For many years I fell into the trap of believing the biggest lie in
Ufology: “You can trust investigators and if they say something happened –it
happened!”
It took a while before I realised what complete and utter crap –and I
am being polite here- that was. Jacques Vallee “is a scientist and he has
investigated or studied this case so if he says it is genuine then it is” well,
when I was compiling the AOP data base for the UFO Report I had to negate
(exclude) one case after another that Vallee cited. Hoaxes, psychological cases
and in many cases the ‘facts’ came only from a newspaper clipping or two and
reporters were not above faking stories. Even today, in 2020, cases that were
known not to be genuine at the time (1950s for instance) are still cited as
genuine because Vallee still uses them or has not corrected the record
because of the bruised ego that would cause.
Desmond Leslie, author and former editor of Flying Saucer Review, that
“respectable” publication of ‘scientific ufology’, jumped straight in to
perpetuate the George Adamski contactee con. Leslie’s UFO books were also
negated –much more quickly than Vallee’s, as original sources quoted did not
tell of red coloured flying discs moving slowly” across the sky but told of
meteors. It went on and on.
Donald E. Keyhoe, an old time hero of mine, was also a journalist and
as Al Chop and Edward Ruppelt both pointed out; he could be given the facts but
put his own slant on a “story”. Keyhoe had to earn a living and he popularised
flyi8ng saucers and UFO investigation to some degree. There are many pros and
cons when it comes to Keyhoe.
I laugh out loud when I read or hear someone say how “dedicated an
investigator and researcher” John A. Keel was. Yes, I loved his books and he
spun a good story from the Mothman to Ultra Terrestrials and mot anything else
that earned him a crust as a journalist. I still think his books are good fun
reads.
The problem was that my mind is set to look into odd things. To get to
the bottom of reports and if there is an explanation I offer it –but back up
what I say or write. If there is no current explanation then I say so and
explain why I rule out certain explanations. But it has to be remembered that
saying “There is no current explanation” does not mean there never will be can
explanation.
“Bigfoot reports cannot be explained” is a favourite of mine. If people
are seeing large, hairy hominids then the question is “what are they?”
Firstly, I think size is exaggerated in reports and with Bigfoot investigation
groups faking reports and data like their brothers in Ufology and cryptozoology
the whole subject is a mess. “Shoot one then you have the proof!” –well I was
against this in the 1970s and supported Dmitri Bayanov in his stance on this.
“Unexplained” is a ridiculous word to use: was the report faked? If yes then
you have not got anything other than a hoax. Did the observer(s) seem
genuine? Then you have people reporting something they saw (excluding
misidentifications). Yes, Bigfoot can be explained but you need data and
evidence: it can be explained as a myth (which seems contrary to what we know)
or as a genuine member of the animal kingdom.
Sea monsters and sea serpents: we have discovered many ea creatures
since the mid 20th century that might explain some but not all of
these reports. If we missed the megamouth shark (Megachasma pelagios)
until 1976 what else have we missed? Not all such reports are explainable and
those that persist in trying to disprove reports rather than studying the
reports to try to discover what type of creature was seen just show low
intelligence and closed minds.
When it comes to UFOs I recall what my late friend Franklyn A.
Davin-Wilson once told me –and it applies to all research: “Read the source. Is
it quoting someone else –then read that and if you can go directly to the
original source –the reportee”. He also told me not to just quote one reference
but as many as I had because that way others can double or triple check your
work and if it survives scrutiny then you have solid data.
FSR rarely, if ever, double-checked articles or features it published.
Editors might pontificate on certain points or try to pull in what was
contained in an article into their own theory –demons, ultra terrestrials or
whatever. For instance, small balls of light became mini UFOs. No arguing –they
were. And what is more they “showed intelligent control” –if I put a
ball on a table and it rolls toward me is it intelligently controlled? There
were a number of “mini flying saucer” sightings in the early 1980s in which
discoid objects were seen and two antennae were also clearly seen
–“receiving/sending”. When this was put to FSR it was slapped down because it
did not conform to the “unexplained UFO” report they wanted.
