Abduction Watch 5

abduction-watch1 
By Kevin McClure

A MONTHLY COMMUNICATION

DAMNING WITHOUT FAINT PRAISE

Number 5, December 1997


Animal mutilations and the RSPCA

When it comes to revealing information about claims of the mysterious mutilation of animals in the UK, official and national bodies are putting up a much better show than UFO Magazine and Quest International. After the earlier reply from MAFF, a few weeks ago I wrote to the RSPCA in North Yorkshire, enclosing the ‘Phantom Killers’ article from UFO Magazine (see AW3 & 4 etc), and asking what they knew about the reports in that article. I also asked a more specific question

“I have enclosed a copy of an advertisement for a ‘UFO Conference’ in Solihull next year. Mr Dodd will, it seems, be speaking there to disclose “disturbing evidence that a rash of mysterious animal deaths is being deliberately kept hidden from the general public and media”. It seems likely that the supposed ‘Yorkshire’ cases will be at the heart of his presentation. It would be most helpful to know whether the RSPCA – surely the organisation that should be most aware of “a rash of mysterious animal deaths” in the UK – considers that Mr Dodd’s allegation is in any way true?”

To my surprise the helpful reply came not from North Yorkshire, but from “Chief Inspector A G Foxcroft, Staff Officer to the COI”, at the RSPCA Headquarters in Horsham. He wrote

“I am still awaiting details from our ten Regions, covering England and Wales, on any animal mutilation cases that may have come to their attention over recent years. However, I do know that none have been previously reported to these Headquarters which would suggest that few, if any, cases of this type have been reported to the RSPCA.

As you point out in your letter, in most instances of animal abuse, the RSPCA is the first point of contact hence the 1.3 million telephone calls we receive each year. These calls result in 110,000 complaints of animal cruelty being investigated by our 307 Inspectors.

One of our officers has an interest in ‘Ufology’ and will continue to monitor media reports that suggest alien mutilation. If, on the other hand, we receive a complaint and evidence is available, I can assure you that we will conduct a thorough investigation and attempt to bring any person, responsible for an animal suffering, to justice.”

I will leave you, for now, to draw your own conclusions from this, but I suggest that rather than saving his “disturbing evidence” of “a rash of mysterious animal deaths” for a UFO Conference in Solihull, Tony Dodd should pass it all, immediately, to the RSPCA. It can then be professionally investigated in the hope that such cruelty will not recur in future. I would be most grateful for news of any further report of this kind in the UK: I promise that I will pass it straight to the RSPCA myself. I’ve said before that people are more important than ufology. That goes for animals, too.


Oh no! It’s the Foo Fighters Again!

Perhaps because there is so much false and untested information in circulation, and because ufologists seldom seek advice from each other, the same mistakes are made again and again. Tim Matthews of LUFOS is a researcher and writer who has quickly achieved considerable standing with his work on ‘Stealth-chasing’ and his proposition that many UFO reports can be explained as sightings of secret terrestrial craft. But he seems to have fallen for one of the least palatable of the many myths to which our field is prone.

In the latest edition of Sightings (Vol 2 Issue 7) Matthews outlines his ‘New Ufology’, “researching the alternative hypothesis that military technology is the most likely answer behind the UFO enigma”. Unfortunately, in addition to the (probably valid) Stealth explanation for the ‘flying triangle’ phenomenon, and the presentation of vintage material like the interesting, but seemingly hypothetical ‘Project Silverbug’, Matthews presents a range of ‘Foo-fighter’ and flying-disc material as if the anecdotes that refer to it are established scientific fact, and proof of highly developed Nazi technology. Yes, instead of the technology of an alien ‘master race’, it’s the technology of a Nazi one. And it’s sad to see it turn up again.

I’ve only had a couple of days to look at this, so there’s more to be done. However, I know I’ve met similar claims some years ago, and I’ve found very similar material taken from the Web, particularly from ‘Vanguard Sciences’. This appears to have been a source more than familiar with Nazi pseudo-history, and one that relies on the veracity of one ‘Renate Vesco’, who was supposedly, according to Matthews “Another credible source who worked . . . for the Italian government during the 1960s as a covert investigator of UFOs”.

I suspect that Vesco – an article under that name in the popular men’s magazine Argosy in 1969 forms the basis of much of the ‘foo-fighter’ material, together with a later book called Intercept UFO – may not be what he is made to seem. I am aware of no proof of ‘his’ claims for (to quote Vesco in the Matthews article) “the German anti-radar Feuerball or Fireball . . Fast and remote-controlled, the fireballs were equipped with klystron tubes operating on the same frequency as Allied radar, which could remove the blips from the radar screen”, or which “ascended to (the pilot’s) altitude, levelled off and stayed on a parallel course before peeling off and flying off ‘under perfect control’”. I suspect that this technology doesn’t even exist now, let alone in 1942.

