UFO UpDates Mailing List
From: "Jerry Cohen" <rjcohen@li.net>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 07:13:18 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 09:04:54 -0500
Subject: Oberg/Cooper rebuttal.4
==============
Oberg/Cooper rebuttal.4
continued from 3
----------------------------------
A researcher's response to James Oberg's:
"IN SEARCH OF GORDON COOPER'S UFOs"
by Jerry Cohen
==============
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
As we ended "Oberg/Cooper rebuttal 3," the question was, "Exactly
what was it that caused Dr. Hynek to change his stance from
skeptic to believer over the years?"
As I mentioned in "Oberg/Cooper rebuttal 1," in order to find
where UFO evidence might possibly be hiding, one must have at
least a basic knowledge of UFO history. Upon reading many posts
in "alt.paranet.ufo," it became obvious to me that many people had
forgotten, or been too young to even know, this vital sequence of
events. The following is an effort to refresh people's memories
along that historic trail. This very accurate, documented
synopsis of a phenomenon and its backwash allows us to more fully
understand how we got where we are today. Although many cases have
been left out, the ones I've selected were chosen to illustrate
what I personally consider to be germane to the issue at hand. At
this moment I don't ask you to believe every case presented here
but only to be cognizant of this extraordinary progression of
events, Dr. Hynek's role in it and the Air Force's reaction.
More information on the Colorado Project (Condon Study) can
be found in the sources given.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
UFOS, A SYNOPSIS OF AN EXTREMELY RELEVANT HISTORY
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Modern Ufology's roots: (Never to be forgotten)
[The accuracy of the following can be checked by
consulting the sources provided via your local libraries]
also
it is my understanding
The Center for UFO Studies (CUFOS)
is the repository for NICAP files
* * *
Those of us who followed the UFO phenomenon from 1947 on,
for various reasons ranging from basic curiosity to some of which
skeptics will find impossible to believe, discovered a range of
UFO claims which displayed themselves before our incredulous
eyes..
Beginning with Kenneth Arnold's sighting in 1947, through
a host of others, pausing in 1952 for the Washington D.C.
RADAR/visuals, 1 and moving ahead to a sighting wave in 1957
which included some claimed "glowing egg-shaped" UFO fly-overs
which happened to include the following:
"Coast Guard Cutter Sebago RADAR/visual case" (11/7/57) which
appeared in Long Island newspapers and became personal to me
because a neighbor of mine was dating one of the crew members
when it happened. Crewmen on the Coast Guard cutter Sebago,
off the coast of Louisiana, reported visually seeing an object
resembling "a brilliant planet with a high rate of speed". It
was tracked on the vessel's radar screen for twenty seven minutes
and flitted on and off the screen several times during that time
period. (Complete text of which I'll post a bit later.); 2
"James Stokes case" (11/6/57, the day before the Sebago case) in
which "an engineer from the Air Force Missile Development Center
at Holloman AFB, Alamagordo, New Mexico" and people in ten other
cars claimed their radios died and cars were stalled when a UFO
flew across the highway in front of them 3 and; the
"Kirtland AFB case" (11/4/57, two days before the Stokes case):
Condon Study case #141, cited at the AAAS UFO Symposium, Boston,
Dec 27, 1969 by Dr. James McDonald as a case he personally felt
was "inadequately investigated and reported." 4 The *Sebago*
and *Stokes* cases hadn't happened yet and, all three cases
occurred in a very close proximity of time. (These are the three
cases from 1957 mentioned in "Oberg/Cooper 1." I'll examine these
in greater detail in a later essay), and the
"SKY THING" (occurred 8/30/60, two years & nine months later), of
which Dr. Hynek was probably aware, and which I posted, but no
one, as of yet, seems to have come up with a probable solution to
same. 5 If you remember, it concerned an object appearing on an
irregular schedule, going against the earth's rotation, twice as
fast as the Echo I satellite and was photographed by at least
three tracking stations. As I mentioned earlier, Dr. Hynek
probably didn't have an explanation either. It was "strikingly
odd."
(If you also remember from "Oberg/Cooper rebuttal 3," Dr. Hynek
was in charge of the SAO *Smithsonian Astronomical Observatory*
project to track the first satellites both we and the Russians
were shooting into space.)
The "1960 Sky Thing" and an increasing number of "claimed
occurrences" caused some people to start becoming really curious
and to begin reading UFO reports just a little more closely.
