Total Pageviews

Sunday, 14 October 2018

Please Note

I am not sure when or how often I will be posting here.

That old familiar problem of people taking my posts and using them (uncredited) as their own work has appeared.  Worse is that they are receiving congratulations for the purloined work.

With this blog the number of views has risen from single figures to thousands.  So people are reading what I am posting.  However, that has resulted in the type of response that drains all enthusiasm from posting new finds/material: apathy.

Not one single comment.

I am posting to myself it seems and I have no interest in writing out what I already know.

I am concentrating on the research and research results will be found in my books -available to all to buy.

If circumstances change and people start to comment (I know ufologists visit this page so why no comments?) I will be back.

Research is less time wasting it seems.

Saturday, 13 October 2018

Alien Symbols Seen During UFO Abductions


In 1997, for Sightings magazine, I wrote an article that hit ufology like a bolt from the blue.

Well, like everything else it seemed to not make the slightest difference.  But I found a copy as I was going through my boxes of UFO publications looking for something else -it's how I find most things. Titled "Alien Symbols" on the contents page, the editor decided that the actual article title would be "Symbols of Abduction"; this seems to have been traditional in UFO publications -title on contents page different to the actual title!

The article was somewhat chopped up by the editor across two very badly designed pages that someone must have thought looked good.  As a consequence there are points where the text reads badly.  This is not my fault!

I am not really that surprised that in over 20 years nothing has changed.  I shall include scans of the original article so just click on to make larger.

I also need to point out that I was actively looking for evidence to back-up the work of Hopkins, Mack and Jacobs to make a stronger case.

Symbols of Abduction


Terry Hooper delivers the conclusion to his life's research on alien abductions and in particular symbols seen during abduction in Britain. Many Ufologists and researchers alike may find it a bitter pill to swallow.

I spent twenty five years looking into cases of alleged abductions by aliens or encounters with aliens.  Back in 1973 I suggested to the British UFO Research Association, Contact UK and many others that we start looking for periods of time that could not be accounted for in UFO sighting cases. No one was interested.  In fact, no one was interested in alleged Close Encounters of the Third Kind at all.  I was advised that such cases were so very rare in the UK that it would be pointless trying to find any.

By 1977 I had accumulated 100+ such cases and this excluded missing time reports.  The late Lord Clancarty and Air Vice Marshal Sir Victor Goddard found this figure remarkable.  I suppose that this was one of the reasons why they backed my going ahead with the Anomalous Observational Phenomena Bureau (AOPB) back in 1983.  In 1993 I closed shop on the AOPB as most of its original members were dead by then (one for the conspiracy theorists there!) and I had reached the conclusion that UFO activity was rarer than we believed and also that 95% of everything to do with the 'Greys', 'Dolphinoids' et al was nothing more than pure junk.

The evidence was far from convincing but I put my faith in:

1) Radar-Visual/multiple witness UFO incidents at the time of abductions ruling out the possibility that natural phenomena (UNP -Unidentified Natural Phenomena) were merely sparking off UFO reports along with physical traces.

2) Missing foetus cases -how could you argue with a foetus vanishing from a pregnant woman?

3) Implants allegedly retrieved from abductees.

4) Symbols recalled by abductees under hypnosis that they had seen on UFOs.

By 1997 MUFON in the United States confirmed to me that they had no 100% "solid"  cases. Yet it is one of the most respected, largest UFO investigation groups in the world.  That was a major disappointment.  Missing foetus cases also seemed to have been ably by veteran Ufologist Ann Druffel.  Two down, two to go.

By November 1997 I had written to every investigator and researcher I could find, who claimed to have handled or surgically removed the kind of alien implants that were being reported on TV and in the UFO press. Not a single response. So I did more digging and what I found were lies, more lies and damned deceit.  There appeared to have been not a single genuine implant retrieved from any abductee -"bits" removed seemed to be nothing more than plain ordinary organic matter that was produced by the 'abductees' own bodies.

