Over the decades I have seen things.

As good a title for a post as any!

I have seen unknown, brilliantly lit objects and twice fairly close to. No, I do not believe they were "extraterrestrial craft" and work in later years led me to a theory (though not scientifically proven). On all of these occasions I was alone and this was before everyone had a camera!  Aboutr three years back I observed two objects moving across a clear blue sky and my two neighbours saw the objects. Distant but behaving very oddly.

I have witnessed first hand poltergeist activity as well as shadowy dark figures in one house -other "shades" were seen by family membvers either when by themselves or in twos.I have even been in one property where on a staircase I felt great fear and wanted to run back up the stairs. I did not. I turned around and walked slowly backwards up the stairs one of the people living there at the time said to me "That wasn't long. You feel it too?" and explained that his partner rarelt went downstairs alone. I tell this to people who look at me and say "But you never run away -is this a joke?"

In the mid 1960s, in Dalborn, Germany, I was with my mother and father -I believe my Opa was there- as we watched an airship cruise over the forest near the farm. We were told that there were no airships over Germany in the 1960s. Later back in England pupils in my class were asked to draw their favourite aircraft. I onpoy knew an airship so drew it and the teacher noted it was quite detailed so I explained where I had seen one. I was loudly mocked for the claim that I was one of 5 (I can't remember if my late brother was present) people who saw one.

I know how UFO observers feel when they are mocked for seeing a "flying saucer"!

I was with two other village boyts, again in Germany but between Dalborn and Lemgo and in overcast and quite thundery feeling weather when we saw a huge (6-7 feet?) misty figure at the top of a path. Well defined but featureless. We all thought it must be a farmer -we reckoned that rather than that it looked like a huge ghost!

Gathering fodder for my German grandfather (Opa)rabbits was achore that involved most of the family and we walked through lovely warm summer weather with fields to our left and the forest to our right. One day we saw something large and fur covered (fur had a gloss to it)suddenly leap about 10 feet (3m) into the forestry. It was so quick that we never got to see if before bthe blour leapt and we could hear it as it went through the tree branches. Seven of us saw the furred back as it shot off. I looked at my Opa and said "Was that a monkey?!"  He simply laughed and waved odff the suggested. "Nein. Es war ein Sturmgeist. Ich habe vorhin einen auf dem Baumstumpf dort drüben sitzen sehen" ("No. It was a storm ghost. I saw one sitting on the tree stump over there a while ago"). The point he pointed to was a wired off piece of field that had a tree stump in it and it was where our "blur" had more or less come from. I never found out why a tiny grassy field that was never used and only had a tree stump in it was wired off.

Interestingly, my second oldest cousin when he was told about this sighting later that evening went into a red faced rage telling -not suggesting- us we had only seen a "fishing bird" (cormorant) and I told him that we all saw the fur and --screeching and insistence followed that it had been a cormorant. It made no sense but my Opan signed to me to let the subject drop. Something happened but no idea what.

Just outside the village was the forestry and just before that the cemetery. On more than one occasion my Oman (grand mother) saw something in the forestry that scared her. On one occasion she heard a noise from the forestry and ran back to the village. She would never explain what had happened but "machine gun Marta" had lived under Nazi occupation, been part of the war time exodus to the West where her refugee column had been strafed by Allied fighters and lived under Russian occupation and seen some nasty things so she was not the panicky sort.

I think that after a major UFO flap in 1977.1978 that I was the only investigator of I deserved a holiday and...I was sat my the kitchen window in my grandparents home back in Dalborn when something caught my eye. About 1 kilometre away a bright object (ist mag)rose from the forestry and ascended in a step-like fashion upward. "Sod off" I said out loud just after drawing how it moved in the back of a book.

Probably the strangest thing that happened to me was when we lived on a farm in Dalborn and I must have bee 8 or 9 years old. It was winter and ice had covered the huge pond (I call it a mini lake). Ice had to be broken so the geese could use it so I was the youngest and left with a boating rod (a long piece of wood with heavy brass hook at the end) whikle the adults and other kids went to the far side of the pond.  At one point as I broke ice the weight of the brass hook and slippery ice grass combined to make me fall into the water. As I sank I could see the broken vegetation float by and the concrete vent that let fresh water into the bottom of the pond. That was it. Next thing I remember was that I was about 3 feet (90cms) from the edge of the pond -actually facing it- and in the background saw the adults and kids run along the side of the pond toward me having just seen me fall in. 

Weirdly I can vaguely recall telling everyone that I was okay and then walking home. Entering the house my mother asked "What have you done -you're soaked through?" My reply? "I fell in a puddle" -and, yes, that sounds ridiculous even after all of this time because the simnple response would have been "Oh, I fell in the pond" but "a puddle"?  I still cannot work out how I reached the botton of the pond (not even panicky as I recall) but then was on all fours facing the pond from a distance, As far as I know no one saw me get out of the pond. I've often wanted to have hypnotherapy for that!

