(1) MIGAP Report 1977 (on file)
(2) Personal Files
The following is another sent to my by Brian Fishwick and MIGAP. It may seem as though I am favouring reports by the group but I ought to make it clear that, though other UK groups were looking into reports, MIGAP came up with some very High Strangeness cases. However, how the cases were investigated are good examples of the way UK UFO groups handled and reported on them.
At around 16:30 hrs, during “Winter, 1977”, Mrs S, who claimed a history of strange (paranormal) events, asked her son to take some rubbish out to the waste-bin in the back garden. It was while he was doing this that her son saw a “large head” looking down at him and fled back indoors, leaving the waste bin behind. Mrs S doubted the story and so went to get the waste bin. It was then that Mrs S observed a huge figure.
According to the report, the figure stood at around 9 feet (2.8m) in height, wore an all-covering white suit with a hood and visor. The footwear was described as “squarish”. This figure was staring at her but Mrs S began to shout at it to leave the garden but then ran indoors. She decided that inside the house, looking out of the kitchen window was the best way to see if the figure did leave as told. It did not. In fact, according to the witness, the figure now began to move toward the house. Mrs S ran out of the kitchen into the front living room and joined her son.
Above: Sketch of the garden made by MIGAP. We can see the position of the dustbin but it is also worth noting (though no scale was given) that it was not a large garden and at least two properties overlooked it. Apparently no enquiries were made at these houses, not those of closer neighbours, to see whether there might have been other witnesses.
With her son, Mrs S contemplated the situation when a friend, Jenny, arrived and noticed the distressed pair. Asking what was going on, Jenny listened and then decided to go to the kitchen window and look for herself. The figure was still there so Jenny grabbed a hold of a sweeping brush and intended to go and “hit the joker”, assuming that it was a prankster. Confronting the figure, Jenny found that it simply stared back at her and she retreated back into the house, unnerved.
A four participant in the event now arrived in the form of Mrs S’s cousin, Don. He heard the story and realized that it was a prankster who needed a good scare themselves and grabbed a kitchen knife after seeing the figure was still there. What exactly happened we have no idea other than that he came back into the house after a few seconds very frightened and claiming that the figure “was not human”.
A fifth person now enters the situation. Comings and goings like this are not uncommon in many households, especially in built up areas where there are large families or groups of friends. Jenny’s brother called around to see what was keeping her. Now, this is odd as it seems to indicate that this was all taking place over a lengthy period –long enough for Jenny’s brother to wonder what was keeping her. He was told what had gone on and decided to go to the kitchen window and look for himself. He then called all the others into the kitchen and asked them to point out where the figure was because the garden was empty.
All five now returned to the living room but after a while Jenny’s brother decided to double-check to put minds at ease. As he walked through the kitchen door, he immediately saw a large head looking in through the window though he could not see a face due to the visor. He ran back into the living room and told the group that he was going to the police.
I need to point out that, even in 1977 not every house had a telephone and there were no mobile phones so the option would have been to go to a public telephone call box or head for the nearest police station.
Mrs S and Don decided that by going upstairs they could look out and safely see what the figure was doing. They opened a window and looked down to see the figure looking at something on the ground which they believed might have been the kitchen knife Don had dropped. Don now started to shout at the figure which stood upright and looked up at them and then “pointed something at them” and the next thing they recalled was walking back down the stairs and feeling very calm as if they had taken tranquilizers. Both felt strange but could not explain exactly the sensation.
Above : illustration of the entity encountered in the Huyton case and there are similarities to AEs reported in other cases, however, what makes this one stand out is its height –very noticeable in a terraced British garden.
Two police officers now arrived –presumably Jenny’s brother had contacted them- and were told what had been happening and was asked to show them where the figure was. Once in the kitchen it was not hard to see the figure and the officers decided to go and see just exactly who or what it was. Once outside, the officers stood still for a few seconds then moved forward…the figure then “faded away.”
The officers re-entered the house to discuss the matter and Mrs S asked what they were going to do? Both were adamant that if they reported the incident they would be laughed at, however, they did promise to return the next day to look around and see whether they could spot anything. They then left.
It was now that Mrs S noticed the time. It was 21:30 hrs which shook her as she had thought the whole incident had lasted only one hour but it was more like five hours and the majority of that time was not accounted for. As promise, though, the police officers did return the next day but could find no traces of where the figure had been so Mrs S asked, again, what they intended to do –what action would be taken? They told her to just forget about it because there was nothing they could do.
A week after the incident, Mrs S broke out in a rash but her doctor simply gave her some cream to put on it: Mrs S, herself, told investigators that she thought it might be a “nerve rash” (psychosomatic). MIGAPs report concludes (1):
“Since the incident she has made many sightings of strange objects. Huyton has had quite a lot of (UFO) sightings over the past couple on months.”
This is how the case report ended. There are points that need to be made and, hopefully, lessons can be learnt. The basic details given here is more or less what MIGAP presented. It lacks the basics.
The house Mrs S lived in –was it detached, semi-detached, a row of houses? This is important for several reasons and the main one is that if there were a property on one side, or on both, of her house then, surely, someone must have heard Jenny, Don or Mrs S herself when they confronted the figure and told it to go –Don had shouted from an upstairs window. Also, neighbours are nosey so a couple of policemen turning up would have alerted them to something going on. If no neighbour saw the figure or heard the ruckus then they ought to have at least remembered two policemen turning up. That in itself might give us a date.
We are told that the event started at around 16:30 hrs and ended at approximately 21:30 hrs. There was no attempt by investigators to establish a chronology for:
(1) Jenny’s arrival
(2) Don’s arrival
(3) Jenny’s brother’s arrival. His arrival time would be significant in that the report states he arrived to see “what was keeping his sister” now, call around, chat for 10-15 minutes or maybe even 30 minutes is not enough to make someone ask “Now what’s keeping her all this time?” He must have looked at a clock or wristwatch and that would have given us something to go on.
(4) With (3), above, we would know when Jenny’s brother arrived and could estimate, by careful questioning, roughly how long he was in Mrs S’s home. This is important because it was after this that Mrs S and Don went upstairs to see what the figure was doing. That might indicate if any time was missing. And this would also tell us where Jenny and Mrs S’s son were during this period.
(5) Mrs S noticed that it was 21:30 hrs after the police had left so how long had they been there?
There is something else. Police officers, even if not willing to make an official report, could have been identified and contacted privately. Even had the officers just turned up and not identified themselves by name there is one way they could not hide who they were: what we used to call the “collar number”, though by this time they were known as “shoulder number” silver numbers appearing on epaulettes. It can be up to five digits and larger forces would also include a letter; the division call sign which indicates station area, etc.. Most people ignore these but they are usually still “seen” if not consciously. Again, carefully handling percipients and listening to their accounts it is normally possible to get them to “remember something they never noticed”. Two police officers backing up such an account would be interesting.
So why note this case? Well, either MIGAP were having their legs pulled or this is a genuine High Strangeness case. But we do not have any signed witness statements or and statements dictated to investigators here. We have seven witnesses, if we believe the report, but are left shrugging at the complete lack of a proper investigation that gives us the basics.
This is why I wrote so many articles and spoke to so many groups, to get them to understand the importance of these cases and just how to get the information needed. In this case I did offer to travel from Bristol to talk to all the percipients but there was a serious “our case” attitude with groups. It is very important to hear what those other witnesses say because, as we have seen, in an altered state of consciousness the percipient sees everything as being solid and real whereas seven witnesses rule out this explanation.
Sad but this is all we know.
Taken from UFO Contact?
No comments:
Post a Comment