More Devon Abductions?

When it comes to my looking into the Buckfastleigh Encounter of 1978 I seem to have stirred up a whole can of worms.

If we count the trio in Buckfastleigh who are the main focus then add in the reported abduction that MUFON simply ignored when it was reported to them years later as well as one person who may have scarring along the spine following a supposed abduction then we have five possible abductees.

In a couple other cases, although a light (seen by a secondary witness) was reported and there was "paralysis" there is no conscious recall of anything more.  I could dig deeper but that would mean opening up the percipients to trauma and there is nothing in place to help support percipients after main investigation. I will not put people through this just to add more case material.

However, there is a sixth possible abductee from that period.  Around September, 1978, Gordon (pseudonym) and his fiancee had moved to Devon, not far from Buckfastleigh, to take up work as chef's while Gordon waited to hear back about his application to join a northern police force.

One morning, Gordon's fiancee shook him awake to look out at a very bright object not far from where they were staying.  Things then got odd.  Gordon remembers waking, seated on a chair in the living room.  This appears -as far as we know- to have been a one off event.

Many years later, having retired from the police service, Gordon's fiancee-then wife of many years- was dying and told him that she had seen much more on the night they had seen a UFO.  She told him that at one point she had seen him accompanied by "others" before he "awoke" in the living room.

Gordon just wanted to let me know something had happened but did not want to go into things too deeply as his late wife had seen -or recalled- more.  He simply wanted me to know that this took place around the time of the Buckfastleigh event in case it helped.  Eventually I wrung out of him that the "others" seen by his wife resembled types known as "Nordics" in Ufology. Something else was related to him by his late wife but he would say no more.  He does, however, have my contact details.

Although Gordon was not after publicity I still have to note but give a low credibility rating since I on;y have basic details.  That does not mean he was lying. I just have nothing to really dig into and, again, I was not going to push to exploit.

However, since Gordon could not know of the details in one case I was struck by a certain aspect of his report that matched. That is a big "coincidence".

I have stated for many years that 1977 leading into 1978 was a peak period for CE3K/AE reports in the UK and further afield.  We may never know what happened in that small area of Devon in 1978 but something obviously was going on.

Unusual Features Revealed by Most Detailed Map of Titan

Research Never Stops

The introduction to Contact: Encounters with Extra Terrestrial Entities

Research Never Stops

   If the Reader has read my previous two books on Close Encounters of the Third Kind -referred to in this work as “CE3K”- and Alien Entity cases, UFO Contact? and Unidentified –Identified then they should know what to expect in this one. Reports that have been researched or investigated as thoroughly as possible and that are fully referenced.  I always encourage others to follow-up on a report if they want to and, should they find evidence that counters what is presented in any of my work it is always welcome. Research is not about saying “case closed” because, unlike Science in general which closes its eyes and looks away, we cannot have that attitude.

   The Debunkers like to assert that they apply the Principles of Science to their work. In fact, if they did so we might not get to continually laugh at them as they impress their fans (oh yes, there are groupies and it is quite embarrassing to see) with talk of how members of the public cannot judge size and distance when their own televised debunking tests prove that they can.  And where would we be if the debunkers, who are not marine biologists and ignore everything said and written by marine biologists with decades of field work, did not explain to us that there are no sea serpents or sea ‘monsters’ –even Sir David Attenborough in the book Life On Earth (Harper Collins, London, 1979) states that it may be possible that we will one day discover the legendary sea serpent(s).  Oh, and some debunkers would be lost if they could not cry out “It was owls!” at least twice a year.

   Debunkers by using that very name reveal that they are here only to gain attention and make money from TV shows, books and other outlets. If you look into something and your mindset is that you know everything and its all hoaxes or psychological then you are serving no purpose other than hiding your fear behind a big ego (and cheque). If you cannot disprove something and have to resort to lies, trying to corrupt other witnesses with money and fake evidence then you are hiding something.

   The “Sceptical Ufologist” is just another name for a debunker.  These people hide in online groups or attend UFO events while criticising Ufologists, conventions and telling private groups that they will be “spying in the background” at events and report back.  They are actively involved in attempting to explain away UFO reports through far fetched or non-tenable theories. The reasons why they will not look at or accept the possibility of extraterrestrial visits is purely down to Fear of the Unknown Phobia – Xenophobia: the irrational sensation of fear experienced about a person or a group of persons as well as situations that are perceived as strange or foreign. It is the fear of anything that is beyond one's comfort zone. Why these people insist on being in the Ufological field also indicates a deep psychological anxiety because if “It’s all hoaxes or psychological” then get out of the subject and live your life.

   In November, 2018, I received three emails from people involved in UFO groups and online chat groups.  They were outraged and sent me the full body of text from a message on the supposedly private EuroUFONet group regarding “Current international UFO research coordination/liaison projects”. The author was none other than Vicente-Juan Ballester Olmos.  As this email is now public knowledge and I have made this known to EuroUFONet I can see no problem with publishing it here unedited:

   “I am not surprised by lack of reaction on those "events". In a very brief comment, many of us worked on similar initiatives in the past when we still believed that (1) there was a legit subject-matter to investigate (i.e. a possible visit of spacecrafts, or at least the possibility to discover a novel atmospheric phenomenon), and (2) ufologists' motivation was sincere, educational, research-oriented. Such attempts failed basically because major differences in attitude (research vs exploitation) and conclusion (different forms of skepticism vs crude belief in flying saucers) emerged as the result of advancement vs stagnation.

   “What was impossible 30 years ago is now impossible because sides are sharper. We all know all the guys listed, one by one. Their biography (perhaps with some exception) is clearly one of belief and/or exploitation. Most of the individuals listed simply attempt to disguise their own credences in spacecraft visits with the appearance of serious investigation, but they are sensational-seekers and opportunists, trying to get recognition and a few bucks. Most if not of them are mediocre people in search of fame and money. All of them use and abuse the popular UFO belief to their own benefit. For me, this is ludicrous and immoral, in addition to totally wrong. I, for one, would not associate to any of them.

   “If an institution (ignorant of the reality) decides to waste some money and invites them to a congress, it will give them an excuse to release the magnificient proposal of an international confederation or the like, just to fabricate a news with zero base. They just share identical personal objectives (perhaps with some exception). If they find an institution or government naive enough to invest money on this subject, they will jump on this, specially if it allows them to travel, go to good hotels, make publicity of themselves, enjoy TV coverage, and the like. In 5 years, nothing will have been accomplished. As in the last 70 years.

   “Regarding MUFON: is there anything we do not know about what really fuels this organization?”
 
   I see points that I would agree with and others that I would challenge but I suppose that the main question is why would you remain active in a field you think is utter rot and full of idiots and con-men?

   When we add to this the Ufologists and the bragging rights (they think) to declaring that they employ the Principles of Science unlike the scientific community we can see why things are messy.  The first question here is why do Ufologists not submit their completed reports and case files to the Centre for UFO Studies in Chicago? At least there they can be read by other researchers.  The purpose of research is not to collect UFO reports and let no one else see them simply because you feel they are “yours” and I have encountered this again and again over the last four decades.  In the UK it seems that as soon as 1985 arrived genuine UFO investigation and research groups around the UK just packed up and vanished –where are all of their reports: in an attic somewhere.

   The lie here is that Science, Ufology and Debunkers “apply the Principles of Science” because there are no internationally adhered to such principles.  Look it up and you will be told “The three Principles” or “the four principles” and I have even seen five and six principles laid out. A Principle is defined as:

        “A principle is a concept or value that is a guide for behaviour or evaluation.
        In law, it is a rule that has to be or usually is to be followed, or can be desirably 
        followed, or is an inevitable consequence of something, such as the laws
        observed in nature or the way that a system is constructed”.

   If you want a better definition then this should do:

        “Scientific Principles and Research Practices. These principles are at work
        in the fundamental elements of the scientific method, such as formulating
        a hypothesis, designing an experiment to test the hypothesis, and collecting
        and interpreting data”.

   I am afraid that “We hypnotised this woman and she said it was all the Greys” is not counted because without exception those involved in defining and leading “Abduction Research” from Budd Hopkins, john Carpenter and David Jacobs on have not applied scientific methodology but have led subjects, added and/or removed data such as testimony and submitted material (symbols, etc.) as convenient and even gone as far as to misinterpret what they have been told by subjects –or to paraphrase Jacobs and how he puts it “I have to interpret what abductees say” because no one knows the truth other than him.

   As for designing an experiment to test an hypothesis I am sorry to say that there is only one and that would take money and effort that Ufologists and scientists do not have since they are all following dogma.

   I was once a big supporter of Jacobs and a very big supporter of Hopkins –I was called (twice) “Hopkins UK promoter”. To find out that he redraw symbols that abductees claimed they had seen during incidents so that they matched, holding back of facts that proved that Linda Cortile was at best a hoaxer.  Add to this the fact that both he and Jacobs had no form of oversight and none of their material was/is peer reviewed and there is no access to recordings to quantify the methodology used in regression sessions it is a mess.  According to Jacobs: “If you see a UFO no, it did not vanish almost instantly: you were abducted!”

   Hopkins and Jacobs made it so that they decided what was to be revealed and that everyone had to take their words on the matter. This led to the obliteration of any credibility Ufology had.  Even the farce that was “New Ufology” never created such damage.

   I have copies of witness interview tapes where the investigator is referring to a Lights-in-the-Sky UFO as “the space-craft”, “the space-ship” and so on. I have seen Ufologists on TV shows tell witnesses at their first meeting how “We know it’s a race called the Zeta Reticulans –they are one of a number of species coming to Earth”.