My experiences have covered a wide field -including Cryptozoology: I spotted a black and white fox while in Gernany that I later identified as a raccoon-like dog and this was a few years before they were officially seen in Westphalia.

Some of this is detailed more in my books Some Things Strange and Sinister and Some More Things Strange and Sinister so when I say I am sceptical but open to evidence this ought to explain why.

It's all about selling lies -Charles Fort proved it

Charles Hoy Fort

 "I can't give you the name but I can tell you---"

"I strongly protect the witnesses so I am not prepared to give a name"

"I re-write hand written statements from witnesses to hide their identity"

"I have dealt with thousands of UFO abductees every year. Their identities are hidden"

"people may say the reports are just made up. Let them. I protect witness anonymity"

Phrases used by frauds in Ufology, Forteana, Cryptozoology, "ghost hunting" etc.  Yes, protect the anonymity as requested but you need to show more trusted people in your field who the witnesses are even if you mask their addresses.

Certain cases I have asked people with no connection to the subject to just look at the necessary part that shows a percipient/witness is named and that what I have written is truthful to t6he account I was given. These people have no interest in my "crazy stuff" BUT if anyone questions something I can call on them to state that they have seen the report and names of those involved. The important thing is that I can prove who said or wrote what.

People have come out over the years to give their stories, however, I still will not identify them as I gave them a promise of confidentiality BUT if they ask someone to check with me I will confirm details.

In the last couple of years report after report after report has fallen by the wayside  for reasons such as "There was never a full report" (??) or "there was just a standard UFO report form-no idea where it is now" and, an actual standard response: "No idea where the witness(es) are now. Lost contact with them years ago" and... no proof that in certain major cases the percipient even existed. And I am talking well known CE3K cases. Many just have a Low rating because those investigators associated with them have been outed as faking reports for unknown reasons since the 1970s but will not say which of their reports these were. In other words out of 100 reports we cannot accept and verify which are genuine.

Someone has "thousands of UFO abduction reports a ytear" I am calling out as a liar as absolutely no proof of this exists. These people are telling those reporting a UFO sighting that they were likely abducted and push them into regression hypnosis on the first investigator visit.  we use our "hypnotherapist and psychic" ... you just lost credibility.

There are NOT millions of abductions each year around the world. There are not "Hundreds of thousands" either. Likely not even "many hundreds". I believe they are rare but every case of sleep paralysis, altered state etc is taken as a genuine UFO abduction. 

Evidence?  Check out the various US haunting TV shows and TWICE I watched someone say: "I looked at my bedside clock and it was 1.00am. I  turned over. When I turned back it was 3.30  -I loist two-and-a-half hours!!"  It's called sleep.

A 'UFO abductee': "I recall that it was 1 am and I was having trouble sleeping  but closed my eyes and then I looked at the clock and it was 5 am!!"  Again: it is called sleep (that fella got more sleep than I get!).

You need to record all details. Always maintain contact with a percipient if only to see if anything has happened to them since the first encounter.  You make a full report of what is known -NOT jump straight in with hypnosis. Alkways make sure that you can prove you have a genuine report and, never ever do what five different ufologists have tried with me "Oh, the full report is in my book...you can buy a copy?"  

Charles Fort, incidentally, was on abvious fibber or very bad archivist because reports he dates to certain newspapers do not exist. Details of events do not exist as he reported them.  I know because for 50 years I have searched the archives, scrolled through books and historical records and... well, Fort was the Poster Child for Cryptozoology, Forteana and Ufology not to mention ghost hunters. I do suspect, however, that Fort's insistence that there should NOT be a Fortean Society was because he made a lot up and probably was a jokester.  All the evidencer is in my archives.

Odd Reversal?

 More people are visiting the CE3K/Alien Entity Study blog now than this one. A complete reversal of the norm.

Please remember there are books!

Forteans. Ufologists. Cryptozoologists and "Ghost Hunters"

 John Keel stated at a convention that "I think Ufology has probably had more hoaxes than any other Fortean filed"

Seee approx 40minutes in

Ufologists do not read history or pay attention to Forteans. Forteans tend to think Ufologists are stupid or silly and only read history they are told to as "it's Fortean".  Cryptozoologists tend to ignore Forteans and Ufologists as believing in silly stories. We  can throw "Ghost hunters" into that mix.  There is one thing they are united in, however:

Lying, bending the truth to fit their own theory, hoaxing and in 99% of cases they can be proved to be doing this. Butno one speaks out (unless it is to attack each others fantasies)

John Keel - Various Lectures

 

Is This A Meteorite?

 

All I can tell you is that I was shaving in the bathroom one day just over 15 years ago. At the time the back garden was covered in gravel and the day before I had removed weeds growing there.  Just grey and sandy covered gravel.

As I shaved I heard a kind of "Thud" as though something heavy had been dropped on the gravel. I looked out of the window and saw no one.

