Big Sur Incident: Explained?


March 9, 2006
New information has come to light which suggests we should upgrade this incident once again to unexplained. (See more recent emails below and the site Directory:
Low Klass: a rejoinder - Dr. Robert Jacobs
Mannsman Confirmation, US ICBM Filmed Being Destroyed By UFO - McClelland/Rense

Francis Ridge
nicap@insightbb.com
----------------------

From: "Richard Hall" <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
To: nicap@insightbb.com
Subject: Big Sur
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 12:12:05 +0000

Fran,
Since I sent you that hasty e-mail about not including the Big Sur case in UFOE-II, I have read Bob Jacobs' full account which he kindly sent to me, and I have seen Maj. Mansmann's confirmatoion letter. As of now I am inclined to believe that the case is genuine and, for obvious reasons, extremely important. My long tenure in the UFO field also convinces me that certain cases are deliberately singled out for debunking treatment in order to conceal the truth, with CSICOPers often acting as knowing or unknowing agents.

Dick
------------------------

9/4/2003 -0500
From: "Jacobs, Robert" <jacobs@bumail.bradley.edu>
To: francis ridge <nicap@insightbb.com
Subject Re. Big Sur Case

Mr. Ridge:
I just happened across your website and found references to the "Big Sur Case" wherein you indicate that the report was "debunked" in the Skeptical Inquirer by "the commanding officer."
This is not true. The commanding officer was Major Florenze J. Mansmann, now deceased, who verified my account of the incident right up to his death.

I was in charge of the tracking site and saw the actual film, being one of only a handful of people who did so. Mr. Kingston A George most probably did NOT see the film we shot, as it was removed from Major Mansmann's custody by three men in civilian dress.
If you are interested in learning more about this case, I would be happy to send you via snailmail a followup report that I wrote following the SI "debunking."

You may believe that the incident has been explained. I do not, and I was there.

Bob Jacobs, Ph.D.    \ Professor                                                                                              «
---------------------------------

Hi Bob,
Please do send anything you can regarding this interesting case. I remember how I felt when it came down that certain members of our group were satisfied that the case was "explained". For that reason I left the incident on the site hoping more would eventually come out. I'm glad you found the report and I'm looking forward to the information.
You may not be aware of this but I am also the coordinator of a nuclear connection investigating group/project that list just these types of incidents, over 200 so far. I hope we can put the Big Sur case back on that list. http://www.nicap.org/ncp/ncp.htm
Francis Ridge
NICAP Site Coordinator
-------------------------

Feb 2001
I had posted the page a few years ago and recently updated it, so I sent the updated version out to my peers, then had Adam post the new page on the UK site, updating the old one. Upon receiving the following emails we downgraded the case to "explained" and placed the new now-updated directory on the site so that later researchers will be advised. 

Francis Ridge 
NICAP Site Coordinator 


Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 10:21:07 -0500 
From: Dick Hall <dh12@erols.com> 
To: Francis Ridge <nicap@insightbb.com> 
Subject: Re: Big Sur page redone 

Fran, 

The Big Sur case was debunked by the commanding officer in an interview 
in Skeptical Inquirer. I'm not sure I believe the debunking, but it 
raised enough doubts that I deleted it from UFOE-II. - Dick 


Reply-To: "Sign Historical Group" <SHG@listbot.com> 
From: "Liljegren Anders" <anders.liljegren@telia.com> 
To: "Sign Historical Group" <SHG@listbot.com> 
Subject: Re: big sur "explained" 
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 00:34:19 +0100 

Hello Francis & the List, 
I have been very silent on the list these last few years, although I sometimes follow the 'discussion', passively. 

As for Big Sur, is there ANYONE in the US -- anyone on the list? -- who has actually READ the Skeptical Inquirer article???? 

To me the SI explanation seemed impressive and perfectly legitimate at the time. I am not otherwise impressed by the shallow arguments of the CSICOP gang of magicians and science writers, but this was an exception. 

I am sorry I cannot respect a 'ufology' that has closed it's eyes and ears to any and all counter arguments. I fear we will never gain respect that way. 

I am willing to scan the SI article and send a copy to anyone interested. It will take a few days before I get to the archives. (Sweden has a dreadfully cold winter weather these days so I won't dare the tour to the archives to fetch the SI copy until Monday or Tuesday). 

Anders Liljegren 
Archives for UFO research (AFU) 
P O Box 11027 
S-600 11  Norrkoping 
Sweden 


Date:         Sat, 3 Feb 2001 18:38:11 -0800 
From:         Francis Ridge <nicap@insightbb.com> 
Subject:      Re: big sur "explained" 
Comments: To: Sign Historical Group <SHG@listbot.com> 
To:           CURRENT-ENCOUNTERS@LISTSERV.AOL.COM 

At 12:34 AM 2/4/2001 +0100, Anders Liljegren wrote: 

>As for Big Sur, is there ANYONE in the US -- anyone on the list? -- who 
has actually READ the Skeptical Inquirer article???? 

Anders, 

Yes. I haven't read it, myself, since I depend a lot on others for this 
sort of thing. I spend about 60 hours a week on the web site and email, in 
a addition to a full time job. I WOULD like to post that SI article. 
Normally I don't, and for good reasons. But as you can see, even Richard 
Hall has some reservations with this case: 

"Fran, 

The Big Sur case was debunked by the commanding officer in an interview 
in Skeptical Inquirer. I'm not sure I believe the debunking, but it 
raised enough doubts that I deleted it from UFOE-II. - Dick" 

>I am sorry I cannot respect a 'ufology' that has closed it´s eyes and 
>ears to any and all counter arguments. I fear we will never gain respect 
>that way. 

I see no evidence that ufology has done this. The tabloids have, but we 
will be posting this case with caveats as soon as we get the material 
together. And even then the research will continue. Unfounded claims by SI 
aren't used on any site pages, except where there is supporting evidence. 
Who knows, this may have been nothing more than a "Star Wars" test that the 
Big Sur crew was not aware of. 
 

>I am willing to scan the SI article and send a copy to anyone interested. 
It will take a few days before I get to the archives. (Sweden has a 
dreadfully cold winter weather these days so I won't dare the tour to the 
archives to fetch the SI copy until Monday or Tuesday). 

Please do, and email to me at: 
nicap@insightbb.com 

Fran 


From: legion@mira.net 
Subject: The Big Sur 'UFO': An Identified Flying Object - SI Article (fwd) 
To: nicap@insightbb.com
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 101 15:23:58 +1100 (EST) 

Hi Fran: 

I asked Barry Karr of CSICOP if we could post this publically to 
the lists back in '99.  He said "No." 
He'd only allow a "summary." 

Sorry about the strange date on this msg.  ISP is playing up. 

Forwarded message: 

               _Skeptical Inquirer_ Winter, 1993 
       The Big Sur 'UFO': An Identified Flying Object 
                   By KINGSTON A. GEORGE 

(The full report now on file at NICAP Site office - Francis Ridge) 

Big Sur Directory
NICAP Home