Earth: The 'Lost' Contacts -When I Say "if" I Mean IF

 

If I decide to publish

Contents:

Foreword: These Reports Could Give Us Many Answers

1. The Unimportance Of Earth

2. The Buckfastleigh Mystery

3. The Jose C. Higgins Close Encounter 1947

4. The 1973 Onilson Patero UFO encounter/Abduction Case

5. Villa Santina 1947

6. Pontejos Santander Spain -6th January, 1969

7. The Näslund and Nilsson Encounters

8. Mrs. Church and the Green ‘Japanese’

9. Never Trust Child Witnesses?

10. Starry, Starry Night -The Silbury Hill Encounter

11. The 1977 Lindley, New York UFO Incidents

12. The Boy Who Encountered Creatures At Vilhelmina

13. Just The Daily Drive Home From Work

14. The “Is That It Then?” Reports

15. The Bronte Lloyd Lost Encounter

16. The Puchetta Encountered

17. Ronald Wildman: A Man “Muddled Up About Time”

18. The Kingfield Enigma

19. The Lorry Driver

20. What Was At The Window?

21. The Multi-Witness Abduction That Did Not Happen -But It Did

22. The Shamrock Cafe Abduction -The Best UK Case?

23. Lynda Jones: The Abduction Ufology Knew About -Sort Of

24. What Happened At Black Brook Farm?

25. The “Mince Pies” Martians

26. There Was Missing Time -So What?

27. There Was Missing Time -Nothing We Could Do

28. A Ufologist Destroys CE3K Reports And Silences Witnesses

29. It Was A Ten Feet Tall Robot

30. Lyndia Morel

31. Lee Parrish And The Mysterious “Shapes”

32. Montvale 1978 -More Darn Kids And High Strangeness

33. Maria Elodia Pretzel And The Night Visitor

34. A Lost Experience With No One To Blame

35. “I Also Feel That I Know How The Door Of The Craft Opened”

36. Sam: A Lost Encounter Or A Work Of Fiction?

37. A Few Examples

38. The Aveley Abduction: The Case That Shook British Ufology?

39. Encounter At Ewloe

40. Elsie Oakensen: Abducted, Scanned And Rejected?

41. “We Crossed The Bridge For The Second Time!”

42. The Schoolmistress And The UFO

43. More Lorry Drivers

44. Missing Time On The Scottish Border

45. “We’ll Take You To The Saucer!”

46. Multiple Witnesses At Mogi Guacu

47. Ms. Jones And The Odd “Scar”

48. Reports We Should Not Discuss? Elliott O’Donnell And The Curious Triangular Entities?

49. Reports We Should Not Discuss? The Horned Being Of Cley Hill

50. Some End Notes

Night Visitors: On the Trail of UFOs - FULL MOVIE (Alien Abductions, UAP...

The Real Problem With Warp Drives

ENTITIES REPORTED INSIDE A SHOP IN ARGENTINA -Fact or Fiction?

This is another case I will be dealing with in the next book but this is the account as given by Lumiere Dans La Nuit and Flying Saucer Review

Jorge Eduardo Catoja

We are indebted to the Editorial Committee of our French companion-journal Lumières Dans La Nuit, from No. 198 of which (October 1980) we have translated the curious item. Though many will find the report hard to swallow we think it worth recording, because it seems to smack very strongly - as so many "UFO stories" do - of the classical poltergeist phenomena familiar to us from the annals of psychical research.

It is admittedly difficult to recall any good "poltergeist case" in which the witnesses actually claimed to have Seen the causative agency. Consequently, most parapsychological investigators nowadays tend to veer away from the idea that any external intelligent factor (i.e. other than the human subject or subjects present in the case) can be involved with poltergeists, and they prefer to seek other less bizarre explanations. Note, however, that in the present case the two causative entities allegedly vanished temporarily from sight a feature that sounds extremely "poltergeistic."

The author, Argentinian ufologist Jorge Eduardo Catoja, states that he visited the scene of the phenomena and personally interrogated the witnesses.

EDITOR

At approximately 4.40 p.m. on Sunday, September 10, 1978, in Las Salinas, a small town near San Miguel de Tucuman in northern Argentina, Miguel Angel Carbajal, aged 18, and his friend Miguel Ledesma, aged 23, were sitting in the home of the first-named, watching television, when the picture on the screen began to shrink, so they switched off the television set.

