Relaunched -UFO Contact? Available from 1st September!

World Mysteries Series Launched 1st September!

Available Now -NATURE Series Books!

Unidentified -Identified

I got an email -no comment on the blog though- asking why I had removed the very lengthy post (10 pp in WordDoc) on Abductees and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

In 24 hours it had received 10 views while older posts got far in excess of that number of views.  Why bother?  It will go into my next book.

Another book?  Yes, another one. Unidentified - Identified is not, as you might think from the title, a "let's debunk cases" book.

I never "debunk": what I do is look at the facts and what we know and, if what I find is the solution then I offer it along with references.  This is no cut and paste sensationalistic pack of lies and half-truthsThe X-Files and Dr Who are science fiction/fantasy and not reality.

Unidentified - Identified  will look mainly at alleged UFO incidents and the subject itself. However, if a case arrives on my literal doorstep unannounced I will look at that if it is interesting enough whether UFO or not.

Let me make my own personal opinion clear:

(1)  I do not believe that some alien space craft crashed in Roswell, New Mexico.  Until the 1980s and Charles Berlitz and William Moore wanting a bit of padding for a book no one gave a cuss about the report.  No witnesses came forward and it was established by the early 1950s that the author Frank Scully was either hoaxing or fooled by hoaxers. That is still being argued. No dead aliens.  Then people like Leonard H. Stringfield saw their was "gold" in the subject and there followed report after report on "Retrievals of the Third Kind".  Fake. The National Archives in the United States HAS the Roswell wreckage as described in the famous FBI telex message.  Go see it.

(2) A 19th century flying saucer crash and buried "Martian" at Aurora, Texas. It was established by the 1970s that the whole story was a newspaper hoax at a time when Aurora was another dying little town. Then the flying saucer money-makers saw their chance. If -if- they truly believed what they wrote and talked about then those ufologists were fooled.  But people are people. I tend to be less sympathetic to those who deliberately lie and brush away facts.

(3) I do not believe that the United States Air Force or any of the world's air forces or governments have any crashed "alien space saucers".  At my last count there were supposedly 100+ and all I have to say is this: come on -they have the advanced technology to travel intergalactic space but crash one after another.  That is so ridiculous that I have to sit back in amazement when people say they believe this is real. And the alien bodies (remember these are witnesses of integrity and their back top secret clearance or whatever makes them beyond question as genuine):

Small caskets were ordered from local undertakers because, obviously, the USAF had no access to anyone who could get the wood and cut and then nail it all together. Seriously?

There is a vast cold storage area beneath Wright Patterson AFB for storing the dead aliens.  There was also one under the Empire State Building until the 1970s.  Do not get these confused with the one at Area 51. Or the one in Washington. Or....you get the point?  Now let's not confuse things because we all know (of course) about the living aliens being interrogated in various locations around the United States and Russia.  We know about this because there are only 4-5 individuals operating in the utmost secrecy and if any of them spoke out they would be "terminated".  Oh, come on: we know that should be "Twepped" -"terminated with extreme prejudice" and what sort of intelligence agency employs 4-5 men and cannot find out who blabbed.  Oh, but we have the poor video footage and photographs to back up the claims. Now I look a fool for doubting all of this.

(4) We do know that, for Intelligence created agenda, even veteran USAAF/USAF pilots were ridiculed or treated as poor witnesses after UFO encounters. This may have prompted the so called "Shoot it down" order because then USAF senior officers and their supporters could have given their Intelligence bosses "the finger" and said "There. **** you!" Inter-service rivalry is one thing but there is a bigger war going on in the corridors of power.

We do know that all of this resulted in Intelligence led operations to confuse witness testimony, spy on witnesses and so on -as with Betty and Barney Hill. All of this helped to confuse the Soviet Union over US spy planes, test aircraft and more because the GRU or KGB were not interested in "nut case" flying saucer and contactee reports: they wanted military intelligence info.

In some cases we know that members of the Intelligence community threatened witnesses but, and let us get this out of the way, they did not murder "prominent Ufologists.  Sadly, people in all walks of life get ill and die -some suddenly.  Some suffer from depression and at a time when you never talked openly about this and people noting "changes" would assume "something was going on.  He was less talkative, snappy".  People suffering depression do commit suicide.

Sudden deaths -with the Anomalous Observational Phenomena Bureau two leading supporters died within months of one another.  Then another died. Dave Cowdy (an AOP B member) died of a massive heart attack. Later Franklyn A. Davin-Wilson, after a speedy recovery from a kidney operation, died suddenly of a heart attack.

The supporters who died suddenly were in their late 70's and early 80's and cause of deaths were natural -various health problems and complications.  Dave Cowdy had suffered from ill health but (we are talking late 1970s) had an undiagnosed heart condition.  Franklyn had died due to a blood clot: back in 1983 Warfarin was not routinely dispensed to prevent blood clotting after operations.

It is despicable in the extreme to start using the deaths of individuals as part of your warped theory or lies to sell books.  These were people with wives, children, parents who grieved and for them to read the sort of thing being written about their loved one's death.  Disgraceful.

(5) I have never had any problems when it came to UFOs and police forces or the Ministry of Defence, RAF, Royal Navy or Army. In fact, they have all been quite helpful over the last 40 years!  I recognise that certain military operations are sensitive for one reason or another and my interest is getting to the bottom of a report not sticking my nose into military matters or things they might be working on. "Is it worth me digging into this report more?" usually gets a response like "Well you won't find any aliens" and that is enough because their is a certain "code" with conversations and that backed up by what I would have already discovered before any conversation is enough.

I treat MoD officials (with a certain exception and he should know who he is) with the respect that I expect from them.  In the case of the 1980s Ghost Lear Jet (reported on in Some Things Strange & Sinister) I had come to a dead end and then received a telephone call from the MoD section dealing with Search & Rescue -that call opened up the case for me.

The MoD got copies of my UFO investigation reports. I expected no correspondence from this. I have made it clear and open since the 1970's that if any government department including the MoD wanted to know about my UFO work or conclusions they just had to ask -after all, they are covered by the Data Protection Act so they are not going to go blurting things out to newspapers or reporters!

(6) Hoyt S. Vandenbergh and the alleged UFO "Situation Report" (1948) that he ordered destroyed. In 1946, he was briefly the U.S. Chief of Military Intelligence and to say to his superiors that there were things flying in US airspace, over military bases and out-flying their best interceptors and no one had any idea what theses things were or came from but they were not Soviet...not good. So he destroyed the report because it confirmed extra terrestrial craft were involved. That is what we are told by people who report gossip and fit it into their own agenda but have never seen the report.

