Wednesday, September 14, 2011

More Than Meets The Eye With Moreland??


Above is the brilliant [as usual] piece of art by Mark Cashman [of the Temporal Doorway] of the Blenheim, New Zealand 1959 CE3, often called the "Moreland" case after the witness. Pretty picture, but why is it here?? I've stumbled into something that I don't remember reading about this case, and, when I googled several references to it, STILL can't find mentioned, which really puzzles me. Really puzzles me....

The "new"? information is so out-of-norm for my readings of the "old" case reports, that I'm almost doubting it's legitimacy. But it is directly out of the released documents of the New Zealand Air Force, and I read it there myself. If there is no colossal joke/hoax involved, this seems significant.

While pursuing web sites for the trace cases that were talked about on the blog recently, a site referred to these NZAF documents. Out of curiosity [and hoping to find material on the 1969 traces], I went and looked. No luck. But there were references to other NZ "Classics", like the Kaikoura lights, and the Blenheim/Moreland CE3. What-the heck? I looked. The Blenheim material was surprising.

In a thumbnail: Mrs Moreland was caring for her cows when an object approached. It was a pretty disk with much glowing light of both green and orange variety, and it had a clear dome on its top, within which you could see two "men". The green light had a strange "attractive effect" on her, making her want to go towards the craft. That then scared her and she literally ran for the trees and watched. She gives a very precise and detailed description of everything about the craft and the persons inside. When it left, she went inside and told her husband [an NZAF soldier] who told her to call the police. It was the NZAF that then showed up to take testimony, finding her credible and consistent in her story, despite using clever interrogation techniques. Ultimately, the NZAF tried to debunk her story by criticizing her character, but no such allusion is present in the original interview. The case is also always listed as single witness, but read the illustration to the left/above. The officer has written in "AirForce person also reported the sighting". No reference to any document concerning the corroborating sighting was found by me... but maybe it's in the files somewhere else.

But what was FAR more interesting was the drawing to the left. This alleges to show one of the entities almost full height. All the renditions I've read say she saw two entities in the dome from the waist up. What's going on?

Mrs Moreland apparently had a VERY close encounter that she didn't want to talk about. Upon having the "attraction" of the green light shown on her, she saw a being "land" from the disk and approach. There was no loss of memory, as she remembered the details just fine [as you can see]. She was apparently very worried that people would call her nuts, and left this part of the story out continuously afterwards. But the NZAF got it out of her.

How did they respond to the story of this close an encounter?? Note the original security classification: "Top Secret".

Now you know why I'm a bit stunned by all this, and wonder if some strange hoax is being pulled. If so, it would involve messing with the NZAF files. But that doesn't seem very likely does it? So, until I'm told differently: The Moreland CE3 seems to be a face-to-face encounter with an unexplainable entity from an unexplainable craft, and maybe even the partial awareness of an early on-board experience still hidden.

The NZAF has apparently even now refused to release all documents associated with the case, citing a privacy agreement. How much, if any, more do they know?? And WHY the "Top Secret"?


You can read all the details of the case as normally reported in many places on the internet. It has always seemed to me, as it did to Allen Hynek and Jim McDonald, who interviewed Mrs Moreland separately, to be a good case. Maybe there's WAY more to it than we've known.

8 comments:

  1. Nice catch, sir!

    I agree wholeheartedly that it's a puzzler.

    Looking at the sketch of the 'ufonaut,' it's easily conceivable to a 50s imagination. The equipment/ paraphernalia doesn't appear to be far removed from either 50s concepts or our own.

    One thing that stands out is the dial on the chest. It's almost parochial in design and makes me wonder if the suit, as depicted, would allow the occupant to see it, much less manipulate it? This raises doubts about the depiction, but without more information about the details or origins of the sketch, I guess it's parked under consideration.

    'Air force person' is similarly indistinct as a means of drawing conclusions. What the heck does it mean? It could be evidence of a sloppy correspondent and yet such references are usually more accurate. In this field, it's enticing to suspect the obfuscation wasn't accidental but who knows?

    Also, from where did the author of the 'extra information' source the detail? This in itself is intriguing, not least by dint of the fact that it's some 20 years after the incident. The top secret designation suggests that whoever it was had access to records that haven't been released.

