for 30 years,
0:17:50 > 0:17:55accounts from those who witnessed the phenomena at first hand.
0:17:56 > 0:17:59"The individuals reported seeing
0:17:59 > 0:18:02"a strange glowing object in the forest.
0:18:02 > 0:18:06"The object was described as being metallic in appearance
0:18:06 > 0:18:08"and triangular in shape.
0:18:08 > 0:18:12"It illuminated the entire forest with a white light.
0:18:12 > 0:18:16"The object itself had a pulsing red light on top
0:18:16 > 0:18:20"and a bank or banks of blue lights underneath.
0:18:20 > 0:18:23"It was hovering or on legs.
0:18:23 > 0:18:26"Numerous individuals including the undersigned
0:18:26 > 0:18:28"witnessed the activities."
0:18:28 > 0:18:30And it's signed Charles I Halt...
0:18:32 > 0:18:36..Lieutenant Colonel, United States Air Force.
0:18:36 > 0:18:40This man cannot be dismissed as some hysteric.
0:18:40 > 0:18:45In fact, Lieutenant Colonel Halt was the deputy commander
0:18:45 > 0:18:47of nearby RAF Woodbridge
0:18:47 > 0:18:51where the American air force housed nuclear weapons.
0:18:51 > 0:18:54On one night, he led patrols to investigate
0:18:54 > 0:18:57what was going on in the forest.
0:18:57 > 0:18:59He even tape-recorded some of the events.
0:19:11 > 0:19:12"Later in the night,
0:19:12 > 0:19:17"a red, sun-like light was seen through the trees.
0:19:17 > 0:19:20"It moved and pulsed.
0:19:20 > 0:19:23"At one point, it appeared to throw off glowing particles
0:19:23 > 0:19:28"and then broke into five separate white objects and then disappeared.
0:19:28 > 0:19:33"The object to the south was visible for two or three hours
0:19:33 > 0:19:38"and beamed down a stream of light from time to time."
0:19:42 > 0:19:45So, extraordinary claims.
0:19:45 > 0:19:50On the surface, the Rendlesham case now appears far more intriguing
0:19:50 > 0:19:53than the MOD was prepared to admit at the time
0:19:53 > 0:19:56and with a seemingly credible witness.
0:19:58 > 0:20:01But sceptics take a different view.
0:20:05 > 0:20:09There's this idea that these are trained, credible witnesses,
0:20:09 > 0:20:11but it's like police officers and pilots,
0:20:11 > 0:20:13they're not trained to identify UFOs.
0:20:13 > 0:20:16Nobody is trained to identify an alien spacecraft.
0:20:18 > 0:20:20But Lieutenant Colonel Halt,
0:20:20 > 0:20:22I mean, here is a fairly senior officer
0:20:22 > 0:20:25at a base which I think may even have had nuclear weapons.
0:20:25 > 0:20:28It sounds as if he's had a close encounter.
0:20:28 > 0:20:30If these things that were seen were aliens,
0:20:30 > 0:20:33you've got to think about this and you've got to think,
0:20:33 > 0:20:35"Well, these are aliens that came across vast distances
0:20:35 > 0:20:37"and where did they go during the day?
0:20:37 > 0:20:39"Did they become invisible
0:20:39 > 0:20:41"or did they zoom back from wherever they'd come from
0:20:41 > 0:20:43"and then returned again the following night
0:20:43 > 0:20:45"just to spook Colonel Halt?"
0:20:46 > 0:20:49But nonetheless, the colonel's evidence
0:20:49 > 0:20:51is in the government's file.
0:20:51 > 0:20:54He recorded three depressions
0:20:54 > 0:20:57discovered in a rough triangular formation
0:20:57 > 0:21:00where a patrolman said that the UFO had landed.
0:21:07 > 0:21:09What about the indentations in the ground
0:21:09 > 0:21:11supposedly left by the craft?
0:21:11 > 0:21:15Two bobbies came from the local police station
0:21:15 > 0:21:17and looked at these marks on the ground
0:21:17 > 0:21:19supposedly left by the UFO
0:21:19 > 0:21:22and their conclusion was that it was rabbit diggings.