It comes down to whether the report actually stated "It's aliens!" which I was told it did not. From what we know (there was still rumoured to be a copy of the report in 1980 because all copies were not destroyed) those compiling the report looked at information available and the Soviets could be ruled out as could any other power. Meteorological and astronomical solutions/theories were looked at. The idea that this was superior technology not from this Earth might have been considered -at the time it probably seemed the best solution. Situation Reports offer "options" and facts because that is what they are for and they are advisory.

Major General C. P. Cabell, USAF Director of Intelligence wrote, in a note to the Comming Officer of Air Material Command on 3rd November, 1948:

"The conclusion appears inescapable that some type of flying object has been observed. Identification and the origin of these objects is not discernible to this Headquarters. It is imperative, therefore, that efforts to determine whether these objects are of domestic or foreign origin must be increased until conclusive evidence is obtained. The needs of national defense require such evidence in order that appropriate countermeasures may be taken."

And that is the point: evidence to back up any proposed solution to the question of "what they are". To say to the President of the United States, the Commander-In-Chief: "Sir: it's all little green men" is, and let's under state things here, career suicide. No evidence, no defence against and after all these are flying saucers from outer space.  "Ah, General -you need a very long vacation. Permanent".

As with the British MoD -in fact as in every walk of life from bakers to pub owners and even policemen and scientists- the USAF probably had those who were on the fence about the origin of UFOs, others probably thought they came from space and the others were just downright dismissive of all the UFO and alien bunkum. Each person will decide where they stand and just how vocal they are and even being in a senior positions does not mean you are impervious to jokes having your career put on hold if you shout "UFOs are from outer space!"

People are people.

(7) There is a military-alien alliance or that aliens are in control and get a free hand in abducting people. This is a joke. "We" are shooting them (UFOs) down.  "We" have their craft and alien bodies. It goes on and on.  Yet they (aliens) are in command walking all over us.  Give me a break.

(8) I do not believe, based on the lack of any real evidence, in David Jacobs' "mass alien (Grey) abduction" paranoia.  As I have written on this blog as well as my book, UFO Contact?, Jacobs lost the plot somewhere -and I state that as someone who strongly supported his and Budd Hopkins' work. Now you can dismiss my stance but if you do so without even reading why I believe this then that just shows a closed mind -something UFO believers accuse everyone else of.

Ufologists needing to be "silenced" is a joke. I once met a military man and we talked about this and he chuckled and responded: "No one needs to silence them. They fight amongst each other as well as lie and cheat to get one up on each other!"  This is true.  In the UK it was around twenty years ago that the lid blew off British Ufology and the fact that well known ufologists were faking UFO reports and photographs but even after that there was no out-and-out re-organisation because ufology lost its true purpose back in the early 1990s. Any real research is carried out by private individuals of varying degrees of competence.

Ufology, cryptozoology and all the other "ologies" are all just fan clubs practicing self deceit or some form of fraud that keeps them promoting  incidents and cases proven -proven- 20, 30, 40 or 60 byears ago to be fake/hoaxes or were explained.  All thrown out because the slick-haired media darlings are on to a money-earner.  Captain Thomas Mantell was not killed by a UFO: it was a tragic accident and the facts clearly show that.

To be honest I want to get to the truth. If I cannot explain something then I will say so and I will even ask that anyone who does have a solution gets in contact with me.  

New Imprints Launched 1st September

After re-organising the online store it was decided that Black Tower Comics & Graphic Novels would be treated as a separate imprint from the company.

The re-organisation has led to the following imprints being created and which will launch on 1st September, 2018:

Nature Series -Wildlife related books

World Mysteries -encompassing everything from the paranormal, cryptozoology, ufology and more.

Technical Study Books -the first is UFO Contact? and would be considered far more in depth (at 500+pp) on subject matter.

All of the books -Some Things Strange & Sinister   Some MORE Things Strange & Sinister   Pursuing The Strange and Weird   The Truth About Spring Heeled Jack and Mysterious Beasts & Creatures - have had re-writes to some degree and extra photographs and other images added and all carry the "World Mysteries" logo.

More information on 1st September.

UFO Abductees and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder

   

It is important to first look at the symptoms of PTSD before looking at how they affect the percipient(s).  The following is taken from the UK National Health Service advisory on the subject:

Symptoms -Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)

The symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) can have a significant impact on your day-to-day life.

In most cases, the symptoms develop during the first month after a traumatic event. However, in a minority of cases, there may be a delay of months or even years before symptoms start to appear.

Some people with PTSD experience long periods when their symptoms are less noticeable, followed by periods where they get worse. Other people have constant, severe symptoms.

The specific symptoms of PTSD can vary widely between individuals, but generally fall into the categories described below.

Re-experiencing

Re-experiencing is the most typical symptom of PTSD. This is when a person involuntarily and vividly re-lives the traumatic event in the form of:

Flashbacks

Nightmares

Repetitive and distressing images or sensations

Physical sensations – such as pain, sweating, nausea or trembling

Some people have constant negative thoughts about their experience, repeatedly asking themselves questions that prevent them from coming to terms with the event.

For example, they may wonder why the event happened to them and if they could have done anything to stop it, which can lead to feelings of guilt or shame.

Avoidance and emotional numbing

Trying to avoid being reminded of the traumatic event is another key symptom of PTSD. This usually means avoiding certain people or places that remind you of the trauma, or avoiding talking to anyone about your experience.

Many people with PTSD try to push memories of the event out of their mind, often distracting themselves with work or hobbies.

Some people attempt to deal with their feelings by trying not to feel anything at all. This is known as emotional numbing. This can lead to the person becoming isolated and withdrawn, and they may also give up pursuing activities they used to enjoy.

Hyperarousal (feeling 'on edge')

Someone with PTSD may be very anxious and find it difficult to relax. They may be constantly aware of threats and easily startled. This state of mind is known as hyperarousal.

Hyperarousal often leads to:

Irritability

Angry outbursts

Sleeping problems (insomnia)

Difficulty concentrating

Other problems

Many people with PTSD also have a number of other problems, including:

other mental health problems – such as depression, anxiety or phobias

self-harming or destructive behaviour – such as drug misuse or alcohol misuse

other physical symptoms – such as headaches, dizziness, chest pains and stomach aches

PTSD sometimes leads to work-related problems and the breakdown of relationships.

   Having looked into these reports Alien Entity/Close Encounters of the Third Kind (CE3K) events since 1974 several things have struck me.

   The first is that in most CE3K cases a witness might see a UFO and entity nearby or even looking out of the ‘craft’ but these are brief events of several seconds to minutes.  The witnesses are shocked, dumbfounded by what they have seen and this can affect them.  Remember that, since childhood, most people see the TV news or newspaper “funny flying saucer” stories: “They ain’t real.  It’s all cranks and hoaxers!” A lot of the witnesses will even state that they joined in, some quite vocally, this “UFO nut jobs” name calling.