   Why does science not take UFOs seriously? Because of debunkers, sceptical Ufologists and Ufology is why.

   “What we know is a drop, what we don't know is an ocean” and Isaac Newton was quite correct but today we have Science becoming almost entertainment and scientists from all fields jumping on to the media roller-coaster to become “celebrities”. George Gillet spoke to scientist and author Rupert Sheldrake after his Oxford Union talk The Science Delusion: Has Science Become Dogmatic? (The Student, 28th November, 2013) and noted that:

    “After much consideration, it seems that what Sheldrake is suggesting isn’t as radical as it seems. The idea of always analysing the evidence behind a theory is fundamental to the practice of science. What is surprising is the reliance modern science seems to have on opinions and dogmas, and how certain beliefs in science appear to be immune from scrutiny or inquiry. Sheldrake may indeed be a taboo figure now, but his criticisms of science may prove popular in years to come”.

   I once had a conversation with a physicist and I noted that he skirted around a certain theory that was gaining popularity at the time. I told him that I had noticed him doing this and asked why?  He told me that his “old Professor” who had taught him had instilled in him that the theory he taught was never to be questioned and that he applied the same principle in his teaching students and “Lord save the little sod who questions what I am telling them!”  I could not let that go and discovered that his old teacher had been the same because that was how he had been taught.  I suppose that the teacher’s teacher was taught what his teacher had been taught! Five generations of teachers at a university were basically teaching out of date things because it was the way things were done.  Then it came from his mouth: “The university relies on funding and if we start telling people that the lab named after an esteemed predecessor that they funded was teaching old stuff we’d be up shit creek in the rainy season!”

   Money. Funding –I have heard this over and over again.  When I was trying to get backing or at least a base to work from on exotic fauna in the UK and foxes I approached colleges and universities.  I was told again and again and again that “in the old days we used to have biology departments and field biologists” which beggared the question “Why not now?”  The answer was simple: field biology was not the “sexy science” –no one from local or national businesses or investment groups were going to put money into it.  Where was the publicity or slick product they wanted –funding research into average shoe sizes in the UK or whether youngsters would prefer to eat vegetables or chocolate and sweets (I am not joking) or even “Who does the dishes at home” –that gets backing.  Looks good on tax returns and a company can put down that it supports scientific research on its portfolio which share-holders like.

   It is far easier for scientists in different fields to be dogmatic and joke or make fun about UFOs without ever having carried out a day of research.  Someone is phoning from the BBC to ask your opinion on UFO sightings –Google it. I was once on Australian radio about Big Cat sightings and asked about reports from Australia and I mentioned two cases in which there were really good, clear paw-prints that were photographed and plaster casts made and identified by a zoologist.  That same day I had an esteemed member of Australia’s scientific community telephone me and tell me that I had been speaking rot and so I told him who the zoologist was who had carried out all the work in that part of Australia. “Probably some ornithologist!” he snapped back. I told him the department and university name and gave him an email contact.  There was silence followed by “That’s my university!” never heard from him again.

   This dogma and blind eye of science runs through most fields.

   According to a post on the Astronotes blog of the Armagh Observatory and Planetarium, on the 9th May, 2013, titled The Truth About Zeta Reticuli:

   “Zeta Reticuli, a dim binary system of Sun-like stars only 39.5 light years away in the little constellation of Reticulum is strangely well-known. Why is it so famous? This system was once identified as the home of the little grey-faced and black-eyed humanoids who allegedly abducted Barney and Betty Hill and ever since has appeared in popular culture as the quintessential location of extraterrestrial mystery. What do we really know about these stars?”

   Firstly, “Admin”— I hate it when someone claiming respectability hides behind a vague title rather than put their actual name to what they write. Put your real name to it or expect it to be ignored. On this occasion it just shows that “Admin” had read whatever the first web site he/she came to for ‘facts’.

   Secondly: “home of the little grey-faced and black-eyed humanoids” shows equal lack of knowledge since Betty and Barney Hill were not abducted by “Greys” –the Greys only came into being in the 1980s thanks to the questionable work of Hopkins, Jacobs et al so incorrect there.

   Thirdly, Betty Hill stated that the chart she had seen was so detailed that she could not possibly draw it in any great detail but focussed on one part that stuck in her mind and drew that –and even then it was a case of “the best I can remember”.  From there the sketch was re-drawn, copied and redrawn and then subjected to study and Zeta Reticuli was seen as the prominent point in the now “star map”. If someone points to a map of England on a wall and asks: “Where is it you come from?”  I can point at it and say “There” now, yes, Bristol and Cardiff will show up prominently in the area I have pointed at but looking you would also see Bath, Yate, Midsomer Norton, Chipping Sodbury and so on.  Even then it is not clear which area I come from though accents can be a giveaway (we have no idea whether aliens have accents).  We also have to recall that these were not crystal clear recollections but recollections under hypnosis so to say “This is an accurate star map and we did not even know about those stars back then: Zeta Reticuli is where they come from!” is ludicrous.

   The fact that stars were included that were generally unknown at the time is interesting to note and those sceptics and debunkers attacking the Hill case tend to side step that or suggest “just a lucky guess!”  The Hill case does not rest on something that was never claimed by Betty to be a complete star map and was something she did not fully understand.  Ufologists are the ones who tend to make all the claims and they really ought to stop and move on. The Hill case was in 1961 and there have been other cases since.

   This is something that is common in most fields where a report has caused a stir or become popular –it becomes a “classic”. If you look at the question of the North American Sasquatch/Bigfoot there are hundreds of years of legends, accounts, reports, tracks (before the modern day fakery) described in detail and so on. Work was carried out by the renowned field biologist John Bindernagel as well as others looking at habitat –food resources and so on.  John Green carried out a great deal of work marking what seemed to be a migration pattern and territorial patterns.

   Then, sadly, the “Bigfoot fans” became involved and every tree stump seen in a photograph was a Bigfoot. The Bigfoot Field Researchers Organisation, like certain UFO groups, began to fake reports and new trends followed such as Bigfoot “calls”, “tree-knocking” and so on that were never reported previously. The main classic case is the 1967 brief clip of an alleged Sasquatch known as “Patty” and that short piece of footage has been cleaned up, digitized, analyzed any way possible and you either believe it is fake or genuine –the fuss created if you say “I’m neutral –we’ll learn nothing more so let’s get to the new cases”.

   After 50 years some people are pointing out that the Patterson-Gimlin footage needs to be filed away and if a body of a Bigfoot is found and it looks like the one in the footage then we will know it was genuine.  The same applies to the Hill case which I dealt with in UFO Contact? –it is not the only incident since 1961 and so needs to be filed away.  Arguing over the case serves no purpose what-so-ever: you either believe it happened or you do not; both percipients have been dead a long time so nothing new will ever be added of relevance.

   Astronote in its blog post also stated that:

    “Only just visible to the unaided eye, Zeta Reticuli was first referred to as such in 1756. Can I just repeat that Zeta Reticuli has been seen in the sky without a telescope for centuries. Anyone who tells you it was not discovered until after the Hill’s story became famous is utterly wrong”.

   Well, “Admin” is the one who is utterly wrong in fact –as far as I am aware no one who knows anything about astronomy either in Ufology or in looking at the Hill case has ever claimed any such thing –unless you get your information from a debunker who will claim that this was stated. I think “Admin” really does need to do a little reading because this kind of unprofessional and silly blog post is something the snorting astronomy fan boys might go for but it is a falsehood. Why should I believe anything Armagh Observatory claims if it either lies or twists facts –it lacks the scientific credibility it likes to claim it has.

Sceptics often offer little personal snippets that sound acceptable to the public and others but lack every detail and fact that makes them sound a little genuine.
Michael Shermer is publisher of Skeptic and in an issue of the Scientific American magazine (Scientific American vol. 292, February, 2005. p: 34) he wrote about his abduction experience:

   “My abduction experience was triggered by sleep deprivation and physical exhaustion. I had just ridden a bicycle 83 straight hours and 1,259 miles in the opening days of the 3,100-mile nonstop transcontinental Race Across America. I was sleepily weaving down the road when my support motor home fl ashed its high beams and pulled alongside, and my crew entreated me to take a sleep break. At that moment a distant memory of the 1960s television series The Invaders was inculcated into my waking dream.

   “In the series, alien beings were taking over the earth by replicating actual people but, inexplicably, retained a stiff little fi nger. Suddenly the members of my support team were transmogrified into aliens. I stared intensely at their fingers and grilled them on both technical and personal matters.

   “After my 90-minute sleep break, the experience represented nothing more than a bizarre hallucination, which I recounted to ABC’s Wide World of Sports television crew filming the race. But at the time the experience was real, and that’s the point. The human capacity for self-delusion is boundless, and the effects of belief are overpowering. Thanks to science we have learned to tell the difference between fantasy and reality”.

   So to any closed mind of science, his pals and fans not to mention his ego, Shermer had easily explained away UFO abductions by totally ignoring the facts.

   Firstly, of course, he was being all macho and ignoring advice from his crew so pushed himself to his mental and physical limit.  That ought to tell you the type of man he is –big on ego and not listening.

   Secondly, and this is a popular misconception amongst the ignorant –debunkers and sceptical Ufologists: Shermer’s ‘abduction’ (he claims) had constant references back to the TV series The Invaders.  I have dealt with this in blog posts and alleged UFO abductees do not refer to elements of Star Wars, Spielberg’s Close Encounters of the Third Kind, the 1950s movies like Invaders from Mars, etc. In fact such references often help eliminate fantasy prone people so that those reports can be catalogued but taken no further.

