Total Pageviews

Sunday 27 October 2019

The Allagash Abduction -updated appraisal


I sat down over the weekend to read Raymond E. Fowler's The Allagash Abductions -Undeniable Evidence of Alien Intervention. You will note -by all the Post-It notes- that quite a few things were questionable or needed looking at.

The following is my final (internet) appraisal of the case.

This 1976 incident was not included in my book UFO Contact? because there were claims and counter claims being made.  These claims against the event being a real one turn out to be very weak at best. They seem to depend upon "inconsistencies" in the accounts that were given yet far from factual inconsistencies.

The mind plays many tricks and after a traumatic event it is necessary to treat the percipient(s) carefully. Not suggesting things that that can then be woven into a false memory. If you take something said in an edited interview whether recorded for TV, radio or a newspaper there are bound to be what some call inconsistencies since journalists are there to sell a story or attract views/controversy. Having looked at the alleged inconsistencies I find that none stand up to scrutuny of any real kind.

It is noted that Chuck Rak recanted his story.  He claims that it was all a story concocted to gain money. In fact, Rak appears to have seemingly felt isolated by the fact that the Weiners and Foltz could recall what had happened at the Allagash and become closer while he failed as a subject of hypnosis -which he clearly stated was a great disappointment as he thought hypnosis would make him re-live the experience with "all four senses". It is very probable that Rak may have resisted hypnotic regression because he subconsciously did not want to relive what happened. Fowler states that Rak was a true "macho man" and he certainly appears to have shown this from the Allagash account and his life profile. If the Weiners and Foltz had difficulty over certain events such as sperm taking and not being able to resist what they were 'told' to do then Rak certainly might have had problems. I have no doubt that he put on a brave face but whether he really wanted to relive the event is open to debate.

Interestingly, Rak confirmed all the details of the UFO sighting but for whatever reason (lack of recall) denies the abduction scenario. I am aware of very "macho" people who underwent traumatic events (non UFO) but denied them, sometimes violently while others involved were more open  (Male combat veterans’ narratives of PTSD, masculinity, and health paper by Nick Caddick  Brett Smith  Cassandra Phoenix published: 20 January 2015 and Militarized Masculinity and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder by Sandra Whitworth In Jane Parpart and Marysia Zalewski (eds.), Rethinking the Wo/man Question in International Relations, (London: Zed Books, 2008), 109-126 look at the masculinity of military men facing trauma etc).

Despite an internet source such as Wikipedia stating that the case was "an alleged multiple persons abduction case, which was revealed as a hoax in 2016" and citing Potila, Jessica (2016). "Subject of 1976 UFO incident casts doubt on 'Allagash Abductions'" Rak, the subject involved, confirmed the UFO sighting again but was obviously bitter and resentful -again, possibly because he did not want to event to have been real because of the implications.

As I noted in UFO Contact? and in more detail in Contact: Encounters With Extra Terrestrial Entities? the percipients in these events are without doubt suffering from Post Traumatic Stress -in his book Fowler refers to this having been detailed by Dr Jacobs (prior to Dr Jacobs "going off the deep end").  The solution?  More hypnosis. The logical, sensible and human action to take should be treatment by a person medically qualified to handle PTSD cases not Ufologists and Ufological hypnotherapists.

Certainly the Weiners and Foltz experienced flash-backs in their dreams. It is clear that the twins experienced night paralysis as well as vivid dreams -Jack's wife, Mary, could not confirm any event at their home only what Jack had told her.  The idea that Mary holding a pendulum so that "Mary You" -her subconscious- could respond to questions is equivalent to having a Tarot reading to discover the truth. Fowler seems to stretch credulity at points and even writes that the Jack and Mary abduction was confirmed by her: it was not.

It seems that all four percipients had read either Budd Hopkins (Missing Time) and/or Whitley Streiber's book, Communion.  Therefore their memories would certainly be tainted by this.  And yet, despite this Ufological reading, the actual Allagash event is quite clear and each percipient confirms the others' account under hypnosis -apart from Rak who confirmed only the UFO sighting.  The Alien Entities involved are fairly unique in appearance -although after Hopkins and Jacobs non peer reviewed work and talks the "abduction phenomenon" is now full of reptoids, insectoids et al.

Fowler and the hypnotist cannot be praised for their techniques.  As a self confessed "alien abductee" or "experiencer" seems to be almost evangelistic in his beliefs and fitting in the details of other cases to match his.  This leads to unprofessional behaviour such as when, as an hypnotic session is about to be ended he "snapped a quick question at Jim (Weiner): when did you see these creatures again?" Weiner responded with Texas and the year 1980 -detailed later in the book and here is why this was so unprofessional: Weiner's subconscious would have immediately thought of the Texas incident as it was, without doubt and even Fowler suggests (not very firmly) that this might have been a flash-back.

