UFO UpDates Mailing List
From: "Jerry Cohen" <rjcohen@li.net>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 19:25:28 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 23:24:58 -0500
Subject: Oberg/Cooper rebuttal.7c
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Oberg/Cooper rebuttal.7c
continued from 7b
(part 3 of 3)
----------------------------------
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=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=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=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
CONCLUSION OF KIRTLAND CASE
MCDONALD COMMENTS re: KIRTLAND & THE COLORADO STUDY
MCDONALD'S CREDENTIALS
HYNEK COMMENTS re: MENZEL
AUTHOR'S SUMMATION (How this all relates to Gordon Cooper's claims)
=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=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
I asked both men whether they alerted anyone else while the
foregoing events were taking place. They both indicated that the
object was of such unprecedented nature that it wasn't until it
shot up into the overcast that they got on the phone to get the
CAA Radar Approach Control (RAPCON) unit to look for a fast target
to the east. Kaser recalled that a CPN-18 surveillance radar was
in use at that RAPCON unit at that time, a point confirmed to me
in subsequent correspondence with the present chief of the
Albuquerque Airport Traffic Control Tower, Mr. Robert L. Behrens,
who also provided other helpful information. Unfortunately, no one
who was in the Albuquerque/Kirtland RAPCON unit in 1957 is now
available, and the person whom Kaser thought was actually on the
CPN-18 that night is now deceased. Thus I have only Kaser and
Brink recollections of the radar-plotting of the unknown, plus the
less than precise information in the Nov. 6, 1957 TWX to Bluebook.
Capt. Shere did not, evidently, take the trouble to secure any
information from radar personnel.
As seen on the RAPCON CPN-18, the unknown target was still moving
in an easterly direction when the alert call came from the tower.
It then turned southward, and as Kaser recalled, moved south at
very high speed, though nothing is said about speed in the
Kirtland TWX of Nov. 6, 1957. It proceeded a number of miles south
towards the vicinity of the Albuquerque Low Frequency Range
Station, orbited there for a number of minutes, came back north to
near Kirtland, took up a trail position about a half-mile behind
an Air Force C-46 just then leaving Kirtland, and moved offscope
with the C-46. The Nov. 8, 1957 report from Commander, 34th Air
Div. to ADC and to the Air Technical Intelligence Command closed
with the rather reasonable comment: "Sighting and descriptions
conform to no known criteria for identification of UFOs." The
follow-up report of Nov. 13, 1957, prepared by Air Intelligence
personnel from Ent AFB, contains a number of relevant comments on
the experience of the two witnesses (23 years of tower control
work between them as of that date), and on their intelligence,
closing with the remarks: "In the opinion of the interviewer, both
sources (witnesses) are considered completely competent and reliable."
5. Critique of the Evaluation in the Condon Report:
The Kirtland AFB case is a rather good (though not isolated)
instance of the general point I feel obliged to make on the basis
of my continuing check of the Condon Report: In it we have not
been given anything superior to the generally casual and often
incompetent level of case-analysis that marked Bluebook's handling
of the UFO problem in past years.
In the Bluebook files, this case is carried as "Possible
Aircraft". Study of the 21-page case-file reveals that this is
based solely on passing comment made by Capt. Shere in closing his
summary letter of November 8: "The opinion of the preparing
officer is that this object may possibly have been an unidentified
aircraft, possibly confused by the runways at Kirtland AFB. The
reasons for this opinion are: (a) The observers are considered
competent and reliable sources, and in the opinion of this
interviewer actually saw an object they could not identify.
(b) The object was tracked on a radar scope by a competent operator.
(c) The object does not meet identification criteria for any other
phenomena."
The stunning non sequitur of that final conclusion might serve as
an epitome of 22 years of Air Force response to unexplainable
objects in our airspace. But when one then turns to the Condon
Report's analysis and evaluation, a Report that was identified to
the public and the scientific community as the definitive study of
UFOs, no visible improvement is found. Ignoring almost everything
of interest in the case-file except that a lighted airborne object
came down near Kirtland airfield and left, the Condon Report
covers this whole intriguing case in two short paragraphs, cites
the Air Force view, embellishes it a bit by speaking of the lost
aircraft as "powerful" (presumably to account for its observed
Mach 1 climb-out) and suggesting that it was "flying without
flight plan" (this explains why it was wandering across runways
and taxiways at night, in a rain, at an altitude of a few tens of
feet), and the Report then closes off the case with a terse
conclusion: "There seems to be no reason to doubt the accuracy of
this analysis.
