The Bizarre Legends, Crimes And Truth About Spring Heeled Jack

 

  

Terry Hooper-Scharf
Paperback, 

53 Pages  

Dimensions (centimetres) 20.98 wide x 29.69 tall  (A4)

fully illustrated and referenced

£10.00

http://www.lulu.com/shop/terry-hooper-scharf/the-truth-about-spring-heeled-jack/paperback/product-21259526.html

The terror and mystery created by “Jack The Ripper” has been the subject of countless books, magazine articles as well as movies and TV documentaries. Ask anyone if they have ever heard of Jack The Ripper and it is doubtful anyone would respond with a “no idea.”  

By that same token, ask people who “Spring-heeled Jack” was and you would be lucky to find anyone who had ever heard of him.  

Spring-heeled Jack was the subject (loosely) of a film The Curse of the Wraydons (1946) and Dominic Keating also appeared as Spring Heeled Jack in the 2010 film Sherlock Holmes by The Asylum film company. The character has also featured in both American and British comic books and a number of books, for both children and adults.  

But the fact that the Springald held the country –not just London– in a grip of terror much longer that the Ripper did is all but forgotten except for some half-truths and fanciful theories.  

Now be prepared to read the full story of Spring Heeled Jack

Notes On CE3K/Alien Entity Case Procedure

The following are preliminary notes on procedures that should be adopted by investigators.  While working on the new book I had to choose specific High Strangeness cases for inclusion.  Cases that were the most "solid" ones available.

To say that I was shocked that out of the many hundreds of CE3K/AE cases on record, very few were scientifically investigated as one might expect of "elite" UFO organizations, well, I wasn't that shocked.  Ego, inter~group rivalry and much more highlight the cases more than the actual encounters.

These notes are published here for reference date.

1.     Above all else, the person(s) reporting the incident to the investigator/group has to be guarantee 100% that said investigators/group will not betray their anonymity in any way.

2.    The person(s) involved must be spoken to at the very earliest opportunity.  Weeks or months is not acceptable.

3.    The investigator musr put the person(s) involved at their ease. Whether this is one or more witnesses does not matter at this point. Just talking to them and establishing their interests and employment or daily life routine is important but will make them feel more at ease: they are not being treated as some kind of freak. Point out that you cannot discuss similar cases or go into detail and that this is because protocol dictates this. Make it clear that critics cannot say they faked or added bits from cases this way but that after testimony is taken you are slightly more free to do so.

NEVER state "Oh, it's similar to the Stanford case" or anything similar as even an honest witness might be tempted to do an internet search for a "Stanford CE3K" or UFO landing report.

 4.    There should be no discussion about Ufology in general or local reports, other than to put the person(s) at their ease and show they are not "crazy". CE3Ks/AE cases or reports MUST NOT be referred to and only after the interview should an investigator even suggest anything similar has been described as it could taint future statements.

5.     At no point should someone who has had a similar encounter be introduced even if to put a witness at their ease. If the percipient(s) is a female then there should be a female investigator present or a female known top the investigator ~wife, girl friend BUT only under strict confidentiality.

The ideal situation would be for any investigation team to have both male and female members for such situations.

6.    Interviewing the percipient(s) should be on an individual basis.  NO group interviewing.

7.     All interviews should be taped as standard ~note that many digital recorders are of poor quality so make sure any device used records good sound quality.

8.    Taped interviews should be transcribed as soon as possible after initial interviews.

9.    Do NOT refer to any object sighted as a "space craft" as that leads the witness and critics can later use this to show you have done so even if not intentional. Use the term "UFOB" to indicate what is being described as a seeming constructed object.

10.    Do NOT refer to "Alien" or use any phraseology other than "Entity"

11.  If the percipient(s) were in a vehicle and vehicle interference was noted refer to manual on VI cases.

12.  If the percipient(s) report physiological effects during and after then full details should be noted. It is the duty of the investigators/organization to facilitate some form of medical examination.  If organizations cannot do this (no reference should be made to a UFOB case though, if the doctor involved is part of a UFO organization this is moot).

13.  The first interview should enable any investigator to determine whether there is any missing time period during the encounter reported ~ascertain that there is no mundane reason for a mistake having been made such as a car clock being slow or house clock fast as the discrepancy between these two could give a false impression.

14.   Do NOT immediately start asking whether the percipient(s) would be willing to undergo hypnotic regression. There must be very strict guidelines as to when any form of hypnosis is used and then only by a qualified professional.

