A Few Words People May Not Like

 

We live at a time when we have almost instant communication and an internet full of data to access.  We also live at a time when conmen and  exploiters have taken over what was once considered "ufology".  At the start of public access internet data was exchanged but then it became a tool for sensationalism and money making schemes and all someone had to do was say "I didn't see what he reported 45 years ago on my drive through the area" and everyone jumps in because that 'proves' the claim was a hoax.

I am not going to mention Hopkins, Jacobs or Carpenter. Their stain on  UFO research can never be removed and I write that having been a big supporter as well as promoter of their early work.  Today we could not compile an accurate catalogue of yearly UFO sightings because Ufologist debunkers are in competition to beat the outright career debunkers.  Someone sees five (5) entities emerge from a landed object around 300 yards away and locals report strange activity the same evening and a Ufologist debunker goes out in his car to the area and looking in one direction he sees air craft landing. All the data that made the sightings stand out are dismissed; he went out and saw aircraft. Hey -the five aliens were actually a farmers wife with a powerful light going out to check livestock. Every single detail is dismissed because it makes the Ufologist debunker (who believes the Roswell crash was real -as was another).

I have seen websites, including MUFONs, list reports that in all their details are aircraft, satellites, space debris and even thunderstorms (??) as UFOs. I have seen all of this on many sites and it is accepted that every report is a genuine UFO -and by that they mean extra-terrestrial spacecraft.   

Cases that are obviously involving people undergoing psychological problems are accepted as genuine and some of those people even move into high positions in UFO groups (and some because the aliens told them to). No concerns there.  Now I say the internet made this all easier and it did b ut the reason that Ufology descended into fantasy and is literally controlled by conmen who bring money in are the UFO groups.   "Rods" became trendy and drew in money so UFO groups big and small jumped on that band wagon. Then it was "orbs" and once certain researchers faked the evidence the "Greys" were a hot money spinner and old cases were altered so that they involved Greys, reptilians, mantis types and whatever the next 'discovery' was. 

Ufology lost credibility about 30 years ago. Even proven liars are still touted as experts. And books that are lie and fantasy filled sell like hot cakes while serious well researched books are ignored. Ufology as such cannot be returned to even a fraction of its once "credibility" and all we have now are isolated researchers fighting to try to get facts out into the world. The trusted researchers and investigators have all retired or died. That is fact (though some do try to keep going). Take this blog for instance and the fact that after all of these years any comment or feedback is rare.      

Many witnesses or percipients to CE3K/AE incidents do not come forward and others who tried to were dismissed because they refused to accept what the experts at MUFON and elsewhere insisted: they were abducted by Greys.  

In the UK the British UFO Research Association (BUFORA) was never going to achieve much. Attempts to get data computerised were put off with one excuse or another and some investigators could nopt be trusted with looking into a cup of tea. Alcoholics, people with various psychological problems and one 'investigator' who told me he could not be as active as he was as "I'm on the far side of 80 now" -I was in touch and communicated with all of these people. And when you hand BUFORA 100+ UFO reports from a 2 year UFO peak and are then told "Oh, they seem to have been lost somewhere at research HQ" (and I am not the only one had this happen) then you realise things are a mess.  When an organisation is only interested in selling things and getting as many paying members as possible while stating that all UFOs and UFO incidents are psychological or misidentifications (and start out investigations with that mindset) it is dead in the water. Here we can see the rot set in with 'new ufology'.

We've seen official bodies open up UFO records only to be attacked by ufologists for having done so...there is a warped mindset. And hoaxes perpetrated by ufologists on other ufologists are not rare.  Even our "most esteemed" UFO periodicals were not behind a little hoaxing. 

Look to works such as The Haunted Skies where everything is checked and double checked and original witnesses and investigators spoken to.  Facts presented not fantasy. Of course a world of Dr Who-like fantasy is far more appealing to people who also believe we have a space fleet fighting aliens in Earth orbit.   

It's a mess.

The 1980/1983 British UFO Report

 Circa 1977 I set up a study that later became known as "Grey Book" (from the grey colour covered note books used) and the Anomalous Observational Phenomena Bureau. Most people know that the study was set up at the sugge4stion of Sir Victor Goddard and Lord Clancarty and that other members of that circle supported the study. 

By 1980 I had come up with over 1000 pages detailing all aspects of UFOs (excluding CE3K) and defined two definite phenomena. One was Uninvestigated (by science) Natural Phenomenon or UNP. The other indicated, after many checks, double and triple checking of original sources, UFOBs -Unidentified Flying Object Built -ie seemingly constructed craft that bore no resemblance to anything known at the time or since.

The final report was given various names by different people. The Ministry of Defence simply referred to it as "Grey Book" (because it did not have "UFO" in the title.  Clancarty referred to it as The Hooper Report on UFOs and so on and so forth. Both Clancarty and Goddard referred to this as "The closest thing we will ever get in Great Britain to America's Project Blue Book".

In 1980 British Ufologists were offered a summary version and amongst those Ufologists were some very well known names. Every single one rejected the offer and one in particular suggested that it was all "very James Bondish" -which made no sense. No one in Ufology therefore got to see information and data that would have helped progress study of UFOs -but it was quite clear that 95% of those involved were mainly in the field to make money.

The report was turned into a manuscript and submitted to publishers who then had the Ms read by published authors to review and make a decision on publishing. Each reviewer rejected the Ms as "Not being up to date on Ufology" and one even referred twice to the fact that his own Fortean style books had not been referred to.  Also, the fact that the science was explained so that "the man on the street can understand it" -my mistake was in thinking Ufologists wanted to prove UFDO) reality and educate the public on it. In fact one very well known Ufologist and writer of anything that made money actually contacted British publishers to "warn" them about a "fantasy prone character peddling his theories as fact" (I was the fantasy prone character" apparently.

The truth was that Ufologists did not want anything that showed they had been sat on their backsides doing no research just fabricating and twisting facts for books and TV.

Had the Report gone out back in 1980 all of the names of the peers, etc., who backed it would have been known today. As it was the 1000+ pages was edited down to 550 after concerns over officially sourced material being used.  So a 1983 Report was made and, again, conclusions offered to Ufologists and rejected.

This Report will never be published. I am a lot older now and to edit this into a manuscript for publication would be a year's work and as that manuscript would be read by the same old published authors it would be against their interests to say "Yes".  And I already have self published books that do not sell so a year of work for a book that would not sell?  It needs a real established publisher and they are not interested without going to..."those people" to have it reviewed.

So, here are some quick snaps of some of the material in the Report and the bulky Report itself.