When I think of the desperate, deadly wartime Nazi projects I don’t think of brilliant technology: I think of slave labour, starvation and murder. And though some of these tales have been round before, not least in Mark Ian Birdsall’s foully-titled The Ultimate Solution – complete with the Hitler cover picture and two more inside – produced by Quest/YUFOS in 1988, I guess that Matthews just isn’t aware what feeble stuff it is. Though this isn’t specifically ‘abduction’ material, it does involve the same elements of human helplessness and submission that I particularly detest. I’d like to spend a little time tracking down what, in this, is truth, and what is lies. What other material is around? Can anybody help, please, before too many more ‘new ufologists’ fall for the same old tricks?


MILAB (“abduction cases involving military personnel and aliens”)

The second recent, odd, article on this newly-named ‘subject’ appears in the latest UFO Magazine. Seemingly consistent with a broad aim among most of the UFO ‘authorities’ to scare the sh*t out of us by making us believe that our lives are beyond our control, it’s an interview with “author and newspaper columnist Gregory Kanon (USA)”, very heavy on the Tesla and the stupid ‘Nazi death-ray’, but trying to convince us that “There is, however, the growing number of abduction cases involving military personnel and aliens. These so-called MILAB cases greatly disturb the UFO Establishment . . several prominent MILAB participants have successfully passed professionally-conducted polygraph and PSE tests, and have furthermore been assessed free of mental disorder by psychological diagnostic testing . . Independent UFO researchers in various countries have come to the conclusion that such anomalous cases may, in fact, be the “real thing” . . They suggest that such cases may be highly secret psy-ops experiments, involving the use of mind-altering electromagnetic bio-effect weapons, now in production by the United States military. It is interesting to note that MILAB experiencers often recall military types that look as right as rain, but aliens that look hopelessly hokey”.

Can anybody tell me anything useful about Kanon? I know he’s written a book, which I’ll buy when I’m in London next, but the real question is whether he actually speaks/writes with any special authority about the secrets he claims to know. Which is, I guess, the question underpinning most of what AW does.


No way, Jose?

That Mexico City UFO film from 6.8.97 – as featured by Alien Encounters and Matthew Williams – is crumbling under investigative pressure. Even the -UK UFO Magazine takes a debunking line. Even Michael Hesseman admits that “It was not in the news or papers in Mexico”, and the ‘witnesses’ seem to have been less than consistent, one even saying the object appeared at night. Much play is being made of the fact that the film was “sent anonymously to Jaime Maussan”, I think in the hope that he won’t get the blame! But if that was the case how come it could be accurately copyrighted, as I mentioned in AW4, to him and Lee and Brit Elders? Does this suggest it wasn’t theirs to copyright in the first place, or what?

To quote Graham Birdsall in UFO Magazine, “The object appears to have been ‘brush stroked’ in part via computer means”. Underlining the strange double-life led by his magazine, torn between Tony Dodd’s beliefs, and the evidence of investigated events, Graham goes on to suggest that if this video is proven to be a hoax this “will cast serious doubt over the legitimacy or otherwise of other UFO video tape sequences which have originated from Mexico down the years”. I’d agree with that entirely: a professional analysis of this material, and of those who have publicised and profited from it, is long overdue. It would be good to see Alien Encounters putting the record straight, too!


UNNAMED SOLDIERS

1. James Prescott, the Falklands and the ‘Welsh Crash’

Well, as promised, I found out the facts about James Prescott, said by various UFO ‘investigators’ to have led the amazingly secret UFO crash retrieval at Berwyn Mountain in 1974. A couple of hours in a reference library, 20 minutes in a good bookshop, and œ10 on an authoritative book is all that it took. Factual research really isn’t very difficult.

The facts, it seems, are that Staff Sergeant James Prescott, Royal Engineers, died on 17 May 1982, while attempting to defuse a bomb on board HMS Antelope. He was later awarded a posthumous Conspicuous Gallantry Medal for his bravery. Quoting from The Battle for the Falklands, by Max Hastings and Simon Jenkins (Pan Books,1997)

“A broadcast from the bridge announced that the bomb-disposal team would try a new method of defusing the bomb. Prescott and Phillips detonated a small charge, then walked forward to inspect the results. As they approached, the bomb exploded. Prescott seemed to be hit by a door blown free by blast, which killed him immediately”.

Two days previously, he had assisted in defusing an unexploded bomb on another damaged ship, the Argonaut.

Sometimes, the sheer incompetence of UFO research is made obvious. There is a deep longing for a British ‘Roswell’, a longing not entirely fulfilled by the shabby muddle that the Rendlesham story has been allowed to become. Consequently, some ‘investigators’ have built up the admittedly mysterious events surrounding the ‘earth tremor’ on Berwyn Mountain on 20.1.74 into the landing/crash of an ‘Adamski-type’ UFO, with a sophisticated military recovery operation involving soldiers who recovered alien bodies.

At the heart of this case has been Margaret Fry, of Contact UK and the Welsh Federation of Independent Ufologists. In the first 1997 issue of the Federation’s Newsletter she wrote that “Tony Dodd had been informed by a retired high ranking Army officer with the pseudonym of James Prescott that the military authorities had known for three days previously that a UFO would land on the Berwyn range of mountains”. She also said, apparently on the basis of the same source, that “soldiers brought long boxes down to the lorries, which they were then ordered to proceed with to Porton Down in Wiltshire, without stopping. When they arrived at this underground establishment the boxes were opened in front of them and to their horror and astonishment they contained 5 to 6ft tall thin, almost skeleton like beings. There was no mistaking they were aliens. At Berwyn they had seen no UFO, although they heard later that some of the units had taken alive aliens to Porton Down, and also retrieved pieces of a craft.”

That, apparently, is what Dodd’s “high ranking” military informant had to say. It seems that after Dodd published an article about her research on Berwyn in 1996, she attracted her own, unsurprisingly anonymous “military men”, one of whom apparently told her that Staff Sergeant James Prescott commanded the Unit conducting the recovery, and that he was killed in the Falklands War. Fry also attributed a very specific piece of information to researcher and author Nick Redfern – that on the way out to the Falklands War the Commanding Officer of a unit of 50/60 men “told them all about the Berwyn Incident. He wanted them to know, in case he was killed. That man was James Prescott and he was killed, but none of them had believed him, the tale was too horrifying and fantastic.”

I must stress that, as soon as he became aware that both Fry and UFO Magazine had reported him as identifying Prescott as the Commanding Officer of the recovery unit at Berwyn, Nick Redfern took speedy and effective steps to ensure that all the parties involved – including one of the news-stand UFO magazines – were clear that his informant, who was entirely anonymous and made contact only by phone, had only suggested that Prescott was one of the listeners on the journey to the Falklands, not that he had been this “Commanding Officer”. Fry and UFO Magazine had seemingly misunderstood what Redfern had told them. You can work out for yourself that the likelihood of somebody who had achieved the worthy, but non-commissioned, rank of Staff Sergeant in the Royal Engineers by 1982, being the Commanding Officer of a UFO recovery involving the highest levels of secrecy eight years previously, in charge of Royal Marines, is pretty much nil.

While Redfern comes out of this with some honour, we seem to have found some more out about the ‘Unnamed Soldier’ of earlier issues of AW. Particularly, I wonder what evidence UFO Magazine has depended on to establish that Tony Dodd’s informant, using the ‘pseudonym’ of ‘James Prescott’, really is a “retired high ranking Army officer”, rather than a hoaxer without morals or consideration for a man who gave his life for his country and colleagues. The real James Prescott was a brave soldier, who died in a bomb explosion in the confined spaces of a damaged ship. He was given, posthumously, one of the more prominent gallantry awards of the Falklands campaign. It is hard to believe that any real “high ranking military officer”, with an interest in Prescott and an unaccountable desire to reveal a stack of hitherto unknown official secrets to a professional ufologist, would have been so stupid as to think that Prescott was “killed in action during a ‘fire fight’ with Argentinian forces”. If the same source was responsible for the “long boxes”, the “skeleton like beings”, the “alive aliens” and the “retrieved pieces of a craft” reported by Fry, we can safely write them off as irresponsible nonsense, too.

2. USO’s off Iceland

Talking of verification of sources, it’s been interesting to note how much of the information passed on to an eager public as fact actually starts as mere phone-calls. In an article by Tony Dodd on the UFO Magazine web site, ‘Confrontations in the North Atlantic’ (I’ve seen elements of it in print, too), the author reports on a series of “ship-to-shore telephone calls” on 12.2.96, 18.2.96, 19.2.96 and 23.4.96. All, apparently, were made directly to Dodd from fishing-boats off or close to Iceland and reported, variously, that

“a huge triangular craft had appeared and was hovering low in the sky close to his boat” . . “he and the rest of his crew had seen the triangular object move away from the boat then suddenly descend into the sea. The moment it had disappeared all electrical power was restored”.

“the caller told me that the whole crew were terrified because three huge black triangular objects, accompanied by three independent red balls of light, had come out of the sea and were hovering silently in the air close to their boats . . Radar is not picking them up, the whole crew are standing on deck watching them . . The objects have now gone, they all descended and went down into the sea.”