To say that I was finding this all very depressing is putting it mildly.  I had one last hope.  The symbols.  These had been gathered by researchers from abductees in Canada, USA and the UK who had never had any contact whatsoever with one another, or with any UFO researcher before.  These symbols were so closely guarded that some had only ever been seen by one Ufologist.  If a woman in Michigan had reported seeing the same symbols as a woman in Dundee, then that would be near impossible to explain.

Having been a supporter of Budd Hopkin's work and even having an annotated copy of his 'Intruders' book, I started there.  Yes, Peter Robins and Budd would study symbols I sent to them and return them annotated, as to matches with symbols they had.  Budd has never revealed his symbol collection, not even with Peter!

i then contacted Dr. David Jacobs, whom I have been in contact with, and Prof. John Mack with the same deal.  My colleague in Texas, Lindy Whitehurst, passed copies on to Robert Davies who was studying such symbols for comparisons.  Another set went to yet another psychologist dealing with abductees.

Oddly enough, Philip Mantle of BUFORA ruled out that aliens had anything to do with abductions and wrote to me stating he had never come across such symbols in the UK.  Others had, however.

After over a year of repeatedly writing to Budd Hopkins, nothing had turned up.  I sent registered letters that were signed for but Budd would not respond and nor would Jacobs or Mack.

Rather desperately I wrote to Lindy in the US.  It seemed that Robert Davies had not found any symbols that matched.  Some, actually one or two, looked "similar" but there was not a single match. In fact, it seems that out of the thousands of symbols now available, not any matched other abductees' symbols.

It seems that I had struck the explanation to Budd's lack of cooperation.  If these symbols were all different, we had no evidence here.

For the first time I would like to publish symbols reported by British abductees, since everything points to the fact that none of the symbols held by ufologists can be considered as corroborating the genuine nature of other claimed abductees -because they don't report the same symbols.  The British symbols are shown here.  As anyone can see, these are a mish-mash of astronomical, astrological, Phoenician and Egyptian symbols - as well as some used in the publishing business to annotate manuscripts and indicate alterations.  I checked occult symbols and anything else I could get my hands on.  I checked linguists and others.  The symbols just do not make sense or mean anything.  They are simply a mixed bag of nonsense.  Budd Hopkins and the Intruder Foundation jumped at the chance to study these symbols -as did others- but I think their silence has to say it all.

The 'evidence' for UFO abductions CANNOT be confirmed or backed up in any way.

I am not saying that abductions haven't taken place, simply that if all of these abduction researchers cannot provide back-up for their claims now, they never will.

Of course, anyone who can provide implants, symbols or other proof is free to contact me,  No doubt I'll now be chased from the UFO field but, clearly, we need the evidence, we need the proof.


Above: the original Sightings article: after this was published pressure was put on the editor by "contributors" to drop my other articles planned for following issues.
                                                     >>>>>>>>

Well, I need to point out that my "life's work" never stopped in 1997!  Also there are date inaccuracies in the published article.

When it came to MUFONs declaration of no 100% solid evidence I named my source -a letter from Director Walt Andrus Jnr (a copy was sent with the article).
Above: Roswell. Enough said.

In the UK Gary Anthony told me that he had a collection of symbols that he was working on and asked for copies of the ones I had in return for those he had.  I sent the copies. After a year Anthony had not responded to my letters or phone calls.

Malcolm Robinson of the SPI also had symbols sent to him.  Again, it took a year but he then wrote to state that he had no symbols and that he was referring to marks on a person's body.

A small number of the symbols were fakes from Eric Morris who had also openly admitted in UFO circles that he had faked a number of abduction reports.  Ufology didn't care.

The problem is that if we have a genuine alien abduction agenda and abductees are seeing symbols and writing then there should be some matches. Even if the Greys have a different language to the Reptilians, or Tall Whites or whatever there logically have to be some common usage symbols or writing.  Yes, abduction folk come up with all sorts of excuses but it all tends to be bull or they will point and scream "Debunker!"
Above: said to have been seen in several cases...this is a hoax, however so.....

