AUTHOR'S SELECT CASES
The following case appeared in the Air
Force's Project Blue Book.
It was further analyzed by the Condon Study,
and reexamined by Dr. James McDonald, who located CAA tower witnesses,
and vehemently disagreed with the Condon Analysis.
To: Kirtland, page 2
"After reading McDonald's and Hynek's analyses,
my attention focused on three cases."
"I had inadvertently discovered the
timing between the Kirtland, Stokes & Sebago cases
was actually _closer_ than I originally thought."
The previous Hynek May 5, 1965 Blue Book
case is extremely similar
to the following coast guard case which occurred eight years prior
on 11/5/57, the same year as Gordon Cooper's Edwards AFB claim.
and interestingly, within hours of the Kirtland AFB incident.
Please click title above for case
And Click below for my response to one of the crewman
who wrote NICAP in 2003.
internet photo of Sebago in 1969
I was amazed to find that
was dating one of the crewmen when this sighting occurred.
(Thus, my own verification for this sighting)
Letter to me from Jerome Clark (CUFOS Editor)
Description of what I saw back in 1967
(and my reason for creating this web site)
Was it ball lightning, as proposed by Philip Klass?
To: Incident at Exeter, page 2
Author Larry Robinson claims he has solved Exeter
Site moved here
My analysis says his "Fire Balloon" explanation
is "full of hot air"
My rebuttal to author Martin Kottmeyer
regarding his explanation for the Exeter sightings
A critique of a thesis by James Mcgaha and Joe Nickell
who claimed they had solved the Exeter case
Note from an In-law
(From a 1997 post I made to UFO UpDates)
Mark Cashman Comments Regarding Exeter
"Loftus Study" and applications to Exeter
Agreement by one skeptic that Exeter still "needs work."
Atmospheric Physicist Dr. James McDonald (University of Arizona) takes a summer off
to prove to himself that there is nothing to the UFO cases that he's read in the newspapers.
What he discovers when he looks at the files at
NICAP, then visits and interviews witnesses carefully examining the
Air Force explanations, is that many of the explanations do not fit the situations.
The cases are still unexplained and the witnesses in many cases are totally believable.
It is now almost 40 years since the following events recounted in a speech
given by Dr. McDonald at Kent University, Ohio in 1968. (see next pg.)
McDonald's 1968 Speech at Kent University, Ohio
So, what reason would the police officers
have for lying in the above case? Are their identification skills
really as poor as the "final?" explanations tried to make them out to be?
In some instances, there were numerous witnesses that confirmed exactly what the officers reported.
The technology reported back then still has not been displayed in any military arena by
any government we know, and the Air Force explanations for some of
the better sightings left much to be desired.
For the record we note the National Enquirer didn't begin offering its
"Million Dollar Reward to anyone that could prove UFOs came from outer space"
until almost ten years later.
BTW: The sighting mentioned in McDonald's speech occurred
nine days prior to one reported by Florida Governor Haydon Burns
and his entourage, during his re-election campaign.
makes the 1967 case interesting to me
is that it occurred the same year as my own sighting.
I found the Malmstrom sightings on the NICAP and CUFON web sites.
This 1975 case
_below_ was verified via a CAUS lawsuit
and revealed in the second group (1978-81) of FOIA releases.
It occurred two days after the Travis Walton Case
Malmstrom (Nov. 7, 1975)
Note (2005 ): Personal discovery by Ex-Canadian Defense Minister
Please see: Other SAC cases which occurred around the same time
From the NICAP UFO INVESTIGATOR
November 1976 Issue
Impossible you say?
First Major FOIA Government releases in 1978
To: Iran F4, page 2
Then, there were more releases:
FOIA Government releases in 1981
and..... for a moment, I thought we really had it.
Claimed "Defense Support Platform" (DSP) Confirmation
(Letter to UFO UpDates)
Unfortunately, DSP Confirmation was Not Supported by Other Researchers
(Letters from Brad Sparks & Jan Aldrich)
Bruce Maccabee's Workup on the Case
Bob Pratt's Workup on the Case
. . but then, we find the pilot's amazing testimony given at the Washington Press Club
(2007) located HERE
So, how can we not ask, "Wow! Are these testimonies the smoking gun?"
This is definitely world-wide.
it make sense that the Belgium Air Force
would misidentify an aircraft,
triangulated between four separate, prior-checked ground radars
1) chase it for 75 minutes without catching it?
2) have Belgian police affirm highly unusual technological oddities?
3) talk about it openly on television because it was apparently
well past the curve of normalcy?
