The UFOs That Never Were

by Jenny Randles

In this ground-breaking book, three noted ufo-logical investigators uncover the truth about famous UFO sightings and prove them to be genuine mistakes, fakes and false identifications. The chapters read like true life crimes cases as the authors faithfully report the facts of the case, probe all aspects of it, interview witnesses, examine all possible explanations and come to a conclusion--which may be more remarkable than a true UFO sighting.

Genres: Nonfiction

Hardcover

First published April 4, 2000

About the author

British author and former director of investigations with the British UFO Research Association (BUFORA), serving in that role from 1982 through to 1994.

Randles specializes in writing books on UFOs and paranormal phenomena. To date 50 of these have been published, ranging from her first UFOs: A British Viewpoint (1979) to Breaking the Time Barrier: The race to build the first time machine (2005). Subjects covered include crop circles, ESP, life after death, time anomalies and spontaneous human combustion.

Reviews

[Gary Davis · Rating 4 out of 5]

As always, Jenny Randles reveals a good, hard, no-nonsense approach. She is one of only a handful of UFO believers that I trust to be honest (another is Jacques Vallee).
This book does a tremendous job of looking at some accounts that were -- and in some cases, still are -- regarded as 'Convincing Evidence'.
She reveals many facts about the cases under review, saving the best till last: the Rendlesham Forest Incidents. Her explanation of what occurred is highly persuasive. Remember, too, that this case -- "Britain's Roswell" -- was a case about which she wrote three books, so she was invested in this.
Her debunking of it must have hurt her, as she was initially convinced of its veracity.

All told, WELL worth a read! It would be good if it were updated, and also made available on Kindle.

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

THREE UFOLOGISTS IDENTIFY A NUMBER OF CASES THAT ARE NOW ‘IDENTIFIED’

Authors Jenny Randles, David Clarke, and Andy Roberts wrote in the Introduction to this 2000 book, “this is not a book that attempts to disprove the existence of UFOs. All three of its authors are long-term, dedicated UFOlogists who on some level DO believe there are unsolved cases that may offer new knowledge… We do not agree on every aspect of the subject, although we are all very skeptical of alien theories. But we are positively not debunkers out to shoot down every case in sight. If an incident appears unexplained---and some of them… most certainly do---we are more than happy to stand up and say so.

“Nevertheless, as UFO researchers with a collective experience of some 75 years… we have recognized some rules of the game… The most fundamental rule of all is this: the majority of UFO sightings … are not UFO encounters at all. They are what we call IFOs---Identified Flying Objects… Few serious UFOlogists dispute the figure that about 95 per cent of all reported UFO sightings turn out to be IFOs… UFOlogists … often consider it a failure to have found an explanation because mentally they are geared-up to seek out proof of aliens. Witnesses only rarely want an answer, because they may wrongly assume that to find one infers either dishonesty or stupidity on their part. It frequently presumes neither. The best IFO cases would fool anyone in the world…

“This book is not written with any great pretensions in mind. It is not aimed to demolish UFOs, or to disprove that something strange never happens,… To be unidentified is not to be insoluble… In fact, the cases that remain unexplained may do so temporarily until someone finds the key to unlock the answer. In this book we present some solved cases that were regarded as impressive and unidentified for decades… The failures… are the cases left unresolved. For they are not proof of UFO reality. Potentially, all are open to explanation at some point in the future.” (Pg. 9-12)

Of the ‘calfnapping airship hoax’ of 1897 (recounted by farmer Alexander Hamilton), they report, “The airship was deflated when UFOlogist Jerome Clark… decided to trace Hamilton’s relatives…. [They] were aware that the whole episode had been concocted by him and Ed Hudson, then editor of the ‘Farmer’s Advocate,’ ‘following a Saturday afternoon pow-wow. ‘… Another old lady… [said] that a number of local men had formed a club which they called … ‘Liar’s Club.’ They would get together to see which one could tell the biggest story … the club soon broke up after the ‘airship and cow’ story.” (Pg. 23)

They report another sighting, where “a prosaic explanation for this seemingly inexplicable sighting was forthcoming [it was two planes in an in-flight refueling exercise]… This underlines the fact that it is very difficult for people with little or no experience of observing aircraft at night to judge height and distance of lights in the sky… In the face of such misperception, how can any UFO report be taken at face value, particularly if it has not been subject to an immediate series of checks with local airports and weather stations?” (Pg. 87-88)

They note, “Bolide meteors are common phenomena and sightings of blazing fireballs crashing to earth have frequently triggered outbreaks of reports … describing UFOs and ‘crashing aircraft.’ A bright fireball meteor has been invoked by science writer Ian Ridpath as the initial trigger for the scare which swept RAF Woodbridge… [in] 1980.” (Pg. 121)

They say of crop circles, “Frantic efforts by BUFORA… to bring sanity to the debate were lost as circle research groups, magazines, and conventions sprang up. Many farmers got angry at the trespassing and damage to their fields. Others judiciously faked circles and charged entrance fees, realizing more could be made this way than by selling their wheat!” (Pg. 150)

Of the Rendlesham case, they report that “every feature can be explained in mundane terms, although often through an unusual combination of circumstances that chanced to come together that weekend… Is it possible that the world’s greatest UFO mystery requires nothing more to explain it than a lighthouse, a few rabbits, and some stars and meteors? Disturbing as it may seem, the answer has to be ‘Yes.’” (Pg. 176-177) Later, they add, “The police thought the holes were made by rabbits. So did local foresters… The score marks on the trees… were put there by [foresters’] own axes to indicate trees next due to be felled.” (Pg. 198)

Later, they add, “There is no question that some major elements in the case can essentially be blamed upon mundane phenomena. The Orford Ness lighthouse does seem to have been witnessed on both nights, despite claims to the contrary. I find it hard not to believe the lights in the northern sky seen by Halt were probably stars. The very first object that fell into the forest … appears to match the meteor seen at 2:50 am.” (Pg. 219-220)

Of the 1991 wave of sightings in Mexico City that were photographed and videotaped, they point out, “Given the alleged presence above one of the world’s busiest cities of huge craft of extraordinary appearance---passing in the middle of the day---it is inconceivable that many people would not have seen it. The total absence of any such witnesses has to make this footage highly suspect. The film appears to have been taken from a building adjacent to a video production facility.” (Pg. 197)

Of the so-called ‘alien autopsy’ film, they comment, “This case began with a dubious pedigree and has steadily declined… The footage has always been suspect to UFOlogists because of its inconsistency with the Roswell case. To date, little hard evidence has been provided by independent analysis that comes close to establishing it as an authentic film of a 1947 autopsy. [Ray] Santilli has issued riders for use on video sales that say he believes it real, but cannot prove it to be so. The admission that the first images to appear (the tent footage) are a hoax must make anyone doubt the sense of regarding this case as proof of aliens in the absence of a lot more evidence.” (Pg. 207)

This book will be of great interest to open-minded UFOlogists, as well as skeptics.