We Have NOT Progressed After More Than 70 Years -Is It Too Late?

  I think that when Ufologists claim that "many thousands" of CE3K/abductions are on record they are correct. That would be proof.

However, when you consider that "many thousands" of those cases were not investigated then that is proof of nothing.

There are claims made based on statistics and "data" that have been accepted by Ufologists.  This is false data.  Looking at the reports (you cannot call them cases as they were not investigated) used there are well known hoaxes, cases that involved people with psychological problems, there are reports of airships, aircraft, helicopters, meteors, aurora. For the 1954 French "UFO wave" the CE3Ks include a man who was repairing a motor vehicle, another involving a local hermit -it goes on and on. 

Above: Entity described in the Dewilde case

These reports are still used today and the number of reports rattled off by the UFO media whores -"Many thousands"/ "Up to twenty thousand estimated reports"- is to impress. I have seen these flim-flam men on recorded interviews and even at conventions citing "cases" where they have facts wrong. Good example; Captain Thomas Mantell was not shot down by a UFO but died due to what we would call "pilot error" these days; he was committed to a chase and flew higher without oxygen. However, it is a "classic" flying saucer story and despite all of the material released the media darlings claim there was a "U.S. Air Force cover up" -that should be USAAF as it was the Army Air Force at the time and there was no cover-up. Bless him but Donald E. Keyhoe had an agenda. 

Do not get me wrong; I first got drawn into UFOs via Brinsley Le Poer Trench's Flying Saucer Story but what got me hooked were the books of Keyhoe. He put his own spin on a story and even Captain Edward J. Ruppelt in his Report on Unidentified Flying Objects noted that while Keyhoe generally had his facts straight, his interpretation of those facts was another question entirely. He thought Keyhoe often sensationalized the material and accused Keyhoe of "mind reading" what he and other officers were thinking. Ruppelt was also the USAF Blue Book man who came up with the term "Unidentified Flying Object" (though some Ufologists tried to credit it to Keyhoe or others.  With Keyhoe I found the facts interesting but always preferred to draw my own conclusions; in a way, Keyhoe was popularising the subject and trying to get the more serious minded people -particularly the military and scientific- and have it taken seriously. Swings and roundabouts really.

What Keyhoe did, probably unintentionally, was take criticising the USAF to get it to be more open but Ufologists took it to the point of downright attacking it. All the flying saucer enthusiasts simply did not understand what Keyhoe was doing and so assumed that he was leading an attack against the flying saucer cover up initiated by the Pentagon. It became a "must do" to attack the Air Force and U. S. government over cover-ups and how would most bodies act under such circumstances? They closed the doors.

An example here is the United Kingdom. Military cases were noted but often not commented on too much. Having known some of the pioneers of Ufology in the UK I learnt one thing; the Air Ministry was always polite and friendly and chap-to-chap would admit that they were flummoxed over the flying saucer reports -there were those who suspected the Soviets and there were those who wondered whether the source of these "craft" were from "elsewhere"? But then the British, wanting to jump on the sensationalist band wagon and stir up publicity for their subject began to declare "government cover ups" which, if you read your UFO history -magazines, books and journals from the time- you realise was false. As an extra note here I never had any obstruction from the Ministry of Defence and they got completed reports from me and blah blah blah. When I spoke to Nick Pope while he was at the MoD he had never seen a single one of my reports (because he was a desk clerk) and I found that he knew nothing about things I had chatted to the MoD over -I realised that he was "not in the chain".

In fact the MoD (Air) has helped me a couple of times on non UFO cases and dug up data that I would never have gotten otherwise!  Now that is a 'cover up' I appreciate! Arthur Constance (look up your UFO history) had meetings at the Air Ministry and presented reports to them. I could list others but these were all private individuals who understood that people at the Air Ministry or MoD were doing a job and when reports popped up that involved test aircraft (in my time on three occasions) they were dropped and not mentioned.

But during the decades reporting became worse. Meteorites, actual weather balloons, aircraft and even natural phenomena -including ball lightning- were all included as "UFOs" and that is "UFO" in the extra-terrestrial sense.  Individuals and groups often dumped cases that did not fit into what they found acceptable and when you mix up everything (including the hoaxes) you have a huge pile of nonsense and it is no wonder so many people fell into the "paranormal UFO" trap or decided that it was all "crap" and became anti-UFO. The biggest problem here is that these people did not go back and study the actual sources. People were reporting as fact reports that filled a one inch news column and THAT was a UFO report. This means that all the proposed theories based on dates, times and locations are invalid. The "Mars Cycle", ortotheny -it all falls to pieces.

The 1954 French 'wave' probably was not a big UFO event. As noted, someone repairing a bus by the side of a road and a known (locally) hermit at another location, an officially noted meteor sighting and even helicopters were all included in the "UFO wave" lore and this mainly because Dr Jacques Vallee included them in his data base and noted them in his books and articles while actually not personally checking the reports and this to the point that even now his work contains 'reports' from someone known as a hoaxer back in the early 1960s and if you have not checked and corrected your data after 50 years that makes you a very poor researcher.

However, and this is the important part: there are CE3K/AE cases from that period that look quite sound. Sound in the sense that they survive scrutiny but none actually furnishing actual proof of, say, extra-terrestrial visitation.  We can say that almost 70 years later no such devices as described by witnesses have emerged as terrestrial test or secret aircraft -so where are they from?  

Now this is important. It means that there are not "many thousands" of CE3K/AE reports but maybe a few hundred -which without thorough investigation may be an exaggeration- actual incidents.  But this means that cases from the past do become far more important because if they are genuine then this may give us a better insight into what is going on or, at least, the type of entities behind the UFOBs -seemingly solid and constructed objects.

This is why I want to stress the importance of actually  tracking down the witnesses/ percipients to these incidents -if we can talk to those from 1954, when the activity really seemed to begin in earnest, then that is important. All of those reports are scraps of paper unless you can say that the person(s) involved were spoken to and they seemed genuine even after these decades.  The Madame LeBoeuf report is a couple of paragraphs in the literature but I found far more material and facts that makes it seem (as far as we can determine) genuine yet the first French Ufologist did not even go to talk to her until decades later and then criticised the press for bad reporting 😵 

Above: Take your pick -which one was it? There are five other pages to choose from!

There are other reports dismissed as hoaxes based on poor reporting and English language sources quote sources that are written by debunkers (they have no idea because "it's all in foreign" so the first English quote is their 'fact'). Marius Dewilde I assumed was a hoax until I actually looked into what went on. I checked the facts. In my books I have gone back to sources and even used cases never before published in the English language and some of these are incredible -including multiple witnesses.

This is where I have certain criteria. We know, in fact psychology has known for many decades, that people can slip into "altered states" and there are those who are prone to what I termed "Ruth Syndrome" and in the latter case these are fully investigated to rule out hoaxes or other psychological problems. It is a game changer not just for UFOs but also the paranormal and Bigfoot fields. Because of this, and I have investigated these cases myself, I tend to give solo UFDO/abduction percipients a low rating. There has to be something significant to make me really consider such a case.

Above: A rather imaginative painting of the "Kelly Goblin"

I tend to look at reports where there are two or more percipients because even Ruth Syndrome cannot make someone else see what that person is experiencing. If you have a case of 'abduction' or a CE3K or simply an alien entity sighting (no UFO) you have the possibility of a hoax so there are questions that need answers. If you have three women travelling along a road when a large, bright object swoops down over them then you note that but when you find that someone reported a car travelling along a road with a bright light over it (this observer is some distance away) then you have to note the report. When the witnesses all note missing time and suffer various physiological symptoms -some perhaps radiation linked then there is no question that it is "of interest" and if those same witnesses suffer obvious symptoms of post traumatic stress....

Many cases of abduction were only discovered because of people breaching confidences -the Hills being one example but there are many. In many of these cases there was no softly softly approach by Ufologists to earn trust and find out what happened while helping those involved. Again and again we read that Ufologists told these already stressed people that it was a case of "Talk to us or we go to the papers" -and even then the Ufologists went to the papers!

Louise Smith, left, Elaine Thomas and Mona Stafford of Liberty

All of the above are found in the Stanford, Kentucky case of 6th January, 1976 involving Mona Stafford, Louise Smith and Elaine Thomas.  Leonard H. Stringfield (before he moved into the crash -retrieval genre) tainted the investigation and the only person who came out of this as trying to help the women was Dr R. Leo Sprinkle who maintained a strict code of ethics in all the cases he was involved with. 

