STARDUST RANCH EXPOSED AS A FRAUD

Voronezh WHAT Can We TRUST As The Truth?

https://www.ufocasebook.com/Voronezh.html

One of the most bizarre accounts of UFO folklore involves an incident that allegedly occurred in Voronezh, Russia. This case was reported in the United States by the St. Louis Dispatch.

The story was originally published on October 11, 1989, in America, but its origin was the Russian newspaper TASS.

The report recounts the adventures of several young children who claimed to have seen a three-eyed alien with a robot escort.

The craft, according to eye witness testimony, landed on the outskirts of the city. Shortly thereafter, the tall alien appeared, and upon seeing the young lad, shot a type of weapon at him, causing him to vanish before the eyes of the other people around him.The alien was said to be about nine foot tall.

There are several important elements one must keep in mind regarding this extremely strange case of a close encounter. The original details of the case were brought forward by Genrikh Silanov, head of the Voronezh Geophysical Laboratory, who gave details to the TASS agency.

Silanov stated that the media took an enormous amount of creative freedom with his report.

“Don’t believe all you hear from Tass,” he stated.” We never gave them part of what they published.”

I take this statement to mean that only a part of the news agency’s report was based on the facts obtained from Silanov.

The agency had informed the entire world that Russian scientists had confirmed that an alien spaceship carrying giants with tiny heads had landed in Voronezh, a city of over 800,000 people located about 300 miles southeast of Moscow.

They stated that as many as three of these giant creatures had emerged from the alien ship. The ship was described as a large, shining ball. These strange creatures were said to have walked in a nearby park, accompanied by a menacing robot. Ironically, TASS was the only media member to print the story in Russia.

In defense of the TASS account, Soviet reporter Skaya Kultura said that the agency was following the ”the golden rule of journalism.”The newspaper Pravda declined to print, or comment on the strange tale.

The TASS account also stated: “A boy screamed with fear, but when the alien gazed at him, with eyes shining, he fell silent, unable to move. Onlookers screamed, and the UFO and the creatures disappeared.”They saw a ”three-eyed alien” about 10 feet tall, clad in silvery overalls and bronze-colored boots and wearing a disk on his chest. “

“The reader must know everything.”

The TASS account stated that the UFO landed in Voronezh on September 27, 1989, at 6:30 P.M. Young boys playing soccer witnessed the event, stating that a pinkish glow preceded the descent of the unusual flying craft.

The pink glow became a deep red as it touched down. Most witnesses described the object as a flattened, disc shape. A crowd quickly gathered, and peered through a hatch that opened.

What Would YOU Say Was THE Most Credible Close Encounter of the Third Kind?

It was suggested that I put a question to readers of this blog. I have never had any kind of comment or reaction on blogs so I do not hold much hope on this one!

It is quite simple: which CE3k/Entity case do YOU think is the most authentic or that you would like to see far more investigation/detail of?

That is it. You just need to comment simply - just who was involved where and when ie: "Walters, Essex, 1973"

Over to YOU

2019 -new book Contact With Extraterrestrial Beings?

Haunted Skies

John Hanson has completed work on The Halt Perspective (book 2) and yesterday shared news about Volume 4 (new and revised) of Haunted Skies the UFO history encyclopedia.

I cannot recommend these books enough. I've been at this UFO game since 1974 and there are cases here totally new to me -because people have only reported them to John. Also there is a lot more updated info on old cases and fully illustrated! 

https://www.facebook.com/john.hanson.357/videos/10216987789157242/

German CE3K reports.

Well I have spent 12 hours and more or less sorted out the German CE3K reports. Even those that had been translated into English needed tidying up somewhat.

It actually gives a much clearer picture of reports and the Lothat Schaefler case was the subject of a very full report and took place in 1977 -well before the whole Grey phenomenon.

I am sorry to say, however, that translating more foreign language reports into English is beyond me. I would like to know about reports from the Netherlands and Denmark though there seems far more on Finland than those two countries combined.

Again, if anyone or group can help please get in touch.

Deutsch, Espana, Fraincaise....

I get quite good help from the Centre for UFO Studies in the United States and, depending on the amount of time they have, the AFU in Sweden.  That is it.

I ask Ufologists to help cooperate on a project all would benefit from (CUFOS will be receiving completed reports and cases they have little or nothing on at the moment) and I get sent 2-6 page reports in Spanish when I make it crystal clear I only know a few words...reports that turn out to be hoaxes because, it seems, Spain has never -NEVER- had a genuine CE3K/AE encounter.

From Germany (in 2015) I got a short report -well, a scan from GEPs journal as well as a lengthier case report -also scanned from their magazine.  I am grateful but there are technical words that I do not know and cannot find references to anywhere and people use local dialects or slang terms that are meaningless gibberish in English (from 1977-2913 I heard every English accent going and some were a real struggle so imagine me sending a German exotic fauna researcher a report where local Cumbrian dialect is used to describe something)

The main reason everything is in a foreign language is because "There are no volunteers to translate" I did like the Spanish Ufologist "I don't have the time but when you have translated it I'll check it over". This is international cooperation at its best.

Two weeks to translate a Spanish hoax case, months struggling with French and longer with German.

People keep saying "use an online translator!"  but Google etc are awful and I often have to resort to going back to language dictionaries. "V in a small squadron men had tail over east" is what Google translate came up with but the actual translation is: "There was no tail seen on the object as it moved to the east".

That said, 106 posts on this blog and absolutely not one word of feedback from a world wide audience.

I guess if it isn't on You Tube it aint worth it.

AOP Journal 2 Cover dump

I think that it says a great deal about modern Ufology.  People will not buy serious, researched and referenced books on the subject just trash full of lies because the writers take them to be ill educated and "dumb".

And after a month and a lot of publicity not a single copy of the AOP Journal no. 1 has sold. I guess people prefer to get 'facts' from You Tube rather than read.

So here is the incomplete cover to AOPJ no. 2 that will not be appearing.

