Previously published on the AE/CE3K blog
Firstly, the book was not that well written and on several occasions I had t re-read to make sense of something. I will say nothingf of the writing style.
The actual encounter claimed got very confusing in the telling and at one point I had to try to make out if a "third incident" was actaully being written about or referring back to a third incident".
On page 16 it is stated that Mary saw a small dome on top of a huge triangular object. My question is HOW could she see a small domefrom the ground? We also have her stating she saw things closer toi her, such as the entities, which she stated she should not have been able to and she observed things others did not.
On page 23 I added a note: "Unless the people are lying or joking or they are prone to extreme exaggeration" -I later came to a conclusion.
On page 23 Mary notes how she saw a mist coming toward the group....no one else saw this and the mist resembled a cocoon or soap bubble. That is a pure nonsensical description that is not queried.
The late Tony Dodd asked the people involved whether they had found any strange marks on their bodies? After that any and every bruise, mark, stiff joint is reported and highl;ighted and the photograph of Susan's "markls" are not clear in the photograph in the book but thanks to it appearing in colour in a press report it can be said to be unimpressive. A female acquaintance told me "I've had that from my bra!" Not wearing abra myself I could not comment. What I did was ask ladies of my acquaintance whyo told me that they had odd bruises and marks from wearing bras or sleeping in them. So vague marks are in this case not proof of much.
We read that Peter, the son of Mary, observed the floating entity from his bedroom window and his friend saw it, too. We have to take Peter's word on that. In fact, going by what was written on Peter and Mary -particularly Peter- alarm bells should have been ringing and I felt as though the investigators would not have seen or heard the lights flashing, siren blaring fire engine coming before it hit them.
Peter standing up and pointing to an area in front of curtains and stating matter of factly that there were three of the beings there in the presence of the investigators was amusing to a point. The investigators DID take photographs of the spot even though they saw nothing. Standing where the aliens were they were told all Peter could then see was a sort of zig-zag pattern. Peter even matter of factly explained how he woke up one morning and one of the beings was in his bedroom, stood near him while he ate breakfast, was in the taxi with him on the way to school, helped him out in lessons and even took the taxi home with him. Not a word spoken though.
Apparently Mary saw a "shimmering" (like a heat haze in the road) which meant they were there but was uneasy aboput thios so stopped them appearing. On one occasion she allowed a "Grey" to materialise but then stopped it. Mary had read the Whitley Streiber books and seemed very informed on UFOs and also had a ghost dog -oh, and one of her cats had no problem with one of the beings strokinbg it.
The other witnesses seemed to be almost hysterical if we believe the account with Susan (the daughter of Mary's friend -it gets VERY confusing- even screaming at one point that "there's one by my (car) window grinning at me".
Firstly, there are various aspects that can be explained away as every day things being miss-identified and assumed to be "alien". I cannot see how "hundreds of bright spinning lights" or very bright large objects were not seen by anyone else at the time and reported -even based on the area in question it seems unlikely anyone going by would not see them -but not everyone seeing a UFO reports it.
There is just something very off about these sightings and we are talking three incidents in one night. Mary also calling a Ufologist expecting a team to shoot out there as "something strange is going on" made me laugh. Ufologists from my experience either wait until it's all over and safe or drive off ion the opposite direction.
The "many" entities walking about normally, bending over and picking up crates and walking off just like people would really made me ask whether these were pea pickers working at night. These short entities were apparently overseen by a taller, browner entity standing near trees. How tall was he? Half the size of the trees or 15 feet.
Could there have been an actual UFO sighting at the start as they drove to get a jar of coffee? Could have been. Could there have been more to that incident rather than a mere sighting? At first I thought it possible but when we get to Mary and her son Peter things fall to pieces quickly. It is possible that this is a case of hysteria when it comes to everyone else but with the mother and son I think there is far more to it.
In UFO Contact? I outlined what I termed Ruth Syndrome. Taken from a case that appeared in a book by a note psychologist (also a TV play on the BBC starring Connie Booth) about his patient who he called "Ruth". Ruth heard foot steps, saw clearly visible and solid forms -actually proven through tests carried out by a university- and much more. It was later discovered that the father she was estranged from also had similar events in his life. It is quite possible that Mary passed that syndrome down toi her son. Also Mary being into UFOs and having read the Streiber books and seeming quite calm and at ease when her son described the three invisible entities in the room and the one that went to school with him -and also described the "haze"- probably provided an environment where his reality would allow for regular "visitations". These entities never communicated with him I should point out.
Do we have a credible case of UFO abduction or a major UFO incident in the Falkland Hill report? Very low credibility for a sighting.
What I am surprised about is that a Fortean forum which looked at this case never pointed to any of the 3 metre high neon warning signs from the book. In fact, reading the comments on that forum I do not believe anyone there read the book. This is quite typical of Forteans, cryptozoologists and Ufologists who will judge and assess based on newspaper clippings -some Ufologists proudly boasting that IS their investigation.
I had hoped that Malcolm Robinson might have responded to my request for any completed reportor information that might add more weight to the case but he has not.
I am awaiting the second "deep dive" book on this case but to be honest between Mary and Peter and the other information in the book when included in the archive it will be classed as "Low". I had hoped there was more but the witnesses are now all moved on and uncontactable it seems. A pity.
