Hoaxing and Stupidity In Ufology -updated 23 08 2022

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.

https://www.checktheevidence.com/wordpress/2007/11/13/the-usual-suspects-anatomy-of-a-disinformation-campaign-in-ufology/

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

Please Note

I am not sure when or how often I will be posting here.

That old familiar problem of people taking my posts and using them (uncredited) as their own work has appeared.  Worse is that they are receiving congratulations for the purloined work.

With this blog the number of views has risen from single figures to thousands.  So people are reading what I am posting.  However, that has resulted in the type of response that drains all enthusiasm from posting new finds/material: apathy.

Not one single comment.

I am posting to myself it seems and I have no interest in writing out what I already know.

I am concentrating on the research and research results will be found in my books -available to all to buy.

If circumstances change and people start to comment (I know ufologists visit this page so why no comments?) I will be back.

Research is less time wasting it seems.

Alien Symbols Seen During UFO Abductions

In 1997, for Sightings magazine, I wrote an article that hit ufology like a bolt from the blue.

Well, like everything else it seemed to not make the slightest difference.  But I found a copy as I was going through my boxes of UFO publications looking for something else -it's how I find most things. Titled "Alien Symbols" on the contents page, the editor decided that the actual article title would be "Symbols of Abduction"; this seems to have been traditional in UFO publications -title on contents page different to the actual title!

The article was somewhat chopped up by the editor across two very badly designed pages that someone must have thought looked good.  As a consequence there are points where the text reads badly.  This is not my fault!

I am not really that surprised that in over 20 years nothing has changed.  I shall include scans of the original article so just click on to make larger.

I also need to point out that I was actively looking for evidence to back-up the work of Hopkins, Mack and Jacobs to make a stronger case.

Symbols of Abduction

Terry Hooper delivers the conclusion to his life's research on alien abductions and in particular symbols seen during abduction in Britain. Many Ufologists and researchers alike may find it a bitter pill to swallow.

I spent twenty five years looking into cases of alleged abductions by aliens or encounters with aliens.  Back in 1973 I suggested to the British UFO Research Association, Contact UK and many others that we start looking for periods of time that could not be accounted for in UFO sighting cases. No one was interested.  In fact, no one was interested in alleged Close Encounters of the Third Kind at all.  I was advised that such cases were so very rare in the UK that it would be pointless trying to find any.

By 1977 I had accumulated 100+ such cases and this excluded missing time reports.  The late Lord Clancarty and Air Vice Marshal Sir Victor Goddard found this figure remarkable.  I suppose that this was one of the reasons why they backed my going ahead with the Anomalous Observational Phenomena Bureau (AOPB) back in 1983.  In 1993 I closed shop on the AOPB as most of its original members were dead by then (one for the conspiracy theorists there!) and I had reached the conclusion that UFO activity was rarer than we believed and also that 95% of everything to do with the 'Greys', 'Dolphinoids' et al was nothing more than pure junk.

The evidence was far from convincing but I put my faith in:

1) Radar-Visual/multiple witness UFO incidents at the time of abductions ruling out the possibility that natural phenomena (UNP -Unidentified Natural Phenomena) were merely sparking off UFO reports along with physical traces.

2) Missing foetus cases -how could you argue with a foetus vanishing from a pregnant woman?

3) Implants allegedly retrieved from abductees.

4) Symbols recalled by abductees under hypnosis that they had seen on UFOs.

By 1997 MUFON in the United States confirmed to me that they had no 100% "solid"  cases. Yet it is one of the most respected, largest UFO investigation groups in the world.  That was a major disappointment.  Missing foetus cases also seemed to have been ably by veteran Ufologist Ann Druffel.  Two down, two to go.

By November 1997 I had written to every investigator and researcher I could find, who claimed to have handled or surgically removed the kind of alien implants that were being reported on TV and in the UFO press. Not a single response. So I did more digging and what I found were lies, more lies and damned deceit.  There appeared to have been not a single genuine implant retrieved from any abductee -"bits" removed seemed to be nothing more than plain ordinary organic matter that was produced by the 'abductees' own bodies.

To say that I was finding this all very depressing is putting it mildly.  I had one last hope.  The symbols.  These had been gathered by researchers from abductees in Canada, USA and the UK who had never had any contact whatsoever with one another, or with any UFO researcher before.  These symbols were so closely guarded that some had only ever been seen by one Ufologist.  If a woman in Michigan had reported seeing the same symbols as a woman in Dundee, then that would be near impossible to explain.

