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.
***********************************************************
Pascagoula
My attitude is explained below.
***********************************************************
Two reported
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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
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 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
respect.
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
and Belgium
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 Berwyn Mountains UK researchers are negated because
bad data creates bad data –any results are a waste of energy, time and paper.
See for instance:
and
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.
Here is part of an
item from the New Scientist’s Daily Newsletter of 16th June, 1990, and refers
to an event that Stanton Friedman was to speak at: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12617216-700-ariadne/
“Friedman continues
to publicise the MJ-12 story, and in October last
year was scheduled to address a public meeting in Manchester about it. The
meeting was announced in The Manchester Evening News and
caught the eye
of Jenny Randles, a Stockport
author and investigator who has written several
books on the topic of UFOs, landings, abductions, mysterious
aliens and
purported conspiracies by governments to cover up incidents.
She contacted
the newspaper and in an interview made plain her opinion of
the MJ-12 papers,
once saying that they were ‘about as factual as a Steven
Spielberg movie’.
She also made some remarks about the bizarre stories
circulated from time
to time about UFOs, such as extraterrestrials’ fondness for
strawberry ice-cream
and the US
government’s making agreements with aliens about a quota for
future abductions.
“A report of
Randles’s remarks appeared in the newspaper on the day of
Friedman’s meeting, though the interview had taken place
several days before.
Jenny Randles had some complaints about it; for instance, it
applied the
comment about the MJ-12 papers to the meeting instead and
mention of the
wilder stories about UFOs might have been taken by some to
refer to Friedman
himself.
“The upshot is that
Friedman and the organiser of the meeting, Harry
Harris, have issued writs against the newspaper and Jenny
Randles. They
are demanding Pounds sterling 500 from The Manchester
Evening News, but
from Randles Pounds sterling 10,000, money which she does
not have. Friedman,
in suing her, is alleged to have suffered damage to his
scientific reputation,
such as it is, and to have had his public meeting sabotaged
by an attack
in the newspaper timed for the same day by her”.
And out of court
settlement was apparently reached. Of course, one of Randles supporters was
none other than Andrew Roberts who wrote, rather childishly in “Ufologists Suing Ufologists –Friedman”: http://www.ufoupdateslist.com/2001/jun/m14-019.shtml
“Y'all,
Stanton Friedman may
squeal and squawk in trying to justify his
pointless legal
persecution of Jenny Randles over her opinions,
but no-one has yet
put the case in any context from a UK ufology
point of view. I was
heavily involved in the scene at that time
(indeed we put Stanty
on at a gig in Leeds and made a healthy
profit out of _his_
opinions!)”
You can read the
American side of this at another online site which shows that American
researchers are also, as an old time British copper might have put it: “at it!”
This is without
referring to Whitley Streiber’s legal action against Jenny Randles:
“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.
“Jenny Randles,
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.
Regarding UFO
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.
Sanderson’s
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
equipment.
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!”
Scopolamine has
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
are:
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.
“UFO investigation
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.
UFO
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
downright lie.
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”.
Sceptical
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.
Mention Rendlesham Forest
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.
Moore
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.
