Thursday, 27 September 2018

Making It Clear

I ought to make it clear that I am not saying that there may be genuine one off abductions by a type of entity that would fit the "Grey" description.  I just think that hypnosis and its use/misuse and the way Dr Jacobs has taken it has led to a Grey paranoia of life long, generational abduction agenda.

Logically and factually it makes no sense.

Close Encounters of the Third Kind/Rencontres Rapprochées du troisième type (RR3)

I have been looking at the CE3K/RR3 reports from France for a while now -some have featured in my books.  What I have been concentrating on recently are those reports from 1954 -seen as "The French 1954 UFO Wave" and what I have found is quite enlightening.

My first stop on the internet after going through my own file notes and English language summaries was Patrick Gross' Ufologie page. It was amazing to see just how many hoaxes, practical jokes and even misidentifications of people as "Martiens" or plain spacemen there were.  And they were known about at the time yet are still being used in CE3K catalogues or books and talks.  There are the anonymous letters that really cannot be counted as evidence because if you have no witness name and cannot talk to him/her then you have nothing -though some of these are so good Ufologists use them because...well, why not?

If the physical trace evidence gathered by the Gendarmerie/Air Gendarmerie could be explained away then I would agree with Gross that the Marius Dewilde case could be dismissed but as I pointed out in my book UFO Contact? I tried but "he faked it" just does not work.  I did go into detail over Dewilde's later claims and though they can be dismissed they should not effect the original report.

A great many of the CE3K/RR3 reports can be thrown out -some have only a couple of lines to them and could very well be Press inventions -don't be shocked; reporters were and are doing this the world over!

It seems that there are many -many- reports of "flying saucers" that can also be dismissed for similar reasons -in fact, at least 4 of the 1954/1955 cases could be misidentification of a helicopter and its crew.  In one case a 13 year old boy saw a landed object and spoke to its beret wearing occupant who had a Breton accent -not even his parents believed the boy.  Colleagues of a railway worker putting on a fur coat became a classic "small hairy humanoid" case.  Meteors, Venus and much more means that far from being a literal UFO invasion of France, 1954, was a year of great Press exaggeration and flying saucer hysteria.

However, this means that those cases in which witnesses were tracked down and gave investigators their accounts or the Gendarmerie investigated their report  now become far more important. Because they were the percipient/witness and we are not relying on what the Press told us.

In UFO Contact? and Unidentified - Identified I threw out much of the whole Grey Paranoia.  There is simply no evidence and the pro-abduction researchers response: "How can so many people from all walks of life who do not know each other all report the same procedures and scenarios?"  the answer is simple: since Budd Hopkins original 1980s book on abduction and then Whitley Streiber's book, there have been hundreds of movies, TV shows (fiction and 'reality'), magazine and newspaper as well as radio shows that have pounded the scenarios into peoples' heads.  After the internet arrived for all any credibility went.  There is abductee after abductee who says "I saw the image (of a 'Grey') on the cover of Streiber's book and it all started coming back!"  or they refer to Hopkins book with the Grey on the cover.

Dr Karla Turner's books should be read by all ufologists wanting to look into alien abduction syndrome. Into the Fringe and Taken: Inside The Alien Human Abduction Agenda are full of the type of accounts that will be encountered as well as, and this is very important, detailing how Turner came to believe that she was an abductee. Turner's sad death through illness is still seen by some as evidence that she was "murdered for speaking out" on the abduction situation.  The same way that John Mack's tragic death by being hit by a car or Hopkins' death from complications associated with cancer at the age of 80 all pointed to "silencers" at work.

In my book I detailed all of the Turner story as well as defining that in some cases not just hypnagogia was at work but something I have called "Ruth Syndrome" -quite rare?

We see none of this in early reports which are almost slap you in the face with how "untainted" there are.  People going about their normal daily lives and then -it happens.  Some are badly affected by what happened -physically and/or psychologically.  In the 1954 French cases we here of "paralysis" in some cases but that is it; just one more case to add to a collection.  When you look at the cases more deeply you find out just how these encounters affected the person involved.  But then, after they recover, they get back on with their lives.  No extraordinary claims -in fact most of those involved do not want to discuss what happened later on.  "It happened.  Get on with life".  Remember the later case of M. Masse at Valensole who, despite being literally hounded by ufologists, would say no more.

Masse is typical of many of these people: had they not been shocked enough to confide in someone and someone then told reporters or ufologists, we would never have heard of their cases. In some of the most famous cases we only know of them because someone breached a confidentiality.

So the French cases up to, say, 1980 are well worth looking at in more detail.

Likewise early Italian cases have surprised me for the same reasons.  In Belgium there are early cases that have not been thoroughly investigated; in Unidentified - Identified I looked at what is known of an early 'lost' Belgian case; what information there is has never been referred to in English language works (that I have seen).

In Spain there are cases that have been labelled "Press hoax" and yet no source for any such claim let alone evidence is given.  We are to take the word of "sceptical ufologists" who when asked for the evidence for this basically fall silent.  If a claim is false and a or several ufologists know this and can prove it then they have to make this known widely or they are not just being scientific about what they do but are adding to the false nature of ufology and lose credibility.

One CE3K I looked at I was told "The witness is a repeater".  For those that are too young to remember I will explain.  Up until the late 1980s if a person reported a UFO sighting -no problem. I often heard "experienced" ufologists tell witnesses "You were lucky.  It is very rare to see one of these things".  If that person saw a second UFO then alarm bells sounded; were they misidentifying something? They were now a "shaky" witness and their credibility was lessened. If that person reported a THIRD UFO sighting; they were a "UFO-nut!" Sightings 1 and 2 were more or less discounted.

My thought was that if the report did not sound like an aircraft or something "normal" what was it then -if it had been seen three times then we had to either prove the witness was incompetent for one reason or another or find out what was being misinterpreted.  No.  "UFO-nut".

Today, of course, even with one sighting the witness is asked about "missing time".  Three UFO sightings and "it is obvious that there is more going on here than just three UFOs being seen!" What the ufologist hints at -or shouts out- is that the witness must be an abductee because no one "just" sees three UFOs.