They then put a record on the record-player and switched on, but found the disc turning very slowly as though at 16 r.p.m. From this they perceived that there was clearly a marked drop in the mains electricity current. ¹

Finally, they tried to use a portable transistor radio to listen to a local game of football, but were obliged to abandon this too, owing to interference.

The parents of Miguel Carbajal, absent from the house at the time, having gone to spend the afternoon with relatives in San Miguel de Tucuman, are the owners of a shop, and the shop adjoins the house. Both the young men are employed in the shop. Miguel Carbajal has had three years of primary school education, and one year of secondary. The extent of his daily reading does not go beyond the local newspaper, La Gaceta, and he is not a UFO buff or an addict of Science-Fiction. As for his companion, Miguel Ledesma, the latter is quite illiterate. There was nobody else in the house apart from one disabled member of the family.

Just as the two young men were abandoning their attempt to get the portable radio to work, they heard noises coming from the adjoining shop. Thinking that thieves had broken info the premises, the boys first got the disabled relative out of the house, and then they opened the connecting door which led directly into the shop, where the first things to come to view were a smashed bottle of wine and some broken jars of mayonnaise strewn about on the floor.

Proceeding a little further into the shop, they came upon a pair of scales thrown down onto the floor, with the glass smashed, and they noted that the electronic till had been shifted some distance from its normal position.

Encounter with Entities

At this point they became aware of the presence in the shop, standing at a distance of about six metres from them, of two beings resembling humans in their general appearance.

In the words of Miguel Carbajal, as reproduced in the article published in the Buenos Aires newspaper La Razon (Sept. 12, 1978): "I was thoroughly scared... for I suddenly saw them. I was unable to speak... I thought they must be Martians, because I had read in La Gaceta that there had been UFO sightings in the district."

The two entities were about one metre in height, and 'dressed in bright blue one-piece suits like frogmen wear'. On their heads they had dark blue helmets. Their faces were brown, and the complexion freckled. The eyes of the entities were straight and level. Their noses, though the two witnesses could not describe these quite precisely, seemed to be 'flattish'. Their hands, arms, and legs all seemed 'normal' by human standards. As regards their sex, the witnesses were unable to judge for sure.

The clothing of the entities (see sketch) was, as already described, a one-piece garment, close-fitting, and a helmet. On their feet they had what seemed to be high-boots, bright blue in colour. On their arms they had shiny black gauntlets up to above the elbow.

One of the entities was holding a weapon of some sort, which he was pointing at them threateningly, and which Carbajal said was like a hair-drier.

Entities Communicate

"Do, not shout, or we will take you to the saucer!"

This warning, heard by both the witnesses, seemed to come from the entities, though they saw no movement of the lips of either of the two beings, so that the message was probably given telepathically.

Carbajal's account goes on to say that at this point one of the beings raised a hand and put the index finger to his nose, whereupon they both promptly vanished from sight (The outer doors of the shop were locked).

Miguel Carbajal dashed over to the till to get out the keys to the doors of the shop, and as he did so the entities reappeared, in precisely the same position as before. Ledesma grabbed a knife and an iron bar and he and Carbajal, the latter with the store keys in his hand, made for the door.

Violent Contact

Again the entities vanished, Ledesma told the reporters: "I stepped over lightly to the store-room and there they were again, in there. And they threw a crate of cigarettes at me. It missed, passing in front of me. At once I made a dash for the exit, which Carbajal in the meantime had managed to open."

The two men were asked by reporters whether they had heard any sort of sound when the entities were materializing and dematerializing. "Yes", said Carbajal. "There was a sort of sound like TIN ...TIN ...TIN .." but only when they were vanishing."

Once out of the shop, they secured the door with padlock and chain and dashed off into Tucuman in the firm's van to find Manuel Carbajal Senior and tell him that thieves had broken into the shop. Then all three returned to the shop and reported the affair to the local police station, at El Timbo. Police Commissioner Miranda at once proceeded with them to the shop, but when they got there, the entities were not to be seen. They checked the contents of the till, and found that no money seemed to be missing. The witnesses estimated that the episode had lasted about 5-10 minutes.

UFO Investigator's Visit

Argentine investigator Jorge Eduardo Catoja, who prepared this report after making a personal inspection of the scene and after interviewing the two witnesses, made a number of interesting discoveries when questioning people living in the neighbourhood.

