Pontejos Santander Spain -6th January, 1969

I have the following notes and images on this incident and they were sent to me by someone many years ago but with no source.  If anyone can give me details of sources in Spanish and English I would appreciate it as I do not usually like un-referenced reports.

Thanks

At around 21:15 hrs Maren Merino was working in the kitchen of a small café owned by her family when she looked out the kitchen window and sees an intensely bright light but did not think anything of it.

Above: location of the incident

Maren continued with her work until her 25 years old daughter, Felicidad Fernandez Merino,  entered the kitchen and also looked out of the window and observing the light, asked her mother about it.  Her mother continued to ignore the light but Felicidad, thinking that it was something abnormal,  yells out to two other women, including a woman called Paquita. 

All three women then open the window and observe an incredible scene, on a field about 30 meters in distance, hovering about 3 meters from the ground they see a luminous square of four to five meters wide, intensely illuminated with a light of orange-white color. Inside the luminous square they see the silhouette of man walking about. Suddenly from the right another similar figure appears and walks towards the left side of the luminous square.

Above: Witness(?) sketch of the object and entities.

 Then from the opposite end of the square three more figures appear, thus making a total of five figures within the luminous square. By now the witnesses are totally fascinated and my source states that they shouted out to the figures. The women  were then joined by another witness; 35-year old Antonio. After watching what was going on Antonio told the women he was going to go outside the get a better look and at this moment the craft disappears from sight. 

Above: an artist's rendering of the scene

According to the observers the movements of the figures was somehow mechanical with arms straight down at their sides without any apparent joint movement. The entities were tall and very well built with normal features, chestnut-color hair and light skin. They wore dark or black, very tight-fitting coveralls with sleeves and turtlenecks. The observation lasted for about 5 minutes. Suddenly  a small shiny sphere descended from the middle of the air falling to the soil in a curvilinear trajectory and the  UFO also became visible again and clearly displaying the shiny square section and the sections of the object that had remained invisible to the witnesses thus far.   The object was an ash-silver colour, lightly fluorescent and half spherical dome shape. The object then ascended slowly and disappeared very quickly leaving behind a brilliant greenish trail that remained visible for about 15 minutes after the object left.

The case was investigated by Professor Manuel Pedrajo.

Some emphasis has been put on the object "vanishing" when Antonio said t5hat he was going to go outside.  Quite honestly there is no reason to believe that the entities "sensed" this and it seems far more likely to be just coincidental.  The sphere dropping to the ground seems to be the part that makes no sense. Are they saying that another object left the first and landed?   There seems to be very little online in English.

 In Spanish I have found Juan Carlos Victorio's Mysteries of The Air blog and  The Pontejos Incident (Cantabria) from  9th February, 2009 which seems to dismiss the sighting as being an observation of the Moon with cloud cover. Which is almost a stretch but the illustration of the entity from one source is dismissed as being a typical Adamski-like Venusian but with short hair but again this seems a stretch to explain the observation as  a hoax or "seeing what they were not seeing" and to back this up a link is provided to a BBC post on witness memory problems. The Moon and bad observations. 

https://misteriosdelaire.blogspot.com/2009/02/el-incidente-de-pontejos-cantabria.html

It is also worth pointing out that the witness drawings of the object are said to be similar to another report and I will quote:

"The Santander group CIOVE published an article, The Observation of Pontejos (Santander), in its newsletter Tiempo y Espacio (year 1, no. 1, Nov-Dec. 1970), based on the research carried out by Manuel Pedrajo and Gonzalo Sanz Polidura. In the aforementioned work they show a drawing of the type of humanoid observed, clear influence of the Adamskian extraterrestrial (with short hair), and another of the UFO where the resemblance to the “flying saucer” of Lago Argentino (March 18, 1950 , possibly to journalistic fraud) is evident."

Above an illustration of one of the entities which might be embellished by memory

Well, "possihly" a journalistic hoax is often used to dismiss a report and I would have to ask for the evidence of a journalistic hoax?  Although I believe Adamski was a damned good conman followed by a lot of gullible people (even to this very day) the dismissal of the entity description is pushing it at best since Adamski's "space brothers" did not move mechanically.  The fact that Vicente-Juan Ballester Olmos only managed to track down and speak to Felicidad is also no reason to dismiss the account.  Neither is the current position of a window in the developed building.

