RR3 en France 2

To Set The Record Straight

I ought to make it clear that I am not saying that there may be genuine one off abductions by a type of entity that would fit the "Grey" description.  I just think that hypnosis and its use/misuse and the way Dr Jacobs has taken it has led to a Grey paranoia of life long, generational abduction agenda.

Logically and factually it makes no sense.

Close Encounters of the Third Kind/Rencontres Rapprochées du troisième type (RR3)

I have been looking at the CE3K/RR3 reports from France for a while now -some have featured in my books.  What I have been concentrating on recently are those reports from 1954 -seen as "The French 1954 UFO Wave" and what I have found is quite enlightening.

My first stop on the internet after going through my own file notes and English language summaries was Patrick Gross' Ufologie page. It was amazing to see just how many hoaxes, practical jokes and even misidentifications of people as "Martiens" or plain spacemen there were.  And they were known about at the time yet are still being used in CE3K catalogues or books and talks.  There are the anonymous letters that really cannot be counted as evidence because if you have no witness name and cannot talk to him/her then you have nothing -though some of these are so good Ufologists use them because...well, why not?

If the physical trace evidence gathered by the Gendarmerie/Air Gendarmerie could be explained away then I would agree with Gross that the Marius Dewilde case could be dismissed but as I pointed out in my book UFO Contact? I tried but "he faked it" just does not work.  I did go into detail over Dewilde's later claims and though they can be dismissed they should not effect the original report.

A great many of the CE3K/RR3 reports can be thrown out -some have only a couple of lines to them and could very well be Press inventions -don't be shocked; reporters were and are doing this the world over!

It seems that there are many -many- reports of "flying saucers" that can also be dismissed for similar reasons -in fact, at least 4 of the 1954/1955 cases could be misidentification of a helicopter and its crew.  In one case a 13 year old boy saw a landed object and spoke to its beret wearing occupant who had a Breton accent -not even his parents believed the boy.  Colleagues of a railway worker putting on a fur coat became a classic "small hairy humanoid" case.  Meteors, Venus and much more means that far from being a literal UFO invasion of France, 1954, was a year of great Press exaggeration and flying saucer hysteria.

However, this means that those cases in which witnesses were tracked down and gave investigators their accounts or the Gendarmerie investigated their report  now become far more important. Because they were the percipient/witness and we are not relying on what the Press told us.

In UFO Contact? and Unidentified - Identified I threw out much of the whole Grey Paranoia.  There is simply no evidence and the pro-abduction researchers response: "How can so many people from all walks of life who do not know each other all report the same procedures and scenarios?"  the answer is simple: since Budd Hopkins original 1980s book on abduction and then Whitley Streiber's book, there have been hundreds of movies, TV shows (fiction and 'reality'), magazine and newspaper as well as radio shows that have pounded the scenarios into peoples' heads.  After the internet arrived for all any credibility went.  There is abductee after abductee who says "I saw the image (of a 'Grey') on the cover of Streiber's book and it all started coming back!"  or they refer to Hopkins book with the Grey on the cover.

Dr Karla Turner's books should be read by all ufologists wanting to look into alien abduction syndrome. Into the Fringe and Taken: Inside The Alien Human Abduction Agenda are full of the type of accounts that will be encountered as well as, and this is very important, detailing how Turner came to believe that she was an abductee. Turner's sad death through illness is still seen by some as evidence that she was "murdered for speaking out" on the abduction situation.  The same way that John Mack's tragic death by being hit by a car or Hopkins' death from complications associated with cancer at the age of 80 all pointed to "silencers" at work.

In my book I detailed all of the Turner story as well as defining that in some cases not just hypnagogia was at work but something I have called "Ruth Syndrome" -quite rare?

We see none of this in early reports which are almost slap you in the face with how "untainted" there are.  People going about their normal daily lives and then -it happens.  Some are badly affected by what happened -physically and/or psychologically.  In the 1954 French cases we here of "paralysis" in some cases but that is it; just one more case to add to a collection.  When you look at the cases more deeply you find out just how these encounters affected the person involved.  But then, after they recover, they get back on with their lives.  No extraordinary claims -in fact most of those involved do not want to discuss what happened later on.  "It happened.  Get on with life".  Remember the later case of M. Masse at Valensole who, despite being literally hounded by ufologists, would say no more.

Masse is typical of many of these people: had they not been shocked enough to confide in someone and someone then told reporters or ufologists, we would never have heard of their cases. In some of the most famous cases we only know of them because someone breached a confidentiality.

So the French cases up to, say, 1980 are well worth looking at in more detail.

Likewise early Italian cases have surprised me for the same reasons.  In Belgium there are early cases that have not been thoroughly investigated; in Unidentified - Identified I looked at what is known of an early 'lost' Belgian case; what information there is has never been referred to in English language works (that I have seen).

