Are UFO Incident Percipients Far More Important Than "Getting at the Truth"?

 

For many years I fell into the trap of believing the biggest lie in Ufology: “You can trust investigators and if they say something happened –it happened!”

It took a while before I realised what complete and utter crap –and I am being polite here- that was. Jacques Vallee “is a scientist and he has investigated or studied this case so if he says it is genuine then it is” well, when I was compiling the AOP data base for the UFO Report I had to negate (exclude) one case after another that Vallee cited. Hoaxes, psychological cases and in many cases the ‘facts’ came only from a newspaper clipping or two and reporters were not above faking stories. Even today, in 2020, cases that were known not to be genuine at the time (1950s for instance) are still cited as genuine because Vallee still uses them or has not corrected the record because of the bruised ego that would cause.

Desmond Leslie, author and former editor of Flying Saucer Review, that “respectable” publication of ‘scientific ufology’, jumped straight in to perpetuate the George Adamski contactee con. Leslie’s UFO books were also negated –much more quickly than Vallee’s, as original sources quoted did not tell of red coloured flying discs moving slowly” across the sky but told of meteors. It went on and on.

Donald E. Keyhoe, an old time hero of mine, was also a journalist and as Al Chop and Edward Ruppelt both pointed out; he could be given the facts but put his own slant on a “story”. Keyhoe had to earn a living and he popularised flyi8ng saucers and UFO investigation to some degree. There are many pros and cons when it comes to Keyhoe.

I laugh out loud when I read or hear someone say how “dedicated an investigator and researcher” John A. Keel was. Yes, I loved his books and he spun a good story from the Mothman to Ultra Terrestrials and mot anything else that earned him a crust as a journalist. I still think his books are good fun reads.

The problem was that my mind is set to look into odd things. To get to the bottom of reports and if there is an explanation I offer it –but back up what I say or write. If there is no current explanation then I say so and explain why I rule out certain explanations. But it has to be remembered that saying “There is no current explanation” does not mean there never will be can explanation.

“Bigfoot reports cannot be explained” is a favourite of mine. If people are seeing large, hairy hominids then the question is “what are they?” Firstly, I think size is exaggerated in reports and with Bigfoot investigation groups faking reports and data like their brothers in Ufology and cryptozoology the whole subject is a mess. “Shoot one then you have the proof!” –well I was against this in the 1970s and supported Dmitri Bayanov in his stance on this. “Unexplained” is a ridiculous word to use: was the report faked? If yes then you have not got anything other than a hoax. Did the observer(s) seem genuine? Then you have people reporting something they saw (excluding misidentifications). Yes, Bigfoot can be explained but you need data and evidence: it can be explained as a myth (which seems contrary to what we know) or as a genuine member of the animal kingdom.

Sea monsters and sea serpents: we have discovered many ea creatures since the mid 20^th century that might explain some but not all of these reports. If we missed the megamouth shark (Megachasma pelagios) until 1976 what else have we missed? Not all such reports are explainable and those that persist in trying to disprove reports rather than studying the reports to try to discover what type of creature was seen just show low intelligence and closed minds.

When it comes to UFOs I recall what my late friend Franklyn A. Davin-Wilson once told me –and it applies to all research: “Read the source. Is it quoting someone else –then read that and if you can go directly to the original source –the reportee”. He also told me not to just quote one reference but as many as I had because that way others can double or triple check your work and if it survives scrutiny then you have solid data.

FSR rarely, if ever, double-checked articles or features it published. Editors might pontificate on certain points or try to pull in what was contained in an article into their own theory –demons, ultra terrestrials or whatever. For instance, small balls of light became mini UFOs. No arguing –they were. And what is more they “showed intelligent control” –if I put a ball on a table and it rolls toward me is it intelligently controlled? There were a number of “mini flying saucer” sightings in the early 1980s in which discoid objects were seen and two antennae were also clearly seen –“receiving/sending”. When this was put to FSR it was slapped down because it did not conform to the “unexplained UFO” report they wanted.