Did the Mysteries of the Air blog add any details to the report? No. It reproduces two pages from a book but these are not readable or saveable to try to translate. More effort is put into dismissing the report than giving details of it.  Does this mean that the blogger is calling into question Prof. Manuel Pedrajo's investigation?  Certainly Spain has had its fair share of Ufologists hoaxing other Ufologists not to mention attacking other Ufologists credibility (to be fair this happens everywhere in what is largely an undisciplined and often unethical field).

It is an interesting report worth noting but far more is needed to be able to categorise it as a Low, Medium or High Credibility report.

Are We Going to Let All of the Information Fade Away: Or Are We Going To Do Something About It?

 originally published in 2018 on the AOP Blog

I would like to offer this page from Patrick Gross' Ufologie page.  It shows the results for an incident during the 1954 "French UFO flap" -which may not have been a flap at all (see Unidentified-Identified):

The 1954 French flap:

The index page for the 1954 French flap section of this site is here.

October 3, 1954, Marcoing, Nord:

Reference number for this case: 3-oct-54-Marcoing. Thank you for including this reference number in any correspondence with me regarding this case.

REPORTS:

[Ref. la1] "L'ALSACE" NEWSPAPER:

The newspaper reports on October 6, 1954, with no other information, that there was a sighting in Marcoing. The date is not given but the sighting is mentioned among others that took place on October 2 and 3, 1954.

See the article here.

[Ref. li1:] "LIFE" MAGAZINE:

MARTIAN MEN'S HEIGHT is shown by two bakers. Pierre Lucas (left) of Loctudy was going to well when, he said, orange ball fell from the sky. Suddenly a small bearded figure with one eye in the middle of his forehead tapped him on the shoulder. Serge Pochet (right) of Marcoing was approached by two small shadows.

[Ref. ar1:] ALBERT ROSALES:

103. Location. Marcoing France Date: October 3 1954 Time: night Bakers apprentice Serge Pochet was approached by 2 small shadowy entities, about 3-feet tall. No other information. Humcat 1954-67 Source: Humcat quoting Newspaper reports Type: E?

[Ref. dj2:] DONALD JONHSON:

Donald Johnson says that on October 3, 1954, a humanoid report occurred later than 6:45 p.m., in the night and did not involve a UFO sighting: young baker's apprentice S. Pouchet, was approached by two small shadowy beings, about three feet tall, in Marcoing, Nord, France.

The sources are noted as "Webb, David F. & Bloecher, Ted. HUMCAT: Catalogue of Humanoid Reports, case A0271, citing Life Magazine, November 1, 1954" and "Life Magazine, November 1, 1954".

[Ref. gn1:] "GNEOVNI" UFOLOGY GROUP:

In "Special notes" of their catalogue, the GNEOVNI group indicates that there exists in several books, such as Aimé Michel's "M.O.C.", Planète publishers in 1966, in which there is a number of observation cases in the Nord and Pas-de-Calais which are not included in their catalogue because there "remains much doubts as to their credibility." One of them is noted "3-10-54 Marcoing nord".

[Ref. ta1:] "THINK ABOUT IT" WEBSITE:

Location: Marcoing France Date: October 3 1954 Time: night Bakers apprentice Serge Pochet was approached by 2 small shadowy entities, about 3-feet tall. No other information. Source: Humcat quoting Newspaper reports

[Ref. ub1:] "UFO-DATENBANK":

This database recorded this case 9 times:

Case Nr.	New case Nr.	Investigator	Date of observation	Zip	Place of observation	Country of observation	Hour of observation	Classification	Comments	Identification
19541003			03.10.1954		Marcoing	France	Night	CE III
19541003			03.10.1954		Marcoing	France	20.00	NL
19541003			03.10.1954		Marcoing	France	20.00	NL
19541003			03.10.1954		Marcoing	France	20.00	NL
19541003			03.10.1954		Marcoing	France	20.00	NL
19541003			03.10.1954		Marcoing	France	20.30	NL
19541003			03.10.1954		Marcoing	France	20.30	NL
19541003			03.10.1954		Marcoing	France	20.00	NL
19541003			03.10.1954		Marcoing	France	Night	CE III

EXPLANATIONS:

Not looked for yet.

