Page last updated: July 1, 2013 4:27 PM

Response to James Oberg's:

by Jerry Cohen

Oberg/Cooper rebuttal.5a
continued from 4b


Excerpts from "The UFO Experience"


Skeptics, I hope you're still reading this.  This is where
things really begin to get interesting. It's why Hynek became
a believer.
Getting back to Dr. Hynek. In "Oberg/Cooper rebuttal 1a" (Preface, 
¶ 3 ) I mentioned that "it was that Air Force's own scientific 
consultant who actually proved to us that the Air Force has not 
been completely honest with us concerning UFOs."
This next section focuses on what the Air Force's main civilian 
scientific consultant had to say concerning Project Blue Book 
after it was closed and his job there had ended. His revelations 
would have shattered every intelligent skeptic's "illusion" 
concerning the accuracy of Blue Book's statistics and made them
realize that Project Blue Book was a sham and the Air Force had
to know a lot more than it was telling. The only problem was that most average skeptics never read it and/or, if they did, refused
to believe it.  It is my fervent hope that those following these
essays will become more enlightened in this regard.                                         The accuracy of the following can be confirmed by         consulting the sources provided via your local libraries


(The study that wasn't)

  {    . . . . .Spock said to McCoy . . . . . "Remember!"    } 
When Blue Book closed, Dr. Hynek, having had access to Blue Book 
files for approximately twenty years, and realizing how little 
study had been done on some of the best cases, had decided that 
there was a lot more to UFOs than most other people realized.  
The problem was, how was he going to get this information out to 
the public? He needed to let them know, what *he* knew; that Blue 
Book was a  "sham", that the Colorado Study had come to the wrong 
conclusions and that he had information he felt proved there was 
indeed something to at least a core of these UFO reports.
In 1972, his book "The UFO Experience" was published and was 
earthshaking to those of us that had been following the UFO 
controversy closely.  Besides the classifications he delineated 
concerning the phenomena, etc., Hynek also included revealing 
inside details on both Blue Book and the Condon Study.  Perhaps the 
most shattering to our consciousness regarding Blue Book concerned
twenty pages described as "Excerpts from a letter by J. Allen Hynek
to Colonel Raymond S. Sleeper" on Oct. 7, 1968.   1        It aptly demonstrated that Blue Book had been a "non-study" and made those of us who read his book painfully aware of how little was accomplished by the project the Air Force had touted as its  "scientific analysis" of UFOs.  The letter is both his evaluation  of Project Blue Book and a plea for the Air Force to take the UFO  subject more seriously.     After reading this, it is hard to imagine that someone, somewhere  wasn't taking it more seriously.  Our Air Force has been and is,  the finest *human* Air Force in the world.   In "Oberg/Cooper rebuttal.4"  I made several statements that may  have appeared controversial to some.  Three of them were:
1) ". . . things concerning the Air Force weren't as we
     had thought";  
2)  "Eventually other things surfaced that made it
     crystal clear the Air Force had to know a lot more
     than it was willing to tell."

3) ". . . a project (Blue Book) that, as we will discover
     later, had become an embarrassment to itself."

To say the following data "is extremely important," is definitely the greatest
understatement I have ever made in my life. It proves, beyond all reasonable doubt,
that Dr. Hynek was held back from studying the repository of "verified" evidence in
existence.  In other words, the same people that had claimed all along this important
evidence didn't exist, were keeping much of it buried from Hynek and outsiders.  As
you will see in these excerpts from his previously mentioned book, by his own words,
Hynek was not permitted to peruse the files himself. 

Here are a few of the questions we started asking ourselves: "Was it incompetence, a 
need to feel important on the part of members of the Blue Book staff or perhaps more
likely, a directive from upper echelon for whatever reason? What the heck was going on? "

There are five sections of Hynek's letter to which I wish to draw everyone's
attention.  One of the sections I haven't included was their own (the Air Force's)
scientific consultant's plea to take UFOs more seriously.  Those wishing to view this text
in its entirety can view it in Appendix 4 of "The UFO Experience." The following, labeled
by section and general area, are quotes from that book; quotes from Hynek
written directly
to Sleeper.