   Everyday life goes on.  You go to bed at night and get up early the next morning for work.  You might meet a neighbour or friend before leaving for work and catch up on the local gossip.  You drive/cycle to work and have a busy or quiet day with the usual breaks and chats and looking at the clock waiting for the time when you quit work. A chat after leaving work and then you drive/cycle for home. Rain, sunshine or snowy it is a day like any other and you know your route like the back of your hand.  Then you take that blind turn in the road or go past the row of trees that block your view.

   Then it happens (1).

   The car either stops by itself through some electro magnetic effect or you stop it. If you are on a cycle you just stop. You ask yourself “What the hell is that on the roadside?”  Even with a basic knowledge you are aware that this is not a landed helicopter.  It most certainly is not an aircraft –crashed or otherwise. You might even think that you have stumbled onto some type of experimental aircraft. You try to rationalise what you are seeing but there is an almost whispering internal voice and it tells you “That is a flying saucer/UFO!”

   Even at that stage you try to fight that notion off.  “Flying saucers do not exist.  This is the sort of thing that’s made all those people look like chumps for years.  It’s an air force ‘thing’ –maybe even a NASA craft!”  Yes, you ‘know’ that is what it is.  And you would have told everyone you had seen a “UFO” and been made to look a real nut.

   Then it happens (2).

   You might notice that there is a window of some type on the object. And you also notice one or more figures and they are watching you. Alternatively, you may notice a doorway and perhaps a ramp that extends to the ground.  You then see one or more figures and one or all of them may notice you but continue up the ramp but whichever scenario, after a few seconds the object shoots up into the sky and is gone in seconds.

   You panic and that is only normal and head for home.  Once in the safety of your own home you may laugh and even call yourself a few names for being so dumb and thinking you had seen a “flying saucer”.  Today you might Google search for images of aircraft similar to what you saw.  Perhaps even go online and see if anyone else saw the downed aircraft but you cannot find anything –but some dope has reported seeing a “UFO” at around the same time.

   You might tell a close friend or family member and they advise you to “be quiet about this –people will think you are crazy and you might lose your job!”  It does not really matter because from that day on what you saw will stick in your mind and you will repeatedly ask yourself “What did I see?”

   In some cases, out of a sense of public responsibility, witnesses will contact the local police and report that something must have crashed at such-and-such a location but took off again. The witness might see a smirk on the police officer’s face or a couple of policemen may even joke “You seen a UFO, mate!” It happens.  The witness might get quite stroppy and make it clear they are seriously reporting an unexpected aircraft landing and get really angry at the suggestion of a “UFO”.  For many that is an end to the matter.

   Some will remain angry that they reported the ‘crash’ but received smirks and jokes. At this point it might be that they think “It’s a cover-up!”  Yes, that is what it was: an experimental military aircraft or even NASA test vehicle landed for some reason and they will not admit it –the US military want it all played down as a jokey ‘UFO’ story. The witness will then accept that theory and wait for the next generation of stealth aircraft or NASA shuttle to appear so they can say: “I knew it!”

   The other type of witness knows that what they saw was not a NASA (never European Space Agency!) test shuttle or military prototype. They will ponder what they saw and break down the sighting piece by piece and go over each piece and try to think of a logical explanation.

   Some witnesses do not need to do this internal analysis as what they saw they know full well is “not from here”.  Even that phrase “not from here”, one I have heard and read so many times over the decades, is the witness not wanting to state outright, actually vocalize what they think.  “From outer space” are words they want to blurt out but a fist keeps ramming the words back.  After all, if you say “I believe that it was from outer space” aren’t you really just screaming out “It was little green men” and that in and of itself might label you a “nut case”.

   This is the problem. Even if a witness is one who has worked in the field of aerospace technology development, even at the most highest and secure levels, and knows that “We” do not have anything even remotely like what he/she saw and was like “pure science fiction” you will find they do not want to utter those words “I believe that it was from outer space”

   Why not?  The decades of jokes and stigma to having seen a flying saucer and knowing how previous witnesses were treated, perhaps even by themselves?  We are not discussing the LITS (Lights In The Sky) observer who probably saw a satellite or space debris and declares on the local TV news and media: “I saw an extra terrestrial space ship!”  We are discussing intelligent men and women who were within 10-100 feet (3-30 metres) of a solid, obviously constructed object that was seen in near perfect viewing conditions.  These are people who saw and realised that there was “no way that this belonged to the Russians or Americans” and “If we had anything like that we’d be going back and forth to the Moon not to mention Mars!”

   Proof.  Even having seen what they did you will find the witnesses saying things such as “I will say this: I believe absolutely that what I saw was not from this Earth. It could have come from nowhere on this planet” and they will add: “but I cannot prove it. I saw it clearly. I can describe every detail I saw but even if you believe that I am sincere and genuine what do you have? Someone who said they saw ‘something’ –but what?”

   The witnesses who say that, of course, are quite correct.  They are sane, rational, everyday people with regular occupations but on just this one occasion they saw something that they will never forget.  Some may well be psychologically traumatised (but hide this) by having their entire world view destroyed in a very brief time period. It may then occur to the investigator who is listening, but hopefully also keeping an eye on the witness’ body language and facial expressions, that, yes, the object described is interesting –but what about the entities sighted?

   Here you see a pattern of almost anti-logic creeping in. The witness has analysed everything they saw and will state “it’s like nothing we have on Earth” and they will even reinforce that with “I don’t care whether you believe me or think I am mad: I saw it. It was real. It was not from here”.  The next question put will receive a shrug and silence or a “Well…” and even, despite their firmly stated belief in the reality of what they saw: “Well, I wonder whether I imagined that”.  Even Rev. Gill in one of his last interviews was stumped for words and just said “These…these beings” because “beings” is a neutral word and he and other witnesses at Boianni never thought of “space beings” but that they were seeing experimental US aircraft and crews –they even thought they might land so prepared in case they were hungry.

   If you see a craft that you are adamant is not from here then it has to be from elsewhere but for many witnesses that entails admitting they saw “aliens”.  They saw actual living creatures from some other world and that, psychologically, is one step too far. For those who accept that this is what they saw it still has an impact but “it happened” so get on with life.