When one looks at how one of the pioneers of UFO abduction percipients hypnosis, Dr R. Leo Sprinkle, worked as a professional and always taking care to ensure the well being of his subjects as well as his work, it seems Fowler and hypnotist Tony Constantino threw this out the window.  I may well be a little unkind there but things were done that I would not expect serious experienced -Constantino was a fairly inexperienced Ufologist- investigators to do.  It calls into question whether persons who are outspoken about being "experiencers" should really be involved in investigating alien abduction reports.  I tend to think not.

That Fowler presents his questioning at points almost as an interrogation -questions asked with added exclamation marks and often repeated until he gets an answer is not something to be proud of.  At times those involved seem to lose themselves: when asked to view images as though watching TV one says "I see those things!" and is then asked "Where?" and then he says "on it" he is asked "on what?" at this point I said out loud "On the bloody TV screen you told him to see all of this on!" At one point Foltz recounts a vivid dream that he found very upsetting and it was clearly a flash-back but because he rarely had vivid dream Constantino and Fowler stretch and push facts in leapsand bounds to make the dream a real event despite Foltz stating he believes it was just a rare, disturbing dream. The investigators then chalk this up as another abduction experience being witnessed.

It seems that Fowler and Constantino (David Webb a more experienced Ufologist was involved in the case but not at all the sessions) perceive every obvious dream or PTSD flash-back as genuine, real world experiences.

When it comes to Fowler's hypothesis that the twins were the focus of the Allagash event things fall to pieces.  At the very outset Fowler states how excited he is that twins were involved since that would be a Ufological -as Fowler puts it, after not paying much attention to Jim Weiner when he approached him at an event but on hearing twins were involved: "Suddenly I became very interested in what Jim was trying so hard to tell me"-  first and it seems that he loses interest in Foltz and Rak (this may indicate why Rak appears to be resentful as Fowler and Constantino appear -judging by Fowler's book- to have given up on trying to get to his memories of the event as he was awkward and resisted hypnosis).

Some of Jim Weiner's experiences could be down to his Temporlimbic epilepsy (TLE) -but as his doctors pointed out this could not account for the others memories of the Allagash incident.  However, having already read Budd Hopkins book before the hypnotic sessions, it could well have affected his memory -created false ones. Bringing in an alleged "ghost" ("Harry") does not help the case or point to childhood abductions of the twins as Fowler seems to insist. Also, it is clearly stated by Foltz that the entities involved appeared to be interested in the twins as they looked so alike. One might ask whether, if the twins were abducted from an early age, the entities had not noticed that they looked alike? This almost falls into Jacobs' realm where we appear to have attracted anything but the galaxy's brightest.  I believe that everything points to a one off event.

Rak's recall of a previous event -which he recalled but later recanted and may have been influenced by his reading of Hopkins/Streiber- can be negated and it is 100% not 'evidence' of any type and certainly not of life-long abductions. It should be pointed out he was not the only member of the four who felt Hopkins book might have influenced other memories.

Looking at the information presented it seems that the Allagash Four (or Three) had a one time experience. As the entities in the object involved seemingly had not really paid much attention to their presence on the lake it has to be asked whether Foltz, by signalling "SOS" with a flash-light actually drew the entities attention? We cannot know what alien entities might think, however, people in a canoe signalling them might be considered as "Hi. We want to meet you".  There are other UFO incidents in which objects have approached people signalling with flash-lights. This Allagash event might well have been a case of "You were curious and signalled them so you got not quite what you wanted"

We also come across the "scoop marks" so much cherished and highlighted in these cases. "Unexplained lumps" appearing on shins -possible ganglions or proof of alien abduction?  I have a lump on my right shin.  My father and brother as well as one sister had the same.  My mother and father sighted a UFO in Germany before I was born.  Am I a UFO abductee?  No. Objects get stuck in skin or you get cuts and they leave scars but you do not notice.  One evening I was washing what's left of my hair and felt a bump to the back of my head.  Then another -and dried blood. It took me a long while to remember that a tree branch had scraped past my head the day before but I had no idea it had cut my skin. A doctor once found a mysterious 1 mm greyish object under my left forearm skin and cut it out: it was a piece of pencil lead from where another pupil had stabbed me with a pencil in 1972 -completely forgot about it.

