If you have read this blog before you will have seen the following folders. They contain CE3K/AE cases from 1900 on. Others cover South America, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, United States of America, eastern and Central Europe -I did say these files go back a ways!- and so on.
The expansion of files has meant that the number of files has risen from 15 to 20.
A problem arises when we examine the file for the United States. Each one of those tabs indicates a report entry and it stands at about 300 which is nowhere near close to the actual number pre-"Greys" era.
just a preliminary scan through these reports shows one thing: very few have been really investigated. A vast majority from the 1940s to 1970s are still used and one person will quote another as the source and the original source was...a newspaper clipping of a sighting never investigated. Yet still, according to ufologists 100% genuine "because it was reported in a newspaper". Investigation by news-clipping seems to have been -still is- the preferred method
The cases I used from the United States in UFO Contact? were ones that had been attacked by debunkers yet still, after decades, seemed to be genuine.
Let me explain "genuine" as it appears that the stompy-feet debunkers seem to have an intellectural problem when it comes to cases that scare them. The possibility of UFOs being extraterrestrial makes them soil themselves. I once spoke to a debunker and asked; "If we got a case of a UFO landing with entities, ground traces and even radar vizual back-up and the entities are obviously 'not from around here' then surely, if the witnesses hold to their statements, we have to accept the possibility that something happened and move on from there?"
Before I had issued the last two words I watched as the man's face went red and then a very scary, almost purple colour and I really could see his veins popping out! "No!" he spurted out. "Never. All UFOs are explainable and that's an end to it!" Arms folded he stormed off.
This is something I have seen and noted over 40+ years. It is true fear. Fear of the unknown and it is completely unscientific. So these debunkers will attempt defamation of character, twisting facts to make witnesses/percipients look like hoaxers or criminals and some will even try to bribe a witness to change story. That is truly a closed minded debunker who is afraid and does not abide by the Principles of Science that they say they follow. I did once wonder what such a person might say if they were abducted by aliens!
But the problem is that ufologists have given them all the ammunition they need. because if a debunker says "Let me see the report on --- landing" and all there is to hand is that news-clipping. Debunker wins and ufologist loses. Time and time again.
In France the Gendarmerie investigated reports made to them and those on file are amongst the best evidence of UFOs/CE3Ks around. No ufologist shoving sketches of "aliens" in front of a witness before an investigation has started. No selling witness details to newspapers or reporters. Straight forward investigation reports.
Yet look at the French folder
I know what someone will say "But the United States is a big country!" Well, so is France. Europe -East and West is very big and yet has nowhere near the number of reports as the United States. Until I began up-dating the French file I had no idea -because English language sources never bothered revealing the truth- how many from the 1954 French Wave were proven to be jokes and hoaxes as well as misidentifications and misinterpretations. Looking at the UFO reports from the time it is quite clear there was a flying saucer press frenzy going on and it led to false reports. It seems likely -very possible- that there was no big UFO Wave in 1954 France.
Debunkers demand 100% proof well, they demand that because they are aware that there is no such thing. Unless a spaceship lands during day time in a populated area and aliens get out and wave and everyone with a phone came or video recorder films them...well, even then it is not 100% proof. "CGI!" "CGI and actors!" it would go on and on.
In a court case a person is convicted based on evidence. No, he is not. The evidence is presented but then the jury has to make their own minds up. Innocent people go to gaol on no evidence yet someone murders his wife and her lover and the televised police chase and chapter is shown along with all the evidence and...man gets off and walks.
Luckily, we should not have to depend on the fickle public.
You talk to witnesses/percipients and gather all the information. If there are ground traces or other secondary evidence you gather that -"I heard the local airport might have had something on radar from a guy in a bar" is NOT acceptable: you check with the airport.
You look at all the angles and you cannot find any evidence of fakery. The witnesses/percipients seem to have genuinely been affected by what they say happened (in UFO Contact? I explain why you need to be very careful with a case involving just one witness). They seem to be genuine and want no publicity and in fact all they really want to know is "What the hell did we see?!"
When you have looked at this evidence and had it assessed and the witnesses/percipients seem to be honest people who have never had an odd experience in their and just want to get on with those lives: that is when you need to decide on whether you believe that the case is genuine. Preferably you should let other experienced people look the case over and see what they think. If it all pans out then you have a seemingly genuine case.
A debunker is never going to be satisfied -they claim they would be for obvious reasons- until you throw a dead alien on the table in front of them and show them the crashed space ship on a low-loader outside their office. A debunker once told me: "That would not constitute evidence"
If you have a CE3K report then you investigate it from every angle and you run details past other investigators to make sure you have not missed anything. You then send a copy of your report to the Centre for UFO Studied and to me!
Debunkers I have no time for unless they produce...evidence! Sceptical ufologists -not the debunkers who use that name- if they are really looking for evidence then fine. Ufologists should be going over the reports and building a case not rushing out to get on TV or in the newspapers. Really, the pre-1985 reports from the US should be investigated by American ufologists not me but as MUFON has no interest in these things and told me to go jump over a cliff and other US ufologists just have no interest...I hope I complete the work before my time is up!
