UPDATED -I REALLY Need To Go Into THIS Again?

I received a phone call from an American journalist yesterday. He referred to  the Berwyn Mountain "UFO crash" -it never happened- and claims from a certain person (and his friends) that I am/was a "UK Intelligence patsy" who suddenly popped up in Ufology a few years back to feed bad data into the case.  That person is unhinged.

Apparently, my never having heard of him and his Berwyn Mt "quest", my writing about the incident was part of an "intelligence operation".

Apparently, again, I am from South Wales -I was born and raised in Bristol (NOT South Wales) and Germany. I "just popped up" despite initially sending him a full CV that went back to 1975 including my work with BUFORA, Contact UK and many others on the subject from the UK and beyond. All very easily checkable online.

This is nothing new since 1977 I have heard that I am an RAF Intelligence Captain, Commander in the Royal Navy and even a Lieutenant in British Army Intelligence. Oh...I also got flown to the Falklands/Malvinas during high UFO activity -that lie was spread by the late Eric Morris and his pals in the secret (yeah) Aerial Phenomenon Enquiry Network (APEN) on which my solicitor has a full file "in case"

I have worked with local police, never had any obstruction from UK military officials and have had extensive contact with the late Lord (Brinsley) Clancarty, Sir Victor Goddard and Admiral of the Fleet Lord Peter Hill-Norton and numerous others. That is it. NEVER been in the military.

The reporter in question told me that "These people are certainly convinced about your activities" to which I responded that I had never even met these people and my past is completely open. That ended the conversation but what he makes of it all is unclear.

If you have a query then ask me and DO NOT listen to fantasists.
____________________________________________________________________

I was asked about the Berwyn Mts and Llandrillo 'crashes' and I ought to make it very clear that I do not make public statements on old cases -particularly ones where Ufologists and Debunkers posing as Ufologists have twisted facts, added 'details' and made the whole subject toxic.

I will state that, as detailed in Some Things Strange and Sinister (which includes photographs of two samples) I was sent two pieces of a "crashed UFO" -from Berwyn and the first was easily dismissed without need for technical analysis. The second piece (a sample is in the hands of John Hanson of the Haunted Skies Project) looked more like an alloy -there was a thorough investigation and conclusion reached.

Welsh Ufologist Margaret Fry then contacted me and out of a sort of professional courtesy I sent her a sample fragment as she wanted to check it with a piece she had and get it analysed. This is where the proverbial crap hit the fan.Apparently my meticulous investigation of the fragment and also the person who forwarded it was completely wrong. I was a sap and had fallen for Their trick in black ops over crashed flying saucers.

I re-iterated everything I had found including the source but no. Not acceptable as fact.

The next I heard, after it had been published in UFO rags -the editors of which knew how to contact me and check facts (I apologise as I wrote "check facts" but realised that I was talking about Ufologists too late), was that Fry had the pieces analysed and this revealed them to be made of material not found on Earth. That is a pure and utter fantasy.

Fry also knew that I was based in Bristol as I had corresponded with her when I was a BUFORA Regional Investigations Coordinator and when working with Contact UK from the 1970's on. However, despite this history of correspondence (the AOP files contain some of that correspondence) and the fact that she knew of my work on UFOs going back to the 1970's, she appeared to either be unwilling to correct her colleagues' total inaccuracies about my location and personal history or was mentally unable to recall any of it.

Simple as that. I was now a secret government patsy despite having the most open history in 'ufology'.

The US TV series UFO Hunters featured the Rendlesham Forest Incident in one episode.  Well, one of the many versions of the "RFI".  They reported how two smartly dressed civilians turned up and interrogated US Air Force personnel on the events and may have also used drugs on certain personnel. I was told to watch that episode by someone who knew the story of my involvement. As I watched I said out loud "that was us!"  I ought to make it clear that at the time I had a driver (I do not drive) who took me to investigations and also helped out when needed. The description matches us to the proverbial "T".