Ganglions. According to Tibial periosteal ganglion cyst: The ganglion in disguise a paper by Anjuna Reghunath, Mahesh K Mittal, Geetika Khanna and V Anil in The Indian Journal of Radiology Imaging. 2017 Jan-Mar; 27(1): 105–109:

"Soft tissue ganglions are commonly encountered cystic lesions around the wrist presumed to arise from myxomatous degeneration of periarticular connective tissue. Lesions with similar pathology in subchondral location close to joints, and often simulating a geode, is the less common entity called intraosseous ganglion. Rarer still is a lesion produced by mucoid degeneration and cyst formation of the periostium of long bones, rightly called the periosteal ganglion. They are mostly found in the lower extremities at the region of pes anserinus, typically limited to the periosteum and outer cortex without any intramedullary component. We report the case of a 62 year-old male who presented with a tender swelling on the mid shaft of the left tibia, which radiologically suggested a juxtacortical lesion extending to the soft tissue or a soft tissue neoplasm eroding the bony cortex of tibia. It was later diagnosed definitively as a periosteal ganglion in an atypical location, on further radiologic work-up and histopathological correlation."

Rather like the scam of running an EMF (Electro Magnetic Frequency) meter over a removed 'alien implant' (most EMF meters will begin 'reacting' if squeezed slightly so the person holding it is seen to not be touching anything to get the reaction) the idea that every bump and scrape is evidence of aliens "biopsy punches" from childhood on can be ruled out.



What I find odd is fig. 3 on p. 30 of Fowler's book in which a balding, white haired man is sat down in front of the quartet.  The note reads "...seated man came out of the woods, stayed for a while, left, and never gave his name". That is the only mention of this in the book.  I am guessing the famous photo was taken by camera on auto since there were only four present. The photo with the extra man is an odd one. Every single detail -position of items held, angle of arms and hands, details in the background all match. So why is this photo with the mystery man not on the internet and I have looked and why is the photo so significant when it is used nowhere but the book?

Only those involved can say 100% what happened at Allagash and all but one (who has changed his story slightly but actually falls short of saying it was a hoax) stick by that story and as for it being a hoax to get money -the four had not even seen a copy of the book before they appeared on the Joan Rivers Show.  They were pretty lax about "cashing in" on a UFO sighting.

Sadly, it was Fowler's book that prevented me from including this case in UFO Contact

Newly Found Super Spiral Galaxies Spin Too Fast to Exist

Sunday 20 October 2019

Inevitable Really

With no book sales (I just give up) and a constantly crashing laptop it looks like the days of new posts here are numbered.

Sales and donations help but....

Saturday 19 October 2019

Comments on the Allagash Case

I posted the Allagash UFO abduction videos for a specific reason. It shows the problems when you have an alleged group event and when there are, as far as I am aware, no secondary witnesses to the UFO.

Firstly, the group reported the UFO incident and that they were tired so back at camp they just went to their sleeping bags and slept.  They discussed the "light" the next day. After that they mentioned the event to friends over the years but it was not until Jim Weiner had an accident that memories of the alleged abduction began to surface.

Now in its look at the case the History Channel showed just how incompetent they have become when in comes to fact checking.  They state Jim was involved in a car crash and received brain damage and seizures. The story has been recounted so many times that most people ought to know that Weiner fell from a staircase and received injuries.

I have known people who suffered from epileptic seizures and in some cases things 100% positive happened....in the persons mind.  My late sister, while going through a seizure called to her dog (at that point long dead) as she was being abducted by armed me...the paramedic crew. Without going into the "psychic link" between twins there is enough anecdotal evidence to suggest that twins can share similar dreams or even feel discomfort or pain when the other is injured. We only have the Weiners' word on when they discussed their dreams or how similar they were.

It was suggested that the group undergo hypnosis and polygraph tests which they seem to have passed and then we get to the problems.  I think that the presenter of the Case Cracked video (scroll down the page) showed how thoroughly unqualified he was to comment on the case.  He appears to have taken edited snippets from interviews over the years and noted how the story changed slightly -the memory will alter and add to things which is why everything needs recording early on. He also states he is unsure about regression hypnosis but "thinks" it is used in psychiatry or something...there is the problem if you base your knowledge on millennial you tubers who have no idea what theyare talking about.

Now Charles Rak confirmed everything the others said but in 2018 stated he did so for financial gain which does not hold water: when the group appeared on the Joan Rivers Show they had not even seen a copy of the book on the incident and were not paid to appear.  For three guys out to make money they certainly let things slip away from them. Raymond Fowler who investigated the case suggested that Rak had veered away from his friends and made the hoax claim over 40 years later as the abduction experience was something he had no control over and he had a need to be in control. This is possible if Rak had a personality of that type.  I have seen people (non UFO related) go against what 5-10 witnesses have described because they had no control over what happened.

If you have four people or three people relating the same details and you are writing an article or even a book then what you do in summarising is give the details and if you are an honest reporter you will then go into the differences -I prefer to give the differences in accounts while summarising.  The problem is that someone -a reporter or whoever- will take the snippet they have read and that is taken as fact.  When someone else then says that "A" reported an item in a different way that is taken to mean the stories are changing.