   Going along with this theory then surely people should have reported strange sounds and giant ants - the movie Them! was very popular and why did other popular and international blockbusters not spawn panic or droves of reports of flying children’s nannies? Why no wave of sightings of Chitty-Chitty Bang-Bangs? You cannot push a theory that a popular TV series or movie will spawn hysterical mass reporting of sightings but “only when it comes to UFOs”.

   If Shermer was correct then Kelly Cahill and five others (four unconnected to her) were all exhausted and sleep deprived on one particular hour on one particular day and in one particular spot and I would have to question the odds in favour of that. The Hills were also exhausted and sleep deprived? Walton and his crew were all exhausted and sleep deprived?  The person who left their house for work after a good night’s sleep was sleep deprived and exhausted?

   Were there other witnesses to Shermer’s ‘abduction’ or did others report UFOs at the time of his experience? Was he seen with a UFO above him or was there trace evidence?  Was there any radar-visual evidence? “No” to all of those because it was all in Shermer’s mind in a situation he created by ignoring advice and pushing himself too far.  A bad example when it comes to TV series reference as an explanation: David Vincent was an architect who had driven too far and was too tired to go on; however, as we know he was not dreaming but had seen ‘real’ aliens and a space craft and did not wake up and say “Wow, did I hallucinate last night!”

   I have no time for debunkers and sceptical Ufologists and, oddly, both of those factions continuously try to recruit me to their groups because “You seem to have the same outlook and approach as us!”  Rejection often offends but I like to quote Miguel de Unamuno y Jugo (29th September, 1864 – 31st December, 1936) who was a Spanish Basque essayist, novelist, poet, playwright, philosopher, professor of Greek and Classics, and later rector at the University of Salamanca and he wrote that:

“The sceptic does not mean he who doubts,
but he who investigates or researches, as
opposed to he who asserts and thinks that
he has found”.


    I do not just criticise for the sake of it and I am not here to make friends. If I criticise it is because there is just cause to criticise and I do so based on facts and those I fully reference.  I do know that there are, out there in France, Germany, the United States and even the UK, people who may or may not call themselves Ufologists but investigate and research and these people are in the position of having accumulated data but finding no central location to send it to or where it can be published and peer reviewed.   Most try to avoid contact with Ufology in general for reasons I can understand.

   I also know that there are astronomers out there who have a serious interest in the subject and I have met some of them and they may keep private files on the subject.  Some well known astronomers have gone to their graves having never revealed their interest and some acted the role of debunker.  Fear that your colleagues might “pull your leg” or joke about you is not the basis to hide your interest in the subject matter. In the past astronomers have been tortured and executed because they stuck to their beliefs and theories and to bring enlightenment to Humanity. And you worry you might be called a name?  Open interest and discussion with colleagues will always be difficult if they do not believe in the principles of scientific investigation.

   Why do we know that the Earth is not the centre of the solar system and that there are galaxies out there that were never even known to exist in the past?  How do we now know that water is not only confined to the Earth in this solar system –suggesting that previously resulted in astronomers being mocked by colleagues in print and at conferences.  So much that we are learning now is often carrying the added line of “We always suspected this” when, in fact, “we” never did but took part in the mocking but now it is proven “we” all knew it.

   Do we really think it is worth waiting 50,000 years for a signal to reach a point in space and take 50,000 more years to get a reply if there is anyone there?  If scientists are seriously looking for extra terrestrial life rather than a meal ticket for life then they have to take the example of the French and get out there or study case reports. This should carry no stigma, perhaps a few jokes, but imagine if you find evidence here on Earth of such visits.

   I would like to see real researchers and investigators cooperate on the whole subject but I do not believe they will or can because they both create obstacles. There is the need to have financial backing and a national reporting centre –there is the Centre for UFO Studies in the United States but no real equivalent in Europe.

   For the Reader who, by now, may be wondering when the case reports will appear I need to point out that this work, as with the previous two, are not meant to be pot-boilers with case after case.  That would be too simple.  I look at reports and then check as many sources as possible to make sure that I only use good cases or cases worth noting.  I also try to up-date with any new research findings –the Reeves Farm in 1966 and how the Dandenongs Encounter (Kelly Cahill) fits in with the black entity research and I also try to focus in on reports that have similar entities involved that seem to indicate that there is a core of genuine encounters.

   As for “proof” this is different for each sceptic of course.  I have seen a group of sceptics argue over what one has given for criteria but another one rejects.  As with Sasquatch most will not be happy until there is a body!  Firstly, I do not believe that there are any captured or dead aliens of flying saucers held anywhere so we do not have that proof and even if we did there would be claim and conspiracy theory ad infinitum as to why we are not being told the whole story, how we are being deceived and so on.

   Photographic and video evidence is up-dated daily online but the only problem is that it is all faked.  There was once a joke made that one day someone would upload photographs and video footage of genuine aliens and a space craft but it would be called fake because it is one genuine item amongst thousands of fakes. I watched a lengthy video clip of a marine animal on You Tube one day and glanced at the comments -45 claimed that it was “so obviously CGI!” and “You can see where it is poor quality CGI!” and there was one person who clearly identified the species that was filmed and gave a reference and that person was totally ignored as the arguing continued.

   All we can do is take each report and gather as much data as possible and if the witness/percipients are still alive try to talk to them. There are many old cases where the details are so basic because the only sources are newspaper clippings. Once those people have died we lose their evidence. If I can I try to find a photograph of the witness/percipient because that takes the report from words to putting an actual human face to them and that is important.

   Multiple witness or percipients get High strangeness ratings of around 5 and if there are independent observations that add to the case then the rating can get higher and if the PRA in Australia ever releases the Dandenongs Report and it backs up the claims then that would be the first case to get a rating of 9-10.

   People ask about the simple UFO landing, entities exiting, taking samples and then returning to the object which then takes off.  We even have such cases where several people are asked if they would care to board the object but refuse –the entities then go about their business and depart: no missing time or abductions.  Those cases are so basic and constant that it seems almost unbelievable that they are faked –no one makes money and most witnesses do not even want to be named. But if only one witness then the rating is low.

   The question has been asked over the last few years: “Why are abductions and UFO reports declining?”  The answer is that there were never “many thousands” of sightings, no multi-millions of generational family abductions.  We are seeing the situation as it has always been with less people reporting sightings of meteorites, unusual light phenomena, aircraft, drones and balloons under unusual conditions. If those who do have genuine encounters see how the media, press, science and Ufology have treated witnesses in the past they are more than likely going to keep quiet.  One off event and that is it –why ruin your life?

   I would hope that if anyone had a genuine encounter that they would report it and damn the ignorant.

   I can always be contacted by serious investigators and researchers and by anyone who believes that they have had an encounter and in 40+ years no person asking for anonymity has ever had their names revealed.  I am not in this for the money and fame, which is probably a good thing really.




Terry Hooper-Scharf
CE3K/AE Project
23rd December, 2018



http://www.lulu.com/shop/terry-hooper-scharf/contact-encounters-with-extra-terrestrial-entities/paperback/product-23926690.html

Recent Mars Discovery by NASA Could Be Caused by Alien Life

Review: The Alien Abduction Files -just another abduction book?

• 
  
• Paperback: 256 pages
• Publisher: New Page Books; First Edition edition (15 May 2013)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 1601632711
• ISBN-13: 978-1601632715

Despite getting fed up with hearing about Betty and Barney Hill in 1961 or that Marden is the niece of Betty Hill, I purchased a copy of Marden and Stoner's The Alien Abduction Files.

It was built up as a major study of these cases but turned into just another alien abduction book -most  of it about Stoner's own life long abduction experiences. Despite what Marden claims, there is no solid independent testimony to Stoner and her husband (NOT the focus of abductions) abductions.

Stoner's mother confirmed that Stoner and her husband turned up late one evening. No UFOs seen. A family across the road from where Stoner lived reported seeing her heading back to the house after one abduction and also seeing a UFO. Marden mentions nothing more seemingly indicating that she never tracked down or spoke to said two adult witnesses. We have to take Stoner's word on it.

Here are some of my book notes:

Decades after looking into UFOs and UFO abductions, mainly for MUFON, Stoner decided to look into her own suspected missing time experience. She had read Hopkins,Mack, Jacobs, Streiber and much more BEFORE doing so.  We are led to believe that none of this would influence her 'memories'

The only person who heard Stoner's abduction revelations was a Dr Romack -a Dr who was interested in alien abductions and whom Stoner had assisted. Romack died and all of his recordings and notes were lost.  Convenient.

Stoner runs one of those abductee groups where 'abductees' can discuss what they have gone through -much of what Stoner revealed could have come from these group sessions and certainly, several times, I read what she recounted and it sounded exactly like accounts published by Hopkins and Jacobs.

Stoner's husband, Ed, had "never proven a good hypnotic subject before" and THAT needs explaining. He had certainly heard his wife's account and perhaps stories in group sessions at their home. Marden needed to explain fully what was meant by that comment as it throws all revelations out of the window.  Was Ed also regressed by Dr Romack?
I quote:

"She (Stoner) had responded to an advertisement in the Denver (which one? THS) newspaper soliciting volunteers for an experimental study using hypnosis.  The study was directed by Robert Romack and was designed to alleviate symptoms in chronic pain sufferers"

Nothing wrong with that if it rules out using strong pain relief medication. Stoner was enrolled in the study and after they got to know each other she revealed her UFO sighting and missing time. It was "now" that Stoner discovered Romack was searching for answers to the alien abduction phenomenon.

