I thought I made it very clear that the idea of the project was not to be the reference source that only I would use. The idea was that researchers in different countries would cooperate with each other so that each had a duplicate data base catalogue and that would mean freely exchanging case reports.
It would not be "Terry Hooper's CE IIIK Catalogue" -I am not egotistical. I am a researcher. There is no point in my having a huge data base but no one else benefitting from it.
Also, if a researcher in France, Belgium, Germany or Spain has a copy then if I curl up my toes my data is probably going to be burnt or thrown in a bin (several bins actually). But "A" in France, "B" in Germany and so on would have copies so nothing is lost and as new cases arise so they can be added and it will be a self perpetuating data base.
Is that very confusing? Does it say "I don't give a damn how long "A" took to put his data base together -I am taking over!" -does it?
"What about other over-lapping data bases?" Well, so far, apart from one dealing just with Spain I have had no links sent to these other data bases nor had them named. So it is a pointless question.
I "need to publish" what I have so people can see....right. Totally missing the point. I have stated that I intend to publish everything next year. In the meantime I was going to make a preliminary data base available FREE to all researchers. A UK data base.
I have pointed out and explained repeatedly that I will make a listing of all cases I have available next year. We are talking thousands of dates/times/locations to be typed up and prepared. I have to try to earn a living in the meantime and have other projects to sort out.
I should also point out that I have sent a lot of material out to non-UK researchers with the promise of material in exchange. Nothing. They received the data but that was it. The provisional Spanish catalogue was useful and I thank Luis Gonzalez for that.
But so far Germany, France, Italy -none have followed through.
All I get is a bunch of negative comments or more and more questions and if the project has bruised a few egos then tough. It should not have because we are supposed to be working together toward finding answers not massaging our egos.
I am taking too much time away from work to explain what is straight forward and I cannot find any other way of making even simpler to understand. That I have had to correct dates, details and locations given in one badly referenced data base is NOT an attack on anyone -you want to continue citing erroneous data go ahead.
And the UK? The response from the couple of groups who have responded is to trawl their web pages for material but they'll be very happy to see the full data base, not having even bothered attempting to contribute to it.
On the other hand, John Hanson who, along with Dawn Holloway, is compiling the Haunted Skies encyclopaedia of British Ufology has been very helpful.
So, I am proceeding as always on a solo project and the results will be published as and when I am ready and I am not correcting the record until that time.
Negativity is what has always held back "Ufology" which is not a scientific study -those are usually peer reviewed which seems to be forbidden with this subject. I have always, and I will always, cooperate with genuine researchers/investigators but I will no longer accept leeching of my material and one way exchange with all the data coming from me.