Helsingborg-Hoganas, Sweden, 2^nd December, 1958 and the claim by Hans Gustafsson and Stig Rydberg that strange “things” attempted to abduct them (Some Things Strange & Sinister pp.262-264) during a UFO sighting. It was known as a hoax at the time and what is more FSR was informed of this but refused to update details and continued to cite the case. Other reports from Spain were known at the time to be hoaxes either by newspapers or by Ufologists hoaxing other Ufologists –yes. Really using those alleged “principles of science” there.

The “1954 French Wave” in recent years has proven to be anything but. Yes, there appear to be genuine reports but the4se are obscured (especially CE3K/AE reports) by all sorts of strange and “unexplainable” lights. The problem is that the ‘study’ of the 1954 wave was almost wholly based on newspaper clippings-very few actual investigations and it is laughable when one reads the words of Ufologists 30-50 years later condemning journalists for adding facts to cases, inaccurate reporting and so on. Firstly, the job of a journalist is supposed to be reporting the news but this takes second place to selling newspapers. Secondly, journalists are not trained in UFO investigation or even knowledgeable about UFOs, particularly in the 1950s.

UFO ‘investigation and research’ involved looking at newspaper clippings and thyere are many modern Ufologists who still do this because it is easier to explain away reports based on these (yes, a number of “ufologists” have no interest in the subject other than to explain it all away and boost their egoes). The indignity of having to actually go and see someone like Rosa Lotti (Unidentified –Identified pp. 126-138) in the 1970s because…well, these thing take time. Or having to actually go and speak to Madame LeBoeuf (UFO Contact? pp.199-207) some decades later.

It turns out that the 1954 “wave” was a total mish-mash of some quite genuine observations, hoaxes or lies. Interestingly, an entity seen next to a flying saucer turned out to be someone repairing a bus. “Ufonaut” cases were only briefly reported on because, illogically, flying saucer researchers refused to even contemplate that anyone was controlling the flying saucers. This illogical thinking went further because most were quite happy to accept hoaxer contactees such as George Adamski as being genuinely in touch with people from Mars, Venus, Saturn and elsewhere throughout the Sol system. After all, Adamski had the photographs of the space craft as well as images he took in space.

All laughable and a “thing of the past” No, there are Ufologists who still promote Adamski’s claims and even add to them. Eduard Albert “Billy” Meier, the Swiss contactee, I first became familiar with in the 1970s and he has his own little cult going. Even more he does not just have film/video footage and photos of ridiculous looking flying saucers but also of dinosaurs and pteranodon flying around. I’ve seen the footage and it is even below par for a 1970s cheap childrens TV show. Or has everyone missed his claims to have time travelled with aliens?

It is very possible that certain contactees might actually genuinely believe that what they are experiencing is real –as outlined in UFO Contact? – but when you have fraudulently produced images any possibility of this can be ruled out.

Having looked at the 1954 “wave” it was quite obviously anything but a huge increase in UFO -”extra terrestrial”- activity. We seem to same mix of reports for all other waves including 1973 and the “Global UFO Wave” which was hailed by Ufologists as “unprecedented” and a sign that “full contact might not be far off”. Well, four decades on nothing has happened.

The 1973 “wave” did see some very interesting CE3k/AE reports but most (say 99%) concentration focussed on the Hickson and Parker encounter at Pascagoula, Mississippi. Even reports that seemed to involve similar entities –one might say these would add to the strength of the Pascagoula case since some took place in the state- were side-stepped or largely ignored. I could never understand this until I began digging into things in more detail. Why were these cases ignored? There was one thing that stood out and evidence seems to strongly support this: most of the percipients were “black” while 100% of the Ufologists were white. Any excuse not to bother with these cases was used and eventually just not bothering to mention them sufficed. As a veteran American Ufologist put it to me: “It was a different time back then. Middle class white guys did not drive into poor black areas”. Well, 2020 doesn’t appear that different.

