From looking through old magazines/newsletters of the period
it is obvious that 1978 saw a
large number of UFO reports and CE3Ks.
It has been claimed that this was due to the release of the
movie Close Encounters of the Third Kind
(1977) -why not Star Wars (1977) one might ask? It is a rather convenient "explain-it-all-away
for the debunkers who like to declare themselves "sceptical
ufologists". Why not, as we are discussing UK reports, blame it all on Dr Who
episodes -1963 onward covered.
I have been involved in this subject now since 1973 and
became fully active in 1974. Here is the thing; these things have come and gone
over the years -X-Files, Dark Skies, the seemingly uncountable number of TV
shows and documentaries and the thing is that there follows a "surge of
UFO sightings".
Untrue.
What you get are a lot of people who want to attach
themselves to a subject for various reasons.
This is not just in ufology.
From 1977 on I was an exotic wildlife consultant to UK
police forces and the usual focus was non native cats (if you go by reports
there is only one member of the Big cat family seen in the UK;the
leopard/panther for which we have had hairs, tracks and so on). Newspapers get
bored -oh, someone said they have seen a strange cat?" out comes the
feature and suddenly "big cat hunters" are everywhere and they have
no knowledge of the subject pertaining to UK cases other than "The
Classics" (yes, even this subject has Classics!) or some facts they have
taken from other "British Big Cat" sites online. I spoke to one after another who told me
"Yeah, I've been doing this over three/five years now" and it is said
as though it makes them veterans. The utter disbelief -just stopping short of
calling me a liar- when I say, well I started 40 years ago in 1977".
The same pattern emerges here; the reprinting of
"classic" reports, the odd new report and these "Big Cat
Hunters" being determined to find evidence of the British Big Cat -to
throw in the face of the Government cover up.
These people will claim they have been followed, attempts have been made
to silence them and some even claim mystery helicopters have appeared on
"investigation sites". Any of
this sound familiar? I have not experienced any of this in 40 years and, guess
what? I have affidavits regarding cats
killed. So "ya-boo-sucks!"
Now, I also have an interest in the paranormal, since I was
a youngster in fact. Again, the "Classic cases" and people jumping
in, particularly since the mass of fake paranormal TV shows. Die-hard truth-seekers who will not stop
until they have the incontrovertible evidence.
These Big Ghost paranormalists have their tag team of psychics,
sensitives and all the new expensive gadgets -most are just old builders
gadgets re-labelled to sell at 3-4 times the normal price to dupes. Oh, I'm sure that the black clothing industry
must be making a big profit these days, too!
Sasquatch/Bigfoot -all the same type of things and, of
course, since the internet and all the TV shows the UK has got to have its own
Bigfoot...its own Dog-man..it goes on and on.
Most of these truth-seekers, or hobbyists, vanish after a
while. They turn up again as they jump band wagons and I note names that were
into Big Cats appearing in UFO circles and the paranormal circles and now
'British Bigfoot'. If turd polishing was
to become a hot US TV show trend you can bet these people will turn up as
British turd-polishing truth-seekers.
The only common factor in all of these subjects -with the
exception of turd-polishing as I (hope) I made that one up- is that there is
constant in-fighting, back-stabbing, lying, hoaxing and false claims. It is
also true to say that these people publish no research. To be honest a badly
written "investigation" report is not a substitute for a technical
paper that can be peer reviewed and that others can build or improve on (EEKS! "Share
data?!").
I have my name on technical papers concerning feral and
hybrid felids and possible populations of English wildcats; on wolverines in
the UK;
for the Eastern Cougar Conference I contributed to a paper. My decades long study
of foxes in the UK
was published as a paper but then made more widely available as a fully
referenced book: Red Paper 1:Canids.
Summing up all I have learnt since 1973 and, again, fully referenced and
coming out at over 500+ pages, UFO Contact? was originally part of the Grey
Book UFO Report but updated.
I'll point out that I am not welcome when it comes to
ufology, cryptozoology, paranormal groups, etc., because (and I was actually
told this three times and still have those emails) "we were a bit concerned. You have a reputation..." And what "reputation" is this? Well, and I will be honest here, I want to
find those cases that are genuine and not explainable (in the sense of "it
was this" or "That was obviously...") because that is something
to build on and find out what it really was.
To prove where the UFOBs -solid, constructed objects- come from with no
real doubt. There are areas of the
paranormal that are not just imagined so we have to look at the
"unknown" aspects.
