CE 3K Reports from Portugal

 Part of the chapter from Contact! on Portugues CE3K reports

https://www.lulu.com/en/en/shop/terry-hooper/encounters-with-extra-terrestrial-entities/paperback/product-qwy7p8.html?page=1&pageSize=4

_______________________________________________________________________

 

   Bordering Spain and with a population of over 9,808,000 and covering more than 92,000 square kilometres including the Azores and Madeira, you might consider this European country to have produced a good number of UFO reports and CE3K cases. Sadly, although we know of some the problem has always been to get translations of these into English and distribute these more widely –it was why I began publishing the AOP Journal again in 2018.

   There have been some reports that have filtered through from Spanish investigators and the main ones all comes with an explanation other than genuine.  The problem is that some Spanish Ufologists seem to set out with less than open minds and I for one find it hard to accept “I heard it was a hoax” or “negative to discard, indicating as reference to a commonplace explanation” without some actual back-up data on why. We need to understand why a case needs to be discarded as much as we do why another seems to be genuine.

   I have also been told that there might be “some friction” between Portuguese and Spanish Ufologists so to get reports first hand from Portuguese investigators is important.  What follows are the paltry few reports I have found and that were published in the English language.

   In a 1983 listing of “negative humanoid cases of the Iberic Peninsula”, Spanish Ufologist Luis R. Gonzales Manso noted that the May, 1947, case in Castelo Viegas, Portugal, was “a negative to discard, indicating as reference to a commonplace explanation” but what the case involved or why it was considered a negative case I have no idea.

   At 15:00 hours on the 5^th May, 1954 at Fregim Amarante, a young boy was on a hill near the village tending his goat when he heard a whistling sound coming from a nearby hollow and ran to see what was causing it. On reaching the hollow he saw one dome-shaped object leaving the area headed towards a nearby river while a second rested on the ground. Both objects were a metallic colour, dome-shaped and had a metal ring on the bottom and a transparent section on top from which came a brown conical protrusion.

   As the first object left the boy had felt a wave of heat and inside the second object he could see two beings with large heads and large, wide apart eyes; both appeared to have ‘antennae’ on top of their heads and their mouths looked like round holes. They were wearing metallic blue outfits and appeared seated with one of them operating levers while the other looked out at the witness.

   Ground traces were later found at the site and to date I have found no details of how the sighting ended and I assume that this second object also took off.  Source: Ballester Olmos & Peri, Enciclopedia de Los Encuentros Cercanos con Ovnis.

   The reference for this next report is almost lengthier than the details of the report -A Descriptive Study of the Entities Associated With Type 1 Sightings, Vallee, J., Flying Saucer Review Vol. 10  no. 1, Jan.-Feb., 1964: p. 7:

   On the 24^th September, 1954, at Sierra Gardunha, two “aluminium men”, 2.50 metres in height were seen.  The entities made gestures inviting the witnesses to get into their craft. The offer was declined.

   That is it.  Vallee does what Vallee often does and gives no reference source like any credible researcher would and, of course, FSR does what FSR usually did and that was not really bother with that sort of thing: a serious publication would have insisted on references.

   On 27^th or 28^th September, 1954, the major newspaper Diario de Lisboa, of Lisbon, Portugal, published a reader's letter and/or an article based on it. Details are that ‘good’. The author claimed to be Cesar Cardoso and to have been driving in the Gardunha hills, near Almadesa, in the Castelo Branco region when his car engine stalled and he could hear a buzzing sound. Cardoso pulled up on the roadside and tried to re-start the engine but all he got were ridiculous noises and so he got out of the car to open the hood and check the engine.  The buzzing sound now became louder and looking up he saw a flying saucer or a sphere - depending on the newspapers apparently - which he was said gave off multi-coloured flashes and then landed without noise on a hilltop some 200 metres below his location.

   Cardoso specified that only the "poles" of the sphere were rotating and that the transparent equatorial part let him see moving shades inside: two silhouettes or men of approximately 2-2.5 metres in height then came out of the object. They looked like, according to the report, “aluminum men”, which I assume means that they were wearing all covering silver clothing. These entities then picked up grasses, flowers and brushes and collected stones which they put in a shining box.

   It was then that the entities saw Cardoso as well as three other people who had also been watching the display and began to approach them – emitting some sounds the witnesses did not comprehend before they then invited the people, by gestures, to go aboard the object; this offer was declined and the entities did not insist.  Both returned to the object and boarded it: the object then took off vertically and flew off producing a shower of sparks.

