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.
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