The Case of the Imjarvii Skiers

 

NOTE:  This is just a summary of the case that was forwarded to me by someone who thought that I might be interested. In fact, I have quite a file on the case and that is mainly thanks to the AFU Newsletters I used to receive. The case is far more complicated than this account lets on and I recall reading the material in the AFU Newsletter and just asking myself "What the hell?!"

I may try to reasses the case at some point out of interest. Only things I lack are photographs of the two alleged percipients so if anyone can help there please get in touch -blacktowercg@hotmail.com.

It was late afternoon on Wednesday, 7 January 1970 when countrymen Aarno Heinonen and Esko Viljo were out skiing.  They paused in a small clearing to enjoy the few stars in the cold sunset.  

After a short time they heard a buzzing noise and saw a bright light moving through the sky towards them.  As it neared them above treetop height, they saw a red-grey mist swirling around it and puffs of smoke emanating from it.  Inside the cloud was a circular, saucer-shaped object, metallic in appearance and some nine feet (274 cm) wide.  It had a dome above, and beneath were three spheres around the rim, reminiscent of the Adamski photographs of nearly twenty years earlier [1952.12.13].  

From the base of the object a tube suddenly fired a sharp beam of light down towards the ground.  By this time the object had lowered itself to around ten feet (three metres) from the ground, almost within touching distance of the men.

If the witnesses were astonished now, the next instant was to take what was left of their breath away.  As Heinonen related, “I was standing completely still.  Suddenly I felt as if somebody has seized my waist from behind and pulled me backwards.  I think I took a step backwards, and in the same second I caught sight of the creature.  It was standing in the middle of the light beam with a black box in its hands.  From around the opening in the box there came a yellow light, pulsating.  The creature was about 35 inches (90 cm) tall, with very thin arms and legs.  Its face was pale like wax.  I didn’t notice the eyes, but the nose was very strange.  It was a hook rather than a nose.  The ears were very small and narrow towards the head.  The creature wore some kind of overall in a light green material.  On its feet were boots of a darker green colour, which stretched above the knee.  There were also white gauntlets going up to the elbows, and the fingers were bent like claws around the black box.

Viljo also described the creature as “luminous like phosphorus” and wearing a conical, metallic-like helmet [cf abductee on For the Love Of].  The creature was less than three feet (91 cm) tall.

Suddenly Heinonen was hit by the light from the box in the creature’s hands.  The forest became suddenly quiet, the red-grey mist drew down from the object and sparks could be seen flying into the snow.  The mist hid the creature and surrounded both the witnesses.  Suddenly the light beam disappeared and was sucked up into the craft, apparently taking the entity with it.  Then even the craft itself was gone!  Heinonen was paralyzed on his right side and Viljo had to almost carry his friend the two miles (three km) to their home.

Later, at the Heinola clinic they were examined and the doctor prescribed sleeping pills and sedatives.  He believed that the symptoms of aching joints and headache would disappear within ten days, but for Heinonen they continued for some time.  Some five months later he was still suffering from the same pains and although the paralysis of his right leg disappeared he could still not balance properly.

Heinonen’s memory was also severely affected and it got so bad that whenever he left home he had to tell his family where he was going so that they could search for him and collect him if he didn’t return! Viljo himself was not unaffected by the event; he had a red and swollen face and had become incoherent and absent-minded.

Dr Pauli Kajanoja stated “The symptoms he described are like those after being exposed to radioactivity.”  He added “Both men seem sincere; I don’t think they had made the thing up.  I am sure they were in a state of shock when they came to me; something must have frightened them.”

The experience was corroborated by two other people who reported UFOs in the sky at the same time and in the same area as the Imjärvi encounter.

For Heinonen it was not at an end; between the time of the encounter and August 1972 he reported 23 other UFO contacts.  Occasionally, he reported meeting with an extremely beautiful space woman and one entity very reminiscent of the Adamski Venusian who had progressed considerably beyond the mere telepathy of the Adamski encounter and was able to speak fluent Finnish.

These later claims have tended to create an atmosphere of disbelief even amongst hardened UFO researchers. Of those who knew the witnesses, one farmer, Matti Haapaniemi, a neighbour, stated “Many people in this neighbourhood have laughed at this story.  But I don’t think it’s anything to joke about.  I have known both Aarno and Esko since they were little boys.  Both are quiet, rational fellows and moreover they are abstainers.  I am sure their story is true.”

There were many other sightings of “distant lights in the sky” in the area around the same time as this event, which also added to the credibility of the case.

How Things Have Changed Since 1977

The following is part of a chapter from Beyond Contact to be published in 2021.  Images are for the purposes of this post only.

