Page last updated: July 1, 2013 1:13 PM

Response to James Oberg's:
"..... GORDON COOPER'S UFOs"

by Jerry Cohen


*** The Oberg/Cooper Rebuttal(s) ***


James Oberg ....Gordon Cooper

Here is my opening response to portions of "IN SEARCH OF 
GORDON COOPER'S UFOs" by James Oberg (originally submitted 
by Dean Kanipe).  It is definitely "for distribution" as will be the 
next seven or so documented essays I will be supplying in rebuttal 
to Mr. Oberg's essay.  For those who feel my research is solid and 
worthy of viewing in a more permanent setting, this author also 
gives his permission for the free posting of these rebuttals on any
WWW home page, as long as my name is included as the creator of 
the posts along with my E-mail address. 
 
Mr.Oberg's essay and my full rebuttal will be archived on the web
at:   http://myweb.li.net/rjcohen/
(jc 3/28/02: Now permanently at CohenUFO.org)
 
When I first wrote this I thought to myself, "If Cooper still 
stands by his statement regarding a claimed landing at Edwards 
AFB, mentioned by Mr. Oberg in 'In Search of Gordon Cooper's 
UFOs' (beginning ¶ 42), this lends yet further support to three 
cases I have analyzed and come to the conclusion are verified 
and definitely related to one another. The claimed Edwards 
AFB case  occurred in the same year." I was unaware of this 
case until I read Mr. Oberg's essay.  Actually, in retrospect I 
came to realize, the reverse is also undeniably true;
"my research concerning several 1957 cases lends strong
support to what Cooper has stated regarding the alleged
landing at Edwards AFB."
Although you will have to wait approximately 6 essays to get to 
it, those with patience will be amply rewarded.  I've got quite 
a few important, solid facts to present along the way.

(jc 9/20/2008: No longer true. You don't have to wait. 
I added the above link so that readers can see the results 
of an investigation regarding that specific Edwards AFB 
case. When you've read it, come back and read the rest 
of this. It has been a good number of years and many 
people have forgotten what happened along the way.)


Oberg/Cooper rebuttal.1a:
(1 of 2)
-------------------------------------------

PREFACE:
One of UFO skeptics greatest criticisms concerning UFOLOGY 
concerns the fact that, as they see it, a large number of UFO 
cases are anecdotal in nature and that, as they claim, there is no 
hard, reproducible documented evidence to back up the stories 
told by the various claimants.  This claim is totally false.  On the 
surface, this would appear to be true as there are a great number 
of cases which do fall into this category.  Because of this fact, 
one must have a great familiarity with the idiom and its history 
to discover that this elusive evidence does indeed exist.  
Some skeptics, being so certain of the impossibility of the 
existence of solid evidence, view it wearing blinders, never 
digging deep enough to find what they are almost certain does 
not exist in the first place or, lacking the hints provided by a 
thorough knowledge of UFO history, simply look in all the 
wrong places.  In-depth familiarity with the history of the topic 
and where some of this evidence might be hiding is paramount 
to discovering its ultimate reality.
 
One important question an intelligent person should ask is "Have 
there been any well-respected scientists who have studied the 
topic in depth and, subsequent to their analyses, come to the 
conclusion that UFOs exist as apparent craft and exhibit traits 
beyond the cutting edge of our technology? (N.B. UFO = 
unidentified flying objects displaying unusual characteristics and 
technology which seem to preclude them from being created on 
this planet.)   A second, obvious question should be, "Exactly 
what did they find?"  The answer to the first is unequivocally, 
"yes."  As to the second, I will present documented information 
concerning two of these scientists, what their research uncovered 
and how it changed every open-minded person's thinking regarding 
the study of UFOs.
 
One of the scientists, given negative mention by Mr. Oberg, is 
none other than Dr. J. Allen Hynek, who was the Air Force's main 
astronomical consultant to Project Blue Book for twenty years.
  
