Page last updated: July 1, 2013 11:15 AM

Response to James Oberg's:

by Jerry Cohen


Oberg/Cooper rebuttal.5b
continued from 5a

(The study that wasn't)


Appendix 4, Section G, Paragraph 5

Incident at Redlands, California (4 Feb 68)

        "It was investigated by no one at Blue Book, superficially 
by a member of Norton AFB, and for a total of three months by 
Dr. Philip Seff, professor of geology, Dr. Reinhold Krantz, 
professor of chemistry, Dr. Judson Sanderson, Professor of 
mathematics, and artist John Brownfield, professor of art 
(who drew an artist's conception from the descriptions given 
independently by the witnesses and whose composite painting 
was verified by the witnesses), all of the University of Redlands.  
It is of interest to note that no one at Blue Book has seen fit to 
contact these investigators and discuss their investigation at 
least over the phone.
        The case itself concerns the reported sighting by some 
twenty observers of an object with seven lights on the bottom, 
which appeared as jets, and a row of eight to ten lights on top 
which were alternating in color.  The object was reported to 
have proceeded at a low altitude (estimated about 300 feet) 
in a northeasterly direction for about a mile, to have come to 
a stop and to have hovered briefly, jerked forward, hovered 
again, then to have shot straight upward, stopped, hovered 
again, then wavered to the northwest, gained altitude, and 
then to have shot off to the northwest with a strong burst of 
speed.  It was under observation for about 5 minutes.  The 
object was estimated to have been at least 50 feet in diameter.  
The estimates of 300 feet altitude and 50 feet must be considered
 jointly; only the apparent diameter can be judged, of course, 
but on the assumption of a given distance the estimate of 50 feet 
was arrived at.  Clearly, if the object had been several miles away, 
the unchanged apparent diameter would lead to an unbelievably 
large object.  For these reasons these estimates cannot be 
summarily dismissed."
        "You will undoubtedly be interested to know that Blue Book 
classified this object as 'probable aircraft.'  How this was 
arrived at with no investigation is, of course, a striking example 
of methodology of Blue Book.  Norton AFB reported that March 
AFB  radar painted no unusual targets (ignoring completely the 
fact that an object at 300 feet altitude would have been missed 
by this radar) and that a light plane had landed at Tri-City airport 
at  19:15 PST, whereas a check of the police blotter and of all 
witnesses, agreed that the sighting could not have occurred 
earlier than 19:20.  Further, a check made by the university 
professors, (but apparently not even thought of by Blue Book) 
with the authorities at the airfield showed that the plane was 
coming in from Los Angeles and never approached closer than 
six miles to the city of Redlands and therefore never passed over 
the city of  Redlands, whereas all witnesses agree that it was 
actually close over the city.  The plane which landed (which 
Blue Book did not think to inquire about) was a Bonanza single 
engine propeller aircraft which the professors took the trouble 
to examine while in its hangar at the airfield. [The Redlands case 
is the sole subject of a book now in production by David Branch 
and Robert Klinn, entitled 'Inquiry at Redlands.']
        The discrepancy between what was reported and the Blue 
Book evaluation is so great as to be laughable.  The law, further, 
states that planes cannot fly lower than 1000 feet over Redlands.  
It appears inconceivable that twenty or so witnesses would 
misidentify a light, single engine plane, several miles away, as a 
brilliantly lighted, unconventional aircraft at 300 feet that 
jerked, hovered, and sped away, and went straight up in the 
J.C.    Mind you, this was the Air Force's own "number one" 
civilian consultant who had said all this.  I believe it is 
obvious that Dr. Hynek's words are in full support of the three 
statements I indicated earlier in "Oberg/Cooper rebuttal.4".  
Now you can see at least one reason why the Air Force wanted 
to dismantle Project Blue Book;  a project  I said that....... 
"had become an embarrassment to itself."  The "solid bedrock"
skeptics once stood upon, (i.e. the Air Force's claim that most
UFOs have been explained), crumbled to bits with the publishing 
of Hynek's "The UFO Experience" in 1972.  Likewise, so did Air 
Force credibility with regards to how honest the Air Force was 
being with the public concerning UFOs.


