Ted Phillips on UFO Physical Trace Research.

Physical trace reports were labeled Close Encounters of the Second Kind (CE-II) by J.Allen Hynek and involve instances where there was a physical interaction between the UFO and its environment. Usually these involve a landing trace, such as depressed grass or soil, but also burned or broken vegetation, residues, and more exotic traces. There are at least somewhere between 3,500 and 5,000 UFO physical trace cases.

Great presentation by Ted Phillips, probably one of the most notable researchers when it comes to the UFO subject and physical trace evidence. He discusses his work with Dr J Allen Hynek, Dr Jaques Vallee, Dr Peter Sturrock etc.. as well as commenting on UFO presentations given to the United Nations General Assembly and the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.

He also makes some intriguing comments about new UFO research projects with the involvement of "one of the most recognized figures in motion pictures" as well as going into detail about individual UFO cases and his work with CUFOS.

Ted Phillips is the Director of The Center for Physical Trace Research (CPTR). The Special Investigations Unit of the CPTR investigates active UFO sites. The team posts investigative logs along with images and video obtained during site visits in the field. The teams primary purpose is to insert itself into an area of developing activity while the site is still fresh. The SIU has five highly qualified researchers and has the only dive team in the U.S. geared toward the investigation of USOs and similar anomalies.

Our speaker, Ted Phillips, is an engineer, as well as a professional photographer and musician. He participated in the Vanguard Satellite Tracking Program and was a field engineer on the Minuteman Missile Project. He began investigating UFO reports in 1964 and was a research associate of Dr. J. Allen Hyneks from 1968 until Dr. Hyneks death in 1986. It was at Allen Hyneks suggestion that he began specializing in physical trace research of UFO sightings forty years ago. Phillips has personally investigated hundreds of UFO cases and his files contain 3,189 physical landing traces from 91 countries.

Phillips participated in the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Aerospace Sciences meetings, along with Dr. Hynek, Jacque Vallee and Dr. David Saunders. He was a member of a select team invited to meet with the United Nations secretary-General at the U.N., along with Dr. Hynek, Dr. Vallee and astronaut Gordon Cooper. Phillips gave two presentations at the First International UFO Congress. Ted made a presentation at the first MUFON Symposium and at several others, including the 2006 Symposium. He has appeared on national television in numerous documentaries including In Search Of, NBC News White Papers, CBS News Special reports and the documentary movie, UFOs Are Real. Most recently, he was featured in Alien Encounters, a documentary on the History Channel.

Phillips current research projects include active UFO sites in the central U.S. and a major project in the Tatra Mountains of Slovakia. He will be briefing us on his latest research and some of his most fascinating previous cases.

Physical Traces Associated with UFO Sightings, A Preliminary Catalogue - Ted Phillips

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

Clip from the 1979 UFO documentary 'UFOs Are Real".

KINDS OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE After some sightings, indications of the presence of something most unusual have been found.


1. PHYSICAL traces. Compressed and dehydrated vegetation, broken tree branches, and imprints in the ground have all been reported. Sometimes a soil sample taken from an area where a UFO had been close to the ground will be determined by laboratory analysis to have undergone heating or other changes not present in the control sample. CUFOS has a computer file of over 5600 such cases.


2. Vehicle interference cases. Sometimes referred to as E-M (Electro-Magnetic) cases, the UFO appears to cause a number of effects on automobile ignition systems. CUFOS has a computer catalog of over 500 such cases.


3. Physiological effects. Medical verification of burns, eye inflammation or temporary blindness, or other physiological effects attributed to encounters with UFOs, even healings of previous conditions, can also constitute evidence, especially when no other obvious cause for the effect can be found by the medical examiner.


4. Radarscope photos. A series of photographs of a radar screen on which a "blip" of a UFO appears is a powerful adjunct to a visual sighting because it provides quantitative evidence of the UFO's motions and velocity.


