• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.
Philip Spencer is a pseudonym.

Beside being a retired policeman, is there anything else known about this person ?

According to wikipedia, this person was harassed by the MoD and the “ men in black “ causing Spencer not to tell his entire experience to the public.

Supposedly, Spencer did not divulge all what the aliens told him.
 
Philip Spencer is a pseudonym.

Beside being a retired policeman, is there anything else known about this person ?

According to wikipedia, this person was harassed by the MoD and the “ men in black “ causing Spencer not to tell his entire experience to the public.

Supposedly, Spencer did not divulge all what the aliens told him.
I still maintain that it's too much of a coincidence that 2 police officers with the same first name and surname living close to each other should both have alien encounters. Mr Godfrey didn't get much attention from the first incident so tried again?
 
Friday afternoon turned out to be a lovely day for a stroll on the moor. I am fairly satisfied that the hollow I mentioned in my earlier post is the location in question. Compare and contrast:

View attachment 63808

View attachment 63810
View attachment 63809

I didn't quite manage to get the angle exactly right, and the focal length and other properties of my phone camera (Samsung S21FE on standard settings) will differ from the film cameras used in earlier decades, which will affect foreshortening, for example. Nonetheless, would you agree the location is correct?
Slightly more to the left and a bit less foreground, and I'd say you've got that position spot-on! You can tell by the rut on the right centerground in the photograph, as it shows the exact same position.:yeahthat:
 
Last edited:
I accept that the account I have been drawing on should be approached with a sizable chunk of salt; nonetheless, I'm going to cite these two details:



So, if - and, yes, it's quite a big if - this account is accurate, I read it to suggest that any investigation on the ground should focus on the area I have circled in yellow on this image from Google Earth (west is roughly at the top of the image):
View attachment 63579

Zooming in:
View attachment 63580

So, if we go back to the image Ronnie reposted from Enola, I think it's not impossible that the researcher, and therefore the "alien", was standing somewhere on the paths we can see in the second of my screenshots, and if I had to choose, I'd start looking at the little spur more or less in the centre of the image. I'll be in Ilkley on Friday on other matters, so might wander up in that direction afterwards. Are there any obvious objections to this chain of reasoning that I am missing?

View attachment 63583
For anyone tempted to hike out to the location, here it is on OS 1:25000 and 1:50000, I've circled the location in orange. Note that Krepostnoi's images above have North pointed roughly towards the bottom of the aerial image.

Ilkley 1.png

Ilkley 2.png

Edit: 1:50000 location was mistaken, now corrected.
 
Last edited:
Do you have a conclusion, or any ideas, after having been at the actual site, as to what is in the 1987 photo?
Looking at the growth directly behind the 'alien', and in the poor lighting of that old photo, do you think the 'alien' head was just blobs from the growth behind him, which just mistakenly appears to be part of the figure?
Do you think it's possible that it was just a large sheep / dog looking towards the camera?
Or something larger perhaps?
It's difficult to say. There is nothing there now on the actual track, as I hope the picture shows. Sheep do roam on the moor, and it is a popular dog-walking spot, but Spencer would have been close enough to recognise either beast for what it was. The vegetation won't have changed in variety over the past 25-ish years, although individual plants will have died off and others grown. All the versions of Spencer's photo that I have seen are so unclear that I certainly wouldn't want to rule out extra confusion caused by the backdrop. As for size, comparing the researcher to the "alien", the latter looks considerably shorter.

What I will say is that any one of a dog, a sheep, or a person (with or without a bicycle) is a much likelier proposition than an actual alien being. Old Billy Ockham tells us as much. But I repeat that the distance in the original photo is misleading - that thing is only about 10-12 metres away from the photographer - he would have clearly seen what it was. I find a genuine misunderstanding hard to believe. Added to that, there are the strong hints from the investigators in Comfortably Numb's facebook thread that this was a hoax, plus the fact that, out of all the places on the moor, this encounter happened to occur in a conveniently sheltered hollow. Sure, the Cosmic Joker moves in mischievous ways, but still. As things stand right now, I'm leaning towards deliberate hoax. Anyway, thank you for keeping this thread alive - it was the pretext for a genuinely enjoyable trip out onto the moor, and I'm glad I appear to have provided some useful information.