Two telephone calls to the two principal witnesses would have
confronted the Colorado investigators with emphatic testimony,
supporting the contents (though not the conclusions) of the
Bluebook file, and that would have rendered the suggested
"powerful private aircraft" explanation untenable. By not
contacting the witnesses and by overlooking most of the salient
features of the reported observations, this UFO report has been
left safely in the "explained" category where Bluebook put it. One
has here a sample of the low scientific level of investigative and
evaluative work that will be so apparent to any who take the
trouble to study carefully and thoroughly the Condon Report on
UFOs. AAAS members are urged to study it carefully for themselves
and to decide whether it would be scientifically advisable to
accept it as the final word on the 22-year-long puzzle of the UFO
problem. I submit that it is most inadvisable.
J.C. Once again, since this case was originally located in Blue
Book files, included in the Condon Study, and was so thoroughly
researched by a highly respected meteorologist, with yet
additional information brought in by CAA witnesses who were still
alive, its authenticity is beyond reproach. The amount of effort
that McDonald put into his analysis should be obvious to anyone
reading this. The additional material he personally brought to
this case (and others) demonstrates that what was seen was indeed
a "UFO." The witnesses' words "..had no wings, tail, or fuselage,
was elongated in the vertical direction, and exhibited a somewhat
egg-shaped form (Kaser). It appeared to be perhaps 15-20 ft in
vertical dimension, about the size of an automobile on end, and
had a single white light in its base." and McDonald's words "Both
men were emphatic in stressing to me that _it in no way resembled
an aircraft._" clearly demonstrate that whatever this was, it was
definitely nothing the witnesses had ever seen before or since.
Additionally, as mentioned, the date and place of this case are
important as it occurred approximately 2 days * prior * to the
Sebago/Stokes cases and, for reasons already stated, I am
personally certain that "Sebago" was indeed a reality.
Furthermore, "Stokes" was claimed in the same general location as
the Kirtland case, within a close proximity of time. Since it
(Kirtland) happened "prior" to those cases, it obviously wasn't
stimulated by them. I therefore submit that the probability of
"Sebago" & "Stokes" being exactly what they were originally
represented as being, was extremely high. This is why I selected
these particular events when compiling my brief history of UFOs.
It is also important to consider all this in the context of Dr.
Hynek's letter to Colonel Sleeper in 1968, which demonstrated,
beyond a reasonable doubt, that the statistics touted in
"Project Blue Book" were little more than a "sham." If you
remember, Hynek called them a "travesty." As we said, no civilian
scientist was closer to this data than Hynek. (consultant to Air
Force UFO project for 20 years) 7
As far as Dr. McDonald himself is concerned, the only thing I can
see that he was guilty of was of being a poor politician. In
approaching the National Academy of Sciences by attacking them,
instead of taking the slower route of trying to befriend some of
them, he put himself in a position that was doomed to failure.
ON McDONALD'S SINCERITY:
Skeptics have said, a person who is insincere in his views on UFOs
and that wants to "reap the whirlwind," so to speak, in the UFO field
generally figures out a way to get to the media so they will pick up
his bogus information and sell it for him. Dr. McDonald did not fit
this profile. The people he was trying to convince were other
scientists. It is obvious to this researcher that he was sincere
in his beliefs. Walter Webb, who I mentioned in an earlier essay,
said the following concerning a visit McDonald made to Hynek:
"Fresh from a visit to Blue Book, an angry McDonald
descended upon Hynek and pounded on his desk. Allen told me
McDonald had accused him of sitting on the data all these years
without letting the scientific community know about the impressive
cases buried in Air Force files. Though Allen tried to explain the
difficult position he was in, McDonald would have none of it. At
the same time Hynek said he felt a great sense of relief because
finally here was another scientist who actually took the UFO
problem seriously." 8
As we had seen Hynek had done, McDonald, too, was putting his
career on the line. If you are wondering what McDonald's
credentials were at the time, I offer both the following quote
from Val Germann regarding McDonald's criticism of the scientific
community in regards to the UFO topic, and his listing of
McDonald's credentials. 9
"....McDonald was a scourge of the complacent ufologists of his
day. He blasted the Air Force, Hynek, Menzel, Condon and anyone
else doing a second-rate job in the UFO arena. He was a first-
rate intellect and a world- famous atmospheric scientist, this
last very important since UFOs are mainly reported in the
atmosphere, not in outer space. This put the astronomers (Hynek &
Menzel) on the spot when they tried to challenge McDonald. You
see, he was *in* his field, *they* were *not*. This would often
cause Menzel acute embarrassment."
Biographical Information: Dr. James E. McDonald
as of July 1968
Born: Duluth, Minnesota, May 7, 1920.
B.A., Chemistry, University of Omaha, 1942.
M.A., Meteorology, M.I.T., 1945.
Ph.D., Physics, Iowa State University, 1951.
