Who's A Fibber Then?

 

Charles Hoy Fort

 "I can't give you the name but I can tell you---"

"I strongly protect the witnesses so I am not prepared to give a name"

"I re-write hand written statements from witnesses to hide their identity"

"I have dealt with thousands of UFO abductees every year. Their identities are hidden"

"people may say the reports are just made up. Let them. I protect witness anonymity"

Phrases used by frauds in Ufology, Forteana, Cryptozoology, "ghost hunting" etc.  Yes, protect the anonymity as requested but you need to show more trusted people in your field who the witnesses are even if you mask their addresses.

Certain cases I have asked people with no connection to the subject to just look at the necessary part that shows a percipient/witness is named and that what I have written is truthful to t6he account I was given. These people have no interest in my "crazy stuff" BUT if anyone questions something I can call on them to state that they have seen the report and names of those involved. The important thing is that I can prove who said or wrote what.

People have come out over the years to give their stories, however, I still will not identify them as I gave them a promise of confidentiality BUT if they ask someone to check with me I will confirm details.

In the last couple of years report after report after report has fallen by the wayside  for reasons such as "There was never a full report" (??) or "there was just a standard UFO report form-no idea where it is now" and, an actual standard response: "No idea where the witness(es) are now. Lost contact with them years ago" and... no proof that in certain major cases the percipient even existed. And I am talking well known CE3K cases. Many just have a Low rating because those investigators associated with them have been outed as faking reports for unknown reasons since the 1970s but will not say which of their reports these were. In other words out of 100 reports we cannot accept and verify which are genuine.

Someone has "thousands of UFO abduction reports a ytear" I am calling out as a liar as absolutely no proof of this exists. These people are telling those reporting a UFO sighting that they were likely abducted and push them into regression hypnosis on the first investigator visit.  we use our "hypnotherapist and psychic" ... you just lost credibility.

There are NOT millions of abductions each year around the world. There are not "Hundreds of thousands" either. Likely not even "many hundreds". I believe they are rare but every case of sleep paralysis, altered state etc is taken as a genuine UFO abduction. 

Evidence?  Check out the various US haunting TV shows and TWICE I watched someone say: "I looked at my bedside clock and it was 1.00am. I  turned over. When I turned back it was 3.30  -I loist two-and-a-half hours!!"  It's called sleep.

A 'UFO abductee': "I recall that it was 1 am and I was having trouble sleeping  but closed my eyes and then I looked at the clock and it was 5 am!!"  Again: it is called sleep (that fella got more sleep than I get!).

You need to record all details. Always maintain contact with a percipient if only to see if anything has happened to them since the first encounter.  You make a full report of what is known -NOT jump straight in with hypnosis. Alkways make sure that you can prove you have a genuine report and, never ever do what five different ufologists have tried with me "Oh, the full report is in my book...you can buy a copy?"  

Charles Fort, incidentally, was on abvious fibber or very bad archivist because reports he dates to certain newspapers do not exist. Details of events do not exist as he reported them.  I know because for 50 years I have searched the archives, scrolled through books and historical records and... well, Fort was the Poster Child for Cryptozoology, Forteana and Ufology not to mention ghost hunters. I do suspect, however, that Fort's insistence that there should NOT be a Fortean Society was because he made a lot up and probably was a jokester.  All the evidencer is in my archives.

It's all 90% Fake

  John Keel stated at a convention that "I think Ufology has probably had more hoaxes than any other Fortean filed"

Seee approx 40minutes in

Ufologists do not read history or pay attention to Forteans. Forteans tend to think Ufologists are stupid or silly and only read history they are told to as "it's Fortean".  Cryptozoologists tend to ignore Forteans and Ufologists as believing in silly stories. We  can throw "Ghost hunters" into that mix.  There is one thing they are united in, however:

Lying, bending the truth to fit their own theory, hoaxing and in 99% of cases they can be proved to be doing this. Butno one speaks out (unless it is to attack each others fantasies)

 20^th July, 1966 Isle of Wight

 

   The next report came from Fred Smith and his Ufolog, published by the Isle of Wight UFO Society and was followed up in more recent years by John Hanson for his Haunted Skies UFO history (Haunted Skies vol. 3 pp: 65-66 series. 2010).

