Page last updated: January 26, 2010 8:53 AM
Brad Sparks (one of the early founders
of CAUS, "Citizens Against
UFO Secrecy") had some comments concerning the
DSP information
offered at UFOWorld which tend to negate the claims made by its
original authors. I've included portions of two of Brad's letters below
with comments
of my own inserted along the way. (letter1, letter2)
I've also broken it into pieces so we can
more easily see each of his
points. Anyone else who would care to comment
on same is
welcome to email me at cohenufo@optonline.net.
If your comments add important additional information to the
proceedings,
they will be posted on this page after I get your
permission.
Jan
Aldrich (Project 1947) also had some things to say about the
DSP claims
and a portion of one of his letters is reproduced
below as well.
- - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>>From: Brad Sparks
>>Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 20:45:37 EST
>>To: rjcohen@li.net
>>Subject: Fwd: Permission to use sentiments expressed
....snip....
••BTW, I notice on your Iranian jet case you mention the
alleged
>>DSP-1 satellite confirmation. But in fact there is not
>>sufficient
information to say that the DSP actually detected the
>>UFO/UFO's, possibly
it detected the F-4's instead, or maybe it
>>was an oil burnoff which is prevalent
in the Middle East. The
>>printout catalog of DSP anomalies you depict
with an
>>out-of-focus graphic image actually gives only the DAY not the
>>exact
TIME and in unclassified presentation there is NO LOCATION
>>apparent.
JC: Brad didn't understand that the information wasn't mine but
rather, was a link to another site which I offered in an attempt
to solicit comments from anyone reading the page. I do not
possess
the technical qualifications to make a determination on
this information
but was hoping someone with these qualifications
would read it and
care enough to comment. Brad was the first to
have done so in this
much detail.
. . .
••There is no detail giving data on whether the
IR source was even
>>MOVING -- other notations on other dates of "SW" (Slow
Walker)
>>and "FW" (Fast Walker) indicate moving sources
••but
this one is an "SR" which we do not have a definition or
>>meaning for (I've
seen it suggested to mean "Strategic
>>Reconnaissance" but it might be a Soviet
Rocket or Solar
>>Reflection, or something else entirely). For all we
know the IR
>>source was on the other side of the world, in Australia, over
>>the South Pacific, or wherever. Your comments further claim
>>mistakenly:
JC: Again, not "my comments" as I explained above
. . .
••"Computer printout of the anomalous event with
the classified
>>term "238 SCANS - POSSIBLE SR". The term "238 SCANS"
indicates
>>that the event lasted more than an hour."
••In
fact, the old DSP satellites scanned the earth once every 10
>>seconds.
So 238 scans equals 2,380 seconds or about 39.7
>>minutes NOT "more than an
hour."
••BTW, the poorly investigated Iranian jet case
has never had a
>>detailed chronology produced which tells HOW LONG the F-4's
>>chased or tracked the UFO's. So we have no way of knowing if
>>this
40-minute DSP tracking meshes with the F-4 case, or is too
>>long or too short,
in terms of duration. ....snip....
••Finally, there is
the problem of why only ONE DSP satellite
>>seems to have detected this IR
source. By 1976 there were
>>several DSP satellites covering the Eurasian
mainland for the
>>obvious reasons of watching for Soviet and Chinese missile
>>launches. More than one DSP should have detected this IR source
>>if
it was a real source, thus enabling accurate triangulation of
>>location and
altitude with time.
>>Sincerely,
>>
>>Brad Sparks
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>>>From: Brad Sparks
>>>Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 23:21:31 EST
>>>To: rjcohen@li.net
>>>Subject: Re: Permission to use sentiments expressed
•••....snip....
DSP satellite tracking data that would corroborate
>>>UFO incidents.
I wish the 19Sep76 detection was clearly such an
>>>instance but we don't
know enough about the tracking. Even the
>>>date is a problem because
the DSP data lists it as 18th not 19th.
>>>While the Iranian incident, whose
local Iranian time date was the
>>>19th for the F-4 scrambles, did START on
the 18th using GMT or UT
>>>or Z time it may not have ended on the 18th, so
there's some
>>>uncertainty there too.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 08:16:27 -0700
>From: jan@cyberzone.net (Jan Aldrich)
>To: Jerry Cohen <rjcohen@li.net>
>Subject: Re: 1957 Cont.
