Notice Regarding: Attempted Identity Theft

UFOs
(unidentified Flying objects)

Select cases and moments
from UFO History

(The "true" x-files)


formerly titled

The Oberg/Cooper Rebuttals
and
The Research of Jerry Cohen

 

BEST VIEW-



Click-> TABLE OF CONTENTS<-Click
(Previoius contents are now replaced by this new link)

 

 

..

 

 

Leaving this window here for now

if you know this site and want to go straight to these

 

 



Some Important UFO History and Why

Letters from Readers

Solving any Case on This Site

Examining Some Skeptical Explanations

 

 

 

 


The Reason for this Web Site

,
Click on this picture for my sighting

"Extraordinary claims require Extraordinary Evidence." - Sagan *

A good friend of mine, with whom I used to work, called recently and reminded me exactly why this web site exists today. She said "You know, they used to call you 'crazy Jer'. They used to say "he saw 'something' "; and the fact was, I had . . . . something that had completely blown my mind and affected me for the rest of my life. The trouble was it was next to impossible to talk about it with most people because I could see their reactions whenever I tried to discuss it. Most people would listen to you on the surface but would tend to think you were wacky for even bringing it up. It was obvious the average person couldn't really "connect" with me on this.

So I did my best to keep it in, but a word or two would "pop out" here and there. Somehow, the incredible need to talk about it, combined with the inability to get it out for full discussion with anyone that could really understand, set the stage for what you see here today. The ironic thing is I truly didn't want to hang out with "UFO" people or be considered a UFO nut. Go figure! So, I slowly and quietly gathered information on the topic, cross-referencing things within, trying to explain to myself how it was remotely possible for me to have seen what I had seen twice, back in Nov/Dec 1967. I have always considered myself a basically level-headed person, and this really bothered me.

Our U.S. Air Force and scientific establishment were repeatedly saying it didn't exist, yet my own eyes told me it most certainly did. Although the research I performed thereafter was mostly a search for an answer for myself, I fervently hoped that one day I would have enough fully-substantiated information which would enable me to talk about it and, with some luck, be listened to in a serious manner. (What did I see? If you missed it, click here.)

jc 1/1/2010 addition: Well, it appears I may have more than reached that goal. Thanks to the efforts of many hard-working people out there who have gathered and provided us first-hand research from around the globe, this website is now additionally able to include a number of upper-echelon people who have stepped forward in person to add their own technically-supported sightings to the mix . . . extremely difficult to deny testimonies, some of which have verified some of the important 1975 documented FOIA released information previously highlighted and updated on CohenUFO.

It is my hope this will make it easier for other educated, intelligent readers to come to the realization this topic is a great deal more respectable than previously thought by some. (A link to the testimonies is provided in my "Examples of Some Very Solid Cases" section below.)

* "Encyclopaedia Galactica". Carl Sagan (writer/host). Cosmos. PBS. 1980-12-14. No. 12. 01:24 minutes in.



J. Allen Hynek

J Allen Hynek
Researchers or anyone looking for more information
concerning Dr. Hynek please click his picture above.


After discovering the Internet and coming "on line" in early 1996, I noticed some discussions regarding Dr. J. Allen Hynek where one critic had called him a "failed scientist." I found myself in major disagreement with this view.

Hynek, originally a total skeptic concerning UFOs, had been hired by the U.S. Air Force as a civilian astronomical consultant, charged with finding commonplace explanations for difficult-to-solve UFO cases in their files. Amazingly, over the course of an approximately twenty year study, Hynek found he had failed to be able to explain them all away to his total satisfaction and instead, wound up becoming an outspoken advocate for continued study of the phenomenon. During his own, highly motivated pursuit of same, he eventually founded the Center for UFO Studies (CUFOS).

Due to my own brief personal interaction with Hynek once years ago on the telephone, and having thought long and hard about him for a good 30 years, I found myself responding to those internet discussions when I posted a series of essays on "alt.paranet.ufo" entitled "With Respect to Dr. Hynek," based upon some of the research I had performed. Several of those essays were gratefully originally archived at TUFOP (The Ultimate UFO Page - Jim Doyle). Jim was the first person to appreciate what I had done in this regard.

 

Web Site Overview


You may think I'm totally crazy for writing this next part, but please don't leave this site without at least clicking on the Belgium, Iran, Illinois and the recently added Chicago O'Hare Airport, USA case links approximately four or five paragraphs below. (By the way, before getting to that, click on the picture above, for an interesting question regarding one important "probability" the Frank Drake equation for finding life on other planets omitted. I'm hoping the obvious answer to it will help you realize that what I'm about to present isn't quite as impossible as you might at first think. Click on it and read what's there . . . I'll wait. )

O.K., with that thought in mind, I'll now state that what is on this site is data that seems to fully substantiate the fact we are most likely being quietly studied or scrutinized by someone on an ongoing basis; probably not originating from this planet or, if from here, possibly even from a different time period or dimension . . perhaps even our own future. (I said it this way because our scientists say it is impossible to fly here from other solar systems and/or galaxys because of the tremendous distances involved. I agree . . . it's quite a hike out there, but maybe it has to do with String-Theory, wormholes or all that missing "dark matter and energy" our scientists are looking for in our universe. Maybe the standard model of the universe isn't quite right. Perhaps most of it is in another dimension. Could it be possible to take a shortcut through same if we figure it all out?) Which of these and why they are doing it, I can't tell you, and exactly where they are from is anyone's guess.

To what data am I referring? Well, UFO researchers seem to be stuck with a solid core-group of totally verified events, documented as being extremely "out of norm" which have so far refused to resolve themselves to the majority's collective scientific satisfaction. To put it another way, the proposed explanations for some of these cases are definitely less than concrete and do not fully convince a number of serious researchers who have spent a great deal of time analyzing them and furthermore, these core events and the people reporting them are not merely static, they are growing in number.

What has been observed and apparently displayed in some cases are extremely stealthy craft which exhibit silent, evasive flight, swiftness of movement, and abilities well past the curve of our present technological advancement; so far past it that many scientists from around the world are having a difficult time accepting the reports as valid. Yet, one has only to examine the following four cases in depth and ask yourself whether you honestly believe our technology and capabilities have developed to the level you will find described in detail therein. I will state in advance that some of what you are going to read sounds like science fiction. However, what is most difficult to understand and absorb is that, each of these _have_ been verified, and can be re-checked and demonstrated to have occurred, exactly as stated.

 

Examples of Some Very Solid Cases

Here are four cases: Belgium (1989/90), Iran (1976), Illinois, USA (2000), and O'Hare International Airport (2006) (Go ahead, click on them.) Maybe you can come up with a solid, logical solution for at least one of them.

The Belgian and Iranian cases have been verified as not being hoaxes, delusions, folklore, myths, misinterpreted events, natural occurrences, military tests or fabrications, the planet Venus, etc. (As I mentioned at the outset, that they are real has now been additionally authenticated by a group of upper-echelon military, governmental personnel, and scientists from several countries who have, in November 2007, come forward to testify about them. - Now, I realize it sounds as though I've lost my mind here, but I can virtually guarantee you will get the shock of your life if you click on the above link in this parentheses and just read a little of what you find there and note who these people are. You will begin to realize I am not nearly as nuts as you were probably convinced I was before you read it. . . . . I might add, the whole thing is still difficult for me to accept, even though I had my own personal sighting.)