Having been a supporter of Budd Hopkin's work and even having an annotated copy of his 'Intruders' book, I started there.  Yes, Peter Robins and Budd would study symbols I sent to them and return them annotated, as to matches with symbols they had.  Budd has never revealed his symbol collection, not even with Peter!

i then contacted Dr. David Jacobs, whom I have been in contact with, and Prof. John Mack with the same deal.  My colleague in Texas, Lindy Whitehurst, passed copies on to Robert Davies who was studying such symbols for comparisons.  Another set went to yet another psychologist dealing with abductees.

Oddly enough, Philip Mantle of BUFORA ruled out that aliens had anything to do with abductions and wrote to me stating he had never come across such symbols in the UK.  Others had, however.

After over a year of repeatedly writing to Budd Hopkins, nothing had turned up.  I sent registered letters that were signed for but Budd would not respond and nor would Jacobs or Mack.

Rather desperately I wrote to Lindy in the US.  It seemed that Robert Davies had not found any symbols that matched.  Some, actually one or two, looked "similar" but there was not a single match. In fact, it seems that out of the thousands of symbols now available, not any matched other abductees' symbols.

It seems that I had struck the explanation to Budd's lack of cooperation.  If these symbols were all different, we had no evidence here.

For the first time I would like to publish symbols reported by British abductees, since everything points to the fact that none of the symbols held by ufologists can be considered as corroborating the genuine nature of other claimed abductees -because they don't report the same symbols.  The British symbols are shown here.  As anyone can see, these are a mish-mash of astronomical, astrological, Phoenician and Egyptian symbols - as well as some used in the publishing business to annotate manuscripts and indicate alterations.  I checked occult symbols and anything else I could get my hands on.  I checked linguists and others.  The symbols just do not make sense or mean anything.  They are simply a mixed bag of nonsense.  Budd Hopkins and the Intruder Foundation jumped at the chance to study these symbols -as did others- but I think their silence has to say it all.

The 'evidence' for UFO abductions CANNOT be confirmed or backed up in any way.

I am not saying that abductions haven't taken place, simply that if all of these abduction researchers cannot provide back-up for their claims now, they never will.

Of course, anyone who can provide implants, symbols or other proof is free to contact me,  No doubt I'll now be chased from the UFO field but, clearly, we need the evidence, we need the proof.

Above: the original Sightings article: after this was published pressure was put on the editor by "contributors" to drop my other articles planned for following issues.

                                                     >>>>>>>>

Well, I need to point out that my "life's work" never stopped in 1997!  Also there are date inaccuracies in the published article.

When it came to MUFONs declaration of no 100% solid evidence I named my source -a letter from Director Walt Andrus Jnr (a copy was sent with the article).

Above: Roswell. Enough said.

In the UK Gary Anthony told me that he had a collection of symbols that he was working on and asked for copies of the ones I had in return for those he had.  I sent the copies. After a year Anthony had not responded to my letters or phone calls.

Malcolm Robinson of the SPI also had symbols sent to him.  Again, it took a year but he then wrote to state that he had no symbols and that he was referring to marks on a person's body.

A small number of the symbols were fakes from Eric Morris who had also openly admitted in UFO circles that he had faked a number of abduction reports.  Ufology didn't care.

The problem is that if we have a genuine alien abduction agenda and abductees are seeing symbols and writing then there should be some matches. Even if the Greys have a different language to the Reptilians, or Tall Whites or whatever there logically have to be some common usage symbols or writing.  Yes, abduction folk come up with all sorts of excuses but it all tends to be bull or they will point and scream "Debunker!"

Above: said to have been seen in several cases...this is a hoax, however so.....

Regarding the "missing foetus syndrome" and other aspects of the Grey Abduction Scenario were covered completely in my book UFO Contact? while looking at the evidence that exists -the book is not a debunking exercise; I mention that because when you look for evidence people start thinking that far from being a sceptic looking at the evidence you are trying to debunk UFOs completely. That would have been me wasting over 40 years of my life.  I want answers before I die!

I hate to think that over twenty years later I am still giving the same sermon and no one listens but at least I am conducting research and that is yielding more results.

Below: symbols scanned from the original Grey Book

Old abduction case discovered. UK cataloguing and Spanish hoaxes -or were they?