Helsingborg-Hoganas, Sweden, 2nd December, 1958 and the
claim by Hans Gustafsson and Stig Rydberg that strange “things” attempted to
abduct them (Some Things Strange & Sinister pp.262-264)
during a UFO sighting. It was known as a hoax at the time and what is
more FSR was informed of this but refused to update details and continued to
cite the case. Other reports from Spain were known at the time to be
hoaxes either by newspapers or by Ufologists hoaxing other Ufologists –yes.
Really using those alleged “principles of science” there.
The “1954 French Wave” in recent years has proven to be anything but.
Yes, there appear to be genuine reports but the4se are obscured (especially
CE3K/AE reports) by all sorts of strange and “unexplainable” lights. The
problem is that the ‘study’ of the 1954 wave was almost wholly based on
newspaper clippings-very few actual investigations and it is laughable when one
reads the words of Ufologists 30-50 years later condemning journalists for
adding facts to cases, inaccurate reporting and so on. Firstly, the job of a journalist
is supposed to be reporting the news but this takes second place to selling
newspapers. Secondly, journalists are not trained in UFO investigation or even
knowledgeable about UFOs, particularly in the 1950s.
UFO ‘investigation and research’ involved looking at newspaper
clippings and thyere are many modern Ufologists who still do this because it is
easier to explain away reports based on these (yes, a number of “ufologists”
have no interest in the subject other than to explain it all away and boost
their egoes). The indignity of having to actually go and see someone like Rosa
Lotti (Unidentified –Identified pp. 126-138) in the 1970s
because…well, these thing take time. Or having to actually go and speak to
Madame LeBoeuf (UFO Contact? pp.199-207) some decades later.
It turns out that the 1954 “wave” was a total mish-mash of some quite
genuine observations, hoaxes or lies. Interestingly, an entity seen next to a
flying saucer turned out to be someone repairing a bus. “Ufonaut” cases were
only briefly reported on because, illogically, flying saucer researchers
refused to even contemplate that anyone was controlling the flying saucers.
This illogical thinking went further because most were quite happy to accept
hoaxer contactees such as George Adamski as being genuinely in touch with
people from Mars, Venus, Saturn and elsewhere throughout the Sol system. After
all, Adamski had the photographs of the space craft as well as images he took
in space.
All laughable and a “thing of the past” No, there are Ufologists who
still promote Adamski’s claims and even add to them. Eduard Albert “Billy”
Meier, the Swiss contactee, I first became familiar with in the 1970s and he
has his own little cult going. Even more he does not just have film/video
footage and photos of ridiculous looking flying saucers but also of dinosaurs
and pteranodon flying around. I’ve seen the footage and it is even below par
for a 1970s cheap childrens TV show. Or has everyone missed his claims to have
time travelled with aliens?
It is very possible that certain contactees might actually genuinely
believe that what they are experiencing is real –as outlined in UFO
Contact? – but when you have fraudulently produced images any
possibility of this can be ruled out.
Having looked at the 1954 “wave” it was quite obviously anything but a
huge increase in UFO -”extra terrestrial”- activity. We seem to same mix of
reports for all other waves including 1973 and the “Global UFO Wave” which was
hailed by Ufologists as “unprecedented” and a sign that “full contact might not
be far off”. Well, four decades on nothing has happened.
The 1973 “wave” did see some very interesting CE3k/AE reports but most
(say 99%) concentration focussed on the Hickson and Parker encounter at Pascagoula, Mississippi.
Even reports that seemed to involve similar entities –one might say these would
add to the strength of the Pascagoula
case since some took place in the state- were side-stepped or largely ignored.
I could never understand this until I began digging into things in more detail.
Why were these cases ignored? There was one thing that stood out and
evidence seems to strongly support this: most of the percipients were “black”
while 100% of the Ufologists were white. Any excuse not to bother with these
cases was used and eventually just not bothering to mention them sufficed. As a
veteran American Ufologist put it to me: “It was a different time back then.
Middle class white guys did not drive into poor black areas”. Well, 2020
doesn’t appear that different.
