UFO Conjecture(s)

Friday, January 28, 2011

A UFO creature report (and the Templeton "spaceman")

As an habitue of Huntsville, Canada, this account of a UFO and its attendant “creature” resonates with me.

utterson2.jpg

Robert Suffern (28 years old at the time), with his family, saw a UFO that disembarked a creature.

Mr. Suffern had received a call form his sister who thought she saw a barn on fire. Robert went to check it out and ended up seeing a UFO and a creature.

The UFO was described thusly:

Then I saw the ship in the centre of the road. It was the colour of the dull side of aluminum foil wrap and the surface was irregular and crinkled. I could not hear any sound other than the motor of my car. I only saw it momentarily and then it went straight up at a fast speed and disappeared. There were no lights.

uttersonufo.jpg

And then he saw a creature, and described it this way:

...I started for home, turned onto the Three Mile Lake Road and then I saw the thing on the side of the road. He was on the grass shoulder of the road and was about to cross from myright to my left. It suddenly pivoted and turned towards the pasture and vaulted over the fence and out of sight. It appeared to be short and had very broad shoulders which seemed to be out of proportion. The movements were similar to an ape or a midget, but it was very agile. It reached up with its hands, grabbed the fence, post and vaulted over with no effort. The head portion was covered in a globe and I could not detect any mask or face portion. The suit was a silver colour and one piece—the globe was a contrasting white or light colour.

utterson.jpg

What’s fascinating to me is how similar the drawing of the Utterson creature is to the Solway Firth “spaceman.”

Setting aside the estimated, disparate height of Suffern’s creature, note the stance in the drawing, which didn’t derive from Mr. Suffern as far as I can tell, but whomever provided the drawing or suggestions for the drawing either had access to the Templeton photo of 1965 or received a description that surely mimics the Solway Firth being.

Even without a Solway Firth connection, this sighting is interesting, and Richard Hall also found it so:

“October 7, 1975 Utterson, Ontario, Canada 8:30 P.M. One small, stocky humanoid, round helmet, from metallic ellipse on road; UFO took off as car approached, being beside road vaulted fence and fled.” [From Mr. Hall’s category of humanoid creature reports.]

Such creature sightings do not happen nowadays, and that’s something which should be addressed by “ufologists.”

3 Comments:

  • Part 1 of 2:

    Yes, I would agree that this is a very strange alleged CE III account, particularly due to the supposed contact with Suffern by three "government officials" about one to two months after the original incident, which raises a whole host of other questions and makes the case rather more dubious.

    See: http://tinyurl.com/4jo35h8

    The tinyurl link above goes to a compilation of newspaper and book accounts of the Suffern incident.

    Excerpt:

    "The following year, during a lengthy interview with Harry Tokarz of the Canadian UFO Research Network (CUFORN), Suffern disclosed that two months after the encounter, on December 12, he and his wife were visited by three officials, who arrived in an O.P.P. (Ontario Provincial Police) car by pre-arranged appointment. The three men, in full uniform, bore impressive credentials from the Canadian Forces in Ottawa, the US Air Force, Pentagon, and the US Office of Naval Intelligence.

    "The officials allegedly showed Suffern a number of gun-camera photographs and other data on UFOs, and implied that the United States and Canadian Governments had known all about UFOs since 1943 supposedly as a result of a US Navy experiment involving radar invisibility - the so-called Philadelphia Experiment. They stated that they had been co-operating with the Aliens ever since that time. They said the incident witnessed by Suffern was "a mistake", claiming that a malfunction in the craft had brought it down. Furthermore, the officials knew the precise time of the landing, which had not been revealed to anyone at that time.

    "The Sufferns were also impressed by the fact that the three officials answered all their questions unhesitatingly and authoritatively, and insisted that the men were legitimate government agents whose identities could be proven. Suffern was unwilling to disclose further details, however, preferring to comply with the governments' desire for secrecy."

    Desire for secrecy? Then why would such alleged "government officials" even discuss what Suffern alleged? Why would there have been any need for such "officials" to disclose alleged contact and cooperation with aliens since 1943? Why show "gun camera" photos and other data about such UFO contact? Then there is the "ringer"--the "Philadelphia Experiment."