I have seen debunkers do this to 'prove' a hoax. It is quite easy especially if you have people who base everything on a quick and easy cut  and paste from the internet. I have found well documented cases summarised on web sites by 'ufologists' that quoted the original sources but had obviously never read the source.  In one case I found ten different web sites with ten altered versions -so we then see that the story given was "not consistent".  Buy the book or source and READ it.

In the Allagash case we have snippets taken from the early accounts, edited news items and TV programmes and that will give you 'changing accounts'.

There are so many sticking points and potholes in the Allagash case and that is why I  never passed it as a case for inclusion in UFO Contact?

It is an interesting case but did not meet the criteria as evidence of a possible genuine event -even if it actually was!

UFO CONTACT

http://www.lulu.com/shop/terry-hooperscharf/ufo-contact/paperback/product-23719040.html

Thursday 17 October 2019

We Found The Origins of Mysterious Magnetars - Rare Giant Stars

The Planet That Is Nearly As Old As Time (4K UHD)

The current situation

The subject came up today about more original content.

Original material gets ripped off by other bloggers (and used in books by certain people) and as it stands my financial situation is...bad.

There is no sponsorship or advertising here and despite the donation tab no one bothers yet high numbers view the blog every day.  Posts about my books get high views but no one buys and they are (ought to be) my only source of income.  I cannot afford to spend hours on new posts.

You can support the blog -donations or, I prefer this, by buying books.

That is the situation.

Tuesday 15 October 2019

Does Megalodon Still Exist?

Goodbye Comrade - End of an Era

Life on Mars!

Semi literacy is strong on the internet news services.  The acronym NASA is written as Nasa and we get the usual garbled reporting but what we have here is what is being reported all over the internet -including claims that Martian life may be hiding underground. 

The comments from quasi conspiracy theorists that this is all about NASA's hidden evidence of intelligent extraterrestrials hiding from view in one or more complex beneath Mars shopws any real understanding of what is being clearly stated.


We found evidence of life on Mars in the 1970s, former Nasa scientist says
Andrew Griffin
File photo taken on Mars approximately in September 1976 at Utopia Planitia by the US. Viking 2 unmanned spacecraft
File photo taken on Mars approximately in September 1976 at Utopia Planitia by the US. Viking 2 unmanned spacecraft
Nasa found evidence of alien life in the 1970s, according to a former senior scientist – and ignored it.
The Viking landers were sent to the Martian surface more than 40 years ago, with the aim of exploring the planet. They included an experiment known as Labeled Release, or LR, which was intended to look for signs of life on the planet.
The results came back in 1976 – and seemed to indicate that something was happening on the surface. Gilbert V Levin – an engineer and inventor who was the principal investigator on the experiment – has now written a long article arguing that those findings were indications of life on Mars, which were ignored by Nasa.
"On July 30, 1976, the LR returned its initial results from Mars," Levin wrote in an article for Scientific American. "Amazingly, they were positive.
"As the experiment progressed, a total of four positive results, supported by five varied controls, streamed down from the twin Viking spacecraft landed some 4,000 miles apart. The data curves signaled the detection of microbial respiration on the Red Planet. The curves from Mars were similar to those produced by LR tests of soils on Earth.
"It seemed we had answered that ultimate question."
But Nasa's experiments failed to find organic matter: the physical stuff of life itself, not just the indications of microbial respiration that the LR experiment discovered. That meant that Nasa concluded that the LR results came from a substance that was mimicking life but was not actually life itself.
Since then, Nasa has not a run a similar experiment has focused on examining whether the Martian habitat could be a suitable home for alien life.
But Levin argues that those findings actually suggested that there is alien life on Mars. And, he argued, Nasa must do more to follow them up – because they could pose a significant threat to life on Earth.
"NASA maintains the search for alien life among its highest priorities," he wrote. On February 13, 2019, NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine said we might find microbial life on Mars.
"Our nation has now committed to sending astronauts to Mars. Any life there might threaten them, and us upon their return. Thus, the issue of life on Mars is now front and center."
Summing up the evidence of alien life, he wrote his experiment had found a whole host of positive results. But perhaps most strongly of all, he said there had been no experiment that had provided an alternative explanation for the results that came back from the LV experiment.
"What is the evidence against the possibility of life on Mars? The astonishing fact is that there is none," he wrote. "Furthermore, laboratory studies have shown that some terrestrial microorganisms could survive and grow on Mars."
In his conclusion, he asked that Nasa conduct the same kind of experiments again, taking an altered version of the LR experiment to Mars on the next possible trip. And he asked that scientists be convened to examine those more than 40-year-old findings to see if they really were proof of life on Mars.
"Such an objective jury might conclude, as I did, that the Viking LR did find life," he wrote. "In any event, the study would likely produce important guidance for NASA’s pursuit of its holy grail."
               ---end---
When you read the Scientific American article you will note that the title reads: "I’m Convinced We Found Evidence of Life on Mars in the 1970s" and Levin is stating that this is what the tests showed but he is calling on a scientific panel to look at the evidence to make a judgement -either way.
We are not talking about alien bases. We are not talking about anything other than microbial life so far. That is the important thing to remember as the ufology hysteria creates more inane statements and theories.  
Always check the actual original source(s) and do not base your belief on what you read from an idiot online journalist.

