Notes On CE3K/Alien Entity Cases Procedure

 From UFO Contact?

   It didn’t take me long to understand why the Lorenzens were called “The Scopolamine Kids”.   The “Truth Drug” was experimented with in the early 20^th century but because of serious physiological and psychological effects, use was discontinued.  If you use a drug that was known to have hallucinatory effects –at one time it was ‘recreationally’ used for just that—then evidence gathered from its use, particularly after discussion of what a percipient remembers of their encounter, is very suspect.

   I should be shocked that the Lorenzens were willing to have doctors administer this drug in the 1970s, however, Ufology has no real surprises.  That percipients were led to believe, or actually believed themselves, that the drug would make their testimony beyond reproach is, again, not hard to believe.

   Similarly, polygraph tests are full of flaws and everything can be down to the polygraphers interpretation.  I have read of two polygraph tests (unrelated to UFOs) that yielded exactly the same results.  However, one polygrapher interpreted the person being examined as being truthful and credible.  The second polygrapher read the results in the opposite way.  Even this test is reliant on an “experts” opinion and not facts.

   You can learn far more by casually talking to and observing a witness and their body language but even then, people are individuals.  What might be taken as body language revealing a person is lying can very well just be the way the normal posture or expression they adopt when they think before answering.  It is not an infallible skill that spots liars from honest people –it again relies on the questioner and how they “read” the signs.

   A psychologist could prepare a sheet of questions that, when answered by a witness, might indicate a fantasy or hypnagogic prone person. These questions could be a standard for every investigator and they can deal with the witness appropriately –perhaps even subtly suggesting that a doctor might help them.

   “Hypnagogic dream” is now being used by many debunkers when they cannot find a solution to a particular case.  I believe that some cases indicate hypnagogia, however, debunkers who are not qualified psychologists who have not studied this aspect should not proffer such a solution, especially when they have never met nor talked to the percipient in question.  There are ramifications on both sides.

 

   The following procedural guidelines are just that ; guidelines and can be adapted to particular situations, as I’ll note further on.

1.     Above all else, the person(s) reporting the incident to the investigator / group has to be guaranteed 100% that said investigators / group will not betray their anonymity in any way.

2.    The person(s) involved must be spoken to at the very earliest opportunity.  Weeks or months is not acceptable.

3.    The investigator must always put the person(s) involved at their ease. Whether this is one or more witnesses does not matter at this point. Just talking to them and establishing their interests and employment or daily life routine is important but will make them feel more at ease : they are not being treated as some kind of freak. Point out that you cannot discuss similar cases or go into detail and that this is because protocol dictates this.

   Make it clear that critics cannot say they faked or added bits from cases this way.

 You can make it clear that, after testimony is taken, you are slightly more free to do so.

 4.    There should be no discussion about Ufology in general or local reports, other than to put the person(s) at their ease and show they are not "crazy". CE3Ks/AE cases or reports must not  be referred to and only after the interview should an investigator even suggest anything similar has been described as it could taint future statements.   Never state "Oh, your case sounds very similar to the Stanford case" or any other case because even an honest witness might be tempted to do an internet search for a "Stanford CE3K" or UFO landing report.

5.     At no point should someone who has had a similar encounter be introduced even if to put a witness at their ease. If the percipient(s) is a female then there should be a female investigator present or a female known to the investigator ~wife, girl friend , etc., but only under strict confidentiality.

The ideal situation would be for any investigation team to have both male and female members for such situations.

6.    Interviewing the percipient(s) should be on an individual basis.  No group interviewing.

7.     All interviews should be taped as standard ~note that many digital recorders are of poor quality so make sure any device used records good sound quality. Using one or more recorders is a good idea –I use a tape and a digital recorder.

8.    Taped interviews should be transcribed as soon as possible after initial interviews. This ought to allow investigators to pick up on any points they might have missed or not thought much about.

9.    Do not ever  refer to any object sighted as a "space-craft" / Space-ship” / “scout craft” or anything similar as that leads the witness and critics can later use this to show you have done so even if not intentional. Use the term "UFOB" or even just “UFO” to indicate what is being described as a seeming constructed object.

10.    Again do not ever refer to an entity as an "Alien" nor as an  “extraterrestrial” and I have heard this done.   Use a non-committal, more neutral term such as “Entity”

11.  If the percipient(s) were in a vehicle and vehicle interference was noted refer to a manual on Vehicle Interference cases that should provide guidelines.

12.  If the percipient(s) report physiological effects during and after an encounter then full details should be noted. It is the duty of the investigators / organization to facilitate some form of medical examination.  If organizations cannot do this then the percipients own doctor should be consulted (no reference should be made to a UFOB case  but if the doctor involved is part of a UFO organization this is moot).

