Was the mystery radio signal really from Proxima Centauri? UP-DATED

 There seems to be some incredible theorising -some bordering on fantasy- since this news item was leaked. Hopefully, this article by Paul Scott Anderson on Earthsky will make things clearer. See my notes at the end.

Was this mystery radio signal really from Proxima Centauri?

Posted by Paul Scott Anderson in SPACE | December 23, 2020

https://earthsky.org/space/wow-signal-2020-blc1-proxima-centauri

The Parkes radio telescope at Parkes Observatory in New South Wales, Australia. Astronomers using the telescope detected what appeared to be a radio signal coming from the direction of Proxima Centauri in April and May 2019. Image via Daniel John Reardon/ Wikimedia Commons.

Earlier this month, we told you about a possible source for the famous Wow! signal, first detected in 1977. Since its detection, the Wow! signal has been, in the opinion of many scientists engaged with the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI), the best candidate for an alien radio signal yet found. The 1977 Wow! signal was heard only once. It was never fully confirmed and remains unexplained to this day. But now, a new possible signal has been found, dubbed by some as Wow! signal 2020. And guess what? It appears to come from Proxima Centauri, the closest star to our sun.

EarthSky 2021 lunar calendars are available! Order now. Going fast!

The news comes from an apparent leak to The Guardian newspaper, which ran the story on December 17, 2020. What makes this detection unique and rather baffling is that the signal, narrowband and needle-sharp at 982.002 MHz, came from the direction of Proxima, which is so close to us, only about 4 light-years away. Astronomers with Breakthrough Listen first detected the signal on April 29, 2019, using the Parkes radio telescope at Parkes Observatory in Australia, but it was not actually found in the data until late October of this year. Two papers detailing the discovery and the analysis are reportedly due to come out sometime in early 2021.

The astronomers were not named in The Guardian article, so it seemed that the news was leaked by someone to the paper, hence the anonymity. By the next day, December 18, the story had been pretty much verified, although tempered with an abundance of caution. As mentioned in The Guardian:

The latest ‘signal’ is likely to have a mundane explanation too, but the direction of the narrow beam, around 980 MHz, and an apparent shift in its frequency said to be consistent with the movement of a planet have added to the tantalizing nature of the finding. Scientists are now preparing a paper on the beam, named BLC1, for Breakthrough Listen, the project to search for evidence of life in space, The Guardian understands.

As tends to happen, the story spread quickly, with commentary from various astronomers and other scientists about what it might be.

Artist’s concept of Proxima Centauri b, which is about 1.3 times the mass of Earth and orbits within the star’s habitable zone where liquid water could exist. Could the signal actually be from this planet? Maybe, but some features of the signal don’t seem to fit that scenario. Image via ESO/ M. Kornmesser/ Phys.org.

A follow-up article in Scientific American by Jonathan O’Callaghan and Lee Billings on December 18 has provided some additional details. Andrew Siemion at the University of California, Berkeley and director of the Berkeley SETI Research Center, is quoted as saying:

It has some particular properties that caused it to pass many of our checks, and we cannot yet explain it. We don’t know of any natural way to compress electromagnetic energy into a single bin in frequency. For the moment, the only source that we know of is technological.

There is also another good article at National Geographic by Nadia Drake.

The signal has the characteristics of being artificial, so then the question becomes “is it ours?” Many potential candidate signals are found, but the vast majority are soon found to be explained by terrestrial sources, satellites in space, errors, etc. As Jason Wright at Penn State University told Scientific American:

If you see such a signal and it’s not coming from the surface of Earth, you know you have detected extraterrestrial technology. Unfortunately, humans have launched a lot of extraterrestrial technology.

Sofia Sheikh at Penn State University, who headed the subsequent analysis for Breakthrough Listen and is the lead author on the upcoming paper, told National Geographic:

Only human technology seems to produce signals like that. Our WiFi, our cell towers, our GPS, our satellite radio, all of this looks exactly like the signals that we’re searching for, which makes it very hard to tell if something is from space or from human-generated technology.

A candidate signal must go through a series of screening filters before it can be seriously treated as a true potentially alien signal. This one has, so far, according to Sheikh:

It’s the most exciting signal that we’ve found in the Breakthrough Listen project, because we haven’t had a signal jump through this many of our filters before.

The famous “Wow! signal” detected by the Big Ear radio telescope at Ohio State University on August 15, 1977. Image via Big Ear Radio Observatory/ North American AstroPhysical Observatory (NAAPO)/ Wikipedia.

The candidate signal is now being referred to as Breakthrough Listen Candidate 1, or BLC1.

