Page last updated: April 17, 2013 10:53 PM
Some Very Important Issues
Some documented facts at CohenUFO
which both demonstrate the reason for
and justify all the UFO research being
(Click on the underlined links to go directly to
important documentation for each statement.)
A Few Unsolved "Core" Cases
The majority of the UFO cases found at the CohenUFO web-site are a small sampling of a larger grouping of, what this researcher classifies as, core events built up over time; i.e. verified occurrences (solid reports) which have no really solid explanations for them. Therefore, I believe it is within reason for one to say most of these cases are _unsolved_ at this time. (Two reminders: a. We only need one to be exactly what it looks like. b. There are many others similar to these with good-excellent data to support them.)
Where explanations have been proposed for the aforementioned, a really close look at them reveals those explanations _do not_ truly solve what was reported. Any reader can visit the CSICOP (now called CSI) web-site or other skeptical organizations to see what solutions they have at hand for the various UFO reports at CohenUFO and whether or not you fully agree with their assessment of each. (If these cases are not assessed there, it is obvious they should be. BTW, has CSI even mentioned this website? They know it is here.)
Some Failed Attempts to Solve Them
Highlighted at CohenUFO are two specific individuals who have attempted to solve ALL UFO cases by first a) selecting one type phenomena, earthlights, and attempting to apply it as a solution to all, and then b) categorizing everyone else's reports which do not fit that category, and are not already previously explained, as EM (Electromagnetic) induced "hallucinations." Unfortunately, this coupled approach falls significantly short when confronted with cases and/or case details which do not fit its pre-set parameters.
Additionally, at CohenUFO, one can simultaneously observe that at least one of those individuals did not realize that Dr. J. Allen Hynek had already developed a set of categories for UFO sightings and that although nocturnal lights and daylight disks had been documented as a respectable percentage, they actually accounted for a lesser proportion than originally assumed; a percentage diminished when we figure in the cases in which an obvious structure was observed as opposed to just an amorphous light, add in the high strangeness cases which never reached the Air Force (Mentioned by Hynek at the link above), and add in the solid cases reported since then. Even before this is all said and done, this individual was working in the 90% area ignoring Hynek's categories, close encounters of the first, second and third kind.
There is further documentation within CohenUFO which demonstrates that same skeptic refused to read or even acknowledge a couple of difficult cases that do not fit his theory.
While we're on the topic of some skeptics neglecting to read the data, a well-known rocket specialist has demonstrated he unfortunately never found the time to read my web-site to see what data might be there before passing negative comments on it. When he finally did respond (after a number of years), his critique made this rather obvious.
It is a simple fact that by not reading these cases and investigating them honestly, one doesn't have to test his/her hypotheses against the more difficult reports out there. It is my thought that finding solutions for ten million (or ten billion) easily explainable UFO cases, although certainly valuable, is not as important as identifying, focusing upon, and dissecting the solidly verified, well-investigated unsolved ones we already have and are accumulating. It was Dr. Hynek's belief it is unquestionably within the reduced and refined pitch blend that an answer (or answers) to the UFO enigma resides.
Ludicrous, Disrespectful and Dishonest Solutions
Unfortunately, we also note, some skeptics have been so fixed in their belief extraterrestrial UFOs can not possibly be visiting us, they actually go so far as to propose explanations that are totally ludicrous, do not fit case details at hand, totally disrespect both the honest citizens who have filed the UFO report and the serious, highly-qualified researchers who have spent countless hours investigating same and, not surprisingly, which paradoxically at the same time make the ludicrous proposer himself look totally foolish and in no way helps the investigation of the case at hand. It is hoped this generalized approach will diminish in the years to come.
Other Explanations Refuted
An explanation from another well-known scientist was proven to be untenable when an Air Force lieutenant wrote a paper refuting it.
Additionally: When the 1965 Exeter, N.H. case was being examined, the same prominent skeptic, mentioned two paragraphs above, suggested ball lightning as the probable cause. Click here to see if that explanation is really plausible.
Another skeptic thought he had a solution for that case as well, however when examined his solution was easily demonstrated as inadequate to explain what witnesses actually reported. The Exeter case still remains unsolved to this day. (forty some-odd years later) One can read same by clicking here and following the links.
