Well Worth A Visit For Research or Otherwise: The British UFO Learning Centre

 

Notes on Pascagoula Alien Abduction Case: Exclusive Unseen Video Unveiled | Unexp...

When I posted here that I mainly considered evidence from the time of this event and that Budd Hopkins was a totally discredited person and that I would not accept anything from one of his hypnotic sessions, particularly that did not gel with what we knew and which sparked 'new' memories Philip Mantle came onto the blog and aggressively challenged me.

https://aeceiiikp.blogspot.com/2018/09/pascagoula-and-budd-hopkins.html

 Now remember that I have said that the Pascagoula case is as solid as it gets (but still not proof of aliens) I was surprised by the fact that Mantle was so aggressive. He even questioned my "insulting remarks" about Hopkins which showed that he was very unaware of what was going on within Ufology and abduction 'research' But ever being the diplomat I advised that he watch the videos by Carol Rainey (Hopkins ex wife) and look at specific threads online. 

I was overly polite and suggested that he send me anything new for the archives and I was willing to chat with him to clear things up. Nothing. He deleted his comment a day later. 

I had no idea he was writing a book so he obviously saw my remarks as a threat to sales whereas with thousands of views a week it might have helped sales! 

Really I can see no reason why British Ufologists act this way. If a genuine incident took place that is not private property for one person to keep and never let anyone else know. I have been involved with UFOs since 1974. From 1977-2015 (and occasionally since) I was a UK police forces exotic animals expert consultant. In 50 years I have never given out a name or confidential information (which would have made me a lot of money if I had) even when witnesses have gone public themselves. I have a very strict code of practice.

I always get suspicious when people start getting overly defensive and are not willing to share research data -sharing data is what researchers do and I have in the past (though I was ripped off by four very well known UK Ufologists who decided they had my data but then could not share theirs with me). Despite what a couple people wrote on a UFO chat site (no idea which and I don't care about these sites) I have nothing against Mantle. He seems a nice enough person.

UFOs -funny old business

61-yr-old woman saw a landed UFO with occupants, experienced missing tim...

Two British experiencers and John E. Mack talk about the alien abduction...

“The Repton Shrubs Encounter and More” | Paranormal Stories My Notes on the Repton Report

The Repton Woods incident I looked into and even chatted with Omar (I knew him since the 1970s) about it. The report was anonymous and the alleged witness was not contactable.

Was it a hoax report? Possibly.

Can the creature be explained? Yes. a fox on its hind legs -ready to pounce on prey?- and with a wet back giving it the odd look. Omar said he had an open mind but to me this was either a hoax or misidentification. Appeals for the witness to come forward never received a response.

Are there good "solid" cases ?

 I have written four books solely dealing with the much ignored aspect of UFOs -Close Encounters of the Third Kind and alien Entity encounters - UFO Contact? Looking at the Evidence for Alien Visitation, Unidentified - Identified: UFO Crashes & Alien Entity Encounters, Contact! Encounters With Extra Terrestrial Entities? and Beyond UFO Contact -Aliens from Mind, Time and Space.  My previous three books Some Things Strange and Sinister and Some More Things Strange and Sinister and Pursuing The Strange & Weird -A Naturalist's Viewpoint also included chapters on such cases.

To add to this I published five issues of The Anomalous Observational Phenomena (AOP) Journal and these dealt with little known or some original cases of CE3K/AE. By all accounts, if I go by feedback from people who have read them, they were "groundbreaking" and "a fresh breath of air sorting fact from fiction" and so on and so forth (I'll not use any more quotes as that would be rather egotistical).

Each book is thoroughly researched and sources are fully listed and images -sketches, photos, maps etc- are ones most people have not seen before or were considered "no longer existing" or "lost" and the clue here as to how I found them is that I carry out research -original research and do not cut and paste like most modern authors. 

So, with an estimated (by someone who looked through all my social media to get post view stats etc) 1 million views of posts on the books why are they not selling? Yes, people today do not read and get most of their fake 'facts' from the internet (where bloggers happily use my clearly copyrighted illustrations without credit) and You Tube. Even up to the mid 1990s before the internet really kicked in books like these as well as, say, John Hanson's Haunted Skies UFO history books (very unique) would have sold like  crazy. Not any more it seems.

One problem may be that certain factions in Ufology have painted me as a debunker and some even state buying my books would be a waste of money. These comments come from people I can 100% guarantee have only ever seen the cover of one of my books online and I know (I am the seller after all) that they have never purchased a copy of any of the books or AOP Journals. What is going on?

