Technical and scientific based journal looking at what has become known as "UFOs" -including natural phenomena some not yet scientifically understood. This is NOT a sensationalist publication but will contain fully referenced articles and reports to help promote further serious study.
A camera aboard NASA's Parker Solar Probe captured these photographs looking back to Earth — the bright circle in the right-hand image — on Sept. 25, 2018.
Credit: NASA/Naval Research Laboratory/Parker Solar Probe
NASA's Parker Solar Probe will never return to Earth — but it can still look back on where it came from.
On Sept. 25, the sole camera aboard that spacecraft, which launched on Aug. 12, captured a photo of Earth shining brightly in a field of stars. That camera is called WISPR (Wide-field Imager for Solar Probe) and is actually on board to allow the spacecraft to photograph the structure of the sun's upper atmosphere,the corona, as the spacecraft approaches — becoming the cosmic equivalent of a dashcam.
Earth is the bright spot near the center of the right-hand image. (The bow-shaped brightness below is just an artifact of how imaging technology designed to work inside the sun's atmosphere responds to an individual, particularly bright spot, according to a NASA statement.)
The above image zooms in on Earth to reveal a lump on the right side of the planet — which marks the moon.
Credit: NASA/Naval Research Laboratory/Parker Solar Probe
But there's another secret hidden in the image. The scientists behind the mission zoomed in on Earth and spotted a strange bulge on the right side of the planet in the image. But Earth isn't really misshapen: That lump happens to be the edge of the moon, visible from behind our planet.
When Parker Solar Probe captured this image, it was about 27 million miles away from Earth. Since then, it has continued its speedy journey toward the sun, thanks to a trajectory adjustment created by flying by Venus for the first of seven times.
The $1.5-billion spacecraft is beginning a seven-year mission to study the sun in greater detail than ever before, with scientists hoping that the project will help them understand the incredibly hot corona and how the solar wind, a river of charged particles that flows off the sun, is formed. The mission is due to complete its first solar flyby on Nov. 5.
Earth certainly seems small and insignificant. We've seen images of "tiny speck Earth" before but this is -I believe,and I am excluding aliens passing through the System- the furthest we've seen Terra from.
But are you telling me that none of those great "UFO hunters" spotted the flying saucer following our probe? Seen as solid and greyish toward bottom of the photo...
Blonde-haired, very large eyes. Someone saw me post this elsewhere and asked about it. They were well up on all the UFO abduction and alien hybrid literature but had not seen this one.
Odd John: A Story Between Jest and Earnest is a 1935 science fiction novel by the British author Olaf Stapledon. The novel explores the theme of the Übermensch(superman) in the character of John Wainwright, whose supernormal human mentality inevitably leads to conflict with normal human society and to the destruction of the utopiancolony founded by John and other superhumans.
The novel resonates with the ideas of Friedrich Nietzsche and the work of English writer J. D. Beresford, with an allusion to Beresford's superhuman child character of Victor Stott inThe Hampdenshire Wonder (1911). As the devoted narrator remarks, John does not feel obliged to observe the restricted morality of Homo sapiens. Stapledon's recurrent vision of cosmic angst – that the universe may be indifferent to intelligence, no matter how spiritually refined – also gives the story added depth. Later explorations of the theme of the superhuman and of the incompatibility of the normal with the supernormal occur in the works of Stanisław Lem, Frank Herbert, Wilmar Shiras, Robert Heinlein and Vernor Vinge, among others.
1935 well before the alien hybrid agenda. Yet some strikingly similar themes. Themes and images repeated over the decades and finding a new lease of life in the current Jacobs-fuelled alien abduction agenda.
There are even sketches of the Hubrids (human hybrids) that look as though they were traced from this book cover.
This is the reason why I have stated repeatedly for ten years or more that we need to note what these abduction researchers are doing (those who have not had practice licences revoked or chit-chat about their fetishes) but delve into those cases we have recorded prior to Hopkins, Streiber, Mack and especially Jacobs screwing investigation and research up. I'll point out that I supported all of them in their work, especially Budd who was a nice and well meaning person who wandered off the path.
I previously posted an item on how Mack, Hopkins and Jacobs got things messed up. I later went into more detail of how Jacobs was, based on what I had learnt, corrupting research and abandoning the Scientific Principles he claimed to hold to. I expanded on this in UFO Contact? and today I accidentally found an old The UFO Trail blog post that confirmed what I thought:
I also, on this blog as well as in Unidentified-Identified remarked on the fact that in the United States you were far less likely to have even a major report taken seriously if your "hair was not straight enough". In other words there was rife racism and it was being glossed over and covered up. We had problems in the UK in the 1970s but this was minor in comparison.
I refer to the Eupora, Mississippi multi-witness landing of an object in the middle of a US Highway, a CE3K and another object hovered close by. The two 'investigators' stuck their nose into the Pascagoula case (white percipients) and a UFO report by a (white) celebrity and a couple other cases. Yet a multi witness case involving black people on their own doorstep -and despite the best efforts of Ted Bloecher at the time- went uninvestigated. MUFON open a cold case?
Well, firstly, insulting response to my polite suggestion was one thing. The fact that MUFON wanted me -in the UK- to find and contact the witnesses in Mississippi and IF I could get them to contact MUFON and IF they filled in a report form officially then MUFON "might look at considering the case" oh, but it was sooooooooo long ago in 1973. Wonderful how MUFON can look at 1960s and 1970s cases when TV is involved.
