These blogs are, as always, just thoughts that come to mind. I am not aiming my remarks at serious researchers of UFOs. I always welcome contact from them -we are a rare breed after all. Bare that in mind when reading this.
I was not surprised to find that a number of CE3K/AE cases from the
Let me make it very clear that none of this is backed by the governments of the
Why call yourself a “ufologist” is you are sceptical to the point of simply debunking? Get out of the subject if it is all fake or admit that you are in it to make money and for the publicity.
The state ufology has been in goes back to before the 1990s. I heard and read of Max Burns and his search for evidence that an RAF Tornado crashed in 1997 –the initial report of a “flying triangle” UFO has become…not even a side issue. RAF aircraft have crashed over the years. It happens. What I was ‘slightly’ surprised at is how so called prominent British ufologists behaved. If you read the following, printed in full on a number of blogs, wait until you reach the “Stage 7: Hoaxing to Orders” part. If that does not change your mind about British ufology then your reality check must be a Dr Who story.
How does all of this affect the CE3K/AE project you ask –or I hope you do. Since the 1970s I kept all correspondence with ufologists, prominent or otherwise. I also kept files on these people and their groups. Almost 40 years of background information and it is what led me to shun ufology.
The 1978 Frodsham “Cow-measuring” report I had up-dated and then received two emails (“Truthseeker47” and “The Frod-sham-man”) the first in 2015 simply said: “Regarding the Frodsham cow case. I hear you are looking into it. You will get nowhere. It never happened”. No response from the emailer later. The other email was three months ago: “I see you mentioned the Frodsham case. Why?! Don’t you know it was a hoax?” Again, no response when I emailed back.
In that The Usual Suspects: Anatomy of a Disinformation Campaign in Ufology Andy Roberts admitted that he and other ufologists had “seeded” fake reports since the 1980s. My information is that this started much earlier. I do not care about ufologists or their petty arguments. There is only one thing I am interested in and that is the information and data. Unless others have spoken to certain witnesses/percipients then I need to add a very large question mark to many cases from the late 1970s on.
Berwyn Mountains UFO crash.
But it is not just the
At times I almost give in.
We have organisations promoting themselves as scientific truth seekers but are only interested in money and publicity. Their organisation heads switch and change beliefs dependent on what prominent paying members are pushing –abductions, orbs –whatever. Investigators are asked to change reports to fit in with the current money-making trend (shades of the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organisation and the scandal that rocked them) while senior members seem to go unpunished over open racist remarks.
There is the “it ain’t gonna make us money so screw you” attitude hidden behind a statement that when used by the
This is why Science will not take ufology seriously. Ufology constantly jumps and shifts to whatever trend is “hot” –and makes money. Sensationalise reports and jump deep into some fantasy about mysterious intelligences behind orbs and then indignantly pout and scowl at the camera and growl: “Science will not take us seriously!”
There is a reason for there being peer review in science. Others can test your theories and data and will either say “The claim is correct” or “We have some doubts on this aspect –can you clarify?”
This is why I say that Ted Philips’ trace case evidence should be widely available; it needs peer reviewing to make its case.
J. Allen Hynek, who was a trained astronomer and who served as a scientific advisor for Project Blue Book, was initially skeptical of UFO reports, but eventually came to the conclusion that many of them could not be satisfactorily explained and was highly critical of what he described as "the cavalier disregard by Project Blue Book of the principles of scientific investigation."
Hynek, J. Allen (1972). The UFO Experience: A Scientific Inquiry.
One could legitimately write "the cavalier disregard by Ufology of the principles of scientific investigation." It would be very accurate.
I am not attacking serious ufologists. I am quite sure that there are some out there but at times they must look around and ask “Am I the only one being serious?” I do wonder that some times but….
I see that a case I investigated and presented evidence on (see Unidentified – Identified for the details) –the 1987 or was it 1988(?) Nottinghamshire UFO crash is now being presented as a proven even and is so full of fantasy and fiction that watching a video presentation on the case I had to triple check it was the same incident. No house was “partially demolished” by the way.
“Flying saucer” reports are not dropping in number. They were never as frequent as bad ufology reported. And “Orb sightings are taking over from flying saucer reports” is such a false statement that it shows bad ufology at work: these “orbs” were always counted as “UFOs”/flying saucers in the past but ufologists did their investigations from armchairs and via newsclippings. Now, of course, as MUFON will tell you, “Orbs are just so de rigueur”
Checking, double-checking and triple checking CE3K/AE accounts is proving the rarity of these incidents. Sadly, Mexico and South America I cannot even begin to touch on because there has been so much fakery, sensationalism and lack of real investigation in the past; some cases plain do not exist and others –still included in ufology despite having been proven hoaxes decades ago.
This is now a millennial hobby. Why leave your room –copy and paste what someone else copy and pasted from the fella who copied and pasted it before him. Oh, add the odd detail that does not exist in the original source because you know that your audience does not read serious books…or books in general unless they are sensationalist trash. I have, on a number of occasions, asked blogging ufologists for the page number of an item they quoted or even the source quoted (and we are talking about some very prominent ufologists as well). They could only give me “Oh, I took the report from such-and-such a site” or even “I’ve never seen the book but if you find out more info let me know!”
Seriously. Ahem. In June 1957 J. P. Herraerd of
In 2019 I intend to start publishing the AOP Journal again. No arguments on if a plane crashed or who faked what. Pure investigation and research reports and these would not be published until, as with scientific journals, material has been checked beforehand. No later confessions of “Oh, that was my thought on the matter not a quoted source/fact”.