@SimonBurchell thank you for the map images - that's the spot, all right.
 
Last edited:
For anyone tempted to hike out to the location, here it is on OS 1:25000 and 1:50000, I've circled the location in orange. Note that Krepostnoi's images above have North pointed roughly towards the bottom of the aerial image.

View attachment 63856
View attachment 63858
Edit: 1:50000 location was mistaken, now corrected.
I also noticed when using the 'Google Map' of the same area in question, they've got 'UFO Landing site' marked with. . .
ufo.png
 
It's difficult to say. There is nothing there now on the actual track, as I hope the picture shows. Sheep do roam on the moor, and it is a popular dog-walking spot, but Spencer would have been close enough to recognise either beast for what it was. The vegetation won't have changed in variety over the past 25-ish years, although individual plants will have died off and others grown. All the versions of Spencer's photo that I have seen are so unclear that I certainly wouldn't want to rule out extra confusion caused by the backdrop. As for size, comparing the researcher to the "alien", the latter looks considerably shorter.

What I will say is that any one of a dog, a sheep, or a person (with or without a bicycle) is a much likelier proposition than an actual alien being. Old Billy Ockham tells us as much. But I repeat that the distance in the original photo is misleading - that thing is only about 10-12 metres away from the photographer - he would have clearly seen what it was. I find a genuine misunderstanding hard to believe. Added to that, there are the strong hints from the investigators in Comfortably Numb's facebook thread that this was a hoax, plus the fact that, out of all the places on the moor, this encounter happened to occur in a conveniently sheltered hollow. Sure, the Cosmic Joker moves in mischievous ways, but still. As things stand right now, I'm leaning towards deliberate hoax. Anyway, thank you for keeping this thread alive - it was the pretext for a genuinely enjoyable trip out onto the moor, and I'm glad I appear to have provided some useful information.

@SimonBurchell thank you for the map images - that's the spot, all right.
So either 'Spencer' actually did come across an 'alien', or the photo may be of some type of animal -
Ever since @Godafoss30 a few pages back saw this as a dog, or sheep, or something similar, looking at the camera I think he nailed it, and can't see anything else. Looked at so many versions of Spencer's photo all over the internet, and the only one that makes any sense is the black and white blowup:

1677521203869.png

So it could be that @Godafoss30 is right, a large dog (head circled), front legs showing, left back leg, and tail behind, with those light 'blurs' on either side of the tail just part of the background heather bushes.
And because of the lack of lighting the actual figure was indeterminable, and those 'blobs and blurs' in the background gave the photo a strange feature. All along the positioning of the front legs bothered me, and the appearance of the front 'chest' does look like that of an animal.
And the photo spot does not appear to have changed after 35+ years, amazing!
Thank you so much, Krepostnoi, for clearing this up, you should be on 'Solved Mysteries', so interesting!
(I don't mean to downplay Mr. Spencer, he could be telling the absolute truth about his experience. But very mysterious, especially, as you mentioned, the distance of Spencer to the 'alien'. Looks quite far off in his photo - perhaps it was the angle of his camera or simply because of the darkness?)
 
Excellent work, and an invaluable contribution, from Brother @Krepostnoi.

It's good to see Fortean "boots on the ground", as it were.

maximus otter
You guys are the best! Excellent research skills and knowledge!!
Speaking of which, @Comfortably Numb posted that facebook link a few pages back, and on reading it, it's quite interesting.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1100706627172357/permalink/1143379626238390/?_rdr

(I hope that's ok, he posted it already?)
One of the commenters on that page claimed he and Philip Mantle took photos on the same day, one year later, at the same time - and sure enough, some strange 'antennae like structure' showed up on the photos, which is nothing more than 'a mixture of grass and heather'.
 