Go visit MUFONs website -its okay you never took the wrong term to "merchandise" because whatever page you go to you get pop-ups to promote books and other things.
It is safe to say that MUFON ceased to be a serious scientific organisation long ago. Ufology is a mess in the United States -it is a mess in the UK where hoaxing and fake report planting means nothing after 1977 can be trusted unless others can vouch for witnesses being real.
Jacobs has lost it and his research is no longer of any value or interest.
But there is another problem in that we have the "sceptical ufologists" who are, in truth, debunkers. A case may seem rock solid but it will still be dismissed as the 100% solid evidence they want is not there (and if it was it would be dismissed).
I was reliably informed that there are only around three CE3K reports from Germany. In one evening of scouring old German publications I found about 5 that can be added to those "dismissable" three. This is false reporting by ufologists because they do not like the this aspect of UFOs. Though they seem prone to dismissing most cases.
Old publications and I turned up a 1957 Danish case. I find reports from other countries. The 1993 Kelly Cahill abduction in Australia I was told by ufologists had been shown to be a hoax. It turns out to be a multi witness and quite solid case. I now have to reassess a lot of cases that were dismissed by ufologists.
I find this not just totally unscientific but totally disgusting."Scientists debunk UFOs so we should, too -its the scientific way" -is that really ufologys mantra?
I am really trying not to write what I really think and name names. I am angry.
Serious ufo researchers need to step forward and speak up and start publishing research results!
Above: NO, not an actual alien photograph but from a 1976(?) public info film "Restricted View"
_______________________________________
I was recently asked by a newspaper reporter about this case as she had found a copy of an article I wrote about it. I was asked whether I had found out anything more about it?
No, is the simple answer.
I will re-tell the account here but I add one very strong caveat -this report originated from the later Eric Morris of the British UFO Study Centre who admitted to a number of Ufologists, including myself, in the 1990s that he had faked data and reports. That material and confession is still on file.
On the 3rd June, 1978, Mr and Mrs Andrews, both teetotal, were visiting a public house on the B3357 road on Dartmoor. I understand the couple were there for a meal. At around 23:50 hours, Mr Andrews left the pub to visit the gents toilets which were situated out in the yard. And it was on his way back from the gents that he saw an odd figure described as around 7 feet (2.10m) tall, wearing a silver, single piece (head-to-toe coverall) suit -and a "matt black" face visor. Mr Andrews noted that the entity's head size seemed smaller and the neck longer and wider than in humans. This wideness of neck seemed to be in-keeping with the very wide torso. The arms were long and said to stretch down below any possible knee joints. The entity was simply standing by a wall next to the road.
Despite the unusual look of the entity, Mr Andrews assumed that it must be a lost motorcyclist and asked: "Are you lost? Can I help you?" However, there was no response. Considering that Mr Andrews had gone out to use the toilet facilities the next part of the account seems odd because Mrs Andrews was wondering why her husband was taking so long and so decided to go and look for him.
According to both accounts, as Mrs Andrews exited the public house she found herself "practically standing next to the entity" and her husband shouted to her to join him. So Mrs Andrews briskly walked to her husband who had, by this time, realised that this was no ordinary person. The entity now moved toward the road and turned to the right, this would take it to the end of the road and onto a bridle path. As the couple realised that this path led onto the moors and, fearing that if this was a normal person then it was no place to get lost on. And so the couple followed but the figure had vanished completely.
The Andrews were quite sure that the entity could not have reached the gate, which it would have had to open to get onto the bridle path. They were clear that the figure could not have gone in any other direction.
It was a mystifying experience for the couple. At no time, however, was any object seen in association with this sighting of an entity. A check of AOP Bureau records showed that there had been no reported UFO activity in the area at that time and certainly none on the 2nd or 4th June. A search was carried out to check on wider activity: none coincided with this sighting.
Eric Morris stated that he visited the couple twice and that neither had any knowledge or even passive interest in UFOs. The Andrews' were teetotal Christians puzzled by the event but took it no further.
Tall, silver suited entities featured in quite a few reports from the UK at this time: some 81 reports feature 5-7 feet (1.5-2.10m) tall entities. Reports where no objects were seen in association with Alien Entity encounters are not unusual either. At the time my data base showed that 58 out of 193 CE IIIK cases from the UK featured no "UFO". Of course, it has been speculated that any "craft" in these cases might be "shielded" from observers in some way. Entities suddenly vanishing was nothing new.
But there were parts of this I could not make sense of. Firstly, licensing laws in the UK were strict -public houses in rural areas made them somewhat "flexible". However, since 1915, in an attempt to stop workers turning up late or still inebriated to carry on War work, the UK licensing laws had changed very little, with comparatively early closing times. The tradition of the lock-in therefore remained (people put money behind the counter and "after hours" doors were locked so drinking sessions were counted as private parties because people were not paying for drinks after closing). Since the implementation of Licensing Act 2003, premises in England and Wales may apply to extend their opening hours beyond 11 pm, allowing round-the-clock drinking and removing much of the need for lock-ins.
But we are talking 1978 here so just what were two Christian teetotallers doing in a public house? Firstly, temperance forbids partaking of alcohol or really supporting it -the "evil of drink"- so it seems odd unless they were there for a meal but at 23:50 hrs -almost Mid-night? That is "lock-in" time. and "lock-in" used to mean just that with patrons using the "house lavvie" -otherwise....you see my point?