   J. Allen Hynek
Within that time period, all official documentation in existence 
informs us he was closer to the official first hand Air Force 
evidence regarding UFOs than any other civilian scientist on 
record.  It was his job was to expose UFOs as misinterpretations 
of normal astronomical phenomena, etc., (For those not familiar, 
Blue Book was the Air Force's alleged main study on UFOs.  Why I 
used the word "alleged" will become apparent the further we 
proceed.)  Amazingly enough, it was the Air Forces' own scientific 
consultant who actually proved to us that the Air Force has not 
been completely honest with us concerning the reality of UFOs. 
Solid evidence as to how and why Hynek gradually arrived at this 
conclusion will also be displayed for the reader.
 
After presenting this recorded, verifiable information, I will 
present three well documented cases from 1957.  I selected these 
cases because Mr. Oberg specifically discussed a claim that Gordon 
Cooper made concerning an alleged landing at Edwards Air Force 
base in 1957.  I believe these cases, when examined in 
relationship to each other, demonstrate a strong probability that 
the case against Cooper is not as "cut and dried" as Mr. Oberg has 
indicated. One of the aforementioned cases, Kirtland AFB (11/1957),
was analyzed in depth by the Air Force, the Condon Committee, and
finally by Dr. James McDonald, then senior physicist and professor
of meteorology at the Institute of Atmospheric Physics, University
of Arizona
.     This information will not only achieve the goal I have just  mentioned but, in the process, will also give lie to some of the  comments made regarding not only Hynek's & McDonald's motivation  but also, the overall quality of research performed by Dr. James  McDonald, Dr. Hynek and, at the minimum, some UFO researchers.   Anyone willing to check the sources I provide can decide for
themselves whose research is more complete, accurate and valid.
 
  James McDonald
The three cases I have mentioned contain factual. concrete 
evidence that proves beyond a shadow of doubt that some 
UFOs can definitely be referred to as "craft", as they contain 
crucial evidence identifying some UFOs as craft of an unknown 
type.  All of the above will be fully supported and displayed in 
a series of seven (or so) articles which I will post one at a time, 
to give people a chance to both absorb them, check the accuracy 
of the material displayed therein and find flaws, where they may 
exist.
 
However, some brief comments concerning several points from 
Mr. Oberg's essay are in order before proceeding any further.
                           ----------

INITIAL COMMENTS CONCERNING MR. OBERG'S ESSAY

Mr. Oberg's essay was received "on-line" with the page numbers 
apparently indicated at the bottom of each page but not saying 
"end p. 1, etc.". I have ignored page numbers and have instead 
numbered his paragraphs sequentially from beginning to end, 
hopefully to reduce problems researchers might have in locating 
those discussed items.
 
The following were observed as extremely short paragraphs:  
#'s  12, 22, 39 and 71. (between 2-4 lines each)
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
J.C.    Note: If you become bored with parts 1a/b, feel free to 
skip to part 2 for a tidbit of documented evidence. Unfortunately, 
what follows is somewhat tedious but absolutely necessary 
considering the charges Mr. Oberg has made. Hopefully, you'll 
read it all. Those with intestinal fortitude, please continue.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
        Many of the things Mr. Oberg said in his essay appeared to 
be accurate however, I found it filled with unsupported innuendo.  
I disagree with several of the conclusions reached and I'm not so 
certain of the veracity of others as some are anecdotal in nature 
with not enough supporting documentation to confirm some of the 
things he says. (Links are to Mr. Oberg's original essay.) 
As an example:                              ----------

re: COOPER'S TESTIMONY TO THE UNITED NATIONS:

a.     It was stated in paragraph four:
 "The United Nations maintained a stoic, even  embarrassed
silence,"
JC:     It was not shown from where this information was derived.  
Was Mr. Oberg present to observe this?  In any of the accounts I 
had read concerning the aforementioned UN meeting in question, 
it was never mentioned that people were embarrassed in the least. 
I have not found Mr. Oberg's name mentioned in the minutes of the 
meeting. I did, however, find the following names who were among
those who testified: Dr. J. Allen Hynek, Lt. Col. Larry Coyne,
ex-astronaut Gordon Cooper, Dr. Jacques Vallee & Stanton T.
Friedman. 1
 
