Tuesday, June 10, 2014

Digging for the Core: Close Encounters.

Soldiering on with the case file reconstruction and case category appraisals.

Today: Close Encounters of the First Kind [sightings with details at about 500 feet or so.]

Once again, a tougher job than either of the last two. Why? because every case has to be read to determine if the proximity criterion is met, or there is some mitigating circumstance whereby it's rational to expand the criterion in some case [example: the witness used a telescope or binoculars.] Because of this re-read issue, it was harder to just sweep up cases which weren't already in my CE1 files to make a larger pile.
So, OK, enough whining by me: what did I do? CE1s are a large file drawer --- over 300 incidents. So, it was a good base to work with. I added Allen Hynek's select CE1s from his UFO Experience, as I trust him, and he defined the darn category afterall. Going through the file folders and making credibility judgements about which cases seemed to be strongly founded, I chose 45 foundationstone cases [33 of "mine" and Hynek's 12], plus enough other good ones to get to just over 150. That was pretty good but still felt a little light for something as well-observed as CE1s. I went to Fran Ridge's NICAP site, which has a CE1 category page, and picked out those cases listed there which someone thought were important enough to create a documentation directory rather than a simple listing. With those as a supplement with some confidence to them, the total numbers of promising cases went to just over 230. Since that was, weirdly, almost the exact number of the previous radar file, I accepted the synchronicity and went with it.

Here's the yearly occurrence graph. My select best cases are in RED. The rest of my cases files judged to be good ones are in PINK. The supplements from Fran's NICAP site are in BLUE. To give you the potential fun of imagining all sorts of correlations [WARNING!! Don't take me or you too seriously while doing so!!], I'm going to re-post the radar graph from the previous post.

They are sort-of-the-same and sort-of-different aren't they?? The accumulations and deficits tend to fall in similar areas, and that must mean something either about the phenomenon or about the blogger. I'll plead some guilt in the issue, but I honestly do not believe that I am entirely the causal agent here. I've seen this pattern too often elsewhere in this field. And THAT has, in its strange way, convinced me even further of the objective reality of what's going on.

On the other hand, there is at least one big difference in these graphs for me: the phenomenon got closer. Between WWII and about 1958, the phenomenon seemed happy to display itself as extremely advanced aerial technology to, perhaps, boggle the engineering and military mind. From the mid-1960s through at least the decade of the 1970s, it seemed to preferably "move in" a little closer. Maybe it enjoyed the "personal" individuality of the "60s" as much as we did {Just Joking!! --- don't start another internet rumor!!} Whereas the bulk of the best radar cases are early, the bulk of the best CE1s come in the "middle." Of course the "end" of the graph is a UFO desert in both.

One might speculate upon what this possible shift in display means --- and go and have the fun doing that. Just keep a VERY open mind to be healthy about what any of this might really mean.

I've put these pages on the blog already in the past, but it doesn't hurt to re-publish them in this context. Obviously what they're doing is giving you a group of illustrations from CE1 witnesses, or polished up versions of cruder sketches that they made. They, as is usual in UFOlogy, demonstrate the bewildering variety of detail that we're constantly presented with. I have said before that I believe [always with a willingness to be flat wrong] that this variation is much more deliberate on the part of the Agency-behind-the-UFOs than either foggy observation by witnesses or every UFO driver having his private hot-rod.

I believe that this is just very clever deliberate pattern-breaking which allows the individual impact of the encounter without our cultural aura of uncertainty being threatened.

I don't know if a listing of the better cases in this first "draft" would be useful to anyone, but as briefly as possible, here they are: {the first twelve are Allen's cases} Parshall, ND [1967], Meyerstown, PA [1966], Nederland, TX [1966], Rocky, OK [1965], Beverly, MA [1966], Freemont, IN [1966], Jefferson, MO [1967], Kenora, ONT [1955], Monticello, WI [1964], Mt. Airy, MD [1965], Weymouth, MA [1963], Mendota, CA [1967]. ... and my additions ... Red Bluff, CA [1960], Springfield, PA [1962], Millersport, OH [1963], St. Albans, WV [1958], Exeter, NH [1965], Mackay, Qnsld [1965], Portage County, OH [1966], Sheffield, OH [1958], Seville, SP [1961], Newton, IL [1966], Warren, OH [1968], Lowell, MA [1976], btw Willard//Greenwich, OH [1971], Colby, KS [1972], Willow Grove, PA [1966], Brunflo, SWE [1986], Bainbridge, MD [1952], East Peru, ME [1962], Vicksburg, MI [1966], Weston, MO [1967], Milledgeville, GA [1967], Gilroy, CA [1975], Camp Delaware, CT [1976], Kansas City, KS [1961], btw Handen//Tungelsta, SWE [early 70s], Waipukurau, NZ [1969], Baytown, TX [1966], Juniata, PA [1956], Hampton, VA [1965], Mannum, SAus, [1972], Woodbury Twnsp, MN [1976], Colusa, CA [1976].