In Spain there are cases that have been labelled "Press hoax" and yet no source for any such claim let alone evidence is given.  We are to take the word of "sceptical ufologists" who when asked for the evidence for this basically fall silent.  If a claim is false and a or several ufologists know this and can prove it then they have to make this known widely or they are not just being scientific about what they do but are adding to the false nature of ufology and lose credibility.

One CE3K I looked at I was told "The witness is a repeater".  For those that are too young to remember I will explain.  Up until the late 1980s if a person reported a UFO sighting -no problem. I often heard "experienced" ufologists tell witnesses "You were lucky.  It is very rare to see one of these things".  If that person saw a second UFO then alarm bells sounded; were they misidentifying something? They were now a "shaky" witness and their credibility was lessened. If that person reported a THIRD UFO sighting; they were a "UFO-nut!" Sightings 1 and 2 were more or less discounted.

My thought was that if the report did not sound like an aircraft or something "normal" what was it then -if it had been seen three times then we had to either prove the witness was incompetent for one reason or another or find out what was being misinterpreted.  No.  "UFO-nut".

Today, of course, even with one sighting the witness is asked about "missing time".  Three UFO sightings and "it is obvious that there is more going on here than just three UFOs being seen!" What the ufologist hints at -or shouts out- is that the witness must be an abductee because no one "just" sees three UFOs.

That leap into fantasy is what causes so many problems and creates lack of investigator credibility. Three or four or even five "UFO" sightings and if there is a pattern it should be clearly seen -same time? Same weather conditions -same location?  The investigator must first prove that what the witness sees is without mundane explanation. Even then that is a leap from uninvestigated natural phenomena (UNP) to a constructed possibly alien craft (UFOB).

In the Spanish case I looked at I was told "He's a Repeater" -indicating that the report was possibly from a UFO-nut.  Firstly, if a witness has a job where they drive around the country and generally at night then it is odd if they do not see something unusual at least once in their lives.  Meteor, aurora or even UNP; might time is when you are going to really notice something bright in the night sky and when you have less chance of having corroborative witnesses independent of you.  I have seen, up close, UNP on six occasions between 1977-1985.  If I go out tonight and some kind of UFOB lands in front of me and entities emerge am I now a "repeater" who reports aliens?  Of course not -there was absolutely nothing about the previous incidents that could be construed as "alien" as in extraterrestrial and I saw them because I was either out and looked up at the right time or looked out of my window at the right moment.

So the disparaging phrase "He/she is a Repeater" has no place in anything calling itself scientific investigation. It says more about the ufologist.

What of reports from other parts of Europe during 1954; did other countries see increased activity? Not that I can find. Oskar Linke and his daughter in Germany (15th March, 1952) seem to have had the best sighting but there is a problem for German reports for this period.  The Second World War had not ended long before and Germany was split into two occupied zones -East under the control of the Soviet Union and the West divided up by France, the United Kingdom, United States,etc..  Most German citizens would probably keep quiet in East Germany because they didn't want the KGB calling on them for talking about one of their new aircraft.  In the West, well, people tended to keep their heads down more as they were a 'free' occupied country; they might think the same as their countrymen in the East; keep quiet in case it's an Allied weapon being tested.  Even up until the late 1980s West Germans tended to look on authority with certain suspicion and tried not to court the attention of the police.

It is quite possible that a good number of sightings/encounters were never reported.  People could come forward after Unification but unless their is some form of secondary confirmation of an incident it has to be treated cautiously.

There are press stories from 2016-2018 that state the number of UFO encounters has dropped dramatically and they ask "why?"  I have read and heard these same stories since the 1970s and they were around in the 1960s, too.  Some ufologists will tell you that "UFOs may be preparing for a new phase in activity" -that is suitably vague enough to sound impressive. Others might point out that "the controlling entities behind the human abduction agenda may be preparing for something -we just have no idea, just hints, about what that might be".  Impressive but nonsensical.  Will we learn that the "Tall Whites" are, like every other entity type claimed to have been in control since the 1980s, now subservient to another type?

The truth appears to be that, away from the New Age and the Grey Abduction hysteria, there has never been prolonged periods of high UFO activity.  My work in 1980s appears to have been the only one that sifted through reports -not "cases" because a press clipping does not constitute a case, as in a report investigated.  Sorting the UNP from the hoaxes and fabrications (a lot from ufologists) as well as misidentifications (again, ufologists who "looked into the report" took an item about a meteor and in re-telling this became "a bright flying disc traversed the sky") and Insufficient reports it was clear that "Historical UFO Waves" and "Modern UFO Waves" did not exist.

There are reports that, based on what is written in the original account, cannot be categorised as False or UNP but have to be labelled as UFOB -if the original account is not false.