In 2011 two other skeptics, one of them apparently well-respected, made a basically lackluster attempt to solve Exeter again. They demonstrated their combined-ineptness in this effort by loudly trumpeting their poorly deliberated solution without making an honest attempt to gain any real familiarity with the case and then, not even bothering to test their hypothesis before publishing it. Their parent organization CSI (Committee for Scientific Investigation), published same in their journal, evidently without bothering to check its actual scientific robustness. One can note from later statements found within that journal that CSI believes it is sound to this day.
Additionally, skeptic Martin S. Kottmeyer has also performed a highly interesting, detailed study published in 2007 which rather conclusively demonstrated that major UFO Films (movies) apparently had little, if any, influence in stimulating UFO flaps.
A Couple of Important Early Pioneers
(Yes, of course there were many others; Maccabee, Friedman, Keyhoe, Hall
and a long list.)
Also mentioned at this site are J. Allen Hynek and James McDonald, two scientists who had performed in-depth examinations of what turned out to be a number of "core" UFO cases and discovered for themselves that the original solutions proposed for a number of them _did not_ resolve them. Many of these remain unsolved to this day. Here is one . . . . and another.
Concerning Allen Hynek, if one clicks on the following link and reads both what is there, and its associated links, he/she can also discover it is extremely unlikely that Hynek was a mole for the Air Force or CIA as at least one researcher has been claiming.
Cases Ignored By The Condon Study
Most of the unsolved "solid cases" investigated by Hynek, McDonald, and others were virtually ignored by the Condon Colorado Study. We have testimony from the NICAP Organization and Richard Hall that the Condon Colorado Study ignored data that it had in its possession; data available back then which proved beyond reasonable doubt that some UFOs were not just some fanciful stories fabricated by hoaxers, the press, etc.
By examining the Condon Colorado Study closely (to see how many and which cases it reported unsolved,) adding to it the above mentioned data submitted to it which includes, adding James McDonald's investigations regarding a number of UFO cases (Portage and Kirtland 1957 among them), listening to speeches McDonald made to various scientific groups, reading some of the major criticisms of the Colorado Study, noting the cases NICAP said were ignored, and additionally, being aware that the Air Force, who needed to get the public out of the UFO business for security reasons, paid for the study, one can conclude with virtually complete certainty, the Colorado Study was basically a whitewash of the UFO situation in the late 1960's.
Justification for Reassessment of the Evidence
That awareness leads one to realize the Stanford Study re-evaluation of the summated UFO case data to that point (1997 study spurred by the Rockefeller Report and led by physicist Peter Sturrock) was completely justified and necessary, and the study's revised conclusions actually more logical to that overall accumulated solid data and case instances, which this researcher notes has both persistently increased with time and has been drawing many people's attention, some in important positions of defense.
Accidentally Found: Yet Another Unsolved Case
As a side note, in a rather surprise development, I discovered from my own questioning and from very important material from Brad Sparks, supplied by Fran Ridge (NICAP), that the May 2nd, 1957 Edwards AFB case pointed out by UFO skeptic James Oberg during a discussion regarding astronaut Gordon Cooper, was actually a legitimate UFO case with no apparent explanation and thus necessitated its being added to my "solid, legitimate cases with no solution" list. (and that very important list continues to grow.)
Case reinvestigation (now completed and withdrawn):
7/16/07: Although supposedly verified as fact in a "First on the Moon" documentary on the Science Channel, I recently witnessed "Buzz" Aldrin on Larry King deny an Apollo-11 sighting of a UFO as being anything exterrestrial. Aldrin said the astronauts eventually decided they most likely had seen one of the ships pop-away panels. Now that I have seen and heard this from his own lips, I am closing this investigation for myself. It would appear this was purposeful misleading of the public by the documentary's producers. . . . Not funny gentlemen, and certainly not something one would expect from the Science Channel.
Click here for further details
Apparent Abundance of Unsolved Military Cases
When one looks at the record, one can note that we have a great number of military cases from around the world. A number of questions arise regarding those I have gathered:
Why are there so many of these type cases? Is there really that much incompetence throughout our world's militaries? Do they all want us believing in UFOs? Do you believe they are testing their own troops? Does it appear the technology reported is 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 study?
Bizarre Cases Apparently Verified?
Other additions: Stunning admission by Brazilian Air Force they have been studying UFOs since 1954. They, too, are convinced they are real. (credit to Jeff Rense web-site for the article.)
A Major USA Airport Visited by What?
Truly unexplained after a detailed investigation, a UFO incident which occurred November 7, 2006 at Chicago, Illinois USA O'Hare International Airport over a United Airlines terminal, witnessed by airport professionals and others. What the heck was this?