Later that afternoon I had to put a garden spade back into the shed and it was impossible to notice this object in the middle of the sandy and grey gravel. It had just appeared there about 10 feet (3m) from the bathroom window.

I sent photos out to various people but not a single response.

It Is ALL One Big Mess

 

 In the last few months I have tried to update report files.I have worked solidly to make sure that all the details are saved for posterity.  

With British Ufology I have found that one "majhor case" after another simply crumbled away. One particular Ufologist was involved in three of these and NOW, after being asked for any extra information, his fellow investigator has cast major doubt on the authenticity of what was reported. Checking one case the location is dubious but the name of the percipient does not appear in any registery for that county...ever.

Another tells a good story but this is how it went down:

Me: "Is it possible to please get a copy of the investigation report?"

Inv:"The details are in my book"

Me: "Well, I cannot put a whole book into a folder and the report itself would stand as better evidence"

after a delay:

Inv: "I can send you a word doc but if used it will need to be credited to me"

Me: "No problem  there. Thanks for your effort"

The email arrived. It was the chapter from his book. I contacted him again and explained that I would very much like to include an actual investigation report  in the files:

Inv: "There was only a standard UFO report form on the UFO"

Me: "Okay, can I get a copy of that please?"

Inv: "I don't know where it is. I think I ghave it to a Ufologist."

This was a case that Ufologist has pushed as major and involving "UFO abduction" and much, much more. All he had was his notes from his book and not even the report form which he gave away (ever hear of a photo copier?). The evidence for the case is ZERO. It canbnot be used as anything other than a file filler.

So how about another one of his "Major UFO incident and abduction" cases that he has written and spoken of extensively?  No report.  A third case.... well, he is not getting back to me on that one (it has been a couple weeks).

This is not a fluke. Two other authors recently told me they havce no idea where their notes are on "significant" cases and I suspect that there are no reports and that means those cases have to be classed as LOW evidence (opne even admits to ignoring a letter from teenage witnesses BECAUSE they were "kids".

Out of ten 'Ufologists' who wrote books on abductionshow many do you think know how to get in touch with the percipients or have stayed in touch with them?  Not a single one. They got what they wanted -info for a bvook or chapter in a book and that was it.

Mona Stafford is the last surviving member of the trio said to have been abducted in Liberty, Kentucky in 1975. That was a major case with all the extra anecdotal evidence and look what happened. The trio were milked dry for everything to go into magazines and books and then dumped. Even the 'stellar' MUFON had no idea about the case until I reminded them and they had no contact details. They did not know that two of the women had passed away. Mona Stafford appeared on a news (TV) item back in the mid 2000s and I have tried newspapers and even the reporter/TV station that interviewed her -no contact details. I try and try and try but a failure every time.

Here is another: Kelly Cahill involved in one of the most spectacular UFO abduction cases (1993 Australia). Multiple on board percipients and physiological evidence and independent corroboration and the Paranormal Research Australia report would have all the tech and scienbtific analyses to make it as close to absolute evidence as you can get.  Kelly did the UFO conference circle pointing this out and it was bviously wearing her down based on the body language at times. Then....someone in PRA gave out the names of the witnesses who had come forward based on their anonimity being preserved. A court case against PRA and the report has never appeared (likely due to legal reasons).

Yes, Ufologists ****** up everything.

The PRA would not respond to me -and I have tried a few times. So I tried to contact Cahill: dead end. I contacted any Australian UFO group I could find. Two had never (?!) heard of the case and the others "no idea".  Yes, a truly major UFO event screwed up by the investigators (and I have always been open to hearing their side of things) and the known main witness.... no one knows where she is.  I suspect that after all the work Cahill put into making facts known the betrayal of witness confidentiality (as in the case of the three Liberty percipients) and what ensued she simply walked away and got on with her lifr.

We lost the Kathy Reeves family encounter from 1965 BECAUSE of a lazy Ufologist. We lost all the details from Eupora, 1973 BECAUSE of racist Ufologists and there is a catalogue of such histories. 

We have lost cases that may have been historically significant and no one is interested in 2026 because there is no money ot great publicity for them.

THAT is Ufology.

He Opened Fire on the Aliens — And Paid the Price

 

Tough on Ufology - Tough on the Causes of Ufology -it is honest

 There is far too much fakery in Ufology and in the UK it is rife. This article is from The Armchair Ufologist (95% of them are) and this is a summary by the AFU that can be found here: 

 https://www.ufomagazines.com/armchair-ufologist-the-the-armchair-ufologist-issue-3/

The late Eric Morris was a long time UFO report hoaxer and fantasist who I had dealings with since the mid 1970s. He even attempted to bully and physically threaten older researchers. Joan Amos, whose name will be familiar to older Forteans, Ufologfists etc once sent me a letter (on file) warning me to watch out for Morris. He apparently was very loud and threatened her but a neighbour in his 70s heard the commotion and confronted Morris. Morris left quickly.  Despite being outed as a faker many times he was still given a platform and applauded at northern UFO events -including by people who proved he was a faker.