   The Diario de Lisboa apparently did not take the story at face value and quickly found out that the story had been made up by one Francisco Antonio Fereira who was actually the real Cesar Cardoso's nephew. He admitted the hoax in an interview which was published in the newspaper Diaro de Lisboa for 1^st October, 1954. The youngster apparently explained that he was a flying saucer buff who wanted to get the Press to pay attention to the flying saucer issue and also to… pay attention to the sorry state of the road in his remote village.

  The initial hoax story has been repeated internationally, ignoring the whole hoax part and so the report entered UFO books, the first time in Harold T. Wilkins’ book Flying Saucers Uncensored (p. 55) where the less than credible Wilkins expressed much scepticism on the story which says a lot.  Oh, but Wilkins did stick to form by giving two different dates for the report! From there it was picked up by Jacques Vallée for his "Magonia" catalogue, citing Wilkins as the source but omitting the negative feeling this author had about the story. Vallee said it was a genuine case by inference so other authors picked up on it –some adding various inaccuracies in entity size as well as the date: not one mentioned the suspicion or confession of a hoax.  The report is still widely used today.

   On the 13^th October, 1954, at Casteli Branco, two witnesses observed two entities in shiny clothing emerge from an (not described) landed object and gather flowers, shrubs and twigs.  The entities then re-entered the object which took off.

   The source for the above is The Humanoids, Neville Spearman, 1969: p. 44, edited by Charles Bowen gives no further detail. Not surprising since it is clear FSR did its usual bad research (if any) and did not notice Casteli Branco should have read Castelo Branco and that this was merely a repeat of the Cardoso report.

   We read of the encounter of Vitorino Laurenco Monteiro in The Humanoids (p. 31) and More on the Azores Landing, Gordon W. Creighton, FSR 27/6, June, 1982: pp. 11-12, 20 wherein we finally learn (this was noted in Vallee’s 1964 article) that the original account was in the 21^st November, 1954 edition of Ocorrencia.

   On the 21^st November, 1954, at Santa Maria Airport on the Azores Island, Vitorino Laurenco Monteiro was on duty as a security guard when he saw a bright yellow light travelling at a moderate speed over the south of the Island. As he watched, the object changed course and landed close by. Monteiro described the object as being bluish in colour, elliptical, 3 metres long and 1.5 metres high.  An opening appeared and Menteiro saw an entity emerge at which point he turned on an external light to get a clearer view. 

   The entity was described as appearing to be humanoid, of normal height and seemed to be –or look— around 35 years old and with fair hair and a slight beard but no moustache. Clothing was a dark yellow coverall with dark belt and long yellow boots with zippers at the side. When the entity reached Monteiro he shook the guard’s hand and gave him a couple of back-slaps and spoke, however, he could not be understood and so he returned to the object which then took off with a slight hum.

   It is said that there were witnesses to the UFO itself but not the entity.

   Carlos Sabine’s encounter was reported in Diario de Noticias of 12^th June, 1960 and then in Magonia no. 2, Winter 1979/1980.

   At around 03:30 hours on the 10^th June, 1960, at Algoz, on the Algarve, tailor Carlos Sabine was out walking his dog when he saw an object that he thought was a car.  Sabine then saw it more clearly and it was in fact a disc shaped object giving off unusually bright light and he decided to quickly hide.  From cover he watched six human-like entities move around the object for a while before re-entering the object which rose up at great speed.

   Deciding to flee the area, Sabine ran but the object re-appeared and illuminated the ground with an intense beam of light before leaving again.  Sabine’s dog had run off in terror and as for the witness: neighbours testified to his trustworthiness but they also testified to his state of terror that morning.

   It seems that nothing else is recorded until the 3^rd January, 1977, at Carapito, Beira Alta. References for this case are bulletin Insolito, CEAFI (Centro de Estudos Astronomicos e Fenómenos Insolitos), Portugal, Volume IV, no. 33, pp 14-17 and 26, June-July 1978 & Enciclopedia De Los Encuentros Cercanos Con Ovnis, by Vicente-Juan Ballester Olmos and Fernandez Peris, Plaza y Janés publishers, Spain, 1987.

