Patterson/Gimlin Film Site Casts - Evidence Deep-Dive with Cliff Barackman

 

Bigfoot Without the Hype: Footprints, DNA, and Real Research | Ghost City Podcast

 

Small Town Monsters

 Can I jst say that in the past I have been a little unkind to Small Town Monsters on You Tube. I have, in the past week, literally re-watched all of the episodes back-to-back (it saved working on another book no one will buy).

I can appreciate what they do more now. So...SORRY STM!

Melissa Hovey's Bobbie Short Interview

Melissa Hovey's Searching For Bigfoot blog last posted in 2016. I have tried the Yahoo mail address from the site but keep getting bounce back telling me the address does not exist.

As I want to make people aware of Bobbie Short's work I found Hovey's interview on Bigfoot Encounters that led me to her blog and full credit goes to her.

16th August 2006

 

Where to begin. To describe Bobbie Short as a Bigfoot Researcher, just doesnt cut it. Ms. Short has investigated this mystery in our own country and outside of it. She has searched high and low for any and all information she could find, then she started a website many know as Bigfoot Encounters. Many consider Bigfoot Encounters a "go to site", for good reason. Bobbie Short has compiled some of the best reports and information in the search for this undocumented animal.

When I sent Bobbie Short an email requesting an interview, I expected her to decline - she does not grant many interviews. So, you can imagine my shock when she said yes. Ms. Short was very honest and forthcoming with her thoughts and how she thinks, in relation to this research. While you may not agree with everything she says - at least she has the guts to say it. She may not care what I think about her, but I will say I respect her, and am very proud and honored, to add her name to the list of those I have interviewed to date.

Bobbie Short is a woman to be reckoned with in this field of research, and a woman I hope to one day meet and have a conversation with. I get the feeling if your skin is not thick, you should not start a debate with Ms. Short - as she is a very smart woman, and can hold her own against anyone in this. I admire women who stick to their guns and say what they think, especially when they just might know what they are talking about, and Bobbie Short is a woman of just that description.

I would like to thank Bobbie Short, for taking the time to answer all of my questions and being so honest. I do hope to continue this short conversation again in the future.

Women in Bigfoot Research, Bobbie Short

Question: Please tell the readers about yourself.

Bobbie Short: Only that I'm Bobbie Short, currently living in California formerly lived in Colorado and Texas. Contrary to the opinion of some, I am not a product out of the Pacific Northwest.

Question: How long have you been active in the field of Bigfoot research?

Bobbie Short: Since 1985

Question: What has been your primary focus, in this field of study? Please explain.

Bobbie Short: In the beginning, I just wanted answers or some plausible explanation as to what the Sasquatch was, I wanted honest answers without bias. Interestingly what I kept getting in the early days was a lot of laughter, ridicule and biased opinions without much supportive evidence for those early theories. Eventually, after a great deal of time in the archival dungeons that was our newspaper capabilities before the Internet, I began to piece together the Sasquatch mystery.

You could say my focus was to understand what this life form is that people kept seeing, that left footprints and swift images but stayed outside the boundaries of science. I was bent on reading & collecting everything I could get my hands on, books, newspaper and magazine articles, interviews, databases, you name it, if it was relevant, I consumed it. More often than not, it was a worthless waste of time but I often found little gems of truth in the worst of publications that seemed to help fit the forming picture. Slowly, plausible answers came.

Follow up question: Do you still see the same amount "laughter and ridicule" today as you did when you first became interested in this subject?

Bobbie Short: To some extent yes, certain personalities you can't tell them anything. They simply don't want to hear it. There really isn't anything I can do about those people, I don't spend a great deal of time thinking about those characters.

Follow up question: Where do you stand in the debate on Capture vs. Kill? Do you think researchers should attempt to do either one if possible? And, what do you see as the ramification of an actual Life Capture?

Bobbie Short: Nobody understands better than I that science requires a body before they will believe. But there has to be a better way. I guess I am hopeful that one will die of natural causes and be found for science or that one will become so tame to allow blood to be drawn.

Capture doesn't work for me, and neither does the kill method. If I thought this was some wild beast, then I might reconsider, but I think to shoot one, I feel is murder. There has to be a better way and maybe I'm being a bit foolish and blindly optimistic but I'm always hopeful.