KEYWORDS:

(These keywords are only to help queries and are not implying anything.)

Marcoing, Nord, Serge Pochet, entity, entities, dark, small, two

SOURCES:

[---] indicates sources which I have not yet checked.

• [la1] Article in the regional newspaper L'Alsace, Mulhouse, France, October 6, 1954.
• [li1] Part of the article "Astral Adventurers - Frenchmen report meetings with unlikely creatures", in LIFE Magazine, USA, page 28, November 1, 1954.
• [---] "HUMCAT: Catalogue of Humanoid Reports", compiled by David Webb and Ted Bloecher, Center for UFO Studies (CUFOS), USA, circa 1978.
• [ar1] "1954 Humanoid Reports", compiled by Albert Rosales, circa 2001, at www.ufoinfo.com/humanoid/humanoid1954.shtml
• [dj2] "The Worldwide UFO Wave of 1954", electronic article by Donald Johnson, Ph.D., USA, page 5, 2009, at www.ufoinfo.com/onthisday/papers/Worldwide%20UFO%20Wave%20of%201954.pdf
• [gn1] "Catalogue Régional d'observations", by the Groupement Nordiste d'Etudes des Observations d'Objets Volants Non Identifiés (GNEOVNI), France, undated, circa 2009, at www.geru.fr/fr/catalogue-regional-observation-ovni-nord
• [ta1] "1954: October Sightings", catalog on the UFO website Think About It, USA, not dated, found 2014, at http://www.thinkaboutitdocs.com/8-1954-october-sightings
• [ub1] Online database UFO-Datenbank, Germany, found in 2016, at ufodatenbank.de

So what do you notice? Perhaps that someone notes that someone referred to this case...appearing in newspapers?  I am hoping that this sticks out like a ten feet (3m) high glowing red thumb. We have a case, once again, of 'investigation' by news-clippings.

Two reported incidents of alleged actual landings and entities and who turns up after -the press. There were people claiming to be flying saucer investigators but that amounted to noting down a news item on the radio or adding a newspaper clipping to the scrapbook. From the news clipping these people could pontificate and waffle on over pages.

I understand that there was no funding for flying saucer research but most of these people involved in the subject knew each other one way or another. There was a very real attitude, not just in France, that even if a report came from a mile or two away -why go investigate when the newspapers had all the information?

I actually almost choked on a swig of coffee when I read Italian investigators, who had not once even attempted to go and investigate Rosa Lotti's encounter in 1954 until the early 2000's, complaining and criticising newspapers and journalists for leaving out information and not doing a thorough job. Well, at least the reporters got off of their arses and went to see her.  There are literally hundreds of cases like the one above.

Writers -'ufologists'- are making money out of including these cases in their books and worst of all in their "data" or "sightings breakdowns" that make them look so good.  The truth is that they are producing nonsense: they have no data other that he wrote what so-and-so wrote who got it from whatshisname who found it mentioned in a newspaper clipping. That is then the solid data used by people like Jacques Vallee who does not actually check anything himself. 

The period 1947-2018 has literally achieved nothing when it comes to ufology other than over-hyped hysteria, bunko-men and...literally, huge volumes of trash.  Graham F. N. Knewstub's British Flying Saucer Bureau Technical Report No. 1 was in the 1950s, we all thought that we were seeing real science (I was fooled, too) when Vallee published his work on UFO Waves, Flaps and so on.  He included well known hoaxes, misidentifications of aircraft, meteors, weather balloons and much more in amongst the not investigated UFO cases. The data was useless.

Then we saw Ted Bloecher Report on the UFO Wave of 1947, published in 1967. This was an actual attempt at analysis and to piece events from that year together.  Published work that could be peer reviewed. It was as early as 1956 that Bloecher became intrigued by the growing number of “UFO occupant” reports and along with researcher David Webb, started to work on what would become the Humanoid Catalogue –HUMCAT: a collection of early “humanoid” sightings. I prefer not to use the term “Humanoids” as an all-encompassing term but the important thing is that the work began.

