Why, why, why will no one take Ufology seriously? Simply because Ufologists make such a mess.
Not only do the Ufologists argue amongst themselves ("well, I never investigated that case so I won't accept it!") but the information they post and publish can be a mess. I have mentioned in other posts a case from 1930 that is quoted and cited repeatedly by people claiming to be credible UFO researchers with many years experience. They will either give a reference of "Rogerson's IntCat"/"Magonia IntCat" or "Jerome Clark -UFO Encyclopaedia" However, not one of them has cited the original source.
When I began working with the late Franklyn A. Davin-Wilson in the 1970s he impressed a point into my brain that has stuck ever since and it is the basic rule of serious research. Brinsley Le Poer Trench give "A" as a reference. You check "A" to see whether it is the original source. If "A" is not the original source then find that original source. So, when you summarise the case you include as many references to that case as you can including the actual source.
Charles Fort (in whose name "Forteans" title themselves but it needs to be pointed out that he did not want this -it was done after his death) was born in 1874 and died in 1932. So a lot of what he thought were mysteries or challenging scientific orthodoxy are things we know about today -whether asteroids or natural phenomena. I love his books -I have a 1942 first printing of The Complete Works Of Charles Fort. However, the man had many thousands of notes and I can tell you, unless you put those notes in order things can go badly wrong.
The "mystery" canids who ran amock in Cavan, Ireland, in the 1870s. Livestock killed, people attacked went insane. My thought? Rabies -it was not that uncommon in mainland Britain in the 19th century. So, I took all of Fort's references. Nothing. I searched newspaper archives. I resorted to asking Dublin Central Library and their archivist checked -nothing in newspapers on the date given, day before or after. So, the "asylum" where some of these "mad folk" were taken. Had quite a dialogue with the hospital archivist and historian -nothing in the records that he could find after a search.
But Fort gave the newspaper titles as well as dates and locations. Fort was either having a laugh and realised no one would check -perhaps proving a point he was making?- or had completely screwed up his references. It's all detailed in my Canids book.
Also, because I went to the original sources and trawled through archives rather than just copy what someone else had written not only did I prove beyond doubt that the "Girt Dog of Ennerdale" was not what Forteans and "cryptozoologists" claim -either a Tasmanian wolf (Thylacine), tiger or a "cryptid" but a very large dog. I also dug out details on the coyotes of Epping Forest -including an illustration of one that was captured. I dug up photographs of the mystery sheep killer of Badminton and much more and I fully referenced everything so other researchers can check. If you have a vested interest in selling books or polishing your ego my declaring things a mystery or, ridiculously, a "cryptid" then you like to keep the lies going. And people accept them as fact.
Now, I have done similar with accounts of unknown sea creatures and even the paranormal, hoping that if I dig deep enough I would find facts that could not be explained away and have solid data to go on. But no. It has taken me 30-45 years in some cases to track down facts and present a case and offer an explanation. I hated this but I then realised that only by sorting through the lies and false data would I get facts -through knowledge the truth.
I guess that's why I am not popular with "cryptozoologists", "paranormalists" and their ilk. If they want to believe utter rubbish to make their lives brighter then let them but I'll not humour them.
The same applies to Ufology. P.C. Alan Godfrey was allegedly abducted by aliens at Todmorden, Yorkshire, 1980. Hypnosis was used but even he says he is not that convinced by what came out under hypnosis -is it true, imagination? He has no idea. When you have 'investigators' who just have percipients hypnotised and the sessions video taped and collect those tapes, releasing no full case notes then you immediately have to give those reports a very low credibility rating. If you really want to have a collection go for porcelain pigs because what you are doing is contributing nothing that serious scientists or researchers can study.
According to UFO Case Book http://www.ufocasebook.com/ilkleymoor.html :
"One of the most unique accounts of alien abduction comes to us from the Ilkley Moor in Yorkshire, England. The witness and subject of this case is a former policeman named Philip Spencer. Spencer claims that in the early morning of December 1, 1987, he was taken aboard an unidentified flying craft, and after his release managed to snap a picture of one of the alien beings.
The Ilkley Moor is very much as you would picture it. Reminiscent of the setting of the moors of Baskerville Hall in Conan Doyle's "Hound of the Baskervilles," it is an eerie place. It has been said that "The Ilkley Moor can scare you to death during daylight, and at night it's even worse."