That leap into fantasy is what causes so many problems and creates lack of investigator credibility. Three or four or even five "UFO" sightings and if there is a pattern it should be clearly seen -same time? Same weather conditions -same location?  The investigator must first prove that what the witness sees is without mundane explanation. Even then that is a leap from uninvestigated natural phenomena (UNP) to a constructed possibly alien craft (UFOB).

In the Spanish case I looked at I was told "He's a Repeater" -indicating that the report was possibly from a UFO-nut.  Firstly, if a witness has a job where they drive around the country and generally at night then it is odd if they do not see something unusual at least once in their lives.  Meteor, aurora or even UNP; might time is when you are going to really notice something bright in the night sky and when you have less chance of having corroborative witnesses independent of you.  I have seen, up close, UNP on six occasions between 1977-1985.  If I go out tonight and some kind of UFOB lands in front of me and entities emerge am I now a "repeater" who reports aliens?  Of course not -there was absolutely nothing about the previous incidents that could be construed as "alien" as in extraterrestrial and I saw them because I was either out and looked up at the right time or looked out of my window at the right moment.

So the disparaging phrase "He/she is a Repeater" has no place in anything calling itself scientific investigation. It says more about the ufologist.

What of reports from other parts of Europe during 1954; did other countries see increased activity? Not that I can find. Oskar Linke and his daughter in Germany (15th March, 1952) seem to have had the best sighting but there is a problem for German reports for this period.  The Second World War had not ended long before and Germany was split into two occupied zones -East under the control of the Soviet Union and the West divided up by France, the United Kingdom, United States,etc..  Most German citizens would probably keep quiet in East Germany because they didn't want the KGB calling on them for talking about one of their new aircraft.  In the West, well, people tended to keep their heads down more as they were a 'free' occupied country; they might think the same as their countrymen in the East; keep quiet in case it's an Allied weapon being tested.  Even up until the late 1980s West Germans tended to look on authority with certain suspicion and tried not to court the attention of the police.

It is quite possible that a good number of sightings/encounters were never reported.  People could come forward after Unification but unless their is some form of secondary confirmation of an incident it has to be treated cautiously.

There are press stories from 2016-2018 that state the number of UFO encounters has dropped dramatically and they ask "why?"  I have read and heard these same stories since the 1970s and they were around in the 1960s, too.  Some ufologists will tell you that "UFOs may be preparing for a new phase in activity" -that is suitably vague enough to sound impressive. Others might point out that "the controlling entities behind the human abduction agenda may be preparing for something -we just have no idea, just hints, about what that might be".  Impressive but nonsensical.  Will we learn that the "Tall Whites" are, like every other entity type claimed to have been in control since the 1980s, now subservient to another type?

The truth appears to be that, away from the New Age and the Grey Abduction hysteria, there has never been prolonged periods of high UFO activity.  My work in 1980s appears to have been the only one that sifted through reports -not "cases" because a press clipping does not constitute a case, as in a report investigated.  Sorting the UNP from the hoaxes and fabrications (a lot from ufologists) as well as misidentifications (again, ufologists who "looked into the report" took an item about a meteor and in re-telling this became "a bright flying disc traversed the sky") and Insufficient reports it was clear that "Historical UFO Waves" and "Modern UFO Waves" did not exist.

There are reports that, based on what is written in the original account, cannot be categorised as False or UNP but have to be labelled as UFOB -if the original account is not false.

This means that if any "alien abductions" take place they are rare and are not one in "many" life-long abductions by aliens. I will admit right up front that as a major supporter of Hopkins and Jacobs I fell hook, line, sinker and copy of The Angling Times for the whole life long abductions phenomenon. But then I noticed things...things that did not make sense and when I looked at these details more closely one after another turned out to be false. If we sort out, and I have no idea how that can be done given the current mess ufology is in, all of the Turner-types then we have to look at how many are suffering from psychological delusions or ongoing mental health issues.  How many suffer sleep paralysis and or hypnagogic breaks?

There is a problem in that "hypnagogia" tends to be offered up as an "explain it all away" solution -even by people in ufology who have no idea what hypnagogia is.  My older brother suffered from this when younger -but never claimed alien abduction just having a conversation with a starfish on the stairway landing and other day time incidents. Oddly, I stopped and controlled hypnagogia by the time I was 14.  Also, I do suffer sleep paralysis which is terrifying until you know what it is; so long as I am waking when it occurs I control and break the paralysis.  I know what I am talking about -and there is long experience with others so I am not using convenient explanations.

When I went through the UK CE3K reports I noted that a lot could be explained as sleep paralysis or hypnagogia.  There were two sides of this for me: the first was that I had wasted a lot of time on these cases but the Second side of it was that I learnt from these cases so it had not been a complete waste of time.  It meant that there were patterns I could pick up on -any serious researcher should pick up on these.

In UFO Contact? I explained in full the Ruth Syndrome.  This, I believe is quite rare but the problem is that cases are studied by psychologists and so people in ufology or even in paranormal investigation never hear about these.  There is patient confidentiality but you need to know what technical papers to look for. There are a couple of such cases that I believe exist within UK cases.

With UK reports from approximately 1975 on there is the question of reliability as we have now known for several years that well known British ufologists have been faking, or as they call it "planting", CE3K reports: unless I have spoken to a witness/percipient or know someone I can trust who has, I exclude those reports as anything but a note in chronology.

Yes, I am sceptical but unlike "sceptical ufologists" who are debunkers (and nothing more) I approach each case/report with an open mind and assess just what evidence is available.  Now we have no such thing as 100% proof of extraterrestrial visitation -today many ufologists confronted by this simply respond "Well, they could be inter-dimensional" because that, in their minds, explains lack of physical evidence.  I have even heard one ufologist being interviewed state: "They could be inter-dimensional but I call them 'ETs' ".

What I have to go on is what the debunkers write and state and what the ufologists counter with but then look at angles neither side has bothered looking at. The biggest factor in all of this, in the end,
is the percipients/witnesses. I was shocked to find that some of the most famous cases in ufology we would not have heard of had it not been for an acquaintance of those involved or the initial investigator breaching confidentiality -in the latter case to get newspaper funding.  I have catalogued this in UFO Contact? but ufology has nothing to be proud of in many cases -the percipients/witnesses are "just" a means to an end and are often left to fend for themselves when debunkers attack.