   Ted Bloecher’s major interest was always in occupant reports or Close Encounters of the Third Kind (CE3K), as they would be called after J. Allen Hynek set out his categorisation of UFO sighting reports.  Bloecher had been one of the top thinkers in the Civilian Saucer Investigation group and after that became active with the National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP) and when  NICAP became “moribund”, Bloecher moved on to the Mutual UFO Network (MUFON) and the Center for UFO Studies (CUFOS).  He was still concentrating his efforts on investigation of CE3K reports with David Webb. In 1978, CUFOS published his and Davis's Close Encounter at Kelly and Others of 1955, based on the investigation of the Kelly-Hopkinsville case.

   Bloecher could well be called the top authority on these cases in the United States by the 1970s and though he did everything he possibly could (see UFO Contact?) to get the Euporia, Mississippi landing/entity case prioritised and investigated it never was –presumably due to the prejudices of the two investigators.

   But being the top man does not come with a university grant or even financial funding and to keep records complete Bloecher filed away press reports.  This should have been the data base used for thorough investigation of the cases. Instead, ufologists just quoted Bloecher and that he, himself, was referencing newspaper reports.

   Then came the big excuse of the “Grey Abduction Paranoia” –if a case did not involve Greys then it was a fake or misidentification.  No need to bother. Or to use the much criticised US Air Force ‘excuse’ used so well by MUFON today: the amount of time that has passed negates any fruitful investigation.

Ufology does not “get the respect deserved”?  You earn respect.

Two cases from recent years I have tried to get more information on so I went to the site owners who reported on the cases.  In each I was told “I picked that up from (website) –best you contact him” and so I did: “I read that on (name of website) because it seemed interesting” and then I was advised to contact the “original source”. This original source turned out to have copied the item from some newspaper item and he could not remember which or the date. This is the most common response I get when following up old reports and today I more or less expect it.

Ufology is basing all of its claims on cases –including plain old “UFO” sightings- that were never investigated because it is much easier to sit in a chair and say “The evidence is all there” –it is not.

In the United States, France and Belgium I think there are enough ufologists with some credibility who can open cold case investigations on old CE3K/Alien Entity cases.  Once the witnesses, now in their 60’s, 70’s and 80’s are gone then so are all of the facts that they can tell us and to ascertain which, if any, of the CE3K/AE reports is genuine could provide us with the valuable data we need.

I am undertaking this work in the UK (though some prominent ufologists appear to not want this –I wonder why?) and I just hope and pray that someone out there will do likewise in their own country.  

PLEASE!

"Inter-galactic Travel" -What?

Above: Like early explorers mapping the continents of our globe, astronomers are busy charting the spiral structure of our galaxy, the Milky Way. Using infrared images from NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope, scientists have discovered that the Milky Way's elegant spiral structure is dominated by just two arms wrapping off the ends of a central bar of stars. Previously, our galaxy was thought to possess four major arms. This annotated artist's concept illustrates the new view of the Milky Way, along with other findings presented at the 212th American Astronomical Society meeting in St. Louis, Mo. The galaxy's two major arms (Scutum-Centaurus and Perseus) can be seen attached to the ends of a thick central bar, while the two now-demoted minor arms (Norma and Sagittarius) are less distinct and located between the major arms. The major arms consist of the highest densities of both young and old stars; the minor arms are primarily filled with gas and pockets of star-forming activity. The artist's concept also includes a new spiral arm, called the "Far-3 kiloparsec arm," discovered via a radio-telescope survey of gas in the Milky Way. This arm is shorter than the two major arms and lies along the bar of the galaxy. Our sun lies near a small, partial arm called the Orion Arm, or Orion Spur, located between the Sagittarius and Perseus arms.