   At around 21:30 hours a 24-year-old woman and her young sister were doing the washing next to their rural home when they saw a strange bulky figure, dark and motionless on top of a nearby hill which they said resembled an 8-foot-tall box with a round head on top and legs that appeared to thin out towards the bottom.

   There was a strange sound “resembling several dogs barking into a microphone” which seemed to emanate from the figure. The witnesses became frightened and ran to the house and locked themselves in the house; they then heard a sound as if someone was moving around outside on the sand path that encircled the house.

The sound then appeared to stop at the edge of a nearby pine grove.

   This affected the older witness to the point that she suffered a nervous breakdown. Ground traces were found as well as a small radioactive spot was found at the foot of the hill.

   There is a very interesting follow-up to this report by CEAFI in Insolito for June-July, 1978 that is said to take up several pages but apart from a couple of dubious online sources I can find nothing published in the English language.

   At around 00:30 hours, on the 4^th January, 1977, in Carapito, Guarda, Beira Alta, four hours after the sighting by the two sisters, a technician in an auto plant –in the report identified as C.A.C.M., was training his German shepherd dog in an area of pine trees when it began to behave oddly, remaining close to him.

   C.A.C.M. then noticed an object hovering some 10 meters from him and some 10 meters above the ground; it was a dark, metallic, ellipsoid shape with a dark dome-like protuberance. The diameter was approximately 6 to 7 metres and it made a noise similar to "radio static" or a "bip bip" tone.

   Standing close to this object the witness saw a humanoid silhouette that stood around 1.80 or 2 metres tall.  The object suddenly emitted a silvery “lighting flash” and then disappeared, as did the bulky figure.

   We have no way of knowing, until a translated version of the report is published (if ever), whether there was any reason to suspect missing time is involved. After the sighting, C.A.C.M. suffered from severe headaches and his dog “died with no obvious cause of death eight months later”.  I think that we can dismiss the sudden (?) death of the dog eight months after the event: I have owned cats and dogs and other animals since I was young and there does not have to be any obvious reason why one dies –and I assume no post mortem was carried out to find a possible cause.

   I can only hope that there was a full investigation of the incidents of the 3^rd and 4^th as well as a search for other reported UFO activity that day to back up events, especially since other than normal background radiation readings anything higher would have to be a normally unexplained anomaly.

 

Ufology -the "Feminine Touch"

 Back in 1995 I wrote an article entitled "UFO Investigation -the Feminine Touch" and there was sense behind it.

Ufology tends to be 96% male dominated. In UFO clubs the "little lady" was simply there to make tea and smile dutifully. Seriously, I went to my first meeting and found a good few women present. I thought that was great and started chatting to some of them only to find out that none of them were investigators. They were wives attending with their husbands or who simply wanted to hear what was going on. None of them apparently wanted to investigate UFO reports and one even told me; "Oh, I don't think the boys would put up with that!"

The problem was that female investigators were needed. A woman reports a UFO and she has to invite into her house one or two strange men and some women are trusting while others are evidently uneasy. I never presented a big concern since I grew up in a mostly female dominated environment -I even worked with women on a farm as a youngster. I've been told several times that I am relaxing to talk to which is okay, however, a female witness should at least be able to speak to another woman -I used to ask any female witness if they had a frind who could be present "for support".

And I rule out the "Oh, yes, I regularly receive messages from Caspian in Sector 7 of Venus" type who should never be pushed onto someone and there are male investigators who are just as bad but, you know...

The witness has to be relaxed and willing to chat with investigators and there may be things they want to mention but not in front of a man. 

I found that the biggest hurdle were the existing female investigators who did not want their positions as "the only girl in Ufology" that mattered status threatened. Do not underestimate how downright nasty those people can be.

I do not like the idea of investigators turning up with a male friend who's a hypnotist; that is not a situation that should be accepted.  I've known investigators take their disinterested wives along with them to avoid any problems. 

Sending a single investigator into certain situations can have unfortunate results. I always told people that they should work in pairs. For instance, an investigator who was going to work on the CE3K project with me in the 1970s was quite "nervy" at a meeting and then he told me that he had gone to talk to someone by himself. It seems that the room he found himself in was rather badly lit and grubby and he felt at unease as the person who had contacted the group told him that silicon based aliens were amongst us and until you got close you could not tell them from normal humans. At this point the person was gradually getting closer to the investigator...checking that he was not a "silicon alien" and what if he thought that he was?