When those involved in the incidents do not want publicity, do not want to talk about what happened but are, literally, stalked and pestered by ufologists until they do (it was not unknown for a newspaper to be tipped off who may have seen what to get the witness to talk to a ufologist and fend off reporters) and are then named and their stories splashed over sensationalist newspapers my sympathies are with them.  Yes, it is a double-edged sword in a way: it is vital that we find out details of these reports and study them, however, the way those involved are treated is shameful.  Some are suffering from what was clearly Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (before PTSD was an accepted term I often referred in old talks and articles to percipients behaving as though "Shell-shocked") and even physiological problems but this was never dealt with: the story was the important thing not the person involved.

Depending on what the encounter involved (for Mona Stafford, last survivor of a trio abducted in 1975 and Calvin Parker, the only survivor of the 1973 Pascagoula encounter, they have suffered the mental trauma and name calling for over 40 years) the percipient/witness can find that they get on with life but that the incident is always on their minds.  Others put on a brave face and take the attitude of "It happened. Now get on with the rest of your life" - and do not discuss the matter openly but only they know how they are truly affected.

If there were witnesses to a UFO in the area at the time or there was a radar-vizual incident then that adds credibility. A "UFO" is not an "extraterrestrial space craft" but 95% of people who see something either think or are told it is.  Even if it is a space launch gone wrong or space debris burning up on re-entry. However, even today, some ufologists -specialising in CE3K- will literally back-pedal when interviewed by the media "Well, we don't know what they are nut a lot of us think they might be inter-dimensional rather than extraterrestrial" -pure and simple cowardice. If you investigate a case in which a witness reporters a disc-shaped object -a "flying saucer"- landing and strange entities that only look remotely human and, if there is communication between entity(ies) and witness(es) and it is disclosed that "We come from outer space" and those witnesses are found to be sane, honest, every day people then you have to go by what they say.

People reported odd aircraft and a few years later we saw the stealth bomber and stealth fighters and those witness reports were confirmed as fact. The SR71 was a 'UFO' until it became public knowledge. This is how it works with Earthly technology.

In almost 70 years which country has produced its revolutionary flying saucer spy-craft? Which country has revolutionized air travel with its breakthrough rapid vertical take off and "shot across the sky in seconds" technology?

Oh. No, it hasn't happened, has it. Look at the flying triangles that emerged in the mid-1990s -that is the slow if not deliberate unveiling of new technology.

So if these flying saucers have not been revealed as now very old technology -where did they come from?  Well, if the folk flying the things talk to witnesses and tell them they originate on another planet then what do we think?  Inter-dimensional?

M. Masse at Valensole, when shown a photo of a model of the object Lonnie Zamora saw at Socorro, New Mexico he was over-joyed: someone else had seen and photographed 'his' object.  But he was non-plussed to hear this was seen in the United States not in France or in his area.  Another thing that came from the Masse encounter (exactly what happened we will never know because he refused flat out to tell anyone else -including his wife) was that when he was told of the Betty and Barney Hill case  -more attempting to contaminate a report by ufologists- Masse did not believe them.  He said that they (the entities) would not force you on board if you did not want to go (what did go on that morning?!) and this is interesting.  In France and elsewhere, there are a number of UFO landing reports in which the percipient was approached by entities whom he/she could not understand, however, it seemed that they were being invited to board the craft (?) and when the offer was refused the entities boarded said craft and took off.

No abduction.

Sadly, in the United States, if you were "black" and reported a CE3K you were more likely to be ignored or ridiculed -by ufologists.  This I covered in UFO Contact?  but looked at in a little more detail in Unidentified -Identified.  Let's be honest here: this was not just the case in the United States because I experienced how prejudiced ufologists were towards "black" witnesses myself in the 1970s -1980s and I was actively discouraged from looking into these sightings -that worked out about as well as stopping me looking into Repeater sightings!

I am so glad this was only meant to be a brief post!

When it comes down to it CE3K/RR3 reports are far rarer than we ever thought because many of us accepted what the big name ufologists told us -and they were telling us things that were only 2-4 lines in a newspaper, proven to be hoaxes or misidentifications.  The CE3k/RR3 reports are possibly the most important aspect of the UFO situation -others have said this over the years.  We need to concentrate on old reports from 1947-1984 (ie; before the whole Grey mess sprang up) and start with the oldest because those witnesses will in many cases not be with us much longer.  We build from the oldest reports up until the newest and, above all we need to get those reports translated into English and French, fully referenced and with as much information as possible.

Germany, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Sweden -where ever; serious investigators/researchers need to communicate with each other rather than on sceptical forums or groups.  There are so many CE3K or "Humanoid" catalogues out there that simply catalogue and decide based on their compilers' own prejudices what is or is not genuine.  Personal opinion does not matter -that is for research papers, books or articles.  If reports are fully investigated and copies distributed then that is all that matters and individuals can use their own cataloguing systems (and there are a lot).

All I can do is put that appeal out there.  If you are a serious investigator/researcher then I can be contacted at the following emails or message me at the Face Book page for the Anomalous Observational Phenomena group


Thank you.

Monday, 24 September 2018


Le phénomène Ovni de 1970 à nos jours par Joël Mesnard

RR3 en France par Eric Zürcher

Ovni RR3 (1974) Famille Le Bihan

Skinwalker Ranch, Woodwose, "Skinwalker Ranch UK" and more

People ask why I do not believe any of the bovine excreta coming out about Skinwalker Ranch.  Well, for one thing there is absolutely nothing -zero- in the way of anything even providing tentative evidence that anything has ever happened there.

I write again that the main stories -it is important that I use the word "story" because if I felt something had any credibility I would use the word "account"- all come from one specific source, the "caretaker" of the property and his family.

When I stumbled onto George Knapp's 2008 "Hunt For The Skinwalker" talk recorded by MUFON LA, I thought: "Really?  Recorded?  Two scientists saw this huge entity move through some kind of dimensional portal??"  Well, I bought the book.  Please, do not laugh -even I have to learn the hard way some times.

