New FOIA request batch from Rendlesham 1980 - anything interesting in the redactions?

Morning everyone. Someone's posted a new batch of declassified documents from the Rendlesham Forest incident over on the UFO Reddit community, and I thought it might be worth discussing here since we've got some proper document analysts in the community.

The interesting bit - there are some newly released files that show RAF Bentwaters staff conducted measurements the morning after the main sighting. Half the technical data is still redacted (black bars everywhere), but the visible bits mention 'electromagnetic anomalies' and 'radiation readings inconclusive.' The thing is, why would they still be redacting radiation data from 1980? That's over 40 years ago.

Has anyone got access to better quality scans? The ones on the government website are absolutely rubbish quality and you can barely make out the headers. Keen to see if anyone with better connections has pulled the original PDFs.

The redactions are pretty standard Cold War protocol stuff, mate. Even now they won't release full technical specs on what kind of monitoring equipment RAF Bentwaters had, for operational security reasons. It's not necessarily a conspiracy - it's just that the Yanks and Brits are still protective of their sensor technology details. Still interesting though that they mention radiation readings at all.

I've got the high-res scans from the National Archives request I made last year. They're honestly not much clearer - the redactions go right through the measurement data. What's fascinating is the timing of the redaction decisions. Some documents released in 2016, these new ones in 2024? Suggests someone was still monitoring release schedules pretty carefully. Doesn't necessarily mean cover-up, but it means *someone* cared enough to keep reviewing it.

why would they still be redacting radiation data from 1980?

Because if they admitted radiation readings were off the charts, they'd have to acknowledge something happened that violated their understanding of physics. Much easier to redact it than explain it. Just my opinion though - could be completely innocent operational security bollocks.

This is the problem with chasing FOIA stuff - you end up spending months analysing half-visible documents and the goal posts just keep moving. I spent two years on the Rendlesham case and honestly there's no smoking gun, just layers of institutional caution. The incident happened, something weird occurred, and the military wanted to understand it quietly. Standard procedure for unexplained phenomena.