How Things Have Changed Since 1977

The following is part of a chapter from Beyond Contact to be published in 2021.  Images are for the purposes of this post only.

All material (c)2020 Terry Hooper-Scharf

__________________________________________________________

   I have always had a great deal of respect for the work carried out by Ted Bloecher on Close Encounters of the Third Kind and Alien Entity reports –in fact, Bloecher was working on these reports in the 1950s (as noted in UFO Contact).  From the 24^th to 26^th June, 1977, the International UFO Congress was held at Chicago’s Pick-Congress Hotel and Bloecher gave a talk aptly titled Close Encounters of the Third Kind and this can be found in Proceedings of the First International UFO Congress (Ed. Curtis G. Fuller, Warner Books, NY 1980: pp. 171-182).

   At that time Bloecher and David Webb had collected some 1500 accounts for their Humanoid Catalog (HUM-CAT).  He stated that the subject of CE 3Ks was:

     “Once shunned by many UFO researchers as far too outrageous for

     serious consideration, they now are accepted as a legitimate part of

     the UFO phenomenon, perhaps even its most important part.”

   Unfortunately, it can be said that in 1977 the push to investigate and study these reports was probably only vocal and even then amongst a small group. In the UK I was still the butt of jokes over my work and the abysmal state of investigating UFO reports let alone CE 3K reports was depressing. In 2020 it still is. The same could be said for the United States at this time since the majority of CE 3K reports from the 1973 “UFO Wave” had not been fully investigated by 1977 and some still have not been.  So why did Bloecher feel these reports were so worthy of study? He wrote:

     “They are significant because they provide information about the UFO

     mystery that we do not get from the far more frequent yet often inconclusive

     reports of random night lights.  With CEIIIs the chance of misidentification

     of conventional phenomena is minimal –these are close range sightings of

     structured objects which sometimes leave traces at the site or produce

     physical effects upon people or machinery.”

   Bloecher went on to state that these reports:

     “…can be explained in only three ways: (1) As a hoax (either the witness is

     lying or he is the victim of someone else’s practical joke); (2) as a

     delusion or a psychotic aberration; (3) as a “real” experience reported as

     accurately and honestly as the witness is capable of reporting it.”

   As Bloecher then pointed out such “reports are as old as the UFO phenomenon itself” and notes that there were CE 3K reports in local newspapers in 1947 but these reports were treated as jokes since there was no precedent for such accounts. Where I disagree with Bloecher is that “only the esoteric knew of the 1896-97 “airship” sightings during which over sixty accounts of “aeronauts” (i.e., UFO occupants) appeared in the press.”  Like Dr Geoffrey Doel before me (though I had no idea of this at the time) I looked into the 1896-1897 airship wave and there did indeed appear to be people testing out some early air vessels but the majority of reports were either misidentifications or press hoaxes and press hoaxes were far from rare at that time –the Aurora UFO crash being one of these.  Another example is the still often quoted Lamy report.

   26^th March, 1880 Lamy (then Galisteo Junction), New Mexico,

   On the 29^th March the Santa Fe Weekly New Mexican newspaper headlined that a mysterious aerial phenomenon had appeared at Galisteo Junction. Three or four people had reported that a balloon of "monsterous" size, fish-shaped, propelled and directed by a fan and probably from Asia had been visible. It was reported that there were 8 to 10 people on board and they looked like normal human beings and were singing and talking (in a foreign language) and music was playing it was as if there were some party.  On the outside of the balloon “elegantly drawn characters” but not understood and thus the newspaper speculated that it must have been an air ship from Asia.

   After a while this huge craft ascended and then departed to the east at a fast speed.

Allegedly, those on board the balloon's car threw out various items –so not only were they partying loudly over a small town but they were also unconcerned about waste dumping over it. As the story goes, some of these items were picked up by the witnesses. One item was a beautiful flower with some silk-like paper with characters which reminded the witnesses of designs they had seen on Japanese tea chests. And come daylight a cup was also found –the witnesses had seen it thrown out of the balloon but failed to locate it in the darkness. The newspaper reported the cup to be of very peculiar workmanship entirely different to anything used in the United states. These items were put on display.

   Then, a week later, the same newspaper reported that the mystery was solved: the balloon, or "Aerial Monster", was the first of a regular line of airships from China to America. How did the newspaper know this?  Well, it seems that quite coincidentally a party of tourists which included a “wealthy young Chinaman” had stopped in the vicinity. This young man became very excited on seeing the articles dropped from the airship that were on display at the station because among them was a note in his fiancée's hand. If you are not muttering to yourself “Oh, give me a break!” by now wait for the next piece of the story because this young Chinaman, of course, could read what was found and so he explained that Chinese experiments in flying had succeeded and the airship which crossed the skies of Galisteo Junction was actually the first flight of a China-to-America airlines. And this is where the story ends or, rather, this was one of the endings because various accounts all claiming to quote the same source also report that “on the evening” (?) a mysterious gentleman identified only as a "collector of curiosities" appeared in the town, examined the finds and suggested they were Asiatic in origin and offered such a large sum of money for them that the agent –the man running the display at the station? -  had no choice but to accept. The "collector" scooped up his purchases and never was seen again.