Percipients in alleged UFO incidents were treated disgustingly. They were pushed and prodded for their "story" and then dumped with no follow ups and little interest in how they coped. The Ufologists had their story and something for a book "revealing all the facts" and telling everyone how they, as the great truth seekers , found out about the case and then followed the usual BS. The Lorenzens were very keen on using the "truth drug" or as it is known scopolamene -with all of its inherent risks. 

Warren Smith adding "padding" to his write up on the Herb Schirmer abduction case and things became so confused that Schirmer was labelled a hoaxer (no one bothered to question what this made the "respected" Smith).

At one point I used to look at the reports coming in and some highly dubious ones were accepted -UFOs and "Bigfoot" incidents and looking at the main witnesses it was quite clear that some form of altered state was involved. I pointed out all the indicators and point-by-point went through certain cases. The investigators never responded or contacted me again. The constant claim that "Many extra-terrestrial races" and "Hundreds of ETs may be visiting Earth" just did not seem right. 

It seemed ridiculous and when the Ufologists who do not look at the material available suddenly claim (because they cannot get 100% evidence of ETs) 

"They come from the multi-verse! Another dimension" they may as well just leave and close the door after them. The multi-verse is theoretical and not a fact. It is not something we have seen and recorded but a theory.  

Then we have the "They are US from the future" which is something said when your brain turns to silly putty.  When you follow through what has been reported in UFO incidents and then at the time travel theory (not new by several decades) it just falls to pieces and makes no logical sense. It's a case of "I have no idea so I'll just open my mouth and whatever comes out...."

Well known 1950s and 1960s Ufologists faked reports. They spread rumours to discredit witnesses in cases for their own reasons. Some of these I have looked at in my books and they are eye-openers since even very well known Ufologists KNEW the information came from dubious sources they still used the reports in their books and talks.

With CE3K/AE reports it is fair to say that they are rarer than we thought.  Certainly UFOB sightings are rarer because if we rule out everything other than an investigated report that appears genuine we have...only scraps of paper. No matter how many odd lights you film or photograph in the sky they are only odd lights and absolutely proof of nothing. We also have to be aware that today's U.S. military are openly making us look at hoaxes and even possible new tech described as "UAP".

Above: the original Flatwoods entity before its reboot and becoming a money-spinning pop culture icon

I have said since the 1970s that what we need to be looking at are the reports of alien entities associated with UFOBs (seemingly constructed craft). These reports may tell us more about what is behind any genuine activity than anything else. You have a report of a seeming metallic craft with no/ some portholes flying about the sky or landing on a road. That just tells you that you have a report of a seeming metallic craft with no/ some portholes flying about the sky or landing on a road. What is controlling it? Is it remotely piloted? Is it, to use the term, "manned"?  

Forget the "Greys" because as we have seen they really started and ended with Budd Hopkins and his work (which I was a big champion of in the early years) and his "stacking the decks"

In fact Budd KNEW Linda Cortile was lying and hoaxing but let it go.

For me all of the very odd stuff Budd was coming out with was bad enough but when his book Unseen was published I read it and I was shocked. Budd Hopkins had totally and utterly killed his work and reputation and it was all provable.

David Jacobs was another researcher I corresponded with and supported and even defended his work in articles. Then things began to fall apart and the utter trash he came out with and what we learnt was going on behind the scenes killed off any reputation he had.  Both he and Budd had started off as credible investigators yet from the 1980s on they destroyed actual reporting of CE3K cases because if you were not abducted then you were fake or unimportant.

Yes, there were small, large headed "aliens" reported in the past but they were not "Greys". In fact almost every alleged abductee says that the aliens that abducted them were "exactly" like the one depicted on Whitley Streiber's book Communion or from one of Hopkins book covers. They then proceed to draw their versions of a "Grey" and when you see 15 "Greys" drawn by 15 different people who all claim "this is what they looked like" and they are only vaguely similar you see a problem. The "Greys" were the masterminds behind all of the millions of abductions. 

Above: Gorn from Star Trek. His relatives apparently turn up at the homes of abductees speaking out to beat them up. Seriously.

