Massive Collection of UFO Files Donated To University

The frozen prairies of Canada have always been home to strange events and mysterious encounters. So it’s perhaps appropriate that the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg has just accepted a large donation of documents from a prolific UFO researcher confirming the province’s “unnatural history.”

By MJ Banias www.vice.com 12-1019

[...]

Continue Reading ►

See Also:

More On Release Of French UFO Files

The Cuba UFO Files - An Interview with Orestes Girbau

Chile's UFO Files- YOUR NEED TO KNOW | VIDEO

REPORT YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE

Flying Saucers (UFOs) Sighters Get Scientific Support | UFO CHRONICLE – 8-12-1965

[...] Jacqques Vallee, French-born astronomer now a Chicagoan, believes a lack of authentic research may be at the bottom of inability to place UFOs in perspective. [...] "The current increase in the number of UFO reports," he said, "undoubtedly marks the beginning of a wave comparable to those of 1954 or 1957. Currently there is a deluge of reports all over Europe, Australia and South America. 8:46 AM 11/28/2017

By Chicago Sun-Times 8-12-1965

[...]

-Special Thanks To Bob Barrow-

See Also:

Jacques Vallee Continues UFO Research

The interview of Jacques Vallée by Marie-Thérèse de Brosses

Inhabited Sky UFO Event with Chris Aubeck, Jacques Vallee

REPORT YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE

Ufology's Internal War (Redux)

"Origin of UFOs remain, at this time, unknown. Everything regarding possible origin is speculative at this point and no definitive answer is yet available."

It has become apparent that an internal war has begun regarding the state of modern Ufology. Nothing really new, but the players are changing so rapidly, that common sense seems to have become a casualty. How is Ufology supposed to be defined? I cannot speak for others, but I think it is a field of study involving manufactured craft, that transcends our current technological development. Thus, cryptoaeronautics, or aircraft of unknown origin. Ufology began as a fortean subject, but now stands on its own and separate in relation to crop circles, ghosts, animal mutilation, sky falls, etc.

By Wendy Connors The UFO Chronicles Originally Published 7-18-05

What, then, is a Ufologist? Again, I cannot speak for others, but I think a Ufologist is a person who has studied the phenomena and its history, then proceeds one step further by actually doing field research regarding specific cases or the subject in general to keep the knowledge base current. Thus, there are a few researchers who make up the core of ufological study. The vast majority of people use the research from the few to bring the subject to public forums. Some people do well in bringing the subject to public forums, but the majority do not, due to wild speculation and belief systems.

What do we really know about UFOs? A massive amount actually, but no real answers that contribute to a consensus. The subject itself provides for wild speculation and theories by those interested in the subject, but the real Ufologist knows the following to be accurate:

1. Origin of UFOs remain, at this time, unknown. Everything regarding possible origin is speculative at this point and no definitive answer is yet available.

2. How such objects are propelled is unknown and speculative.

3. There is no definitive proof that such devices carry sentient alien beings. However, research indicate that these objects appear to be intelligently controlled.

4. Some of these objects leave behind traces of their existence and interact with people of all ages, incomes, educational attainment, professions, etc. The proposition that all people who see UFOs are mentally impaired is factually incorrect.

5. Of the thousands of worldwide reports of UFO sightings, only a small percentage appear to be of manufactured origin that exceed our current technological development. These objects, thoughout recorded history, have shown that the technology of these devices change in relation to our technological development.

6. Ufology, by its very nature, lends to scientific investigation by developing new techniques.

Is it possible for Ufology to overcome the riddle factor and become a science unto itself? Yes. But only to a core group of researchers at this point because Ufology has reached the level it needs to be taught and specialities formed. If Ufology is not taught, continuation of rampant misinformation will continue to apply and Ufology will remain a chaotic field of study. Anyone who studies Ufology critically, takes no theory as an absolute.

So, who are the best Ufologists researching today? Those who maintain the databases, uncovers new documentation, gathers unbiased reports, maintains trace evidence and brings the history of the subject to the public arenas. There are hundreds of competent Ufologists working today. Unfortunately, they are outnumbered by the tens of thousands of people who don't have a clue to what they are doing, but bring their dog and pony shows (belief systems) for permanent public display.

Continue Reading ►

See Also:

In Search Of 'Progress' in UFOlogy - At the End of the Road?

The Science of Ufology

The Decline and Fall of Ufology

REPORT YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE

High Standards More Than Justified for UFO Investigation

Tweet

By Jack Brewer ufotrail.blogspot.com 5-4-15

      As we move on to new highs and lows of what the UFO community will accept as reasonable research methodologies and presentations, let's consider why some of us have become so jaded in our willingness to entertain such proceedings. It's not as if the skepticism is not justified.

