Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here Our Bookstore is OPEN Over 5000 new & used titles, competitively priced! Topics: UFOs - Paranormal - Area 51 - Ghosts - Forteana - Conspiracy - History - Biography - Psychology - Religion - Crime - Health - Geography - Maps - Science - Money - Language - Recreation - Technology - Fiction - Other - New Search... for keyword(s)   in Page Titles in Book Title/Author in Contents of Pages ---other searches--- Metacrawler Yahoo FAST Search Google Altavista Dogpile Inference Find Northern Light IWon.com MSN Search Las Vegas Sun Location: Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1997 -> Feb -> Oberg/Cooper rebuttal.1a

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: Jerry Cohen <rjcohen@li.net>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 19:18:53 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Feb 1997 22:07:30 -0500
Subject: Oberg/Cooper rebuttal.1a

Begin: Oberg/Cooper rebuttal.1a

Here is my opening response to portions of "IN SEARCH OF GORDON
COOPER'S UFOs" by James Oberg (originally submitted by Dean
Kanipe).  It is definitely "for distribution" as will be the next
seven or so documented essays I will be supplying in rebuttal to
Mr. Oberg's essay.  For those who feel my research is solid and
worthy of viewing in a more permanent setting, this author also
gives his permission for the free posting of these rebuttals on any
WWW home page, as long as my name is included as the creator of
the posts along with my E-mail address.

Mr. Oberg's essay and my full rebuttal will be archived on the web
at:   http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates

When I first wrote this I thought to myself, "If Cooper still
stands by his statement regarding a claimed landing at Edwards
AFB, mentioned by Mr. Oberg in 'In Search of Gordon Cooper's UFOs'
(beginning =B6 42), this lends yet further support to three cases I
have analyzed and come to the conclusion are verified and
definitely related to one another. The  claimed Edwards AFB case
occurred in the same year." I was unaware of this case until I
read Mr. Oberg's essay.  Actually, in retrospect I came to
realize, the reverse is also undeniably true;  "my research
concerning several 1957 cases lends strong support to what Cooper
has stated regarding the alleged landing at Edwards AFB."
Although you will have to wait approximately 6 essays to get to
it, those with patience will be amply rewarded.  I've got quite a
few important, solid facts to present along the way.




=3D=3D++=3D=3D++=3D=3D++=3D=3D
Oberg/Cooper rebuttal.1a:
(1 of 2)
----------------------------------
A researcher's response to James Oberg's
"IN SEARCH OF GORDON COOPER'S UFOs"
by Jerry Cohen
=3D=3D++=3D=3D++=3D=3D++=3D=3D

PREFACE:
One of UFO skeptics greatest criticisms concerning UFOLOGY
concerns the fact that, as they see it, a large number of UFO
cases are anecdotal in nature and that, as they claim, there is no
hard, reproducible documented evidence to back up the stories told
by the various claimants.  This claim is totally false.  On the
surface, this would appear to be true as there are a great number
of cases which do fall into this category.  Because of this fact,
one must have a great familiarity with the idiom and its history
to discover that this elusive evidence does indeed exist.
Some skeptics, being so certain of the impossibility of the
existence of solid evidence, view it wearing blinders, never
digging deep enough to find what they are almost certain does not
exist in the first place or, lacking the hints provided by a
thorough knowledge of UFO history, simply look in all the
wrong places.  In-depth familiarity with the history of the topic
and where some of this evidence might be hiding is paramount to
discovering its ultimate reality.

One important question an intelligent person should ask is "Have
there been any well-respected scientists who have studied the
topic in depth and, subsequent to their analyses, come to the
conclusion that UFOs exist as apparent craft and exhibit traits
beyond the cutting edge of our technology? (N.B. UFO =3D
unidentified flying objects displaying unusual characteristics and
technology which seem to preclude them from being created on this
planet.)   A second, obvious question should be, "Exactly what did
they find?"  The answer to the first is unequivocally, "yes."  As
to the second, I will present documented information concerning
two of these scientists, what their research uncovered and how it
changed every open-minded person's thinking regarding the study of
UFOs.

One of the scientists, given negative mention by Mr. Oberg, is
none other than Dr. J. Allen Hynek, who was the Air Force's main
astronomical consultant to Project Blue Book for twenty years.
Within that time period, all official documentation in existence
informs us he was closer to the official first hand Air Force
evidence regarding UFOs than any other civilian scientist on
record.  It was his job was to expose UFOs as misinterpretations
of normal astronomical, phenomena, etc., (For those not familiar,
Blue Book was the Air Force's alleged main study on UFOs.  Why I
used the word "alleged" will become apparent the further we
proceed.)  Amazingly enough, it was the Air Forces' own scientific
consultant who actually proved to us that the Air Force has not
been completely honest with us concerning the reality of UFOs.
Solid evidence as to how and why Hynek gradually arrived at this
conclusion will also be displayed for the reader.

