Thursday, 15 October 2020
Wednesday, 14 October 2020
Close Encounters In Warminster
As is normal for me just as I finished and published the AOP Journal with its look ar AE-CE3K incidents around Warminster I find this I could have used and make myself look daft.
In the AOP Journal I mention that no one has taken a look at the various reports as a whole before. I then find four articles written on the subject. All by me.
One reference mentions Skywatch Gazette (1979) published by the Swindon based Skywatch Aerial Phenomena Investigation Club (SCUFORI) and edited by (I believe) Adrienne Smith. However, the only issue of that publication I have is one with my article on CE3K reports from Africa.
Tuesday, 13 October 2020
AOP Journal No.4
A4
B&W
64pp
£5.00
The fourth issue in the new volume of the Journal contains:
Warminster UFOs and Entities
Encounter with A Boggart and an Incident From Germany
UFO Abductees and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
The Huyton Humanoid : Multiple Witnesses And How To Get It Wrong
The Case of A Strange Car Ride
A Little Known 1950 French Close Encounter
Older UK Encounter Reports
In A Wallasey Garden –Another Lesson to Learn
The Strange Aliens in Jardinopolis, Brazil
"So what would you do if you encountered a landed UFO?"
Do We Need A Privately Funded SETI –UFO Investigation Group
Friday, 9 October 2020
CE3K Reports and a mild ramble
If we look at the entries in Ptrack Gross' URECAT project and entries for France for just the year 1954 -the so called "French UFO Wave" and then at the entries I have in my files for France at the same period then something becomes noticeable.
My own records came from any and every sopurce that I could find and so my files have far more files than Gross. However, despite se4arching for many years and even asking the sources involved, I have many accounts without more than a few lines.
Everyone has heard of the Marius Dewilde, 10th September, 1954 encounter at Quarouble, Nord. You should kmow about this incident if you hve any interest in the subject and I devoted chapter 14 in UFO Contact? (pp.187-198) to the case. It was officially investigated and is possibly the best known French encounter case. Ignore the sites that tell you the entities describe conform to "Greys" as that is pure fiction.
A great deal has been written about the Dewilde case and yet many reports do not get more than 4-8 lines that tend to tell us very little. The Flying Saucer Review is the main source and apart from, perhaps, the newspaper date, nothing else is known. It seems that it was not until the 1970s that some French Ufologists decided that it might be a good idea to, perhaps, not just rely on what might be an inaccurate newpaper item.
"Journalists and newspapers were trusted sources" has never been true. Each newspaper editor or publisher had/has an agenda of one kind or other -mainly political but usually financial since money proves top be more influential than factual reporting. If you have to make up a story about something poipular at the time to steal readers from a rival -fair game. In fact, the excuse that journalists accounts were to be trusted was nothing more than an excuse for sheer laziness.
I have read comments by Spanish, French and Italian Ufologists who were positively livid because they later discovered not all of the facts in a sighting had been recorded by journalists -some added a few "spicy touches" to stories. Flying saucer and UFO groups in all countries tended to be nothing more than clubs or social gatherings to hear what had been goping on in the saucer world over coffee and biscuits. Why else would frauds such as George Adamski have been able to continue and rake in money by simply showing a photograph so bad you cannot see anything until it is pointed out: "That is me looking out of the mothger-ship porthole and to the left is a Venusian and in the right hand porthole is a Saturnian".
And groups and publications ranging from Flying Saucer News and the British Flying Saucer Bureau to Flying Saucer Review et al were vcontinuously promoting the contactee myth. "All contact was telepathic" -very handy ince you never needed to fake any flying saucer photographs. Cynthia Appleton in the UK was given a lot of publicity over her claims for which you needed to rely on suspension of disbelief.
We find on checking that so many reports in the French wave have no actual sources given and some turn out to be so mundane in explanation yet are still quoted as genuine.
Gross, for his URECAT, attempts to find and quote as many references on reports as he can and where possible offers an explanation such as this case (still quoted by Ufologists):
SEPTEMBER 15th TO 16th , 1954, FEURS, LOIRE, FRANCE
A woman farmer of the vicinity who did not sleep heard a strange buzz in the sky, and her dog was excited.