However, as mentioned previously, total skeptics of the phenomenon
who refused even to consider the possibility of "outside visitors"
had one piece of "solid bedrock" upon which to stand. With
statistics provided by the Air Force, they could believe the Air
Force's reoccurring theme that:
** Most cases have been explained
and there is nothing to UFOs. 6 **
(Most of us didn't know it back then but we certainly found out
later that in the background, the Air Force had a civilian
astronomical consultant. He had worked for them since 1947 or 48
analyzing UFO cases with the objective of confirming that specific
statement. [Dr. J. Allen Hynek] Even being ignorant of this, one
could assume they [the Air Force] probably had analyzed this UFO
thing thoroughly and scientifically to make their determinations.
As I said, it certainly eased many a questioning mind.)
One of the first clues we had that something was amiss,
however, happened the beginning of August 1965. We had another
wave of claimed sightings that year in Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma
and Kansas in which police officers reported them; the weather
bureau in Wichita tracked an object; and Bob Campbell, television
newsman in Sherman Texas, near Oklahoma, took a picture of a
strange object. The Air Force explained them all away as "either
twinkles from the planet Jupiter or stars Rigel, Capella,
Betelgeuse or Aldeberan." 7
But hold on folks....Robert Risser, the director of
Oklahoma City's Kirkpatrick Planetarium disagreed with the Air
Force's explanation. He said "Somebody has made a mistake. .....
Many of those objects mentioned by the Air Force are not visible
until just before dawn in Oklahoma City and others aren't visible
at all." 8 Those "thinking and questioning individuals" amongst
us thought to themselves, "What the heck is going on here? Who
gave that dumb explanation?" (We also find out later, it wasn't
Dr. Hynek. He mentions this and a great deal more in his 1972
book "The UFO Experience"; but I'm getting ahead of myself. I'll
address this in another installment.)
Six months later (2/66), an article appeared in Look
Magazine by author John Fuller. It concerned UFO incidents that
allegedly took place one month after the Texas, New Mexico
sightings, beginning approximately Sept. 3, 1965 at Exeter, N.H. 9
The Exeter sightings continued over a period of several weeks and
were claimed to have been witnessed by approximately *sixty*
people including police personnel. The encounters were *extremely
close* and the "craft" descriptions were *amazingly detailed,*
including those of the police. Simply for the record, just "two
months after" the claimed Exeter incidents, in early November
1965, the lights went out along the Northeast coast. We were in
the midst of the first great Northeast Power Failure. It
certainly was an "odd coincidence." A virtual "wave" of claimed
sightings, more of them extremely detailed, appeared in magazines
and newspapers and continued into 1967. 10
Getting back to 1966, however, the public's eye finally
began to focus upon Dr. J. Allen Hynek, the Northwestern
University professor and consulting scientist the Air Force had
hired to debunk UFO sightings for "Project Blue Book," their
official study on UFOs. A rash of claimed UFO sightings had
occurred near Dexter/Hillsdale, Michigan (3/66) and Dr. Hynek flew
there to examine the situation. Being pressed early on by
reporters as to what he thought the sightings might be, he
guessed that some might possibly have been *swamp gas*. 11
Considering the number of excellently described and
detailed sightings that had occurred to that point, and the lack
of confidence inspired by at least one inept Air Force official
explanation, the news media jumped all over his guess and
lambasted him for it. People had simply had enough! They wanted
immediate answers. Although "Dexter/Hillsdale" was far from a
strong case, Hynek's bizarre circumstance with the press, when
combined with the flurry of claimed sightings leading up to that
time, eventually led to Congressional hearings on Capitol Hill. 12
Those hearings ultimately led to, as we mentioned earlier, an
*Air Force sponsored* "University study concerning UFOs"; the only
of its type ever contracted publicly. It was known alternately as
the "Condon Study" or "Colorado Project." 13 Well, NOW we were
finally going to get to the bottom of this. University scientists
were finally going to seriously study this whole thing. (So we all
thought at the time!)
In the meantime, some of us happened to notice a startling
article by Dr. Hynek in Newsweek Magazine (10/10/66) followed by
another multi-page article in the Saturday Evening Post(12/17/66).
14 In those articles, Dr. Hynek stated he didn't think it was
*all* "hogwash" and gave quite a few calm, intelligent reasons.