In doing a casual search today I discovered that there was another Buckfastleigh CE3K -possibly an abduction just one month after the one I am looking into.  Be interesting to see how this pans out.

Using the excellent Haunted Skies UFO encyclopaedia and some other sources, I have noted that 1977 was a peak year in the UK for CE3K reports but I need to add that many of those will fall by the wayside as they are categorized after reappraisal.

Certainly the old Preliminary Catalogue I posted a while back is looking bulkier.  It is just a pity that a request to BUFORA and other UK groups to participate in the project has received no responses. This goes to show just how much ufology has changed since the 1970s/1980s

I need to add that at the same time certain ufologists began to fake reports which they have admitted to doing but will not state which reports. When these reports are clearly identified those ufologists responsible will be identified.

Oddly, I have quite casually -again- discovered two types of entity that no one else appears to have noted before.  More when the work is complete.

Now, I note there are a few readers from Spain so I hope one of them might help. I was told that the 1967 sighting of a cactus-like entity near Barcelona, Spain and Tivissa octopus looking entity case were both proven press hoaxes.  I accepted this, however, I have been quite rightly challenged for accepting this explanation.  You see, I took someone's word for it.  I have asked people who used to deal with Spanish reports and other ufologists whether they can cite the source and evidence for hoaxes.

After three months I have still not come up with any source.  If you can help then please get in touch via aopbureau@yahoo.co.uk  -THANKS

Search for three teenagers involved in 1978 UFO incident in Devon

Can't say I am too happy that the inference of alcohol was put into the item but that is the press.

Search for three teenagers involved in 1978 UFO incident in Devon

The trio had left a youth club in Buckfastleigh

By Max Channon

https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/search-three-teenagers-involved-1978-2091366

A UFO researcher wants to contact a trio of teenagers who reported a close encounter of the third kind in Devon 40 years ago this month.

Terry Hooper-Scharf, a naturalist and historian who runs the Anomalous Observational Phenomena Facebook Page, says the youngsters, who will now all be in their 50s, reported seeing a number of UFOs in the sky after leaving a youth club in Buckfastleigh - the Devon market town famous for producing the notoriously potent Buckfast Tonic Wine.

The three friends also reported seeing 'unidentified figures' on three occasions - and were said to have been left traumatised by the experience.

Terry said: "On the 3 October, 1978, three teenagers left a youth club in Buckfastleigh, Devon. The trio were given pseudonyms at the time of Shirley, Mark and Paul.

"Investigation procedures at the time as well as protocol on dealing with witnesses were not what they are today.

"We know that the trio observed a number of unidentified objects in the sky above the village and some unidentified figures on three occasions.

"We might normally be cautious but a retired gentleman named Harry observed the objects himself after the nervous trio knocked on his door – his cats also behaved oddly.

"The teens were traumatised and the girl identified as Shirley was said to have been most affected.

"1978 seems a very long time ago now but I am trying to locate the teens and gather as much information about observations that evening as I can.

"If they read this, or any family members do, then please get in touch.

"I cannot over-emphasise that I deal with witnesses in the strictest confidence and have done so for over 40 years.

"My interest is purely for research and so I hope that the trio will consider getting in touch with me.

"I can be contacted via email at aopbureau@yahoo.co.uk or blackto@hotmail.com or via Face Book Messenger – Anomalous Observational Phenomena page."

Updated: Marley Woods and Ted Phillips -what is going on?

Let me make it very clear that if you are looking -scientifically- into the paranormal or unidentified phenomena of any type you are not a crank. If you are looking at UFOs in a scientific way you are not a crank.

However, there is a point when you can be said to have lost it.

Ted Phillips is a legend for his work on UFO physical trace evidence and I would have taken his word on anything because he had credibility.  I had to think long and hard after watching several long talks as well as hearing podcasts he has been on.

He recites the "classic" UFO trace cases of Delphos ("The Delphos Ring") and Langenburg, Saskatchewan, 1974. He has over 4,000 cases on his trace cases catalogue -photos, analysis, etc- and yet the same couple cases.  He will then go into the Skinwalker Ranch case and if you think George Knapp has given some wild versions of the same stories -Phillips goes one better.

We then come to his most recent ()decade or so?) work: Marley Woods. Odd lights, though absolutely nothing impressive filmed (it seems) just distance lights.  Tales of a very large, canid-like creature that is bullet proof and can walk on its hind legs (no, I am not getting mixed up and I am talking about Marley not Skinwalker) and a paw cast that looks wolf-like.