Firstly, these people have a vested interest in putting down other authors because they want people to keep buying their books.  Secondly, in Ufology you either "believe" in UFOs or "Disbelieve" and that is certainly not scientific principles at work. It is a case of looking at the case reports then looking at the debunkers then pro supporters of cases and I made no secret of the fact that with UFO Contact? I decided that once and for all I would totally destroy/explain away CE3K events and then I could retire after decades of studying that aspect -comi9ng up to 50 years now that should give a clue here as to what happened.

I took a world-wide look at cases since this is a world-wide phenomenon and not just confined to the United States! I decided to go through my archives and re-assess reports. I found that I could grade them by various criteria such as single witness, single witness with third party back-up, multiple witnesses and multiple witnesses with back up independent testimony. Then there were other aspects that required more evidence such as physical traces -not necessarily a guarantee that a UFO seen was a "craft" but based on the percipients' there would seem to be no other explanation. 

I have noted this before but if a single witness claims an encounter with a UFO and entities it can be explained away (and the people involved are NOT mad). But if you have a single percipient in the countryside who has a "brief" encounter but that is unknown to people witnessing a "UFO" shooting off from that encounter area then that is secondary back up. If the percipient is found by someone and has collapsed and suffers "mental shock" and physiological after effects then you have to explain all of this away.

Now, say you have three people in a car driving along a rural road at night after a pleasant evening out and they are suddenly chased by a "UFO"; they lose time and afterwards exhibit mild radiation poisoning, post traumatic stress and much more how do you exp-lain that? If someone (or several persons)  unconnected with those three people report UFOs over the area and even spotting a car (that of the percipients and before the case was even known about)  being chased by a UFO how do you explain that all away?

People do not take casual walks in the countryside or through forests and end up with amnesia, eye damage and radiation sickness -and when the nearest nuclear facility (if there is one in the country itself) is hundreds of miles away how do you explain it away?

There are cases that can be explained away and that can be done without resorting to claims by debunkers who fake things as much as Ufologists do. I did check the debunking claims in some cases and one after another they fell apart when it was proven that facts had been twisted, omitted or fake aspects added. 

Here is the thing that people do not like. You HAVE to either say "aliens!" or jump into the camp of fakers like Jacques Vallee and his followers and claim interdimensional or fairy folk origins. They use a non fact -dimensions and the multiverse have not been scientifically proven so are convenient to use as people assume they have been proven. Or you can claim "It's all bunk!" 

I have been asked about my opinion on the origin of the seemingly constructed craft? Well, as an historian I know that nothing like them was built by humans and certainly not in the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s or later. 

So they are alien, right? Here's where I annoy people. Even with all of the physical evidence and testimony  that cannot be said. Percipient testimony as well as that by others is "anecdotal evidence" (in the past in criminal cases that caused more than a few people to be wrongly imprisoned or executed). Physical traces and radiation sickness etc cannot be explained away but it is still not proof of alien visitation. I have to remain open minded and study the facts and investigate so whatever I may think or feel has no relevance: I present the facts and if a case passes all of the checks and investigations then it has a high credibility rating but each reader has to decide for themselves and it is not my place to tell anyone what to think.

This is a world-wide phenomenon and I think that I have satisfactorily shown that so called "UFO waves" are anything but -they consist of natural phenomena, misidentifications, genuine unknows and more -Ufology has failed to investigate 97% of UFO reports or CE3K reports since 1947 and personal biases affect those they do investigate.

So which of the "classic" cases passed the checks? Are there good "solid" cases from outside the United States? Well, the answer to the second question is definitely "yes there are". The answer to the first question: buy the book(s) and see -before they are withdrawn in 2024 and will only be found in archives after that.

It all depends whether you think independently to form your own opinion based on evidence. Never listen to rumours from people who have never read the books they criticise!    

How Early Could Life Have Appeared In The Universe? Some Thoughts

Above the old USA CE3K/AE file before it was added to and divided into decades.

We see the problem in this short documentary and its various pros and cons regarding extraterrestrial life and the search for it. At not one point is the term "UFOs" used. Now it took me a few days back in 1980 to divide many hundreds of UFO reports into categories:

1) Insufficient information, hoaxes, misidentifications etc

2) Highly probable Unexplained (by Science) Natural Phenomena -UNP

3) Clearly described and seemingly constructed craft.