The point is that from the moment the letter arrived with the group I was kept out of the loop and I was in charge (supposedly). Remember there were no cell phones, etc. I responded to all of this by saying: "And if he had decided you WERE a silicon alien and pulled a knife out what then?" I also pointed out that going alone to meet someone at night after reading what he had to say was "foolish."

Even at a UFO group meeting as everyone intermingled and chatted I kept my eye on one person who was "off". Eventually, this person approached me and said quietly: "I know you are not Terry Hooper. You are an alien android that replaced him. I'm watching you." 

UFO investigators can be called out day or night and find themselves in very shady areas and sometimes face-to-face with some very odd people. A two person team should be the norm and safety for witnesses and investigators be a better priority.

Warp Drive News. Seriously!

The Need To Be Honest About The Future of Ufology

We need to be very honest about Ufology. It is dead. Since 1947 the mindset has been that of a social club where people meet, hear the latest news and listen to occasional guest speakers while those in charge try to raise more funds. Yes, there were some really dedicated people but they either gave up for various reasons or succumbed to self-deception.

 

Carol Rainey, who was married to Budd Hopkins and assisted him in his work reported ("The Co-Creation of the Abduction Phenomenon", Spectrum Radio Network 11th February, 2011) how, if she "challenged" Hopkins on an aspect of a case he was far from happy. Rainey, obviously, also knew David Jacobs and it was at a dinner in Jacobs' home one day that he leant across the table to Hopkins and told him "We are the only two people in the world who know the truth of what is going on." Rainey's draw dropped and she did question that stance and the response was not good.

 

Hopkins and Jacobs, as far as they were both concerned, could not be challenged on their work and this begins to explain what went wrong with Hopkins work as well as Jacobs; neither man would accept criticism of their work or even allow peer review or analysis of alleged materials from alien abductions (powders, stained clothes or 'implants') there was always a reason why they would not cooperate on this aspect.

We also know that Hopkins left out some aspects of accounts (as with the book Unseen) and then cherry-picked data and even went so far as to redraw symbols allegedly seen during abductions. He believed that he was on the right track so to heck with everyone else.

 

Jacobs, as I have noted before, went so completely off the deep end that if he were a medical professional he could well be struck off for his actions –telephone hypnosis sessions alone are high risk but, you know, what the hell: he “knows” what he is doing and now that Hopkins is dead Jacobs is the ONLY man who knows the truth (the “David Vincent” syndrome –named after the character from the 1960s TV show The Invaders).

 

Researchers in psychology distinguish “belief superiority” from “belief confidence” (thinking your opinion is correct). Belief superiority is relative; it is when you think your opinion is more correct than other people’s.  The top end of their belief superiority scale is to indicate that your belief is “Totally correct (mine is the only correct view)”. Hopkins and Jacobs fall into this last category.

 

So why did no Ufologists challenge them and their techniques and lack of any oversight or peer review? Well, Ufology is a kind of hive mentality club: you agree with everyone else or you are out. In the 1980s, t5hrough the efforts of two long standing MUFON members (who left MUFON when things started going wrong) I was persuaded to (all expenses paid) attend a MUFO)N symposium and give two talks on UK CE3K/AE research and how to proceed when such reports were received.  No problem even though I do not like public speaking or stepping into even the shadow created by the lime light!

 

When I heard no more I asked what was happening because I needed to prepare material. “You upset a few people. Deal’s off” I was told. Before “orbs” and all the other “current raves” you have to remember MUFON was drawing in money, TV and a lot of publicity based on the Grey Abduction hysteria. Apparently “someone” (a well known UK Ufologist and author I am told) sent MUFON copies of some of my articles which question methodology and certain cases. No. MUFON was NOT going to allow that.

 

You see, if you are not “part of the hive” you do not get any time at a conference or speak anywhere. We have seen that corruption of ethics and any pretence at scientific research vanish as (without the permission of investigators or witnesses) MUFON sold all of its UFO reports to Robert Bigelow –just as John Carpenter had sold his confidential files. Then MUFON was hit by claims that it was rigging data to go with the lat4est trend, racist rants from some higher ups, not to mention sexism…oh, and child sexual abuse claims.

 

If all you see is the TV shows then you think MUFON is a slick hard core scientific organisation. MUFON died a long time ago.