It is a place of mystery. There is the Swastika stone; boulders etched with strange markings; the Badger Stone; and the Twelve Apostles stone circle.
Many times the only living creatures on the moor are the sheep. Ilkley has other legends too, like the hovering lights at night, which bring occasional reports of UFOs. There are strange, swirling lights that are filtered through the fog and seem to have a mind of their own. Possibly some of the mysterious sights can be attributed to the not too distant Menwith Hill Military Base, or the nearby Leeds Bradford Airport.
The activities of these two facilities will not, however, explain what happened to Spencer. There were also stories of strange creatures that roam across the moor at times.
After four years of being a policeman in another city, Spencer had moved his wife and child to the Yorkshire area to be closer to her family. He was walking across the moor on this December morning heading for his father-in-law's house and on the way was hoping to get some photographs of the strange light tricks of the moor. To be able to get the images he desired he was using a high ASA rated film to compensate for the poor light in the area.
Unfortunately, the picture that he took was somewhat blurred, but there is no doubt that the creature in the photo is a one of a kind being which basically resembled the small grays.
Along with his camera, Spencer also took a compass to navigate through the fog before sufficient daylight shone through the moor. As he was searching for some photo angles, suddenly he caught the sight of a strange looking being in the slopes ahead of him. He aimed and snapped a picture of the creature which seemed to be gesturing for him to stay away.
It then ran away. Spencer gathered his wits and took off in pursuit of the being. Today he says he doesn't know why. It was just an impulse reaction. He arrived just in time to get a glimpse of a flying craft with a domed top rise up from the moor and disappear into the sky. Atop the dome was a whitish square. He was not able to get a photograph of the object.
There was silence now. When he saw nothing else of the being or its
craft, he began to walk to the nearest village. This walk took about 30
minutes, and during this time, a couple of thingsf things became apparent to
him. First of all, his compass now pointed south instead of north, and
secondly, the village clock showed the time an hour ahead of his... Spencer was confused now. Did he see what he thought he saw?
To answer this burning question, he headed by bus to the nearest town with instant film development. Sure enough, he had a picture of the creature! It looked to be about 4 foot tall, and had a blue-green tint to its skin. He knew he had something of importance, or at least, he thought he did. He found the proper channels to contact UFO investigator Peter Hough.
Hough knew what he was hearing was a "too good to be true" case, and it worried him, but after meeting Spencer, he was convinced that he was a man of integrity and was not seeking fame or fortune for his picture. There was no reason to not believe what Spencer had told him. Hough began a thorough investigation. The film with the alien picture would be the first thing to undergo professional scrutiny.
The alien picture was first looked at by a wildlife photography expert. The object in the image was not an animal of any known kind. It could not be determined either way if the figure was animate or static. A reconstruction of the original site did establish the alien's height at or near 4 and one half feet.
The photograph was next sent to Kodak laboratories in Hemel, Hempstead. An analysis showed that the object was indeed part of the original photo, and not superimposed. This conclusion did not, of course, determine what the creature was.
Next, the picture was sent to the United States for computer enhancement and analysis. Dr. Bruce Maccabee, optical physicist with the United States Navy rendered his expert opinion;
He stated that the slow film speed used for the low light conditions made the film too grainy for proper testing. "I had great hopes that this case would prove definitive. Sadly circumstances prevent it from being so," Maccabee stated.
Something strange was noticed in the picture. Appearing on the hill at exactly the spot where Spencer says the UFO was is a white square. Could it be that he had gotten a part of the UFO in the shot unknowingly? He was not sure."
But trying to find out whether there was a transcript of the hypnosis session looking at the one missing hour threw up all sorts of junk.
Where was the second photo showing the sqyare UFO? No one knows. No one answers emails it seems. In fact, some sites state no second photo was taken. If you look at the "I'm a Skeptic -Pay Attention To Me!" pages you usually find they resort to insults or bad language which puts them in the same category as the "pro-UFO" people. One skeptic mentioned that this photo meant that P.C. Alan Godfrey's abduction case was now shaky since he claimed to accidentally bump into a UFO and entity on the moor.
Yes, it was another "WTF?" moment. What? How? When? Who the hell said this???