Question: Are you active in any Organized Groups, or are you Independent? Or Both?

Bobbie Short: I've always been an independent researcher; I've never been much of a "joiner." I was a part of a couple of organizations at one time, very briefly, but I didn't understand the need for secrecy and signed non-disclosure contracts, nor did I understand the atmosphere of the leadership, so I quickly left. Working alone works best for me.

Question: What do you think about the growing numbers of women becoming active in this field?

Bobbie Short: Oh well, I think it's great and it's about time. I would always be supportive and encourage other women.

Question: Have you had to deal with any resistance to your being in this field of research, due to your gender?

Bobbie Short: Oh, I'm sure, but if there was non-acceptance, I didn't notice much.

There were several incidents when men made it clear I didn't know what I was talking about and this was generally from men who weren't field savvy; who have never seen that which they speak and write so eloquently about and mostly from those who hadn't done their homework.

Question: What advice would you give to a female researcher who may be experiencing this?

Bobbie Short: I wouldn't pretend to give her advice, but if she has done her homework with an open mind and knows her craft, then I would say "stand tall."There will always be the less informed who will chide and ridicule you. As long as you know your craft, in the long run, you'll be okay.

Question: Can you give any advice to women who are considering entering this research, but are hesitant.

Bobbie Short: Depends on what they are hesitant about. I think you have to have an all-consuming drive to find answers by yourself without much help from the establishment. If the self-motivation is there, a woman is capable. ..so my advice would be to "get it on." Some men find it difficult to visualize a woman trekking the wilderness alone or with one other person, or for that matter on horseback.

Some of us were born to it. And you'll notice that most relationships formed have been between a Sasquatch and a woman, we're less threatening. I would tell them we all have a starting point, let Birute Galdikas, (orangs) Jane Goodall (chimps) and Diane Fossey's work with gorillas be a source of encouragement, not that I think we're looking for an unclassified ape. I most certainly do not.

Follow up question: Do you think the techniques employed by the late Diane Fossey and Jane Goodall can be used effectively in this field of research?

Bobbie Short: No I don't. We're not looking for a mystery ape. The women I cited were looking for an ape. I think these women encountered the same sort of ridicule and difficulties that we do in our search but they overcame those problems and went on to other great successes.

Follow up question: If you do not think this is an "Unclassified Ape" what do you think it is?

Bobby Short: It simply cannot be an ape. Apes are quadrupeds, the Sasquatch walks upright. You can't have it both ways. The ape has a divergent big toe, the Sasquatch does not. Again, you can't have it both ways. It's one or the other. It's probably something in the genus Homo. I don't know just what, or how human it is, but I know it doesn't look like an ape in person and it doesn't express much in the way of ape traits other than its hairyness. In person, they look incredibly human but with a muscular build adapted for their survival in the terrain they must negotiate.

There again, we go back to the hundreds of year old oral history of the Indians who have said all along the Sasquatch are a people who have been cast out of society because of the war-like tendencies.

Question: How did you become involved in the search for this undocumented North American Primate?

Bobbie Short: I never intended to be "involved." Truly, it just happened, I guess because I'm always around asking questions, probing and prodding. I am much less involved currently than I've ever been, I don't read the lists and newsletters as much as I used too, there are other priorities I've discovered.

Question: Have you had a sighting? If so please explain.

Bobbie Short: Yes, the sighting is what started the curious route that has been my yellow brick road. It happened when I was backpacking in northern California in 1985 with some friends. In the wee early hours of a morning's first light I got out of the tent to relieve myself and noticed peripheral movement coming from my right side. I rose up to fasten my Levis and here comes this hair-covered something, or so I thought, from downhill on my right up through a small field of ferns to pass to my left. It was female, either old or unkempt, disheveled looking. It looked sick, had a huge scar on the left shoulder that looked as if it hadn't healed properly. This thing looked my way, knew I was there but never broke its stride.

The moment was so totally bizarre that I thought someone was trying to pull off a joke or something. This thing was close enough to see details but details of what I wasn't sure of for ten years that followed. I had no preconceived notions about monsters or such life forms so it wasn't scary it was just plain odd.

Question: Does not having a sighting ever discourage you? If so, why? If not, Why?