   There were a few secret “Asiatic” aeronauts around in the1890s it seems. Like the infamous calf-napping in 1897 the story was a hoax. Also these were very easily proven hoaxes as that practice was widespread amongst American newspapers at the time but these reports are still cited in the literature by people such as Vallee.* 

   Bloecher was probably more concentrated on contemporary reports and relied on the work of other “credible” Ufologists –at least two have admitted to me that they knew certain reports still in use today as ‘evidence’ were nothing more than tall stories (see Some Things Strange And Sinister).  People such as John Keel found that stories of these strange craft and people sold well –as did accounts of “phantom fliers” from the1930s.

   Ignoring the historical accounts Bloecher then went on to discuss the appearances of the entities in modern reports noting that “the considerable majority fall into these three categories”:

 

(1)   “dwarfs” that average three to four and a half feet tall; (2) “normals” of standard height or slightly under; and (3) “giants” of seven feet or more.

   Unfortunately, Bloecher then refers to a ‘study’ published in Flying Saucer Review. This was the work of Vallee which is so tainted with its inclusion of hoaxes and fake reports that it really has no value in research.  However, this is what happens if there is no peer review and you take someone’s word for something. Based on triple checked reports (sometimes even quadruple checked) I wrote a lengthy article for FSR titled “Behaviour, Motivation and Speculation” –it was rejected because “Dr Vallee had conducted a thorough study in the1960s” and dogma is dogma.  Some of the things Bloecher notes are still interesting to read.

   There has been widespread time wasting of course with more theories than sense: Ortotheny, UFOs and ley-lines, UFOs and the Mars Cycle or Venus Cycle, UFOs and the coincidences of witnesses names being similar, times and so on.  When you throw hoaxes as well as natural phenomenon and misidentification of earthly objects into these things then you get nonsense and when it is all proven to be nonsense that is part of “their” plan!

   Ufologists do also have a tendency to love to categorise, sub categorise and then even sub-sub categories or try to use highly confusing phraseology.. I have seen this at work over and over again across four decades because Ufologists think this then makes their subject “like science”.  With CE 3K reports noted varieties of CEIII experience:

Type A: Entity is observed inside the object only (the true occupant), through doors, ports, windows, transparent dome, or whatever. The association is explicit.

Type B: Entity is observed getting into and/or out of an object. Association is still explicit.

Type C: Entity is seen in the immediate vicinity of an object but not actually entering or leaving it.  Association is implicit.

Type D: Entity is observed independent of UFO but there is UFO activity in the area at the time, usually reported by independent sources.  Association is circumstantial.

Type E: Entity is observed independent of an object and there is no record of UFO activity in the area at the time. The association with UFOs is negative.

Type F: Neither entity nor UFO (or in some cases, only a UFO) is seen, but the percipient experiences some manner of intelligent communication, either directly or psychically.

Type G: Percipient has an on-board experience, either voluntarily or involuntarily.  Entities may or may not be physically present, but their involvement is at least implicit.

   These categories created certain problems and I know this because early notes carry these category pointers –an “E” or “C” etc..  Type D for example is problematic since we assume (and we know what assumption is the “mother” of) that an entity observed must have some connection with a UFO(s) because where else would a 5 feet tall, silver suited person with a large round helmet who can paralyse a witness come from?

   The same can be said of Type E reports if we are not including reports of gnome-like, “ghosts” or other entities that could be a hallucination of some type.  Type F –unless some form of solid evidence can be provided I tend to dismiss these as they could be psychological in nature.

   Type G we would call abductions and whether or not entities are seen if there is corroboration of some kind such as physical trace evidence, physiological evidence –a person in the middle of Wiltshire or on some lonely backwoods road is not likely to get radiation burns or low level radiation sickness- or even a sighting of a UFO then there has to be something intelligently controlling things –unless everything is automated.  If we have only one percipient with just an account then we have anecdotal material at best.

   All of this leads to Bloecher’s next point and what he wrote/said in 1977 is still valid today.  He concluded by asking “How credible are these reports?” :

 

     “At this stage we can answer that question only by determining, through

     careful investigation, the reliability of the person or persons reporting

     the experience.  The contents of such reports are no longer a dependable

     index for credibility since perfectly credible people do report wholly

     incredible experiences.  When an investigator approaches a particular

     case he must not allow himself to be put off by its bizarre nature; he must

     concern himself with such matters as establishing the sanity and sincerity

     of the claimant and finding independent verification of the report, if such

     exists.”

   He follows this with a closing paragraph that says a great deal:

    “A great deal of research remains to be done obviously, as we gingerly wend

    our way through the complex problems suggested by the CEIII phenomenon.

    These reports continue to provoke disbelief, confusion, and controversy –but

    they do continue, in what seem to be ever-increasing numbers— and they force

    us to confront an almost impenetrable mystery.”

