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 ¶ 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 ¶ 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 Organization) 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
------------------------------------
Footnotes to "Oberg/Cooper rebuttal.5ab:"
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
To: O/C rebut.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