Richard Doty laid some heavy deception on Paul Bennewitz and Linda Moulton Howe. Alejandro Rojas at Open Minds has a good summary of what the USAF is and is not willing to acknowledge about Doty's actions.

Then there's Serpo and the MJ-12. The guys over at Reality Uncovered did some pretty good work on those. They thought Doty was linked to Serpo, and Ryan Dube thought John Alexander may have been involved in the distribution of the MJ-12 docs, particularly after interviewing the colonel.

Speaking of Reality Uncovered, Andy Murray and the rest of that crew did a great job getting to the bottom of the "Source A" hoax. Then there was the drone hoax and the great work contributed by various Internet personalities.

And there was the story about the UFO crash in the Great Lakes that James Carrion bird dogged but the alleged dive company fell off the face of the earth. And the Casselberry, FL alleged crashed UFO case that I pursued, only to establish that anonymous "witnesses" were misrepresenting the circumstances, including submitting a photo to NUFORC that was actually taken in Texas, not Florida, and not a single first hand witness came forward related to the claims on the radio and Internet about a gov-secured crash site.

There's the mid 20th century memos Carrion cited, one that documented FBI agents discussing the likelihood UFOs were intel deceptions and another in which the USAF advised the Bureau that the AF could attach disks together by wire and release them at high altitudes. Carrion has since conclusively demonstrated an element of deception involved in the ghost rocket saga. A 1954 CIA memo suggesting assets in Guatemala fabricate a big UFO story is also interesting.

There's Romanek, Hopkins/Cortile and the ET-human hybrids that Barbara Lamb claims to know but fails to facilitate documentation of their physical conditions. I'd go as far as to confidently suggest abduction cases in which the "investigators" and interested parties exaggerate and misrepresent the circumstances are the rule, not the exception.

There's the iconic photo of the Belgium triangle that apparently wasn't and the corporate UFO hoax perpetrated by a planetarium in Vancouver. And let's not forget the flying saucer that wasn't following Hale-Bopp that involved a bogus photo, an alleged but unnamed astronomer and dubious claims of remote viewing, all propped up on Art Bell's show before being conclusively demonstrated to have been a hoax prior to the Heaven's Gate cult mass suicide.

If conclusive IC involvement in such circumstances is of particular interest, learning more about Project Palladium is a must. It was a joint CIA, NSA and DoD operation that involved projecting false radar paints onto radar screens while simultaneously releasing unusual aerial objects into the paths of what were referred to as the ghost aircraft. Some operations apparently shared many characteristics of rather typically reported UFO sightings by military pilots, including losing radar contact at the point in which the pilot was preparing to fire upon the bogie.

There are lots of hoaxes and deceptions that are interesting and relevant, and the above are just a few. Learn more by searching this blog or, of course, the Internet. There is no shortage of UFO hoaxes and obfuscation, both with and without the intel community. Reasonable skepticism and holding self-proclaimed investigators to high standards when presenting alleged evidence are more than justified.

Continue Reading . . .

See Also:

Personality Driven Ufology: The Id vs. The Phenomenon

"American Scientific Ufology is Dead!"

Goodbye Ufology, Hello Truth

UFOlogy Run Amok!

REPORT YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE

Scientific Ufology - the Way To Go

Tweet

By Keith Basterfield ufos-scientificresearch.blogspot.com 2-27-15

     Eddie Bullard

In his 2010 book, "The Myth and Mystery of UFOs," US researcher Eddie Bullard listed his thoughts on categories of people who study UAP. Among his categories were "skeptics," "activists," and "scientific ufologists."

What did Bullard write about "scientific ufologists?" In part he wrote:

"For this group UFOs are a phenomenon accessible to rational inquiry. These people pursue in-depth case investigations, critical examination of the evidence, comparison of collected data and rigorous research projects to determine if any UFO reports describe an unknown phenomenon...Exemplified by Hynek and McDonald, professed by the leading UFO organisations, this scientific approach represents ufology in the purist sense of a scientific or scholarly discipline." (p.15.)

My own approach

In looking at my own approach to the subject, I clearly fit into being a "scientific ufologist." I have conducted in-depth case investigations, and equally as important in my view, I have extensively published my research findings. Readers of my blog will be aware of my numerous "cold case" reviews (for a listing and links to these, click here.) I also have published in-depth reports on current cases I have been involved in, e.g. the 19 March 2014 Perth, Western Australia aircraft near-miss with an "unknown object" (click here to read the NARCAP technical report.) or the 29 May 2014 very unusual incident on the south coast of New South Wales (click here.)

Each of my "cold case" reviews involved a critical re-examination of the evidence, almost always drawn from tracking down and closely looking at original documentation, some of which no-one else had seen before.

