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 24th to 26th
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.
26th
March, 1880 Lamy (then Galisteo Junction), New Mexico,
On the 29th
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.