15.  Even if not good artist(s) get the percipient(s) to draw any UFOB they saw and then any entity.  Once this/these have been made then a more professional set of drawings can be made and to guarantee that the percipient(s) agree this is accurate they should be asked to sign said drawings.

16.  It will also be necessary for investigators to ask the percipient(s) to return with them to  the scene of the incident (daylight is best as some percipient(s) may be too fearful to return to the spot at night though if they are willing no problem) so that it can be pin~pointed as accurately as possible.  The inveastigators should note anything unusual in the area such as abandoned buildings, factoroies. If the visit takes place during daylight then the investigators should return at night, as close to the time of the incident as possible.  It could be that something locally was mistaken for a UFOB.

17.  During the day and at night, photographs should be taken of the scene of the incident. Look for any trace evidence etc., as should be standard.

18.  Any final version of the whole percipient(s) statement(s) should be read through, approved and signed by the percipient(s).

19.  When the investigation is completed the investigator should be able to tell the percipient(s) whether he feels that they have had a genuine experience and those involved may now ask questions but it should be made clear that we cannot say where these things originate and any mention of "Alien agendas"/"breeding programs" must not be made.

20.  Only now should it be clear whether or not there is any missing time period an ways to help the percipient(s) (not regression hypnosis) consciously recall what might have happened.  If any such methods are unsuccessful then, and only then if the percipient(s) are willing, should regression hypnosis be suggested and, again, this must be by a qualified person not heavily steeped in Ufology.

21.  At all times a central case coordinator should be kept up to date on the investigatrion.  This helps investigators talk through any problems or seek advice. If there is more than one group involved then this must be an evenly split investigation with everyone complying with the established procedure. A central case coordinator could smooth over any problems.

22. The final report should be signed by all involved.  A summary should be handed to the percipient(s)

23. Although this should be a conclusion to the investigation it should be made clear to the percipient(s) that the investigator(s) can be contacted regarding any developments or recollections.

24. Re. 23, above, the investigator should make a courtesy call to see how the percipient(s) are doing and any developments after one year. Then after two years and the fact that the percipient(s) can contact investigators in future should be reiterated.

Above: Dr Olavo T. Fontes checking Antonio Villas Boas over after his encounter in 1957

The Red Paper: Canids

One for those interested in Wildlife -or cryptozoology!

  

 Terry Hooper

The Red Paper: Canids

Paperback, 

A4 

(21 x 30cms)

202 Pages 

Photographs, illustrations and map

£20.00

http://www.lulu.com/shop/terry-hooper/the-red-papercanines-vol1/paperback/product-20492038.html

By the 1700s the British fox was on the verge of extinction and about to follow the bear and wolf having been hunted for sport for centuries.  

The answer was to import thousands of foxes per year for sport. But foxes kept dying out so jackals were tried. Some were caught, some escaped. Even wolves and coyote were released for hunting and "country folk" were very far from "happy" -some even threatening local hunts -one intending to release a wolf for a hunt- with legal and other consequences. 

The summation of over 40 years research by the noted naturalist and former UK police forces exotic wildlife consultant reveals the damnable lie of "pest control" hunting but also reveals the cruelty the animals were subject to and how private menageries as well as travelling shows. Private menageries, or single exotic "pets" as well as travelling shows helped provide the British and Irish countryside with some incredible events such as the 1905 "vampiric" sheep killer of Badminton, the mystery hounds of Cavan and Coyotes of Epping Forest.

The Girt Dog of Ennerdale is also dealt with in detail -was it a tiger? A Tasmania Thylacine? This book gives the exact facts and details for the first time. Up-dated 2013 edition includes a section on sarcoptic mange in foxes and treatment plus a list of wildlife sanctuaries and rescue centres in the UK.

Blog Closure Does NOT Mean the Red Paper: Felids Is Cancelled

No. The work on the report continues.

Contributions are still welcome and the contact email is still blacktowercg@hotmail.com

THANK you

And then comes the bitter blow

I have just come back from having a meeting and a very long chat about this blog.  There have been, since this blog was set up in 2012, some 294, 745 views.  Its popularity has increased ~August saw some 34,463 views alone.  Looking at other sites that take feeds and posts from this blog the total views hit 1 million.

However, for me the blog has been a resounding failure.

It was set up to get into contact with like minded individuals who were not attracted to the lies and sensationalism of other blogs.  To discuss reports and maybe find new sources of information. It was also designed to promote my books ~non sensationalist, fully referenced and factual. There were even photographs once thought lost that I found through actual research, yes, by going through dusty old archives and financially spending perhaps too much to get to the bottom of events/cases. Some took 30, 35 and even over 40 years before I could close the book on them.