Amazingly, verification of the Belgium case comes directly from the Belgian NATO Air Force (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) and from the Chief of Operations of that Air Staff at the time of the incidents. The Iranian case was originally discovered within information gleaned from governmental agency (FOIA) lawsuits and, most recently verified by a squadron commander (Major at the time, now General) who was directly involved with that case. Both of those people testified as members of the larger group you just read about in the previous paragraph.

It is important to note, the Belgium NATO case above was preceded four months by a startling Belgian police case. I found myself having to include that police case in my analysis as it was so dramatic and undeniable, it also wound up being taken into account by the Belgian NATO high command itself, as it applied its considerable technical knowledge in an attempt to explain its own *out of norm* incident. Mind you, these are not stupid people. They do value their reputations. Their analysis and conclusions state they were, and still are, virtually convinced what was chased, for upwards of 75 minutes, was intelligently controlled. People with their own technical skills can check out the associated gun camera numerical data.

The third case, Illinois (2000), had also been investigated in great depth and its existence confirmed by NIDS, a group of PH. D.'s including Edgar Mitchell, 6th man to walk the moon. The group (no longer live-on-line) also included retired policemen who performed their own detailed investigation of the incidents. It was found that, similar to what was seen in the well-investigated (by both civilian and military analysts) Belgium sightings, an extremely large "craft" of some sort has been verified here in the United States and witnessed by police officers in three separate towns. You can see an analysis of this case at Darryl Barker's excellent web site along with a free video of one policemen's testimony. (T.V. producers, you're missing something if you don't contact him and air his research.) Although NIDS did not originally rule out the possibility of a military black project, we have yet to see any of this displayed in a military arena. (and why would they test it out over the general public? It makes no sense.)

BULLETIN: in September 2004, NIDS revised it's findings on the triangles and said their analysis indicated that ". . . the actions of these triangular craft do not conform to previous patterns of covert deployment of unacknowledged aircraft. (Use this if link fails, or this) Furthermore, 'neither the agenda nor the origin of the Flying Triangles are currently known.' "

If we believe this group of sightings to be military, we have to ask "who's military", for they appear not only to have "antigravity" (or something that looks a hell of a lot like it), but additionally "totally silent" airborne vehicles, some of which are two to three stories in height , and which can silently shoot out of sight in an instant.

Don't believe me? You only have to play the video-taped police and civilian reports (trailer) at Darryl's site to realize this case is also 100% legitimate. The police and civilians appearing in that video trailer are the actual witnesses. Darryl spent his own time and money bringing in a professional crew to recreate, with as much exactitude as possible, what people reported seeing. As incredible as it sounds, keep clicking . . I'm not making any of this up. - BTW, that's a UFO three (3) stories thick . . . not off the ground. I wrote NIDS to check it out, and NIDS indicated it was three stories thick.-

Can _all_ these people be lying or mistaken about what they claim they have seen and experienced? Are they _all_ hallucinating or seeing mirages? Does it sound like a giant hoax?

 

And the fourth . . . even more recent event, Chicago, (Illinois) O'Hare Airport UFO

In an effort to help people realize that UFO sightings here in the United States are not abating, and since it's so perfectly demonstrative of the point I am trying to make . . i.e. "excellent, impressive UFO sightings occur and then are forgotten because they exist just under our mental radar, i.e our ability to deal with it, and most of all . . our ability to remember that it actually happened after a certain amount of time has passed." I offer the following.

I was allowing this website to rest at what I felt was its point of conclusion when I was virtually forced to add this particular November 7, 2006 event which occurred at Chicago, Illinois O'Hare International Airport last year, catching everyone by surprise. (N.B. approximately 7 years after the 100% verified, amazing Illinois 2000 sightings mentioned as the third case above.)

What is it that looks like a dirty aluminum, oval shaped, spinning disk, which hangs around for a minimum of ten minutes (but which investigators, from testimony, believe may easily be up to 18 minutes) over a _major_ airport, hovers coincidentally just out of site of the control tower (who thought they could see everything but NARCAP found otherwise), in the least traveled air space of the airport, and that does the impossible, punches a neat, clear-air hole its own approximate size in the cloud cover when it leaves (coincidentally again, following an exit path through the _least traveled_ air zone of the airport), and yet doesn't show up on radar in the process (even though it was almost directly over the main radar), while also being seen by numerous airport professionals and other witnesses? A hallucination, a meteorological anomaly? A freak of nature? (That _has_ to be it . . . right?)

The witnesses and scientists who studied the sighting have all stated they've never seen a plane of this (or any) size capable of doing this. Ordinary planes don't have the power or energy to cut holes in clouds as they pass through them . . . they simply slip _through_ the clouds. So we ask the obvious . . . was it a natural formation? Meteorologists say that for a cloud formation of this type to occur on its own, (i.e. for clouds to form with a hole having blue sky showing through from top to bottom), the temperature in the clouds usually needs to be freezing or below. That was not the case at O'Hare.

To prove to yourself this event actually occurred as stated, readers interested in viewing an interview with Jon Hilkevitch from the Chicago Tribune concerning same, should click here now, as I am not sure how long "You Tube" will keep this 9 minute video at its present address. (jc 3/8/2013: Repaired link with temporary substitution. I'm praying someone leaves the history there somewhere. It's really important.) (10/28/2010: If the address expires, you may still be able to find it by putting O'Hare Ufo in "You Tube's" search engine.)

N.B. As in a number of UFO cases, there have been some claimed hoaxes regarding videos, but the case itself is 100% legitimate. It _did_ occur and has been thoroughly investigated. (see results of same below) However, some nagging questions definitely remain.

A few questions concerning the O'Hare incident:

1) Exactly how did the hole in the clouds occur? If no truly plausible meteorological explanation exists, then . . .

2) Would the military be testing something or place a vehicle over a crowded airport in restricted airspace?

3) Who has the advanced technology to have done what was seen and how exactly was it accomplished above that terminal? (More simply put "Who the heck is doing this stuff, and how are they doing it?")

12/28/2007: Well folks, although the FAA eventually tried to down-play the event to ease people's minds (reflections off the clouds when the airport lights hadn't even been turned on yet, and no witness testimony of any lights associated with the object), the findings of the NARCAP investigation regarding this impressive case have been released. -> Click here for the report <- . Maybe you can tell us what it was. Feel free to write. (Jim Oberg and the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry . . . feel free to jump right in here. I'm ready to remove this from this site when someone comes up with a _legitimate_ solution. BTW, my list is growing. Just wondering how your solutions to some of these cases are coming along?) - Since CSI doesn't seem to recognize the fact this website exists, maybe one of you readers could ask them. The big question: - is CSI examining really important cases, or are they just spinning their wheels?

 

"I've read them but, how can this be?"

Of course, I had a few people write me and say "This is preposterous, don't be ridiculous. Something has to be wrong with the reports. Even if you have these reports, how could anyone possibly do what you've said for any length of time without most of us becoming aware of it?"

Supposing for a moment that nothing is wrong with the "core" reports. (i.e. verified occurrences a number of researchers still find truly bewildering.) Part of the answer to this appears to lie in the observed, advanced technology which affords its users a high degree of stealth. (i.e. The craft are almost totally silent. Who is going to look up if you don't hear it?) Another portion of the answer has to do with the fact we can't see the forest for the trees, i.e. there is a plethora of claimed UFO cases, and the majority of them have either not stood up under close scrutiny or have not provided enough data for resolution one way or the other. So, it's very easy to think "O.K., there's nothing to _all_ of it."