This means that if any "alien abductions" take place they are rare and are not one in "many" life-long abductions by aliens. I will admit right up front that as a major supporter of Hopkins and Jacobs I fell hook, line, sinker and copy of The Angling Times for the whole life long abductions phenomenon. But then I noticed things...things that did not make sense and when I looked at these details more closely one after another turned out to be false. If we sort out, and I have no idea how that can be done given the current mess ufology is in, all of the Turner-types then we have to look at how many are suffering from psychological delusions or ongoing mental health issues.  How many suffer sleep paralysis and or hypnagogic breaks?

There is a problem in that "hypnagogia" tends to be offered up as an "explain it all away" solution -even by people in ufology who have no idea what hypnagogia is.  My older brother suffered from this when younger -but never claimed alien abduction just having a conversation with a starfish on the stairway landing and other day time incidents. Oddly, I stopped and controlled hypnagogia by the time I was 14.  Also, I do suffer sleep paralysis which is terrifying until you know what it is; so long as I am waking when it occurs I control and break the paralysis.  I know what I am talking about -and there is long experience with others so I am not using convenient explanations.

When I went through the UK CE3K reports I noted that a lot could be explained as sleep paralysis or hypnagogia.  There were two sides of this for me: the first was that I had wasted a lot of time on these cases but the Second side of it was that I learnt from these cases so it had not been a complete waste of time.  It meant that there were patterns I could pick up on -any serious researcher should pick up on these.

In UFO Contact? I explained in full the Ruth Syndrome.  This, I believe is quite rare but the problem is that cases are studied by psychologists and so people in ufology or even in paranormal investigation never hear about these.  There is patient confidentiality but you need to know what technical papers to look for. There are a couple of such cases that I believe exist within UK cases.

With UK reports from approximately 1975 on there is the question of reliability as we have now known for several years that well known British ufologists have been faking, or as they call it "planting", CE3K reports: unless I have spoken to a witness/percipient or know someone I can trust who has, I exclude those reports as anything but a note in chronology.

Yes, I am sceptical but unlike "sceptical ufologists" who are debunkers (and nothing more) I approach each case/report with an open mind and assess just what evidence is available.  Now we have no such thing as 100% proof of extraterrestrial visitation -today many ufologists confronted by this simply respond "Well, they could be inter-dimensional" because that, in their minds, explains lack of physical evidence.  I have even heard one ufologist being interviewed state: "They could be inter-dimensional but I call them 'ETs' ".

What I have to go on is what the debunkers write and state and what the ufologists counter with but then look at angles neither side has bothered looking at. The biggest factor in all of this, in the end,
is the percipients/witnesses. I was shocked to find that some of the most famous cases in ufology we would not have heard of had it not been for an acquaintance of those involved or the initial investigator breaching confidentiality -in the latter case to get newspaper funding.  I have catalogued this in UFO Contact? but ufology has nothing to be proud of in many cases -the percipients/witnesses are "just" a means to an end and are often left to fend for themselves when debunkers attack.

When those involved in the incidents do not want publicity, do not want to talk about what happened but are, literally, stalked and pestered by ufologists until they do (it was not unknown for a newspaper to be tipped off who may have seen what to get the witness to talk to a ufologist and fend off reporters) and are then named and their stories splashed over sensationalist newspapers my sympathies are with them.  Yes, it is a double-edged sword in a way: it is vital that we find out details of these reports and study them, however, the way those involved are treated is shameful.  Some are suffering from what was clearly Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (before PTSD was an accepted term I often referred in old talks and articles to percipients behaving as though "Shell-shocked") and even physiological problems but this was never dealt with: the story was the important thing not the person involved.

Depending on what the encounter involved (for Mona Stafford, last survivor of a trio abducted in 1975 and Calvin Parker, the only survivor of the 1973 Pascagoula encounter, they have suffered the mental trauma and name calling for over 40 years) the percipient/witness can find that they get on with life but that the incident is always on their minds.  Others put on a brave face and take the attitude of "It happened. Now get on with the rest of your life" - and do not discuss the matter openly but only they know how they are truly affected.

If there were witnesses to a UFO in the area at the time or there was a radar-vizual incident then that adds credibility. A "UFO" is not an "extraterrestrial space craft" but 95% of people who see something either think or are told it is.  Even if it is a space launch gone wrong or space debris burning up on re-entry. However, even today, some ufologists -specialising in CE3K- will literally back-pedal when interviewed by the media "Well, we don't know what they are nut a lot of us think they might be inter-dimensional rather than extraterrestrial" -pure and simple cowardice. If you investigate a case in which a witness reporters a disc-shaped object -a "flying saucer"- landing and strange entities that only look remotely human and, if there is communication between entity(ies) and witness(es) and it is disclosed that "We come from outer space" and those witnesses are found to be sane, honest, every day people then you have to go by what they say.