Again, John Hanson of the Haunted Skies Project has the full story.

This was all officially unofficial but I had definite set rules set and that included that I could not talk to or interrogate ("interrogate" seems a strong term really) any member of any branch of a foreign military service without a private invitation.  I most certainly did not enter any US Air Force base for quite obvious reasons.

The UFO Hunters episode outline of that particular scenario is pure fiction.

But Ufologists took my 'authority' at the time to mean something sinister.

Two other incidents, at which supposedly level headed ufologists (yes, I know) were present took place in the late 1970s and early 1980's.

In the 1970's incident I was on a train heading to Wiltshire to look into a series of reports.  At that time RAF Brize Norton was in Wiltshire -after the boundary changes it is now in Oxfordshire. Two Wiltshire ufologists had offered to help out and so we were seated while I went over some documents including letters from the Ministry of Defence. There were also five RAF servicemen in the carriage: I did not pay much attention to the whispering going on and tried to ignore the glances I kept getting. As we reached our destination I stood up and walked toward the door and all five RAF men stood and saluted!  I just got out of the train quickly. As we left the station an RAF driver approached me and apologised when he realised I was not who he was waiting for.

The two ufologists seemed to be far quieter than normal and were not much help to me. I discovered a week later they had spread the word that RAF men had recognised me, saluted and I had returned the salute (in fact I had scratched my temple in embarrassment!) and then my waving off an RAF driver.....oh I was in deep here.  No matter how much I tried to explain it never set things right.

In the 1980's another ufologist tagged along on another investigation trip.  This time it was to visit a now closed airbase in Gloucestershire. I walked up to the officer of the watch and took out my letter of invitation and my AOP ID card -I noticed he caught sight of the official papers in my folder and at that point he saluted and called me "Sir" and I explained he did not need to salute me to which he replied "Understood, sir".

"Sir"/"madam"/"miss" are terms that are used normally so there was no significance in that. There was to the ufologist!  Also...the salute!  Misunderstanding.

I learnt very valuable lessons -the first was to always hide any papers I had in folders -and that habit got other ufologists VERY suspicious.

All of this used to happen daily, probably still does, but to ufologists in my case it made me a "secrets man" -I was actually called that at a UFO conference in Calne.  Deny it all and the more solid the case against me was.  The fact that I got on well with police forces.....oh boy.

And the photo above was taken of me at RAF Manston in the late 1970's when I received some very welcome assistance from personnel there including confirmation of a UFO radar-visual case at the time. This is a pre-digital photo and that top is not "military" but a blue jumper and I am not wearing "RAF issue grey trousers" but jeans.  And that mark on the arm of the jumper is not an "RAF symbol" -it's a blemish in the film!

Normal, polite interaction as it should be between members of the public and military services whether you are involved in UFO investigation or not.

The introduction to Contact: Encounters with Extra Terrestrial Entities

Research Never Stops

   If the Reader has read my previous two books on Close Encounters of the Third Kind -referred to in this work as “CE3K”- and Alien Entity cases, UFO Contact? and Unidentified –Identified then they should know what to expect in this one. Reports that have been researched or investigated as thoroughly as possible and that are fully referenced.  I always encourage others to follow-up on a report if they want to and, should they find evidence that counters what is presented in any of my work it is always welcome. Research is not about saying “case closed” because, unlike Science in general which closes its eyes and looks away, we cannot have that attitude.

   The Debunkers like to assert that they apply the Principles of Science to their work. In fact, if they did so we might not get to continually laugh at them as they impress their fans (oh yes, there are groupies and it is quite embarrassing to see) with talk of how members of the public cannot judge size and distance when their own televised debunking tests prove that they can.  And where would we be if the debunkers, who are not marine biologists and ignore everything said and written by marine biologists with decades of field work, did not explain to us that there are no sea serpents or sea ‘monsters’ –even Sir David Attenborough in the book Life On Earth (Harper Collins, London, 1979) states that it may be possible that we will one day discover the legendary sea serpent(s).  Oh, and some debunkers would be lost if they could not cry out “It was owls!” at least twice a year.