This Is How It Goes

So far 104 posts, some quite lengthy. Comments -zero. I won't say "never again" but for the months to come I can't see me posting much of anything.  A blog for free discussion only works if there is more than one person.

I can be contacted of course, via the Anomalous Observational Phenomena Face Book page Messenger.

The following sums up my "Why" reasons.
************************************************************************

   Two reported incidents of alleged actual landings and entities and who turns up afterwards -the press. There were people claiming to be flying saucer investigators but that amounted to noting down a news item on the radio or adding a newspaper clipping to the scrapbook. Why leave the armchair? From the news clipping these people could pontificate and waffle on over pages and for years.

   I understand that there was no funding for flying saucer research but most of these people involved in the subject knew each other one way or another. There was a very real attitude, not just in France, that even if a report came from a mile or two away -why go investigate when the newspapers had all the information?

   I actually almost choked on a swig of coffee when I read Italian investigators, who had not once even attempted to go and investigate Rosa Lotti's encounter in 1954 until the early 2000's, complaining and criticising newspapers and journalists for leaving out information and not doing a thorough investigation  job. Well, at least the reporters got off of their arses and went to see her.  There are literally hundreds of cases like the one above.

   Writers -'Ufologists'- are making money out of including these cases in their books and worst of all in their "data" or "sightings breakdowns" that make them look so good.  The truth is that they are producing nonsense: they have no data other than “he wrote what so-and-so wrote who got it from whatshisname who found it mentioned in a newspaper clipping”. This is, then, the ‘solid data’ used by people like Jacques Vallee who does not actually seem to check anything himself. 

   The period 1947-2018 has literally achieved nothing when it comes to ufology other than over-hyped hysteria, bunko-men and...literally, huge volumes of trash.  Graham F. N. Knewstub's British Flying Saucer Bureau Technical Report No. 1 was published in the 1950s, we all thought that we were seeing real science (I was fooled, too) when Vallee published his work on UFO Waves, Flaps and so on.  He included well known hoaxes, misidentifications of aircraft, meteors, weather balloons and much more in amongst the not investigated UFO cases. If I wrote “Today I was a disc-shaped flying saucer land in my back garden then take off after one minute” it would be included in Vallee’s list: the data was useless.

   Then we saw Ted Bloecher Report on the UFO Wave of 1947, published in 1967; this was an actual attempt at analysis and to piece events from that year together.  Published work that could be peer reviewed. It was as early as 1956 that Bloecher became intrigued by the growing number of “UFO occupant” reports and along with researcher David Webb, started to work on what would become the Humanoid Catalogue –HUMCAT: a collection of early “humanoid” sightings. I prefer not to use the term “Humanoids” as an all-encompassing term but the important thing is that the work began.

   Ted Bloecher’s major interest was always in occupant reports or Close Encounters of the Third Kind (CE3K), as they would be called after J. Allen Hynek set out his categorisation of UFO sighting reports.  Bloecher had been one of the top thinkers in the Civilian Saucer Investigation group and after that became active with the National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP) and when  NICAP became “moribund”, Bloecher moved on to the Mutual UFO Network (MUFON) and the Center for UFO Studies (CUFOS).  He was still concentrating his efforts on investigation of CE3K reports with David Webb. In 1978, CUFOS published his and Davis's Close Encounter at Kelly and Others of 1955, based on the investigation of the Kelly-Hopkinsville report and others in the U.S. that year.

   Bloecher could well be called the top authority on these cases in the United States by the 1970s and though he did everything he possibly could (see UFO Contact?) to get the Euporia, Mississippi landing/entity case prioritised and investigated it never was –presumably due to the prejudices of the two investigators.

   But being the top man does not come with a university grant or even financial funding and to keep records complete Bloecher filed away press reports.  This should have been the data base used for thorough investigation of the cases. Instead, ufologists just quoted Bloecher and that he, himself, was referencing newspaper reports.

   Then came the big excuse of the “Grey Abduction Paranoia” –if a case did not involve Greys then it was a fake or misidentification or Budd Hopkins and David Jacob’s saw these reports as “screen images” hiding the ‘fact’ that Greys were involved.  No need to bother. Or to use the much criticised US Air Force ‘excuse’ used so well by MUFON today: the amount of time that has passed negates any fruitful investigation.  Even the Betty and Barney Hill case has been cited as featuring “Greys”: it did not.

   Ufology does not “get the respect deserved”?  You earn respect.

  Two cases from recent years I have tried to get more information on –one was from 2017 so in 2018 should be easy- so I went to the site owners who reported on the cases.  In each instance I was told “I picked that up from (website) –best you contact him” and so I did: “I read that on (name of website) because it seemed interesting” came the response along with advice to contact the “original source”. This original source turned out to have copied the item from some newspaper item and he could not remember which (or even whether it was a newspaper or magazine) or the date. This is the most common response I get when following up old reports and today I more or less expect it.

   Ufology is basing all of its claims on such cases –including plain old “UFO” sightings— that were never investigated because it was much easier to sit in a chair and say “the evidence is all there” –it is not.

   In the United States, France and Belgium I think there are enough ufologists with some credibility who can open cold case investigations on old CE3K/Alien Entity reports.  Once the witnesses, now in their 60’s, 70’s and 80’s are gone then so are all of the facts that they can tell us and to ascertain which, if any, of the CE3K/AE reports is genuine could provide us with the valuable data we need.

   I am undertaking this work in the UK (though some prominent ufologists appear to not want this –I wonder why?) and I just hope and pray that someone out there will do likewise in their own country.  In Spain, for instance, it appears that “certain prominent Ufologists” were constantly at work faking complex Close Encounter cases with the deliberate intention of undermine and hoaxing other Ufologists.  When it comes to CE3K/AE reports from Spain the list of fake reports is high. Only by personally investigating reports did I find this out and it seems that Spanish Ufologists were quite happy to not expose the hoaxers (“the intentions of the Ufologist involved is not known”) or to even report openly and widely that these cases were Ufological hoaxes.