... and again just for fun, here's some of the CE1 art:

Some UFOs showing themselves, even one giving a little peek at its "driver."

...chasing a train, and half-way hiding.

Making an electrical nuisance of itself, and being downright harassing of some car drivers....

...showing that they can be the shape they want to be.

...putting on a good show down under, and maybe even leaving a trace...

... really showing off ...
... and bye-bye? 

Mysteries, wonderful mysteries.

Till next ... watch the skies, friends. Even in this UFO desert, we might get lucky.



  1. the bois-de-champ case you mentioned above is very interesting to me , though i dont know why the account differs a bit at the end of the encounter. Some said the woodman touched the UFO with his axe and get thrown back 20 feet and paralyzed, another said he touched the UfO with his axe then walk slowly back to a rock and suddenly become afraid and paralyzed..

    i see many case of people seeing a landed UFO , approached it with curiosity, then after certain time suddenly get afraid as if they realized something is not normal.

    April 24, 1954, 3 o'clock in the afternoon.

    "I first heard a great noise. You would have said it was a train passing on a metal bridge or the bursting of a bomb of strong caliber. I threw myself instinctively behind a large rock, while looking up in the air."

    "And I saw three enormous machines, without wings, pass above me. Astonishing thing: their slowliness and their mass. At the time, I believed that they were enormous airships. But, shortly, the two first had advanced without making any noise. The 3rd stayed behind, did not move any more and appeared to go down slowly, without making noise either."

    Curiosity pushed me to await the continuation. The machine had been posed at approximately 50 meters from me and at 40 centimetres of the ground. It thus did not touch ground and was approximately 300 meters long. Of that I am certain because, after its departure, half an hour later, I measured the ground (at the time, I was a logger), delimited at each end by a small fir tree at an end and by a birch at the other end. As for its width, it reached 60 meters.

    I approached the machine, I walked around itit. It was round and, referring to 39 meters a beech which was cut down 8 days later, I estimated that the apparatus was about 60 meters high. Then, I posed my hand on it. It was cold and hard. I tapped it initially with my fist, then with the back of my axe, then with the edge. The sound was deaf, like full. At this time, I moved back, slowly, to my rock on which I leaned, and I started to be afraid. I wanted to resume my work, I could not. Impossible to move, I remained stuck to the rock. The machine then rose slowly in the air and it is only when it disappeared that I was able to move again.

    1. Yep, there is a major discrepancy about one aspect of this which would make one think that it was impossible for a witness to get wrong.

      The case occurred in 1954, and your quote is from something that the witness, Roger Mougeolle, wrote to some French magazine in 1974. Here as we can read, Mougeolle says that he tapped the UFO and then walked away. Some French UFO researchers read this report and published it in a UFO case catalog about that localized region in 1984. At that time [c.1984] these catalogers said that they knew that well-known French UFOlogist Joel Mesnard had done an interview with Mougeolle, but did not know the specific contents.

      Mesnard states that way back before the Vosges region catalog came out and just after the French magazine article appeared [therefore in 1976], he interviewed Mougeolle. [this information was subsequently published in LDLN and translated for FSR.] Mesnard's interview took place in a health clinic with Mougeolle quite ill. Mesnard later told the Vosges catalogers that he felt that the witness was very sincere about what he was retelling.

      BUT, although the main elements of the case are 90% identical from the 1974 magazine article and the 1976 Mesnard interview, one spectacular thing is not: whereas he walks away after tapping the machine with the side of his axe in "74", he is thrown away from it by force when he interviews with Mesnard. How is such a discrepancy possible? Well, as to simple reality it isn't. As to faulty memory, it probably isn't either. ... not just two years apart. So Mougeolle must have deliberately said/wrote two different things. Does this sink the case? Not just by itself. The first claim is easier to buy that the second one. This can happen either by the "Sonny Desverges" syndrome where one builds up his story with a big lie for some desired effect [this case has a lot of similarities to Desverges' case], or because the witness timidly puts a story out there first leaving out a particularly [in his mind] tough-to-credit detail. But when the sympathetic Mesnard shows up he decides to come out with what he thinks is the difficult part. Veteran UFO interviewers have seen many many instances wherein the witness tells the simplified story and only late in the interview process gets into enough of a comfort zone to spill the whole pot of beans.

