10 Ways We May Have Already Detected Alien Life

Stellar Classifications and Habitable Zones

10 SETI Messages That We May Not Want to Receive

Ufologys Mantra: "Scientists debunk UFOs so we should, too -its the scientific way"

I previously posted an item on how Mack, Hopkins and Jacobs got things messed up.  I later went into more detail of how Jacobs was, based on what I had learnt, corrupting research and abandoning the Scientific Principles he claimed to hold to.  I expanded on this in UFO Contact? and today I accidentally found an old The UFO Trail blog post that confirmed what I thought:

http://ufotrail.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-woodsjacobs-tapes-and-oral-history.html

I also, on this blog as well as in Unidentified-Identified remarked on the fact that in the United States you were far less likely to have even a major report taken seriously if your "hair was not straight enough". In other words there was rife racism and it was being glossed over and covered up.  We had problems in the UK in the 1970s but this was minor in comparison.

I refer to the Eupora, Mississippi multi-witness landing of an object in the middle of a US Highway, a CE3K and another object hovered close by.  The two 'investigators' stuck their nose into the Pascagoula case (white percipients) and a UFO report by a (white) celebrity and a couple other cases. Yet a multi witness case involving black people on their own doorstep -and despite the best efforts of Ted Bloecher at the time- went uninvestigated.  MUFON open a cold case?

Well, firstly, insulting response to my polite suggestion was one thing. The fact that MUFON wanted me -in the UK- to find and contact the witnesses in Mississippi and IF I could get them to contact MUFON and IF they filled in a report form officially then MUFON "might look at considering the case" oh, but it was sooooooooo long ago in 1973.  Wonderful how MUFON can look at 1960s and 1970s cases when TV is involved.

Read this:
https://www.iflscience.com/space/ufo-hunting-organization-rocked-by-racism-scandal/

And it goes on. Good MUFON investigators have left:

http://ufowatchdog.blogspot.com/2017/07/former-mufon-state-director-resigns.html

Go visit MUFONs website -its okay you never took the wrong term to "merchandise" because whatever page you go to you get pop-ups to promote books and other things.

It is safe to say that MUFON ceased to be a serious scientific organisation long ago. Ufology is a mess in the United States -it is a mess in the UK where hoaxing and fake report planting means nothing after 1977 can be trusted unless others can vouch for witnesses being real.

Jacobs has lost it and his research is no longer of any value or interest.

But there is another problem in that we have the "sceptical ufologists" who are, in truth, debunkers. A case may seem rock solid but it will still be dismissed as the  100% solid evidence they want is not there (and if it was it would be dismissed).

I was reliably informed that there are only around three CE3K reports from Germany. In one evening of scouring old German publications I found about 5 that can be added to those "dismissable" three. This is false reporting by ufologists because they do not like the this aspect of UFOs.  Though they seem prone to dismissing most cases.

Old publications and I turned up a 1957 Danish case.  I find reports from other countries. The 1993 Kelly Cahill abduction in Australia I was told by ufologists had been shown to be a hoax. It turns out to be a multi witness and quite solid case.  I now have to reassess a lot of cases that were dismissed by ufologists.

I find this not just totally unscientific but totally disgusting."Scientists debunk UFOs so we should, too -its the scientific way" -is that really ufologys   mantra?

I am really trying not to write what I really think and name names. I am angry.

Serious ufo researchers need to step forward and speak up and start publishing research results!

The 1978 Dartmoor Alien Encounter -a warning to researchers

 Above: NO, not an actual alien photograph but from a 1976(?)  public info film "Restricted View"
                    _______________________________________


I was recently asked by a newspaper reporter about this case as she had found a copy of an article I wrote about it.  I was asked whether I had found out anything more about it?

No, is the simple answer.

I will re-tell the account here but I add one very strong caveat -this report originated from the later Eric Morris of the British UFO Study Centre who admitted to a number of Ufologists, including myself, in the 1990s that he had faked data and reports.  That material and confession is still on file.

On the 3rd June, 1978, Mr and Mrs Andrews, both teetotal, were visiting a public house on the B3357 road on Dartmoor.  I understand the couple were there for a meal.  At around 23:50 hours, Mr Andrews left the pub to visit the gents toilets which were situated out in the yard.  And it was on his way back from the gents that he saw an odd figure described as around 7 feet (2.10m)  tall, wearing a silver, single piece (head-to-toe coverall) suit -and a "matt black" face visor.  Mr Andrews noted that the entity's head size seemed smaller and the neck longer and wider than in humans. This wideness of neck seemed to be in-keeping with the very wide torso. The arms were long and said to stretch down below any possible knee joints.  The entity was simply standing by a wall next to the road.

