UFO UpDates Mailing List
From: "Jerry Cohen" <rjcohen@li.net>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 07:13:33 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 09:11:16 -0500
Subject: Oberg/Cooper rebuttal.5
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=20
Oberg/Cooper rebuttal.5=20
continued from 4=20
----------------------------------=20
A researcher's response to James Oberg's:=20
"IN SEARCH OF GORDON COOPER'S UFOs"=20
by Jerry Cohen=20
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=20
=20
Excerpts from "The UFO Experience"=20
(Hynek takes us INSIDE "Blue Book")=20
Skeptics, I hope you're still reading this. This is where things=20
really begin to get interesting. It's why Hynek became a believer.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Getting back to Dr. Hynek. In "Oberg/Cooper rebuttal 1a" (Preface,=20
=B6 3 ) I mentioned that "it was that Air Force's own scientific=20
consultant who actually proved to us that the Air Force has not=20
been completely honest with us concerning UFOs."
This next section focuses on what the Air Force's main civilian=20
scientific consultant had to say concerning Project Blue Book=20
after it was closed and his job there had ended. His revelations=20
would have shattered every skeptic's "illusion" concerning the=20
accuracy of Air Force statistics and made them realize that=20
Project Blue Book was a sham and the Air Force had to know a lot=20
more than it was telling. The only problem was that most of the=20
skeptics never read it and/or, if they did, refused to believe it. =20
It is my fervent hope that those following these essays will=20
become more enlightened in this regard.
To say the following data "is extremely important," is definitely=20
the greatest understatement I have ever made in my life. It=20
proves, beyond all reasonable doubt, that Dr. Hynek was held back=20
from studying the repository of "verified" evidence in existence. =20
In other words, the same people that had claimed all along this=20
important evidence didn't exist, were keeping much of it buried=20
from Hynek and outsiders. As you will see in these excerpts from=20
his 1972 book, by his own words, Hynek was not permitted to peruse=20
the files himself. The big question was "Was it incompetence, a=20
need to feel important on the part of members of the Blue Book=20
staff or a directive from upper echelon?"
=20
=20
=3D The accuracy of the following can be checked by=20
consulting the sources provided via your local libraries =3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=20
HYNEK & PROJECT BLUE BOOK=20
(The study that wasn't)=20
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=20
{ . . . . .Spock said to McCoy . . . . . "Remember!" }=20
=20
When Blue Book closed, Dr. Hynek, having had access to Blue Book=20
files for approximately twenty years, and realizing how little=20
study had been done on some of the best cases, had decided that=20
there was a lot more to UFOs than most other people realized. =20
The problem was, how was he going to get this information out to=20
the public? He needed to let them know, what *he* knew; that Blue=20
Book was a "sham", that the Colorado Study had come to the wrong=20
conclusions and that he had information he felt proved there was=20
indeed something to at least a core of these UFO reports.
In 1972, his book "The UFO Experience" was published and was=20
earthshaking to those of us that had been following the UFO=20
controversy closely. Besides the classifications he delineated=20
concerning the phenomena, etc., Hynek also included revealing=20
inside details on both Blue Book and the Condon Study. The most=20
shattering our consciousness regarding Blue Book concerned twenty=20
pages described as "Excerpts from a letter by J. Allen Hynek to=20
Colonel Raymond S. Sleeper" on Oct. 7, 1968. <1> It aptly=20
demonstrated that Blue Book had been a "non-study" and made those=20
of us who read his book painfully aware of how little was=20
accomplished by the project the Air Force touted as its=20
"scientific analysis" of UFOs. The letter is both his evaluation=20
of Project Blue Book and a plea for the Air Force to take the UFO=20
subject more seriously. =20
After reading this, it is hard to imagine that someone, somewhere=20
wasn't taking it more seriously. Our Air Force has been and is,=20
the finest "human" Air Force in the world.
In "Oberg/Cooper rebuttal.4" I made several statements that may=20
have appeared controversial to some. Three of them were: =20
1) ". . . things concerning the Air Force weren't as we had=20
thought"; =20
2) "Eventually other things surfaced that made it crystal clear=20
the Air Force had to know a lot more than it was willing to tell." =20
and =20
3) ". . . a project (Blue Book) that, as we will discover later,=20
had become an embarrassment to itself."
