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.
No comments:
Post a Comment