Mr. Oberg's following words regarding the Edwards AFB photographs
take on a different meaning when one has been appraised of the
Oberg ¶ 49    Now, in fact those photographs did not
vanish after all: they had been sent to Project Blue
Book, at Wright-Patterson AFB in Dayton, Ohio, per
regulations (I even have talked to the officer who did
the original Blue Book interviews, former Captain Hubert
Davis, who had been greatly impressed with the witness's
Oberg ¶ 50     The Air Force must have found a
satisfactory solution -- but what?........  That answer
had been around since 1957, but not widely circulated in
the UFO media for obvious reasons: the Air Force said it
had been a weather balloon.....
A weather balloon.  Where have we heard that before?  Perhaps 
the reasons were a lot less obvious than Mr. Oberg has previously 
thought.  The real question is "How valid is the Air Force's 
explanation?Click the preceding to see what Mr. Oberg 
missed concerning Edwards AFB, then ask yourself what else he has missed.

  Also, cases such as the initial one quoted from Section A  this installment, as well as other military or government cases  that happen in a close proximity of time,  such as the ones I  mentioned in "Oberg/Cooper rebuttal.4", (i.e.  "Coast Guard Cutter  Sebago RADAR/visual case", "James Stokes, engineer from the  Missile Development Center at Holloman AFB, Alamagordo N.M.",  and "Kirtland AFB case"), occurring within 4 days of each other if not less, lend great support to the argument that the Air Force and  our government know more about UFOs, and perhaps even what they are, than they have presently acknowledged.  I'll examine these closely after our next installment.  However, imagine, with the RADARs we now possess; RADARs that can paint an actual picture of an object on a screen, what statistics and data the branches of our service and government must already have?  The visual/radar Belgium Sightings from 1989/90 have added solid NATO (North American Treaty Organization) gun camera data, etc. as well. 3   Furthermore, to think that another department in our defense  system hasn't been quietly receiving all this UFO information  without studying it would be to imply that our defense system is  highly incompetent.  Since we all know this is not the truth, I  would hope it is safe to assume that some defense group(s),  somewhere is (are) well appraised of the situation.  FOIA  documents obtained through standard requests and lawsuits, where necessary, have apparently confirmed, at the minimum, definite interest from various parts of the government regarding UFOs even though the public has been led to think otherwise.  4   ------------------------------------

Footnotes to "Oberg/Cooper rebuttal.5ab:"

1     Hynek, J. Allen "The UFO Experience" Henry Regnery Company 
1972, appendix four (Excerpt of a Letter from J. Allen Hynek to 
Colonel Raymond S. Sleeper) 
2     Fawcett, L. & Greenwood, B. "The UFO Cover-up" Simon & 
Schuster Fireside Book 1992 
3     CUFOS Journal (International UFO Reporter) . July/Aug 1990 
. p. 23 : Documentation displayed to public in an "Unsolved 
Mysteries" television episode narrated by Robert Stack 
4     Newsday (Long Island newspaper) Fri 1/19/79 "UFOs seen at 
Air Bases in 1975" : Gersten, Peter . Frontiers of Science . 
May/June 1981 . "What the U.S. Government Knows About 
Unidentified Flying Objects" : Fawcett, L. & Greenwood, B. 
"The UFO Cover-up"  Simon & Schuster Fireside Book 1992 
        ". . . and McCoy became a raving maniac until he 
                    gave Spock back his soul. " 
  "Who is Spock? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . YOU are!" 

End: Oberg/Cooper rebuttal.5b
To: O/C rebut.6

(The study that wasn't)

My next installment is a two-page summation of what we've 
discussed so far and ideas where to locate cases which have 
the greatest potential of being judged _the real thing_ if proper 
investigations were to be conducted thereupon. Immediately 
following that summation will be a detailed accounting of the 
three cases I mentioned which, when combined with all other 
available evidence, strongly suggests there is good reason to 
believe Gordon Cooper was probably telling the truth 
concerning his 1957 Edwards AFB claim.
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)