I am not a fantasist.
I do not believe that, for example, the UK is full of ghosts (thousands of
them), demons, Bigfoot, UFO bases, cattle mutilations and gateways/portals to
hell and that thousands are being kidnapped daily by aliens. If I believed all
of that I am quite sure I would be welcomed by all!
But you have to look for an explanation and when you find it
make that known -fully reference your article or publication so that your
explanation can be checked. I would hate to think people say "Well, he
says that is what it was" without checking themselves.
Dr Who as a TV series has not spawned countless reports of
Cybermen or Dalek like entities in flying saucers. Close Encounters of the
Third Kind simply resulted in some people making new reports or old reports
being churned up by desperate UFO groups hoping to get publicity and increase
the social club membership. 1977 -1979 were very busy years for me as a UFO
investigator. I covered a wide geographical area because most of the others in
local UFO groups just could not be bothered -they had the newspaper clippings
after all. I submitted 300 reports to
BUFORA. They confirmed receipt. One year later; "We seem to have mislaid
them somehow. Three hundred reports
But that was in the past.
Who cares. I can tell you, however,
that despite everything those "sceptical ufologist say, shout or write
-the reports made and investigated before and after the movie were the
"standard" type. No one
reported a compulsion to get to the peak of the Berwyn mountain. No compulsion to build a mashed potato BerwynMountain.
No mysterious Frenchman with a United Nations team turned up to listen to close
encounter witnesses humming the tune of "Myfanwy". The words: "Is everything ready on the
dark side of Cleethorpes" were never uttered.
Facetious? Well. if
these "sceptical ufologists" actually did some real research work or
even got off their cushioned asses once
in a while rather than pushing their own agendas they would know all of this.
Are they aware that overt a four week period in late 1978 it
is possible -not proven- that there were at least three UFO abduction cases,
one a multi-witness case?
Here is another truth: as an investigator/researcher you
find out more when not involved in a group(s).
Also,a lot of hard work went into making this face! :-)
These blogs are, as always, just thoughts that come to mind. I am not aiming my remarks at serious researchers of UFOs. I always welcome contact from them -we are a rare breed after all. Bare that in mind when reading this.
I was not surprised to find that a number of CE3K/AE cases
from the United States
have turned out to be hoaxes perpetrated by ufologists. I am aware of a very strong rumour that
certain American debunkers -not sceptics who look at the evidence but people who
debunk, probably out of fear- have "seeded" one or two fake cases to
draw in ufologists who can then be humiliated for having fallen for "an
obvious and deliberate hoax".
In the UK
it has been known that at least on TV company has had plans, with debunkers, to
carry out a similar hoax.
Let me make it very clear that none of this is backed by the
governments of the United Kingdom
or the United states. This comes from an idea by debunkers (who are
people just scared of the possibility of what the phenomenon means) and TV
people who do not give a damn so long as it is “sexy TV”.
Why call yourself a “ufologist” is you are sceptical to the
point of simply debunking? Get out of the subject if it is all fake or admit
that you are in it to make money and for the publicity.
The state ufology has been in goes back to before the 1990s.
I heard and read of Max Burns and his search for evidence that an RAF Tornado
crashed in 1997 –the initial report of a “flying triangle” UFO has become…not
even a side issue. RAF aircraft have
crashed over the years. It happens. What I was ‘slightly’ surprised at is how so
called prominent British ufologists behaved.
If you read the following, printed in full on a number of blogs, wait
until you reach the “Stage 7: Hoaxing to Orders” part. If that does not change
your mind about British ufology then your reality check must be a Dr Who story.
How does all of this affect the CE3K/AE project you ask –or
I hope you do. Since the 1970s I kept
all correspondence with ufologists, prominent or otherwise. I also kept files on these people and their
groups. Almost 40 years of background information and it is what led me to shun
ufology.
The 1978 Frodsham “Cow-measuring” report I had up-dated and
then received two emails (“Truthseeker47” and “The Frod-sham-man”) the first in
2015 simply said: “Regarding the Frodsham cow case. I hear you are looking into
it. You will get nowhere. It never happened”. No response from the emailer later. The other email was three months ago: “I see
you mentioned the Frodsham case. Why?!
Don’t you know it was a hoax?” Again, no response when I emailed back.
