Page last updated: January 26, 2015 12:53 PM

Response to James Oberg's:

by Jerry Cohen

Oberg/Cooper rebuttal.7a
continued from 6
(part 1 of 3)

Sebago - Stokes - Kirtland AFB


jc 8/11/2008: How good is the evidence? 
(Thomas Kirk update and this researcher's comments
concerning the Sebago)
. . .
jc 10/10/2007: After one has read Oberg/Cooper 7a,b,c, including
Kirtland, one can also note a 1965 case similar to the Sebago
found in Project Blue Book by Dr. J. Allen Hynek. It is a bit
more difficult to ascribe this one to the testing of a missile.

*Something is definitely happening and it's not hallucinations,
hoaxes, mis-identifications, etc.*

Skeptics & Mr. Oberg, 
If you've read nothing else please read numbers 7abc very
carefully. I believe that the proof of extraterrestrial visitation
lies in the material in these next two essays. Is there numerical
data in them?  No. Are the cases the real thing? You be the judge. 
After my own sighting in '67, I know in my heart and soul that
Cooper is most probably telling the truth.
P.S.    I'm sure we'd all like to see James Oberg's responses to 
this series. The discussion ought to be quite interesting.
If one thoroughly examines Dr. McDonald's research, etc.
performed in his lifetime, one will undoubtably find that the
rigorous analysis I am about to present by McDonald, is generally 
characteristic of the majority of his life's work.  If one examines
Mr. Oberg's essay regarding Gordon Cooper, it is almost as if he
were familiar with this case and had tried to imitate the 
presentation of Dr. McDonald.  If one examines the two side by
side, one can determine which scientist's case is more complete 
and compelling.  I leave that up to the reader to accomplish on 
his/her own.
"Oberg/Cooper.7ab&c" will reasonably demonstrate that Mr.
Oberg unjustly accused McDonald of generally not researching
his cases and caring about the facts.  I believe you will also find
there certainly was nothing that anyone might remotely call
"secretive" in regards to his analysis of the Kirtland AFB case
or his address to the American Association For The Advancement
Of Science (AAAS)  UFO Symposium, Boston, Dec. 27, 1969.
James McDonald spelled it all out for the entire world, if they
had been listening.
         The accuracy of the following can be checked by
 consulting the sources provided, including your local libraries
           Footnotes appear at end of O/C rebuttal.7c


        In "Oberg/Cooper rebuttal.3,"  I used 4 cases as examples 
of UFO history.   I used them because I believe they were the 
types of cases that Dr. Hynek himself thought were impressive 
because he chose similar ones to illustrate his concerns about 
Project Blue Book to Colonel Sleeper.   Additionally, you will 
notice that the two newspaper cases provided, apparently closely 
relate both in timing and description, to another case used by Dr. 
James E. McDonald when he illustrated some of the defects in the 
Condon Study to the AAAS (American Association For The
Advancement  Of Science), immediately in the wake of the Condon
Study's negative pronouncements.  The latter was brought to my
attention by Val Germann, Columbus Mississippi, who, having a
great interest in McDonald's life, has documented McDonald's
drive to make scientists aware of the UFO problem, complete
with Germann's own introspective comments concerning same. 
I didn't know this case existed until just recently.  1
        I've already posted the first of the four, "SKY THING" 
(occurred in 1960).  No one so far, has come up with a reasonable 
explanation.  We have already seen that we've had approximately 
thirty seven years to figure out what it was, with no success. 2 
         The two newspaper cases were:   "Sebago" RADAR/visual 
(11/7/57) and "James Stokes," (11/6/57)
.   As I mentioned in 
"Oberg/Cooper rebuttal.3" the Sebago / Stokes cases were the
first two articles I ever cut out of a newspaper, for "curiosity's" 
sake.  The date appearing on the articles is partially blocked by 
old, browned-out tape, but I can see it says "Wednesday,
November xxx, 1957" 3
        The "Sebago" article became personal to me because I
later discovered that a neighbor of mine had been dating one of
the Sebago's crew members when it occurred.  (As unbelievable
as it sounds. I had trouble believing it, and she's my neighbor,
but it was true.)