b.     In a further analysis of those same ¶ 4 comments:  It was 
stated:
"...nonetheless. Part of Cooper's problem might have been
that he was visiting under the auspices of the then
dictator of Grenada, the madcap 'Sir' Eric Gairy. 
Gairy's excesses and crackpottery, added to his alleged
corruption and brutality at home, later led to the New
Jewel coup d'Útat led by Maurice Bishop, and indirectly
to the US intervention five years later."
J.C.    Although much of what was said in the preceding paragraph 
may well have been true (and which parts we cannot be sure, as 
specific documentation was not offered to support same), it has 
not been adequately demonstrated that Cooper had a "problem" 
at the time.  Also, I am not certain why this material was included 
in the preceding dialogue except perhaps to impugn Cooper's 
character by implying that he was somehow in "cahoots" with a 
"crackpot," corrupt dictator; or that people reporting UFOs must, 
by association, be crackpots too.  The fact of the matter is that 
the United Nations had previously agreed to have a conference 
concerning the subject of UFOs.  They certainly weren't forced to 
have this discussion.  It is a rather large body of nations.  If 
the topic was totally absurd, they wouldn't have agreed to 
wasting their time on it in the first place.  It most likely was 
petitioned and had support.
 
As part of the explanatory memorandum Grenada had made in its
position paper, the following statement was to be found:
"As had been shown by the studies recently commissioned
by some countries, many states were deeply concerned with
regard to the UFO phenomenon and recognized the urgent
need to bring up to date research in the field and to examine 
the potential repercussions of that phenomenon on security, 
technological progress and the well-being of individual 
nations."  2
jc addendum 3/25/02: Click here for: Hynek's speech to the UN


The truth of the matter is that various countries throughout the 
world, including our own, had been having reoccurring, documented 
UFO sightings for quite some time prior to and leading up to this 
particular historic meeting.  I am sure people out there reading 
this from various countries can supply some of the newspaper 
articles which would confirm this previous statement.  

As Mr. Oberg aptly pointed out, Cooper wasn't the first pilot to
claim this.  A small but solid portion of the evidence in this regard 
was presented to the United States congress fourteen years prior, 
in 1964, in the form of an 188 page document titled "The UFO 
Evidence,"  edited by Richard Hall, former Assistant Director and 
Acting Director of NICAP  (National Investigations Committee on 
Aerial Phenomena).  


  Richard Hall

The UFO Evidence was a 200,000 word documentary report which
contained a compilation of approximately 746 documented sightings
by Air Force, Army, Navy & Marine personnel, pilots and aviation
experts, other military personnel, observations by professional
scientists and engineers, including astronomers and aeronautical
engineers.
 
In reality, the main reason the UN did not follow-up further on 
the proceedings had mostly to do with economics and ongoing 
world politics.  It was not that the prestigious body of nations 
did not believe some of the documented reports that had been 
presented but rather, it did not have the monetary resources 
to do much about such an elusive phenomena even though it 
had been generally reported around the world.  Since the 
sightings were "sightings" only and not, at that time, adequately 
documented in the civilian sector as a specific threat or danger 
to the population, more urgent immediate "earthly" problems 
simply took precedence over those which displayed themselves 
in such an erratic (albeit "persistent") fashion.  It was a lot easier 
to ignore them than to deal with them. Our own congress back 
in 1964 had a similar reaction; congressmen were impressed 
but did not react as a whole for the same reasons.  3   Our Air 
Force, Department of Defense and NASA took the position, and 
continued to claim, there was nothing to the situation and that 
most sightings had been explained.  4   Therefore, more pressing 
domestic and world problems precluded this at that time, but.... 
the UFOs refused to go away.