      Is there any way to resolve this? I doubt it. Mougeolle said he had never talked about it before writing in 1974. Therefore we don't have a Jimmy Guieu or an Aime Michel early mention of the case --- and why the literature seems totally silent on this until the 1980s --- which is why even Vallee hadn't heard of it.

      So, back to "does it sink the case"? Depends on how one likes to use their intellectual tolerance. My mental orientation is to place such matters into the gray basket, and in this case allowing the consistencies in the two resource sources to have SOME believability [ex. large metallic craft touched by a witness.]

  2. prof , would you allow me to ask your opinion on the encounter, assuming we are just chatting / Shooting the BS.. What do you think about the behaviour of that UFO ? let assume they are nuts n bolt alien , why would a gigantic UFO landed somclose to an earthling without doing anything except sitting there and then left after doing nothing.. im really baffled by their possible motivation and purpose, so i humbly asked if this brhaviour is part of what you said before about someone behind the phenomena trying to mess around with human's head ?

    reading this case, i also immediately think of michalak case, a person working in the forest and suddenly saw 3 ufos flying and 1 of them landed near him, he got close and touched it, then the UFO left , all without encountering any entity or alien.. im still confused what is the purpose of this display ?

    maybe those behind these phenomena are truly bored beings that do this for practical joke on humanity ? it seem too hard for me to take if the whole UFO charade is just practical joke by some bored beings...

  3. Our lack of concrete information about "attitude" or "agenda" makes this a point of discussion that borders on ZERO sense and a waste of time except for some shallow "fun" component it may have. BUT, just once in a while, IF the bullshit is at least semi-seriously imagined, such a fantasy might burp up an idea which can be stowed away for some lucky future consideration based on something more solid. I don't like doing this "in public" because people will take things as more meaningful than the near-zero that they are, and so this will be a rare instance.

    A). The case is like the Michalak case, especially in that it seems that the physical impact on the witnesses was accidental. With Michalak, the resultants were pretty severe.
    B). It also, as I said above, has similarities with the Desverges case. Much of what Desverges said was later made up, but he did receive a mild burning.
    C). These also seem not completely unlike the CE2p "paralysis" cases, which appear to be instances of physical impact aimed not at injury but safety of the too-near witness.
    D). This pattern, if it exists at all, seems to indicate two things: i]. The UFOnauts are not trying to physically hurt people, but ii]. they aren't omniscient unless that's the focus of a specific planned display [like an astro-alignment.] I.e. they need, in any actual "operation", to be focussed on whatever the goal of the operation is, and if the goal in some operation does not encompass a too-near witness, perhaps due to geographical accident or unexpected behavior, their rules-of-engagement can make small errors.

    If any substantial piece of the above makes any sense, it still does not answer why the landing with accidental too-near witness happens in the first place [your main question]. But if we just allow freely unchecked meanderings of the imagination, probably any of us could come up with at least one not-too-far-fetched scenario. To support that claim, I'll dream something up.

    1). BS#1: The UFO was landed without agenda involving the human who ultimately reported it. Why? It had to. It needed to land for some technological reason. Energy. Repair. Confused Information about what exactly to do next. Wrong position, temporarily, in SpaceTime.
    2). BS#2: The UFO was landed because its agenda was to do something non-human-related there. Some kind of sampling [though I never liked this one]. Searching for presences other than humans on the planet. [spirit interactions: psychic or Platonic/Sheldrakian] [faerie].
    3). BS#3: The agenda WAS directed at the witnesses, but the injury risk was an unplanned by-product. Why the "meaninglessness"? This could be said of any encounter. Here's more bullshit: The ET agenda-setters have a global plan in both geographical impact and temporal scatter. It requires NOT "meaning" but just distribution of the experiences of contact --- in fact any great meaning is exactly what they DON'T want to accomplish. The phenomenon is meant to be covert on specific meaning, while slowly enculturating merely on the issue of extraterrestrial presence. ALL encounters therefore are meaningless except for this one resultant, plus the other assumed subjective "meanings" that the individuals choose to layer on them.

    .... that's enough bullshit to last a lifetime.



Blog Archive