My Response to Jim's (June 2003) Criticism of My Rebuttal
Getting back to Gordon Cooper. Although Cooper was in fact one more pilot making a UFO claim(s), as Mr. Oberg noted he was a special one indeed; one who's superior skills, coordination, reflexes, senses, intellect for task, etc. finally led to his being selected for our space program. He was not your average pilot. A person of Cooper's ability and stature, who had worked as hard as he must have to get where he was, certainly would not place himself in a position where his judgment, character and reputation in general might possibly be compromised unless he felt positive about what he had seen. Cooper was certainly not known to be a hallucinator or he would not have been selected for so demanding a position. He had a great familiarity with things flying "in the air" as it was part of his job to be familiar with such things.
"People have seen flying saucers at close hand. And in many cases they have been verified on radar. It is ridiculous for anyone to say that they're all completely unreal."
J.C. In the latter portions of my essays, I will present solid, certified, documented evidence to show that this statement of Cooper's is not only 100% correct but also, in the case of radar/visual sightings, some of the most compelling evidence confirming both the existence of UFOs and their level of technology. Without getting lost in discussing the pages of proof submitted regarding the supposed enhancements to Cooper's statements which Mr. Oberg attempted to demonstrate were created by other individuals, I will concede that it is human nature for people to build upon stories, misquote information, fabricate, etc., especially if there is money to be made from same or possibly, careers to be made in newspaper journalism. UFO researchers are well aware of this. However, contrary to what Mr. Oberg would have us believe, some professional UFO researchers actually do follow a general rule that one must "take with a grain of salt" second-hand accounts, sources, etc. relating to UFO claimed incidents and, instead concentrate on examining initial reports and how they correlate with other reports from the same general time period. (i.e. Otherwise, one indeed might devote inordinate amounts of time on accounts possibly containing inaccurate, story-built, unreliable evidence while possibly overlooking other solid, verified evidence that one never had time left over to find.)
This particular researcher, attempting to find "solid" evidence, has tried his best to avoid this pitfall. I normally treat delayed response, second-hand books or accounts as "second-hand" evidence; material that demands extreme scrutiny and caution in its use. What is important to note here, however, is that if a person did accidentally fall into this trap regarding one case (if actually proven via solid documentation and the accused accorded a fair rebuttal), this does not prove he or she did so intentionally and should not automatically refute the entire body of that individual's work, especially if he/she had generally been considered to be conscientious and generally meticulous in most of the rest of his efforts in that area of expertise. That person's research should still be examined on a case by case basis. One mistake should not invalidate that person's entire work otherwise Mr. Oberg's own lifetime body of criticism regarding UFOs might also thereby be dismissed in total because he spent inordinate time discussing these second-hand versions (a "no-no" in itself!) without providing adequate solid proof to substantiate the entirety of his accusations, some of which verged on slander.
Likewise, one might be forced to discount the bulk of Dr. Edward Condon's previously fine work after many scientists realized the conclusions he reached in the Colorado Study were not supported by the data in the Colorado Study itself. One would also be forced to consider a similar indictment concerning members of the National Academy of Sciences who endorsed it. This of course would be ludicrous. (This preceding historical highlight will be completely discussed in my documented essays)
Mr. Oberg, himself, goes to great length analyzing what he claims are such cases of inaccurate story building from various books and sources he mentions in order to point this out to us. (Unfortunately, omitting solid documentation in certain key places that might provide proof of his claims.) One example occurs in his analysis concerning Gordon Cooper's claims of UFOs over Germany. He has used supposed "witness" accounts from a dozen or so people who responded to him saying they never had the experience which Cooper claims to have had, to prove to us that Cooper was mistaken in what he says he saw and that
¶ 73 "The popular version of the legend, placing the action in Germany in 1951, simply cannot have occurred as Cooper has described it -- if the vast majority of the wirnesses are to be believed."
However, what rightly should have been said was "....if the vast majority of people who RESPONDED are to be believed." Readers must, in all fairness, realize that since they didn't "see it," those individuals cannot be properly referred to as "witnesses." Dr. J. Allen Hynek, after studying UFO reports as a prime scientific consultant for the Air Force for many years had this to say in his "The UFO Experience" Henry Regnery Company 1972.hardcover.Chapter 1.The Laughter of Science.p.9 ¶ 4:
"some of the very best reports have come from scientifically trained people.... These reports are usually rarely published however, because the person usually requests anonymity."
Therefore, it is certainly not "written in stone" that the people who actually witnessed what Cooper says he did would readily come forth to talk about it. In reality, one must totally understand the Air Force's position on UFOs, the penalties it imposes on those that break the silence, and observe it from Hynek's perspective as consultant to the Air Force in order to properly determine the true validity of some of Mr. Oberg's data in this regard.
As Mr. Oberg mentioned, Cooper went out of his way to counter anyone who attributed statements to him he did not make.
Oberg ¶ 12-16 "Columbia Pictures case", ¶ 17 "In spite his often involuntary association with such activities, the quality of Cooper's testimony has been universally recognized. His integrity, intelligence, and technical competence have never been questioned.", ¶ 30 "In a 1978 letter to me, Cooper stressed 'the non-occurrence of a sighting on Mercury 9' "
Although stopping short of saying Cooper lied concerning his claimed sightings, it was implied that Cooper exaggerated, his memory wasn't accurate, or Cooper was guilty of "story building" regarding his accounts. Since Mr. Oberg, himself, demonstrated that Cooper made repeated attempts to keep the accuracy of his initial claim in tact, sans extraneous details provided by others, it becomes difficult for this reader to accept that Cooper was guilty of "story building" in all his accounts. Furthermore, as
previously stated, it is not fair or necessarily accurate to
claim that some of the researchers in question did not carefully
check their sources before printing the body of information they
displayed, without some sort of rebuttal from them. Unfortunately,
some of the finest of the ones mentioned are not alive today to
make that rebuttal. Since expecting the dead to perform this feat
is asking something just slightly beyond the capabilities of even
the most competent, professional researcher, others like myself will have to do some of it for them, the best we can.