5. Photographs and videos. While it might seem that photographs would constitute the best evidence for UFOs, this has not been the case. Hoaxes are common but can usually be exposed quite easily, but even those photos which pass the test of microscopic analysis and/or computer enhancement often show no more than an object of unknown nature and frequently out of focus. For proper analysis of a photo it is necessary that the original negative be available and the photographer, witnesses, and circumstances under which the photograph was taken be known.

Relevant ATS threads:

Three of The Best UFO Trace Cases

Evidence at UFO landings....have a look!

UFOs leave physical traces

reply to post by karl 12


Ted Phillips is one of the more trusted researchers out there. He actually has been to most of the places and interviewed the witnesses. Many of these cases get shoved aside by the debunkers and the witnesses are always called unreliable.

Thank you for sharing that video.

reply to post by kidflash2008


Kidflash, thanks for the reply matey- it does appear that Ted Phillips is a very well respected chap within UFO research and has inspired a lot of other people along the way - Carl Feindt commends a lot of his work in this thread and there's a good radio interview with him here where he talks about the history of physical trace research and the importance for researchers to specialize in their own field.

I realise there are many debunkers who like to wilfully ignore aspects of the UFO subject like ground trace evidence or electromagnetic interference effects but I think Ted makes a good point in this statement taken from 1999:

"After 30 years of research it is obvious that UFO traces represent the most direct approach to resolving the UFO mystery. When multiple witnesses observe an object on the ground, less than 50 feet away with no engines, no wings, no visible means of propulsion, they have, with their observation, eliminated many natural or conventional explanations.
When they leave traces behind, we have something tangible to examine long after the object is gone. I believe the data indicates constructed machines under some sort of intelligent control which can interact with their surroundings in a very physical way. What these machines are or where they might originate are open questions. These questions simply cannot be answered by ignoring the facts".

Ted Phillips

Link

Cheers.

I like Ted. He leans the wrong way in my opinion some times, but overall his heart is in the right place.

Unfortunately, "trace physical evidence" is always so meaningless that is really doesn't open this subject up much...anymore than an eyewitness account. Now, I will give you that an eyewitness account combined with trace physical evidence carries more weight......but then again it hasn't blown this subject wide open yet....I wonder why? I guess that is because some of it is very suspect at best, and of course suspect evidence is what makes this subject the laughable joke that we all work very hard as a community to keep that way.

The real problem here, is let's say UFO's are real and there is a sighting of one landing by multiple witnesses backed up by the typical presented physical evidence, such as moisture content of the soil, unusual depressions, hydrophilic properties (or whatever, lol)...I could walk that same investigator onto any one of my properties and point to an area where I claim a UFO landed, and I bet he would be able to run tests that pull up something "unusual". Kind of like staring at moon photos and claiming to see mining operations, or animals on Mars.

In some people's minds this trace evidence stuff confirms their beliefs or desires, in other people's minds it is another example of the problems with Ufology....but in either case, in realty it amounts to a hill of beans.

Now, I would except a dead alien as trace evidence of a UFO landing, lol.

reply to post by IgnoreTheFacts


Ted Phillips seems like a sincere man, he's low on my UFO nut-scale which is refreshing What he says about placing his people around UFO hotspots is a great idea. Does anyone have any news on CPTR? their website has been removed.

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
. Now, I will give you that an eyewitness account combined with trace physical evidence carries more weight......

Ted says he ONLY investigates trace cases that are accompanied by/preceded by an eyewitness account that directly relates to the trace evidence found...

Thanks for the replies - Ted Phillip's CPTR website has been moved to this address and there's some pretty bizarre reports in the 'cases of high strangeness' section - there's also a summary of ongoing investigations.


Other Links:


Physical Evidence


A Catalogue of Australian Physical Trace Cases


House Committee on Science and Astronautics - Dr James E. Mcdonald


Cheers.

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

Originally posted by Toxicsurf
Ted says he ONLY investigates trace cases that are accompanied by/preceded by an eyewitness account that directly relates to the trace evidence found...

