Monday, 7 May 2012

Another Dudley Dorito Hoax?

Another Dudley Dorito Hoax?

I've always commented and/or posted about the Dudley Dorito whenever it was spotted but when it hit the news again a few weeks ago I didn't bother for various reasons, not least being that this time it came courtesy of, 'The Sun' and even though the alleged video was filmed around 150 miles away from Dudley 'The Sun' still effortlessly linked the reports together. To put the distance into a little perspective it's about the same distance from Dudley to Poole on the south coast as it is to York.

This should come as no real surprise to those familiar with how the UFO phenomenon is reported by the MSM, the most notable exception being the local news website of the "Express & Star" who always treat the Dudley Dorito reports seriously but have a tendency to misrepresent the words of the witnesses by including images & videos that are not only unrelated to the reports but are usually proven fakes.

The Sun article (with video) was as follows:

Dudley Dorito UFO Spotted Again (28th Mar 2012)

Mysterious tortilla chip-shaped UFO is spotted again
(Originally Posted 28th March & Last Updated 29th March, 2012)

IS it a bird? Is it a plane? Is it a...CRISP? 

The mysterious "Dudley Dorito" UFO has been spotted for the fourth time in five years flying through a cloudless sky over woodland in Yorkshire. The object, which looks like an extra-terrestrial tortilla chip, was captured by an amateur cameraman who posted the footage on YouTube. He can be heard saying "I don't know what that is" as the triangular aircraft glides silently across the frame above a forest in the north of England. The UFO was dubbed the Dudley Dorito after its first sighting over the Midlands in 2007 but it is unclear whether the YouTube footage is real or a hoax. Eye-witnesses first saw the black triangle hovering over Halesowen and they reported the close encounter to UFORM, a local group of UFO-spotters.

..Video: 'Dudley Dorito' UFO above York 
CRAFT believed to be famous Unidentified Flying Object spotted again.
Then in 2010 David Allan from Sutton Coldfield reported seeing a triangular object four or five times bigger than an aeroplane in the skies on Bonfire Night.  A few weeks after that 21-year-old quality inspector Minuesh Mistry saw the Dudley Dorito hovering above his home in Tipton in the West Midlands. But the phenomenon of "black triangle" UFOs has been dismissed as similar to the effect ball lightening has on the atmosphere. Project Condign was the name of a study undertaken by Defence Intelligence Staff between 1997 and 2000. The MOD department claimed the airborne objects were "supernormal atmospheric plasma phenomenon". The X-files were made publically available in 2005 after an FOI request.

Source: The Sun

The popularity of Dudley Dorito is mainly the work of the, "Express & Star" as they are practically single-handedly responsible for the infamy it has achieved, however they are also responsible for pushing hoax after hoax attributed to the Dudley Dorito. This coupled with the inherent inaccuracies from other media outlets, all of which are then perpetuated across the internet thus becoming inextricably linked to the Dudley Dorito makes researching the origins and genuine sighting reports almost impossible. And now that UK tabloid "The Sun" has jumped on the bandwagon it becomes increasingly so.

First things first, the above video that –regardless of distance- 'The Sun' linked to the Dudley Dorito is a CG hoax. The evidence for this is once again provided by an excellent analysis by TheHoaxKiller at the website of the same name, here's the video analysis by HoaxKiller:

Also it has recently come to my attention that the YouTube user who created the original video has since filed a copyright infringement claim for the few seconds of video that was used in the above analysis (video). That's why the above video wasn't hosted on YouTube, HoaxKiller wrote the following on 25th April (2012):
"The YouTube user "xxxdonutzxxx" filed a copyright infringement claim on my video and it was taken down. Since I strictly follow Fair Use laws, I filed a counter-claim to get the video back. So while that is processing I uploaded the video to my web host so it can be viewed on the Videos page, and here."
Source (and original video analysis):

If you'll indulge me I just wanted to share a couple of thoughts about the takedown, to be honest I've long since accepted that people are going to post hoax UFO videos as well as images, sighting accounts etc. and whilst I don't condone it (and obviously wouldn't do it personally) I've also made my peace with it.

However to post a hoax UFO video that you've created yourself is one thing but to then actively pursue & file copyright infringement claims against other videos that only use a few seconds for analysis, and more importantly for an analysis which exposes the hoax is a completely different kettle of fish. This, in my opinion, elevates a prank into purposeful deception and when this is somewhere like YouTube which makes it incredibly easy to monetise video views (and when this source of revenue is activated), well then it takes on a much more sinister guise as essentially it then becomes obtaining money by deception, a deception which the hoaxer further promotes by invoking copyright infringement claims solely to cover-up his lies and ultimately to protect his source of income.

YouTube not only allows & enables this deception but judging by their eagerness to comply with such petty demands they positively encourage it. Surely examples such as the above would constitute 'fair use' anyway and so should be exempt from this apparently automated takedown procedure? Or at the very least the complainant should be required to provide further information or evidence that this is in fact a valid copyright claim and not simply to protect and perpetuate their own hoax.

I mean let's face it, it's the YouTube community who are the prime targets of such hoaxes as well of course as the advertisers, many of whom who I'm sure would take issue with their products being promoted by videos purporting to be something they are not. {/Rant}

Anyway, back to the Dudley Dorito, here's an elaboration on what we're seeing in the video from the HoaxKiller website:
"Throughout the video you can see a white / very light blue colored feathered edge around all the tree branches... that is a form of light bloom. When the hoaxers tried to chroma key out the background (the solid blue sky), they didn't do a good job of keying out the light bloomed feathered edges of the branches, and that caused the light bloomed areas of the sky to appear on top of the UFO.
Some of the small gaps between the tree branches were completely filled with light bloom, and that caused the small gaps to be a different shade of blue than the rest of the sky. When they chroma keyed out the darker blue sky, they didn't key out the small light blue gaps, and those small gaps of sky (which should have been filled in by the dark UFO when it passed behind them) were displayed on top of the UFO. 

Throughout the video there are many small gaps between the branches which you should have seen the UFO between when it passes behind them, but instead they just show the sky. Those areas didn't get keyed out."
Here's the HoaxKiller YouTube Channel.
And here's the HoaxKiller website.

Dudley Dorito Images

I've written about and traced the images associated with the Dudley Dorito since it first appeared and detailed it in an earlier Blog post (available here) but here is a very brief outline.