 

   At around 21:30 hrs on the 20^th July, 1966, Angela L. Cotton and her then boyfriend, John, were seated in a car on the Blackgang sing of The Landslip car park. Angela reported that she had sensed “something or someone” was close to them and both looked out of the window and observed a yellow glow over hills that blocked their view of the sea. Curious, the couple wound down the car windows and were almost immediately aware of a vibrating sound which seemed to be coming from the direction of the light. John then decided that they should head back home and they drove along the country lane before turning out onto the main road.

 

   Angela told John Hanson:

 

   “Suddenly, John doubled over the steering wheel, clutching his stomach. He

   gripped his right arm on the inside of the elbow joint and his foot began to

   slip off the accelerator.  His face went white, almost blue.

 

   “I told him to put his foot back and I would steer the car to the main road,

   which I did. After arriving home, John told me he felt as if his stomach

   had been gripped in a vice, and rolled up his right sleeve. On the inside

   of the elbow joint, there was a mark, like a bruise, about the size of a penny,

   showing numerous holes, like the punctures made by a test vaccine. The

   next day, he told me he had similar marks on his stomach. By the weekend,

   these marks had gone.”

 

   On the 21^st the couple had driven back to the site and noticed what looked like a furrow on the side of a hill –almost like earth had been scooped out. They set out to the site and noted that it looked as though something had been rubbing against the earth to make this effect; “like a large wheel some six feet in partial radius.” Angela continued:

     “The earth around the edges of this furrow was very dry and the grass around the edges was not charred, but brown, as if heat had been applied. I don’t know what the ‘glow’ was. It certainly wasn’t the beam of St. Catharine’s Lighthouse, or the sunset. I can’t explain what happened.”

 

   It was in 2007 that Hanson tracked Angela down to the United States where she was then living. She told him:

 

      “I have never forgotten the incident you mentioned, as it is one of the few

      moments in my life for which I could ‘kick myself’ for not having the

      courage to walk to the edge of Sugar Lump Hill (the area name back then),

      and look down at the source of the light seen.  If I had seen what was causing

      the light, I would have perhaps known what caused the scuff marks on the

      side of the hill that we viewed….”

 

   Hanson then asked her about the strange marks found on John. Angela told him:

 

      “They looked like weal marks. I have no idea what caused them, although

      I do wonder if some form of hysteria could have induced them to occur,

      rather than through physical assault.”

 

 

Above: Angela Cotton in a photo supplied to John Hanson©A. Cotton

 

   That last line of “rather than through physical assault” is interesting and I asked John and he assured me that he had not suggested any type of “assault” connected with the light. Again, and I know this gets boring but it is a vital matter in any such case –whether a CE1K, CE2K or CE3K; there is no chronology so that we have a time of 21:30 hrs (I am guessing they looked at a car clock or watch) when the light was first seen and that’s it.

 

   The fact that Angela has kept a strong memory of the light is interesting because a light is a light so 40 years on it should be “just one of those things”.  The big puzzle is John; we know that after the light and vibration sound he had decided that they needed to leave and up to that point nothing seems to have happened that inspired any “Oh, I wonder if--?” moment in Angela.  For him to suddenly double up in pain for no seeming reason is odd. It is possible that something he ate earlier might have suddenly caused stomach cramps but that does not tend to produce weal-like markings and then we have the elbow mark which looked as though it had a number of puncture marks in it like old vaccination scars. If the weal-like markings had similar then “something” must have happened.

 

   That Angela noted that they both felt someone or something was watching them added to the other report aspects and her rationalisation that “some form of hysteria” may have caused psychosomatic symptoms is fascinating. Firstly, psychosomatic disorders resulting from stress may include hypertension, respiratory ailments, gastrointestinal disturbances (“upset tummy”), migraine and tension headaches, pelvic pain, impotence, frigidity, dermatitis, and ulcers but not weal-like marks with puncture marks in them. Just what did she feel might have caused John to suffer some form of hysteria –they only saw a light.

 

Remember that this was originally reported back in 1966 so it is not tainted by later UFO accounts that report these aspects.