It goes on and on but Ufology sweeps it all under the carpet. 

Overview

This issue of 'Tough on Ufology' critically examines the state of ufology, focusing on internal conflicts and the behavior of key figures. It details the case of 'Max Burns', accused of drug offenses and claiming to be targeted by 'The Establishment' for his ufological knowledge. The article also discusses Miles Johnstone's involvement with Max Burns and his critical stance on ufological research. The issue highlights the perceived paranoia and infighting within the UK UFO scene, with accusations of disinformation and debunking. It also touches upon the Rendlesham Forest incident and the role of researchers like James Easton and Jenny Randles. Furthermore, it criticizes BUFORA for its internal politics, perceived lack of progress, and handling of witness confidentiality. The article also reports on legal threats made by ufologist Harry Harris and the charges he faces, as well as a UFO sighting over the Pennines and the author's 'Federal Hypothesis' explanation.

Magazine Overview

This issue of "Tough on Ufology - Tough on the Causes of Ufology" is a critical examination of the state of ufology, particularly within the UK. It delves into internal conflicts, the behavior of prominent figures, and the perceived lack of genuine research and ethical practices within the field. The publication date is noted as February 1998.

Key Articles and Content

Countdown to Ecstasy?

The article introduces 'Max Burns', a self-proclaimed ET believer from Rotherham, who gained notoriety through 'Alien Encounters' magazine. Burns was reportedly arrested for possession with intent to supply ecstasy and claims he is being targeted by 'The Establishment' due to his ufological knowledge. The author expresses skepticism about Burns' claims, noting that other ufologists, like Miles Johnstone, seem to agree with him. The piece also mentions that Burns has been committed to Crown Court, with the charge potentially being reduced to amphetamine possession. The author personally dismisses ecstasy as a drug.

Max Burns

The Max Factor and Miles Johnstone

The author recounts a personal encounter with Max Burns, who allegedly made abusive phone calls after Dave Clarke's research into a UFO 'crash' case was perceived as a challenge. Miles Johnstone, a long-time BUFORA member, is presented as being aligned with Max Burns. Johnstone allegedly filmed something related to the 'crash' for BUFORA, which the author views critically. The author emailed Johnstone suggesting he contact Dave Clarke for a more balanced view, but Johnstone claimed Dave had not returned his call and expressed frustration with perceived rudeness.

Dr David Clarke

Rendlesham Forest and James Easton

The article touches upon the Rendlesham Forest incident, suggesting it might be a complex series of misidentifications and misperceptions, similar to the Sheffield crash case. Researcher James Easton is credited with in-depth research on Rendlesham, including original statements from witnesses. The author notes that Easton's research has been met with resistance, with some accusing him of being a debunker despite his previous support for the case. The internet is highlighted as a tool that has exacerbated ufological tendencies and the spread of rumors.

Harry Harris and Legal Threats

Ufologist Harry Harris is discussed, noting his tendency to use legal action against those who disagree with him. The article mentions a past case where Harris took legal action against Jenny Randles. More recently, the Manchester Evening News reported that Harry Harris was facing charges of making threats to kill and possessing a firearm with intent to cause fear, allegedly related to an incident involving his cat and a neighbor's dog. The article states that this case was pending court proceedings.

Jenny Randles and Peter Hough

Lights, Camera, Action: The Pennines Sighting

This section details a UFO sighting on February 2nd, 1998, where hundreds of people saw two bright lights flying over the Pennines. Airports had no record of the objects, and the press received numerous reports and videos. BUFORA's NIC's John Heptonstall studied the case and concluded the objects were likely helicopters or RPVs. The author questions why official sources deny knowledge, proposing a 'Federal Hypothesis' where governments use the UFO mythos for their own ends, suggesting the craft were intentionally flown with lights on to monitor public reaction.

The Law Of The Bungle: BUFORA's Issues

This section heavily criticizes BUFORA, describing its website being hijacked and subsequently terminated. The author details how BUFORA allegedly changed its Articles of Association to claim ownership of review books, rather than them going to the editor. The article also points to a breach of witness confidentiality within BUFORA, where details were allegedly passed to the press, causing distress. Despite these breaches, Philip Mantle, the Press Officer, was reportedly supported by the Council. The author argues that BUFORA has become a publicity vehicle, allowing tabloid ufology to penetrate its core and breaking its moratorium on hypnotic regression.

Philip Mantle

North Of The Border News: Billy Buchanan

Scottish councillor Billy Buchanan has been banned from council committees until 1999 and restricted in his communication with staff due to his behavior, which included calling chief officers 'vagabonds' and accusing the chief executive of racism.

Aftermath and UFO Times

The author reflects on the article's potential publication in 'Fortean Times' being rejected, suggesting it was too truthful. The author resigned from 'UFO Times' after Dave 'Sensible' Newton took over, describing the resulting issue as a 'mess'. The article also mentions a 'cash retrieval team' from BUFOONA visiting Mike Wootten's residence to collect items.