Ignoring 1 and 2 I concentrated on 3 and began excluding single witness accounts that had no back up from secondary witnesses, etc..  It took a lot of reading, digging into archives and it left me realising that that far from there being "Thousands of reports every year from credible witnesses" and "Many thousands of reports that have remained unexplained after thorough investigation" there were not. There were very few really thoroughly investigated UFO cases and the main ones were those investigated by the French authorities. I also know that the British RAF as well as the Royal Australian Air Force and New Zealand Royal Air Force carried out investigations into reports and even CE3K reports -those accounts have never been released and t5he 1950s Flying saucer Investigation omitted or 'forgot' to comment on these. Those files are somewhere but are never going to be accessed via the National Archives.

Investigators tried and failed to "solve" encounter cases but at every step they failed. Eventually, some superiors -we can speculate why for a long time but it has to be realised that while some at the Air Ministry/War Department/Ministry of Defence thought UFOs were real many did not and thought investigation of reports was frivolous- even resorted to suggesting in some cases the officers involved  were "not up to scratch" for one reason or another.  This type of attitude from superiors usually stopped investigations as the military had a chain of command and you obeyed or ended up cleaning toilets on Thule.

The RAF had its officers visiting the USAF take documents back and forth -case reports and questions on various aspects of the UFOs or flying saucers. Even the former head of USAF Project Blue Book, Captain Edward J. Ruppelt,  referred to this in his book The Report On Unidentified Flying Objects.

The big problem was that the flying saucer saga began at the outset of the Cold War and while countries behind the Iron Curtain often suggested or stated outright that the saucers were their new weapon/aircraft we know "on the quiet" that Western countries (mainly the United states) found it convenient to let "the opposition" think the saucers were theirs -they having gotten the ex-Nazi scientists who developed 6the "foo-fighters" of WW II. At this point the military interest in "defence of the (whichever) country" took over and despite what some people think they kept tabs of flying saucers. And the military interest meant that the intelligence community also moved in.

We know scientists -astronomers, physicists, etc were contracted to study reports and look for anything that could lead to a breakthrough. These scientists had "patriotism" thrown at them as well as the odd career ending threat ; being labelled a "Communist" just required someone claiming that and if that threat did not work the threat to expose or create a lie that someone was homosexual definitely worked. Some Ufologists were willing to take 'gossip' from the USAF that a witness was suspected of being "a homosexual" or "fond of young boys" and actually spread the rumour. 

The Ufologists failed dismally to actually seriously study flying saucers. There were scientists of repute with an interest and even their own sightings and using such people would have set Ufology on the right track.  Instead it seemed to attract more attention and therefore members and membership subscriptions as well as book sales to accuse the US Army Air Force/US Air Force of a cover-up and this is where things went wrong. In the UK there was no flying saucer group until 1952 but those investigating sightings freely communicated with the authorities and there was a much more relaxed cooperation. When groups formed the immediate priority was to increase membership. How could that be done? How did they manage in the United States -claiming cover-ups and accusing the authorities and Air force of anything possible and when they accepted the patently false claims of alleged flying saucer contactees things only got worse because those space brothers revealed that they had been in contact with world governments. 

COVER UP!!!

You keep calling someone a liar when they are telling you the truth they eventually decide to stop talking to you and be so open. It happened in the United States although the minds deciding things there were thinking military adversary and so on. In the UK there was still some open talking to the Air Ministry and RAF but those in charge simply saw it as "bad form" and "not the done thing" to attack and criticise them when they had been as open as they could be. 

Professional scientists were encouraged in various ways to not accept that some reports were unexplainable -there were even well placed senior scientists who had their own sightings who put pressure on subordinates and even scientific journals to mock the subject or be quiet "or else" and in a very conservative world where being seen as a "good boy" got you the grants and work ...people kept quiet though some bravely did not. The history is there if you look for it.

It is an unpopular statement to make because there is so much money and scamming going on based on lies, however, the various militaries and governments are non the wiser on UFO origins than we are. They may have a little more data but that is it. They still think potential terrestrial adversary and intelligence work. It is almost amusing that Ufologists want case reports released when they, supposedly, have gathered "hundreds of thousands of fully investigated" reports of their own since 1947.  Ask a UFO group to release its reports and you will find that it suddenly takes more man power than they have and a lot of time to edit out witness date and various other excuses -but they will challenge officialdom if it states the same reasons for non release of reports. Of course, if you are Robert Bigelow then you can slip MUFON and certain abduction researchers a few grand and all the concerns about witness confidentiality are out the window.

Basically, Ufologists and the military were at logger heads; both want to (I suppose Ufologists want to) get to the bottom of the v"UFO mystery" but time-after-time Ufologists fake, lie and twist the truth to get celebrity status and the lucrative book and TV as well as conference cheques. And some Ufologists take money from intelligence agents in the US to spy on fellow Ufologists as well as outright lie to the UFO 'community'. 