Bobbie Short: I seriously doubt I would have this much interest, had I not literally bumped into the thing by happenstance.

Question: Do you ever get into the field?

Bobbie Short: I used to get out a great deal more than I do now, now that I've come to some basic realizations, I'm not sure what the point would be other than to be in the woods, which is a great source of relaxation for me.

Follow up question: What "realizations" have you come to?

Bobbie Short: If you've seen the Sasquatch, it doesn't take much to realize this isn't an ape. No ape has ever evolved to walk upright and too, North America has no fossil record of apes, napes or mystery apes of any kind.

Apes are quadrupeds, the Sasquatch is bipedal. You can't have it both ways. It's either one or the other....it has become abundantly clear that the Sasquatch will eventually be classified in the genus Homo someday. That's my opinion on the subject. I would, of course, like to understand how the Sasquatch survives; know more about them socially and details about them, but I'm happy for the moment. I know my belief pattern isn't widely accepted. That's okay, if the 'ape hypothesis' works for science right now, I think that's great, at least they're thinking about the problem and working towards resolving the mystery. That's encouraging!

Question: Do you take witness statements?

Bobbie Short: Yes, I do, and interviews with informants and witnesses.

Question: Most researchers have one Report that "Stands Out" in their minds, is there a report that still "stands out" for you?

Bobbie Short: No, not really, not just one report. I'm most impressed with the early day accounts and those oral history reports Native Americans have shared with me. Those were impressive, but I found humor in the Keno Hill story, the man was a crack-up. There isn't just one that was all that impressive, except perhaps the John W. Burns Chehalis stories or the Frank Dan account. I can't shake those details...

Follow up question: Do you think current researchers could learn from the stories of the Native Americans?

Bobbie Short: Oh absolutely. I would hope that researchers soaks themselves in the legends and oral history handed down by the First Nation Canadians and Native Americans. Every detail is so important, the little details form a bigger picture of what we're dealing with and too, they were here before the white man was, at a time when there were far more Sasquatches. The Native traditions and stories surrounding the Sasquatch are very important.

Question: What do you think is the most important question to ask a witness?

Bobbie Short: It isn't so much what I ask as it is witness body language, I like reading people's mannerisms, it speaks to a great many issues.

I prefer the witness who looks me straight in the eye, and tells it like it is coupled with those that have evidence to offer. All questions are important as long as they are not framed in verbiage that leads the witness. Let the witness use the adjectives don't lead the witness or make suggestions.

Question: What you would like people to know about you.

Bobbie Short: I'm not nearly as interesting as the Sasquatch is, I'm not at all comfortable talking about me, you'll have to ask pointed questions to get answers. That's an easier task for me.

Question: Do you have any advice for a new researcher?

Bobbie Short: Not really, other than to read, read, read and get yourself into the field and acquaint yourself with how the wilderness works.

Question: Have you had the opportunity to do research outside this country? If so, where and can you discuss your more memorable experiences?

Bobbie Short: Yes, I've spent time in the Pacific Rim countries; at the time I found it productive but in hindsight, I'm not sure what I learned was all that earth-shattering. The heat index and the biting insects and snakes sort of put a damper on the enjoyment side of trekking in those third world countries. Just knowing if something happened, I wasn't afforded the medical luxuries afforded to the same in the United States.

I'd like to go again to China, spend more time in Shennongjia Forest, unfortunately they've closed the area to visitors to allow for regrowth and in the interest of nature conservation. There are some strange creatures in there, some all white but not albino creatures, things that a zoologist would love. Another area of interest to me is the wild man or "bear man" of Jiulong Mountain in Suichang County, Zhejiang Province China. Maybe some day down the road I'll spend some quality time in China.

Question: Malaysia, what is your opinion of the claims of Bigfoot, and a book to be published with photos?

Bobbie Short: One has to understand the culture to a large degree to comprehend the clamor over what I was told was a track poured by an inexperienced member of that research team. Dr. Joe Watanabi wrote saying it was a rogue elephant track and that was the sum of that excitement, coupled with a lack of interest in tourism, they thought it was something to pursue.

The river people and native tribesmen who work the jungles are seeing something certainly, but the descriptions contradict. Dr. Sean Ang, one of Kuala Lumpur's leading scientists recently suggested Homo erectus.... I'm not sure what he based that opinion on, but it's interesting and surely encouraging.