General Criticisms of Ufology

The publication expresses a strong critical stance on ufology, labeling many involved as 'ufologists' who are more interested in stroking egos and generating publicity than in genuine research. The author suggests that without ufologists, the UFO subject would cease to exist, describing it as a self-perpetuating, hermetically sealed system. The article posits that professionals recoil from the subject due to a lack of evidence, proof, methodology, or integrity.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the internal politics and perceived corruption within ufology, particularly concerning organizations like BUFORA. There is a strong emphasis on skepticism towards sensational claims, a focus on misidentification and misperception as explanations for sightings, and a critique of ufologists who prioritize publicity and personal agendas over rigorous investigation. The editorial stance is highly critical, bordering on cynical, of the ufological community, highlighting what the author views as a lack of substance, ethical breaches, and a tendency towards paranoia and infighting. The author champions genuine research and ethical treatment of witnesses, contrasting it with the prevailing trends in ufology.

This issue of "Tough on Ufology - Tough on the Causes of Ufology" is a critical examination of the state of ufology in the UK, focusing heavily on internal politics, organizational dysfunction, and the credibility of prominent figures and research methods. The publication adopts a highly critical and often sarcastic tone, aiming to expose what it perceives as flaws, hypocrisy, and deliberate obfuscation within the ufology community.

BUFORA Under Fire

The lead article, "You Can't Come In Here Thinking Like That," directly addresses the author's own membership status within BUFORA (British UFO Research Association). The author details a challenge to their membership renewal, stemming from their consistent criticism of how BUFORA is run. They accuse a small, controlling group within BUFORA of being unable to handle criticism and of resorting to personal attacks rather than addressing substantive issues. The author lists several past transgressions by BUFORA members, including using hypnosis against ethical codes, revealing witness names to the press, selling private photographs, and writing abusive notes, contrasting this with the severe reaction to their own criticisms.

A significant point of contention is the handling of BUFORA's financial and ethical state. The author criticizes the organization's logic of ignoring problems in the hope they will disappear, and then attempting to remove critics. The article "BUFORA Captain? Illogical - Does Not Compute" further elaborates on this, suggesting BUFORA is in a "mess financially and ethically" and that its leadership is attempting to hide this reality. The author quotes Steve Gamble, the chairman, as stating that if a force is trying to destroy UK ufology, BUFORA has "succeeded admirably by putting us all at odds with each other."

The issue also touches upon the resignation and subsequent 'unresignation' of chairman Steve Gamble, portraying it as a common tactic among BUFORA officers to maintain power. The article "Even Mushrooms Don't Get Treated This Way!" criticizes BUFORA's communication strategy, accusing them of using "spin doctors" to cover up financial problems and their inability to deliver promised services, such as the six magazines members paid for.

The Tim Matthews Controversy

A substantial portion of the magazine is dedicated to dissecting the activities and alleged background of ufologist Tim Matthews. The article "The saga of Tim Matthews" notes that Matthews is criticized by some for being "in your face" and for conducting research and publishing it. More serious allegations are explored, including his alleged past involvement with the British National Party (BNP) and other far-right groups. The piece references an "uncredited story" in the conspiracy journal "Lobster" that links Matthews to such activities. It also mentions his alleged work for the anti-fascist publication "Searchlight" and his involvement in Green politics before turning to ufology. Larry O'Hara is cited as alleging that Matthews, whose real name might be Tim Hepple, is working for the UK military as an agent provocateur to spread disinformation.

Matthews himself is reported to have vigorously denied some allegations but admitted to past affiliations. The article questions whether people are allowed to have a past and draws parallels with other figures in the ufology community, such as Patrick Harrington and George Sturgeon, who are accused of involvement in far-right politics or racist remarks.

"I Had Too Much To Dream Last Night" presents a fictionalized dialogue between Tim Matthews and Eric Morris, set in Southport, discussing plans for a conference and hinting at a conspiracy involving government manipulation of UFO sightings. This section appears to be a satirical take on the perceived paranoia and internal machinations within the ufology community.

Further scrutiny of Matthews comes in "Tough on Ufology - Tough on the Causes of Ufology" (pages 3-6), where his background is examined, including allegations of involvement with a white supremacist group called "The Church of The Creator." The author questions whether people are allowed to have a past and points to other figures with questionable associations. The article "We'll Fight Them On The Beaches" suggests that Matthews, as a young rebel, got involved with "big boys with bad ideas" and later became involved in ufology, realizing that much "research" was flawed. It posits that he is now active and outspoken, potentially annoying those in power, and has secured a book contract, but his "earlier 'enthusiasms'" are catching up with him.