All material (c)2020 Terry Hooper-Scharf

__________________________________________________________

   I have always had a great deal of respect for the work carried out by Ted Bloecher on Close Encounters of the Third Kind and Alien Entity reports –in fact, Bloecher was working on these reports in the 1950s (as noted in UFO Contact).  From the 24^th to 26^th June, 1977, the International UFO Congress was held at Chicago’s Pick-Congress Hotel and Bloecher gave a talk aptly titled Close Encounters of the Third Kind and this can be found in Proceedings of the First International UFO Congress (Ed. Curtis G. Fuller, Warner Books, NY 1980: pp. 171-182).

   At that time Bloecher and David Webb had collected some 1500 accounts for their Humanoid Catalog (HUM-CAT).  He stated that the subject of CE 3Ks was:

     “Once shunned by many UFO researchers as far too outrageous for

     serious consideration, they now are accepted as a legitimate part of

     the UFO phenomenon, perhaps even its most important part.”

   Unfortunately, it can be said that in 1977 the push to investigate and study these reports was probably only vocal and even then amongst a small group. In the UK I was still the butt of jokes over my work and the abysmal state of investigating UFO reports let alone CE 3K reports was depressing. In 2020 it still is. The same could be said for the United States at this time since the majority of CE 3K reports from the 1973 “UFO Wave” had not been fully investigated by 1977 and some still have not been.  So why did Bloecher feel these reports were so worthy of study? He wrote:

     “They are significant because they provide information about the UFO

     mystery that we do not get from the far more frequent yet often inconclusive

     reports of random night lights.  With CEIIIs the chance of misidentification

     of conventional phenomena is minimal –these are close range sightings of

     structured objects which sometimes leave traces at the site or produce

     physical effects upon people or machinery.”

   Bloecher went on to state that these reports:

     “…can be explained in only three ways: (1) As a hoax (either the witness is

     lying or he is the victim of someone else’s practical joke); (2) as a

     delusion or a psychotic aberration; (3) as a “real” experience reported as

     accurately and honestly as the witness is capable of reporting it.”

   As Bloecher then pointed out such “reports are as old as the UFO phenomenon itself” and notes that there were CE 3K reports in local newspapers in 1947 but these reports were treated as jokes since there was no precedent for such accounts. Where I disagree with Bloecher is that “only the esoteric knew of the 1896-97 “airship” sightings during which over sixty accounts of “aeronauts” (i.e., UFO occupants) appeared in the press.”  Like Dr Geoffrey Doel before me (though I had no idea of this at the time) I looked into the 1896-1897 airship wave and there did indeed appear to be people testing out some early air vessels but the majority of reports were either misidentifications or press hoaxes and press hoaxes were far from rare at that time –the Aurora UFO crash being one of these.  Another example is the still often quoted Lamy report.

   26^th March, 1880 Lamy (then Galisteo Junction), New Mexico,

   On the 29^th March the Santa Fe Weekly New Mexican newspaper headlined that a mysterious aerial phenomenon had appeared at Galisteo Junction. Three or four people had reported that a balloon of "monsterous" size, fish-shaped, propelled and directed by a fan and probably from Asia had been visible. It was reported that there were 8 to 10 people on board and they looked like normal human beings and were singing and talking (in a foreign language) and music was playing it was as if there were some party.  On the outside of the balloon “elegantly drawn characters” but not understood and thus the newspaper speculated that it must have been an air ship from Asia.

   After a while this huge craft ascended and then departed to the east at a fast speed.

Allegedly, those on board the balloon's car threw out various items –so not only were they partying loudly over a small town but they were also unconcerned about waste dumping over it. As the story goes, some of these items were picked up by the witnesses. One item was a beautiful flower with some silk-like paper with characters which reminded the witnesses of designs they had seen on Japanese tea chests. And come daylight a cup was also found –the witnesses had seen it thrown out of the balloon but failed to locate it in the darkness. The newspaper reported the cup to be of very peculiar workmanship entirely different to anything used in the United states. These items were put on display.

   Then, a week later, the same newspaper reported that the mystery was solved: the balloon, or "Aerial Monster", was the first of a regular line of airships from China to America. How did the newspaper know this?  Well, it seems that quite coincidentally a party of tourists which included a “wealthy young Chinaman” had stopped in the vicinity. This young man became very excited on seeing the articles dropped from the airship that were on display at the station because among them was a note in his fiancée's hand. If you are not muttering to yourself “Oh, give me a break!” by now wait for the next piece of the story because this young Chinaman, of course, could read what was found and so he explained that Chinese experiments in flying had succeeded and the airship which crossed the skies of Galisteo Junction was actually the first flight of a China-to-America airlines. And this is where the story ends or, rather, this was one of the endings because various accounts all claiming to quote the same source also report that “on the evening” (?) a mysterious gentleman identified only as a "collector of curiosities" appeared in the town, examined the finds and suggested they were Asiatic in origin and offered such a large sum of money for them that the agent –the man running the display at the station? -  had no choice but to accept. The "collector" scooped up his purchases and never was seen again.

