UK Ufology & Survey

I was asked why I was not looking in greater detail at old UK CE3K/AE cases.  The answer to that is quite simply that from the mid 1970s on when "New Ufologists" (as they were to be called a few years later) came into the subject we had hoaxing. These people were so hypocritical in that if someone else slightly fumbled a case or were considered to have even slightly embellished a report then they were hounded. They were totally discredited by these people.

At the very same time these “New Ufologists” were, themselves, faking reports and incidents. As noted before, this was admitted and there was a firm refusal to declare which cases had been deliberately faked and as for an explanation as to why they did this -it was no one's business.  Not only does this totally discredit the entire New Ufology movement and those involved in it (because unless we know who did what everyone involved is tarnished) but it rendered serious UFO research dead. How could you carry out a report analysis or look for trends if you might be including anywhere from 3, 4, 5 or goodness knows how many fake reports amongst the data?

If you read the articles or books published by these ”New Ufologists” you begin to see how details in one varied from another –it was almost chopping and changing details to suit what theory they were pushing. In one noted 1970s report details changed no fewer than three times in summaries written by the same person.

In one “major case” it was noted how details changed so much that at times accounts had to be re-read to make sure one was not skipping past the start of another report summary.  

There were reports that appeared genuine yet these were being explained away. Ripperston Farm in Wales and the events going on there had one lie after another added to summaries –often emphasising hoaxers to shut down interest. Hoaxers that, it appears, over 40 years later have not been found to have existed.

Seeding themselves in UFO organisations and publications these people literally controlled what was being published and what was being published tended to come from people connected to them. Interesting research into infra red photography and UFOs had any publicity given to it stopped and articles blocked.

It was this major concern from people with a serious interest in UFOs that led to the AOP Bureau opening up a file that looked at specific “New Ufologists” and groups. Attempts at organising investigation and research were infiltrated and disrupted by people acting on behalf of noted “New Ufologists”.  There was an attempt to stage a Men-In-Black style silencing operation against myself badly back-fired. Not once but twice and on the second occasion those involved were somewhat cowered when they found themselves surrounded by police officers who were visiting my home and had heard the threats and used a rear door to position themselves behind the ‘MIB’.

For this reason any report featuring the names of certain people are often given the lowest classification possible since they make it impossible to contact alleged witnesses to confirm details.  Certain alleged percipients no trace could be found of leading to the suspicion that even they were fictional. As people pointed out there seemed to be no logical sense in denying access to witnesses in these cases when it came to someone specialising in the subject and who never breached confidentiality (since 1973 some names have never been revealed in reports I looked into). Why would “New Ufologists” be afraid to have their reports authenticated?

One thing that is very noticeable is how cases that could be put down to “psychological” explanations were promoted heavily. Just what type of “psychological effect” was involved did not seem to matter if a few mumbo-jumbo phrases were used. Or the “paranormal connection” was brought in and the amount some reports dedicated to “I heard an unexplained bump noise” or “something fell in the kitchen” is ludicrous.

Reports featured far more speculation about “paranormal activity” and the investigators’ own theories than what they should have contained: factual recording and reporting of the facts in a report and assessment of the observer”.

The amount of time and space dedicated to the alleged encounters of Joyce Bowles (who was either hoaxing or a “Ruth Syndrome” case) and Ted Pratt (who tended to let Mrs Bowles do all the talking) was terrible. But it kept Ufologists arguing and at odds with each other and this might have been the whole point.

As someone from the Ministry of Defence once put it –and I paraphrase here: “Why would the Ministry try to silence Ufology –it’ doing a far better job by itself than we ever could!”

Old reports untainted by “New Ufology” really ought to be looked at and John Hanson from the Haunted Skies Project has done this to a certain extent and even found some cases not previously recorded or investigated. Unless witnesses/percipients can be spoken to first hand and details confirmed then the lowest ratings are applied.

I have bulky UK files and I know a quarter of the reports have to be considered fake.

There is your explanation.

But what can be done to correct the situation? Firstly, all those suspected or known to have faked reports need to be named openly. Sadly, I cannot see this happen in Ufology because too many people have too much in the way of vested interests.

