Of Plaster Casts, Area Maps And Running Scared If You See A Light!

It is quite true that, though I try as hard as I can, I just cannot suffer fools.  I cannot abide so called "professionalism" where the alleged "professional" is incompetent at what he does.

Around 1976 I accompanied the late Graham F. N. Knewstub of the British Flying Saucer Bureau (BFSB) on an investigation.  Graham was getting on a bit in years and suggested that I take over as head of Investigation and Research (I & R) but there was some opposition as I was an "H-dropper" and "not from quite the right background" for some members -an attitude toward me that, eventually,  made Franklyn A. Davin-Wilson eventually resign from the BFSB Committee.

However, on the day in question I had gone with Graham to a place called Little Stoke.  Two young women had been terrified by a very large, discoidal object late one evening and had been in such a panic that they began banging on the door of the family home to get in (they had been so scared they could not use the door key).  So, Graham and I questioned both in a very relaxed manner on a nice sunny day.  

As we all talked I made a line drawing of the family home, showing position of street light, tree and then a much larger sketch of the area.  The girls were asked to point to where the object was seen and we were able to estimate size, etc., and realised the object was quite low -probably 50-60 feet (15-17 m).

I then set about drawing a rough map of the area including house, garden, tree and light positions and noting distances and so on.  Once we had finished we drove off, stopping along the way to go over the report. Graham was, apparently, impressed at how I had made the line drawings, map and so on.  "But that's how everyone does it -right?"  It seems not.  I was told that most investigators filled in a witnesse report form and might double check things -in a case like this investigators usually never bothered because, initially, it was classed as a Light-in-sky (usually a satellite or aircraft, etc.).

Graham told me "It's probably because you are a naturalist!"

I know what he means.  You see, if a naturalist or zoologist goes to an area they will carry a local map. Often they will make a smaller, hand drawn version to fit into a pocket.  Once at a site they will mark out reference points and usually estimate distances and sizes.  They might also make sketches or line drawings for their notes. Even at that time this was just standard for me.  It helped me vizualise in my mind what was where -and it made explaining to others easier.

Later Graham told me that he had swung the I & R job for me by showing this report and, surprisingly to me, the Committee had been "overwhelmed" by the detail.

However, as I was in contact with more and more groups I found that most lacked even the basics. Some vital evidence was lost in two cases for the simple reason that in one group no one knew how to get plaster of paris let alone how to make a cast of ground marks said to have been left by a UFO.  The other group had gotten some plaster of paris but added too much water so after two hours left the scene.  Had they sketched and measured the ground markings?  "Well, roughly triangular....6 or 7 inches?"  Later in the 1970s a vital piece of evidence was lost when a group made a plaster cast of a foot print said to have been made by an entity in a garden. Never even having practiced making plaster casts the mixture was too dry and the footprint "crumbled to pieces".

We never had digital cameras or phone cameras back then and, unbelievably, a camera (using film) was a luxury.  Yet I had at least two "in case".  So all the evidence was lost.  I then produced a four page Field Investigators Guide and sent it to all of the UK groups I could find.

When I later helped set up UFO groups in Somerset, Wiltshire, Gloucestershire and South wales everyone was given the Field Investigators Guide.  Time and again I heard of problems that lost evidence or information that was useful and time and again when I pointed out this was all covered in the Guide I got a response of "Oh. Right.  Didn't think of checking that"

There are Entity cases of High Strangeness, Missing Time cases, etc., in the UK, where I read "No investigation carried out" and then I get angry.  Why not?  It seems that the very unscientific approach used by some Ufologists (who want their subject to be accepted as a science!)  is that "I don't believe that" or "Probably cranks" and so a case is filed away or lost.

There were two cases from the 1970s involving women who had both had lifelong "experiences" -this was well before Budd Hopkins and the "abduction explosion".  One woman had so many correlations with abductions noted in the later literature -but hypnosis was NEVER used- that it still stands out today (I have no idea where either percipient is these days as they were very -VERY- badly treated by Ufologists.  The first had been thrown from UFO group to UFO group and I still have one very well known veteran UK Ufologists letter telling me they "all know about her, we just don't bother"!  The second woman was never insulted to her face but she knew what was going on behind her back and decided that she would only discuss what was going on with me.