"laser scissors"

Section A:

One "Case Example" of what Hynek thought was a report going unheeded.
Do we really think someone else higher up didn't get to read this case when
it occurred?

The next four paragraphs are Hynek's words to Colonel Sleeper:

        "Blue Book has been charged with two missions by AFR 80-
17, both ostensibly of the same weight, since the regulations do 
not specify otherwise.  They are: (1) to determine if the UFO is 
a possible threat to the United States, and (2) to use the  scientific or technical data gained from study of UFO reports.   Neither of these two missions is being adequately executed.           First, the only logical basis on which it can be stated  that UFOs do not constitute a possible threat to the United States  is that so far nothing has happened to the United States from that  source.  First, many reports are not investigated until weeks or  even months after they are made; clearly, if hostility were ever  intended, it would occur long before the report was investigated.  (That is akin to having the Pearl Harbor radar warnings [which  went unheeded] investigated three weeks after Pearl Harbor.)   Nothing did occur, so it can be gathered that UFOs, whatever they  may be, have not so far had hostile intent.           Second, many reports of potentially high intelligence  value go unheeded by Blue Book.  Examples: (a) [Extract from a  classified document of reported sighting of 5 May, 1965, contents  unclassified, classification refers to name, and location and  mission of vessel.] " . . . leading signal man reported what he  believed to be an aircraft. . . . When viewed through binoculars,  three objects were sighted in close proximity to each other; one  object was first magnitude, the other two were second magnitude.   Objects were traveling at extremely high speeds, moving toward  ship at undetermined altitude.  At . . . . four moving targets  were detected on the . . . . air search radar at ranges up to  twenty two miles and held up to six minutes.  When over the ship the objects spread to circular formation directly overhead and remained there for approximately three minutes.  This maneuver was observed both visually and by radar. The bright object which hovered off the starboard quarter made the larger presentation on the radar scope.  The objects made several course changes during the sighting, confirmed visually and by radar, and were tracked at speeds in excess of 3000 (three thousand) knots. (jc: bolding and italics are mine.) Challenges were made by IFF but not answered. After the three minute hovering maneuver, the objects moved in a southeasterly direction at an extremely high rate of speed.  Above evolution observed by CO, all bridge personnel and numerous hands topside."           This report was summarily evaluated by Blue Book as  "Aircraft," and to the best of my knowledge was never further  investigated.  By what stretch of the imagination can we say that the sighting did not represent a "possible threat" to the United States?  Only because nothing happened.  Do we ascribe such incompetence to the officers of the ship, and to the CO, to have such a report submitted unless all witnesses were truly puzzled?   Is it conceivable that these officers could not have recognized an  aircraft had it had the trajectory, the apparent speed, and the  maneuvers ascribable to aircraft?  No mention is made in the report of even the possibility that ordinary aircraft were being observed.  The very fact that IFF challenges went unanswered should have been a spur to further investigation.  This implies enemy craft. But the report does not even suggest the possibility that these were ordinary enemy aircraft.  The classified document in Blue Book files does not contain further technical data concerning the sighting itself. Should not the director of Blue Book have exhibited at least SOME curiosity about this sighting?  Yet when I brought it up on more than one occasion, it was dismissed with boredom. It is hard for the public to understand how a country whose military posture is so security geared could dismiss a case like this out-of-hand unless the  military knew more than they were telling."
(J.C. again, bolding/italics are  mine but the words were Dr. Hynek's.)   ------------------------------------------------------ j.c. Was Hynek only talking about the public  understanding or his own as well?        After giving a second example similar to the above, he says the following:  ------------------------------------------------------

Appendix 4, Section A, Paragraph 9

"It must be pointed out that neither of these cases were shown to me by
Blue Book personnel.  I happened upon them by accident during one of
my visits as I scanned through material lying on a desk, and not in the files;
I am not permitted to peruse the files themselves.
  I have access
to the files only when I request a specific case.  But how can I
request a specific case, to examine its possible scientific merits,
if I don't know of its existence?"
(jc: again, bolding mine)

j.c.  Does the above sound as though they
        wanted him to examine all the cases? 

Appendix 4, Section B, Paragraph 1

"The staff of Blue Book, both in numbers and in scientific training, is grossly
inadequate to perform the tasks assigned under AFR 80-17, even were they
of a mind to do so.
j.c.    Researchers who have looked at the number of people 
         employed had long ago determined that the project was 
         incredibly understaffed & under-ranked.  It was felt this 
         showed the real value the military placed on it.         
   	     Hynek wrote this to the public too in his 12/17/1966 
         Saturday Evening Post Article. (See #'s 8 and 9 at above link)


Appendix 4, Section C, Paragraph 1

"There has been little dialogue between Blue Book and the outside
scientific world or between Blue Book and the various scientific
facilities within the Air Force itself."
"I know of very little scientific correspondence in the blue book files;
this is probably because scientists wish to correspond with persons of
like training.  It would be pointless, for instance, to query Blue Book
on the scientific reasons for evaluating a given case, say, as caused
by a temperature inversion:  Blue Book has never availed itself of the
meteorological know-how within the Air Force itself to determine just
how much of an inversion is necessary to produce the effects reported
by the witness
, if at all." (jc: Link added 4/11/2010)

j.c.    Communication has been found in FOIA released documents 
         that suggest Hynek was wrong about this last statement.  
They just did it quietly and he wasn't shown the reports.  2 
". . . . . many astronomical evaluations have been made by
Blue Book without consulting their scientific consultant
(who is, after all, an astronomer) which have brought
ridicule in the press. The midwest flap of reports of July
31-August 1, 1965 can be cited as an example."
j.c. Above, Hynek's defense of his scientific reputation concerning 
	the erroneous Air Force explanation discovered by Robert Risser,
      director of Oklahoma City's Kirkpatrick Planetarium. 
     As mentioned previously, the Exeter, New Hampshire case
     occurred just one month later. (September 3, 1965)

Appendix 4, Section D, Paragraph 1

"The statistical methods employed by Blue Book are a
travesty on the branch of mathematics known as
Statistics. A chapter in a doctoral dissertation at
Northwestern University, soon to be published, deals
specifically with this aspect, and I will later quote
from it (Herbert Strentz, "A Study of Some Air Force
Statistical Procedures in Recording and Reporting Data 
on UFO Investigations," included in "A SURVEY OF PRESS
COVERAGE OF UFOs, 1947, 1967, a doctoral thesis at the
Medill School of Journalism, Northwestern University")
and preface it with my own observations which,
incidentally, I have repeatedly brought to the attention
of the Blue Book staff but to no avail.
j.c.    Hynek states outright that the statistics 
         being quoted by Blue Book were a joke. 

Appendix 4, Section E, Paragraph 1

"There has been lack of attention to significant UFO
cases, as judged by the scientific consultant and others,
and too much time on routine cases which contain few
information bits; too much time and effort are demanded
of the Blue Book staff for peripheral tasks (public
relations, answering letters about evaluation of old
cases and answering requests for information from various
and sundry sources)."

"A scientist who finds something in his laboratory that
he can't explain is no scientist if he labels it
'unknown' and files it away and spends the rest of his
time in routine matters.  It is precisely the Unknowns
that Blue Book should be concerned with, not making
impressive (?) counts of how many people cannot properly
identify a satellite or a meteor."
j.c.    It appears the military was more concerned with public 
opinion than science. Above point made by critics of the Condon 
Report regarding *that* study as well. 

Appendix 4, Section E, Paragraph 1

"The information input to Blue Book is grossly inadequate
and certainly the cause of much of the inefficiency
within the Book by the almost consistent failure of UFO
officers at the local Air Bases to transmit adequate
information to Blue Book, and, I might say, it was
considerably worse in the long period before there 
were UFO officers so designated."
j.c.    i.e.  There were probably more cases but,
        we didn't get the proper information on them. 

End: Oberg/Cooper rebuttal.5a
To: O/C rebut.5b

(The study that wasn't)

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)