Secondly, there needs to be a full disclosure of every report which was faked.

Thirdly, there needs to be a legitimate reason given as to why these reports were faked.

There is the cowardice of not admitting to what was done because it would be quite shameful and if the Ufologists involved are not ashamed then I think that shows a greater character problem.

Openly admitting to faking reports means that debunkers then have enough ammunition to slap down most reports in Ufology and remember: that would be BACAUSE of Ufologists and no one else.

Another problem is that any genuine report coming from those individuals could never be taken as serious or trusted.

From 1975 up until a year before his death, I had regularly correspondence and phone call exchanging with Eric Morris (who had a number of UFO ‘groups’ and publications). By 1983 I was aware that things he was telling me were untrue. Incidents and reports that I double checked never panned out and as soon as the whole “Grey” abduction phenomenon broke he was straight in it; symbols noted during abductions by witnesses, ‘fully documented’ mass UFO abduction of 20+ people and even a report in which people in two cars observed a UFO crash into a roadside wall and the impact was felt throughout the nearest village. As it happened I knew a naturalist who lived in the village Morris mentioned and he had been out observing owls at a point right next to where the wall had been demolished. In fact, he had been out every night the entire week and he doubted that he was concentrating so much on the owls that he missed a 20 feet diameter UFO crash into a wall!

Morris faked (badly) documents and on one occasion his rubber stamp was on the reverse side. The “Black Heath UFO crash” was his work. He threatened people as part of his ‘problem’. The late Joan Amos, widely known in UFO and Fortean circles, was in her 70s when Morris threatened her physically to get some documents she had. When a male neighbour heard all of this and went out to intervene in the matter Morris left.

Over the telephone he once threatened to shoot me and told me that there would be no consequences for him as he was still employed by the secret service (apparently he had operated some communications system in Romania in the late 1970s). Well, that was the last straw for me and I contacted Cheshire police and reported the phone call. Morris denied it all while “saying some odd things” and I was told that he did not have a good reputation and I should try to avoid further contact with him.

His faking of reports and witness bullying was known to top UK Ufologists –some of whom had not only been threatened by him but also used similar tactics.

I then read that he had been applauded over a talk (which was all fake material and info) at a Northern UFO event. I never believed that because others prominently involved all knew about Morris. However, two different Ufologists told me that it was all true and that even those in conflict with Morris had applauded and spoke highly of him.

That is what I like to term a “WTF?” incident.

I have one full case report which was submitted to the MoD since Morris had, it seems, used my name several times. The report from Morris contained letters to various RAF commands, local authorities and the claims were so paranoid and delusional that I asked someone I knew who was a psychologist to read through it for me. “Paranoid. Delusional and with possible psychopathic traits” was the character assessment I got back.

All of this was known to leading Ufologists and Ufology in general. Nothing happened –because anyone can become a Ufologist and there are no rules or official guidelines.

Morris later told others that Budd Hopkins had told him that he had never heard of me –well, I have an annotated and signed copy of one of his books plus correspondence. I asked Budd who was confused…”Who is Eric Morris?”

Followiong the ManchesterAirport sighting in the 1990s Morris sent me a taped interview with an alleged witness. Morris is constantly calling the object a “space craft” and adding details not given by the witness (if a real witness). I was asked to filter this through to the MoD…I have no idea why although he had told me that he had sent full reports on prominent Ufologists to the MoD and offered to work with them (MoD) to infiltrate British Ufology…even though he had been in Ufology since the 1970s. Needless-to-say, I never passed anything to the MoD on his behalf.

We have prominent European Ufologist hoaxing other Ufologists, American Ufologists doing likewise and (knowing the info they have is fake) those Ufologists still using the information in talks, books and articles.

I am not even going to delve in the number of scandals that have hit the US organisation MUFON. I have absolutely nothing good to say about its “GB” branch.

Recently, I decided to carry out a survey of UK UFO groups. Standard survey and surveys are carried out every day all around the world. These are the series of questions I sent out (each made individual by putting the name of the group on the form) in this case sent to the British UFO Research Association (BUFORA):

 

1.      How members does BUFORA currently have and has the number     increased or decreased over recent years?

 

     2.   How many field investigators does BUFORA currently have and is  

           any

           training given or is an investigators manual provided?