Firstly the ORIGINAL witness NEVER likened the object itself to a Dorito as he states his original statement was misrepresented, now whether this was down to a misunderstanding or a purposeful misrepresentation by a reporter who knew how to coin a phrase is not known (I personally favour the latter). The witness had the following to say via a report submitted to the BUFOG website not long after the sighting was reported by the MSM:

"I estimated the plane was flying at its cruising altitude as at arms length the plane was approximately the size of a dot against your thumb and the black triangular object which was above the plane was approximately the size of a Dorito (tortilla crisp) at arms length (This is where the headlines in the newspapers quoted I said it was like a Dorito, where in fact I only used the word Dorito as an adjective to explain the size of the triangle compared to the size of plane)."

A report posted by the BBC just one day after the original sighting contained an image of a triangular object and at the foot of the page (almost as far as it could be from the actual image) was a disclaimer stating that the image was not connected to the report.

The image was repeatedly attributed to the Dudley Dorito UFO and then Daily Mail ran a Dudley Dorito story including a cropped, stretched, heavily pixelated & resized version of the image this time stating that "A similar craft spotted above Welshpool, Mid Wales in January this year."

No links supplied, no references, no names, no sources, nothing. It's also worth noting that the Express & Star also re-posted this as well as repeatedly posting an image from the Belgium UFO flap first claiming that it was the Dudley Dorito and then later implying it.

The one alleged image of the Dudley Dorito that wasn't a recycled earlier image was posted by The Sun newspaper back on the 20th October 2008 alleging that it was, "The Best Proof Yet". It was submitted to Gary Heseltine of PRUFOS and the results were to be revealed a few days later at the UFO Data Magazine annual conference in Pontefract, West Yorks (25th Oct, 2008) pending analysis by a  former US navy physicist who specialises in photo analysis, but alas, it was never to be heard of again.

Incidentally and as an aside you may recognise the name, "Gary Heseltine" as he recently appeared for the second time alongside Chris French on popular UK daytime television, "This Morning". They debated the pros & cons of the Rendlesham incident, well, as much as time would allow. This was on the 17th April 2012 and was a follow-up to when the pair first appeared back on February 9th, 2012, the footage from both appearances may be viewed here.

Here's the image in question:

For what it's worth I personally believe that due to the colouration of the object being a mirror of the inverted background/foreground that this image was likely taken from behind glass and we're not actually looking at a physical object in the sky, although admittedly it's almost impossible to discern any real information due to the resolution at which it was released.  But it's irrelevant either way because as I say the image has since disappeared never to be seen or heard of again:

The above image is the only photograph and/or video submitted of the Dudley Dorito that isn't a misattribution or misrepresentation of an earlier one.

Apart from the recent video (at the top of this post) there was also another alleged video submitted to YouTube back on the 20th October, 2009. This was quickly picked up by the Express & Star (who due to their unwavering support of all things Dorito are almost single-handedly responsible for the notoriety & infamy that it still receives to this day) and despite being warned of the dubious origins of the video posted it anyway.

Once they did it was instantly recognised as being an earlier (CGI hoax) video that was posted to YouTube many months earlier alleging to be recorded in Paris as can be evidenced below:

Regardless of origin & relevance though this is a completely unrelated hoax that the Express & Star occasionally adds to related Dorito reports omitting this valuable snippet of information regarding its true origins.

Friday, 20 April 2012

Kean & Chile UFO Update – Early Conclusions Inconclusive!!

I've posted about the Chilean UFO's a few times and followed the story closely since it first broke but when Leslie Kean posted an update a few days ago (13th April) a month to the day after her original story I initially decided I wasn't going to comment on it, mostly because it offered nothing new.

However I've since decided to address a couple of the points it raised mainly as they appeared to be directed at people such as myself, the article by Kean was titled, "Update on Chilean UFO Videos: Getting the Bugs Out" and it opened with the following:

On March 13, Ralph Blumenthal and I published a story about a case from Chile which has since sparked considerable controversy.


Perhaps Blumenthal and I asked too many provocative rhetorical questions and did not stress enough that this investigation is continuing

I don't think 'considerable controversy' is entirely accurate as a handful of people –including myself- commented and posted information to the effect that it looked like an insect close to the camera and as for the 'provocative rhetorical questions,' as far as I could see there was only one and whilst it could be described as provocative it's not the word I would have used, I am of course referring to Kean's opening gambit of, "Is this the case UFO skeptics have been dreading?"

Regarding her claim that that she didn't, "stress enough that this investigation is continuing" the fact that the investigation is still on-going was never alluded to or even hinted at, the following is from the first article where Kean claims the fact that the investigation was still underway was allegedly stressed (emphasis mine): 

"An engineer from the adjacent Pillán aircraft factory noticed something bizarre while viewing his footage in slow motion. He turned it over to the government's well known Committee for the Study of Anomalous Aerial Phenomena, or CEFAA, for analysis.

The stunning conclusion: The Chilean jets were being stalked by a UFO. 


CEFAA officials collected seven videos of the El Bosque UFO taken from different vantage points. Bermúdez commissioned scientists from many disciplines, aeronautical experts, and air force and army photogrametric technicians to subject the videos to intense scrutiny. They all came to the same conclusions."

Just to summarise, after analysis and intense scrutiny all analysts involved arrived at an identical conclusion. I guess I wrongly assumed that the term conclusion was being used literally to mean the end, the finish, the result or outcome of an act or process etc. etc.

In her most recent article Kean also stated that:
It is clear to me why Bermúdez isn't going to prematurely toss the videos out onto the Internet to be played with by unqualified people -- especially after what happened with the first clips

Skeptics caused quite a stir by taking it upon themselves to do their own "analysis" of the video clips and then to declare, with bravado, that the object of concern was simply a bug. Often this involved misquoting or misrepresenting me and the CEFAA in accompanying text. The question of qualifications aside, these individuals were handicapped by one even more overwhelming problem: Tthey [sic] were working without the necessary data required to make a proper analysis, and, most importantly, they were looking at video clips pulled from only one of the multiple cameras.

Again with the skeptics label?