“We have just been watching a gigantic sphere, hovering in the air, not very far from our boats. It slowly moved away from us and then descended and disapeared into the sea . . There are now six large fluorescent tube like objects hovering in the air close to our position, they are a blue colour and not making a sound”

“You are not going to believe what we have just seen. We were fishing fairly close to a group of American Warships and suddenly there was a blinding flash of light and one of the warships just disappeared in front our eyes. I know it sounds crazy but I can assure you it happened a short time ago. Soon after this an American boat came over to us and ordered us and other fishing boats to leave the area immediately”.

Some of you may marvel at the fact that, once again, Dodd is the only ufologist in the world to be able to report on incidents that defy all the accumulated knowledge of the world’s scientists, and that if it weren’t for him, the world would have remained ignorant of these astonishing events. It appears that the crews of the fishing-boats never spoke to anyone else apart from Dodd – whose telephone number appears to be surprisingly available among fisherfolk – being content to have their reports published anonymously in UFO Magazine, rather than seeking the fortunes the world’s press would have surely offered for evidence of such astonishing incidents

Personally, I have this nagging doubt. What if the same person(s) who made such a rotten job of researching the James Prescott story prior to purveying the rubbish about his being “killed in action during a ‘fire fight’ with Argentinian forces” decided to pretend to be phoning from a series of fishing-vessels off Iceland? I guess you can’t use 1471 to check on ‘ship-to-shore’ calls, so might it be difficult for Dodd to verify that these calls really did come from that source? And could this be the same USO material as is promised to appear in Tim Good’s new book?


Updates

Global’s Sergeant Clifford Stone, who was supposed to have seen a number of Santilli-type dead-alien films at Fort Belvoir, VA in 1969, has been identified by a number of readers. I understand that he was associated with one of the Roswell UFO museums, and was recently working as a security guard at a shopping centre in Roswell. I gather that he wrote a book, published in 1991, titled UFOs, Let the evidence speak for itself. I understand that the book “makes no mention of him viewing any films of ETs, Santilli-type or any other type.” Perhaps David Bryan, of the Manchester Office of Global, will be able to explain this ommission?

Malcolm Robinson just doesn’t seem to want to tell AW about the qualifications of the hypnotherapist who undertook the regression in the A70 case, and in others. I have written to him twice, specifically to ask this question, and he subscribes to AW, so he will have seen what I wrote in AW4 . This is a little baffling, but as it seems important that those considering regression should be aware of the background of those to whom they submit themselves, perhaps the local media in the area covering SPI will be able to assist.

In the meantime, I wonder if there is any substance to the suggestion that, because Garry Wood was particularly keen to undergo hypnotic regression, and was not an easy hypnotic subject, those involved agreed that rather than using neutral questioning during the regression, more leading questions involving aliens and abduction would be put. It seems to be time that video and audio recordings of sessions which allegedly produce evidence of abduction were opened to confidential review by psychotherapists with professional standing, whose every day work is often similar to what the non-professional regressionists are doing, and if possible by medical and mental health professionals, too. This secretive interference with minds and lives will end in tragedy for somebody, if it hasn’t done so already.

Finally – it’s only taken five issues of AW to reach the point of having more material than space – a question arising from the latest issue of the excellent NARO Minded (see AW2). Can anybody tell me whether there really is a UFO investigator in the UK called Billy Took, and whether, if there is, he really believes that aliens have ‘procedures’ to remove limbs and put them back, and whether he would actually tell a ‘witness “how filthy (the aliens) were as creatures, how unhygienic their spacecraft were, and that their (the witnesses) anal bleeding was due to an anal probe that they probably all shared”? If this person exists, does he investigate on behalf of any particular group or organisation?

Best wishes for the New Year – AW6 will be with you 4 weeks from now!

PS If you want to understand why I spend my time producing AW, some idea at least can be found in the double issue, 83/84, of the SUFOG Newsletter. Reviewing AW1, one Ernie Sears, who I presume has formed the view that he is himself an abductee, writes without anger, but with some commitment in response to my provocations,

“wanna see the scars, Kev? Can we demonstrate our healing mediumship, and other “altered States” etc etc) and we don’t CARE whether our spoken or written word is “believed”, sir, “contact” is a personal event, all we are IMPELLED to do is disseminate the knowledge, the information! Which is WHY “progress takes so much time!” ‘Beyond our comprehension’ you quote . . not ALL of us! ‘invaded, assaulted, subverted and victimised? Not always! “educated”, yes!

I don’t know Ernie Sears at all, but I guess that it’s this kind of situation that leads people whose loved ones get drawn into religious cults to seek the dubious services of cult-busters and deprogrammers. And I guess that I’ll keep the SUFOG Newsletter (from Steve Gerrard, 25 Weston Grove Road, Woolston, Sothampton, Hants, SO19 9EE) firmly on the AW exchange list!


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>