Kelly Cahill Alien Encounter Plus John Auchettl Archives of UFORQ 1996

 

Meetings with UFOs discussed by experiencers of the phenomenon (1991)

 Tor Erikson's account is interesting. It shows James Harder who did work with Hynek was planting abduction ideas into peoples' minds/

Let's Be Honest

 In the last few months I have tried to update report files.I have worked solidly to make sure that all the details are saved for posterity.  

With British Ufology I have found that one "majhor case" after another simply crumbled away. One particular Ufologist was involved in three of these and NOW, after being asked for any extra information, his fellow investigator has cast major doubt on the authenticity of what was reported. Checking one case the location is dubious but the name of the percipient does not appear in any registery for that county...ever.

Another tells a good story but this is how it went down:

Me: "Is it possible to please get a copy of the investigation report?"

Inv:"The details are in my book"

Me: "Well, I cannot put a whole book into a folder and the report itself would stand as better evidence"

after a delay:

Inv: "I can send you a word doc but if used it will need to be credited to me"

Me: "No problem  there. Thanks for your effort"

The email arrived. It was the chapter from his book. I contacted him again and explained that I would very much like to include an actual investigation report  in the files:

Inv: "There was only a standard UFO report form on the UFO"

Me: "Okay, can I get a copy of that please?"

Inv: "I don't know where it is. I think I ghave it to a Ufologist."

This was a case that Ufologist has pushed as major and involving "UFO abduction" and much, much more. All he had was his notes from his book and not even the report form which he gave away (ever hear of a photo copier?). The evidence for the case is ZERO. It canbnot be used as anything other than a file filler.

So how about another one of his "Major UFO incident and abduction" cases that he has written and spoken of extensively?  No report.  A third case.... well, he is not getting back to me on that one (it has been a couple weeks).

This is not a fluke. Two other authors recently told me they havce no idea where their notes are on "significant" cases and I suspect that there are no reports and that means those cases have to be classed as LOW evidence (opne even admits to ignoring a letter from teenage witnesses BECAUSE they were "kids".

Out of ten 'Ufologists' who wrote books on abductionshow many do you think know how to get in touch with the percipients or have stayed in touch with them?  Not a single one. They got what they wanted -info for a bvook or chapter in a book and that was it.

Mona Stafford is the last surviving member of the trio said to have been abducted in Liberty, Kentucky in 1975. That was a major case with all the extra anecdotal evidence and look what happened. The trio were milked dry for everything to go into magazines and books and then dumped. Even the 'stellar' MUFON had no idea about the case until I reminded them and they had no contact details. They did not know that two of the women had passed away. Mona Stafford appeared on a news (TV) item back in the mid 2000s and I have tried newspapers and even the reporter/TV station that interviewed her -no contact details. I try and try and try but a failure every time.

Here is another: Kelly Cahill involved in one of the most spectacular UFO abduction cases (1993 Australia). Multiple on board percipients and physiological evidence and independent corroboration and the Paranormal Research Australia report would have all the tech and scienbtific analyses to make it as close to absolute evidence as you can get.  Kelly did the UFO conference circle pointing this out and it was bviously wearing her down based on the body language at times. Then....someone in PRA gave out the names of the witnesses who had come forward based on their anonimity being preserved. A court case against PRA and the report has never appeared (likely due to legal reasons).

Yes, Ufologists ****** up everything.

The PRA would not respond to me -and I have tried a few times. So I tried to contact Cahill: dead end. I contacted any Australian UFO group I could find. Two had never (?!) heard of the case and the others "no idea".  Yes, a truly major UFO event screwed up by the investigators (and I have always been open to hearing their side of things) and the known main witness.... no one knows where she is.  I suspect that after all the work Cahill put into making facts known the betrayal of witness confidentiality (as in the case of the three Liberty percipients) and what ensued she simply walked away and got on with her lifr.

We lost the Kathy Reeves family encounter from 1965 BECAUSE of a lazy Ufologist. We lost all the details from Eupora, 1973 BECAUSE of racist Ufologists and there is a catalogue of such histories. 

We have lost cases that may have been historically significant and no one is interested in 2026 because there is no money ot great publicity for them.

THAT is Ufology.

Confessions of an Alien Abductee

 I leave this with NO COMMENT

The Runcorn UFO Encounter ....which story is correct?