This must be the same as the term, "conclusion" because this evidently means something entirely different to Kean, the following is what it means to me:
"Skeptic - One who practices the method of suspended judgment, engages in rational and dispassionate reasoning as exemplified by the scientific method, shows willingness to consider alternative explanations without prejudice based on prior beliefs, and who seeks out evidence and carefully scrutinizes its validity."
Whereas "skeptic" in the context in which Kean uses it seems like it is nothing but a catch-all term used to label everyone who doesn't see things the exact same way as herself, also labelling all opposition with a term that –rightly or wrongly- has negative connotations appears to me to simply be an attempt to diminish the relevance of any valid points that may be raised.

I guess I just can't see the rationale behind promoting this pervasive "us & them" mentality as it is both self-defeating and wholly unnecessary.
"To be played with by unqualified people." & "Skeptics caused quite a stir by taking it upon themselves to do their own "analysis" of the video clips and then to declare, with bravado, that the object of concern was simply a bug."
Say what?!

So analysis by several people with many years of experience researching digital UFO images & video footage analysed what little footage was released and just because they didn't agree with earlier 'conclusions' they are ALL dismissed with an unsubstantiated allegation of misrepresentation and a snide comment about qualifications?


I wonder if this dismissive attitude would be evident if they had actually agreed with the earlier conclusions. ("conclusions" being used literally here) and besides which I'm unsure what the alternatives could be as Kean doesn't say, perhaps everyone who is interested should accept everything Kean writes as beyond reproach (regardless of accuracy) and be grateful for the slow drip-feed of information?

Because judging by the most recent article those who do dare to analyse the footage will apparently find their hard-work, beliefs & qualifications (or presumed lack thereof) publicly questioned and yet Kean complains about her words being misquoted & misrepresented.

And regarding "to declare with bavado" well at least I only worked with the image data rather than second-guessing how relevant her personal beliefs & qualifications were to what she had previously wrote, and as for the claim that Kean & the CEFAA were misrepresented, I personally exchanged several emails with one of the researchers as well as with NARCAP, both of whom were named as having analysed the footage (I also tried to open a line of communication via Kean's FB page), I did this purely so that I wouldn't misrepresent anybody.

Also the astronomer/researcher in question told me that 'they had analysed the footage for over a year' and Dr Haines of NARCAP handed his COMPLETED analysis to CEFAA many, many months ago and that's not to mention the veritable plethora of other qualified analysts from many different scientific disciplines who completed their analysis and, "came to the same conclusions".

Bruce Maccabee was also cited as agreeing with the conclusions of the CEFAA analysts, Maccabee has been contacted by Robert Sheaffer regarding this claim and (Sheaffer) recently wrote that:

"General Bermúdez has been stating that UFO photo analyst Dr. Bruce Maccabee has examined the video, and has concluded that it represents an unknown object. However, there is nothing about this on Maccabee's website, or anywhere else I could find. I asked Maccabee about it. He replied, "As for the CEFAA video, I have been studying it or them, but things are not straightened out yet as to how many independent videos there are, what they show and when they show it.  No conclusion yet." In other words, he hasn't had any more success getting the full data from the CEFAA than anyone else has!" (Source)

"No conclusion yet" is the complete opposite of what we were previously told and from what General Bermúdez claimed at his presentation.

In Kean's recent article we also learn for the first time that the "Seven spectators [were] located in different places, each with his own camera," and also that the footage came from "digital cameras and cell phones."

So whilst the dreaded skeptics may have been, "working without the necessary data required to make a proper analysis, and, most importantly, they were looking at video clips pulled from only one of the multiple cameras" and regardless of the fact that this was solely because it is all that was released (labelled as 'originals' with a massively reduced frame-rate) it is worth mentioning that on her own website Kean wrote that:
"There are 7 videos of the three flybys from different vantage points. This is the best of the seven."
So if this is the best of the seven videos I think we can safely assume that it is most likely the clearest image of the object in question and so very probably the closest in proximity to the object. If so then the remaining six videos which are filmed from different locations, locations which Kean states are "too far apart to capture the same insect" well then, I assume this means that they are a considerable distance from each other and furthermore some of them are recorded on camera phones which by their very design offer an inferior image quality.

So evidently there is not a great deal more that could be learned from the missing footage, apart of course to lend weight to her earlier claims as essentially the data being withheld is the only method we have of validating Kean's claims, i.e. by confirming it's the same object, and if confirmed then triangulating & calculating size & speed would be possible, now that's a game-changer.

What possible reasons can Kean & the CEFAA have for withholding the ONLY data that can authenticate their earlier analysis & statements? Just one of the videos showing the same object from a different location would be enough to silence ALL critics yet instead she pens a vitriolic rant directed at those who apparently aren't qualified to think for themselves, who dare to do their own analysis and then have the sheer audacity to point out the glaring inconsistencies between what was being claimed and what the evidence actually shows.

Incidentally while we're discussing this aspect have a look at the following video, it's a very brief excerpt from the talk that General Bermúdez gave at the International UFO Conference in February and the presentation that kick-started the whole shebang:

As you can see he specifically states that:
"Okay, here we have ANOTHER picture.
Come from ANOTHER camera.
On ANOTHER person of course.
Where appear again."
Now compare and contrast with what Kean wrote and as you can see nobody needs to misrepresent either of them as they do a bang-up job of contradicting themselves. It is specifically stated that this is from a different camera and person yet Kean claims we've only seen one of the videos, this isn't just a slip of the tongue or even a slip of the pen as it's hardly an inconsequential point, mainly because Kean made it the onus of her article and General Bermúdez used it to bolster his case at the International UFO Conference.

As the video says, they both can't be right.

I'm not sure why but the remainder of Kean's article is dedicated to debunking beetles, three entomologists are quoted (although how many were contacted isn't disclosed) and to cut a long story short whilst they couldn't dismiss the possibility it was bugs none of them thought it likely:
  • Jason J. Dombroskie: "Could this be a bug? It's possible, but I would be very surprised."
  • Brett C. Ratcliffe: "No idea what it is but it does not seem to be an insect . . . altho very fast flying insects captured on slow shutter speeds do look like amorphous blurs or blobs."
  • Elizabeth Arias: "I talked with a friend from Chile about this photo and he says that it might be an insect only if the insect passed CLOSE to the camera [emphasis hers]."
And Kean closes with the statement:
"If they couldn't tell it was a bug, how could anyone else be so sure?"