    Dr. Jacques Vallee, IMHO, pretty well discredited that particular hoax, although some have vehemently disagreed, and still think it actually occurred, without any real documentation or evidence beyond suspect anecdotal accounts.

    See: http://tinyurl.com/crqsjk
    and http://tinyurl.com/zgk4v (wiki)

    The "Philadelphia Incident" originally derived from Carl M. Allen (aka "Carlos Allende," a known, long-time hoaxer and provocateur), via Morris K. Jessup. It really is a fabrication, and has nothing to do with UFOs. per se. Read Vallee's SSE paper to judge for yourself.

    By Blogger steve sawyer, at Friday, January 28, 2011  

  • Part 2 of 2:

    On the same website page as the first link above shows, there is another account written by Jerome Clark about the Suffern case (and note the discrepancy between 1 month and 2 months as to how long after the incident the "government" contact occurred, an additional account of Suffern and family going through medical exams by "military doctors," and no mention of the Philadelphia Experiment):

    "A year later, however, Suffern and his wife told a Canadian investigator that a month after the encounter, they were informed that some high-ranking officials wished to speak with them. Around this time, so they claimed, they were given thorough examinations by military doctors. After that an appointment was set up for December 12 and on that day an Ontario Provincial Police cruiser arrived with three military officers, one Canadian, two American. They were carrying books and other documents. In the long conversation that followed, the officers apologized for the UFO landing, claiming it was a "mistake" caused by the malfunctioning of an extraterrestrial spaceship.

    "The officers produced close-up pictures of UFOs, claiming that the U.S. and Canadian governments had had intimate knowledge of aliens since 1943 and were cooperating with them. The officers even knew the exact dates and times of two previous but unreported UFO sightings on the Suffern property. The Sufferns said the officers had answered all their questions fully and frankly, but they would not elaborate on what they were told. Reinterviewed about the matter some months later, the couple stuck by their story but added few further details."

    So, we have allegations of a CE III involving a small figure in a silvery suit with a helmet easily vaulting over a fence after Suffern nearly ran him over, medical exams from supposed military doctors, a visit by "government officials" somewhere between 1 to 2 months after the initial incident (why the delay?), and alleged references to the Philadelphia experiment, which was a hoax with a book first published about it by Belitz and Moore alleging its legitimacy a four years after Suffern's report, etc., etc.

    Does anyone find anything wrong with this picture? And, other than a quite vague similarity to the Solway figure, how are the two cases in any way truly related or relevant?

    Who, if they even really existed, were these three "Men in Blue"? I doubt very much if they were who they told Suffern they were. Why wouldn't Suffern, even after disclosing highly provocative details of the alleged visit, then supposedly say little more in the bogus interests of government requested "secrecy"? Does any of this make sense? Perhaps Suffern did have a CE III. Maybe the "government officials" were bogus, and intended to discredit the case with their alleged affiliation with government and false data, which they could have presumed would at some point be reported and have a disinformational effect on the report CE III case.

    [BTW, Suffern was 27, not 28, at the time of the alleged incident.]

    Another issue: Where is Suffern and wife today, and have they ever been interviewed again in the subsequent 35 years since the reported incident, and if so, what do they say today? See also an article by the original Canadian UFO researcher, Harry Tokarz, about UFO witnesses and their subsequent troubles, which discusses the Suffern incident:

    http://tinyurl.com/4t6z42h

    By Blogger steve sawyer, at Friday, January 28, 2011  

  • Nice exegesis of the Suffern episode Steve.

    But, for me, it's the similarities amongst UFO incidents that strike a chord -- whether those similarities stem from UFO episodes that are real of hoaxed.

    Bruce Duensing deals with the apparent or hypothesized connections in paranormal events, including UFOs.

    I think he's on to something.

    While one can appreciate the details of an account such as that at Utterson, I'm looking for like minutiae that shows up in other events, real or concocted.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, January 29, 2011  

Post a Comment

<< Home