UFO Updates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1998 > Apr > Apr 3

PROJECT-1947, NICAP & Peer Review

From: " Jerry Cohen" <rjcohen@li.net>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1998 20:24:16 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 07:40:34 -0500
Subject: PROJECT-1947, NICAP & Peer Review

>UFO UpDates Mailing List

>PROJECT-1947: Peer Review

>From: Jan Aldrich <jan@CYBERZONE.NET>
>Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 20:18:42 -0800
>Fwd Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 07:51:33 -0500
>Subject: PROJECT-1947: Peer Review

>I guess we don't really want peer-review. When we get it, we
>cry, "foul" or "naysayers." If someone demands a good hard look
>at something, they become negative.

JC: Or, perhaps we're just not done examining. This "peer" has
some respectful comments. This is not an attack on Jan or anyone
but rather a personal effort for me to get at the truth (data)
regarding the "Stokes" case so I might solidify proof to myself I
wasn't nuts all these years. This is the only stake I have in
this. Nothing more, nothing less.

I don't think Jan's post had anything to do with me directly (at
least I hope not). In the brief time we've known each other
(electronically) we've supported each other a lot and I still
support him on most things. However, I've got some responses and
questions concerning "Stokes." To determine the truth for me,
they have to be answered all the way. Maybe they have been
already, but I, and anyone else interested, need to hear them and
respond to them if needs be.

The following comments are from one who wound up being a NICAP
supporter and member (1966-1977) and who also had his own
"experience" and thus had great motivation to at least attempt to
do some (unpublished until the NET) research for the last 30
years. (Other than some copies of a portion of which I sent to
CUFOS a few years back...)

Jan had said:

>Stokes: What is the real import of this case? Is it the
>sunburn, em effects? There are certainly better cases with
>*verified* multiple witnesses! Correct me if I am wrong, but no
>other witnesses were located.

JC: Jan, you may be correct and this may have been printed
somewhere, but I have to confess my ignorance to it at the
moment. (Again, I am not implying this doesn't exist.) However,
if a researcher asks an honest question, has a timing connection
between three cases, one of which was investigated by Bluebook,
Condon & McDonald, another in which this same researcher tells
you his neighbor was dating a guy from the Sebago when it
happened, then it might behoove us to at least look at this
openly again and provide us with the documentation regarding
Stokes, when you're able. Perhaps I missed something. I'll be the
first to admit this is possible. I'm not looking to be a hero.
I'm just attempting to get at the truth. If this researcher (me)
is wrong, you'll see him admit it here publicly. If it is not
really proven Stokes hoaxed this, that's another story.

>The importance of the Stokes case is the apparent official
>obfuscation encountered here.

JC: O.K. we've got something here although I'm not exactly sure
what. Official obfuscation from who? Who exactly was responsible
for it and why? Work was probably already been done here and I
admit my ignorance; please provide the reference. We'll go out
and get it if necessary and we'll discuss it, if it doesn't sit
right with me. My reaction doesn't have to be negative. I'm on
the side of whatever seems most logical. If there is an
alternative and it wasn't covered, however, I'd like a chance to
voice it. There is a timing that exists here that is more than a
little interesting to me. Although generalized timing alone is
definitely not proof of anything, I believe it is possible there
may be a true connection if we examine this deeply enough. I am
100% certain two of these cases are reality and they are both
military. (Kirtland is triple examined.) This third one, at least
by what I know, therefore deserves to be reexamined.

>(The Stokes case might also have >problems as indicated from
>Coral Lorenzen's letter to Major Keyhoe, I can't lay my hands
>on this at the moment.)

JC: Again, O.K. However after Jan's last quote, this next is
important for us all to see, and I am not saying this to put
anyone on the spot, but rather a point of general information.
(And also the reason I put their books on a separate shelf in my
collection back then.)

In regards to Carol Lorenzen as providing proof one way or the
other regarding the Stokes incident, I'd like to supply you with
some NICAP quotes on two of Lorenzen's books from years ago. The
first from the same issue from which I ordered my own copy of
"The UFO Evidence." APRO people, if any of you are still out
there, I apologize profusely. NICAP & APRO joined forces later on
and I'm doing this not to start a war, but to make a point
concerning Jan's statement concerning Stokes. People with old
copies of the journals, please whip them out if you don't believe
me. At the time of this publishing (1/67), there was a bit of a
disagreement going on. (A slight understatement here folks.)

----start here----

The UFO Investigator, Jan/Feb 1967, p. 8 Flying Saucers: "The
Startling Evidence of the Invasion From Outer Space by Coral E.

