Page last updated: July 1, 2013 4:06 PM


Response to James Oberg's:

by Jerry Cohen

Oberg/Cooper rebuttal.2
continued from 1b


SKY THING - occurred 1960

At this point I am going to present what I believe qualifies as
a tantalizing, solid piece of "documented evidence." It certainly
qualifies as data. I think it will give us all something to think
about in the background as we journey through my next six

I am fairly certain it has a connection to Cooper's Edward's AFB
claim even though it (the incident in the articles below) occurred
approximately six months *after* the Edward's claimed event.

Oberg ¶ 46  When I called John ("Jack") Gettys, one
of the witnesses, he sent me a file of material on the
sighting, which had occurred on May 3, 1957.

The following articles, occurring 18 years prior to our 
aforementioned UN discussion on UFOs, were reported quite 
accurately in the media and apparently gave scientists "pause for 
thought."  They are reprints from two Long Island, NY newspapers.  
I had cut them out of the papers as a teenager expecting to 
eventually find some rational answer.  I never did.
I gave this incident the name, "SKY THING (occurred 1960)," 
derived from Bob Caro's title, when I posted it on alt.paranet.ufo 
earlier this year.  No one having any explanation replied to the 
post at that time, so I thought I'd try it here in this forum.  
Perhaps I had missed someone's posted answer.
(Readers can check the articles for accuracy by going to your 
libraries and examining microfilms on same. Some of you in 
various parts of the world may have supporting articles of
your own. If  you do, please let me know.  I believe you could
be contributing to something really important here.)

<begin articles>

                     Newsday 8/31/60 & 9/1/60
                     Long Island Press 9/1/60
          [Brackets] and interior CAPITAL LETTERS are mine.

Article #1: 8/31/60

Chicago (AP)   New sightings of a mysterious unidentified 
object circling the earth were reported yesterday.   Data concerning the object was being compiled by Robert
L.  Johnson, director of Chicago's Adler Planetarium, who
sighted the  object for the first time Friday with two assistants.  Johnson  said he had received reports of sightings Saturday and Sunday nights from Georgetown University observatory, Washington, and semi-official space associations.  Amateur astronomers from coast to coast and from Michigan to Missouri have reported seeing the object, Johnson added.   He said [ "the object appears to be 1/10 the size of the Echo I  balloon satellite and traveling about twice as fast.  It isn't an  artificial satellite or a meteor" he asserted.  ]                               --------

Article #2: 9/1/60
(Newsday) By: Bob Caro

jc: Bolding inserted in article 5/11/2008

It's not a satellite and it's not a meteor.  Any astronomer can 
tell you that.  And he can tell you its color and, to some extent, 
its speed.
[There's just one thing he can't tell you - what it is.  He can't 
even guess.]
That's the status at the moment of the "week-long nationwide 
attempt to identify the mysterious REDDISH object that has 
been circling the earth since last Thursday." Astronomers all over 
the country admit that they're puzzled.  One, Frank Judson of 
Chicago's famed Adler Planetarium says "I've been watching it 
for days and I don't have the faintest idea what it is."
Even taking a picture of the object hasn't helped.  [ The Grumman 
Aircraft Engineering Corp. announced yesterday that a tracking 
camera at the Bethpage plant had photographed the object at 
8:51 PM last Thursday.  But, a Grumman spokesman added, 
"all the picture shows is a white line, so we still can't even begin 
to make an identification." ]  The white line, difficult to detect, 
was barely visible even after the photo was enlarged.
Expert observers and just plain citizens have been catching 
glimpses of the mysterious object in Long Island, Chicago, 
Washington, Boston, New Haven, Chicago and points west.  
But the few conclusions that they are able to draw about its 
behavior only heightens the mystery of what it is.
Judson, who has been studying the object in conjunction with 
Robert L. Johnson, director of the Adler Planetarium sums up 
the conclusions about the thing this way:
"It's not a meteor because it's much too slow. And it's
not an artificial man-made satellite, of that we're

FOR IT.' he says."  It appears some nights, and some 
nights it doesn't.
Usually it appears at about the time (the) Echo I (balloon 
satellite) does going in the opposite direction and about 
twice as fast.
What could it possibly be:  "Between you and me, I just don't 
know," Judson said.  Then he was asked an inevitable question:  
"No,"  he replied, "Definitely not, I do not believe in flying 

Article #3: 9/1/60

A mysterious REDDISH object circling the earth has been 
photographed by a tracking camera of the Grumman Aviation 
Engineering Corp., in Bethpage, it was disclosed today.
Grumman said the photograph was taken by a special tracking 
crew which has been on watch.
[ The flying object appears to be about a tenth the size of the 
Echo I balloon satellite and traveling about twice as fast.  
Sightings from amateur astronomers and others have been 
received from throughout the United States.
Robert L. Johnson, director of Chicago's Adler Planetarium, 
is compiling data on the object.  He says it doesn't appear to 
be an artificial satellite or a meteor. ]
[ An added touch of the unusual is the east to west trajectory 
of  the object.  Satellites launched by the United States and the 
Soviet Union have followed the opposite trajectory, west to east, 
to take advantage of extra speed provided by the earth's rotation.]
<end articles>