Well, it appears that Ufologists, particularly in the United States, do not understand Police Forces in the UK. It is not one force covering "the quaint little country" but many regional police forces and rules and regulations can vary between each. So, it seems some read "Police Constable Alan Godfrey, Yorkshire" and then "a former policeman named Philip Spencer. Yorkshire" and there it was. The pseudonym (as the percipient was hoping to join the local force having moved from another area so wanted no Godfrey type press!) "Philip Spencer" was "so" similar to "Alan Godfrey" (real name) that it must be Godfrey who took the photo.
At times it gets so frustrating. I found UFO discussion forums that I normally try avoiding, referring to Alan Godfrey taking the photo. One person asked "Why are we suddenly talking about Alan Godfrey and the Ilkley photo?" No responses. So, folks, Alan Godfrey did not take the photo.
Personally, even without seeing all the cropped/enhanced/"images based on" guff had my doubts. I still do. To just write "I spoke to this guy. He seems nice. He's got a very poor quality photo but he's an ex-policeman so it seems genuine" is like Desmond Leslie saying "George Adamski is a nice guy. Genuine. These are crap photos but he was in space, you know. He is genuine"...you get the point?
Without full transcripts or access to percipients Godfrey and Spencer are both given low ratings -Godfrey isn't sure about what came out under hypnosis even!
I will not refer to David Haisell and the Gerry Armstrong case (though it does point to "how to do everything wrong" if you are interested). But if our main bulk of data on UFO abductions in the UK is to be based upon a few scraps a writer has seen on a video tape or from a session sat in on then it means UK research and investigation is no such thing. An 'investigator' who plies their trade and makes a living from writing and selling books is going for the "money-maker" and stuff the facts. This is not how it works in serious research and investigation.
The middle class, middle aged 'schoolboys' who like to claim notoriety from saying "its all rubbish" because they ignore any real work that involves them moving from their comfie chairs are simply asses who think dropping in the odd insult or name call will make them appear "hardcore" -these people and their sites and a waste of time. If they find all of this a huge laugh and ridiculous why spend so much time contributing nothing? If you have a web page and you are a "skeptic" but ignore any data that challenges your explanation then you are as bad who believes "in AD 9 a giant red mother ship was seen over Italy and released many scout craft" is fact. Read the account in the original text where the word used is "burning shield" (in other words meteorite).
In one morning in 1980 I was double checking accounts Desmond Leslie gave in The Flying Saucers Have Landed and within two hours threw it onto the floor with a note taped to the cover (I think the note is still there) which had written on it: "Never EVER even think about using this as a reference source!" You see, cases clearly reported as meteorites and other natural phenomena were being re-worded so that "a fiery spear cut through the sky" became "a mother-ship". And those Leslie quotes are still being cited by "Ufologists" over thirty years on.
And then we have the "gods" of Ufology. Jacques Vallee I once held as the Ufologist whose example should be followed. But just basic checking of his books - Challenge To Science, UFOs In Space: Anatomy of A Phenomenon and Passport To Magonia- showed that the theories and speculation were founded on totally erroneous data. Even sources that were suspect when Vallee wrote the books were cited. What seemed to be more like a natural light phenomena were mixed in as were reports of seemingly solid craft (flying saucers) which meant that, of course, you could not find a solution or the truth to "UFOs" or "flying Saucers".
Sugar. Paper. Cabbage. Come up with a theory that makes sense.
All of Vallee's work seems to be based on a mix of nonsense but he is Jacques Vallee so Ufologists do not question his work. He wrote it. It's a fact. It does not meanthat there are no interesting cases cited in his books but the actual sources for each need to be checked. Vallee's work has spawned a whole heap of work by others who just jumble up faery stories and folklore and UFO accounts (some not even 50% accurate) and shout "Vallee was right!"
And then we have "Ultra-Terrestrials" and cosmic jokers thanks to John Keel. Yeah, I would put my life on the line based on his information. You realise I'm being sarcastic? Keel was a journalist and writer who found out very early on just what sells. It was how he made his living. Again, love his books because they are like a big adventure story but, as I found, not all the things he wrote about were 100% accurate in detail. Misquotes was a good one or, again, using sources that were known to be disreputable as factual.