13.  The first interview should enable any investigator to determine whether there is any missing time period during the encounter reported –ascertain that there is no mundane explanation for this such as a car clock being slow or house clock fast as the discrepancy between these two could give a false impression.

14.   Do not  immediately start asking whether the percipient(s) would be willing to undergo hypnotic regression. There must be very strict guidelines as to when any form of hypnosis is used and then only by a qualified professional.

15.  Even if not good artist(s) get the percipient(s) to draw any UFOB they saw and then any entity.  Once this / these have been made then a more professional set of drawings can be made and to guarantee that the percipient(s) agree this is accurate they should be asked to sign the backs of said drawings.

16.  It will also be necessary for investigators to ask the percipient(s) to return with them to  the scene of the incident (daylight is best as some percipient(s) may be too fearful to return to the spot at night though if they are willing to then no problem) This way an incident location can be pin-pointed as accurately as possible.  At this time the investigators should note anything unusual in the area such as abandoned buildings, factories, etc..  If the visit takes place during daylight then the investigators should return at night, as close to the time of the incident as possible.  It could be that something locally was mistaken for a UFOB or even that someone living rough in an old building has a fire, powerful torch/light at night

17.  During the day and at night, photographs should be taken of the scene of the incident. Look for any trace evidence etc., as should be standard.

18.  Any final version of the whole percipient(s) statement(s) should be read through, approved and signed by the percipient(s).

19.  When the investigation is completed the investigator should be able to tell the percipient(s) whether he feels that they have had a genuine experience and those involved may now ask questions but it should be made clear that investigators cannot say where these things originate from.

20.  Only now should it be clear whether or not there is any missing time period and ways to help the percipient(s) (not regression hypnosis) to consciously recall what might have happened.  If any such methods are unsuccessful then, and only then if the percipient(s) are willing, should regression hypnosis be suggested and, again, this must be by a qualified person not heavily steeped in Ufology.   There must be no mention of "Alien agendas" / "breeding programs" etc..

21.  At all times a central case co-ordinator should be kept up to date on the investigation.  This helps investigators talk through any problems or seek advice. If there is more than one group involved then this must be an evenly split investigation with everyone complying with the established procedure. A central case coordinator could smooth over any problems.

22. The final report should be signed by all involved.  A summary should be handed to the percipient(s)

23. Although this should be a conclusion to the investigation it should be made clear to the percipient(s) that the investigator(s)  or central co-ordinator can be contacted regarding any developments or recollections.

24. Re. 23, above ; the investigator should make a courtesy call to see how the percipient(s) are doing and any developments after one year. Then after two years and the fact that the percipient(s) can contact investigators in future should be reiterated.

    This all seems fair enough and a decent procedural standard to follow.  However, and it is a very big “however” ; you will, in genuine cases, be dealing with persons who have had traumatic experiences.  They are human beings and that must never be forgotten.  Situations will –will— arise in which procedure may need to the changed in situ.  By the very nature of the subject and it involving a person, it is guaranteed and this is where a case or central co-ordinator may be able to advise but also note why it was necessary to bend the guidelines.

    You, as an investigator,  have to be sceptical yet friendly and able to listen and remember that those involved are scared and traumatized –do not ever look at them as future material for a book.

 

 

UFO Contact? Unidentified-Identified and Contact!
530 pages

illustrated with maps, photographs and more

A4 format

B&W

Paperback: List Price:£20.00 £18.00 (excl. VAT) |You Save: 10%

Prints in 3-5 business days 

http://www.lulu.com/shop/terry-hooperscharf/ufo-contact/paperback/product-23719040.html

Since 1947 it has been claimed that UFOs/flying saucers are evidence of aliens visiting the Earth.  Since the 1950s claims of encounters with landed craft and alien beings were talked about but not taken seriously.

In the 1960s the subject of UFO abduction was a "slow-burner" until the whole "Grey" abduction phenomenon and claims made by researchers such as Budd Hopkins, Prof. John Mack and Dr David Jacobs and Whitley Streiber.

But is there evidence to back up any of the claims -and what about those encountering Alien Entities but who were not abducted?

Are these people all hoaxers, psychotic or suffering from some other mental illness as some claim?

Are those people who were exposed by Ufologists against their wishes, people who wanted to report what happened and then just get back to their everyday lives -thrust into the media glare against their will?

And if US authorities were so interested that in one case at least they broke into the home of two abductees and this was later proven -why?

Why did a hard core of these people never want publicity or to make money from what happened to them?

Above all, why did a major UFO landing incident take place on a US Inbterstate road in front of a large number of observers (all willing to talk to investigators) never get investigated? If it were not for a radio presenter interviewing and taking notes we would know nothing of the case -it would be labelled "insubstantial".

James and Coral Lorensen -the Scopolamine Kids; using a very notorious "truth drug" on alleged UFO witnesses and selling stories to newspapers.  An investigator (a veteran) showing a witness images of "aliens" encountered in other cases before any memories were retrieved.  Worst of all, the constant "pissing competition" and breaches of trust between UFO investigators.