Monday 14 October 2019

Peter Byrne the FBI and Sample Testing

On the 6th June, 2019 (my birthday but as I am not a 'Fortean' I will not assume a cosmic significance to this!) Live Science posted an article by Rafi Letzter titled Bigfoot's FBI File Reveals Strange Story of a Monster Hunter and 15 Mysterious Hairs 
This article interested me for a number of reasons that I will come to but first the item in question:
The U.S. government released Bigfoot's FBI file yesterday (June 5). It contains a few news clippings, and some formal letters to and from a monster hunter in the 1970s — leading to an examination of 15 hairs and some skin the hunter believed came from "a Bigfoot."
It appears that Peter Byrne, that monster hunter, first wrote to the FBI on Aug. 26, 1976. His note, printed on fancy letterhead reading "The Bigfoot Information Center and Exhibition," suggested that the FBI was in possession of flesh and hair belonging to a mysterious creature, possibly belonging to a "Bigfoot."
"Gentlemen," Byrne wrote, "Will you kindly, to set the record straight, once and for all, inform us if the FBI, has examined hair which might be that of a Bigfoot; when this took place, if it did take place; what the results of the analysis were." [Titanosaur Photos: Meet the Largest Dinosaur on Record]
He didn't indicate why he suspected that the FBI might have done such an analysis, only that, "from time to time we have been informed that hair, supposedly of a Bigfoot… has been examined by the FBI., and with the conclusion, as a report of the examination, that it was not possible to compare the hair with that of any known creature on this continent."
Byrne appears to have been concerned that the agency wouldn't take The Bigfoot Information Center seriously.
"Please understand that our research here is serious," he wrote, "That this is a serious question that needs answering."
He also assured the agency that they needn't worry about his implying their involvement in his work.
"An examination of hair, or the opposite, but the FBI., does not in any way, as far as we are concerned, suggest that the FBI., is associated with our project or confirms in any way the possibility of the existence of the creature(s) known as Bigfoot," he wrote.
Assistant FBI Director of the agency's laboratory division Jay Cochran Jr. replied two weeks later, on Sept. 10, 1976.
"Since the publication of the 'Washington Environmental Atlas' in 1975, which referred to such examinations, we have received several inquiries similar to yours," he wrote. "However, we have been unable to locate any references to such examinations in our files."
More than two months later, on Nov. 24, 1976, Byrne replied. Perhaps emboldened by the earlier response, he asked not for information but for a favor. [Real or Not? The Science Behind 12 Unusual Sightings]
"Briefly, we do not often come across hair which we are unable to identify, and the hair that we have now, about 15 hairs attached to a tiny piece of skin, is the first that we have obtained in six years which we feel may be of importance," he wrote.
He asked if Cochran "could possibly arrange for a comparative analysis" of the tissue to determine its origin.
At the time all this was going on, Bigfoot was in the news. Byrne had been searching for the creature for five years, supported by the Academy of Applied Science (AAS), a small institution in Boston that, according to a document in the file, also sponsored hunts for the Loch Ness monster.
The New York Times had profiled the 50-year-old Byrne's adventures in June of 1976, calling him a "former professional hunter in Nepal who switched from tiger shooting and yeti hunting to tiger conservation and Bigfoot hunting."
"Most [Bigfoot sightings] are eventually discounted as insubstantial or faked," The New York Times wrote. "But a handful hold up and are given high credibility. So far Mr. Byrne, though he has never seen a Bigfoot himself, has collected the details of 94 reported sightings that seem believable. There are many more reports of tracks."
The paper recounted several of those supposedly more credible sightings, and a clipping of that article was included in the FBI file. The next document in the file, in chronological order, was Cochran's instruction to examine the hairs Byrne passed along.
"This does not represent a change in Bureau policy," a memorandum included in the file states, in an apparent effort to justify the decision. "The … Laboratory Branch has a history of making its unique services and expertise available to the Smithsonian Institution, other museums, universities and government agencies in archeological matters and in the interest of research and legitimate scientific inquiry." [The 25 Most Mysterious Archaeological Finds on Earth]
Unfortunately for Bigfoot hunters, the results weren't what they may have hoped. In 1977, the lab examined the 15 hairs. A final letter from Cochran, addressed to Howard S. Curtis, Executive Vice President of the AAS, read like this:
"Dear Mr. Curtis,
The hairs which you recently delivered to the FBI Laboratory on behalf of the Bigfoot Information Center and Exhibition have been examined by transmitted and incident light microscopy. The examination included a study of morphological characteristics such as root structure, medullary structure and cuticle thickness in addition to scale casts. Also the hairs were compared directly with hairs of known origin under a comparison microscope.
It was concluded as a result of these examinations that the hairs are of deer family origin.
The hair sample you submitted is being returned as an enclosure to this letter,
Sincerely yours,
Jay Cochran, Jr.
Assistant Director FBI
Scientific and Technical Services Division."
Curtis replied March 8, thanking Cochran and saying he'd pass the news on to Byrne when the monster hunter returned from Nepal.
You can read the full FBI Bigfoot file here.
Live Science has reached out to Byrne for additional comment, and will update this article if he replies.
                         end


