.JPG)
After all, Ufologists claim no one can deny these cases happened and Preston Dennett on his You Tube channel says that there are "Hundreds of thousands" of these cases on the record and "undeniable proof". I enjoy a coffee and watching Dennett but his cases presented range from very clearly hypnagogic, altered state and "anonymous" people posting their accounts to MUFON forums, etc. The one reason I have never purchased one of his books is because of that.
WHY would people report such things if not true? Psychological reasons, financial ones, to have a laugh or because they genuinely believe what they report happened -the latter are NOT liars and certainly not "mental cases" but have Ruth Syndrome (my first book explains all of that.
A "story" -that implies it isn't true which is why, barring the odd slip, I never use that term just "report" or "account". Anonymous reports may be genuine but when they all follow the path set out by Hopkins and Jacobs they get a low rating. Single witness/percipient cases can get a low to Medium-High rating. I have cited cases where someone is out for a walk or berry picking and they encounter an entity and an object/craft might or might not be seen. Why would that get a higher rating?
1. There were other observers who saw an object take off from the area the encounter happened in or did not see the object like others did (due to where they were) but did report a strange sound as others did.
2. There were unusual ground markings near the encounter site that match up with what was reported.
3. The observer is found collapsed or in a state of mental shock and takes days or weeks to recover.
4. In many cases although locals have heard the observers account and know of the other reported activity they do not tell the press about the landing. A Ufologist may stumble onto the account as as shown from 1949-2025 that is used to get more press coverage even if against the observer/percipient wished (the ladies at Liberty were going through hell when Ufologists turned up and threatened to go to the press with their names if they did not cooperate -this is not a rarity).
There are other factors such as:
5. Radiation higher than background radiation, found at the landing site.
6. Power outages.
Whereas power outages can have many causes the fact that a berry picking site in the middle of the countryside before power stations were built or in a country with no random radiation sources around. In some cases, if checked, it is found that the "simple housewife out berry picking" has had a nasty dose of radiation.
There are physiological effects that have no rational explanation and are certainly not psychosomatic -I have seen that first hand.
The observer is therefore telling the truth? About what? When they were staunchly "flying saucer stories are silly" then have their encounter it changes things and most are prompted to say "alien".
Do these reports constitute proof? Adding all the factors together it indicates something happened but not that we were visited by aliens.
I have spent over 50 years now looking into UFOs and these particular entity cases and my life has been spent looking at aviation history, hot air balloon history, satellites and even at military projects that never actually got to fly or if they did so not for long. Fifty, 60 or 70 years after some of these reports no such objects/craft as described have appeared. We know about the4 Blackbird spy plane and we've even see the various stealth fighters/bombers revealed in the 1990s. But absolutely nothing amongst patents or aircraft designs t6hat match up with what was reported in the French, Italian or Danish countryside in the 1950s. If we had anything as percipients describe then we would not be stuck on Earth saying "50 years? Let's go back to the Moon...if we can manage it" -getting to the Moon would take a few hours.
In the (unpublished 1984 UFO Report) I defined a natural phenomena (UNP -Uninvestigated Natural Phenomena) and cited reports throughout history and these, even in 2025, are called "UFOs" as in "alien craft" and they can create ground traces, physiological effects and even shape shift. However, none involve an entity so whereas most modern UFO reports are not adequately investigated and UNP becomes an alien craft with an actual object landing and entities seen or encountered we know that we are not going to simple dismiss the report.
We have percipients/observers seeing what are obviously constructed craft but which are well beyond anything we have on Earth. Put an entity of odd description into that equation and .....
But does that constitute proof? Again, proof that people are reporting odd things and in a normal world scientists would be investigating rather than illogically attacking observer credibility (if they get that far) or t6he report based on a badly written news item. FAR (Fear of Alien Reality) is so ego and world shattering to even people supposedly looking for ET in space.
When I set about researching UFO Contact the idea in my mind was simple: go for the Classic cases and look at the pro and anti arguments because if I could disprove one case it showed that there was a flaw in any claims. Reports that could be explained I did as you need to sort out the trash from the possible treasure.
I trashed the manuscript as even taking in the debunker arguments (which fell to pieces under even mild scrutiny) I was not disproving anything and with 40-60 years in some cases for debunkers to pick apart a report even the more controversial ones stood up to analysis.
I restarted but this time with the mindset that all of the reports were fake for one reason after another. Ah-ha! A debunker had solved a case and proven it fake. Gather more evidence and...the debunker was easily found to have lied. I tried to pull apart reports bit by bit but in certain cases it was not possible.
After a third fresh start I had to face the fact that people were reporting genuine events and so the cases I could explain I did. The ones I could not explain away I gave as much pro and con information as I could. No wild claims just facts.
Despite the reports that had the most data -94% of such cases were not investigated but just reported on using newspaper clippings! "Hundreds of thousands" of unexplained cases? No. I came up with solid cases and although I preferred reports with 2 or more percipients some single witness reports were unshakeable or shared details not widely known even in Ufology where CE3K/AE reports are still largely ignored (especial;y in this age of super star UAP conmen).
But is even the best report I can think of actual proof of alien visitation?Once more it proves something is happening that science should be looking into (difficult if you wear two eye patches). What we need is for someone to have an onboard experience and actually steal something that can be analysed -that would be proof.
We have huge amounts of evidence that would convince a judge and jury that something was going on but we need that solid chunk of proof and at the moment Ufology is not interested in that just fake videos and images and a "UFO Disclosure" that will never happen. Every report should be noted and filed because one day the accounts will slap science in the face so hard.
.jpg)
.jpg)