 

3.     What current or past UFO research studies has BUFORA conducted  and into what aspects of UFOs?

 

4.     Re. above: have there been any proven results from this research?

 

5.     Re. UFO sightings approximately how many reports were received in 2019?

 

6.     How many of the 2019 reports have been identified or classed as Unknown?

 

7.     How many UFO sighting reports have been received so far in 2020?

 

8.     Have any conclusions been drawn on some of these reports (based on the current restrictions) ?

 

9.     What is BUFORAs current stance regarding the possible origin(s) of the UFO phenomena?

 

10.  What are BUFORAs future plans for research?

 

These are all basic questions but combined with responses from others would give a good overall picture of British Ufology. On the 5^th December, 2020, I received the BUFORA response:

 

Dear Terry

Thank you for your email.

We are very busy as a voluntary organisation.  We are not a membership

based organisation and have not been for many years now.

I would be happy to talk with you in Jaunary rather than answer your

questions below.  The UFO subject is very complex so realy some of the

questions are not quite relevant.

We have a lot of information on our website, so this may help you too.

  I have an article for 2028 and  2019 generally looking at statistics

and sightings during last year.  We do run an investigator's course,

which is in six modules and an examination and takes about 8 months to

complete. This course focuses upon what can be observed and

MISIDENTIED in the sky.  It is the case that up to 98% of all sighting

reports have a rational explanation when reported quickly and with

accurate information.

The most crucial factor in this subject is the 'human face' of

ufology, our beliefs, our perception and our memory and how these

reflect upon how a sighting or experiences is reported.  70% plus of

all sighting reports are now images and have been for many years.

 

If you would like to call, let me know and I will send my telephone number.

 

Sincerely

Heather

 

Gloria Heather Dixon

BUFORA National Investigations

 

Remember that this was from the head of national investigations. She has statistics for “2028”?  And “&0% of all sighting reports are now images” I take it this means photographs and video.  All the typographical errors are as they appear in the email. I looked the email over several times and then the questionnaire and all of the questions should be easily answered.

A survey cannot be carried out with a quick phone chat as the material making up the survey has to be available in case questions are raised. I pointed this out but have received no response.

There is an investigation course and I looked this up on the official BUFORA web page and noted this immediately:

“The fee is £49.95 and if you decide to enrol on the course, please contact us at enquiries@bufora,org.uk to obtain payment details. The course fee is non-refundable under any circumstances”

Unrefundable under any circumstance which means that if you sign up the course could be cancelled be utter rubbish but you gave away your money so Yah! Boo! Sucks!  I then remembered that BUFORA had gotten rid of its much publicised ”Limited company” status under which terms the above non refundable fee would not be allowed.

I was surprised that nothing listed on the BUFORA page had changed since the early 1990s (BUFORA having fully backed the Santilli hoax Roswell autopsy video). The organisation seems more set up to make money these days and their press section notes:

“BUFORA charge a fee of £200.00 plus expenses for speakers at any conference or event.”

I have, obviously, been in contact with some BUFORA investigators over the last few years and, honestly, they have not been impressive.  There is the usual (standard) “experiencer” group (no mention of a fee there) but to be honest the web page does not give a good impression to anyone other than someone not versed in the subject. In fact, BUFORA comes across as jumping onto the debunking side of the fence.

As for other groups they have not responded either. It seems almost as though everyone is scared of committing themselves so “something” by answering a few basic questions –in the 1970s and 1970s there was generally an 80-90% response to surveys since they also publicised the groups.

I wonder whether this is why so many people involved in Ufology set up their own teams or just work in pairs ?

I had hoped that a survey might show a glimmer of hope but it appears as though the UK decided on the lazy route and that making a few quid was better than getting boots dirtied and, above all else, you break away from the new norm and you will get “the treatment”.

This just seems to be how it is and, perhaps, I am being silly expecting Ufology to serious investigate and research UFOs?