Brief synopsis:  Crewmen on the Coast Guard cutter Sebago, off
the coast of Louisiana, reported visually seeing an object resembling
"a brilliant planet with a high rate of speed."  It was tracked on the
vessel's radar screen for almost a 1/2 hour and flitted on and off
the screen several times during that time period.
        My neighbor related the following after she had moved here,
when I had once mentioned that particular case to her:  She told
me she was dating one of the crew members and had seen him the
evening he returned from this incident on leave. He was called 
back again the next day for a debriefing in Washington.  The 
following day, after that debriefing, he appeared for an interview 
on the Dave Garroway show.  She saw him again briefly that night 
and/or the next day.  They lost touch after that.
( . . if that person is reading this, please e-mail me.  She
would like to say hello. - BTW: She is married today and has her
own grown children.)
At the time she originally told me this, I wasn't sure I believed 
her because the coincidence, to me, was mind-boggling and I 
thought she might have been teasing me about my interest in UFOs.  
However, she has NEVER changed her story all these years, been 
extremely serious about it and recently explained that this is why 
she, too, has been interested in UFOs all this time and fully 
understood my curiosity regarding same. When I surfed over to the
New NICAP web site to examine their files, I discovered that the
name she had told me years ago was listed in the case workup for
Sebago. I didn't have this name in any articles in my possession.
(If the skeptics don't believe this, that's O.K.  You can totally 
discount it.  This was "my" proof before I found "your" proof. 
There is a lot more to connect this story to reality than just her 
word for this.  I'll explain this a little further on.  Please 
read on, as I selected this group of cases for a reason.)
        The second article, I am fairly certain, appeared in the 
paper the same day.  James Stokes was an engineer from the Air 
Force Missile Development Center at Holloman AFB, Alamogordo,
New Mexico.  The object claimed seen, appeared identical in both 
accounts.  The proximity of the cases to each other, especially 
time-wise, and the "quality of the people seeing them," appeared 
well-above average.
        The Kirtland AFB case which follows those two, ties all of 
it together and will be self explanatory.  4   
I apologize for the condition of the article headed "New Orleans"
the Stokes article. These articles were the first I ever cut
out and did not ever expect to be doing what I'm doing today or
that they would turn out to be as significant as I firmly believe
they are. 


The following two articles were taken from:
Newsday (Long Island newspaper) on 
Wednesday, November 6th (or 7th), 1957.

I. CG Ship Sights Weird Object Off Louisiana

jc: bolding inserted in articles on 5/11/2008        

Washington (AP) -- A brilliant mystery object was reported 
sighted yesterday in southern skies by a Coast Guard cutter,
even as Air Force specialists investigated a flurry of earlier,
similar reports.
        The Coast Guard cutter Sebago, cruising in the Gulf of 
Mexico about 200 miles south of Louisiana, radioed that
object resembling "a brilliant planet with a high rate
of speed"
was seen  for about three seconds early yesterday. 
Coast Guard headquarters in New Orleans said the message
did not report exactly who on board the cutter had seen the

        The Sebago's message said the object was tracked
on the vessel's radar screen for 27 minutes
and that,
during that period, the object flitted on and off the screen
several times.

        Sightings of strange objects have been reported from 
widely scattered sections of the United States since Sunday,
most of them near secret military installations in the Southwest.
The Air Force said that the radar network of the Air Defense
Command is keeping watch -- so far with no results -- and that
specially qualified investigators have been assigned to look into
the reports.
        For several years the Air Force has checked all reports of 
unidentified flying objects.  Investigators work under the Air 
Defense Command at Colorado Springs, Colo., and report to the
Air  Technical Intelligence Center.  Judging from past findings,
the chances are the Air Force will attribute the current sightings
to natural phenomena or such ordinary man-made objects as

II. Flying "Something" Still Unidentified       

Lubbock, Tex. (AP) -- A missile engineer reported seeing a 
"brilliant colored egg-shaped object" which he said stalled
autos in New Mexico yesterday.
        The Air Force started an investigation yesterday into 
similar reports in this and other areas.  Witnesses say a mystery 
object skipped about the countryside here and near scientific 
military bases in New Mexico over the week end.  The reported 
sightings startled citizens, peace officers and servicemen but 
apparently left no concrete trace.

        James Stokes, 45, an engineer from the Air Force Missile 
Development Center at Holloman Air Force Base, Alamogordo, N.M. 
told new director Terry Clark of station KALG, Alamogordo, that 10 
autos were stopped on an isolated desert highway, U.S. 54, between 
White Sands Proving Grounds and Alamogordo yesterday.  His 

description was similar to ones reporting a big ball of fire 
flitting about much of this West Texas area over the week
  A huge, oval object " nearly as bright as the sun"
reported seen at White Sands Proving Ground Sunday, hovering near
bunkers used in the first A-bomb explosion.  Witnesses said other strange 
lights were seen over other parts of Texas, near Chicago and in Virginia.