For example, he found that, two weeks previously, two strange lights had been seen over a near-by salt mine (the only local industry.) And the occupants of a house near there told him that they had recently been the victims of a mysterious plague of stone-throwing.' Other people whom the investigator questioned re-called that three years ago there had been UFO landings at a place known as Ramadeda de Abajo, lying to the east of Las Salinas.

Notes

1. The 'shrinkage' of the TV picture would also have been a typical result of such a drop in the current - G.C.

2. And here we have the most characteristic and typical of all the features found in cases of pollergeistic infestations - namely "stones throwing!" - G.C.

• HUMCAT: Catalogue of Humanoid Reports", compiled by David Webb and Ted Bloecher, circa 1979.
• Deux Humanoïdes à Las Salinas", Jorge Eduardo Catoja,  Lumières Dans La Nuit (LDLN), France, #198, pp 28-30, October 1980.
• "Entities Reported Inside a Shop in Argentina",  Jorge Eduardo Catoja,  Flying Saucer Review (FSR), U-K., volume 28, #4, March 1983.

11th and 13th November, 1965: Mogi Guacu, Brazil

This case will be dealt with in my next book and as you will see it is a multiple witness event.

Coral Lorenzen describes several UFO sightings taking place in October 1965 and afterwards in Mogi-Guaçu, Brazil.

Around the middle of November that year, a strange object was spotted in the field adjoining the farm near Mogi-Guaçu, owned by Dario Anhaua Filho, a landowner and chemist. Several sightings were made of a landing or nearly landed object, and on the 11th, at 9 p.m., after Mr. Filho had gone into town on business with the mayor, Mrs. Filho saw a strange light.

Because of preceding sightings, the woman was afraid but nevertheless she walked to the farm gate followed by her grandson, and she saw the object sitting on the ground in a nearby field, with two small humanoid figures were standing beside it. One of them began to walk to and fro along the furrows in the field, picking up twigs, branches and leaves, which he carried in his arms. The other figure stood by the fence and seemingly watched the mare on the other side.

During this time, a truckload of shouting and singing people went by, whereupon the object moved away. As it moved one of the "dwarves" entered it quickly up a "green-colored tube," which suddenly had appeared on one side of it. When the truck had gone by, the object came back, and the same procedure of picking up plants, etc., took place again.

Another car passed, and the object switched off its light and moved away. During this second departure Mrs. Filho noticed that two similar objects were hovering in the sky.

The object then reappeared and landed again, and one of the little occupants turned on a green light which issued from an object about the size of a drinking glass, and an explosion was heard. Thereafter the object and the dwarves left.

The third occurrence was on the 13th and involved the bank manager who had been invited out to watch the curious proceedings, Filho, his wife and grandson, who all observed the strange goings-on.

The object came in after dark and landed about 400 feet from the observers and focused a bright beam of light upward. At the same time, the local sheriff and a police clerk, who had been traveling by car to Catagua, which is Senator Auro Moura Andrade's farm came close to the farm, stopped and witnessed the object hovering over the farm prior to its landing.

The bank manager was so excited at seeing the object that he dropped the camera he had brought along to take photographs, and could not find it in the dark.

The beings in this incident were described as about the size of a seven-year-old child seen from about a distance of 70 feet. One was wearing overalls, the other chocolate-colored pants and a gray collarless shirt. The third being had a squarish flat head and was wearing what appeared to be a surgeon's apron. All three, as well as the ship in which they arrived, glowed brightly and were viewed also by Father Longino Vartbinden, priest at Mogi-Guaçu, and by scores of police who had been called as soon as the object came, and observed it from a nearby farm.

The occurrences were investigated by professor Flavio Pereira, and Doctors Leo Godoi Otero and Renato Bacelar of Sao Paulo, Brazil, and turned over to APRO's representative Dr. Olavo T. Fontes of Rio de Janeiro.

 APRO Bulletin, APRO, USA, September-October 1966. p 8

 "Flying Saucers - The Startling Evidence of the Invasion From Outer Space", book by Coral Lorenzen, Signet Books publishers, pp 244-245, 1966.

 "Flying Saucer Occupants", book by Coral and Jim Lorenzen, Signet Books publishers, pp 192-193, 1967.

HUMCAT

I was slightly disappointed when I finally got to see David Webb and Ted Bloecher's HUMCAT (Humanoid Catalogue).  I was told by BUFORA when they asked me to update the British section of HUMCAT in the late 1970s, that it was a huge catalogue of CE3K reports so, yes, I was up to helping update it.  