 

Back-biting, in-fighting, Ufologists hoaxing other Ufologists or adding faked reports into the system making any serious study highly flawed and pointless. Ufology was never a science just as “Bigfootology” and “Cryptozoology” and around 96% of current paranormal research is and was not a science.

 

When I started working on my first book, Some Things Strange and Sinister” it contained almost 40 years of research into some cases. The UFO related cases outlined showed just how much lying had been going on. Noted American Ufologists admitting openly that reports used since the 1960s were well known hoaxes or fantasy stories from well known “personalities” but were these exposed widely to prevent any serious researcher using them? No. They continued to be used –including by the people who knew they were fake.

 

With the second book, Some More Things Strange and Sinister I delved into other cases –there were interesting cases to note in all fields including Ufology- and these were not debunking books. If you find an explanation for a report then you have to make that known to prevent serious researchers using it and every one of my books is fully referenced so everything can be double-checked which is the best peer review can be with these subjects.

 

When it came to the first book entirely dedicated to SETI, CETI and CE3K/AE –UFO Contact?- I decide4d to go straight for the proverbial jugular and hit certain “classic” cases hard. After 40-60 years of debunking there should have been enough pro-con material to reassess these cases. Fake then I’d show why by using facts rather than “Oh, well so-and-so said it was true.” I double and triple checked the cases put forward by debunkers (not sceptics who assess evidence but people just out to disprove everything by fair or foul means) and…most of it turned out to be fake evidence, twisted truths and worse. I had to then double and triple check that these were not Ufologists!

 

I could dismiss a lot Ufologists claimed –I am sick to my back-teeth of hearing about the Betty Hill “star map” which is pointless. I as sick of hearing “He passed dud cheques” (debunkers, even most Ufologists failing to point out that these payments were honoured by the person in question) or had a record for “parking violations” and when you consider the dirty and not-quite-legal things the debunkers got up to there were some pretty bad double standards going on.

 

I waded through all of this and concluded –based on testimony and secondary witness reports as well as other factors- that certain reports seemed genuine. “No, I’m not having that –I’ve missed something!” I said to myself. I checked, checked and checked again. Same conclusion each time.  I had to stick with the results.

Let me make it clear that we do NOT have any physical artefact from a UFO. As you might expect because it is hard to steal something in most of the situations described. Unconnected people observing a UFO over the area where a claimed encounter took place, physiological and psychological effects and even trace evidence has to have a cause. Someone walking down a quiet country lane or through a jungle is not going to come into casual contact with high doses of radiation. Something has to have been seen or encountered to cause psychological shock in a person or even post traumatic stress disorder.

I prefer cases where there are secondary witnesses if not to entities then to the UFO involved –something that says yes, something did happen. I prefer cases involving two or more people and, preferably, a report not messed up by some idiot using hypnosis and forcing their own beliefs onto a percipient. Not some person who keeps details to themselves and only releases little snippets as and when they like. The percipient must be protected at all costs but initial and final FULL reports must be published for perusal by any serious scientists to look at.  Any and all hypnotic sessions MUST be recorded and made available. If we can see that no one is misleading us or stacking the decks somehow then we have something we can look at and build on.

When I realised that there were seemingly genuine incidents I began to look at others. I checked as I normally do and came up wi8th various trends and findings that –it seems- no one else has in Ufology. I was working alone and not connected to any group (most of who would not cooperate anyway) and just ignoring the Grey (or which ever alien Jacobs currently claims is the real power behind things…until the next one is discovered) abduction phenomenon –I did assess the various aspects involved in UFO Contact?- and looking at the reports.

Everything I came across and added to is fully referenced so anyone can come along and say “Let’s see if this is accurate” and can do their own work.

Ufology cannot just sit on its collective backsides and say “Jacobs is handling this” because he is NOT.  A pinpoint of light in the sky is a pinpoint of light in the sky and not proof of extraterrestrial space craft or even “back up evidence” to someone’s claim of being abducted by aliens.

Although, if these objects and those on board them are not from Earth, it leaves only one real conclusion outside of wild and sometimes fantastical speculation; they are from another planet. However, on that subject I have to remain neutral because there is nothing to show us which planetary system or planet. In fact, I do not even thing extra terrestrial when I study these reports because that would mean the research would get tainted. If I believe Betty and Barney Hill or Travis Walton, Zanfretta or any other percipient it is because there is a strong case not because I believe in extra terrestrial visitors.