After presenting this recorded, verifiable information, I will
present three well documented cases from 1957.  I selected these
cases because Mr. Oberg specifically discussed a claim that Gordon
Cooper made concerning an alleged landing at Edwards Air Force
base in 1957.  I believe these cases, when examined in
relationship to each other, demonstrate a strong probability that
the case against Cooper is not as "cut and dried" as Mr. Oberg has
indicated. One of the aforementioned cases was analyzed in depth
by the Air Force, the Condon Committee, and finally by Dr. James
McDonald, then senior physicist and professor of meteorology at
the Institute of Atmospheric Physics, University of Arizona.
This information will not only achieve the goal I have just
mentioned but, in the process, will also give lie to some of the
comments made regarding not only Hynek's & McDonald's motivation
but also, the overall quality of research performed by Dr. James
McDonald, Dr. Hynek and, at the minimum, some UFO researchers.
The general public, skeptics, and anyone willing to check the
sources I provide can decide for themselves whose research is more
complete, accurate and valid.

The three cases I have mentioned contain factual. concrete
evidence that proves beyond a shadow of doubt that some UFOs can
definitely be referred to as "craft", as they contain crucial
evidence identifying some UFOs as craft of an unknown type.  All
of the above will be fully supported and displayed in a series of
seven (or so) articles which I will post one at a time, to give
people a chance to both absorb them, check the accuracy of the
material displayed therein and find flaws, where they may exist.

However, some brief comments concerning several points from Mr.
Oberg's essay are in order before proceeding any further.

                                   +++

=3DINITIAL COMMENTS CONCERNING MR. OBERG'S ESSAY=3D
Mr. Oberg's essay was received "on-line" with the page numbers
apparently indicated at the bottom of each page but not saying
"end p. 1, etc.". I have ignored page numbers and have instead
numbered his paragraphs sequentially from beginning to end,
hopefully to reduce problems researchers might have in locating
those discussed items.

The following were observed as extremely short paragraphs:
#'s  12, 23, 40 and 51. (between 2-4 lines each)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
J.C.    Note: If you become bored with parts 1a/b, feel free to
skip to part 2 for a tidbit of documented evidence. Unfortunately,
what follows is somewhat tedious but absolutely necessary
considering the charges Mr. Oberg has made. Hopefully, you'll read
it all. Those with intestinal fortitude, please continue.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

        Many of the things Mr. Oberg said in his essay appeared to
be accurate however, I found it filled with unsupported innuendo.
I disagree with several of the conclusions reached and I'm not so
certain of the veracity of others as some are anecdotal in nature
with not enough supporting documentation to confirm some of the
things he says.  As an example:

re: COOPER'S TESTIMONY TO THE UNITED NATIONS:
a.     It was stated in paragraph four:

      "The United Nations maintained a stoic, even embarrassed
silence,"

JC:     It was not shown from where this information was derived.
Was Mr. Oberg present to observe this?  In any of the accounts I
had read concerning the aforementioned UN meeting in question, it
was never mentioned that people were embarrassed in the least. I
have not found Mr. Oberg's name mentioned in the minutes of the
meeting. I did, however, find the following names who were among
those who testified: Dr. J. Allen Hynek, Lt. Col. Larry Coyne,
ex-astronaut Gordon Cooper, Dr. Jacques Vallee & Stanton T.
Friedman. 1

b.     In a further analysis of those same =B6 4 comments:  It was
stated:

"...nonetheless. Part of Cooper's problem might have been that he
was visiting under the auspices of the then dictator of Grenada,
the madcap 'Sir' Eric Gairy. Gairy's excesses and crackpottery,
added to his alleged corruption and brutality at home, later led
to the New Jewel coup-d'=DAtat led by Maurice Bishop, and
indirectly to the US intervention five years later."

J.C.    Although much of what was said in the preceding paragraph
may well have been true (and which parts we cannot be sure, as
specific documentation was not offered to support same), it has
not been adequately demonstrated that Cooper had a "problem" at
the time.  Also, I am not certain why this material was included
in the preceding dialogue except perhaps to impugn Cooper's
character by implying that he was somehow in "cahoots" with a
"crackpot," corrupt dictator; or that people reporting UFOs must,
by association, be crackpots too.  The fact of the matter is that
the United Nations had previously agreed to have a conference
concerning the subject of UFOs.  They certainly weren't forced to
have this discussion.  It is a rather large body of nations.  If
the topic was totally absurd, they wouldn't have agreed to wasting
their time on it in the first place.  It most likely was
petitioned and had support.

As part of the explanatory memorandum Grenada had made in its
position paper, the following statement was to be found:

  "As had been shown by the studies recently commissioned by
   some countries, many states were deeply concerned with regard
   to the UFO phenomenon and recognized the urgent need to bring
   up to date research in the field and to examine the potential
   repercussions of that phenomenon on security, technological
   progress and the well-being of individual nations."  2

The truth of the matter is that various countries throughout the
world, including our own, had been having reoccurring, documented
UFO sightings for quite some time prior to and leading up to this
particular historic meeting.  I am sure people out there reading
this from various countries can supply some of the newspaper
articles which would confirm this previous statement.  As Mr.
Oberg aptly pointed out, Cooper wasn't the first pilot to claim
this.  A small but solid portion of the evidence in this regard
was presented to the United States congress fourteen years prior,
in 1964, in the form of an 188 page document titled "The UFO
Evidence,"  edited by Richard Hall, former Assistant Director and
Acting Director of NICAP  (National Investigations Committee on
Aerial Phenomena).  The UFO Evidence was a 200,000 word
documentary report which contained a compilation of approximately
746 documented sightings by Air Force, Army, Navy & Marine
personnel, pilots and aviation experts, other military personnel,
observations by professional scientists and engineers, including
astronomers and aeronautical engineers.