Toxicsurf, good point -I don't know if Ted's ever looked into this case but its certainly a very interesting one:

documentary: the west lothian question

Cheers.

reply to post by karl 12


Ted Phillips loves to boast in documentaries about his association with Hynek and about the results of his research into landing traces. I challenge Ted and anyone here to show his "evidence" that can stand scrutiny and not be explained prosaicly. Ted is gullible not only to his own b.s. to anyone who thinks he's the cat's meow not realizing that Ted is all talk. He would probably should take up finding evidence of Bigfoot!

reply to post by The Shrike


The Betty and Barney Hill Case:

1. Two credible eyewitnesses who drew what the craft looked like and the occupants inside (before any hypnosis).

2. Radar confirmation of an unknown object by Pease AFB in the area and time of the Hill sighting.

3. Physical traces noted by many family and friends on the car of the Hills.

4. Torn dress, scuffed shoes and a pink organic substance left on Betty's dress.

5. Symptoms of a traumatic experience by both the Hills.

I would call one of the above a coincidence; two or more of the above and there is a case that needs to be taken seriously. People have been sent to the death chamber on less than the evidence available in the Hill case. I do not need to state the star map to make the case as there is much to support it.

There are many other cases that cannot be explained by anything else other than an otherworldly craft. When you have experienced air force and commercial pilots describing metallic disks that can travel at top speeds while making sharp right turns and then stopping on a dime, there is something out there.

These cases continually get ignored by the debunkers. While I also want to see an alien, these cases are enough to show me there is visitation of the Earth by extraterrestrials. But it will never be enough to even open some minds to the possibility.

It does not help the cause of ufology when there are many hoaxes and frauds out there (like there is in most areas), but there are serious investigators who are looking into this field.

Originally posted by kidflash2008
reply to post by The Shrike

 

The Betty and Barney Hill Case:

1. Two credible eyewitnesses who drew what the craft looked like and the occupants inside (before any hypnosis).

The Shrike (hereinafter TS - no, not for Tough S..t!: "I've been familiar with Hill case since it appeared in the news way back when. Additionally, I spent 1-1/2 years (1958-59) stationed at Pease Air Force Base, Portsmouth, NH. Research will show you that Betty Hill was extremely familiar with UFOs and belonged to at least one group and was active in then-UFOlogy."

2. Radar confirmation of an unknown object by Pease AFB in the area and time of the Hill sighting.

TS: "Doesn't provide irrefutable evidence for the "unknown object" to be what the Hills claimed they saw."

3. Physical traces noted by many family and friends on the car of the Hills.

TS: "You are relying on later alleged accounts that were not mentioned originally, or that anyone else witnessed."

4. Torn dress, scuffed shoes and a pink organic substance left on Betty's dress.

TS: "See above comment."

5. Symptoms of a traumatic experience by both the Hills.

I would call one of the above a coincidence; two or more of the above and there is a case that needs to be taken seriously. People have been sent to the death chamber on less than the evidence available in the Hill case. I do not need to state the star map to make the case as there is much to support it.

TS: "I would say that before you speak with authority about anything, you go to the original sources. Even their Dr. Simon did not accept their tales as being factual. When your psychiatrist doesn't believe you, it leaves the subject as questionable."

There are many other cases that cannot be explained by anything else other than an otherworldly craft. When you have experienced air force and commercial pilots describing metallic disks that can travel at top speeds while making sharp right turns and then stopping on a dime, there is something out there.

TS: "There is something out there, no doubt. But "out there" does not necessarily mean at distances greater than the moon for that is as far as UFOs have been seen and recorded. Otherwordly? Fantasy."

These cases continually get ignored by the debunkers. While I also want to see an alien, these cases are enough to show me there is visitation of the Earth by extraterrestrials. But it will never be enough to even open some minds to the possibility.

TS: "You're wrong. Read what's on this link: en.wikipedia.org... "

It does not help the cause of ufology when there are many hoaxes and frauds out there (like there is in most areas), but there are serious investigators who are looking into this field.