Cue the use of the term "portal" and the usual claims.

Now Phillips has been claiming that he believes UFOs and the paranormal are linked but also that the "flying saucers" of old have been "replaced" by orbs of various sizes and colours. He also claims that he realised one day that decades on these "little guys" (UFO entities) were described wearing the same type of clothing -their fashion had not developed.  Then it hit him that the reason the clothing may not have changed is because it is the "same day" to "them" -in other words: time travellers(21 minutes in):




Firstly, there have always been two distinct phenomena and one precedes Ufology by centuries. With today's reporting system everything and anything becomes a UFO so we cannot say there are no more "flying saucer" types being seen. I realised that there were two distinct phenomena with two days of cataloguing thousands of UFO reports in the late 1970s.

So what are people like Phillips doing?  If you study rabbits and combine that data with studies on horses you will end up with nonsense.  This is what these people are doing; combining two separate phenomena and adding in the other miscellaneous stuff like fakes and hoaxes and shrugging and saying "I give up.  this is completely beyond the laws of physics and cannot be extraterrestrial -it must be extra-dimensional!"

Now Phillips is concentrating on similar sites to Marley as well as a 'space ship'(?) embadded in a mountain in Czechia (formerly Czech republic)?

The natural thing to do is go through the catalogue and see which cases involve "orb-like" objects and which solidly constructed craft: you then have a data base for analysis on "UFOs" and the natural phenomenon.  You do not throw decades of work away and just say you think it might all be cosmic tricksters!

Phillips Physical Evidence data base has not been up-dated for years and the page for his trace group ...no responses. A few years back I defended Phillips and his work -which really should be available for public and Scientific scrutiny -especially scientists like to see some hard facts from analysis so...who is checking all this data and the last time I saw Phillips with his data files they were crammed.

In the UK Geoff Falla's Vehicle Interference Catalogue contains 900 reports -including from pilots.

That is 4000 Physical Trace cases and 900 Vehicle Interference cases.

I decided to re-appraise Close Encounters of the Third Kind and Alien Entity (CE3K/AE) reports and found large numbers of these were still being promoted as genuine despite being known as fakes/hoaxes and misinterpretations for 30-50 years.  What I did not expect, especially when I put together UFO Contact?, was to find that there are some that cannot be simply dismissed -and that was when I took into account the attempts by debunkers.  It will take a lot of work to get through thec world wide catalogue but there are "solid" cases.

We have people keeping catalogues of physiological effects and Animal Disturbance cases caused by UFOs, however, most do not want to share -it is "their" data.

But there is enough evidence and it needs to be presented and peer reviewed. THIS is what science needs and this type of material needs to be peer reviewed: that is science.

I asked previously why Phillips had not gotten involved with Bigelow, the money behind the Skinwalker ranch investigation.  It seems that Bigelow made the offer but in no way or form would Phillips be allowed to share information or discuss the work.  Bigelow told him "Information only comes in" which raises questions about what Bigelow is up to.

Refusing a good pay cheque and smart office because he believes all information should be made available, is a very big plus point on Phillips' side.

Decades on I think everyone -including Science- needs to see the trace evidence not listen to old stories of Delphos or Langenburg.

Ufology is just very depressing and unscientific

Buckfastleigh, Devon: 1978 -witness appeal

It is a long shot but you never know...

On the 3^rd October, 1978, three teenagers left a youth club in Buckfastleigh, Devon. The trio were given pseudonyms at the time of Shirley, Mark and Paul.

Investigation procedures at the time as well as protocol on dealing with witnesses were not what they are today. 

We know that the trio observed a number of unidentified objects in the sky above the village and some unidentified figures on three occasions.  We might normally be cautious but a retired gentleman named Harry observed the objects himself after the nervous trio knocked on his door –his cats also behaved oddly.

The teens were traumatised and the girl identified as Shirley was said to have been most affected.

1978 seems a very long time ago now but I am trying to locate the teens and gather as much information about observations that evening as I can.  If they read this, or any family members do, then please get in touch. I cannot over-emphasise that I deal with witnesses in the strictest confidence and have done so for over 40 years.  My interest is purely for research and so I hope that the trio will consider getting in touch with me.

I can be contacted via email at aopbureau@yahoo.co.uk or blackto@hotmail.com or via Face Book Messenger –Anomalous Observational Phenomena page.