Having a massive pile of news clippings or "reports" cut and pasted from the internet is not showing any serious interest.
Now, back to work...found more correlations!
The expansion of files has meant that the number of files has risen from 15 to 20.
A problem arises when we examine the file for the United States. Each one of those tabs indicates a report entry and it stands at about 300 which is nowhere near close to the actual number pre-"Greys" era.
just a preliminary scan through these reports shows one thing: very few have been really investigated. A vast majority from the 1940s to 1970s are still used and one person will quote another as the source and the original source was...a newspaper clipping of a sighting never investigated. Yet still, according to ufologists 100% genuine "because it was reported in a newspaper". Investigation by news-clipping seems to have been -still is- the preferred method
Let me explain "genuine" as it appears that the stompy-feet debunkers seem to have an intellectural problem when it comes to cases that scare them. The possibility of UFOs being extraterrestrial makes them soil themselves. I once spoke to a debunker and asked; "If we got a case of a UFO landing with entities, ground traces and even radar vizual back-up and the entities are obviously 'not from around here' then surely, if the witnesses hold to their statements, we have to accept the possibility that something happened and move on from there?"
Before I had issued the last two words I watched as the man's face went red and then a very scary, almost purple colour and I really could see his veins popping out! "No!" he spurted out. "Never. All UFOs are explainable and that's an end to it!" Arms folded he stormed off.
This is something I have seen and noted over 40+ years. It is true fear. Fear of the unknown and it is completely unscientific. So these debunkers will attempt defamation of character, twisting facts to make witnesses/percipients look like hoaxers or criminals and some will even try to bribe a witness to change story. That is truly a closed minded debunker who is afraid and does not abide by the Principles of Science that they say they follow. I did once wonder what such a person might say if they were abducted by aliens!
But the problem is that ufologists have given them all the ammunition they need. because if a debunker says "Let me see the report on --- landing" and all there is to hand is that news-clipping. Debunker wins and ufologist loses. Time and time again.
In France the Gendarmerie investigated reports made to them and those on file are amongst the best evidence of UFOs/CE3Ks around. No ufologist shoving sketches of "aliens" in front of a witness before an investigation has started. No selling witness details to newspapers or reporters. Straight forward investigation reports.
Yet look at the French folder
I know what someone will say "But the United States is a big country!" Well, so is France. Europe -East and West is very big and yet has nowhere near the number of reports as the United States. Until I began up-dating the French file I had no idea -because English language sources never bothered revealing the truth- how many from the 1954 French Wave were proven to be jokes and hoaxes as well as misidentifications and misinterpretations. Looking at the UFO reports from the time it is quite clear there was a flying saucer press frenzy going on and it led to false reports. It seems likely -very possible- that there was no big UFO Wave in 1954 France.
Debunkers demand 100% proof well, they demand that because they are aware that there is no such thing. Unless a spaceship lands during day time in a populated area and aliens get out and wave and everyone with a phone came or video recorder films them...well, even then it is not 100% proof. "CGI!" "CGI and actors!" it would go on and on.
In a court case a person is convicted based on evidence. No, he is not. The evidence is presented but then the jury has to make their own minds up. Innocent people go to gaol on no evidence yet someone murders his wife and her lover and the televised police chase and chapter is shown along with all the evidence and...man gets off and walks.
Luckily, we should not have to depend on the fickle public.
You talk to witnesses/percipients and gather all the information. If there are ground traces or other secondary evidence you gather that -"I heard the local airport might have had something on radar from a guy in a bar" is NOT acceptable: you check with the airport.
You look at all the angles and you cannot find any evidence of fakery. The witnesses/percipients seem to have genuinely been affected by what they say happened (in UFO Contact? I explain why you need to be very careful with a case involving just one witness). They seem to be genuine and want no publicity and in fact all they really want to know is "What the hell did we see?!"
When you have looked at this evidence and had it assessed and the witnesses/percipients seem to be honest people who have never had an odd experience in their and just want to get on with those lives: that is when you need to decide on whether you believe that the case is genuine. Preferably you should let other experienced people look the case over and see what they think. If it all pans out then you have a seemingly genuine case.
A debunker is never going to be satisfied -they claim they would be for obvious reasons- until you throw a dead alien on the table in front of them and show them the crashed space ship on a low-loader outside their office. A debunker once told me: "That would not constitute evidence"
If you have a CE3K report then you investigate it from every angle and you run details past other investigators to make sure you have not missed anything. You then send a copy of your report to the Centre for UFO Studied and to me!
Debunkers I have no time for unless they produce...evidence! Sceptical ufologists -not the debunkers who use that name- if they are really looking for evidence then fine. Ufologists should be going over the reports and building a case not rushing out to get on TV or in the newspapers. Really, the pre-1985 reports from the US should be investigated by American ufologists not me but as MUFON has no interest in these things and told me to go jump over a cliff and other US ufologists just have no interest...I hope I complete the work before my time is up!
Having a massive pile of news clippings or "reports" cut and pasted from the internet is not showing any serious interest.
Now, back to work...found more correlations!
No comments:
Post a Comment