Regarding the "missing foetus syndrome" and other aspects of the Grey Abduction Scenario were covered completely in my book UFO Contact? while looking at the evidence that exists -the book is not a debunking exercise; I mention that because when you look for evidence people start thinking that far from being a sceptic looking at the evidence you are trying to debunk UFOs completely. That would have been me wasting over 40 years of my life.  I want answers before I die!

I hate to think that over twenty years later I am still giving the same sermon and no one listens but at least I am conducting research and that is yielding more results.

Below: symbols scanned from the original Grey Book

Thursday, 11 October 2018

Old abduction case discovered. UK cataloguing and Spanish hoaxes -or were they?

In doing a casual search today I discovered that there was another Buckfastleigh CE3K -possibly an abduction just one month after the one I am looking into.  Be interesting to see how this pans out.

Using the excellent Haunted Skies UFO encyclopaedia and some other sources, I have noted that 1977 was a peak year in the UK for CE3K reports but I need to add that many of those will fall by the wayside as they are categorized after reappraisal.

Certainly the old Preliminary Catalogue I posted a while back is looking bulkier.  It is just a pity that a request to BUFORA and other UK groups to participate in the project has received no responses. This goes to show just how much ufology has changed since the 1970s/1980s

I need to add that at the same time certain ufologists began to fake reports which they have admitted to doing but will not state which reports. When these reports are clearly identified those ufologists responsible will be identified.

Oddly, I have quite casually -again- discovered two types of entity that no one else appears to have noted before.  More when the work is complete.

Now, I note there are a few readers from Spain so I hope one of them might help. I was told that the 1967 sighting of a cactus-like entity near Barcelona, Spain and Tivissa octopus looking entity case were both proven press hoaxes.  I accepted this, however, I have been quite rightly challenged for accepting this explanation.  You see, I took someone's word for it.  I have asked people who used to deal with Spanish reports and other ufologists whether they can cite the source and evidence for hoaxes.

After three months I have still not come up with any source.  If you can help then please get in touch via aopbureau@yahoo.co.uk  -THANKS

Search for three teenagers involved in 1978 UFO incident in Devon

Can't say I am too happy that the inference of alcohol was put into the item but that is the press.

Search for three teenagers involved in 1978 UFO incident in Devon
The trio had left a youth club in Buckfastleigh
By Max Channon




A UFO researcher wants to contact a trio of teenagers who reported a close encounter of the third kind in Devon 40 years ago this month.

Terry Hooper-Scharf, a naturalist and historian who runs the Anomalous Observational Phenomena Facebook Page, says the youngsters, who will now all be in their 50s, reported seeing a number of UFOs in the sky after leaving a youth club in Buckfastleigh - the Devon market town famous for producing the notoriously potent Buckfast Tonic Wine.

The three friends also reported seeing 'unidentified figures' on three occasions - and were said to have been left traumatised by the experience.

Terry said: "On the 3 October, 1978, three teenagers left a youth club in Buckfastleigh, Devon. The trio were given pseudonyms at the time of Shirley, Mark and Paul.

"Investigation procedures at the time as well as protocol on dealing with witnesses were not what they are today.

"We know that the trio observed a number of unidentified objects in the sky above the village and some unidentified figures on three occasions.

"We might normally be cautious but a retired gentleman named Harry observed the objects himself after the nervous trio knocked on his door – his cats also behaved oddly.

"The teens were traumatised and the girl identified as Shirley was said to have been most affected.

"1978 seems a very long time ago now but I am trying to locate the teens and gather as much information about observations that evening as I can.

"If they read this, or any family members do, then please get in touch.

"I cannot over-emphasise that I deal with witnesses in the strictest confidence and have done so for over 40 years.