   There were a few secret “Asiatic” aeronauts around in the1890s it seems. Like the infamous calf-napping in 1897 the story was a hoax. Also these were very easily proven hoaxes as that practice was widespread amongst American newspapers at the time but these reports are still cited in the literature by people such as Vallee.* 

   Bloecher was probably more concentrated on contemporary reports and relied on the work of other “credible” Ufologists –at least two have admitted to me that they knew certain reports still in use today as ‘evidence’ were nothing more than tall stories (see Some Things Strange And Sinister).  People such as John Keel found that stories of these strange craft and people sold well –as did accounts of “phantom fliers” from the1930s.

   Ignoring the historical accounts Bloecher then went on to discuss the appearances of the entities in modern reports noting that “the considerable majority fall into these three categories”:

 

(1)   “dwarfs” that average three to four and a half feet tall; (2) “normals” of standard height or slightly under; and (3) “giants” of seven feet or more.

   Unfortunately, Bloecher then refers to a ‘study’ published in Flying Saucer Review. This was the work of Vallee which is so tainted with its inclusion of hoaxes and fake reports that it really has no value in research.  However, this is what happens if there is no peer review and you take someone’s word for something. Based on triple checked reports (sometimes even quadruple checked) I wrote a lengthy article for FSR titled “Behaviour, Motivation and Speculation” –it was rejected because “Dr Vallee had conducted a thorough study in the1960s” and dogma is dogma.  Some of the things Bloecher notes are still interesting to read.

   There has been widespread time wasting of course with more theories than sense: Ortotheny, UFOs and ley-lines, UFOs and the Mars Cycle or Venus Cycle, UFOs and the coincidences of witnesses names being similar, times and so on.  When you throw hoaxes as well as natural phenomenon and misidentification of earthly objects into these things then you get nonsense and when it is all proven to be nonsense that is part of “their” plan!

   Ufologists do also have a tendency to love to categorise, sub categorise and then even sub-sub categories or try to use highly confusing phraseology.. I have seen this at work over and over again across four decades because Ufologists think this then makes their subject “like science”.  With CE 3K reports noted varieties of CEIII experience:

Type A: Entity is observed inside the object only (the true occupant), through doors, ports, windows, transparent dome, or whatever. The association is explicit.

Type B: Entity is observed getting into and/or out of an object. Association is still explicit.

Type C: Entity is seen in the immediate vicinity of an object but not actually entering or leaving it.  Association is implicit.

Type D: Entity is observed independent of UFO but there is UFO activity in the area at the time, usually reported by independent sources.  Association is circumstantial.

Type E: Entity is observed independent of an object and there is no record of UFO activity in the area at the time. The association with UFOs is negative.

Type F: Neither entity nor UFO (or in some cases, only a UFO) is seen, but the percipient experiences some manner of intelligent communication, either directly or psychically.

Type G: Percipient has an on-board experience, either voluntarily or involuntarily.  Entities may or may not be physically present, but their involvement is at least implicit.

   These categories created certain problems and I know this because early notes carry these category pointers –an “E” or “C” etc..  Type D for example is problematic since we assume (and we know what assumption is the “mother” of) that an entity observed must have some connection with a UFO(s) because where else would a 5 feet tall, silver suited person with a large round helmet who can paralyse a witness come from?

   The same can be said of Type E reports if we are not including reports of gnome-like, “ghosts” or other entities that could be a hallucination of some type.  Type F –unless some form of solid evidence can be provided I tend to dismiss these as they could be psychological in nature.

   Type G we would call abductions and whether or not entities are seen if there is corroboration of some kind such as physical trace evidence, physiological evidence –a person in the middle of Wiltshire or on some lonely backwoods road is not likely to get radiation burns or low level radiation sickness- or even a sighting of a UFO then there has to be something intelligently controlling things –unless everything is automated.  If we have only one percipient with just an account then we have anecdotal material at best.

   All of this leads to Bloecher’s next point and what he wrote/said in 1977 is still valid today.  He concluded by asking “How credible are these reports?” :

 

     “At this stage we can answer that question only by determining, through

     careful investigation, the reliability of the person or persons reporting

     the experience.  The contents of such reports are no longer a dependable

     index for credibility since perfectly credible people do report wholly

     incredible experiences.  When an investigator approaches a particular

     case he must not allow himself to be put off by its bizarre nature; he must

     concern himself with such matters as establishing the sanity and sincerity

     of the claimant and finding independent verification of the report, if such

     exists.”

   He follows this with a closing paragraph that says a great deal:

    “A great deal of research remains to be done obviously, as we gingerly wend

    our way through the complex problems suggested by the CEIII phenomenon.