Follow up question: What is it about the Malaysian culture that could have created this issue?

Bobbie Short: Generally they aren't the most scientific people, much of their culture is embedded in folklore, religious belief and social customs. They are, I found...excitable, easily led and deeply superstitious about such things as hairy giants in their culture.

Question: What is your opinion on Habituation ? Good idea, bad idea?

Bobbie Short: You'll have to define "habituation" for me.

Follow up question: My definition of habituation is what I hear described as "put food out for this animal, make it feel comfortable in your backyard, become friends with this animal, and develop a relationship". Do you think that's a good idea?

Bobbie Short: ...I seriously don't believe that it has ever happened outside of the Tennessee account and I am convinced that did happen. There are details there I can't ignore. I understand that there is a tendency for field people to put food out and a corresponding belief that it's a Sasquatch taking it, but unless you actually see the squatch take it, it's probably a raccoon or a badger, something like that. I don't know if it's a good thing or a bad thing, there isn't much in the way of data to form an opinion.

I don't know as it would hurt anything if you were resigned to do it all the time. But offering food only once in a while would seemingly be cruel. Wouldn't they become accustomed to it and forget how to take care of themselves? I haven't seen any field reports that speak to any successful habituation, so I really don't know what to make of this new trend.

Question: You have a fantastic website, for many its a "go to" for information, can you tell the readers when you started it and why?

Bobbie Short: Bigfoot Encounters has been a labor of love for eleven years. The first pages went up back in the mid 1990's, or as soon as there was a local ISP that could carry the load. At the time it went up, there was only one other on the web, that was Henry Franzoni's website. Kyle Mizokami had some great information on his early-day website as did many others. Some of the early pages I put up were really dumb!! Actually some pages still are dumb, but I was inspired to upload information free for public consumption as I found it or as it came to me, so that others could be equipped with the same information. Anymore, there is no reason not to be informed, not with all the free information provided.

Question: What changes over the years, have you noticed in Bigfoot Research? Good? Bad?

Bobbie Short: The biggest thing I've noticed is the coming and going of websites and interested people. Most tend to lose interest after a few years, and others enjoy a moment in research and are never heard from again. The most rewarding thing has been the sharing of information and text from ancient articles that people send to me. There is a gem in almost all of them that is supportive of the effort.

The most rewarding change has been the move away from the "bizarre" and the exodus away from the UFO related ideas. It used to be in the old days, the only place to read about hirsute hominids was in a UFO or like magazine. That trend is dying a fast death and I'm glad to see it go.

Now if we can just move research away from cryptozoology and those damn mystery apes, chupacabras, the moth man and Spring-Hill Jack, I'll be a happy camper.

To read articles and information written by Bobbie Short, you can visit her website at:

Bigfoot Encounters.com

posted by Melissa Hovey @ 1:34 PM

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/

https://txsasquatch.blogspot.com/search?q=Bobbie+short

The Sasquatch Night Siege! - Mysteries & Monsters (Bigfoot Evidence and Encounters)

 

Aliens and Sasquatch -The Stories That Divide The Subject

 Considering that this article was posted in 1999 it is interesting that the same arguing is going on in 2026!