Of course, these CE3K/AE reports were nudged to one side. At UFO conferences how many alleged black UFO abductees do you see compared to white alleged UFO abductees? Name a black abductee other than Barney Hill. Most tend to have the full “He’s a lying faker” treatment. Some white abductees have signs of post traumatic stress disorder after their encounters but black people displaying PTSD symptoms are “showing signs of fraud” or, simply, lying.

 

Above: Louise Smith, left, Elaine Thomas and Mona Stafford of Liberty were the ­central figures in a 1976 UFO incident

When Budd Hopkins came along things hit the fan. Most of us accepted what he told us: his work was peer reviewed as per scientific work. Therefore, what he told us was backed up by evidence. At one time I was called (as an insult) “Budd Hopkins UK mouthpiece” and I even sent him copies of symbol seen during alleged UFO abductions in the UK. However, we then learnt that Hopkins was not having his work peer reviewed and was tacking the evidence in favour of his work while he and David Jacobs conjured up all sorts of figures for the number of UFO abductions taking place -and this really was done in the most unscientific “let’s make it seem big” fashion you can imagine.,

As soon as Hopkins, then Jacobs’ work became popular –to which we can add that of Whitley Streiber- then no UFO report was “just” a UFO report. Because, according to Jacobs: “if you saw a UFO you were abducted!” Which means, I am assuming since we are not given any wriggle room here, that if you and 50 other people saw a “UFO” all 51 were abducted. Now, that “UFO” may well turn out to be Venus, an aircraft, a drone or something else but unless someone investigates and the explanation is offered then that is 51 new abductees added to the total.

We went through every conceivable thing with alien abductions –implants (which soaked up a lot of benefactor money as far as Hopkins work was concerned), missing foetus, scars –all have produced not one bit of evidence. All were explained away with evidence or by simply carrying out research.

Then we found out, thanks to Hopkins, that it was not just the “abductee” he was hypnotically regressing having a one off encounter. No, these were life long abductions and guess what? The alleged abductees parents had also been abducted throughout their lives…oh, and the grandparents also. Then we had alleged abductees recalling alien encounters while they were in the womb. Then there were the alleged encounters in past lives.

Did anyone raise a hand and say “Excuse me but are you deliberately faking this or are you self deluded?” Even when the various aspects were explained away did it make any difference? Remember that for UFO groups such as the now discredited Mutual UFO Network the books and talks were money makers. Hopkins only had to say “Well, that is their personal opinion but I am the one carrying out the work and holding all the data” and the “debunkers” were well and truly slapped down because they were not “the darling of the moment”.

Through Hopkins we were told that the Greys were the intelligence behind all of this and that they employed fake memories to hide their work. Oh, but then we discovered that the Greys were not the masterminds behind the “abduction agenda” and you will excuse me if I am unsure who or what is now –the Mantis creatures, lizard men or the tall whites as it it changes o much and Jacobs has made the whole subject a very bad joke.

 

Above: Maurice Masse, percipient in the 1965 Valensole, France encounter

Have a CE3K? Was a Grey involved or missing time? No –then who cared? There are many reports that have never been looked into that are straight old fashioned landings and take offs involving entities and they have been/are being ignored. Investigators will spend months trying to investigate a pin-point of light seen moving around the sky (Lights-In-The-Sky –LITS) which will provide no evidence or usefulness in analysis because it was just LITS and was probably a satellite.

I have given up trying to find legitimate UFO investigators in the United States who can open “cold cases” while those involved are still (hopefully) alive. I look at both Ufologists and Ufology with a degree of disgust these days. In the UK we know that ‘credible’ Ufologists have deliberately faked reports for reasons they will not give –the only likely reason is that they wanted to for no reason other than spreading fake reports, as certain Spanish Ufologists have done. Those Spanish Ufologists are know for this, however, those in the know will not name them for malpractice (I have several names on my list now).