2020 is the time to assess the past evidence and look at the faults within Ufology.

Not everyone is going to be happy -debunkers or ufologists.

 

Smaller format version:
Pages 530
Binding Perfect Bound
Paperback
Interior Black ink &white
Weight 1.05kgSize 18.9 x24.59cm
£18.00
http://www.lulu.com/shop/terry-hooperscharf/high-strangeness/paperback/product-23822248.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New Year's Words on Ufology: Standards, Ethics or Fantasy Social Clubs?

 

I began getting involved with UFO research when I was still at school in 1973 (my father bragged that it was “a phase he’ll get out of soon enough”). I set up the Bristol UFO Group (BUFOG) in 1975/76 and by around 1977 I had joined the British Flying Saucer Bureau (f. 1952) which most people in Ufology thought had vanished in the 1960s!I thought that the BFSB would have really slick investigation procedures compared to what I had thought up for BUFOG.

 

I was wrong.

 

The only person who had any investigation interest was Graham F. N. Knewstub who had, incidentally, produced the first analysis and breakdown of flying saucer/UFO reports in 1955 (Preliminary Analysis of Data Concerning Flying Saucers, BFSB Technical Report No. 1, 1955). 

 

On my first investigation with Graham we went to Yate where parents had reported that their two daughters, returning home as it was getting dark, had panicked and began beating on the front door as a large, bright discoid object came down low over the street and their house. Within half an hour I had drawn the house as well as the features either side of it and included an illustration of the object over the house –which the girls confirmed was in scale. I then drew a quick area map. Later Graham poured over the notes and illustrations and told me that he had not seen anyone complete such a full amount of preliminary work on a report before. He was pleased and I just pointed out that I thought that it was important to get as much information as possible “in case” the girl decided that they no longer wanted to talk to investigators.  Graham smiled and chuckled and told me; “I really do not think that you need me tagging along!”

 

What was the “usual investigation” method? Well, if someone offered to talk to a witness it normally entailed them relating their pet theories on UFOs, chatting about Adamski and so on –before even hearing what the witness had to say! I expressed my concerns to Graham who was in charge of investigation and research and he said “It does need young blood. I’ll talk to the Committee.” A week later I was told that I was now head of research and investigation. I also found out that there were no research projects -to be fair, Graham at that point was in his 60s and had faced an upward struggle to get anything much done in a group whose founder, Captain (Field Rank) Edward Plunkett was a true devotee of George Adamski. I think Graham thought I might have more luck.

 

So, I put forward my plans: a full study of all the reports we (BFSB) had to carry out another analysis. Problems presented themselves. Firstly, a lot of “material” was in a safety deposit box in a bank somewhere and had been there since Albert K. Bender had hi infamous Men In Black encounter (possibly a breakdown) in the early 1950s and warned the BFSB that “The Men In Black are coming your way!”  So, in 1977, I asked; “What happened?” at which point Franklyn Davin-Wilson (behind Capt. Plunkett) rolled his eyes as said Captain responded; “Nothing….yet” and he was not joking when he told me “but we are still alert and waiting!”

 

Which meant that I could not get my hands on the “must never be described” material was in the safety box. Graham then mentioned that there were the files “in the boxes in my attic” and that got a mile but definite glaring look from Capt. Plunkett who said “We’ll need to discuss that at the Committee meeting next week.” Graham was later very apologetic as he explained that he wanted to turn over the files but that the Committee had decided that they must remain private and not even the head of research and investigation could see them.

 

Just what good were all of those reports to anyone gathering dust in boxes? Later, someone (Pat O’Brien) who totally debunked UFOs as being caused by nuclear reactors and fumbled up investigations so bad that he was persuaded to “let me tag along” was appointed new head of investigation and research. After more than 100 witnesses saw a UFO at the Chepstow Race Course I accompanied O’Brien and while he told everyone that it was an helicopter or a star I talked to witnesses and met one of Mrs Roestenberg’s (1950s CE3K incident) son’s who was in charge of the catering staff.  O’Brien had no idea who Mrs Roestenberg was and when someone shouted “It’ back!” I watched with around 150 other as a triangular coloured object moved around the sky (I had binoculars) and I told O’Brien what the note while I tried to estimate size and distance, etc.  Not a word. I turned and he was looking in the other direction and would not, over the 30 minutes period look in the direction of the object(s). When I explained this to Graham he simply nodded and told me nothing could be done as O’Brien had been known to the Plunkett’s since he was a youngster.