Footnotes to "Oberg/Cooper rebuttal.1a:"

1       Summary of the UN meeting was published in: "The
International UFO Reporter" . vol 3 . No. 10/11 . Oct/Nov 1978
 
2       Ibid
 
3       The following are some quotes from congressmen which were 
on file at NICAP and included in "The UFO Evidence."  Some were 
received after evidence was sent to members of congress in June 
1960.  They illustrate the "atmosphere" of that era regarding UFOs 
and document the comments I have made in this regard:
Congressman Joseph E. Karth (D. Minn.) - 8/24/60
     "As a member of the House Committee on Science and 
Astronautics, I, of course, have had contact with high
Air Force officers and have had opportunity to hear their
comments on and off the record on the subject of
unidentified flying objects.  Despite being confronted
with seemingly unimpeachable evidence that such 
phenomena exist, these officers give little credence 
to the many reports on the matter.  When pressed on 
specific details the experts refuse to answer on grounds 
that they are involved in the nation's security and cannot 
be discussed publicly . . .I will continue to seek a definite 
answer to this most important question."
Congressman Edgar W. Hiestand (R. Calif.) - 9/19/60
(to Secretary of Air Force)
     "I am wondering if we ought now reexamine our policy
with regard to Unidentified Flying Objects. Won't you
kindly suggest to your associates that the matter be
considered? I am apprehensive that right now, in the
middle of a campaign, some concrete and well-documented
incident may occur, and a sensational revelation could
really hurt.  After all, although the UFOs are unknown 
devices, there seems to be enough evidence available to
convince that they are real rather than imaginary.
Therefore what harm could complete frankness do?. . . "
Senator Kenneth B. Keating (R. N.Y.) - 6/5/63
     "I want to assure you that as a high officer in the
military myself, I am not overawed or overimpressed 
by some of the conclusions reached by Air Force officers. 
As you know, I have no hesitancy in taking issue with
other government agencies as to the dangers facing 
our country. . .I am sorry that there seems to be nothing
which I can add to the UFO situation at the present
time."
Senator William Proxmire (D. Wis.) - 1/31/63
     "The NICAP report (outline) is a fine document which
does much to substantiate the allegation made.  You
probably noted my remarks that 'The very fact that so
many inexplicable incidents have occurred is reason
enough for a thorough investigation.'  I am going to
contact the Department of Defense on this matter."
4. Congressman Thomas Ludlow Ashley (D. Ohio) - 7/14/58
     "I have made a number of inquiries of the Air Force
relative to its activities in connection with these
unidentified flying objects, but have invariably received
comment that evidence to date is too inconclusive to
sustain any theory but that these objects, are 'hoaxes,
hallucinations, or normal meteorological manifestations.' 
I share your concern over the secrecy that continues to
shroud our intelligence activities on this subject, and I
am in complete agreement with you that our greatest
national need at this time is the dissemination of
accurate information upon which responsible public
opinion can be formulated. . . "
Senator Jacob K. Javits (R. N.Y.) - 10/25/62
"I appreciate your views regarding the aerial phenomena.
As you know, the Department of Defense and NASA have
repeatedly denied the existence of such objects."


End: Oberg/Cooper rebuttal.1a

To: O/C rebut.1b

Respectfully submitted,
Jerry Cohen


E-mail: rjcohen@li.net
cohenufo@optonline.net

Go to:

Rebuttal Table of Contents (hyper-linked)



O/C rebut.1a - Introduction

O/C rebut.1b - Intro. (continued)

O/C rebut.2 - "Skything 1960"

O/C rebut.3a - Hynek, from skeptic to "qualified believer"

O/C rebut.3b - Hynek, from skeptic to ... (continued)

O/C rebut.4a - UFOs, a synopsis of.... history

O/C rebut.4b - UFOs, a synopsis of.... history (continued)

O/C rebut.5a - Hynek takes us inside Blue Book

O/C rebut.5b - Hynek takes us inside..... (continued)

O/C rebut.6 - Who is, and isn't studying the UFO Phenomenon & Why

O/C rebut.7a - Sebago & Stokes

O/C rebut.7b - Kirtland

O/C rebut.7c - Krtlnd conclusion, B. B. & Condon errors, summation


Page from the website of: CohenUFO.org

Website Hyper-linked Master Index
(Complete listing of topics on site)