Form: Commentary
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 14:51:37 -0500
From: Mike Swords
Subject:: Where Have All the Close Encounter II's Gone?
To: A-Team

My opinions on the (relative) disappearance of CE2 (relatively information-rich) cases at the end of the 1970’s are a) simple (“they did”) and b) not proven.  Because of the latter, I’d like to list the steps that led to the former.


A.                Mark Rodeghier, in the 90’s, was regularly saying that he thought that the overt UFO phenomenon was going away; part of that resonated with me & part didn’t. Over time, I mentioned to him that it felt to me that (with the exception of abduction cases) it was close encounters that were (largely) gone, but distant sightings remained.  Then Mark’s following of the Canadian statistics (of Chris Rutkowski) indicated that maybe that was true, as Chris felt that he was in a flap but that CE’s were rare. Mark has since written about this, and has kept track closer than I. He would be a good source of opinion on this.  (That article text is in Vol. 30, No. 4 of the IUR. Mark gave us permission to use it. - Fran).


B.                 Occasionally, I, by happenstance rather than design, run across data which seems to be in synch with this. Keith Basterfield published a handful of Aussie case catalogs & I decided to graph them. His general case catalog was only for South Australia, while his topical catalogs were for All Australia, but I thought I’d graph them together anyway, as the general S. Aus.#’s show that flaps still go through the roof in the 90’s while CE2’s stay dead. The heyday of Aussie CE2t’s and CE2e’s was from 66-to-80 (very slightly shifted later than the U.S. – same possibly true for Europe), but then they go into the night.


C.                 Marks own E-M catalog tells of the story also. 1957 is a strong stunning “blade” of CE2’s sheathed in “normal” cases. From 64-78 CE2’s salt the months of the years fairly regularly (similarly to the Aussies). The catalog ends in ’79, but Mark has been alert to CE2’s since and says that they have almost entirely disappeared (ask him about this). Rodeghier_Graph1 *

D.                I ran across a “magnetics & compasses” case list on the internet and decided to graph it * --- same result --- cases in the ‘50’s, heyday in 60’s & 70’s, then down the chute.


E.                 Keith Roberts put out his # crunching on his Tasmanian cases (another database that Mark was watching closely) and noted that general close encounters dropped off the table at the end of the 1970’s.


F.                  When Brain Boldman published his angel hair results in 2001, his graph showed a heyday in the mid/late 1050’s hanging on occasionally into the late 1970’s and then out of there.


G.                 When I graphed (super crudely) my “favorite” cases --- not all CE2’s --- I was a little surprised to see the healthy concentration of cases in most years drop to essentially none from c. late 1970’s on.


            I’m not “going to court” on this, but it seems that the UFO phenomenon changed, <I have to believe that it was purposeful. I have no good reason to assert this, but I “feel” that the same thing goes with “traces”, such that old-fashioned\believable traces are rare, replaced by crop-circle-style hoaxers.>


            What could the purpose be? I’m not fool enough to pretend that I know anything about that. I’ll just remark “foolishly” that:


(i)      when CUFOS geared up to apply high-tech labs to study CE2’s (esp. traces), almost none showed up to be tested.


(ii)    When France & Australia got organized enough to be able to test a bunch (slightly later), they went away there, too (slightly later). GEPAN got only Trans-en Provence and Amaranth in several years despite traces being fairly common previously;


(iii)   Missing Time showed up in 1981, & CE4’s avalanched. All other UFOlogy (except Roswell, loudly, and FOIA, quietly) went in the tank.

            What of that is legitimate or in any way connected, I don’t know. Still, it gives one pause.


            Fran, if you’re interested in this (a slippery business), ask Mark about it. He’ll have as much (at least) to say about it as I do.



P.S. I’m not claiming that there’s anything “climactic” about 1978. These guys (up there) never do anything with a sharp pattern (that’s a main tool in their confusion box). But ’78 seems as good a moment as any to note the phenomenological turnover.
 * Graphs made by Mike Swords were remade by Jean Waskiewicz