It doesn't gel together. And just why would Mrs Andrews get concerned about the amount of time her husband was gone? That seemed to indicate a time lapse -how long was Mr Andrews gone? According to Morris there "were no indicators of missing time in this case" -so what??
What I was unhappy with was the fact that I was promised contact details of the couple several times but never received them.
Did this event even take place? What was the name of the "public house on Dartmoor"? Did the couple mention the entity to anyone in the pub -did they even go back in? Were they even "Mr and Mrs Andrews" -if they existed was that a pseudonym?
I hope that, if the couple did mention this event to a family member (I have no idea of the ages of either) we might get some confirmation.
But it is included in the data base with the caveat "Source Eric Morris"
________________________________________
Addenda. I can confirm that this case is an Eric Morris hoax. A person contacted me who had worked with Morris and he (Morris) boasted how along with certain well known ufologists (their names are known to me so this just confirms things) he had "plotted" to make my CE3K Project so inaccurate that I would have wasted decades of work and money. The fake Alien Symbols allegedly seen during abductions was part of this plan. Why? Because these people are not ufologists and have, obviously, psychological problems. This is why I never believe any UK CE3K case reported after 1977 without independent confirmation.
________________________________________________________________________________
source: (1) BUFOSC Intelligence vol. 1 nr. 3, June 1995, pp. 3-4
(2) Hooper, Terry, Close Encounters of the Third Kind and Alien Entity Cases in the UK
1900-1984 AOP Bureau Final Report (unpublished)
I was in a panic when two people actually contacted me over the CE3K/AE Project. It is such a rare occurrence that I had to remember how to respond. :-/
Firstly, I have been doing this work -work- since 1974. It is most certainly not a 'hobby' to kill a few hours. Over the years UFO chasing has resulted in me putting myself into a lot of potentially dangerous situations (officially unofficial and otherwise) and were this a hobby then I have wasted 40 years plus of my life. Stamp collecting would have been more profitable (in fact, I sold what stamps and books I had to fund my work).
It is not an obsession -not in the way some define it.
What I am doing is looking at, potentially, the most important aspect of the UFO subject. And remember there are two defined phenomena -UFOB (seemingly constructed craft) and UNP (an undefined natural phenomenon).
Working alone and re-assessing cases and reports I am making a lot of headway. I would like to spend even more time sharpening the definition and cause of UNP and most certainly actually be able to afford to do field investigations with regard UFOB -or both- reports.
However, money is the problem. With UFO Contact? I was told, by those who know, that this would become the definitive work on the subject. Great, I thought, sales will support my work and daily living. After over a year -no sales. Same with Unidentified -Identified. Trash sells better.
So I was asked why I do not apply for funding. It took me two hours to stop laughing. Seriously, the whole reason why certain "gentlemen" backed the AOP Bureau and Grey Book was because they felt the work had to be done and HM Government were not going to carry out a study (some material from the eventual UFO Report was used by certain bodies however).
The very idea back in the late 1970s of a National Aerospace Commission was shot down in flames. Despite all the work of the French gendarmerie and GEPAN absolutely no UK government or agency was going to fund serious UFO research.
The way UK ufology ufology in general has gone, no one is going to fund serious UFO research today. I wish they would but people with money like to invest only in things that make more money!
I explained this yesterday and I explain it here today so everyone knows. There is no funding for UFO research. My work continues to make me poor!
If you have read this blog before you will have seen the following folders. They contain CE3K/AE cases from 1900 on. Others cover South America, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, United States of America, eastern and Central Europe -I did say these files go back a ways!- and so on.
The expansion of files has meant that the number of files has risen from 15 to 20.
A problem arises when we examine the file for the United States. Each one of those tabs indicates a report entry and it stands at about 300 which is nowhere near close to the actual number pre-"Greys" era.
just a preliminary scan through these reports shows one thing: very few have been really investigated. A vast majority from the 1940s to 1970s are still used and one person will quote another as the source and the original source was...a newspaper clipping of a sighting never investigated. Yet still, according to ufologists 100% genuine "because it was reported in a newspaper". Investigation by news-clipping seems to have been -still is- the preferred method
The cases I used from the United States in UFO Contact? were ones that had been attacked by debunkers yet still, after decades, seemed to be genuine.
Let me explain "genuine" as it appears that the stompy-feet debunkers seem to have an intellectural problem when it comes to cases that scare them. The possibility of UFOs being extraterrestrial makes them soil themselves. I once spoke to a debunker and asked; "If we got a case of a UFO landing with entities, ground traces and even radar vizual back-up and the entities are obviously 'not from around here' then surely, if the witnesses hold to their statements, we have to accept the possibility that something happened and move on from there?"
Before I had issued the last two words I watched as the man's face went red and then a very scary, almost purple colour and I really could see his veins popping out! "No!" he spurted out. "Never. All UFOs are explainable and that's an end to it!" Arms folded he stormed off.
This is something I have seen and noted over 40+ years. It is true fear. Fear of the unknown and it is completely unscientific. So these debunkers will attempt defamation of character, twisting facts to make witnesses/percipients look like hoaxers or criminals and some will even try to bribe a witness to change story. That is truly a closed minded debunker who is afraid and does not abide by the Principles of Science that they say they follow. I did once wonder what such a person might say if they were abducted by aliens!
But the problem is that ufologists have given them all the ammunition they need. because if a debunker says "Let me see the report on --- landing" and all there is to hand is that news-clipping. Debunker wins and ufologist loses. Time and time again.
