Terry Hooper-Scharf. Noted naturalist and historian was a former UK police forces Wildlife Consultant specialising in Canids and Felids. From 1977 -2007 "Officially Unofficially" investigated UFOs Reports as Head of the Anomalous Observational Phenomena Bureau (AOP B) Project Grey Book. per cognitionem veritatis
I think that it says a great deal about modern Ufology. People will not buy serious, researched and referenced books on the subject just trash full of lies because the writers take them to be ill educated and "dumb".
And after a month and a lot of publicity not a single copy of the AOP Journal no. 1 has sold. I guess people prefer to get 'facts' from You Tube rather than read.
So here is the incomplete cover to AOPJ no. 2 that will not be appearing.
A good few years, 1040 posts and what comments and discussions have there been? Zero. A blog for discussion and debate has to have more than the blogger to work. IF anything interesting pops up I will post but other than that I give up.
My attitude is explained below.
incidents of alleged actual landings and entities and who turns up afterwards
-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. Why leave
the armchair?From the news clipping
these people could pontificate and waffle on over pages and for years.
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 investigation 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.
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 than “he wrote what so-and-so wrote
who got it from whatshisname who found it mentioned in a newspaper clipping”.
This is, then, the ‘solid data’ used by people like Jacques Vallee who does not
actually seem to check anything himself.
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 published 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. If I wrote “Today I was a disc-shaped flying saucer land in my back
garden then take off after one minute” it would be included in Vallee’s list:
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.
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 report and others in the U.S. that year.
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
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
Then came the big
excuse of the “Grey Abduction Paranoia” –if a case did not involve Greys then
it was a fake or misidentification or Budd Hopkins and David Jacob’s saw these
reports as “screen images” hiding the ‘fact’ that Greys were involved. 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. Even the Betty and Barney Hill case has been
cited as featuring “Greys”: it did not.
Ufology does not
“get the respect deserved”? You earn
Two cases from
recent years I have tried to get more information on –one was from 2017 so in
2018 should be easy- so I went to the site owners who reported on the
cases. In each instance 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” came the response along
with advice 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 even whether it was a newspaper or magazine) 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 such cases –including plain old “UFO” sightings— that were
never investigated because it was much easier to sit in a chair and say “the
evidence is all there” –it is not.
In the United States, France
I think there are enough ufologists with some credibility who can open cold
case investigations on old CE3K/Alien Entity reports. 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. In Spain, for instance, it appears
that “certain prominent Ufologists” were constantly at work faking complex
Close Encounter cases with the deliberate intention of undermine and hoaxing
other Ufologists. When it comes to
CE3K/AE reports from Spain
the list of fake reports is high. Only by personally investigating reports did
I find this out and it seems that Spanish Ufologists were quite happy to not
expose the hoaxers (“the intentions of the Ufologist involved is not known”) or
to even report openly and widely that these cases were Ufological hoaxes.
The same applies in
the UK where Ufologist
Andrew Roberts (who focussed the attention of Ufologists on the fictional BerwynMountains
“UFO crash”) and associate of David Clarke, admitted at a UK UFO conference
that he and other well known Ufologists had planted fake reports going back
many years. When confronted after making
this semi-forced confession, Roberts stated that the hoaxing was for the
“purposes of a study”, however, he could give no details of what this study was
and refused flatly to identify which
reports were faked. This, in effect,
means that any research findings by UK researchers are negated because
bad data creates bad data –any results are a waste of energy, time and paper.
98% of UK
Ufologists spend their time in childish spats, hoaxing and worse. In the last three weeks I have twice been
targeted by attempts to steer me into looking into fake reports and testimony
–I know certain prominent Ufologists
are involved and I have made it clear that if it happens again not only will
they be publicly exposed and named but I will also take legal action –including
reporting breaches of their Terms of Service to their internet providers.
It is not a
question of free speech –as in the United States we are dealing with
“limited free speech” and you cannot just aim to say whatever you want to get
free press coverage. If you go to the
Press and make remarks then, even if slightly misquoted, they are yours. In the UK it seems no one expects to get
sued for insulting a fellow’ Ufologist.
“Strieber had been
looking into a book called Science and the UFOs by Jenny
Randles and Peter Warrington, which describes a "classic" UFO
experience... and then, mere hours later, he was supposed to have had the
strangely similar experience which was so profitably immortalized in his Communion.
Badly drawn aliens with enormous eyes and faces made of putty removed his
underpants and thrust their video cameras where no man had gone before. Or
something like that.
who's a professional UFO author and researcher, made the mistake of joking
about this suggestive sequence of events when speaking on the radio. Having
been sent a tape of the programme by his UFOlogical colleague Stanton Friedman,
Strieber immediately threatened a libel action. Randles lacked the funds to
resist and had to grovel in public. Nobody messes with Whitley Strieber”.