If a percipient is told a planet of origin, the planetary system and how far from Earth it is then that can be checked to a degree –is it an exo-planet in a system we know of for instance. Earth is currently (and very likely will not be for hundreds of years) not a threat to any superior extra terrestrial civilization so one might hope that one day someone asks one of these entities; “Where you from, pal?”

Ufology is currently in its death throws but is in denial because admitting that affects certain power bases and definitely the money coming in. Will it ever change or just fade out to become an obscure fringe subject –no one can answer that. It is up to the individual Ufologist.

Me? Well, I’m doing the work and the results are there to read by anyone and with no seriously established publisher being involved the reach is not as wide as I might hope. Would I accept funding to continue the work? Like a shot.

 

La Fenomenologia Hamanoide en la Argentina

One item I have in amongst the various CE3K/AE books is La Fenomenologia Hamanoide en la Argentina -The Hamanoid Phenomenology in Argentina compiled by Roberto E. Banchs and publihed in 1977 by the Servicia de investigaciones Ufologicas (Ufological Research Service).

It is a 60pp booklet cataloguing 46 CE3K reports from 1950-1975 and an evaluation of these. Sadly, it never got translated into English and my Spanish is pretty poor.  The booklet was published at around the same time period as the Webb and Bloecher 1973 The Year of the Humanoids and BUFORA publishing Ted Bloecher's papre presented at a conference titled Close Encounters of the Third Kind. 

At the same time my own paper on the subject was rejected by BUFORA as bing interesting but there was o little interest in the subject that it "could not justify the expense". To be fair that was BUFORAs standard response to anything like this. Howver, they did ask me to update the Bloecher HUM CAT (Humanoid Catalogue) UK section. I put the work in and heard no more...a year later I was told Bloecher was quite happy with the material that BUFORA took full credit for -my name was apparently removed from copies.

TRhis booklet will be added to the South America folder for posterity.

1900-1999 UK Reports Breakdown

 

Another day sorting the UK files out (yes, I know its Christmas Day but I don't do Christmas). Files are bulkier and last night...actually, it was 0120 hrs so this morning...I did a quick check of the reports.

Remember that these stats are not 100% complete and cover 1900-1999:

Explanation Number

Hoax 38

Worthy of Note 18 (highest rating)

Insufficient 96

Misidentification 1

Psychological 82

The Insufficent cases contain some interesting reports but not enough detail to draw any conclusion on. Considering that some of these were handled by UFOIN, BUFORA and even Contact UK 'investigators' this is pretty dire. It means that around 25% of the 96 reports could be mentioned but DO NOT provide even basic evidence.

Hoaxes, again, not surprising. Some of these were carried out by Ufologists including people such as Eric Morris (as I have the evidence and his "in your face" confession I can name him) and even some of those around Arthur Shuttlewood at Warminster but Shuttlewoopd was NOT a hoaxer.

Misidentification refers to the Gotherington Gargoyle case I investigated.

Psychological is an all-encompassing term here and cases include sleep paralysis and hypnagogic/hypnopompic states as well as semi religious contactee types and fantasy prone people. Just a casual glance should show any real investigator what is at play yet in many of these cases the "material" was good for books and articles so why spoil that?

From 1900-1999 only 18 Worthy of Note cases. This includes the 1994 Silbury Hill case although no physical evidence is involved but it was a multi witness case.

The problem is that UFO investigation was always a "club business" and those looking into CE3K/AE reports were either thinking from the very outset that the reportee was "a nutter" or, because no Contactee elements were present (ie tall, blue eyed, blonde haired space brothers) the report was a hoax.

When everyone jumped onto the "Its all psychical phenomenon" band wagon things got worse.

Remember that up to the 1990s there was still a BIG belief in frauds likle Adamski. There still is.

The Isle of Sheppey "Space Ape" case of 1979 I investigated and I even received confirmation from the RAF of an "unknown object" having been picked up by radar at the time -when I went to check the file, kept at a central report keeping point, the RAF letter was gone. I was told by the man overseeing the reports, Peter Tate that he had destroyed the letter "Its all Ufonutter stuff". This was the second time that he had destroyed evidence. I took all my reports back.

As far as I am aware my files are the largest in the UK dealing with CE3K/AE reports. It would be nice to get6 Ufologists to cooperate on the project but many who are interested in the subject only accvept Grey abduction cases -I was told by the Birmingham UFO Group boss that he gets 100+ new abduction cases each month.