Then it turned out that pushing hypnosis further the abductees remember them from before they (abductees) were even born and then we had encounters in past lives and then....Hopkins and Jacobs discovered that the "Greys" were not the masterminds and after that each alien type has been replaced by another and so have humans -there are millions of mentally incompetent alien-human hybrids who do not know what music, Tv or basic things they have been taught about since birth are.

I think the "Oh, this is all fantasy" should have hit people when Gorn, the lizard warrior that fought a duel with Captain James T. Kirk in the original Star Trek series turned up as the "heavy" lizard man security for the aliens and abductees drew Gorn -right down to his costume. All absolutely authenticated under hypnosis Jacobs tells us.

What makes it worse are the loud "I'm a 35 year Ufology veteran" types who talk about odd lights then add "Then we have these reports of little guys -what's that about??" In all honesty, if you have been 'investigating' and (definitely not) 'studying' UFOs for 30-35 years and you have never looked at CE3K reports then just shut up. Put a zipper on your mouth and go back to watching Star Trek or Dr Who because you are of no use. Not once (??) have you ever wondered "Who is flying or controlling these objects?"  Mind you, that sums up Ufology.

Eupora, Mississippi in 1973. At the height of a "global UUFO wave" multiple witnesses see two UFOs -one lands or comes close to landing on a U.S. highway and despite even the intervention of Ted Bloecher (THE CE3K man at the time) the case was not looked into. The investigators promised to look into it, in fact they poked their noses into many other reports but did not investigate. Why?

Here is a clue; all the reports they stuck their noses into, and which were already being investigated, involved white people. At Eupora all the known witnesses were black. When I asked around in the 1980s Ufologists in the U. S. told me (paraphrasing since a racist word was used) "No middle class white person is going to drive his car into a black area. If you were not robbed or never had your car stolen you'd probably be murdered by the blacks". And this prejudice was not solely an American thing (it still exists there today) as I came up against it when "black" people reported a UFO sighting in the UK. But let's not get into that here as I discussed this in one of my books.

CE3K involving a black person at the height of the "1973 UFO wave" got, and still get, 2-6 lines at most and that is it. Never investigated in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s or 2000s and once they have gone we lose that data. The rumours such as "Well, the witness is black and recently returned from Viet Nam" was a nod and a wink explanation at the time for not investigating. It made no sense and then I realised that U.S. troops in Viet Nam were known for pot smoking and drug abuse. Oh, and 'of course' being black well... incidentally, the witness had returned from Viet Nam six months before the incident.

We lost data simply because someone's hair was "too curly" as they used to say. When I learnt that this type of prejudice still existed in American Ufology I was sad more than surprised. 

We have many, many reports that are of no use. No information other than in some cases "On 17th December a small person was seen to enter a landed object before returning to it and departing" and that is it. Multiple witness reports summed up in 2-3 lines and never investigated. The longer we leave it the less likely we are to find percipients/observers still among the living.  Cases that were big news at the time were reported on and then they were...forgotten. Do the percipients continue to stand by their accounts 45-50 years on?

With funding I'd spend the time I have left chasing up these case -but there is no funding for this type of work.  I have tried UFO organisations but they have no interest -membership and financial gains seem to be the main aims. MUFON flatly refused to even look at the Eupora case and their responses to polite communications were very rude and dismissive. Where is all the press and money coming in if they actually did the work they were set up to carry out?  Press and media and financial gain is the main interest.

Four years ago I suggested to Ufologists in Spain, France, Italy, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and France that looking into the old reports from 1954 on might be well worth the effort and with the internet tracking down percipients should not be incredibly difficult and we might find real information and data to study. I followed this up with further emails and messages.

Not one single organisation responded.

Looking at their web sites it seems that promoting debunking (NOT scepticism but clear debunking) of UFOs is the main route they take as that also attracts media. The ones that are pro UFO seem to not be interested in research and definitely not any work into CE3K/AE reports and the fact that several referred me back to "This guy in the UK who runs a study on this" did not help.  That "guy" was me, incidentally.

  We seriously need to carry this work out or we have truly lost valuable information and any credibility as researchers so if you know of any local or national UFO groups that you think could help out -give them my details.