They Passed Polygraphs, They Had Scars, Was It All Real?

Life might have come from outer space, scientists say -That Took A Few Decades to Accept

 In 1984 a book appeared. It was titled Evolution from Space: A Theory of Cosmic Creationism and the authors were two leading names in research -Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe and it put forward the hypothesis that life that first appeared on Earth had begun in space and had spread throughout the universe via panspermia,

Panspermia is the hypothesis that life exists throughout the universe and is distributed by factors such as space dust, meteoroids, asteroids, and comets, rather than having originated on Earth. This theory proposes that if a planet were to be hit by an asteroid, the impact could eject fragments of the planet into space, potentially carrying microorganisms to other celestial bodies where they could survive and flourish.

This could be seen as a continuation of their work in the 1979 book Diseases from Space wherein they propose that many of the most common diseases which afflict humanity, such as influenza, the common cold and whooping cough, have their origins in extraterrestrial sources.

Both are excellent books but I do recall the name-calling from other scientists (especially those who were of a religious leaning). In fact, at two talks that I gave at the British Flying Saucer Bureau in the 1980s the theory was mocked (by people with no scientific understanding or interest) and I was asked what this had to do with flying saucers. If I remember correctly I tried  to explain but, well, "Mr Adamski has told us where our visitors come from". I just shrugged.

It is strange that so many things postulated decades ago -likelihood that the Moon once had water and that Mars also had water and an atmosphere and possible life- were all ridiculed but as we "progress" so the current stream of scientists jump on those band wagons (grants and more papers to get more grants -marvellous how money can change scientists minds).

For decades I was digging for reports of non-humanoid looking entities since, scientists insisted, that is what we should expect. Suddenly, they changed their minds because, they now said, the humanoid form was what would be expected. They still insist on this until you hand over a report of a UFO in which humanoid entities were reported then it's "rubbish".

And one thing to bear in mind is that variations in the humanoid form should be expected based on the environment and many other factors. We are t6alking about a process, if correct, that has spread the seeds of life around the universe, not just our galaxy, for millions on millions of years.

The Independent https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/life-might-have-come-from-outer-space-scientists-say/ar-AA1JdGq9?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=186de41b51a145c289b9f22692ccea2e&ei=41

The seeds of life on Earth might have come from outer space – and might be widespread throughout the rest of the universe, scientist say.

Researchers have found complex organic molecules in a disc around a “protostar” in a major breakthrough. Those molecules are seen as the precursors to the building blocks of life, which go on to become sugars and amino acids that are then combined into the complex flora and fauna that surrounds us.

Researchers have found such complex organic molecules in other places before. But the new findings fill in a previously mysterious missing link – one that could suggest that life is more abundant than we realise.

When cold protostar becomes a young star, surrounded by a disc of dust and gas, it is a violent process that includes intense radiation and the hurling out of gas. Researchers had been concerned that the extreme nature of that process could “reset” the chemical compounds available around a star, meaning that they would have to be formed in the discs that at the same time are making planets.

But the new findings suggest that complex molecules can stick around through that process, meaning they will be inherited by the discs that follow.

The findings are reported in a new study, ‘A deep search for Complex Organic Molecules toward the protoplanetary disk of V883 Ori’, published in the The Astrophysical Journal Letters.

Learn The Truth

 

The Most Disturbing Encounter: Creepy Humanoids on a Deserted Road

When It Comes To Factual CE3K/Entity Reports...Factual Lost

Despite my own good advice yesterday I decided to watch some You Tube videos on UFO encounters and Abduction reports. I reminded myself later on in the day that it was my own fault for ignoring my own advice.

Apparently the entities involved in the 1950s Kelly-Hopkinville report were "what we would describe today as Greys". No. No they were not.  I mean the number of illustrations over the decades and you are so dumb ass or desperate to get views by saying "Greys" and you ignore them all. 