In reality, the main reason the UN did not follow-up further on
the proceedings had mostly to do with economics and ongoing world
politics.  It was not that the prestigious body of nations did not
believe some of the documented reports that had been presented but
rather, it did not have the monetary resources to do much about
such an elusive phenomena even though it had been generally
reported around the world.  Since the sightings were "sightings"
only and not, at that time, adequately documented in the civilian
sector as a specific threat or danger to the population, more
urgent immediate "earthly" problems simply took precedence over
those which displayed themselves in such an erratic (albeit
"persistent") fashion.  It was a lot easier to ignore them than to
deal with them. Our own congress back in 1964 had a similar
reaction; congressmen were impressed but did not react as a whole
for the same reasons.  3   Our Air Force, Department of Defense
and NASA took the position, and continued to claim, there was
nothing to the situation and that most sightings had been
explained.  4  Therefore, more pressing domestic and world
problems precluded this at that time, but.... UFOs refused to go
away.


Footnotes to "Oberg/Cooper rebuttal.1a:"

1       Summary of the UN meeting was published in: The
International UFO Reporter . vol 3 . No. 10/11 . Oct/Nov 1978

2       Ibid

3       The following are some quotes from congressmen which were
on file at NICAP and included in "The UFO Evidence."  Some were
received after evidence was sent to members of congress in June
1960.  They illustrate the "atmosphere" of that era regarding UFOs
and document the comments I have made in this regard:


** Congressman Joseph E. Karth (D. Minn.) - 8/24/60 **
     "As a member of the House Committee on Science and
Astronautics, I, of course, have had contact with high Air Force
officers and have had opportunity to hear their comments on and
off the record on the subject of unidentified flying objects.
Despite being confronted with seemingly unimpeachable evidence
that such phenomena exist, these officers give little credence to
the many reports on the matter.  When pressed on specific details
the experts refuse to answer on grounds that they are involved in
the nation's security and cannot be discussed publicly . . .I will
continue to seek a definite answer to this most important
question."

** Congressman Edgar W. Hiestand (R. Calif.) - 9/19/60 (to
Secretary of Air Force) **
     "I am wondering if we ought now reexamine our policy with
regard to Unidentified Flying Objects. Won't you kindly suggest to
your associates that the matter be considered? I am apprehensive
that right now, in the middle of a campaign, some concrete and
well-documented incident may occur, and a sensational revelation
could really hurt.  After all, although the UFOs are unknown
devices, there seems to be enough evidence available to convince
that they are real rather than imaginary.  Therefore what harm
could complete frankness do?. . . "

** Senator Kenneth B. Keating (R. N.Y.) - 6/5/63 **
     "I want to assure you that as a high officer in the military
myself, I am not overawed or overimpressed by some of the
conclusions reached by Air Force officers.  As you know, I have no
hesitancy in taking issue with other government agencies as to the
dangers facing our country. . .I am sorry that there seems to be
nothing which I can add to the UFO situation at the present time."

** Senator William Proxmire (D. Wis.) - 1/31/63 **
     "The NICAP report (outline) is a fine document which does
much to substantiate the allegation made.  You probably noted my
remarks that 'The very fact that so many inexplicable incidents
have occurred is reason enough for a thorough investigation.'  I
am going to contact the Department of Defense on this matter."

4.      ** Congressman Thomas Ludlow Ashley (D. Ohio) - 7/14/58 **
     "I have made a number of inquiries of the Air Force relative
to its activities in connection with these unidentified flying
objects, but have invariably received comment that evidence to
date is too inconclusive to sustain any theory but that these
objects, are 'hoaxes, hallucinations, or normal meteorological
manifestations.'  I share your concern over the secrecy that
continues to shroud our intelligence activities on this subject,
and I am in complete agreement with you that our greatest national
need at this time is the dissemination of accurate information
upon which responsible public opinion can be formulated. . . "

** Senator Jacob K. Javits (R. N.Y.) - 10/25/62 **
     "I appreciate your views regarding the aerial phenomena.  As
you know, the Department of Defense and NASA have repeatedly
denied the existence of such objects."

=3D=3D++=3D=3D++=3D=3D++=3D=3D
End:  Oberg/Cooper rebuttal.1a:
(1 of 2)  Please see part 1b
=3D=3D++=3D=3D++=3D=3D++=3D=3D

Respectfully submitted,
Jerry Cohen

E-mail:  rjcohen@li.net