Additionally, the idea that technologically superior 'others' from out there could be visiting, and perhaps studying us is so hard for the human mind to wrap itself around and deal with all of its ramifications, it's just much easier to simply believe it isn't even possible. The protective mechanism within one's mind kicks into gear and helps us avoid thinking about it because - to believe that exotic craft may be flying freely in our airspace obviously places a highly unacceptable unknown dead in our midst. (As if al-Quaeda terrorists aren't enough!) And, if we openly admit we have these unknowns, we _have_ to start asking if anybody is in some of them. It gets really unsettling after that. You see, we would then have to start rethinking whether any of the way-out UFO cases some people have reported, have any basis in fact; even some of the cases we've previously pooh-poohed. The whole thing becomes much more serious. It's also probably why the - it can't be, therefore it isn't - skeptics have been so vehement in their defenses regarding this topic.

Now, I am the first to agree this is something none of us should accept without stringent proof. We've got enough paranoia in the world already. But we do have the cases and supporting events you, hopefully, just looked at and plenty more where they came from. At the minimum, some of this is definitely not just someone's imagination, hoaxes, press hype, a need for attention, etc. In fact, when one looks at the history of it all, you unavoidably discover that these incursions have been going on for quite some time and continue right up to the present.

Taking what we have observed in some of these "core" cases at face value, it would appear the scrutinizers apparently display lots of patience; patience to dip in, and dip out as it were, study or observe us for awhile, leave . . . then return again, in what researchers have termed "flaps" or "waves." If whoever is flying these things has been able to monitor our communications and airwaves over a period of time, they would most likely be well-aware of the exact effect, or lack of it, each of their intrusions has had upon us.

Translating our languages? Look what we can already do on the Internet. If they've done this in other places, they may even have the whole thing down to a science. We are simply too busy going about our daily lives to focus any major attention on what they are doing, especially when they space their visits far enough apart . . . and even those who do . . . who will believe them anyway? We examinees haven't yet proven to ourselves that anyone else exists out there in the vastness of space (and/or time), so how can we be studied by someone who doesn't exist? It's the perfect cover . . they're basically invisible to us before they start, and our own minds blissfully keep them that way; and maybe that's pretty much how they want it while performing their study.

An aside: Just last week I watched a special concerning a study of elephants where scientists used a motorized "dung" camera (camera encased in material that looks like dung) as a tool to get close to the elephants. They ran the gadget right up to them and they ignored it completely because it was familiar, and non-threatening. This technique allowed the scientists to study those animals at close range. Is it possible something of a similar nature is happening to us? And, is it also possible that whoever is performing this study may even _slowly_ want us to know they are here? Did they really have to blast a hole through that cloud at O'Hare? What else could have caused that anomaly? The O'Hare sighting would appear to be one more example that NIDS is correct and that these incursions *have* become rather blatant as well as growing more numerous with the passage of time. (This link is to a September 2004 MSNBC article regarding a NIDS UFO study and its conclusions.)

 

Is Everyone Going Bonkers?
(Where there is smoke, there may be fire.)

The policemen and others from the Illinois case must be crazy, right? Fabricated their stories in collusion? The Belgium Air Force is inept and doesn't know what they're doing . . . chasing phantom whatevers . . . for 75 minutes? The Belgian police have likewise gone completely "bonkers", the professionals at Chicago O'Hare airport merely hallucinating from the electro-magnetics from the planes, and the military generals that have come forward to testify . . . they're just plain nuts. Perhaps we've misinterpreted the facts. Is it just science Fiction? But, how many cases like the above four, and how many more testimonies and solid, multiple team analyses do we need to make us start considering that something really out of the ordinary might actually be occurring?

What you'll find at this web site are other thoroughly authenticated, "out of norm" case occurrences without really conclusive solutions, which demonstrate we've been having verified, well-studied sightings like these for quite a long time. Additionally, I've provided some factual solidly verified UFO history to help you understand why the general public and scientists themselves have remained basically ignorant concerning this whole thing for so long, while other individuals and various groups noticed what looked like a definite pattern, and found themselves virtually inescapably drawn to examine these anomalies in depth. The simple reason is because most people, hopefully not you, find it much easier to either laugh it all off or ignore it, rather than digging in and focusing on it with an open, enquiring mind.

By the way, this is probably the proper place to note that if you do decide to give this topic some serious thought, you will certainly not be alone. Besides the serious, legitimate researchers who have been studying this for a long time, some very prominent individuals, who you wouldn't think would have anything to do with such a "way out" subject, have likewise found it intriguing enough to capture their attention as well. In fact, if you dig in and examine the cases on this site, you will soon realize that this phenomenon has been interacting, in one way or another, with people from all over the world for years; and this includes our world's militaries.

 

Much Older, Unexplained Cases Also Demonstrate a Highly-Advanced, Still Unexplained Technology

I've also included an additional 3 cases from 1957. One of them, (Kirtland AFB), was verified by Project Blue Book, the Condon Committee, Dr. James McDonald and was used as an example by Dr. Hynek when he was presenting his argument for the need for further study of UFO phenomena, just after the U.S. Air Force's termination of Blue Book. The second, which was known as the (Coast Guard Cutter Sebago case ), was verified to me as having actually occurred by a neighbor of mine (It's also found in NICAP files). The third incident was a (Glowing egg-shaped fly-over) which was reported to have stalled out a number of cars when it occurred.

I eventually discovered that the above group occurred within mere hours of each other, and later found they were surrounded by mass-sightings within that general time period. The authentication for all this came from Jan Aldrich, the director of a research organization known as Project 1947.

Although I thought I was finished with this particular array of cases, I found myself having to add yet a fourth. . . another multi-studied military case known as the RB-47 incident . The incident, which seems to have been verified as a legitimate UFO, happened approximately four months prior to the above three cases and interestingly, only two months after a May 2nd Edwards Air Force base case highlighted by space flight specialist Jim Oberg, in a discussion of his which was posted concerning astronaut Gordon Cooper.

If all this sounds too much to believe, just keep reading. I can support it all. Just click the links, check the footnotes, go to your library . . . it's all there. I've had conversations with a lot of people, and I am confident you will find that this whole thing makes the x-files look tame in comparison, basically because it deals with real people and factual events, not a "written for T.V." special or movie. I guess we can call it "reality" Internet. Incredibly, you can discover for yourself, all of it is on record as actually occurring and still ongoing . . . and believe it or not, many UFO researchers are additionally cognizant of the fact, what is here is merely the "tip of the iceberg."

 

Some Icing on the Cake

Oh, I almost forgot; as I write this, a "Disclosure Project " led by Steven Greer and Peter Gersten, the lawyer that filed suit for the initial FOIA released documents, claims to have statements from a number of high-quality military, etc. witnesses that would also seem to support my contention. (Sampling of witness statements). Is all this true? Do I believe it all? All I can say is . . . the project exists and is real and is attempting to do exactly what you'll be reading if you click on the links. What you make of it is up to you.

Interestingly, there appears to be strong support for some of the aforementioned testimonies . One major source is from researcher Robert L. Hastings. Robert's father was stationed at Malmstrom AFB during 1967. Both his father's and his own experiences were the catalyst to his research. Robert, himself, has collected testimonies from various military personnel. (BTW, Malmstrom and several other SAC bases had also claimed UFO visits in 1975. As a point of information, sandwiched time-wise between these was the Travis Walton claimed-abduction case.)

