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.

Back in the late 1970 I set up a number of  local UFO groups which were supposed to focus on investigation and reasearch in Gloucestershire/Wessex/ Somerset UFO Investigation Researcg Group. One of these published UFO West edited by Colin Birch. In Vol. 1 No.2 for January, 1981 there is an artcle by myself -Warminster: The Humanoid Factor.

It is noted, after the article, that it is augmented (by me) from one I wrote for Mersey News the monthly newsletter of the Merseyside Investigation Group into Aerial Phenomena (MIGAP).

Now I knew I had written a couple articles for MIGAP and because they (mainly via Brian Fishwick who also edited the News) had been very cooperative in forwarding interesting cases despite being part of UFOIN.  However, I thought my copy of the Mersey News No. 13, June, 1980 was lost. But then...bingo! Found the issue very easily -far too easily which worried me! 😅

These publications always varied in quality and one has to remember they were edited by amateurs -Skywatch Gazette was typed up using an electric type-writer and I thought that was how my old manual type-written article was going to be presented -in the end they just used my original. The covers for Mersey News were what might be called "cheap and cheerful", however, they were using a Gestetner hand printer notr a photocopier and the expense of getting just photocopied covers might have been a little too much.

That said, they did cover UFO sightings as well as subjects such as Spring-heeled Jack. I think that my article was asked for as there was a plana to visit Warminster by the group. SCUFORI, based in Wiltshire, had done so and found it a very disappointing experience.  By 1980s Warminster was no longer a "UFO Mecca" and only after all the X-Files and Grey abduction sensationalism did activity pick up for a while -if, in fact, there ever was really a "wave" of activity around Warminster in the 1960s.

I had thought that there was an article in the original in-house AOP Journal (Vol. 1 No. 1, Summer 1987). However, the article therein was  CE-3K, Abductions, Contactees & 'Psychic Contact': How Do We Approach Them so 33 years ago I was trying to hammer home the points I am still making like a broken record.

That article is interesting since even back then I noted that UFOIN investigations were extremely poor and hinted at what groups were discussing privately and at meetings -that there appeared to many fake reports being circulated by people within Ufology. So I double checked the file I kept on UFO groups and Ufologists at the time and, yes, I had noted all of this in 1984.

The problem is that, even after 33 years, nothing has changed in Ufology -in fact it has gotten worse. As someone at the Ministry of Defence said back in the 1980s when asked about alleged attempts to create confusion and arguments in Ufology: "Why on earth would we -Ufologists are doing an excellent job of that themselves!"

As for my opinions on CE3K/AE reports from Warminster -you need to buy the AOP Journal to find out!

AOP Journal No.4

 

A4

B&W

64pp

£5.00

https://www.lulu.com/en/en/shop/terry-hooper/anomalous-observational-phenomena-journal-vol-2-no-4-november-2020/paperback/product-ejzrrv.html

 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

LIFE BEYOND II: The Museum of Alien Life (4K)

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

On the above night, at an hour not specified, in the plain of Forez close to Feurs, a mysterious machine landed within a few meters of a group of people from Saint-Etienne who were immobilized by a car failure on a secondary road. A being fled in front of two witnesses who, in spite of their fear, try to come into contact with him.

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 Dépêche for September 18, and 19, 1954.

Gross adds:

"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.

Typical of the reports used and featuring i9n analyses by persons such as Vallee and there can be no excuse for the ue of these reports since any scientific researcher with credibility knows full well that you check each and every source known.  Not to do so calls in not just their credibility but also makes results from any such analyses pointless because if all the reports are not checked out how many fake/hoax reports are included.  Vallee's Patterns Behind The Landings as well as subsequent "work" are not worth the paper and ink they are printed with.

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.

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 Wales and the events going on there had one lie after another added to summaries –often emphasising hoaxers to shut down interest. Hoaxers that, it appears, over 40 years later have not been found to have existed.

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 UK files and I know a quarter of the reports have to be considered fake.

There is your explanation.

 

 

Top 22 Solar System Moons We Are Only Just Exploring | Science Has Deliv...

