The problem is that so many cases were not the subject of ufological investigations, others seem to be pure inventions to fit into books and there are no details of an original source. If Anonymous reports an experience on an Unknown date and at an Unnamed location then you have no case, especially if Anonymous does not come forward when reputable investigators make a plea. Add the hoaxes and reports that are 2-4 lines in 'fullness', hoaxes, possible and known misinterpretations of helicopters, motor vehicles and other mundane objects -you get to a core of cases.
I have looked at cases from Denmark but they all seem to fall into the "very insufficient" data column and even then they are on the brink of falling into the Hoax column.
A great many Belgian cases also seem to be easily dismissed but there appears to be a small central core of encounters that contain interesting details.
Germany...I heave a big sigh over. I recall Werner Walter telling me in the 1980s that I "probably will find those stories in UFO Nachtrichten"! Unfortunately, the "new ufology" of the 1980s only accepted the CE3K/AE cases as "psychological" and the stagnated minds ran to the "it is all para-psychological" explanation. Even today I get the remark "That's an American thing".
What happened to the whole "We need to investigate and get Science involved" spirit? It seems that this was just hot air being blown out of every orifice. Investigation by Newspaper Clippings was and still is the main method employed. And all of those classic encounter cases -He took the word of Him who heard from whats-his-name that So-and-so had said the report was genuine because So-and-so had read the inch long space devoted to the case in a sensationalist newspaper known for these stories. Are we to question the credibility of journalists -why would they fib? And, 25 years later when a ufologist does look into the report; oh, the indignant anger at what the journalist left out or added to the witness account!
That paragraph sums up everything about UFOs reports in general but specifically about how CE3K/AE reports were handled. How these cases are reported on today is simply inexcusable; add details of your own choice that others will then assume -if they even care- are accurate and all we have are lies, lies and incompetence. Do not quote a source unless you have actually checked it -stating "page 101 of Lumieres dans la Nuit 1978" is pure bull-shit. Which 1978 issue of LDLN? I have scans of all of the issues for that year and, oh, "page 101"? No issue goes to 50 pages let alone 100. Miss-typed maybe page 10? No.
In one French case it is stated that Jacques Vallee identified one case as clearly being a hoax. He then included it in his landings catalogue.
Really, at times I feel like Donald Trump screaming "fake news!!"
There must be serious investigators in other countries willing to look at the reports. Please, if you read this get in touch. If you know serious ufologists in your country (this blog seems to have an international readership) -pass on my details or the blog details to them.
No comments:
Post a Comment