Perhaps someone else can be so sure because the BEST footage has been released and
-regardless of what it is- it clearly shows the (alleged 5 to 10 metre) 'UFO' moving above a road. A road which is literally a few feet from the cameraman!! 

Here's an animated .gif showing the full sequence:

And here is the earlier part of the sequence broke down:

(All images courtesy of The Hoaxkiller)

I wonder if this particular analysis was shared with the eminent entomologists?

Somehow I doubt it but perhaps it wasn't shared because (as Kean claims) this is merely a bravado–driven declaration by (presumed) unqualified armchair skeptics, and has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that it also happens to directly refute the earlier claims?

Not forgetting of course that very similar (i.e. almost identical) anomalies were found by myself and others (Stiver) when reviewing independently recorded and otherwise unrelated footage of the air-show in question:

Anomalies which were also evident in a completely different air-show at the same location that was recorded several months earlier.

So just to recap, Kean and the CEFAA appeared to be all good to go a month back, they released a couple of the videos along with a brief analysis & conclusion as well as stating that many other qualified experts had analysed the footage, all were in agreement and all arrived independently at the exact same conclusion.

And now a mere four weeks later we are told that the earlier analysis wasn't really complete and if that is the case then what of the earlier conclusions, were they incomplete as well?

Kean, apparently happy with the fact that all the 'analysis & conclusion' talk in her first article has been explained away, writes:

"And now the search for the "scientific conclusion" has been given new life. After the story broke, photo analysts and investigators from several countries approached the CEFAA and asked if they could study the videos. A few, because of their qualifications, have already begun detailed, independent work on the case. They will remain anonymous for now. Further questions, some of which have been raised in response to our story, will be addressed by them during this process."

So now we also learn that 'new' analysis has been sanctioned and better still the new independent experts undertaking this new analysis will answer all of the questions raised by the old analysis!!

Smoke & mirrors, the way it's always been, and the beat goes on…..

What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the wish to find out,
which is the exact opposite.

~ Bertrand Russell

Sunday, 15 April 2012 – Confirmed Hoax(ers)

I posted about this yesterday and whilst I was purposefully vague in explaining my feelings in an unusually brief post I still would have thought the sentiment was obvious. This being due in part to the fact that the main heading posed the question, “ Seized? Really?!” which was then followed by the question, “Hoax or Hack?” which when coupled with the closing line of, “However if you’re a member I wouldn’t start deleting your hard drives just yet…..

Well, as I say I thought it was obvious what I thought, evidently not because a lengthy comment was since posted to my Blog (well to be entirely accurate I awoke to find the comment had actually been posted no less than 13 times to my Blog alone!!) extolling the virtues of questioning everything as well as pointing out that none of the agencies listed actually existed.

Starcaller Sinorcia has left a new comment on your post " Seized? Really?":

I have been lurking and reading and gathering since I woke up this morning and saw the image on DTV. I would like to point out some very interesting facts that either people are overlooking, or too upset(freaked, ignorant, blind) to see.


There are quite a few more reasons why I highly doubt that this is serious or REAL, but instead of just taking it at face value, why not maybe read the text contained in the images, or do your research so you can easily discern that the image from DTV has NOTHING to do with the DHS seizures. Homework, kiddies. It's useful out of school too.”

No shit Sherlock!!
Perhaps if ‘Starcaller Sinorcia’ spent a fraction of the time wasted posting condescending comments across the interweb on actually reading the content they were criticising then I suspect they could have saved themselves quite a few hours of pointless spamming

Regarding the opening paragraph of:
“I have been lurking and reading and gathering since I woke up this morning and saw the image on DTV. I would like to point out some very interesting facts that either people are overlooking, or too upset(freaked, ignorant, blind) to see.”
Myself -and most other people- arrived at exactly the same conclusion in about 20 seconds, which is the amount of time it took to read the alleged ‘seizure notice’.

Anyway, and as expected, is back up today and after having a quick scan of their forums it seems as if the staff are patting themselves on their back for an April Fools prank that was not only a fortnight late but that several of them promoted by trolling competing forums (whilst DTV was down) to perpetuate the lie as well as being deceitful to their own members in the weeks leading up to it.

Alll so they could set the scene for their prank.

Here is an excerpt from a post earlier today by one of their moderators:

“If you haven't guessed already, all this stuff was a hoax, every drop of it. 


The old website had to be taken down off the server in order to upload the new one. Originally, this was supposed to happen on April Fools Day. We had been planning to do something for a month, and we devised a scheme to hit the forum with all the stuff everyone talks the most about; evil government agendas, smurfs, etc., and give them a load of drama right up to the crescendo: The "Seized" Splash Screen. We knew the splash screen would be figured out in no time (fake as hell agencies - easily debunked), but thought that just for a moment people would get the WTF factor. We NEVER thought it would go as viral as it did".


Personally I struggle to visualise a scenario where at any point the staff thought it would be a good idea to mock the beliefs and provoke the -generally- paranoiac & already conspiracy-minded netizens who frequent their boards, but hey, what do I know…..

Saturday, 14 April 2012 Seized? Really? Seized - Hoax or Hack? is currently showing the following image on every page:

This domain name has been seized by the United States Department of Internet Security Terrorism Task Force and the European Allied Command Operations, in accordance with the International Website Seizure Act , and is under investigation along with its owner(s), administration and membership.

Full civil and criminal legal action will be taken against those who, knowingly or unknowingly, have contributed to acts of sedition, terror-mongering, and possible treason, including links to other sites now deemed a threat to national and international security.

A warrant has been obtained with the assistance of the U.S. Terror Attorney’s Office, for the District of Maryland, authorizing seizure of property and forfeiture thereof, according to 23 U.S.C. #981 and #714(c).

“U.S. Terror Attorney’s Office”? Really?!

This is already being tenuously linked to their YouTube account being shut down.

However, if you're a member I wouldn't start deleting your hard-drives just yet.....

Sunday, 8 April 2012

AMMACH – UK Contactee & Abduction Helpline

Strangely, "The Sun" newspaper completely missed the chance to poke fun at both the UFO phenomena & the UFO community over the last couple of weeks. I'm talking about the Blog post below this one concerning Councillor Simon Parkes, it's strange as they generally jump at the chance to mock all involved at every opportunity as evidenced below in an article they put out on the 6th April, 2012 which was titled, "Seen ET? Phone us at home.."

THE UK's first helpline has been opened for people
who have had close encounters with ALIENS.