The detection was made as part of an overall study of Proxima Centauri by Breakthrough Listen. It was first noticed in the data by intern Shane Smith in late October this year as the data from 2019 was being re-analyzed, which is why no alert was sent out to other observatories back in 2019, as some people have questioned (that being normal SETI protocol). The signal was very narrow, 982.002 MHz to be exact. It was seen in five of the 30-minute long observations by the Parkes telescope, over a 30-hour period.

Given past history, it is most likely that a terrestrial human-made cause will be found, but the scientists involved are continuing to study it with much interest, and so far, they haven’t been able to identify the culprit.

Another point to note is that the signal apparently came from the direction of Proxima Centauri, but it’s not a slam-dunk that the star really is the source. It could also have been a source within the 16-arcminute (1/60 of a degree) beamwidth of the telescope that happened to be near Proxima Centauri in the sky from our vantage point. It also appears to a simple signal, with no modulation, just a single tone. As Siemion said:

BLC1 is, for all intents and purposes, just a tone, just one note. It has absolutely no additional features that we can discern at this point.

The signal does drift, as might be expected for a signal from an orbiting planet, but it is in the opposite direction of what would normally be expected. Sheikh said:

We would expect the signal to be going down in frequency like a trombone. What we see instead is like a slide whistle, the frequency goes up.

What all of this means exactly isn’t clear yet. Wright has made some interesting observations on Twitter, however:

So far, the signal hasn’t been seen again, just like with the Wow! signal in 1977. Another detection would help scientists determine just where it actually came from. As noted by Wright above, it’s possible that the signal didn’t come from Proxima Centauri at all, but rather another source that happened to be close to the star in the sky at the time, within the beamwidth of the telescope. The fact that it “reappeared” five times during the 30-minute observation windows, over a period of three hours, is interesting. That means when the telescope was briefly pointed away from the star, the signal disappeared, but came back when the telescope was looking at the star again, five times in all. That’s a seemingly good indication the signal did come from space, but more work is needed to see if it could have been an earthly satellite.

Proxima Centauri is the closest star to the sun, only 4.2 light-years away, and is a red dwarf with at least two known planets. One of those planets, Proxima Centauri b, is just a bit larger than Earth, and orbits within the habitable zone of the star, the region where temperatures could allow liquid water to exist. The other planet, Proxima Centauri c, is about seven times more massive than our Earth.

But little else is known about these worlds so far, and the star itself is very volatile, emitting powerful flares of ionizing radiation. Proxima Centauri b in particular is subject to this radiation, even though it is in the habitable zone, so whether it is actually potentially habitable is far from certain at this point.

Sofia Sheikh at Penn State University, who headed the analysis for Breakthrough Listen and is the lead author on the upcoming paper. Image via Penn State University.

Also, what are the odds that another technological civilization would be located at the very nearest star to us? With so many billions of stars in our galaxy? The odds seem very much against it, but all we can do is follow the data and evidence as we learn it. The signal seemingly must either be from Proxima Centauri, another unrelated source within the beamwidth of the telescope, or from terrestrial interference. Past experience suggests the third option, but there is still a lot more analysis to be done.

Stay tuned for updates on this intriguing discovery. If nothing else, BLC1 has given us a fascinating new mystery to try and solve!

-------------------------------------------------fin------------------------------------------

Some Ufologists and "other types" are stating that the signal came FROM Proxima Centauri but it did not. It came from a wide arc of space around the star and that is a vast amount of space. I'll give you a practical example.  

While I was in Junior School, coming up to 11 years old, I was in the playground and decided to get my own back on Chris who had outrageously snow-balled me earlier.  So, there he was directly ahead of me. I made a snowball and threw it....it passed Chris and hit a teacher who looked around with a less than happy face. Teacher knew which direction the snowball had come from but there were at least 7 other pupils -including Chris. Unless someone put their hand up and shouted "That was me!" (riiight) the teacher had no idea who threw it.

This BLC1 is the same thing. It came (seemingly) from the direction of Proxima Centauri which is the "Chris" in the respect. How far a saignal travelled and for how long is what the team needs to calculate if this is a genuine signal. I hope it is because that means a great deal. Unlikely that BLC1 is from any civilization that might be responsible for UFO incidents (logically, it is pointless signalling out into space and a specific (IF it was aimed at Earth -we may have just got in the way) target if you are already there unless the signal was being sent to a Lurker (see the new book it explains what Lurkers are).

We are dealing with cautious astronomers here who need facts before announcing anything and if it was not a signal we'll hear all the usual conspiracy and cover up crap for years.  Some SETI astronomers need to be removed from their jobs -such as Mr Shostok who seems near to wetting his pants in fear at the possibility of intelligent life in space (I think he just wanted an easy job paying good money with free meal tickets). 