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 20^th 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, 2^nd 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 Spain were known at the time to be hoaxes either by newspapers or by Ufologists hoaxing other Ufologists –yes. Really using those alleged “principles of science” there.

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 Pascagoula, Mississippi. Even reports that seemed to involve similar entities –one might say these would add to the strength of the Pascagoula case since some took place in the state- were side-stepped or largely ignored. I could never understand this until I began digging into things in more detail. Why were these cases ignored? There was one thing that stood out and evidence seems to strongly support this: most of the percipients were “black” while 100% of the Ufologists were white. Any excuse not to bother with these cases was used and eventually just not bothering to mention them sufficed. As a veteran American Ufologist put it to me: “It was a different time back then. Middle class white guys did not drive into poor black areas”. Well, 2020 doesn’t appear that different.

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.

 

Above: Louise Smith, left, Elaine Thomas and Mona Stafford of Liberty were the ­central figures in a 1976 UFO incident

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 Hopkins UK mouthpiece” and I even sent him copies of symbol seen during alleged UFO abductions in the UK. However, we then learnt that Hopkins was not having his work peer reviewed and was tacking the evidence in favour of his work while he and David Jacobs conjured up all sorts of figures for the number of UFO abductions taking place -and this really was done in the most unscientific “let’s make it seem big” fashion you can imagine.,

As soon as Hopkins, then Jacobs’ work became popular –to which we can add that of Whitley Streiber- then no UFO report was “just” a UFO report. Because, according to Jacobs: “if you saw a UFO you were abducted!” Which means, I am assuming since we are not given any wriggle room here, that if you and 50 other people saw a “UFO” all 51 were abducted. Now, that “UFO” may well turn out to be Venus, an aircraft, a drone or something else but unless someone investigates and the explanation is offered then that is 51 new abductees added to the total.

We went through every conceivable thing with alien abductions –implants (which soaked up a lot of benefactor money as far as Hopkins work was concerned), missing foetus, scars –all have produced not one bit of evidence. All were explained away with evidence or by simply carrying out research.

Then we found out, thanks to Hopkins, that it was not just the “abductee” he was hypnotically regressing having a one off encounter. No, these were life long abductions and guess what? The alleged abductees parents had also been abducted throughout their lives…oh, and the grandparents also. Then we had alleged abductees recalling alien encounters while they were in the womb. Then there were the alleged encounters in past lives.

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. Hopkins only had to say “Well, that is their personal opinion but I am the one carrying out the work and holding all the data” and the “debunkers” were well and truly slapped down because they were not “the darling of the moment”.

Through Hopkins we were told that the Greys were the intelligence behind all of this and that they employed fake memories to hide their work. Oh, but then we discovered that the Greys were not the masterminds behind the “abduction agenda” and you will excuse me if I am unsure who or what is now –the Mantis creatures, lizard men or the tall whites as it it changes o much and Jacobs has made the whole subject a very bad joke.

 

Above: Maurice Masse, percipient in the 1965 Valensole, France encounter

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 UK we know that ‘credible’ Ufologists have deliberately faked reports for reasons they will not give –the only likely reason is that they wanted to for no reason other than spreading fake reports, as certain Spanish Ufologists have done. Those Spanish Ufologists are know for this, however, those in the know will not name them for malpractice (I have several names on my list now).

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, Liberty, Kentucky encounter (see UFO Contact? pp. 406-421) were tracked down by investigators and told on their doorsteps “Speak to us or we go to the press” –and then the promise of confidentiality was thrown out because money and books beckoned.

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.

 

Above: Charles Hickson and Calvin Parker, percipients in the 1973 Pascagoula, Mississioppi incident

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 UK so you might think I would dive straight in but I did not and will not. My reasons are simple: if I used regression hypnosis or probed the percipient’s memory without using hypnosis and they recall far more what then? In the cases I am referring to those involved all had experiences around the same short time in the mind to late 1970s but all just put it behind them: “one of those things that happened now get on with my life”.

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 Liberty –Mona Stafford was the last surviving member of the trio- were exposed, exploited and left to get on with it by themselves. What we need to ask is just how many people kept their mouths shut?