J.C.    Again, I respectfully ask :  After all these years, does 
anyone have a reasonable explanation that the majority of us 
can accept as to what this was?   If you give an answer, perhaps we 
can have other astronomers, aeronautic specialists, etc. comment 
on same. If it was one of ours, it wouldn't hurt to have someone
that was actually there say it, along with a definite date and 
place of launch and a confirmation from some official body this 
is accurate. I'd personally like to see someone that was actually 
there say it. I think if we think about it, just saying "oh yes, 
we could have done it" leaves something to be desired. And if we 
were simply tracking the shot, why would we shoot the "tracker" 
in the opposite direction?
My own thoughts were:  Captured meteorite?  Doesn't it have to 
come in at an angle and flow with the earth's rotation so the 
earth's gravity can grab and hold it?  I distinctly remember 
newscasters and scientists talking at that time about how we were 
necessarily using the earth's rotation as a slingshot to shoot things 
out of our gravitational field to keep the weight down in the rockets 
which had definite limits as to the weight they could lift out of our 
gravitational field. I believe "payload" is still a major consideration, 
even today. A side lobe? If it was, the echo satellite must have had 
a rocket-propelled, detachable skin. The description given by the 
tracking stations does not seem to fit the definition Mr. Oberg gave 
regarding same. Some kind of atmospheric reflection? (not much 
atmosphere up there by the satellites and nothing to reflect off)  

Secret military device? Here's a the key question for me. We 
were using our best equipment to get our satellites into orbit,
competing with the Russians. If it was a spy camera, whatever, put into orbit going almost twice as fast in the opposite direction of the Echo satellite, then why didn't it keep a regular schedule?  It was clearly stated the object did not keep a regular schedule and was going the WRONG WAY, twice as fast. And it was an object, not just an electronic reflection because ... they took pictures of it. If no one wants to talk about it openly because it's very secret, you can tell me personally and I'll go away quiety on this; I'm good at keeping secrets. (BTW, If you _can_ answer this go on to the next case and see if you can knock that one out too. They get harder as they go. I only included this last one to indicate that Hynek may have been thinking about it too.)

[11/26/04 I found proof he was. Please click immediate link above.]   It seemed impossible but...the documented record demonstrates it was photographed and analyzed by the aforementioned minimum of three tracking stations: Adler Planetarium, Grumman Aviation Engineering Corporation (famous for building the lunar module and various types of military hardware), and Georgetown University observatory, Washington D.C. If one were to consult newspapers from other parts of the country around the dates in question, one might possibly find other tracking stations that observed this as well.  Perhaps others reading this might supply this too.   Now, when it comes to reprints of stories that add details without  substantiation, I am as suspicious as the next person.  But...when  three major tracking facilities report something of this sort, if  someone doesn't have a really good answer as to what it was after  all this time (35 years later), I would say that it definitely  qualifies as documentation of a verified UFO, just outside our  atmosphere.  Granted, this alone does not prove what UFOs  are....only that they certainly exist and we have, at the very  least, seen and photographed them.  If still unsolved today, it is  one of a growing number of pieces of evidence(6/30/2006) which must be considered in the total picture.   Additionally, in ¶ 24 & 25 Mr. Oberg states:
     Oberg ¶ 24:    By 1967, Frank Edwards gave these
details of the event (in Flying Saucers -- Here and Now!,
Lyle Stuart, New York). To the question, "Who was the
first astronaut to see a UFO in orbit?", Edwards
responded: "On the record it was Major Gordon Cooper,
over Muchea Tracking Station near Perth Australia, on 
his final orbit of Earth on a night in May of 1963. The
object which approached him was also seen by the two
hundred persons at the tracking station. It was reported
twice on the NBC radio network before Cooper had been
picked up by the rescue craft. He was not permitted to
comment on it."
     Oberg ¶ 25:    Other details appeared in Is
Something Up There (Dale White, Scholastic Book Services,
Doubleday, 1968): "The astronaut radioed the tracking
station that he had sighted a greenish object moving east
to west.  This is contrary to the orbits taken by man
made satellites. Nearly one hundred persons, some of them
technicians, saw the UFO appear on the Australian radar."
Even if the above statement was "story-built" the above "SKY 
THING" articles prove there was a legitimate reason for one to 
assume, rightly or wrongly, that the story reported could be true. 
As I said, I was amazed to discover later, the above "SKY THING" 
case was preceded by a similar incident that happened in 1957. 
I'll detail both this and how I found it as a finale to everything 
else I will be presenting.  It should suffice to say at this time 
that Dr. Hynek had been in charge of satellite tracking for the 
Smithsonian and probably was aware of those tracked events 
previously mentioned.  Combining those events with anomalies 
scientists had observed in the Baker Nunn network (I'll present 
this next), information he already had from Blue Book cases, and 
the fact that an object had actually been photographed, it would 
have been a logical assumption on his part that the accounts 
regarding Cooper could be accurate. Therefore, this indicates, 
at least to me, that any mistake on Hynek's part was most likely 
*not* premeditated.
I'll give everyone some time to ponder this, go to the library & 
check out the articles I presented and also perhaps come up with a 
plausible  solution to "SKYTHING (occurred 1960)", before I focus 
on Dr. Hynek's career, proof of the Baker-Nunn anomalies, and 
Hynek's significance to our accumulated knowledge concerning 
UFOs and what the Air Force most certainly knows about them.

End: Oberg/Cooper rebuttal.2
To: O/C rebut.3a

SKYTHING (occurred 1960)

Respectfully submitted,
Jerry Cohen


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:

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