"Hot air"

The opposite of my scientific approach to the subject, is to be seen in the work of some "investigators" who also claim to be researching the subject using a "scientific" approach. Here, in my opinion, there is much "hot air," and little or no substance.

Recently, I have tried to locate any written, detailed case reports published by three individuals who claim to be following a "scientific" approach. Two are Australian and one is American. I failed to find a single published, detailed case report of theirs on the Internet, or in UAP Magazines/Newsletters/Journals. This is suggestive that, despite their claim to follow a "scientific" approach, they fail to live up to this approach.

My process

Attracting raw reports via electronic Internet forms on websites, is simply the first step in the process. It is too easy these days for anyone to submit an electronic report to UAP groups. A look at the types of reports being made to various electronic databases, reveals the questionable nature of some of them, e.g. how many are straight out hoaxes?

Once reported to an electronic system, or indeed via telephone, the old fashioned letter, or any other means, the next stage in the process should be to conduct an investigation by contacting the witness. Some raw reports are made anonymously and therefore no follow up is possible. In my opinion, an un-investigated anonymous report has little value.

When contact details are given, it is then necessary to speak to the witness in person. Reporting by someone in Australia, to an overseas database may mean no local interview is performed by anyone.
This face to face interview is critical. Besides taking note of the details of the reported occurrence, an experienced investigator will also gain a "feel" for the genuineness of the reporter and hence the report. My preference is to conduct this face to face interview at the site of the incident, wherever possible.

Analysis

Once details of the event are recorded, the next step is to critically examine of these details. A check for aircraft movements; planets; stars; satellites needs to be made. The weather at the time should be investigated. For a full list of investigative tools, click here. By this analysis, I am looking to see if a mundane explanation could explain the observation. My experience, and that of others, is that 95% of incoming raw reports have conventional explanations.

Publication

As I mentioned above, I rate publishing the details of investigations and research, equally as important as carrying out a detailed investigation. This allows for a scientific "peer review" of both your data and your conclusions, a very important part of the scientific process.

Sometimes, this also attracts the attention of members of the mass media. An example of this are remarks I made at the 2014 Melbourne, VUFOA conference, about the need for an Australian quick response team. The following morning, newspaper and radio items appeared about my remarks. I did not seek this publicity, it simply followed me presenting a conference paper. As a result I was asked to go on a number of radio shows to be interviewed about my thoughts. I carefully selected those on which to appear, and turned other requests down.

Similarly, the mass media picked up on aspects of the research conducted by myself about the 19 March 2014 Perth near-miss, between an aircraft and an unknown object. I did not seek out this publicity, it simply followed publication of my research. I turned down a number of requests to be interviewed about the case. I find it odd, therefore, that an Australian researcher recently has suggested that I am "seeking publicity." This is not so. I reject something like 9 out of 10 mass media requests for interviews, including one recent approach from Channel 9 television to discuss pilot observations.

My process

So, my process is, collect incoming raw reports; conduct a personal interview (on site if possible); document the evidence presented by the witness; followed by an analysis; then preparing a detailed, written case report, and finally publishing it for peer review. This process produces a small, but screened, number of examples of the "core" UAP each year.

The above is how I believe that a scientific investigation of UAP should be conducted. Looking around, both overseas and here in Australia, I see far too many people who state they are following a "scientific" approach, who fall short of the standards I expect of my own research. I realise that this is not something that some people will like to hear, but I tell it as I see it.

Continue Reading . . .

See Also:

“Symposium on Official & Scientific Investigations of UAP (UFOs)"

"American Scientific Ufology is Dead!"

Science and UFOs: Part 1—The Condon Committee Con Job

REPORT YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE

Characteristics of Quality Research

Tweet

By Jack Brewer The UFO Trail 2-7-15

"[I]t will be interesting to see how cognitive dissonance will work for this new episode of 'Roswell my love.' In any case I've enjoyed the witness who saw the man who saw the man who saw the man who saw the bear..."

–Rosetta, 'UFO Skepticisme'

     There are different kinds of research. Some people and organizations conduct scientific research. Others do quality research that is not scientific but is still professional and credible. There are characteristics of professional research that can be easily identified as either present or absent.

Please keep in mind that the subject of a written work or presentation is not necessarily a primary qualifier of its value. That might be considered particularly important among those interested in such often marginalized subjects as UFOs and conspiracy theories. The topic one chooses to study and present is often not as relevant to the credibility of the finished product as are the manners it is studied and presented.

The professional research community recognizes certain protocols that include staples such as citing sources when making assertions. Such sources should be among those recognized as legitimate, which include, for examples, college websites, newspaper clippings, papers published by qualified experts and declassified government documents.

