Page last updated: July 1, 2013 11:21 AM


Response to James Oberg's:
"..... GORDON COOPER'S UFOs"

by Jerry Cohen

Oberg/Cooper rebuttal.6
continued from 5b

 


SUMMARY OF CHAPTERS 3-5

1. Why small groups of civilians (scientists & others) are
   presently studying the phenomenon.
 
2. Where do we find the truly "hard-core" cases?
 
         The accuracy of the following can be checked by consulting 
            the sources provided, including your local libraries
 
---------------------------- 
  
The following is a brief summary of what was discussed in
"Oberg/Cooper rebuttal parts.3-5" and, an important question; 
"Where do serious professional researchers look for cases that
they believe may be 'true' unknowns?" 
 
As I said in "Oberg/Cooper rebuttal.1a/b," this is a highly
important point that must be considered if one is to, within this
lifetime, find additional critical, verifiable documentation
regarding UFOs.
 
I apologize if this is redundant to some but I felt everything 
before this should be briefly summarized before continuing with 
the three cases. Those with photographic or just fine memories 
can skip this. However, those people who have been unsuccessful 
in finding reliable data concerning UFOs should definitely read 
this section. Presentation of the three cases from 1957 will 
follow in "Oberg/Cooper rebuttal.7."

-------------------------------------------------------------------
OBERG/COOPER REBUT.3-5 & NICAP
-------------------------------------------------------------------

So what do we have so far? We discovered that the Air Force's 
own consultant concerning UFOs, after studying them for a good
fifteen years, defected and came out saying that UFOs were "not
all hogwash."
He felt there was a core of cases that could not
be easily explained in scientific terms and were definitely  worth studying. He found himself forced to put his career on the
line to say this to the world, when most were very reluctant to
admit to other scientists, that they might be studying the topic
in a sincere fashion. 1 And why did they feel this way? Because,
many other scientists, not knowing the core data, were laughing
at the possibility these things could be real. As researchers are
painfully aware, some of them still are today. Fortunately, more
scientists today are taking up the challenge. More than this, we
cannot ask.
  Dr. J.A. Hynek
Hynek's 1968 letter to Colonel Sleeper, written before Blue Book  closed, told Sleeper that it's 20 year study, the same study the  Air Force was using to claim that the majority of UFO cases had  been thoroughly, scientifically explained, was, in actuality, a  "non-study." As previously mentioned, with the publishing of that  letter in Hynek's book "The UFO Experience," the bedrock that UFO  skeptics had to stand upon simply crumbled. The statistics quoted  by the Air Force were, as Hynek put it, "a travesty." 2   Dr. E. Condon
We also learned, confirmed by Walter Sullivan, New York Times  Science Editor, and reconfirmed by Dr. Hynek in that same book,  that the "Condon Study" was also greatly influenced by this "fear  of professional ridicule". Low's fateful memo had exposed the  study as an exercise in pretending to study something it was  afraid of. The heads of the study wanted, in Dr. Low's own words,  as previously discussed,