   In my work UFO Contact? I pointed out that during my early years in Ufology there were the “space brother” contactees and none seemed to have anything in the way of evidence to back up their claims. Yet Arthur Bryant, despite all of the exposed fraud involved, was still believed.  George Adamski was still believed to be genuine and the British Flying Saucer Bureau, even in the 1980s, refused to consider any report that did not match up with what Adamski claimed or wrote about –after all, a former editor of the prestigious Flying Saucer Review, Desmond Leslie, had backed up what Adamski claimed.  An artist’s illustration of a CE3K event on the front cover of the BFSB’s UFO News Bulletin was removed without even telling me, the editor, and replaced with a typical Adamski flying saucer drawing.  Why was this done? Quite simply because the BFSB committee almost had a collective stroke that I had dared to feature such an image: “believing in these silly reports willonly destroy your credibility, Terry. Now, when we met Adamski…”

   I once lost my temper at a UFO investigator after picking up the phrase “that thing” in the written witness account of a UFO sighting.  I asked what “that thing” was –the account made no sense and something seemed to be missing.  I was told that the witness had mentioned seeing a dark shape (against an illuminated saucer shaped object) moving around and I asked more forcibly what he meant as he was skirting around the subject.  “A little green man.  I told him (witness) not to mention that in the report as he’d be called a loony”.  The witness had not described a literal “little Green Man” but a short humanoid type but the investigator decided people would not take his report seriously if the witness described seeing an “alien”. I told him that he had no credibility as an investigator as he had falsified a report and actually stopped the witness from referring to or describing what was seen.  I decided to contact the witness who declared no longer being interested in talking to any investigator.  A report was lost.

   I know of similar cases. If a witness reports a sighting/encounter then everything should be recorded and for many years UFO investigators decided that AE cases were not to be taken seriously –in some cases they were taken as sensationalist tid-bits to exploit for their own ends. This I have referred to in my book UFO Contact? In that work I also referred to the incidents involving Jessie Roestenberg (Staffordshire, 1954), Madame. Leboeuf (France, 1954) and even Robert Taylor (Scotland, 1979) and their attitudes towards their close encounters as well as that of others were summed up by Taylor with the words: “It’s a thing that happens and you get back on with your life”.

   To their dying day these witnesses (whether publicly known or not) will not detract their accounts or change them in any way. The memory was imbedded and though, like the Rev. Gill (Papua New Guinea, 1957), they cannot explain or find the answer to what they saw but “It happened”.  There is no doubt that, privately, these witnesses must have realised that if they saw what would be termed an alien space craft then anyone/thing aboard would also have to be alien.

   Some, naturally, but not logically, will accept the rather stupid claim that “If you see a UFO, even for a second and next minute –whoosh!- it has flown off: you were abducted. You see a light moving oddly about the sky –any UFO: you were abducted!”  Some will remember looking at their watches or clocks –every minute accounted for but after that, anything unusual –bad sleep, tired eyes or even a bruise that they can’t remember how they got: all fall into the “you saw a UFO and you were abducted” hysteria.  In these cases investigators just have to reassure witnesses that it is coincidental and that there is no evidence of any alien abduction.

   All of this would provide a psychologist with enough material for a technical paper and that would be important because we need to look more at the psychological impact upon these witnesses. They are not “loonies”/”nut-cases” or “a bit dim and just never recognised Venus or illumination from a lighthouse”.  These were people who, if their accounts are true and that is after all why there are supposed to be investigators, had their world views kicked away.

   If this is what a witness goes through after they see a landed craft and occupant(s) –even if no contact/communication took place- then what of those people who were percipients in an actual physical encounter.

   We like to keep edging away from declaring that a person or persons encountered alien beings from some other planet.  Persons such as Jacques Vallee believe that it would be “disappointing and prosaic” if alien intelligences were involved and veer off into fantasy theories lacking any evidence.  Others similarly declare UFOs are actually some form of time travel vehicle and those in the time travellers.  Then there are those who believe “It’s all paranormal and psychic phenomena” and they have been joined in recent years by those who theorise we are seeing visitors from “the multiverse” –other dimensional planes of existence.  Excluding the fantasy fringe we are still dealing with people who will declare one or other of these theories of UFO origin is “best explained by” whichever they think is popular at the time. However, it is very clear that a great many have no real understanding of the theory.

   Theory is the operative word here; there is a theory –several in fact- regarding how time travel might take place but then you get into the argument of “How do you go to a time that no longer exists?” and “How do you travel to a future that does not yet exist?”  You can also get into the argument about why future Homo sapiens would travel back to our time and then ask stupid questions and do things that, to humans, make no sense.

   The multiverse is another great theory but no one has yet proven that it exists physically and even if it did there is no idea who or what might live in these multiple universes.

   We have to go with what our current state of knowledge can tell us.  We know that there are many galaxies and we also know that these contain solar systems that include planetary systems. These are hard facts proven by science. We also now know that water is not just confined to the Earth which means that as far as life as we know it is concerned, the essentials exist. Life elsewhere might not require water but let’s not dive off into exobiology and theorising: everything we know points to the fact that there is no logical reason why there should not be intelligent life elsewhere. We just have not officially encountered any alien life yet.

   We may be missing their signals because it does not conform to what we know. Both the late Franklyn A. Davin-Wilson and I while at the Anomalous Observational Phenomena Bureau (AOPB), looked at reported and recorded mysterious signals from space from the early 1900s on.  We could find (rather I since before the conclusion of the project Franklyn had passed away) nothing that remotely indicated genuine alien communication –we have learnt of quasars and many other astronomical objects that make detectible noise and that includes the planets in our own solar system.

   From the 1950s on the French adopted the right attitude toward UFO investigation, as explained in my work.  Reports were investigated by Air Police as well as gendarmes and any trace evidence recorded, tested and data released.  This was the correct scientific way; get real investigators who dealt with people all the time and knew what to look for in a truthful witness and gather evidence and this could then be looked at by scientists with any interest. 

   The shame is that the United States decided that deceit in these cases was best to conceal their own intelligence operations and military testing.  In the United Kingdom the shame is that stuffy men who were not particularly imaginative enough to realise what this sort of investigation could achieve, decided to play the “It will cost money and all this ‘Men from Mars’ stuff will make us look daft”.

   The other shame is that men of science threw their lot in with this behaviour rather than doing what scientists should do: Investigate/Research and then Conclude with a summation of evidence and facts. Some times classifying ourselves as Homo sapiens seems more an ego boost than factual.

   Going by just what we know then there is only one real conclusion that can be drawn and, yes, even I keep edging away from this because I want to see an alien craft land in Hyde Park and aliens step out and get filmed by every CCTV camera and mobile phone in sight.  But that has not happened. If every attempt has been made to discredit percipients and all that is achieved is except in the closed minded sceptics, the percipients’ case becomes stronger then we have to go with that.  We have to say that the mostly likely, only real credible, origin for UFOs is extra terrestrial and we keep looking until we get the solid evidence needed.