I noted Knapp changed a couple of incidents during his talk but, having given more than a few talks in the past I know the stress involved and a bright light, a distraction -all can make you go "off script".   The book would have everything set out in order

A new property out in the wilds and a 400 lb hyena-wolf-like creature appears out of the blue problem; you let the kids pet it.  A few minutes later you shoot it in the side and it looks at you and walks off.  That one simple story immediately had me saying out loud "Oh no. Is this all ---??"

As I read one it became quite obvious that "someone" was pulling a fast one -a con. I made my views clear here:

Who ever is putting up all of this money to 'study' Skinwalker Ranch I'd hate to think he is being conned.

But it does not surprise me since the champion of all of this hokum is George Knapp. 

George Knapp who, at MUFON LA, 21st January, 1998, gave the talk "Bob Lazar and Area 51, Russian UFOs and Colonel Philip Corso".  Speaking like a sinner who just found religion (and a potentially profitable story) and it did not take physicist, Stanton T. Friedman long to really get to the bottom of Lazar.

Of course, it was one of those "Three lettered agencies" (probably someone from one of those agencies sitting at a nearby table -nice touch) who were recruiting just anyone who suited their ends that picked Lazar and what a find he was.

Anyone with brains knew Lazar was a fraud and enough documentation was produced by SERIOUS ufo researchers to back up that claim.

Roll on the years and "Area 51, Flying Saucers and Bob Lazar" the talk given on 4th October, 2014 in Kopenhagen, Denmark.  Knapp still extolling the tripe.

Stanton T. Friedman had this to say about Lazar

So what about the much hyped documentary?   This seems to sum up what everyone is saying -I have not seen it so cannot comment.

Do not get me wrong: when I first heard of the whole Skinwalker Ranch it seemed that there were scientific teams with all the latest tech gear doing exactly what I have been saying needs doing for thirty years.

If a book could be as full of hot air as Knapp at his MUFON LA Skinwalker Ranch talk then this book was filled to bursting point.  According to someone who has seen the documentary: "All it promised.  I was pumped.  I sat down glued to the screen.  I left and realised -there was nothing. Tall tales and that was it. I felt conned".

I am guessing no real worn-shoes investigators who knew how to investigate and question witnesses was paid to be on the team?  The "science guy" who saw the figure crawl out of the 'tunnel' -I would have insisted on a psychological evaluation and drug test.

There are areas of great interest but from all I have heard, read and seen the Skinwalker Ranch is a hyped up con or, at best, someone being duped out of money.  Now that all the fakers and hoaxers can travel to the site -or gate at least- we are inundated with more stories, more fake video clips.As a site for scientific investigation it is dead.

Ted Phillips and Marley Woods seemed interesting but then we have, as with Skinwalker Ranch, reports of  one or more long haired, bullet-proof "creatures". Now, I have the greatest respect for Phillips and the work he has done on physical evidence from UFO cases, however, when everyone jumps on the "this is not extra terrestrial it has to be inter-dimensional" wagon I give up.

Why does it have to be "inter-dimensional"?  The "objects are just too small" sounds like your brain farted.  Back in 1979 I had thousands of reports in front of me that I had to sift for use in the study and in one day I realised that -excluding all the hoaxes, misidentifications etc- there were two totally separate phenomena involved.  I am not the world's greatest mind but I saw that clearly but ufologists appear to have a form of mental blockage:

"Oh these are all extraterrestrial craft...oh, that cannot be must be inter-dimensional!"

Really?  You need a fucking mental enema.  Pardon the language.  I get angry when people who have perfectly good brains appear to be one miss-thought away from being unable to wipe their own backsides.  I am quite sure that there are people out there who feel the same as me.

"The UK Skinwalker Ranch" -the lights filmed are all aircraft lights. livestock deaths and accidents out at sea are just that.  A "predator" that "strikes on land, in the sea and in the air" and this is based on -personal fantasy?  Oh -"a mysterious creature", too.  Fantasy.  And the response of these people is to attack sceptics because "we know what you think and how you work" -which shows the lack of logic.  Debunkers are debunkers.  I think these people need to understand what a "sceptic" is; if you have evidence then present it so that it can be studied and learnt from -one way or another.  Someone shaking a tree (if that is what happened) is not the first footage of a UK bigfoot or woodwose or whatever you want to call it.  A stick found in woodland is still not proof you have found a bigfoot communication stick.  Noises at night in forestry and woodland?  Guess what -things live in forests and woods -including homeless people.

Get evidence and present it.  If it is explainable do not have a cerebral haemorrage.  Keep looking.

I spent 1977-2018 talking to gamekeepers, poachers, land owners and others who live in forests and woods and they'll admit to seeing UFOs, non-native cats and 'ghosts' but no one has ever offered up the fact that there is a population of wildmen in the UK.  I have written about real wildmen. I have written about Sasquatch.  Yes, I do know what I am talking about and I will look at anything with an open mind.

Do you know the greatest stumbling block to solving these mysteries?

People.  The people who claim to be looking into wildmen, Bigfoot, UFOs or whatever. Name-calling, lying, cheating, faking, stealing one anothers data and breaking up into little factions.  the latest is the UK wildmen in a feud with the Centre for Fortean Zoology (forgive the bad language). And here is what almost makes me collapse with fits of laughter: these people then criticise "Science" (in general because they do not appear to know which branch of Science they are blaming) for "not taking us and our work seriously".

Why do I not work with groups?  Please.

Ufology , cryptozoology and most of these other groups appear to have vanished so far up their own rectums that even seven Zeta Reticulans with the finest probe in the galaxy can't get in.

When I contact you (privately) and say that I am interested in what you are looking into and would be interested in seeing what evidence you have  and make it clear that this is in the strictest confidentiality (in 45 years I have never breached a promise of confidentiality) I do not expect to then be publicly (on Face Book or in a forum) called names including "debunker".  And when you apologise PRIVATELY not publicly you show just how trustworthy you are.

You want a little hobby that will make your life seem a little more exciting then go for it but never ever demand that Science take you seriously if you cannot be serious.

Skinwalker Ranch has more credibility.

Friday, 21 September 2018

It Was The World's First Flying Saucer Technical Report

The British Flying Saucer Bureau: Preliminary Analysis of Data Concerning Flying Saucers was published in 1955.