   The same applies in the UK where Ufologist Andrew Roberts (who focussed the attention of Ufologists on the fictional Berwyn Mountains “UFO crash”) and associate of David Clarke, admitted at a UK UFO conference that he and other well known Ufologists had planted fake reports going back many years.  When confronted after making this semi-forced confession, Roberts stated that the hoaxing was for the “purposes of a study”, however, he could give no details of what this study was and refused flatly to identify which reports were faked.  This, in effect, means that any research findings by UK researchers are negated because bad data creates bad data –any results are a waste of energy, time and paper.

See for instance:

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

and

https://www.theufochronicles.com/2010/01/uk-ufo-debunker-strikes-again.html

   98% of UK Ufologists spend their time in childish spats, hoaxing and worse.  In the last three weeks I have twice been targeted by attempts to steer me into looking into fake reports and testimony –I know certain prominent Ufologists are involved and I have made it clear that if it happens again not only will they be publicly exposed and named but I will also take legal action –including reporting breaches of their Terms of Service to their internet providers.

   It is not a question of free speech –as in the United States we are dealing with “limited free speech” and you cannot just aim to say whatever you want to get free press coverage.  If you go to the Press and make remarks then, even if slightly misquoted, they are yours.  In the UK it seems no one expects to get sued for insulting a fellow’ Ufologist.

   Here is part of an item from the New Scientist’s Daily Newsletter of 16th June, 1990, and refers to an event that Stanton Friedman was to speak at: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12617216-700-ariadne/

   “Friedman continues to publicise the MJ-12 story, and in October last

year was scheduled to address a public meeting in Manchester about it. The

meeting was announced in The Manchester Evening News and caught the eye

of Jenny Randles, a Stockport author and investigator who has written several

books on the topic of UFOs, landings, abductions, mysterious aliens and

purported conspiracies by governments to cover up incidents. She contacted

the newspaper and in an interview made plain her opinion of the MJ-12 papers,

once saying that they were ‘about as factual as a Steven Spielberg movie’.

She also made some remarks about the bizarre stories circulated from time

to time about UFOs, such as extraterrestrials’ fondness for strawberry ice-cream

and the US government’s making agreements with aliens about a quota for

future abductions.

   “A report of Randles’s remarks appeared in the newspaper on the day of

Friedman’s meeting, though the interview had taken place several days before.

Jenny Randles had some complaints about it; for instance, it applied the

comment about the MJ-12 papers to the meeting instead and mention of the

wilder stories about UFOs might have been taken by some to refer to Friedman

himself.

   “The upshot is that Friedman and the organiser of the meeting, Harry

Harris, have issued writs against the newspaper and Jenny Randles. They

are demanding Pounds sterling 500 from The Manchester Evening News, but

from Randles Pounds sterling 10,000, money which she does not have. Friedman,

in suing her, is alleged to have suffered damage to his scientific reputation,

such as it is, and to have had his public meeting sabotaged by an attack

in the newspaper timed for the same day by her”.

   And out of court settlement was apparently reached. Of course, one of Randles supporters was none other than Andrew Roberts who wrote, rather childishly in “Ufologists Suing Ufologists –Friedman”: http://www.ufoupdateslist.com/2001/jun/m14-019.shtml

“Y'all,

 Stanton Friedman may squeal and squawk in trying to justify his

 pointless legal persecution of Jenny Randles over her opinions,

 but no-one has yet put the case in any context from a UK ufology

 point of view. I was heavily involved in the scene at that time

 (indeed we put Stanty on at a gig in Leeds and made a healthy

 profit out of _his_ opinions!)”

   You can read the American side of this at another online site which shows that American researchers are also, as an old time British copper might have put it: “at it!”

http://www.hyper.net/ufo/txt/lawsuits-in-ufology.txt

   This is without referring to Whitley Streiber’s legal action against Jenny Randles:

https://ansible.uk/writing/uniconze.html

   “Strieber had been looking into a book called Science and the UFOs by Jenny Randles and Peter Warrington, which describes a "classic" UFO experience... and then, mere hours later, he was supposed to have had the strangely similar experience which was so profitably immortalized in his Communion. Badly drawn aliens with enormous eyes and faces made of putty removed his underpants and thrust their video cameras where no man had gone before. Or something like that.

   “Jenny Randles, who's a professional UFO author and researcher, made the mistake of joking about this suggestive sequence of events when speaking on the radio. Having been sent a tape of the programme by his UFOlogical colleague Stanton Friedman, Strieber immediately threatened a libel action. Randles lacked the funds to resist and had to grovel in public. Nobody messes with Whitley Strieber”.

   As with this current article, you will notice that all of my books –“World Mysteries” or Ufological- are fully referenced. This is so that the work can be peer reviewed by anyone interested; scientific journals tend not to want to feature items about UFOs unless it fits what they are looking for.  It is so easy to fall into the line given by debunking “sceptical Ufologists” or the die-hard “Everything is Unknown” lobby. I look into reports in as much detail as possible.  I look at what debunkers write and say and I look at what Ufologists say and will also look into a report from sources outside of both groups.

   Regarding UFO Contact? (aka: High Strangeness) I knew that I had to, as always, stand by my conclusions –in other words I gave my conclusions and I am quite open to new theories or evidence that might prove me right or wrong: peer review and open mind –what Science is supposed to be.

   Dr. Mark Rodheiger from the Centre for UFO Studies gave my book high praise: 

     "I’ve been browsing through it and find it to be an impressive body of work.

     I appreciate your lively writing, use of original sources as much as possible,

    and forceful opinions about the cases, investigators, etc. And I concur with

    your  evaluations of cases that have been pushed aside, such as Kelly, or  

   Pascagoula."