   If we simply had to go by what was retrieved from the memories of Betty and Barney Hill (New Hampshire, 1961) under hypnosis then the case could be dismissed.  However, there is secondary evidence (anecdotal or otherwise) that backs up their UFO encounter claim. Charles Hickson and Calvin Parker (Pascagoula, 1973) both endured the name-calling and claims of hoaxing and lying yet their case remains solid and even today Parker still suffers from being called “that guy that got abducted by aliens!”  Travis Walton (Arizona, 1975) faced the consequences of his claims and endured the same rough treatment, and still does.  He just decided to get on with it and accept what happened and talk more openly.  Maurice Masse (Valensole, 1965) had his encounter, panicked and rushed into the village where he blurted out his account to someone who then put the word out.  Masse was hounded by the press as well as ufologists and in some cases there behaviour was less than respectful; he told no one what had gone on during his encounter and died without revealing more.

   There was the case of Smith, Thomas and Stafford (Kentucky, 1976) in which the women did not want to be identified and were suffering physical symptoms after their encounter.  The behaviour of ufologists was disgraceful: not just breach of any standard of investigation procedure but no one seemed to care much about getting the women medical check-ups despite those ufologists involved having medical doctors as members of their organisations.  There was no form of psychological assessment of the trio who were blatantly displaying the behaviour of traumatised individuals.  Get the story and then sell the book and after…well, once you had all the details what use are the percipients.

   In the Kentucky case, that of Betty and Barney Hill, Masse and Hickson and Parker and others I looked into it was shocking to find that the only reason we knew of their encounters was because their confidences had been betrayed and their names made public.  The percipients did not want publicity and tended to shy away from it unless their ‘friendly’ ufologist suggested it was for a greater good. And after exposure came a ufological version of throwing someone to the lions. I have to make it clear that not all ufologists behaved that way.

   It is a quandary: these cases are fascinating and important and yet we only know of them because of breaches in trust and confidentiality.  When it is claimed that the Hills were the first recorded alien abductees it is a nonsense in a way but the emphasis should be on the first recorded.  Society had moved on slightly by the 1960s and there is a case that can be argued for there having been known “alien abductions” in the 1950s.  In an era when “silly little green men” and flying saucers were ridiculed as part of political/intelligence community policy how many people would have claimed that they had encountered an alien space craft and aliens –and to whom would they have reported the encounter?

   When you go back to that list of PTSD symptoms and tick them off one by one when reading about abductees and how it affected them then you clearly see that they suffered PTSD.  These percipients were not merely (“merely”!) claiming to have seen a landed UFO and an entity or entities for a few seconds or a couple of minutes: they are claiming to have directly interacted with them in an involuntary way. Many try to describe the moment they realise that an object they have sighted turned toward them or even seemed to divert course and follow their vehicle. They struggle.  When it comes to their vehicle stopping or even being seemingly remotely controlled they again struggle. When it comes to whatever process was used to take them on board the object there is the same struggle to explain emotions and this also applies to their actual encountering of an AE and what happens next.

   It is true that some will describe extreme fear –are they going to be killed and dissected or ‘tortured’ in some way?  They will try to explain the gut-wrenching fear and some even stating that they suddenly think that it is possible that they will never see their loved ones again; what will their families think –an accident and their bodies just haven’t been found?  I know of two cases where those involved involuntarily urinated through fear; quite natural but when asking other investigators about this the very thought of even asking a percipient about that aspect is a step too far.  Indeed, it is not very likely that a percipient will tell a stranger that they were so terrified that they urinated themselves.

   Even later on some percipients will even play down their initial fear with “I know I was being silly” and, of course, they were not being silly and it is good to see that some investigators explain to percipients that it was not silly.  If CE3K witnesses have their world views kicked out violently then just imagine a percipient in a UFO abduction situation.  They did not just see a UFO and AEs at a distance: they were followed, stopped, taken aboard the UFO and then in physical contact with AEs –even undergoing some form of physical examination. Not just that but they receive some form of memory block that is designed to make them forget much of the experience.

   If we have people making these claims, especially ones who do not want publicity or to be named in any way and they appear to be sincere and suffering physiological and psychological symptoms that suggest something really did happen what should be done?  Firstly, there needs to be an initial investigation to gather details and see whether the percipient appears genuine.  Secondly, any physiological symptoms need to be medically assessed as soon as possible and really by this point there should be a psychologist or mental health professional involved because these are traumatised people. Ideally, someone with mental health training should be with the initial investigation team so that throughout the investigation there is a friendly face.

   There should never even be consideration of the use of regression hypnosis until it is assessed that the percipient is psychologically and physically fit.  Every avenue needs to be explored in attempting to help a percipient recover blocked memories without the use of hypnosis.  It may indeed take longer to get details about what happened but the percipient and their psychological health and well being must be seen as the most important aspect of the case.

   It is also very important that the percipient can contact someone connected with the investigation whether a year or two years down the road. They are unlikely to have a second or third encounter but ufology has to accept that it cannot expect a percipient to give everything and to hell with the consequences: juicy story and details and then done. There is a responsibility and if an investigator or organisation cannot accept that responsibility then it is not “fit for purpose”.

   With the Hills, Parker and Hickson et al many ufologists used kind words, got what they wanted then moved on; they did not even offer moral support to beleagured percipients thus adding more trauma.  There are shameful events in ufology’s past and present and these are in many cases beyond being rectified: it should be possible, however, to instigate some form of short term study by psychologists with an interest in ufology to draw up a “how to” plan for future cases and, possibly, look at the past evidence and produce a psychological assessment of percipients in alien abduction cases.

   That would at least begin to show that the subject is being looked at seriously and using scientific methodology. If what we call “the Modern Age of Ufology” began in 1947 then in 70 years we have to ask why we have not got it right yet and why science is still not taking the subject seriously –it all comes back to ufology.

Recent Comments

Firstly, thank you if you recently left a comment. It is very much appreciated.

When it comes to Ghost Adventures, however, there is little chance that I am going to venture down that path again.  I noticed that they recently jumped onto the Skinwalker Ranch fakery with a trip to "Skinwalker Valley".

Hey, a TV company wants to pay to do a few shows on these things I have no problem with that. But most of the existing TV shows lost credibility long ago.

Unless you can analyze the heck out of data you have recorded then what's the point? Even EVP (Electronic Voice Phenomenon) -things have moved on tech wise since I was involved in the 1970s/1980s.

Believe what you want to believe.

Books Launching 1st September, 2018

On the 1st September, 2018, I will be publishing the up-dated versions of the following books under the World Mysteries imprint:

The Bizarre Legend, Crimes and Truth about Spring Heeled Jack

Some Things Strange & Sinister

Some More Things Strange & Sinister

Pursuing the Strange and Weird: A Naturalist's Viewpoint

"World Mysteries" was chosen as the books are not classed as solely cryptozoological, Ufological, paranormal or whatever. They cover all of these and more from around the world.

UFO Contact? is in a separate category of its own since the intention was that this be a technical paper that got kind of out of hand!

Mysterious & Strange Beasts is also covered by the World Mysteries imprint.