0:21:22 > 0:21:24Great importance has been placed
0:21:24 > 0:21:27on Colonel Halt's team's observations
0:21:27 > 0:21:29of the levels of radiation,
0:21:29 > 0:21:31which, according to their Geiger counter,
0:21:31 > 0:21:33were ten times higher than normal.
0:21:33 > 0:21:35The actual makers of the Geiger counter,
0:21:35 > 0:21:37who have been consulted about this, said that,
0:21:37 > 0:21:40when they've looked at the readings, they're completely meaningless.
0:21:40 > 0:21:43It's exactly what you would expect in a pine forest
0:21:43 > 0:21:45because there's a natural background radiation
0:21:45 > 0:21:48that you would expect to find. There's nothing unusual about it.
0:21:48 > 0:21:51For some, Rendlesham is a classic study
0:21:51 > 0:21:54in how conspiracy theories gain traction.
0:21:54 > 0:21:57When the authorities are quick to dismiss rumours,
0:21:57 > 0:22:00they're accused of having something to hide.
0:22:00 > 0:22:0435 years on, the incident still has its believers.
0:22:05 > 0:22:08How do you reply to those who say that absence of evidence
0:22:08 > 0:22:10is not evidence of absence?
0:22:10 > 0:22:13Well, I would reply by saying it's impossible to prove a negative.
0:22:13 > 0:22:16I can't prove that aliens didn't land in Rendlesham Forest.
0:22:16 > 0:22:18Obviously, something did happen
0:22:18 > 0:22:20because there were lots of soldiers charging around
0:22:20 > 0:22:22thinking that they were looking at UFOs.
0:22:22 > 0:22:24I don't think it was aliens
0:22:24 > 0:22:28and there's only a small, tiny group of American servicemen...
0:22:28 > 0:22:32Three, in fact. No more than that. ..who are making those claims.
0:22:32 > 0:22:34There were lots of other people who were on the base
0:22:34 > 0:22:38who just thought the whole thing was a load of hokum.
0:22:38 > 0:22:42Rendlesham may be the most famous reported UFO sighting in Britain,
0:22:42 > 0:22:44but there have been hundreds of others.
0:22:44 > 0:22:47The Ministry of Defence has a catalogue of them,
0:22:47 > 0:22:50including spaceships that look like Maltesers,
0:22:50 > 0:22:54orange tennis balls and inverted ice cream cones.
0:22:54 > 0:22:56There was about six other people with us
0:22:56 > 0:22:58and we said to them, "Look at the lights" and they looked
0:22:58 > 0:23:01and they were joined by more lights and in the end, we had eight lights.
0:23:03 > 0:23:07They were just round balls with legs sticking out
0:23:07 > 0:23:11and it just came right up beside me and...
0:23:12 > 0:23:14..I felt a tug on my trousers.
0:23:16 > 0:23:20Some reported sightings are frankly hard to believe.
0:23:20 > 0:23:22The MOD files include accounts
0:23:22 > 0:23:25from those eager to show the details of their close encounters.
0:23:27 > 0:23:32Here is a lovely representation of a spacecraft
0:23:32 > 0:23:35in all its beautiful colours.
0:23:35 > 0:23:40Here it is in black and white but showing how it blasts off,
0:23:40 > 0:23:43leaving a circle in the crops.
0:23:43 > 0:23:47And here are some difficult-to-interpret photographs
0:23:47 > 0:23:50taken through a window which show a series of red dots.
0:23:52 > 0:23:57Ah! Here, very helpfully, are drawings of aliens
0:23:57 > 0:24:00that have been done by members of the public
0:24:00 > 0:24:03and it may not come as a huge surprise for you to know
0:24:03 > 0:24:06that the male has pointy ears.
0:24:09 > 0:24:12We seen them come over from over there, you know.
0:24:12 > 0:24:17They come over, they sort of go in different sort of shapes.
0:24:17 > 0:24:22We've invented this UFO detector and it's connected to a buzzer
0:24:22 > 0:24:23and then should a UFO come over
0:24:23 > 0:24:26emitting any electromagnetic frequencies, it'll set off an alarm.
0:24:26 > 0:24:29ALARM BEEPS
0:24:29 > 0:24:32It's really getting a bit frightening up here.
0:24:32 > 0:24:34There's a whole formation
0:24:34 > 0:24:38of unidentified flying objects behind us.