There are five sections of Hynek's letter to which I wish to draw=20
everyone's attention. One of the sections I haven't included was=20
their own (the Air Force's) consultant's plea to take UFOs more=20
seriously. Those wishing to view this text in its entirety can=20
view it in Appendix 4 of his book, delineated in the bibliography=20
below. The following, labeled by section and general area, are=20
quotes directly from Hynek to Sleeper.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Section A:=20
HOW "BLUE BOOK" DEALT WITH ITS MISSION.=20
ONE "CASE EXAMPLE" OF WHAT HYNEK THOUGHT WAS A REPORT=20
GOING UNHEEDED. DO WE REALLY THINK SOMEONE ELSE HIGHER =20
UP DIDN'T GET TO READ THIS CASE WHEN IT OCCURRED?
"Blue Book has been charged with two missions by AFR 80-
17, both ostensibly of the same weight, since the regulations do=20
not specify otherwise. They are: (1) to determine if the UFO is a=20
possible threat to the United States, and (2) to use the=20
scientific or technical data gained from study of UFO reports. =20
Neither of these two missions is being adequately executed.
First, the only logical basis on which it can be stated=20
that UFOs do not constitute a possible threat to the United States=20
is that so far nothing has happened to the United States from that=20
source. First, many reports are not investigated until weeks or=20
even months after they are made; clearly, if hostility were ever=20
intended, it would occur long before the report was investigated.=20
(That is akin to having the Pearl Harbor radar warnings [which=20
went unheeded] investigated three weeks after Pearl Harbor.) =20
Nothing did occur, so it can be gathered that UFOs, whatever they=20
may be, have not so far had hostile intent.
Second, many reports of potentially high intelligence=20
value go unheeded by Blue Book. Examples: (a) [Extract from a=20
classified document of reported sighting of 5 May, 1965, contents=20
unclassified, classification refers to name, and location and=20
mission of vessel.] " . . . leading signal man reported what he=20
believed to be an aircraft. . . . When viewed through binoculars,=20
three objects were sighted in close proximity to each other; one=20
object was first magnitude, the other two were second magnitude. =20
Objects were traveling at extremely high speeds, moving toward=20
ship at undetermined altitude. At . . . . four moving targets=20
were detected on the . . . . air search radar at ranges up to=20
twenty two miles and held up to six minutes. When over the ship=20
the objects spread to circular formation directly overhead and=20
remained there for approximately three minutes. This maneuver was=20
observed both visually and by radar. The bright object which=20
hovered off the starboard quarter made the larger presentation on=20
the radar scope. The objects made several course changes during=20
the sighting, confirmed visually and by radar, and were *tracked=20
at speeds in excess of 3000 (three thousand) knots. * (J.C.=20
Asterisks are mine.) Challenges were made by IFF but not=20
answered. After the three minute hovering maneuver, the objects=20
moved in a southeasterly direction at an extremely high rate of=20
speed. Above evolution observed by CO, all bridge personnel and=20
numerous hands topside."
This report was summarily evaluated by Blue Book as=20
"Aircraft," and to the best of my knowledge was never further=20
investigated. By what stretch of the imagination can we say that=20
the sighting did not represent a "possible threat" to the United=20
States? Only because nothing happened. Do we ascribe such=20
incompetence to the officers of the ship, and to the CO, to have=20
such a report submitted unless all witnesses were truly puzzled? =20
Is it conceivable that these officers could not have recognized an=20
aircraft had it had the trajectory, the apparent speed, and the=20
maneuvers ascribable to aircraft? No mention is made in the=20
report of even the possibility that ordinary aircraft were being=20
observed. The very fact that IFF challenges went unanswered=20
should have been a spur to further investigation. This implies=20
enemy craft. But the report does not even suggest the possibility=20
that these were ordinary enemy aircraft. The classified document=20
in Blue Book files does not contain further technical data=20
concerning the sighting itself. Should not the director of Blue=20
Book have exhibited at least SOME curiosity about this sighting? =20
Yet when I brought it up on more than one occasion, it was=20
dismissed with boredom. . . . . . *It is hard for the public to=20
understand how a country whose military posture is so security=20
geared could dismiss a case like this out-of-hand unless the=20
military knew more than they were telling." * (J.C. asterisks are=20
mine)
=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=
=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D=20
J.C. Was Hynek only talking about the public understanding or his=20
own as well? =20
After giving a second example similar to the above he says the=20
following:=20
=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=
=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D=20
ON HYNEK's ROLE IN BLUE BOOK (GUESSING GAME PLAYED)=20
Appendix 4, Section A, Paragraph 9=20
"It must be pointed out that neither of these cases were shown to=20
me by Blue Book personnel. I happened upon them by accident=20
during one of my visits as I scanned through material lying on a=20
desk, and not in the files; I am not permitted to peruse the files=20
themselves. I have access to the files only when I request a=20
specific case. But how can I request a specific case, to examine=20
its possible scientific merits, if I don't know of its existence?"