 

   Of course, Bloecher could not investigate every report because the work was and is not funded.  It was through Bloecher’s efforts that we know about the details of the Euporia, Mississippi report CE 3K because he contacted the radio station and got a copy of the tape they made.  Two local investigators promised to look into the case but avoided doing so at every turn and this appears to have been due to racial prejudice –the same type of prejudice that resulted in UFO reports from “black” witnesses being ignored or even dismissed.

   Reports are only as good as the report makers. In the UK I have seen reports on CE 3K cases by so-called elite investigators that are shameful. No matter-of-fact reporting but ‘reports’ full of pet theories or even simply providing a typed copy of what a percipient wrote.  Very few of these notes even evaluate the person involved and quite often it is noted that the report is so bizarre that it has to be true because the person involved gains nothing from it.

   Sadly, Bloecher retired from Ufology in, I believe, 2000 and all of his data went to Budd Hopkins which seems to have been a waste of time because Hopkins only had one interest –the lucrative alien abduction phenomenon.  After Hopkins death the papers went to David Jacobs so it can be counted as lost.  Neither Hopkins or Jacobs maintained any credibility and both appear to have had no interest in studying ‘mundane’ CE 3K reports but in manufacturing a false alien agenda claim in which many millions of humans have been abducted all of their lives and their families abducted for generations.

   The serious study of people such as Bloecher and Webb had to contend with two major problems if we ignore the ongoing dismissal of these reports by Ufologists.  The first is the enormous time wasting sub-culture of “New Ufology” and those involved in it and, sadly, they spread their new spin to other countries. It was welcomed by some previous “believers” who stamped their feet and had childish fits of pique because after decades there were no real answers or open alien contact. For this reason New Ufology sounded good to them as it also helped cover-up their own hoaxing of other Ufologists and utterly inadequate ‘investigations’ which consisted mainly of collecting press cuttings.  The idea that one need do nothing but collect clippings to reach a conclusion was reinforced by the advent of the internet because this veritable cess-pit of misinformation also provided them with a platform.

   We can look at it this way: scientists and doctors have been searching or a cure for cancer for many decades –longer than Ufology has been around. They are till looking. They did not throw their toys out of the pram but carried on and they found better treatments etc. while still looking for the ultimate cure.  

   The second major problem was the whole “Grey Abduction Phenomenon” and although Hopkins’ initial work seemed solid and backed up by others it was not. Hopkins told me and others that all the work was basically peer reviewed when in fact it was not. It was all solely handled by Hopkins and it was Hopkins that decided what evidence would be used by stacking the decks.  Everybody in Ufology, in the United States at least, then considered Hopkins the authority of CE 3K reports and in that way they could wash their hands of these awkward nasty things –“We keep referring to aliens and we are going to get made fun of!”

   When Jacobs then became a follower of  –later considered by Hopkins an equal in this “work”— the rot set in.  As Jacobs roared in one You Tube interview: “People say ‘I saw a UFO and it moved so fast it just vanished’ No! That person was abducted!” In Jacobs mind there is no such thing as a plain ordinary UFO sighting and there never was.  Back in the 1990s when I corresponded with him he was concerned about abduction cases but at some point he threw reality out the window and even cites hypnotic interviews carried out with alleged abductees over the telephone. Reading his work is like reading the worst kind of science fiction.

   Do Ufologists discuss certain aspects of CE 3K reports these days? It seems that the only reports Ufologists receive are bog standard UFO abductions involving Greys, Reptilians or Tall Whites and I have been told by one British Ufologist that he gets 100-150 new abduction reports each month and he even has a hypnotist he takes with him when visiting new claimants because the sooner they can be put under and the facts ascertained the better.

   We have reports from the 1950s that have never been investigated not just in the United States but the world over.  No one is even bothering to try to track down those percipients/witnesses before time takes its toll.  Did Bloecher envision in his worst nightmares back in 1977 that this was how CE 3K investigation and research would develop decades on?  I doubt it.

   While all of this “Grey Agenda” paranoia has taken over people reporting actual observations of UFOs and entities –the real CE 3Ks— are ignored as UFO and CE 3K history is rebooted to make it palatable for entertainment shows and that is what Ufology has become. The Hill case is over 50 years old and all other cases are shoved to one side to promote that and a star map that was never real evidence and even Betty Hill disputed its accuracy. “The first case of alien abduction” is how the Hill case is promoted by the likes of MUFON today when it was never the first alleged alien abduction case just the best publicised in American media.

   What Bloecher wrote back in 1977 is something we should look at today.  We should ignore the newspaper fakery of the 1890s.  We should ignore the Ufological fakery of the1930s “ghost fliers” and put aside the work of Hopkins and Jacobs and begin opening up cold case files and talking to percipients before they die or their memories become too unreliable. We need to start tracking down reports that have been ignored that tie-in with the Types Bloecher outlined (excluding those already noted in my comments).

   In 2020 we should be much further along in our research but while I (and I do hope

there are others out there) have continued to look at old reports as best I can and re-assess them the rest of Ufology has stagnated since the mid 1980s.