As with this current
article, you will notice that all of my books –“World Mysteries” or Ufological-
are fully referenced. This is so that the work can be peer reviewed by anyone
interested; scientific journals tend not to want to feature items about UFOs
unless it fits what they are looking for.
It is so easy to fall into the line given by debunking “sceptical
Ufologists” or the die-hard “Everything is Unknown” lobby. I look into reports
in as much detail as possible. I look at
what debunkers write and say and I look at what Ufologists say and will also
look into a report from sources outside of both groups.
Contact? (aka: High Strangeness) I knew that I had
to, as always, stand by my conclusions –in other words I gave my conclusions
and I am quite open to new theories or evidence that might prove me right or
wrong: peer review and open mind –what Science is supposed to be.
Dr. Mark Rodheiger
from the Centre for UFO Studies gave my book high praise:
"I’ve been browsing through it and find it to
be an impressive body of work.
I appreciate your lively writing, use of
original sources as much as possible,
and forceful opinions about the cases,
investigators, etc. And I concur with
your evaluations of cases that have been pushed
aside, such as Kelly, or
It is important to
emphasise that “forceful opinions about
the cases, investigators” should not be thought of as debunking in some
way. When I first started in Ufology (I was willing to call myself a
“Ufologist” back then) back in 1973 there were people I held in high esteem:
Donald E. Keyhoe, author and founder of the National Investigations Committee
of Aerial Phenomena (NICAP), James and Coral Lorensen, founders of the Aerial
Phenomena Research Organisation; Ivan T. Sanderson, founder of the Society for
the Investigation of The Unexplained (SITU). John A. Keel.
theories were his own based on the data he gathered and also on what we knew
back in those days. He was a field
naturalist and zoologists and one of the few who heard of a strange report and
got off his ass to investigate. He was one of the first investigators to get to
Flatwoods and talk to the witnesses and gather local information. As a writer for popular publications he could
put a “spin” on a case but if that is how you earn a living and fund your work
it is what you do.
John A. Keel I
still enjoy reading and it was his Strange Creatures From Time & Space
that made me realise that there was more out there than just lights in the sky.
His work also made me realise why everything
needed to be checked, double checked and triple checked as well as the
importance of going to the source or witness if possible. Whether Keel really
believed all he wrote only he knows but it earned him a good living and even a
movie based on his Mothman work.
I have not included
Charles Hoy Fort, the man whose work so many quote endlessly but very few
appear to have read, judging by all the misquotes (showing just how “copy and
paste” has become so prevalent these days). I found a good few sources Fort
quoted did not in fact contain any such report –my work on the “Wild
Dogs/Wolves of Cavan” is covered in The Red Paper: Canids. In fact, Fort, rather like Keel, tended to
play with facts and though both did a lot of research I found it was never to
be trusted 100%.
Keyhoe was another
who, I have absolutely no doubt, believed in the reality of flying
saucers. However, Keyhoe was a writer
and as former US Air Force Project Blue Book head and friend of Keyhoe’s,
Edward J. Ruppelt once said that Keyhoe, given the facts, then decided what the facts were. And I need to be fair here because the
material we take for granted today from Freedom Of Information requests or
simply released by the US Air Force simply was not available to Keyhoe as most
of it was classed as secret.
The Lorensens were,
to me, the people who got out there
and looked into “UFO Operator” or “Occupant” reports. Again, I believe that the
couple were sincere in their beliefs regarding flying saucers but at some point
they strayed from the path. Most of their material/reports were sent to them
from correspondents and so a great many hoaxes seeped through into the files
–unintentionally in some cases: a report of giant humanoids getting out of a
landed saucer during a forest fire was reported on and the source was a friend
of a Ufologist’s who knew a dentist who had been told about this my a patient. As is typical with Ufology, the racism
sneaked in with “a typical illiterate country person” –this comment designed to
indicate the person had not read of flying saucers so could not fake a report.
Did the Ufologist go to find the woman and witnesses? No.
There was the need,
as far as the Lorensens were concerned, to get incontrovertible truth by any
means. Hypnosis, lie detectors and the reason I came to name the couple “The
Scopolamine Kids” –the use of the so-called “truth drug”. With lie detector tests, either positive or
negative the result is down to interpretation by the person using the
Example: I once
watched one of these experts who boasted that they were used by law
enforcement, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation and “national security
agencies”. His work had convicted people
and on and on went the bragging rights –he almost claimed 100% accuracy. His job on this occasion was to carry out lie
detector tests on people who claimed to have seen Sasquatch/Bigfoot. Oh, he was
going to get to the bottom of this. The
results were that the people tested were not lying and he pointed out the
results on a graph showing where the question was asked and response given. He
looked a tad “miffed”.
