The Reason for this Web Site

,
Click on this picture for my sighting

3/24/2005 rewrite:

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. 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 and, as I later discovered, some would sometimes even talk about me behind my back.

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 quietly gathered information on the topic, cross-referencing things within, to try 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 fairly 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 solid information which would enable me to talk about it and, with some luck, be listened to in a serious manner. Perhaps the startling fact this information actually does exist will be enough to stimulate educated, intelligent readers to give it some serious thought. (What did I see? If you missed it, click here.)

 

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."

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 and making up your own mind before you do. (and before you do 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. Perhaps the obvious answer to it will help you realize that what I'm about to present isn't quite as "way out" as you might at first think. Click on it and read what's there . . . I'll wait.)

As wild as this may sound, what is on this site is data that would appear to indicate we are probably 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 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 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 number of totally verified core 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 less than concrete and don't fully convince a number of researchers who have analyzed them.

What has been observed and appears to have been displayed in some are stealthy craft which exhibit silent, evasive flight and swiftness of movement well past the curve of our technological advancement to date; so far past it that many scientists from around the world have a hard time accepting the reports as valid. Yet, one has only to examine the following three (now four) cases in depth and ask yourself whether you honestly believe our abilities have jumped ahead as far as what you see described therein. I will state in advance that some of what you are going to read sounds like science fiction. What is most difficult to understand and absorb, is that these things have actually occurred, but each can be checked and . . . each has occurred, exactly as stated.

 

Examples of Some Very Solid Cases

Here they are: Belgium (1989/90), Iran (1976), Illinois, USA (2000), and the recently added O'Hare International Airport (2006) (Go ahead, click on them.) Maybe you can solve them.

The Belgian and Iranian cases are verified as not being hoaxes, delusions, folklore, myths, misinterpreted events, natural occurrences, military tests or fabrications, the planet Venus, etc. Verification of the Belgium case comes directly from the Belgium NATO Air Force (North Atlantic Treaty Organization).The Iran case was verified through information gleaned from governmental agency (FOIA) lawsuits.

It is important to note, the Belgium NATO case above was preceded by a Belgian police case that occurred four months prior to that NATO incident. I have included that first police case in my analysis as it was so dramatic and undeniable, it eventually had to be taken into account by the Belgian high command itself when dealing with the NATO case which occurred four months later. Their analysis and conclusions stated they felt what was chased, for upwards of 75 minutes, was intelligently controlled. Go ahead and look closely at the NATO report again. People with technical skills can check out the associated gun camera numerical data.

The third case, Illinois (2000), was also 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 also includes retired policemen who performed their own detailed investigation of the incidents. 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 has not ruled out the possibility of a military black project, we have yet to see any of this displayed in a military arena.

BULLETIN: in September 2004, NIDS revised it's findings on the triangles and has said their analysis indicates 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 this group of sightings is 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. You have to play the video-taped police and civilian reports (trailer) at Darryl's site to realize this case is 100% legitimate. The people appearing in that film 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 3 stories thick . . . not off the ground. I wrote NIDS to check it out.)

 

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 . . . "excellent, impressive UFO sightings occur and then are forgotten because they are just under our mental radar and our abilities to deal with it," I am presenting 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 2006 event which recently 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 (unless they're not telling the truth), in the least traveled air space of the airport, and that does the impossible, punching a neat, clear air hole its own approximate size in the cloud cover when it leaves (once 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 professional witnesses and others? 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.

Readers interested in viewing a CLTV Oak Brook newscaster's 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. (12/28/2007: You can also find it by putting O'Hare ufo in their 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?")

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. -> Here they are <- . 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 could ask them.

 

"I read and viewed 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 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 of our 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 isn't enough!) And, if 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 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 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, etc. Interestingly enough, when one looks at the history of it all, you unavoidably discover that these incursions have been going on for quite some time and are continuing 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) to study the elephants. They ran the gadget right up to the elephants who ignored it completely because it was familiar, and non-threatening. This technique allowed the scientists to study the elephants 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 _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", and the professionals at Chicago O'Hare airport merely hallucinating from the electro-magnetics from the planes? Perhaps we've misinterpreted the facts. Is it just science Fiction? But, how many cases like the above four 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 accumulated, solidly verified, "out of norm" case occurrences without really conclusive solutions, which demonstrate we've been having verified _solid_ sightings like these for quite a long time. Additionally, I've provided some factual 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 others have found themselves inexorably drawn to examine these anomalies in depth. The simple reason is because the majority of people, hopefully not you, have found 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 people, 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 affected people from all over the world, including 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) verified by Project Blue Book, the Condon Committee, Dr. James McDonald and 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. One of the other two, (Sebago), verified to me by a neighbor of mine (The case is also in NICAP files), and a third (Glowing egg-shaped fly-over) all occurring within hours of each other and surrounded by mass-sightings during that general time period. The latter was confirmed by Jan Aldrich , director of Project 1947.

If all this sounds too much to believe, just keep reading and 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 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 believe it or not, many UFO researchers are well-aware that what's 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 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 additional independent support for some of the aforementioned testimonies 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 has also collected testimonies from various military personnel.

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

Click picture to go to
Oberg/Cooper material

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, someone who finally responded to my web site. (You will find others along the way):

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 too 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. 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.

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 my site 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 this essay will make one realize Jim 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.

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

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

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 influence 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 Hallet, and the other scientists he represents, seem to be permitting themselves to realize.

Does Martin Kottmeyer have all the answers?

Some skeptics are of a mind it is impossible for UFOs to have traveled here and use same 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 certain essays closely.

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

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

Author's Select Cases ( Click HERE to go to cases.) Cases included in this section were derived from other lengthy, in-depth research. Herein 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 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 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

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 entitled "Alien's on Earth." It now boasts an excellent book store, his Desert Rat newsletter archive, his own mailing list from 1997-99 and a link to Errol's mail 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, Sign Historical Group, and Bill Jones (UFO Materials Preservation)

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 copy of that original Pascagoula police recording. You can read all about this by clicking here.

 

....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.

It is important to 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 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. JamesMcDonald in Ufology

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) Click here to 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 in 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. (If unavailable, one can click here (background) and here (cases).

 

Mail List Exchanges with Paul Devereux
(Earthlights and TST Investigator)

Click Paul's picture below for our E-mail discussions

..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 determined 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, ongoing study on observed light phenomenon in a particular valley there. (Researchers can click here for an Italian site, itacomm.net/PH, with updated material on same. Its most recent addition is an analysis of a number of samples taken from the various audio files gathered during the field investigations carried out in Hessdalen in August 2000 in order to study any correlation between VLF emissions and the well-known light phenomenon. )

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. Whatever they find (or don't find) will come out in the wash.

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 pseudoscientific solutions. It is an eye-opener as well.

One of my proudest moments was the email exchanges I had with Richard Hall, one of the most senior investigators in Ufology. Those who know this field know that Richard goes back to the early days of NICAP (National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena) and has been 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 some news articles I was using. I am deeply indebted for the time he gave me.

Immediately below is listing of both some direct correspondents or people who mentioned either my postings to UFO Updates or this web-site. 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), 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.