The only reference regarding Romack and alien abduction research that I can find comes from Marden and Stoner and there is nothing on his background. Podcasts, video talks, in print -only sources are Marden and Stoner and Marden is taking Stoner's word on this (if she is not then she left out a great deal of very pertinent information). How professional was Dr Romack, especially if the files and notes on all his subjects vanished after he died?


While on a cave diving weekend, Stoner is made to get out of bed, drive her husband's van to a location and a very brief walk onto the craft to have stapler-looking device put onto her head.  It hurt.  She then drove back to the motel. Her husband never noticed any of this or the increased mileage?  It all sounds like a dream state -Stoner finds blood on her pillow -evidence of her abduction or did she scratch or hit her head while sleeping and the 'stapler' incident fitted?  Oh, next day the two are intercepted -Stoner taken aboard a UFO to follow up on the 'stapler' incident.

We are supposed to suspend credibility again and believe that these super sophisticated aliens -insect like, 9ft tall bluish grey and normal little ones- get someone to travel for a brief procedure which -sorry there is no logic in this at all- they have to follow up with another abduction during daylight?  At this point I am screaming in my own head to stop my eyes rolling up again in incredulity.

I began to wonder how much Ed was influenced by his wife's work and whether this was a case of a husband wanting to stop people from thinking his wife was crazy by backing her up and I have seen this in other fields and I am quite sure that there are a lot of psychological papers out there on this subject (there are)

Stoner's testimony goes back to when she was 2.5 years old. Wonderful accuracy when remembering but her account adds in a lot of "I think NOW" so not evidence of any kind. What I thought was surprising (this is ufology so not that surprising) was that, as Marden puts it:

"I asked her (Stoner) to search her memory for possible youthful visitations with extraterrestrials..."

That is called "influencing the witness" either accidentally or deliberately and creating a subconscious false memory to be created -remember that Stoner was no innocent when it came to UFOs, literature or abduction claims. That line, and the fact that Marden states "A few days later, I received the following..." -Stoner's 'remembrance of the events at 2.5 years of age, gave every debunker the ammunition they needed.

Stoner notes that "She knew they were coming whenever an odd feeling in her brain signaled their impending arrival". I repeat: "whenever an odd feeling in her brain" which in itself needs explaining but as I pointed out in UFO Contact? this appears to be rather like some epileptics or others who know an episode is about to occur because of an odd feeling -and I have seen this first hand on a number of occasions. It seems Stoner may have been experiencing an altered reality dream state which explains much of the inconsistencies in her statements.

At one point we get the familiar abductee group meeting on a UFO which always seems to involve someone not willing to take part and trying to escape. Stoner noted a man in a jogging suit. As is standard, Stoner later saw the man at a party  and described the jogging suit to him without stating how or where she had seen him before.  Marden notes: "This gave Denise an additional morsel of confirmation that the event was real and not a dream". In fact it proves absolutely nothing. Stoner may have seen the man out jogging or whatever -this then becomes her seeing him on a UFO in his track suit.

Another abductee describes something that Marden grabs hold of: another abductee named Jennie had woken with "information nearly identical" to what Stoner had related. This was far too much of a coincidence for Marden -remember that "nearly identical" is not the same as "identical" and having dealt with abductees and read all the literature, as MOST abductees appear to have before seeing an investigator or going under regression hypnosis, this is not in any way surprising but Marden goes further.

"Whether or not this was a dual dream, she (Jennie) might have been the woman with shoulder-length, copper-blonde hair that Denise observed attempting to flee. She was intercepted and led to a balcony, where a frigid breeze lashed her face. A woman that she didn't recognise, but who fit Denise's description, caught her eye."

Jennie described the outfit worn by this woman so asked Stoner if she owned a pair of pajamas that matched. Yes, she did.  Well there you go. No one can possibly argue with evidence like that can they? A woman who looked similar, wearing a pair of fashionable pajamaas...case closed (I was being sarcastic there just so you know).

Marden labels alleged alien abductees who come forward as "heroes" (the Hills were only known, as she points out, due to sopmeone breaching confidentiality). Marden appears to be unaware of certain psychological conditions including "Ruth Syndrome" as I called it in UFO Contact?

Then we had the study notes that I had been waiting so long to get to. In this Marden-Stoner  Commonalities Among Abduction Experiencers those participating were all "self identified experiencers" and these had ample time to have absorbed the whole gamut of abduction documentaries, books and so on.

Firstly, to be absolutely independent and avoid any accusations of data results being contaminated, there should never be aelf declared UFOI abductee involved as one of the two main researchers.  Study negated.

As a pertinent aside, I did laugh when Marden stated that she had asked Stoner, as an experienced MUFON investigator and abduction researcher, to assess her own (Stoner's)claim.  Guiess what? Stoner assessed it as being genuine.

There was a control group of 25 persons added to the 50 self identified experiencers -50-50 would have provided better statistics. It seems that only 23 of the 45 questions provided any sort of correlation:

"The answers were compared to responses from a control group that denies having experienced alien abduction.  Not all participants answered all the questions.  Some could not recall or did not know the answer..."

Which, apart from a group of 50-50, starts to sound very messy.  Marden continues:


"...Fractions were rounded off. Statistical analysis of the responses revealed that the experiencer group shares a unique constellation of characteristics not found in the control group."

The complete report can be found at www.kathleen-marden.com.)

I gave a big sigh.  The "experiencers" had all been to groups or were immersed in the whole alien abduction culture whereas the smaller control group was not which is why they did not kbnow the answers or had no knowledge pertaining to the questions. "Fractions were rounded off. Statistical analysis of the responses revealed" -NO. You see, this is why you have to have a matching number of people in such a study -50% Control and 50% 'experiencers'.  You do not pick at fractions to rounbd them off and use that for a very slanted non-statistical analysis BECAUSE there were far more people versed in the phenomenon than not versed in it.

Remember only 23 of the 45 questions "yielded correlations".

Get 50 "black" people and 25 "white" people then ask them 45 questions relating to "Black Culture" and/or "Black History"...what woul;d the result be I wonder....

Study negated as a mess.

Points needing to be made.

I have read a great many accounts pertaining to natural light phenomena as well as ball lightning. Many times you will read or hear that "It seemed under intelligent control" simply because the person(s) involved are seeing something they know nothing about and so its movements look controlled. How many of the experiencers had their observation skills tested -their ability to identify satellites, aircraft, drones or even the International Space Station?  It is a very subjective question and I have been in amongst groups of UFO fans who see a satellite go overhead, brighten as it reaches the zenith and they will all be ecstatic that the space brothers showed themselves.

Experiencers will clearly state they have sighted intelligently controlled aliuen craft.

Paranormal events, claims to have become healers and even 'implants' and so on all tend to fall apart once seriously examined.

I had expected something from this book (it was originally published in 2013)but it seems to be a book about Stoner's alleged abduction experiences along with a side helping of Jennie's story since it "backed-up" Stoner's.

"The most startling cases of human-alien contacte ever reported" is false advertising for one thing. It is a standard alien abduction book about one person really -Denise Stoner. Stanton Friedman lent it far more credibility than it deserves.

Friedman and Marden's book on the Hill case I would still recommend.  Review here:

If you have read anything I have written then you will know that I like as good an amount of evidence as it is possible to get and I do NOT dismiss certain claims. For me this book is being thrown in amongst all the other alien abduction books -despite all the claims it "finally reveals" nothing except a book that every debunker will (sadly) want to get their hands on.

Eupora, Mississippi 17th October, 1973

Full details and rare unseen images are in the book UFO Contact?

If by chance any media person (who can put out an appeal) or even UFO investigator in the Mississippi area reads this and can look into the report as a cold case please get in touch via the Face Book page messenger https://www.facebook.com/groups/2463400933890105/
Thank You

   What is  -or was-  seen during the best recorded and most significant UFO wave of sightings world-wide is, to many, just unknown. J. Bernard Delair of the old Contact UK produced a very detailed edition of The UFO Register summarizing what was known.  This was based on reports from newspaper as well as UFO periodicals (1-4).

   Let us suppose that you read that issue of The UFO Register in 1974, or later, and from all the cases cited there are a few lines detailing an alleged UFO landing and entity being seen, but an entity the description of which is unique. We were always told look for rare, seemingly genuine events where non-humanoid entities were reported. This was such a case.

For the past four decades this is the account cut up, re-edited and added to (AE -Alien Entity) :

   “Night time (no exact hour).  Two UFOs were observed near the above
   location (Eupora), by several witnesses in a car.  One object hovered in the
   sky overhead while the other landed on the highway just over 100 yards
   (103 m) from the car ; the car lights and engine now died.

   “An AE now appeared from the landed object.  This AE had to hold on to
   a handrail.  It had a wide mouth, flipper like feet and what appeared to be
   webbing between the legs.  Even more strange were the feather-like structures
   on its back which gave the impression of opening and closing when the AE
   moved.

   “The AE now re-entered (?) the object which took off ; the car’s electrics
   then began to function again.”


    Between 1974-1980,  I wrote to the people who were supposed to have looked into this case.  No responses. Any and every new book or article (very rare) dealing with that period or AE / Close Encounters of the 3rd kind cases was checked. Same lines. No new details. I have scoured thousands of these reports that I have on file and checked many other sources. Nothing similar so the "craft" description and entity description.  They are totally unique.   But case details were far too vague.