If some of the older cases on file could be re-investigated we might learn more.

The possibiulity of that happening is probably zero.

Number of CE3K/AE Reports

 My files have 854 "reports" recorded in them from around the world.

There are many more to add to these files.

These exclude the whole "Grey Abduction Syndrome".

I have read most books on the latter and as for other reports not recorded yet that I have read...probably in the hundreds.

Some not in files have been recorded in my 4 books as well as the AOP Journal.

Out of 854 I would say 10% (and I am being very generous here) or 86 reports are "sufficient to make a judgement regarding.  Out of these probably 10-12 are of sufficient High Strangeness to use as testimony.

There are reports of Sasquatch intermixed with CE3K reports. Despite what you may have seen on You Tube or read in some sensationalist book Bigfoot/Sasquatch does not come from a flying saucer. We have local legends of ghosts and other "supernatural" things mixed in with UFOs. Why? There is no connection between "ghosts" and UFOs. Any sort of "cryptid" creature you can think of is pulled into UFOs at some point.  Including hoax alien videos does not help. 

For decades the same 1954 'UFO wave' reports have been repeated but very few have ever been investigated -some had to wair 20-30 years before Ufologists spoke to witnesses/percipients. Amongst those reports never investigated is this one:

12th October, 1954  Teheran, Iran.

A disc-shaped object came very close to the ground in a densely populated area. Chasim Faili, one of those who witnessed the incident, screamed when he thought he was going to be kidnapped. A crowd gathered and the object took off. The entities involved were said to be small and dressed in black.

A landing in a densely populated area and those allegedly interested in these things just took the press report and that was it. A lost report and not evidence of much. Certainly it might have been had someone bothered getting off of their backsides.

There is a report of two UFOs being seen near an area and there were roughly 100 observers to this CE3K...no one followed up. I could go on and cite one multi-observer CE3K incident after another and each would be followed by "no investigation undertaken."

What research and investigation is being carried out into these reports byUfology? In four books I have noted trends and much more that seems to have by-passed Ufology which either ignores CE3K/AE reports or jumps onto the alien abduction craze because it brings in money. Ufology has wasted 73 years since the "Birth of Ufology" in 1947 and it has come down to scandal ridden UFO organisations and "pop TV" with slick UFO conmen.

Ufology will never be the science it pretends or wants to be. Its biggest names are as guilty of very poor research and adding false data to Ufology as the "I deal with 100-150 new alien abduction cases a month" morons.

Who cares? NOT Ufology.

Australia and New Zealand Files Up-dated 21/12/2020

 I started at 1100hrs and it is now 15:58 hrs and the New Zealand and Australian CE3K/AE folder got a lot bulkier.

Running out of document wallets and had to do 2 ink cartridge refills.

Oh, and saved items to a flash drive though not even 1% of files have been scanned for an archive yet.

To those no longer interested: goodbye.

 I set this blog up in 2015 and to date have made almost 300 posts and there have been 6,900 views and one comment.

As with the Anomalous Observational Phenomena blog I have seen original post over and over taken and used by others as 'their' work.

I did ask people to support the ongoing work -buying one of the CE3K/AE books gives you something and at least I get something.

From 25th December, 2020 this blog will be private and if you want to see posts you will need to ask to be considered a blog member.

I count rant and rave like a lot of other people but my time is precious these days and I am taking action to not waste any of it.

There you go. From the 25th on you can visit all the other blogs that offer unresearched or fake posts. Everyone had five years to support the ongoing work.

To those no longer interested: goodbye.

CE3K/AE UK Files 1-12

 Finally managed to get the UK files sorted out into smaller "volumes":

1. Historical -1949

2. 1950-1959

3. 1960-1965

4. 1966-1969

5. 1970-1973

6. 1974-1976

7. 1977 Jan. -June

8. 1977 Jul.-Dec.

9.  1978

10. 1979

11. 1980-1989

12. 1990----

The 13th file involves "Dead Aquatic (Humanoid) Creatures [DAC] and involves reports from the UK -Canvey Island as well as historical UK cases but also includes the Kilwa, Tanzania report.

Once I get some time I can start updating them and the bulky UK CE3K/AE File Summary.

It means that all the reports are easy to get to and no more trawling through bulky oversize file folders. 

If you know of any UK reports please get in touch so that I can include them in the archive -you can message me via the Face Book page.