Comments.....Zero

Sales.............One book






I was told today that the public do not want anything that is non~sensationalist.  They want everything they see on Trash TV  in a book and "If they are dumb enough they'll believe it all" I was then told honesty, integrity and accuracy "does not pay the bills".  I had to be told that?

The blog takes time.  Occasionally I can put a post together on the spot but you are still looking at a couple hours work.  Longer posts can take several hours of writing, editing and finding images to go with them.

The books were my sole (supposed) income.  I'm bankrupt.

Hey, you cannot drag a horse to water and you certainly cannot drag people to buy a book. Or give your post a Google Plus or even a comment like "enjoyed that".

Six years work here and that was time I could have spent doing what I like: investigation and research.

I give up.  I shrugged and said "Okay.  No one can be bothered.  I'm broke!" and just shake my head that out and out hoaxers are raking in the cash.

So rather than compromise and go over to the dark side I decided calling it a day was best.  I did have some book reviews planned but those have been archived.  Why promote books other people have written so they sell copies while I sit here counting pennies.

I enjoyed blogging.  But it doesn't pay the bills. Maybe I'll find a crock of gold at the end of the rainbow I can see.  The bitter blow was the line "People don't care. They jump in, read what they want then it's screw you and they are gone!"

Co~operation On Red Paper: Canids ~Clarification

My thanks to Ted for his email and information regarding UK "big cat" sightings.  He made a point that I had not thought about before but needs clarifying.

"What happens if no UK big cat investigators cooperate with you?"

Well, the answer is simple: I continue to produce my Red Paper: Felids based on my 40 years as a naturalist and police wildlife adviser. Pawprint photos, dropping/scat photos/plaster casts, testing results, photographs etc., I have.  I put over 40 years of work on canids into Red Paper: Canids so there is no problem with my working alone.  Everything is fully referenced.

The point of asking for Public and existing groups cooperation is to add extra information and allow those persons to be named as contributors to the final paper.  Basically, it is a chance to get some real cooperation going and base it on Scientific principles.

That simple.  Apologies for any confusion.

A Great Lack Of Credibility

I think that there is a great lack of credibility amongst certain researchers in the UK and to be quite honest a lot of dishonesty and incompetence.

My approach to any research is simple: there is no bias on my part and I look at every aspect of the material presented.  That is how you should do this.  It is the scientific way.

When I decided to update the Close Encounters of the Third Kind (CE3K)/Alien Entity records for the UK I was surprised greatly at the total amateur nature of research and investigation today.  "He says he was abducted" and that was it.  Acceptance because of what has come out since Budd Hopkins and, later,  Dr David Jacobs revealed via their "alien abduction research". It started out well and then dived straight into the pit of "Let's just jump in and make stuff up as it goes along".

As long time Ufologists and researchers have pointed out, but tend to get ignored because they do not blindly accept post Hopkins/Jacobs claims, is that "Greys" (go online to hear Americans screaming over the keyboard "WHY are they spelling it 'Greys' like the English ~it should be "Grays"!!") as accepted by today's commercial exploiters of the subject never existed.  I can cite hundreds of cases pre Hopkins/Jacobs and, yes, there are some small, large headed AE types described, however, they were not "Greys".

When you have, as previously discussed, UK UFO groups who seem to accept Trash TV shows as their training, accepting any light seen as hiding an abduction and claim to receive 100~200 new abduction cases each month you know something has gone wrong.

I offered to collate reports and make a free~for~all data base.  What happened?  Insults, no wish to cooperate and the claim that these were their reports and no one elses. So nothing has changed since 1977 in UK 'Ufology' and the amount of internet warring and nastiness (some quite evil claims made against some of their fellow researchers)  going on...seems to follow a pattern you find in the US but my main concern is the UK.

You move on to paranormal groups. I once confronted two of these groups over why they had refused to work with me and had "put the word around"?  Apparently, they were "a bit scared" of me!! Why? Because I had a reputation (I had no idea of this at the time) as someone who "critically tries to explain phenomena"...but that is part of Science.  Only when you can eliminate every and any other possibility do you have data that demands further study.  Science.

I responded to a note in a "ghost" group about a haunted house survey going on. I said:

 It might be interesting to find out how many of these events involved small globes of lights or single lights that appeared then suddenly vanished.