We need to sweep aside the fakery –which will never be done because, after all, that will call into doubt the reputations of many Ufologists/authors as well as organisations who have promoted the fakery (often knowing that it is fakery) for personal gain and their five minutes of fame.

Who on Earth, seeing all of this going on, is going to come forward and say “I had a UFO encounter” or even “I was abducted by aliens”? They see people made fun of or even declaring what happened to them (or didn’t) and they ask themselves, not unreasonably, “Do I really want to go through that?”

Betty and Barney Hill we only know about because a promise of confidentiality was broken and they were thrown into the limelight.

Above: Betty and Barney Hill the percipients in the 1961 White Mountains encounter.

Stafford, Smith and Thomas, the three ladies involved in the 1976, Liberty, Kentucky encounter (see UFO Contact? pp. 406-421) were tracked down by investigators and told on their doorsteps “Speak to us or we go to the press” –and then the promise of confidentiality was thrown out because money and books beckoned.

Many of the “Classic Cases” we know of because the percipients were promised confidentiality and then exposed while Ufologists left them to fend for themselves because the Ufologists had to write those books.

“Hypnosis isn’t getting us anywhere –bring out the scapolamine!” After all –who cared that those involved were clearly in some kind of physical or mental shock? The next issue of the newsletter or chapter in the book could not wait.

The Buckfastleigh case of 1978 involving three teenagers could have been a major event (UFO Contact? pp. 447-450). However, local Ufologists turned up on the doorstep 25-30 strong to see the girl involved. That was it: no one talked after that. And three school children who saw a UFO while at Primary school noted the big fuss when two Ufologists tried to get into the school to see them –today that would be classed as a school intrusion. Both the school and parents stopped anyone speaking to the witnesses.

 

Above: Charles Hickson and Calvin Parker, percipients in the 1973 Pascagoula, Mississioppi incident

It goes on and on and every time the phrase “We did it to get to the truth” is used it rings false.

I believe that there are people seeing craft and alien entities because, when you assess all of the facts and there is even secondary or third party (unconnected with the percipients) statements to having seen an object where the main incident took place and there may even be a UFO reported via radar-visual and even physical traces –what options do you have? When one person is involved then there is doubt. But if that one person has no idea that someone at another location geographically close has reported a similar object near the time of their encounter it may not prove a CE3K took place but it does back up the UFO sighting side of the claim therefore…

There are a number of cases that I know of where individuals have reported incidents and it is quite clear that something else took place and by that I mean a possible UFO abduction experience or contact situation. At least that is what their accounts suggest. All are in the UK so you might think I would dive straight in but I did not and will not. My reasons are simple: if I used regression hypnosis or probed the percipient’s memory without using hypnosis and they recall far more what then? In the cases I am referring to those involved all had experiences around the same short time in the mind to late 1970s but all just put it behind them: “one of those things that happened now get on with my life”.

Do I have the right to suddenly dig out experiences that might be very traumatic for those people? Can I offer them the psychological after care that they might need? And the after care might go on for years in some cases because while some people are strong mentally and can say “It happened over 40 years ago and that’s it” there are those who might find their recollection opening up events that shatter their whole belief system and world view. That and the effects must never be under estimated and to say “You have to do this because it is part of the puzzle that might explain what is going on” is no excuse for destroying someone’s whole life and that is what could be involved. “Oh, it was this weird ghosty-type event involving an odd light in 1978” turning into “I was abducted by these horrific things and what they did to me—“ and that means any investigator is now that persons shoulder4 to cry on and person they go to for answers that we do not have.

I have cases going back to 1978 and I have never revealed the names of the percipients involved or any other identifying information –a couple are well known these days in the UK but as a certain Air Vice Marshal once put it my “word is more binding than the Official Secrets Act”. I could make a lot of money (and I need it to be honest) by disclosing these reports.