    These reports continue to provoke disbelief, confusion, and controversy –but

    they do continue, in what seem to be ever-increasing numbers— and they force

    us to confront an almost impenetrable mystery.”

 

   Of course, Bloecher could not investigate every report because the work was and is not funded.  It was through Bloecher’s efforts that we know about the details of the Euporia, Mississippi report CE 3K because he contacted the radio station and got a copy of the tape they made.  Two local investigators promised to look into the case but avoided doing so at every turn and this appears to have been due to racial prejudice –the same type of prejudice that resulted in UFO reports from “black” witnesses being ignored or even dismissed.

   Reports are only as good as the report makers. In the UK I have seen reports on CE 3K cases by so-called elite investigators that are shameful. No matter-of-fact reporting but ‘reports’ full of pet theories or even simply providing a typed copy of what a percipient wrote.  Very few of these notes even evaluate the person involved and quite often it is noted that the report is so bizarre that it has to be true because the person involved gains nothing from it.

   Sadly, Bloecher retired from Ufology in, I believe, 2000 and all of his data went to Budd Hopkins which seems to have been a waste of time because Hopkins only had one interest –the lucrative alien abduction phenomenon.  After Hopkins death the papers went to David Jacobs so it can be counted as lost.  Neither Hopkins or Jacobs maintained any credibility and both appear to have had no interest in studying ‘mundane’ CE 3K reports but in manufacturing a false alien agenda claim in which many millions of humans have been abducted all of their lives and their families abducted for generations.

   The serious study of people such as Bloecher and Webb had to contend with two major problems if we ignore the ongoing dismissal of these reports by Ufologists.  The first is the enormous time wasting sub-culture of “New Ufology” and those involved in it and, sadly, they spread their new spin to other countries. It was welcomed by some previous “believers” who stamped their feet and had childish fits of pique because after decades there were no real answers or open alien contact. For this reason New Ufology sounded good to them as it also helped cover-up their own hoaxing of other Ufologists and utterly inadequate ‘investigations’ which consisted mainly of collecting press cuttings.  The idea that one need do nothing but collect clippings to reach a conclusion was reinforced by the advent of the internet because this veritable cess-pit of misinformation also provided them with a platform.

   We can look at it this way: scientists and doctors have been searching or a cure for cancer for many decades –longer than Ufology has been around. They are till looking. They did not throw their toys out of the pram but carried on and they found better treatments etc. while still looking for the ultimate cure.  

   The second major problem was the whole “Grey Abduction Phenomenon” and although Hopkins’ initial work seemed solid and backed up by others it was not. Hopkins told me and others that all the work was basically peer reviewed when in fact it was not. It was all solely handled by Hopkins and it was Hopkins that decided what evidence would be used by stacking the decks.  Everybody in Ufology, in the United States at least, then considered Hopkins the authority of CE 3K reports and in that way they could wash their hands of these awkward nasty things –“We keep referring to aliens and we are going to get made fun of!”

   When Jacobs then became a follower of  –later considered by Hopkins an equal in this “work”— the rot set in.  As Jacobs roared in one You Tube interview: “People say ‘I saw a UFO and it moved so fast it just vanished’ No! That person was abducted!” In Jacobs mind there is no such thing as a plain ordinary UFO sighting and there never was.  Back in the 1990s when I corresponded with him he was concerned about abduction cases but at some point he threw reality out the window and even cites hypnotic interviews carried out with alleged abductees over the telephone. Reading his work is like reading the worst kind of science fiction.

   Do Ufologists discuss certain aspects of CE 3K reports these days? It seems that the only reports Ufologists receive are bog standard UFO abductions involving Greys, Reptilians or Tall Whites and I have been told by one British Ufologist that he gets 100-150 new abduction reports each month and he even has a hypnotist he takes with him when visiting new claimants because the sooner they can be put under and the facts ascertained the better.

   We have reports from the 1950s that have never been investigated not just in the United States but the world over.  No one is even bothering to try to track down those percipients/witnesses before time takes its toll.  Did Bloecher envision in his worst nightmares back in 1977 that this was how CE 3K investigation and research would develop decades on?  I doubt it.

   While all of this “Grey Agenda” paranoia has taken over people reporting actual observations of UFOs and entities –the real CE 3Ks— are ignored as UFO and CE 3K history is rebooted to make it palatable for entertainment shows and that is what Ufology has become. The Hill case is over 50 years old and all other cases are shoved to one side to promote that and a star map that was never real evidence and even Betty Hill disputed its accuracy. “The first case of alien abduction” is how the Hill case is promoted by the likes of MUFON today when it was never the first alleged alien abduction case just the best publicised in American media.

   What Bloecher wrote back in 1977 is something we should look at today.  We should ignore the newspaper fakery of the 1890s.  We should ignore the Ufological fakery of the1930s “ghost fliers” and put aside the work of Hopkins and Jacobs and begin opening up cold case files and talking to percipients before they die or their memories become too unreliable. We need to start tracking down reports that have been ignored that tie-in with the Types Bloecher outlined (excluding those already noted in my comments).

