Rendlesham Forest declassified documents—why is the RAF still so cagey about 1980?

Right, so I've been digging through the recently released files on Rendlesham (thanks to the Freedom of Information requests finally bearing fruit), and something's still not adding up. We've got official documentation stating that RAF Bentwaters recorded unusual radar returns on 26th December 1980, which directly contradicts the earlier "weather balloon" explanation.

What's interesting is the sections that are still redacted. Entire pages of technical analysis just blacked out. If this was genuinely just a misidentified satellite or astronomical phenomenon, why would there be anything sensitive to hide four decades on?

The government's position seems to be: "Yes, something happened. No, we won't tell you what. No, you can't see the technical analysis. Thanks for asking." I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but this is pretty clearly managed disclosure - giving us just enough to admit something occurred, while withholding anything actually substantive.

Has anyone dug deeper into these newly released documents? There are some genuinely odd inconsistencies in the RAF's official statements that deserve scrutiny.

The redactions are almost certainly just standard classification protocol. Military installations don't release their detection capabilities regardless of the UFO angle - it's basic operational security. Doesn't mean there's a cover-up, just means they're being sensible about what they publish regarding radar systems.

I've got the full unredacted documents actually - got them from a mate who works in archives at the MoD (can't say how, but let's call it "fortuitous access"). The blacked-out sections contain nothing particularly dramatic, mostly just equipment specs and technical jargon. The real story is in what's visible: the RAF did investigate something genuinely anomalous that night.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but this is pretty clearly managed disclosure

This is my exact take. The Pentagon's been doing the same thing with their UAP reports - releasing enough to make headlines while withholding the meaningful analysis. It's strategic transparency designed to control the narrative without actually admitting anything substantive.

Worth reading the interviews with Colonel Charles Halt, who was the deputy commander that night. His account is remarkably consistent and detailed, which is what you'd expect from a credible witness. The US military doesn't tend to let colonels go on record with wild fabrications.

Has anyone filed their own FoI requests specifically asking for the redacted content analysis? Sometimes the requests need to be very precise - asking for "technical equipment specifications from Rendlesham 1980" separately from "radar analysis of anomalous returns." Might get through some of the redactions with a clever enough request.