The phone service offers counselling for those who believe they have been contacted or even abducted by ETs. Launched by therapist Joanne Summerscales, the Anomalous Mind Management Abductee and Contactee Helpline (AMMACH) has already had dozens of calls from all over the world. Joanne, of Langley Mill, East Mids, said:
"I get people crying with relief that someone is finally prepared to take them seriously...Some haven't spoken about experiences in over ten years because they are so afraid of ridicule...The truth will eventually come out."
Source: The Sun

The earlier omission is especially strange for The Sun as the story was about a representative of a political party they are currently opposing and also the recent article (above) features the very same people (i.e. AMMACH; Joanne Summerscales & Miles Johnston) who actually conducted, filmed and posted the earlier interview with Cllr Parkes.

Simon Parkes

Here's the relevant excerpt from the text accompanying the video that has been doing the rounds over the last couple of weeks (1 of 4). It is posted to the YouTube account of, "Megawatts1066" which is owned by, "Miles Johnston" who is the other (film-making) half of AMMACH:
"Simon Parkes discusses his highly detailed and complex contacts with Extra & Interdimensional beings called Mantis, and the Greys and Reptilians.


Interviewed by Joanne Summerscales, off camera questions by Miles Johnston of the AMMACH Project. AMMACH is dedicated to highlighting contactee, abduction and Mind Control issues in the British Isles."
SourceAMMACH (Miles Johnston via YouTube)

And here's the lowdown on AMMACH:

A.M.M.A.C.H.   -  A UK resource

A.M.M.A.C.H. - A UK resource
The helpline; 0795 1752 813 is a confidential free service and available to anyone in the UK.  It is a port of call, where anyone who would like to talk about their experiences, anonymously if preferred, can do so, without fear, knowing they will be speaking to someone with researched background knowledge, and experience in communication, with a view to supporting wellbeing.
There is also an email address if you wish to contact either Joanne or Miles to arrange an interview, Skype meeting (Skype address: ammach2011) or just share information by email:
We also welcome any enquires/contact from genuine and serious healthcare professionals who are interested in supporting those who have such experiences. Please share this information.
A.M.M.A.C.H.  - Started life on the 23 January 2011, by Joanne Summerscales and Miles Johnston  who have both had a long term interest in, and are researchers of the many fields, subjects and layers thereof, seen and treated by society at large, as being on the outer edges of social awareness, and still very much unacknowledged (by mainstream 'conventionals').  These areas include; suppressed advanced technology, the unaddressed history of humanity and genetics,  alternative energy systems, health/illness management and the extensive area of ufological/ET experience, including the Exopolitical arena, which seeks full official disclosure, which will, when it happens, have a profound impact on every area of life; the social, religious, political and economical.

 Source: A.M.M.A.C.H. (Site is down at the time of writing so here's the Google cache).

A noble sentiment to be sure but I fear the alignment with the values & ideals of the players in the 'Exopolitical arena' will, in the long-run, ultimately serve to detract from their own goals.I mean a support network is all well and good but at what cost and more importantly, does the ends justify the means?

A.M.M.A.C.H. - A UK resource

Anyway and for what it's worth I believe it can only be a good thing that by creating a new website (even if it's down at the minute) AMMACH are seen to be distancing themselves from Miles Johnston's earlier work of underground bases and including controversial whistleblowers such as, "Barry –The Voice- King" & "James –MI6- Casbolt" (Michael Prince) and their supposed revelations concerning -what are by anyone's standards- incredibly bizarre allegations. This isn't a criticism of Johnston’s work or even the content contained therein but simply that unverified, unproven and often completely unsubstantiated claims from two of the UK's lesser-spotted UFO personalities shouldn’t be presented using the same platform as that being provided for the counselling of contactees/abductees.

In fact, I'd go as far to say that to call the beliefs of these two characters, "fringe" is unfair to the vast majority of people who hold what could be termed as fringe beliefs, from what I’ve seen it certainly appears that Casbolt has never met a conspiracy theory he didn't like. Currently, and amongst other things, Casbolt claims that SS Nazis are creating 'cyborgized' human babies for use as 'supersoldiers' of the 4th Reich, his batch of programmed babies was intercepted when travelling from a Canadian Nazi SS Base leading to Casbolt turning assassin to terminate one of these 'cyborg-supersoldiers' who had stolen a 'suitcacase nuke'. And King is a walking, talking conspiracy theory, his more recent claims are centred around the creation of programmable generated-life-forms, population control technologies and clandestine experiments involving mind control, all of which are routinely carried out in top secret underground bases in Berkshire.

I shit you not, but sorry, I digress.

I think what I’m trying to say is that the people get the ufology that the people deserve.....

Thursday, 5 April 2012

Whitby Councillor’s Assorted Alien Contacts [audio & video]

I'm sure that by now most of you have seen the online press articles over the last couple of weeks regarding Labour councillor, "Simon Parkes," the furore centres around a set of four YouTube videos in which Parkes details his on-going contact with assorted extraterrestrials. It seems that since Parkes was elected to Whitby Town Council this has become something of an issue, even though the YouTube videos have existed exactly as they are now for almost a year. Or alternatively it could be because apparently Parkes intends to stand for election to the Borough and County council at the earliest opportunity.

Two green stick things came in. I was aware of some movement over my head. I thought, ‘they’re not mummy’s hands, mummy’s hands are pink’. I was looking straight into its face. It enters my mind through my eyes and it sends a message down my optic nerve into my brain. It says ‘I am your real mother, I am your more important mother’.

Whilst I don't necessarily agree with the whole contactee premise, I think it's essentially a belief and one that is held as dearly to the beholder as many a religious belief. So with this in mind I personally don't think it's entirely ethical (morally or otherwise) to allow a personal belief -however outlandish or outrageous- that doesn't hurt anyone and doesn't adversely affect their working life to be used as a determining factor to pre-judge an individual on their suitability for employment, and especially not if it's employment in a position they have filled prior to this with no problems.