TS: "There will always be hoaxes, it's a human nature to fool others. However, there are no serious investigators doing anything of the sort. There are individuals who go around collecting information and they like to be thought of as serious investigators. They're just like you and me. Some dig a little deeper than others but a lot realize that the info they're finding is not worth taking to the bank and they may enhance the info to make it saleable. I know, I did it for a few years myself."

reply to post by karl 12


thanks for the video

imo Phillips is one of the best researchers and he's been steady at it for many years. i noticed his website is gone ! , wonder what that's all about ?

www.ufophysical.com...




there might be some better physical trace cases but i like this one from Saskatchewan, Canada, September 1, 1974

easynowsufoblog.blogspot.com...

reply to post by easynow



Easynow, thanks for the reply mate and that's a pretty fascinating account which I'd never heard of before -there are some other Canadian police reports here from the Saskatchewan area in 1973 and 1975 and in one incident the officers describe the object as 'mushroom shaped' which 'appeared to have portholes'.

I don't know why it was moved but here's the new address for Ted's CPTR website:


Center for Physical Trace Research


Cheers.

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

Originally posted by The ShrikeTS: "I would say that before you speak with authority about anything, you go to the original sources. Even their Dr. Simon did not accept their tales as being factual. When your psychiatrist doesn't believe you, it leaves the subject as questionable."

KF: You are correct that Dr Simon thought it was nothing more than their imaginations. However, they both had the SAME experience that was different than the dreams Betty had.

TS: "There is something out there, no doubt. But "out there" does not necessarily mean at distances greater than the moon for that is as far as UFOs have been seen and recorded. Otherwordly? Fantasy."

KF: Otherworldly does not necessarily mean fantasy. And debunkers do ignore many of the facts surrounding the cases that are involved. The radar confirmation was just shooed off by you, along with many people who witnessed the physical effects on the car.

TS: "There will always be hoaxes, it's a human nature to fool others. However, there are no serious investigators doing anything of the sort. There are individuals who go around collecting information and they like to be thought of as serious investigators. They're just like you and me. Some dig a little deeper than others but a lot realize that the info they're finding is not worth taking to the bank and they may enhance the info to make it saleable. I know, I did it for a few years myself."

I agree about the hoaxes that are done and half assed research that is admitted here by yourself. However, to lump all the researches in that category is not a logical thing to do. Here are some tireless names:

Stanton Friedman
Major Donald E Keyhoe (USMC ret)
Major Kevin D Randle (USAR ret)
Dr Michio Kaku
Dr Jacques Vallee
Richard M Dolan
Robert Hastings
James E McDonald

There are many more researchers out there who give all their time to the field of ufology. To refer them all as half assed makes more of a comment about debunkers than the researchers.

Edited to note my responses

[edit on 4/26/2010 by kidflash2008]

Originally posted by kidflash2008
Here are some tireless names:

Stanton Friedman
Major Donald E Keyhoe (USMC ret)
Major Kevin D Randle (USAR ret)
Dr Michio Kaku
Dr Jacques Vallee
Richard M Dolan
Robert Hastings
James E McDonald

There are many more researchers out there who give all their time to the field of ufology. To refer them all as half assed makes more of a comment about debunkers than the researchers.

Kidflash, I'd certainly agree with your last sentence there - there's also a good list below with some great UFO researchers:


The Ten Most Credible UFOlogists


Cheers.

Originally posted by kidflash2008
snip
I agree about the hoaxes that are done and half assed research that is admitted here by yourself. However, to lump all the researches in that category is not a logical thing to do. Here are some tireless names:

Stanton Friedman

The Shrike: "Stanton Friedman is a notorious liar and will do and say anything for a buck. Don't take my word for it, research it yourself maybe starting with his feud with William Moore (Roswell). Here are some comments about Friedman that are not what I was looking for but it is sort-of representative: 'The main witnesses in Friedman's book are Barney Barnett and Gerald Anderson. Barnett is long dead and was never interviewed by Friedman. He used only supposed second hand statements-hearsay. Gerald Anderson, who can be read about in his own section on the Roswell witnesses, later was disowned by Friedman. It is not a pretty story!' Personally, I don't like Friedman and remember I say this because I was there from the beginning and I see Friedman as one of the worst celebrities made famous by his questionable research and publishings."