 

To “avoid friction” I was appointed head of the new BFSB publication UFO News Bulletin and the name change from Flying Saucer News (last published c. 1960) was a bit awkward as the BFSB continually referred to any UFO as a “flying saucer” which was a term well out of fashion by the 1970s.I had to do all the work myself as no one wanted to contribute and then hand in the finished publication to be printed. As the featured entity report in one issue was not involved with a flying saucer and was not a blond haired, blue eyed Venusian the cover was removed. So I did a new cover. Rejected and in the end the front cover was simply the BFSB logo enlarged. I quit as editor but with O’Brien taking over I&R and then the magazine the BFSB knew they were a force to be reckoned with. Except O’Brien never produced a single issue but drove the group into the ground. From 1977 onward I had only ever seen Capt. Plunkett’ son, Denis, once and then he was socialising and had no interest in anything to do with the group.

 

I wanted to check my notes on the Chepstow case and was told “Oh, they’re missing somewhere but it was only a helicopter.” Other reports I had completed were also “missing” and this meant, I was told, that the reports had been dumped somewhere. I quit.

 

I set up UFO International (UFOI) and recruited investigators including Dot Street and Brenda Butler (the Rendlesham Forest investigators who told me about the incident then went straight to Jenny Randles to publicise it even though I told them I would have three investigators join then within the week), Mr Parsons who investigated the Oulton Marsh CE3K and others. Unfortunately, Peter Tate was also involved and he and even got the UFOI threatened with legal action after publishing a totally defamatory statement while I was in Germany (forging my signature). Tate had also destroyed CE3K case reports and one day I found note paper with the heading Aerial Phenomena Enquiry Network –just Google “APEN”.  Eventually I resigned because the group was at each other throats as Tate tried to “smooth things over”.

 

I moved on and concentrated on my BUFORA work and that included me as the only investigator during a 1977/1978 UFO flap –as it happens the UK APRO investigator Gary Green lived just up the road from me so helped out on a couple of cases. Of course, this ended with BUFORA “losing” 150 full reports.

 

I no longer wanted to be associated with Ufology so continue my work with the Anomalous Observational Phenomena Bureau from 1977 onward and by 1980 had achieved far more than when working within groups.

 

We hear and read it almost weekly. The Ufologists claiming “Many thousands of people have reported good quality sighting of unearthly objects” so ask yourself; what happens to these reports (apart from being used as TV fodder)? When was the last time you saw a survey and analysis of UFO sighting reports? The last one I know of was compiled by J Bernard Delair for Contact UK in the early 1980s and my last study was in the 1980. The internet/You Tube age ha made every satellite or high flying bird flock reflecting sunlight an ‘extra terrestrial craft’ or ‘fleet of UFOs’ and even obvious, clearly seen balloons and aircraft are labelled as “unidentified” so any analysis now is impossible. UFO groups routinely fake or deliberately misidentify objects to be “extra terrestrial” (in the main to “outdo” a rival group) and paranormal and UFO blogs feature more faked cases each year –I know; I have chased after those reports. Ufologists have been hoaxing other Ufologists since 1947 and just letting genuine reports fade away in time –Eupora, 1973, Reeves, 1965 and so on). You Tube…about as honest as a politician named Johnson.

 

A big problem is that it became a bit of a craze to start calling “cover-up” in Ufology and this started in the United States and then the UK when what should have been happening was UFO groups carrying out full investigations and reaching conclusions based on evidence and then turning copies over to official bodies who would have access to technical and scientific personnel who could go even further. Then the evidence is out there in the public eye as well as being studied by bodies with more funding. Yes, of course bodies such as the US Air Force, et al would use the UFO subject to hide experimental test aircraft and so on. That is what they do because everyone expects their respective armed forces to be capable of defending them but not letting a potential enemy “know what we got”. 

 

1947-2020 and hat ha Ufology accomplished? Jacques Vallee has become a Saint in Ufology “because of his work and standing” and yet he has included faked accounts, explained reports and wore into his melting pot of New Age junk. I once held Vallee up as an example of a scientist carrying out meticulous work on UFOs…until I carried out an even cursory look at his data. Ortotheny, The Mars Cycle, The Wednesday Evening Cycle, Ley Lines and many, many other totally crackpot theories that should have been looked at and then consigned to the “Irrelevant” file were discussed and argued about for decades –some still are today. Provide people with evidence that certain reports were faked or explained and…they ignore it because it HAS to be unsolved. The X-Files, Dark Skies and Dr Who are not documentary series and we do not have a terrestrial space force engaged in Star War style conflict in the skies above us.  Fantasy is the new fact.