My thanks in advance

Terry Hooper-Scharf

CE3K/AE Project

An alien hunter is coming to Somerset....WHO Is This Person??

There is a reason why you always treat the press with caution.

An alien hunter is coming to Somerset (Image: Getty Images)

ByJames Brinsford

20:59, 7 OCT 2018

NEWS

An alien hunter is coming to Somerset

An alien hunter is heading to Somerset and has issued an appeal to a spotter in Yeovil that has said they have seen an unidentified creature.

Terry Hooper-Scharf is hoping that readers of Somerset Live will help him track down the person who thought they saw an extra terrestrial in the town.

He said that he is tracking down those that have had close encounters of the third kind and is eager to hear of any reported sightings.

This is part of the Alien Entities Study Project, which was set up in 1974 to gather and study reports, whether UFOs were involved or not.

This looked at cases from the UK as well as assessing world wide reports.

The project has received helped from naturalists, biologists and astronomers over the years, and with the CE3K/AE Catalogue is currently being updated for the UK, so now they need to hear from you.

Terry told us: "I am hoping that one of your readers might be able to assist me as I am looking for someone who reported sighting an 'alien' in Yeovil in December, 2016.

"Leaving aside all the obvious jokes, I need to ascertain whether this report was a joke or whether the people involved were being serious.

"If they were joking then fair enough it can be noted and left at that.

"If the people involved were being serious then I would very much like to hear from them, in the strictest confidence."

Terry said that his work has been recognised internationally and the people of Somerset may be able to fill some gaps in his study.

He said: "If the people or someone who knows about their sighting can get in touch or pass the word along I would be very grateful."

Some Notes On CE3K/Alien Entity Cases

1.     Above all else, the person(s) reporting the incident to the investigator/group has to be guaranteed 100% that said investigators/group will not betray their anonymity in any way.

2.    The person(s) involved must be spoken to at the very earliest opportunity.  Weeks or months is not acceptable.

3.    The investigator must put the person(s) involved at their ease. Whether this is one or more witnesses does not matter at this point. Just talking to them and establishing their interests and employment or daily life routine is important but will make them feel more at ease: they are not being treated as some kind of freak. Point out that you cannot discuss if there are any similar cases to theirs or go into detail and that this is because protocol dictates this. Make it clear that critics cannot say they faked or added bits from cases this way but that after testimony is taken you are slightly more free to do so.

NEVER state "Oh, it's similar to the Stanford case" or anything similar as even an honest witness might be tempted to do an internet search for a "Stanford CE3K" or UFO landing report.

 4.    There should be no discussion about Ufology in general or local reports, other than to put the person(s) at their ease and show they are not "crazy". CE3Ks/AE cases or reports MUST NOT be referred to and only after the interview should an investigator even suggest anything similar has been described as it could taint future statements.

5.     At no point should someone who has had a similar encounter be introduced even if to put a witness at their ease. If the percipient(s) is a female then there should be a female investigator present or a female known top the investigator ~wife, girl friend BUT only under strict confidentiality.

The ideal situation would be for any investigation team to have both male and female members for such situations.

6.    Interviewing the percipient(s) should be on an individual basis.  NO group interviewing.

7.     All interviews should be taped as standard ~note that many digital recorders are of poor quality so make sure any device used records good spound quality.

8.    Taped interviews should be transcribed as soon as possible after initial interviews.

9.    Do NOT refer to any object sighted as a "space craft" as that leads the witness and critics can later use this to show you have done so even if not intentional. Use the term "UFOB" to indicate what is being described as a seeming constructed object.

10.    Do NOT refer to "Alien" or use any phraseology other than "Entity"

11.  If the percipient(s) were in a vehicle and vehicle interference was noted refer to manual on VI cases.

12.  If the percipient(s) report psysiological effects during and after then full details should be noted. It is the duty of the investigators/organization to facilitate some form of medical examination.  If organizations cannot do this (no reference should be made to a UFOB case though, if the doctor involved is part of a UFO organization this is moot).

13.  The first interview should enable any investigator to determine whether there is any missing time period during the encounter reported ~ascertain that there is no mundane reason for a mistake having been made such as a car clock being slow or house clock fast as the discrepancy between these two could give a false impression.

14.   Do NOT immediately start asking whether the percipient(s) would be willing to undergo hypnotic regression. There must be very strict guidelines as to when any form of hypnosis is used and then only by a qualified professional.