The two authors note that it is not known if the breakdown of car was caused by the UFO or not, and that description of the being does not correspond to that given by Mr. Mazaud in the case of Mouriéras.
They indicate as sources the newspaper La DĂ©pĂȘche for September 18, and 19, 1954.
"The French newspaper "Le Charrollais dimanche" had published on September 19, 1954 a humorous invite to read "on page 12" no less than the "hallucinating story of four inhabitants of Saint-Etienne who met a Martian resembling Hitler emerge of a red boiled egg".
The illustration showed a "Hitler" character in full Martian diving-suit making a vulgar gesture at the readers.
"This nevertheless became a ufological case of the 1954 French flap of 1954, car engine failure comprized, claimed to have occurred near Feurs on September 15, 1954, still cited without any explanation decades later."
The description of the entity looking like Hitler is never included. Neither is the newspaper advert as seen below.
Flying saucer sightings are found to be a mixed bag of helicopters (including seen in landings), Venus and other stars, meteors, bicycle lights and so on. If there are genuine phenomena reported then there is far too little data to say so.
As wth the alleged 1973 Global UFO Wave we see that there may well be genuine incidents but as a rule only one or two are turned into full blown events and those tend to be picked and chosen to suit the investigators tastes and what they want to push. My example I hate to quote again but it is the best based on what we know.
Two men out fishing see a UFO and report an abduction -though one refuses to open his eyes during most of this through fear.
Multiple witneses driving along an interstate road observe to large UFOs and one touches down on the road and an entity is seen to exit for a short time. A driver in a car coming from the opposite direction is seen to stop and turn his vehicle and drive off. All were wide awake (perhaps up to 7 observers).
A local celebrity performer reports seeing a UFO.
Well, Pascagoula was headline news and everyone was buying tickets to investyigate it including two investigators based in the area that covers the Interstate sighting. They al;so try to jump in on the celebrity investigation but at Pascagoula and with the celebrity they withdraw when they find out the "big boys" have moved in.
So, the Interstate case is on their doorstep and it has all the hallmarks of being classed as a major UFO event.
They do not bother despite being asked to several times. You see, Pascagoula and the celebrity case involved "white" percipients" while the Interstate reports featured (as far as we know) all "black" witnesses.
I have also seen the "personal agenda" at work in localo UFO investigations. At one point in the late 197os I had to team up with omeone who had no investigation skills and believed that all UFO sightings -including those from Amazonion jungle areas- were the result of nuclear power stations. This was the same investigator who refused to turn and opbserve lights I was watching through binoculars in the company of 150 other observers at night at Chepstow race course. So why was I with him? Well, he had been known by two of the British Flying Saucer Bureau big-wigs since he was a youngster. I know.
Anyway, one day we had to visit a womnan in the St Werburgh's area who had observed a LITS (Light-In-The-Sky). As soon as she pointed to the direction the light was seen and gave the time I knew that it was an aircraft -it was even on the flightpath for Bristol Airport. My 'colleague' found the case fascinating and slapped don my explanation. I was stumped. Then a few days later I had to phone him but was told by his wife he had gone to visit the woman again as a "follow up". He visited her a third time after 'losing' his spectacles. It turned out that he found the woman very attractive. I had to give him a warning because there were some 20 quality sightings that were piled up on my desk and he refused to take part in those investigations.
This same person alop refused to accompany me to an address in the St Paul's area as it was "a black neighbourhood" and not safe. Attractive white woman who had seen LITS -yes. Black witness who had seen a large object -no.
On one occasion I let my temper get the better of me. Another investigator was supposd to look into a reported landing in an area he was working in. I spoke to him a few days later and was told he had chatted with the man but never bothered going to see him. Why? "He's a UFO nutter. Said he watched and something got out of the object and moved about before going back in" The witness had been spoken to o rudely that he refused to talk to me.
I then discovered that the group nickname for me was "UFONut" because I was looking into CE3K reports. This was the 1970s so imagine the 1950s and 1960s where contactees had more credibility among believers than, say, Betty and Barney Hill who, as someone pointed out to me at a BFSB meeting could not be "of very good characters" after all, he was black and she was white.