Other Figures and Events

The issue also discusses other ufologists and events. "Beyond Our Ken (our kid)" focuses on Tony Dodd, formerly of YUFOS and UFO magazine, who is described as a "wild card" prone to discussing animal mutilations, MIBs, and death threats. Dodd has resigned from UFO magazine to pursue private investigations. A letter from Dodd to Omar Fowler, published in the OVNI newsletter, is presented. In this letter, Dodd suggests that some "flying triangles" are terrestrial and that there is liaison between humans and a "friendly" race of ETs who are providing advanced technology to defend against a "malevolent" ET race. The article "Dodd Watch" expresses skepticism about these claims.

Tony Dodd

"Sensible" is criticized for misrepresenting evidence and making vague claims, particularly in relation to the IUN (International UFO Network) collapse. The author recounts an incident where "Sensible" was allegedly misled by information and subsequently received a stiffly worded letter.

There is also a mention of a conference in Southport where conspiracy theories were prevalent, and an incident involving Larry O'Hara and Tim Matthews is described as a "near drubbing incident."

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The overarching theme of this issue is a deep skepticism and criticism directed at the ufology community itself. The editorial stance is one of disillusionment with the internal politics, alleged lack of rigor in research, and the personal agendas of many involved. The author frequently employs sarcasm and direct accusation to highlight what they see as hypocrisy, paranoia, and a failure to address the core issues within the subject. There is a strong emphasis on the need for transparency, ethical conduct, and genuine research, contrasting these ideals with the perceived reality of infighting, personal vendettas, and questionable backgrounds of key figures.

The magazine appears to advocate for a more grounded and critical approach to ufology, questioning the validity of many claims and the motivations of those promoting them. The recurring criticism of organizations like BUFORA suggests a belief that their current structures and leadership are detrimental to the advancement of serious UFO research.

Addenda (TH)

I was with BUFORA from 1974-1980 and I can confirm that it was always incompetent. The NIC actually lost 150 UFO reports I had sent after confirming they had been received. There are others who found their reports went missing. Where?  British Ufology is a bloody mess and it may have started out as seeking the truth but by the time the 1970s rolled in iot was a mess and so much more could be added to the above but I think trhe reader should get the point. The named persons in Ufology who were found out to have fgaked reports and spread them in UFO circles from the 1970s on have never identified WHICH reports or WHY they did this. Once they have passed on (no one is getting younger) then e3very report from the 1970s on will need to be looked at as a possible fake (this sort of thing happened in Spain and the USA mainly to discredit certain Ufologists but we knopw which cases there).

Let Me Make It Clear: There Is No Such Thing As The British Bigfoot -Prove Me Wrong

 The whole British Bigfoot situation is a con as well as down to very susceptable minds.

I have a very big library -ghosts, crypto, Fortean, UFOs and so on. In absolutely none of those is there reference to a large hairy humanoid (often cited is a "ghost case" where "cavemen" were seen around a fire. Woodwose are interesting but if there was anything they became extinct pre-12th century.

For my other work I have a BIG wildlife library with books and references going back to Medieval times. Books on hunting. On quadrupeds and other species even "oddity" reports but not one single mention of anyone ever reporting a "Bigfoot".

I spoke to many dubious people for my EAR work as well as l;and owners/estate managers, game keepers and they would tell me about ghosts as well as big cats and some of these people were born and raised in "active British Bigfoot areas" and guess what? Never a single word about a giant hairy man.

I think many sightings are due to altered states, misidentifications -some "hairy menm" turn out to be people in gillie suits. Others are fantasists.

I once offered to look at evidence gathered since I am what people keep calling a "noted naturalist" and these people were stating experts would not study the evidence. My offer had me slandered on one of the groups and members were told NOT to share anything with me. The group owner later apologised but would not tell her members she was wrong and it was okay to share so....

Then there was a fella told me to check out his "unchallengable"evidence on You Tube. A "tree knocking stick". It turns out that it was a stick found in the middle of a forest. "How did it get there?" I was challenged. Just search this blog for British Bigfoot.

It was a stick in the middle of woodland. It broke off a tree but "why was there no other sticks that size in the spot?" I was asked. Someone could have just picked it up for a dog or any reason.

It was a stick in the middle of the forest.

The response came back (in his mind I imagined the 1812 overture playing at full volume and a massive fireworks display going on) "You lose the argument. You cannot explain it!!!" and he then went into cheering himself for beating the debunker (but not with a stick found in the middle of a forest).

US TV shows and You Tube suddenly created the abductyion craze in the UK and everyone who watch "UFO Hunters" got their black urban combat gear and were Ufologists.

Then the US paranormal shows flooded You Tube and demonic possession, haunted houses, hell holes/gateways to Hell were in every British property. Everyone bought their urban combat (black of course) combat gear and became ghost hunters or paranormal experts.

In both of those genres made up, fabricated, lies were intreoduced as facts and "always having been recorded". None of it was. You Tube is not a training service.

Then, of course, US TV shows got into monsters and Bigfoot and then, suddenly, the UK was having Bigfoot sighted everywhere and "there have always been reports" -NO there have not. My late friends and I looked into every single thing that was odd or weird to look into it and get evidence or disprove it.