15.  Even if not good artist(s) get the percipient(s) to draw any UFOB they saw and then any entity.  Once this/these have been made then a more professional set of drawings can be made and to guarantee that the percipient(s) agree this is accurate they should be asked to sign said drawings.

16.  It will also be necessary for investigators to ask the percipient(s) to return with them to  the scene of the incident (daylight is best as some percipient(s) may be too fearful to return to the spot at night though if they are willing no problem) so that it can be pin~pointed as accurately as possible.  The inveastigators should note anything unusual in the area such as abandoned buildings, factoroies. If the visit takes place during daylight then the investigators should return at night, as close to the time of the incident as possible.  It could be that something locally was mistaken for a UFOB.

17.  During the day and at night, photographs should be taken of the scene of the incident. Look for any trace evidence etc., as should be standard.

18.  Any final version of the whole percipient(s) statement(s) should be read through, approved and signed by the percipient(s).

19.  When the investigation is completed the investigator should be able to tell the percipient(s) whether he feels that they have had a genuine experience and those involved may now ask questions but it should be made clear that we cannot say where these things originate and any mention of "Alien agendas"/"breeding programs" must not be made.

20.  Only now should it be clear whether or not there is any missing time period an ways to help the percipient(s) (not regression hypnosis) consciously recall what might have happened.  If any such methods are unsuccessful then, and only then if the percipient(s) are willing, should regression hypnosis be suggested and, again, this must be by a qualified person not heavily steeped in Ufology.

21.  At all times a central case coordinator should be kept up to date on the investigatrion.  This helps investigators talk through any problems or seek advice. If there is more than one group involved then this must be an evenly split investigation with everyone complying with the established procedure. A central case coordinator could smooth over any problems.

22. The final report should be signed by all involved.  A summary should be handed to the percipient(s)

23. Although this should be a conclusion to the investigation it should be made clear to the percipient(s) that the investigator(s) can be contacted regarding any developments or recollections.

24. Re. 23, above, the investigator should make a courtesy call to see how the percipient(s) are doing and any developments after one year. Then after two years and the fact that the percipient(s) can contact investigators in future should be reiterated.

these are only guidelines -be adaptable!

How Can A "Repeater" Be A Repeater If He/She Has Not Been Repeating?

Siberian ball lightning or UFO?  https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/535602/ball-lightning-siberia-UFO-sighting-phenomenon-Russia-Novosibirsk

There is a problem and, yes, the cause of the problem is once again the ufologist -but scientists can also take some measure of blame.

I have noted before how, even up until the late 1980s, if you saw a UFO you were told by ufologists: "It's very rare to see one of these".  If you saw a second UFO you were treated with caution; seeing a UFO is so rare and you have had two sightings?  Third time -"Witness is a UFOnut or mentally unstable!"

Today, of course, see a UFO once and some idiot jumps up-and-down and shouts "You've been abducted!"

I have had five sightings of strange lights between 1977-1986.  I was wide awake and moving around on all occasions and I was aware of every single second of the short and lengthier observations. I know meteorites -by 1980 I had written several general articles on the subject so, having also seen a few including bolides, I know the objects were not meteorites.  i have seen St Elmo's Fire -was not that. I think -think because it was so brief I would not credit it as a "sighting"- I have seen ball lightning. What I saw was not ball lightning -the weather on the occasions I saw what I saw was warm and clear and starry and cool and clear starry night. No thunderstorms before, during or after.

One of the objects, to me, looked like a ball of plasma -2-3 feet (60-90cms) in size.  However, it was a clear, starry morning and the weather could not have been better.  So no storm as a catalyst.

Three of the reports I made out UFO sighting report forms on for the group I ran.  After all, we needed to be aware of what was out there to formulate a theory and so on.  I made it perfectly clear that these objects in no way or shape could be considered as constructed craft.  They appeared to be unidentified but "natural".

One day I heard a report that sounded almost exactly the same as one of my sightings so I wanted to check the weather and other data I had included on my report form.  It was gone.  All three reports were gone -I was then told that a couple of the members had thrown away my reports as "We cannot be seen to have a leader who constantly sees UFOs" I was told.  To say that I went "ballistic" is a bit of an understatement.  It got worse when I found reports where others had reported seeing objects more than once were also thrown out.

We were all, presumably, "UFOnuts".