Despite the unusual look of the entity, Mr Andrews assumed that it must be a lost motorcyclist and asked: "Are you lost?  Can I help you?"  However, there was no response.  Considering that Mr Andrews had gone out to use the toilet facilities the next part of the account seems odd because Mrs Andrews was wondering why her husband was taking so long and so decided to go and look for him.

According to both accounts, as Mrs Andrews exited the public house she found herself "practically standing next to the entity" and her husband shouted to her to join him.  So Mrs Andrews briskly walked to her husband who had, by this time, realised that this was no ordinary person. The entity now moved toward the road and turned to the right, this would take it to the end of the road and onto a bridle path. As the couple realised that this path led onto the moors and, fearing that if this was a normal person then it was no place to get lost on. And so the couple followed but the figure had vanished completely.

The Andrews were quite sure that the entity could not have reached the gate, which it would have had to open to get onto the bridle path.  They were clear that the figure could not have gone in any other direction.

It was a mystifying experience for the couple.  At no time, however, was any object seen in association with this sighting of an entity. A check of AOP Bureau records showed that there had been no reported UFO activity in the area at that time and certainly none on the 2nd or 4th June. A search was carried out to check on wider activity: none coincided with this sighting.

Eric Morris stated that he visited the couple twice and that neither had any knowledge or even passive interest in UFOs. The Andrews' were teetotal Christians puzzled by the event but took it no further.

Tall, silver suited entities featured in quite a few reports from the UK at this time:  some 81 reports feature 5-7 feet (1.5-2.10m) tall entities.  Reports where no objects were seen in association with Alien Entity encounters are not unusual either.  At the time my data base showed that 58 out of 193 CE IIIK cases from the UK featured no "UFO".  Of course, it has been speculated that any "craft" in these cases might be "shielded" from observers in some way.  Entities suddenly vanishing was nothing new.

But there were parts of this I could not make sense of.  Firstly, licensing laws in the UK were strict -public houses in rural areas made them somewhat "flexible".  However, since 1915, in an attempt to stop workers turning up late or still inebriated to carry on War work,  the UK licensing laws had changed very little, with comparatively early closing times. The tradition of the lock-in therefore remained (people put money behind the counter and "after hours" doors were locked so drinking sessions were counted as private parties because people were not paying for drinks after closing). Since the implementation of Licensing Act 2003, premises in England and Wales may apply to extend their opening hours beyond 11 pm, allowing round-the-clock drinking and removing much of the need for lock-ins.

But we are talking 1978 here so just what were two Christian teetotallers doing in a public house?  Firstly, temperance forbids partaking of alcohol or really supporting it -the "evil of drink"- so it seems odd unless they were there for a meal but at 23:50 hrs -almost Mid-night? That is "lock-in" time.  and "lock-in" used to mean just that with patrons using the "house lavvie" -otherwise....you see my point?

It doesn't gel together.  And just why would Mrs Andrews get concerned about the amount of time her husband was gone?  That seemed to indicate a time lapse -how long was Mr Andrews gone?  According to Morris there "were no indicators of missing time in this case" -so what??

What I was unhappy with was the fact that I was promised contact details of the couple several times but never received them.

Did this event even take place?  What was the name of the "public house on Dartmoor"? Did the couple mention the entity to anyone in the pub -did they even go back in?  Were they even "Mr and Mrs Andrews" -if they existed was that a pseudonym?

I hope that, if the couple did mention this event to a family member (I have no idea of the ages of either) we might get some confirmation.

But it is included in the data base with the caveat "Source Eric Morris"

________________________________________

Addenda.  I can confirm that this case is an Eric Morris hoax.  A person contacted me who had worked with Morris and he (Morris) boasted how along with certain well known ufologists (their names are known to me so this just confirms things) he had "plotted" to make my CE3K Project so inaccurate that I would have wasted decades of work and money.  The fake Alien Symbols allegedly seen during abductions was part of this plan.  Why? Because these people are not ufologists and have, obviously, psychological problems.  This is why I never believe any UK CE3K case reported after 1977 without independent confirmation.
________________________________________________________________________________

source:  (1) BUFOSC Intelligence vol. 1  nr. 3, June 1995, pp. 3-4
             (2) Hooper, Terry, Close Encounters of the Third Kind and Alien Entity Cases in the UK
                  1900-1984  AOP Bureau Final Report (unpublished)

This Is NOT A "Hobby" And It Is NOT An "Obsession" -UFO Funding

I was in a panic when two people actually contacted me over the CE3K/AE Project. It is such a rare occurrence that I had to remember how to respond.  :-/

Firstly, I have been doing this work -work- since 1974.  It is most certainly not a 'hobby' to kill a few hours.  Over the years UFO chasing has resulted in me putting myself into a lot of potentially dangerous situations (officially unofficial and otherwise) and were this a hobby then I have wasted 40 years plus of my life. Stamp collecting would have been more profitable (in fact, I sold what stamps and books I had to fund my work).