To which I got the response:

Both of which are more likely optical effects than paranormal events.

Really? Without asking for an exact definition or example of the type of event I was referring to (I have several on file, two involving more than one witness and no "optical effect" was involved) this person has decided they are all  "optical effects"?  Perhaps this person needs to  also remember the definition of "paranormal"?

Definition of paranormal:  not scientifically explainable :  supernaturalparanormal
paranormality
paranormally

play\ˌper-ə-ˈnȯr-mə-lē, ˌpa-rə-; ˈper-ə-ˌnȯr-, ˈpa-rə-\ adverbplay\ˌper-ə-ˌnȯr-ˈma-lə-tē, ˌpa-rə-\ noun noun

Perhaps "What type of phenomenon are you defining by 'globes of light'?" would have been a better response.  Without even looking at the data this person jumped in with "optical effect".  That is not just unscientific but it shows a closed mind from someone I cannot find any published research from.

In fact, I get a lot of requests fro skeptics to join their "skeptical approach groups" and refuse. You class yourself as "skeptic" then you are admitting that you are not adopting a Scientific approach. Leave the room and come back when you have something to offer.

Again, the (I could scream) "Ghostologists"/"Spookologists"/"paranormalists" are faking, lying, warring with one another and countering each others claims. Not Scientific.  All behaviour seeming adopted from their training watching Trash TV shows on the subject.

Then we have the "British Bigfooters"/"Bigfootologists".

From 1975 onward I heard every type of  account from poachers, game keepers, estate owners, foresters and many others who had an intimate knowledge of woodland, forests and the countryside. All in the strictest confidence I heard of "big cats", ghosts, UFOs, strange lights in buildings or woodland.  I heard of local legends and myths. In 40 plus years I had heard it all but never ever any stories of a Bigfoot or wild~man type creature. Yes, there is a plentiful supply of food for any omnivore and it is basic practice to look at all of this in any area.

But, according to the Cryptozoologists and Bigfootologists we have mystery hominids here.  Right here in the UK. However, I decided to assess the data.  I contacted the main UK Bigfoot group and explained that I would be interested in analyzing and reports and evidence such as foot prints and casts and draw up a report to present to them before publishing generally.  The response from these people who felt science was ignoring and ridiculing them when a naturalist offers to look at what they have?  A rather long, very insulting message accusing me of negativity and more (I kept the message for posterity)...by being open to the subject?  I then got an half arsed apology which, unlike the initial response which was on a public group, was private.  Harm done.

Branches and sticks on the ground, leaning over or criss~crossed...in a woodland or forest.  These people have obviously never gotten out much.  Lean to type structures ~a lot of people are living rough in forests now and to mess about with their "spots" is unwelcome and stones thrown at night or being followed is not Bigfoot.  Amateur video analysis and even claims that "something can be seen in the trees" (it cannot be seen) and, oh dear, the "much respected" Bigfootologist who felt he had won because, after explaining about sticks in woodland to him, I would not continue to argue against his claim that he had found a Bigfoot tree knocking stick...a stick found in the woods is...a stick.

Accounts of 7~9 feet (2.13~2.74m) in woods and going through suburban area are greeted with acceptance.  Blind acceptance by British Bigfootologists.  If you look at their report data bases it includes ghost stories (often listed twice but an inaccurate location given in the second account) and much more.  Even try to suggest a case does not seem likely and you will be screeched at over the internet.

Again, Trash TV shows from the US seem to have sparked off this craze.

UK "big cats"...all the same type of thing.  Yes, we have scat (faeces) analysis, hair analysis, DNA results, we have plaster casts of paw prints, we have the kills and much, much more.  However, the material needs to be compiled by a central body ~it is why I set up the Exotic Animals Register in the 1970s.  Again, animals that should be accepted as being here are not because there is no one with real credibility giving an over view.  Ridiculous.

When I announced that I would look at any evidence groups or investigators, or the public, had last week....I got immediate attacks.  "Who does he think he is just jumping into this research?" and similar.

ahem.

I began looking into these reports as a skeptic but keeping my mind open, in 1976 and from 1977 until I semi retired in 2012 I was a wildlife consultant to UK police forces on the subject. So, unlike many, I never "jumped" onto the subject 10, 6, 5 or a couple years ago but four decades ago.

I don't want to make this post overlong but, if these people really want to be taken seriously then they have to grow up and be scientific.  Many Bigfoot investigators in the United States realized this and are adopting scientific methodology while avoiding the internet hate war.

If you want to be taken seriously then be serious.