6/21/2008 . . . and adding to these: After you've read the above, I think you will realize that the previous link concerning the particular group of individuals who testified in Washington, D.C. in November 2007 needs to be reiterated here as well. Members of that group included Fife Symington (two-term governor of Arizona) along with varied personnel from around the world. As I mentioned, they were comprised of both military and civilian personnel, who not only had their own experiences, but who also brought with them undeniable, documented proof concerning their individual sightings within their respective countries. They made an appeal for the US government to acknowledge and study this phenomenon. It is also important to note, some of those testimonies have directly validated what I have previously written concerning the Belgium and Iranian sightings.

At another Washington press conference in 2010, other high-level individuals testified as to incursions at various nuclear bases. All of this is no small thing. The Bentwaters/Rendlesham case appears to be supported as well.

Two accrued facts:

a) Unless these individuals are lying or crazy, the cases they testified to were as real as it gets and . . .

b) A number of them have stated what they encountered was not of this earth. Obviously, what they each experienced had to be something really out of the ordinary to get them to say this. Even more striking is the fact some of these particular people are familiar with standard aircraft from around the world.

 

ANSWERING THE SKEPTICS:

What you will also find at this web-site are discussions with some of the better-known skeptical thinkers concerning UFOs. Here is one of them.
(You will find others along the way):


My Critique of Marc Hallet's "The So-Called Belgian UFO Wave - A Critical View"

MarcHallet

While performing a search on Google concerning the Belgium sightings, I happened to come across Marc Hallet's article "The So-Called Belgium UFO Wave - A Critical View." (search criteria - belgian ufo hallet)

As I began to read it, I found it filled with numerous negatives concerning SOBEP (Belgian UFO group) and scientist Auguste Meessen, and I began to wonder how my thoughts concerning the Belgian sightings would be influenced after I had finally absorbed everything he had to say. Some of the things he wrote sounded pretty convincing at first, and I asked myself if it was possible I had missed important data which might possibly alter my thinking concerning the 1989-90 wave.

So, I began to analyze his article in-depth, looking for any *case facts* he provided along the way, in order to be able to compare what he gave us against articles I already had in my possession. I was specifically interested in the Belgian Air Force NATO case of March 30-31, 1990 and the Eupen police case that happened approximately four months earlier (29 November 1989). The result of my analysis is posted on this web-site at the following address:

http://www.cohenufo.org/analyhalletarticle1.htm

Those taking the time to read it will find direct links to quotes and information which fully explains why Hallet's critique, mostly about SOBEP and Meessen, hasn't really changed my thinking concerning the importance of those two cases to the Belgian series as a whole. It's a bit lengthy but I believe I've covered most of the critical points in detail and hopefully, made it easy reading.

If you do read it and think I've done a good job, please tell others about it. I believe it is important for anyone seriously interested in the Belgium sightings to be able to be able to see through Hallet's "Critical View" to a number of solid, verified facts existing within these two remarkable cases. I believe this should allow most level-headed, open-minded researchers to realize that the Belgium series, as a whole, certainly appears deserving of more in-depth serious thought than Marc Hallet, and the other scientists he represents, seem to be permitting themselves to realize.

 

The 1980 Rendlesham Forest UFO Case
Ian Ridpath and Vince Thurkettle

My personal exploration of the main skeptical explanation for the 1980 Rendlesham Forest UFO Case. Ian Ridpath's rendition had been accepted by skeptics for approximately thirty years. CohenUFO's thorough examination of same makes it rather evident Ian's proposal is not nearly as definitive as previously thought. It is a long read but critical to seeing other solid facts regarding this intriguing case. (It's a book folks, but I promise, a really good one.) Click here first for a summation of what I found.

 

Joe Nickell and James McGaha

Nickell_McGaha

There are a number of skeptics who, having solved some relatively easy UFO cases, become convinced there can not be anything to the phenomenon of UFOs as a whole. They wind up examining a number of their cases after that wearing blinders so tight it is virtually impossible for them to perform an honest investigation. They come up with an idea they _think_ should solve a particular case but then, being overly enamored with their proposed solution, become so narrowly focused on that one facet, they forget to test it against the rest of the case before finalization. A perfect example of this is Joe Nickell and James McGaha's 2011 thesis concerning the famous 1965 Exeter, New Hampshire case.

Click HERE to see how and why they hit some extremely sour notes in their loudly trumpeted hypothesis and promotion.

The really sad part is that solutions similar to the one above are, in certain cases, highly touted and published by their parent organization CSI (aka CSICOP) without any apparent prior examination of same by the *group.* This is what they believe passes for serious scientific investigation. They all seem satisfied with this. They pride themselves on being people who don't want to have their minds open so far that their brains fall out (it's their own quote) . . . certainly a worthy goal. However, they apparently keep their minds so tightly closed they forget to perform really thorough investigations of certain cases at hand before screaming to the world how wonderful their solutions are. THIS is what they call SCIENCE.

 

Does Martin Kottmeyer have all the answers?

As mentioned above, some skeptics believe what many scientists say and are of a mind it _is_ impossible for UFOs to have traveled here. This kind of thinking leads them to deny the possibility anything you've read here could be occurring. One such person is Martin Kottmeyer. Although some of the things he writes are well thought out, people who take _everything_ he says as gospel without checking each carefully might find themselves in for a surprise, were they to examine some of those essays closely.

One example of same also concerns his comments regarding that above 1965 Exeter, New Hampshire, USA group of sightings. One can read my comments concerning his piece "The Exeter File" by clicking here. Since his piece was originally written in two parts, I have included a link at the end of part one, which will take the reader directly to part two. Read all the links as they are important and demonstrate the fallacies in Martin's arguments and that the Exeter case remains as solid as ever.

Interestingly, I did find a _very_ thoroughly researched piece from Martin which was published in Magonia in July 2007; it was titled "Do UFO Films Stimulate UFO Flaps?". Readers of this highly interesting report may be surprised to find that after all was said and done, Martin had proved to himself (and us), the answer to this important question was a definite "no"; thus eliminating yet another possible explanation.

A third article by Martin, published two years earlier in 2005, concerned the Peter Jennings special "UFOs Seeing is Believing." At one point in his discussion, Martin laughs at the possibility of UFO aliens being here and abducting people.

Although the abduction area is certainly not the main thrust of this website, I have included a very articulate letter by abduction researcher Bud Hopkins, concerning the manner in which the Peter Jenning's show handled Hopkin's almost life-long study of the subject, and how a good deal of the information Hopkins gave them was totally ignored. One can click here to read that. I don't know about anyone else, but it definitely put some chills up my spine.

 

James Oberg's Essay
"In Search of Gordon Cooper's UFOs"

James Oberg
Click picture to go to
Oberg/Cooper material

 

James Oberg, in his own words, is "a lifelong UFO buff, a founding fellow of CSICOP (now called CSI) and longtime associate of Phil Klass, a colleague and friend of J. A. Hynek from Northwestern days, ... and a specialist in space flight operations, both American and Russian."

When his essay "In Search of Gordon Cooper's UFOs" was posted on UFO UpDates Mailing list (Errol Bruce-Knapp - moderator), I realized it was at odds with my research and also cried out for a fair reply.