   Debunkers by using that very name reveal that they are here only to gain attention and make money from TV shows, books and other outlets. If you look into something and your mindset is that you know everything and its all hoaxes or psychological then you are serving no purpose other than hiding your fear behind a big ego (and cheque). If you cannot disprove something and have to resort to lies, trying to corrupt other witnesses with money and fake evidence then you are hiding something.

   The “Sceptical Ufologist” is just another name for a debunker.  These people hide in online groups or attend UFO events while criticising Ufologists, conventions and telling private groups that they will be “spying in the background” at events and report back.  They are actively involved in attempting to explain away UFO reports through far fetched or non-tenable theories. The reasons why they will not look at or accept the possibility of extraterrestrial visits is purely down to Fear of the Unknown Phobia – Xenophobia: the irrational sensation of fear experienced about a person or a group of persons as well as situations that are perceived as strange or foreign. It is the fear of anything that is beyond one's comfort zone. Why these people insist on being in the Ufological field also indicates a deep psychological anxiety because if “It’s all hoaxes or psychological” then get out of the subject and live your life.

   In November, 2018, I received three emails from people involved in UFO groups and online chat groups.  They were outraged and sent me the full body of text from a message on the supposedly private EuroUFONet group regarding “Current international UFO research coordination/liaison projects”. The author was none other than Vicente-Juan Ballester Olmos.  As this email is now public knowledge and I have made this known to EuroUFONet I can see no problem with publishing it here unedited:

   “I am not surprised by lack of reaction on those "events". In a very brief comment, many of us worked on similar initiatives in the past when we still believed that (1) there was a legit subject-matter to investigate (i.e. a possible visit of spacecrafts, or at least the possibility to discover a novel atmospheric phenomenon), and (2) ufologists' motivation was sincere, educational, research-oriented. Such attempts failed basically because major differences in attitude (research vs exploitation) and conclusion (different forms of skepticism vs crude belief in flying saucers) emerged as the result of advancement vs stagnation.

   “What was impossible 30 years ago is now impossible because sides are sharper. We all know all the guys listed, one by one. Their biography (perhaps with some exception) is clearly one of belief and/or exploitation. Most of the individuals listed simply attempt to disguise their own credences in spacecraft visits with the appearance of serious investigation, but they are sensational-seekers and opportunists, trying to get recognition and a few bucks. Most if not of them are mediocre people in search of fame and money. All of them use and abuse the popular UFO belief to their own benefit. For me, this is ludicrous and immoral, in addition to totally wrong. I, for one, would not associate to any of them.

   “If an institution (ignorant of the reality) decides to waste some money and invites them to a congress, it will give them an excuse to release the magnificient proposal of an international confederation or the like, just to fabricate a news with zero base. They just share identical personal objectives (perhaps with some exception). If they find an institution or government naive enough to invest money on this subject, they will jump on this, specially if it allows them to travel, go to good hotels, make publicity of themselves, enjoy TV coverage, and the like. In 5 years, nothing will have been accomplished. As in the last 70 years.

   “Regarding MUFON: is there anything we do not know about what really fuels this organization?”
 
   I see points that I would agree with and others that I would challenge but I suppose that the main question is why would you remain active in a field you think is utter rot and full of idiots and con-men?

   When we add to this the Ufologists and the bragging rights (they think) to declaring that they employ the Principles of Science unlike the scientific community we can see why things are messy.  The first question here is why do Ufologists not submit their completed reports and case files to the Centre for UFO Studies in Chicago? At least there they can be read by other researchers.  The purpose of research is not to collect UFO reports and let no one else see them simply because you feel they are “yours” and I have encountered this again and again over the last four decades.  In the UK it seems that as soon as 1985 arrived genuine UFO investigation and research groups around the UK just packed up and vanished –where are all of their reports: in an attic somewhere.