   In 2015 I finally got in contact with the Centre for UFO Studies (CUFOS) and Dr. Mark Rodeghier told me that, yes, they had the case on file and even provided me with the file.  I would like to thank Dr. Rodeghier for this.

   No investigation had ever taken place. Why? Even Ted Bloecher  states in the file that the case was deserving of investigation. The reason nothing was done?  No one could be bother -"It might turn out to be a hoax" based on the fact that the description and notes made by someone at a radio station at the time just didn't "do it" for someone.

   I checked everywhere I could, even on the internet, once I got the percipient's name. No claims of a hoax or a joke –no one had exposed the case as such at the time nor since. Nothing. Just constant cut and paste of the same lines describing the incident.   However, the whole point of investigation is to disprove or prove a case. A joke? Fair enough. At least investigators learn something more. But if seemingly genuine?  I leave that up to you.

   Ted Bloecher (for decades THE expert on this type of UFO incident) made a transcript of the interview by Jack King of the radio station  --King was the only person who talked to Patterson and he believed him.  I am going to quote the entire transcript as to cut and edit will not give the reader that feel of how genuine it all came across. We really ought to thank Jack King of WROB.

   We see that Patterson and his friends even went to the Eupora police to report the incident but were not treated seriously.

   A number of witnesses are named by Patterson and there was, at the time, the possibility that an appeal might have had the driver who did the U-turn and drove off when he saw the UFOB get in touch.  What of witnesses around the Highway?

   No investigators bothered to do their job.  CUFOS put me in touch with a veteran investigator who told me that, based on his “vast experience”, it was a hoax.  Why?  Because, based on his “vast experience”, it was a hoax.  He had, he told me, some great cases from 1973 that he had forwarded to MUFON.  The man seemed to not even be interested in seeing if Patterson did live in Eupora or still lived there or what could be found out –there are odds in favour of more than one of the witnesses name still being alive.  I have a suspicion why the report was ignored.

   On 14th  June, 1975, Ted Bloecher, then the US leading expert on CE3Ks, wrote to WROB, no doubt sensing things were going wrong.  He notes in the letter to Jack King that he had written to but not heard from the investigator and that the Patterson incident was one of possibly eight (8) CE3Ks on the night of 17th  October, 1973.  Bloecher  seriously felt this case needed investigation.

   Then, on the 7th  July, 1975, the local investigator wrote that   "I agree that the Early Patterson case should be followed up. I will make plans to visit that area sometime in the near future and talk to Patterson, plus any of the witnesses I can locate.  I will tape the conversations and forward a copy to you. If you have any specific questions I will be glad to include them."

   When Bloecher retired  from Ufology all of his files were donated to CUFOS and these show nothing further from either investigator involved. Had it not been for the radio station we would not know of the case.  Bloecher tried to get things rolling but those in place obviously had their prejudices which seems evident.

   With Eupora the blame for the mess lies firmly with the Ufologists.  That there was a lot of “UFO” activity that day is clear.

17th October

c. 14:00 hrs  Watauga, Tennessee
   A copper hued circular object hovered just above ground level while a 6 ft tall entity reached out of a doorway and tried to grab 2 children nearby. AE had claw-like hands and eyes that blinked. (8) Also note on 15th John Lane claimed that a blue coloured object landed by a road at Gulfport, Miss., and that a crab clawed entity tapped on one of his car windows. Could this be what Patterson referred to? (9)

20:00 hrs  near Powhatan, Louisiana, 10 observers watched 3   multicoloured lights at a very low altitude.

20:48 hrs unusually shaped object observed over Fisher, Waldenburg and Weiner communities of Arkansas

21:57 hrs  Jackson District, Miss.: 11 observers watch an object with 6~8 lights.

23:00 hrs  nr Athens, Georgia.  Paul Brown had to swerve his car and make an emergency stop as a cone shaped object landed on the road ahead of him. From beneath the object emerged two 4 feet tall AEs with reddish faces and white hair.  The AEs re-entered the object which took off with a whoosh ~possibly due to the fact that Brown fired several shots at it with no apparent effect.

   The story is, obviously, somewhat more detailed.  Brief details were given in the NICAP Investigator and the Flying Saucer Review  (10 & 11) and the main news source appears to have been the Christian Science Monitor (12 & 13).

   Paul Brown, a preacher and car dealer was headed home near Danielsville on U.S. 29 listening to the World Series when suddenly his radio stopped working:

   “Everything lit up, I could see the road and the fields lighted up all around me. My first impression was that it was a small airplane trying to land.”

   However, this “plane”  began to pace his car before quickly landing on the road in front of Brown.  He was forced to stop. He could see that the object was 6 feet high and 15 feet in diameter. At that point a bright light was cast upon him, the round beam blinding him.

   “I realized if I don’t stop I’m going to hit it. So I came to a screeching halt.   “I don’t know why I did it, but I opened the car door and managed, frightened as I was, to get one foot on the ground.”

   Two beings now appeared:

    “Where they came from I don’t know. I couldn’t see a flap, a drop door, or anything. When I finally got my vision clear I could see a clearance underneath, so it was not belly-landed; it had some kind of landing gear. And they came out, and they had on the most beautiful outfits I’ve ever seen-silver, blousy, come down to where your wrists are, then they had what appeared to be white gloves. Very tight around the neck, like something a priest would wear. Down to the feet, like a jumpsuit. It looked like if you pulled a gun and shot it, it would glance off, yet it moved. They could move, yet it looked like it was heavy, because of the way they walked, very slow. I estimated them to be four to five feet tall.

   “They just started walking down the road toward me, very slow. I could see a face, you know, place where eyes would be, ears. The faces were reddish. Hair was almost like cotton, no discoloration, which leads me to believe maybe it was a mask of some kind. I never got close enough to really say-closest I ever got was 150, 200 feet away, which is not too far away when you’re there by yourself.”

   Brown, carried a pistol for protection and when he produced the weapon:

     “They turn around, walk very slow back behind the shadow to the bright light. All of a sudden they disappear behind the light, and I try to see where they go, if they go in a hatch or what, but I couldn’t”

   The entities re-entered the object and the lights were extinguished then, according to Brown:

   “Took off at an angle and made a sound I would describe as like a million fans,  or like golf balls coming by my ear.  Almost stood my hair on end.”

   Brown then immediately drove to a police station and reported the incident. By  daylight deputies had found Brown’s tyre skid marks and noted that roadside grass was “fan swept.”

   According to Mark Rodeghier: “I expect that the case was never investigated properly, like so many in this intense (1973) wave”.

   17th/18th  00:00 hrs  nr. Loxley, Alabama.  Clarence Patterson (no relation to Early Patterson) claimed that he and his pickup truck were sucked up into a huge, cigar shaped UFOB  and that he was pulled from the vehicle by 6  robot-like entities that seemed to read his mind. Next thing he recalled was being back on the highway with his vehicle going at 90 mph. Incident may have lasted up to 30 minutes (14-17).

   Again, we have an alleged abduction and decades later we know no more about it. Just how ridiculous does this all appear to Science?

   17th (unspecified time)  Nr Hartwell, Georgia.  A UFOB allegedly landed and a white haired entity was seen for a short time.

   17th  (unspecified)  Elgin AFB, Florida. A UFO was recorded on radar equipment by fully trained personnel.

   17th  (unspec. Time) Alton Park, Tennessee. A UFOB was sighted and said to have landed.

   17th  (unspec. time) Crowley, near Lake Charles, Louisiana. 2 witnesses observe an oblong, luminous object.  Local power cut at the same time.

   These are just a few reports in a small geographic portion of the US that seem to show that there was some unusual activity taking place on the 17th/18th and in some cases details match regarding entities – crab-like pincers or white haired AEs.  If one looks at Contact UKs  The UFO Register then it is quite clear that in the United States alone there was a great deal of activity deemed "UFOs" –details in some cases are vague and the power-cut at Crowley could be down to any number of causes.

   But even if 95%  of the cases on record can be listed as misinterpretation, hoax or whatever, then we have a percentage that cannot be so easily dismissed.

   The UFOB and AE incidents are clear –as Bloecher noted to WROB, there were at least 8 alleged CE3Ks that night –  but how detailed were the investigations?  In the cases of Early Patterson, Paul Brown and Clarence Patterson and other witnesses in CE3K events there were no investigations.  A multi-witness report of a UFOB landing on a US Highway in which an AE was seen but ignored by Ufologists is incredible.


Note: "UFOB" refers to what appears to be a solid, constructed craft rather than "something" in general -a UFO.

CE3K is a Close Encounter of the Third Kind -the sighting of a UFOB and alleged entities associated with it.

How Dare I? Questioning Stale and stagnant Ufology

"How dare you??  Who the hell do you think you are?"

That was a reaction to my stating that the 1961 Betty and Barney Hill UFO abduction case and the "Hill Star Map" were done and dusted decades ago.  It was a genuine or psychological/fake incident. I have no reason to doubt the Hills since both were subject to scrutiny of even their most private lives by debunkers and came through it all. I have no reason to doubt that the incident in New Hampshire took place but that was 1961 and both percipients are now deceased.  As for the star map: it was interesting but really proved nothing in the end since even Betty Hill stated that she was unsure of all the details and without all the details you have...not much.

There were alleged abductions by entities from UFOs prior to the Hills. In a number of cases the percipients were invited aboard a landed object but declined and that was it.  Americans love to be first and so the Hill case is a shining example: it got lots of press and a few books -the Hills not profiting from any of these- and all because their confidentiality and privacy was breached. Ufologists today constantly churn up the Hill case because "everyone knows it" -it is a stale classic. Every time I see Ufologists on TV and they start with "In 1961, Betty and Barney Hill were--" my eyes roll so far back that I can now map the back of my skull.