EVERY possibility has to be ruled out until someone can say "It WAS a signal" -at which point the Shostoks can jump in to scream "No!" and get all the media attention they like (it means more money and free dinners).

Closest Stars to Sol System

 

Is It Really 02:00 hrs....and...what day is it?? (not kidding)

Updating and re-arranging files can be messy but a few new labels should sort this out.  Oh, below that bottom row of Historical files there are more UFO related files.

But now work stops at 02:00 hrs as nothing more can be printed off. :-(

 

Just an Update

 Updated a few of the United States entries in the files but here is the problem and why it needs funding top carry out this type of archiving.

Yesterday afternoon I got a high yield black and colour ink cartridge. On the lowest ink use setting..I ran out about 1400 hrs today.

Plastic sheet protectors for all the pages...I used 700 since last November. Now I need to buy more.

Printing paper...oh please...500 sheets per ream and it soon starts running out.

Digital ha a lot of problems. Firstly, I don't think I am going to live long enough to scan and transfer 1975-2018 to digital.  I have put new material onto USBs but even the higher priced USB sticks that are supposed to be better quality pop up occasional messages such as..."File Corrupted. Contents cannot be read" and a web site? Remember I built up four web pages (on other subjects) since 1999 and each wa suddenly shut down because Yahoo, Google etc decided they6 no longer want to host this type of thing. No money in it for them. Digital and the internet are NOT the archivists friend.

Paper archives -apart from a fire (but my stuff has easy access to "throw out a window")- are safe. Bulkly but safe and can be handed on to whoever when I croak.

So I have to decide: continue archiving or eat....I'm kind of fond of eating.

Just an update.

Quick Update

It is 00:05 hr and I've just had to stop updating the UK files. The whole idea is to build up a hard copy file and that, unfortunately, takes a lot of work but also printer cartridges! This is why funding is really needed because printer ink is expenive in the UK at £26 a cartridge.

The other news is that I have archived the Face Book CE3K/AE page because all of the work and 'members' and only 1 person was viewing each post. Pity.

 

Where Are They?

 I mentioned the Isle of Sheppey "Space Ape" yesterday and it is significant fot two reasons. I'll ignore how BUFORA screwed up in a big way.

Firstly, there was not just the entity seen by a number of motorists but there were also reports of a large, oval shaped UFO in the area. Already we have what should be classed as a high quality multi-witness UFO/CE3K incident. I spoke to the local RAF station and asked whether they had received any UFO reports on the date in question. I never try to "be crafty" or anything else other than open and asking a straight forward question. The MoD and RAF have in the past been very helpful and open. I opened up the letter on Station note paper and read that not only had the station re4ceived UFO reports but that radar had also det4ected a UFO over the area where the reports said it was.

Score! 10 out of 10 -a seemingly solid case. I sent a file to BUFORA and the letter and report was put in with other files at UFO International's make-shift headquarters. When I got back I intended to do more work on the case but after two years of non-stop UFO investigations I was off on holiday to Germany (and on the 2nd day became embroiled in a UFO mystery).

Once I got back to thye UK I found that Peter Tate had been playing his games and I was told straight to my face that the Sheppey file had been burnt because "We don't want that sort of nonsense!" (A CE3K). My vocal explosion involved a lot of expletives and I left 'HQ' and once home phonmed BUFORA and asked whether they could send me a copy of the file (after explaining what had happened). Once again I was told "Oh, it might be lost in amongst the files at headquarters" (AGAIN?!). A week later I was told that the report (15pp) "can't be found".

I quit working with group and Ufologists and concentrated solely on the AOP Bureau work. Two CE3K reports had been deliberately and unashamedly burnt by Tate and now two lots of documents had been lost by BUFORA. From that point on any new reports I dealt with asap and I kept a copy and origi9nal and the Ministry of Defence got a copy.

I may discuss the Sheppey case in more detail at a later date but there is a point to be made here; in the UK (and elsewhere) CE3K/AE reports were discarded or destroyed for any reason that could be thought up -often the Ufologist simply state4d "it was rubbish" and that was it.

Norman Oliver in the UK had an interest in these reports and in the US there was Ted Bloecher and both have long since retired. There must be others out there who have investigated and studied these reports so.....whare are they?

CE3K-AE Study -Not Done By Half

 

I was asked whether my four books (deep breath...UFO Contact? Looking at the Evidence for Alien Visitation...Unidentified - Identified: UFO Crashes & Alien Entity Encounters...Contact! Encounters With Extra Terrestrial Entities? and (I really should have gone for shorter, snappier titles!) Beyond UFO Contact: Aliens from Mind, Space and Time) was everything covered now -when it comes to CE3K/AE cases.

Not even by close. The quartet of books re-assesed cases, looked at theories and some explanations which should really prepare any one reading them for a life time of studying these reports.