U.S. Navy, Intelligence & aerology, 1942-45.
Instructor, Physics, Iowa State University, 1946-49.
Assistant Professor, Physics, Iowa State University, 1950-53.
Research Physicist, Cloud Physics, Univ. of Chicago, 1953-54.
Associate Prof., Physics, Univ. of Arizona, 1954-56.
Full Professor,, Physics, Univ. of Arizona, 1956-57.
Senior Physicist, Inst. of Atmospheric Studies, 1958 - present.
Member, Weather Modification Panel, NAS, 1965 - present.
Member, Navy Stormfury Advisory Panel, 1966 - present.
Member, NSF Weather Modification Panel, 1967 - present.
Member, AAAS, American Meteorological Society, Sigma Xi, American
Geophysical Society, American Society of University Professors.
Married, Six Children.
Is Germann's comment accurate regarding Menzel & Hynek? Here is a
quote from Hynek, from his own book "The UFO Experience:" 10
" ... Harvard astronomy professor Dr. Menzel, who took a seemingly
compulsive interest in the flying saucer question, even though
this subject was far removed from his scientific field. He loudly
proclaimed UFOs were nonsense and particularly championed the
"mirage theory" of flying saucers. He ascribed properties to
mirages, and mirage properties to UFOs, which have since been
shown to be completely untenable, even by the air force itself." 11
J.C. This is not to infer anything disparaging concerning Dr.
Menzel's other scientific endeavors which I am sure, as per his
reputation, were highly respected. However, when it came to
pronouncements concerning UFOs, his comments left much to be
desired.
Addendum: Other scientists have leaned on Menzel's reputation,
taking his stance in regard to UFOs without closely examining all
available case facts in some of them. With cases on record, such
as those mentioned herein, it is not unreasonable for people to
have begun wondering what was in the particular craft seen.
Cases revealed by FOIA requests and lawsuits have proven that
various branches of our government have communicated both
internally and amongst each other regarding cases such as the
previously mentioned 1975 SAC base visitations. Some of those
communications described those 1975 visitations in which craft of
some type apparently hovered over atomic missile silos and storage
areas of several SAC bases, and could not be apprehended. 12
This obviously indicates intelligent guidance of some sort and our
inability to deal with it. (You really can't blame our Air Force
for not telling us. Anyone remember the Orsen Wells "War of the
Worlds" broadcast? If that was any general indication of how
people might react to an announcement of this sort, it most
probably is not too advisable to scream this too loudly or
incessantly to everyone.)
Also briefly discussed in a prior post, the Belgium Air Force
1989/90 NATO cases documented a craft which played a cat & mouse
game with F-16s for *seventy five* minutes and *forty G*
accelerations which would have killed a human pilot, recorded on
gun cameras and observed by "a great number of witnesses, among
them *twenty* national policemen who saw both the object and the
F-16s." Prior to scrambling the F-16s, "headquarters had
determined to do some very precise studies during the next *fifty
five* minutes to eliminate the possibility of prosaic explanations
for the radar images. Excellent atmospheric conditions prevailed,
and there was no possibility of false echoes due to temperature
inversions." 13 The cases detailed herein certainly lend
credence to the Belgium incident(s). Since Air Force claims that
most UFOs have been explained were "blown away" by Hynek's 1972
book, cases such as these are remarkable, undeniable data to be
added to the entire picture before us.
Furthermore, (and I am not happy saying this) with military cases
such as these on record, it certainly would behoove the human race
to take a really close look at "animal mutilation cases" and
claimed "abduction" cases. Although a great percentage of the
abduction claims most certainly could be hoaxes or psychological
aberrations, and a percentage of the "mutilation" cases may be
attributed to natural predators, etc., the data displayed herein
demonstrates it most certainly is not impossible there may be a core
of them that exists that could be the "real" thing. We certainly
have a core of "real UFO" cases. To not examine these other type
cases carefully would be to ignore what may very well be related,
documented evidence that has been accumulating over the years and
might well be the most foolish thing mankind has ever done. To have
main-stream scientists scoffing at these without examining them
"thoroughly," is obviously ill-advised. "Some" of the people
reporting these things may not be as crazy as certain scientists and
newscasters, who are unaware of the quality and quantity of this
documentation, would have us believe.
One final question to all skeptics who have read these essays to this
point thus far: "Are you honestly all as positive as you were before
reading them, that Gordon Cooper was not telling the truth about what
he saw?" Remember, the date of Cooper's claimed landing at Edwards
AFB was May 3rd, 1957 (as per Mr. Oberg), six months prior to the
Kirtland case which occurred November 4th of the same year.
Is it just possible that the following quote attributed to Dr.