Between 1977 until 2013 I acted as an exotic wildlife advisor to UK police forces and on several occasions I was offered money that would get rid of financial problems and leave a good amount over and all I had to do was give certain newspapers (The Mirror and Express) maps showing where various non native cats were seen as well as names of observers in these cases. It was not going to happen. I’ll die poor but with my integrity intact. I was, over the long period as an advisor on the PAWS (Partners Against Wildlife Crimes) register. Despite backing by a couple of Chief Constables and other senior officers the Department of Environment Farming and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) rejected my renewed application 15 times –every time it was submitted something else was ‘wrong’ and needed correcting. The truth is that DEFRA wanted –wanted- access to my maps and data since no one had been doingt this work on a nationwide basis over a period of decades. It was made clear that if I wanted to be “officially sanctioned” then that material had to be forwarded to DEFRA (I have signed affidavits from land owners and others who were present when large cats were trapped and killed by DEFRA associated veterinarians “on the spot” so, no, they were not getting my data –most of it I destroyed).

I keep my word and I stand by my principles so I am not going to exploit anyone for my own gain.

A number of percipients had themselves and their encounters exposed by Ufologists. While I understand all too well the need to get as much information as possible in cases this must never be at the psychological expense of those involved. The ladies at Liberty –Mona Stafford was the last surviving member of the trio- were exposed, exploited and left to get on with it by themselves. What we need to ask is just how many people kept their mouths shut?

Maurice Masse at Valensole, France, blurted out that he had encountered a craft and occupants and the cat was out of the proverbial bag because the person he blurted the story out to while in a shocked state told a journalist. Masse was then the focus of journalists and Ufologists and so he told them part of the story that they already knew. Some French Ufologists tried various dirty tricks to prove him a liar or get more information. However, Masse vowed never to tell anyone else the full story -not even his wife. He took the secret to his grave.

Eileen Moreland in New Zealand had her encounter in July, 1059. An object descended into a paddock, she saw two entities and one left the object and approached her shouting something in a language she did not understand.; The entity then returned to the object which took off. That supposedly covered an 80 minutes period and does not make sense. Someone else saw a similar object that morning and she told the New Zealand Air Force investigator about the sighting but not entities. He guessed she was hiding something and eventually the entity part of the account emerged. However, as far as we know the investigator was not (?) told the whole story and we gather that from 1970 records in which Moreland, responding to an official letter asking if her account could be released, responded: “If you have knowledge of the full events of that awful morning, you will realise, that to suggest that the UFO people are friendly is a laugh, as I know full well…” Odd if all that happened is what we know from accounts. Moreland took the truth to the grave.

How many people just want to report a UFO out of sense of duty but never reveal a much closer encounter? How many of those uninvestigated reports where the witness states “I just saw the object with some people near it that took off” involve far more? I have met people who told me privately: “You know the sighting details? There was far more and I want you to know that but I don’t want to talk about it” and my response is always the same: “I understand and even though I want to know what happened I will not press you but, if you ever want to talk about it privately, you know how to contact me”. That is why I have never changed my email addresses and why I have never changed my telephone number since the 1980s.

I want to get to the truth of what is going on and that is something every genuine person investigating UFOs should agree with. I know that Ufology has built up a really false picture of what has and what is going on. There is no doubt that CE3K/AE reports as well as reports of seemingly constructed craft not from any known terrestrial inventory are far rarer than we have been led to believe. Ufology and those involved in it will never be willing to admit that there is no legion of interplanetary races visiting Earth on a daily basis and are not abducting millions of people a year. They want the continuation of the Dr Who/X-files mix because that way they can at least claim to be experts in knowing what is going on if not why it is going on.

I would very much hope that people like Masse or Moreland would come forward but if they did it would have to be under the strictest guarantee of confidentiality and not be for exploitation. If I am honest I have to say that there can never be a full study of reports without funding or at the very least capable investigators in different countries who are willing to look into cold cases and new ones without prejudice.

Perhaps we need an Elon Musk type benefactor?