High-Ranking Military & Civilian Personnel Coming Together to Testify One Year Later?
8/21/2008: If what they are saying isn't true, exactly why would, (less than a year ago - Nov. 2007), a two-term Governor of Arizona, a Chief of Operations Division of the Belgium Air Force (now Major General, ret.), a U.S. Division Chief of the Accidents and Investigations Branch of the FAA in Washington, D.C., a retired Deputy Base Commander from RAF Bentwaters (Rendlesham, UK), a retired General from the Iranian Air Force, an ex-official from the U.K.'s Ministry of Defense, a Commander with the Peruvian Air Force, an astrophysicist from France and others, put their reputations on the line to testify at a press conference held at the Washington, D.C. National Press Club, concerning their own personal UFO experiences. The data they brought with them not only proved their own experiences, but once again reiterated the fact this whole UFO thing has convincingly demonstrated itself to be world-wide in scope.
What could be offered people of this caliber to get them to come together and testify in this manner? I believe this is the "smoking gun" that makes this web-site come full circle. Their own personal experiences and data speak for themselves. Why would these particular people from around the world allow themselves to be brought together to testify like this, if this weren't so? What exactly do we need before we actually listen to and believe what they are saying?
Having examined most of the available, seriously proposed, truly logical explanations for those many sightings and testimonies detailed herein and finding them lacking, this researcher is driven to conclude that what he saw back in 1967 is definitely part of something much larger.
The following re-emphasizes and supports that point.
We also note what NIDS (National Institute for Discovery Science) had to say about some cases _they_ personally investigated:
Please note: (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 -
NIDS (2004) Re-evaluation of
Triangular Shaped UFO Reports
(something to think about)
NIDS and its goals: (link to wayback machine Jan 2004)
(Please see excerpt immediately below, from its web-site)
"The National Institute for Discovery Science (NIDS) is a privately funded science institute engaged in research of aerial phenomena, animal mutilations, and other related anomalous phenomena."
"Please submit sighting reports, animal mutilations, or other unusual activities either by phone or via our website report form. NIDS maintains a large database of anomalous activity and investigates reports whenever possible, using a combination of high quality ex-law enforcement investigative teams and contract research involving nationally accredited laboratories in the veterinary, biological (including bacteriological, virological and DNA), chemical,s and materials sciences. The results of these investigations are published in peer reviewed journals and on the NIDS website."
NIDS Past Personnel
Some NIDS cases and studies:
About NIDS and Illinois 2000 Sighting (at CohenUFO web-site)
MSNBC Article on Triangular Sightings (as per above, at CohenUFO web-site)
NIDS full re-assessment of Triangular Shaped UFO Reports
(2004 file was at NIDS web-site . . .including what got them involved in this)
Some Additional Links from CohenUFO Regarding the Above
About this page
This page contains what I believe are a few of the most important issues on my web-site at this time, and hopefully, why they are important. Is it a lot of reading? . . yes; but totally necessary for any lay person to fully understand why we UFO researchers are doing what we're doing today. The information is all here in one place, supremely easy to access, and it is accurate (and free).
The history portion at CohenUFO is certainly very far from a complete history of the UFO phenomenon. However, if I provided a complete history, we'd most likely wind up getting lost in the forest and lose the important point I have been trying to make; unless Persinger is right and people are hallucinating in masses, and this doesn't seem likely, there are very large, super-advanced high-tech. craft flying around up there and we don't know who is doing the flying. Hopefully, the items I have included can help one realize that it is a distinct possibility _some_ of the "way out" cases researchers have displayed for us to examine along the way may not be as impossible as one would, at first glance, be tempted to think.
I am sure I've left a few things out here. I'll try to add them in coming weeks/months.
9/13/2005: Oh, and speaking of forest, I'd almost forgotten this data from the Travis Walton claimed abduction case. By examining FOIA released documents, one can also note this bizarre case was closely surrounded, time-wise, by reported UFO visits to a number of SAC (Strategic Air Command) bases in the United States and that, additionally, there are people of various positions from these facilities presently swearing to the authenticity of _those_ visits. Can they all be lying, misidentifying, or hoaxing?
11/10/2006: . . . and regarding Carl Sagan's famous epigram, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"; most honest evaluators will note, the evidence provided within the majority, if not all, of the unexplained cases at this web-site is certainly strong support for the hypothesis stated at the outset of this thesis . . . that we are being studied by someone.
Page from the website of: CohenUFO.org
Website Master Index