 

Budd Hopkins stacked the deck when it came to evidence, he knew one alleged abductee was conning him but he carried on totally un-peer reviewed. David Jacobs has gotten totally out of control in his work and claims as well as personal scandal and John Mack followed his own line of work. John Carpenter sold 140 of his abductee files to John Bigelow breaching any pretence of a code of ethics or witness confidentiality he and MUFON claimed. Oh…did I mention Hopkins, Mack and Jacobs were receiving money from Bigelow and no one has any idea what they forwarded because Ufology has no openness or ethics code.  And, of course, MUFON sold all of its UFO report files to Bigelow and investigators had no idea the reports they were investigating were going to Bigelow -remember the part of the UFO report form that asks you if you want your personal info to be confidential? Means nothing.

 https://users.aalto.fi/~saarit2/mindcontrol/hambone/bigelow.html

http://ufotrail.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-carpenter-affair-for-record.html

https://www.newsweek.com/ufo-sightings-mufon-2018-john-ventre-alien-extraterrestrial-905060

https://www.vice.com/en/article/3azpj9/head-of-major-ufo-organization-arrested-on-child-solicitation-charges

So, while this is going on MUFON is a shining example of Ufology being dead in the water though most groups avoid the racism, sexism and child abuse scandal that MUFON is bogged down in but will not do anything actively about (it is a big right wing boys club –even those who left MUFON and appear in video interviews proudly display the front cover of a Donald Trump book behind them; I’ve spotted this in three such videos).

 

Politics has no place in Ufology. And you should NOT believe in Ufology but follow the evidence which is all that matters. 

 

Do not be conned on the cattle mutilation “phenomenon” –it is NOT UFO (ET) related.

Do not be conned into the Aurora or Roswell or any of the 160 other alleged UFO crashes –never happened.

Do not be fooled into believing an (ET) UFO crashed on a Welsh mountain (whichever crash) –it did not happen.

Do not be fooled into believing that MILLIONS are abducted every year –fake. Concentrate on the real cases.

Do not believe that an extra terrestrial craft crash landed in Rendlesham Forest. It never did.

Do not believe that there is a “British Skinwalker Ranch” because, all the evidence now shows that most of what went on at Skinwalker was caused by human agencies –check out The Black Vault” or Erica Lukes You Tube channels if you want the truth.

 

Are you in this to be part of a fan club or because you want to get to the truth?  I do not believe that I am the only person who has been studying CE3K –Alien Entity reports since 1975 (and not betraying witnesses confidential info) so where is the work to how this? My four books on the subject are meant to be there for peer review –fully referenced. No one will publish a 300-500+ paper on the subject so I have to self publish (and none of them has made me any money covering even .5% of what I have spent on the work in 4 decades).

 

2021 can either be a new starting point and old cases re-opened and followed up as “cold cases” (because many CE3Ks were never investigated) and results published or….Ufology can just die a death as a cranky fringe subject.

 

Only Ufologists can decide.

 

 

Beyond UFO Contact: Aliens from Mind, Time & Space

 

A4

B&W

350 pp

Fully illustrated containing photographs and maps

£20.00

https://www.lulu.com/en/en/shop/terry-hooper/beyond-ufo-contact-aliens-from-mind-time-space/paperback/product-qw8wjm.html?page=1&pageSize=4

Beyond UFO Contact i the fourth book in the groundbreaking series looking at reports of Close Encounters of the Third Kind and Alien-Entity reports from around the world and reassessing these. In addition there is a look at the Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligences (SETI) and its relevance to the UFO phenomenon. 

contents list: 

Introduction: The Path of Counter-Actuality 

1. Dionisio Llanca: Truck Driver, UFO Abductee and Human Guinea Pig 

2. Aliens -What Can We Expect? 

3. The Moreland Incident 

4. It Is All Fake: Ufology Needs To Be Reassessed 

5. Warminster UFOs and Entity Reports 

6. Have Things Changed Since 1977? 

7. The Beausoleil Cas -Even Aliens Like Theatre 

8. The Pwca 

9. Contact...with the Vegetable Alien 

10. The Casitas Dam UFO Photograph and Entity 

11. The Crystal Lake Encounter 

12. The Humanoids at South Riverand the Luczkowich Encounter 

13. Harrison Bailey 

14. Sonny DesVerger 

15. The UFO "Borderline"-The Imjarvi Skiers 

16. Some Interesting Reports to Note 

17. Dead Aliens in Photographs 

18. Ufology, Government Cover Ups and Disclosure 

19. The Reports That You Might Not Want To Look Into 

20. Conil de la Frontera -a Credible Report? 

21. Eighteenth Century Aliens? 

22. Clearview Ranch 

23. The Pat McGuire Case 

24. Piero Fortunato Franzetta 

25. The Silbury Hill Encounter 

26. The Bridge Abduction 

27. The Bagshot Heath UFO Incident 

28. Lurkers and Alien Disinterest 

29. What If YOU See Aliens Land? 

30. So What Would YOU Do If You Encountered A Landed UFO?

Anomalous Observational Phenomena Journal Vol. 2 No. 5 January 2021

 

A4

B&W

68pp

£5.00

https://www.lulu.com/en/en/shop/terry-hooper/anomalous-observational-phenomena-journal-vol-2-no-5-january-2021/paperback/product-gp4y8m.html?page=1&pageSize=4

The fifth Journal brings you the following articles -all fully referenced and illustrated: IN THIS ISSUE: 

Ufology: How Complex Must It Become? 