Considering Parkes is a public figure then I don't believe for one second he was naïve enough to expect that there would be no backlash for his comments as sooner-or-later some kind of media attention was inevitable, perhaps not nationally like it transpired, but inevitable nonetheless. I won't even guess at his reasons for doing so but I'm sure he believed they were good ones…

Anyway, as already mentioned this all stems from four YouTube videos featuring a very sincere and (dare I say it) endearing Parkes in a personal one-on-one discussion with the host, "Joanne Summerscales". Parkes also shares some of the artwork and notes he has created over the years, artwork which details his extraterrestrial encounters and all of which at times makes the interview interesting if nothing else:

Here's the first YouTube video (of four) and the one I grabbed the above images from:

Simon Parkes discusses his highly detailed and complex contacts with Extra & Interdimensional beings called Mantis, and the Greys and Reptilians. In Part 1 of this highly detailed interview on Mantis Alien contactee Simon Parkes, we discuss the details of his early life with Reptilians, Greys and the Mantis nonhuman extra-dimensional beings.

Is it a massively implausible story containing -what I personally perceive as- factual impossibilities?
Sure, but that goes with the territory.More importantly and the real issue here is there anything contained therein that could affect his ability and/or prevent him from performing work-related tasks?
Not that I could see.....

(Audio from 5Live Breakfast - April 2012)
Scarborough councillor Simon Parkes says a 9ft alien claims to be his mother. Cllr Parkes told 5 live Breakfast that he has been visited hundreds of times by aliens since he was a child.

I get more common sense out of the aliens than out of Scarborough Town Hall. The aliens are far more aware of stuff. People in the Town Hall seem not to be aware of the needs of Whitby. ~ Councillor Simon Parkes

Sunday, 1 April 2012

Berrow Beach IFO? UK UFO, Burnham on Sea - April 1st

Berrow Beach IFO? UK UFO, Burnham on Sea - April 1st

I saw this and for all it was posted on April 1st (today) I don't think it was a purposeful attempt at deception by the website that posted it, however it seems a little strange that the image that shows the most detail was the one that was posted at a much smaller size, here's the article:

Walker appeals for help in solving UFO mystery over Berrow beach
Originally posted on April 1st, 2012

A walker has appealed for help in identifying a mystery object seen hovering in the sky above Berrow beach during the past week.

Beach walker Ken May photographed the circular, black object several hundred metres over the sands near the Berrow beach car park.

"The object hovered silently over the beach high up in the sky for about 20 seconds before rising upwards, quickly moving inland and vanishing from view - it was quite eerie. I've used the beach here for many years and have never seen anything like it. 
I managed to take two quick photos and would be interested to hear from anyone who spotted anything similar in the area on Thursday evening at around 6.30pm."


As soon as I opened it up with graphics software the similarities between the object and a children's toy were striking to say the least. Here's the two objects cleaned up & zoomed in a little:

It reminded me straight away of one of the many propeller style toys that are currently available, well either that or a Frisbee of some description but due to the slightly conical shape of the object in the smaller image then I suspected a toy similar to the following:

Obviously as there are just so many of these and similar shaped toys on the market an exact match isn't always possible, the following is a related image search from Google:

And so whilst I don't necessarily think the toy used in the next example is the exact object that was used it is more than suitable for comparative purposes, here's the toy and the image I used of it:

Here's the toy placed next to the object(s) for a direct comparison with the original image being highlighted in red:

And finally the reason I suspect that the images are so different in structure is that one was taken during the ‘launch’ of the toy (or alternatively the angle it was thrown at) and the other one is a side-on view after the toy had levelled out (or thrown straight across the field of vision) which would also be consistent with the motion blur that is evident. I overlaid the two images and then using the horizon as a guide proceeded to blend the two images and then animated it, I think this helps to understand the point I’m trying to make:

Which when coupled with the object being centred in both shots then it certainly implies that this was a staged event and I believe that when considered along with the witness account is more than enough to warrant a little caution, i.e. "hovered silently over the beach high up in the sky for about 20 seconds before rising upwards, quickly moving inland and vanishing from view"

To be honest, and personally speaking, the only aspect of this report that didn't indicate a hoax was that usually the witness doesn’t offer a name instead preferring to remain anonymous. However, and having said that there’s no reason to accept as an absolute certainty that the name supplied was genuine or even if it is genuine that this is anything other than a pre-emptive April fools prank.

All things considered and without any further information I’m doubtful that the witness account is an honest representation of what occurred.....

Sunday, 25 March 2012

Chile - Multiple UFO Update, New Analysis & Videos Posted

‘Bugs, Birds & Blurfos’ (Oh My…)

Two recent videos, one created and one located, appear to further cast massive doubts on the probability of the Chilean UFOs being anything extraordinary.. Here's a timeline (of sorts) providing a quick recap as well as trying to to place the newest videos into some sort of context:

24th February: Leslie Kean contacts Dr Richard Haines (Narcap) to inform him she was going to ‘break’ the story in the Huffington Post with the help of the CEFAA. (This knowledge was made public on 16th March, see below)

25th February: Gen. Bermúdez gives a lecture at the International UFO Conference revealing this and other CEFAA cases.

5th March: Blogger, “Antonio Huneeus” posts an article titled, “UFO Disclosure Chilean Style” in which he breaks the story and expands on Gen. Bermúdez's  presentation  writing:
“An extraordinary daytime multiple video case showing a clear metallic-looking object during an important Chilean Air Force ceremony in 2010.”


Gen. Bermúdez showed the analysis done by the astronomers from CEFAA’s External Committee of Advisors, which established that the object was not a meteoroid, a comet, reentry of space junk, a bird or an airplane.”

Huneeus also states that he has included –courtesy of CEFAA- three images further adding about each respective image:

  1. Frame from the first video at the FACH Ceremony in El Bosque, Nov. 4, 2010, showing a clear image of the metallic looking object. (Credit: CEFAA).
  2. Frame from the second El Bosque video with the F5s showing the heat signature of both the FACH jets and the UFO. (Credit: CEFAA)
  3. Frame from the third El Bosque video showing the F16s and UFO. The official analysis indicated the speed of the UFO was eighteen times faster than the F16s. (Credit: CEFAA)

And closes with the words of Gen. Bermúdez:
“We have studied this case in different ways. First we gave it to the astronomers, who used their own software; second, we gave the film to the air force specialists (FACH’s Aerial Photogrammetric Service). Third, we did our own internal study; we also asked the opinion of Dr. [Richard] Haines and Bruce Maccabee. Maccabee agreed with our astronomers and Richard [Haines] said that there is an unknown aerial phenomenon.”