"Gentleman" Byrne seems almost sarcastic in its use but with Millennial writers not brought up with correct manners and who think rudeness in carrying out interviews is the norm what can you expect.  Byrne had dealt with authorities around the world and he no doubt understood that stamping your foot and making demands did not work. In this case, despite the tone of the article, Byrne did manage to get the FBI to analyse the material he sent in. DNA testing today costs thousands of £/$ and to have a lab in pre-DNA days examine material was still expensive.  No one could argue with the FBI test results.
The Academy of Applied Science did exactly what scientists are supposed to do: take a subject, investigate, research and produce finding results -pro or con. Roy Mackal was involved with the AAS and the search for the Loch Ness Monster (how 'quaint', right?) and he theorised that some type of giant eel might be involved -as I noted in Some Things Strange and Sinister and Live Science may pour implied laughter on that, however, recent investigation into DNA in the waters of the Loch ---see my previous post: https://terryhooper.blogspot.com/2019/06/the-loch-ness-monster-might-be.html --- have suggested, fifty years on, that there may be giant eels in the loch.
And it should be called the Loch Ness Creature not "monster"!  I do not expect better from journalists but serious researchers continually using the term "monster" seems to indicate more fantasy prone minds.
In the 1990s the lab and a very famous DNA scientist offered to analyse any hairs found and believed to be from non native UK cats.  Tests would cost thousands of pounds but they could be carried out free of charge by using paid for free time so to speak.  There were guidelines sent out to those involved in the 'search'. These I applied rigorously and most sent to myself at the Exotic Animals Register (EAR, f 1977) were clearly cow or bull and even sheep and fox hairs. Unless there was strong evidence that the hairs were unusual or seen at a spot where a large cat was seen they were mostly recorded but not sent for analysis.
One evening I was contacted by a Police Wildlife Crimes Officer in Leicestershire. He told me that the local cat expert had shown him droppings from a panther and he went to the site in question and found more.  I asked him to describe the scat and then tell me what the area was like -lots of fruit bushes, all sorts of berries and so on. I then asked him to break open the scat (though by his description I had a good idea what it was): there was a lot of fruit within it. It was a fox -puma and leopards are not known for their fruit eating but, as I can attest to, foxes do eat fruit. The officer was flummoxed and did take the droppings to the cat experts who identified it again as leopard scat.  I understand that despite the officer and myself explaining it was fox scat the samples were still sent for DNA testing.
99.9% of samples sent for testing consisted of sheep droppings and sheep wool -taken from a sheep field- as well as cow, bull and horse hair taken from wire surrounding fields in which were...cows, horses or bulls. Dog scat from local dog walking areas in woods as well as hair were sent in.
The backlash against negative results was at times nasty. The lab and I tried to explain to everyone how expensive testing was and time consuming but no. The flood gates had been opened. Having watched far too much TV, these cat experts received confirmation from the lab that their samples had arrived. Some 24 hours later they were asking -occasionally demanding- to know the results.  The lab eventually pulled out of the whole mess.
We all saw the aftermath of Prof Bryan Sykes of Oxford University analysed -for free- alleged Bigfoot/Sasquatch/Almasti hairs.  Bigfooters were simply grabbing any hairs near to a reported sighting and sending them in for testing and when the testing did not come back as "Bigfoot" or "Unknown" it was all a cover up.
You do not give a blind man a flying licence.
What Byrne was doing with his correspondence was being polite and respectful and making it clear that he or his group were not going to start shouting "We're endorsed by the FBI -they work with us!"  That has happened since and not just with the FBI.
"Mystery giant canids" in the United States sighted and occasionally killed by US wildlife services. I read over and over again how the "authorities" had put secrecy clamps on everything and were giving out silly explanations but hiding facts. Do you know what I did, being somewhat interested in wild canids?  I contacted the official bodies concerned who supplied me with background on the reports and testing results as well as the probable explanation. In only one case did I get scuppered in my attempts to get facts -that turned out to be very probably due to the main person involved not affording any importance to the event.
In the early days of "flying saucers" civilian investigators often adopted the respectful approach and got results.  However, the sensationalism needed for more press coverage or to push book sales took over.  After that it all went downhill fast.
So, Live Science may treat the whole matter tongue-in-cheek but what it shows is that cooperation and politeness gets results.