    The 'ufonaut' sketch shares similarities with those Michelin Men sightings of the period although I'm likely reaching too far with that one.

    ReplyDelete
  2. My speculation: Mrs. Moreland has the experience and the NZAF interviews. The investigating officer senses that she's holding something back [he seems to pen into the margin of his report something about getting something more out of her]. A second interview gets the really close encounter which IS described in another document, though not in her words. Mrs Moreland is concerned about this and requests privacy. She goes about her life re-telling the experience without the up close and personal aspect.

    NZAF checks files and finds that a military person reported an object about the same time. This sighting and the close description of Mrs Moreland are labelled "Top Secret". Why?? NZAF, finding it hard to believe in extraterrestrials, thinks that this might be some sort of Soviet device and its pilot.

    Later, they decide that probably something is wrong with Mrs Moreland, and therefore [despite their investigator's assessment of her and all other information that she is indeed a normal person], that the alleged incident is best ignored. They reclassify the case "Confidential", probably due to the privacy issue, and, over the years forget it. Finally, almost everything is declassified.

    As to the comic elements of the UFOnaut: display and games....display and games. Makes you wonder if all the 1890s airships were really made-up.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Could that other Air Force witness simply be her husband? And since we're talking about higher order close encounters, Charles Hickson recently died.

    ReplyDelete
  4. If the "other witness" was just her husband, then that mention is due to a screw up on the part of whoever made the notation, as her husband saw nothing. Also, her husband wasn't even the one who reported the incident, as he told her to call the police.

    None of that means that the written notation isn't just a screw-up, but I usually begin my hypothesizing with literal interpretations of the {meagre] data available, rather than beginning by making up possibilities which don't simply match the data. In this case the notation says "Air Force Person also reported", her husband didn't sight it, so I go with "someone else" as primary hypothesis.


    As to Charlie Hickson, his encounter story always bothered me. He told me once [and several others as well earlier], that he had a stone in his pocket which the aliens gave him, and it would warm up [or something] to warn him when they were coming back to see him again. Which, he alleged, happened several times. Calvin Parker was always a reluctant co-witness at best, and I've never trusted the quality of James Harder's CE4 research. Harder once looked me in the eye and began a sentence: "If I am not wrong about this, and I am VERY rarely wrong...." His ego was bigger than the planet.

    But, whether it was real or all in fun: Godspeed Charlie Hickson. I have nothing against you.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "As to Charlie Hickson..."
    That stone story is interesting because I believe in an interview he said that there was no communication between him and the entities. And he certainly didn't mention a stone. But who knows, if UFO occupants can hand out pancakes they can probably hand out stones too.

    And I was also making a literal interpretation, maybe too literal, based on what is written in the post. I took that by not explicitly stating that the husband did not see the UFO there was a possibility that he was a witness. To me, that he told his wife to call the police does not imply that he did not see it. That is maybe too lawyerly but I often get burned by making assumptions.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Your view was just fine. It's only that when I had the opportunity to read the whole NZAF report, it said that her husband didn't see it [was doing something inside the house--maybe even sleeping].

    The Hickson "stone" was one of many things that he kept adding to his story through time. He said to me that he'd be happy to have it tested but didn't want to let it out of his possession. As usual, big claim but no action to support it. Hickson originally said things in his "formal" interviews that he "adjusted" as his story grew. This can be looked at two ways: 1). a man with a true story that he knows no one will believe, so he holds most of it back; or 2). an old whopper-teller who likes the way his tale is going and embellishes it. This is why it is Calvin Parker who is the credibility key.

    Also, to buy the Parker/Hickson story you must buy the idea that the UFO could appear "in only one direction of sight"---in order to negate the fact that the nearby bridge operator never saw it from his window. I am one of the few UFOlogists who is willing to contemplate some sort of partially-present portal effect which manifests in one direction and not another, but it adds one more legitimate reason to worry about this case.

    ReplyDelete
  7. My dear professor, your excellent post got me re-examing the Moreland affair. Take a look at what your deeds have done at my blog: http://theozfiles.blogspot.com
    As always, I enjoy the fruits of your "big study", Best wishes, Bill

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hah! Great job, Bill! If any of the readers of this blog see this, go to Bill's blog and read his terrific synthesis of the case as it now, newly, stands.

    ReplyDelete

Followers