It was while glancing at them that I realised just how far work had progressed since the 1980s.
today there seems to be a good explanation for most cases which makes those with no real, proven explanation even more fascinating. The main thing that really sticks in the mind are the number of cases reported on in UFO literature but never investigated -despite the fact that there were plenty of UFO/flying saucer investigators in the areas involved. So why were the cases not investigated? The reason could well be plain old prejudice.
Even up until the 1980s the hobby -I call it a hobby because 95% of those involved were playing at being ufologists. Even the vary serious ufologists had problems with Alien Entity reports. The term "Alien Entity" I coined in the 1970s so that it would be quite neutral and acceptable. With the British Flying Saucer Bureau (f. 1952) even into the 1980s if an AE report did not match what Adamski wrote it was treated with disdain. In the late 1970s I approached the British UFO Research Association (BUFORA) with a list of what I called Time Lapse Incidents and even though I had to complete the UK CE3K section for BUFORA to pass on to Ted Blocher in the US for his Humanoid Catalogue (HUMCAT), reaction was negative. Or, at best, "Well, no one says that you cannot look into these claims" -at worst I was told more than once by ufologists that "looking into these silly stories is not going to do your credibility much good".
Even when I tried to look deeper into the case of a woman who had seen a number of UFOs and AEs I was discouraged. When that did not work there were insinuations made about my "real" intent and spending a lot of time alone with the woman. That never worked as either her husband or someone else was always present. My disgust at all of these idiots and what they were trying to do which was far from being open-minded and inquiring led me to carry out research privately. At which point I began to learn far more!
I do remember that people such as Norman Oliver, Lionel Beer and Graham Knewstub were open to my work and these reports so there were little beacons of light in the darkness!
As a rule any work done for the AOP B has a standard 25-30 years confidentiality rule but as some of this was carried on outside and after that work and is not naming witnesses I cannot foresee a problem in 2018!
This is raw data and is currently being up-dated and it should narrow the number of apparently genuine reports to a minimum. This should not be seen as negative or not good in any way. In fact, the very low number of seeming genuine reports means that we can get down to true hardcore data for research.
Here is glimpse at the sometimes messy "behind-the-scenes" research!
No comments:
Post a Comment