The Girt Dog of Ennerdale and The Red Paper: Canids are all classed under the Nature imprint

Cruisers of the Clouds comes under the History imprint, naturally.

The Girt Dog of Ennerdale -Up-date

A4

42 pages (previously 34pp)

Paperback

B&W

Price: £10.00 (excl. VAT)Prints in 3-5 business days

http://www.lulu.com/shop/terry-hooper-scharf/the-girt-dog-of-ennerdale/paperback/product-23742643.html

Over 200 years ago, in 1810, sheep were being killed in the Ennerdale area of Cumbria. The sheep were allegedly hardly eaten yet their blood had been drained and the killer responsible thwarted the efforts of organised hunts and terrified hounds.

What was the “Girt Dog” of Ennerdale? Many theories abound from a paranormal creature called a “Mauler” to an escaped hyena , Tiger or even a Thylacine. Perhaps an unknown species of native British big cat?
The truth of what the “Girt Dog” was lies within the original accounts of the time. Documents that modern writers appear to have never consulted.
Noted British naturalist Terry Hooper-Scharf assesses the evidence.

This up-dated work contains new photographs, illustrations and maps as well as a look at how later newspapers reported the facts.

They Are Just Me "Thinking At Random"

Which is how I would describe a lot of my posts!

Fake Moon Landings? Ancient Astronauts?

I prefer to not get too bogged down on one subject. I always maintain a healthy interest that means I will look for case updates or new video clips.  If someone suggests a breakthrough in one particular subject then I will check to see what their evidence is or if they are merely flapping their gums.

I was asked by a reporter about "the faked Moon landings" and I stopped him immediately and pointed out that the Moon landings were not faked and every argument that they were is based on stupidity and not knowing fact from fiction.  The remnants of the old Apollo missions have been photographed on the Lunar surface by space probes.  I even posted a video on the AOP Face Book page in which someone systematically tears up the theory. The response? "Well it's a bit of free publicity--"

I put the phone down.

Just as all the arguments from the ancient astronauts crew can be dismissed -again I posted on the AOP FB page a long video that tore the "This needed super advanced technology" to build theory to pieces.

Let me explain.  Back in the 1970s I asked Carl Sagan about UFOs and ancient astronauts and so on. Very brief exchange. The response echoed one he had made publicly; there is no reason why some advanced extra terrestrial civilization might not have visited Earth in the past. There was just no physical evidence. Cite every cave drawing and petroglyph/hieroglyph you want it is not evidence of any extra terrestrial visitation in the past.  For one thing we know what a lot of these things mean or that they are related to religious beliefs but as no early Man/Woman wrote down everything (well, the glyphs ARE them writing stuff down!) so that we know "this" represented the sun or moon gods or the god of animals etc., we base our research on what we already know.

The Star Child skull I dealt with in Pursuing the Strange and Weird: A Naturalist's Viewpoint and, no, I will not tell you what I concluded -buy the book it took a lot of hard work to put together!  That said, if you use the Star Child Skull in your pro-early ET visitors claims: you lose.

There seems to be almost a mental block with people today.  Almost as though no one reads books, research papers or looks into anything themselves. What someone tells you on You Tube is not necessarily factual and though there are some superb science channels that is still not all you need to know.  We are Homo sapiens ("wise man") and we have brains we should use.

Yes, you will learn on You Tube that there is evidence pointing to a lineage of Welsh kings and there is an Arthur and Arthur II. When I pointed this out to some Welsh people I was asked "So what?" I explained that there was a great wealth of Welsh history re-written by English conquerors -their heritage. They were more excited by Beyonce and JayZ getting married.  The common response from people toward history is "Why should I care about what happened back then?"

In the 650s the Dark Ages  came.  Now, again on You Tube you will find a claim that "a comet struck Britain" and there was an exodus to Ireland and Europe.  Well, if a comet or fragments of a comet hit Britain no one would be packing up to leave!  In fact, it seems as though the culprit that brought on the virtual "nuclear winter" was a massive volcanic eruption in Indonesia.

There is "The Great (New England) Darkness" of May, 1780, dealt with in Some More Things Strange & Sinister, had a number of theories put forward but the likeliest (it seems almost proven) seems to be a huge fire.  Remember that, in 2018, California fires resulted in smoke reaching as far as New York some 3000 miles away. https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1002982/California-wildfire-latest-smoke-new-york-city-california-fires In the 650s (AD) there was no satellite, phone or other system of communication  between remote parts of the globe. Volcanic dust -not a comet striking Britain- brought about the Dark Ages.

At one time it was thought that pyramids in Egypt were built using hundreds of thousands of slaves who laboured away and died in droves. That was still being claimed by speakers at UFO events in the 1980s to prove ET intervention. Our knowledge through archaeology, research and investigation has told us how the pyramids were built -mini towns of skilled workers and labourers including people working constantly to keep copper tools sharpened.  We know the rations of food and beer allocated to workers.  No aliens.  No levitation machines. These Ancient Astronaut bunko men rely on people taking their word on "it was impossible for a hundred men to move that stone" because if you have read a real book by a real archaeologist or even a TV programme that is factual you would be asking the bunko boys for your money back.

We are where we are today because of our ancestors and the civilisations from Sumer, Egypt, Babylon, Maya, Inca and even Amazonian (maybe even some waiting to be discovered) and what they achieved. In Amazonia the cities were lost to vegetation after diseases introduced by Europeans wiped the peoples out -pure fantasy...but now science and archaeology have proven those cities existed.

Humans managed to reach the Moon.  Men with a lot of guts sitting on huge 'bombs' that were to blast them into space.  Some died.  Some almost died -remember Apollo 13?  There was even a movie if that helps.  None of this was faked in a studio by Stanley Kubrick and if you truly believe that you definitely need the help of a psychiatrist.

Belittling the achievements of our ancestors and brave men in recent history is like spitting in your own face. It is almost as though Humankind has reached an IQ blockage in a certain percentage of the population.

This is how it should be done.  You discover a strange body, mummified with deformities then that needs to be studied and really ought to be put back where it was found later. "It's human with a deformity" and that is an end to it and screaming about a cover-up just makes you look daft.

You discover an artefact or strange petro/hieroglyphs then make them known.  Let the experts in the field study them.  Again, the fact that it probably has nothing to do with aliens does not diminish any interest in the find. There are, however, so many faked "alien artefacts" from tractor and digger parts to faked little amulets that it is hard to keep up with it all.

Citing the 'research' of someone who has done no real research but is something of a crank does not help your case.  If you want to live in a fantasy world where The X-Files, Dr Who and lords know what else are mish-mashed together then no problem.  Just keep it to yourself.