I had to laugh when reading the Report introduction:

"For eight years the Flying Saucers have provided a topic for the writers of "science fiction" and the more sensational sections of the press, and have also been the subject of serious investigation by the air forces of both Great Britain and the United States of America.  Alleged sightings run into thousands, possible explanations are as numerous as they are diverse, and yet after eight years there is still no certain explanation of what it is that causes experienced pilots, trained scientists, and other sober citizens to see and to photograph flying saucers and to record their flight with radar".

That was after 8 years.  We are now in the 71st (?) year of UFO history if you count the "Coming of the Saucers" as 1947.

In Germany, just before I was due to make a more earthly arrival on this planet, my mother and father and another family member observed a very large and strange light moving over the nearby forest.  When I was in my early 20's my father said out loud "This UFO thing he's going through is just a craze that'll pass". 

40 years on who is laughing now?   ahem. Any way...

I have made it very clear that ufology is a joke.  We had the "UFO Wave" of 1954 that probably was not a major UFO event at all.  In Franch, if a case was reported officially it was investigated openly by the Gendarmerie (Civil or Air) and assessment was openly reported.  That really upset UK ufologists who tried to get every one to believe "more is going on than they let on".  Had it not been for the mindset in certain official circles and amongst the saucer buffs we might have achieved more.

The 1954 fact most UFO reports.. were investigated from comfortable chairs and employing newspaper clippings.  Many people have tried to buck that trend but for 70 years (it IS still going on) this has been the standard of investigation. With the BFSB 1955 report, and I quote (p. 3):

"....the facts upon which the research is based are contained in specific newspaper reports in the files of the Bureau, which are open to inspection.  These accounts contain details which may be either true or false, and in no individual instance can the possibility of fraud or mistake be conclusively excluded..."

Then (p. 3):

"The information so obtained is taken from 274 selected reports appearing in a large number of newspapers and periodicals, and relates to incidents which occurred in all parts of the world over the period of the last eight years. From an analysis of the information certain clearly defined trends may be observed, and as it is highly improbable that these trends have been produced by chance combinations of fraud and mistake it may safely be inferred that the information is a true description by the observers of what they saw".

To this is added (same page):

"However, it must be borne in mind that in most cases observers' statements, however accurate, are only descriptions.  They are not statements of physical reality, since a statement of physical reality implies a quantitative measurement by a competent observer using an efficient measuring instrument, and instrumental evidence is scare".

So, from "thousands" -THOUSANDS- of reports 274 press clippings were chosen.  Press reports that might be flawed -information not included or something added to spice things up. And this was IF the eye witness was reliable.

We get to page 21 we get the only reference to there possibly being any alien entity operating these “craft”:

“Even in peaceful England the spacemen who dared to land at London Airport would be in custody within fifteen minutes and their saucer impounded; and when one considers that they are upwards of forty million miles from their home and probably dependent upon special food and breathing gear, it would be very surprising if they did attempt to establish communication by an open landing”.

The report goes on to tell the reader that there are reports of flying saucers recorded in “ancient records covering a period of upwards of four thousand years…occasional visitations, and covers the whole period prior to the outbreak of war in 1939…”

Then we have the most ridiculous in a long line of ridiculous statements that are made as though based on fact:

“It was stated in a broadcast interview that the Royal Observer Coros. Had never seen a Flying Saucer in the whole course of the war, and when one remembers that “unidentified flying objects” reported by the Corps were persued sic) and shot down whenever possible, it seems eminently reasonable for flying saucers to keep away if they are flown by intelligent beings”.

It is noted that armed air patrols around the world began and gradually increased after 1947.

So the Report refers to its study being based on 274 newspaper clippings; absolutely none of those clippings appear to have been ones referring to actual landings observed and none that refer to what we would later call Close Encounters of the Third Kind.  1954 had seen a fair number reported in the press from Europe, the USA and elsewhere –Jessy Roestenberg, Staffs, 1954 and the Suddards’, Bradford, 1954 incidents are two from the UK that the BFSB knew about –though even in the 1970s and 1980s I was being told by the Bureau these cases were “dubious”.

The naivete borders almost on stupidity in places.  Historical records of flying saucers going back to ancient times –those I would like to see because most of those I looked at appear to have been comets, meteors, ball lightning and many other earthly things. This ancient visitation tripe continues to this day.  If there was real and genuine evidence in records I would be jumping up and down with joy.

No flying saucers were sighted during World War 2 is another false statement.  The USAAF pilots sighting of “foo fighters” were known in 1954, as were sightings by RAF crews.  The “unidentified flying objects” all spotted, pursued and shot down were Luftwaffe aircraft. 

If a spaceman/men landed at London Airport they would be “in custody within fifteen minutes and their saucer impounded”…it really is difficult to understand the writer’s mind.  Presumably had a saucer landed at Brighton beach a Royal Navy gunboat would have supervised its boarding and seizure.  Johnny Alien isn’t getting into fair Britannia that easily! 

Fair enough, any crewman might need a special diet but we are supposing here that any extraterrestrial is going to land and be confronted by a police constable or customs official and put their hands up: “It’s a fair cop, Earthling!”  And the saucer impounded….was this a school project?

Then we have the statement that the “spaceman” would be up to 40 million miles from home and we see where they were going with this report; the flying saucers must come from this solar system as there is no alternative. Mars is some 33-34 million miles from Earth and Venus is approximately 24-5 million miles away.  Well, the Bureau would later have confirmation from no less a source than contactee George Adamski.

They were more innocent days and Adamski even got private audiences with European nobility. With Adamski it became acceptable to a degree to refer to spacemen so long as they were Venusian, Martian, Saturnian, etc.  When I joined the BFSB in the mid-1970’s I thought they were pulling my leg…I learnt quickly that they were not.

As far as I am aware, the BFSB Technical Report was the first of its kind from a civilian flying saucer group.  Copies were sent to cooperating groups around the world and I do know a copy got its way to the Air Ministry.  As I wrote; these were much more innocent times.

Landings involving occupants were ignored; flying saucers visited Earth throughout history but stopped from 1939-1947 because their occupants did not want to be shot down.  The whole logic behind this very idea is so flawed.