The thing is, even if you suspect there might be a psychological reason for a claim, if someone comes to you with an account and asks for advice then, as a UFO investigator or researcher it is your duty to offer help or advice not just milk someone for information so you can write the next book or claim "Yeah, I've investigated UFO abductions" and throw it on your website.  These are people and if this is all too much like work for you then go jump onto the paranormal or other latest trendy subject.

The same applies to investigating UFO landing sites. I have talked to one 'investigator' after another who would not go to an alleged landing site for these reasons:

1.  "It's December -it's too cold!"

2.  "It's been raining since the report so any signs have probably gone"

3.  "Oh, it was so muddy I didn't want to get covered in the stuff!"

There is a report from NUFOIN of an investigator who, at his father's rural home, along with his family, observed a low level UFO that landed in a copse in a nearby valley -about three minutes walk away. The investigator, in his report, states how he was so scared that he did not want to go and investigate -his father went instead!  Some ground traces but these were found hours later in daylight when the investigator felt "a little safer" -we have his word on these traces.  No photoes,etc..

I have been at Cradle Hill, near Warminster and chased 'UFO' hoaxers -on two occasions between 20-30 people including UFO investigators, were calling me back and getting hysterical because I was "risking" my life!!

If you are going to investigate UFOs learn HOW to investigate.  If the idea of approaching a possible landed UFO gives you the terrors -this is not the right field for you.

A Previously Uncategorised Entity Type and A Unique UK Case -but that's for 2016!

Thanks to Luis Gonzalez in Spain I have managed to up-date the Spanish section of the AE CE IIIK data base and, as I am an idiot, I have ordered so quite old books that may contain references to possible UK cases prior to 1950.

I do not really have the room for all the books and I've even been going through the 20-40 years old folder files to try to sort things out and that may entail box files.

But I do love reading books and the only books I buy tend to be for reference or research which, to me, is pleasure rather than a chore.  After all, it has taken me 35-40 years to finally close some cases (the longest was the file I opened in 1977 and only closed (finally) in 2012).

And, yes, I have realised that such long term projects are things of the past as in 40 years I'd be 98!

The number of cases to be listed by Date, Time, Location and Possible Explannation (if any) from my own data base, I believe, will run to 2-3,000.   However, before that, the actual report summaries need to be up-dated and replaced because even in plastic wallets inserted into arch files, you can imagine that 40 years sees a lot of wear and tear!

One thing I have discovered, quite by accident, going through UK reports from 1900-1990 as well as non-UK cases, is a type of entity that appears to have slipped past researchers.  Initially I thought "Two cases -coincidence" but a third...a fourth and then a fifth?  So in 2016 I'll present those cases in my book.

There is also another case, from 1978, in Devon, that has a very High Strangeness rating but, sadly, we will probably never get more details than those I will present in the book.  Reading through the notes and then file last night really brought home how unique this case is but the local investigators simply messed everything up to a point that I recall telling the head of the group what I thought of their actions.

But this is all for next year.  For now, I'm off to check on more reference sources.

Guess What? They Found A (Fossilized) Tropical Forest In The Arctic

A team of scientists has unearthed the fossil remnants of a tropical forest on the arctic island of Svalbard, and, according to them, it could well  help explain what is known to be one of the most dramatic climate shifts in Earth’s history.

The fossil forest—stumps of lycopod trees that reached heights of about 13 feet—dates back to the late Devonian period, or some 380 million years ago.   Today, Svalbard, is  a frozen wasteland, but at that time was a huge area of equatorial jungle.  This is amongst some of  the oldest forests ever discovered and is eclipsed only by a mid-Devonian forest in Gilboa, New York.

The end of the Devonian was marked by a dramatic global cooling event caused by a drop in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. One explanation for the atmospheric shift is the rise of CO2-hungry forests, but to date, very few Devonian trees have actually been found.

Firm evidence for tropical forests at the end Devonian supports the theory that trees had a big role to play in the climactic shift that would usher in an era of complex terrestrial ecosystems.