Hynek by Mr. Oberg, may have been a totally valid criticism of the
BBC's "The Case of the UFOs"?
Oberg =B6 21 In late 1982, Dr. J. Allen Hynek blasted
the British Broadcasting Corporation for its production of "The
Case of the UFOs" (aired in the US on NOVA in October 1982) for
avoiding any mention of Gordon Cooper's UFO experiences, which
Hynek clearly portrayed as genuine and unsolvable.
And, considering the information Hynek had appraised us regarding
Project Blue Book, some of the excellent overlooked cases therein
and the statistical "travesty" perpetrated by that project, is it
really so difficult for us to understand why Dr. James McDonald
did not accept the Air Force's "weather balloon" explanation
(Oberg =B6 50) for the 1957 Edwards AFB case? Below is a portion of
the argument given to convince us of the case against Cooper's
Edwards AFB UFO claim and McDonald.
Oberg =B6 51 But oddly enough, even though the
original sighting was published in numerous newspapers (and made
national wire services), the explanation was written up in no
newspaper that I have been able to find. Nor did the pro- UFO
McDonald (who hardly could have failed to be aware of it, since he
had been sent the same material by Gettys) mention it before the
congressional committee. Of course, the explanation "weather
balloon" elicits snickers of disbelief from anybody familiar with
how the term was over-used for other cases. . . . .
Respectfully, Mr. Oberg, it certainly does.
Bibliography
1 germannvh@aol.com (Germannvh) . alt.paranet.ufo . "Yet
More McDonald -- 1/6" . 21 Dec 1995
2 posted on Usenet newsgroup "alt.paranet.ufo" : also to be
posted on WWW TUFOP (The Ultimate UFO Page) at
http://www.serve.com/tufop/tu00002.html
3 Newsday, (L.I. Newspaper) . Wednesday 11/6/57 . "CG Ship
Sights Weird Object Off Louisiana" : Newsday, (L.I. Newspaper) .
Wednesday 11/6/57 . "Flying Something Still Unidentified"
4 From an address given by McDonald, James E., Professor of
Atmospheric Sciences, to the American Association For The
Advancement Of Science (AAAS) at Sheraton Plaza Ballroom, Arizona
12/27/69 . 134th Meeting, Symposium, Unidentified Flying Objects .
Subject: Science in Default; 22 years
5 Ibid #4 : also, case # 19-X, 361-B located in Condon,
Edward U. "Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects",
1/8/69 . New York Times Book
6 Ibid #2 . Germann, Val . McDonald, Dr. James E. . address
to the AAAS UFO Symposium, Boston, Dec. 27, 1969.
7 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) : Cohen, R.J., WITH RESPECT TO DR.
HYNEK.3 - "The UFO Experience" & "Blue Book" . NET POST TUFOP :
http://www.serve.com/tufop/tu00005.html
8 Webb, Walter N . (Charles Hayden Planetarium, Boston) .
Center for UFO Studies "International Reporter" 1/93 . "Allen
Hynek as I Knew Him". p9 "The Later Years" . col. 1. last
paragraph & col 2
9 Germann, Val . germannvh@aol.com (Germannvh) . "Yet More
McDonald -- 1/6" . alt.paranet.ufo . 12/21/95 . "Dr. James E.
McDonald -- What Might Have Been - 1/6"
10 Hynek, J. Allen "The UFO Experience" Henry Regnery
Company 1972 . Chapt. 11 "The Air Force and the UFO - Pages from
Blue Book" . paragraph 18
11 Menkello, F. G. "Quantitative Aspects of Mirages," Report
No. 6112, Menkello is a first lieutenant, USAF, Environmental
Technical Applications Center. "It is easy to show that the 'air
lenses' and 'strong inversions' postulated by Gordon and Menzel,
among others, would need temperatures of several thousand degrees
Kelvin in order to cause the mirages attributed to them."
12 Newsday (Long Island newspaper) . Fri 1/19/79 . UFOs Seen
at Air Bases in 1975 : Fawcett, L. & Greenwood, B. "The UFO Cover-
up" Simon & Schuster Fireside Book 1992 : Gersten, Peter (FOIA
lawyer) . Frontiers of Science . May/June 1981 . "What the U.S.
Government Knows About Unidentified Flying Objects"
13 CUFOS Journal (International UFO Reporter) . July/Aug 1990
. "Remarkable military encounter in Belgium" : also detailed in an
"Unsolved Mysteries" television episode narrated by Robert Stack
complete with Belgium military gun camera documentation and
statements by Belgium Air Force personnel and police.
=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=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Oberg/Cooper rebuttal.7c
McDonald comments re: Kirtland & the Colorado Study
Hynek comments re: Menzel
(part 3 of 3)
=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=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
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