NEVER EVER a single British Bigfoot which, like the Owlman and other "cryptids" you can trace the origins back to and friends of a certain disreputable Fortean group. Lies are publicity and cash.

I can at least claim to have observed a mysterious primate in forestry with four other people present....but that was in Germany.

https://terryhooper.blogspot.com/2022/09/have-i-seen-ufo-do-i-believe-in-ghosts.html

Do You Remember The Puma Captured In The Highlands in 1980?

 

 My comments will follow this article from Press & Journal 28th October 2020 

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/nostalgia/2591020/big-cats-the-hunt-for-the-puma-caught-roaming-the-highlands-in-1980/?fbclid=IwAR3iwBZsKepGV-1hvXt3KDuUWy4_vGC3qgrvxJl2ZeDVMj4bjvZCgyzgrew

Big cats: The hunt for the puma caught roaming the Highlands in 1980

She was the ‘wild’ puma who became a celebrity after being captured in the Highlands 40 years ago.

She was the ‘wild’ puma who became a celebrity after being captured in the Highlands 40 years ago.

Felicity, as she came to be named, had been roaming the countryside in Cannich before being caught two years after farmers in the area started reporting a spate of attacks on their sheep.

There had been mystery animal sightings in the Highlands going back to 1927 when a lynx nicknamed the ‘Tiger of the North’ was caught in a trap set by a farmer after sheep and goats were attacked in the wild mountain districts of Inverness-shire.

Ted Noble

It was reported in 1977 that a man and his nephew at Farr, 10 miles from Inverness, “saw a lioness and two cubs” in a field and the next day a similar sighting was recorded at Culduthel.

However, matters came to a head in October 1980 after farmer Ted Noble took matters into his own hands following a continued unexplained loss of livestock for over a year.

Felicity the puma.

Ted saw what he described as a “lioness or similar member of the big cat family” stalking ponies at his farm near Cannich.

Police searched in vain for the ‘lioness’ with the help of big-game expert Eric Stephens who said a lion could easily be living in the area where there were sheep, horses and deer because there was plenty of food and plenty of cover.

Ted continued to find the carcasses of farm animals, mainly sheep, mutilated and with their bones crushed.

The mystery beast had been sighted a number of times by other local people and eventually he decided to set a trap after becoming frustrated by police reluctance to make a further search.

Last laugh

The animal was enticed to a cage by a sheep’s head dangling from a rope at the entrance to the trap.

The captured puma made national news with one headline proclaiming: ‘Grrr-eat Scot! Farmer Ted Catches the Loch Ness Lion!’

“People were beginning to think I was nuts the way I was so obsessed with capturing this animal,” said Ted.

“But I have had the last laugh.

“I am pleased to have caught it but I am sad to have deprived it of a grand life.

“However, it was a destructive animal having killed sheep and ponies in the area and I had to end its freedom.”

Kincraig Highlind Wildlife Park director Mr Eddie Orbell and retired Detective Sergeant John Cathcart of Inverness.

Ted was aided in his successful trapping operation by Ian Graham, a senior inspector for the Scottish Society for the Protection of Cruelty to Animals, and by Janet Chisolm, a neighbouring farmer of nearby Tomich.

He also had advice on the correct methods to use from a retired Colonel who, in his younger days, had been a big game hunter in Africa.

The director of the Highland Wildlife Park at Kincraig, Eddie Orbell, confirmed the animal was a puma but his conclusion was that the big cat seemed too tame and too well fed to have been living wild.

He believed Felicity had been hand-reared as a cub and had been kept as a pet.

The origin of the puma was unclear but she even allowed experts who examined her to pet her behind her ears.

Overweight

Grantown vet George Rafferty undertook a close examination of Felicity after she was given treatment for a paw complaint.

“I was very surprised to find that the animal weighed 36 kilos – approximately 80lbs,” he said.

“This is definitely overweight for a female puma.

“I examined its teeth and found it has some incisors missing at the front, which is not unusual for an animal of its age.

“Its teeth are in remarkably good condition, although yellow with age.  There is no tarter on them which suggests it has been living on a natural diet, as opposed to processed food.

“It has certainly spent most of its life in captivity.

“If it has been living rough I do not think it has been doing so for very long because of its bodily condition.

“There is also no doubt it has been used to contact with humans and is very well behaved.

“It loves to have its ears tickled and comes straight over to the bars of its cage when you approach.

“In fact we had great difficulty persuading it to go far enough away from us to fire a tranquiliser dart into it without doing any damage.”

Hoax

People soon began talking about a hoax and it was reported soon after Felicity’s capture that some eyewitnesses had seen a puma in a cage being driven around the area in a pick-up truck, although this could have been prior to the animal’s release.

Ted denied there had been a hoax and he was supported by Bob High from the Farmers’ Union who said that many farmers in the eastern Highlands had seen the animal, or lost livestock to it, but were afraid to speak out in case they were ridiculed.