Belgium Case as Presented on Unsolved Mysteries
A Summary of UFO
Concerning the Belgium (Triangle) Sightings
I only took one case out 632 Reports
Some Interesting Coincidences
"The Iranian F-4 Incident"
To: Belgium, page 2 (Deltoid Sightings)
I selected the Belgium military case because of its
available gun-camera data, and the puzzlement of the NATO
section of the Belgium Air Force.
A Critique of Marc Hallet's
"The So-Called Belgian UFO Wave"
(by Jerry Cohen)
Click Here for any Illinois updates in index
in order not to be considered mentally defective,
maybe these witnesses should have hired
Johnny Cochran and his team.
To: Illinois 2000, page 2
If it wasn't Venus . . was it, a hoax?
A super-secret project of the military?
Perhaps an earthlight squeezed itself into the
shape of a 200-600' linear, 40-60' thick "arrowhead"
with white headlights in the corners and a red light in the middle?
Maybe they were motorcycle police and a group of Laurentian EMF advocates
snuck up on them and wired their helmets to their cycle engines.
Anyone out there with a legitimate solution?
(NIDS is no longer visibly active as an organization, but
the research they performed was legitimate. A number of the links
provided below, from the Wayback Machine, are reconstructed.)
- The Wayback machine records people's websites for posterity -
Need Acrobat Reader Installed - set browser security medium for PDF Files
Hypothesis - The Illinois Flying Triangle is a Department of Defense,
not an ET Craft (NIDS, July 23, 2002 - scroll pg and click)
- also: click HERE for full case reconstruction (Illinois 1/5/2000) at Darryl Barker website -
(Assessment is legitimate although NIDS no longer visibly active on the internet)
Newspaper article published at ufowatchdog.com
stating that the Brazilian Air Force (FAB) has been tracking
UFO cases since 1954 and that, after detailed investigations,
they have discovered that UFOs are definitely real.
FAB has released their UFO files from 1954, 1977 and 1986.
To this researcher, it is totally stunning; stunning because
these are some of the most bizarre cases in my files
and purposely not discussed by me before
this admisson by the FAB.
From what I can make of what I've assembled, Laurance S. Rockefeller commissioned a report to fully examine the claims of UFO researchers that it may be possible we are already being visited, perhaps studied, by someone of a higher technology, not of this present earth. The three major UFO groups, CUFOS, FUFOR and MUFON, assembled what they felt were some of the best cases and evidence to prove their hypothesis.
SPECIAL REPORT FROM: CUFOS, FUFOR & MUFON
(J. Allen Hynek Center for UFO Studies, Fund for UFO Research & Mutual UFO Network)
Document date: September 15, 1995
"To whom it may concern: We believe that this Briefing Document on Unidentified Flying Objects presents the best available evidence for the existence of UFOs. Although just a brief sample of the scientific and military evidence available worldwide is given, it represents some of the most _carefully _documented incidents."
The Rockefeller Report (1/2)
The Rockefeller Report (2/2)
Most Complete Version Now Online
(Thanks to Don Berliner)
To: Rockefeller, p2 (Stanford Study)
ROCKEFELLER REPORT - continued
That material, which included testimonies and technical evidence of varied kinds, was then presented to the Stanford study panel (led by Peter S. Sturrock)
From Sturrock's book, "The UFO Enigma," the following liner notes.Click here for several articles which give us further insight regarding Rockefeller's interest in financing "The Best Available Evidence." Included are a (7/11/2004) Washington Post article written at the time of his death, a second (5/30/96) article by Michael Lindemann which gives us more information regarding the "Best Available Evidence" itself, and a third (April 8, 1996) New York Observer article which mentions why Marie Galbraith became involved.
The first major scientific inquiry since the Condon Report. One of the major mysteries of our time, it continues to evoke intense public interest but has received scant scientific scrutiny—until now... The UFO Enigma
Now, in a major report commissioned by Laurance S. Rockefeller, world-renowned scientists debate the physical evidence in puzzling cases presented by UFO investigators. The UFO Enigma overrides the Condon Report and concludes that there is much we could learn from further study of the phenomenon-if the evidence is carefully collected and scientifically analyzed. An international panel of scientists grilled UFO researchers and examined dozens of cases
Commissioned by Laurance S. Rockefeller and implemented by the Society for Scientific Exploration. With a Foreword by Laurance S. Rockefeller
TO JAMES OBERG'S ARTICLE
Rebuttal Table of Contents
The Oberg/Cooper rebuttal(s)
My comments concerning what
he had to say about my rebuttals
Important Topics in UFO History
Other Unresolved Cases
Questions and Answers
Page from the website of: CohenUFO.org
Website Master Index