   The lie here is that Science, Ufology and Debunkers “apply the Principles of Science” because there are no internationally adhered to such principles.  Look it up and you will be told “The three Principles” or “the four principles” and I have even seen five and six principles laid out. A Principle is defined as:

        “A principle is a concept or value that is a guide for behaviour or evaluation.
        In law, it is a rule that has to be or usually is to be followed, or can be desirably   
        followed, or is an inevitable consequence of something, such as the laws 
        observed in nature or the way that a system is constructed”.

   If you want a better definition then this should do:

        “Scientific Principles and Research Practices. These principles are at work
        in the fundamental elements of the scientific method, such as formulating
        a hypothesis, designing an experiment to test the hypothesis, and collecting
        and interpreting data”.

   I am afraid that “We hypnotised this woman and she said it was all the Greys” is not counted because without exception those involved in defining and leading “Abduction Research” from Budd Hopkins, john Carpenter and David Jacobs on have not applied scientific methodology but have led subjects, added and/or removed data such as testimony and submitted material (symbols, etc.) as convenient and even gone as far as to misinterpret what they have been told by subjects –or to paraphrase Jacobs and how he puts it “I have to interpret what abductees say” because no one knows the truth other than him.

   As for designing an experiment to test an hypothesis I am sorry to say that there is only one and that would take money and effort that Ufologists and scientists do not have since they are all following dogma.

   I was once a big supporter of Jacobs and a very big supporter of Hopkins –I was called (twice) “Hopkins UK promoter”. To find out that he redraw symbols that abductees claimed they had seen during incidents so that they matched, holding back of facts that proved that Linda Cortile was at best a hoaxer.  Add to this the fact that both he and Jacobs had no form of oversight and none of their material was/is peer reviewed and there is no access to recordings to quantify the methodology used in regression sessions it is a mess.  According to Jacobs: “If you see a UFO no, it did not vanish almost instantly: you were abducted!”

   Hopkins and Jacobs made it so that they decided what was to be revealed and that everyone had to take their words on the matter. This led to the obliteration of any credibility Ufology had.  Even the farce that was “New Ufology” never created such damage.

   I have copies of witness interview tapes where the investigator is referring to a Lights-in-the-Sky UFO as “the space-craft”, “the space-ship” and so on. I have seen Ufologists on TV shows tell witnesses at their first meeting how “We know it’s a race called the Zeta Reticulans –they are one of a number of species coming to Earth”. 

   Why does science not take UFOs seriously? Because of debunkers, sceptical Ufologists and Ufology is why.

   “What we know is a drop, what we don't know is an ocean” and Isaac Newton was quite correct but today we have Science becoming almost entertainment and scientists from all fields jumping on to the media roller-coaster to become “celebrities”. George Gillet spoke to scientist and author Rupert Sheldrake after his Oxford Union talk The Science Delusion: Has Science Become Dogmatic? (The Student, 28th November, 2013) and noted that:

    “After much consideration, it seems that what Sheldrake is suggesting isn’t as radical as it seems. The idea of always analysing the evidence behind a theory is fundamental to the practice of science. What is surprising is the reliance modern science seems to have on opinions and dogmas, and how certain beliefs in science appear to be immune from scrutiny or inquiry. Sheldrake may indeed be a taboo figure now, but his criticisms of science may prove popular in years to come”.

   I once had a conversation with a physicist and I noted that he skirted around a certain theory that was gaining popularity at the time. I told him that I had noticed him doing this and asked why?  He told me that his “old Professor” who had taught him had instilled in him that the theory he taught was never to be questioned and that he applied the same principle in his teaching students and “Lord save the little sod who questions what I am telling them!”  I could not let that go and discovered that his old teacher had been the same because that was how he had been taught.  I suppose that the teacher’s teacher was taught what his teacher had been taught! Five generations of teachers at a university were basically teaching out of date things because it was the way things were done.  Then it came from his mouth: “The university relies on funding and if we start telling people that the lab named after an esteemed predecessor that they funded was teaching old stuff we’d be up shit creek in the rainy season!”