=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=
=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D=20
J.C. Does the above sound as though they wanted him=20
to examine the cases?=20
=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=
=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D=20
ON THE STAFF OF BLUE BOOK=20
Appendix 4, Section B, Paragraph 1=20
"The staff of Blue Book, both in numbers and in scientific=20
training, is grossly inadequate to perform the tasks assigned=20
under AFR 80-17, even were they of a mind to do so."
ON SCIENTIFIC EXCHANGE WITH THE OUTSIDE SCIENTIFIC WORLD=20
OR WITHIN THE AIR FORCE ITSELF Appendix 4, Section C, Paragraph=20
1=20
"There has been little dialogue between Blue Book and the outside=20
scientific world or between Blue Book and the various scientific=20
facilities within the Air Force itself."
"I know of very little scientific correspondence in the blue book=20
files; this is probably because scientists wish to correspond with=20
persons of like training. It would be pointless, for instance, to=20
query Blue Book on the scientific reasons for evaluating a given=20
case, say, as caused by a temperature inversion: Blue Book has=20
never availed itself of the meteorological know-how within the Air=20
Force itself to determine just how much of an inversion is=20
necessary to produce the effects reported by the witness, if at=20
all."
=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=
=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D=20
J.C. Communication has been found in FOIA released documents=20
that prove Hynek was wrong about this last statement. They just=20
did it quietly and he wasn't shown the reports. <2>=20
=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=
=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D=20
". . . . . many astronomical evaluations have been made by Blue=20
Book without consulting their scientific consultant (who is, after=20
all, an astronomer) which have brought ridicule in the press. The=20
midwest flap of reports of July 31-August 1, 1965 can be cited as=20
an example."=20
=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=
=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D=20
J.C. Above, Hynek's defense concerning the erroneous Air=20
Force explanation discovered by Robert Risser, director=20
of Oklahoma City's Kirkpatrick Planetarium.=20
As a point of information, the Exeter, New Hampshire case
occurred just one month later. (September 3, 1965)
=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=
=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D=20
ON STATISTICAL METHODS EMPLOYED BY BLUE BOOK=20
Appendix 4, Section D, Paragraph 1=20
"The statistical methods employed by Blue Book are a travesty on=20
the branch of mathematics known as Statistics. A chapter in a=20
doctoral dissertation at Northwestern University, soon to be=20
published, deals specifically with this aspect, and I will later=20
quote from it (Herbert Strentz, "A Study of Some Air Force=20
Statistical Procedures in Recording and Reporting Data on UFO=20
Investigations," included in "A SURVEY OF PRESS COVERAGE OF UFOs,=20
1947-1967, a doctoral thesis at the Medill School of Journalism,=20
Northwestern University") and preface it with my own observations=20
which, incidentally, I have repeatedly brought to the attention of=20
the Blue Book staff but to no avail."
=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=
=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D=20
J.C. *** Hynek states outright that the statistics=20
being quoted by Blue Book were a joke. ***=20
=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=
=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D=20
ON LACK OF ATTENTION TO SIGNIFICANT CASES=20
Appendix 4, Section E, Paragraph 1=20
"There has been lack of attention to significant UFO cases, as=20
judged by the scientific consultant and others, and too much time=20
on routine cases which contain few information bits; too much time=20
and effort are demanded of the Blue Book staff for peripheral=20
tasks (public relations, answering letters about evaluation of old=20
cases and answering requests for information from various and=20
sundry sources)."
=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=
=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D=20
J.C. Researchers who have looked at the number of people=20
employed had long ago determined that the project was incredibly=20
understaffed & under-ranked. It was felt this showed the real=20
value the military placed on it.=20
=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=
=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D=20
"A scientist who finds something in his laboratory that he can't=20
explain is no scientist if he labels it "unknown" and files it=20
away and spends the rest of his time in routine matters. It is=20
precisely the Unknowns that Blue Book should be concerned with,=20
not making impressive (?) counts of how many people cannot=20
properly identify a satellite or a meteor."