I found a related
online article in which this expert, whose work had seen people convicted of
crimes, stated that the persons tested must
have somehow evaded answering truthfully –which he had claimed they could
not do. It was obvious they had lied or
“self deceived” because “there is no such thing as Bigfoot!”
many problems that come with its use (as I outlined in UFO Contact?) and these
reasons are why this “hundred percent reliable” drug had been dumped by law
enforcement bodies and even some intelligence agencies. The Lorensens had this
belief that anything said under its influence was fact. I had not seen the use
of this drug reported in any of the Lorensen books I had read to when I learnt
about it I was appalled.
It has to be
realised that the UFO witness or percipient is good for only one thing: getting
the facts then dumping them. I have seen
this attitude over-and-over and rarely reported in Ufological publications or
book. The favourite ways of getting an alleged UFO abductee to cooperate when
all they want to do is forget what happened and try to get on with their lives
1. “Well, if you
cooperate with us we can keep your name out of the newspapers”
2. Anonymous tip to a
local reporter giving witness/percipient details –then they have to cooperate
or have the press on their doorstep.
costs a lot of money” is the usual excuse given for contacting a publication
such as the National Enquirer to sell story rights for a fee to cover costs. It
seems that the actual percipient(s) are only told this when it is a fate accompli.
Contact? was written so that it could be shown how Ufologists had
operated and to make this a thing of the past and for that reason every
reference was given, including, sadly, to what appears to clearly be a rather
racist outlook by some so “forceful
opinions about the cases, investigators” means that, rarely for Ufology,
the truth was being written.
If UFOs are all
explainable and utter rot then why are the “sceptical Ufologists” still
commenting, writing articles and (privately because they are cowards) attacking
even their alleged friends? They need to
get out of Ufology and find something else to do. The same thing applies with the legitimate
debunkers who still take the TV and publishing cheques for the same old piece
of rope. Either get away from Ufology or look into reports with an open mind
-these people claim to be applying the Principles of Science but to be honest
I’m not sure they have any idea just what those principles are- and check and
counter-check and publish conclusions that are truthful. If you cannot explain a case you write that
and see whether anyone else can find a solution.
To simply put down
an unsolved case as “probably psychological or a hoax” when it cannot be is
cowardice. How does a farmer in the backwoods go about faking high
levels of radiation or other ground traces?
How does an hoaxer
report his/her/their encounter without any knowledge that five other people
reported the object that they described and that air force radar detected an
object in the same location –before the news even breaks or, better still, how do hoaxers get people who
have no connection with them or who are just passing though report “There was
this massive light hovering over a car on the other side of the fields” or “Our
car just stopped and then someone pointed out a big light swooping down on a
car about half-a-mile down the road: our engine started up again and we got the
hell out of there”.
Please, if you can
explain all of that then I will be very happy. Not “Oh well, they might have…”
I want a demonstrable way of proving how this was all achieved and when you get
an abduction where people report the very same type of object in the area an
hour before the event –reports received by local police- and people living
locally observe the described object taking off from a field and there is a car
in the same field –please explain
that to me.
I have heard every
silly little theory from debunkers/sceptical Ufologists over four decades and
where there is even a possibility it might answer an aspect of a case I have
looked at those theories. Debunkers do
not help their case when they are caught out trying to bribe secondary
witnesses to say they lied or take statements out of context or actually just
The question is
whether, in the UK,
the “Government” employs sceptical Ufologists to debunk cases/events. No. These people operate for their own reasons
and some of those reasons and mindsets would be great for a psychological study.
Berwyn Mountain and its UFO crash –fiction and created as a deliberate hoax
rather like the ‘scary’ Aerial Phenomena Enquiry Network (APEN) was created by
Ufologists and the names of those involved are known because Ufologists like to
back-stab one another or tell people about this “great gag”.
Ufologists paid to “explain away” the Redlesham Forest incident –no government
department is going to waste money doing that since the whole case is known
around the world and been reported on in books (John Hanson’s The
Halt Perspective being the best), magazine articles, podcasts, You Tube
videos, TV and whatever else you can think of.
and the UFO incident and most people might know what you are talking about but
mention David Clarke or Jenny Randles or any other sceptic on the case and you
will draw blank looks.
These would be the
worst (paid) “government mouthpieces” ever because no one knows who they are or
really cares what they say. If the
Rendlesham object was described as “looking like Donald Duck but green” –people
will accept that if they decide it is true.
Ufologists seem to be full of themselves and their 15 minutes of fame
but no one else cares –have they been on the X Factor or Celebrity Get Me Out
Of Here? No? Who are they then?