>
>Hi Jerry
....snip....
•As
far as the new DSP claims, I have discussed this with
>Greenwood. You must
consider the source. Lee Graham. This man
>has the ability to
say black is white. An outright denial of
>something, in his mind becomes,
confirmation.
•How do we not that
>the DSP signature
is in fact the UFO and not a gas flare on any
>oil field.
>
>Here
is something that is possible for independent investigators
>to look at and
see if the results match the claim. Show me
>proof, and I'll look at
it.
....snip....
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - -
7/3/2006 Addendum:
Another DSP Event in 1984,
Likewise Inconclusive
Some quotes from 12 year old article:
Cosmic Conspiracy: Part Five, The 80s
Six Decades of Government UFO Cover-Ups
by Dennis Stacy and Patrick Huyghe
SOURCE : OMNI Magazine August 1994
"Last year, Joe Stefula, formerly a special agent with the army's
Criminal Investigation Command, made public on several electronic
bulletin boards what purports to be a diagram of an infrared event
detected by a DSP satellite on May 5, 1984. ' I haven't been able
to determine that the document's absolutely authentic,' says Stefula, ' "
" 'But what makes this particular Fast Walker so peculiar,' says
Stefula, "is that it comes in from outer space on a curved trajectory,
passes within three kilometers of the satellite platform, and then
disappears back into space. Whatever it is, it was tracked for nine
minutes. ' "
" 'That doesn't sound like a meteorite to me.' Regehr agrees: ' It was
there too long. It was going too slow. It didn't have enough speed for
escape velocity. ' But escape it did.
< End excerpts >
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
jc: Immediately below . . summation of general information
from the article . . .
1) We have a diagram on bulletin boards that claims to be a diagram
of an infrared event detected by a DSP satellite on May 5, 1984.
2) The date does not match the 1976 Iranian AF incident
3) We don't know if it's authentic
4) It came in from outer space in a curved trajectory, passes within
three kilometers of the satellite platform, and then disappears back
into space.
5) It was claimed to be tracked for nine minutes
6) Doesn't sound like a meteor. It was going too slow, there too long,
and didn't have enough speed for escape velocity but still got back into
outer space.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
jc question: Does the Phil Klass explanation for it fit the specifics
and
actually solve what was claimed?
Klass's best guess is that the mysterious May, 1984 Fast Walker event
claimed by Stefula probably represents nothing more than a classified
mission flown by our own SR-71 high-altitude Blackbird spyplane. "It's
admittedly too long a duration to be a meteor fireball," he concedes, "but
the Blackbird typically flies at an altitude of 80,000 to 100,000 feet, and
its after burner trail makes it easily visible to the DSP system.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
jc question: Could it actually have been the blackbird? Is the above
mentioned altitude considered outer space? Does the blackbird ever fly
into outer space as indicated? Does any data we have demonstrate that
whatever was seen flying back into outer space, and would this normally
be possible with its particular angle of entry?
If it does and this is not
usually possible for its angle, the Klass explanation would then leave much
to be desired. But again, as in the previous case, we still need more solid
information to come to a meaningful conclusion.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
More quotes from the Omni article:
The May, 1984 event allegedly generated a 300-page internal report, only
portions of which are classified, though none of it has yet been released. "I
don't think they would do a 300-page report on everything they detect,"
says Stefula, whose efforts to obtain the report have so far been unsuccessful, "
so there must have been something significant about this that led them to look
into it. My source told me that they basically looked at every possibility and
couldn't explain it by natural or man-made means." Nor was this apparently
an isolated event. According to the unnamed source, such Fast Walkers are
detected, on the average, "two to three times a month."
jc: The above is an interesting piece of information, but we have to
have
more information about any one of them (the fast walkers) before
we can develop an intelligent explanation as to what any of them might
have been. Does "allegedly generated" mean, there may actually be
_no_ report?
Bottom line is that the AF will remain secretive on this one way or the other
because we can't afford to let out information concerning the detection system.
Also, we have to be very sure any object detected isn't some country's spy plane.
The article also mentions that with all the new secret sensor devices we have in
orbit, we already know whether we are being visited by UFOs or not. However,
they can't tell us one way or the other without being prodded to reveal exactly
how they know this as it would probably compromise our country's security in
the process
.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Page
from the website of:
CohenUFO.org