More Warminster Entity Reports  

Conil de la Frontera 

 Eighteenth Century Aliens? 

Harrison Bailey: A Classic Case of Ufology At Work  

CE3K/AE Reports: More Details Needed  

John Hanson’s Close Encounter  

The Flying Spectre of Natal  

The Bridge Abduction 

 1870: The First Ever UFO Photograph or Proof of Early Airships? 

 Did A UFO Crash In France in 1790? 

Beyond UFO Contact is completed

 Beyond UFO Contact is completed at 350 pp. I wa holding off in the hoppe that former BUFORA investigator David Sankey might respond to a query regarding the 1960s Milnthorpe case but as with most Ufologists (I believe he is now working as an artist) no one responds.

I have checked spelling and grammar as well as re-edited ome photos over 10 times since the end of November and if it is not ready now it never will be!

for those interested here is the contents list:

Introduction: The Path of Counter-Actuality 3

1. Dionisio Llanca: Truck Driver, UFO Abductee and Human Guinea Pig 8

2. Aliens -What Can We Expect? 20

3. The Moreland Incident 29

4. It Is All Fake: Ufology Needs To Be Reassessed 48

5. Warminster UFOs and Entity Reports 62

6. Have Things Changed Since 1977? 88

7. The Beausoleil Cas -Even Aliens Like Theatre 98

8. The Pwca 104

9. Contact...with the Vegetable Alien 108

10. The Casitas Dam UFO Photograph and Entity 113

11. The Crystal Lake Encounter 118

12. The Humanoids at South Riverand the Luczkowich Encounter 124

13. Harrison Bailey 136

14. Sonny DesVerger 154

15. The UFO "Borderline"-The Imjarvi Skiers 183

16. Some Interesting Reports to Note 192

17. Dead Aliens in Photographs 203

18. Ufology, Government Cover Ups and Disclosure 213

19. The Reports That You Might Not Want To Look Into 216

20. Conil de la Frontera -a Credible Report? 228

21. Eighteenth Century Aliens? 243

22. Clearview Ranch 248

23. The Pat McGuire Case 272

24. Piero Fortunato Franzetta 284

25. The Silbury Hill Encounter 297

26. The Bridge Abduction 304

27. The Bagshot Heath UFO Incident 312

28. Lurkers and Alien Disinterest 321

29. What If YOU See Aliens Land? 336

30. So What Would YOU Do If You Encountered A Landed UFO? 347

Will upload tomorrow so that the book ought to be done and dusted by 1st January 2021

Why the multiverse is religion, not science.

Did We Just Detect a New "Wow" Signal from Proxima Centauri?

Robin Cole, Circular Forum and the Bridge Abduction Case

 Note: If Robin Cole or anyone who knows him could ask him to contact me I would appreciate it. 

The full report and images will be published in AOP Journal no. 5 as well as Beyond UFO Contact in January 2021

 *******************************************************************

   In 1996 I was in touch with Robin Cole who headed the Circular Forum group based in Gloucestershire and that in turn led to my involvement in the Gotherington Gargoyle case (The Case of the Gotherington Gargoyle, in Some Things Strange & Sinister). Knowing of my interest in CE3K reports, Cole asked whether I would be interested in looking at an abduction report they had on file. Obviously, my answer was “yes.”

 

   What I received was slightly shocking because, despite my reputation, I would not have expected to find the address, telephone number and percipient’s name unredacted.  As it happens it may just be that I am the only person who now has the full report.

 

   In-keeping with the report in the group magazine I identify the percipient as “Mr. X”.

 

   At around 21:40 hrs on the 15^th February, 1995, Mr. X was driving along the M50 and heading home from work when he noticed a bright object travelling at speed over the countryside. The object was heading in his direction but he lost sight of it as the road cuts through a hill at that point in his journey and a bridge blocked his view. Once he had driven under the bridge he was confronted by the object which was approximately 80 feet above the road but then descended to around 50 feet as he continued 250 yards from the bridge.

 

   As Mr. X strained to see just what the object was he describes himself as suddenly becoming “docile”. Then “a voice from within” told him to pull over to get a better look and he did so.  His next recollection was being in the middle lane in third gear and travelling at around 50 mph and a voice was telling him to “Keep going, there is no traffic, keep going.” Not much further along was the junction he would normally take but he pulled off of the road and got out of the car. He was unsure whether he had been involved in an accident of some kind but on checking his car was undamaged.

 

   On checking, he found that some 40 minutes had passed and he had no recollection of anything during that period. His journey home normally took twenty minutes but on this night it had taken just over an hour and on getting home told his son about the experience.  That was the end of an odd event until he started having vivid flashbacks and odd things upset him. While treating his wooden fence two slanted black knots in the timber frightened him and yet he could not understand why.  He was equally shaken by the motif of two black, slanted wings on his son’s motorbike.