William Moore in
the United States
took ,money to basically spy on Ufologists and report back to a faction in the
US Air Force. He got caught out and so admitted it at a UFO convention and he
was ostracised –rightly so- from Ufology.
was not the only person involved with
UFOs who took the money to snoop and plant stories but those people covered
their asses quickly. Even Dr. Hynek
continued to do some work after he ‘retired’ as US Air Force consultant.
We find Vallee
carrying out incompetent at best research –he becomes a ufological hero! The late Eric Morris in the UK actually
told Ufologists at a UFO event that he had faked abduction reports and so on.
He was never ostracised but invited to other events. Andrew Roberts admits
faking reports with other Ufologists whom he refuses to identify (but are
known) and will not even come clean on what reports are faked. Ostracised? No –he continues to ply his trade.
There are others
and to be honest I do not care. More
time has been spent over 70 years at these ‘games’ than carrying out serious
research into UFOs. Unless a UK
report has been validated by others anything coming from certain Ufologists
needs to be ignored and if these people write books those should be black-
listed by genuine Ufologists.
I get angry seeing
how much time has been wasted and it is why I work alone and when I find fake
cases those will be reported on. We need
truth not lies.
I have been asked several times to put a question to Brad Steiger about a report he wrote about. Two "sceptical ufologists" expected me to put their rather insulting questions to him. This seems a trait of the "sceptical (debunker) ufologist" -they do not have the balls to put their own questions to people they have criticised.
There is, of course, some stupidity involved since these 'learned ufologists' are so self absorbed in their own egoes and little cliques that they do not even know that Brad Steiger is dead.
I quote from FREE (Foundation for Research into Extraterrestrial & Extraordinary Experiences):
Brad Steiger: Brad was a dear friend of FREE, and even though he was
very ill, Brad completed the “Conclusion” for our book weeks before he passed
away on May 6, 2018. Brad was considered a legendary prodigious author and
investigator in the “paranormal” field. Brad authored more than 175 books, with
over 17 million copies in print. His titles include: Mysteries of Time and Space;
Real Ghosts, Restless Spirits and Haunted Places; Conspiracies and Secret
Societies: The Complete Dossier; Touched by Heaven's Light; American Indian
Medicine Power; Strangers from the Skies; Project Bluebook; The Rainbow
Conspiracy; Real Encounters, Different Dimensions and Otherworldly Beings;
and many more. Brad first began publishing articles on the unexplained in 1956;
since then, he has written more than 2,000 paranormal-themed articles. From
1970-73, his weekly newspaper column, "The Strange World of Brad Steiger,"
was carried domestically in over 80 newspapers and overseas from Bombay to
Tokyo. He was born in Fort Dodge, Iowa, on February 19, 1936. He is survived
by his lovely wife, Sherry Hansen Steiger, author and co-author of over 22 books.
They have two sons, three daughters, and ten grandchildren. Brad and Sherry’s
website is www.bradandsherry.com.
I do my own research so might I suggest that if you are a sceptical ufologists who contributes nothing to actual real research, or if you call yourself a "ufologist", that you do similar.
I may be good, admittedly, but I cannot communicate with the dead. No one can.
This is the result of some thinking today. Comments are always welcome.
Arecibo Message explained: How researchers sent the first interstellar radio message
Chelsea Ritschel The Independent
November 16 2018 marks 44 years since researchers sent humankind’s first interstellar radio message – an achievement Google is celebrating with aGoogle Doodle.
The Arecibo Message, sent from the Arecibo Observatory in Puerto Rico in 1974, is a three-minute message of exactly 1,679 binary digits – which, if arranged in a specific way, can explain basic information about humanity and earth to extraterrestrial beings.
Scientists sent the message via frequency modulated radio waves to a cluster of stars 25,000 light years away to demonstrate the power of the Arecibo radio telescope, which was the largest and most powerful in the world at the time.
“It was a strictly symbolic event, to show that we could do it,” CornellUniversity professor of astronomy Donald Campbell recalled of the momentous event.
The event moved some present to tears as researchers contemplated their own existence and knowledge of planets and solar systems.
The hope is that, in many thousands of years, it may reach another living being.
The actual message was devised by a team of researchers from CornellUniversity led by astronomer and astrophysicist Dr Frank Drake.
When received, the message could be arranged in a grid 73 rows by 23 columns to form a pictograph that represents facts about mathematics, human DNA, planet earth, and humans.
From top down, the seven-part message can show the numbers one to 10, atomic numbers of elements including hydrogen and oxygen, the formulas for the sugars and bases in the nucleotides of DNA, a graphic of the DNA double helix structure, a figure of a human and the population of earth at the time, a graph of the solar system, and a graph of the telescope.