   Money. Funding –I have heard this over and over again.  When I was trying to get backing or at least a base to work from on exotic fauna in the UK and foxes I approached colleges and universities.  I was told again and again and again that “in the old days we used to have biology departments and field biologists” which beggared the question “Why not now?”  The answer was simple: field biology was not the “sexy science” –no one from local or national businesses or investment groups were going to put money into it.  Where was the publicity or slick product they wanted –funding research into average shoe sizes in the UK or whether youngsters would prefer to eat vegetables or chocolate and sweets (I am not joking) or even “Who does the dishes at home” –that gets backing.  Looks good on tax returns and a company can put down that it supports scientific research on its portfolio which share-holders like.

   It is far easier for scientists in different fields to be dogmatic and joke or make fun about UFOs without ever having carried out a day of research.  Someone is phoning from the BBC to ask your opinion on UFO sightings –Google it. I was once on Australian radio about Big Cat sightings and asked about reports from Australia and I mentioned two cases in which there were really good, clear paw-prints that were photographed and plaster casts made and identified by a zoologist.  That same day I had an esteemed member of Australia’s scientific community telephone me and tell me that I had been speaking rot and so I told him who the zoologist was who had carried out all the work in that part of Australia. “Probably some ornithologist!” he snapped back. I told him the department and university name and gave him an email contact.  There was silence followed by “That’s my university!” never heard from him again.

   This dogma and blind eye of science runs through most fields.

   According to a post on the Astronotes blog of the Armagh Observatory and Planetarium, on the 9th May, 2013, titled The Truth About Zeta Reticuli:

   “Zeta Reticuli, a dim binary system of Sun-like stars only 39.5 light years away in the little constellation of Reticulum is strangely well-known. Why is it so famous? This system was once identified as the home of the little grey-faced and black-eyed humanoids who allegedly abducted Barney and Betty Hill and ever since has appeared in popular culture as the quintessential location of extraterrestrial mystery. What do we really know about these stars?”

   Firstly, “Admin”— I hate it when someone claiming respectability hides behind a vague title rather than put their actual name to what they write. Put your real name to it or expect it to be ignored. On this occasion it just shows that “Admin” had read whatever the first web site he/she came to for ‘facts’.

   Secondly: “home of the little grey-faced and black-eyed humanoids” shows equal lack of knowledge since Betty and Barney Hill were not abducted by “Greys” –the Greys only came into being in the 1980s thanks to the questionable work of Hopkins, Jacobs et al so incorrect there.

   Thirdly, Betty Hill stated that the chart she had seen was so detailed that she could not possibly draw it in any great detail but focussed on one part that stuck in her mind and drew that –and even then it was a case of “the best I can remember”.  From there the sketch was re-drawn, copied and redrawn and then subjected to study and Zeta Reticuli was seen as the prominent point in the now “star map”. If someone points to a map of England on a wall and asks: “Where is it you come from?”  I can point at it and say “There” now, yes, Bristol and Cardiff will show up prominently in the area I have pointed at but looking you would also see Bath, Yate, Midsomer Norton, Chipping Sodbury and so on.  Even then it is not clear which area I come from though accents can be a giveaway (we have no idea whether aliens have accents).  We also have to recall that these were not crystal clear recollections but recollections under hypnosis so to say “This is an accurate star map and we did not even know about those stars back then: Zeta Reticuli is where they come from!” is ludicrous.

   The fact that stars were included that were generally unknown at the time is interesting to note and those sceptics and debunkers attacking the Hill case tend to side step that or suggest “just a lucky guess!”  The Hill case does not rest on something that was never claimed by Betty to be a complete star map and was something she did not fully understand.  Ufologists are the ones who tend to make all the claims and they really ought to stop and move on. The Hill case was in 1961 and there have been other cases since.

