From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com> Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 12:02:20 -0500 Fwd Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 12:59:11 -0500 Subject: Re: PROJECT-1947: Ruppelt, Air Defense & UFOs >Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 11:50:53 -0800 >From: Jan Aldrich <jan@CYBERZONE.NET> >Subject: Ruppelt, Air Defense & UFOs >To: PROJECT-1947@LISTSERV.AOL.COM >The obvious implications of UFOs for Air Defenes were not lost on >some newspaper columnists, the Alsop brothers during the 1947 >wave did a column on this. >About the time Project Sign was being authorized there was an >articles in the New York Times connecting Air Defense with UFOs. >Basically, it urged that the Aircraft Warning Service's Ground >Observer Corps be reactivated. <snip> >It has always bothered me that Alvarez during the Robertson Panel >discussions found no radar cases that interested him. <snip> >Duh?! Huh? Hello! These are scientists? They are not at all >curious about such a phenomenon. They don't even recommend the >funding of a small study so that some colleagues could get some >work and funding. Why not? Do they have bigger fish to fry? >Some points to consider. Nothing is proven. We need more >information about Project Lincoln and Air Defense. >Once the Air Defense structure is in place. Air Defense would have >an interest in minimizing UFO accounts. UFOs become "politcally >incorrect." "If it flies, it dies," is meaningless if you admit >that you have things running around that you can't explain. The >public looses confidence in the Air Defense and the military in >general. I guess your point here is that it shoudl have bearn (i.e., it was) obvious to the AF that UFOs played a role in Air Defense, even if UFOs turned out to be natural electric phenomena, so the Robertson Panel should have recommended an effort to understand these phenomena at least from the scientific point of view if not from the pont of view of needing to be able to identify things immediately to separate out the "natural phenomena" from th "bad boys" coming over the horizon from the north. I, too, think that th Robertson Panel people did not get the best evidence or the best presentation to look at. I think the presenters took an apologetic attitude for seeming to seriously consider the sightings which obviously could not be natural phenomena (observations and film/photos of structured objects). However, your suggestion that there was a hidden agenda pressureing the Panel to conclude there was nothing to these sightings is a good one. However, as evidence of just poor preparation on th aprt of the Blue book staff I am reminded of Ruppelts recitation of the Newhouse film case as presented to the Robertson panel. They showed the film several times and the Navy presented the results of its 1,000 hours of work on it.... and then the panel said "probably birds." HOwever, Ruppelt points out that the panel was not told Newhouse's verbal testimony. The reason that the panel was not told Newhouse's testimony is that Ruppelt didn't know what that was ! Ruppelt says several years later he met Newhouse and Newhouse described his wife calling his attention to a group of cuircular objects flying through the sky. He immediately stopped the car but it took several minutes fr him to get his camera going and by that time the objects were farther away (a repeat of th Great Falls, Montana/Marianna film situation). Ruppelt asked "How did you know they were round?" Newhouse answered "I saw them ...they were a lot closer," or words to that effect. Then Ruppelt points out in his book that this information was not known to Blue Book/Ruppelt at the time of the Newhouse investigation/ analysis because Ruppelt had not asked the local field investigator to ask Newhouse about his visual sighting.. Ruppelt jusified this by saying..."why ask what something looks like when you've got a movie of it.." or words to that effect. One can only speculate what th RobertsonPanel would have done with the film had Dewey Fournet (the presenter?) or Ruppelt been able to recite the testimony of Newhouse and his wife BEFORE showing the film (better yet, get Newhouse there; he was, after all, an official Navy photographer). I suspect the truth is a combination of the above: there WAS an agenda to minimize UFO sightings, but also there were slip-ups in presenting th evidence to the scientists. On another matter, regarding the Air defense Command and radar: I have been trying to locate records related to the radar inspired national alert on December 6, 1950 at about 10:30 AM when radar picked up a number of objects approaching the northeastern United States. I have a chapter on this in my book THE UFO-FBI CONNECTION because two days later, according to a message found in the FBI file, the counter-intelligence corps was put on immediate high alert for any information related to flying saucers (Dec. 8). There appear to be NO RECORDS OF THIS EVENT in the files of the Secretary of Defense, other than one document which provides a few details that could only have come from other documents . Furthermore, it is clear that the SECDEF office was involved in this event which resulted in planes being scrambled AND THE PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY OF STATE BEING ALERTED!. Could this be a real radar detection of a group of UFOs that was effectively covered up by the defense department?
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