In that The Usual
Suspects: Anatomy of a Disinformation Campaign in Ufology Andy Roberts
admitted that he and other prominent British Ufologists had “seeded” fake reports since the
1980s. My information is that this
started much earlier. Roberts flatly refused to state which cases had been faked and for what purpose which indicates that any -any- reports with certain names attached should be suspect. I do not care
about Ufologists or their petty arguments.
There is only one thing I am interested in and that is the information
and data. Unless others have spoken to
certain witnesses/percipients then I need to add a very large question mark to
many cases from the late 1970s on.
For the record I did message Max Burns twice to get more information and I also messaged Clarke and Roberts but received no responses.
The Berwyn Mountains UFO crash. Firstly, this was not the crash of an unknown type of craft but an earthquake and the facts about this are scientifically acknowledged. Ufologists want to add faulty memories and faking into the mix so we can have another "British Roswell". I have already related the account of the Wales based Ufologist and conspiracy nut who out of the blue demanded in an email that I turn over all paperwork and materials relating to my work on Welsh 'UFO crashes'. Oh, and I had to do so immediately. This person identified me as a Ufologist living in Wales who had appeared out of the blue to sabotage his "great work" and that I was obviously a "security services stooge". I did respond politely to this person and sent him my full Cv as well as the chapter from my book on the subject in question. I was unaware that he was unable to read (I assume) since he continued his "man out of nowhere" storyline and some UFO groups also continued to publish the story. I ought to add that these UFO groups let alone the people running them never existed when I started in UFOs in 1974.
My background is well known and Margaret Sachs in her (1983?) UFO Encyclopedia has an entry on me and I am still known in European as well as American Ufology and I have written well over 50 articles on ball lightning, CE3K and AE reports, aircraft-UFO encounters (in FSR) and given lectures and talks. But the mind of a conspiracy theorists and Ufological cronies is not set in a real work.
It is also a European Ufology thing; there are three Spanish CE3K cases from
1966/1967 that are still being quoted and used as ‘evidence’ despite my
attempts over six years to get people to understand they are hoaxes –but that
means giving up “good cases” so that means keep on quoting. In Spain these
cases were known to be hoaxes in the 1960s but Vallee and company continue to
use them. Oddly, one of the cases was known to Spanish investigators who would not name the "prominent Ufologist" responsible
for the hoaxing. I think that "unknown report" (which they had details of?) and the source reveals who did
what. You see, a big light in the sky is
‘proof’ of extra-terrestrials but the known source of hoax reports…well,
“concrete evidence” is apparently not available.
At times I almost give in.
We have organisations promoting themselves as "scientific
truth seekers" but are only interested in money and publicity. Their organisation heads switch and change
beliefs dependent on what prominent paying members are pushing –abductions,
orbs –whatever. Investigators are asked
to change reports to fit in with the current money-making trend (shades of the
Bigfoot Field Researchers Organisation and the scandal that rocked them) while
senior members seem to go unpunished over open racist remarks and even worse behaviour.
There is the “it ain’t gonna make us money so screw you”
attitude hidden behind a statement that when used by the United States
Air Force saw them vilified (MUFON): “The case was too long ago to open an investigation at
this date”. But if I investigate and discover a great case I can hand it
over to them (TV beckons).
This is why Science will not take ufology seriously. Ufology
constantly jumps and shifts to whatever trend is “hot” –and makes money. Sensationalise reports and jump deep into
some fantasy about "mysterious intelligences behind orbs" and then indignantly
pout and scowl at the camera and growl: “Science will not take us seriously!” Ufologists have now been called "UFO fans" in documentaries and TV items for over a decade and they are UFO "fans" -and some act like zealots and if you state that you do not believe that battles are taking place in space around Earth -a real life Star Wars- then you will be attacked online and become the victim of trolling. Clearly recorded (on video) flares ARE a small fleet of extra-terrestrial craft and if you say they were not -the zealots move in. You do not accept the mass abduction of millions of Earth people by "Grey" aliens for generations which defies all logic and -out come the zealots.
Facts mean nothing because giving those facts make YOU part of the cover-up. The very dubious Ufologists will even use their social media such as Twitter and Face Book to stir up their followers and actively encourage online attacks or attempts to make a 'critics' social media unviable. They encourage (with a nod and a wink) online fantasy posts created about their 'critics'.
There is a reason for there being peer review in
science. Others can test your theories
and data and will either say “The claim is correct” or “We have some doubts on
this aspect –can you clarify?” We have seen that this has never been the case within Ufology.