Maurice Masse at Valensole, France, blurted out that he had encountered a craft and occupants and the cat was out of the proverbial bag because the person he blurted the story out to while in a shocked state told a journalist. Masse was then the focus of journalists and Ufologists and so he told them part of the story that they already knew. Some French Ufologists tried various dirty tricks to prove him a liar or get more information. However, Masse vowed never to tell anyone else the full story -not even his wife. He took the secret to his grave.

Eileen Moreland in New Zealand had her encounter in July, 1059. An object descended into a paddock, she saw two entities and one left the object and approached her shouting something in a language she did not understand.; The entity then returned to the object which took off. That supposedly covered an 80 minutes period and does not make sense. Someone else saw a similar object that morning and she told the New Zealand Air Force investigator about the sighting but not entities. He guessed she was hiding something and eventually the entity part of the account emerged. However, as far as we know the investigator was not (?) told the whole story and we gather that from 1970 records in which Moreland, responding to an official letter asking if her account could be released, responded: “If you have knowledge of the full events of that awful morning, you will realise, that to suggest that the UFO people are friendly is a laugh, as I know full well…” Odd if all that happened is what we know from accounts. Moreland took the truth to the grave.

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?

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

Available This Coming Monday (5th October)

 

Why The AOP Bureau Report on CE3Ks Will Never Be Published

 As I get older and see the years going by VERY quickly I realise there are things I need to get done. One of these things is to finally (it was first privately released in 1981) publisah The Report on UFOs (or "The Hooper Report" as it was referred to).

There was another report issued at the time and this pertained to Close Encounters of the Third Kind/Alien Entity cases in the UK. This report weill not be published and all traces will vanisah when it all gets burnt when I've popped my clogs.

Alien Entities: A thoroughly Comprehensive Study & Case Histories of Alleged Alien Contact in the United Kingdom -Pre-20th Century to 1981 (ammended to 1990)

You will note that the "Sent to and read by" list had to be censored

Below -the index to each section amnd period covered

There are 31 sections and the document ran to over 200 pages. At the times this was a completely thorough report and no one had -or even in 2020- or has such a catalogue of reports to carry out such an analysis.

What I did not understand, initially, was why so many ufologists were so hostile to the report when they had not even seen it let alone and a good synopsis of it. I soondiscovered that, as with UFO reports, a great deal of 'data' was fake or falsified to a degree.

Some of the UKs 'most respected' (usually by themselves or their cronies) had been deliberately putting out fake reports. In recent years they have been forced into admitting this but outrightly refuse to identify which reports/cases are faked or tampered with. They give all types of excuses as to why they will not divulge this information but the truth is that a good few of them were also involved in faking the 'sinister' APEN (Aerial Phenomena Enquiries Network) and on three occasions I caught these people out red-handed (one even had blank APEN letterheads on his desk).

These are people who claim to use "scientific principles" (when there are in fact no actual set out rules) and maliciously attack other persons' reputations, data and honesty.  They are simply in it forthe money, 'fame' and ego boost.

When I discovered that Flying Saucer Review had initiated or aided in pushing such reports I made it clear to Charles Bowen (a former editor) and Gordon Creighton -neither had the slightest interest in correcting records and continued to refer to reports proven hoaxes/faked decades before. I withdrew all articles and support from FSR as I did not want the work being carried out by the AOP Bureaui to be tarnished.

Certain ufologists in the North, and sadly it was the North of England providing most fakled data) were found to be regularly faking things. One small group even attempted to 'silence' me with an Men In Black visit to my home -how that turned out for them is fairly well known.

Two members who thought -I have no isdea why- I was "in their camp" even suggested that I push the "new ufology"  trope. I asked what good that woulddo and was told "It'll really **** up serious ufology".  These were NOT agents of some government agency but long term ufologists. Did it work? Look what happened when people in Europe adopted the "new ufology" stances. A complete mess. My solicitor still has a file with all the names and evidence to back up accusations should anyone want to 'play games' with me.

I found that unless I could talk directly with witnesses/percipients then I could not accept reports. Going through every report would mean a much slimmed down volume and much more.

The sad part is that there are good cases in the UK never investigated. 

Ufologists destroyed serious reasearch not some secret government agency.