   This is something that is common in most fields where a report has caused a stir or become popular –it becomes a “classic”. If you look at the question of the North American Sasquatch/Bigfoot there are hundreds of years of legends, accounts, reports, tracks (before the modern day fakery) described in detail and so on. Work was carried out by the renowned field biologist John Bindernagel as well as others looking at habitat –food resources and so on.  John Green carried out a great deal of work marking what seemed to be a migration pattern and territorial patterns.

   Then, sadly, the “Bigfoot fans” became involved and every tree stump seen in a photograph was a Bigfoot. The Bigfoot Field Researchers Organisation, like certain UFO groups, began to fake reports and new trends followed such as Bigfoot “calls”, “tree-knocking” and so on that were never reported previously. The main classic case is the 1967 brief clip of an alleged Sasquatch known as “Patty” and that short piece of footage has been cleaned up, digitized, analyzed any way possible and you either believe it is fake or genuine –the fuss created if you say “I’m neutral –we’ll learn nothing more so let’s get to the new cases”. 

   After 50 years some people are pointing out that the Patterson-Gimlin footage needs to be filed away and if a body of a Bigfoot is found and it looks like the one in the footage then we will know it was genuine.  The same applies to the Hill case which I dealt with in UFO Contact? –it is not the only incident since 1961 and so needs to be filed away.  Arguing over the case serves no purpose what-so-ever: you either believe it happened or you do not; both percipients have been dead a long time so nothing new will ever be added of relevance.

   Astronote in its blog post also stated that:

    “Only just visible to the unaided eye, Zeta Reticuli was first referred to as such in 1756. Can I just repeat that Zeta Reticuli has been seen in the sky without a telescope for centuries. Anyone who tells you it was not discovered until after the Hill’s story became famous is utterly wrong”. 

   Well, “Admin” is the one who is utterly wrong in fact –as far as I am aware no one who knows anything about astronomy either in Ufology or in looking at the Hill case has ever claimed any such thing –unless you get your information from a debunker who will claim that this was stated. I think “Admin” really does need to do a little reading because this kind of unprofessional and silly blog post is something the snorting astronomy fan boys might go for but it is a falsehood. Why should I believe anything Armagh Observatory claims if it either lies or twists facts –it lacks the scientific credibility it likes to claim it has.

Sceptics often offer little personal snippets that sound acceptable to the public and others but lack every detail and fact that makes them sound a little genuine.
Michael Shermer is publisher of Skeptic and in an issue of the Scientific American magazine (Scientific American vol. 292, February, 2005. p: 34) he wrote about his abduction experience:

   “My abduction experience was triggered by sleep deprivation and physical exhaustion. I had just ridden a bicycle 83 straight hours and 1,259 miles in the opening days of the 3,100-mile nonstop transcontinental Race Across America. I was sleepily weaving down the road when my support motor home fl ashed its high beams and pulled alongside, and my crew entreated me to take a sleep break. At that moment a distant memory of the 1960s television series The Invaders was inculcated into my waking dream.

   “In the series, alien beings were taking over the earth by replicating actual people but, inexplicably, retained a stiff little fi nger. Suddenly the members of my support team were transmogrified into aliens. I stared intensely at their fingers and grilled them on both technical and personal matters.

   “After my 90-minute sleep break, the experience represented nothing more than a bizarre hallucination, which I recounted to ABC’s Wide World of Sports television crew filming the race. But at the time the experience was real, and that’s the point. The human capacity for self-delusion is boundless, and the effects of belief are overpowering. Thanks to science we have learned to tell the difference between fantasy and reality”.

   So to any closed mind of science, his pals and fans not to mention his ego, Shermer had easily explained away UFO abductions by totally ignoring the facts.