Even today there is prejudic in covering CE3K/AE report.
So it is far easier to read a newspaper item or put clippings in scrap books than leaving your comfy chair and dealing with "all sorts". The 1954 and 1973 UFO waves are not periods of increased UFO activity just increased press coverage that we used to call "slow season news".
I was once told by a German Ufologist that "Unless it is a contactee story picked up by Veit it gets ignored!" Karl L. Veit was the publisher of UFO Nachrichten, a German UFO newspaper formatted publication. Veit I mention along with other prominent German Ufologists in Contact: Encounters With Extra Terrestril Entities? -which also takes the first overall look at CE3K/AE reports from Germany.
Percipients in early French cases may be elderly now but still contactable and those from American sightings in 1973 ditto buyt it takes Ufologists to ignore personal prejudices as well as get up off their backsides and carry out that work.
We really are at the point where we are about to lose very valuable reports and keep a collection of dubious news reports as 'evidence'. That is why "Science" with all of its own flaws and prejudices can sit back and laugh at Ufology.
Thursday, 8 October 2020
Older UK CE3K/AE Reports
I was asked why I was not looking in greater detail at old UK CE3K/AE cases. The answer to that is quite simply that from the mid 1970s on when "New Ufologists" (as they were to be called a few years later) came into the subject we had hoaxing. These people were so hypocritical in that if someone else slightly fumbled a case or were considered to have even slightly embellished a report then they were hounded. They were totally discredited by these people.
At the very same time these “New Ufologists” were, themselves,
faking reports and incidents. As noted before, this was admitted and there was
a firm refusal to declare which cases had been deliberately faked and as for an
explanation as to why they did this -it was no one's
business. Not only does this totally discredit the entire New Ufology
movement and those involved in it (because unless we know who did what everyone
involved is tarnished) but it rendered serious UFO research dead. How could you
carry out a report analysis or look for trends if you might be including
anywhere from 3, 4, 5 or goodness knows how many fake reports amongst the data?
If you read the articles or books
published by these ”New Ufologists” you began to see how details in one varied
from another –it was almost chopping and changing details to suit what theory
they were pushing. In one noted 1970s report details changed no fewer than
three times in summaries written by the same person.
In one “major case” it was noted
how details changed so much that at times accounts had to be re-read to make
sure one was not skipping past the start of another report summary.
There were reports that appeared
genuine yet these were being explained away. Ripperston Farm in
Seeding themselves in UFO
organisations and publications these people literally controlled what was being
published and what was being published tended to come from people connected to
them. Interesting research into infra red photography and UFOs had any
publicity given to it stopped and articles blocked.
It was this major concern from
people with a serious interest in UFOs that led to the AOP Bureau opening up a
file that looked at specific “New Ufologists” and groups. Attempts at
organising investigation and research were infiltrated and disrupted by people
acting on behalf of noted “New Ufologists”.
There was an attempt to stage a Men-In-Black style silencing operation against
myself badly back-fired. Not once but twice and on the second occasion those
involved were somewhat cowered when they found themselves surrounded by police
officers who were visiting my home and had heard the threats and used a rear
door to position themselves behind the ‘MIB’.
For this reason any report
featuring the names of certain people are often given the lowest classification
possible since they make it impossible to contact alleged witnesses to confirm
details. Certain alleged percipients no
trace could be found of leading to the suspicion that even they were fictional.
As people pointed out there seemed to be no logical sense in denying access to
witnesses in these cases when it came to someone specialising in the subject
and who never breached confidentiality (since 1973 some names have never been
revealed in reports I looked into). Why would “New Ufologists” be afraid to
have their reports authenticated?
One thing that is very noticeable
is how cases that could be put down to “psychological” explanations were
promoted heavily. Just what type of “psychological
effect” was involved did not seem to matter if a few mumbo-jumbo phrases were
used. Or the “paranormal connection” was brought in and the amount some reports
dedicated to “I heard an unexplained bump noise” or “something fell in the
kitchen” is ludicrous.
Reports featured far more
speculation about “paranormal activity” and the investigators’ own theories
than what they should have contained: factual recording and reporting of the
facts in a report and assessment of the observer”.