"My interest is purely for research and so I hope that the trio will consider getting in touch with me.


"I can be contacted via email at aopbureau@yahoo.co.uk or blackto@hotmail.com or via Face Book Messenger – Anomalous Observational Phenomena page."

Wednesday, 10 October 2018

Updated: Marley Woods and Ted Phillips -what is going on?


Let me make it very clear that if you are looking -scientifically- into the paranormal or unidentified phenomena of any type you are not a crank. If you are looking at UFOs in a scientific way you are not a crank.

However, there is a point when you can be said to have lost it.

Ted Phillips is a legend for his work on UFO physical trace evidence and I would have taken his word on anything because he had credibility.  I had to think long and hard after watching several long talks as well as hearing podcasts he has been on.

He recites the "classic" UFO trace cases of Delphos ("The Delphos Ring") and Langenburg, Saskatchewan, 1974. He has over 4,000 cases on his trace cases catalogue -photos, analysis, etc- and yet the same couple cases.  He will then go into the Skinwalker Ranch case and if you think George Knapp has given some wild versions of the same stories -Phillips goes one better.

We then come to his most recent ()decade or so?) work: Marley Woods. Odd lights, though absolutely nothing impressive filmed (it seems) just distance lights.  Tales of a very large, canid-like creature that is bullet proof and can walk on its hind legs (no, I am not getting mixed up and I am talking about Marley not Skinwalker) and a paw cast that looks wolf-like.

Cue the use of the term "portal" and the usual claims.

Now Phillips has been claiming that he believes UFOs and the paranormal are linked but also that the "flying saucers" of old have been "replaced" by orbs of various sizes and colours. He also claims that he realised one day that decades on these "little guys" (UFO entities) were described wearing the same type of clothing -their fashion had not developed.  Then it hit him that the reason the clothing may not have changed is because it is the "same day" to "them" -in other words: time travellers(21 minutes in):




Firstly, there have always been two distinct phenomena and one precedes Ufology by centuries. With today's reporting system everything and anything becomes a UFO so we cannot say there are no more "flying saucer" types being seen. I realised that there were two distinct phenomena with two days of cataloguing thousands of UFO reports in the late 1970s.

So what are people like Phillips doing?  If you study rabbits and combine that data with studies on horses you will end up with nonsense.  This is what these people are doing; combining two separate phenomena and adding in the other miscellaneous stuff like fakes and hoaxes and shrugging and saying "I give up.  this is completely beyond the laws of physics and cannot be extraterrestrial -it must be extra-dimensional!"

Now Phillips is concentrating on similar sites to Marley as well as a 'space ship'(?) embadded in a mountain in Czechia (formerly Czech republic)?

The natural thing to do is go through the catalogue and see which cases involve "orb-like" objects and which solidly constructed craft: you then have a data base for analysis on "UFOs" and the natural phenomenon.  You do not throw decades of work away and just say you think it might all be cosmic tricksters!

Phillips Physical Evidence data base has not been up-dated for years and the page for his trace group ...no responses. A few years back I defended Phillips and his work -which really should be available for public and Scientific scrutiny -especially scientists like to see some hard facts from analysis so...who is checking all this data and the last time I saw Phillips with his data files they were crammed.

In the UK Geoff Falla's Vehicle Interference Catalogue contains 900 reports -including from pilots.

That is 4000 Physical Trace cases and 900 Vehicle Interference cases.

I decided to re-appraise Close Encounters of the Third Kind and Alien Entity (CE3K/AE) reports and found large numbers of these were still being promoted as genuine despite being known as fakes/hoaxes and misinterpretations for 30-50 years.  What I did not expect, especially when I put together UFO Contact?, was to find that there are some that cannot be simply dismissed -and that was when I took into account the attempts by debunkers.  It will take a lot of work to get through thec world wide catalogue but there are "solid" cases.