Astronomers and debunkers would always throw out "it was a meteorite" explanation.  They were astronomers so everyone giggled at the silly UFO people and moved on.  When astronomers made fun of witnesses and said "it was a meteorite" it began to be taken less and less seriously.  In fact some of the debunkers who thought it made them look good got red faces.  You see, when they never checked who the UFO witness was and went straight into mocking them it back-red.  I am aware of one noted astronomer who specialised in meteorites and such; at a meeting of astronomers he introduced a speaker who had jumped into astronomy only a couple years previously: "I will listen with great interest to his stories of seeing bolides just as he listened to my account of sighting an anomalous object recently".

This "junior" astronomer had actually mocked the witness to a UFO sighting who turned out to be one of the people to go to about meteorites -as he learnt that evening.  There was another professional jab -"stories"; you take things seriously as "accounts" and "reports" and using the word "story" is tantamount to saying "it's all made up".

So, the meteorite explanation was and is still used but a bit more cautiously.  But how could they (I won't call them scientists as they were being very unscientific) just dismiss UFO reports now?

Oh! Ball lightning!

Yes, "nobody knows what ball lightning is so no one can argue when we offer that one up!"  Of course, the indignant ufologists could not argue because they had no idea what ball lightning was and so they responded: "No! That is using one unknown to explain another unknown!"  They had their dander up but the fault was on both sides.

In 1982 I wrote my first general article on ball lightning and it was circulated amongst UK ufologists and even appeared in a few UFO newsletters but rather than make ufologists closely examine all cases it was simply used as a response to the solution: "We are well aware of ball lightning -we even published an article in our newsletter on the subject!"  Very truthful statement.  The article was right after the "Mini UFO probe spotted flitting about during thunder storm" report.

Ball lightning has even been used as evidence of a "UFO crash retrieval" -more than once.

My sightings helped me realise that not everything being reported was some kind of extraterrestrial vehicle.  However, when I broached the topic with legitimate scientific people the response was "not that UFO rubbish!" and yet I had never used the acronym "UFO".  The ufologists thought I was a "UFOnut" -some even took digs at me in print but (being cowards and not wanting to be sued) simply used titles such as "Are You A UFOnut?"   They used the same childish tactics when it came to my work on CE3K/AE reports.

An object sighted in Stockwood, Bristol, in the early 1980s was described by the couple involved as silently moving down from roof height to a few feet above ground, being a goldeny-colour and about my height (5ft 9 ins) and width (I was a "bigger boy" in those days).  Weather warm and clear and the object was around 10 feet (3m) from them. Not an extraterrestrial craft but definitely some form of phenomenon.

A white coloured light seen descending, hovering and changing shape before shooting off -it was about 3 feet (90 cms) in diameter.

Here is a fun fact: a few of these objects were sighted in areas with local legends of strange lights -"Devil's Eye" (Somerset) and so on.  The ball of light I saw from my sixth floor flat -similar balls of light had been sighted moving over the block before and some were even chased by police in squad cars (one -jokingly (I think)- told me:"About time you saw one since they are flying over your flats all the time!").

Scientists have ignored much of the data because it originates from ufologists.  Ufologists have no clue so it all becomes "inter-dimensional" or the "work of cosmic jokers".  You cannot imbue ball lightning or any other light phenomena with intelligence.  It is not "moving and indicating that some intelligence is guiding it".

I sit here, having looked at the evidence of CE3K/AE reports since 1974 while ufologists are calling moving balls of (let's call it plasma) plasma with intelligence and being evidence of visitors from other dimensions.

Which is the bigger dumb-qss?

So, when someone says (even in 2018) "The report isn't worth much attention -the witness is a 'Repeater'!"  They are talking nonsense: if you work at night and travel around and see up to ten meteorites a year should astronomers ignore you because you are a "Repeater"?  You see a natural but unrecognised phenomenon -may be ball lightning or not- on your 350 days of working and travelling nights -are you a Repeater who needs to be ignored?

You see natural phenomena and then one day you encounter something really "out of this world"; is your account now of no interest because you have reported ball lightning or other phenomena before?

You treat each new cases as it comes in and if you are unable to assess the information you receive sensibly -get out of ufology.  If you assess and judge only by reading (possibly inaccurate) press reports then -get out of ufology and stop accusing scientists of not taking the csubject seriously.

Scientists: open your eyes because you could be recognised as the person who opened up a whole new field of scientific study.