Since the Arecibo message was sent, the message has travelled just 259 trillion miles – a fraction of its journey to its intended destination, which will take roughly 25,000 years to complete.
That is 25,000 years for the message to reach its destination. And if –if- it reaches an intelligent life form and it is decided to respond, which seems very unlikely that it will see the point, there is the 25,000 year wait for the reply. Now, personally, I think sending a message to show off is pointless. I certainly do not care when it gets to its final destination. I won’t be alive and I think it is fair to say that no one alive today will be!
Will Earth still be here in 50,000 years? Will Humanity still be here? Those are the two minor questions because the main one is will any civilization exist in the area the signal is heading? It was sent using the blind-fold and dart method: imagine having on dart and you have to score a bulls-eye, however, it is also decided that you have to wear a blindfold…and turn your back to the board. If you hit a bulls-eye it will be a miracle. If the Arecibo signal actually gets received by an advanced civilisation it would be akin to that miraculous darts bulls-eye.
Rather like the Voyagers (1 and 2) their journeys.
Voyager 1 was launched on Monday, 5th September, 1977. As I write this it is 41 years, 2 months, 13 days, 25 minutes and 48 seconds into its travels. It is now (at the time of writing –November 18th 2018) 144,70293392 AU (Astronomical Units) or 13,450, 974,240 miles from the Earth in what scientists call “interstellar space”. In 40,000 years it will encounter the AC+79 3888 star system which lies 17.6 light years from Earth.
Voyager 2 was launched on Saturday, 20th August, 1977 and is is the “Heliosheath” some 11, 117, 165, 732 miles or 119, 59629202 AU from Earth. It is heading toward the star Sirius and even travelling at 40,000 miles per hour it will not reach there for 296,000 years.
Those are the time scales and destinations for the Voyagers -if they are not destroyed in some collision. Planetary information from both was fantastic so why not just set them to randomly float around the solar system. I know there are a lot of problems because of age and so on but surely someone must have thought it better to keep roaming our system than become a piece of space litter?
Pioneer 10 visited Saturn in 1976, Uranus in 1979 and on the 13th June, 1983 passed Neptune and became the first human-made object to leave the proximity of the Solar System. Its speed means that the final journey will take more time than the faster (in relative terms) Voyagers. Pioneer 10 is heading in “the general direction” of the star Aldebaran in the Taurus Constellation and if it gets there it will have taken 2 million years. Pioneer 11, according to a statement on 22nd January, 2016: “should pass close to the nearest star in the Constellation Aquila in about 4 million years”.
NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory has an interesting “Nasa’s Eyes” web page where you can track the Voyagers’ progress.
I really do not care that in 40,000 years, 296, 000 or 2 or 4 million years an alien space ship might find one of our probes. Nor do I care that some alien astronomer might detect one of these probes. To them it may well send a cheery message of “there was intelligent life” out in space but according to most of those involved in the projects Humanity will have died out by then.
Again, I personally do not think any really advanced alien civilisation would be using radio signals or sending out probes to say “Hello. We’re dead now –sorry you missed us!”
The Andromeda Galaxy alone has an estimated (current figure 2018) 1 trillion stars. The European Space Agency’s (ESA) Gaia space craft is 3D scanning space and has made some excellent discoveries and has helped to create a 3D map of 1.7 billion stars in the Milky Way. According to an item on Space.Com by Elizabeth Howell (29th March, 2018),: “the estimate of the total stars in our galaxy at 100 billion”.
Here is a little fact: as of the 1st November, 2018, there have been 3,874 confirmed planets in 2,892 systems, with 638 systems having more than one planet. If you want more information on how these are detected and distances from Earth then there is a very good Wikipedia entry –just search online for “Exoplanets”.
We should all know about the “Goldilocks Zone” - it refers to the habitable zone around a star where the temperature is just right - not too hot and not too cold - for liquid water to exist on a planet –as with the Earth. Here, then, is another little fact for you: in November of 2013, astronomers reported, based on Kepler space mission data, that there could be as many as 40 billion Earth-sized planets orbiting in the habitable zones of Sun-like stars and red dwarfs in the Milky Way, 11 billion of which may be orbiting Sun-like stars.
Remember that we only just recently discovered “Ghost Galaxies” and that there are suns that travel between galaxies –when it comes to knowing about our solar system and the universe around us our knowledge is quite low but we are learning more.
We should really be considering sending any radio signals and messages shorter distances -and when objects the size of Oumuamua are only discovered by chance- we need to make sure any signals are broadcast throughout our solar system. Let us assume that there is some form of extra-terrestrial space-travelling civilisation out there and that it passes near, around or through our Solar System. It is generally assumed –again- that these travellers will immediately know that we, Humanity, are here. Assumption is the father of all screw-ups.