=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=
=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D=20
J.C. It appears the military was more concerned with public=20
opinion than science. Above point made by critics of the Condon=20
Report regarding *that* study as well.=20
=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=
=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D=20
INFORMATION INPUT=20
Appendix 4, Section E, Paragraph 1=20
"The information input to Blue Book is grossly inadequate and=20
certainly the cause of much of the inefficiency within the Book by=20
the almost consistent failure of UFO officers at the local Air=20
Bases to transmit adequate information to Blue Book, and, I might=20
say, it was considerably worse in the long period before there=20
were UFO officers so designated.=20
=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=
=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D=20
J.C. i.e. There were probably more cases=20
but we didn't get the proper information on them.=20
=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=
=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D=20
ANOTHER CASE SELECTED BY HYNEK TO ILLUSTRATE THE LACK OF=20
RIGOR IN THE SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY OF BLUE BOOK=20
Appendix 4, Section G, Paragraph 5=20
"Incident at Redlands, California (4 Feb 68)=20
It was investigated by no one at Blue Book, superficially=20
by a member of Norton AFB, and for a total of three months by Dr.=20
Philip Seff, professor of geology, Dr. Reinhold Krantz, professor=20
of chemistry, Dr. Judson Sanderson, Professor of mathematics, and=20
artist John Brownfield, professor of art (who drew an artist's=20
conception from the descriptions given independently by the=20
witnesses and whose composite painting was verified by the=20
witnesses), all of the University of Redlands. It is of interest=20
to note that no one at Blue Book has seen fit to contact these=20
investigators and discuss their investigation at least over the=20
phone."
The case itself concerns the reported sighting by some=20
twenty observers of an object with seven lights on the bottom,=20
which appeared as jets, and a row of eight to ten lights on top=20
which were alternating in color. The object was reported to have=20
proceeded at a low altitude (estimated about 300 feet) in a=20
northeasterly direction for about a mile, to have come to a stop=20
and to have hovered briefly, jerked forward, hovered again, then=20
to have shot straight upward, stopped, hovered again, then wavered=20
to the northwest, gained altitude, and then to have shot off to=20
the northwest with a strong burst of speed. It was under=20
observation for about 5 minutes. The object was estimated to have=20
been at least 50 feet in diameter. The estimates of 300 feet=20
altitude and 50 feet must be considered jointly; only the apparent=20
diameter can be judged, of course, but on the assumption of a=20
given distance the estimate of 50 feet was arrived at. Clearly,=20
if the object had been several miles away, the unchanged apparent=20
diameter would lead to an unbelievably large object. For these=20
reasons these estimates cannot be summarily dismissed.
You will undoubtedly be interested to know that Blue Book=20
classified this object as "probable aircraft." How this was=20
arrived at with no investigation is, of course, a striking example=20
of methodology of Blue Book. Norton AFB reported that March AFB=20
radar painted no unusual targets (ignoring completely the fact=20
that an object at 300 feet altitude would have been missed by this=20
radar) and that a light plane had landed at Tri-City airport at=20
19:15 PST, whereas a check of the police blotter and of all=20
witnesses, agreed that the sighting could not have occurred=20
earlier than 19:20. Further, a check made by the university=20
professors, (but apparently not even thought of by Blue Book) with=20
the authorities at the airfield showed that the plane was coming=20
in from Los Angeles and never approached closer than six miles to=20
the city of Redlands and therefore never passed over the city of=20
Redlands, whereas all witnesses agree that it was actually close=20
over the city. The plane which landed (which Blue Book did not=20
think to inquire about) was a Bonanza single engine propeller=20
aircraft which the professors took the trouble to examine=20
while in its hangar at the airfield. [The Redlands case is the=20
sole subject of a book now in production by David Branch and=20
Robert Klinn, entitled "Inquiry at Redlands."]
The discrepancy between what was reported and the Blue=20
Book evaluation is so great as to be laughable. The law, further,=20
states that planes cannot fly lower than 1000 feet over Redlands. =20
It appears inconceivable that twenty or so witnesses would=20
misidentify a light, single engine plane, several miles away, as a=20
brilliantly lighted, unconventional aircraft at 300 feet that=20
jerked, hovered, and sped away, and went straight up in the=20
overcast."
=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=
=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D=20
J.C. Mind you, this was the Air Force's own "number one"=20
civilian consultant who had said all this. I believe it is=20
obvious that Dr. Hynek's words are in full support of the three=20
statements I indicated earlier in "Oberg/Cooper rebuttal.4". Now=20
you can see at least one reason why the Air Force wanted to=20
dismantle Project Blue Book; a project I said that....... "had=20
become an embarrassment to itself." The "solid bedrock" skeptics=20
once stood upon, (i.e. the Air Force's claim that most UFOs have=20
been explained), crumbled to bits with the publishing of Hynek's=20
"The UFO Experience" in 1972. Likewise, so did Air Force=20
credibility with regards to how honest the Air Force was being=20
with the public concerning UFOs.