We have people keeping catalogues of physiological effects and Animal Disturbance cases caused by UFOs, however, most do not want to share -it is "their" data.

But there is enough evidence and it needs to be presented and peer reviewed. THIS is what science needs and this type of material needs to be peer reviewed: that is science.

I asked previously why Phillips had not gotten involved with Bigelow, the money behind the Skinwalker ranch investigation.  It seems that Bigelow made the offer but in no way or form would Phillips be allowed to share information or discuss the work.  Bigelow told him "Information only comes in" which raises questions about what Bigelow is up to.

Refusing a good pay cheque and smart office because he believes all information should be made available, is a very big plus point on Phillips' side.

Decades on I think everyone -including Science- needs to see the trace evidence not listen to old stories of Delphos or Langenburg.


Ufology is just very depressing and unscientific

Tuesday, 9 October 2018

Buckfastleigh, Devon: 1978 -witness appeal

It is a long shot but you never know...

On the 3rd October, 1978, three teenagers left a youth club in Buckfastleigh, Devon. The trio were given pseudonyms at the time of Shirley, Mark and Paul.

Investigation procedures at the time as well as protocol on dealing with witnesses were not what they are today. 

We know that the trio observed a number of unidentified objects in the sky above the village and some unidentified figures on three occasions.  We might normally be cautious but a retired gentleman named Harry observed the objects himself after the nervous trio knocked on his door –his cats also behaved oddly.

The teens were traumatised and the girl identified as Shirley was said to have been most affected.

1978 seems a very long time ago now but I am trying to locate the teens and gather as much information about observations that evening as I can.  If they read this, or any family members do, then please get in touch. I cannot over-emphasise that I deal with witnesses in the strictest confidence and have done so for over 40 years.  My interest is purely for research and so I hope that the trio will consider getting in touch with me.

I can be contacted via email at aopbureau@yahoo.co.uk or blackto@hotmail.com or via Face Book Messenger –Anomalous Observational Phenomena page.

My thanks in advance

Terry Hooper-Scharf

CE3K/AE Project

Monday, 8 October 2018

An alien hunter is coming to Somerset....WHO Is This Person??

There is a reason why you always treat the press with caution.

An alien hunter is coming to Somerset
ByJames Brinsford
20:59, 7 OCT 2018
NEWS
An alien hunter is coming to Somerset

An alien hunter is heading to Somerset and has issued an appeal to a spotter in Yeovil that has said they have seen an unidentified creature.

Terry Hooper-Scharf is hoping that readers of Somerset Live will help him track down the person who thought they saw an extra terrestrial in the town.

He said that he is tracking down those that have had close encounters of the third kind and is eager to hear of any reported sightings.

This is part of the Alien Entities Study Project, which was set up in 1974 to gather and study reports, whether UFOs were involved or not.

This looked at cases from the UK as well as assessing world wide reports.

The project has received helped from naturalists, biologists and astronomers over the years, and with the CE3K/AE Catalogue is currently being updated for the UK, so now they need to hear from you.

Terry told us: "I am hoping that one of your readers might be able to assist me as I am looking for someone who reported sighting an 'alien' in Yeovil in December, 2016.

"Leaving aside all the obvious jokes, I need to ascertain whether this report was a joke or whether the people involved were being serious.

"If they were joking then fair enough it can be noted and left at that.

"If the people involved were being serious then I would very much like to hear from them, in the strictest confidence."

Terry said that his work has been recognised internationally and the people of Somerset may be able to fill some gaps in his study.

He said: "If the people or someone who knows about their sighting can get in touch or pass the word along I would be very grateful."



Sunday, 7 October 2018

Some Notes On CE3K/Alien Entity Cases



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 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 if there are any similar cases to theirs 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 but that after testimony is taken you are slightly more free to do so.

NEVER state "Oh, it's similar to the Stanford case" or anything similar as even an honest witness might be tempted to do an internet search for a "Stanford CE3K" or UFO landing report.

 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.