There really are other incidents out there and not just from the United States. France? Germany? Australia? The United Kingdom -alleged alien abduction cases and most widely un known because the case reports are not in the English language.  My chapter on German CE3Ks in Contact: Encounters With Extra Terrestrial Entities? took a great deal of work aside from translating material and not one single German UFO group I contacted was willing to help in any capacity (how things have changed since the internet!).  As far as I am aware, the book is the best and only English language source of so many German (pre-Hopkins/Streiber) CE3K reports.

Portugal also gets a little coverage but, again, despite some promises, Portuguese Ufologists did not help out.  Is it any surprised so many non-US/UK cases are unknown?

Not surprisingly Europe seems somewhat similar the the United States when it comes to looking at what could be called "cold cases" or cases that went un-investigated (armchair ufology based on collecting newspaper clippings is NOT research nor is it investigation).

Let me make it very clear since it seems difficult to make people understand a basic fact (especially ufologists): witnesses to CE3K or abduction percipients from the 1950s and 1960s not to forget the 1970s, are getting older.  Some have already passed away. A scrappy 1 inch news report does NOT tell you the whole story. Once those involved have passed away their experience and memories are gone. That is it.  No indignant "Well why the hell did no pone carry out a proper investigation!" MUFON are not interested (no money in it) and groups in Europe seem to not be interested.

I would guess that 95-96% of claims can be dismissed for one reason or another. That remaining 4-5% are the reports we should -MUST- be looking at for evidence.

I am a sceptic which is NOT a debunker but someone who needs to see the evidence backing up reports/claims.

Remember: once a UFO percipient/witness dies their evidence dies with them.  Lost forever.

That is unacceptable.

Contact! Encounters with Extra Terrestrial Entities?
http://www.lulu.com/shop/terry-hooper-scharf/contact-encounters-with-extra-terrestrial-entities/paperback/product-23926690.html

Buckfastleigh & Devon Reports

When I first appealed for information regarding the 1978 Buckfastleigh incident which I wrote in fuller detail about in UFO Contact? I never expected some of the unrelated responses I would get.
https://terryhooper.blogspot.com/2018/10/buckfastleigh-devon-1977-witness-appeal.html

The story of the daylight sighting, in May, by three boys, in school at the time, in Paignton was interesting especially since they all still knew each other.  It also hinted at problems with local investigators which had created the whole mess surrounding the Buckfastleigh report.
https://terryhooper.blogspot.com/2019/06/1978-paighton-school-ufo-sighting.html

What I learnt from never before reported sightings is that Devon, in 1979, saw an incident that might have been sleep paralysis but the woman involved tried to, and then succeeded in getting up to see what was casting the strange glow she had seen -but too late. Nice easy explanation except her husband witnessed the odd light. Both kept quiet but she did tell her friend.  Her friend -who put her in touch with me- was one of two groups who observed a very good CE I in Summer 1979.

Just prior to September, 1978, a man -living and working in Torquay with his fiancee- was woken by her one night and both knelt on the bed to watch an object (described) some 50 metres away from them"I for some reason woke up sitting on a chair in the room. Thinking we were late for work and had overslept we ran to the hotel only to be 2 hours early" -his wife was sleeping in the bed. He continued to tell me about having served in the police (in Scotland) for 30 years and then: "A few years ago before (his wife) passed, out of the blue she asked if I remembered that ufo in Torquay. she said, when they put you to sleep I saw a lot more than you".  I have some details but the percipient wants to take  it no further but having heard I was chasing up UFO reports from that period "just wanted to let you know".

Apart from the main Buckfastleigh event I learnt, quite by accident, of what appears to have been an abduction -object and entities seen- at the same rough date.  It also appears that another abduction might have taken place (same time frame) with the UFO  being sighted over the person in questions house by two others.  In this case it is claimed that there is spinal scarring from a seeming operation but the percipient has never had a spinal operation and I am told his doctor was mystified.

There are other reports that show a peak of UFO activity over a quite local area of Devon in 1978 and 1979. The importance of some of these cases is significant.  If the three involved in the Buckfastleigh event were abducted then that would take a total of 5, possibly 6, abductions over one very short period of time and very localised.

I have to confess that I cannot pursue these reports(and promises of confidentiality mean that I cannot forward personal details to others -I have found ufologists guarantees to take third place to publicity or personal agendas and I will not submit genuine percipients to that.

As my books don't sell and my personal finances are..."low" I cannot afford one or two field trips to interview, etc. and such work is not funded and I have tried ways including Paypal donations.  It is both frustrating and depressing to me personally that what could be significant cases cannot be fully investigated and will remain as they are.

But that is the update and if anyone out there knows the Buckfastleigh threesome PLEASE ask them to get in touch!

Please Note...

The Face Book (public group) page is more regularly updated.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/2463400933890105/

What If Aliens Arrived Tomorrow?

What If Alien Life Was Silicon-Based?

Note

Hopefully everyone has been checking out the Face Book page linked to this blog? Updated more and with Messenger anyone can contact me privately.

Considering the number visiting this blog -4,625 in total today- I am somewhat shocked that no one has even ordered a copy of the books I've written though "You cannot lead a horse to water".

I am a little  bit more upset at the fact that no one has bothered to comment or to offer up details of new or little known CE3K/AE cases.  This can be done via FB messenger or via my email -aopbureau@yahoo.co.uk

There IS interest but seeming indifference to communicate -I stand a better chance at a face-to-face with aliens than blog readers!  :-)

But I'm here.

The Allagash Abduction -updated appraisal

I sat down over the weekend to read Raymond E. Fowler's The Allagash Abductions -Undeniable Evidence of Alien Intervention. You will note -by all the Post-It notes- that quite a few things were questionable or needed looking at.

The following is my final (internet) appraisal of the case.

This 1976 incident was not included in my book UFO Contact? because there were claims and counter claims being made.  These claims against the event being a real one turn out to be very weak at best. They seem to depend upon "inconsistencies" in the accounts that were given yet far from factual inconsistencies.

The mind plays many tricks and after a traumatic event it is necessary to treat the percipient(s) carefully. Not suggesting things that that can then be woven into a false memory. If you take something said in an edited interview whether recorded for TV, radio or a newspaper there are bound to be what some call inconsistencies since journalists are there to sell a story or attract views/controversy. Having looked at the alleged inconsistencies I find that none stand up to scrutuny of any real kind.

It is noted that Chuck Rak recanted his story.  He claims that it was all a story concocted to gain money. In fact, Rak appears to have seemingly felt isolated by the fact that the Weiners and Foltz could recall what had happened at the Allagash and become closer while he failed as a subject of hypnosis -which he clearly stated was a great disappointment as he thought hypnosis would make him re-live the experience with "all four senses". It is very probable that Rak may have resisted hypnotic regression because he subconsciously did not want to relive what happened. Fowler states that Rak was a true "macho man" and he certainly appears to have shown this from the Allagash account and his life profile. If the Weiners and Foltz had difficulty over certain events such as sperm taking and not being able to resist what they were 'told' to do then Rak certainly might have had problems. I have no doubt that he put on a brave face but whether he really wanted to relive the event is open to debate.

Interestingly, Rak confirmed all the details of the UFO sighting but for whatever reason (lack of recall) denies the abduction scenario. I am aware of very "macho" people who underwent traumatic events (non UFO) but denied them, sometimes violently while others involved were more open  (Male combat veterans’ narratives of PTSD, masculinity, and health paper by Nick Caddick  Brett Smith  Cassandra Phoenix published: 20 January 2015 and Militarized Masculinity and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder by Sandra Whitworth In Jane Parpart and Marysia Zalewski (eds.), Rethinking the Wo/man Question in International Relations, (London: Zed Books, 2008), 109-126 look at the masculinity of military men facing trauma etc).

Despite an internet source such as Wikipedia stating that the case was "an alleged multiple persons abduction case, which was revealed as a hoax in 2016" and citing Potila, Jessica (2016). "Subject of 1976 UFO incident casts doubt on 'Allagash Abductions'" Rak, the subject involved, confirmed the UFO sighting again but was obviously bitter and resentful -again, possibly because he did not want to event to have been real because of the implications.

As I noted in UFO Contact? and in more detail in Contact: Encounters With Extra Terrestrial Entities? the percipients in these events are without doubt suffering from Post Traumatic Stress -in his book Fowler refers to this having been detailed by Dr Jacobs (prior to Dr Jacobs "going off the deep end").  The solution?  More hypnosis. The logical, sensible and human action to take should be treatment by a person medically qualified to handle PTSD cases not Ufologists and Ufological hypnotherapists.

Certainly the Weiners and Foltz experienced flash-backs in their dreams. It is clear that the twins experienced night paralysis as well as vivid dreams -Jack's wife, Mary, could not confirm any event at their home only what Jack had told her.  The idea that Mary holding a pendulum so that "Mary You" -her subconscious- could respond to questions is equivalent to having a Tarot reading to discover the truth. Fowler seems to stretch credulity at points and even writes that the Jack and Mary abduction was confirmed by her: it was not.