   In 2020 we should be much further along in our research but while I (and I do hope

there are others out there) have continued to look at old reports as best I can and re-assess them the rest of Ufology has stagnated since the mid 1980s.

 

 

 

 

 

300 million habitable planets in our Milky Way galaxy, say scientists

 https://uk.yahoo.com/news/300-million-habitable-planets-163743646.html

Some of these potential planets are also very close to Earth, relatively speaking, with the closest likely to be a mere 20 light years away. (Getty)

There are at least 300 million habitable planets in the Milky Way, new NASA research has shown – hinting that it’s less likely that humanity is alone in the universe.

Research based on scans by NASA’s retired planet-hunting Kepler telescope suggest that about half the stars similar in temperature to our sun could have a rocky planet capable of having liquid water on its surface.

That means the planets could potentially harbour life, scientists believe.

Some of these potential planets are also very close to Earth (relatively speaking) with the closest likely to be a mere 20 light years away.

Four are within 30 light years of Earth, the researchers say.

"Kepler already told us there were billions of planets, but now we know a good chunk of those planets might be rocky and habitable," said the lead author Steve Bryson, a researcher at NASA's Ames Research Center in California's Silicon Valley.

"Though this result is far from a final value, and water on a planet's surface is only one of many factors to support life, it's extremely exciting that we calculated these worlds are this common with such high confidence and precision."

The researchers say that there could be many, many more than 300 million habitable planets, according to the research published in the Astronomical Journal.

These are the minimum numbers of such planets based on the most conservative estimate that 7% of sun-like stars host such worlds.

However, at the average expected rate of 50%, there could be many more.

For the purposes of calculating this occurrence rate, the team looked at exoplanets between a radius of 0.5 and 1.5 times that of Earth's, narrowing in on planets that are most likely rocky.

The study is based on observations by NASA's Kepler spacecraft. (Anadolu Agency/Getty Images)

This new finding is a significant step forward in Kepler's original mission to understand how many potentially habitable worlds exist in our galaxy.

Previous estimates of the frequency, also known as the occurrence rate, of such planets ignored the relationship between the star's temperature and the kinds of light given off by the star and absorbed by the planet.

The new analysis accounts for these relationships, and provides a more complete understanding of whether or not a given planet might be capable of supporting liquid water, and potentially life.

That approach is made possible by combining Kepler's final dataset of planetary signals with data about each star's energy output from an extensive trove of data from the European Space Agency's Gaia mission.

"We always knew defining habitability simply in terms of a planet's physical distance from a star, so that it's not too hot or cold, left us making a lot of assumptions," said Ravi Kopparapu, an author on the paper and a scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.

"Gaia's data on stars allowed us to look at these planets and their stars in an entirely new way."

"Not every star is alike," said Kopparapu. "And neither is every planet.

Ufology Needs To Get Into The Real World

 

 I think, before I let this blog go, I need to make my position clear on certain points especially since certain Ufologists keep telling outright lies (some of this may be due to mental instability on their part).

I do not believe that an extra terrestrial space craft crashed anywhere in Wales. Samples of material I had turned out to have mundane origins -as I noted in Some Things Strange & Sinister. Margaret Fry was fully aware of my explanation and I have the correspondence to prove this. Cover ups and a "not of this Earth" material claims were all her own and based on anything but fact.

I am an "MI5 stooge"/"Security Service plant". Again, pure fantasy. I hyave never been in any military ser4vice. I never held the rank of Commander in the Royal Navy nor of Captain or Flight Lieutenant in the Royal Air Force and I was certainly not a Captain in the British Army -all to conduct a secret investigation into UFOs.

I have worked with people who have been in the military and other services just a I have worked with biologists, geographers, aeronautical engineers and astronomers. These are or were all private and unofficial.

I do not believe that either the United Kingdom or United States and certainly not Russia or China have ever had a captured/crashed extra terrestrial craft. What branches of intelligence services do and why is beside the matter. 

In my work on relic British wild cats the Royal Air Force were very helpful and communicative.  When it came to the case of the 'ghost lear jet' (Some Things Strange and Sinister) I receive above and beyond the standard response from the Ministry of Defence. 

When it comes to the subjecxt of UFOs all parties have been fairly straight on the matter and it is important to understand to constraints of the various riules and regulations at work. We have seen how a witness to a UFO sighting can have Ufologists barrage them with phone call, turn up on their doorstep or even get the press involved. Statring constantly that the MoD is using "the Official Secrets Act" to hide things is silly. The data protection act is quite binding -I know because I had to work within its constraints. 