   It is important to emphasise that “forceful opinions about the cases, investigators” should not be thought of as debunking in some way. When I first started in Ufology (I was willing to call myself a “Ufologist” back then) back in 1973 there were people I held in high esteem: Donald E. Keyhoe, author and founder of the National Investigations Committee of Aerial Phenomena (NICAP), James and Coral Lorensen, founders of the Aerial Phenomena Research Organisation; Ivan T. Sanderson, founder of the Society for the Investigation of The Unexplained (SITU). John A. Keel.

   Sanderson’s theories were his own based on the data he gathered and also on what we knew back in those days.  He was a field naturalist and zoologists and one of the few who heard of a strange report and got off his ass to investigate. He was one of the first investigators to get to Flatwoods and talk to the witnesses and gather local information.  As a writer for popular publications he could put a “spin” on a case but if that is how you earn a living and fund your work it is what you do.

   John A. Keel I still enjoy reading and it was his Strange Creatures From Time & Space that made me realise that there was more out there than just lights in the sky. His work also made me realise why everything needed to be checked, double checked and triple checked as well as the importance of going to the source or witness if possible. Whether Keel really believed all he wrote only he knows but it earned him a good living and even a movie based on his Mothman work.

   I have not included Charles Hoy Fort, the man whose work so many quote endlessly but very few appear to have read, judging by all the misquotes (showing just how “copy and paste” has become so prevalent these days). I found a good few sources Fort quoted did not in fact contain any such report –my work on the “Wild Dogs/Wolves of Cavan” is covered in The Red Paper: Canids.  In fact, Fort, rather like Keel, tended to play with facts and though both did a lot of research I found it was never to be trusted 100%.

   Keyhoe was another who, I have absolutely no doubt, believed in the reality of flying saucers.  However, Keyhoe was a writer and as former US Air Force Project Blue Book head and friend of Keyhoe’s, Edward J. Ruppelt once said that Keyhoe, given the facts, then decided what the facts were.  And I need to be fair here because the material we take for granted today from Freedom Of Information requests or simply released by the US Air Force simply was not available to Keyhoe as most of it was classed as secret.

   The Lorensens were, to me, the people who got out there and looked into “UFO Operator” or “Occupant” reports. Again, I believe that the couple were sincere in their beliefs regarding flying saucers but at some point they strayed from the path. Most of their material/reports were sent to them from correspondents and so a great many hoaxes seeped through into the files –unintentionally in some cases: a report of giant humanoids getting out of a landed saucer during a forest fire was reported on and the source was a friend of a Ufologist’s who knew a dentist who had been told about this my a patient.  As is typical with Ufology, the racism sneaked in with “a typical illiterate country person” –this comment designed to indicate the person had not read of flying saucers so could not fake a report. Did the Ufologist go to find the woman and witnesses? No.

   There was the need, as far as the Lorensens were concerned, to get incontrovertible truth by any means. Hypnosis, lie detectors and the reason I came to name the couple “The Scopolamine Kids” –the use of the so-called “truth drug”.  With lie detector tests, either positive or negative the result is down to interpretation by the person using the equipment. 

   Example: I once watched one of these experts who boasted that they were used by law enforcement, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation and “national security agencies”.  His work had convicted people and on and on went the bragging rights –he almost claimed 100% accuracy.  His job on this occasion was to carry out lie detector tests on people who claimed to have seen Sasquatch/Bigfoot.  Oh, he was going to get to the bottom of this.  The results were that the people tested were not lying and he pointed out the results on a graph showing where the question was asked and response given. He looked a tad “miffed”.

  I found a related online article in which this expert, whose work had seen people convicted of crimes, stated that the persons tested must have somehow evaded answering truthfully –which he had claimed they could not do.  It was obvious they had lied or “self deceived” because “there is no such thing as Bigfoot!”

   Scopolamine has many problems that come with its use (as I outlined in UFO Contact?) and these reasons are why this “hundred percent reliable” drug had been dumped by law enforcement bodies and even some intelligence agencies. The Lorensens had this belief that anything said under its influence was fact. I had not seen the use of this drug reported in any of the Lorensen books I had read to when I learnt about it I was appalled.

   It has to be realised that the UFO witness or percipient is good for only one thing: getting the facts then dumping them.  I have seen this attitude over-and-over and rarely reported in Ufological publications or book. The favourite ways of getting an alleged UFO abductee to cooperate when all they want to do is forget what happened and try to get on with their lives are:

1.  “Well, if you cooperate with us we can keep your name out of the newspapers”

2.  Anonymous tip to a local reporter giving witness/percipient details –then they have to cooperate or have the press on their doorstep.

   “UFO investigation costs a lot of money” is the usual excuse given for contacting a publication such as the National Enquirer to sell story rights for a fee to cover costs. It seems that the actual percipient(s) are only told this when it is a fate accompli.

   UFO Contact? was written so that it could be shown how Ufologists had operated and to make this a thing of the past and for that reason every reference was given, including, sadly, to what appears to clearly be a rather racist outlook by some so “forceful opinions about the cases, investigators” means that, rarely for Ufology, the truth was being written.

   If UFOs are all explainable and utter rot then why are the “sceptical Ufologists” still commenting, writing articles and (privately because they are cowards) attacking even their alleged friends?  They need to get out of Ufology and find something else to do.  The same thing applies with the legitimate debunkers who still take the TV and publishing cheques for the same old piece of rope. Either get away from Ufology or look into reports with an open mind -these people claim to be applying the Principles of Science but to be honest I’m not sure they have any idea just what those principles are- and check and counter-check and publish conclusions that are truthful.  If you cannot explain a case you write that and see whether anyone else can find a solution. 

   To simply put down an unsolved case as “probably psychological or a hoax” when it cannot be is cowardice.  How does a farmer in the backwoods go about faking high levels of radiation or other ground traces?  How does an hoaxer report his/her/their encounter without any knowledge that five other people reported the object that they described and that air force radar detected an object in the same location –before the news even breaks or, better still, how do hoaxers get people who have no connection with them or who are just passing though report “There was this massive light hovering over a car on the other side of the fields” or “Our car just stopped and then someone pointed out a big light swooping down on a car about half-a-mile down the road: our engine started up again and we got the hell out of there”.

