Monday, January 24, 2011

A Small Re-Start

Well, to anyone who may re-find this weary old blog, I am going to try to occasionally put something up again. My duties caring for my mother haven't changed, but perhaps some easing occurs just with time. And, to stop from going totally foggy, I decided to take a portion of my UFO case files and see if there was anything of note to pass on there. The [very] big UFO history book written by myself and the UFO History Group [eleven of them plus me] is basically finished also, all 600+ pages of it. So those sorts of duties are also out of the way. I hope that these first forays back into the posting business will give you something worthwhile.
The set of case files that I chose to bring from Kalamazoo to Wheeling to work on were the Close Encounters of the Second Kind//Physiological effects. I picked this category because it has always seemed to me to be relatively poorly characterized. If one thinks of CE2Trace cases, you have a fairly immediate understanding of what will be in that pile and a lot of confidence that there are many reasons for thinking those types credible. Same thing with vehicle interference. But for me, the CE2p's are not as immediately clear. They seem in fact to probably contain several rather different things entirely, just lumped into one identifier. My personal files are not voluminous on this material. They are like all my categories the results of idiosyncratic accretions of cases which were historically important for different reasons, given to me by friends as "interesting", accidentally coming along with a cluster of other files, etc. There are a little over 150 of them, and they vary widely in quality as to the depth of the file material. Still, it seems a good "independent group" of files to log and sort through. So this is what I have done here.
I'm going to insert my log pages in the blog one after another [three for this post, and hopefully a lot more later]. You can see [with luck] what I've done. Each case has the typical Date/Place identifiers, plus type of craft, multi-witnessed or not [very few of these are], whether the object made noise, specific case notes and what the alleged physiological effect was. At the bottom right corner of each case listing, I give my own, rather subjective, strength-of-case rating [0-6]. This not-so-brilliant and certainly non-scientific scale goes from Bunk[0] to minimal info[1] to minimal but with an interesting feature [2] to probably a good case [3] to probably good and with an interesting feature [4] to apparently a very solid case [5] to Anchor Case//Bell Cow [6]. "Interesting Features" would be things like instant vanishment, OZ effects, high strangeness. On the first page of the log [above], there are two fours. One is an old case from Queensland Australia wherein the witness collided with what seemed to be an invisible force field. I include the case as a four, because outstanding Ozzie researchers cite it, and I know some of these people and respect them. The second four is of poorer provenance, discovered by me as a witness letter buried in an archive collection. But the witness is very good at detail [and drew the object] and tells a short but rational story. I probably should not rate this as highly as a four, but the letter/style was compelling. Take it with your own preferred amount of salt.
Page two features a case often cited in ce2p catalogs, but which I believe to be bunk. Dr, James McDonald followed this case up personally and felt the witness to be shaky and contradictory. McDonald is usually the right guy to go along with in these matters, so go I. The Sonderborg, Denmark case [a CE3] is fascinating, AND fits certain larger patterns, but I have only Vallee's brief citation from UFO-Nachrichten to go on, and so cannot go for a higher number than two. My instinct tells me that if one of the early solider Scandinavian investigating groups looked into this, or even a good reporter or the Danish Air Force, then this is probably as high as a five. But, I don't know. The stronger case in this group is Kerkrade, Netherlands. This is because it occurred in a good context [a localized mini-flap], is very well described but not flamboyantly so, and fits with the general class of ce2 sightings. There is a wonderful witness letter about this in the old NICAP files. [originally coming from CSI-Los Angeles, and CSI-NY].
Page three features three French cases from the 1954 wave. They, to me, go together so well that they are greatly compelling. In all three cases, the prime ce2p effect is paralysis. This will become one of the two most prominent elements in the ce2p story. [The other is "Sunburn"]. The main thing to take from these cases is the apparent "holding power" of the light or beam. It COULD be coincidence or legerdemain by the ETs, but the state of paralysis seems directly linked to these beams. The September 10 case became quite famous in time, but the others not so much. The September 10 case featured an estimate of downward force by the craft on the railroad ties of greater than 30 tons. Taking all three cases together as reinforcing of one another, I rate this complex as a five. The 1955 case of Williston Florida is also probably a strong one, as the witness is a police officer promptly reporting the event. His "washtub" description seems to refer to a thick disk shape. The ce2p element of the case seems to involve some projected heat, which could throw it into the general pile of "sunburn" cases we will encounter as we go.

So, folks, round one of this little new saga. I hope to put one out about each week---we'll see how it goes. Peace


  1. Welcome back!
    I've missed your fantastic updates.


  2. Good to see you back (somewhat) in the saddle professor.

  3. I'm going to try my best to stay there awhile, fellows, even though at a slower pace as befits my advanced years.

  4. So surprised and happy to read your two latest blog entries, professor!

    Warm Regards,


  5. I kept the link on my blog hopeful of your return. Thank you, and I think there are many who are encouraged to see you back. to read the articles :)

  6. Happiness is discovering Small Re-Starts...

  7. I've been checking your blog every so often hoping you had re-started and so happy you're up and running again.


  8. Thanks for returning to share your thoughts. I enjoy reading what you have to say very much.

  9. Thank you for the kind words; they are much appreciated. I'll try to produce the solidest history that I can. Hopefully it will be good enough that we can stand on it.

  10. Hello, Prof.

    I was wondering if you would consider stepping away from your historical 'rear-view' mirror for a bit, and give us your opinion regarding what some call 'disclosure' in the present. You wouldn't need your files, just an articulate opinion. I know I'd be interested on your take on the current state of affairs. Perhaps others, as well.