Sunday 13 October 2019

It's blurry...been "enhanced" but science will accept the image as being evidence...we aint talking UFOs

Well, I notice that standards are being maintained.  Not a single comment on any of the posts despite some of them attracting thousands of views -and it goes without saying that some of those people are taking items (including my original comments) and posting them as their own.

I get fed up posting free content (I have books you can buy to support the ongoing work) but I'm sat here waiting for the grim reaper so have some time to waste.

A proto black hole in our solar system could be what people have mistaken for Planet 9 (before Pluto's demotion, Planet X). You check the comments on 'news' sites like Yahoo! and you see some of the biggest pile of garbage and lobotomised hysteria it is possible to find in one place.  On this blog, intended to foster discussion or questions....nothing.

As it stands I do not think that the proto black hole theory is anything but that. Astronomy calls for lots -an incredible amount at times- theorising on things that "might be" if another theory is correct. Over 4000 exo planets have been discussed and we have all the nice "artists impressions" of these that astronomers and scientists use in lectures.  Most will say "This is Exo planet AABB.  Now we have never seen what it looks like.  This is just an artist impression."  In which case you really should not be using imaginary paintings but the actual image (IF you have one) of AABB -which as best is a tiny dot.

Astronomers and scientists used that famous "artists impression/concept" of what Oumuamua looked like.  And then they screech at the public and news services "That is NOT what it looked like!" and give us another artist impression of "what Oumuamua might look like".  Because no one ever saw it.

"Ifs"/"Buts"/"Might"/"If the theory is correct then it might explain" are every day astronomical scientific words.

this is a typical image released with the discovery of an exo planet.

Here are actual photographs/images of exo planets




The exoplanet HIP 65426b has recently been discovered using the SPHERE (Spectro-Polarimetric High-contrast Exoplanet REsearch instrument)

There is some controversy over whether the planet seen in this image exists. Read here for more.]

How do we know these are exo planets?  We have to take the word of scientists that their calculations are correct and truthful....oh and "We peer review" which in itself can lead to nasty arguments and people being outraged that their pet theories are being shoved to one side.

On the 10th April, 2019, NASA released the first image of a black hole.  Apparently a lot of reporters were underwhelmed!

In a historic feat by @EHTelescope & @NSF, a black hole image has been captured for the 1st time. Several of our missions observed the same black hole using different light wavelengths and collected data to understand the black hole's environment. Details: https://go.nasa.gov/2Uwj1PF


https://
Hmm. Here is the problem: grainy images of objects millions of light years away accompanied by unproven theories -we will never visit these planets- are taken as fact.  However many "observers" may be involved where is the proof?  It's an image.  Often an enhanced or "touched up"/altered image and we have to take astronomers' word of what is shown?  Yet they will argue on points and even challenge each other but it comes down to this: you HAVE to accept their word. 

Think of the astronomers in the past humiliated, laughed at and who had -at best- careers ruined because they proposed that the Moon and Mars might have some type of water or ice -that it might not be simply confined to Earth. Those who had the same treatment over claims about Mars. Or how about those who observed and wrote for decades on there being a large planet beyond Pluto...look how many minor planets we have found so far.  Don't forget that 20 new moons were only recently discovered in the solar system.

Now look at it this way (let's be Devil's Advocate): a couple driving along a lonely road observe a strange light moving around the night sky.  The said object lands just ahead of them.  It ;later transpires, though they do not want to believe this themselves, that they were taken aboard what we would call a UFOB -a constructed non terrestrial craft. At the same time a local air force base detects a UFO on its radar and there are interceptors sent to check.  Miles from the couple (who are unseen due to distance) witnesses in a car see a UFO that eventually takes off.  They may or may not see or hear the interceptors.  The air force is contacted after the couple report the UFO to investigators and it is found that an "unknown" was tracked.  Checking reports made on that day the people who saw the object from a distance are found to have reported it.  Everything matches./

For astronomers and scientists that is not evidence. Only blurry, enhanced images from light years away count.

Why?

There are possibilities.