It is not an obsession -not in the way some define it.

What I am doing is looking at, potentially, the most important aspect of the UFO subject. And remember there are two defined phenomena -UFOB (seemingly constructed craft) and UNP (an undefined natural phenomenon).

Working alone and re-assessing cases and reports I am making a lot of headway.  I would like to spend even more time sharpening the definition and cause of UNP and most certainly actually be able to afford to do field investigations with regard UFOB -or both- reports.

However, money is the problem.  With UFO Contact? I was told, by those who know, that this would become the definitive work on the subject. Great, I thought, sales will support my work and daily living. After over a year -no sales.  Same with Unidentified -Identified.  Trash sells better.

So I was asked why I do not apply for funding.  It took me two hours to stop laughing.  Seriously, the whole reason why certain "gentlemen" backed the AOP Bureau and Grey Book was because they felt the work had to be done and HM Government were not going to carry out a study (some material from the eventual UFO Report was used by certain bodies however).

The very idea back in the late 1970s of a National Aerospace Commission was shot down in flames.  Despite all the work of the French gendarmerie and GEPAN absolutely no UK government or agency was going to fund serious UFO research.

The way UK ufology ufology in general has gone, no one is going to fund serious UFO research today. I wish they would but people with money like to invest only in things that make more money!

I explained this yesterday and I explain it here today so everyone knows.  There is no funding for UFO research. My work continues to make me poor!

I Have A French CE3K File and A United States CE3K File...

If you have read this blog before you will have seen the following folders.  They contain CE3K/AE cases from 1900 on.  Others cover South America, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, United States of America, eastern and Central Europe -I did say these files go back a ways!- and so on.

The expansion of files has meant that the number of files has risen from 15 to 20.

A problem arises when we examine the file for the United States.  Each one of those tabs indicates a report entry and it stands at about 300 which is nowhere near close to the actual number pre-"Greys" era.

just a preliminary scan through these reports shows one thing: very few have been really investigated.  A vast majority from the 1940s to 1970s are still used and one person will quote another as the source and the original source was...a newspaper clipping of a sighting never investigated.  Yet still, according to ufologists 100% genuine "because it was reported in a newspaper".  Investigation by news-clipping seems to have been -still is- the preferred method

The cases I used from the United States in UFO Contact? were ones that had been attacked by debunkers yet still, after decades, seemed to be genuine.

Let me explain "genuine" as it appears that the stompy-feet debunkers seem to have an intellectural problem when it comes to cases that scare them.  The possibility of UFOs being extraterrestrial makes them soil themselves.  I once spoke to a debunker and asked; "If we got a case of a UFO landing with entities, ground traces and even radar vizual back-up and the entities are obviously 'not from around here' then surely, if the witnesses hold to their statements, we have to accept the possibility that something happened and move on from there?"

Before I had issued the last two words I watched as the man's face went red and then a very scary, almost purple colour and I really could see his veins popping out! "No!" he spurted out.  "Never. All UFOs are explainable and that's an end to it!" Arms folded he stormed off.

This is something I have seen and noted over 40+ years. It is true fear.  Fear of the unknown and it is completely unscientific.  So these debunkers will attempt defamation of character, twisting facts to make witnesses/percipients look like hoaxers or criminals and some will even try to bribe a witness to change story. That is truly a closed minded debunker who is afraid and does not abide by the Principles of Science that they say they follow.  I did once wonder what such a person might say if they were abducted by aliens!

But the problem is that ufologists have given them all the ammunition they need. because if a debunker says "Let me see the report on --- landing" and all there is to hand is that  news-clipping. Debunker wins and ufologist loses.  Time and time again.

In France the Gendarmerie investigated reports made to them and those on file are amongst the best evidence of UFOs/CE3Ks around.  No ufologist shoving sketches of "aliens" in front of a witness before an investigation has started.  No selling witness details to newspapers or reporters.  Straight forward investigation reports.

Yet look at the French folder

I know what someone will say "But the United States is a big country!"  Well, so is France. Europe -East and West is very big and yet has nowhere near the number of reports as the United States.  Until I began up-dating the French file I had no idea -because English language sources never bothered revealing the truth- how many from the 1954 French Wave were proven to be jokes and hoaxes as well as misidentifications and misinterpretations.  Looking at the UFO reports from the time it is quite clear there was a flying saucer press frenzy going on and it led to false reports.  It seems likely -very possible- that there was no big UFO Wave in 1954 France.