Additional support came from Dr Hans Kruuk from the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology at Banchory, who analysed her faeces in the first hours of captivity which showed that Felicity had recently fed on deer, rabbit and sheep, suggesting that despite her advanced age and tameness she had indeed been hunting and surviving independently in the wild for some time.

The big cat sightings and livestock losses continued following Felicity’s capture and later a man wrote to Ted from a prison cell in England, confessing that he had liberated several big cats in the Glen Affric area after driving them up from south of the Border.

During the 1960s and 1970s it was perfectly legal in the UK to keep exotic animals as household pets, which ranged from leopards, pumas and panthers, to crocodiles and poisonous snakes.

Angela McWilliams, a 23 year old part-time secretary of Kensington, was often seen taking Michael, her pet leopard, for a walk in Kensington Gardens in 1967.

In 1976 the UK Government introduced tougher new licensing rules over the keeping of wild animals without a licence.

Given the choice of acquiring a costly licence or relinquishing their pets to animal sanctuaries, rumours started that some owners chose a third option, which was sending cats out into the wild.

Further twist

The great Highland puma puzzle took a further twist three weeks after the capture as scientists in Banchory revealed strong evidence of another mountain lion on the loose.

Special tests carried out on two sheep mauled on Garve farms in Ross-shire found they were killed either by a puma or some other big cat.

Felicity was a top tourist draw for the next four years at the Highland Wildlife Park, Kincraig, near Aviemore, until she died in February 1985.

After Felicity’s death, the puma was preserved by a taxidermist, and since then has been a prime exhibit at Inverness Museum.

---

‘Mystery predator’ at large prompted police investigation

Felicity the puma is often cited as evidence that there are non-native cats at large in the UK.

Sightings of big cats or photographs taken at a distance have fuelled theories about their presence for decades.

A black panther.

Police and government scientists worked together to try to identify a “mystery predator” that appeared to be at large in the far north.

Correspondence from the past two years between Police Scotland, Science and Advice for Scottish Agriculture (SASA) and other government-funded agencies was released after a freedom of information request.

Injured sheep

A police officer, whose name and title have been redacted, wrote to SASA in November 2018 asking for help in identifying a large paw print.

They wrote: “I’ve had lots of reports over the past three years of big cat sightings and activity on the north coast, mainly in the Bettyhill area of Sutherland.

“There have been sightings of a large feline and a lot of dead or injured sheep.

“On one occasion I was present when a ewe was brought in off the hill with two puncture marks on the front of her right shoulder and two at the back of it.

“The wounds were over three inches apart, while some of the recent carcasses have very large puncture marks.”

The officer conceded that it was a “very controversial topic” but added: “Some crofters say there have always been very big feral cats in this area. I’m told there is a photograph of one shot, years ago, which was over four feet long.

“We definitely have a wild cat population as well; I’ve seen one myself. We don’t have many domestic cats in the area; there is a very sparse human population and miles of unoccupied land.”

The officer sent images of a paw print and one of a “recent kill”, writing: “The carcass was stripped clean, down to the spine/skull.”

The response from the SASA was inconclusive. They replied: “I’m not sure about the footprint. It does look a bit like a feline print but is also reminiscent of a fox or a dog.”

The investigation was closed last year.

***************************************************************

One name is missing from this piece: Arthur Cadman. A veteran naturalist who I was corresponding with in the 1970s/1980s prior to his death. He had been studying a "family" of pumas and had even predicted that due to her age "Felicity" was likely to get trapped as she went for easier game.

This is WHY animals were still being killed after her capture and that capture was, obviously, not a set up/hoax.

When I contacted Ted Noble he was polite but I think the claims of a hoax made him less forthcoming. Ted suggested contacting Janet Chisolm who I corresponded with and was handling all the enquiries. Noble was afarmer and had no time for all the messing around.

I even spoke Ms Chisholm and she confirmed that she had also observed the pumas (plural) and had also made paintings of them and had a 10(?) page account she had written. I was told that I could get a copy of her account -for £10...later £15 and back then that was a lot of money compared to today and as she would not tell me anything about "the story" she had written I had no intention of paying out that much money especially when a journalist from The Scotsman told me "It reads like a childrens story."

There is a lot of evidence for puma still being in the Highlands but further away from farms and where there is plenty of wild game.

We have seen Arthur Cadman pass away and I was never able to find out what happened to all of his notes -and photographs. There were others such as the rev Gwilliam Williams in Wales and all of these people were not high profile newspaper publicity seekers but naturalists.

All of the old contempories of mine have gone. So to have people such as Nigel Brierley, Trevor Beer and Danny Kingdom who I was discussing a cat project with before his tragic death.

Thereare the senationalists and fantasy prone people out there but from all of the naturalists who began studying large cats in the 1970s I appear to be the last survivor. And my Red Paper: Felids will NEVER be published while the official stance of bodies such as DEFRA is to kill all 'non native species' as 'invasives'.

So when I croak the lunatics can have their day.