The amount of time and space
dedicated to the alleged encounters of Joyce Bowles (who was either hoaxing or
a “Ruth Syndrome” case) and Ted Pratt (who tended to let Mrs Bowles do all the
talking) was terrible. But it kept Ufologists arguing and at odds with each other
and this might have been the whole point.
As someone from the Ministry of
Defence once put it –and I paraphrase here: “Why would the Ministry try to
silence Ufology –it’ doing a far better job by itself than we ever could!”
Old reports untainted by “New
Ufology” really ought to be looked at and John Hanson from the Haunted Skies
Project has done this to a certain extent and even found some cases not
previously recorded or investigated. Unless witnesses/percipients can be spoken
to first hand and details confirmed then the lowest ratings are applied.
I have bulky
There is your explanation.
Wednesday, 7 October 2020
Tuesday, 6 October 2020
Are UFO Incident Percipients Far More Important Than "Getting at the Truth"?
For many years I fell into the trap of believing the biggest lie in Ufology: “You can trust investigators and if they say something happened –it happened!”
It took a while before I realised what complete and utter crap –and I am being polite here- that was. Jacques Vallee “is a scientist and he has investigated or studied this case so if he says it is genuine then it is” well, when I was compiling the AOP data base for the UFO Report I had to negate (exclude) one case after another that Vallee cited. Hoaxes, psychological cases and in many cases the ‘facts’ came only from a newspaper clipping or two and reporters were not above faking stories. Even today, in 2020, cases that were known not to be genuine at the time (1950s for instance) are still cited as genuine because Vallee still uses them or has not corrected the record because of the bruised ego that would cause.
Desmond Leslie, author and former editor of Flying Saucer Review, that “respectable” publication of ‘scientific ufology’, jumped straight in to perpetuate the George Adamski contactee con. Leslie’s UFO books were also negated –much more quickly than Vallee’s, as original sources quoted did not tell of red coloured flying discs moving slowly” across the sky but told of meteors. It went on and on.
Donald E. Keyhoe, an old time hero of mine, was also a journalist and as Al Chop and Edward Ruppelt both pointed out; he could be given the facts but put his own slant on a “story”. Keyhoe had to earn a living and he popularised flyi8ng saucers and UFO investigation to some degree. There are many pros and cons when it comes to Keyhoe.
I laugh out loud when I read or hear someone say how “dedicated an investigator and researcher” John A. Keel was. Yes, I loved his books and he spun a good story from the Mothman to Ultra Terrestrials and mot anything else that earned him a crust as a journalist. I still think his books are good fun reads.
The problem was that my mind is set to look into odd things. To get to the bottom of reports and if there is an explanation I offer it –but back up what I say or write. If there is no current explanation then I say so and explain why I rule out certain explanations. But it has to be remembered that saying “There is no current explanation” does not mean there never will be can explanation.
“Bigfoot reports cannot be explained” is a favourite of mine. If people are seeing large, hairy hominids then the question is “what are they?” Firstly, I think size is exaggerated in reports and with Bigfoot investigation groups faking reports and data like their brothers in Ufology and cryptozoology the whole subject is a mess. “Shoot one then you have the proof!” –well I was against this in the 1970s and supported Dmitri Bayanov in his stance on this. “Unexplained” is a ridiculous word to use: was the report faked? If yes then you have not got anything other than a hoax. Did the observer(s) seem genuine? Then you have people reporting something they saw (excluding misidentifications). Yes, Bigfoot can be explained but you need data and evidence: it can be explained as a myth (which seems contrary to what we know) or as a genuine member of the animal kingdom.
Sea monsters and sea serpents: we have discovered many ea creatures since the mid 20th century that might explain some but not all of these reports. If we missed the megamouth shark (Megachasma pelagios) until 1976 what else have we missed? Not all such reports are explainable and those that persist in trying to disprove reports rather than studying the reports to try to discover what type of creature was seen just show low intelligence and closed minds.
When it comes to UFOs I recall what my late friend Franklyn A. Davin-Wilson once told me –and it applies to all research: “Read the source. Is it quoting someone else –then read that and if you can go directly to the original source –the reportee”. He also told me not to just quote one reference but as many as I had because that way others can double or triple check your work and if it survives scrutiny then you have solid data.