NASA/JPL-Caltech/R. Hurt (SSC/Ca

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I still find it incredible that people in Ufology refer to "inter-galactic visitors"  -how are they supposed to be taken seriously?  Firstly, which galaxy do these people think UFOs are coming from?  Our nearest neighbouring galaxy is Andromeda. And the Andromeda galaxy is 2.2 million light-years away, with a single light-year being almost 6 trillion miles (10 trillion kilometers).  It makes no sense that any possible alien civilisation in the Andromeda galaxy would want to visit the Milky Way when its own galaxy sprawls across space.

Look at the number of stars in our own galaxy - Milky Way.  It is difficult to estimate numbers based on our position in the galaxy but scientists give their best estimates as  the Milky Way being made up of approximately 100 billion stars

How many planets is the next question people should be asking and Ufologists tend to get all of their 'facts' off equally dubious web sites.  Bear  in mind that our solar system (not thoroughly investigated) has eight planets, Other stars may have more or less and, turning to scientists who work on this stuff every day, the Milky Way galaxy could have between 100-200 billion planets -or possibly many more.

Now, that leads us into trying to guess, and it is guessing, based on things such as The Greenbank Formula, the number of habitable planets in the Milky Way. Well, considering that every time someone says "That might be an alien signal" another scientist says "Probably a microwave", you might think that at best maybe 100 -is that too wild a guess?

Far from a wild guess actually as it is, based on very conservative interpretations, estimated that our galaxy holds at least an estimated 300 million  potentially habitable worlds. According to the results of a study to be published in The Astronomical Journal. NASA discusses it here:  https://www.nasa.gov/missions/kepler/about-half-of-sun-like-stars-could-host-rocky-potentially-habitable-planets/#:~:text=Our%20galaxy%20holds%20at%20least,published%20in%20The%20Astronomical%20Journal.

I have no doubt that scientists have looked at UFO reports since 1947. I have no doubt that those scientists have also looked at reports by investigators of close encounters of the third kind.  In fact some such reports from the old Commonwealth -Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), South Africa, Canada, New Zealand and Australia, etc, I know were forwarded back to the old Air Ministry.  Whether those in charge had their own personal biases and dismissed such reports based on personal religious beliefs or just because they would not accept that anything was coming from "out there" is another matter.  Talking to the late Air Vice Marshal Sir Victor Goddard I know this was the case.  Look at Ufology where in all the decades since 1947 there is still mocking and ignoring of CE3K reports.

Officialdom is no more enlightened than the Ufologist.   We should have been looking at these encounters from the very outset to establish witness/percipient credibility and from that credibility of the reports.  Instead we have seen nothing more than the various prejudices and no matter how seemingly major a report seems if it involves anyone who is not white skinned the racial prejudices explode into dismissals ("Well, he just came out the US Army and, you know, he's black and -wink wink- you know they smoke some funny stuff!").  We have lost, perhaps, 90%+ reports since 1947 because a news clipping was the only investigation and it took the Ufologist a great deal of skill, time and effort to glue that in a book.  

What we need to remember the Milky Way is 100,000 light years wide -oh, Andromeda is much larger at approx 220,000 light years across.  We need not draw Andromeda into Ufology or our Citizen SETI work because ...well...the Milky Way!  

As American physicist Michio Kaku suggests; if you ever do find yourself on board a UFO/craft -STEAL SOMETHING!  I know, that sounds bad but something made by an alien civilisation can be tested and no I am not even thinking of Vallee and Nolan and their  bunko claims; something taken from an alien craft is evidence because it is an actual physical thing and that is what we have so far lacked.   

Therefore, think only Milky Way as a possible origin point for claimed aliens. Also remember that when it comes to solid evidence you will need to put aside a moral stance and steal something. Humans have done far, far worse over the centuries.

(c)2024 T. Hooper-Scharf

The Interrupted Journey - Betty & Barney Hill UFO Case (Audio Book)

A Few Words

 

We live at a time when we have almost instant communication and an internet full of data to access.  We also live at a time when conmen and  exploiters have taken over what was once considered "ufology".  At the start of public access internet data was exchanged but then it became a tool for sensationalism and money making schemes and all someone had to do was say "I didn't see what he reported 45 years ago on my drive through the area" and everyone jumps in because that 'proves' the claim was a hoax.