Of course, these CE3K/AE reports were nudged to one side. At UFO
conferences how many alleged black UFO abductees do you see compared to white
alleged UFO abductees? Name a black abductee other than Barney Hill. Most tend
to have the full “He’s a lying faker” treatment. Some white abductees have
signs of post traumatic stress disorder after their encounters but black people
displaying PTSD symptoms are “showing signs of fraud” or, simply, lying.
Above:
Louise Smith, left, Elaine Thomas and Mona Stafford of Liberty were the central figures in a 1976 UFO incident
When Budd Hopkins came along things hit the fan. Most of us accepted
what he told us: his work was peer reviewed as per scientific work. Therefore,
what he told us was backed up by evidence. At one time I was called (as an
insult) “Budd Hopkins UK
mouthpiece” and I even sent him copies of symbol seen during alleged UFO
abductions in the UK.
However, we then learnt that Hopkins was not having his work peer
reviewed and was tacking the evidence in favour of his work while he and David
Jacobs conjured up all sorts of figures for the number of UFO abductions taking
place -and this really was done in the most unscientific “let’s make it seem
big” fashion you can imagine.,
As soon as Hopkins,
then Jacobs’ work became popular –to which we can add that of Whitley Streiber-
then no UFO report was “just” a UFO report. Because, according to Jacobs: “if
you saw a UFO you were abducted!” Which means, I am
assuming since we are not given any wriggle room here, that if you and 50 other
people saw a “UFO” all 51 were abducted. Now, that “UFO” may well turn out to
be Venus, an aircraft, a drone or something else but unless someone
investigates and the explanation is offered then that is 51 new abductees added
to the total.
We went through every conceivable thing with alien abductions –implants
(which soaked up a lot of benefactor money as far as Hopkins work was concerned), missing foetus,
scars –all have produced not one bit of evidence. All were explained away with
evidence or by simply carrying out research.
Then we found out, thanks to Hopkins,
that it was not just the “abductee” he was hypnotically regressing having a one
off encounter. No, these were life long abductions and guess what? The alleged
abductees parents had also been abducted throughout their lives…oh, and the
grandparents also. Then we had alleged abductees recalling alien encounters while
they were in the womb. Then there were the alleged encounters in past lives.
Did anyone raise a hand and say “Excuse me but are you deliberately
faking this or are you self deluded?” Even when the various aspects were
explained away did it make any difference? Remember that for UFO groups such as
the now discredited Mutual UFO Network the books and talks were money makers. Hopkins only had to say
“Well, that is their personal opinion but I am the
one carrying out the work and holding all the data” and the “debunkers” were
well and truly slapped down because they were not “the darling of the moment”.
Through Hopkins
we were told that the Greys were the intelligence behind all of this and that
they employed fake memories to hide their work. Oh, but then we discovered that
the Greys were not the masterminds behind the “abduction agenda” and you
will excuse me if I am unsure who or what is now –the Mantis creatures, lizard
men or the tall whites as it it changes o much and Jacobs has made the whole
subject a very bad joke.
Above: Maurice Masse, percipient in the 1965 Valensole, France encounter
Have a CE3K? Was a Grey involved or missing time? No –then who cared?
There are many reports that have never been looked into that are straight old
fashioned landings and take offs involving entities and they have been/are
being ignored. Investigators will spend months trying to investigate a
pin-point of light seen moving around the sky (Lights-In-The-Sky –LITS) which
will provide no evidence or usefulness in analysis because it was just LITS
and was probably a satellite.
I have given up trying to find legitimate UFO investigators in the
United States who can open “cold cases” while those involved are still
(hopefully) alive. I look at both Ufologists and Ufology with a degree of
disgust these days. In the UK
we know that ‘credible’ Ufologists have deliberately faked reports for reasons
they will not give –the only likely reason is that they wanted to for no reason
other than spreading fake reports, as certain Spanish Ufologists have done.
Those Spanish Ufologists are know for this, however, those in the know will not
name them for malpractice (I have several names on my list now).