In them he said: He "doesn't believe it's a secret military
device"; "Responsible people report these sightings"; and
refuting Philip Klass, emerging skeptic, "Relatively few UFO
sightings can be explained by ball lightning. ... Many have been
seen when atmospheric conditions are not right for ball
lightning." In the Saturday Evening Post article he said
"...other scientists laughed at the whole thing while some were
curious and were afraid to speak out."; He said that
occasionally, the Air Force would disregard his evaluations" and
did not always consult him on every case. Also, back then, he
didn't believe the Air Force was purposely hiding information on
UFOs. He felt they just didn't believe UFOs could exist. (At
least, that's what he originally thought. As posted in
"Oberg/Cooper rebuttal 1," his quoted comments from "The UFO
Cover-up" had demonstrated he finally arrived at a different
conclusion concerning this.) 15
Wow! The Air Force's own scientific consultant was saying
this! What a dangerous political thing for him to say. Something
like this could cost a person his reputation, his job and perhaps
even his career. I thought to myself "He's got to really believe
in what he is saying. What does he know that we don't?"
What I and most others didn't fully realize at the time
was that the combination of events of 1965/66; the cases he was
familiar with in "Project Blue Book," and his awareness of the
lack of actual study given to good cases by that project, had
become as compelling to Dr. Hynek as they were to anyone else who
had really tuned in via the newspapers. 16 What we were
eventually to find out was that things concerning the Air Force
were not as we had thought. Also, this crazy UFO topic had a way
of striking fear into the hearts of both scientists involved
directly in "the politics of science," who were embarrassed
to take it seriously in front of their colleagues, and the average
citizen who had his own UFO experience but was but was embarrassed
to report it, due to the ridicule filtering down from above.
It was, in part, this "fear of ridicule" that was keeping large
numbers of people from studying the topic seriously and, I might
add, still does today. The rhetoric went something like this:
"Where other life probably exists is too far for us to travel ...
we haven't found any (life) yet ... and since we haven't found
them and we can't fly there, obviously, they haven't found us and
they can't fly here. You folks who are seeing this stuff must be
hallucinating."
Focusing, once again, on the Colorado project: As
students of Ufology are well aware, the University of Colorado
finally passed its judgment and two major conclusions by Dr.
Condon became legendary.
The first:
"our general conclusion is that nothing has come from the
studies of UFOs in the past twenty one years that has added
to scientific knowledge." 17
(Dr. Condon was partially correct here. Mainstream science
obviously had done little to add to it. As I mentioned in
"Oberg/Cooper rebuttal.3" (see footnotes 9-13 therein for further
info.), his own study was plagued by that same "fear of ridicule."
It was certainly a "fear-related" memo that had been written by
Robert Low, one of the heads of the project, in an attempt to
protect the university from ridicule. But an observer is certainly
entitled to ask: "What could possibly be learned about *any*
subject in an atmosphere such as this, where politics totally
controlled and overrode science?")
and a second statement:
"further extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified
in the expectation that science will be advanced thereby." 18
Quite a conclusion. However, the UFO phenomenon, in this
instance, had the last laugh. I had already mentioned the result
of the leaked memo and that other scientists examined the study
and eventually brought to light the incredible fact that its
conclusions were not supported by its data. 19 Here is a brief
synopsis of some fascinating and extremely relevant events
occurring *after* these pronouncements were made.
The following appeared in the NICAP Investigator: January 1969,
p. 7 .. "A special UFO Committee of the American Institute of
Astronautics and Aeronautics (AIAA), the largest non-governmental
aerospace agency in the world ... was established." A ten man
committee was formed to study the UFO topic further and "plans to
develop certain recommendations and to give some insight into its
reasoning." They concluded that ... "it (the UFO controversy)
deserves the attention of the engineering and scientific
community." .... "A 'Joint Statement by Scientists,' released by
NICAP, brought strong support from scientists in various fields,
including aerospace, psychology, physics, chemistry, botany,
sociology and biology. .... about fifty scientists signed a
statement urging 'an appropriate committee of the Congress to
initiate an investigation of. . . UFOs."
A quote from Dr. Hynek appeared in the 5/69 NICAP Investigator,
p.8: "Dr. Hynek writing in the April, 1969 issue of the Bulletin
of the Atomic Scientists, likens the Condon Report to an
'uninspired pot-boiler' and calls it a 'strange sort of scientific
paper (that) does not fulfill the promise of its title' (i.e. of
its claim of being scientific). 'The book,' says Hynek, 'leaves
the same strange, inexplicable residue of unknowns which has
plagued the U.S. Air Force investigation for twenty years. In
fact, the percentage of *unknowns* in the Condon report appears to
be even higher than in the Air Force investigation..' "
As previously mentioned, Dr. James McDonald brought his findings
before several scientific groups. Three of these included:
Dupont Chapter of the Scientific Research Society of America,
Wilmington, Del., on February 12, 1969 ; National Amateur
Astronomers, Inc. (NAA), Aug. 22, 1969 and to an American
Association For The Advancement Of Science (AAAS) meeting, Dec.