   Firstly, of course, he was being all macho and ignoring advice from his crew so pushed himself to his mental and physical limit.  That ought to tell you the type of man he is –big on ego and not listening.

   Secondly, and this is a popular misconception amongst the ignorant –debunkers and sceptical Ufologists: Shermer’s ‘abduction’ (he claims) had constant references back to the TV series The Invaders.  I have dealt with this in blog posts and alleged UFO abductees do not refer to elements of Star Wars, Spielberg’s Close Encounters of the Third Kind, the 1950s movies like Invaders from Mars, etc. In fact such references often help eliminate fantasy prone people so that those reports can be catalogued but taken no further.

   Going along with this theory then surely people should have reported strange sounds and giant ants - the movie Them! was very popular and why did other popular and international blockbusters not spawn panic or droves of reports of flying children’s nannies? Why no wave of sightings of Chitty-Chitty Bang-Bangs? You cannot push a theory that a popular TV series or movie will spawn hysterical mass reporting of sightings but “only when it comes to UFOs”.

   If Shermer was correct then Kelly Cahill and five others (four unconnected to her) were all exhausted and sleep deprived on one particular hour on one particular day and in one particular spot and I would have to question the odds in favour of that. The Hills were also exhausted and sleep deprived? Walton and his crew were all exhausted and sleep deprived?  The person who left their house for work after a good night’s sleep was sleep deprived and exhausted?

   Were there other witnesses to Shermer’s ‘abduction’ or did others report UFOs at the time of his experience? Was he seen with a UFO above him or was there trace evidence?  Was there any radar-visual evidence? “No” to all of those because it was all in Shermer’s mind in a situation he created by ignoring advice and pushing himself too far.  A bad example when it comes to TV series reference as an explanation: David Vincent was an architect who had driven too far and was too tired to go on; however, as we know he was not dreaming but had seen ‘real’ aliens and a space craft and did not wake up and say “Wow, did I hallucinate last night!”

   I have no time for debunkers and sceptical Ufologists and, oddly, both of those factions continuously try to recruit me to their groups because “You seem to have the same outlook and approach as us!”  Rejection often offends but I like to quote Miguel de Unamuno y Jugo (29th September, 1864 – 31st December, 1936) who was a Spanish Basque essayist, novelist, poet, playwright, philosopher, professor of Greek and Classics, and later rector at the University of Salamanca and he wrote that:

“The sceptic does not mean he who doubts,
but he who investigates or researches, as
opposed to he who asserts and thinks that
he has found”.


    I do not just criticise for the sake of it and I am not here to make friends. If I criticise it is because there is just cause to criticise and I do so based on facts and those I fully reference.  I do know that there are, out there in France, Germany, the United States and even the UK, people who may or may not call themselves Ufologists but investigate and research and these people are in the position of having accumulated data but finding no central location to send it to or where it can be published and peer reviewed.   Most try to avoid contact with Ufology in general for reasons I can understand.

   I also know that there are astronomers out there who have a serious interest in the subject and I have met some of them and they may keep private files on the subject.  Some well known astronomers have gone to their graves having never revealed their interest and some acted the role of debunker.  Fear that your colleagues might “pull your leg” or joke about you is not the basis to hide your interest in the subject matter. In the past astronomers have been tortured and executed because they stuck to their beliefs and theories and to bring enlightenment to Humanity. And you worry you might be called a name?  Open interest and discussion with colleagues will always be difficult if they do not believe in the principles of scientific investigation.

   Why do we know that the Earth is not the centre of the solar system and that there are galaxies out there that were never even known to exist in the past?  How do we now know that water is not only confined to the Earth in this solar system –suggesting that previously resulted in astronomers being mocked by colleagues in print and at conferences.  So much that we are learning now is often carrying the added line of “We always suspected this” when, in fact, “we” never did but took part in the mocking but now it is proven “we” all knew it.