"Research holding the torch of knowledge"at the Library of Congress

Writer/researchers who are excellent at following such protocols include George P. Hansen and Annie Jacobsen. Please note their differing areas of expertise: Hansen has published a great deal of work on the study of the paranormal, while Jacobsen has delved extensively into the covert and often questionable activities of the intelligence community. Again: It is their standards of research and presentation that make their work professional, not their choices of interests.

Another characteristic that should be expected to be present in quality research, particularly when it involves a group or organization, is the accounting of various aspects of the project, such as personnel and funding. If researchers desire to be granted respect and offered our attention, we should never feel we are prying or asking overly intrusive questions when we desire to know who worked on a project. Similarly, how funds were acquired and allocated should always be presented overtly and prominently if groups received significant financial backing to conduct their endeavors. Once again, please note that such procedures are not necessarily related to the topic of the research project, but its execution and presentation.

Writer/researcher James Carrion addressed such issues during an appearance last year on the Paracast. Highlights of the interview were posted on 'The UFO Trail'.

"This whole subject is so muddied already," Carrion explained, "what you don't need is more cover up, more deception, more obfuscation."

Such cover up and obfuscation are leading indicators of poorly conceived projects. Prior to the 2013 Citizens Hearing on Disclosure, organizer Steve Bassett initially declined to disclose the financial compensation allocated to former members of Congress and described it as "private". He later indicated they were each paid $20,000.

Similarly, UFO researchers participating in the mock hearing repeatedly declined to discuss details of their compensation. Some went as far as to agree by email to field questions yet failed to reply when sent the actual queries. Another deferred to Bassett. None of those asked provided a direct answer about their financial compensation.

In their defense, the failure to be cooperatively forthcoming about financial matters could probably be much better described as an overall ufology shortcoming than an aspect of the CHD. There often seems to be a prevailing feeling that the less said, the better.

Below par financial reporting and questionable project management were inherent to the disappointing Ambient Monitoring Project. Touted and much anticipated as a scientific effort to quantify environmental conditions surrounding reports of alien abduction, project director Tom Deuley repeatedly struggled to publicly explain key issues of funding, including sources and amounts, which were never conclusively disclosed. Board members of organizations involved in the AMP failed to provide direct answers about its financial and operational status for years, often contradicting one another.

In bringing this post to a close, let us consider more of Carrion's statements on the Paracast podcast. Discussing the failed MUFON-BAASS relationship, Carrion said, "There very much has to be a large amount of transparency when you're going to be involved in something of this nature. You can't hide anything. So, for example, when Bigelow hid the source of his funding and would only reveal it to John Schuessler on the MUFON board, that lack of transparency really rubs me the wrong way. That tells me there's something being hidden for a certain purpose and I don't want to be involved in that."

Emphasis mine - and that's arguably the bottom line.

In the end, a very solid point could be made that dissecting the discrepancies and contradictions of questionable projects sometimes only pulls us further into the shell game. Perhaps the wise would tell us that when we identify the omission of characteristics of quality research, we've already learned all we need to know in order to assess the so-called work. When protocols are not followed, a great deal of skepticism is justified.

On the upside, we are empowered to identify high quality research. Moreover, we might consider allocating proportionate attention.

Continue Reading . . .

See Also:

Whither UFO-Alien-Abduction Research?

Project Core, the UFO Community and Professional Research

'...The U.S. Air Force Managed To Slither Out of UFO Research...'

REPORT YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE

Tweet

UAP [UFO] - Investigation tools

By Keith Basterfield ufos-scientificresearch.blogspot.com 11-1-14

      When investigating UAP reports, besides on-site interviews, I use a number of readily available tools. A number of people have asked me to publish details, in order that they may also use them, so here they are.

Webtrak

This website, click here, run by Air Services Australia, allows you to view a secondary radar derived map, showing the location of aircraft near the main Australian airports. You can view an area up to 50 kilometres from these selected airports, to an altitude of 30,000 feet. Only aircraft carrying a transponder (click here) show on the map. For each aircraft, you can find details such as its flight number, originating airfield and destination airfield, and its moment to moment height, plus the type of plane. You can check timewise, from 40 minutes in the past, to three months in the past.

My suggestion is, that for every UAP report that comes in, that you use Webtrak to determine if any aircraft match the position and movement of the UAP.

Sky Charts

There are several astronomical sky charts available on the net, e.g. Sky View Cafe, (click here) or Fourmilab (click here.) These provide locations of the Sun, the Moon, the planets and bright stars, for any date, time and geographic location.

The use of a sky chart will enable you to compare the location in the sky of any UAP to Sun, Moon, planets and stars. If day time, a UAP 22 degrees from the Sun could be a "sun dog" (click here); 22 degrees from the Moon could indicate a partial lunar halo. If the planet Venus is in the morning/evening sky, and the witness does not report seeing both the UAP and Venus, then the UAP could actually be Venus.