I am not going to mention Hopkins, Jacobs or Carpenter. Their stain on  UFO research can never be removed and I write that having been a big supporter as well as promoter of their early work.  Today we could not compile an accurate catalogue of yearly UFO sightings because Ufologist debunkers are in competition to beat the outright career debunkers.  Someone sees five (5) entities emerge from a landed object around 300 yards away and locals report strange activity the same evening and a Ufologist debunker goes out in his car to the area and looking in one direction he sees air craft landing. All the data that made the sightings stand out are dismissed; he went out and saw aircraft. Hey -the five aliens were actually a farmers wife with a powerful light going out to check livestock. Every single detail is dismissed because it makes the Ufologist debunker (who believes the Roswell crash was real -as was another).

I have seen websites, including MUFONs, list reports that in all their details are aircraft, satellites, space debris and even thunderstorms (??) as UFOs. I have seen all of this on many sites and it is accepted that every report is a genuine UFO -and by that they mean extra-terrestrial spacecraft.   

Cases that are obviously involving people undergoing psychological problems are accepted as genuine and some of those people even move into high positions in UFO groups (and some because the aliens told them to). No concerns there.  Now I say the internet made this all easier and it did b ut the reason that Ufology descended into fantasy and is literally controlled by conmen who bring money in are the UFO groups.   "Rods" became trendy and drew in money so UFO groups big and small jumped on that band wagon. Then it was "orbs" and once certain researchers faked the evidence the "Greys" were a hot money spinner and old cases were altered so that they involved Greys, reptilians, mantis types and whatever the next 'discovery' was. 

Ufology lost credibility about 30 years ago. Even proven liars are still touted as experts. And books that are lie and fantasy filled sell like hot cakes while serious well researched books are ignored. Ufology as such cannot be returned to even a fraction of its once "credibility" and all we have now are isolated researchers fighting to try to get facts out into the world. The trusted researchers and investigators have all retired or died. That is fact (though some do try to keep going). Take this blog for instance and the fact that after all of these years any comment or feedback is rare.      

Many witnesses or percipients to CE3K/AE incidents do not come forward and others who tried to were dismissed because they refused to accept what the experts at MUFON and elsewhere insisted: they were abducted by Greys.  

In the UK the British UFO Research Association (BUFORA) was never going to achieve much. Attempts to get data computerised were put off with one excuse or another and some investigators could nopt be trusted with looking into a cup of tea. Alcoholics, people with various psychological problems and one 'investigator' who told me he could not be as active as he was as "I'm on the far side of 80 now" -I was in touch and communicated with all of these people. And when you hand BUFORA 100+ UFO reports from a 2 year UFO peak and are then told "Oh, they seem to have been lost somewhere at research HQ" (and I am not the only one had this happen) then you realise things are a mess.  When an organisation is only interested in selling things and getting as many paying members as possible while stating that all UFOs and UFO incidents are psychological or misidentifications (and start out investigations with that mindset) it is dead in the water. Here we can see the rot set in with 'new ufology'.

We've seen official bodies open up UFO records only to be attacked by ufologists for having done so...there is a warped mindset. And hoaxes perpetrated by ufologists on other ufologists are not rare.  Even our "most esteemed" UFO periodicals were not behind a little hoaxing. 

Look to works such as The Haunted Skies where everything is checked and double checked and original witnesses and investigators spoken to.  Facts presented not fantasy. Of course a world of Dr Who-like fantasy is far more appealing to people who also believe we have a space fleet fighting aliens in Earth orbit.   

It's a mess.

The 1980/1983 British UFO Report -Not Secret Either

  Circa 1977 I set up a study that later became known as "Grey Book" (from the grey colour covered note books used) and the Anomalous Observational Phenomena Bureau. Most people know that the study was set up at the sugge4stion of Sir Victor Goddard and Lord Clancarty and that other members of that circle supported the study. 

By 1980 I had come up with over 1000 pages detailing all aspects of UFOs (excluding CE3K) and defined two definite phenomena. One was Uninvestigated (by science) Natural Phenomenon or UNP. The other indicated, after many checks, double and triple checking of original sources, UFOBs -Unidentified Flying Object Built -ie seemingly constructed craft that bore no resemblance to anything known at the time or since.

