UFO UpDates Mailing List
Those looking for further information on this topic and a detailed answer to
Richard Dolan's conjecture that Dr. Hynek was a mole for the CIA, please
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From: Jerry Cohen <email@example.com> Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 07:03:51 -0400 Fwd Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 11:08:54 -0400 Subject: Re: Intelligence Agencies and NICAP Hello there Ed and Jan, I respect many of the things both of you have been saying. However, since Dr. Hynek was the one person that kept me sane (by many of his actions) after I had my own sightings, I have a statement, some questions and some evidence to present. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >From: EdKomarek@aol.com >Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 19:44:33 -0400 (EDT) >To: firstname.lastname@example.org >Subject: Re: Intelligence Agencies and NICAP >>Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 23:06:13 -0700 >>From: email@example.com (Jan Aldrich) >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <firstname.lastname@example.org> >>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Intelligence Agencies and NICAP ....snip.... >I am sure you remember the quote attributed to Hillenkoettner. >Something to the effect that he had gone as far as he could. Well >it was very obvious that congressional hearings were causing quite >a stir. Keyhoe gets the boot, NICAP disintegrates, then that air >force swamp gas debunker Hynek suddenly makes a conversion and >pushes for scientific investigations into UFOs. JC: The "swamp gas" remark attributed to Hynek was made when he got off a plane and was besieged by reporters to tell him what the sightings were, _before_ he had a chance to investigate. In trying to take the most rational, earthly view he could at the moment, he made the comment "it could possibly be 'swamp gas.'" jc added 1/3/2009 : I wasn't exactly accurate here. Hynek went into this investigation assuming it wasn't a very good case. He didn't want people focused on something that he thought was not really solid. In other words, he was a little
closed-minded concerning this particular investigation. Click HERE for what Hynek, himself, had to say about it in his 12/17/66 Saturday Evening Post article. It was later proven that Hynek's initial thoughts about the case weren't really correct.
It actually wound up having more supporting scientific evidence than he realized at the
time. Dr. Harry Willnus, one of the investigators of the Michigan sightings, discovered
something else. On top of Hynek feeling this way at the outset of the case, he apparently
received a phone call from Washington which may have forced him to follow through in
his initial mind set, even if he might have had other thoughts to the contrary. Then, If Hynek was so close with the government & the Air Force, why did he write the following in his book the UFO Experience? Click below to read what he wrote: Excerpts from "The UFO Experience" Also for some more accurate information on this time period please also peruse the following: jc added 1/3/2009 : Hynek was creating a problem for U.S.A.F.
They wanted to get rid of him. Also read THIS. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= UFOS, A SYNOPSIS OF AN EXTREMELY RELEVANT HISTORY =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= at: ocr.4a.html You can click straight to it from the last page of the prior essay. It is all footnoted and extremely accurate. Begin your reading in "4a", 5th paragraph after the Francis Ridge picture, beginning with "Most of us didn't know it back then....." You will also find this in his letter to Col. Sleeper: ". . . . . 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." Then ask yourself: "Why did he write the articles for "Newsweek 10/10/66" and "Saturday Evening Post 12/17/66" and say the things he said? I honestly do not believe he would have done all this if he were a "mole." >....snip.... Hell he was UFO PR man for the air force. JC: At first, but not towards the end of his tenure at Blue Book. I am fairly certain the Air Force would have quietly fired him (thus removing him from his data source, i.e. Blue Book cases) if he had made any more waves than he did. As it was they were looking to close Project Blue Book. Hynek was getting too public with his remarks. It was getting more difficult for them to fire him. >As to evidence that Hynek was playing both sides of the fence I >would refer you to some of Len Stringfields literature expecialy >the little run in Len had with Hynek. I talked to Len about that >in person when he was alive. That little series of events is very >enlightening from a intelligence perspective. JC: Ed, I'm not familiar with this. Do you have it available? BTW, yes, Hynek was playing both sides of the fence, but I don't believe it was as you said, but rather, to keep his job and stay as close to the major data from the Air Force as he could. >Then we have MUFON and FUFOR come into existance with a man with a >NSA background taking, formulative and critical positions in both >organizations. Of course if Thomas D. is a mole plugging security >leaks and gathering intelligence he is not going to fess up. One >thing for sure is that Thomas D. is in exactly the place a >intelligence mole should be. I am not saying that he is a mole but >he sure as hell is a prime suspect if there every was one just as >Hynek was. I or anybody else in their right mind would not give >sensitive information to MUFON, CUFOS or FUFOR. JC: Jerome Clark has been an excellent writer/editor of CUFOS. (Along with Jan, Greg and many others that have written for their journal.) I have agreed with a good portion of what he, they and others have written. I personally have not had any bad feelings about that organization. However, I did feel something was really wrong with NICAP towards the end. That's why I eventually stopped subscribing to them and switched to CUFOS when Dr. Hynek originally founded it. (Along with, I believe, Sherman Larsen amongst others.) Jerry Cohen E-mail: Jerry Cohen <email@example.com> Author: Oberg/Cooper rebuttals Website: http://www.cohenufo.org/ P.S. BTW, Dr. Hynek also sent out the following FOIA releases along with CUFOS journal in January 1982. http://www.cohenufo.org/frnt.sci.81.html The above was a follow-up to a previous release of information in 1979. That information appears in the following reprint of a Washington Post article which also appeared in Newsday, a respected Long Island newspaper. http://www.cohenufo.org/Nsday.Art.79.html And you can view his own personal comments on same at: http://www.cohenufo.org/ocr.3b.html#anchor75480 These articles can probably be found via local libraries, although the Frontiers of Science article may be more difficult to come by. P.P.S Ed, add to this the fact that this man, who didn't know me from a "hole in the wall," called my home (Long Island, NY) in December 1981 from Evanston, Illinois, after I had written him a letter concerning my '67 sightings. He spent 15 minutes with me on the phone discussing it and giving me his son's phone # (his son worked on Madison Ave. in New York) along with Bud Hopkin's name (neither of which I ever called). It makes it difficult for me to believe that Dr. Hynek was anything but 100% sincere. I also read the letters in the 1986 May/June CUFOS memorial journal from staff and friends dedicated to Dr. Hynek after he passed away. Ed, all of these people respected him immensely and not one of them gave even the least hint of what you are saying about him. Respectfully, Jerry Cohen E-mail: Jerry Cohen <firstname.lastname@example.org> Author: Oberg/Cooper rebuttals Website: http://www.cohenufo.org/ Page from the website of: CohenUFO.org
UFO UpDates - Toronto - email@example.com
Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp - ++ 416-696-0304
A Hand-Operated E-Mail Subscription Service for the Study of UFO
To subscribe please send your first and last name to firstname.lastname@example.org
Message submissions should be sent to the same address.