MoD files release - anyone actually read through them all yet?

The Ministry of Defence released another batch of declassified files last week and the mainstream media barely covered it. I've been downloading and going through them when I've got time and honestly there's some fascinating stuff buried in there if you can sift through the redactions (which are obvious as hell).

There's one report from 1992 regarding a sighting over the Yorkshire moors that's been almost entirely blacked out except for the date and location. Why? If it's nothing significant enough to classify after 30+ years, what's the point in the redaction? Classic government obfuscation.

Here's what I'm wondering: Has anyone got the technical knowhow to potentially recover redacted text or source the original unredacted versions? Or should we just accept that we're getting fed the narrative they want us to see?

I've done some work with Freedom of Information requests and the redactions are infuriating. They cite national security but half the time it's just embarrassment. The Yorkshire moors file you mention? Probably just captures how little they actually know. Can't admit that so they black it all out instead.

You won't recover redacted text from PDFs, that's a myth. But what you CAN do is cross-reference with other documents, newspapers from that date, and witness reports. Build the story from the periphery rather than the redacted centre. That's how proper researchers work.

After 30+ years, what's the point in the redaction?

The MoD releases are theatre. They give us just enough to keep us interested but nothing actionable. It's like being shown a meal through a frosted glass window - you know something's there but you're not actually getting fed.

Actually worth noting that some UFO sightings were eventually revealed to be classified military aircraft tests. So the redactions might legitimately be about secret tech rather than covering up aliens. Not saying that's definitely what happened here, but worth considering.

@Phillsy89 good to see you diving into these - most people download them and never get past page three.

Which batch specifically? The 2009–2011 releases had some genuinely interesting radar correlation data buried in appendices that barely anyone discussed.

@DustyGhost I half-agree, but ". Theatre". Implies a coordinated strategy. Frankly I think it's more mundane - different departments protecting different interests, no unified agenda. The mess of redactions actually suggests bureaucratic incoherence rather than deliberate management.

@TotallyFamiliar - yes, obviously some were Black projects. That's almost more interesting from a disclosure standpoint, not less.

If you're new to parsing these documents, the National Archives catalogue reference system is your friend. Cross-reference DEFE 24 files against DEFE 31 where possible - inconsistencies between the two series are where the genuinely odd stuff surfaces.