Yes, a very flawed Report but it goes to show the mindset of “investigating by newspaper clipping” (IBNC) was fully established within 8 years of the “Modern Age of Ufology” –a mindset that has lost us so much valuable information and one which continues in 2018.

The 1955 Report is interesting because even from this early date we see that there were no reports of any flying black triangles and I think that indicates just how authentic all of the “I kept quiet all these years but now I can tell you about my black triangle sighting…in the 1950’s!” cases are.

J. Bernard Delair at Contact (UK) Data Research referred to newspaper clippings, magazines, etc., when presenting his excellent catalogues.  The difference was, as he explained to me back in the 1980s; what he produced was a source of raw data plus links and information that, hopefully, UFO investigators would use to carry out follow-ups.

My own survey in the early 1980's referred to news clipping, UFO periodicals, new books as well as many contacts amongst UFO groups around the world. If every report had been the subject of an investigation haw far along might we have moved from the 1955 “We just do not know” position?

Work Is Work

Having more or less announced what my next book will be about on the Face Book page I got a message asking if I had thought of putting a "Donate" button at the top of the page to keep it going.

Well, if people do not want to comment or support in any other way I cannot see that they would financially support the blog for more postings and the planned videos.

To prove the point there is a PayPalMe link at the top right hand side of this blog. We'll see who is right about the response!

Wednesday, 19 September 2018

Posting To AOP Face Book Only

I shall only be posting on the AOP Face Book page.

Until my books sell I'm wasting no more time writing here.

I AM A Bit Slow In Catching On.

1000 posts.


0 comments or reactions

0 book sales

= No one is really that interested.  For this reason all the posts ready to publish are remaining as drafts.

There comes a time when you have to face facts....I was a little slow.

My books have hundreds of pages.

Tuesday, 18 September 2018

A Wake Up Call

I was told this morning that a few sites are using my posts and either cutting out huge chunks or just reposting whole as their own work.

I was then asked why I was bothering since no one ever comments or contacts me via the blog.

Considering the other blogs run by plagiarists are getting comments I agree.

Save everything in case I do another book. 

NASA: NASA’s TESS Shares First Science Image in Hunt to Find New Worlds

Look at the photo.  That is just one small image of space. Add all the rest to this and you still don't think there is intelligent life out there?

I would much prefer more SETI and CETI attempts aimed at closer space.

TESS image of Large Magellanic Cloud, right, and the star R Doradus, left
The Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS) took this snapshot of the Large Magellanic Cloud (right) and the bright star R Doradus (left) with just a single detector of one of its cameras on Tuesday, Aug. 7. The frame is part of a swath of the southern sky TESS captured in its “first light” science image as part of its initial round of data collection.

TESS first light
Download high-resolution versions of this and other TESS “first light” images from the Scientific Visualization Studio at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center.
NASA’s newest planet hunter, the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS), is now providing valuable data to help scientists discover and study exciting new exoplanets, or planets beyond our solar system. Part of the data from TESS’ initial science orbit includes a detailed picture of the southern sky taken with all four of the spacecraft’s wide-field cameras. This “first light” science image captures a wealth of stars and other objects, including systems previously known to have exoplanets.
“In a sea of stars brimming with new worlds, TESS is casting a wide net and will haul in a bounty of promising planets for further study,” said Paul Hertz, astrophysics division director at NASA Headquarters in Washington. “This first light science image shows the capabilities of TESS’ cameras, and shows that the mission will realize its incredible potential in our search for another Earth.”
TESS acquired the image using all four cameras during a 30-minute period on Tuesday, Aug. 7. The black lines in the image are gaps between the camera detectors. The images include parts of a dozen constellations, from Capricornus to Pictor, and both the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds, the galaxies nearest to our own. The small bright dot above the Small Magellanic Cloud is a globular cluster — a spherical collection of hundreds of thousands of stars — called NGC 104, also known as 47 Tucanae because of its location in the southern constellation Tucana, the Toucan. Two stars, Beta Gruis and R Doradus, are so bright they saturate an entire column of pixels on the detectors of TESS’s second and fourth cameras, creating long spikes of light.
“This swath of the sky’s southern hemisphere includes more than a dozen stars we know have transiting planets based on previous studies from ground observatories,” said George Ricker, TESS principal investigator at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s (MIT) Kavli Institute for Astrophysics and Space Research in Cambridge.

The Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS) captured this strip of stars and galaxies in the southern sky during one 30-minute period on Tuesday, Aug. 7. Created by combining the view from all four of its cameras, this is TESS’ “first light,” from the first observing sector that will be used for identifying planets around other stars. Notable features in this swath of the southern sky include the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds and a globular cluster called NGC 104, also known as 47 Tucanae. The brightest stars in the image, Beta Gruis and R Doradus, saturated an entire column of camera detector pixels on the satellite’s second and fourth cameras. Drag the slider back and forth to see the labeled and unlabeled versions of the image.
TESS’s cameras, designed and built by MIT’s Lincoln Laboratory in Lexington, Massachusetts, and the MIT Kavli Institute, monitor large swaths of the sky to look for transits. Transits occur when a planet passes in front of its star as viewed from the satellite’s perspective, causing a regular dip in the star’s brightness.
TESS will spend two years monitoring 26 such sectors for 27 days each, covering 85 percent of the sky. During its first year of operations, the satellite will study the 13 sectors making up the southern sky. Then TESS will turn to the 13 sectors of the northern sky to carry out a second year-long survey.
MIT coordinates with Northrop Grumman in Falls Church, Virginia, to schedule science observations. TESS transmits images every 13.7 days, each time it swings closest to Earth. NASA’s Deep Space Network receives and forwards the data to the TESS Payload Operations Center at MIT for initial evaluation and analysis. Full data processing and analysis takes place within the Science Processing and Operations Center pipeline at NASA’s Ames Research Center in Silicon Valley, California, which provides calibrated images and refined light curves that scientists can analyze to find promising exoplanet transit candidates.
TESS builds on the legacy of NASA’s Kepler spacecraft, which also uses transits to find exoplanets. TESS’s target stars are 30 to 300 light-years away and about 30 to 100 times brighter than Kepler’s targets, which are 300 to 3,000 light-years away. The brightness of TESS’ targets make them ideal candidates for follow-up study with spectroscopy, the study of how matter and light interact.