It turned out that the individual at BUFORA was talking out of his flap-end.  I was never thanked for all the work and that was it.  Roll on many years and the Centre for UFO Studies (CUFOS) helped me finally see the Webb and Bloecher 'catalogue'. It was no such thing. It is a collection of index cards as seen below.

It is a Card Index of Reports and not a catalogue. The former is what we would call it in the UK but the Americans call it a catalogue which in technical circles means a compiled listing of reports in publication form.

If you think "Oh, now that case is interesting and you want to get a copy...do not ask CUFOS as they only have some case reports and I am sending them copies of some I have that they lost (long story but the investigator took everything in one case -I outline this in the next book).

It is a good index but as I was adding some to my own file I realised I had cases Webb and Bloecher had not listed so one day the CE3K/AE Archive will one day be THE source file and where it ends up....

who you trust.

 A good question was asked about Ufologists not revealing the names of witnesses/percipients and claiming that it is for confidentiality reasons and that the person does not want to be named. It's something a lot of fakers use when asked about sources: "He's a high level police officer and other cops saw the same thing....trust me."

No. exploiting an incident for personal gain such as  a book or even TV deals and the only source for "the major case" is the Ufologist. No. Same applies in many other fields but with Ufology its a common way to add fake accounts as 'evidence' for UFOs.

Easiest way to back up that there is a real witness is to have a statement given to a notary of some kind.  What I have done in the past is show signatures or letters to people visiting who have not got the slightest interest in what I do regarding weird stuff. I'll either have them sign a note stating "I have seen the letter in question and signature and it is genuine."  Others get to see a letter from Lord (Brinsley) Clancarty or former Air Vice Marshal Sir Victor Goddard, etc., and they stare blankly -they mean absolutely nothing to them. But they have seen the letters, etc.

Although I might show a person a witness statement with signature there is never an address shown and good luck find the witness!

But for me I keep records private and there are documents now 40+ years old that have not been shown to anyone and the main reason is that the persons involved are either dead or no longer wanted any contact with Ufology so I cannot get permission to publish details as I made a promise of privacy.

What is the evidence? Is the witness/percipient(s) trustworthy? Those are my main questions when dealing with a report made to me.  Sadly, we know for a fact that Ufologists have used the confidentiality game to fake reports to hoax other Ufologists -not just the UK but in the USA, Spain, etc- which makes anything coming from specific sources suspect.

In the end, probably, it comes down to who you trust.

How Many Categories Do We Need?

 I only use one category and that is Close Encounters of the Third Kind. According to Dr J Allen Hynek:

CE IIIK -UFO encounters in which an animated entity is present—these include humanoids, robots, and humans who seem to be occupants or pilots of a UFO

That is it. It is all you need.

However, Ted Bloecher could be considered the father of this type of report and pioneering work that attempted to get conservative Ufologists to take the incidents seriously. Bloecher suggested six sub-types for the close encounters of the third kind in Hynek's scale:^[

1. Aboard: an entity is observed only inside the UFO.
2. Both: an entity is observed inside and outside the UFO.
3. Close: an entity is observed near to a UFO, but not going in or out.
4. Direct: an entity is observed—no UFOs are seen by the observer, but UFO activity has been reported in the area at about the same time.
5. Excluded: an entity is observed, but no UFOs are seen and no UFO activity has been reported in the area at that time.
6. Frequence: no entity or UFOs are observed, but the subject experiences some sort of "intelligent communication".

I would argue regarding E; we have had report after report in which (and here we are supposing that this is all real and not pure pig-swill) objects and even entities observed by one person vanish of a second possible witness (a vehicle driver usually) approaches and they then reappear. I think that, based on our great lack of knowledge, if an entity conforms to descriptions in other reports then it needs to be included until a reason is found to exclude it.

Just to anger the fantasy prone people and grifters; "Bigfoot", "Moth man", "Mystery animals" etc., etc., are automatically excluded.

F we have a good few of but I would consign these to either psychological problems and even some form of dream state. In fifty years I have never come across any case that appears to be authentic telepathic intelligent communication. I do list these but they offer zero information regarding UFOs but a great deal on human psychology (and, no, I am not saying they are all "nuts").

Note that "abduction by entities" is not given a sub-type. It can be argued that B would cover that and it would have been interesting top see what Bloecher and his colleague on creating The Humanoid Catalogue (HUMCAT) David Webb might have come up with. Bloecher retired in the early 1980s and passed all of his work over to (very sadly) Budd Hopkins and Hopkins passed all of that along to David Jacobs so from the mid 1980s on things became a mess and eventually a grift.