   Do we really think it is worth waiting 50,000 years for a signal to reach a point in space and take 50,000 more years to get a reply if there is anyone there?  If scientists are seriously looking for extra terrestrial life rather than a meal ticket for life then they have to take the example of the French and get out there or study case reports. This should carry no stigma, perhaps a few jokes, but imagine if you find evidence here on Earth of such visits.

   I would like to see real researchers and investigators cooperate on the whole subject but I do not believe they will or can because they both create obstacles. There is the need to have financial backing and a national reporting centre –there is the Centre for UFO Studies in the United States but no real equivalent in Europe.

   For the Reader who, by now, may be wondering when the case reports will appear I need to point out that this work, as with the previous two, are not meant to be pot-boilers with case after case.  That would be too simple.  I look at reports and then check as many sources as possible to make sure that I only use good cases or cases worth noting.  I also try to up-date with any new research findings –the Reeves Farm in 1966 and how the Dandenongs Encounter (Kelly Cahill) fits in with the black entity research and I also try to focus in on reports that have similar entities involved that seem to indicate that there is a core of genuine encounters.

   As for “proof” this is different for each sceptic of course.  I have seen a group of sceptics argue over what one has given for criteria but another one rejects.  As with Sasquatch most will not be happy until there is a body!  Firstly, I do not believe that there are any captured or dead aliens of flying saucers held anywhere so we do not have that proof and even if we did there would be claim and conspiracy theory ad infinitum as to why we are not being told the whole story, how we are being deceived and so on.

   Photographic and video evidence is up-dated daily online but the only problem is that it is all faked.  There was once a joke made that one day someone would upload photographs and video footage of genuine aliens and a space craft but it would be called fake because it is one genuine item amongst thousands of fakes. I watched a lengthy video clip of a marine animal on You Tube one day and glanced at the comments -45 claimed that it was “so obviously CGI!” and “You can see where it is poor quality CGI!” and there was one person who clearly identified the species that was filmed and gave a reference and that person was totally ignored as the arguing continued.

   All we can do is take each report and gather as much data as possible and if the witness/percipients are still alive try to talk to them. There are many old cases where the details are so basic because the only sources are newspaper clippings. Once those people have died we lose their evidence. If I can I try to find a photograph of the witness/percipient because that takes the report from words to putting an actual human face to them and that is important.

   Multiple witness or percipients get High strangeness ratings of around 5 and if there are independent observations that add to the case then the rating can get higher and if the PRA in Australia ever releases the Dandenongs Report and it backs up the claims then that would be the first case to get a rating of 9-10. 

   People ask about the simple UFO landing, entities exiting, taking samples and then returning to the object which then takes off.  We even have such cases where several people are asked if they would care to board the object but refuse –the entities then go about their business and depart: no missing time or abductions.  Those cases are so basic and constant that it seems almost unbelievable that they are faked –no one makes money and most witnesses do not even want to be named. But if only one witness then the rating is low.

   The question has been asked over the last few years: “Why are abductions and UFO reports declining?”  The answer is that there were never “many thousands” of sightings, no multi-millions of generational family abductions.  We are seeing the situation as it has always been with less people reporting sightings of meteorites, unusual light phenomena, aircraft, drones and balloons under unusual conditions. If those who do have genuine encounters see how the media, press, science and Ufology have treated witnesses in the past they are more than likely going to keep quiet.  One off event and that is it –why ruin your life? 

   I would hope that if anyone had a genuine encounter that they would report it and damn the ignorant.

   I can always be contacted by serious investigators and researchers and by anyone who believes that they have had an encounter and in 40+ years no person asking for anonymity has ever had their names revealed.  I am not in this for the money and fame, which is probably a good thing really.




Terry Hooper-Scharf
CE3K/AE Project
23rd December, 2018

http://www.lulu.com/shop/terry-hooper-scharf/contact-encounters-with-extra-terrestrial-entities/paperback/product-23926690.html