27, 1969 . (J.C. I'll be presenting an enlightening portion of
McDonald's testimony a little later on.) 22
Another quote from the NICAP Investigator, November, 1970: "The
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) has
recommended renewed scientific investigation of UFOs." It reported
on a three year study by an eleven man panel of its own. It said
"The AIAA scientists rejected the Condon Report as the last word
on UFOs, saying they could find no 'basis in the report for Dr.
Condon's prediction that nothing of scientific value will come of
further studies.' " "In fact," the group stated, "(we) find that
the opposite conclusion could have been drawn from the content of
the report -- namely, that a phenomenon with such a high ratio of
unexplained cases (about 30 per cent) should arouse sufficient
scientific curiosity to continue its study." (J.C. this percentage
was higher than I originally quoted previously. I'm not sure which
was correct. Not withstanding, even the lower percentage was
higher than the Air Force claimed.)
So, when one examines the record, it clearly shows it wasn't just
Hynek and McDonald who disagreed with the Condon Study
conclusions. Unfortunately for science, all these admonitions
came too late and the Air Force, who paid for the study, got what
it paid for; the perfect reason to dismantle Project Blue Book...
a project that, as we will eventually discover, had become an
embarrassment to itself.
++ Those reading this that think I am slandering the Air Force and
Project Blue Book can rest assured that *history* substantiates
everything I have said. I will completely detail, and confirm all
of it in upcoming installments. ++
In December 1969, an announcement was made by then Air Force
Secretary, Dr. Robert C. Seamans Jr., who informed us that the
continuation of the (Blue Book) study "no longer can be justified
either on the ground of national security or in the interest of
science." The Air Force, then, shipped all its "Project Blue
Book" files to Maxwell AFB in Alabama. 20 . . . . . . .
It was painfully obvious that although the UFO topic had cried out
to be scientifically analyzed, it didn't get its fair hearing. To
this day, it *has not yet* been fairly studied (at least by
civilian science).
Naturally there was a backwash to all this. Within that backwash
was a book from Dr. Hynek that revealed to us some of the inner
workings of Project Bluebook and proved, beyond a shadow of doubt,
there was definitely more going on here than first met the eye.
Furthermore, with the passage of time, things surfaced that made
it crystal clear that our Air Force and government had a lot more
information concerning UFOs than they were willing to tell. 21 My
next essay will focus on more of this "backwash;" specifically,
extraordinary revelations by Dr. Hynek concerning Project Blue
Book and how these relate to Gordon Cooper's claims.
Bibliography:
1 Ruppelt, Edward J. (former head of Project Blue Book):
"The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects," New York: Ace Books
Inc., 1956 (paperback) Tells UFO history from an Air Force
perspective and covers 1952 sightings.(no photos)
2 Newsday, (L.I. Newspaper) . Wednesday 11/6/57 . "CG Ship
Sights Weird Object Off Louisiana"
3 Newsday, (L.I. Newspaper) . Wednesday 11/6/57 . "Flying
Something Still Unidentified"
4 McDonald, James E. . presentation at AAAS UFO Symposium,
Boston 12/27/69 : Excellent documentation by Val Germann "Yet More
McDonald" -- # 5/6 . germannvh@aol.com (Germannvh)
5 Newsday 8/31/60 Chicago AP "They Wonder What's Up" :
Newsday 9/1/60 Caro, Bob "Experts Cloudy on Identity of Sky Thing
: Long Island Press 9/1/60 "Grumman Films Mystery Sphere"
6 Newsday, Washington AP 11/7/57 "Flying Saucers Don't Exist
AF Finds in 10-Year Study : Herald Tribune, Washington 2/27/59
"Air Force Puts Stress On Flying Saucer Data : Herald Tribune
12/18/60 "A Blast at Flying Saucers," Ubell, Earl (Science Editor)
: "Parade" section of Washington Post 9/19/65 "FLYING SAUCERS"
7 Newsday, Wed. 8/4/65 "They're Seeing Things Out Yonder"
8 Ibid
9 Look Magazine 2/22/66 Fuller, John G. "OUTER-SPACE GHOST
STORY" : Fuller, John G. "Incident at Exeter", New York: Pub.