March 12th: Huffington Post writer Alejandro Rojas posted an article titled, “Video Baffles Chilean Government” which basically offers nothing new and essentially repeats the information and images from the earlier post .

March 13th: Leslie Kean posts an article co-authored with Ralph Blumenthal (also at the Huffington Post website) titled, “UFO Caught On Tape Over Santiago Air Base” and in which she claims that CEFAA’s analysis resulted in:
“The stunning conclusion: The Chilean jets were being stalked by a UFO.


CEFAA officials collected seven videos of the El Bosque UFO taken from different vantage points. Bermúdez commissioned scientists from many disciplines, aeronautical experts, and air force and army photogrametric technicians to subject the videos to intense scrutiny. They all came to the same conclusions.”


Astronomer Luis Barrera from the Metropolitan University of Sciences in Chile, who has an asteroid named after him, was one of eight highly skeptical scientists who analyzed the footage. He was able to rule out a meteoroid, pieces of meteors or comets, space junk, a bird or an airplane.


15th March: After following the story since I first seen the post I made a Blog post stating that what I was looking at was NO different to similar anomalies I’d seen in the past, i.e. all of them resembling small objects closer to the camera rather that the metres–wide objects which it was being alleged that analysis had showed.(Blog post available here).

16th March: UK Researcher Martin Shough asked Dr Richard Haines (NARCAP) about this event and Haines replies stating that the email may be made public, an excerpt of which follows:
“I managed to open and quantify three of the video files and submitted a confidential summary to CEFAA. This took place soon thereafter. However, it was made clear to me at that time that they (CEFAA) did not want this event to be publicized and so, under the terms of our agreement I just sat on it all. Not even Ted Roe knew of my work.

Time passed.

I recently learned from Leslie Kean that she had contacted CEFAA when she learned that Gen. Bermudez was coming to the USA to give a lecture and that this particular case would be featured. I was quite surprised. For some reason CEFAA had changed its mind.

Leslie K. wrote to me on 24 February 2012 informing me that she was going to break the story on the Huffington Post. Bottom line? My work has not seen the light of day nor been published by me.”

(Source: Email response to Martin Shough posted publicly at UFOUpdates.)

18th March: After personally contacting the astronomer Luis Barrera it transpired that he had never made the statements being attributed to him/his analysis, however he did confirm that he and several others had been analysing the video for over 12 months and had in fact concluded that it was a physical & as yet unidentified object.

I wrote words to this effect in an earlier post which is available here.

19th March: YouTube User HoaxKiller uploaded the following video:

HoaxKiller also wrote:
“After closely examining the videos provided by CEFAA, I have found that the objects pass in front of the hills in the background. I am not sure if they have noticed this, and if they have, I wonder why they didn't highlight it in their videos. The fact that they appear in front of the hills means the objects are fairly close. It also means that I can use the hills to help measure / estimate the maximum size and speed of the objects.

I also noticed what appears to be another object near the ground that is only visible for 3 consecutive frames for 100 milliseconds. That is the exact same speed that the other objects move every three frames. I believe the object is an insect, just like I believe the other objects are insects.”

19th March: Leslie Kean posts an ‘exclusive’ to the research section of her “UFOs On Record” webpage, the entry is post-dated to the 13th March and claims that she and Blumenthal ‘broke’ the story in the Huffington Post (i.e.13th March).

This ‘breaking news’ included is a 34-image slide show with one slide detailing the conclusions of Luis Barrera (in a Flash animation in Spanish) which is what had evidently been the source for earlier quotes by Barrera but as it's a  -Spanish- flash vid  you can't just copy & paste it but here's the clunky (automated) translation cleaned up a bit:


1 - Not a meteoroid or asteroid debris entering the atmosphere.
2 - Not related pieces of Comet entering the atmosphere.
3 - Not space junk (the object has intentional movements).
4 - No plane or bird.
5 - The object made a hazardous flight maneuver against the falcons W-E-W.
6 - The object performs a flight maneuver at low altitude and high speed.
7 - The maneuver has an elliptical path (or loop), and perpendicular to the direction of aircraft flying falcons (S to N).
8 - The object shows light and shadow effects du on its surface, metallic-looking, low-reflection. THE object displays an ellipsoidal shape.
9 - The object shows slight signs of activity at the bottom.
10 - Earth observers fail to detect the object, although it passes over their heads, therefore the maneuver of the object is not accompanied by a sound wave front.
11 - The object moves to the E with an inclination - 25 degrees.

Also included were three downloadable video files of the three videos that had been released so far, these were purported to be “original” but all were sized at 640x480 and only 10 frames per second (fps).

Apart from the obvious problem being that this means they are neither original nor accurate reproductions of the original, 10fps is also a big drop from the standard 24fps, if you want to see the massive difference between these then visit: 10fps

Simply change one of the main animations to 10fps in the box at the top and you will instantly see the difference between what the standard is and what we were supplied with (10fps is bottom image).

I'm not suggesting that the experts analysed a video recorded at 10fps just that rather strangely this is what was made available for download so others could also analyse it, and even stranger was that the video was billed as being the "original". A Facebook user questioned Leslie Kean about this just recently and she was not only dismissive but it seems as if she was purposefully evasive. Or perhaps she just didn’t understand the implications of the question or the problems caused by releasing footage at such a low frame-rate.


March 20th: YouTube Video uploaded by HOAXKiller1 on 20 Mar 2012 that appeared to show one of the objects very near the photographers feet and possibly taking off from the ground just a couple of metres in front of his position:

This was then updated & the assertion reinforced by HoaxKiller with an animated image and then later with a video: 
If you have trouble seeing the bug when it's near the ground then maybe this image will help:

And finally HoaxKiller updated a cropped & zoomed in video which showed beyond doubt that the object did actually originate from a few feet in front of the photographer:

This video is the ANALYSIS that proves the object is a bug. This video is NOT the video that claims it is a UFO.

If you still have trouble seeing it, try this video:


Well, I am pretty sure the video is self explanitory. This video proves that this object was just a flying insect. You will have to watch in HD for best results.

I was able to get my hands on the full version of the video, and using a bit of movement prediction I looked in the areas the bug might be flying from and sure enough there it was, so I highlighted it in the video. I was able to see some of these movements in previous videos but I wasn't certain it was the bug until now. This is much more clear.

I still have no doubts about all the other objects being insects.

