Extreme Weather Events Underestimated By Climate Models, New Study Finds

There Are MANY Lost Encounters

 

Asked about what criteria I use re. the time loss cases.  Same as usual. If only one percipient is involved then there has to be secondary evidence of something having taken place. Physiological effects such as radiation poisoning, psychological shock etc do not "just happen" while on a quiet stroll in the country.  However, even then extra evidence would be needed. 

In, for instance, the 1954 cases of Mdme Liabeuf (France) and Rosa Lotti-Dainelli (Italy) involved not just independent witnesses to unusual sounds but also to objects coming from the location of the encounter. If all the factors are pull;ed together then these were not "altered state" experiences but based in the real physical world.  In the 1976, Stanford, Kentucky case there were three percipients as well as independent witnesses to a UFO -one reported an object above a car (with the women in it) and adding in other factors no hoax and no altered state.

When it comes to a couple who see a bright object and later find marks on their bodies but remember nothing else other than the sighting we move to a conclusion that something unusual happened.  Even in the 1960s and 1970s people were unwilling to report a UFO (sadly some still refuse to do so) so we have no secondary confirmation in many cases. Then we have a case where, out in the countryside, one of a trio in a car steps outside and goes into woodland to "answer the call of nature" and is gone far longer than he should be. When he is found he has physical injuries, cannot see clearly and has to be taken to hospital and he states he encountered some type of object and "someone" coming from it. So we have two people who can say the percipient was perfectly normal and within 30 minutes was in a bad enough state that he needed hospitalisation (but his memory on what happened is gone). That is a case worthy of note.

In one case, winter 1957/1958, a man driving along a road had "all the power drain from the vehicle" and he also felt all of his energy was drained. After "a time" the car sprang back into action and he felt a surge of energy. No object seen and the car was checked by mechanics next day and was "in perfect working order".  So there seems to be a chunk of missing time but no recall of anything happening. The report was never investigated so it is just a lost case. There are similar and in which 'investigators' never once thought of the time factor.

I would say, without going and checking all the folders, that just for the UK 1959-1990 there are probably 25 such cases.

____________________________________________
 There are certain cases that are very probably lost forever but since people calling themselves "Ufologists" are mainly out for what they can get and do not have the slightest notion of what research is who will know?  

Incredibly, despite contacting Ufologists in the United States none are in the least bit interested in the major UFDO landing incident in 1973 at Euporia, Mississippi. My guess is that there is no money or TV coverage so of little value -and racism still appears to be involved.

However, having covered this subject and carried out long term research (50 years this year) I have ascertained certain facts that slap what Ufology takes as 'facts' in the face. Looking at the reports from 1954 we learn that there was no world wide UFO flap. 

France as a country provided many of the reports and these are, in 70% of reports insufficient in any information and investigations were reading newspaper items. These were often sensationalised and meant to help copies NOT gather scientific information. It is almost unbelievable that Ufologists when they did bother to talk to witnesses 25, 30 and 35 years after the even had the gall to rage at newspaper reporters for "not gathering accurate or technical details". 

The claimed 1965 and 1973 "world wide UFO flaps" are likewise full of cases that were never investigated and as with 1954 they include reports with totally insufficient details, misinterpretations and hoaxes (in one 1954 French case the landed UFO and "pilot" were clearly identified at the time as a driver and broken down bus but Vallee and Ufology still tout this as a genuine UFO landing). In the United States in 1973 if you were a "white" person who saw a pin-point of light moving across the night sky you were far more likely to have Ufologists tripping over themselves to talk to you than a group of "black" people who observed a UFO landing on a highway or observed a landing and entities approached them. 

As the decades pass so those people pass on and their testimony is lost to history while the flim-flam bunko boys and gals of Ufology keep adding to and promoting the same 60-70 year old cases and most of them are explained (unless you are a Ufologist).

The myth of global UFO flaps is an invention of Ufology and a press-media willing to take anything sensationalist to get views (why bother checking any facts -the Ufologists do not).

This sitting on your ass and getting all information from newspaper clippings was not unique back then and is still practiced today -a "noted Ufologist" proudly bragged to me that he never goes out on investigations but checks newspaper and magazine articles and what might be said on TV. That in 2021 and at that point I severed links with the dilettante ( the very definiti0on of the term -a person who cultivates an area of interest, such as the arts, without real commitment or knowledge.).

In the United States we have reports taken as landings, Close Encounters of the Third Kind and abduction dating back to the 1950s and these are quoted and repeated (often with people adding "extras" to the account) ad infinitum and yet not a single Ufologist went anywhere near the witness/percipient or even the location.  The Kathy Reeves and Reeves farm is but one incident.  