The final report was given various names by different people. The Ministry of Defence simply referred to it as "Grey Book" (because it did not have "UFO" in the title.  Clancarty referred to it as The Hooper Report on UFOs and so on and so forth. Both Clancarty and Goddard referred to this as "The closest thing we will ever get in Great Britain to America's Project Blue Book".

In 1980 British Ufologists were offered a summary version and amongst those Ufologists were some very well known names. Every single one rejected the offer and one in particular suggested that it was all "very James Bondish" -which made no sense. No one in Ufology therefore got to see information and data that would have helped progress study of UFOs -but it was quite clear that 95% of those involved were mainly in the field to make money.

The report was turned into a manuscript and submitted to publishers who then had the Ms read by published authors to review and make a decision on publishing. Each reviewer rejected the Ms as "Not being up to date on Ufology" and one even referred twice to the fact that his own Fortean style books had not been referred to.  Also, the fact that the science was explained so that "the man on the street can understand it" -my mistake was in thinking Ufologists wanted to prove UFDO) reality and educate the public on it. In fact one very well known Ufologist and writer of anything that made money actually contacted British publishers to "warn" them about a "fantasy prone character peddling his theories as fact" (I was the fantasy prone character" apparently.

The truth was that Ufologists did not want anything that showed they had been sat on their backsides doing no research just fabricating and twisting facts for books and TV.

Had the Report gone out back in 1980 all of the names of the peers, etc., who backed it would have been known today. As it was the 1000+ pages was edited down to 550 after concerns over officially sourced material being used.  So a 1983 Report was made and, again, conclusions offered to Ufologists and rejected.

This Report will never be published. I am a lot older now and to edit this into a manuscript for publication would be a year's work and as that manuscript would be read by the same old published authors it would be against their interests to say "Yes".  And I already have self published books that do not sell so a year of work for a book that would not sell?  It needs a real established publisher and they are not interested without going to..."those people" to have it reviewed.

So, here are some quick snaps of some of the material in the Report and the bulky Report itself.

Four Books on CE3K -a Fifth On The Way?

 Yes, some posts have been reverted to drafts as they were on site long enough and no interest shown I decided they could go.  The Jose C. Higgins, Onilson Patero reports have been vastly expanded on as has the 1978 Buckfastleigh case which has had additional information from other percipients.  

These will not appear on the blog, however. They have made up three chapters for the Lost Contacts manuscript and that would be the 5th book solely dedicated to AE-CE3K reports that are mostly ignored, unknown or messed up by early investigators.    

That means there are four books dealing with such cases; no lies or twisting the truth to get sales. All cases looked at in details and to pros and cons weighed fairly -and conclusions on each is based on evidence and do I really have to state (again) that these are not debunking books?  There are people out there who do not want you to read the true facts because it would reveal what they have been getting up to.   

End of 2024 the books will not be available (long story and not really of concern to anyone else) so if you want the actual truth....

JUNE 1966, MOUNT INCAHUASI, ATACAMA, CHILE

This is a rather interesting case but the biggest problem is that we have an account with names but no one that I can find has ever published images of the witnesses nor produced any actual physical evidence that they existed. If anyone in Chile, or elsewhere, has extra information please get in touch -blacktowercg@hotmail.com

 In June 1966, civil servants of the S.N.S. of Serena were sent to Los Morros, a locality at 160 km from Serena and 1500 meters of altitude. One night, two of the civil servants, Astudillo and Muñoz, went to the village of Incahuasi for a medical urgency. They were on the return trip by a clear night with a full moon and without cloud. Whereas the van went up through a zone of turns of the road, having left the lower fog zone, they saw a motionless ball of fire at a few meters. It emitted a strong luminosity and was of a big size, with six protuberances at its periphery. Whereas they started to drive again the UFO moved on with them, in front of them. While arriving at Los Morros and awaking their companions, the latter could see with object which followed them in the air, without the protuberances. Its flight was ascending and at high speed.