In it, Jim Oberg made statements demeaning the reputations of not only ex-astronaut Gordon Cooper, but additionally those of Drs. J. Allen Hynek and James McDonald.

My rebuttal(s) give lie to this. They provide some thoroughly documented (to the best of my ability), solid UFO history, and will permit any reader to determine the accuracy of the information therein, if one cares enough to take the time to research the footnotes and additional data provided. (Much of it is only a click away.) I can also guarantee that anyone having NICAP and/or CUFOS journals in their possession will find the information gleaned from those quite precise. Additionally, I have done my best to correct any misinformation given by newspaper articles where I have become aware of it. This process has been ongoing as people responded to my posts with information I was able to verify.

 

Quebec Skeptics and Jim Oberg

Back in January 1997, a Quebec Skeptics group (350 + people) also asked for and received a copy of my essays and yet never replied to any portion of it. People have written me and said that if they didn't have anything to say about it, it was probably difficult to find real fault with it. Their comments bolstered my confidence to expand the site and to make it easier to access the information within.

Although Jim eventually became aware of CohenUFO and had a generally negative comment to make about it in February 1998, he was unwilling to discuss anything specific relating to his original essay until 6/26/2003.

I recently found Jim Oberg's personal web site and observed that Jim's Cooper essay didn't appear therein. (He says it does. Maybe you can find it folks?) But, it is my hope that perhaps he gave some thought to some of the things he wrote and decided not to include them easily visible with his other analyses. A few I read appear to have their merits. I am not against exposing false UFO claims where they exist, but rather I am against unsupported innuendo and outright slander concerning people who have made honest efforts to get at the truth of same. Close analysis of my answer to Jim will make one realize he doesn't have the answer to everything.

Therefore, read my response to James Oberg's criticism of CohenUFO treatment of his article "In Search of Gordon Cooper's UFOs." It answers many of Jim's criticisms of CohenUFO, points out some misunderstandings and some major fallacies in his arguments, and in the process toward the very end, accidentally discovers that the 1957 Edwards AFB UFO case, which Jim had asked us to examine, is a confirmed true-unknown with no obvious solution. It certainly surprised me, and perhaps even Jim himself (if he bothered to read my site before criticizing it, that is.).

 

 


Author's Select Cases ( Click HERE to go to cases.) Additional cases included within this section were derived from other lengthy, in-depth research. Located therein are a selection of cases I believe demonstrate a great deal of solidity. It is left for the reader to draw his/her own conclusions concerning each. They were originally meant to be read _after_ one thoroughly read my rebuttals, but I've changed my mind. Since most stand alone on their own merits, it really doesn't matter how you approach it. All you need is curiosity.

All data used has been rather thoroughly documented, and the documentation is, in most instances, one simple click away in the written text. (i.e. You are reading a meticulously assembled, three-dimensional, instant reference book.)


E-mail exchanges with Jan Aldrich,
Project 1947
(part of the Sign Historical Group
)

Jan Aldrich

Jan Aldrich is the director of Project 1947. The project is "....a worldwide effort to document the origins of the modern UFO phenomenon." It's primary focus is on the 1947 wave, but "it will also look forward as far as 1965 and back to 1900 for certain selected significant topics in UFO research."

In the course of my own exploration, I found myself focusing upon three cases from 1957 I had previously thought had occurred within a week's time of each other. Jan's research further reinforced my own when he informed me that the three incidents in question actually occurred _hours_ not days apart.

We exchanged a great deal of e-mail and I am grateful to him for all the time he gave me answering my questions. The Stokes case did not have the support I would have liked but was included with the other two cases herein (Kirtland AFB & Sebago) because of the fairly close timing of all three cases. If you are interested in helping with Jan's project, click here for more information.

 

An Unprecedented Gathering and Archiving of UFO Discussions

Errol B Knapp Glenn Campbell
..Errol B Knapp ..Glenn Campbell

Back in 1996, while trying to find a place to verify or discard pieces of information I had gathered over the years, I came across a mail-list run by Errol Bruce-Knapp in Canada. Posting to it, I discovered some of the most serious discussions concerning UFOs that I had seen on the Internet up to that point.

Around the same time, Glenn Campbell, in Nevada USA, set up a phenomenal database/mail list UFOmind, Area 51. Thanks to Errol's and Glenn's genius and foresight back then, they began automatically archiving all of Errol's UFO Updates exchanges from people all over the world onto Glenn's server, making it possible to create links to old discussions & case information, thus helping to eliminate repetitive writings. (i.e. Rather than rewrite entire subjects, you could just point someone to a discussion that already covered the subject in question. It was a real time-saver.)

Additionally, Glenn's web site was programmable. That is, people could post research on various topics they had accumulated to it as well as links to various sources of information; the best part being, it was available to anyone surfing in. To researchers who knew what was valuable and what was not, it was a treasure trove of excellent information which could be further checked for authenticity, accuracy and completeness. The archive and discussions also eventually attracted some of the most well-known people in the field of Ufology.

However, due to technological upgrades occurring in the Internet, people's addresses, etc. changed over time and Glenn could no longer keep up with the changes. He eventually decided to freeze information in the site and, as links were becoming useless, was finally forced to take the majority of it down. A portion of what you will see on my site are pieces of archived discussions gleaned from various contributors as well as Glenn's and Errol's efforts. BTW, Glenn's web site still exists and is now titled simply Glenn-Campbell.com. At his website there is a link to the work he and Errol did together from 1997-99, located at The UFOMind Mailing List .

Errol has since moved the totality of his archived discussions to a new server located at www.virtuallystrange.net and the archiving of UFO Updates is still ongoing. He also hosts an excellent radio program entitled Strange Days Indeed. Some of the most interesting "live audio" conversations with various callers are archived at the immediately previous URL, and can be accessed right from your computer if you go there and click on them.


Wendy Connors(UFO Materials Preservation, founder & CEO) and the Sign Historical Group

Wendy Connors
Click Wendy's picture for
audiodisc topic listings

Hickson and Parker Case

In April 2002, Wendy Connors and Bill Jones (MUFON, Ohio) from the Sign Historical Group notified Errol's list that they had obtained the original Pascagoula Mississippi police recording of the interrogation of Charles Hickson and Calvin Parker (claimed abduction case 10/73). They asked if anyone wanted a copy. I wrote Wendy and she sent me one. I made an important discovery for myself in the process and have posted it on this web site. I would think this has been verified previously, but this is the first time it has been solidified for me, via my own personal investigation.

To sum it up: There was an article published in the National Enquirer (7/28/74), regarding the Hickson and Parker case. It was based on information from the Ralph and Judy Blum book "Beyond Earth, Man's Contact with UFOs." After close examination, I made the startling discovery that the verbatim quotes used in the National Enquirer article were accurate to Wendy's audio copy of that original Pascagoula police recording. You can read all about this by clicking (1/18/2009) here.

 

J Allen HynekBob Pratt
....J.Allen Hynek ....... Bob Pratt

The aforementioned discovery made me extremely curious how accurate to source any other UFO stories published in the Enquirer might be. This topic is yet another "eye-opener", and not what one would expect. For that, please read "Dr. Hynek and the National Enquirer ."

Those who remember those articles and are curious about the inner workings of what went on back then, please read my correspondence with Bob Pratt, one of the original writers of some of those articles for the National Enquirer back in the '70's. One thing I find highly intriguing is the amazing effect Bob's research for the Enquirer had upon the rest of _his_ life. You absolutely _must_ look at Bob's own web site, and see it in his own words. What he has to say is quite astonishing and certainly deserves everyone's attention.