We need to sweep aside the fakery –which will never be done because,
after all, that will call into doubt the reputations of many Ufologists/authors
as well as organisations who have promoted the fakery (often knowing that it is
fakery) for personal gain and their five minutes of fame.
Who on Earth, seeing all of this going on, is going to come forward and
say “I had a UFO encounter” or even “I was abducted by aliens”? They see people
made fun of or even declaring what happened to them (or didn’t) and they ask
themselves, not unreasonably, “Do I really want to go through that?”
Betty and Barney Hill we only know about because a promise of
confidentiality was broken and they were thrown into the limelight.
Above: Betty and Barney Hill the percipients in the 1961 White Mountains encounter.
Stafford, Smith and Thomas, the three ladies involved in the 1976, Liberty, Kentucky
encounter (see UFO Contact? pp. 406-421) were tracked down by
investigators and told on their doorsteps “Speak to us or we go to the press”
–and then the promise of confidentiality was thrown out because money and books
beckoned.
Many of the “Classic Cases” we know of because the percipients were
promised confidentiality and then exposed while Ufologists left them to fend
for themselves because the Ufologists had to write those books.
“Hypnosis isn’t getting us anywhere –bring out the scapolamine!” After
all –who cared that those involved were clearly in some kind of physical or
mental shock? The next issue of the newsletter or chapter in the book could not
wait.
The Buckfastleigh case of 1978 involving three teenagers could have
been a major event (UFO Contact? pp. 447-450). However, local
Ufologists turned up on the doorstep 25-30 strong to see the girl involved.
That was it: no one talked after that. And three school children who saw a UFO
while at Primary school noted the big fuss when two Ufologists tried to get
into the school to see them –today that would be classed as a school intrusion.
Both the school and parents stopped anyone speaking to the witnesses.
Above: Charles Hickson and Calvin Parker, percipients in the 1973 Pascagoula, Mississioppi incident
It goes on and on and every time the phrase “We did it to get to the
truth” is used it rings false.
I believe that there are people seeing craft and alien entities
because, when you assess all of the facts and there is even secondary or third
party (unconnected with the percipients) statements to having seen an object where
the main incident took place and there may even be a UFO reported via
radar-visual and even physical traces –what options do you have? When one
person is involved then there is doubt. But if that one person has no idea that
someone at another location geographically close has reported a similar object
near the time of their encounter it may not prove a CE3K took place but it does
back up the UFO sighting side of the claim therefore…
There are a number of cases that I know of where individuals have
reported incidents and it is quite clear that something else took place and by
that I mean a possible UFO abduction experience or contact situation. At least
that is what their accounts suggest. All are in the UK so you might think I would dive
straight in but I did not and will not. My reasons are simple: if I used
regression hypnosis or probed the percipient’s memory without using hypnosis
and they recall far more what then? In the cases I am referring to those
involved all had experiences around the same short time in the mind to late
1970s but all just put it behind them: “one of those things that happened now
get on with my life”.
Do I have the right to suddenly dig out experiences that might be very
traumatic for those people? Can I offer them the psychological after care that
they might need? And the after care might go on for years in some cases because
while some people are strong mentally and can say “It happened over 40 years
ago and that’s it” there are those who might find their recollection opening up
events that shatter their whole belief system and world view. That and
the effects must never be under estimated and to say “You have to do this
because it is part of the puzzle that might explain what is going on” is no
excuse for destroying someone’s whole life and that is what could be involved.
“Oh, it was this weird ghosty-type event involving an odd light in 1978”
turning into “I was abducted by these horrific things and what they did to me—“
and that means any investigator is now that persons shoulder4 to cry on and
person they go to for answers that we do not have.
I have cases going back to 1978 and I have never revealed the names of
the percipients involved or any other identifying information –a couple are
well known these days in the UK but as a certain Air Vice Marshal once put it
my “word is more binding than the Official Secrets Act”. I could make a lot of
money (and I need it to be honest) by disclosing these reports.