Why is everyone surprised that, despite no defence implications, the intelligence services of various countries still maintain an interest and investigation capacity?  Defence and Intelligence agencies are there not to just prepare for any possible conflict to defend their respective countries.  Just because something (in this case not proven to be extra terrestrial) shows no hostility on a Monday does not mean that it will maintain that stance on Wednesday. "Remember Pearl Harbor!" is not just a war time slogan but has far deeper meaning and if you do not know that then study history.

Radar, satellite and many other means are used by the military-intelligence services to keep an eye on things and a snippet of information such as "The Russians are trying to find out what UFOs are" help in assessing things.  A great deal of equipment used is still unknown to the public (who probably do not care) as well as potential enemies.  Why won't anyone tell us what was discussed at defence oversight meetings? You have to be dense not to know the answer to that.

From the very outset of my own work in the 1970s, when everyone was paranoid and discussing how the MoD wanted to get at their reports, I made it very clear in public and elsewhere that what they needed to do was forward copies of reports to the MoD. I once shocked a UFO conference in the 1970 by announcing that "My work may be private but why would the MoD spy on me when all they have to do is ask for any data they were interested in?" What were Ufologists doing with that data other than putting it in newsletters? 

The Defence and Intelligence communities are not youyr enemies. They may use UFOs a a cover for aircraft or drone testing but that is to be expected.

Personally, I am very happy to see official interest in the conbtinued study of UFOs and my guess is that they know about as much as Ufologists -though some technical data/analysis would be beyond civil;ian groups.

There. I never believed that USAF or US Navy interest in UFOs had stopped (it was well known that it had never stopped) and no doubt in 10 years someone will reveal (again) that it is still ongoing.

Ufology and Ufologits need to grow up and look at the real world once in a while.

Dionisio Llanca -updated

 In 1980 Flying Saucer Review published a lengthy article on the 1973 Dionisio Llanca (alleged) UFO abduction case.

Since then bits and pieces of that article have been used online -most modern Ufologists seem to have no idea about the case.

That's it.

What happened to Llanca? Was the case ever proven not to have happened? Where is Llanca now?

If anyone has any information or links please get in touch.

Thank you.

addendum

The fact that Llanca was said to be "paid for standing by" to appear where ever a mysterious backer wanted him to should not be taken out of context.

Firstly, I need to point out that FSR and its Editor -Bowen- and conbtributor later editor -Creighton- were very prejudiced in how they described someone. In the main if you were someone from a country in Soputh America you were ill educated, semi literate if literate in any way. In report after report from the 1960s on it is over stressed just how "primitive" /"ignorant"/ "illiterate or ""introverted" witnesses were. In the case of Llanca the term "a savage" was used several times in the FSR article.  This is, in fact, a form of ethnic prejudice (I don't use the word "racism" because there is only the human race so prejudice is against ethnic or regional types).  

Oh,  how ignorant Antonio Villas Boas was. Hardly able to read, would not be able to understand anything in articles about UFOs etc etc etc.  This was a lie. It was known by Bowen and Creighton (Creighton doing the translating work) just how literate Boa was -as detailed in UFO Contact? he rose to a very prominent position and in the 1975 report on The Anthropomorphic Phenomena at Santa Isabel (FSR21/2 ) we read of the semi literate and introverted workers (all of the apparently).

Boas was no dope but this is FSRs legacy: everyone fropm a Latin American country is a dope unless they are persons of high standing in which case their credentials were fawned over and then came "Why would they lie with so much to loose?".

I think it fair to write that in Llanca's case he was not highly educated but was certainloy no dope. He would be put in the class of person who has a certain routine and life-style and never really veers from it (oh, being ill educated he is, obviously, a lazy sod as FSR points out). Why repair that tyre and make more work for yourself? He would not be the first driver I've known who did this! Llanca was/is basically an everyday working person in 1973.

It was claimed that "despite the time, he says he still wears marks on his body" and I believe that quote is from 1980 but I have no definitive source. His family shunned him because "he would not work" -he had been pulled into some financial deal that was not that rewarding for him. His personal relationship seems to have suffered. In fact, it looks as though Llancaq was sufgfering some form of post traumatic stress. This quote says everything and echoes the words of many other alleged UFO abduction percipients:

"If that night happened to me again, I wouldn't tell anyone. It did me a lot of harm, they defamed and used me,"

Was Llanca abducted by aliens (forget the alien cover story because I have never really given that credibility and some doubt was cast on early hypnosis used on him ("question that offered the answers"). The problem is that this could have been some altered state experience because there was only one percipient. Were others seeing UFOs in the area at the time? That adds some addition but coincidental evidence.

It could have been a genuine case. Only if we were there at the time could we say and that is not going to happen so we go by what we read. That doctors checked every aspect and looked at different possibilities but cxould offer no explanation is interesting.