This animation shows how the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS) will study 85 percent of the sky in 26 sectors. The spacecraft will observe the 13 sectors that make up the southern sky in the first year and the 13 sectors of the northern sky in the second year.
Credits: NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center
TESS has also started observations requested through the TESS Guest Investigator Program, which allows the broader scientific community to conduct research using the satellite.
“We were very pleased with the number of guest investigator proposals we received, and we competitively selected programs for a wide range of science investigations, from studying distant active galaxies to asteroids in our own solar system,” said Padi Boyd, TESS project scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. “And of course, lots of exciting exoplanet and star proposals as well. The science community are chomping at the bit to see the amazing data that TESS will produce and the exciting science discoveries for exoplanets and beyond.”
TESS launched from NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral, Florida, on April 18 aboard a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket and used a flyby of the Moonon May 17 to head toward its science orbit. TESS started collecting scientific data on July 25 after a period of extensive checks of its instruments.
TESS is a NASA Astrophysics Explorer mission led and operated by MIT in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and managed by NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. Dr. George Ricker of MIT’s Kavli Institute for Astrophysics and Space Research serves as principal investigator for the mission. Additional partners include Northrop Grumman, based in Falls Church, Virginia; NASA’s Ames Research Center in California’s Silicon Valley; the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Massachusetts; MIT’s Lincoln Laboratory in Lexington, Massachusetts; and the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore. More than a dozen universities, research institutes and observatories worldwide are participants in the mission.
Last Updated: Sept. 17, 2018
Editor: Rob Garner

Monday, 17 September 2018

UFO Contact? Looking At The Evidence For Alien Visitation

Terry Hooper-Scharf
530 pages
illustrated with maps, photographs and more
A4 format
Price: £20.00 (excl. VAT) special offer until 15th October: £18.00
Prints in 3-5 business days

Since 1947 it has been claimed that UFOs/flying saucers are evidence of aliens visiting the Earth.  Since the 1950s claims of encounters with landed craft and alien beings were talked about but not taken seriously.

In the 1960s the subject of UFO abduction was a "slow-burner" until the whole "Grey" abduction phenomenon and claims made by researchers such as Budd Hopkins, Prof. John Mack and Dr David Jacobs and Whitley Streiber.

But is there evidence to back up any of the claims -and what about those encountering Alien Entities but who were not abducted? 

Are these people all hoaxers, psychotic or suffering from some other mental illness as some claim?

Are those people who were exposed by Ufologists against their wishes, people who wanted to report what happened and then just get back to their everyday lives -thrust into the media glare against their will?

And if US authorities were so interested that in one case at least they broke into the home of two abductees and this was later proven -why?

Why did a hard core of these people never want publicity or to make money from what happened to them? 

Above all, why did a major UFO landing incident take place on a US Inbterstate road in front of a large number of observers (all willing to talk to investigators) never get investigated? If it were not for a radio presenter interviewing and taking notes we would know nothing of the case -it would be labelled "insubstantial".

James and Coral Lorensen -the Scopolamine Kids; using a very notorious "truth drug" on alleged UFO witnesses and selling stories to newspapers.  An investigator (a veteran) showing a witness images of "aliens" encountered in other cases before any memories were retrieved.  Worst of all, the constant "pissing competition" and breaches of trust between UFO investigators.

2017 is the time to assess the past evidence and look at the faults within Ufology.

Not everyone is going to be happy -debunkers or ufologists.

Are We Going to Let All of the Information Fade Away: Or Are We Going To Do Something About It?

I would like to offer this page from Patrick Gross' Ufologie page.  It shows the results for an incident during the 1954 "French UFO flap" -which may not have been a flap at all (see Unidentified-Identified):

The 1954 French flap:
The index page for the 1954 French flap section of this site is here.

October 3, 1954, Marcoing, Nord:

Reference number for this case: 3-oct-54-Marcoing. Thank you for including this reference number in any correspondence with me regarding this case.


The newspaper reports on October 6, 1954, with no other information, that there was a sighting in Marcoing. The date is not given but the sighting is mentioned among others that took place on October 2 and 3, 1954.
See the article here.
[Ref. li1:] "LIFE" MAGAZINE:
MARTIAN MEN'S HEIGHT is shown by two bakers. Pierre Lucas (left) of Loctudy was going to well when, he said, orange ball fell from the sky. Suddenly a small bearded figure with one eye in the middle of his forehead tapped him on the shoulder. Serge Pochet (right) of Marcoing was approached by two small shadows.
Location. Marcoing France
Date: October 3 1954 Time: night
Bakers apprentice Serge Pochet was approached by 2 small shadowy entities, about 3-feet tall. No other information.
Humcat 1954-67
Source: Humcat quoting Newspaper reports
Type: E?
Donald Johnson says that on October 3, 1954, a humanoid report occurred later than 6:45 p.m., in the night and did not involve a UFO sighting: young baker's apprentice S. Pouchet, was approached by two small shadowy beings, about three feet tall, in Marcoing, Nord, France.
The sources are noted as "Webb, David F. & Bloecher, Ted. HUMCAT: Catalogue of Humanoid Reports, case A0271, citing Life Magazine, November 1, 1954" and "Life Magazine, November 1, 1954".
In "Special notes" of their catalogue, the GNEOVNI group indicates that there exists in several books, such as Aimé Michel's "M.O.C.", Planète publishers in 1966, in which there is a number of observation cases in the Nord and Pas-de-Calais which are not included in their catalogue because there "remains much doubts as to their credibility." One of them is noted "3-10-54 Marcoing nord".
Location: Marcoing France
Date: October 3 1954
Time: night
Bakers apprentice Serge Pochet was approached by 2 small shadowy entities, about 3-feet tall. No other information.
Source: Humcat quoting Newspaper reports
[Ref. ub1:] "UFO-DATENBANK":
This database recorded this case 9 times:
Case Nr.New case Nr.InvestigatorDate of observationZipPlace of observationCountry of observationHour of observationClassificationCommentsIdentification
1954100303.10.1954MarcoingFranceNightCE III
1954100303.10.1954MarcoingFranceNightCE III


Not looked for yet.