Between 1977 until 2013 I acted as an exotic wildlife advisor to UK
police forces and on several occasions I was offered money that would get rid
of financial problems and leave a good amount over and all I had to do was give
certain newspapers (The Mirror and Express) maps showing where various non
native cats were seen as well as names of observers in these cases. It was not
going to happen. I’ll die poor but with my integrity intact. I was, over the
long period as an advisor on the PAWS (Partners Against Wildlife Crimes)
register. Despite backing by a couple of Chief Constables and other senior
officers the Department of Environment Farming and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)
rejected my renewed application 15 times –every time it was submitted something
else was ‘wrong’ and needed correcting. The truth is that DEFRA wanted –wanted-
access to my maps and data since no one had been doingt this work on a
nationwide basis over a period of decades. It was made clear that if I wanted
to be “officially sanctioned” then that material had to be forwarded to DEFRA
(I have signed affidavits from land owners and others who were present when
large cats were trapped and killed by DEFRA associated veterinarians “on the
spot” so, no, they were not getting my data –most of it I destroyed).
I keep my word and I stand by my principles so I am not going to
exploit anyone for my own gain.
A number of percipients had themselves and their encounters exposed by
Ufologists. While I understand all too well the need to get as much information
as possible in cases this must never be at the psychological expense of those
involved. The ladies at Liberty
–Mona Stafford was the last surviving member of the trio- were exposed,
exploited and left to get on with it by themselves. What we need to ask is just
how many people kept their mouths shut?
Maurice Masse at Valensole,
France, blurted
out that he had encountered a craft and occupants and the cat was out of the
proverbial bag because the person he blurted the story out to while in a
shocked state told a journalist. Masse was then the focus of journalists and
Ufologists and so he told them part of the story that they already knew. Some
French Ufologists tried various dirty tricks to prove him a liar or get more
information. However, Masse vowed never to tell anyone else the full story -not
even his wife. He took the secret to his grave.
Eileen Moreland in New
Zealand had her encounter in July, 1059. An
object descended into a paddock, she saw two entities and one left the object
and approached her shouting something in a language she did not understand.;
The entity then returned to the object which took off. That supposedly covered
an 80 minutes period and does not make sense. Someone else saw a similar object
that morning and she told the New Zealand Air Force investigator about the
sighting but not entities. He guessed she was hiding something and eventually
the entity part of the account emerged. However, as far as we know the
investigator was not (?) told the whole story and we gather that from 1970
records in which Moreland, responding to an official letter asking if her
account could be released, responded: “If you have knowledge of the full events
of that awful morning, you will realise, that to suggest that the UFO people
are friendly is a laugh, as I know full well…” Odd if all that happened is what
we know from accounts. Moreland took the truth to the grave.
How many people just want to report a UFO out of sense of duty but
never reveal a much closer encounter? How many of those uninvestigated reports
where the witness states “I just saw the object with some people near it that
took off” involve far more? I have met people who told me privately: “You know
the sighting details? There was far more and I want you to know that but I
don’t want to talk about it” and my response is always the same: “I understand
and even though I want to know what happened I will not press you but, if you
ever want to talk about it privately, you know how to contact me”. That is why
I have never changed my email addresses and why I have never changed my
telephone number since the 1980s.
I want to get to the truth of what is going on and that is something
every genuine person investigating UFOs should agree with. I know that Ufology
has built up a really false picture of what has and what is going on. There is
no doubt that CE3K/AE reports as well as reports of seemingly constructed craft
not from any known terrestrial inventory are far rarer than we have been led to
believe. Ufology and those involved in it will never be willing to admit that
there is no legion of interplanetary races visiting Earth on a daily basis and
are not abducting millions of people a year. They want the continuation of the
Dr Who/X-files mix because that way they can at least claim to be experts in
knowing what is going on if not why it is going on.
I would very much hope that people like Masse or Moreland would come
forward but if they did it would have to be under the strictest guarantee of
confidentiality and not be for exploitation. If I am honest I have to say that
there can never be a full study of reports without funding or at the very least
capable investigators in different countries who are willing to look into cold
cases and new ones without prejudice.
Perhaps we need an Elon Musk type benefactor?