   Please, if you can explain all of that then I will be very happy. Not “Oh well, they might have…” I want a demonstrable way of proving how this was all achieved and when you get an abduction where people report the very same type of object in the area an hour before the event –reports received by local police- and people living locally observe the described object taking off from a field and there is a car in the same field –please explain that to me.

   I have heard every silly little theory from debunkers/sceptical Ufologists over four decades and where there is even a possibility it might answer an aspect of a case I have looked at those theories.  Debunkers do not help their case when they are caught out trying to bribe secondary witnesses to say they lied or take statements out of context or actually just downright lie.

   The question is whether, in the UK, the “Government” employs sceptical Ufologists to debunk cases/events. No.  These people operate for their own reasons and some of those reasons and mindsets would be great for a psychological study. Berwyn Mountain and its UFO crash –fiction and created as a deliberate hoax rather like the ‘scary’ Aerial Phenomena Enquiry Network (APEN) was created by Ufologists and the names of those involved are known because Ufologists like to back-stab one another or tell people about this “great gag”.

   Sceptical Ufologists paid to “explain away” the Redlesham Forest incident –no government department is going to waste money doing that since the whole case is known around the world and been reported on in books (John Hanson’s The Halt Perspective being the best), magazine articles, podcasts, You Tube videos, TV and whatever else you can think of.  Mention Rendlesham Forest and the UFO incident and most people might know what you are talking about but mention David Clarke or Jenny Randles or any other sceptic on the case and you will draw blank looks.

   These would be the worst (paid) “government mouthpieces” ever because no one knows who they are or really cares what they say.  If the Rendlesham object was described as “looking like Donald Duck but green” –people will accept that if they decide it is true.   Ufologists seem to be full of themselves and their 15 minutes of fame but no one else cares –have they been on the X Factor or Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here?  No?  Who are they then?

   William Moore in the United States took ,money to basically spy on Ufologists and report back to a faction in the US Air Force. He got caught out and so admitted it at a UFO convention and he was ostracised –rightly so- from Ufology.  Moore was not the only person involved with UFOs who took the money to snoop and plant stories but those people covered their asses quickly.  Even Dr. Hynek continued to do some work after he ‘retired’ as US Air Force consultant.

   We find Vallee carrying out incompetent at best research –he becomes a ufological hero!  The late Eric Morris in the UK actually told Ufologists at a UFO event that he had faked abduction reports and so on. He was never ostracised but invited to other events. Andrew Roberts admits faking reports with other Ufologists whom he refuses to identify (but are known) and will not even come clean on what reports are faked. Ostracised?  No –he continues to ply his trade. 

   There are others and to be honest I do not care.  More time has been spent over 70 years at these ‘games’ than carrying out serious research into UFOs. Unless a UK report has been validated by others anything coming from certain Ufologists needs to be ignored and if these people write books those should be black- listed by genuine Ufologists. 

   I get angry seeing how much time has been wasted and it is why I work alone and when I find fake cases those will be reported on.  We need truth not lies.

SETI -Do We Need A Gates, Zuckerberg, Musk or Bigelow: The Future of UFO/Private SETI

This is the result of some thinking today.   Comments are always welcome.

Arecibo Message explained: How researchers sent the first interstellar radio message

Chelsea Ritschel  The Independent

November 16 2018 marks 44 years since researchers sent humankind’s first interstellar radio message – an achievement Google is celebrating with aGoogle Doodle.

The Arecibo Message, sent from the Arecibo Observatory in Puerto Rico in 1974, is a three-minute message of exactly 1,679 binary digits – which, if arranged in a specific way, can explain basic information about humanity and earth to extraterrestrial beings.

Scientists sent the message via frequency modulated radio waves to a cluster of stars 25,000 light years away to demonstrate the power of the Arecibo radio telescope, which was the largest and most powerful in the world at the time.

“It was a strictly symbolic event, to show that we could do it,” Cornell University professor of astronomy Donald Campbell recalled of the momentous event.

The event moved some present to tears as researchers contemplated their own existence and knowledge of planets and solar systems.

The hope is that, in many thousands of years, it may reach another living being.

The actual message was devised by a team of researchers from Cornell University led by astronomer and astrophysicist Dr Frank Drake.

When received, the message could be arranged in a grid 73 rows by 23 columns to form a pictograph that represents facts about mathematics, human DNA, planet earth, and humans.

From top down, the seven-part message can show the numbers one to 10, atomic numbers of elements including hydrogen and oxygen, the formulas for the sugars and bases in the nucleotides of DNA, a graphic of the DNA double helix structure, a figure of a human and the population of earth at the time, a graph of the solar system, and a graph of the telescope.

Since the Arecibo message was sent, the message has travelled just 259 trillion miles – a fraction of its journey to its intended destination, which will take roughly 25,000 years to complete.​

   That is 25,000 years for the message to reach its destination. And if –if- it reaches an intelligent life form and it is decided to respond, which seems very unlikely that it will see the point, there is the 25,000 year wait for the reply. Now, personally, I think sending a message to show off is pointless.  I certainly do not care when it gets to its final destination.  I won’t be alive and I think it is fair to say that no one alive today will be!

   Will Earth still be here in 50,000 years?  Will Humanity still be here? Those are the two minor questions because the main one is will any civilization exist in the area the signal is heading?  It was sent using the blind-fold and dart method: imagine having on dart and you have to score a bulls-eye, however, it is also decided that you have to wear a blindfold…and turn your back to the board.  If you hit a bulls-eye it will be a miracle.  If the Arecibo signal actually gets received by an advanced civilisation it would be akin to that miraculous darts bulls-eye.

Arecibo Observatory, Puert Rico photo ©JidoBG creative commons license

  

Rather like the Voyagers (1 and 2) their journeys.