Mercury is approximately 36 million miles from the Sun while Venus is 67.2 million miles and our planet is 93 million miles from the Sun.Unless a very large space craft comes close to Earth and is detected –probably accidentally by one of the Near Earth Objects surveys as Oumuamua was- then that is a vast area of space. Mars is 141.6 million miles out from the Sun and Jupiter 483.6 million miles; Saturn 886.7 million miles while Uranus and Neptune are, respectively, 1,784 million and 2,794.4 million miles from the Sun. The dwarf planet Pluto is 3,674.5 million miles out and the suspected “Planet 9” (or “Planet 10” if you still object to Pluto having been downgraded) even further.
One thing I always find interesting is that people tend to refer to the Solar System as though it were all on some flat plane. It is not. I think many have seen the diagrams showing comparative planetary sizes and positions in order of distance and actually think this is reality; like the images of Oumuamua these are all artistic visualisations. Then you also have to remember that, according to 2017 NASA figures, the majority of known asteroids orbit within the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter, generally with not very elongated orbits.
The Asteroid Belt is estimated to contain between 1.1 and 1.9 million asteroids larger than 1 kilometre (0.6 mile) in diameter, and millions of smaller ones. So far astronomers have only plotted the orbits of a relative few asteroids and the Centre for Near Earth Object Studies CNEOS) at NASA’s JPL has an interesting web page with regular updates on NEO Earth Close Approaches but as it points out not all are detected before close approach. The most recently detected (November 2018) objects vary in diameter from 12 metres to 80 metres.
Which means that any supposed craft would need to come in fairly close to be detected and recognised.
The argument then is “Well, they will hear our signals –Earth is a very noisy planet!” Firstly: space is a very noisy place so that is not a really good argument if, secondly, “they” are neither looking nor listening. It is looking at the situation via Human eyes; we have no idea what system of communications they use or whether they could relate to Human activity as anything but more space noise. Earth is also quite small.
Look at this image: on the 25th September, 2018, a camera aboard NASA's Parker Solar Probe captured this photograph looking back to Earth — the bright object in the right hand (enlarged) image. Would any alien craft passing by, say, Pluto at 3,674.5 million miles even know we are here?
Credit: NASA/Naval Research Laboratory/Parker Solar Probe
It could be that alien physiology is so different that their equipment would be of a type that would not pick up or even recognise Earth noise. There is nothing special about Earth if you consider that any aliens had spotted Humanity and taken a cursory glance –especially if they were already in contact with far superior civilisations to our own. This basic ignorance –to be honest when it comes to vast distances it is all mind-numbing- of space is also shown amongst ufologists and so called “experiencers” (alien abductees).
Natalie’s experiences are with entities from the Pleiades. Of course, Monica has been involved in contact with a race from Andromeda while John has been involved with beings from Orion. These experiencers seem to think that these are simply solar systems -these names given without question.
The Orion Nebula is 1,344 light years away while the Pleiades are 444.2 light years off. Andromeda is 2.537 million light years away. It might have made some sense had the experiencers chosen a nearer galaxy such as the Sagittarius Dwarf Elliptical Galaxy which is ‘only’ 70,000 light years from our Sun. In 2003 the Canis Major Dwarf Galaxy was discovered and is now our nearest neighbour at 25,000 light years or some 42,000 light years from our Galactic centre. In kilometres that is some 236,000,000,000,000,000. If you want the kilometres to the SagDEG, give or take a kilometre it is 662,000,000,000,000,000.
That any alien civilisation based on planets in such far flung galaxies are concerned about our tiny speck of dust is absolutely ridiculous especially when you again consider that there could be as many as 40 billion Earth-sized planets orbiting in the habitable zones of Sun-like stars and red dwarfs in the Milky Way and that 11 billion of which may be orbiting Sun-like stars. Should we not be hearing more about entities from our nearer neighbours –Alpha Centauri, Barnard’s Star, Wolf 359, Lalande 21185 and so on and how concerned they are about how we treat our planet?
It is far likelier that the “experiencer” has either heard the galactic name, read or come across it some other way and thinks Andromeda et al are simply solar systems –time and again I have actually come across this: including amongst some ufologists.
Science also needs to get involved in the subject of UFOs if only in the sense of looking at the data and assessing reports –“unexplained” does not mean “alien” but it would offer us a basic data base to build on and study. The unwillingness to do this is unscientific and, I believe, cowardly. Hopefully, it is just through closed minds rather than fear that their highly paid jobs might be at stake.