by G.P. Putnam & Sons; distrib. by Berkley Publishing Corp., 1966
(no photos) (paperback)
10 Washington Daily News 4/18/66 "Flying 'Hot Dog' Spotted" :
The Evening Star 4/18/66 "Ohio Deputy Sheriff Tells of Chasing
Object 86 miles" : Newsday 10/22/66 "Report UFOs, of Some Sort" :
New York Times 10/25/66 "Unidentified Objects in Sky Sighted at
Goldsboro, N.C." : Life Magazine 10/28/66 "A flying 'something'
touches down in Brazil" (& color photo) : Newsday 10/31/66 "25 See
UFOs Over Island; AF Will Probe" : Long Island Press 11/2/66 "It
Wasn't a Plane, A Star, a Planet . . . " : Long Island Press
11/5/66 "McDivitt & White Spot 'yellow-white egg-shaped' object in
June 1965" (& photo) : Newsweek 3/20/67 "UFO-Watcher Watcher"
11 The Evening Star 3/23/66 "Flying Object Reports Have an
Unusually Good Week" : Life Magazine 4/1/66 "A Well-witnessed
'Invasion' - by Something" (8 pages & color photos)
12 The Washington Post 3/26/66 "Flying Objects Identified as
College Pranks and Swamp Gas" : The Washington Post 3/28/66 "UFO's
Revenge : The Washington Post 4/22/66 "UFO Sightings Study
Ordered" : The New York Times 8/14/66 Sullivan, Walter "Air Force
Selecting University to Study 'Flying Saucer' Data" : Newsday
Saturday 10/8/66 "Flying Saucer Study Is Sponsored by AF" : Look
Magazine.Rogers, Warren ."Flying Saucers - Why the Pentagon was
forced to call for scientific help"
13 NICAP Journal (The U.F.O. Investigator) Oct/Nov 1966
"University Starts UFO Probe..NICAP to Submit Factual Reports" :
NICAP Journal (The U.F.O. Investigator) Jan/Feb 1967 "Colorado
Project Operations" : NICAP Journal (The U.F.O. Investigator)
Nov/Dec 1967 "AF-Colorado Contract Casts New Light On UFO Project"
(Air Force "redefines" the term UFO) : Fox, J./Blumenfeld,
H./Mindell T.: Flying Saucers Look Magazine Special, New York:
Cowles Communications, Inc. & United Press International 1967
(excellent photos)
14 Hynek, Allen J. Newsweek 10/10/66 p. 70 "UFO's for Real?"
: Hynek, Allen J. Saturday Evening Post 12/17/66 . "Are Flying
Saucers Real?"
15 Fawcett, L. & Greenwood, B. "The UFO Cover-up" Simon &
Schuster Fireside Book 1992
16 Hynek, J. Allen "The UFO Experience" Henry Regnery Company
1972, appendix 4 (Excerpt of a Letter from J. Allen Hynek to
Colonel Raymond S. Sleeper)
17 Condon, Dr. Edward U.: "Scientific Study of Unidentified
Flying Objects", New York: Bantam Books (A New York Times Book),
1/8/69 (minimal photos ... Good Gemini 11, plate 17)
18 Sullivan, Walter . introduction to the "Scientific Study
of Unidentified Flying Objects", New York: Bantam Books (A New
York Times Book), 1/8/69
19 Sullivan, Walter (New York Times Science Editor).
introduction to the "Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying
Objects", New York: Bantam Books (A New York Times Book), 1/8/69
20 Newsweek Magazine 12/29/69 "Closing the Blue Book"
21 Fawcett, L. & Greenwood, B. "The UFO Cover-up" Simon &
Schuster Fireside Book 1992
22 McDonald, Dr. James E. . NICAP UFO Investigator . Feb/Mar
1969 . "A Scientists Critique" . "My own estimate is that
absolutely no further general progress towards scientific
clarification of the UFO problem will come until the inadequacies
of the Condon Report are fully aired in as many ways as possible.
I intend to devote all possible personal effort to that
objective..." : NICAP UFO Investigator . Sept/Oct 1969 . "UFO
Clearing House Recommended"
==============
End: Oberg/Cooper rebuttal.4
----------------------------------
UFOs, A SYNOPSIS OF AN
EXTREMELY RELEVANT HISTORY
==============
Respectfully submitted,
Jerry Cohen
E-mail: rjcohen@li.net
UFO UpDates - Toronto -
updates@globalserve.net
Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp - ++ 416-696-0304
A Hand-Operated E-Mail Subscription Service for the Study of UFO Related
Phenomena.
To subscribe please send your first and last name to
updates@globalserve.net
Message submissions should be sent to the same address.
|
Link it to the appropriate Ufologist or UFO Topic page. |
Archived as a public service by Area 51 Research Center which is not
responsible for content.
Financial support for this web server is provided by the
Research Center Catalog.
Software by Glenn Campbell.
Technical contact:
webmaster@ufomind.com