A sky chart can also be used to determine the time of sunrise/sunset and moonrise/moonset for any geographical location.

24 Hour Radar

This website (click here) allows you to track aircraft movements at any time, at any location on earth, provided they are using a transponder. Again, as with Webtrak, you can compare UAP details with aircraft details.

Weather Data

The Australian Bureau of Meteorology website (click here) allows you access to weather data from hundreds of locations around Australia. Details available on a daily basis, going back 14 months, include wind direction, wind speed, cloud cover percentage, and temperatures. All for free. If you want to go back further than 14 months you can do so, but there is a fee for this service.

Wind direction might, of course, suggest that the UAP was a wind blown object, e.g. a hot air garbage bag balloon. If the witness tells you the sky was clear when they saw a UAP yet your check of the Bureau site tells you the sky was totally overcast, then you might start to think there is an issue with your witness' information.

Primary Radar Data

Secondary radar imaging, such as from Webtrak, only shows information from aircraft which have transponders onboard, radiating a signal which is picked by by secondary radar. Primary radar however, shows anything which reflects a transmitted radar signal. Primary radar is what the RAAF uses. However, to obtain copies of this data, you will need to submit a Freedom of Information request to the Department of Defence. The RAAF appears to recycle its radar data every 30 days, so you need to be quick to receive this type of radar data. You might also consider submitting an FOI to Air Services Australia seeking primary radar data, if they have it, for the nearest airport to the UAP location.

Newspapers

If you have one UAP observation from a location, there may be other unreported observations. To ascertain this, I often check the web for the nearest local newspaper to the UAP location, and check the digitised copy of the relevant newspaper for further sightings. If I find none, then I might email the newspaper seeking any reader who may also have sighted the UAP and ask them for details.

The Net Itself

If I receive a UAP sighting from say, Burra, South Australia on 29 November 2013, I will use an internet search engine using Burra, and the date as keywords, to see if I can find additional sightings on the net, or possible explanations.

Historical Reports

If you are looking into an historical report, your nearest State Library is an excellent resource. It has accessible newspapers, and often runs of old magazines published by UAP groups. Old newspapers can provide daily weather details, often far cheaper than going through the Bureau of Meteorology. Rare, or hard to find copies of UAP books are also often held by State Libraries.

The National Archives of Australia and the National Library of Australia are also sources of files, photographs, old newspaper clippings and other reference material.

State Libraries also hold hard copies of old electoral rolls, up to about the year 2011. If you are trying to locate witnesses to old cases. I have successfully located individuals associated with cases as far back as 1965!

In Summary

The above, are a few of the numerous electronic and hard copy means of assisting investigating a UAP case. However, they are only additional means. There is nothing like the old fashioned on-site interview with a reporter, where they can show you the trajectory of the UAP across the landscape where you are standing.

If blog readers know of other Australian resources, I would be delighted to hear from you.

Continue Reading . . .

See Also:

UFOlogy Debunker's Tool kit

Beijing UFO Research Society Investigates Recent Sightings in Sichuan and Yunnan Provinces | UFO NEWS

UFO Detector: There's An App for That!

UFO Reporting App Launches in iTunes

SHARE YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE

Tweet

A roadside UFO sculpture, Lower Light in South Australia (landy6 - ABC Open contributor)

Does Australia Need Official UFO Researchers?

By Eloise Fuss
www.abc.net.au
10-13-14

A South Australian UFO researcher says a dedicated civilian group needs to be established to investigate and report mysterious sightings in our skies.

     Long time UFO researcher, Keith Basterfield, said the Australian Air Force archived more than 10,000 UFO observations before they halted these records in 1990.

A number of keen groups and individuals around the country have continued to unofficially collect UFO data, but Mr Basterfield wants to see these reports brought together on a national level.

"There are a number of people who have done this for many years and are quite good at it, but what we're lacking is a national level perspective of what's being reported."

With much mystery still surrounding these unidentified flying objects, Mr Basterfield hoped a more cohesive collection of sighting information could help lead to explanations.

"I want to know if there's anything more to the whole subject beyond the 95 per cent that could be explained, and the small possibility of rare phenomena that science still doesn't understand," Mr Basterfield said.

SA's reported sightings range from 50 years ago when numerous unidentified flying objects were seen above the Woomera Rocket Range in the state's outback, to more recent reports from a regional farming community. . . .

Continue Reading . . .

See Also:

UFO Over Australia Identified | VIDEO

Oz Encounters: UFOs in Australia - Paranormal Alien Documentary | VIDEO

Has The Westall UFO Incident Been Solved?