It seems that all four percipients had read either Budd Hopkins (Missing Time) and/or Whitley Streiber's book, Communion.  Therefore their memories would certainly be tainted by this.  And yet, despite this Ufological reading, the actual Allagash event is quite clear and each percipient confirms the others' account under hypnosis -apart from Rak who confirmed only the UFO sighting.  The Alien Entities involved are fairly unique in appearance -although after Hopkins and Jacobs non peer reviewed work and talks the "abduction phenomenon" is now full of reptoids, insectoids et al.

Fowler and the hypnotist cannot be praised for their techniques.  As a self confessed "alien abductee" or "experiencer" seems to be almost evangelistic in his beliefs and fitting in the details of other cases to match his.  This leads to unprofessional behaviour such as when, as an hypnotic session is about to be ended he "snapped a quick question at Jim (Weiner): when did you see these creatures again?" Weiner responded with Texas and the year 1980 -detailed later in the book and here is why this was so unprofessional: Weiner's subconscious would have immediately thought of the Texas incident as it was, without doubt and even Fowler suggests (not very firmly) that this might have been a flash-back.

When one looks at how one of the pioneers of UFO abduction percipients hypnosis, Dr R. Leo Sprinkle, worked as a professional and always taking care to ensure the well being of his subjects as well as his work, it seems Fowler and hypnotist Tony Constantino threw this out the window.  I may well be a little unkind there but things were done that I would not expect serious experienced -Constantino was a fairly inexperienced Ufologist- investigators to do.  It calls into question whether persons who are outspoken about being "experiencers" should really be involved in investigating alien abduction reports.  I tend to think not.

That Fowler presents his questioning at points almost as an interrogation -questions asked with added exclamation marks and often repeated until he gets an answer is not something to be proud of.  At times those involved seem to lose themselves: when asked to view images as though watching TV one says "I see those things!" and is then asked "Where?" and then he says "on it" he is asked "on what?" at this point I said out loud "On the bloody TV screen you told him to see all of this on!" At one point Foltz recounts a vivid dream that he found very upsetting and it was clearly a flash-back but because he rarely had vivid dream Constantino and Fowler stretch and push facts in leapsand bounds to make the dream a real event despite Foltz stating he believes it was just a rare, disturbing dream. The investigators then chalk this up as another abduction experience being witnessed.

It seems that Fowler and Constantino (David Webb a more experienced Ufologist was involved in the case but not at all the sessions) perceive every obvious dream or PTSD flash-back as genuine, real world experiences.

When it comes to Fowler's hypothesis that the twins were the focus of the Allagash event things fall to pieces.  At the very outset Fowler states how excited he is that twins were involved since that would be a Ufological -as Fowler puts it, after not paying much attention to Jim Weiner when he approached him at an event but on hearing twins were involved: "Suddenly I became very interested in what Jim was trying so hard to tell me"-  first and it seems that he loses interest in Foltz and Rak (this may indicate why Rak appears to be resentful as Fowler and Constantino appear -judging by Fowler's book- to have given up on trying to get to his memories of the event as he was awkward and resisted hypnosis).

Some of Jim Weiner's experiences could be down to his Temporlimbic epilepsy (TLE) -but as his doctors pointed out this could not account for the others memories of the Allagash incident.  However, having already read Budd Hopkins book before the hypnotic sessions, it could well have affected his memory -created false ones. Bringing in an alleged "ghost" ("Harry") does not help the case or point to childhood abductions of the twins as Fowler seems to insist. Also, it is clearly stated by Foltz that the entities involved appeared to be interested in the twins as they looked so alike. One might ask whether, if the twins were abducted from an early age, the entities had not noticed that they looked alike? This almost falls into Jacobs' realm where we appear to have attracted anything but the galaxy's brightest.  I believe that everything points to a one off event.

Rak's recall of a previous event -which he recalled but later recanted and may have been influenced by his reading of Hopkins/Streiber- can be negated and it is 100% not 'evidence' of any type and certainly not of life-long abductions. It should be pointed out he was not the only member of the four who felt Hopkins book might have influenced other memories.

Looking at the information presented it seems that the Allagash Four (or Three) had a one time experience. As the entities in the object involved seemingly had not really paid much attention to their presence on the lake it has to be asked whether Foltz, by signalling "SOS" with a flash-light actually drew the entities attention? We cannot know what alien entities might think, however, people in a canoe signalling them might be considered as "Hi. We want to meet you".  There are other UFO incidents in which objects have approached people signalling with flash-lights. This Allagash event might well have been a case of "You were curious and signalled them so you got not quite what you wanted"

We also come across the "scoop marks" so much cherished and highlighted in these cases. "Unexplained lumps" appearing on shins -possible ganglions or proof of alien abduction?  I have a lump on my right shin.  My father and brother as well as one sister had the same.  My mother and father sighted a UFO in Germany before I was born.  Am I a UFO abductee?  No. Objects get stuck in skin or you get cuts and they leave scars but you do not notice.  One evening I was washing what's left of my hair and felt a bump to the back of my head.  Then another -and dried blood. It took me a long while to remember that a tree branch had scraped past my head the day before but I had no idea it had cut my skin. A doctor once found a mysterious 1 mm greyish object under my left forearm skin and cut it out: it was a piece of pencil lead from where another pupil had stabbed me with a pencil in 1972 -completely forgot about it.

Ganglions. According to Tibial periosteal ganglion cyst: The ganglion in disguise a paper by Anjuna Reghunath, Mahesh K Mittal, Geetika Khanna and V Anil in The Indian Journal of Radiology Imaging. 2017 Jan-Mar; 27(1): 105–109:

"Soft tissue ganglions are commonly encountered cystic lesions around the wrist presumed to arise from myxomatous degeneration of periarticular connective tissue. Lesions with similar pathology in subchondral location close to joints, and often simulating a geode, is the less common entity called intraosseous ganglion. Rarer still is a lesion produced by mucoid degeneration and cyst formation of the periostium of long bones, rightly called the periosteal ganglion. They are mostly found in the lower extremities at the region of pes anserinus, typically limited to the periosteum and outer cortex without any intramedullary component. We report the case of a 62 year-old male who presented with a tender swelling on the mid shaft of the left tibia, which radiologically suggested a juxtacortical lesion extending to the soft tissue or a soft tissue neoplasm eroding the bony cortex of tibia. It was later diagnosed definitively as a periosteal ganglion in an atypical location, on further radiologic work-up and histopathological correlation."

Rather like the scam of running an EMF (Electro Magnetic Frequency) meter over a removed 'alien implant' (most EMF meters will begin 'reacting' if squeezed slightly so the person holding it is seen to not be touching anything to get the reaction) the idea that every bump and scrape is evidence of aliens "biopsy punches" from childhood on can be ruled out.

What I find odd is fig. 3 on p. 30 of Fowler's book in which a balding, white haired man is sat down in front of the quartet.  The note reads "...seated man came out of the woods, stayed for a while, left, and never gave his name". That is the only mention of this in the book.  I am guessing the famous photo was taken by camera on auto since there were only four present. The photo with the extra man is an odd one. Every single detail -position of items held, angle of arms and hands, details in the background all match. So why is this photo with the mystery man not on the internet and I have looked and why is the photo so significant when it is used nowhere but the book?

Only those involved can say 100% what happened at Allagash and all but one (who has changed his story slightly but actually falls short of saying it was a hoax) stick by that story and as for it being a hoax to get money -the four had not even seen a copy of the book before they appeared on the Joan Rivers Show.  They were pretty lax about "cashing in" on a UFO sighting.

Sadly, it was Fowler's book that prevented me from including this case in UFO Contact

Eupora, Mississippi

Eupora, Mississippi    17th October, 1973

   Unbelievably, US investigators simply did not bother -even when their top man on CE3Ks, Ted Bloecher stated that it was a case that needed investigating-  they said because "it was probably a hoax".  Well, yes, like the Moon landings.  Utter lazy and totally unscientific attitudes that still persist.  "Why bother looking into it. Probably a hoax". 

   A multiple witness landing of an object and sighting of an AE on a US Highway -with an unidentified car driver coming from the opposite direction stopping, turning and speeding away on seeing it. 

   Now why on earth would that be a priority case?

   What is  -or was-  seen as the best recorded and most significant UFO wave of sightings world-wide is, to many, just unknown. J. Bernard Delair of the old Contact UK produced a very detailed edition of The UFO Register summarizing what was known.  This was based on reports from newspaper as well as UFO periodicals

   Let us suppose that you read that issue of The UFO Register in 1974, or later, and from all the cases cited there are a few lines detailing an alleged UFO landing and entity being seen, but an entity the description of which is unique. We were always told look for rare, seemingly genuine events where non-humanoid entities were reported. This was such a case.

For the past four decades this is the account cut up, re-edited and added to :

   “Night time (no exact hour).  Two UFOs were observed near the above
   location (Eupora), by several witnesses in a car.  One object hovered in the
   sky overhead while the other landed on the highway just over 100 yards
   (103 m) from the car ; the car lights and engine now died.

   “An AE now appeared from the landed object.  This AE had to hold on to
   a handrail.  It had a wide mouth, flipper like feet and what appeared to be
   webbing between the legs.  Even more strange were the feather-like structures
   on its back which gave the impression of opening and closing when the AE
   moved.

   “The AE now re-entered (?) the object which took off ; the car’s electrics
   then began to function again.”

   My note in the file reads: “This case really must be gone into in more detail.  Did investigators talk to the witnesses? Is there missing time?”

    Between 1974-1980,  I wrote to the people who were supposed to have looked into this case.  No responses. Any and every new book or article (very rare) dealing with that period or AE / CE3K cases is checked. Same lines. No new details. I have scoured thousands of these reports that I have on file and checked many other sources. Nothing similar so the "craft" description and entity description.  They are totally unique.   But case details were far too vague.