Debunkers demand 100% proof well, they demand that because they are aware that there is no such thing.  Unless a spaceship lands during day time in a populated area and aliens get out and wave and everyone with a phone came or video recorder films them...well, even then it is not 100% proof.  "CGI!"  "CGI and actors!" it would go on and on.

In a court case a person is convicted based on evidence.  No, he is not.  The evidence is presented but then the jury has to make their own minds up. Innocent people go to gaol on no evidence yet someone murders his wife and her lover and the televised police chase and chapter is shown along with all the evidence and...man gets off and walks.

Luckily, we should not have to depend on the fickle public.

You talk to witnesses/percipients and gather all the information.  If there are ground traces or other secondary evidence you gather that -"I heard the local airport might have had something on radar from a guy in a bar" is NOT acceptable: you check with the airport.

You look at all the angles and you cannot find any evidence of fakery.  The witnesses/percipients seem to have genuinely been affected by what they say happened (in UFO Contact? I explain why you need to be very careful with a case involving just one witness).  They seem to be genuine and want no publicity and in fact all they really want to know is "What the hell did we see?!"

When you have looked at this evidence and had it assessed and the witnesses/percipients seem to be honest people who have never had an odd experience in their and just want to get on with those lives: that is when you need to decide on whether you believe that the case is genuine. Preferably you should let other experienced people look the case over and see what they think.  If it all pans out then you have a seemingly genuine case.

A debunker is never going to be satisfied -they claim they would be for obvious reasons- until you throw a dead alien on the table in front of them and show them the crashed space ship on a low-loader outside their office. A debunker once told me: "That would not constitute evidence"

If you have a CE3K report then you investigate it from every angle and you run details past other investigators to make sure you have not missed anything. You then send a copy of your report to the Centre for UFO Studied and to me!

Debunkers I have no time for unless they produce...evidence!  Sceptical ufologists -not the debunkers who use that name- if they are really looking for evidence then fine.  Ufologists should be going over the reports and building a case not rushing out to get on TV or in the newspapers. Really, the pre-1985 reports from the US should be investigated by American ufologists not me but as MUFON has no interest in these things and told me to go jump over a cliff and other US ufologists just have no interest...I hope I complete the work before my time is up!

Having a massive pile of news clippings or "reports" cut and pasted from the internet is not showing any serious interest.

Now, back to work...found more correlations!

You Find The Most Embarrassing Things!

Well, slightly embarrassing considering I was only 5 years into the research.  I had written a good few articles on CE3K reports for UK UFO publications and forgot about one I wrote for the Skywatch Aerial Phenomena Investigation Club (SAPIC) and its 1979 Skywatch Gazatte no. 3 titled Close Encounters of the Third Kind in Africa.

By today's standards just a quick run off of reports and the detail is lacking.  A lot has been updated in over 30 years.

My Trowbridge UFO Conference speech was not helped by a virus, a Russian diplomat and someone stealing my notes!  :-)

The Work Progresses....

It is rather strange that, for the United States (when I have asked), the Hynek Centre for UFO Studies

has supplied me with case files.

I have received assistance from GIEPAN in France, cooperation from Belgium and France, the AFU in Sweden has been of invaluable help at times and even cooperation from Spain and Germany.

To date, in the UK, I have asked the following whether they will contribute to the CE3K/AE project since, when complete, it will be available to all ufologists:

British UFO Research Association -asked three times not responding
Contact UK -again asked but not responding
Ron Halliday/UFO Scotland -asked and waiting to see.
David Hodrien and Birmingham UFO Group -asked. Refused flatly.

There are others but I am trying to be as diplomatic as possible.  It just seems to be that UK groups consider the reports theirs and that is an end to the matter.  BUFORA, Contact (UK) and Scottish ufologists I would still like to see contribute reports because this aspect of the subject is very important.  We need to sort out the hoaxes, psychological or questionable and get to the those cases that seem (as far as we can be certain) genuine.

I started looking at and studying these reports in 1974 and in all that time I have never once revealed a witness/percipients real name or details.  From 1977 on I worked on Grey Book and I also began acting as a UK police forces exotic fauna consultant -working with police forces you get checked and you also acquire a great deal of information that could make a lot of money. I never would and a lot of the material gets burnt with me :-)

The point is that in 40+ years no one has ever had reason to question my integrity so if that is what worries people: it should not.

In the last two weeks I have come across a cluster of four abductions over a one month period in a small village in England.  I have also started seeing results while updating the project.  i would much sooner this was a joint project with UK and non-UK ufologists.

I won't appeal again because after all this time it seems pointless.

If you read with and believe that you have encountered a UFO and entities then please get in touch. Your sightings do not just have to be recent as my files officially start at 1900!

Thank You

aopbureau@yahoo.co.uk

Movies Spark UFO Waves?

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 Berwyn Mountain. 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! :-)