Llancxa became a guinea pig and then an object to make money from with no real consideration for him as a human being. Genuine alien abduction or altered state the effect on him and on his life were real.

Sheppey "Space Ape"

 I have added a couple of reports that really do require more detail o if anyone can help let me know

Sadly, I no longer have the letter from RAF Manston but if you have heard of the 1979 Sheppey, Kent "Space Ape" report it was one I looked into. I contacted RAF Manston and asked whether anything odd had been picked up by radar on the night in question as a "UFO" had been reported.  The type-written reply stated thaty Manston had received a repoprt of a UFO and that radar had detected an object in the area in question.

This letter and the file was destroyed (deliberately) by a member of the UFO International group. It seems that uch a confirmation gave weight to the "space ape" report and they were not having that.

I believbe the letter was from Squadron Leader Chris Lemon -I can give that much out since the 35 year confidentiality rule ran out "a while ago"!

It would be nice to see if anyone had more information on the report at that time.

Todmorden, W Yorkshire November 1980

 Another case that needs far more information (it is tempting to cxlass it as a dream experience -and I am ALWAYS suspicious when certain location names crop up) is this one (Northern UFO News, NUFON, U-K., #141, February 1990):

END NOVEMBER 1980, TODMORDEN, WEST YORKSHIRE, U-K.

It was reported in a ufology bulletin of Northern England that near Todmorden, England, on late November 1980, at 01:00 a.m., a witness who was living in a rural farm area suddenly awoke from a deep sleep.

She then saw an orange light shining through her window and attempted to wake her husband but he did not respond. Looking outside, she saw that the light came from an oval shaped object, surrounded by a white halation, hovering in a nearby field.

She then suddenly found herself outside of the farmhouse sitting on the grass, looking at the object and three figures standing next to it. The figures were described as five-feet tall and wearing black colored diving suits. They stood in the shadows near a farm building.

She then found herself back in her bed attempting to wake up her husband.

The next day several of the chickens in the coop were found dead by the witness son.

KESTON PONDS, KENT, U-K 1981

 If anyone has anymore information on this case please get in touch so that it can be assssed -Thanks!

6th MAY, 1981, KESTON PONDS, KENT, U-K.

US author and sensationalist ufologist Gray Barker apparently reported in 1982 that on May 6, 1981 at an hour not specified, at a pond in Keston, U-K., two schoolgirls saw a figure wearing a cloak, a dark pointed hat and a circles of lights at its lower half, and this is all there seems to be about it.

Spanish CE3K/AE file

 Having updated the file for France and Belgium I found a couple other French reports so those were printed out and added to the file.  

Then came the updating of the Spanish file. I used up half a ream of copier paper, had to refill the ink cartridge twice (hence my black smudged fingers) as well as sort out printer jam but I have finally finished at 1900 hrs.

The photo hows the darker (plastic wallets with entries) older file pages. The cleaner chunk of pages are today's work.

Some very interesting reports, too.

Update -The Salamanca Incident | U.S. Intelligence Tracks CE3K Reports

I think that some of the rather pedestrian comments in this video need dealing with. If you have never dealt with the military or authorities on a regular basis then you have no idea what i going on. If you ever studied military or intelligence history then you would know how things work.

Blue Book closed and stated that there was no evidence of a threat by UFO to the defence of the United States. Both Dr J Allen Hynek and Leonard H Stringfield told my late colleague Franklyn A Davin-Wilson that Blue Book had not ended the US military interet in UFOs. We knew that. There were magazine articles and even book giving 'the' code name of thi project -all of them were incorrect because this was the Ufological rumour mill and look at "Disclosure" -every year since 1999 I've heard how "This is it! Thi is the year we get UFO disclosure!"  Nothing.

In 1958 Lt General James M ("Jumpin' Jim") Gavin had a book published: War and Peace in the Space Age. Gavin looked at -as the title states- war in the space age and did not touch on the subject of UFOs, however, as US Army Missile Chief he would have been aware and probably saw reports. I often wonder whether he actually considered the possibility of hostiles from space.

Let's just step back from all the UFOs used as cover-up stories for aircraft and mi9ssile teting or even for secret aircraft test flights that reulted in a crash. Even i9f someone in the military or intelligence services thought UFOs and flying saucers a heap of hogwash there was always "Remember Pearl Harbor" and what happened there ingrained into their thinking. What might appear to show no threat to the United States on Monday may well attack it on Wednesday.

Even adopting the "It's all a natural but unknown natural phenomena" stance the military or intel;ligence community would have to question certain cases: Socorro, New Mexico, 1964 like a few other cases, had physical traces left behind -and when M. Maurice Masse had his encounter at Valensole, France, a few months later there were physical traces and when Masse was shown a phopto of a model of the Socorro UFO he was very  excited because someone had photographed the object he saw....two objects that looked the same and left physical traces but seperated by thousands of miles.