 Describing an encounter and the now all too familiar use of detestable AI art gave us the account that described entities that were clearly NOT "Greys" but the AI art depicted Greys. 

In some cases the narrator (with a brain one step up from an amoeba -my apologies to amoebas everywhere) suggested (emphasising as this WAS the true answer) that the unusual entities described were nothing more than "screen images" to hide the fact that Greys were involved. Oh yes, Budd Hopkins' "screen image" that developed and hid so many lies. I once received taped recordings from my friend in the US, Lindy Whitehurst, of Budd Hopkins talks. I recall that it all seemed so plausible when he revealed what he had discovered. Something that even the Lorenzens had failed to discover, and that was that behinds the abduction phenomenon lay...The Greys!   

But, listening, I realised something was wrong. You see, Hopkins noted hypnotic regression bringing up forgotten memories -a sighting of a deer for instance- and that was all the percipient recalled.  However, Hopkins was convinced that there was more and so the deer sighting was looked at again and the percipient became very stressed and could recall nothing. However, Hopkins was convinced that the deer was a "screen memory" and pushed on until the real culprit was disclosed -the Greys!

At the time I was reassured that all of this hypnosis work was being carried out under strict protocols and oversight. What a load of crap that turned out to be. Lies, lies, lies and more lies while the alleged percipients were being put through uncalled for psychological trauma. Hopkins Comrade-in-Fraud David Jacobs can be found on You Tube videos telling people that they did not just see a UFO "THEY WERE ABDUCTED!!" Yes, he does sort of shout that.

Of course, as Ann Druffel pointed out on numerous occasions, there used to be reports involving short entities with larger heads but never what Hopkins described as "Greys" and as I have pointed out in posts and books, the descriptions of "a true Grey" are so varied that how anyone took this seriously I have no idea but as a diversion Hopkins and Jacobs concocted the story the the Greys were never the true brains behind all of this. Oh no, we had reptiloids, mantis-like creatures, Tall Whites and so many more and looking at the drawings by alleged percipients you see a mixture of aliens from popular sci fi TV shows and movies.

But this does not matter to You Tubers, or even some bloggers it seems; no, what counts are are the views because there is money in that and maybe even a degree of celebrity status in that. Put in images of Greys -even where it contradicts the established facts as written down decades ago- and people will accept what you say. There are certain YT channels where the use of AI generated art is so awful that the "percipient" in the account changes appearance repeatedly while the entities ...well, it is idiot generated AI art.

Why do people call for "Disclosure" ("Next year is UFO Disclosure year" they keep claiming since 1998) and the truth when they accept proven con-men/liars words on everything and accept provable false information?   And they throw money at these con-men!!

No, Thomas Mantell was NOT shot down by a flying saucer. Fact.

George Adamski was a con-man.

Cedric Allingham was a hoax -the man never existed.

Ernest Arthur Bryant and the whole "Scoriton Mystery" of 1965 was a 110% proven hoax (despite what You Tubers and bloggers say)

The only abduction cases are American and involve Betty and Barney Hill and Travis Walton. Why would citizens of any other country be of interest?  Ufologists keep using these cases as they are tried and tested and Gods forbid they do anything like genuine investigation or first hand research.

People claiming to have observed a UFO landing and entities are flatly told "No. You were probably abducted and it was Greys" and when they insist they can account for every minute of time they are told to go away. One person was told by MUFONs specialist in Abductions -there are no landings and take offs only abductions- that they were denying the facts or that it might be a "psychological problem".  Lose one possibly genuine reported account and data for research.

Facts lose out to You Tube Likes and subscribers. Only sensationalist money making books sell (if people bother reading). Ufology is and has been for decades, nothing more than a money spinning circus of fraud and entertainment.

True Stories of Alien Abductions & Close Encounters – Real Witness Accounts

The Creepiest Encounter Yet on Stories Lost

It's That Perrennial Question

 

AE/CE3K blog had 8,176 views last month.

