Older UK CE3K/AE Reports

 I was asked why I was not looking in greater detail at old UK CE3K/AE cases.  The answer to that is quite simply that from the mid 1970s on when "New Ufologists" (as they were to be called a few years later) came into the subject we had hoaxing. These people were so hypocritical in that if someone else slightly fumbled a case or were considered to have even slightly embellished a report then they were hounded. They were totally discredited by these people.

At the very same time these “New Ufologists” were, themselves, faking reports and incidents. As noted before, this was admitted and there was a firm refusal to declare which cases had been deliberately faked and as for an explanation as to why they did this -it was no one's business.  Not only does this totally discredit the entire New Ufology movement and those involved in it (because unless we know who did what everyone involved is tarnished) but it rendered serious UFO research dead. How could you carry out a report analysis or look for trends if you might be including anywhere from 3, 4, 5 or goodness knows how many fake reports amongst the data?

If you read the articles or books published by these ”New Ufologists” you began to see how details in one varied from another –it was almost chopping and changing details to suit what theory they were pushing. In one noted 1970s report details changed no fewer than three times in summaries written by the same person.

In one “major case” it was noted how details changed so much that at times accounts had to be re-read to make sure one was not skipping past the start of another report summary. 

There were reports that appeared genuine yet these were being explained away. Ripperston Farm in Wales and the events going on there had one lie after another added to summaries –often emphasising hoaxers to shut down interest. Hoaxers that, it appears, over 40 years later have not been found to have existed.

Seeding themselves in UFO organisations and publications these people literally controlled what was being published and what was being published tended to come from people connected to them. Interesting research into infra red photography and UFOs had any publicity given to it stopped and articles blocked.

It was this major concern from people with a serious interest in UFOs that led to the AOP Bureau opening up a file that looked at specific “New Ufologists” and groups. Attempts at organising investigation and research were infiltrated and disrupted by people acting on behalf of noted “New Ufologists”.  There was an attempt to stage a Men-In-Black style silencing operation against myself badly back-fired. Not once but twice and on the second occasion those involved were somewhat cowered when they found themselves surrounded by police officers who were visiting my home and had heard the threats and used a rear door to position themselves behind the ‘MIB’.

For this reason any report featuring the names of certain people are often given the lowest classification possible since they make it impossible to contact alleged witnesses to confirm details.  Certain alleged percipients no trace could be found of leading to the suspicion that even they were fictional. As people pointed out there seemed to be no logical sense in denying access to witnesses in these cases when it came to someone specialising in the subject and who never breached confidentiality (since 1973 some names have never been revealed in reports I looked into). Why would “New Ufologists” be afraid to have their reports authenticated?

One thing that is very noticeable is how cases that could be put down to “psychological” explanations were promoted heavily. Just what type of “psychological effect” was involved did not seem to matter if a few mumbo-jumbo phrases were used. Or the “paranormal connection” was brought in and the amount some reports dedicated to “I heard an unexplained bump noise” or “something fell in the kitchen” is ludicrous.

Reports featured far more speculation about “paranormal activity” and the investigators’ own theories than what they should have contained: factual recording and reporting of the facts in a report and assessment of the observer”.

The amount of time and space dedicated to the alleged encounters of Joyce Bowles (who was either hoaxing or a “Ruth Syndrome” case) and Ted Pratt (who tended to let Mrs Bowles do all the talking) was terrible. But it kept Ufologists arguing and at odds with each other and this might have been the whole point.

As someone from the Ministry of Defence once put it –and I paraphrase here: “Why would the Ministry try to silence Ufology –it’ doing a far better job by itself than we ever could!”

Old reports untainted by “New Ufology” really ought to be looked at and John Hanson from the Haunted Skies Project has done this to a certain extent and even found some cases not previously recorded or investigated. Unless witnesses/percipients can be spoken to first hand and details confirmed then the lowest ratings are applied.

I have bulky UK files and I know a quarter of the reports have to be considered fake.

There is your explanation.