Marius Dewilde had an encounter that left physical evidence at Quarouble, Nord, France in 1954. Official French investigators ran all the checks and tests. Unexplained. 

I could go on because there is the Linke case that took place in Germany that we know the Central Intelligence Agency noted as well as US Air Force.  Here is where the "explain-it-all-away" natural phenomenon falls flat.  As a young man I knew that lights flashing about the skies could be anything because they were just lights.  However, how could I dismiss reports of seemingly solid, constructed objects? One witness -hoax? Two witnesses -still possible hoax.  Several people observing the objects and traces left.

To me, the very first question had to be "Who is flying these things?" Most UFO groups or saucer fan I spoke to responded "We have no idea"...unless they were leaning toward the contactee stories.  Blond-haired, tall, peace-loving "Nordic" type aliens or even visitors from Saturn, Venus, Mars and Jupiter -even at that point in time (I note there are still followers of this trash in 2020) we knew that Venus and Jupiter would not have supported humanoid life forms. Our interest should not dwell on thi matter, however.

Betty and Barney Hill were mostly dismissed for various reasons including that they were "mixed race" -as far as I know, however, both were human!   You accepted the Adamski type aliens or shut up and I was never good at shutting up. Luckily, people like Norman Oliver existed in British ufology who were willing to look at these accounts sensibly.

I still had my doubts but in 1977, under the guise of "Project Fort" I gathered every UFO report I could find from newspapers, magazines, UFO journals and books and as this was by hand within the space of a week I had thousands of slips of paper with reports that needed categorising. In  three days something became very obvious. In fact so obvious that I went through the process of analysing the reports a second btime....then a third time.  The result were the same every time.

there were three clear categories:

1. Insufficient data and dubious reports -many of these.

2. Some form of unscientifically investigated natural phenomenon/na -what I termed UNP

3. Clearly seen and described and obviously solid, constructed objects. Even if I dismissed single witness accounts I could not do so with multiple witnesses -who in many cases were unconnected and spread over an area.

Obviously, for me, Category 3 was a problem. I had proven that noted Ufologists were not just faking or altering accounts to make things seen "UFOs" but they had for over thirty years carried out no analysis of reports.  This is why the results of my work seriously concerned me. Vallee, Michel and, yes, even Hynek (who had at least categorised encounter types but took it no further) had not gone through the process of taking all the reports and categorisiung them to come up with the same results as I had and yet they were in perfect positions to do so.

Category 1 could be dismissed since most of the reports were of stars, planets, aircraft lights or hoaxes.

Category 2 I found a huge data base of cases for.

Category 3 I tried and tried to find solutions for. 

My late colleague Franklyn had told me that for research you must never depend on one source: "Find a second source and see what it says. Then look for a third and a fourth and if you can always contact the person who made the report"  This is why cases in my books will often have multiple sources as references.

I looked at all the For and Against arguments in cases. Despite everything said about the Hills and their "motives" it seemed as solid a case as you could wish for based on the fact that only they were percipients.

In UFO Contact? I looked at the "Classics" as well as cases previously dismissed by Ufologists -mainly because they were not looking at or considering the psychological aspects involved. Reports were to be millked for publicity and profit -Dr R. Leo Sprinkle shines out as someone who was more interested in the people than profit.  The Lorenzens were happy to hypnotise away or pump someone with scapolamine. 

The one thing that came across in every case was the psychological stress percipients underwent and how, had it not been for Ufologists inappropriate action and breaches of confidentiality these people were just going to get on with their lives. 

Single alleged percipient could be dismissed. The who "Grey" hysteria coul;d be dismissed since those involved in 'investigation' were far from unbiased or even willing to "stack evidence" in their favour.

But this is the point: if you have these seemingly solid reports of strange craft that you know do not belong to you and certainly nothing to do with the Soviets/Russians then who do they belong to and just who/what is flying them?

Military/Intelligence are obviously going to ask those questions after looking at the reports and I have no doubt what-so-ever that there are cases they have investigated and talked to the percipients and, one hopes, they would at least give those percipients the help they need especially if neither party want the story getting out.

Even then it is likely that they would not know more than Ufologists.  I have known military people interested in UFO reports and who even discuss ones they knew of and we all asked the same question: Who? Where from? Why?  The fact is that the resources available to the military/intelligence community are far superior than anything a civilian Ufologist (or me) have.

Yes, I would love to see those reports but I won't.  However, it shows that the official bodies are doing what they should be doing: looking at all the reports to assess the situation. I would be far more shocked if I had been told these people were not gathering information and studying the reports!

It's [Redacted] produce some interesting videos but their agenda(s) and lack of real world knowledge seems to problematic at time: either you are just going to present facts with educated speculation that you can back up by citing cases or just leave the speculati9ng to the viewer.