Consider this my last blog post.
Up to the 1980s anyone reporting a UFO landing and observing alien entities were rarely treated seriously by Ufology and Ufologists who spent weeks, months and even 10 years (?!) looking into lights-in-the-sky cases. Paraphrasing most Ufologists: "Each report gives us a piece of the puzzle and one day we will get that one piece, a report, that will complete that puzzle."
I see a lot of aircraft and buses. Complete mysteries. How do they get from "A" to "B"? Well, uh, the aircraft are flown by people and the buses are driven by people. We know that, right? (I exclude MUFON from this as they have just created an elite squad of investigators to look into the matter).
If we see something flying around in the air and if that "something" does not conform to anything we have seen before but is obviously solid and constructed then we make two assumptions:
1. The object in question, if not large, may be remotely piloted. A drone. Plenty of them around and we've seen them with our own eyes and military ones on TV.
2. There is a pilot or crew.
Those are logical conclusions any intelligent mind comes to. I have seen one "veteran" Ufologist after another -some claiming to have been 'investigators' for 35 years refer to (quote) "reports of these little guys -what's that all about?" IQs are not great amongst some Ufologists.
If I see a landed aircraft -say a helicopter- land and some people get out of it in a uniform of some sort then I immediately assume that this is the air crew and one or two of them are the pilot and co-pilot. Same thing with a train; it pulls into the station and out of the front cab emerges a person -I assume based on facts known that this is the train driver and even if I saw someone get out of what appeared to be a craft of some unknown type I assume that this is a pilot or crew member.
Someone reports a large, discoidal object land in a field and as they are observing three "beings" emerge and walk around before re-entering the object which then takes off. What could "that" be all about?? I am not in this to make friends so I am quite happy to say that if a Ufologist sees these reports and cannot even work out a possible connection then he/she needs to leave Ufology and start growing tomatoes (a far more useful use of their time).
UFO -"constructed object"- lands and "little guys" get out and move about before re-entering the UFO which takes off. Connection is implicit. Ignoring the entities and concentrating on the object is, to be fair, the only resort of a moron.
Just what have these "veteran Ufologists" been doing for up to 35 years?? Attending shows (conventions), conventions, in-fighting and ignoring possibly the most important aspect of the UFO field.
We know that Ted Phillips' catalogue of physical traces is useless. It contains listings of hoaxes, misidentifications and more.
We know that Jacques Vallees catalogue of UFO landings is useless. (I will just copy and paste here) It contains listings of hoaxes, misidentifications and more.
We know that editors at the UFO journal, the Flying Saucer Review. not only published hoaxes of their own but flatly rejected any requests for cases they had reported on as genuine and which even at the time of publication were known hoaxes to be corrected. Editors, particularly Creighton and Bowen were downright racist in their attitudes to non-Europeans and described some as "illiterate" and having "savage looking appearance". Racism was far from unknown in Ufology in general and still exists today.
We know that well known Ufologists hoaxed other Ufologists to discredit them both in the United States and Europe (particularly Spain) and Ufologists were not too concerned about adding 'facts' or twisting details so that it discredited/authenticated a report. Perhaps 90% of what became termed Close Encounters of the Third Kind were never investigated. Even in 2022 there are very well known European Ufologists who do not talk to any of the witnesses/percipients but look at newspaper and magazine cuttings and that qualifies, to them, an 'investigation' -knowing full well the inaccuracies in journalistic reporting.
Again, very well known Ufologists still publish books and papers on the subject while making it clear that they think "it's all in the mind" because there has been no solid evidence discovered by them in their sat-on-their-asses amongst their newsclippings.
In the early years I supported Budd Hopkins (in several ways) and even have a copy of Intruders signed by him with a personal message. I supported David Jacobs -going so far as to write articles in defence of him. However, as Budd's work progressed it was obvious that the situation was getting out of control and I even explained my concerns. We now know that he "stacked the decks" when it came to evidence. He did not reveal that he knew one of his most famous abductees was a fraud -proven. He and Jacobs then colluded on the subject and at first I was not willing to believe this and Jacobs assured me that it was untrue. Look what we know now.
The whole "Grey" world wide abduction scenario was a made up farce. "Greys", as I believe even Anne Druffel pointed out, did not exist before Hopkins work. There were short, large headed entity reports but they were not "Greys" -MUFON and other noted Ufologists have, of course, "re-booted" the subjectr so that almost all cases did involve "Greys". We have seen the Flatwoods "Monster" re-booted into something else and even the Kelly entities have had some changes made. Because making those changes jumped onto the money-making band wagon.