Scientists do not like getting mixed up in this kind of thing. They want the data to study and research and if they can draw conclusions on. Claims of all UFOs being ball lightning, swamp gas, temperature inversions etc are not scientific conclusions as it is all generalisation almost like stating as scientific fact that "all chickens are white".  If a scientist looks into a report or series of reports and draws a conclusion based on data and known facts then that is acceptable. Not all UFOs are unexplained and there are alleged "veteran Ufologists" who are even aware of what parhelia is and even ball lightning and other natural phenomena are unknown to them. 

Scientists looking at case reports have found many to be  unexplainable. It has to be made clear that this means unexplainable based on current scientific knowledge -one day they might be easily explainable which would be good because that would leave the raw data of seemingly constructed craft and, dare I write it -entity encounters.

As an historian I also look at military history and aircraft/flight development is one aspect of this research. Back in 1980 I prepared a document looking at early balloon, airship and even experimental aircraft before 1900 and followed through on the development of not just rocketry but also the first jet aircraft.  There was nothing developed by Western or Eastern powers that matched objects described in flying saucer reports -anything described as multi-coloured or big bright light we can dismiss since that may or will probably fall under UNP (such as foo-fighters).  

Look at the stealth aircraft that were revealed after decades of secrecy and we can intelligently guess what is currently under development and testing. There are no known (or under development) aircraft manufactured on Earth in 2023 that come anywhere near the capabilities demonstrated by UFOs. 

The french space agency does investigate certain UFO reports from its territory and certain people at the European Space Agency are also interested in UFO reports. Ufology and the military are not going to give any answers as they are entrenched in the endless cycle of lies, deceit and arguing with one another. Science is where we should be looking.

I have not the slightest interest in what Dr Brian Cox in his ignorant and ego centric ranting has to say about UFO sightings. To my knowledge he has never investigated a report nor study the data. That makes his opinion his own and based on ignorance. On the other hand scientists such as Michio Kaku have looked at reports and make their conclusions (even theoretical) based on data.  Someone ought to explain "science" to Cox.

So why is it that documentaries like this do not refer to the UFO reports or what respected scientists have to say since it could (quite reasonably) indicate extraterrestrial visitation? Even Carl Sagan stated that, maybe, in the distant past Earth was visited by alien travellers. Sagan was another scientist who took a stance on the subject (people really need to study what the late physicist Stanton T. Friedman had to say about Sagan and UFOs ).

The main principle of scientific discovery when it comes to evidence is "chuck the body on the slab and we'll examine it and if it exists we'll say so".  Scientists want those pieces of solid evidence and that is why people like Vallee, etc. keep referring to pieces of metal from a crashed UFO they have in their possession (wanting to raise huge amounts to have the metal analysed when it can be analysed within a few hours and any certified scientific establishment would jump at the chance to carry out such analysis -if it were alien material they would go down as an institution and whoever carried out the analysis in the history books. Instead we have no material submitted for analysis except for Earthly alloys.

 How would a scientist explain multiple witnesses to a strange light seen on a quiet country road and above a car or that the three people in the car lost time, suffered mild radiation contamination, PTSD and much more -and had no recall of what had happened? Swamp gas? Hardly. Ball lightning. No. So what? These are the cases and questions that scientists need to look at and that is supposedly their function as scientists -to seek, study, discover and report.

 The fictitious Physical Trace Evidence catalogue of Ted Phillips or the often hoax filled Landing Report catalogue of Jacques Vallee carry no weight. Claims carry no weight unless there is anecdotal or physical evidence to back them up. If their is no possibility of a lie or hoax and there is more than one witness/percipient then that is anecdotal evidence. If there are physiological and psychological effects then that is anecdotal evidence. It does not prove extraterrestrial visitation but but it could be suggestive of it. 

Only by studying every aspect of reports can any hypothesis be formed even if that is "unknown" because the question then is does that "Unknown" mean that it could be indicative of extraterrestrial visitation and if not why not?

Also, scientists do not like giving their time for free. The big mistake that people such as Robert Bigelow made was that he hired the wrong people. He should have gathered as much data in the form of reports and contracted physicists to look at that evidence, ask questions and if necessary carry out follow up checks. 

Documentary makers also want to keep in Science good books unless their intention is to create deliberately sensationalist TV shows. In the end Science has failed to do what it is supposed to do: study the data without any prejudice or personal prejudices and report on their conclusions and put those conclusions out for peer review/debate.

Haunted Skies and The UFO Learning Centre

 

Travis Walton Abduction, 1975

Rare recording of abductees Betty & Barney Hill questioned by Carl Sagan...