Major Donald E Keyhoe (USMC ret)

TS: "Just an almost-innocent caught in the brouhaha over a subject that had no experts but everybody wanted to believe they were."

Major Kevin D Randle (USAR ret)

TS: "Randle is just another author who couldn't publish a 100% factual book because he has found out that such a book would probably be a booklet!"

Dr Michio Kaku

TS: "I rubbed elbows with Kaku at a local flea market and I said hello but he is one of those 'geniuses' that doesn't deal with real life, he is a futurist. I do not think that he has any more knowledge about UFOs than the average person on the street and that is not saying much."

Dr Jacques Vallee

TS: "Him I like and respect even when he takes flights of fancy, the journey is fun! I've read all of his books and have enjoyed every one. He is one of the few authors I recommend."

Richard M Dolan

TS: "Before Dolan became famous we communicated and I brought to his attention that the photo that he was using on his website was an erroneous photo of the alleged Washington, DC, UFO flights. I stopped communicating with him when he told me that he was a believer in the alleged Roswell UFO 'crash.' That showed me that his research was faulty and he had no desire to consider alternative, truthful, explanations. So he is published now and he is successful. More power to him."

Robert Hastings

TS: "The actor?

I don't accept Hastings theories about UFOs affecting national security regarding nuclear weapons. I just saw an article somewhere by the people involved (can't remember at this moment) that refutes some of his allegations."

James E McDonald

TS: "A misguided UFO 'hero.' He wanted science to get involved in studying UFOs without realizing that no scientist was qualified. There was nothing to study but reports! And, of course, photos and films. But scientists couldn't bring a UFO to a lab. An impossible dream. He had a sighting and that should have told him that UFOs will always keep themselves at a distance, no lab work for them! He also argued for the ETH. Another misguided effort. I wonder what would have happened if McDonald had been hired instead of Hynek. A rift developed between the two because of interests. McDonald is best known in the UFO 'community' for sounding the alarm on Condon."

There are many more researchers out there who give all their time to the field of ufology. To refer them all as half assed makes more of a comment about debunkers than the researchers.

TS: "I didn't use the phrase 'half-assed,' you did. Researchers, whether in the field or in a magazine/book office are just data gatherers. Anyone with some intelligence can do it. But they'll always get to the source AFTER the fact so whatever they research will most likely be hearsay. This is why I gave up being a field researcher. Tons of worthless paper in a file!"

Edited to note my responses

[edit on 4/26/2010 by kidflash2008]

[edit on 26-4-2010 by The Shrike]

Sturrock/Rockefeller Report on Physical Evidence Related to UFO Reports:

Peter Sturrock Report.


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5f622bed8b2e.jpg[/atsimg]

In 1997, a workshop was organized by Dr. Peter Sturrock and the Society of Scientific Exploration and funded by Mr. Laurance S. Rockefeller to review physical evidence purported to be associated with UFO events. This was the first major review of these issues by the scientific community in nearly 3 decades and the results were reported in the national media.

Sturrock-Rockefeller Workshop on Physical UFO Evidence (pdf)

reply to post by karl 12


Thank you for that report, I will be reading that one.

No matter what we show that there is evidence that craft have landed, we will never be able to convince the debunkers to seriously look into the subject.

Originally posted by kidflash2008
reply to post by karl 12

 

Thank you for that report, I will be reading that one.

No matter what we show that there is evidence that craft have landed, we will never be able to convince the debunkers to seriously look into the subject.

If such evidence existed and it could pass muster there would not be doubters. What evidence can you show? I doubt that you have any and are, in reality, agreeing with whoever says there is evidence. When you have irrefutable evidence you are on solid ground. When you support others saying so but you can't provide said evidence, then you and them stand on quicksand, soon to sink.