" ...to describe the project so that, to the public,
it would appear a totally objective study but, to the 
scientific community, would present the image of a group
of non believers trying their best to be objective, but
having an almost zero expectation of finding a saucer." 3 
  Additionally, we found that Hynek wasn't the only one that  disagreed with the results of the "Condon Study." Other studies  were performed. Other scientists and engineers, felt the data of  the Colorado Study did not support Dr. Condon's conclusions and  fifty scientists had signed a statement urging a congressional  investigation of UFOs to no avail. Case material presented by  Drs. McDonald and Hynek convinced those professionals that the  conclusions Condon reached were not in keeping with the available  facts. More study was definitely indicated. 4 - - - - - - - jc 7/1/2006 : Adding a links here to the on-line version of
the Condon Study and to the Sturrock re-evaluation of same. _ _ _ _ _ _ _   Now, with the major two studies on UFOs proven to have serious  "flaws" (If you read "Oberg/Cooper rebuttal parts.3-5" you know I  am trying to be kind), what did we have left? ...... the core of  truly "unsolved" UFO cases which everyone had avoided focusing  upon in the first place. The question was, how many were there,  where could they be found, and who was going to do the looking?  Unfortunately, not "mainstream science." This formidable task was  thrust back upon none other than, you guessed it folks, the  civilian UFO groups who had been attempting to collect whatever  data they could on the phenomena all along, without the important  resources of "mainstream science." (money, proper diagnostic tools,
etc.)
  Richard Hall
One excellent source of documented sightings was Richard Hall's  previously mentioned manuscript "The UFO Evidence," published back  in 1964 by NICAP' (National Investigations Committee on Aerial  Phenomena). If you remember, Hall had compiled, edited and  submitted it to numerous congressmen prior to its final  publishing. 5 (jc 3/29/02: Hall has released The UFO Evidence #2)   NICAP was a relatively conservative UFO group. 6 It had an  excellent staff composed of impressive people of quite varied  educational disciplines, some of whom had been fairly high up in  military echelons. 7 It was not quick to claim any sightings were  valid and it's journal provided an excellent place to record these  unusual claims when they were reported. The journal was for the  most part, competent and lucid. Reports were taken, investigations
conducted, investigator's comments added and finally entered into
the journal. Speculations were held to the minimum.   Hall's manuscript contained an explanation of NICAP, its policies  and a "reality of UFOs" statement by its Board of Governors. 8 It  also contained, as previously mentioned, a listing of 746  documented sightings by Air Force, Army, Navy & Marine personnel,  pilots and aviation experts, other military personnel,  observations by professional scientists and engineers, including  astronomers and aeronautical engineers. 9 They gave reasons why  the objects that were seen appeared to be under intelligent  control, not just floating debris, balloons, kites, etc. They  also reported on electro-magnetic effects observed, radar cases,  photographic evidence, physical and physiological effects. The  majority of cases fell in the date range from 1942-'62. 10  This, then, was an important part of the evidence.   A few cases could be found from some of the "Blue Book files that  Hynek had presented" in the books he was writing. 11 Others  could be found in the Blue Book files themselves, IF the Air  Force would permit people to get at them. 12 Remember, Hynek  stated they didn't let HIM peruse the files, and he was their  "consultant." 13 - - - - - - -
jc Addendum 2006: Just found this concerning an ongoing re-appraisal
of Project Blue Book cases by Brad Sparks on Errol Bruce Knapp's Virtually
Strange website . . .
http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2003/jul/m03-016.shtml or click here. * see important quote from Sparks below) jc 6/22/2006: Also, other important information Kelleher/Sparks (NIDS)
Blue Book files and accumulated UFO records available for supervised analysis ) - - - - - - -
Oberg/Cooper Rebuttal 6 - continued And yet most amazing of all, another important place some  documented unknowns could be found was in the CONDON STUDY itself. 14   If one waded through the voluminous material therein, one could  find cases actually listed as unknowns by the project's scientists  and some others listed as "solved" that some outside scientists  felt "very" strongly needed reexamining. Mind you, the project  had not examined many of the best cases available, and yet this thought provoking fact remained; it still contained a fairly  large percentage of unknowns (see #6), even larger than the Air
Force was claiming. In reality, as I mentioned previously,
researchers found the study's own data did NOT really support
Condon's conclusions. 15    Therefore, here was another solid
source for investigation, as one could readily see the 
thoroughness or lack of same that was applied to each case.   "Hidden cases" provided yet another more nebulous source. These  were government cases which various researchers had heard rumors  about but could not absolutely prove existed. Project Blue Book  cases such as those illustrated by Dr. Hynek to Colonel Sleeper  and others, including some from the Condon Study which McDonald  brought to the attention of various science groups, were clues  there were probably other "hidden" cases buried not only in Blue  Book files, but also, perhaps, in government communications  regarding same. 16 When the government passed the Freedom of  Information Act (FOIA), a means of locating "some" of those cases  via their "related memos" was opened. Find enough memos and you  could possibly confirm their related cases. Needless to say, the  UFO groups began filing both requests and, where necessary,  lawsuits to search for what they were virtually positive had to be  there. The Air Force and government had to know more than they  were telling, and FOIA requests were seen as an excellent way to  flush them out. As previously mentioned, the book "The UFO Cover-  up" covers both this and more in great detail. 17   jc 3/31/02: Awhile ago, while I was surfing the net, I came
across a document written by Dr. Bruce Maccabee that covers this history exceedingly well and I've decided I must include a link to it here.
Bruce Maccabee The paper is entitled "Still in Default" and was originally
Published in the Proceedings of the 1986 MUFON INTERNATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM, pg 131. It is a long read but excellent. For the
section of the paper which tells us some information which
has become available since 1969
click here. With the preceding solidly documented history tucked under our  belts, I can finally get to the specific cases I mentioned at  the outset of these essays. These cases will give us an indication  of the strength of some of the evidence at hand and demonstrate that Gorden Coopers claims may be more solid than certain researchers would have us believe. This evidence continues to mount, indicating that there is definitely something flying around our airspace whose characteristics preclude it belonging to our Air Force. (or any other that we know) The first two articles I'll  present were the first I ever cut out of a newspaper. I eventually  discovered material that led me to believe these reported events  were more solid than I ever imagined. If they are a secret  development of ours, it was developed back in 1957 when the  following cases occurred. I don't believe we had an operating  version of the "Stealth" at that time. What was seen was nothing  like it anyway. You be the judge.