1. Scientists and astronomers will think they will be called failures because aliens are visiting Earth occasionally and they didn't know or

2. The possibility of real live aliens coming to Earth actually terrifies these people for various reasons.  If you are an ass-head like Dr Brian ("I'm a celebrity") Cox then you believe that all intelligent life in what even he graciously concedes is a vast universe, is dead.  We (humans) are it.

3  Astronomers and scientist will quote "the vast distances involved in space travel" which they then authoratively claim "Would make it impossible for aliens to visit the Earth"  Well, this is what we used to call "utter nonsense" or "talking out of your ass".

Firstly, these people have never contacted an advanced alien civilisation  let alone studied the type of space craft or technology they used.  Judging everything by human technological standards is so pointless.  Just as they may very well not use radio signals they may be centuries ahead of us in technology -had humans not killed off scientists with "outlandish theories" and warred with each other for centuries think where we might be today -technology is developing and increasing and I remember what it was like in the 1960s when you  were either well enough for a private landline telephone or had to visit the local phone box -and join the queue!  Today you can call anywhere in the work from your sofa.  Not to mention tweets and instagram or Face Book and even cook a meal in minutes instead of 30 minutes to an hour after preparation.

It takes one Elon Musk to have a team that decides "A" simply does not work and shrug and decide to try "D" instead and...a new way to travel in sp[ace is developed and from there others will jump in and add to the development.

When I was a young we were promised homes on the Moon by the 21st century.  Greed, war and corruption led to all of that stopping but what if the Apollo missions had continued?  I never even imagined that one man who lead a team that put a red sports car with astronaut dummy into space.

Distances and propulsion methods are things that we can guess at what might be developed but there is no human being on this planet who has any idea of what type of propulsion system or travel method any alien life might use.

The distance response is silly talk at best. and the other response of "We would detect them in our solar system" is shot down in flaming dust -our Near Earth Object detection system missed four large asteroid close passes....we more or less accidentally detected Oumuamua and we've found 20 new moons (they did not "just appear there") and there may be more, we have found minor planets beyond Pluto and there could be more including the giant (possibly) Planet 9.  When asked why they have not detected all of these before the answer is always the same -the size of the solar system, orbits and so on. So even a battle ship sized interstellar craft could 'sneak through'

4. There is the arrogance that, as in science fiction movies, scientists would be the first to be contacted but why any advanced civilisation should want to contact backward scientists is open to conjecture. Aliens would be detected or contact us via signals yet when there are unusual signals they are immediately described as (just check online when it comes to SETI) "Anything but aliens".  True space is very noisy.  The AOP Bureau's Franklyn A. Davin-Wilson dealt not only with Near Earth Objects but also "Signals from space".  "The music of the spheres" as an expression should have added to it "The music of the spheres, nebula, quasars and intergalactic space".  Scientists and astronomers could simply state: "Everything must be ruled out before jumping to the conclusion of alien signals" but they do not.  "It's never ever aliens" is the line you hear over and over again: it ios totally unscientific to rule something out completely because you do not want it to be.

Fear and unscientific.

This is shown in even recent responses to questions about alien life and UFOs where "Little Green Men" is used in the subject response title.  That displays a very retarded attitude since "LGM" was the favoured phrase to ridicule reports in the 1950's and 1960's -every time you see it used you know that you are not dealing with a scientist who can be trusted to undo his own zipper when he goes to the lavatory let alone discuss UFO reports. It also shows that dogma is at play: Scientist A's professor was ridiculed when he mentioned flying saucer reports and so he ridiculed anyone who mentioned UFOs. It is a closed mind and bullying combined and astronomers and scientists are such sensitive little things that they cannot think for themselves and, worst of all, they might be made into a joke or lose out on those free junkets.  Better to say nothing and just look like a moron.

I did write that I was playing Devil's Advocate and I do know that there are scientists and astronomers with an interest in UFOs -which all scientists should have but tend to shy away from speaking or discussing the topic.

Could you imagine an Elon Musk financed UFO study and investigation group rather than one by that fella hands out dozens of anti disclosure contracts and tells no one anything  (you know who I mean)? We are staring out thousands of light years into deep space and paying our own solar system not as much attention as it needs

Two interesting articles:
Life found on Mars in the 1970's
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1189746/Alien-news-NASA-space-Mars-mission-1970s-scientists-Viking-lander-1-Gilbert-Levin

Looking for sub-surface life on mars
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1189948/NASA-news-Alien-ufo-Mars-update-latest-mission-space-extra-terrestrial

There is an argument that says we ought to spend far more investigating our own solar system and sending out signalling probes that move around it.  I agree.

But while astronomers and scientists accept grainy/blurry images from deep space and roll the D&D dice to decide which exo planet might or might not have life (and we'll never know either way) but refuse to seriously look at UFOB or alleged CE3K (Close Encounters of the Third Kind) cases they are not really looking for extraterrestrial life.