People reported odd aircraft and a few years later we saw the stealth bomber and stealth fighters and those witness reports were confirmed as fact. The SR71 was a 'UFO' until it became public knowledge. This is how it works with Earthly technology.

In almost 70 years which country has produced its revolutionary flying saucer spy-craft? Which country has revolutionized air travel with its breakthrough rapid vertical take off and "shot across the sky in seconds" technology?

Oh. No, it hasn't happened, has it. Look at the flying triangles that emerged in the mid-1990s -that is the slow if not deliberate unveiling of new technology.

So if these flying saucers have not been revealed as now very old technology -where did they come from?  Well, if the folk flying the things talk to witnesses and tell them they originate on another planet then what do we think?  Inter-dimensional?

M. Masse at Valensole, when shown a photo of a model of the object Lonnie Zamora saw at Socorro, New Mexico he was over-joyed: someone else had seen and photographed 'his' object.  But he was non-plussed to hear this was seen in the United States not in France or in his area.  Another thing that came from the Masse encounter (exactly what happened we will never know because he refused flat out to tell anyone else -including his wife) was that when he was told of the Betty and Barney Hill case  -more attempting to contaminate a report by ufologists- Masse did not believe them.  He said that they (the entities) would not force you on board if you did not want to go (what did go on that morning?!) and this is interesting.  In France and elsewhere, there are a number of UFO landing reports in which the percipient was approached by entities whom he/she could not understand, however, it seemed that they were being invited to board the craft (?) and when the offer was refused the entities boarded said craft and took off.

No abduction.

Sadly, in the United States, if you were "black" and reported a CE3K you were more likely to be ignored or ridiculed -by ufologists.  This I covered in UFO Contact?  but looked at in a little more detail in Unidentified -Identified.  Let's be honest here: this was not just the case in the United States because I experienced how prejudiced ufologists were towards "black" witnesses myself in the 1970s -1980s and I was actively discouraged from looking into these sightings -that worked out about as well as stopping me looking into Repeater sightings!

I am so glad this was only meant to be a brief post!

When it comes down to it CE3K/RR3 reports are far rarer than we ever thought because many of us accepted what the big name ufologists told us -and they were telling us things that were only 2-4 lines in a newspaper, proven to be hoaxes or misidentifications.  The CE3k/RR3 reports are possibly the most important aspect of the UFO situation -others have said this over the years.  We need to concentrate on old reports from 1947-1984 (ie; before the whole Grey mess sprang up) and start with the oldest because those witnesses will in many cases not be with us much longer.  We build from the oldest reports up until the newest and, above all we need to get those reports translated into English and French, fully referenced and with as much information as possible.

Germany, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Sweden -where ever; serious investigators/researchers need to communicate with each other rather than on sceptical forums or groups.  There are so many CE3K or "Humanoid" catalogues out there that simply catalogue and decide based on their compilers' own prejudices what is or is not genuine.  Personal opinion does not matter -that is for research papers, books or articles.  If reports are fully investigated and copies distributed then that is all that matters and individuals can use their own cataloguing systems (and there are a lot).

All I can do is put that appeal out there.  If you are a serious investigator/researcher then I can be contacted at the following emails or message me at the Face Book page for the Anomalous Observational Phenomena group

aopbureau@yahoo.co.uk

or blacktowercg@hotmail.com

Thank you.

files

Just been sorting things out. 15 files on CE3K/Alien Entity cases that will need up-dating or burning (and I am not joking). I'm sure a file is missing...??

 

A UFO Lands on a US Highway.

Multiple Witnesses. A CE 3K Takes Place...case ignored

"CE3K" refers to Close Encounters of the Third Kind -where an alien-entity is seen in conjunction with a UFO.

I find it truly amazing how "major UFO investigation" organisations talk-the-talk for the TV cameras or the UFO fans at conventions and fill an hour up with their "Best UFO footage" (chinese lanterns, balloons, aircraft and even stars -all out of focus) but when it comes down to the wire...well,they do not even reach the proverbial wire.

In chapter 28 of UFO Contact? I give all the details regarding a major multi-witness UFO incident.  In fact, one UFO hovered over a US highway while another landed.  Oh, and an entity was seen to temporarily emerge. Remember: multiple witnesses and we have some of those names.

Here is the thing, the incident took place in 1973.  Pascagoula involved two men with no other known witnesses at the time -Ufologists flocked there in droves.  Well, I could cite case after case that was swamped with investigators but only involved 2-3 percipients.