Another bone of contention occurs when Hynek is slandered at the essay's end with the following statement:
(¶ 76) , "But solving the cases was the last thing the UFO promoters were interested in. ...."
J.C. This statement shows a general lack of knowledge concerning Dr. Hynek's life, career and motives. It simply does not lie true with what I and others have personally researched concerning Hynek over the years. Inadequate proof has been presented to make so broad an assumption. I will demonstrate this completely as we proceed in these essays.
"People who have used Cooper's stories to 'prove' the reality of UFOs (respected ufologists such as Frank Edwards, Leonard Stringfield, J. Allen Hynek, and less respected ones such as Timothy Beckley) seem to have neither known nor really cared about the real truth behind the stories........"
J.C. This, too, is a blanket statement concerning all the individuals mentioned and has certainly not been adequately proven concerning any one of them. Also, it has not been proven that Cooper was not telling the truth. Hynek, Stringfield and Edwards have passed on and cannot respond to this. However, Hynek's revelations concerning Project Blue Book and my own to-be- illustrated connection between the cases I will present from 1957 will certainly demonstrate the possibility, if not probability, that Cooper may well have been telling the truth.
"Their goal evidently was to piggyback on Cooper's reputation to further their own ufological careers, not to take the opportunity to see what Cooper's actual experiences could teach them about the real UFO phenomenon. The truth behind Cooper's stories was the last thing that seemed to interest them."
J.C. Again, an assumption on the author's part. Unless one was there with Gordon Cooper, no one can know what his actual experiences were. I can speak with confidence from my own research that Dr. Hynek's work was sincere. The following statement attributed to Hynek by Mr. Oberg does not appear to have been made by a person trying to hide his mistakes.
"Oberg ¶ 14 Hynek later admitted he had made a mistake in allowing the newspaper to compile the article from his previous publications while paying him a fee for the use of his name as author -- since he hadn't reviewed the written material prior to publication. Such are the perils of UFO journalism."
Being misled by the intentions of a publisher in one instance, if the facts are actually as Mr. Oberg has stated, should certainly not brand one a general fabricator. I would hope there would be others who will rise to Dr. Hynek's defense in this regard. Dr. James McDonald is certainly due this accord as well.
Oberg ¶ 45 In fact, McDonald had described his findings on July 29,1968, during his testimony on UFOs to a congressional committee. This is the way he described it: "James D. Bittick and John R. Gettys... were at the time Askania cameramen on the test range, and spotted the domed disk UFO just as they reached Askania #4 site at Edwards, a bit before 8:00 AM that day [JEO: Compare this with Beckley's account of "after lunch" -- evidently pure dramatization]. They immediately got into communication with the range director, Frank E. Baker, and asked if anyone else was manning an Askania that could be used to get triangulation shots. Since no other camera operators were on duty at other sites, Baker told them to fire manually, and they got a number of shots before the object moved off into the distance. Bittick estimated that the object lay about a mile away when they got off the first shot, though when first seen he put it at no more than 500 yards off. He and Gettys both said it had a golden color, looked somewhat like an inverted plate with a dome on top, and had square holes or panels around the dome. Gettys thought that the holes were circular, not square. It was moving away from them, seemed to glow with its own luminosity, and had a hazy, indistinct halo around its rim, both mentioned. The number of shots taken is uncertain: Gettys thought perhaps thirty. The object was lost from sight by the time it moved out to about five miles or so, and they did not see it again.... The photos were shortly taken by base military authorities and were never seen again by the men. In a session later that day, Bittick [was] informed that they had seen a weather balloon distorted by the desert atmospheric effects." Oberg ¶ 47 When I told Gettys in 1982 that McDonald had used his case in congressional testimony, the UFO witness was pleased but surprised McDonald had never gotten back to him about the use he'd put his testimony to. So the pro-UFO people kept some secrets, too!.
Dr. McDonald brings a recorded, documented case to a congressional committee and, Mr. Oberg, because of Air Force statements claiming the preceding was a "weather balloon...distorted by the desert atmospheric effects" (They couldn't identify it 500 yards away?) assumes that Dr.McDonald's case is invalid and goes even further, intimating that McDonald did something devious in bringing the case to the committee. Additionally, Oberg clearly states that the witness was pleased that McDonald had done so. Is is possible that McDonald knew he would be pleased? No, Mr. Oberg feels that darned McDonald is just trying to be sneaky. Further along, I will provide 1) another case that McDonald presented to the various science groups that leaves no doubt as to meticulousness of the man and the completeness and honesty of his research and 2) that statistics regarding UFOs, derived from the Air Force's "Project Blue Book" were, as Hynek put it, "a travesty," and additional clear evidence, dating back to at least 1957, that the Air Force has not been telling us everything they know regarding UFOs.
Since facts count, it is also important to be aware of the following: If a person, not necessarily consciously, does not want to find evidence of UFOs (or any subject for that matter), he could spend an eternity finding an infinite number of places this evidence does NOT exist. He could look in people's homes, travel to other countries, visit an unimaginable number of uninhabitable planets (if he were capable), examine every "story built, second- hand account" in existence relating to that subject, or ask every person that never had that experience, and certainly find in that multitude of places and people, proof that the evidence he is telling himself he is searching for, does not exist.
For documented evidence #1, please see: "Oberg/Cooper rebuttal.2"
Respectfully submitted, Jerry Cohen
E-mail: rjcohen@li.net
cohenufo@optonline.net