The AOP Journal has featured some reports but I am looking at three shelves holding reports -some crammed full, The UK alone has 12 folder plu a large "Guide To" covering historical -2020.  The United States has five folders and that is excluding "The Greys" reports. I can't even count how many reports there are.

For the UK there is the ongoing investigation to find out just what was going on in and around Buckfastleigh, Devon in 1978 and trying to get percipients/observers to come forward.  Also, the "Sheppey Space Ape" case that I investigated -this included an RAF radar "uknown" at the same time, same area.

There is a great deal of work nd material never seen but without slaes of books or backing it is all going to be very slow to emerge if at all.

So, no. Not done by half.

Iron Acton and Merehead Quarry -Two UFO Landings

 Although I could not, personally, accept the following reports as evidence I feel that there needs to be some record of them.

During late 1976 I was up to my eye balls in a wave of UFO sightings in and around the city of Bristol and these I mainly had to look into myself (the reasons for this are explained in Beyond UFO Contact as well as the AOP Journal no. 5).  When I hea\rd of thgis report I wanted to investigate  and I wish I had waited before letting someone else do so.

(1) Iron Acton Landing

Late night/early morning of the 10th August, 1976, Mr E was on his way home at Iron Action, near Bristol, when he saw a reddish-yellow light on the ground.  The object was large and Mr E stopped to get a better look which is when he saw "something" get out of the object and begin to walk around it. That was enough for the witness who then ran home apparently terrified by what he saw. That was it.

I know that the term "something" was used because whatever he had seen was not a humanoid. The word had gotten around and there was some mild ribbing going on. My mistake was in accepting the offer of Peter Tate to talk to the man as he would be working in the area concerned. A few days later I asked how he had gotten on and was told "The man' a UFO nutter saw space monsters. I dumped the report!" 

This was one of the few occasions on which it can be said that I verbally exploded. The initial report and witness address had been burnt because the witness "saw aliens". I did ask Graham Knewstub at the British Flying Saucer Bureau whether he could try contacting the witness (I had forwarded all the details earlier) because he was a smooth talker. In fact, Graham passed the report to someone else who did the worst job possible.

I did learn that Tate had visited the witness dressed completely in black so that Mr E could tell people quite rightly that thje Man In Black had visited him. I have no idea what Tate said to the man but it seems that he also put the word around locally (quite 'innocently' of course) and being mocked Mr E went quiet.

Make no excuses; this was a deliberate act by Tate to stop an investigation before it started. Other things he had gotten up to under the guise of the Aerial Phenomena Enquiry Network (APEN -he was one of a number of "respectable" British Ufologists involved in this scare group and som even made themselves 'victims').

(2) Merehead Quarry, Somerset -another landing?

Now known as Torr Works quarry, it is a limestone quarry at East Cranmore, near Shepton Mallet on the Medip Hills, Somerset.  The quarry was formerly known as Merehead, a name which has been retained for its rail depot on the opposite side of the A362 road.

At the time of this series of report the quarry was the largest quarry in Europe (apparently it could be seen from space) and had been used for TV series uch as Dr Who.

During the summer of 1976 there was a mini-flap of peculiar lights in the quarry that had caused some losses of power in equipment and one small object had laqnded temporarily atop a 100 ft (30m) high conveyor belt and I, as "the expert", had to climb up to and check for damage. The 10-15 workers who watched were not concerned about my vertigo (mainly because I never told them about it and my fellow investigator told everyone loudly that he was not "climbing up there!"

During this wave of sightings a small orange ball of light had hovered near a fork lift truck which began to move by itself. This seemed as though UNP (unscientifically investigated light phenomenon) was involved except in one case. 

One night a worker had been going about his business  when he observed a large sphere of lighty land. As he watched something -"possibly humanoid"- gopt out of the sphere  and, as at Iron Acton, it began to walk around the object before re-entering it.  The sphere then took off.  His work mates made fun of him -until some of them had sightings of lights. 

Unfortunately, on the day I got there the workers were polite but not that helpful. The local BBC regional news programme had sent a reporter, Graham Purchase, to cover the story and it was the usual over the top 'joke piece' that created ridicule.  I was given some information and I think I identified which one of the workers had seen the landing but, no, they were not going to cooperate (the quarry owners had stepped in and warned about bad publicity and just how 'secure' jobs were).

As I left I asked the workers what they would tell Purchase if he stopped by again.  The response got a nod from all concerned; "We'd tell him its a long drop over the quarry cliff!"

The Iron Acton case was lost and it showed me why any such future reports I would deal with and never allocate to someone else.  The Merehead case had shown why it is important to speak to witnesses before word leaks out and the press/media gets involved.

Decades later I still regret losing both of these reports.

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.