 Above: A reconstructed drawing of a Svalbard fossil forest. Image Credit: Chris Berry/ Cardiff University


“During the Devonian Period, it is widely believed that there was a huge drop in the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, from 15 times the present amount to something approaching current levels,” said Cardiff University’s Chris Berry, lead author on a study appearing this week in Geology.

“The evolution of tree-sized vegetation is the most likely cause of this dramatic drop in carbon dioxide because the plants were absorbing carbon dioxide through photosynthesis to build their tissues, and also through the process of forming soils,” he continued.

Ultimately, Devonian trees probably set the stage of land-based life as we know it.

[Read the full scientific paper at Geology h/t Atlas Obscura]

The question, though, how long before we stumble upon fossil remains of hitherto unknown species of fauna?  It's funny to think that when I read those magazine articles and books as a youngster that told how arctic and other "desolate" locations might once have been teeming with vegetation and life, those "in the know" used to mock the theories.

Only the ignorant claim we know everything about the past.

What Do You Mean "Peer Review"?

Right.  If in Geology, astronomy, physics or even wildlife research you make a discovery, report on a possible trend or present, as with the AE-CE IIIK data base, work that you would like to have your field if study accept you write up a paper and present it to a journal.

What happens then is that your peers will read that paper and either say "Excellent! Proves a point" or "I think you'll find that "this" and "that" have incorrect data" or some may ask to look at thereadings, reports or whatever to double check.

With a data base of thousands of reports you are NOT going to find a UFO publication that will publish it.  I'm guessing it would be a few hundred pages long.

So, you send free copies via the internet to researchers or, less cumbersome and far more useful, the sections pertaining to their countries.  They can read through the listings and responses might be:

(1)  "Case 007 is a proven hoax/psychological/misidentification" -in which case you would need to know how/who proved it to be a such because that is vital for the data base.

(2)  "Case 007 I have never heard of!"  In which case the report source/details are sent to that person to check or look into and see what they come up with.

Having to correct a data base is not something that should bruise an ego.  Even if it sounded like a great case the whole point is that if it is a hoax/psychological / misidentification then is is erroneous data and to continue to use it or promote it puts you in a category of Charlatan. Flim Flam man. And wholly untrustworthy.

I know that identifying hoaxes or misidentifications makes me unpopular.  So what?

per cognitionem veritatis -Through Knowledge: Truth

If you want to accept that hypnosis has produced nothing but 100% truth for Ufologists to study and that millions of alien hybrids are walking about and that the all powerful "Greys" are in charge (well, hypnosis has 'proven' they aren't now...who'll be in charge next?) go ahead.  There's a 'face' on Cydonia, Mars you will love.

Myself -I want to find the truth based on true evidence or testimony.

In Ufology, as in Cryptozoology, the paranormal, etc., that is not the done thing.  Tough.



and if you don't get the point of the bug photo.....

The AE -CE IIIK Project Now Private

I am learning all sorts of lessons.  Firstly, I should never have suggested the AE CE IIIK data base project.

I thought I made it very clear that the idea of the project was not to be the reference source that only I would use.  The idea was that researchers in different countries would cooperate with each other so that each had a duplicate data base catalogue and that would mean freely exchanging case reports.

It would not be "Terry Hooper's CE IIIK Catalogue" -I am not egotistical. I am a researcher.  There is no point in my having a huge data base but no one else benefitting from it.

Also, if a researcher in France, Belgium, Germany or Spain has a copy then if I curl up my toes my data is probably going to be burnt or thrown in a bin (several bins actually).  But "A" in France, "B" in Germany and so on would have copies so nothing is lost and as new cases arise so they can be added and it will be a self perpetuating data base.

Is that very confusing?  Does it say "I don't give a damn how long "A" took to put his data base together -I am taking over!" -does it?

"What about other over-lapping data bases?"  Well, so far, apart from one dealing just with Spain I have had no links sent to these other data bases nor had them named.  So it is a pointless question.

I "need to publish" what I have so people can see....right.  Totally missing the point.  I have stated that I intend to publish everything next year.  In the meantime I was going to make a preliminary data base available FREE to all researchers.  A UK data base. 