If you have evidence of a claim then stamping your foot and saying "I'm not letting you see -it's mine!" means you have nothing. Evidence should be looked at by people from whichever discipline is best and the results double-checked.  It is called "peer review" and if Melba Ketchum had been serious about Bigfoot DNA testing that is what she should have done -not produce a nonsense that made anyone really interested in scientific study back away.

When talking to UFO witnesses, if I found an explanation for what they sighted, the most common reaction I got was "Oh I'm so sorry. I feel such a fool now and I have wasted your time!" No. I have had to point out repeatedly that they should not be embarrassed nor feel they have wasted my time because even these cases tell me something -how and why a person saw what they did and the circumstances and conditions that make them think they had seen something inexplicable -it all helps in any real study.  So, no, I do not feel my time was wasted.

You have to look at everything without bias.  You have to investigate, research and, if possible, try to create the circumstances in a case.  Talk to people. Yes, a hundred, two hundred cases may be filed away under some classification or other but you learn and that could eventually lead to a case that stumps you.  Something completely unexplained today -maybe even discovering a new species.

Just do not belittle any of Humankind's past (ancient or more recent) achievements and expect me to jump onto the band wagon for "publicity".

Blasting Ufology....Don't Even Get Me Started

I was asked whether I was not being a bit hard on Ufology in my post yesterday. No. Believe me, if I wanted to tear a new hole in a certain UFO organisation I could and that would be citing many references.

I had hoped that UFO Contact? might give Ufology a bit of a wake up call.  Seriously, I doubt beating these people over the head with a baseball bat would get a reaction. Let's look at a few home truths here.

If you want to contact, say, the Mutual UFO Network (MUFON) do not look at their official site.  You will find a link to complete an online UFO sighting form.  You will find a prominent link to make a donation.  There is even a link for the media -now that is very important. I remember a time when you could find the contact details of MUFON directors and other 'staffers' easily. To actually track down someone who is "in charge" you need to do what I had to do: track them down via social media!

Then you have to remember that you are not just a witness to an event as far as these groups are concerned: you are a commercial commodity.  Firstly, "Why don't you subscribe to our journal?" Then, if the sighting is good enough well, you could get pushed forward as part of one of their media pushes -and if you know what is going on then you know this is going on.

Now, yesterday, I spent over an hour watching what MUFON calls "The Best MUFON UFO Video Submissions Of 2018. (January - April)" -with comments muted.  It is 1 hour 21 mins of out of focus/in focus clips of Chinese lanterns, balloons, aircraft, stars and even lightning so no wonder comments were disable.  Any scientist seriously thinking about looking at the evidence will see that video, laugh out loud and think "kooks!"

"MUFON’s goal is to study, track and gather data on daily UFO encounters from around the world.

“As the world's oldest and largest UFO phenomenon investigative body we aim to be the inquisitive minds' refuge seeking answers to that most ancient question, ‘Are we alone in the universe?’”

And the UFO media darlings tend to resemble and give off the air of used car salesmen and bunko men. The will cite the "solid cases" endlessly -

Thomas Mantell who did not die chasing an extraterrestrial space ship.  It was a tragic accident and all the facts are openly known and have been since at least the 1960s -the truth was known in the 1950s but promoted as a UFO incident.

The Aurora UFO crash never happened. It has been proven and why the story originated is also very well known.

I do not have time to waste on Roswell -the material is in the US National Archives and exactly as described.

Time and time again you hear the same old 50, 60 or 70 years old case cited and this is because the media darlings can claim it was genuine -you prove other wise decades later.  Most members of the public believe the 'experts' and, hey, TV and fantasists have 'proven' the government is lying about all of this.  These are the people who watch video recordings of meteorological balloons exploding and believe the Government is secretly releasing chemicals into the atmosphere.

Somewhere, in the mid-1980s, when it came to UFO research and investigation things went very wrong. Believe me, when I wrote UFO Contact? I had no idea what I would come across and it did not put investigators in a good light.

Now, excluding all the "Grey" alien abduction hysteria fuelled by the evangelical paranoia of people like David Jacobs, look back to reports before Greys became "de rigueur".  How many of the cases of alleged alien abduction or Close Encounters of the Third Kind can you think of involving "black" percipients/witnesses?

Barney Hill

Harrison Bailey

Anyone else?  How about the many -many- who witnessed the objects and entities along with Father Gill in Papua, New Guinea in 1959?

Let's look at this. Barney Hill and his wife, Betty, were accused of outright lying, fraud, being hysterical and much more.  In 1973, when I began looking into these cases I mentioned the Hill case. Norman Oliver of BUFORA and Cos-Mos, spoke highly of the case. I found a couple people who "hmmed" and "ahhed" and some believed the abduction was merely a false memory the couple shared after being traumatised when a group of white young racists attacked them.  Do you know what the majority responded with?  "Well they are a mixed race couple".  No, seriously.  I was even hearing this is 1979 and 1984. Apparently I had to make my own mind up what the "they were a mixed race couple" inferred.

Let's get this straight. "White", "yellow, "Black" or aubergine or blue-skinned (there are blue skinned people) you are Homo sapiens.  A human being. The Human Race is the only one, that we know of, existing on Earth. The whole "mixed race" thing is a nonsense -rather  like someone being "racist" -against their own species?   To be honest, as a young man I had no idea what was going on -I lived in a multicultural, working class area and went to school with India, Pakistani, Afro-carribean, Italian and other kids. Some had (sigh) "mixed race" parents. Don't recall any claims of being snatched by flying saucers though.

It was all a nonsense.  Basically, it all covered an illogical belief that "black people don't see UFOs".

In 1978 I interviewed about three "black" people who had observed odd lights on different occasions. "Probably been on the rum!" was the dismissive remark from someone in the group. No one wanted to go to interview the witnesses

So hearing all of this about Barney Hill made me angry, frustrated and much more.  Ignore all the other facts in the case: "they were a mixed race" couple.

Harrison Bailey.  Well, there was secondary evidence in his case, however, I have never seen such a thorough job of discrediting someone as in his case. Focus on what you can find to discredit rather than focus on the actual incident.

Yes, I am aware of the later claims of Bailey. There is something I term Post Abduction Syndrome (PAS). There is case after case from the early 1950's up to the 1970's of people involved in alleged alien abduction incidents where there are secondary witnesses to the object sighted and even physical, trace, evidence. These people cannot be shaken from their accounts -most, as with the Hills, were exposed to publicity by Ufologists for their own reasons. For many it was a case of "It happened. Get on with life" and that was it -as far as we know.

Many of these people were private individuals, some had come through the Second World War where fatigue, stress and trauma -and the unexpected- were every day things.  Their encounters happened. They were not killed. Get on with life.  There was no counselling these people as the best they could expect would be to see a psychiatrist to judge if they were sane.  They had to keep things bottled up and only they know how that affected them.  There are witnesses who will not go out after dark and flinched noticeably if they see a light they cannot immediately identify -and that was after a close encounter but no abduction.