We only know what happened in this case because one of the witnesses, who sounded genuinely scared, contacted a local radio station and the DJ there took notes and recorded the interview. No less than Ted Bloecher, seen at the time as the CE3K expert in the US, urged that the case be investigated as soon as possible as it could be very significant.

The two local investigators said "okay".  Poked around the Pascagoula case until they realised the "Big Boys" were involved.  They tried to get into a case involving a well known entertainer and his UFO sighting -backed away when the "Big Boys" got involved. In fact, they talked-the-talk but could not do one step of "the walk".

In fact, the two investigators are prominent by their complete lack of any action at all.  There is a rumour that it was one or both of them who started rumours to the effect that the 'witness' (only one and they knew better) was "iffy".

The entity described is, and I have searched the thousands of reports in my files, unique.  That in itself could be very significant.

So, with all the details kindly provided by the Centre for UFO Studies (CUFOS), I tried to contact investigators in the Mississippi area. Responses: "Probably a hoax". "Well, could be wasting our time -likely a hoax" and "Seems to be a hoax".  Based on...reading a short summary (I am assuming here that they didread the summary). Now, let's see, if it turned out to be a hoax then the hoaxers never followed up and no word has ever surfaced of a hoax claim. If it is genuine then we have a unique, multiple witness event that, despite urging from Ted Bloecher and others, was never investigated -not even a report form sent to the witnesses.

Why would a case of this potential be ignored -everyone was on top of any UFO landing or alien-entity claim at that time.

There is something very unsettling I have noticed about reports from this period and it only takes a close look at the literature back then as well as how cases were promoted or put on a back-burner. The multiple witnesses were all black and came from a poor black area.  Other "black" witnesses of the time seem to be almost dismissed and I asked (with no prompting, just a request to read through the chapter of the book and tell me what they thought) three people who have been involved in Ufology for decades for, as I wrote a general opinion on the incident.

The first Ufologist was British and he said he was "uneasy" about the investigators and what their behaviour implied. Next, someone now living in New York who used to live in Mississippi: "Reading this, that guy never had straight enough hair!"  In other words, he/they were black.  "You have to remember those were different times.  Two white guys driving into a poor black area would probably be scared.  There were a lot of bad things going on in Mississippi back then. Different now". The other contact lives in California and agreed with the one in New York: "There were so many good reports we lost back then. Real danger was mostly in the mind".

If there was concern a meeting could have been held at the radio station or somewhere else. It does make you wonder what the "good reports" were that were lost through investigators not wanting to visit black areas.

But there is still a chance that some of the witnesses are alive. There are + and - to opening up a cold case investigation.  However, the witnesses could have made notes or drawings at the time and it is far better to at least try to rectify past mistakes than ignore a case like this with a dismissive "too long ago" -did Ufologists not attack and criticise the United States Air Force over exactly that same excuse?

So I contacted MUFON. "Dismissive" does not cover the response. It is a long shot but I am going to have to start searching for the witnesses and seeing what I can find out.  Far easier for American investigators of course but American ufology will have to live with the past shame and current unwillingness to do the right thing.

1950 and two dead aliens -both in Germany?

 Published in the German magazine Neue Illustrierte just after the success of the Wiesbaden photo in April, 1950 under  the title "Der Mars-Mensch" -The Martian Man.

1st April, 1950  Wiesbaden, Germany

Wilhelm Sprunkel, journalist of the Wiesbaden daily newspaper "Wiesbadener Tagblatt", in Germany, set up an April's Fools prank for the 1st April, 1950, issue. He had read a flying saucer story in some other newspaper and decided the matter was ideal for such a prank. what he did then was contact the liaison officer of the Wiesbaden US Army base and explained that he needed to take a photo of two soldiers for a flying saucer prank he was planning. At the time German civilians dressing up in a US uniform might have caused a few problems.

Obviously the liaison officer was a bit worried and asked his superior if this was okay and he was told it was! In fact the approval came from the US Army headquarters in Heidelberg.

Photographer Hans Scheffler took photos of his son Peter, aged 5, walking between two soldiers. He then produced a collage and over-painting of an alien over his son's image. The weird alien apparently had only one foot resting on some sort of small disc, a big head with some sort of "Y-shaped nose and two large eyes. "It" was also equipped with what was meant to be a breathing apparatus.

Schefflerworked hard and also made a photograph of a flying saucer wreck and a photograph of the saucer flying above Wiesbaden.

The hoax story was published in the newspaper on 1st April, 1950. The story told of a huge flying disc that flew over Wiesbaden and crashed in a nearby wood in Bleidenstadter Kopf. Readers were told thatvthey should remain confident about the matter, since the crew-member was in a secure place, at the Neroberg hospital in the city,and the military had "reinforced radar surveillance", 

The alien, who would float on a rotary disc, was walked around near the hospital everyday between 2 and 3 p.m. so that he could get acclimatised to our gravity and the breathing apparatus was also furnished by the military.