This is why I say that Ted Philips’ trace case evidence
should be widely available; it needs peer reviewing to make its case. What I have seen of the cases listed, and it is a rather brief list, known hoaxes are included as are reports from pre-1900 that cannot even be proven to have actually happened.
Jacques Vallee the "must never be questioned" godfather of Ufology; his Landing case catalogue is so full of hoaxes and misidentifieds -some known as such before they were even placed into his listing- going back decades. Some historical reports he has promoted in his works simply never happened and I proved that by going to the claimed sources, hoping to get extra information.
None of this is new because when I was going through as many sources as possible for The British Report on UFOs one case after another was negated as having no back-up or original source reference. Desmond Leslie (a former editor of Flying Saucer Review) and George Adamski's book, The Flying Saucers Have Landed , was so full of misquotes and downright fake-up reports that it had to be excluded as any type of reference.
A very prominent American Ufologist and author actually told me, quite openly in an email, that specific cases still quoted today were from a "well known" flying saucer hoaxer who came up with "all sorts of stories". He has never set the record straight.
We have the deliberately faked accounts from Ufologists -not just aimed at deceiving other Ufologists but everyone. In the UK Eric Morris faked symbols allegedly seen during (equally faked) UFO abductions cases. he faked documents and even physically threatened people and yet was a regular guest at UFO events and very likely colluded with well known Ufologists to fake reports. Someone who worked with him during the late 1970s and early 1980s clued me in on a lot of what was going on but then left Ufology after threats from Morris. During the 1990s when I got the evidence that Morris was hoaxing I received a phone call from him threatening to kill me -police had words with him. However, after he died Morris was still being hailed as a great Ufologist.
J. Allen Hynek, who was a trained astronomer and who served
as a scientific advisor for Project Blue Book, was initially skeptical of UFO
reports, but eventually came to the conclusion that many of them could not be
satisfactorily explained and was highly critical of what he described as:
"the cavalier disregard by Project Blue Book of the principles of
scientific investigation."
Hynek, J. Allen (1972). The UFO Experience: A Scientific Inquiry.
One could legitimately write "the cavalier disregard by
Ufology of the principles of scientific investigation." It would be very
accurate. But even now Dr Hynek's work with Blue Book and his involvement with UFOs has been heavily fictionalised for TV shows and online the barrier between entertainment and reality are blurred.
Budd Hopkins I was an original supporter and promoter of his abduction work and furnished him with material and some sponsors. Then I realised that his work was not making much sense but he told me that everything he published was being peer reviewed. A quick check proved that was not true and as he went further and further into his topic so claims became far more outlandish. He -against all principles on evidence gathering- "decked the cards" in favour of what he was promoting and later it was even out-rightly proven that he had lied to the world when it was revealed that his star witness, Linda Cortile made phone calls to him pretending to be someone else and even faked documents which Hopkins endorsed as real.
Dr David M. Jacobs I also supported in articles and talks until things began to seep through that something was very wrong. It later transpired that he and Hopkins would often discuss abductions and cases and work out numbers of abductees based on their tainted work. Later still Jacobs claimed that "If you see a UFO then you were abducted!" and that in itself can spark any number of false abduction reports. What was then revealed about Jacobs' private practices was a big enough of a scandal to have destroyed anyone working professionally in a genuine field of research.
Jacobs and Hopkins are still looked upon as legitimate researchers who cannot be questioned. Then we have Vallee, Phillips and all the others who have become deities in the UFO religion who cannot be questioned and when you do prove something they promoted was incorrect you become the government patsy out to destroy UFO truth seekers. The real truth seekers either left the field or carried on working privately because they were attacked or ridiculed.
The X-Files, Dark Skies and most other sci fin TV shows and movies are not reality based they are fiction. A star-like dot filmed moving in the sky proves nothing at all. It could be anything other than an extra-terrestrial craft.
The "major UFO Waves" of the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s probably never happened. The 1954 UFO wave falls to pieces once you look into it and when you consider that probably 97% of the cases then as well as 19578 and 1964/1965 and 1973 were never even investigated you realise how you have been deceived through blind belief in "noted Ufologists" and their works.