That those involved with SETI will not become involved is, to a degree, and we have to be honest, understandable. Budd Hopkins, David Jacobs et al have made it so that the subject has become farcical: that there are “millions” of people abducted year-in and year- out to create a race of (based on Jacobs’ own work) alien half-wits.
But we need to concentrate on those reports both old and new that have largely been left untainted and there are many.
*We are not talking about hundreds of flying saucer crashes and many hundreds of dead aliens
*We are not even looking at extra terrestrials visiting Earth over the centuries as there is no evidence of this except that presented by the bunko crew.
*We are certainly not talking about “many millions” of alien abductees.
*We are not talking hundreds or thousands of extra terrestrial space craft being sighted each year.
What we are talking about is far less, rarer activity and, being honest again, re-assessing all of the old reports has left me realising that there is evidence there –even if only anecdotal. 100% evidence is not possible since if landing traces, radiation and other physical evidence is ignored by sceptical ufologists and debunkers (the same thing) or simply waved off as being unexplainable and therefore “not evidence” I doubt that anything would convinced a closed and frightened mind.
By definition, and I find this almost laughable, doing the work I am it is safe to say I am far more involved in SETI than most of those working within SETI itself. And I ought not to exclude attempts by others over the years that have created arrays of million candle power lights to beam signals at “UFOs” (which might work if you are not simply aiming your light array at a natural light phenomenon). Others over the years have tried using amateur radio in an attempt to contact flying saucer occupants and this has, it seems failed because hoaxers easily get involved.
Above –the St. Paul UFO Landing Pad.
Over the decades, usually following a “UFO” landing or similar incident, people have created UFO landing pads of various types. The St. Paul UFO Landing Pad in Alberta, Canada, is hailed as “The World’s First UFO Landing Pad” and was built in 1967 as a Canadian Centennial Project. Lack of use meant that by the 1990’s it had fallen into disrepair but it was then restored and a UFO museum added. A UFO conference was held there a few times. It is a big visitor attraction now –sadly, no alien visitors yet.
Swiss man named Werner Jaisli travelled to the small town of Cachi in the province of Salta, Argentina and put a collection of white and brown rocks together in the shape of a star between 2008 and 2012 and is known as an 'ovniport'. Oddly, Jaisli later disappeared –some saying he went to Bolivia or back to Switzerland. There is the other theory that Jaisli and his ovniport were successful and he is currently whizzing around space in a spaceship.
France, the United States and even a small effort by some in the UK have all been tried but these have all been small scale attempts and without any financial backing these projects do not last long –the St. Paul attempt only survives because it was restored and designed as a tourist attraction.
Above: Jaisli’s Argentinean “ovniport”
We have to ask ourselves whether the current attempts at SETI are serious. Should we really be spending multi-millions of dollars on sending signals out that are probably not going to reach any alien civilisation or that will take centuries to arrive where ever they are aimed at? SETI, of course, is not as simple as sending a signal out into space as that would come under Communications with Extra Terrestrial Intelligence (CETI) while SETI is the Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence SETI needs to find signs of alien civilisation before CETI can get to work.
The International Academy of Astronautics (IAA) has a long-standing SETI Permanent Study Group -the SPSG, formerly called the IAA SETI Committee- which addresses matters concerning SETI science, technology, and international policy. The SPSG meets in conjunction with the International Astronautical Congress (IAC) held annually at different locations around the world, and sponsors two SETI Symposia at each IAC. It was in 2005 that the IAA established the SETI: Post-Detection Science and Technology Taskgroup (Chairman, Professor Paul Davies) "to act as a Standing Committee to be available to be called on at any time to advise and consult on questions stemming from the discovery of a putative signal of extraterrestrial intelligent (ETI) origin."
It should be pointed out that the protocols mentioned only apply to radio SETI rather than for METI (Active SETI). The intention for METI is covered under the SETI charter "Declaration of Principles Concerning Sending Communications with Extraterrestrial Intelligence".
The “Wow!” signal is not accepted as evidence since it was heard only the once. However, were signals received that would come under the auspices of METI –Messaging Extra Terrestrial Intelligence. They have a web site and you can find out about their work. There is also an outline of METI’s mission.
The Primary Objectives And Purposes Of METI International Are To:
1. Conduct scientific research and educational programs in Messaging Extraterrestrial Intelligence (METI) and the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI).
2. Promote international cooperation and collaboration in METI, SETI, and astrobiology.
3. Understand and communicate the societal implications and relevance of searching for life beyond Earth, even before detection of extraterrestrial life.
4. Foster multidisciplinary research on the design and transmission of interstellar messages, building a global community of scholars from the natural sciences, social sciences, humanities, and arts.