REGARDING COOPER & THE EDWARDS AFB PHOTOGRAPHS: Mr. Oberg's=20
following words regarding the Edwards AFB photographs take on a=20
different meaning when one has been appraised of the preceding:
Oberg =B6 49 Now, in fact those photographs did not vanish=20
after all: they had been sent to Project Blue Book, at Wright-=20
Patterson AFB in Dayton, Ohio, per regulations (I even have talked=20
to the officer who did the original Blue Book interviews, former=20
Captain Hubert Davis, who had been greatly impressed with the=20
witness's sincerity).
Oberg =B6 50 The Air Force must have found a satisfactory=20
solution -- but what?........ That answer had been around since=20
1957, but not widely circulated in the UFO media for obvious=20
reasons: the Air Force said it had been a weather balloon.....=20
A weather balloon. Where have we heard that before? Perhaps the=20
reasons were a lot less obvious than Mr. Oberg has previously=20
thought. The real question is "How valid is the Air Force's=20
explanation?"=20
Also, cases such as the initial one quoted from Section A=20
this installment, as well as other military or government cases=20
that happen in a close proximity of time, such as the ones I=20
mentioned in "Oberg/Cooper rebuttal.4", (i.e. "Coast Guard Cutter=20
Sebago RADAR/visual case", "James Stokes, engineer from the=20
Missile Development Center at Holloman AFB, Alamagordo N.M.", and=20
Kirtland AFB case"), occurring within 4 days of each other if not=20
less, lend great support to the argument that the Air Force and=20
our government know more about UFOs, and perhaps even what they=20
are, than they have presently acknowledged. I'll examine these=20
closely after our next installment. However, imagine, with the=20
RADARs we now possess; RADARs that can paint an actual picture of=20
an object on a screen, what statistics and data the branches of=20
our service and government must already have? The visual/radar=20
Belgium Sightings from 1989/90 have added solid NATO (North=20
American Treaty Alliance) gun camera data, etc. as well. <3>
Furthermore, to think that another department in our defense=20
system hasn't been quietly receiving all this UFO information=20
without studying it would be to imply that our defense system is=20
highly incompetent. Since we all know this is not the truth, I=20
would hope it is safe to assume that some defense group(s),=20
somewhere is (are) well appraised of the situation. FOIA=20
documents obtained through standard requests and lawsuits, where=20
necessary, have apparently confirmed, at the minimum, definite=20
interest from various parts of the government regarding UFOs even=20
though the public has been led to think otherwise. <4>
=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=
=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D=20
Bibliography:=20
<1> Hynek, J. Allen "The UFO Experience" Henry Regnery Company=20
1972, appendix four (Excerpt of a Letter from J. Allen Hynek to=20
Colonel Raymond S. Sleeper)=20
<2> Fawcett, L. & Greenwood, B. "The UFO Cover-up" Simon &=20
Schuster Fireside Book 1992=20
<3> CUFOS Journal (International UFO Reporter) . July/Aug 1990=20
. p. 23 : Documentation displayed to public in an "Unsolved=20
Mysteries" television episode narrated by Robert Stack=20
<4> Newsday (Long Island newspaper) Fri 1/19/79 "UFOs seen at=20
Air Bases in 1975 : Gersten, Peter . Frontiers of Science .=20
May/June 1981 . "What the U.S. Government Knows About Unidentified=20
Flying Objects" : Fawcett, L. & Greenwood, B. "The UFO Cover-up"=20
Simon & Schuster Fireside Book 1992=20
=20
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~=20
". . . and McCoy became a raving maniac until he=20
gave Spock back his soul. "=20
"Who is Spock? . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . YOU are!"=20
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=20
End: Oberg/Cooper rebuttal.5=20
----------------------------------=20
HYNEK & PROJECT BLUE BOOK=20
(The study that wasn't)=20
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=20
My next installment is a two-page summation of what we've=20
discussed so far and ideas where to locate cases which have the=20
greatest potential of being judged "the real thing" if proper=20
investigations were to be conducted thereupon. Immediately=20
following that summation will be a detailed accounting of the=20
three cases I mentioned which, when combined with all other=20
available evidence, strongly suggests there is good reason to=20
believe Gordon Cooper was probably telling the truth concerning=20
his 1957 Edwards AFB claim.
=20
Respectfully,=20
Jerry Cohen=20
E-mail: rjcohen@li.net=20
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