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 top the investigator ~wife, girl friend 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 spound quality.

8.    Taped interviews should be transcribed as soon as possible after initial interviews.

9.    Do NOT refer to any object sighted as a "space craft" 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" to indicate what is being described as a seeming constructed object.

10.    Do NOT refer to "Alien" or use any phraseology other than "Entity"

11.  If the percipient(s) were in a vehicle and vehicle interference was noted refer to manual on VI cases.

12.  If the percipient(s) report psysiological effects during and after 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 (no reference should be made to a UFOB case though, 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 reason for a mistake having been made 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 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 no problem) so that it can be pin~pointed as accurately as possible.  The inveastigators should note anything unusual in the area such as abandoned buildings, factoroies. 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.

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 we cannot say where these things originate and any mention of "Alien agendas"/"breeding programs" must not be made.

20.  Only now should it be clear whether or not there is any missing time period an ways to help the percipient(s) (not regression hypnosis) 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.

21.  At all times a central case coordinator should be kept up to date on the investigatrion.  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) 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.

these are only guidelines -be adaptable!

How Can A "Repeater" Be A Repeater If He/She Has Not Been Repeating?

Siberian ball lightning or UFO?  https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/535602/ball-lightning-siberia-UFO-sighting-phenomenon-Russia-Novosibirsk

There is a problem and, yes, the cause of the problem is once again the ufologist -but scientists can also take some measure of blame.

I have noted before how, even up until the late 1980s, if you saw a UFO you were told by ufologists: "It's very rare to see one of these".  If you saw a second UFO you were treated with caution; seeing a UFO is so rare and you have had two sightings?  Third time -"Witness is a UFOnut or mentally unstable!"

Today, of course, see a UFO once and some idiot jumps up-and-down and shouts "You've been abducted!"

I have had five sightings of strange lights between 1977-1986.  I was wide awake and moving around on all occasions and I was aware of every single second of the short and lengthier observations. I know meteorites -by 1980 I had written several general articles on the subject so, having also seen a few including bolides, I know the objects were not meteorites.  i have seen St Elmo's Fire -was not that. I think -think because it was so brief I would not credit it as a "sighting"- I have seen ball lightning. What I saw was not ball lightning -the weather on the occasions I saw what I saw was warm and clear and starry and cool and clear starry night. No thunderstorms before, during or after.

One of the objects, to me, looked like a ball of plasma -2-3 feet (60-90cms) in size.  However, it was a clear, starry morning and the weather could not have been better.  So no storm as a catalyst.

Three of the reports I made out UFO sighting report forms on for the group I ran.  After all, we needed to be aware of what was out there to formulate a theory and so on.  I made it perfectly clear that these objects in no way or shape could be considered as constructed craft.  They appeared to be unidentified but "natural".

One day I heard a report that sounded almost exactly the same as one of my sightings so I wanted to check the weather and other data I had included on my report form.  It was gone.  All three reports were gone -I was then told that a couple of the members had thrown away my reports as "We cannot be seen to have a leader who constantly sees UFOs" I was told.  To say that I went "ballistic" is a bit of an understatement.  It got worse when I found reports where others had reported seeing objects more than once were also thrown out.

We were all, presumably, "UFOnuts".

Astronomers and debunkers would always throw out "it was a meteorite" explanation.  They were astronomers so everyone giggled at the silly UFO people and moved on.  When astronomers made fun of witnesses and said "it was a meteorite" it began to be taken less and less seriously.  In fact some of the debunkers who thought it made them look good got red faces.  You see, when they never checked who the UFO witness was and went straight into mocking them it back-red.  I am aware of one noted astronomer who specialised in meteorites and such; at a meeting of astronomers he introduced a speaker who had jumped into astronomy only a couple years previously: "I will listen with great interest to his stories of seeing bolides just as he listened to my account of sighting an anomalous object recently".