SHARE YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE

Scientists & A Select Few Ufologists Gather in France

Tweet

A very important workshop on UAP

By Keith Basterfield ufos-scientificresearch.blogspot.com 8-2-14

     GEIPAN

The "Groupe D'Etudes Et D'Informations Sur Les Phenomenes Aerospatiaux Non Identifies" (GEIPAN) held an important workshop, on 8th and 9th July 2014, in Paris, France.

GEIPAN was created by the "Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales" (CNES) to study reports of "Phenomenes Aerospatiaux Non identifies" (PAN) (Unidentified Aerospace Phenomena.) The CNES is the National Centre for Space Research for France, and is responsible for proposing space policy and implementation to the French government.

The Workshop

The workshop, of scientists and invited UAP researchers, was looking at methods and tools, which could improve the collection and analysis of information on "Unidentified Aerospace Phenomena."

A number of very interesting talks were presented, including:

• "Useful research methods for aircrew and air traffic controller UAP sightings." Richard Haines.

• "Keeping Omni-comprehensive UFO databases: a cost benefit analysis." Edoardo Russo.

• "Unidentified Aerial Phenomena: a strategy for research." Jacques Vallee.

• "The Hessdalen Phenomena: 30 years of research, instrumentation, results, witness stories, challenges and difficulties." Erling Strand.

• "Instrumented monitoring of aerial anomalies." Massimo Teodorani.

Attendees included Jeremiah Vaabaillon, Paris Observatory; Jacques Py, Psychology professor; Thomas Rabeyron, psychology lecturer; and representatives of the gendarmerie and the French Air Force. In addition there were a number of civilian UAP researchers, including Richard Haines; Jacques Vallee; Bertrand Meheust and Ron Westrum. Australian researcher Bill Chalker was invited, but was unable to attend.

Workshops of this calibre are extremely rare, and GEIPAN is to be congratulated for arranging it. I look forward to reading any proceedings of this workshop, if they become available.

One cannot imagine such a workshop being organised here in Australia.

To read the available GEIPAN workshop material (in French) click here.

Continue Reading . . .

See Also:

UFO NEWS: New French Aerospace Report Endorses Reality of UFOs

More On Release Of French UFO Files

French Space Agency to Publish UFO Archive Online

SHARE YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE

Is This the Oldest Known UFO Photo?

Tweet

UFO in Clouds Over Mount Washington Circa 1870-71 (Credit: New Hampshire Magazine)

Is This the Oldest Known UFO Photo? One NH Researcher Finds Out

By www.nhmagazine.com
7-17-14

Ryan Mullahy, a UFO writer and researcher, set out to either verify or discredit the photo.

      If you look closely at this old stereoscopic image, you can see a dark, cigar-shaped object that seems to be flying in the clouds over Mount Washington.

Wherever the image might have been over the years, it showed up on eBay one day in 2002. It was bought for $385, and soon after cropped to show a close-up of the cigar-shaped object and touted as "the oldest known UFO photo." The owner, Samuel M. Sherman, said the photo would be submitted to scientists for detailed analysis, and the results made available to the public.

The photo hit the Internet like lightning, crackling from one UFO site to the next. Ryan Mullahy, a UFO writer, researcher and founder of the website NH UFO Research, saw it but wasn't convinced: "As fascinated as I was by the photo, I didn't think it was a UFO." Mullahy set out to determine whether it was. . . .

. . . After six years of off-and-on digging, he found an important clue: a 2003 Weirs Times newspaper article unearthed by Kathy Brisendine, another UFO researcher. The article identified the photographers of the stereoscopic image as Amos Clough and Howard Kimball. The image had been taken in the winter of 1870-71 during a meteorological expedition, which he would learn later included a study of frost architecture. . . .

Continue Reading . . .

See Also:

Daylight Photograph of a Flying Saucer [UFO] Over Muskogee, Oklahoma (1955) | Project Blue Book Revelations | UFO CHRONICLE

Air Force Gets Photo of Five Flying Saucers | UFO CHRONICLE | 7-30-1952

Aliens and UFOs Found In 10,000-Year-Old Rock Paintings?

SHARE YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE

UFOs - Documenting The Evidence

Tweet

Introduction to New Blog “UFOs – Documenting The Evidence

By Paul Dean ufos-documenting-the-evidence.blogspot.com 7-4-14

"I think it’s time to open the books on questions that have remained in the dark; on the question of government investigations of UFOs. It’s time to find out what the truth really is that’s out there. We ought to do it because it’s right; we ought to do it because the American people quite frankly can handle the truth; and we ought to do it because it’s the law."