In France the Gendarmerie investigated reports made to them and those on file are amongst the best evidence of UFOs/CE3Ks around. No ufologist shoving sketches of "aliens" in front of a witness before an investigation has started. No selling witness details to newspapers or reporters. Straight forward investigation reports.
Yet look at the French folder
I know what someone will say "But the United States is a big country!" Well, so is France. Europe -East and West is very big and yet has nowhere near the number of reports as the United States. Until I began up-dating the French file I had no idea -because English language sources never bothered revealing the truth- how many from the 1954 French Wave were proven to be jokes and hoaxes as well as misidentifications and misinterpretations. Looking at the UFO reports from the time it is quite clear there was a flying saucer press frenzy going on and it led to false reports. It seems likely -very possible- that there was no big UFO Wave in 1954 France.
Debunkers demand 100% proof well, they demand that because they are aware that there is no such thing. Unless a spaceship lands during day time in a populated area and aliens get out and wave and everyone with a phone came or video recorder films them...well, even then it is not 100% proof. "CGI!" "CGI and actors!" it would go on and on.
In a court case a person is convicted based on evidence. No, he is not. The evidence is presented but then the jury has to make their own minds up. Innocent people go to gaol on no evidence yet someone murders his wife and her lover and the televised police chase and chapter is shown along with all the evidence and...man gets off and walks.
Luckily, we should not have to depend on the fickle public.
You talk to witnesses/percipients and gather all the information. If there are ground traces or other secondary evidence you gather that -"I heard the local airport might have had something on radar from a guy in a bar" is NOT acceptable: you check with the airport.
You look at all the angles and you cannot find any evidence of fakery. The witnesses/percipients seem to have genuinely been affected by what they say happened (in UFO Contact? I explain why you need to be very careful with a case involving just one witness). They seem to be genuine and want no publicity and in fact all they really want to know is "What the hell did we see?!"
When you have looked at this evidence and had it assessed and the witnesses/percipients seem to be honest people who have never had an odd experience in their and just want to get on with those lives: that is when you need to decide on whether you believe that the case is genuine. Preferably you should let other experienced people look the case over and see what they think. If it all pans out then you have a seemingly genuine case.
A debunker is never going to be satisfied -they claim they would be for obvious reasons- until you throw a dead alien on the table in front of them and show them the crashed space ship on a low-loader outside their office. A debunker once told me: "That would not constitute evidence"
If you have a CE3K report then you investigate it from every angle and you run details past other investigators to make sure you have not missed anything. You then send a copy of your report to the Centre for UFO Studied and to me!
Debunkers I have no time for unless they produce...evidence! Sceptical ufologists -not the debunkers who use that name- if they are really looking for evidence then fine. Ufologists should be going over the reports and building a case not rushing out to get on TV or in the newspapers. Really, the pre-1985 reports from the US should be investigated by American ufologists not me but as MUFON has no interest in these things and told me to go jump over a cliff and other US ufologists just have no interest...I hope I complete the work before my time is up!
Having a massive pile of news clippings or "reports" cut and pasted from the internet is not showing any serious interest.
Well, slightly embarrassing considering I was only 5 years into the research. I had written a good few articles on CE3K reports for UK UFO publications and forgot about one I wrote for the Skywatch Aerial Phenomena Investigation Club (SAPIC) and its 1979 Skywatch Gazatte no. 3 titled Close Encounters of the Third Kind in Africa.
By today's standards just a quick run off of reports and the detail is lacking. A lot has been updated in over 30 years.
My Trowbridge UFO Conference speech was not helped by a virus, a Russian diplomat and someone stealing my notes! :-)
It is rather strange that, for the United States (when I have asked), the Hynek Centre for UFO Studies
has supplied me with case files.
I have received assistance from GIEPAN in France, cooperation from Belgium and France, the AFU in Sweden has been of invaluable help at times and even cooperation from Spain and Germany.
To date, in the UK, I have asked the following whether they will contribute to the CE3K/AE project since, when complete, it will be available to all ufologists:
British UFO Research Association -asked three times not responding
Contact UK -again asked but not responding
Ron Halliday/UFO Scotland -asked and waiting to see.
David Hodrien and Birmingham UFO Group -asked. Refused flatly.
There are others but I am trying to be as diplomatic as possible. It just seems to be that UK groups consider the reports theirs and that is an end to the matter. BUFORA, Contact (UK) and Scottish ufologists I would still like to see contribute reports because this aspect of the subject is very important. We need to sort out the hoaxes, psychological or questionable and get to the those cases that seem (as far as we can be certain) genuine.
I started looking at and studying these reports in 1974 and in all that time I have never once revealed a witness/percipients real name or details. From 1977 on I worked on Grey Book and I also began acting as a UK police forces exotic fauna consultant -working with police forces you get checked and you also acquire a great deal of information that could make a lot of money. I never would and a lot of the material gets burnt with me :-)
The point is that in 40+ years no one has ever had reason to question my integrity so if that is what worries people: it should not.
In the last two weeks I have come across a cluster of four abductions over a one month period in a small village in England. I have also started seeing results while updating the project. i would much sooner this was a joint project with UK and non-UK ufologists.
I won't appeal again because after all this time it seems pointless.
If you read with and believe that you have encountered a UFO and entities then please get in touch. Your sightings do not just have to be recent as my files officially start at 1900!
From looking through old magazines/newsletters of the period
it is obvious that 1978 saw a
large number of UFO reports and CE3Ks.
It has been claimed that this was due to the release of the
movie Close Encounters of the Third Kind
(1977) -why not Star Wars (1977) one might ask? It is a rather convenient "explain-it-all-away
for the debunkers who like to declare themselves "sceptical
ufologists". Why not, as we are discussing UK reports, blame it all on Dr Who
episodes -1963 onward covered.
I have been involved in this subject now since 1973 and
became fully active in 1974. Here is the thing; these things have come and gone
over the years -X-Files, Dark Skies, the seemingly uncountable number of TV
shows and documentaries and the thing is that there follows a "surge of
UFO sightings".
Untrue.
What you get are a lot of people who want to attach
themselves to a subject for various reasons.
This is not just in ufology.
From 1977 on I was an exotic wildlife consultant to UK
police forces and the usual focus was non native cats (if you go by reports
there is only one member of the Big cat family seen in the UK;the
leopard/panther for which we have had hairs, tracks and so on). Newspapers get
bored -oh, someone said they have seen a strange cat?" out comes the
feature and suddenly "big cat hunters" are everywhere and they have
no knowledge of the subject pertaining to UK cases other than "The
Classics" (yes, even this subject has Classics!) or some facts they have
taken from other "British Big Cat" sites online. I spoke to one after another who told me
"Yeah, I've been doing this over three/five years now" and it is said
as though it makes them veterans. The utter disbelief -just stopping short of
calling me a liar- when I say, well I started 40 years ago in 1977".
The same pattern emerges here; the reprinting of
"classic" reports, the odd new report and these "Big Cat
Hunters" being determined to find evidence of the British Big Cat -to
throw in the face of the Government cover up.
These people will claim they have been followed, attempts have been made
to silence them and some even claim mystery helicopters have appeared on
"investigation sites". Any of
this sound familiar? I have not experienced any of this in 40 years and, guess
what? I have affidavits regarding cats
killed. So "ya-boo-sucks!"
Now, I also have an interest in the paranormal, since I was
a youngster in fact. Again, the "Classic cases" and people jumping
in, particularly since the mass of fake paranormal TV shows. Die-hard truth-seekers who will not stop
until they have the incontrovertible evidence.
These Big Ghost paranormalists have their tag team of psychics,
sensitives and all the new expensive gadgets -most are just old builders
gadgets re-labelled to sell at 3-4 times the normal price to dupes. Oh, I'm sure that the black clothing industry
must be making a big profit these days, too!
Sasquatch/Bigfoot -all the same type of things and, of
course, since the internet and all the TV shows the UK has got to have its own
Bigfoot...its own Dog-man..it goes on and on.
Most of these truth-seekers, or hobbyists, vanish after a
while. They turn up again as they jump band wagons and I note names that were
into Big Cats appearing in UFO circles and the paranormal circles and now
'British Bigfoot'. If turd polishing was
to become a hot US TV show trend you can bet these people will turn up as
British turd-polishing truth-seekers.
The only common factor in all of these subjects -with the
exception of turd-polishing as I (hope) I made that one up- is that there is
constant in-fighting, back-stabbing, lying, hoaxing and false claims. It is
also true to say that these people publish no research. To be honest a badly
written "investigation" report is not a substitute for a technical
paper that can be peer reviewed and that others can build or improve on (EEKS! "Share
data?!").
I have my name on technical papers concerning feral and
hybrid felids and possible populations of English wildcats; on wolverines in
the UK;
for the Eastern Cougar Conference I contributed to a paper. My decades long study
of foxes in the UK
was published as a paper but then made more widely available as a fully
referenced book: Red Paper 1:Canids.
Summing up all I have learnt since 1973 and, again, fully referenced and
coming out at over 500+ pages, UFO Contact? was originally part of the Grey
Book UFO Report but updated.
I'll point out that I am not welcome when it comes to
ufology, cryptozoology, paranormal groups, etc., because (and I was actually
told this three times and still have those emails) "we were a bit concerned. You have a reputation..." And what "reputation" is this? Well, and I will be honest here, I want to
find those cases that are genuine and not explainable (in the sense of "it
was this" or "That was obviously...") because that is something
to build on and find out what it really was.
To prove where the UFOBs -solid, constructed objects- come from with no
real doubt. There are areas of the
paranormal that are not just imagined so we have to look at the
"unknown" aspects.
I am not a fantasist.
I do not believe that, for example, the UK is full of ghosts (thousands of
them), demons, Bigfoot, UFO bases, cattle mutilations and gateways/portals to
hell and that thousands are being kidnapped daily by aliens. If I believed all
of that I am quite sure I would be welcomed by all!
But you have to look for an explanation and when you find it
make that known -fully reference your article or publication so that your
explanation can be checked. I would hate to think people say "Well, he
says that is what it was" without checking themselves.
Dr Who as a TV series has not spawned countless reports of
Cybermen or Dalek like entities in flying saucers. Close Encounters of the
Third Kind simply resulted in some people making new reports or old reports
being churned up by desperate UFO groups hoping to get publicity and increase
the social club membership. 1977 -1979 were very busy years for me as a UFO
investigator. I covered a wide geographical area because most of the others in
local UFO groups just could not be bothered -they had the newspaper clippings
after all. I submitted 300 reports to
BUFORA. They confirmed receipt. One year later; "We seem to have mislaid
them somehow. Three hundred reports
But that was in the past.
Who cares. I can tell you, however,
that despite everything those "sceptical ufologist say, shout or write
-the reports made and investigated before and after the movie were the
"standard" type. No one
reported a compulsion to get to the peak of the Berwyn mountain. No compulsion to build a mashed potato BerwynMountain.
No mysterious Frenchman with a United Nations team turned up to listen to close
encounter witnesses humming the tune of "Myfanwy". The words: "Is everything ready on the
dark side of Cleethorpes" were never uttered.
Facetious? Well. if
these "sceptical ufologists" actually did some real research work or
even got off their cushioned asses once
in a while rather than pushing their own agendas they would know all of this.
Are they aware that overt a four week period in late 1978 it
is possible -not proven- that there were at least three UFO abduction cases,
one a multi-witness case?
Here is another truth: as an investigator/researcher you
find out more when not involved in a group(s).
Also,a lot of hard work went into making this face! :-)
These blogs are, as always, just thoughts that come to mind. I am not aiming my remarks at serious researchers of UFOs. I always welcome contact from them -we are a rare breed after all. Bare that in mind when reading this.
I was not surprised to find that a number of CE3K/AE cases
from the United States
have turned out to be hoaxes perpetrated by ufologists. I am aware of a very strong rumour that
certain American debunkers -not sceptics who look at the evidence but people who
debunk, probably out of fear- have "seeded" one or two fake cases to
draw in ufologists who can then be humiliated for having fallen for "an
obvious and deliberate hoax".
In the UK
it has been known that at least on TV company has had plans, with debunkers, to
carry out a similar hoax.
Let me make it very clear that none of this is backed by the
governments of the United Kingdom
or the United states. This comes from an idea by debunkers (who are
people just scared of the possibility of what the phenomenon means) and TV
people who do not give a damn so long as it is “sexy TV”.
Why call yourself a “ufologist” is you are sceptical to the
point of simply debunking? Get out of the subject if it is all fake or admit
that you are in it to make money and for the publicity.
The state ufology has been in goes back to before the 1990s.
I heard and read of Max Burns and his search for evidence that an RAF Tornado
crashed in 1997 –the initial report of a “flying triangle” UFO has become…not
even a side issue. RAF aircraft have
crashed over the years. It happens. What I was ‘slightly’ surprised at is how so
called prominent British ufologists behaved.
If you read the following, printed in full on a number of blogs, wait
until you reach the “Stage 7: Hoaxing to Orders” part. If that does not change
your mind about British ufology then your reality check must be a Dr Who story.
How does all of this affect the CE3K/AE project you ask –or
I hope you do. Since the 1970s I kept
all correspondence with ufologists, prominent or otherwise. I also kept files on these people and their
groups. Almost 40 years of background information and it is what led me to shun
ufology.
The 1978 Frodsham “Cow-measuring” report I had up-dated and
then received two emails (“Truthseeker47” and “The Frod-sham-man”) the first in
2015 simply said: “Regarding the Frodsham cow case. I hear you are looking into
it. You will get nowhere. It never happened”. No response from the emailer later. The other email was three months ago: “I see
you mentioned the Frodsham case. Why?!
Don’t you know it was a hoax?” Again, no response when I emailed back.
In that The Usual
Suspects: Anatomy of a Disinformation Campaign in Ufology Andy Roberts
admitted that he and other prominent British Ufologists had “seeded” fake reports since the
1980s. My information is that this
started much earlier. Roberts flatly refused to state which cases had been faked and for what purpose which indicates that any -any- reports with certain names attached should be suspect. I do not care
about Ufologists or their petty arguments.
There is only one thing I am interested in and that is the information
and data. Unless others have spoken to
certain witnesses/percipients then I need to add a very large question mark to
many cases from the late 1970s on.
For the record I did message Max Burns twice to get more information and I also messaged Clarke and Roberts but received no responses.
The Berwyn Mountains UFO crash. Firstly, this was not the crash of an unknown type of craft but an earthquake and the facts about this are scientifically acknowledged. Ufologists want to add faulty memories and faking into the mix so we can have another "British Roswell". I have already related the account of the Wales based Ufologist and conspiracy nut who out of the blue demanded in an email that I turn over all paperwork and materials relating to my work on Welsh 'UFO crashes'. Oh, and I had to do so immediately. This person identified me as a Ufologist living in Wales who had appeared out of the blue to sabotage his "great work" and that I was obviously a "security services stooge". I did respond politely to this person and sent him my full Cv as well as the chapter from my book on the subject in question. I was unaware that he was unable to read (I assume) since he continued his "man out of nowhere" storyline and some UFO groups also continued to publish the story. I ought to add that these UFO groups let alone the people running them never existed when I started in UFOs in 1974.
My background is well known and Margaret Sachs in her (1983?) UFO Encyclopedia has an entry on me and I am still known in European as well as American Ufology and I have written well over 50 articles on ball lightning, CE3K and AE reports, aircraft-UFO encounters (in FSR) and given lectures and talks. But the mind of a conspiracy theorists and Ufological cronies is not set in a real work.
It is also a European Ufology thing; there are three Spanish CE3K cases from
1966/1967 that are still being quoted and used as ‘evidence’ despite my
attempts over six years to get people to understand they are hoaxes –but that
means giving up “good cases” so that means keep on quoting. In Spain these
cases were known to be hoaxes in the 1960s but Vallee and company continue to
use them. Oddly, one of the cases was known to Spanish investigators who would not name the "prominent Ufologist" responsible
for the hoaxing. I think that "unknown report" (which they had details of?) and the source reveals who did
what. You see, a big light in the sky is
‘proof’ of extra-terrestrials but the known source of hoax reports…well,
“concrete evidence” is apparently not available.