 

I have counted five (5) different versions of this account. Eerie's Vault adds another. This is from Spooky Valley https://spookyvalley.com/events/1979-frodsham-encounter/

Three young men night-fishing on the marshes near Frodsham reported a bell-shaped craft and tall figures who they said paralysed them with a beam of light before departing across the Mersey estuary.

 

January 27, 1979

Frodsham, Cheshire, England

3+ witnesses

Bell-shaped craft hovering above wetland trees with a vertical beam of light

Bell-shaped craft hovering above wetland trees with a vertical beam of light · Artistic depiction; AI-generated imagery, not a photograph of the event

The Frodsham encounter is one of the more frequently cited British close encounters of the late 1970s, partly because the witnesses were young, articulate, and willing to speak openly, and partly because the case was investigated by the Manchester UFO Research Association at a time when British civilian research was unusually well organised.

 

Background

The Cheshire marshes, where the River Weaver opens into the Mersey, are a stretch of low, reedy land that can feel almost theatrical at night. Patches of mist drift across the flats, the sounds of the nearby chemical works drift in from the north, and visibility shifts unpredictably. The area was, and remains, popular with night anglers, who fish for eels and pike in the still channels.

 

Through the 1970s the wider Merseyside region produced a steady stream of unusual aerial reports, and the Frodsham marshes featured in several of them. The Manchester UFO Research Association maintained close contact with local press and was often on the scene within days of any reported encounter.

 

The Sighting

In the early hours of 27 January 1979 three friends, all in their early twenties, were night-fishing at one of the quieter channels on the marsh. The night was cold, with patchy mist over the water. Shortly after midnight they noticed a soft glow rising over the reedbeds to the south.

 

By their account the glow resolved within a minute or two into a bell-shaped object roughly the size of a small van. It descended slowly to a position perhaps fifty metres from their fishing spot and emitted a vertical column of pale light onto the marsh. The men reported that they could not move for the duration of the encounter, that the air felt thick, and that their voices, when they tried to speak, came out muffled.

 

Two figures, taller than a man and dressed in what the witnesses described as glistening pale suits, descended from the craft and moved across the marsh in their direction. The figures stopped some distance away, appeared to lift one of the men’s fishing rods briefly, and returned to the craft. The object then lifted, the column of light withdrew, and the men were able to move again. The craft drifted north toward the Mersey and disappeared from view within a minute or two.

 

Investigation

The Manchester UFO Research Association, through investigator Harry Hesketh, took up the case within a week. The three men were interviewed both together and separately, and their accounts were broadly consistent on the shape of the craft, the column of light, and the figures. They were less consistent on small details such as the precise duration of the encounter, which is not unusual under the circumstances.

 

No physical traces were found at the marsh, although the investigators noted that the saturated ground would have made trace evidence difficult to read at the best of times. None of the men sought publicity and one of them was visibly reluctant to speak to investigators, agreeing to do so only because his friends had insisted.

 

The encounter has structural parallels with the Robert Taylor incident the same year and with the broader category of British marshland and woodland encounters that includes the Rendlesham case the following winter.

 

Aftermath

A short account of the case appeared in the regional press in February 1979 and was picked up by national tabloids in a sensationalised form. The witnesses, none of whom had wanted that level of attention, declined further interviews. The case has been reviewed by Jenny Randles and others over the years and remains one of the more curious British encounters of the period.

 

Skeptical Analysis

Sceptical commentary has focused on the men’s lack of independent corroboration and on the possibility of shared misperception in conditions of cold, fatigue, and patchy mist. The reported paralysis has been compared with sleep-paralysis episodes, although the men insisted they were fully awake and actively fishing immediately before the encounter. No conventional explanation has been advanced that accounts for the bell-shaped object, the figures, and the column of light as a single coherent event.

 

Harry Hesketh, MUFORA case files, 1979. Liverpool Echo, regional coverage, February 1979. Jenny Randles, The Pennine UFO Mystery (1983).

The Travis Walton Experience: New footage revealed | UNKNOWN | FOX 10 Phoenix

 

Traditionalist Publishers Do NOT Want Truth or Facts

 

I was asked why I stopped trying to find a more traditional publisher to handle the prose books since they would have all the extra marketing skills etc to sell titles?  