   In 2015 I finally got in contact with the Centre for UFO Studies (CUFOS) and Dr. Mark Rodeghier told me that, yes, they had the case on file and even provided me with the file.  I would like to thank Dr. Rodeghier for this.

   No investigation had ever taken place. Why? Even Ted Bloecher  states in the file that the case was deserving of investigation. The reason nothing was done?  No one could be bother -"It might turn out to be a hoax" based on the fact that the description and notes made by someone at a radio station at the time just didn't "do it" for someone.

   I checked everywhere I could, even on the internet, once I got the percipient's name. No claims of a hoax or a joke –no one had exposed the case as such at the time nor since. Nothing. Just constant cut and paste of the same lines describing the incident.   However, the whole point of investigation is to disprove or prove a case. A joke? Fair enough. At least investigators learn something more. But if seemingly genuine?  I leave that up to you.

   Ted Bloecher made a transcript of the interview by Jack King of the radio station  --King was the only person who talked to Patterson and he believed him.  I am going to quote the entire transcript as to cut and edit will not give the reader that feel of how genuine it all came across. We really ought to thank Jack King of WROB.

Patterson is not, obviously, well educated and he is grasping at words to try to explain what he has seen, something he has never encountered before and the only thing he can do is use examples of things he knows so the UFO is a “capsule” because he has seen on TV that the capsule is where astronauts make their journey.  He is, obviously, still quite shaken up by what he has seen.  He even tries to explain this to King – “I’m talking crazy to you, but I can’t talk no better”  It is very ungracious to write in a transcript others will see “God help us –TB.” Not everyone gets a good middle class education.

   Again, Patterson says “No –I take that back” a number of times which is an indicator of someone trying, as best they can, to draw on something they know to try to explain something they are totally unfamiliar with.  The flying squirrel example to explain the AE had a membrane between its legs is a good example.

   And what he saw was not “an alien” or “space man” it was “this man –or whatever it is” and the whole account is so devoid of Ufological terminology that it really stands out.  We see that Patterson and his friends even went to the Eupora police to report the incident but were not treated seriously.

   A number of witnesses are named by Patterson and there was, at the time, the possibility that an appeal might have had the driver who did the U-turn and drove off when he saw the UFOB get in touch.  What of witnesses around the Highway?

   No investigators bothered to do their job.  CUFOS put me in touch with a veteran investigator who told me that, based on his “vast experience”, it was a hoax.  Why?  Because, based on his “vast experience”, it was a hoax.  He had, he told me, some great cases from 1973 that he had forwarded to MUFON.  The man seemed to not even be interested in seeing if Patterson did live in Eupora or still lived there or what could be found out –there are odds in favour of more than one of the witnesses name still being alive.  I have a suspicion why the report was ignored.

   On 14th  June, 1975, Ted Bloecher, then the US leading expert on CE3Ks, wrote to WROB, no doubt sensing things were going wrong.  He notes in the letter to Jack King that he had written to but not heard from the investigator and that the Patterson incident was one of possibly eight (8) CE3Ks on the night of 17th  October, 1973.  Bloecher  seriously felt this case needed investigation.

   Then, on the 7th  July, 1975, the local investigator wrote that   "I agree that the Early Patterson case should be followed up. I will make plans to visit that area sometime in the near future and talk to Patterson, plus any of the witnesses I can locate.  I will tape the conversations and forward a copy to you. If you have any specific questions I will be glad to include them."

   When Bloecher retired  from Ufology all of his files were donated to CUFOS and these show nothing further from either investigator involved. Had it not been for the radio station we would not know of the case.  Bloecher tried to get things rolling but those in place obviously had their prejudices which seems evident. 

   With Eupora the blame for the mess lies firmly with the Ufologists.  That there was a lot of “UFO” activity that day is clear.

17th October

c. 14:00 hrs  Watauga, Tennessee
   A copper hued circular object hovered just above ground level while a 6 ft tall entity reached out of a doorway and tried to grab 2 children nearby. AE had claw-like hands and eyes that blinked. (8) Also note on 15th John Lane claimed that a blue coloured object landed by a road at Gulfport, Miss., and that a crab clawed entity tapped on one of his car windows. Could this be what Patterson referred to? (9)

20:00 hrs  near Powhatan, Louisiana, 10 observers watched 3   multicoloured lights at a very low altitude.

20:48 hrs unusually shaped object observed over Fisher, Waldenburg and Weiner communities of Arkansas

21:57 hrs  Jackson District, Miss.: 11 observers watch an object with 6~8 lights.

23:00 hrs  nr Athens, Georgia.  Paul Brown had to swerve his car and make an emergency stop as a cone shaped object landed on the road ahead of him. From beneath the object emerged two 4 feet tall AEs with reddish faces and white hair.  The AEs re-entered the object which took off with a whoosh ~possibly due to the fact that Brown fired several shots at it with no apparent effect.

   The story is, obviously, somewhat more detailed.  Brief details were given in the NICAP Investigator and the Flying Saucer Review  (10 & 11) and the main news source appears to have been the Christian Science Monitor (12 & 13).

   Paul Brown, a preacher and car dealer was headed home near Danielsville on U.S. 29 listening to the World Series when suddenly his radio stopped working:

   “Everything lit up, I could see the road and the fields lighted up all around me. My first impression was that it was a small airplane trying to land.”

   However, this “plane”  began to pace his car before quickly landing on the road in front of Brown.  He was forced to stop. He could see that the object was 6 feet high and 15 feet in diameter. At that point a bright light was cast upon him, the round beam blinding him.

   “I realized if I don’t stop I’m going to hit it. So I came to a screeching halt.   “I don’t know why I did it, but I opened the car door and managed, frightened as I was, to get one foot on the ground.”

   Two beings now appeared:

    “Where they came from I don’t know. I couldn’t see a flap, a drop door, or anything. When I finally got my vision clear I could see a clearance underneath, so it was not belly-landed; it had some kind of landing gear. And they came out, and they had on the most beautiful outfits I’ve ever seen-silver, blousy, come down to where your wrists are, then they had what appeared to be white gloves. Very tight around the neck, like something a priest would wear. Down to the feet, like a jumpsuit. It looked like if you pulled a gun and shot it, it would glance off, yet it moved. They could move, yet it looked like it was heavy, because of the way they walked, very slow. I estimated them to be four to five feet tall.

   “They just started walking down the road toward me, very slow. I could see a face, you know, place where eyes would be, ears. The faces were reddish. Hair was almost like cotton, no discoloration, which leads me to believe maybe it was a mask of some kind. I never got close enough to really say-closest I ever got was 150, 200 feet away, which is not too far away when you’re there by yourself.”

   Brown, carried a pistol for protection and when he produced the weapon:

     “They turn around, walk very slow back behind the shadow to the bright light. All of a sudden they disappear behind the light, and I try to see where they go, if they go in a hatch or what, but I couldn’t”

   The entities re-entered the object and the lights were extinguished then, according to Brown:

   “Took off at an angle and made a sound I would describe as like a million fans,  or like golf balls coming by my ear.  Almost stood my hair on end.”

   Brown then immediately drove to a police station and reported the incident. By  daylight deputies had found Brown’s tyre skid marks and noted that roadside grass was “fan swept.”

   According to Mark Rodeghier: “I expect that the case was never investigated properly, like so many in this intense (1973) wave”. 

   17th/18th  00:00 hrs  nr. Loxley, Alabama.  Clarence Patterson (no relation to Early Patterson) claimed that he and his pickup truck were sucked up into a huge, cigar shaped UFOB  and that he was pulled from the vehicle by 6  robot-like entities that seemed to read his mind. Next thing he recalled was being back on the highway with his vehicle going at 90 mph. Incident may have lasted up to 30 minutes (14-17).

   Again, we have an alleged abduction and decades later we know no more about it. Just how ridiculous does this all appear to Science?

   17th (unspecified time)  Nr Hartwell, Georgia.  A UFOB allegedly landed and a white haired entity was seen for a short time.

   17th  (unspecified)  Elgin AFB, Florida. A UFO was recorded on radar equipment by fully trained personnel.

   17th  (unspec. Time) Alton Park, Tennessee. A UFOB was sighted and said to have landed.

   17th  (unspec. time) Crowley, near Lake Charles, Louisiana. 2 witnesses observe an oblong, luminous object.  Local power cut at the same time.

   These are just a few reports in a small geographic portion of the US that seem to show that there was some unusual activity taking place on the 17th/18th and in some cases details match regarding entities – crab-like pincers or white haired AEs.  If one looks at Contact UKs  The UFO Register then it is quite clear that in the United States alone there was a great deal of activity deemed "UFOs" –details in some cases are vague and the power-cut at Crowley could be down to any number of causes.

   But even if 95%  of the cases on record can be listed as misinterpretation, hoax or whatever, then we have a percentage that cannot be so easily dismissed.

   The UFOB and AE incidents are clear –as Bloecher noted to WROB, there were at least 8 alleged CE3Ks that night –  but how detailed were the investigations?  In the cases of Early Patterson, Paul Brown and Clarence Patterson and other witnesses in CE3K events there were no investigations.  A multi-witness report of a UFOB landing on a US Highway in which an AE was seen but ignored by Ufologists is incredible. 


Note: "UFOB" refers to what appears to be a solid, constructed craft rather than "something" in general -a UFO.

CE3K is a Close Encounter of the Third Kind -the sighting of a UFOB and alleged entities associated with it.