At times I almost give in.
We have organisations promoting themselves as "scientific
truth seekers" but are only interested in money and publicity. Their organisation heads switch and change
beliefs dependent on what prominent paying members are pushing –abductions,
orbs –whatever. Investigators are asked
to change reports to fit in with the current money-making trend (shades of the
Bigfoot Field Researchers Organisation and the scandal that rocked them) while
senior members seem to go unpunished over open racist remarks and even worse behaviour.
There is the “it ain’t gonna make us money so screw you”
attitude hidden behind a statement that when used by the United States
Air Force saw them vilified (MUFON): “The case was too long ago to open an investigation at
this date”. But if I investigate and discover a great case I can hand it
over to them (TV beckons).
This is why Science will not take ufology seriously. Ufology
constantly jumps and shifts to whatever trend is “hot” –and makes money. Sensationalise reports and jump deep into
some fantasy about "mysterious intelligences behind orbs" and then indignantly
pout and scowl at the camera and growl: “Science will not take us seriously!” Ufologists have now been called "UFO fans" in documentaries and TV items for over a decade and they are UFO "fans" -and some act like zealots and if you state that you do not believe that battles are taking place in space around Earth -a real life Star Wars- then you will be attacked online and become the victim of trolling. Clearly recorded (on video) flares ARE a small fleet of extra-terrestrial craft and if you say they were not -the zealots move in. You do not accept the mass abduction of millions of Earth people by "Grey" aliens for generations which defies all logic and -out come the zealots.
Facts mean nothing because giving those facts make YOU part of the cover-up. The very dubious Ufologists will even use their social media such as Twitter and Face Book to stir up their followers and actively encourage online attacks or attempts to make a 'critics' social media unviable. They encourage (with a nod and a wink) online fantasy posts created about their 'critics'.
There is a reason for there being peer review in
science. Others can test your theories
and data and will either say “The claim is correct” or “We have some doubts on
this aspect –can you clarify?” We have seen that this has never been the case within Ufology.
This is why I say that Ted Philips’ trace case evidence
should be widely available; it needs peer reviewing to make its case. What I have seen of the cases listed, and it is a rather brief list, known hoaxes are included as are reports from pre-1900 that cannot even be proven to have actually happened.
Jacques Vallee the "must never be questioned" godfather of Ufology; his Landing case catalogue is so full of hoaxes and misidentifieds -some known as such before they were even placed into his listing- going back decades. Some historical reports he has promoted in his works simply never happened and I proved that by going to the claimed sources, hoping to get extra information.
None of this is new because when I was going through as many sources as possible for The British Report on UFOs one case after another was negated as having no back-up or original source reference. Desmond Leslie (a former editor of Flying Saucer Review) and George Adamski's book, The Flying Saucers Have Landed , was so full of misquotes and downright fake-up reports that it had to be excluded as any type of reference.
A very prominent American Ufologist and author actually told me, quite openly in an email, that specific cases still quoted today were from a "well known" flying saucer hoaxer who came up with "all sorts of stories". He has never set the record straight.
We have the deliberately faked accounts from Ufologists -not just aimed at deceiving other Ufologists but everyone. In the UK Eric Morris faked symbols allegedly seen during (equally faked) UFO abductions cases. he faked documents and even physically threatened people and yet was a regular guest at UFO events and very likely colluded with well known Ufologists to fake reports. Someone who worked with him during the late 1970s and early 1980s clued me in on a lot of what was going on but then left Ufology after threats from Morris. During the 1990s when I got the evidence that Morris was hoaxing I received a phone call from him threatening to kill me -police had words with him. However, after he died Morris was still being hailed as a great Ufologist.
J. Allen Hynek, who was a trained astronomer and who served
as a scientific advisor for Project Blue Book, was initially skeptical of UFO
reports, but eventually came to the conclusion that many of them could not be
satisfactorily explained and was highly critical of what he described as:
"the cavalier disregard by Project Blue Book of the principles of
scientific investigation."
Hynek, J. Allen (1972). The UFO Experience: A Scientific Inquiry.
One could legitimately write "the cavalier disregard by
Ufology of the principles of scientific investigation." It would be very
accurate. But even now Dr Hynek's work with Blue Book and his involvement with UFOs has been heavily fictionalised for TV shows and online the barrier between entertainment and reality are blurred.
Budd Hopkins I was an original supporter and promoter of his abduction work and furnished him with material and some sponsors. Then I realised that his work was not making much sense but he told me that everything he published was being peer reviewed. A quick check proved that was not true and as he went further and further into his topic so claims became far more outlandish. He -against all principles on evidence gathering- "decked the cards" in favour of what he was promoting and later it was even out-rightly proven that he had lied to the world when it was revealed that his star witness, Linda Cortile made phone calls to him pretending to be someone else and even faked documents which Hopkins endorsed as real.
Dr David M. Jacobs I also supported in articles and talks until things began to seep through that something was very wrong. It later transpired that he and Hopkins would often discuss abductions and cases and work out numbers of abductees based on their tainted work. Later still Jacobs claimed that "If you see a UFO then you were abducted!" and that in itself can spark any number of false abduction reports. What was then revealed about Jacobs' private practices was a big enough of a scandal to have destroyed anyone working professionally in a genuine field of research.