The hoax apparently had some local success and was believed by another newspaper who repeated the account! . A female journalist wanted to buy the photographic rights for publication in another newspaper and Sprunkel took over 20 minutes to convince her that it was just a prank.

The matter was then completely forgotten until 1977 when an FOIA request for FBI UFO documents showed that some anonymous person had sent the photograph of the "alien" to the FBI and claimed the space visitor had been photographed in New Mexico. Cue author William Moore hearing about it  and he put it in his Roswell book.

When German ufologist Klaus Webner saw the poor photocopy of the picture in Moore's book in 1981, he explained that he knew about this prank as he had found the newspaper article in their archive and gotten the explanation first hand from Sprunkel and Scheffler.

BUT no. The UFO believers were not having that but, it is true and I wrote at least two articles on this in the 1980s -with the help of CENAPs Werner Walter.

Strange Ohio Humanoids: What Should We Accept As Evidence?

   Regarding mysterious Ohio creatures there was this report in 2014:

Alien Encounter in Cincinnati, Ohio, 12^th December, 2014

“We recently bought a place in the fort hill area. we first noticed after about 30 days of living here that we suddenly have a perfect circle that stays fresh green, no matter what weather, in our front yard. friday night (the 12th) we were driving home and after turning on carmel rd which leads to our road (washburn) we went around the curve by the carmel church and then up a small incline and approx. 10 feet over the incline and in front of our truck, the alien ran across the rd and into the woods. my husband saw it. he is a skeptic, almost 60 years old and a proud marine. he wouldn't have admitted to seeing it if he hadn't been in shock. i had him draw it for me when we got to the house. he says it was asphalt gray (our asphalt is gray) and about 7 foot tall, no arms that he could see, but muscular in the legs area. no jawline and it's legs were bent backward and it leaned forward as it ran.”

   The legs looked very odd –almost as though they belonged to a quadruped. However, as I do not live in Ohio I have no idea of the full variety of wildlife there but then I accidentally found the Doubtful News website and it featured this very brief incident.

https://doubtfulnews.com/2015/01/ohio-alien-creature-sighting-may-have-logical-explanation/

   In her piece, Idoubtit, expressed the opinion that what was seen was nothing more than a white Tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) on its hind legs or, as others suggested, great blue heron (Ardea herodias): there are other suggestions and based on the fact that there is so little information on this sighting I tend to go for a natural explanation.

   Now there are three other incidents and they are reported on at Phantoms and Monsters, not the most evidence based website as I have found several times. Lon Strickler wrote:

  

“I recently received a 3rd report of a humanoid sighting in the Mount Vernon, Ohio area. The eyewitness' daughter contacted me:

“Hi, I am reaching out not as a hoax but to let you know that I received a phone call from my mom in Mount Vernon, Ohio recently telling me that she saw a figure of what appeared to be an alien come in one side of her basement and go out the other end of the basement. She describes this thing as being tall with long arms, and she didn’t see his face as she watched him from a side view but she did say that his head looked just like the one in this picture I’ve attached (from my last report and above). I wish to have her identity anonymous please if she is not contacted. I thought you might be interested to know that there has been another sighting in this area. My mom said that she wasn’t scared nor did she feel any danger by this presence and that it just came in and left. Thank you....

“NOTE: I am attempting to gather more information from this sighting. Lon”

   Unfortunately, for researchers this report is immediately thrown out.  We have an anonymous report which is okay if the writer clearly identifies herself to the investigator but this is not even her sighting.  It is her mother’s.  The problem is that unless an independent investigator can view and confirm the existence of the witness and that an email was sent reporting the incident and that the actual witness has confirmed details –the report is of no use.

   Does the witness use any medication or have any existing physical health problems –mental/physical?   What was her frame of mind at the time of the sighting –what kind of day had she had; any stress?

   Really, unless an investigator can talk to the witness of an event it cannot be taken as even hearsay: far too much hoaxing and fabrication takes place on the internet.

   The following is the first Ohio report:

Mount Vernon, Ohio:

“As I was driving home on 31 July 2018 at 01:43 on Ohio state route 13 north of Mount Vernon, OH a 7-8ft tall, skinny, humanoid like creature ran across the road out of a corn field across into a soybean field (from a east to west direction). I noticed the creature in my headlights from 50-75ft away as I was traveling at a rate of 55-60mph. As it came out of the cornfield I immediately let off the accelerator. At first thinking it was a deer but then seen the creature walked upright. It was 7-8ft in height, tall slender body, arms and legs small in diameter, hands and feet looked over-sized for its body proportion, small neck with oval elongated head, being dark tan to light brown skin tone and had no body hair. The creature slightly turned its head towards my vehicles headlights and I seen the creatures black eyes and small mouth just open slightly as it continued to run across the road. It barely took 2-3 steps and it was across the road at a tremendous rate of speed. I was in total shock and thought I should check it out at first but then thought for a second and being uncertain of what I may have just seen I had better get out of the area. I lost sight of the entity due to darkness. I am a 24 year USAF retired aircrew veteran with a top secret security clearance. Not to be totally bliss but would someone please advise me on what I seen because it still and truly and frightened me”. - MUFON

   The news item can be found here: https://mountvernonnews.com/article/2018/08/10/alien-sighting-north-of-mount-vernon/

   I am sorry to say that just because it carries a “MUFON” (Mutual UFO Network) tag most people will accept this outright.  What we have, though, is the old problem: a single witness driving along a dark road in the early hours. Again, you could go for a deer crossing the road but there are other options such as a waking dream and this could be a viable explanation but unless MUFON provide online access to the investigator’s report we have no idea how the interview was carried out.

   There are reasons why I tend to be more sceptical about quick sightings under these conditions but in the end it is down to what you want to believe.

   Strickler then goes on to refer to a second sighting in the Mount Vernon, Ohio area:

“Mount Vernon, Ohio - 2018-08-17: I had just gotten back to the parking lot down from Mount Vernon’s Wolf Run Park and when I turned on my lights to leave I saw it in the woods. I felt like I was being followed my entire hike and I got a little lost on the way since I was feeling super sketched out so when I saw it I was panicking and super scared. It looked startled as my lights came on and made this strange gargling scratching sound and I felt super sick to my stomach. I don’t really know what it was. Like I thought it was just someone in the woods but it’s eyes looked weird and it looked smooth and naked. It seemed to vibrate in front of my eyes as I looked at it and I ripped my phone out of my pocket and tried to take pictures but my phone seemed to lag. I have a iPhone 6 plus and I know my battery is having issues but I’ve never had anything like that. I slammed my car in reverse and got out of there as fast as I could. The noise it made still freaks me out like it was like a Velociraptor from a movie but it made me light-headed and made me feel sick in a strange way I’ve never felt”. - MUFON

   There are a lot of warning signs here: the witness felt he had been followed throughout his hike and even describes himself as “feeling super sketched out” and also: “The noise it made still freaks me out like it was like a Velociraptor from a movie but it made me light-headed and made me feel sick in a strange way I’ve never felt”.   The psychological frame of mind of the witness would need to be ascertained as there really are a lot of red lights here.

   How often did the person go hiking?  Had they been under home or work pressure at the time and had they had any other experiences before?

   The problem is that ufologists will accept these reports based on the website version or news item.  This is really –really- bad practice. We need as much information as possible about the witnesses and their lives at the time of their sightings –so long as it can be confirmed that the witnesses do exist they need not be named: it is important that genuine witnesses need their anonymity protected but research hers need to know that they are not being fed a story because that could result in months or even many years wasted –and of course bad data is used.

   Also, there are a few fake videos out there of very similar entities which makes me suspicious.  See...

   For these reports we quite honestly have nothing.

   You may think we do but that is down to personal opinion and beliefs.

Unidentified - Identified: Special Offer

Terry Hooper-Scharf

220 pages

A4

perfect bound

paperback

Fully illustrated with photographs and illustrations

 List Price: £20.00

Price: £18.00 (excl. VAT)You Save: £2.00 ( 10% )

Prints in 3-5 business days

http://www.lulu.com/shop/terry-hooper-scharf/unidentified-identified/paperback/product-23799953.html

The follow up to the comprehensive book "UFO Contact?"

The Author spent 1974 to 2018 specializing in the investigation and research of Close Encounters of the Third Kind (CE3K) and alien entity cases; the former involving an Unidentified Flying Object and the latter, apparently, involving none.

Previously unreported cases as well as 'lost' cases are looked at as well as the possibility that some percients suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome after their encounters A must read for those with a serious interest in UFOs

Some of the contents:

 The Nottinghamshire UFO Crash of 1987…or 1988                                     

 The Llandrillo ‘Saucer’ and Berwyn Mountains ‘UFO’ Crash Retrieval   

 Strange Pennsylvania Entity Encounter                                                         

 UFO Abductees and Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome                               

 The UFO That Landed On A US Highway                                                     

 My Encounters With The Men In Black                                                         

 A Previously Un-noted Alien Entity Type                                               

       

 Early 20^th Century UK Close Encounters of the Third Kind                       

 Close Encounter with a Boggart                                                                      

 Some Odd and Unusual Cases                                                                         

 Rosa Lotti and the Happy Entities                                                                  

 The Strange Case of the Woollaton Gnomes and the Mince-pie Martians 

 What Happened on the Isle of Wight and at Felixstowe?                             

 The ‘Lost’ Belgian UFO Landing Case                                                        

  

 Strange Aliens from Outer Space?                                                              

   

 Encounter with Black Aliens and Landed UFO                                 

           

 Preliminary UK CE3K/Alien Entity Catalogue 

UFO Contact? Looking At The Evidence For Alien Visitation

Terry Hooper-Scharf

530 pages

illustrated with maps, photographs and more

A4 format

B&W

Price: £20.00 (excl. VAT) special offer until 15th October: £18.00

Prints in 3-5 business days

http://www.lulu.com/shop/terry-hooperscharf/ufo-contact/paperback/product-23719040.html

Since 1947 it has been claimed that UFOs/flying saucers are evidence of aliens visiting the Earth.  Since the 1950s claims of encounters with landed craft and alien beings were talked about but not taken seriously.

In the 1960s the subject of UFO abduction was a "slow-burner" until the whole "Grey" abduction phenomenon and claims made by researchers such as Budd Hopkins, Prof. John Mack and Dr David Jacobs and Whitley Streiber.

But is there evidence to back up any of the claims -and what about those encountering Alien Entities but who were not abducted? 

Are these people all hoaxers, psychotic or suffering from some other mental illness as some claim?

Are those people who were exposed by Ufologists against their wishes, people who wanted to report what happened and then just get back to their everyday lives -thrust into the media glare against their will?

And if US authorities were so interested that in one case at least they broke into the home of two abductees and this was later proven -why?

Why did a hard core of these people never want publicity or to make money from what happened to them? 

Above all, why did a major UFO landing incident take place on a US Inbterstate road in front of a large number of observers (all willing to talk to investigators) never get investigated? If it were not for a radio presenter interviewing and taking notes we would know nothing of the case -it would be labelled "insubstantial".

James and Coral Lorensen -the Scopolamine Kids; using a very notorious "truth drug" on alleged UFO witnesses and selling stories to newspapers.  An investigator (a veteran) showing a witness images of "aliens" encountered in other cases before any memories were retrieved.  Worst of all, the constant "pissing competition" and breaches of trust between UFO investigators.

2017 is the time to assess the past evidence and look at the faults within Ufology.

Not everyone is going to be happy -debunkers or ufologists.

UK CE3K/Alien Entity Listing

 It was whilst tidying up all of my UFO files  that I came across the UK Close Encounters of the Third Kind case spread-sheet containing dates, times, locations and so forth.  They are some of the remnants of the original AOP Bureau report.

   It was while glancing at them that I realised just how far work had progressed since the 1980s.

   today there seems to be a good explanation for most cases which makes those with no real, proven explanation even more fascinating.  The main thing that really sticks in the mind are the number of cases reported on in UFO literature but never investigated -despite the fact that there were plenty of UFO/flying saucer investigators in the areas involved.  So why were the cases not investigated?  The reason could well be plain old prejudice.

   Even up until the 1980s the hobby -I call it a hobby because 95% of those involved were playing at being ufologists. Even the vary serious ufologists had problems with Alien Entity reports.  The term "Alien Entity" I coined in the 1970s so that it would be quite neutral and acceptable.  With the British Flying Saucer Bureau (f. 1952) even into the 1980s if an AE report did not match what Adamski wrote it was treated with disdain.  In the late 1970s I approached the British UFO Research Association (BUFORA) with a list of what I called Time Lapse Incidents and even though I had to complete the UK CE3K section for BUFORA to pass on to Ted Blocher in the US for his Humanoid Catalogue (HUMCAT), reaction was negative.  Or, at best, "Well, no one says that you cannot look into these claims" -at worst I was told more than once by ufologists that "looking into these silly stories is not going to do your credibility much good".

   Even when I tried to look deeper into the case of a woman who had seen a number of UFOs and AEs I was discouraged.  When that did not work there were insinuations made about my "real" intent and spending a lot of time alone with the woman.  That never worked as either her husband or someone else was always present.  My disgust at all of these idiots and what they were trying to do which was far from being open-minded and inquiring led me to carry out research privately. At which point I began to learn far more!

   I do remember that people such as Norman Oliver, Lionel Beer and Graham Knewstub were open to my work and these reports so there were little beacons of light in the darkness!

   As a rule any work done for the AOP B has a standard 25-30 years confidentiality rule but as some of this was carried on outside and after that work and is not naming witnesses I cannot foresee a problem in 2018!

   This is raw data and is currently being up-dated and it should narrow the number of apparently genuine reports to a minimum.  This should not be seen as negative or not good in any way.  In fact, the very low number of seeming genuine reports means that we can get down to true hardcore data for research.

   Here is glimpse at the sometimes messy "behind-the-scenes" research!