FSR rarely, if ever, double-checked articles or features it published. Editors might pontificate on certain points or try to pull in what was contained in an article into their own theory –demons, ultra terrestrials or whatever. For instance, small balls of light became mini UFOs. No arguing –they were. And what is more they “showed intelligent control” –if I put a ball on a table and it rolls toward me is it intelligently controlled? There were a number of “mini flying saucer” sightings in the early 1980s in which discoid objects were seen and two antennae were also clearly seen –“receiving/sending”. When this was put to FSR it was slapped down because it did not conform to the “unexplained UFO” report they wanted.
Helsingborg-Hoganas, Sweden, 2nd December, 1958 and the
claim by Hans Gustafsson and Stig Rydberg that strange “things” attempted to
abduct them (Some Things Strange & Sinister pp.262-264)
during a UFO sighting. It was known as a hoax at the time and what is
more FSR was informed of this but refused to update details and continued to
cite the case. Other reports from
The “1954 French Wave” in recent years has proven to be anything but. Yes, there appear to be genuine reports but the4se are obscured (especially CE3K/AE reports) by all sorts of strange and “unexplainable” lights. The problem is that the ‘study’ of the 1954 wave was almost wholly based on newspaper clippings-very few actual investigations and it is laughable when one reads the words of Ufologists 30-50 years later condemning journalists for adding facts to cases, inaccurate reporting and so on. Firstly, the job of a journalist is supposed to be reporting the news but this takes second place to selling newspapers. Secondly, journalists are not trained in UFO investigation or even knowledgeable about UFOs, particularly in the 1950s.
UFO ‘investigation and research’ involved looking at newspaper clippings and thyere are many modern Ufologists who still do this because it is easier to explain away reports based on these (yes, a number of “ufologists” have no interest in the subject other than to explain it all away and boost their egoes). The indignity of having to actually go and see someone like Rosa Lotti (Unidentified –Identified pp. 126-138) in the 1970s because…well, these thing take time. Or having to actually go and speak to Madame LeBoeuf (UFO Contact? pp.199-207) some decades later.
It turns out that the 1954 “wave” was a total mish-mash of some quite genuine observations, hoaxes or lies. Interestingly, an entity seen next to a flying saucer turned out to be someone repairing a bus. “Ufonaut” cases were only briefly reported on because, illogically, flying saucer researchers refused to even contemplate that anyone was controlling the flying saucers. This illogical thinking went further because most were quite happy to accept hoaxer contactees such as George Adamski as being genuinely in touch with people from Mars, Venus, Saturn and elsewhere throughout the Sol system. After all, Adamski had the photographs of the space craft as well as images he took in space.
All laughable and a “thing of the past” No, there are Ufologists who still promote Adamski’s claims and even add to them. Eduard Albert “Billy” Meier, the Swiss contactee, I first became familiar with in the 1970s and he has his own little cult going. Even more he does not just have film/video footage and photos of ridiculous looking flying saucers but also of dinosaurs and pteranodon flying around. I’ve seen the footage and it is even below par for a 1970s cheap childrens TV show. Or has everyone missed his claims to have time travelled with aliens?
It is very possible that certain contactees might actually genuinely believe that what they are experiencing is real –as outlined in UFO Contact? – but when you have fraudulently produced images any possibility of this can be ruled out.
Having looked at the 1954 “wave” it was quite obviously anything but a huge increase in UFO -”extra terrestrial”- activity. We seem to same mix of reports for all other waves including 1973 and the “Global UFO Wave” which was hailed by Ufologists as “unprecedented” and a sign that “full contact might not be far off”. Well, four decades on nothing has happened.
The 1973 “wave” did see some very interesting CE3k/AE reports but most
(say 99%) concentration focussed on the Hickson and Parker encounter at
Of course, these CE3K/AE reports were nudged to one side. At UFO conferences how many alleged black UFO abductees do you see compared to white alleged UFO abductees? Name a black abductee other than Barney Hill. Most tend to have the full “He’s a lying faker” treatment. Some white abductees have signs of post traumatic stress disorder after their encounters but black people displaying PTSD symptoms are “showing signs of fraud” or, simply, lying.
