Ted Phillips and soil samples from the 1979 documentary UFOs Are Real.
_____________________________________________________________________
It has been some time since I read Ted Phillips' book of UFO Trace Evidence cases.
There are problems such as cases of what might be a form of natural phenomena -perhaps even ball lightning (1490 AD, Ireland). The 1663 Robozero, Russia case is one that made me sit up when I first read it. Then we have the 1790 Alencon, France hoax -which I have exposed as such yet is still included in ufological works "because Jacques Vallee has quoted it" (Vallee even included at least two other hoaxes that I can prove (and they were widely known as such before he included them).
Here is the biggest problem;
(1) "Date unknown" (but 19th century?)
(2) including incidents from the 1880s/1890s airship sightings -Dr Geoffrey Doel, before me, showed that these were airships not extraterrestrial craft.
(3) A 40 feet (12m) wide "circular" patch where nothing grows (US date unknown).
(4) A loud bang and rocks thrown up into the air -no sighting of any object but the location had a roughly 18 ft circular pattern (July 1880, Canada)
(5) 1909 Caerphilly Mts airship incident
(6) anecdotal (at best) account from the descendents of people who allegedly saw something in the 1800s.
(7) notes from UFO publications that were never followed up -because they could not be.
(8) the Scandinavian "ghost rockets" was no real mystery and has been dealt with and explained so many times -including by scientists
The first 34 listings should be ignored even if there are a couple that are of interest such as Robozero (not as an extraterrestrial craft, though). There are good reasons to dismiss those cases:
1. Most, including 1948, are far too old to investigate. Even if a witness to a 1948 incident was alive there is:
2. No physical trace evidence. If there is then I fully apologise and would like to see this evidence.
Ted Phillips' map of 150 UFO landing sites filed in 1979 (sorry -screen shot)
_____________________________________________________________________
Looking at 1-34 in the catalogue any scientist with interest in the subject is simply going to shrug and put the book down and only a few might continue. If they did they might give up as the Schirmer CE3K at Ashland, Nebraska is included and that seems to generally be seen as a hoax. "What looked like fresh oil on the road"/ "A footprint was found". Basically, these are news snippets from UFO publications and some of those I have found were not too hot on actual facts. Even if Phillips corresponded with the publications all he might get -if lucky- is a photograph of flattened grass or a hole.
From the year 1950 on is a better date to start -some might even say 1960. You need to find reports with definite and clear evidence of physical traces. If there are photographs -cameras could be a rare thing even up until the late 1980s due to cost so if anyone took photos you would be lucky. Physical evidence in the form of material would be interesting.
Physical Traces Associated With UFO Sightings was published in 1975 so the fact that so many known hoaxes and misinterpretations are included shows just how bad ufology was and is in sharing evidence. The statistics at the back of the paper are....useless, You cannot offer a breakdown in percentage, etc., and expect it to have any meaning because of bad data. As with a computer -you Input bad data the Output is bad data.
If this is the basis of the 4000 reports Phillips claims to have then it is a problem. I have seen him on TV shows where his files are shown and I have asked UFO groups and individuals if they know of an update or report concentrating on the best evidence from Phillips. Nothing. The online website has not been updated for years.
Again, if I am wrong then I apologise but if someone can give me a publication on PTE (Physical Trace Evidence) from Phillips in the last ten years I would very much appreciate.
Is Phillips hoarding the evidence he has? We need to see the best cases for which tests, samples and results are available. That is what science needs to see to get it interested and if PTE from UFO landings is rare then that adds some credibility if the unknown natural phenomenon cases can be sorted from the seemingly constructed objects evidence.
I have tried contacting Phillips but no responses so I have to base things on what I have seen and to be honest the Physical Traces Associated With UFO Sightings book leaves me very disappointed: we need to see the actual evidence from 1975 on because that is how a case can be proven.
I really hope Ted Phillips publishes the best case evidence soon because tiny lights and Czech UFO crash myths are of no real interest when it comes to proving the case.