Common factors such as entity descriptions are often ignored because no one has bothered to look beyond "Three figures were seen" -in my books I have shown that there are some common descriptions but these have not been spotted or noted before.  The fact that after three decades of the lies from Hopkins, Jacobs et al cases are "rebooted" to involve "Greys" and that includes the Betty and Barney Hill case which in no way involved entities similar to "Greys".   As pointed out by veteran Ufologists who did take an interest in these reports "We never had reports of Greys before Budd Hopkins work" -Ann Druffel was one of those who spoke out but when a subject follows a trend that brings in more money facts are disposable items. 

I need to point out that over the decades I have encountered all of this in the UK. Racism, mocking of percipients/witnesses in CE3K cases and even reports being destroyed because "We are having none of that nonsense".  And, yes, one witness to a landing and "something got out, walked around it (object) then went back inside"was rudely insulted by an 'investigator' and refused to talk to anyone after that.  Two similar cases saw the witnesses treated badly. In one case we know a group of youngsters who observed UFOs in an area also observed an entity. One UFO 'investigator' rejected the report because the witnesses were "kids" and a letter with details of the incident from the youngsters involved was 'lost' by another "noted investigator".   

The biggest blunders amongst British Ufologists (I am aware they were not unique but I am referring to the UK alone here) was the inability to take in information or realise something was going on. In my files I have the reports (in Ufology that is usually a write up in a publication and 'serious reports' written by Ufologists are an embarrassment) where a couple observed a strange light (UFO) and later found unusual marks on their bodies. In others someone encounters an object and may recall seeing "someone" and there are side effects of a physiological nature. Others had their cars stop inexplicably and may have felt an "energy" or draining of their energy before their vehicles suddenly restart and they get on their way.

Here is the problem; not one supposed investigator noticed or questioned the apparent time discrepancies or witness confusion over time (as in the 1965 Wildman report). No one had the sense or imagination to work out Vehicle stop + UFO seen+ strange markings on the witnesses bodies after =a connection. Even after the Hill case came to light there was no "Oh, that sounds similar to such-and-such case -perhaps we ought to look into that again". No it was Vehicle stop + UFO seen+ strange markings on the witnesses bodies after =(at best) an oddity.  

No one was claiming to have been abducted by aliens. But a natural sense of logic should make someone realise that a vehicle stop, a UFO and possibly an entity and confusion over time plus physiological effects equals a bloody connection. But, no, write it up for Flying Saucer Review or a journal and that's it. Job done. No longer a need to question or study the report. Ufology in the UK alone is full of dozens of such cases before the Hill case was even heard of in the United States let alone the UK. 

One case from the Winter of 1957/1958 in the UK was reported on in a letter from the percipient to the British UFO Research Association (BUFORA)  who sat on it for a few years until there was a financial deal made with a newsstand publication who would select what cases they used and then BUFORA were jumping up and down all over this and I was asked to investigate over 20 years later by which time the percipient had moved to then Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) and was no longer contactable. "Have you tried everything to find him?" I was asked by BUFORA. "Yes. Why did YOU not respond to him and make arrangements to have an investigator visit him years ago?" I replied. Silence after that.

Ufology is not about investigation and research to find answers to the UFO situation it is about self promotion and making money. If you look at how, unfunded, John Hanson has spoken to people in known and unknown (to Ufology) cases and how he has gathered extra information that was never known before you realise why his Haunted Skies books and Great British UFO Archive Centre are so important. None of this involves sensationalism and it certainly does not make Hanson any money and when asked if the Haunted Skies books are worth buying and why my response is simple. Yes, they are very worth buying and why -there were reports I had never heard of before and which had avoided the attention of mainstream Ufology. That makes the series valuable and, yes, I purchased every volume out of my own pocket.

I can state from personal experience that no one is interested in true facts -my own books are very hard to sell despite what they contain. Trash books that fill heads with fantasy and twisted truth are what are popular. Just as reports that involve possible time loss/abductions are ignored because no one wants to do the work -I think Hanson has probably outdone even myself on phone calls, letters and emails in follow-ups to reports.  

Although discredited for some of his beliefs RAF Air Chief Marshal Lord Dowding once stated that he had no doubt flying saucers existed but was only interested in hearing of new reports with technical aspects otherwise it was the same old same old. The reports that he said we should be looking at involve the so called "pilots" of the flying saucers because by studying those reports we might learn a great deal more about why they are here, etc. That was something the late Norman Oliver and many others believed and Norman once told me (in the 1980s) that my "tenacity in keeping up this work in the  face of such strong negative reactions is inspiring" and my response was simple: "I actually want to find out the truth -even if it does make me enemies and poor!"

My files are full of lost reports and with the passing of each percipient/witness we lose one more piece of the puzzle.