The AOP Blog for last month had 93,967 views.,

No responses or interactions and the AOP blog has been going over 20 years and 2090 posts and all time views 962,377 (it's a lot more than that but explaining things would take too long).

Any new cases/reports come my way? Not one.

Yes I have thousands of reports but without new data do we just conclude that reports have stopped or that all the conmen and and rubbish going on in Ufology is driving people away from reporting?

The “Children” Are Not Children, They Are Something Else

"Why do you consider people who claim alien encounters t to be liars or fakes?"

 

"Why do you consider  people who claim alien encounters t to be liars or fakes?"

Asking that question means that you have never read any of the five books that I have published on the subject.  What I have clearly stated is that an account from one person with no corroboration cannot be considered as evidence. Do I read or listen to those accounts? Of course I do because they may not offer proof but there could be aspects that only someone who studies these cases recognise.

Most You Tubers put out "alien abduction" or UFO videos for one reason and one reason only; they get a lot of views. Views means money so the fact that they spin out a tale proven to have been a hoax 50 years ago does not matter. The fact that when they do tend to stick to facts and a case is very clearly sleep paralysis or an altered state incident they say that the case can be dismissed as such "but this isn't the case" with no evidence to state why it isn't.

Many cases are psychological in nature where the person involved only "realises that they are a life long UFO abductee" after reading a book on the subject. Things then spin out of control as I have shown so many times on this blog and in my books. The fact that images of a "Grey" alien in a book leads them to say "That's it! Tat's what I saw!"but when asked to draw or describe the "alien" they saw they come up with different details to the image they saw. There are, at my last counting, 20 all different images of a "true grey". Read Many Shades of Grey https://aeceiiikp.blogspot.com/2022/11/many-shades-of-greys.html

"Why would these people lie about such a thing?" Money. Notoriety. TV appearances -the list goes on. The other reason is because they believe what they are reporting and there are many examples of this (check out my first book for an explanation of "Ruth Syndrome").  They are NOT "mental" in any way and Ruth Syndrome appears to be something that affects people in all walks of life. Ufologists are just playing at looking for the truth behind UFOs and most are not equipped to fill in a report form themselves. So knowing about psychology and "other stuff" is of no interest and they will even tell percipients that they only saw what they thought they saw because it was a "screen image" planted in their memory to hide the fact that Greys were involved😒

I have cited cases involving just one percipient (again showing that those asking the afore mentioned question have never read my books).. Low credibility but then how does one explain all the symptoms of radiation poisoning in someone picking blackberries in the middle of the countryside? Some ground traces on examination could not be explained by official investigators (NOT Ufologists). At the same time as the person has their brief encounter and passes out people in the area hear strange sounds, an unknown object -also seen by people in cars some distance from the encounter site. All reported as flying saucer sightings before the actual entity encounter is known. That bumps up credibility somewhat.  You take each case as reported and look at the facts as well as, if you can, communicate with the percipient. 

What people are ignoring in my books (which they have not read!) is that I am presenting cases that are hard or impossible to explain away.  Where there are secondary witnesses to an object flying above a car as well as physiological effects and even some trace evidence.  There are some very little known cases in which details corroborate details in later cases yet the original report was unknown and not published. It is how you can find corroboration about entity appearances not noted before.  

Small, dome headed entities were known before the whole "Grey" explosion but they were NOT "Greys" and they were not carrying out generational abductions and including here past life abductions and "in the womb" incidents. Why do people not take Ufology seriously?  Also, anyone who claims to be a 25, 35 or 40 years "UFO veteran" and have no ideas or interest in entity cases is a total waste of space.

Present a data base of credible (as credible as it can be) evidence for encounters and just hope that people or even people in the scientific community have enough interest to read, maybe even double check sources. 

It is 50 years since I started out looking at these cases and back in the 1970s Adamski and contactees were still given far more credibility that UFO percipients.

Sadly, not much has changed.