From 1982 right up until the present any and every report was an alien abduction and if the percipients/ witnesses were adamant that it was not -they were kicked into touch and ignored. Jacobs, Hopkins and all of their ilk totally destroyed any interest in genuine events. People were all abductees and so were their parents. Some remembered seeing the "Greys" while still in the womb. Others had encountered them in past lives. And people, thanks to TV, junk books and Ufology swallowed this bovine excrement by the bucket load.
Of course, certain "veteran Ufologists" apparently missed all of this. Maybe they were growing tomatoes?
I found that certain well known and respected Ufologists used reports that they knew (and others knew) were hoaxes in their books, talks and articles. Not just CE3K reports but sensationalistic UFO incidents ("the guy used to make up all these stories" I was told) that are still posted across the internet today.
Reports of CE3K were 'mislaid' because the observers were a group of teens and reports of UFO activity in the area in question were not even looked into. Silly contactee accounts filled FSR as well as the BUFORA Journal and local group publications. These were "acceptable" (George Adamski was proven a hoaxer in the 1950s but he still crops up in books as a "genuine" percipient) and why? Because investigating and researching can be a very long task and very boring with lots of dead ends. It requires persistence and the need to ascertain facts. Outside of UFOs there are three cases that are notable; one took 35 years to get to the bottom of while another took 25 years and the last 15 years -ask me again why I have so many files and damned paperwork!
"UFO waves" appear to be mainly fictional or at least some natural phenomenon that peaks at a certain point and as this is reported as "UFOs" so too are aircraft, meteors, satellites and other mundane object -all now officially UFOs. The 1954 wave consistent of hoaxes, misidentifications and much more with some seemingly genuine incidents. The 1973 wave appears similar. Today everything is a genuine UFO and you just need to watch the MUFON You Tube channel or visit its online Report A UFO page.
.jpg)
Ufology (ie wannabe celebrities) keeps calling out for Science to take it seriously and recognise it as a science. Ufology ought to feel proud if it gets labelled as "Kooky fringe". Ufologists claim "We investigate all reports just as the police would investigate" -two points need to be made:
1. Only some chosen re[ports are looked into "thoroughly" and some of those investigations have been brought into question in the past.
2. It has been noted that MUFON in particular have asked their various State sections in the past to alter wording or conclusions to make the cases fit a "current trend" attracting attention ...if the police altered evidence there would be outrage.
I left out the obvious, didn't I? The third point which should be obvious: if anything crops up that used to be classed as a CE3K it gets immediately passed on to MUFONs abduction section which I am very unimpressed by since the "They are all abductions" stance seems to have been taken and Jacobs and Hopkins work goes unquestioned but constantly referred to. The Marden report was so bad I actually thought that I had pages missing.
A light-in-the-sky is just a light in the sky. A big ball of orange light doing whatever is still a big ball of orange light and Ufologists are not noted for their knowledge of science so what is reported might be swamp gas, earth lights or ball lightning and the observers belief that it was intelligently controlled leads to it being labelled a "UFO".
Good, close-to sightings of what are obviously constructed objects (preferably during daylight) are what should be concentrated on. We know, or can guess at what the military is currently working on stealth and regular aircraft so it is no big leap of imagination that a craft zooming around at incredible speed and looking like nothing humans built is "not from Kansas".
The reports that should take a priority are those CE3K/entity reports. If these are the entities flying, controlling or crewing a "UFO" then their appearance can tell us a great deal and rather than go the Jacobs route and claim so many different aliens are on Earth we need to look at the reports and see whether any match-up. A lot of preliminary work I have already carried out and noted cases involving similar entities and types not noted in Ufology before.
We can never be 100% certain about any case but there are reports out there that stand up to a lot of scrutiny.
Betty and Barney Hill were involved in an incident 50 years ago -it is still promoted.
Travis Walton was 40 odd years ago -it is still being promoted
Pascagoula was in 1973 and involved two men -still promoted
Eupora was in 1973 and involved multiple witnesses -still ignored.
I am going to carry on my work but privately. After all the years this blog has been going on I can only assume people visit for free entertainment because with a world wide audience and the main audience in the U.S. not one single report or news item has been forwarded. That sums up Ufology and public interest.
Who killed off Ufology?
You did.
No comments:
Post a Comment