This "junior" astronomer had actually mocked the witness to a UFO sighting who turned out to be one of the people to go to about meteorites -as he learnt that evening.  There was another professional jab -"stories"; you take things seriously as "accounts" and "reports" and using the word "story" is tantamount to saying "it's all made up".

So, the meteorite explanation was and is still used but a bit more cautiously.  But how could they (I won't call them scientists as they were being very unscientific) just dismiss UFO reports now?

Oh! Ball lightning!

Yes, "nobody knows what ball lightning is so no one can argue when we offer that one up!"  Of course, the indignant ufologists could not argue because they had no idea what ball lightning was and so they responded: "No! That is using one unknown to explain another unknown!"  They had their dander up but the fault was on both sides.

In 1982 I wrote my first general article on ball lightning and it was circulated amongst UK ufologists and even appeared in a few UFO newsletters but rather than make ufologists closely examine all cases it was simply used as a response to the solution: "We are well aware of ball lightning -we even published an article in our newsletter on the subject!"  Very truthful statement.  The article was right after the "Mini UFO probe spotted flitting about during thunder storm" report.

Ball lightning has even been used as evidence of a "UFO crash retrieval" -more than once.

My sightings helped me realise that not everything being reported was some kind of extraterrestrial vehicle.  However, when I broached the topic with legitimate scientific people the response was "not that UFO rubbish!" and yet I had never used the acronym "UFO".  The ufologists thought I was a "UFOnut" -some even took digs at me in print but (being cowards and not wanting to be sued) simply used titles such as "Are You A UFOnut?"   They used the same childish tactics when it came to my work on CE3K/AE reports.

An object sighted in Stockwood, Bristol, in the early 1980s was described by the couple involved as silently moving down from roof height to a few feet above ground, being a goldeny-colour and about my height (5ft 9 ins) and width (I was a "bigger boy" in those days).  Weather warm and clear and the object was around 10 feet (3m) from them. Not an extraterrestrial craft but definitely some form of phenomenon.

A white coloured light seen descending, hovering and changing shape before shooting off -it was about 3 feet (90 cms) in diameter.

Here is a fun fact: a few of these objects were sighted in areas with local legends of strange lights -"Devil's Eye" (Somerset) and so on.  The ball of light I saw from my sixth floor flat -similar balls of light had been sighted moving over the block before and some were even chased by police in squad cars (one -jokingly (I think)- told me:"About time you saw one since they are flying over your flats all the time!").

Scientists have ignored much of the data because it originates from ufologists.  Ufologists have no clue so it all becomes "inter-dimensional" or the "work of cosmic jokers".  You cannot imbue ball lightning or any other light phenomena with intelligence.  It is not "moving and indicating that some intelligence is guiding it".

I sit here, having looked at the evidence of CE3K/AE reports since 1974 while ufologists are calling moving balls of (let's call it plasma) plasma with intelligence and being evidence of visitors from other dimensions.

Which is the bigger dumb-qss?

So, when someone says (even in 2018) "The report isn't worth much attention -the witness is a 'Repeater'!"  They are talking nonsense: if you work at night and travel around and see up to ten meteorites a year should astronomers ignore you because you are a "Repeater"?  You see a natural but unrecognised phenomenon -may be ball lightning or not- on your 350 days of working and travelling nights -are you a Repeater who needs to be ignored?

You see natural phenomena and then one day you encounter something really "out of this world"; is your account now of no interest because you have reported ball lightning or other phenomena before?

You treat each new cases as it comes in and if you are unable to assess the information you receive sensibly -get out of ufology.  If you assess and judge only by reading (possibly inaccurate) press reports then -get out of ufology and stop accusing scientists of not taking the csubject seriously.

Scientists: open your eyes because you could be recognised as the person who opened up a whole new field of scientific study.

"Flying Saucer Review created the term Humanoid"

The Humanoids was an October-November 1966 special issue published by Flying Saucer Review. It was later released in book form. Why do I me...