Footnotes to "Oberg/Cooper rebuttal.6:"

1 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)
2 Ibid . Appendix 4, Section D, Paragraph 1 . Hynek quote: 
"The statistical methods employed by Blue Book are a travesty on 
the branch of mathematics known as Statistics."
3 Sullivan, Walter . introduction to the "Scientific Study 
of Unidentified Flying Objects", New York: Bantam Books (A New 
York Times Book), 1/8/69
4. National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena 
(NICAP) Journal . Jan 69 . p 7 : IBID . May 1969 . p 8 : Bulletin 
of Atomic Scientists . April 1969 . Dr. Hynek's comments on Condon 
Study : McDonald, Dr. James E. . Presentation to Dupont Chapter of 
Scientific Research Society of America . Wilmington Delaware . Feb 
12, 1969 : McDonald, Dr. James E. . Presentation of National 
Amateur Astronomer's Association (NAA) . Aug 22, 1969 : McDonald, 
James E. . Presentation to American Association for the 
Advancement of Science (AAAS) meeting . Dec 27, 1969 : NICAP 
Investigator . Nov 1970 . AIAA Quotes regarding their study on UFO 
data : McDonald, Dr. James E. . NICAP UFO Investigator . Feb/Mar 
1969 . "A Scientist's Critique" : NICAP UFO Investigator . 
Sept/Oct 1969 . "UFO Clearing House Recommended"
5 NICAP' (National Investigations Committee on Aerial 
Phenomena) . "The UFO Evidence" . Published in 1964 . Washington 
D.C. : NICAP closed its doors in 1980. Its files now reside at 
CUFOS (J. Allen Hynek Center for UFO Studies,) . 2457 West 
Peterson Avenue, Chicago Illinois 60659 USA
6 Hall, Richard . CUFOS International UFO Reporter . 
May/June 1992 . pp 17 & 24 . "NICAP and lessons from the past"; 
also ... NICAP Journal, September 1975 . p4 . col 1
7 NICAP UFO Investigator . Oct 1971 . Special Commemorative 
Issue . p1 . "Navy Admiral Gives Support to Reports of Flying 
Saucers": Ibid . p 4 . "NICAP Board of Governors 1971"
8 NICAP' (National Investigations Committee on Aerial 
Phenomena) . "The UFO Evidence" . Published in 1964 . Washington 
D.C. inside cover and p ii
9 Ibid . p iii and contents
10 Ibid . p 129 . Section XI . "THE UFO CHRONOLOGY"
11 Hynek, J. Allen "The UFO Experience" Henry Regnery Company 
1972 : also, Hynek, J. Allen " . "The Hynek UFO Report" Dell 
Publishing Co., Inc. 1977
12 Newsweek Magazine 12/29/69 "Closing the Blue Book" : also, 
CUFOS (Center for UFO Studies) . Associate Newsletter . Dec. 1981 
. p. 6 or 8? . "Federal Court Upholds Decision Against CAUS" : 
also, National Enquirer . 1/6/76 . "Air Force's Massive Study of 
UFO Sightings Will Stay 'Top Secret' for 50 Years" 
13 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) : Appendix 4, Section A, Paragraph 9 : 
"It must be pointed out that neither of these cases were shown to 
me by Blue Book personnel. I happened upon them by accident 
during one of my visits as I scanned through material lying on a 
desk, and not in the files; I am not permitted to peruse the files 
themselves."
14 Condon, Dr. Edward U.: "Scientific Study of Unidentified 
Flying Objects", New York: Bantam Books (A New York Times Book), 
1/8/69
15 Ibid : also, NICAP UFO Investigator . Feb/Mar 1969 . p 5 . 
"A SCIENTIST'S CRITIQUE" by Dr. James E. McDonald : Ibid . May 
1969 "HYNEK SPEAKS OUT" : Ibid . Nov. 1970 "AIAA RECOMMENDS NEW 
UFO STUDY" Hard-Core Cases Difficult to Ignore, Says Group
16 Ibid footnote #12 : also, 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) : 
Initial case from Appendix 4, Section A : McDonald, James E. . 
presentation at AAAS UFO Symposium, Boston 12/27/69 . "Case #4 
Kirtland AFB 11/4/57"
17 Fawcett, L. & Greenwood, B. "The UFO Cover-up" Simon & 
Schuster Fireside Book 1992