I read 'Without Consent' by Philip Mantle and Carl Nagaitis, from 1988, at least the part about the 'Ilkley Moor Alien Photo'.
No real new information there, more on James Easton's facebook page, showing the photo and a very interesting comment by a man who worked with Philip Mantle on the case at that time. (Have to click on 'more comments' underneath the photo to read the story on the research done at that time.)

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1100706627172357/permalink/1143379626238390/?_rdr
 
I feel that I really ought to go and have a look at the spot myself.
I've no excuse really, seeing as I live within 30 min of Ilkey.

It's lovely hiking weather. ;)

And it's a lovely spot for a hike. I'd be very interested in a second opinion following my own visit. Once you've taken in the "alien's" location, you're handily situated to take in the neolithic art on the Badger stone and the frankly stunning Barmishaw stone. And do go and stand in contemplation in Willy Hall's Wood, which is mere minutes away.
 
A new video coming on April 28, 2023, at 2:00 pm United States eastern standard time, where they are looking at the actual location of the alien photo and trying to figure out exactly what was there.
They are thanking this Forum for helping them find the spot where the original photo was taken!

 
This is the write-up with the video:

"In this video, we travelled over to Ilkley and Ilkley Moor to be precise, to uncover the location of WHERE a photograph of what many believe is to be that of an 'alien' creature was taken by 'Philip Spencer' on the 1st December, 1987. Was the story of Philip Spencer a hoax? What did he really capture in THAT photograph? Join us as we attempt to figure out what happened back on that gloomy December morning in 1987! ➝ Big thanks to https://forums.forteana.org/ for help in finding the location!"

Fortean Forums is famous!
 
Yes, it's not a secret. Nigel Mortimer has apparently been giving tours of the area since the 1990s.

From the link above:

"Since 1990, I have been in 'contact' with Other Worldly Intelligences, establishing through psychic means an on-going communication with the Celestial Being known as Sharlek..."

I think I'll pass on the tour, ta.

maximus otter
 
From the link above:

"Since 1990, I have been in 'contact' with Other Worldly Intelligences, establishing through psychic means an on-going communication with the Celestial Being known as Sharlek..."

I think I'll pass on the tour, ta.

maximus otter
Oh come on, a bit of fun to be had there surely.
 
And only about 10 miles from Cottingley of the Fairies fame. Strange coincidence or some connection?
And also very close to the experience of the "other" Police officer also called Phil Spencer (if you believe that) sighting a UFO before the photograph incident. A veritable hub of alien/fairy encounters that area seems to be.
 
Nice video, good information.

A little puzzle in that Philip Spencer was not familiar with area because he was from London.

Philip was only in this area because his wife’s family lived in this area.

Why would Philip take a “ walk about “ in an area he was not familiar with to visit his wife’s father ?

Something seems off to me.
 
Last edited:
Philip Spencer ......

Is he trying to flog the aliens a new, compact yet spacious and convenient to amenities, two-up, ensuite circular flying residence?

I'm not sure that the alien was that small if you look at the image of Tomlinson taken from the same perspective and compare the two. But size notwithstanding, my thoughts are a dummy cardboard cutout or similar. I still wonder why anyone in their right mind would consider wandering about the moor so early in the morning in December. So dark in fact that you had to take a torch but light enough to be able a photo at a fairly long distance. Doesn't add up to me.
Thought I'd have a closer look at this pic, and two things got my attention. . .

If it was faked, then why does the left 'hand' show a splayed (fanned) grass rake like image with multiple fingers?

My eyes also hint at a 'hidden' line (possible image break) between the two arrows that I've marked on the image ~ or could it just be a trick-of-the-eye/brain thing?

View attachment 56428

I am curious as to the estimated size of the 'thing' that was photographed (if it was a thing and not a simulacrum effect). Does anyone have any info? It's just that on first seeing the photo from Sid I was reminded of something that was rather popular in the late 1980s!

Please don't laugh at me - but the head shape, long arms etc., put me in mind of the movie Gremlins (1984) and a quick bit of search-engineering does indeed show that figures were sold at that time of at least 19" height

APPLAUSE GREMLINS STRIPE Plush Doll With Tags -Warner Bros inc $33.91 -  PicClick
 
Last edited:
Back
Top