23 March 2012: After much searching by myself and others, YouTube user, “StiverInMyPocket(posts on forums as “Stiver”) eventually located some footage from the ceremony that hadn’t been associated in any way with the earlier footage released by the CEFAA via Leslie Kean, the reason the footage and any written accounts of the event were so hard to find was as they are apparently posted exclusively on Spanish speaking websites.


Stiver posted the following comment along with the video:

Uploaded by stiverinmypocket on 23 Mar 2012:

This is a montage of clips from another video of the Air parade at the Air Force Academy in El Bosque in Santiago, 5 Nov, 2010. An article and the original video by William Olave, were found on the Chilean website Aviacion Total (here). 

The article and the video were published on 5 Nov, 2010. The first sentence, translated in English confirms that this is the same event, on the same day, and the same place.

"Friday November 5 at a ceremony led by President Sebastián Piñera and the Minister of Defense Jaime Ravinet, was made the change of command in the Air Force of Chile."

Unfortunately the only footage I was able to locate was of an earlier air-show back in March of 2010, but guess what?

Yep, same insect-like ‘anomalies’ are evident throughout the entirety of the video!!

The two videos I used show the F-22 Raptor and the F-16, both filmed by separate photographers and both were filmed at La Bosque Air Base in March 2010 during an airshow. The anomalies are evident in every piece of footage of both events that I reviewed and the following are just a fraction of the many that are evident:

And finally here are some animations of the ones that are more easily visible without highlighting, they are of course massively slowed down for ease of viewing as they appear on the original footage as little more than flashes:

There is still no official reply from anyone who was involved with releasing the information, Leslie Kean however is occasionally posting updates to her Facebook page. The following were posted yesterday (24th March, 2012):

I understand Kean’s predicament but all of this analysis was performed a while back and would surely have resulted in mountains of paperwork and respective analysis’ so surely it shouldn’t be that hard to locate. Reading her Facebook page it seem as if even her supporters are starting to query the whereabouts of any of the earlier analysis.

NARCAP have confirmed that they performed analysis and concluded that out of the three videos they could access they all contained a physical unidentified object, Maccabee also supported the conclusions of the CEFAA (according to Openminds.TV). Plus CEFAA have had eight sceptical & specialist scientists analyse the footage for over a year and to date we have three 10 second clips (approx.) And as the clips appear to be heavily compressed video released purely for ‘analysis’ then it raises more questions than answers as there are many aspects related to the footage that still haven’t been cleared up and in my opinion these are the most basic and fundamental aspects such as:
  • Were the three videos included in the first -and only- release taken by the same cameraman?
  • Do these videos constitute three of the seven cameras that are supposed to have captured the object?
  • Has the exact same object been verified to have appeared simultaneously on more than one camera or is it presumed to be the same object?
  • If so and if the footage released represents “the best three” then how was this verification accomplished?
  • Can we see the originals in their original format?
  • Why are the released videos labelled as originals and yet have a frame-rate of only 10fps?
  • What type of camera did the footage come from?
  • What was the shutter speed and other settings involved with processing, etc. etc. etc.
Leslie Kean seems very sure of the findings of the experts and I must admit that if I hadn’t seen the footage and was basing an opinion on words & credentials alone then I’d have to agree with her. However as I’ve seen the footage released so far as well as many other independent clips showing almost identical ‘anomalies’ well, unfortunately I have great difficulty sharing her optimism.

Never mind though because as already evidenced Leslie won't let the opinion of a few nobody's asking a couple of questions deter her from her goals regardless of how much evidence is presented to support an opposing theory. Apparently choosing instead to label everyone who thinks it's a bug a, "Debunker" and proceeds to somehow perceive questions about the evidence as an 'insult' to those who have already analysed the footage?!

After debating & discussing the veracity of many UFO reports over the years with witnesses, agnostics, believers, sceptics and debunkers alike I find this kind of response from someone who is currently viewed as one of the more credible & level-headed ufologists a little disconcerting. Surely this kind of knee-jerk, defensive and antagonistic reaction to something as minor as an opposing viewpoint is both counter-productive and wholly unnecessary? I just think it would make more sense to at least attempt to address the concerns or at least have a look at evidence to the contrary and if you think it warrants it then perhaps act as a mediator between those asking the questions and those who performed the analysis.

But just dismissing everyone who proposes an alternative theory (a theory which is demonstrably derived directly from the evidence) is not just self-defeating but is also paradoxical for someone whose work almost exclusively focuses on revealing suppressed truths.

In fact I’ll be honest, the only reason I’ve followed this story so closely is because it has Leslie Kean’s name attached to it and so comes from a reputable journalist who isn’t into sensationalizing UFO stories that don’t (at the very least) warrant closer inspection. This may be why I was unusually disappointed with the data we’ve received so far, don’t get me wrong I didn’t expect to find absolute proof in the videos as unfortunately the UFO phenomenon doesn’t really work like that.

I did, however, expect a finished report of some description and especially when considering the sources are essentially CEFAA and Kean, both of whom are deemed as being reputable and credible within the ufological community, and to be honest I still don’t think this was an unrealistic expectation.
Anyway and for what it’s worth I’m hoping to be proved 100% wrong on this and I’m genuinely looking forward to seeing any kind of analysis that can refute the bug theory. Mainly because the way I see it is that the bug theory is THE theory that demands to be satisfactorily disproved by something more than an ‘appeal to authority’ before this case can really progress.

Perhaps then it can become a benchmark-case for all the right reasons?

So at the minute we have:
  • A video analysis that shows one of the objects taking off from the ground or at the very least -due to it being visible above the surface of the road- proves that it was considerably smaller than originally estimated.
  • A video from a completely independent cameraman who was at the same event but in a completely different location who also recorded many more of these or remarkably similar objects.
  • The video even captures an object in roughly the same place at the same time as one of the objects in the CEFAA footage but rather than authenticating the earlier footage instead it travels in completely the opposite direction thus invalidating the claim that (regardless of what it was) it was the same object being witnessed on multiple occasions.
  • Several videos (YouTube) from an air-show at the same airbase a few months earlier which show objects with very similar characteristics to those that remained unexplained after analysis.
Only time will tell I guess but whilst the fat lady may not be singing just yet, from where I'm sitting I'm sure I can hear her humming and she's starting to tap her foot.....