Alien Issue Splits Vancouver's Sasquatch Symposium 1999

September 26, 1999 -- VANCOUVER (Reuters) - For sasquatch fans gathered in Vancouver this weekend, the debate is not over the reality of the large, apelike animal but over its relation to UFOs. "It's a huge divide," Stephen Harvey, organizer of the International Sasquatch Symposium, said in describing the dispute between the cryptozoology and paranormal wings of sasquatch studies. Sasquatch -- aka Bigfoot -- is an ordinary flesh-and-blood creature that just happens to have avoided capture, according to the cryptozoologists, or students of hidden animals. But to believers in the paranormal, or psychic phenomena, sasquatch is also an "interdimensional" being with strange powers and ties to extraterrestrials aboard UFOs. Both camps tend to think there must be more than one specimen around. And neither seems worried that no live or dead sasquatch has ever been produced for study or that mainstream science considers the idea of such an animal lurking in the forests of North America complete nonsense. "How can you expect a creature that can't build a fire to fly a spaceship?" grumbled Bill Miller of Illinois, one of about 150 people who came in Vancouver to trade the latest reports of sightings and accounts of their personal experiences. Miller's own brush with sasquatch took place in northern Minnesota in 1980. "Who'd have thought it would happen outside of the Pacific Northwest? But it turns out there are a lot of sightings in northern Minnesota," he said. ORIGIN IN INDIAN TALES The legend of a large, hairy creature lurking in the mountains of western Canada and the United States goes back to a time before Europeans settled the continent. The word "sasquatch""was derived in the 1920s from tales of the Chehalis Indians in British Columbia. Stories about sasquatch and his connection with flying saucers are also staples of supermarket tabloids -- a fact that has the cryptozoologists complaining that the paranormals give sasquatch research a bad name. "I mean, if you call the police to report a murder and describe what happened and say you saw little green men, how long before the police officer stops taking notes?" Miller asked a reporter. Members of the paranormal wing contend that their opponents' minds are closed and say that is why the cryptozoologists have never been able to produce more than circumstantial evidence -- such as alleged footprints -- of the creature's existence. "The way to go is to become more evolved ourselves," argued Jack "Kewaunee" Lapseritis, the author of "Psychic Sasquatch" and a member of the Self-Mastery Earth Institute in Trout Lake, Washington. Lapseritis, who reported having had five dealings with sasquatch in the last seven weeks, contended that since the creature could travel between dimensions of reality and space, it would not be found unless it wanted to be. So deep is the divide between the two schools of sasquatch thought that Harvey ended up scheduling their discussion sessions on different days. "I sort of had to segregate them," he said, alluding to problems at past gatherings. NOT TAKEN SERIOUSLY If cryptos and paras have common ground, it is in complaining that mainstream science and news media will not take sasquatch, or their efforts to find him, seriously. "Mainstream scientists think they have a monopoly on knowledge," said Lapseritis, who described his research methods as being identical to those used by primatologist Jane Goodall in studying chimpanzees in Africa. "Yes, the evidence (of sasquatch's existence) is circumstantial. ... But if this were a murder trial, then sasquatch would have been convicted long ago," Chad Deetken of Vancouver said. Deetken, who also researches such puzzles as crop circles and was initially reluctant to give his name, said scientists needed to show "the same courage as Columbus""did in trying to prove the Earth was round. As for the future of the divided sasquatch research community, members of each side were quick to say they had no "personal animosity""toward the other but gave no hint of willingness to compromise. "I also believe in extraterrestrials ... but there is simply no connection (with sasquatch)," Miller said, shaking his head. - --- Copyright © 1999, Quebecor New Media Limited Partnership http://www.canoe.ca/ReutersNews/LIFE-SASQUATCH.html

Pioneering Bigfoot/Sasquatch Researcher Bobbie Short and Bigfoot Encounters

 

Bobbie Short died on 16th May 2013 and if you know anything about dedicated Bigfoot?Sasquatch research the name will be familiar. Her Bigfoot Encounters site and newsletter were must reading.

Most thought Bobbie was 54 when she died but she was actually 76! I own a couple of her bulky research books and Bigfoot Enounters can still be found with some articles still to be read there but the internet has done away with a lot of the pages so if you want to read up on the subject before You Tube and the internet made it a mess...

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/

Haunted Skies: The Great British UFO Learning Centre

 https://www.hauntedskies.co.uk/?fbclid=IwY2xjawUSm_xwZG9mAWV4dG4DYWVtAjExAHNydGMGYXBwX2lkEDIyMjAzOTE3ODgyMDA4OTIAAR5hPZGLyFhIFry2idb1Gm0A-Gcd_3WNpTLM_7YWHfOoVb2uh2M1u_mHZJ8rrA_aem_dIApEH79mYFAncHQDfqOuw

AOP Bureau Some Things Strange and Sinister -RARE documents uploaded to Face Book Group

AOP Bureau Some Things Strange and Sinister

https://www.facebook.com/groups/592791765729889

Uploaded PDF files on the following for those interested in Bigfoot/Sasquatch and these are quite rare documents that have gathered dust in my files over decades:

George F Haas The Present State of Bigfoot (1973)

Bay Area Group (BAG) info sheet (1973)

and

Kentucky UFO Investigators League Report on Faulk Monster encounter (1981)

NEVER Run

 

 Back around 1977 a member of a group -UFO International (less said about that the better)- offered to help me with compiling the CE3K/AE files.  I gave a sigh of relief as there were a lot of books and magazines to go through. After two weeks the volunteer (a manager for a major petroleum company) looked at me and said "I can't do it any more. Sorry" -so I asked why?