- - - - - - -

* From jc Addendum 2006
Quote regarding Blue Book cases from Brad Sparks at NIDS:


< begin quote >

"When Project Blue Book (BB) closed down on Jan. 30, 1970 (it was not on
Dec. 17, 1969, which was merely the announcement date by the Secretary of
the Air Force) the total number of Unidentified sightings was thought to be 701
and this is the number given on all subsequent press releases and so-called 'fact
sheets.' However, based on the review by Hynek and the CUFOS staff of the
released sanitized BB microfilm and Hynek's personal records which included
many missing (and unsanitized) BB documents, the final number was determined
to have been approximately 587, apparently reflecting an IFO elimination process
carried out on old historical cases by the last BB Chief, Major Hector Quintanilla
in the 60's (and of dubious scientific validity based on examples McDonald studied),
which must have reduced the number of Unexplained cases by 114. Evidently the
AF did not update its annual historical UFO statistics to reflect this gradual
winnowing process, not realizing it could improve upon its anti-UFO PR position
by reducing the perennially embarrassing number of Unidentifieds.

However, in reverse, Hynek re-evaluated 53 Blue Book IFO cases as Unexplained
UFO cases, bringing the total partially back, up to 640, unfortunately a complete list
identifying these is not available, though some of the worksheets have been copied by
Jan Aldrich from CUFOS-Hynek files. A number of the re-evaluated cases have been
included in The Hynek UFO Report book published in 1977.

Much more disturbing are the indications from my limited review of BB cases that
there may be as many as possibly 4,000 Unexplained UFO cases miscategorized as
IFO's in the BB files.
(jc: bolding and italics of Sparks' and McDonald's comments are mine)

Brad Sparks continues: McDonald similarly stated in 1968 at his CASI lecture that from
his review of BB cases he estimated that 30-40% of 12,000 cases were Unexplained, or
about 3,600 to 4,800. These are mostly military cases and many involve radar."

< end quote >

- - - - - - -


End: Oberg/Cooper rebuttal.6
To: O/C rebut.7a

Summary of Oberg/Cooper rebut.3-5 & NICAP

Respectfully submitted,
Jerry Cohen
cohenufo@optonline.net

Go to:

Rebuttal Table of Contents (hyper-linked)



O/C rebut.1a - Introduction

O/C rebut.1b - Intro. (continued)

O/C rebut.2 - "Skything 1960"

O/C rebut.3a - Hynek, from skeptic to "qualified believer"

O/C rebut.3b - Hynek, from skeptic to ... (continued)

O/C rebut.4a - UFOs, a synopsis of.... history

O/C rebut.4b - UFOs, a synopsis of.... history (continued)

O/C rebut.5a - Hynek takes us inside Blue Book

O/C rebut.5b - Hynek takes us inside..... (continued)

O/C rebut.6 - Who is, and isn't studying the UFO Phenomenon & Why

O/C rebut.7a - Sebago & Stokes

O/C rebut.7b - Kirtland

O/C rebut.7c - Krtlnd conclusion, B. B. & Condon errors, summation


Page from the website of: CohenUFO.org

Website Hyper-linked Master Index
(Complete listing of topics on site)