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 
        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 
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.


Mr. Oberg's following words regarding the Edwards AFB photographs
take on a different meaning when one has been appraised of the
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
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 
        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

(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

Go to:

O/C rebut.1a

O/C rebut.1b

O/C rebut.2

O/C rebut.3a

O/C rebut.3b

O/C rebut.4a

O/C rebut.4b

O/C rebut.5a

O/C rebut.5b

O/C rebut.6

O/C rebut.7a

O/C rebut.7b

O/C rebut.7c

Author's Home Page