 Voyager 1 was launched on Monday, 5^th September, 1977.  As I write this it is 41 years, 2 months, 13 days, 25 minutes and 48 seconds into its travels.  It is now (at the time of writing –November 18^th 2018) 144,70293392 AU (Astronomical Units) or 13,450, 974,240 miles from the Earth in what scientists call “interstellar space”. In 40,000 years it will encounter the AC+79 3888 star system which lies 17.6 light years from Earth.

   Voyager 2 was launched on Saturday, 20^th August, 1977 and is is the “Heliosheath” some 11, 117, 165, 732 miles or 119, 59629202 AU from Earth. It is heading toward the star Sirius and even travelling at 40,000 miles per hour it will not reach there for 296,000 years.

   Those are the time scales and destinations for the Voyagers -if they are not destroyed in some collision.  Planetary information from both was fantastic so why not just set them to randomly float around the solar system.  I know there are a lot of problems because of age and so on but surely someone must have thought it better to keep roaming our system than become a piece of space litter?

   Pioneer 10 visited Saturn in 1976, Uranus in 1979 and on the 13^th June, 1983 passed Neptune and became the first human-made object to leave the proximity of the Solar System.  Its speed means that the final journey will take more time than the faster (in relative terms) Voyagers.  Pioneer 10 is heading in “the general direction” of the star Aldebaran in the Taurus Constellation and if it gets there it will have taken 2 million years.  Pioneer 11, according to a statement on 22^nd January, 2016: “should pass close to the nearest star in the Constellation Aquila in about 4 million years”.

   NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory has an interesting “Nasa’s Eyes” web page where you can track the Voyagers’ progress.

   I really do not care that in 40,000 years, 296, 000 or 2 or 4 million years an alien space ship might find one of our probes.  Nor do I care that some alien astronomer might detect one of these probes. To them it may well send a cheery message of “there was intelligent life” out in space but according to most of those involved in the projects Humanity will have died out by then.

   Again, I personally do not think any really advanced alien civilisation would be using radio signals or sending out probes to say “Hello. We’re dead now –sorry you missed us!”

   The Andromeda Galaxy alone has an estimated (current figure 2018) 1 trillion stars. The European Space Agency’s (ESA) Gaia space craft is 3D scanning space and has made some excellent discoveries and has helped to create a 3D map of 1.7 billion stars in the Milky Way.  According to an item on Space.Com by Elizabeth Howell (29^th March, 2018),: “the estimate of the total stars in our galaxy at 100 billion”.

   Here is a little fact: as of the 1^st November, 2018, there have been 3,874 confirmed planets in 2,892 systems, with 638 systems having more than one planet. If you want more information on how these are detected and distances from Earth then there is a very good Wikipedia entry –just search online for “Exoplanets”.

   We should all know about the “Goldilocks Zone” - it refers to the habitable zone around a star where the temperature is just right - not too hot and not too cold - for liquid water to exist on a planet –as with the Earth.  Here, then, is another little fact for you: in November of 2013, astronomers reported, based on Kepler space mission data, that there could be as many as 40 billion Earth-sized planets orbiting in the habitable zones of Sun-like stars and red dwarfs in the Milky Way, 11 billion of which may be orbiting Sun-like stars.

©Jonahl613   Histogram Chart of Discovered Exoplanets as of 26^th November2017

   Remember that we only just recently discovered “Ghost Galaxies” and that there are suns that travel between galaxies –when it comes to knowing about our solar system and the universe around us our knowledge is quite low but we are learning more.

   We should really be considering sending any radio signals and messages shorter distances -and when objects the size of Oumuamua are only discovered by chance- we need to make sure any signals are broadcast throughout our solar system. Let us assume that there is some form of extra-terrestrial space-travelling civilisation out there and that it passes near, around or through our Solar System.  It is generally assumed –again- that these travellers will immediately know that we, Humanity, are here. Assumption is the father of all screw-ups.

   Mercury is approximately 36 million miles from the Sun while Venus is 67.2 million miles and our planet is 93 million miles from the Sun.Unless a very large space craft comes close to Earth and is detected –probably accidentally by one of the Near Earth Objects surveys as Oumuamua was- then that is a vast area of space. Mars is 141.6 million miles out from the Sun and Jupiter 483.6 million miles; Saturn 886.7 million miles while Uranus and Neptune are, respectively, 1,784 million and 2,794.4 million miles from the Sun. The dwarf planet Pluto is 3,674.5 million miles out and the suspected “Planet 9” (or “Planet 10” if you still object to Pluto having been downgraded) even further.

   One thing I always find interesting is that people tend to refer to the Solar System as though it were all on some flat plane.  It is not.  I think many have seen the diagrams showing comparative planetary sizes and positions in order of distance and actually think this is reality; like the images of Oumuamua these are all artistic visualisations. Then you also have to remember that, according to 2017 NASA figures, the majority of known asteroids orbit within the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter, generally with not very elongated orbits.

   The Asteroid Belt is estimated to contain between 1.1 and 1.9 million asteroids larger than 1 kilometre (0.6 mile) in diameter, and millions of smaller ones.  So far astronomers have only plotted the orbits of a relative few asteroids and the Centre for Near Earth Object Studies CNEOS) at NASA’s JPL has an interesting web page with regular updates on NEO Earth Close Approaches but as it points out not all are detected before close approach. The most recently detected (November 2018) objects vary in diameter from 12 metres to 80 metres. 

   Which means that any supposed craft would need to come in fairly close to be detected and recognised.

   The argument then is “Well, they will hear our signals –Earth is a very noisy planet!”  Firstly: space is a very noisy place so that is not a really good argument if, secondly, “they” are neither looking nor listening.  It is looking at the situation via Human eyes; we have no idea what system of communications they use or whether they could relate to Human activity as anything but more space noise.  Earth is also quite small.

   Look at this image: on the 25^th September, 2018, a camera aboard NASA's Parker Solar Probe captured this photograph looking back to Earth — the bright object in the right hand (enlarged) image.  Would any alien craft passing by, say, Pluto at 3,674.5 million miles even know we are here?