It isn't so much that I stopped looking it is the fact that publishers are simply not interested and have moved away from reading and publishing and gone more for publishing by committee -with members and their own prejudices and biases. 

This is what I got from one publisher regarding The Red Papers last year:

"Dear Terry,

"Thank you very much for your message and for sharing the background to your extensive work in wildlife study and conservation, as well as the details of your two publications.

"We appreciate your dedication and the long-term fieldwork and research that support these titles. To help us better understand the scope and potential fit of your work with our editorial line, we would kindly ask you to complete the attached proposal form. This document will allow us to gather key information about the content, intended audience, and objectives of the books. It also outlines how to send further material should the proposal move forward.

"Once we have the completed form and any additional documentation you wish to share, our editorial board will carefully review the proposal. If we feel there may be a possible fit, we will be in touch to discuss next steps.

Thank you again for considering Lynx Nature Books. "

Now, considering that the company had as best a synopsis as I could give of the work which covers decxades of study, research and field work as well as gathering very rare images how else can you make  the work of interest to a publisher?

Controversial and against dogma -fully referenced from official publications and works that back up the statements and not "Well I heard" as seems more common these days. We now KNOW what the original British Isles wild cat looked like as well as the fact that we know when Scottish zoologists declared (in 1897) that the Highland wild cat had become extinct. It can now be proven  (not that it ever needed to be) that there were indeed three variations in Old British foxes.

Original: since 1900 dogma set it that meant that generrations have been misled by people who like to call themselves experts but who preach dogma. It has taken decades of archive research as well as investigation to not just prove what is stated in the books as facts but even more to get physical evidence in the form of taxidermy specimens to prove the case.

The Red Paper: Canids (2010) was called by the late Sir David Bellamy "explosive for British natural history" -and that version of the book was "sparse" com,pared to the 2022 version.

Perhaps publishers want to save themselves embarrassment from decades of inaccurate books they have published?

And, no, I never heard back from Lynx Nature Books.  I did hear from another publisher that my manuscript had gone through the first committee to be looked at, then that the second committee had approved "the book being listed" to be looked at. A year on and nothing. 

Three years ago I was informed by one publisher that with modern societal changes they needed to look at books and consider gendere diversity and ethnic diversity and what my book could contribuite to that. I was writing about researchy on wild canids and felids and just what the hell anything else had to do with that I have no idea.

Unfortunately, I am not included in the long list of virtue signalling tick boxes.

The Red Papers were accepted three times by a publishing editor only, a month or so later, the same editor telling me that "At the moment the book does not fit into our upcoming schedule".  I later learnt that one publisher was very unhappy with one of the editors as they had been publishing the modern, false British natural history for decades.

I have a big collection of books on or referring to foxes in the UK. Each and every one of the authors has just done what we would call today "copied and pasted" from others. An incorrect fact published in 1950 is copied (almost verbatim) throughout the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and ad infinitum.  Lying about factual history is never good.

Then we come to the "World mystery" books. Heavily researched and referenced with some -truthfully- very rare or thought lost photographs and images (we know they are lost images because author after auther states this...they just never went to the source material). The photographic image of the City of Brtistol that appeared in the sky over Alaska. Gone forever.. well, no. I found it. 

Many "mystery creatures" (cryptids) took years to dig down to the actual facts in the sources to sometimes surprisingly identify and only through archive research did I find a newspaper report of what might have been the first gorilla from Africa in the early 1800s.

The truth may well not be "sexy" or "hip" but for each animal identified or each mystery looked at and solved there are those that are not. You follow the facts and the reference sources to the truth -or the mystery.

Sadly, unless you scream "cover up" or push sensationalist  but provable false claims publishers are not interested. Back in the 1980s -yes, the 1980s- one publisher "loved" my manuscript but, in writing, asked whether I could not just add in claims of government cover ups, threats and so on to "spice it up"?  I responded that I could only write about provable facts and my own experiences and would not lie to spice things up. My book suddenly became very uninteresting!

I am an archivist, researcher and historian  so what do I do -just gather all the material in files andf let it gather dust until I am no more and it all gets burnt or thrown into a skip and lost forever?  No, I do what most stupid people like me do: self publish in the belief that people would sooner have fact that sensationalist lies. 

There are a lot of us stupid people around.