–John Podesta, former White House Chief-of-Staff to President Bill Clinton

     My name is Paul Dean. I am a Melbourne based researcher who has spent 22 years studying masses of highly verifiable and ever-stronger evidence that unidentified and unexplainable events have occurred, and continue to occur, in our atmosphere. This essentially entails Unidentified Flying Objects (UFO’s) or Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) and maybe more importantly, the undeniable confirmation of such events in the form of testable physical evidence. It includes reviewable radar imagery, formally classified military, intelligence and civil agency documents now numbering in the hundreds of thousands and recorded testimony from extremely reliable and credible persons associated with the UFO matter at an official level. I am not interested in outrageous, unverifiable and unsubstantiated claims made by people. I have little time for the more “fringe” elements of the field. Nor do I have time for what veteran researcher Bill Chalker accurately calls “UFO theatre”: the entertainment spectre of the UFO subject, most of which being utter nonsense which does great damage to serious research. I purely look at the compelling and damming evidence which is now on the table.

In this blog I will be presenting, on at least a weekly basis, wholly new information regarding certain aspects of the UFO phenomenon, and, especially, the evidence that so supports it. I will be discussing, if not actually presenting in uploaded image form, documents I have obtained from Australia’s various authorities under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Archives Act. I will be presenting information gleaned from interviews with persons directly or indirectly related to the UFO matter. Some of the information I will be detailing in the near future on this blog may be somewhat surprising, and certainly unknown to others in the field.

In my mid-teens and early-twenties, I leaned towards common thoughts regarding the UFO issue: Most, maybe all UFO events can be explained by myriad natural phenomena: misidentified aircraft; astronomical bodies; hoaxes; hallucinations and the like. Only when I started reviewing declassified government documents and listening to persons directly involved with the issue did I begin to run out of explanations. I now find the evidence so consistent and overwhelming that no reasonably intelligent person can deny that something amiss is happening in our skies. The gigantic numbers of released files directly dealing with the UFO matter plainly demonstrate that a not-so-insignificant number of government agencies have closely watched the matter, studied it and reached startling conclusions – conclusions most certainly kept well out of the public sphere.

I think it’s time to open the books on questions that have remained in the dark; on the question of government investigations of UFOs. It’s time to find out what the truth really is that’s out there. We ought to do it because it’s right; we ought to do it because the American people quite frankly can handle the truth; and we ought to do it because it’s the law.

With these explosive words, John Podesta, the former White House Chief-of-Staff (and most trusted aide) to former President Bill Clinton, surprised audiences at Washington DC’s National Press Club during a filmed press conference organised by the Coalition for Freedom of Information in 2002. They were yet another official, current and high-level confirmation that our governments work actively in this field to hide information from the public.

Another potent statement that springs to mind appeared in the Forward of Timothy Good’s ground-breaking 590 page book Above Top Secret: The World Wide UFO Cover-Up. Admiral Peter Hill-Norton, recently retired Chief of Defence Staff of the United Kingdom and Chairman of the NATO Military Committee, could not be clearer:

The evidence that there are objects which have been seen in our atmosphere, and even on terra firma, that cannot be accounted for either as manmade objects or as any physical force or effect known to our scientists, seems to me to be overwhelming. A very large number of sightings have been vouched for by persons whose credentials seem to me unimpeachable. It is striking that so many have been trained observers, such as police officers and airline or military pilots. Their observations have in many instances been supported either by technical means such as radar or, even more convincingly, by interference with electrical apparatus of one sort or another.

If only there were a handful of statements ‘doing the rounds’ like these, one may find more palatable explanations for them. But there are not just a few of these recorded, verifiable pieces of spoken or written testimony by such high-placed people: There are hundreds.

When asked why I am so interested in the UFO matter probably my most central answer is that I have the sort of mind that wants things satisfactorily explained, and the one aspect of this whole matter which is starkly clear to me is that UFO’s, and the official response from government agencies, have not been explained to my satisfaction. It is as simple as that. When I say that I have studied this matter for 22 years, I actually mean it. I have had to learn about everything from military chains-of-command to air defence capabilities; from angular velocity to aviation safety regulations; from military document classification to atmospheric physics. I have had correspondence and engagement with Australia’s Minister for Defence; the Royal Australian Air Force’s (RAAF) Directorate of Coordination; Emergency Management Australia (EMA), within the Attorney General’s Department; The Royal Australian Navy’s (RAN) Strategic Command; The Department of Defence’s Freedom of Information Directorate; Victoria Police; the Civilian Aviation Safety Authority (CASA); Airservices Australia (AsA); the Australian Transport and Safety Bureau; the National Archives of Australia (NAA); the Freedom of Information Office of the United States Navy (USN); the Navy History and Heritage Command of the USN; America’s North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD); the United States Air Force’s (USAF) Air Force Space Command; the Civil Aviation Authority of the United Kingdom; and a raft of other government offices, bureaus, cells, agencies and units throughout the Australia and the world.