When Budd Hopkins came along things hit the fan. Most of us accepted
what he told us: his work was peer reviewed as per scientific work. Therefore,
what he told us was backed up by evidence. At one time I was called (as an
insult) “Budd
As soon as
We went through every conceivable thing with alien abductions –implants
(which soaked up a lot of benefactor money as far as
Then we found out, thanks to
Did anyone raise a hand and say “Excuse me but are you deliberately
faking this or are you self deluded?” Even when the various aspects were
explained away did it make any difference? Remember that for UFO groups such as
the now discredited Mutual UFO Network the books and talks were money makers.
Through
Have a CE3K? Was a Grey involved or missing time? No –then who cared? There are many reports that have never been looked into that are straight old fashioned landings and take offs involving entities and they have been/are being ignored. Investigators will spend months trying to investigate a pin-point of light seen moving around the sky (Lights-In-The-Sky –LITS) which will provide no evidence or usefulness in analysis because it was just LITS and was probably a satellite.
I have given up trying to find legitimate UFO investigators in the
United States who can open “cold cases” while those involved are still
(hopefully) alive. I look at both Ufologists and Ufology with a degree of
disgust these days. In the
We need to sweep aside the fakery –which will never be done because, after all, that will call into doubt the reputations of many Ufologists/authors as well as organisations who have promoted the fakery (often knowing that it is fakery) for personal gain and their five minutes of fame.
Who on Earth, seeing all of this going on, is going to come forward and say “I had a UFO encounter” or even “I was abducted by aliens”? They see people made fun of or even declaring what happened to them (or didn’t) and they ask themselves, not unreasonably, “Do I really want to go through that?”
Betty and Barney Hill we only know about because a promise of confidentiality was broken and they were thrown into the limelight.
Above: Betty and Barney Hill the percipients in the 1961 White Mountains encounter.
Stafford, Smith and Thomas, the three ladies involved in the 1976,
Many of the “Classic Cases” we know of because the percipients were promised confidentiality and then exposed while Ufologists left them to fend for themselves because the Ufologists had to write those books.
“Hypnosis isn’t getting us anywhere –bring out the scapolamine!” After all –who cared that those involved were clearly in some kind of physical or mental shock? The next issue of the newsletter or chapter in the book could not wait.
The Buckfastleigh case of 1978 involving three teenagers could have been a major event (UFO Contact? pp. 447-450). However, local Ufologists turned up on the doorstep 25-30 strong to see the girl involved. That was it: no one talked after that. And three school children who saw a UFO while at Primary school noted the big fuss when two Ufologists tried to get into the school to see them –today that would be classed as a school intrusion. Both the school and parents stopped anyone speaking to the witnesses.
It goes on and on and every time the phrase “We did it to get to the truth” is used it rings false.
I believe that there are people seeing craft and alien entities because, when you assess all of the facts and there is even secondary or third party (unconnected with the percipients) statements to having seen an object where the main incident took place and there may even be a UFO reported via radar-visual and even physical traces –what options do you have? When one person is involved then there is doubt. But if that one person has no idea that someone at another location geographically close has reported a similar object near the time of their encounter it may not prove a CE3K took place but it does back up the UFO sighting side of the claim therefore…
There are a number of cases that I know of where individuals have
reported incidents and it is quite clear that something else took place and by
that I mean a possible UFO abduction experience or contact situation. At least
that is what their accounts suggest. All are in the
Do I have the right to suddenly dig out experiences that might be very traumatic for those people? Can I offer them the psychological after care that they might need? And the after care might go on for years in some cases because while some people are strong mentally and can say “It happened over 40 years ago and that’s it” there are those who might find their recollection opening up events that shatter their whole belief system and world view. That and the effects must never be under estimated and to say “You have to do this because it is part of the puzzle that might explain what is going on” is no excuse for destroying someone’s whole life and that is what could be involved. “Oh, it was this weird ghosty-type event involving an odd light in 1978” turning into “I was abducted by these horrific things and what they did to me—“ and that means any investigator is now that persons shoulder4 to cry on and person they go to for answers that we do not have.
