I have talked to alleged "contactees" as well as abductees (though showing how silly it gets some prefer to be called "experiencers" or any number of other names for various reasons) and I have spoken to those who have had odd experiences that seem to conform to what are called part of the alien abduction event.
I have even examined one percipient, Mrs G., who was red on just one side of her body yet normal pale skinned on the other side, following strange night time events.
I have spoken to and even accompanied one woman who had a life time of strange experiences on a night watch. Both of us sat in a deserted park play area ~nothing appeared. This woman had experiences from a teenager onward. She had been ridiculed and found me to be the only one willing to listen, ask serious questions and not dismiss her as a "nut" ~in the late 1970s/early 1980s that was still UK Ufology's response to these claims. This witness, Mrs C., was in the passenger seat of a car driven by her husband, in 1978, when a large headed type entity appeared in front of the windscreen of the car. So clear that Mrs C. could make a detailed drawing later. But at the time she looked at her husband who claimed to have seen nothing other than his wife look at him oddly. She was not looking dazed, sleepy or staring ~just looked normal. All time accounted for so no "abduction"
Aliens? Psychological? You only find out via investigation. For all i know these two ladies are still percipients in events. Though both felt they could talk freely to me, they were being called names and facing some hostile comments from "respected Ufologists" and one eventually turned to the Church while the other just broke off contact.
I coined a term "UFO Time Lapse" ~though in some cases no object was sighted but all the details seemed very similar to those in cases where objects were sighted. I asked BUFORA to adopt this term in the late 1970s (1978 I believe) since there was, as I pointed out, a good few of these events being reported. No. Norman Oliver seemed the only Ufologist interested in the term being applied!
When, in the late 1970s, I took over as head of Research and Investigation for the British Flying Saucer Bureau (f. 1953) it also led to my eventually reviving and updating the old Flying Saucer News to The UFO News Bulletin. I found that Contactee George Adamski was still help up as a credible percipient in alien contacts. About as credible as Arthur Bryant in my opinion back then. But I discussed Alien entity cases and the look of horror on some faces!
There was a case that I later made the cover item ~I took time to draw and re~create the scene as described by the percipient. Handed the magazine in to be printed and a week later got my copy: the cover had been removed by BFSB Committee "order" and replaced with a photocopy of the BFSB symbol. I was not told about this and when it happened a second time I quit. No more publication because no one else had the skills to produce it.
When I asked about old cases I knew the BFSB had "looked into" the files were suddenly "Somewhere. Not sure where" for about five years. The BFSB did not want its 'reputation' to be tainted by this silly stuff.
The final straw came after a talk I gave on Close encounters of the Third Kind at a BFSB meeting was interrupted several times as it was pointed out that, "unlike Adamski these persons have furnished no proof" and "But we know from what Adamski told us~~" I quit the BFSB!
Ufologists over and over again ad nauseum talk about non existent "Ministry" cover ups or "suppression of cases by government bodies" yet have done exactly the same since the very first days of flying saucer 'investigation'.
Major (Retd) Donald E. Keyhoe's National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomenon (NICAP) ridiculed or explained away AE cases. The list goes on and even James and Coral lorensens Aerial Phenomena Research Organization (APRO) obfuscated some cases. In the UK I found only Norman Oliver to be seriously interested in the investigation of these reports.
After Budd Hopkins and the whole missing time furore we have "Greys" everywhere but it took until the mid 1980s before the UK latched on and then it was hip and cool to follow this trend. The UK suddenly had Greys seeping out of the woodwork. Anything or case before 1987 became a "screen image" by the Greys. It was Greys. All Greys. Then Insectoids...and Reptileans..and hybrids and...blah blah blah.
Back in the 1970s I had an idea, Lord (Brinsley) Clancarty and even Sir Victor Goddard thought it had merit. I knew people involved in all sorts of radio work and some had detected odd signals not identified at that time. I had even sat in cars at 0300 hrs as mobile radios were tuned in to scan certain frequencies. So why not get a network in the UK listening for unusual signals or even sending out "message" signals into the ether? The network could be built on as it went along but we would have an unofficial CETI (Communications with Extra Terrestrial Intelligence) project that could concentrate on certain known anomalies. Then I was told "no". It seems that certain people high up in astronomical circles thought it was "deplorable" that a "bunch of amateurs" do this type of thing. Back then, if "Sir" whoever objected the Old Boys Network swung into action.
There was a funny side to this. Apparently, someone had complained that I was "Like bloody Quatermass!" (the UK TV sci fi horror series of the 1950s). On a train journey to get to RAF Brize Norton in the 1980s I was going through papers when a group of airmen got into my carriage. They noticed the UFO material but didn't say much. At the next station a Group Captain I had met before and he looked at me and then at the younger men: "Watch yourselves, Professor Quatermass is here!" he said loudly. The airmen had no idea. However on a few other occasions I was referred to in a joking fashion as "Old Quatermass".
I have hefty files on AE/CE 3K accounts from around the world and they were scoured long ago for any non humanoid cases that seemed to have credibility. few did. Some were outright hoaxes or explained in other ways ~which original sources, such as Flying Saucer review, knew were hoaxes yet promoted over the years as genuine. Even the 1958 "Scottish Landing" turns out to be a hoax by FSR or one of its associates yet is still cited as genuine to this day.
SETI and those "in the know", always said any aliens would not look like humans. Would look anything but human. But in the last decade or so many now say the humanoid form may be some kind of galactic standard form. Which is why I never gave up looking at any reports and found a few of great interest. However, one case that had high strangeness and involved an AE type not recorded before or since took place in 1973. And it was dealt with by the Allen Hynek created Centre for UFO Studies (CUFOS). Pay dirt ~this elite organisation was on the spot. Except, as I found out a few years back, the report was not investigated because no one could be bothered. Seriously.
And when cases crop up or are thoroughly investigated do Ufologists join together to look for more information in a scientific way ~ie. do they look for back up information both pro and con a case? Only when you look at all possible explanations and exclude them do you have a case worthy of note. But, no, it's name calling, back~stabbing, even lying from one Ufologist to another and often a percipient is stuck in the middle of this. "This testimony does not conform with what Budd Hopkins or Dr Jacobs ascertained so its a fake!"
Ufology as a whole is not scientific. And every year since 1998 (?) we have heard from the same old same old media faces that "Full disclosure will take place this year/next year!" Still waiting. Ufologists need to practice full disclosure of how they mess things up ~not all of them because there are credible investigators out there~ and base things on personal bias rather than based on facts.
Since 1975 I have been looking at AE/CE3K reports and I will continue to do so, yes, even keeping an eye on current abduction work, because that is how you come up with a seemingly genuine report. One to build on. One that may prove the earth has had the occasional extra terrestrial visitor and that is what science needs. A case it can dig into.
I have a mind. I want to find things out. The weirder or stranger the claim the better because that makes my mind work and, you never know, one day.....