I have pointed out and explained repeatedly that I will make a listing of all cases I have available next year. We are talking thousands of dates/times/locations to be typed up and prepared. I have to try to earn a living in the meantime and have other projects to sort out.

I should also point out that I have sent a lot of material out to non-UK researchers with the promise of material in exchange.  Nothing.  They received the data but that was it.  The provisional Spanish catalogue was useful and I thank Luis Gonzalez for that.

But so far Germany, France, Italy -none have followed through. 

All I get is a bunch of negative comments or more and more questions and if the project has bruised a few egos then tough. It should not have because we are supposed to be working together toward finding answers not massaging our egos.

I am taking too much time away from work to explain what is straight forward and I cannot find any other way of making even simpler to understand.  That I have had to correct dates, details and locations given in one badly referenced data base is NOT an attack on anyone -you want to continue citing erroneous data go ahead.

And the UK?  The response from the couple of groups who have responded is to trawl their web pages for material but they'll be very happy to see the full data base, not having even bothered attempting to contribute to it.

On the other hand, John Hanson who, along with Dawn Holloway, is compiling the Haunted Skies encyclopaedia of British Ufology has been very helpful.

So, I am proceeding as always on a solo project and the results will be published as and when I am ready and I am not correcting the record until that time.

Negativity is what has always held back "Ufology" which is not a scientific study -those are usually peer reviewed which seems to be forbidden with this subject.  I have always, and I will always, cooperate with genuine researchers/investigators but I will no longer accept leeching of my material and one way exchange with all the data coming from me.

Denisovan DNA Extracted From Large, “Weird” Teeth

(Bence Viola/University of Toronto)

According to Archaeology online publication of the Archaeological Institute of America   http://archaeology.org/news/3889-151117-denisovan-large-teeth

TORONTO, CANADA—Analysis of two molars from Siberia’s Denisova Cave by an international team of scientists confirms that they belonged to two adult male Denisovans who lived some 60,000 years apart. The earlier individual lived up to 130,000 years ago, while the more recent one lived between 50,000 and 70,000 years ago.


The teeth are larger than those of Neanderthals and modern humans. “In its size, it’s comparable to hominins that lived two or three million years ago…but the age of it shows that it’s very recent,” Bence Viola of the University of Toronto told CBC Canada. “The whole group probably had very large and weird teeth.”


Denisovans probably had large jaws to accommodate these teeth. And genetic evidence indicates that a large, diverse population of Denisovans lived over much of Asia for tens of thousands of years. There may even be excavated fossils in China that have not been recognized as Denisovan yet.

“I’m really convinced. The genetic data shows that these guys were spread over large parts of Asia, so we must have them,” Viola said. To read more, go to "Denisovan DNA."

UFOs and Aliens In Germany -Reports Unaffected By Media?

It's rather interesting to look at accounts of this kind from Germany up to, say, the 1980s.  There were Close Encounters of the Third Kind going back to the early 1950s (Oskar Linke).  However, reports do not appear to have been affected by movie or TV sci fi.

1965-1966 saw the seven episodes series of Raumpatrouille Orion -still with a big cult following today and not just in Germany but further afield in Europe.  And yet there are no reports of UFOs sighted that look like any of the great craft from the TV series.  No alien crews looking or dressed like the crew of Patrol Ship Orion.

Apart from a rare -very rare- few reports from the United Stated involving Star Trek style crews -and these cases were so easily identified as psychological I don't think any were even published in periodicals.

Yet Star Trek has been seen by many millions.  Raumpatrouille Orion was seen my a huge audience.  It seems to defeat the whole idea that TV and movies have influenced UFO reporting.

There is a report from Germany in the early 1980s where entities were seen to burst into flame and it was pointed out that this was similar to what happened to aliens when they died in the 1960s US TV series The Invaders but a reluctant to talk witness meant nothing more was learnt so jumping to conclusions might not be a good idea.

Having written this, of course, I am reminded that the lizard character Gorn from the original Star Trek TV series seems to turn up a lot in modern abduction reports as the aggressive "security" alien reptoid.

Just a thought.