It turns out that after spending days going over the reports he had a vivid dream in which he was in some kind of hut or cabin in the countryside and he saw a landed UFO and some entities get out and move about. He felt trapped. Basically, this was his mind, while he slept, sifting through what he had learnt in order to explain or make some sense out of it all.

I had a similar dream when I startedand it was quite vividbut it never scared me off the work! I will give a more mundane example.

One job I had in the 1970s involved backing items into boxes and also rolling large prints and putting them into heavy duty postage cylinders. For two nights I had vivid dreams of the mundane, mind numbing boring chore of boxing up items. Vivid. As I needed to eat, pay rent etc I did not go to my boss and say "I quit. I cannot do this any more -I had vivid dreams of packaging things up!"  I did mention it to a co-workere who laughed and said "You, too?!"

I heard a similar story7 from someone who was working on business accounts for hour after hour and he told me that the vivid dreams of constantly opening up books, checking them was driving him nuts.

So, the fella with the CE3K work simply chickened out because of a dream.

I have read as well as spoken to supposed Ufologists who, seeing an object (large or small) come down behind a hill or trees will turn around and run.drive off. In one case an 'investigator' sent his father to investigate. Thankfully, that Ufologist being thoroughly incompetrent got out of the subject.  I have known others that would not go to speak to UFO repeater witnesses in case "something" happened to them. Those people need to step way back or simply leave Ufology.

I have watched and heard so many supposed "ghost hunters" run away screaming for their mummies when they hear a sound or someone says they thought they sawa shadow move! Again, give up the hobby and find a new one.

Cryptozoology is another field where you find this. Luckily, it's less embarrassing as most "cryptozoologists" never leave the comfort of home.

Around 1977 I was living with my grandparents in Downend on the outskirts of Bristol. Even on a sunny summer day everything stopped at 1700 hrs!  At night it was quiet even on the main Westerleigh Road -a little traffic might have helped as I walked past the large cemetery there! There was one large triangular patch of grass that was just off the Westerleigh Road on the Black Horse Estate. Returning from a UFO meeting on foot it was dark, warm but as I got more onto the country area the fog got thick. I crossed the patch of grass and turned as I heard a sound behind me. Fog too thick to see anything.

I continued walking but then heard foot steps behind me. I stopped andf they stopped. I thought it odd since it was hardly a robbery hot spot!  I started walking again and heard the sound again but now on paving I realised that what I was hearing were hooves. Two hooves clip-clop clip clop. I stopped again but the fog was so bad I could not see two feet (60cms) in front of me. I carried on walking along the concrete slabbed pavement between a brook and play area and the row of houses and I was not that far from home. 

I heard an odd sound as the two cloven hooves walked behind me. I stopped and said "Who is there?" but with a street light to one side all I saw were two very long horns. I turned and walked a bit faster but the clip clop stopped. I stopped. I could not see anything other than my feet on the pavement. I breathed a sigh of relief, Whatever it was was gone. Something warm then breathed on my neck. I ran to my grandparents house and there was a 6 feet high wooden gateway blocking the entrance to the back garden and from there I could get to the back door and into the house. I have still got no idea how but I vaulted over that gate. I stood with my back to the gate and listened as something was pushing the gate.

At bthat point what I call my "Gemini mind" was at work. One side panicked at what was going on while the other took over: I was "all mouth" about looking into the strange or unexplained when talking at meetings and here I was sweating like a coward. My more forceful Gemini side took over and I turned slowly and decided that what ever was on the other side of that gate I had -no options- to face it or I would simply be a useless coward. I slowly, and as quietly as I could, pulled bacck the gate bolt and lifted the latch. Calml;y I pulled open the gate.

What I confronted that night made sure that whatever I faced whether strange lights, odd sounds or mysterious figures I did not turn and run. I headed straight for it or observed and noted details because of distance. The "Devil of Downend" made sure I was always prepared.

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).