I have cases going back to 1978 and I have never revealed the names of the percipients involved or any other identifying information –a couple are well known these days in the UK but as a certain Air Vice Marshal once put it my “word is more binding than the Official Secrets Act”. I could make a lot of money (and I need it to be honest) by disclosing these reports.
Between 1977 until 2013 I acted as an exotic wildlife advisor to UK police forces and on several occasions I was offered money that would get rid of financial problems and leave a good amount over and all I had to do was give certain newspapers (The Mirror and Express) maps showing where various non native cats were seen as well as names of observers in these cases. It was not going to happen. I’ll die poor but with my integrity intact. I was, over the long period as an advisor on the PAWS (Partners Against Wildlife Crimes) register. Despite backing by a couple of Chief Constables and other senior officers the Department of Environment Farming and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) rejected my renewed application 15 times –every time it was submitted something else was ‘wrong’ and needed correcting. The truth is that DEFRA wanted –wanted- access to my maps and data since no one had been doingt this work on a nationwide basis over a period of decades. It was made clear that if I wanted to be “officially sanctioned” then that material had to be forwarded to DEFRA (I have signed affidavits from land owners and others who were present when large cats were trapped and killed by DEFRA associated veterinarians “on the spot” so, no, they were not getting my data –most of it I destroyed).
I keep my word and I stand by my principles so I am not going to exploit anyone for my own gain.
A number of percipients had themselves and their encounters exposed by
Ufologists. While I understand all too well the need to get as much information
as possible in cases this must never be at the psychological expense of those
involved. The ladies at
Maurice Masse at
Eileen Moreland in
How many people just want to report a UFO out of sense of duty but never reveal a much closer encounter? How many of those uninvestigated reports where the witness states “I just saw the object with some people near it that took off” involve far more? I have met people who told me privately: “You know the sighting details? There was far more and I want you to know that but I don’t want to talk about it” and my response is always the same: “I understand and even though I want to know what happened I will not press you but, if you ever want to talk about it privately, you know how to contact me”. That is why I have never changed my email addresses and why I have never changed my telephone number since the 1980s.
I want to get to the truth of what is going on and that is something every genuine person investigating UFOs should agree with. I know that Ufology has built up a really false picture of what has and what is going on. There is no doubt that CE3K/AE reports as well as reports of seemingly constructed craft not from any known terrestrial inventory are far rarer than we have been led to believe. Ufology and those involved in it will never be willing to admit that there is no legion of interplanetary races visiting Earth on a daily basis and are not abducting millions of people a year. They want the continuation of the Dr Who/X-files mix because that way they can at least claim to be experts in knowing what is going on if not why it is going on.
I would very much hope that people like Masse or Moreland would come forward but if they did it would have to be under the strictest guarantee of confidentiality and not be for exploitation. If I am honest I have to say that there can never be a full study of reports without funding or at the very least capable investigators in different countries who are willing to look into cold cases and new ones without prejudice.
Perhaps we need an Elon Musk type benefactor?
Saturday, 3 October 2020
AOP Journal Vol. 2 No. 3 October, 2020
Ahead of schedule, the Journal is now available!
A4
B&W
Paperback
64pp
£5.00
https://www.lulu.com/en/en/shop/terry-hooper/aop-journal-october-2020/paperback/product-qjmq69.html
The Journal investigating and factually reporting on Anomalous Observational Phenomena -on land, in the air or at sea. NOT a "debunking" publication. Formerly the in-house journal of the AOP Bureau.
In this issue:- The Nottinghamshire UFO Crash of 1987…or 1988 p. 1
The Llandrillo ‘Saucer’ and Berwyn Mts. ‘UFO’ Crash-Retrievals p. 21
Close Encounter…with a Boggart . 33
Oulton Marsh, Suffolk –An Unknown “Classic” p. 38
Questioning Stale and stagnant Ufology p.46
Alien Abductions And What We Do Not Know p. 47
The Rainhill Landing…Maybe. p. 51
The Allagash Abduction -updated appraisal p. 57
1978 Paignton School UFO Sighting
-
I have to say that I had thought European UFO groups might be far more cooperative than those in the United States where there is no interes...