   Credit: NASA/Naval Research Laboratory/Parker Solar Probe

   It could be that alien physiology is so different that their equipment would be of a type that would not pick up or even recognise Earth noise. There is nothing special about Earth if you consider that any aliens had spotted Humanity and taken a cursory glance –especially if they were already in contact with far superior civilisations to our own.  This basic ignorance –to be honest when it comes to vast distances it is all mind-numbing- of space is also shown amongst ufologists and so called “experiencers” (alien abductees). 

   Natalie’s experiences are with entities from the Pleiades. Of course, Monica has been involved in contact with a race from Andromeda while John has been involved with beings from Orion. These experiencers seem to think that these are simply solar systems -these names given without question.

   The Orion Nebula is 1,344 light years away while the Pleiades are 444.2 light years off. Andromeda is 2.537 million light years away.  It might have made some sense had the experiencers chosen a nearer galaxy such as the Sagittarius Dwarf Elliptical Galaxy which is ‘only’ 70,000 light years from our Sun.  In 2003 the Canis Major Dwarf Galaxy was discovered and is now our nearest neighbour at 25,000 light years or some 42,000 light years from our Galactic centre. In kilometres that is some 236,000,000,000,000,000.  If you want the kilometres to the SagDEG, give or take a kilometre it is 662,000,000,000,000,000.

   That any alien civilisation based on planets in such far flung galaxies are concerned about our tiny speck of dust is absolutely ridiculous especially when you again consider that there could be as many as 40 billion Earth-sized planets orbiting in the habitable zones of Sun-like stars and red dwarfs in the Milky Way and that 11 billion of which may be orbiting Sun-like stars.  Should we not be hearing more about entities from our nearer neighbours –Alpha Centauri, Barnard’s Star, Wolf 359, Lalande 21185 and so on and how concerned they are about how we treat our planet?

   It is far likelier that the “experiencer” has either heard the galactic name, read or come across it some other way and thinks Andromeda et al are simply solar systems –time and again I have actually come across this: including amongst some ufologists.

   Science also needs to get involved in the subject of UFOs if only in the sense of looking at the data and assessing reports –“unexplained” does not mean “alien” but it would offer us a basic data base to build on and study.  The unwillingness to do this is unscientific and, I believe, cowardly. Hopefully, it is just through closed minds rather than fear that their highly paid jobs might be at stake.

   That those involved with SETI will not become involved is, to a degree, and we have to be honest, understandable. Budd Hopkins, David Jacobs et al have made it so that the subject has become farcical: that there are “millions” of people abducted year-in and year- out to create a race of (based on Jacobs’ own work) alien half-wits.

   But we need to concentrate on those reports both old and new that have largely been left untainted and there are many. 

*We are not talking about hundreds of flying saucer crashes and many hundreds of dead aliens

*We are not even looking at extra terrestrials visiting Earth over the centuries as there is no evidence of this except that presented by the bunko crew. 

*We are certainly not talking about “many millions” of alien abductees. 

*We are not talking hundreds or thousands of extra terrestrial space craft being sighted each year.

   What we are talking about is far less, rarer activity and, being honest again, re-assessing all of the old reports has left me realising that there is evidence there –even if only anecdotal. 100% evidence is not possible since if landing traces, radiation and other physical evidence is ignored by sceptical ufologists and debunkers (the same thing) or simply waved off as being unexplainable and therefore “not evidence” I doubt that anything would convinced a closed and frightened mind.

   By definition, and I find this almost laughable, doing the work I am it is safe to say I am far more involved in SETI than most of those working within SETI itself.  And I ought not to exclude attempts by others over the years that have created arrays of million candle power lights to beam signals at “UFOs” (which might work if you are not simply aiming your light array at a natural light phenomenon). Others over the years have tried using amateur radio in an attempt to contact flying saucer occupants and this has, it seems failed because hoaxers easily get involved.

Above –the St. Paul UFO Landing Pad.

   Over the decades, usually following a “UFO” landing or similar incident, people have created UFO landing pads of various types. The St. Paul UFO Landing Pad in Alberta, Canada, is hailed as “The World’s First UFO Landing Pad” and was built in 1967 as a Canadian Centennial Project. Lack of use meant that by the 1990’s it had fallen into disrepair but it was then restored and a UFO museum added. A UFO conference was held there a few times. It is a big visitor attraction now –sadly, no alien visitors yet.

   Swiss man named Werner Jaisli travelled to the small town of Cachi in the province of Salta, Argentina and put a collection of white and brown rocks together in the shape of a star between 2008 and 2012 and is known as an 'ovniport'.  Oddly, Jaisli later disappeared –some saying he went to Bolivia or back to Switzerland. There is the other theory that Jaisli and his ovniport were successful and he is currently whizzing around space in a spaceship.

   France, the United States and even a small effort by some in the UK have all been tried but these have all been small scale attempts and without any financial backing these projects do not last long –the St. Paul attempt only survives because it was restored and designed as a tourist attraction.

  

Above: Jaisli’s Argentinean “ovniport”

    We have to ask ourselves whether the current attempts at SETI are serious. Should we really be spending multi-millions of dollars on sending signals out that are probably not going to reach any alien civilisation or that will take centuries to arrive where ever they are aimed at?  SETI, of course, is not as simple as sending a signal out into space as that would come under Communications with Extra Terrestrial Intelligence (CETI) while SETI is the Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence SETI needs to find signs of alien civilisation before CETI can get to work.

   The International Academy of Astronautics (IAA) has a long-standing SETI Permanent Study Group  -the SPSG, formerly called the IAA SETI Committee- which addresses matters concerning SETI science, technology, and international policy. The SPSG meets in conjunction with the International Astronautical Congress (IAC) held annually at different locations around the world, and sponsors two SETI Symposia at each IAC. It was in 2005 that the IAA established the SETI: Post-Detection Science and Technology Taskgroup (Chairman, Professor Paul Davies) "to act as a Standing Committee to be available to be called on at any time to advise and consult on questions stemming from the discovery of a putative signal of extraterrestrial intelligent (ETI) origin."