Everything they grew up believing were jokes, tall tales and rubbish were, in one brief incident lasting a minute or so, blown up in their faces. The psychological aspects of UFO encounters tends to be shoved to one side.  It's the meaty, juicy claim that ufologists want -it'll get them the newspaper and TV gigs and maybe even a book. Get the report and details then push the witness aside -something I write about in UFO Contact?

But PAS...how does a down-to-earth human mind that is used to the daily routine of getting out of bed, washing and dressing, going to work or shopping -all of the everyday things of life- how does it react and how does it cope with seeing the utterly impossible?  They have been told that flying saucers and "little green men" do not exist -but something, some type of craft, has landed nearby, they cannot move and are either escorted or 'invited' inside by entities that are not human.

The mind of the percipient is in complete turmoil no matter how "together" they seem. Who do they tell? Should they tell anyone?  If they don't report the incident what about other people it happens to? The immediate thought is reporting to the police -in which case they tend to get dismissed or told to, in the UK, report the incident to the MoD...who are not interested after the 2004 paper. In the United States the USAF will suggest you contact a civilian UFO group such as the Centre for UFO Studies (CUFOS).

And contact with civilian investigators can be even more traumatic -the Scopolamine Kids -James and Coral Lorenzen- in the old days.  Investigators betraying witness confidentiality. Selling stories to newspapers to get funding -and the percipient is accused of publicity seeking by the debunkers (because ufologists are not going to openly admit what they -not the percipient- did. While researching and writing UFO Contact? I was shocked at what went on. Percipients who reported physiological symptoms had these brushed aside "We'll try hypnosis first!" and, yes, I got very angry at the fact that these percipients who had suffered a major mental trauma were treated in the most shameful of ways. I really felt for them.

With PAS something can manifest with some, but not all (as far as we know), of the percipients -claims of secondary or occasional later contact incidents.  Some of this may be due to having seen an unusual light and this triggered a kind of "flash-back" memory -just as military veterans with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) can be going about their business quietly and fire-crackers send them right back to an incident.  I have seen this with a military veteran who jumped in a ditch when a car passing back-fired -I was tempted to laugh but it takes a split second to realise just how serious this is.

Dozens of investigators, reporters,weeks or months of daily attention and then...dumped. Everyone has what they want. The percipient is then left to live with what happened and try to cope.

The Pascagoula case involving Charles Hickson and Calvin Parker: Hickson made further claims and it is quite clear that he was suffering PAS.  Parker, in recent years, has also talked about how he was affected by the incident and how it negatively affected getting jobs and work as he was "that guy got kidnapped by aliens".

Marius Dewilde after his 1954 encounter at Quarouble, France was not abducted but his close encounter certainly affected him badly.

In the Harrison Bailey case his first encounter seems genuine and there appear to be secondary witnesses to the object seen.  It seems very obvious Bailey had a traumatic experience and other percipients never got the negativity that seemed aimed at him -why?

The Papua New Guinea case I heard dismissed time-and-again as involving "superstitious natives" who were ill educated.  There were even photographs of Father Gill circulating to show that he, too, was a native person who probably did not understand what he saw.  This photograph was of a "black" person -it turns out, Father Gill's assistant because Gill was as "White" as you can be. And the other witnesses were far from superstitious natives.

I recall reading several articles over the years in which the question was asked why "black" people did not report UFOs to the extent that "white" people did.  Poor education and other reasons were suggested because either the writers had no idea (in which case their lack of experience meant they could not really be taken seriously) or they suspected but did not want to use that dirty phrase: racial prejudice.

Two groups I worked with had a question on their UFO sightings report forms: one was phrased "Racial background" and the other "Ethnicity". I argued but was ignored.  Nationality (in case it is a witness usually living outside -say- the UK) is legitimate but asking about "ethnic background" is not. The incident and what is reported plus any qualifications that are relevant are important not whether someone is "Anglo-British", Chinese or "black".

Go to reports for 1973 -the last really big UFO wave of sightings that has any significance.  There are newspaper cuttings and even local TV news items where "black" witnesses are telling reporters what they saw.  There are reports of UFO landings and CE3Ks...no full investigation report which means that we have lost evidence.  A newspaper clipping or reference to a news item is not any kind of evidence.

These days the UFO media circus is all over any witness "cus it's all about the spin, baby". It's all money-spinning potential for the slick-dudes.

In my opinion, Harrison Bailey had two things against him: (1) he was "black" and, (2) he suffered traumatic stress from the original encounter that affected him in later life.  If you look at all the facts he was not treated with any respect as a witness but more like a commodity until his usefulness was other. Barney Hill well, you know. All of those Papuans...all of those UFO witnesses who just happened to not have straight enough hair well, you know.

I have tried to look at other angles but the data suggests we lost a lot of very good case because of prejudice -and any type of prejudice needs to be left at home if you claim to be "scientifically" investigating and researching UFOs.  We have a chance, while some of those witnesses are still alive, to try to get to them and record what they saw or experienced because once they are gone that information is also gone.

"Too long ago" and "too old a case" was derided as an excuse by Ufologists when given by authorities but it seems blow-hards have claimed it as an excuse.  The case I referred to yesterday? "Too long ago" but if I in the UK could find "the witness" (yeah, I doubt the report I sent was even read) and if I could then get 'him' to contact the UFO organisation to report the incident and  fill in a UFO report form and send it back to them then they might "consider whether it was worth looking into".  "**** off!" would have been far more honest.

Oh, and talk about brusque and downright rude responses: my email -I am quite willing to publish that online- was very polite. After 40+ years you learn to be polite and not rude. I had pointed out that I was unsure -due to the fact there were no clear guidelines- whether to send the case notes to "A" or to "B" but noted I had contacted "B" also. To be told that it was disturbing that I did not want to let "B" in one the case shows that the fella is either not able to read properly or cannot keep information accurately in his head for more than a second.  He simply, as I suggested, had to ask his colleague whether I had been in touch but why when I made it clear I had contacted his colleague I have no idea.

I pointed out that, since he was out-rightly dismissing the re-investigation, that I would, indeed, see what I could find out but that any findings would not be sent to his organisation but straight to CUFOS.  His response I cannot even be bothered reading. I am sorry but puffed up, self-important prigs who flap their gums while sitting permanently on their fat asses are of no interest to me.

It is, therefore, perfectly fine to lose all of this information "because".

We need to correct the prejudiced errors of the past as much as we need to remember that genuine percipients in UFO abductions or encounters (whatever you believe) are human beings and need to be treated as such rather than as "good media material".

Through Knowledge Truth (or: telling the truth makes you a lot of frightened enemies)