(These keywords are only to help queries and are not implying anything.)
Marcoing, Nord, Serge Pochet, entity, entities, dark, small, two


[---] indicates sources which I have not yet checked.
  • [la1] Article in the regional newspaper L'Alsace, Mulhouse, France, October 6, 1954.
  • [li1] Part of the article "Astral Adventurers - Frenchmen report meetings with unlikely creatures", in LIFE Magazine, USA, page 28, November 1, 1954.
  • [---] "HUMCAT: Catalogue of Humanoid Reports", compiled by David Webb and Ted Bloecher, Center for UFO Studies (CUFOS), USA, circa 1978.
  • [ar1] "1954 Humanoid Reports", compiled by Albert Rosales, circa 2001, at
  • [dj2] "The Worldwide UFO Wave of 1954", electronic article by Donald Johnson, Ph.D., USA, page 5, 2009, at
  • [gn1] "Catalogue Régional d'observations", by the Groupement Nordiste d'Etudes des Observations d'Objets Volants Non Identifiés (GNEOVNI), France, undated, circa 2009, at
  • [ta1] "1954: October Sightings", catalog on the UFO website Think About It, USA, not dated, found 2014, at
  • [ub1] Online database UFO-Datenbank, Germany, found in 2016, at

So what do you notice? Perhaps that someone notes that someone referred to this case...appearing in newspapers?  I am hoping that this sticks out like a ten feet (3m) high glowing red thumb. We have a case, once again, of 'investigation' by news-clippings.

Two reported incidents of alleged actual landings and entities and who turns up after -the press. There were people claiming to be flying saucer investigators but that amounted to noting down a news item on the radio or adding a newspaper clipping to the scrapbook. From the news clipping these people could pontificate and waffle on over pages.

I understand that there was no funding for flying saucer research but most of these people involved in the subject knew each other one way or another. There was a very real attitude, not just in France, that even if a report came from a mile or two away -why go investigate when the newspapers had all the information?

I actually almost choked on a swig of coffee when I read Italian investigators, who had not once even attempted to go and investigate Rosa Lotti's encounter in 1954 until the early 2000's, complaining and criticising newspapers and journalists for leaving out information and not doing a thorough job. Well, at least the reporters got off of their arses and went to see her.  There are literally hundreds of cases like the one above.

Writers -'ufologists'- are making money out of including these cases in their books and worst of all in their "data" or "sightings breakdowns" that make them look so good.  The truth is that they are producing nonsense: they have no data other that he wrote what so-and-so wrote who got it from whatshisname who found it mentioned in a newspaper clipping. That is then the solid data used by people like Jacques Vallee who does not actually check anything himself. 

The period 1947-2018 has literally achieved nothing when it comes to ufology other than over-hyped hysteria, bunko-men and...literally, huge volumes of trash.  Graham F. N. Knewstub's British Flying Saucer Bureau Technical Report No. 1 was in the 1950s, we all thought that we were seeing real science (I was fooled, too) when Vallee published his work on UFO Waves, Flaps and so on.  He included well known hoaxes, misidentifications of aircraft, meteors, weather balloons and much more in amongst the not investigated UFO cases. The data was useless.

Then we saw Ted Bloecher Report on the UFO Wave of 1947, published in 1967. This was an actual attempt at analysis and to piece events from that year together.  Published work that could be peer reviewed. It was as early as 1956 that Bloecher became intrigued by the growing number of “UFO occupant” reports and along with researcher David Webb, started to work on what would become the Humanoid Catalogue –HUMCAT: a collection of early “humanoid” sightings. I prefer not to use the term “Humanoids” as an all-encompassing term but the important thing is that the work began.

   Ted Bloecher’s major interest was always in occupant reports or Close Encounters of the Third Kind (CE3K), as they would be called after J. Allen Hynek set out his categorisation of UFO sighting reports.  Bloecher had been one of the top thinkers in the Civilian Saucer Investigation group and after that became active with the National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP) and when  NICAP became “moribund”, Bloecher moved on to the Mutual UFO Network (MUFON) and the Center for UFO Studies (CUFOS).  He was still concentrating his efforts on investigation of CE3K reports with David Webb. In 1978, CUFOS published his and Davis's Close Encounter at Kelly and Others of 1955, based on the investigation of the Kelly-Hopkinsville case.

   Bloecher could well be called the top authority on these cases in the United States by the 1970s and though he did everything he possibly could (see UFO Contact?) to get the Euporia, Mississippi landing/entity case prioritised and investigated it never was –presumably due to the prejudices of the two investigators.

   But being the top man does not come with a university grant or even financial funding and to keep records complete Bloecher filed away press reports.  This should have been the data base used for thorough investigation of the cases. Instead, ufologists just quoted Bloecher and that he, himself, was referencing newspaper reports.

   Then came the big excuse of the “Grey Abduction Paranoia” –if a case did not involve Greys then it was a fake or misidentification.  No need to bother. Or to use the much criticised US Air Force ‘excuse’ used so well by MUFON today: the amount of time that has passed negates any fruitful investigation.

Ufology does not “get the respect deserved”?  You earn respect.

Two cases from recent years I have tried to get more information on so I went to the site owners who reported on the cases.  In each I was told “I picked that up from (website) –best you contact him” and so I did: “I read that on (name of website) because it seemed interesting” and then I was advised to contact the “original source”. This original source turned out to have copied the item from some newspaper item and he could not remember which or the date. This is the most common response I get when following up old reports and today I more or less expect it.

Ufology is basing all of its claims on cases –including plain old “UFO” sightings- that were never investigated because it is much easier to sit in a chair and say “The evidence is all there” –it is not.

In the United States, France and Belgium I think there are enough ufologists with some credibility who can open cold case investigations on old CE3K/Alien Entity cases.  Once the witnesses, now in their 60’s, 70’s and 80’s are gone then so are all of the facts that they can tell us and to ascertain which, if any, of the CE3K/AE reports is genuine could provide us with the valuable data we need.

I am undertaking this work in the UK (though some prominent ufologists appear to not want this –I wonder why?) and I just hope and pray that someone out there will do likewise in their own country.  PLEASE!