I would not use the term "UFO abduction" any more but rather "Onboard experience" as in most cases there is no force or abduction.  In many cases it could be that partial recall or garbled recall via hypnosis by unprofessional Ufologists is creating the false "dragged aboard a UFO" narrative.

That written it has to be pointed out that there is the "mouse-trap" encounter. Stanford, Kentucky, 1976 and the Shamrock Cafe, UK, 1981 are typical of these. In both cases the three women were driving home and an object literally appeared out of nowhere -from a field or behind trees- and pounced. Car and passengers seized.  In these cases there is no question of it being a "Would you come aboard for a quick examination and we'll show you the ship at the same time?"

These seem to be chance incidents. In wildlife work we call it "opportunistic" -a car with the right sort of people are going along a road where an object has landed and it appears to be a deliberate "let's see if we can get lucky" routine (many incidents we may never hear of as percipients cannot remember or do not want to talk about it.

If we look at what is called the Kelly Cahill case from Australia then at least three cars and the occupants thereof were taken in a perfect mouse-trap sweep. In these cases (if true -I have to keep putting that there otherwise the uptight folk start screaming) there can be no question that these are forced onboard experiences -my next book (and the previous four) deals with several such encounters.

I class all of them as CE3K and those in which only an entity is seen is classed as Alien Entity.  Ufology is not and never has been a science despite some great researchers having been involved. Using lots of categories makes them think the public and journalists will think they are scientists or experts. Last CE3K category I saw suggested was CEXK...at that point I hit "delete".

And remember that percipients speaking to you does not make them the next book. They want anonymity then you give them anonymity.

Fifth And Final Book

 

One of the chapters in the next book is probably going to be titled; "Reports We Shouldn't Talk About?" and there are going to be some rarities in it which even the more seasoned UFO enthusiast is likely never to have heard of.

In fact, for this fifth book on CE3K/AE I have pulled out a lot of material not published before or known only to a very few people. No sensationalism needs to be added to the encounter reports as as possibly the last book on this aspect of Ufology I think the five volumes will be the most comprehensive guide to these cases you will ever find.

CE3Ks -Some Quick Notes

 

I have just been glancing through a very interesting catalogue of CE3Ks and the one thing I noticed was:

 "He/She had gone to bed when..." 

and:

 "At night they were woken in their beds..." 

or even: "...had difficulty getting to sleep when...." 

And:

 "the were lying out in the sun when--"

What is being described is sleep paralysis and hypnagogia and it is far from rare,  A person will experience vivid hallucinations as they fall asleep or just before falling asleep. These can be images, smells, tastes, tactile sensations, or sounds. A person may also feel as though they are moving while their body is still. This sensation could be a feeling of falling or flying.

Some sceptics use this to debunk most CE3K reports and media often like promoting that as it makes them look good and as if they are not falling for "silly stories". A number of Ufologists also adopt this as an explanation and in 95% of cases they have never talked to the percipient or carried out any research other than a basic internet search for accounts.

Many Ufologists, astronomers and some others are actually afraid that there might be alien visitations for various reasons. They will even ignore testimony from unrelated to percipient second and third parties of UFO activity at the stated time and in the area of the encounter because "was it over that persons house? No!"  In the Stanford, Kentucky case someone phoned police to say that there was a car on the road being chased by a large light object -how many have actually mentioned this? One back at the time (1976).

It would be nice to be able to state that all such reports are sleep paralysis or altered states and I tried that on so many cases. Never worked. We can easily start identifying hypnagogia cases and it makes the task of research easier but if you ignore every other aspect of a case to just stamp it altered state/sleep paralysis then you lack credibility and some Ufologists have made careers and good money out of non-stop debunking of UFOs -because they are debunkers but calling themselves Ufologists makes them think they are seen as experts with an open mind.

If we start highlighting the hypnagogia cases then we start getting down to the interesting reports and around 90% of those were never investigated because of Ufologists not wanting to get involved in "silly stories".

Note also that in many onboard encounters the percipients may get flashbacks as a type of post traumatic stress and these are seen as second, third or fourth encounters when they are not.

For myself I use only the term Close Encounter of the Third Kind as the categorisation mania is simply there to aid the false impression that Ufology is a science which it never has or will be. 

I have also started using the term "onboard experience" rather than "abduction" as it is possible that in many cases the "abduction" part of an encounter is a false memory.