        Clark said the Air Force at Holloman gave him permission to use Stokes"
story.  He said Stokes told him occupants of cars saw a strange, unidentified
object flying toward them from the northeast.  He said his auto radio
faded and died, then his engine stopped.  He said, several other
cars were also stalled.

Looking up, he told Clark, "I saw a brilliant colored egg-shaped
object making a shallow dive across the sky to the northeast.
Then it  turned and made a pass at the highway and crossed it not more
than two miles ahead.  Then it moved away toward White Sands Proving 
Grounds to the southwest.  As it passed . . . I could feel a kind of heat
wave, like radiation from a giant sun lamp.  But there was no sound. 
It had no visible portholes and there was no vapor trail."

        "When I got back to my car and checked the engine, I found it intact
but the battery was steaming.  But the engine started with no difficulty.  I
called officials at the Air Force Development Center and notified them
of the sighting."  He said the object moved very rapidly and its
surface looked like 'glowing mother of pearl.'
        A spokesman at Reese Air Force Base here said yesterday
a representative of the Air Defense Command had flown in from 

J.C.    This next appeared at the bottom of the same article.
"New Orleans (UP) -- The U.S. Coast Guard cutter Sebago reported 
that it spotted a brilliant flying object in the sky this morning about 200
miles south of the mouth of the Mississippi River.  The unidentified object
was first sighted at 5:10 A.M., the Coast Guard said.  Radar contact with
the object was retained intermittently from 5:10 A.M. to 5:37 A.M.
with the object visible to the naked eye for (old tape in the way) xxx
beginning at 5:21 A.M.  A radio report from the Sebago xxx xxx the Gulf
of Mexico, said the object "resembled a brilliant xxx" and was traveling
at a high rate of speed."

J.C.    This is why I am pretty sure it was in the paper on the same day. I
may be a day off.  It is important to notice it was stated that * Air Defense
Command was involved. * That statement is an indication that our Air Force
has known about and dealt with UFOs for a fairly long period of time. (Again,
this was 1957)

Although you might think to yourself, "Perhaps some newspaper reporters
made these up,"
as I mentioned, the next thoroughly researched case adds
greatly to the credibility of the other two.  When you read it, please note a
similarity in object descriptions.  Also, please note the date of the sightings
and compare it with Sebago / Stokes above.  As I mentioned, Kirtland was
a Blue Book case included in the Condon Study which was additionally 
researched by Dr. James E. McDonald, atmospheric scientist.  5


Rebuttal 7b is an excerpt taken from Dr. McDonald's address to the 
American Association For The Advancement Of Science (AAAS) UFO 
Symposium, Boston, Dec. 27, 1969.  6     In it, as Val Germann has 
aptly pointed out, McDonald takes Blue Book and the Condon Study 
to task for not following up on several cases which he felt should 
have obviously been examined further.  McDonald was a meticulous 
scientist.  If all of us were attentive to detail in life as Dr. 
McDonald was in the following analysis, the word incompetence 
would probably not exist in our dictionaries. Those that state 
otherwise concerning him, are most likely ignorant concerning his 
career and accomplishments.
McDonald chastises the Condon Study for not looking for witnesses 
in the "Kirtland AFB case;" two of whom he, himself, was easily 
able to find and who's testimony was vital to those proceedings.  
He further chides the NAS (National Academy of Science) for 
placing (in his own words) "its weighty stamp on this dismal report
without even a semblance of rigorous checking of its contents." was
one of the examples given.  If one reads it carefully, I am certain
you will find, as a number of researchers already have, great
substance to his allegations.
It should be readily apparent to most, after reading it, that so 
many people would have been placed in a "bad light" from 
McDonald's report, that his presentation HAD to be totally ignored 
when it was brought to their attention.  (i.e. specifically, 
section 3, para. 2 & 3)
  But the facts still stand, if one reads 
them with an open, honest mind, you will realize that this case 
(and probably others he had analyzed) should have rightfully been 
classified as an "unknown" or more precisely, a UFO... most 
probably, a craft of some sort.

End: Oberg/Cooper rebuttal.7a
To: O/C rebut.7b

Sebago / Stokes / Kirtland AFB (part 1 of 3)

Go to:

Rebuttal Table of Contents (also 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)