You begin to see how rare actual UFO (ie constructed looking craft) events are. You see how rare alleged abductions are. You will also note how unscientific and ill educated Ufology/Ufologists are and if you offer a checkable and therefore provable solution to an incident you will be met with silence, anger at your attempt to call their work into question or, again, being a government patsy. They will always make it seem that you are attacking them when you are not because that distracts from the facts of the case and allows them to stir up their devotees -especially in the internet age.
I can see a point when the brain-washed "Ufology drones" will accept at their word ex-government people who kept UFO secrets from them and will attack true researchers who question those people -it is already happening. The deceiver becomes the truth seeker and the truth seeker becomes the deceiver (in their eyes). There is and never will be any "UFO Disclosure" (we have been waiting 22 years now for this "imminent event") because no world government knows what UFOs are. No world government has crashed saucer wreckage or alien bodies. This is fantasy added to by false memories as well as hoaxing and faking by Ufologists.
It is entertainment and money making and the same applies to the alleged events at Marley Woods and Skinwalker ranch.
I am not
attacking serious researchers though I do note that there are not that many prominent in Ufology -not since the 1990s. I am quite
sure that there are some out there but at times they must look around and ask
“Am I the only one being serious?” I do
wonder that some times but….
I see that a case I investigated and presented evidence on
(see Unidentified
– Identified for the details) –the 1987 or was it 1988(?)
Nottinghamshire UFO crash is now being presented as a proven and is so
full of fantasy and fiction that watching a video presentation on the case I
had to triple check it was the same incident.
No house was “partially demolished” by the way. The "main" investigator in that case was not the ones promoting themselves today. It was me. I was in contact with police, fire services and many others and presented the evidence to the inexperienced |UFO investigators who concurred with my conclusion -in writing (see the book for details).
“Flying saucer” reports are not dropping in number. They were never
as frequent as bad ufology reported. “Orb sightings are taking over from flying saucer reports” is such a false
statement that it shows bad ufology at work: these “orbs” were always counted
as “UFOs”/flying saucers in the past but Ufologists did their investigations
from armchairs and via news-clippings.
Now, of course, as MUFON will tell you, “Orbs are just so de rigueur”
Checking, double-checking and triple checking CE3K/AE
accounts is proving the rarity of these incidents. Sadly, Mexico and South America I cannot even
begin to touch on because there has been so much fakery, sensationalism and
lack of real investigation in the past; some cases plain do not exist and
others –still included in ufology despite having been proven hoaxes decades
ago.
This is now a millennial hobby or a money earner for some (just as the paranormal and Bigfoot or cryptozoology is). Why leave your room –copy and paste what
someone else copied and pasted from the fella who copied and pasted it before
him. Oh, add the odd detail that does not exist in the original source
because you know that your audience does not read serious books…or books in
general unless they are sensationalist trash.
I have, on a number of occasions, asked blogging Ufologists for the page
number of an item they quoted or even the source quoted (and we are talking
about some very prominent Ufologists as well).
They could only give me “Oh, I took the report from such-and-such a
site” (the exact name of which they cannot recall but "it had something about UFOs") or even “I’ve never seen the book but if you find out more info let me
know!” or the best "A person I know told me about having read the details online".
In June 1957 J. P. Herraerd of Antwerp, Belgium
was abducted from a public park by what he could only describe as “2.5 metre tall
red coloured cucumbers with four tentacles as arms. source: Lacheln.
Copy and paste that one. How serious is interest today in genuine double and triple checked UFO incidents or UFO history? Sales of the AOP Journal were so low I stopped publishing. The books -ditto. John Hanson has put together the best UFO source books -some incidents previously unknown- with his Haunted Skies series but struggles for sales. In the meantime the liars (proven) and fakers (proven) appear on TV, podcasts and events and sell box loads of their trash info books.. Ufology is serious?
It is entertainment. There are some very questionable things going on in Ufology today where those who covered up and lied to the public about UFOs have come out into the open and make assertions and they are the new people to have UFO cults surround them. The people who have worked hard to get at the truth are now the targets of these people because they are being guided by the former deceivers. Stop. Take a deep breath and think about it and it almost seems like the susceptible have been gas-lighted and turned and are accepting the former deceivers at their word and directing hate, accusations and more at those openly questioning facts.
You are being deceived.
"Trust no one" is a good motto to have. Check, double-check and quadruple check sources. Or just sit back and let social media, Ufology and the deceivers educate you.
I conclude with an image from a recent MUFON convention
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.
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
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
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."
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.
On the 3rd 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.
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."
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.