An important note: As of May 2005 the Brazilian military has apparently verified some of the information Bob Pratt had previously published regarding UFO sightings in that country. ***12/11/2005: Also please note: Bob Pratt has recently passed on. His website is now located at MUFON. I have redirected my link to that site accordingly as of 3/1/2005.

 

The Involvement of Dr. James McDonald in Ufology

James McDonald
Click picture for 1968 McDonald
Kent State University, Ohio Lecture

2/18/2005: Wendy recently sent me another CD containing some other important historical snippets concerning one well-respected scientist's involvement in UFO history. (Dr. James McDonald) By clicking McDonald's picture above, one can read and hear some of his own words as to how and why he chose to become involved in a controversy that continues to this day.

Concerning the well-investigated and thoroughly documented Portage County case McDonald presents:

Richard Hall had hand-delivered a detailed workup on that case to Dr. Condon for use in the Colorado Study. (Testimony located at the middle URL immediately above is taken from the tenth paragraph in Hall's 1994 paper "The Quest for the Truth About UFOs" in the section titled "The Condon Committee," ) The case never made it into the final report and we are not sure Dr. Condon even read it or bothered to investigate it.

Also included in this McDonald section is a fascinating article which includes interviews with some of the children of Dr. Hynek, Major Quintanilla (one of the ex-heads of Blue Book), and Gerald Buchert (ex-chief of the Portage Country Sheriff's Dept.), drawing on the memories of these children concerning their parents in the performance of their respective duties.

5/27/2005: Regarding McDonald, Jim Oberg in his rebuttal to my web-site made the following three statements:

"I quoted the McDonald passage as an example of an accurate reportage."

"I intended no implication of devious behavior by McDonald."

"I trust Dr. McDonald's account of the eyewitness description of this encounter."

Since Jim appears to agree McDonald was basically an accurate reporter regarding the Kirtland case, Jim and anyone else might possibly be interested in additional examples of McDonald's investigations into other difficult to solve UFO cases. After tracking down and speaking to numerous witnesses and using his own knowledge of chemistry, meteorology, cloud and atmospheric physics as a basis for study of their accounts and existing explanations, McDonald found that most, if not all, of the proposed explanations left much to be desired.

One can go to the National Capitol Area Skeptics (NCAS) web-site for his report to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science and Astronautics, July 29, 1968 concerning those investigations and to read the background and the cases themselves, in his own words.

 

Mail List Exchanges with Paul Devereux
(Earthlights and TST Investigator) 5/22/2008

Click Paul's picture below for our E-mail discussions and
the results of my exchanges and additional investigation.

Michael Persinger Paul Devereux
..Michael Persinger......Paul Devereux

Although our mail list gave Paul Devereux a hard time in our discussions, Paul has done something extremely important for ufology today. He has participated along with other scientists who have been attempting to apply some sort of methodology to get hard physical evidence in an attempt to solve the mystery of UFOs. Paul has gone "out in the field" gathering numerical, photographic and other scientific data on the phenomenon known as "Earthlights;" energies possibly plasmatic in nature, which he believes are emitted from the earth's crust due to interior tectonic stress (i.e. on the earth's mantle -- AKA, the TST or Tectonic Strain Theory).

Another scientist, Michael Persinger, has approached the problem from a slightly different point of view; electromagnetic-stimulated hallucinations.

CUFOS (Hynek Center for UFO Studies: please join), in one facet of their ongoing study of the topic, has included a link to a scientific ufo-related site, Project Hessdalen. Norway Sweden, (Results Hessdalen 2002) which has featured the results of an extensive, study on observed light phenomenon in a particular valley there. (jc 3/30/2013 : For as long as it remains on-line, here is one video example of the light phenomena referred to above. Click HERE.)

For years, we ufologists have been bemoaning the fact that few if any truly scientific studies have been aimed towards finding a solution to this perplexing presence. If there is anything to measure, we should certainly be measuring it, therefore, their study must certainly be welcomed. If I am correct, I believe what they have found to this point has not been solidly resolved to this day.

Personally, I'd rather have 1000 people like Paul, Michael and the team in Norway making the attempt to give a truly scientific reason as to why people might be seeing UFOs than those who will resort to pseudoscientific logic and half-truths to obtain solutions that don't really fit the facts of reported cases.

Please see Paul's scientific methodology for yourself by reading my exchanges with Mr. Devereux. I do have a bone to pick with him about certain things. No matter what is learned from their study, I can guarantee the residual 10-15% of cases Hynek and the Condon Study couldn't solve will still remain. And, if you have time left over and missed it, please click here for one group's response to one of those pseudo-scientific solutions. It is an eye-opener as well.

 

Letters from Readers

<-- Click letter to go to Reader Letters page
or click to individual letters down below.

This particular section is extremely important because it demonstrates this web-site has gone through its own unsolicited peer review. Along the way, a variety of people, incuding some of the tops in the field, have written me to comment on the material both in, or referenced through this site. A number of them have informed me that what is here is basically accurate to what did occur.

Additionally, some of these same writers were directly involved in some of those investigations. This is high praise from these people and I am truly honored, since a great deal of hard work has gone into the assembling of the materials you will find here. In a subject such as this, you can _think_ you have done something worthwhile, but you definitely need commentary and confirmation from others to reinforce that or you can't be certain your work is fully connected with reality.

One of my proudest moments was the email exchanges I had with Richard Hall, who was one of the most senior investigators in Ufology. Those who know this field know that Richard went back to the early days of NICAP (National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena) and was actively involved with, in one way or another, most of the major UFO groups in the United States. Having a person of this stature tell me I was doing a good job was a tremendous boost.

Also of major importance were the many letters I exchanged with Brad Sparks, the first person to study the CIA documents released in 1978 from Freedom of Information (FOIA) lawsuits and who gave a considerable amount of time helping me correct some misinformation that appeared in certain news articles I was using. I am deeply indebted for the time he gave me.

The immediate listing below is comprised of both some direct correspondents and/or people who mentioned either my postings to UFO Updates or this web-site in general. Some of these people actually found themselves respecting this site enough to voluntarily add their own first-hand investigative information to it. I am extremely humbled by this:

 

Alfred Lehmberg, Richard Hall, Bruce Maccabee (another very important senior member and Photo-analyst), Brad Sparks (FOIA Lawsuits), Ted Phillips (Center for Physical Trace Research), Kal Korff (a journalist, book author who tells it as he feels it really is), Walter N. Webb (worked 32 years at the Charles Hayden Planetarium in Boston as senior lecturer, assistant director, and manager of operations), Sean Jones, Wendy Connors (Sign Historical Group - UFO Materials Preservation), Bob Pratt (ex-writer/investigator for the National Enquirer), Dr. Harry Willnus (Researcher of the 1966 Dexter, Michigan UFO case), Gary Matteson (State Section Director and Field Investigator, MUFON-Nebraska), Gary Matteson (Second letter), Robert Hastings (Researcher of Malmstrom and other military related sightings), Jim Deardorff (Oregon University, a researcher of the "Billy Meier case"), Errol Bruce-Knapp (UFO UpDates and host of Strange Days Indeed radio show - Canada), Don Allen, G.T. McCoy, E. Schwartz (friend and coworker of Dr. Hynek), Bernard Haisch (Past Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Scientific Exploration), Greg Sandow, John Velez (Abduction Information Center/Bud Hopkins), Pat Parrinello, Loy Pressley, Ross Brindle, Bruce Burke, Josh Goldstein, Ron Hewitt, William Weber, Cathy Johnson, Jennifer Jarvis, and Yahoo! Answers (CohenUfo is the most "even handed I've found")

Click "Letters from Readers" above or "click on a name" to see who they are and what he/she wrote. .

 

My "thank you" to several people out there

Thanks to: Don Berliner for including a link from his "Coalition for Freedom of Information" site to mine; Alfred Lehmberg for taking the time to read and really understand what I've been attempting to do over here, and for saying it with so much eloquence; Wendy Connors for providing me with that Hickson and Parker original police recording, the invaluable James McDonald material, and being generally supportive of the material at CohenUFO; Robert Hastings for his commentary and the personal research he sent me; John Timmerman for helping me realize I wasn't alone, at our very brief meeting at the CUFOS exposition in New London Connecticut, some time around April 1989;

Dr. Harry Willnus for thinking enough of my website to send me some of his first -hand Michigan, Swamp Gas research for me to include; Whoever recommended me for admission to the Society for Scientific Exploration (SSE) - I apologize for not taking you up on it (I do receive their journal) - the material in this website took most of my life to gather, research and impliment on-line, and I am now spending a good portion of my retirement years both enjoying my family and performing some of the quality music I didn't have an opportunity to play all those years; Henny van der Pluijm for the spelling help regarding towns and people in the Belgium Sightings. . . and to all the people who have worked on this topic in total honesty trying to figure out what the hell is going on. You know who you are.

 

A Personal Statement from Me

Having finally accomplished my initial goal which entailed slowly gathering the materials over the years, performing the research, discovering the NET, working toward learning the medium, finding people kind enough to give it a fair initial viewing and finally, setting up this web-site, my conscience is now clear. I've accomplished what I set out to do approximately 45 years ago; i.e. as I said, just to figure out how it was possible for me to have seen what I did, and to be able to talk about it without being laughed at.

I leave the rest for other serious researchers to discern for themselves. I've also finally paid a debt I've owed to Dr. Hynek and all those people who worked so hard coming up with solid research concerning this amazing topic, and who eventually made me realize I wasn't completely crazy or just having a momentary fantasy I was in some kind of crazy sci-fi movie. (That's exactly how a piece of me felt back then.)

Posting this in this manner, it is hoped my sincerity will shine through. It should be obvious to most this wasn't done for the money. I pray someone takes this seriously. I am positive I did not misidentify what I observed in my sighting and, from my research and discussion with other researchers and technical people, I believe the probability is extremely high that ex-astronaut Gordon Cooper was telling the truth regarding, at the minimum his early sightings.

Click Author's Select Cases for other well-documented cases that this author feels support Cooper's initial claim made at the U.N. Although there are people who say the CIA played a large role in UFO history (extremely difficult to prove exactly how much, because of its clandestine nature), this factor still would _not_ answer the question, "What was it that hovered over the vicinity of my house back in 1967?" I did not imagine it, project it (from my imagination) or improperly describe what I saw. To this day, I have still not discovered any balloon, craft, etc., ours or anyone else's, that matches the virtual soundlessness and aerodynamics witnessed, or would properly explain that event.

 

6/4/01 addendum: the cases I chose to discuss herein were derived from my own research and were not taken from the "Rockefeller Report" which was put together by CUFOS, FUFOR and MUFON, three major UFO groups with assistance from many people and groups including Colonel Wilfred De Brouwer, Belgium AF amongst them.
(jc
3/2/2006
: To my knowledge, a copy of the entire report has not been posted on the internet to this date. 8/20/2006: Additionally, I have no political ties with the above groups. 2/27/2009: It's now on-line thanks to Don Berliner.)


Being busy putting this site together, I did not really read the Rockefeller Report until recently, and then only an incomplete version. However, it is interesting to note that when I finally checked my "Author's Select Cases" against those found there, I noticed that four of the original five cases I happened to choose also appear therein. The only one I did not find was Exeter, New Hampshire. I had included Exeter for personal reasons because


1)
I discovered, in the course of my research, the craft I witnessed in my own sighting was extremely similar to that seen in the Exeter case and

2)
the travel time to Exeter from my home would be approximately 35 minutes by air shuttle. (if a shuttle with this route existed)

3) 6/9/2013: and now, as previously stated, since Joe Nickell and James McGaha have failed to solve this amazing case in 2011, its importance has increased dramatically since no one has been able to put a dent in this one for all these years. It also highlights a major problem with Jenny Randles general theorum "the more witnesses there are, the less likely it is to be a UFO." There certainly were a lot of witnesses in that case.



The Trindade IGY UFO Case
This case was of interest due to the Air Force's poor handling of a potentially excellent case as evidenced by

1)
Dr. Hynek's analysis of same outlining its improper investigation

2) weaknesses in critics' theories regarding same

3) Martin Shough (UK) rebuttal to solutions proposed

4) the fact three major UFO groups also deemed it important enough for inclusion in the "Rockefeller Report"

5) And, it became of greater interest to me because I discovered a 1960 report, written by Olavo T. Fontes, MD, regarding sightings of extremely similar objects which were seen in Brazil right around the same time as the Trindade case. They were observed approximately two months after the thoroughly analyzed and verified Nov. 1957 Kirtland AFB sighting

6) The immediate above was punctuated by a previously mentioned 5/23/2005 news release and 10/2009 followup regarding the admission by the Brazilian Air Force of both their systematic recording of, and concern about UFO visits to Brazil since 1954. They have agreed that Ufology is serious business and broadly recognized the activity of UFO research by the civilian UFO community.

It was also indicated that further steps were to be taken to let the researchers examine their entire military UFO files in a more comprehensive way. Although it took more than four years for the second release, this admission is completely stunning because the releases appear to directly confirm some bizarre Brazilian cases previously published by several journalists.

 

Some Interesting Questions:

What on earth (or off it) is it that people are still testifying to as having seen (Police in Illinois, USA), chased (Portage Country police, USA), shot at in Peru and tried to shoot at in Iran (temporary Parviz Jafari and Oscar SantaMaria video), got on radar (Belgium NATO), didn't get on radar when they should have (Chicago O'Hare Airport ), and witnessed and drew (Halt, Penniston , Burroughs - Woodbridge/Bentwaters, Rendlesham England), etc. There are still people who think none of this is real, but what the heck is going on?

