It can get to be very monotonous,you know. I have found that old reports from the Flying Saucer Review -what was the journal of international Ufology- was not beyond reporting cases as being factual for many years -even though they had been provided with the details of hoaxes, etc., by the actual investigators.
The odd, shall we say 'joke', rather than hoax? Well the odd one of those crept in such as the Braemar, Scotland, 1958 UFO and occupant case. After 15 years I have given up. Absolutely no secondary source can be found for this report. It seems to have originated and ended with FSR.
CE IIIK and Entity case catalogues -remember me posting about the hostile reactions I got when I suggested researchers all cooperate on a data base that was freely available to all? All reports would need to have either the original investigation report or notes plus as many sources as possible. "Re-inventing the wheel" my ass. I suspect Ufologists knew damn well what would be found.
These are the "UFO researchers", by the way, who say there should be no contact with witnesses and that we should go by press, magazine clippings and published books. Lazy-assed, useless and contributing nothing but insults and negativity from their armchairs Ufologists. Where is their research? Their papers of original research on Ufology for us all to study and digest? Non-existent.
I have,in the last couple of months, tracked back original sources of reports -whether books or articles by the investigators: anything. I have corrected so many accounts on dates, details and so on that it goes to show these people are not serious researchers -hence not wishing to cooperate. And any more of their offensive emails will be publicly published here. Warned.
And no wonder someone coined the term "Craptozoologists" as better for cryptozoologists. Some of the biggest names have cribbed from one another, added bits here and there and plain lied about consulting the actual sources. I have proof: I have those original sources.
People,you have all been lied to by these "credible researchers". In every one of my books I have cited sources and given as many as I could. You can track back EVERYTHING I have written to the source and confirm it all.
Today, I have received an original document that proves a claimed statement by a highly regarded naturalist of the 19th/early 20th centuries was a lie. Added to, again, by people who spurn facts because they don't make books that sell.
Again and again I come across this on most "mystery" subjects.
Perhaps that is why my books don't sell? Hard facts are not as "sexy" as faked accounts. And people wonder why I do my research away from others.