Seven months passed, and Dr. Darwin Arriagada proposed to hypnotize civil servants Astudillo and Muñoz, who accepted.

Under hypnosis, Manuel Muñoz Carvajal described:

"There was a very thick fog. We arrive at Tres Cruces. We start to climb the slope of that way. When we arrived at the top, the fog dissipated and we saw a ball of fire cross us. It was like these pellets which one puts in wafers, but large. It crossed from left to the right, namely, from the mountain to the sea. It did that within fifty meters in front of us and turned off. My companion said it was a shooting star. I said that it could not be that, It was like a projection of light which turned off. We continue to go up and arrive towards a light, higher; my companion told me that it was a truck. I answered him that it wasn't; it made a very loud noise. We stopped the van and went down. I was alarmed. It was a large ball, it shone a lot and started to flicker. It was very close to the ground. We go up in the van and continue to advance, I was frightened, it was not a sphere. It approached us; the light which came from this ball illuminated the hood of the van. We still advance a thousand meters and this craft followed us at the same distance. Five from the twenty of us saw it. It was like a nut, it projected rays, a brilliant and then strong and orange light, of a yellow color; and it had two long cables like antennas, which came out by its top. There were changes of lights every half-minute. Under this thing, one noticed like a cabin, there were three motionless heads... I could not sleep. I dreamed that men walked by, who came from the disc. They were green with a round face, large round eyes, half protruding. They were one meter, one meter twenty tall. A very large, round head and a thick neck. They had a broad chest and a narrow belt. The legs were thin, appearing not to have knees."

The other contactee, Luis Astudillo Marin, detailed under hypnosis:

"Then this capsule, I do not know how to give it a correct name, came down a little and one noticed behind the brightness a species of cabin and one saw three heads with helmets."

He did not see these beings out of the vessel, that his companion thinks of having seen in dreams, but both saw the three members of the crew when they were in the fuselage of the ship.

Patrick Grossat URECAT is often very dismissive of these reports so I checked to see what he wrote in Explanation Category. "Extraterrestrial Visitors" -now that had me asking how he concluded  this and here is what he wrote:

"I do suspect that the case could be seen as an "alien abduction" which would be "revealed by hypnosis", but it is rather advisable to make the clear distinction between the two parts, of a different nature, of the case. There is an actual description of something like a craft with three occupants inside, whose helmeted heads are seen by the two witnesses in normal state of consciousness on the one hand, and on the other, elements who significantly appear only from one of the two witnesses, following hypnosis, and he does specify that they are elements of a dream. In the conscious episode, there is no indication of the least loss of consciousness, no "missing time", no landing of the occupants, no contact. This time as in much of the other such cases, the use of hypnosis did not bring up reliable information, only invalid additional elements that blur the case, elements coming from a dream of the witness; which obviously could be caused by the impact of the real experience.

"The conscious part of the case nevertheless remains of high interest, and it is thus unfortunate that the available sources seem rather fragmentary - it can be understood that a much more complete report could have existed."

For me this would be given a Low Credibility rating since although a multi-witness case we have no proof that those witnesses existed and if you know your UFO history you'll know that too many cases looked into never happened and FSR knew this but never corrected the record.

Please, if you know of a fuller report, photographs or anything not includerd in the above get in touch!

"A New South American 'Wave'", by Gordon Creighton,  Flying Saucer Review (FSR),  volume 14, #4, July 1968. This is incorrect as a sources since the article appears in FSR volume 14 no. 5, September/October, 1968

"OVNIs?,  by Dr. Iván Seperiza Pasquali, in the magazine Mundo Mejor, #8, Chile, October 1994.

URECAT  https://ufologie.patrickgross.org/ce3/1966-06-chile-mtincahiasi.htm

The 'Lost' Contacts

 

Well the 1973 Onilson Patero (Brazil) abduction case I today wrote and edited and it comes to 18 pages fully illustrated.

The 1947 Jose C Higgins (Brazil) case has also been expanded so I have (potentially) enough material for the start fifth book on this aspect of Ufology.

I have now had to move all the Brazilian material into a Lever Arch file

I really need to find some British cases.

Suggestions welcome but obscure or hardly reported on.