 

   By 1996, Mr. X decided that he needed to contact someone which is when he contacted Cole. According to Cole; “We now have over forty pages relating to this case” yet the “full report” I was sent has only 15 pages which is 25 pages short of what Cole claimed. He did state that the late Tony Dodd had seen the report and a copy had been sent to Professor John Mack for his analysis and, at the time of the Circular Forum article a copy was in the hands of Nick Pope. However, as only 15 pages are available we are lucky that this includes Mr. X’s original account which adds much more to the report and I have left the spelling etc. intact:

 

      “…I left work at exactly 9.30 p.m. in the evening to go home…the journey

      which I take home is about 9.25 miles. I have been travelling this road for 7

      years. The same route every day.  This journey should take no more than 15

      minutes maximum.  It consists of 1.8 mile bypass to M50 at Ross-on-Wye,

      3.75 miles motorway M50 and 4 miles on the Newent/Gorsley B4221. I

      arrived at the roundabout at the M50 Travellers Rest end at approximately 9.40

      p.m.  It was dark but clear. I looked across the valley through a gap in the hedge

      towards Ponts Hill. On the far horizon about 10-12 miles, low down was a large

      bright light in an otherwise star less night sky.”

 

   The account now gets a little confusing as the continuation of Mr. X’s account refers to a previous sighting but then jumps slightly. I assume that the next part takes up the narrative from after Mr. X had lost sight of the object due to the bridge and then saw it above the road:

 

      “I don’t know whether this was a hole in the underside of the craft. There was

      no noise (not helicopter or plane). The light as bin the first sighting completely

      enveloped the craft.  It appeared flurescent a bit like aqn aura around the outside

      of the craft.  But it shimmered when you looked at5 it.  I only had a few seconds

       to see this and estimated that it was about 80 ft. above me and about 2 bus

      lengths wide (diameter). I am now fidgeting about in the car as the light is

      bothering me.  All of a sudden I hear a voice in my head saying   “Pull over and

      you can get a better look!”

 

     “I went from worrying about the light and being agitated to totally docile

      looking straight ahead not at all concerned about the encroaching light that

      was descending on me.  I looked along the hard shoulder for a safe place to

      stop as I had been told.  At this point the hard shoulder4 disappears and a small

      road runs underneath the motorway. A barrier with warning posts appears in

      front of me. A voice warns “Unsafe! Unsafe!” as I start to pull over.  I straighten

      up the car taking notice of the voice.  I am sure these voices are some sort of

      telepathy.  It’s as if they can see through my eyes everything that is going on,

      and are guiding me.  I am under some form of hypnotic control. I can see

      everything that is going on but I have to obey the voice.

 

     “From the bridge to this point it takes about 20-25 seconds everything is

      happening very quickly.  The craft has to descend between two rock faces

      and position itself above my car as well as fitting between the four lanes

      carriagway.  It is large but has fantastic control.  It is at this point I think I

      was abducted. It was as if I blinked my eyes and I was back again. The only

      thing I can compare this with is if you are watching a very good film and it

      jumps a frame. You notice something but because you are engrossed in the

      story it appeares continues.”

 

   I believe in that last line Mr. X meant “continuous” and I should also note here that a bus length is around 30-35 feet depending on the model so the object seen by Mr. X was approximately 60-70 feet in diameter.  In the 1994 Silbury Hill case Paul and Sonya also believed that entities were “using” their eyes to see things.  Mr. X continues:

 

      “I am now looking straight ahead on the same bit of road. The car is in gear

      now (5^th) I am doing about 50 m.p.h. I am still not bothered about the light. 

      Everything appears normal and another voice says; ‘Don’t stop now! Keep

      going. There is no traffic either side of the motorway. Keep going.’

 

      “I estimate it was between 5-10 seconds after this that I came out of the

      hypnotic state and the craft had gone.  They had released my mind. I

      exclaimed aloud ‘Where’s the light. Where’s the light.’ Not realising it was

      all over.  They had gone.  I continued driving as I was told but I was now

      completely conscious and in control. I noted there was no traffic what so ever

      as I had been told and I kept going.  When I reached the slip road at the

      Gorsley turn off (B4221) I stopped before turning on to the B4221 for Newent. 

      I put the hazard  lights on and got out of my car looked across the motorway

      at a small wood opposite.  I saw lights going down beyond the wood but could

      not swear that they were the same lights that had plagued me earlier.  Still no

      traffic.  I got back into my car. Put the hazard lights off put my seat belt on and

      then noticed my digital clock was reading 10-22 p.m. that meant that a 3.5 mile

      journey which would normally take 3-4 minutes took 40 minutes.  I remember

      feeling pleased when I saw the lights of a car coming from the Gorsley Golf

      Club. The first car I had seen since entering M50.  As the car passed I pulled

      out behind it but it turned right onto the motorway to Ross-on-Wye.