Jacobs and Hopkins are still looked upon as legitimate researchers who cannot be questioned. Then we have Vallee, Phillips and all the others who have become deities in the UFO religion who cannot be questioned and when you do prove something they promoted was incorrect you become the government patsy out to destroy UFO truth seekers. The real truth seekers either left the field or carried on working privately because they were attacked or ridiculed.
The X-Files, Dark Skies and most other sci fin TV shows and movies are not reality based they are fiction. A star-like dot filmed moving in the sky proves nothing at all. It could be anything other than an extra-terrestrial craft.
The "major UFO Waves" of the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s probably never happened. The 1954 UFO wave falls to pieces once you look into it and when you consider that probably 97% of the cases then as well as 19578 and 1964/1965 and 1973 were never even investigated you realise how you have been deceived through blind belief in "noted Ufologists" and their works.
You begin to see how rare actual UFO (ie constructed looking craft) events are. You see how rare alleged abductions are. You will also note how unscientific and ill educated Ufology/Ufologists are and if you offer a checkable and therefore provable solution to an incident you will be met with silence, anger at your attempt to call their work into question or, again, being a government patsy. They will always make it seem that you are attacking them when you are not because that distracts from the facts of the case and allows them to stir up their devotees -especially in the internet age.
I can see a point when the brain-washed "Ufology drones" will accept at their word ex-government people who kept UFO secrets from them and will attack true researchers who question those people -it is already happening. The deceiver becomes the truth seeker and the truth seeker becomes the deceiver (in their eyes). There is and never will be any "UFO Disclosure" (we have been waiting 22 years now for this "imminent event") because no world government knows what UFOs are. No world government has crashed saucer wreckage or alien bodies. This is fantasy added to by false memories as well as hoaxing and faking by Ufologists.
It is entertainment and money making and the same applies to the alleged events at Marley Woods and Skinwalker ranch.
I am not
attacking serious researchers though I do note that there are not that many prominent in Ufology -not since the 1990s. I am quite
sure that there are some out there but at times they must look around and ask
“Am I the only one being serious?” I do
wonder that some times but….
I see that a case I investigated and presented evidence on
(see Unidentified
– Identified for the details) –the 1987 or was it 1988(?)
Nottinghamshire UFO crash is now being presented as a proven and is so
full of fantasy and fiction that watching a video presentation on the case I
had to triple check it was the same incident.
No house was “partially demolished” by the way. The "main" investigator in that case was not the ones promoting themselves today. It was me. I was in contact with police, fire services and many others and presented the evidence to the inexperienced |UFO investigators who concurred with my conclusion -in writing (see the book for details).
“Flying saucer” reports are not dropping in number. They were never
as frequent as bad ufology reported. “Orb sightings are taking over from flying saucer reports” is such a false
statement that it shows bad ufology at work: these “orbs” were always counted
as “UFOs”/flying saucers in the past but Ufologists did their investigations
from armchairs and via news-clippings.
Now, of course, as MUFON will tell you, “Orbs are just so de rigueur”
Checking, double-checking and triple checking CE3K/AE
accounts is proving the rarity of these incidents. Sadly, Mexico and South America I cannot even
begin to touch on because there has been so much fakery, sensationalism and
lack of real investigation in the past; some cases plain do not exist and
others –still included in ufology despite having been proven hoaxes decades
ago.
This is now a millennial hobby or a money earner for some (just as the paranormal and Bigfoot or cryptozoology is). Why leave your room –copy and paste what
someone else copied and pasted from the fella who copied and pasted it before
him. Oh, add the odd detail that does not exist in the original source
because you know that your audience does not read serious books…or books in
general unless they are sensationalist trash.
I have, on a number of occasions, asked blogging Ufologists for the page
number of an item they quoted or even the source quoted (and we are talking
about some very prominent Ufologists as well).
They could only give me “Oh, I took the report from such-and-such a
site” (the exact name of which they cannot recall but "it had something about UFOs") or even “I’ve never seen the book but if you find out more info let me
know!” or the best "A person I know told me about having read the details online".
In June 1957 J. P. Herraerd of Antwerp, Belgium
was abducted from a public park by what he could only describe as “2.5 metre tall
red coloured cucumbers with four tentacles as arms. source: Lacheln.
Copy and paste that one. How serious is interest today in genuine double and triple checked UFO incidents or UFO history? Sales of the AOP Journal were so low I stopped publishing. The books -ditto. John Hanson has put together the best UFO source books -some incidents previously unknown- with his Haunted Skies series but struggles for sales. In the meantime the liars (proven) and fakers (proven) appear on TV, podcasts and events and sell box loads of their trash info books.. Ufology is serious?
It is entertainment. There are some very questionable things going on in Ufology today where those who covered up and lied to the public about UFOs have come out into the open and make assertions and they are the new people to have UFO cults surround them. The people who have worked hard to get at the truth are now the targets of these people because they are being guided by the former deceivers. Stop. Take a deep breath and think about it and it almost seems like the susceptible have been gas-lighted and turned and are accepting the former deceivers at their word and directing hate, accusations and more at those openly questioning facts.
You are being deceived.
"Trust no one" is a good motto to have. Check, double-check and quadruple check sources. Or just sit back and let social media, Ufology and the deceivers educate you.
I conclude with an image from a recent MUFON convention