0:24:39 > 0:24:44The quest for aliens isn't confined to amateur enthusiasts.
0:24:45 > 0:24:49In America since 1984, astronomers at
0:24:49 > 0:24:53the Search For Extraterrestrial Intelligence Institute
0:24:53 > 0:24:57have looked for signs of life beyond our solar system.
0:24:58 > 0:25:00But if such life exists,
0:25:00 > 0:25:04we may get the first inkling of it here in Britain.
0:25:16 > 0:25:19In search of scientific objectivity,
0:25:19 > 0:25:24I've come to the UCL Observatory in North West London,
0:25:24 > 0:25:26which is equipped with a number of telescopes,
0:25:26 > 0:25:32including this beautiful instrument made by Cooke in 1862.
0:25:32 > 0:25:36The people who work here are in the business of explaining phenomena
0:25:36 > 0:25:40and if extraterrestrials really are in the habit
0:25:40 > 0:25:42of visiting planet Earth,
0:25:42 > 0:25:45you'd think that they might see them coming.
0:25:47 > 0:25:49But beyond this observatory,
0:25:49 > 0:25:52British scientists have now set up the UK's own network
0:25:52 > 0:25:56to attempt to establish if there is extraterrestrial life.
0:25:57 > 0:26:02I wonder, the more we understand the vastness of the universe -
0:26:02 > 0:26:04if you CAN understand its vastness -
0:26:04 > 0:26:08the more it may seem improbable that we are alone.
0:26:08 > 0:26:11I mean, you know, it seems almost logical that out there somewhere,
0:26:11 > 0:26:14there must be some other life in such a vast space.
0:26:14 > 0:26:17That's what people usually say - there must be something out there.
0:26:17 > 0:26:20Do you have an open mind on extraterrestrials?
0:26:20 > 0:26:22I mean, for example, do you think it's possible
0:26:22 > 0:26:24that one day we will find them?
0:26:24 > 0:26:29Yes, I do, especially now when astrobiology redefined
0:26:29 > 0:26:31what the other life may look like.
0:26:31 > 0:26:33So, you mean we may have to content ourselves
0:26:33 > 0:26:35with a little bacteria or something like that?
0:26:35 > 0:26:39Well, the definition of life has been made much more simple.
0:26:39 > 0:26:43We are basically looking for the basic origins of life
0:26:43 > 0:26:46and the higher the chance to discover it is so.
0:26:48 > 0:26:51Which makes me think that scientists aren't on the lookout
0:26:51 > 0:26:54for the sort of spaceship I've seen in the Archives.
0:26:54 > 0:26:56Of course not.
0:26:56 > 0:26:58Instead, they record radio wave signals
0:26:58 > 0:27:02coming from the sky to analyse them for patterns.
0:27:02 > 0:27:05Does that imply, then, that we're looking for people
0:27:05 > 0:27:07- who know about radio waves?- Yes.
0:27:07 > 0:27:10- Ah. But now... - That is the assumption.
0:27:26 > 0:27:28Just before I blast off,
0:27:28 > 0:27:31and in case any conspiracy theorists are watching,
0:27:31 > 0:27:35I must declare a personal interest when it comes to UFOs.
0:27:35 > 0:27:38In 1996, people were still writing
0:27:38 > 0:27:41to the Secretary of State for Defence
0:27:41 > 0:27:44claiming that they'd seen unidentified flying objects.
0:27:44 > 0:27:46Here's one addressed to the Secretary of State,
0:27:46 > 0:27:51Mr Michael...Portillo in 1996
0:27:51 > 0:27:54and those replying on my behalf say,
0:27:54 > 0:27:57"We do not attempt to identify the precise nature
0:27:57 > 0:27:59"of each reported sighting.
0:27:59 > 0:28:01"From the types of descriptions we receive, however,
0:28:01 > 0:28:04"aircraft or natural phenomena
0:28:04 > 0:28:09"probably account for most of the observations."
0:28:09 > 0:28:14Well, I know that many, many people do believe
0:28:14 > 0:28:16in unidentified flying objects
0:28:16 > 0:28:19and so I'm sure that if I were to challenge them,
0:28:19 > 0:28:21they would say we're not alone.