5. Research and communicate to the public the many factors that influence the origins, evolution, distribution, and future of life in the universe, with a special emphasis on the last three terms of the Drake Equation: (1) the fraction of life-bearing worlds on which intelligence evolves, (2) the fraction of intelligence-bearing worlds with civilizations having the capacity and motivation for interstellar communication, and (3) the longevity of such civilizations.
6. Offer programs to the public and to the scholarly community that foster increased awareness of the challenges facing our civilization’s longevity, while encouraging individual and community activities that support the sustainability of human culture on multigenerational timescales, which is essential for long-term METI and SETI research.
You might think that this would mean that there ought to be cooperation between the METI/SETI and credible Ufologists. After all, since 1947 -71 years- Ufologists have been talking to the general public about the possibility of UFOs being extra terrestrial and that is a lot of groundwork to cash in on. Sadly, it does not work that way. There are astronomers who are interested in the UFO subject, either openly or privately. There are members of other Scientific disciplines who are interested. Really, the Ufologists and scientific community should be working together
As I have already noted, Ufology does not have a good reputation. I really do not need to go into why it has that reputation any further. With most Ufologists it is a case of Science having to accept “many thousands of UFO sightings and alien contacts” and then there are the factions within Ufology and the obvious demands that will be made –dig out the preserved alien bodies and crashed flying saucers from Roswell and many, many other sites since 1947. Denying these exists would be tantamount, as far as Ufologists are concerned, to admitting that the cooperation being offered was a sham. A cover-up designed to keep the “truth-seekers” quiet.
The fact that scientists involved would no doubt say “You Ufologists have to be reasonable and understand that there is no evidence of UFO landings or contact cases and thatRoswell never had a flying saucer crash”. There are data bases of trace evidence as well as data on vehicle interference reports and so on. The fact that the people behind this work are not members of an accredited university means a lot of scientists will not accept it –yet it is there for them to review. It should be pointed out that NASA does not cover up evidence of extra terrestrial life; if it discovered such then it would guarantee it a massive boost in financial backing. A great many Ufologists will not accept that NASA does not cover up evidence of ETs.
What we need to do is go about this in a more organised manner and if we cannot all cooperate then the work needs to be carried out privately.
Firstly, we need a team of experienced investigators who can look into UFO reports and claimed Close Encounters of the Third Kind. These could be ex-police officers or ex-military police; people who have a good instinct as to whether a witnesses is lying or not and who know how to gather evidence correctly.
A team could also consist of astronomers or be able to consult astronomers. When it came to a CE3K then from the outset the team should consist of a psychologist so that at the very outset a percipient can be clearly assessed. It is also important that in such cases where a percipient appears to be physiologically affected in some way, that medical assistance can be given and tests run. There is a long list of cases where percipients were noted as suffering from various physical symptoms and very few involved any medical tests or examinations but Ufologists later guessing at what might have happened to the person in question –often badly misquoting medical sources. Tests as soon as possible could probably yield a great deal of information.
Secondly, we need to set up small areas from which radio and other types of signals could be sent: a Field Base. The idea of a circular array of powerful lights is still a good one since, if an object was a non terrestrial visitor rather than a natural light phenomenon, if it returned a repeated light signal that would indicate a great deal. A natural light phenomenon would not have the intelligence needed to copy and repeat a light signal back.
Thirdly, if the area above could be funded then it could also include a “landing pad”. This does not mean some kind of constructed area. If your Field Base is set in a large field or next to a large field then that would be the potential landing area; UFOs have landed in swampy terrain, desert, hillsides and fields and woods without the need for a constructed landing pad. A Field Base should be set up in the United States, UK and in Europe.
Fourth; you would really require a team that can cover the United States, Canada as well as the UK and Europe. The speed that a team can get to an active area or to a witness the better so the idea of a major report from the UK needing a team from the United States to fly out would increase costs and time wasted.
None of this replaces SETI of course. The question is, however, would SETI as a body accept the data gathered through the above manner? It should if carried out scientifically or the alternative would be to find members of the United Nations who would receive the information and who could act or lend some weight to the work.
The biggest effort would require independent financing. A red speedster can be sent up into space as a publicity stunt but what about a series of small satellites sent into space to broadcast contact messages or signals –these would be far more likely to attract attention, especially if some form of light display signal could be incorporated into them.
We are in the 21st century and yet our attempts to get to the bottom of UFO incidents still appears to be unscientific at best and at worst diving into a chasm of fantasy speculation and claims. Established scientific bodies –France being the exception with its space agency- appear to be disinterested and yet they should be interested.
It seems that any such project would need to be funded privately but there are few out there with the financial clout. We need a Robert Bigelow, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates. The chances of such a backer(s) coming forward are remote in the extreme.