"This revised and updated version of the APRO editor's 1962 book
"The Great Flying Saucer Hoax," unfortunately includes a heavy
dose of sensationalism. While we find much to agree with in Mrs.
Lorenzen's general conclusions, and some of her interpretations
of the attitudes of responsible government officials, many of the
stories presented are extravagant and are not substantiated by
convincing evidence. At a time when hack writers and opportunists
are contributing scare stories and wild tales to the literature,
we think Mrs. Lorenzen does a disservice to serious investigation
by publishing, as if they were established fact, some outlandish
tales. She justifies this on the grounds of (alleged) "unbiased
reporting," but the effect is to confuse solid facts with
questionable ones. <snip>"

NICAP Journal, Oct. 1967, p. 6 ANOTHER WILD BOOK This paperback
mart has spawned still another hodgepodge entry into the UFO
field: "Flying Saucer Occupants, by Coral and Jim Lorenzen, the
wife and husband co-founding team of the Aerial Phenomena
Research Organization (APRO) <snip> "Either the authors
were sloppy in checking their facts or were inexcusably bad
proof-readers, for the book is replete with incorrect
information: Wrong dates are given; incorrect dates and addresses
abound in the Sprinkle bibliography. Even the now defunct but
highly respected organization to which NICAP staff member Isabel
Davis belonged, Civilian Saucer Intelligence, (CSI), New York is
constantly confused with the Los Angeles CSI and is mentioned
throughout the book as Civilian Saucer Investigations. The early
1965 Brooksville, Florida, hoax case is accepted as fact by the
authors; the Lorenzens also appear to believe that Project Blue
Book has been "essentially honest" in issuing their outlandish
explanations. Physicist Dr. James E. McDonald, who has done more
than any single scientist to force his colleagues to take a
serious look at UFOs, is deliberately smeared despite the fact
that he has risked his professional reputation to get scientists,
the press and the public to look at the subject objectively and
rationally. <snip>"

-----end here----

JC: Anyone out there besides me think this might be reason
enough to reevaluate Coral Lorenzen's letter to Major Keyhoe or
at least take it with a grain of salt? (and I haven't even seen
it yet.) Remember, this was NICAP 1967 who said the above. How
can NICAP use this same person's letter to Keyhoe as evidence
against Stokes? A lawyer for the defense in a court of law would
rip this to shreds. This needs to be explained.

>I advised caution and attempt to locate Stokes or his relatives.
>Even so, again, what is the import of the case?

JC: So, what happened? Was this ever actually done? If this was
a non-study, it shouldn't be totally ignored. If I was as close
as Jan may have been to this case, I may have done exactly the
same thing. But, from my distant point of view, I want to know
more because from the other evidence I've presented (Kirtland &
Sebago) I feel there could be a very possible tie-in. Until I see
the rest of the evidence laid out on this, it is unsettled for
me. (Like the whole past 30 years?) If you folks out there think
I'm wrong so far, "beat me with a wet noodle." If not, we need to
see more.


>When 'The UFO Evidence' was written were there wilder more
>controversial cases? There sure were. However, the cases used
>there were from above average observers with good sources of
>high >reliability.

JC: Yes this is 100% true. But I believe we need to
specifically reexamine the "Stokes" case to see it in its
entirety, if possible. Is it at all possible there was more there
than we realize? The man was a "missile engineer from Holloman
Air Force Base." Look at Kirtland and its date, look at the
Stokes case and its date, look at what McDonald discovered about
Kirtland and let's see the rest of the proof against "Stokes." I
know this isn't easy when NICAP is first setting up a site but, I
really believe it has to be addressed eventually.

McDonald's investigation on Kirtland (November 1957):
http://www.li.net/~rjcohen/ocr.7b.html Final part is on 7c which
you can click to. An introduction to all three cases is on 7a.

If he said it at all, why would he lie? If he retracted his
statement, when did he do it and why? If he did, are we positive
this is the real reason? If Coral Lorenzen wrote against him, he
couldn't have simply been an APRO supporter of "way-out" stuff.
Did he write a book? Did he do anything to make money from it?
What exactly happened?

These questions may all have been answered already but I'd
personally like to reevaluate the thinking that caused this case
to be "set aside."

Respectfully, Jerry Cohen

P.S. Again, I still say keep building the NICAP site, it's a
really good idea as long as NICAP is open minded to our comments,
so that we all can be educated properly on this case and others
which may or may not fall into this category. Like it or not, we
are part of evaluating this "Peer" review. No one is perfect nor
has to be, therefore, even NICAP has it limits. We are simply
trying to get at the truth. I support the NICAP site 100%. And if
there are answers sitting somewhere regarding our questions on
particular cases, just direct us to them. We are open-minded. I
also know NICAP has to adapt to the NET first, and that's O.K.
too. It's not easy and it takes time.

I apologize for being a royal pain about this and I apologize to
Jan if I'm stepping on your toes or causing you any grief from
this. Until you wrote your 3/30/98 note, I had no idea you had
anything to do with this case. I just want the complete answers
to part of something that's been eating my guts out all these
years and a chance to comment on them. After the work I put in to
this, the endless thinking, and thirty years of being a "split
personality"* to the rest of the world because of my sighting, I
would hope I'm entitled.

* Because the rest of world used to think (and obviously some
still do) a person who sees this stuff was "nuts."