After really digging into it, does all of it really summate to hallucinations, hoaxes, equipment failure, or misidentifications? Why are there so many of these type cases? Is there really that much incompetence throughout our world's militaries? Do most of these militaries want us believing in UFOs? Do you believe they were simply testing their own troops? Does the technology witnessed and reported appear to be our own? Or, do the military, police, and civilian sightings detailed at or referenced through this web site incontrovertibly demonstrate we are dealing with a phenomenon of the utmost importance which is virtually crying out for further detailed study? The summated testimonies we have to this point definitely indicate this whole thing is world-wide in scope:

I apologize for stating this next piece of information for the fourth time however, anyone entering this website from a different point will more likely get to read it. As I said at the outset, it is the strongest proof yet concerning everything I've written: . . . as indicated above in several places, some with video excerpts, a panel consisting of some of the most qualified people in the world with direct experience in dealing with the UFO issue, Major-General De Brouwer (Belgium NATO), General & former pilot Parviz Jafari (Iran), Col USAF Ret. Charles Halt, TSgt USAF (base commander, RAF Bentwaters), Ret. Jim Penniston, and former Arizona, USA ex-Governor Fife Symington, and other people in important positions from France, England, Peru and other countries, recently presented some startling evidence concerning their own personal cases and/or studies which they have made. (See: November 2007, at Washington's National Press Club)

This group testified that the UFO phenomenon is real, and asked the U.S. government to reopen its investigations into same. Why would these people do this? What more do we need to make us all realize something big is going on? Examining most of the available, honestly proposed, truly logical hypotheses for those many sightings detailed herein, finding the proposals lacking, and also cognizant of both the preceding testimonies at the Washington Press Club and others, and discovering the amazing solidity of a good number of those cases, this researcher finds himself driven to conclude that what he saw back in 1967 is most likely part of something which obviously is and has been happening across our globe for years. The lack of any legitimate explanation for the majority, if not all of the truly "out of norm" cases, and the accumulation of remarkable case details from each, seems to strongly indicate that what is being witnessed and reported may likely be extraterrestrial or, in some other way, exotic (not natural) to planet earth.

 

 


Partial Core Case Sampling
Other unresolved cases


A Small Sampling of Military or Government Cases (chronological - worldwide):

Brazilian Air Force - Some of the most atypical, bizarre cases in my files seemingly verified(?)
(Brazilian AF Studying UFOs since 1954. They've released cases for years 1954, 1977, 1986)

. . . and, an update to the above post HERE.
The RB-47 Case 1957 (multi-investigated; Condon, Blue Book, Klass, McDonald, Sparks)
Kirtland AFB, USA 1957 (triple-investigated; Condon, Blue Book, McDonald)
Hynek Blue Book Case, USA 1965 (Direct from Project Blue Book)
Malmstrom AFB, USA 1967 (UFO incident same year as this researcher's sighting)
Malmstrom AFB, USA 1975 (One of a group of U.S.A. SAC bases having had UFO visits
within a short space of time) (Witness testimony in support of Malmstrom events)

Iranian UFO 1976 (Supported by information within Govt. Freedom of Information releases,
now including pilot General Parviz Jafari, Iranian Air Force [Ret.], testifying in November 2007.)

Rendlesham England 1980(NATO recorded: Deputy Base Commander, Lieutenant-Colonel Charles Halt still testifying (See: 1:38 secs) to the total reality of the incident, years after its occurrence.)
Belgium NATO & Police 1990 (Colonel W.J.L. De Brouwer, Chief of Operations
of the Belgium Air Force also still testifying, now as Major-General.
)
Chile Announces UFOs are for real 1997 (La Direccion General de Aeronautic Civil)
French Government Releases UFO Information 2007 (Add France to the countries studying this.)
(to obtain a rough translation, access this site via Google - key: france ufo geipan)

Events and articles relating to above information

Washington press conference in 2010
(Other high-level testimonies-- Nuclear Facilities)

MSNBC Article Re: NIDS Study of Triangular UFO Sightings
NIDS Full In-depth Study (of three data bases) and Conclusions
(Referenced from this web site)
NIDS Full Assessment originally at their Website (Wayback Machine)
(Need Acrobat Reader Installed - set browser security medium for PDF Files)

NIDS
Staff:
(Wayback Machine)

 

 

 

 

 

To people trying to Solve any case on this site

When formulating your solution, try to remember that

1) If you are working on nocturnal light/daylight disk cases, the maximum you can claim you've solved is about 80-85% of the total sightings. (As per previous studies.)

2) If you propose a ludicrous, dishonest solution for a specific case, you are only making yourself look silly and dishonest in the process, and the people you are disrespecting will wind up looking more intelligent than you. This is how you will be remembered for all time.

3) If you have taken a statement or two from a page out of context (without even reading the rest) and attempt to use that to discredit the point of that entire page, are you an honest person? Have you really thought deeply about what you are trying to discredit? This too will be obvious to other readers.

4) If the solution you have given for a particular case, event, etc. is filled with generalities but does not really cover the specifics detailed for the specific event, what have you really done? (See #6 below)

5) If you solve 10 million easy cases, but haven't touched the surface of the "real" phenomena (i.e. the true "core " cases, a few of which are on this web-site), what have you really done?

6) If only one of the cases on this web-site is the real thing, and I believe there are probably more, there is a good chance the proof is probably sitting right here in front of you and you just haven't absorbed and accepted it yet.

7) Occam's razor is a double edged blade, sharp on both edges; it applies to us all.

 

FURTHERMORE:

I believe we all must remember, this is not a contest to see who can solve . . or prove the most cases. If we find serious doubt concerning any claimed solutions for any one investigated case, the most thoroughly investigated solutions for said case are therefore primary and must stand until overthrown by further careful, deep, forensic investigation which has actually covered all the basic facts of that case. IF the case has existed for years without an honest, viable solution, as difficult as it is to accept, we owe it to ourselves to realize it is not impossible something truly exotic may exist therein. Turning a blind eye to it by cheating (fudging) is definitely not the answer.

 

 

A Simple Thought : If you don't have a really definitive answer for the majority of cases located herein (and I haven't been convinced by what I've seen so far) then, just perhaps, it is not impossible something exotic is actually going on.


To those SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence), NASA personnel, Stephen Hawking, and any scientists with the opinion that all the data regarding UFOs is simply folklore, myth, fiction, hearsay, etc. . . . I know your time is extremely limited, but you really should take a close look at this whole site before making that statement. Even more important, look at this and then this for a general update. Look who these people are . . their jobs, etc. Unless they are all nuts, lying, or not intelligent enough to know what they are looking at, what some of you are looking for is most likely closer than you think.

(BTW SETI people: a sincere thank you for your efforts and commitment all these years. God bless you all.)


To those with an open mind,
Jerry Cohen

Jerry Cohen

 

 

 

 

 

EXPANDED WEBSITE CONTENTS:
.
. . . Click here for Index.. ..... Click here for Links

 

Author's Select Cases ( +1978/81 FOIA Releases )

To: Expanded Contents, p 3

 

 

 

 

 

 

Back to:

Expanded Web-site Contents

Top of this entire page (i.e. beginning of site)

 

 

 

 


A PROBLEM WITH SOME OF JAMES OBERG'S
ASSERTIONS REGARDING DRS. J. ALLEN HYNEK
and JAMES McDONALD

(and some history which contradicts same.)

JIM OBERG'S THREE PART ORIGINAL ARTICLE re: COOPER:
In Search of Gordon Cooper's UFOs (1/3) - Oberg
In Search of Gordon Cooper's UFOs (2/3) - Oberg
In Search of Gordon Cooper's UFOs (3/3) - Oberg

MY SEVEN PART REBUTTAL TO JIM'S ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Rebuttal Table of Contents
The Oberg/Cooper rebuttal(s)
 

JIM'S REBUTTAL TO ME (years later) AND MY ANSWER
My Comments Regarding what he had to say about my Rebuttal

 


Condensed Site Summary

Web-site Hyper-linked Master Index
(Complete listing of topics on site)
 
 
PS: If anyone finds any broken links, please notify me

Jerry Cohen
<cohenufo@optonline.net>


  Page last updated:
February 7, 2014 11:24 AM

Page from the website of: CohenUFO.org