   It should be pointed out that the protocols mentioned only apply to radio SETI rather than for METI (Active SETI). The intention for METI is covered under the SETI charter "Declaration of Principles Concerning Sending Communications with Extraterrestrial Intelligence".

   The “Wow!” signal is not accepted as evidence since it was heard only the once. However, were signals received that would come under the auspices of METI –Messaging Extra Terrestrial Intelligence.  They have a web site and you can find out about their work. There is also an outline of METI’s mission.

The Primary Objectives And Purposes Of METI International Are To:

1.  Conduct scientific research and educational programs in Messaging Extraterrestrial Intelligence (METI) and the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI).

2.  Promote international cooperation and collaboration in METI, SETI, and astrobiology.

3.  Understand and communicate the societal implications and relevance of searching for life beyond Earth, even before detection of extraterrestrial life.

4.  Foster multidisciplinary research on the design and transmission of interstellar messages, building a global community of scholars from the natural sciences, social sciences, humanities, and arts.

5.  Research and communicate to the public the many factors that influence the origins, evolution, distribution, and future of life in the universe, with a special emphasis on the last three terms of the Drake Equation: (1) the fraction of life-bearing worlds on which intelligence evolves, (2) the fraction of intelligence-bearing worlds with civilizations having the capacity and motivation for interstellar communication, and (3) the longevity of such civilizations.

6.  Offer programs to the public and to the scholarly community that foster increased awareness of the challenges facing our civilization’s longevity, while encouraging individual and community activities that support the sustainability of human culture on multigenerational timescales, which is essential for long-term METI and SETI research.

   You might think that this would mean that there ought to be cooperation between the METI/SETI and credible Ufologists.  After all, since 1947 -71 years- Ufologists have been talking to the general public about the possibility of UFOs being extra terrestrial and that is a lot of groundwork to cash in on. Sadly, it does not work that way. There are astronomers who are interested in the UFO subject, either openly or privately.  There are members of other Scientific disciplines who are interested. Really, the Ufologists and scientific community should be working together

   As I have already noted, Ufology does not have a good reputation. I really do not need to go into why it has that reputation any further. With most Ufologists it is a case of Science having to accept “many thousands of UFO sightings and alien contacts” and then there are the factions within Ufology and the obvious demands that will be made –dig out the preserved alien bodies and crashed flying saucers from Roswell and many, many other sites since 1947.  Denying these exists would be tantamount, as far as Ufologists are concerned, to admitting that the cooperation being offered was a sham. A cover-up designed to keep the “truth-seekers” quiet.

   The fact that scientists involved would no doubt say “You Ufologists have to be reasonable and understand that there is no evidence of UFO landings or contact cases and that Roswell never had a flying saucer crash”.  There are data bases of trace evidence as well as data on vehicle interference reports and so on. The fact that the people behind this work are not members of an accredited university means a lot of scientists will not accept it –yet it is there for them to review. It should be pointed out that NASA does not cover up evidence of extra terrestrial life; if it discovered such then it would guarantee it a massive boost in financial backing.  A great many Ufologists will not accept that NASA does not cover up evidence of ETs.

   What we need to do is go about this in a more organised manner and if we cannot all cooperate then the work needs to be carried out privately.

   Firstly, we need a team of experienced investigators who can look into UFO reports and claimed Close Encounters of the Third Kind. These could be ex-police officers or ex-military police; people who have a good instinct as to whether a witnesses is lying or not and who know how to gather evidence correctly.

   A team could also consist of astronomers or be able to consult astronomers. When it came to a CE3K then from the outset the team should consist of a psychologist so that at the very outset a percipient can be clearly assessed. It is also important that in such cases where a percipient appears to be physiologically affected in some way, that medical assistance can be given and tests run.  There is a long list of cases where percipients were noted as suffering from various physical symptoms and very few involved any medical tests or examinations but Ufologists later guessing at what might have happened to the person in question –often badly misquoting medical sources.  Tests as soon as possible could probably yield a great deal of information.

   Secondly, we need to set up small areas from which radio and other types of signals could be sent: a Field Base.  The idea of a circular array of powerful lights is still a good one since, if an object was a non terrestrial visitor rather than a natural light phenomenon, if it returned a repeated light signal that would indicate a great deal.  A natural light phenomenon would not have the intelligence needed to copy and repeat a light signal back.

   Thirdly, if the area above could be funded then it could also include a “landing pad”.  This does not mean some kind of constructed area. If your Field Base is set in a large field or next to a large field then that would be the potential landing area; UFOs have landed in swampy terrain, desert, hillsides and fields and woods without the need for a constructed landing pad. A Field Base should be set up in the United States, UK and in Europe.

   Fourth; you would really require a team that can cover the United States, Canada as well as the UK and Europe.  The speed that a team can get to an active area or to a witness the better so the idea of a major report from the UK needing a team from the United States to fly out would increase costs and time wasted.

   None of this replaces SETI of course. The question is, however, would SETI as a body accept the data gathered through the above manner?  It should if carried out scientifically or the alternative would be to find members of the United Nations who would receive the information and who could act or lend some weight to the work.

   The biggest effort would require independent financing.  A red speedster can be sent up into space as a publicity stunt but what about a series of small satellites sent into space to broadcast contact messages or signals –these would be far more likely to attract attention, especially if some form of light display signal could be incorporated into them.

   We are in the 21^st century and yet our attempts to get to the bottom of UFO incidents still appears to be unscientific at best and at worst diving into a chasm of fantasy speculation and claims. Established scientific bodies –France being the exception with its space agency- appear to be disinterested and yet they should be interested.

   It seems that any such project would need to be funded privately but there are few out there with the financial clout.  We need a Robert Bigelow, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates. The chances of such a backer(s) coming forward are remote in the extreme. 

   So we plod on.