   

     “I continued home arriving at about 10-35 p.m. still wondering what had

      happened. The light still haunting me.  Which it does to this day.  I checked

      the car over and myself to see if I had been involved in any form of accident. 

      No damage to the car and no marks on my body.

 

     “The only explanation to the lack of traffic on the motorway and loss of

      Time would be if I had been taken when there was a lull in the traffic and put

      back there was a lull in the traffic 40 minutes being lost inside the craft for

      what purpose I do not know. My conclusion is I was taken by a F.F.O. similar

      or the same as described in my earlier sightings with its outer lights on.  This

      light acting as a type of strobe giving it a shimmering or pulsing effect, thus

      hypnotizing me, while taking  the car and myself up into its hull and then up

      into the sky and out of sight for 40 minutes to do whatever they had to do to

      me and then bringing me back to exactly the same spot on the motorway to

      continue my journey.

 

     “I think that U.F.O.’s are using motorways as easy access for abductions and

      now that the American Air-Force has gone its left the gate wide open for them

      to do what they want. Up until 1993 my first sighting where I saw two craft, I

      had never seen anything in 47 years of my life.

 

     “When I arrived home at about 10-35 p.m. my wife was in bed asleep so was

      my youngest son Stephen in his bed asleep. Andrew my eldest son was out

      with friends, Richard my mid son was laying on the settee watching T.V.

      (football) after the news had finished at 10-30 p.m. he was wearing his blue

      towling dressing gown. I hung my jacket up put my work bag down and went

      into the T.V. room to tell him about my incident with the light.  He was

      watching an action replay shot and asked me to be quite until he had seen it. 

      I then told him about this bright light and was bewildered at this time as to

      what it was. He can verify the time I got home about 10-35 p.m..

 

      “At no time do I remember stopping the car during the incident it

      appeared continues. Apart from the problem with the light (U.F.O.).”

 

   The interesting aspects of this account are what Ufologists tend to leave out because we read here what Mr. X was thinking at the time but also it shows that he was not “vague” afterwards. He notes that his wife and one son were asleep and that another was out with friends –he obviously checked this so he was “thinking straight”. He noted that Richard was watching a football replay on TV following the 22:00 hrs news and that he was wearing a blue dressing gown. He had also checked the car and himself for any damage or injuries.  Mr. X even managed to write out a sequence of events for the evening of 15^th February:

 

1)      Clock out 9.30 p.m.

2)      Walk to car park (2 mins)

3)      Drive to M.50 using by-pass (5 min 30 secs)

4)      Entre M. 50 9.40 p.m. approximately

5)      First gap in hedge light on far horizon

6)      Second gap light streaking across valley

7)      I go under first motorway bridge

8)      Craft descends on me

9)      Open window of car and look up at craft

10)  Voice tells me to “Pull over and you can get a better look’

11)  Voice warning “Unsafe. Unsafe” as I go to pull over. Barrier in way

12)  Voice again “Don’t stop now. Keep going. There’s no traffic either side of the motorway keep going”

13)  Drive to slip road and junction B4221 at Gorsley 10.22 p.m.

14)  Drive home to Newent arrive 10.35 p.m.

 

   One morning at 04:00 hrs in 1993, Mr. X had looked across the yard (from where he worked?) and seen the Moon as well as two “flying saucers” although this appears to0 have been just a sighting with no missing time. With regards to the flash-backs of the 1995 incident Mr. X recalled being observed by entities  but also of being in a laying down position in a white room –oddly enough, for no known reason he eventually repainted the interior of the house white.

 

   The remark about the US Air Force no longer present refers to local bases used by them closing down or being used as “stop over” airfields. As I found out in the 1980s in conversations with USAF personnel there their presence had never seemingly been of any concern to “UFOs” locally.

 

   It would be nice to know what the “40 pages” contained especially since it was stated that; “At one point we became very concerned for the “abductees” health and safety, as it seemed he was suffering from post traumatic stress disorder directly as a result of his experience.”

 

   Without the necessary details it is difficult to gauge whether this was incident was a psychological or physical event.  Circular Forum suddenly became defunct and it was impossible to track Cole down though I did come across him on a ghost forum in which the “ghost hunter” Elliott O’Donnell was discussed. I was told Nick Pope had the full report but when I contacted him he was unsure -“I get sent so many things” which sort of ended my attempts to find out more.

 

   Mr X was 50 years of age in 1996 and would now (in 2020) be 74 years of age if still alive. Unless someone has a copy of the full report Cole indicates went to Tony Dodd (deceased), John Mack (deceased) or Nick Pope this is another case we have lost.