One idea that the British Army, during World War II, set up a UFO investigation was utterly ridiculous. Firstly, as Air Vice Marshal Sir Victor Goddard pointed out to me, and also in print, he was in charge of RAF Intelligence and the RAF would have been the body to carry out such an investigation. It did not beyond the usual questioning of pilots who saw "foo-fighters". But the biggest argument against a UFO study taking personnel and money was the War. I spoke to Sir Victor and later others who had high rank during the Second World War and they all said the same thing and I paraphrase here: "At that time we were expexting an all-out German invasion. We knew that we could not expect to survive when that happened. To suggest that at that time we were going to launch a full investigation into someone seeing a light is ridiculous"
Ancient Astronauts. Oh don't get me started. I would never say that extra-terrestrials had never visited Earth in the past but, really, stating like lobotomised fools that every one of Humankinds achievements were down to aliens is insulting to peoples of the past and present. And, despite churning out these images of "ancient alien visitors" what else are "Ancient Astronaut Theorists" (?!) doing? They are looking for any image they can interpret as "Grey Aliens".
If a Fool leads a Fool you can bet that eventually there will be a whole gang of fools bumping into walls. Hard evidence? None. Star Child Hoax is just that -it's in my last book, you know.
And we have this argument that you must declare which UFO origin theory you support. Now, that means if you go into reports you will only look at cases or 'evidence' that supports your theory. This is not scientific in any way. It is a hobbyist outlook.
You can say "I've always thought the Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis was solid" and you can go and select the cases you want. You may make a good case but the evidence has to come from double and triple checked and reliable sources. "John Keel wrote that this case---" Get out, now!
A popular expression amongst Ufologists at the moment is to accuse someone of "attempting to re-invent the UFO wheel" which means that if you have found data bases to be very untrustworthy and want to cooperate with other researchers in building up a more accurate data base, free to all to use as they will, you are "trying to re-invent the UFO wheel". It is very insulting to say the least and I think that is how it is intended to be taken.
You see, if you point out that a data base has flaws in case details, non-existent reference or poor reference sources and a mix of cases from various subjects thaty makes a totally incredibly bad data base and the response is "So what?" You have to wonder how credible those "researchers" are.
When you say fully co-operate and exchange data so everyone has the same data base that each can add to or point out known explanations to referenced cases. It is simple. It is how scientists and researchers co-operate in a study. When some of those researchers state it is not important to have the original source of a case "because blah-blah" didn't need to givev that type of information well....
Yarmouth, June 22, 1957. Three 7 feet tall creatures resembling bananas exiyed from a dome flying saucer and spoke unintelligibly to a farmer before re-entering the flying saucer and departing. Source: private.
Was that true? Who reported it? Has the account been published and if so when, by whom in what publication? Well, hey, this is me so it's a fact, Okay? AND there is a photo (slightly enhanced)
I have been investigating and studying UFO reports and entity-CE IIIK cases since 1974. It took less than a day when I was compiling case data for the AOP UFO study to realise several phenomena were mixed into the bag and so I seperated the reports then, establishing A, B and C.
I went to look for data supporting A -found it.
For B -found plenty.
For C -the misidentifications, hoaxes, false reporting by UFO writers -a great deal of data. Any serious researcher should be able to do that. But in 1983 I was told by the "darling of UK Ufology" "I know this"....but damn if the darling did not carry on ignoring the facts "known". With others I was "too nuts and bolts".
Am I pro-ETH? Am I pro "UFOs of the mind"? Am I pro-cosmic joker or the "Magonia connection"? No. I have ideas and theories but I do not taint the work I do by going and looking for reports to back up my theory. I assess all reports without bias and to try to draw me out and say I support "this" or "that" shows researchers are not being serious.
When I get to the point that I think I have enough data to support a theory then I will publish that theory with fully referenced case sources. In 2016 I am hoping that my work on a theory pertaining to the current abduction nphenomenon will be ready to publish. When it is I expect to be one of the most hated people around.
But if you are a Ufologist, a cryptozoologist, paranormalist or any other kind of "ist" and you are serious then you check every reference source even if it means hours trawling through newspaper archives or musty old books. A report that has not been checked out is a report that should never be used.
Or one day you will realise.....
No comments:
Post a Comment