I wish to firstly thank long time researcher Keith Basterfield for working with me so closely over the past two years. Our cooperation and specific endeavours have become intertwined to the point that our work is one-in-the-same. I also want to thank my wife Olivia for encouraging me to keep digging. I can also add research Bill Chalker to my list of acknowledgments for his knowledge and support. In Australian governance I am indebted to a number of persons who have assisted me. In no special order I wish to thank: Group Captain Barbara Courtney, Director of Coordination, Royal Australian Air Force; Group Captain Catherine Wallis, Director of Coordination, Royal Australian Air Force; Captain Simon Bateman, Director of Navy Communications and Coordination, Royal Australian Navy; Melissa Davidson, Assistant Director, Freedom of Information, Department of Defence; Daniel O'Malley, Communications Officer, Australian Transport Safety Bureau; John Taylor, Principal Lawyer, Australian Transport Safety Bureau; Steve Neal, Section Head, Government, Industry and Community Relations Section, Civil Aviation Safety Authority; Rod Dudfield, Director Freedom of Information, Department of Defence; and Dan Gleeson, Director of Communication Emergency Management Australia. I also wish to thank the members of Victorian UFO Action, an organisation which I am a member of, playing the role of researcher and historian. Finally, I must express my warmest gratitude to those in current defence and intelligence roles who have helped but, sensibly, cannot be named.

From overseas, I have been greatly aided by: Air Commodore Kevin McEvoy, Air Component Commander, Joint Forces, New Zealand Defence Force; Piet Viviers, Manager, Flight Operations, Civil Aviation Authority, South Africa; Dyanne Bain, Program Information Officer, Civil Aviation Secretariat, Transport Canada; Andrew Badham, Air Traffic Management Safety Specialist, Aerodromes and Air Traffic Standards Division, Civil Aviation Authority, UK; and Chris Knapp, Aircraft Control Instructor, Royal New Zealand Navy.

Continue Reading . . .

See Also:

Researching The Australian Military/Government 'UFO Files' (Pt 1)

Researching The Australian Military/Government 'UFO Files' (Pt 2)

Near Collison with Plane & UFO – Report Released

SHARE YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE

67 Years of [UFO] Research - Anniversary Celebrations?

Tweet

By Keith Basterfield ufos-scientificresearch.blogspot.com 6-20-14

     June 24th this year will see the 67th anniversary of Kenneth Arnold's observation, of what first came to be called "flying saucers;" a term which later changed into 'Unidentified Flying Objects" and numerous variations. As readers of this blog will know, I personally prefer the term "Unidentified Aerial Phenomena" (UAP.)

Where are we today?

Views as to exactly what causes sighting reports, vary today, as much as it did in the early days of study. Today, you can find individuals who believe UAP are crewed extraterrestrial spaceships; travellers from the future; living creatures; that they are all hoaxes; all misinterpretations of natural phenomena; are psychosocial constructs, and any combination of the any of these.

We have numerous Internet sites, Facebook pages, and blogs, run by individuals or groups who claim to be in contact with the intelligence behind it all. Just as in the early days we had "contactees." The message remains the same, that the "aliens" are here to help us; but the medium of its communication has changed.

Debate:

Debate continues between opposing sides as to the cause of individual sighting reports. The Rendlesham Forest affair is an excellent example of such debate and confusion. To me, this is no different to those early days in the 1940's.

Civilian UAP research groups exist today, confident that they are working towards the final solution to the UAP enigma. The very same objective was the aim of early research groups, such as APRO.

A more jaded researcher, than myself, may well feel that little real progress has been made since 1947.

Changes:

Other researchers will point out that many things have changed since 1947. They will list:

* That the US Government withdrew from officially and openly researching the topic

• That the UK Government withdrew from officially and openly researching

• That a number of countries have opened up some of their files

• That the era of large numbers of abduction claims has come and gone

• That scientific research of the phenomena has, by volume, largely given way to Internet style "research"

• That the numbers of close encounter reports has steadily declined over the last ten years.

But is change, progress?

If by progress, we mean are we closer to identifying the nature of the phenomenon we study, then I personally, do not think there has been real progress on this front.

US researcher John B Alexander has an interesting take on this. In his 2011 book "UFOs:Myths, Conspiracies and Realities," published by Thomas Dunne Books. New York. ISBN 978-0-312-64834, on page 273:

"Based on credible witnesses and backed by physical evidence, I conclude that the ufo observations are manifestations of issues that are anfractuous and beyond current comprehension."

(Anfractuous, meaning full of twists and turns.)

This neatly sums up my own current view.

Continue Reading . . .

See Also:

The Man Who Introduced the World to Flying Saucers

The Singular Adventure of Mr Kenneth Arnold

"What I Saw" - By Kenneth Arnold

Edward R. Murrow Interviews Kenneth Arnold in The Case for The Flying Saucers | AUDIO

SHARE YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE