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 -> 1998 -> Dec -> -=[For The Record]=- Oberg/Cooper rebuttal.5b

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: Jerry Cohen <rjcohen@li.net>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 21:55:40 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 14:53:13 -0500
Subject: -=[For The Record]=- Oberg/Cooper rebuttal.5b


Archival:

-----------------
Oberg/Cooper rebuttal.5b
continued from 5a
----------------------------------
A researcher's response to James Oberg's:
"IN SEARCH OF GORDON COOPER'S UFOs"
by Jerry Cohen
-----------------

		----------------------------------
                Excerpts from "The UFO Experience"
               (Hynek takes us INSIDE "Blue Book")
		----------------------------------

. . . . .

ON  SCIENTIFIC  EXCHANGE  WITH  THE  OUTSIDE  SCIENTIFIC  WORLD
OR  WITHIN  THE AIR FORCE ITSELF  Appendix 4, Section C,
Paragraph 1

"There has been little dialogue between Blue Book and the
outside scientific world or between Blue Book and the various
scientific facilities within the Air Force itself."

"I know of very little scientific correspondence in the blue
book files; this is probably because scientists wish to
correspond with persons of like training. It would be pointless,
for instance, to query Blue Book on the scientific reasons for
evaluating a given case, say, as caused by a temperature
inversion:  Blue Book has never availed itself of the
meteorological know-how within the Air Force itself to determine
just how much of an inversion is necessary to produce the
effects reported by the witness, if at all."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
J.C.    Communication has been found in FOIA released documents
that prove Hynek was wrong about this last statement.  He just
didn't see them back then.  <2>
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

". . . . . many astronomical evaluations have been made by Blue
Book without consulting their scientific consultant (who is,
after all, an astronomer) which have brought ridicule in the
press. The midwest flap of reports of July 31-August 1, 1965 can
be cited as an example."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
J.C.    Above, Hynek's defense concerning the erroneous
Air Force explanation discovered by Robert Risser,
director of Oklahoma City's Kirkpatrick Planetarium
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

ON  STATISTICAL  METHODS  EMPLOYED  BY  BLUE BOOK
Appendix 4, Section D, Paragraph 1

"The statistical methods employed by Blue Book are a travesty on
the branch of mathematics known as Statistics.  A chapter in a
doctoral dissertation at Northwestern University, soon to be
published, deals specifically with this aspect, and I will later
quote from it (Herbert Strentz, "A Study of Some Air Force
Statistical Procedures in Recording and Reporting Data on UFO
Investigations," included in "A SURVEY OF PRESS COVERAGE OF
UFOs, 1947-1967, a doctoral thesis at the Medill School of
Journalism, Northwestern University") and preface it with my own
observations which, incidentally, I have repeatedly brought to
the attention of the Blue Book staff but to no avail."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
J.C.    *** Hynek states outright that the statistics
            being quoted by Blue Book were a joke. ***
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

ON  LACK  OF  ATTENTION  TO  SIGNIFICANT  CASES
Appendix 4, Section E, Paragraph 1

"There has been lack of attention to significant UFO cases, as
judged by the scientific consultant and others, and too much
time on routine cases which contain few information bits; too
much time and effort are demanded of the Blue Book staff for
peripheral tasks (public relations, answering letters about
evaluation of old cases and answering requests for information
from various and sundry sources)."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
J.C.    Researchers who have looked at the number of people
employed had ago determined that the project was incredibly
understaffed & under-ranked.  It was felt this showed the real
value the military placed on it.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

"A scientist who finds something in his laboratory that he can't
explain is no scientist if he labels it "unknown" and files it
away and spends the rest of his time in routine matters.  It is
precisely the Unknowns that Blue Book should be concerned with,
not making impressive (?) counts of how many people cannot
properly identify a satellite or a meteor."


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
J.C.    It appears the military was more concerned with public
opinion than science. Above point made by critics of the Condon
Report regarding *that* study as well.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


INFORMATION  INPUT
Appendix 4, Section E, Paragraph 1

"The information input to Blue Book is grossly inadequate and
certainly the cause of much of the inefficiency within the Book
by the almost consistent failure of UFO officers at the local
Air Bases  to transmit adequate information to Blue Book, and, I
might say, it was considerably worse in the long period before
there were UFO officers so designated.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
J.C.    i.e.  There were probably more cases
but we didn't get the proper information on them.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

ANOTHER  CASE  SELECTED  BY  HYNEK  TO  ILLUSTRATE  THE  LACK  OF
RIGOR  IN  THE  SCIENTIFIC  METHODOLOGY  OF  BLUE BOOK
Appendix 4, Section G, Paragraph 5

"Incident at Redlands, California (4 Feb 68)

It was investigated by no one at Blue Book, superficially by a
member of Norton AFB, and for a total of three months by Dr.
Philip Seff, professor of geology, Dr. Reinhold Krantz,
professor of chemistry, Dr. Judson Sanderson, Professor of
mathematics, and artist John Brownfield, professor of art (who
drew an artist's conception from the descriptions given
independently by the witnesses and whose composite painting was
verified by the witnesses), all of the University of Redlands. 
It is of interest to note that no one at Blue Book has seen fit
to contact these investigators and discuss their investigation
at least over the phone."

The case itself concerns the reported sighting by some twenty
observers of an object with seven lights on the bottom, which
appeared as jets, and a row of eight to ten lights on top which
were alternating in color.  The object was reported to have
proceeded at a low altitude (estimated about 300 feet) in a
northeasterly direction for about a mile, to have come to a stop
and to have hovered briefly, jerked forward, hovered again, then
to have shot straight upward, stopped, hovered again, then
wavered to the northwest, gained altitude, and then to have shot
off to the northwest with a strong burst of speed.  It was under
observation for about 5 minutes.  The object was estimated to
have been at least 50 feet in diameter.  The estimates of 300
feet altitude and 50 feet must be considered jointly; only the
apparent diameter can be judged, of course, but on the
assumption of a given distance the estimate of 50 feet was
arrived at. Clearly, if the object had been several miles away,
the unchanged apparent diameter would lead to an unbelievably
large object. For these reasons these estimates cannot be
summarily dismissed.

You will undoubtedly be interested to know that Blue Book
classified this object as "probable aircraft."  How this was
arrived at with no investigation is, of course, a striking
example of methodology of Blue Book.  Norton AFB reported that
March AFB radar painted no unusual targets (ignoring completely
the fact that an object at 300 feet altitude would have been
missed by this radar) and that a light plane had landed at
Tri-City airport at 19:15 PST, whereas a check of the police
blotter and of all witnesses, agreed that the sighting could not
have occurred earlier than 19:20.  Further, a check made by the
university professors, (but apparently not even thought of by
Blue Book) with the authorities at the airfield showed that the
plane was coming in from Los Angeles and never approached closer
than six miles to the city of Redlands and therefore never
passed over the city of Redlands, whereas all witnesses agree
that it was actually close over the city.  The plane which
landed (which Blue Book did not think to inquire about) was a
Bonanza single engine propeller aircraft which the professors
took the trouble to examine while in its hangar at the airfield.
[The Redlands case is the sole subject of a book now in
production by David Branch and Robert Klinn, entitled Inquiry at
Redlands.]

The discrepancy between what was reported and the Blue Book
evaluation is so great as to be laughable.  The law, further,
states that planes cannot fly lower than 1000 feet over
Redlands. It appears inconceivable that twenty or so witnesses
would misidentify a light, single engine plane, several miles
away, as a brilliantly lighted, unconventional aircraft at 300
feet that jerked, hovered, and sped away, and went straight up
in the overcast."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
J.C.    Mind you, this was the Air Force's own "number one"
civilian consultant who had said all this.  I believe it is
obvious that Dr. Hynek's words are in full support of the three
statements I indicated earlier in "Oberg/Cooper rebuttal.4". 
Now you can see at least one reason why the Air Force wanted to
dismantle Project Blue Book;  a project  I said that....... "had
become an embarrassment to itself."  The "solid bedrock"
skeptics once stood upon, (i.e. the Air Force's claim that most
UFOs have been explained), crumbled to bits with the publishing
of Hynek's "The UFO Experience" in 1972.  Likewise, so did Air
Force credibility with regards to how honest the Air Force was
being with the public concerning UFOs.

REGARDING COOPER & THE EDWARDS AFB PHOTOGRAPHS:  Mr. Oberg's
following words regarding the Edwards AFB photographs take on a
different meaning when one has been appraised of the preceding:

Oberg =B6 49    Now, in fact those photographs did not vanish
after all: they had been sent to Project Blue Book, at Wright-
Patterson AFB in Dayton, Ohio, per regulations (I even have
talked to the officer who did the original Blue Book interviews,
former Captain Hubert Davis, who had been greatly impressed with
the witness's sincerity).

Oberg =B6 50     The Air Force must have found a satisfactory
solution -- but what?........  That answer had been around since
1957, but not widely circulated in the UFO media for obvious
reasons: the Air Force said it had been a weather balloon.....

A weather balloon.  Where have we heard that before?  Perhaps
the reasons were a lot less obvious than Mr. Oberg has
previously thought.  The real question is "How valid is the Air
Force's explanation?"

Also, cases such as the initial one quoted from Section A this
installment, as well as other military or government cases that
happen in a close proximity of time,  such as the ones I
mentioned in "Oberg/Cooper rebuttal.4", (i.e.  "Coast Guard
Cutter Sebago RADAR/visual case", "James Stokes, engineer from
the Missile Development Center at Holloman AFB, Alamagordo
N.M.", and Kirtland AFB case"), occurring within 4 days of each
other if not less, lend great support to the argument that the
Air Force and our government know more about UFOs, and perhaps
even what they are, than they have presently acknowledged.  I'll
examine these closely after our next installment.  However,
imagine, with the RADARs we now possess; RADARs that can paint
an actual picture of an object on a screen, what statistics and
data the branches of our service and government must already
have?  The visual/radar Belgium Sightings from 1989/90 have
added solid NATO (North American Treaty Alliance) gun camera
data, etc. as well. <3>


Furthermore, to think that another department in our defense
system hasn't been quietly receiving all this UFO information
without studying it would be to imply that our defense system is
highly incompetent.  Since we all know this is not the truth, I
would hope it is safe to assume that some defense group(s),
somewhere is (are) well appraised of the situation.  FOIA
documents obtained through standard requests and lawsuits, where
necessary, have apparently confirmed, at the minimum, definite
interest from various parts of the government regarding UFOs
even though the public has been led to think otherwise. <4>

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Bibliography:

<1>     Hynek, J. Allen "The UFO Experience" Henry Regnery
Company 1972, appendix four (Excerpt of a Letter from J. Allen
Hynek to Colonel Raymond S. Sleeper)
<2>     Fawcett, L. & Greenwood, B. "The UFO Cover-up" Simon &
Schuster Fireside Book 1992
<3>     CUFOS Journal (International UFO Reporter) . July/Aug
1990 . p. 23 : Documentation displayed to public in an "Unsolved
Mysteries" television episode narrated by Robert Stack
<4>     Newsday (Long Island newspaper) Fri 1/19/79 "UFOs seen
at Air Bases in 1975 : Gersten, Peter . Frontiers of Science .
May/June 1981 . "What the U.S. Government Knows About
Unidentified Flying Objects" : Fawcett, L. & Greenwood, B. "The
UFO Cover-up" Simon & Schuster Fireside Book 1992


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
 ". . . and McCoy became a raving maniac until he gave Spock
back his soul. "

     "Who is Spock? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .YOU are!"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

----------------------------
End: Oberg/Cooper rebuttal.5b
continued in: 6
----------------------------------
HYNEK & PROJECT BLUE BOOK
(The study that wasn't)
----------------------------

My next installment is a two-page summation of what we've
discussed so far and ideas where to locate cases which have the
greatest potential of being judged "the real thing" if proper
investigations were to be conducted thereupon. Immediately
following that summation will be a detailed accounting of the
three cases I mentioned which, when combined with all other
available evidence, strongly suggests there is good reason to
believe Gordon Cooper was probably telling the truth concerning
his 1957 Edwards AFB claim.

Respectfully submitted,

Jerry Cohen
E-mail:  rjcohen@li.net