Page last updated: July 1, 2013 4:49 PM

Response to James Oberg's:

by Jerry Cohen

Oberg/Cooper rebuttal.7c
continued from 7b (part 3 of 3)


AUTHOR'S SUMMATION (i.e. How this all relates to Gordon Cooper's claims)

McDonald's paper continued from:

American Association For The Advancement Of Science,

134th Meeting.Subject:  Science in Default; 22 Years
of Inadequate UFO Investigations
Author: James E. McDonald, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences

From: The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, 85721
Time:  9:00 a.m., December 27, 1969
Place: Sheraton Plaza Ballroom, Boston
Program: General Symposium, Unidentified Flying Objects
Convention Address: Sheraton Plaza Hotel



<begin McDonald text>

I asked both men whether they alerted anyone else 
while the foregoing events were taking place. They 
both indicated that the object was of such unprecedented 
nature that it wasn't until it shot up into the overcast 
that they got on the phone to get the CAA Radar Approach 
Control (RAPCON) unit to look for a fast target to the 
east. Kaser recalled that a CPN-18 surveillance radar 
was in use at that RAPCON unit at that time, a point 
confirmed to me in subsequent correspondence with the 
present chief of the Albuquerque Airport Traffic Control 
Tower, Mr. Robert L. Behrens, who also provided other 
helpful information. Unfortunately, no one who was in 
the Albuquerque/Kirtland RAPCON unit in 1957 is now 
available, and the person whom Kaser thought was 
actually on the CPN-18 that night is now deceased. Thus 
I have only Kaser and Brink recollections of the 
radar-plotting of the unknown, plus the less than precise 
information in the Nov. 6, 1957 TWX to Bluebook. Capt. 
Shere did not, evidently, take the trouble to secure any 
information from radar personnel.
As seen on the RAPCON CPN-18, the unknown target was still 
moving in an easterly direction when the alert call came 
from the tower.  It then turned southward, and as Kaser 
recalled, moved south at very high speed, though nothing 
is said about speed in the Kirtland TWX of Nov. 6, 1957. 
It proceeded a number of miles south towards the vicinity 
of the Albuquerque Low Frequency Range Station, orbited 
there for a number of minutes, came back north to near 
Kirtland, took up a trail position about a half-mile 
behind an Air Force C-46 just then leaving Kirtland, 
and moved offscope with the C-46. The Nov. 8, 1957 
report from Commander, 34th Air Div. to ADC and to 
the Air Technical Intelligence Command closed with the 
rather reasonable comment: "Sighting and descriptions 
conform to no known criteria for identification of UFOs." 
The follow-up report of Nov. 13, 1957, prepared by Air 
Intelligence personnel from Ent AFB, contains a number 
of relevant comments on the experience of the two witnesses 
(23 years of tower control work between them as of that date), 
and on their intelligence, closing with the remarks: "In the 
opinion of the interviewer, both sources (witnesses) are 
considered completely competent and reliable."

5. Critique of the Evaluation in the Condon Report:
(McDonald's words, continued)

The Kirtland AFB case is a rather good (though not isolated) 
instance of the general point I feel obliged to make on the basis 
of my continuing check of the Condon Report: In it we have not 
been given anything superior to the generally casual and often
incompetent level of case-analysis that marked Bluebook's 
handling of the UFO problem in past years.
In the Bluebook files, this case is carried as "Possible 
Aircraft". Study of the 21-page case-file reveals that this is 
based solely on passing comment made by Capt. Shere in closing 
his summary letter of November 8: "The opinion of the preparing 
officer is that this object may possibly have been an unidentified 
aircraft, possibly confused by the runways at Kirtland AFB.  The 
reasons for this opinion are: (a) The observers are considered
competent and reliable sources, and in the opinion of this
interviewer actually saw an object they could not identify.
(b) The object was tracked on a radar scope by a competent
operator. (c) The object does not meet identification criteria 
for any other phenomena."
The stunning non sequitur of that final conclusion might serve 
as an epitome of 22 years of Air Force response to unexplainable 
objects in our airspace.  But when one then turns to the Condon 
Report's analysis and evaluation, a Report that was identified to 
the public and the scientific community as the definitive study of 
UFOs, no visible improvement is found. Ignoring almost everything 
of interest in the case-file except that a lighted airborne object 
came down near Kirtland airfield and left, the Condon Report 
covers this whole intriguing case in two short paragraphs, cites 
the Air Force view, embellishes it a bit by speaking of the lost 
aircraft as "powerful" (presumably to account for its observed 
Mach 1 climb-out) and suggesting that it was "flying without 
flight plan" (this explains why it was wandering across runways 
and taxiways at night, in a rain, at an altitude of a few tens 
of feet), and the Report then closes off the case with a terse 
conclusion: "There seems to be no reason to doubt the accuracy 
of this analysis.
Two telephone calls to the two principal witnesses would have 
confronted the Colorado investigators with emphatic testimony, 
supporting the contents (though not the conclusions) of the 
Bluebook file, and that would have rendered the suggested
"powerful private aircraft" explanation untenable. By not 
contacting the witnesses and by overlooking most of the salient 
features of the reported observations, this UFO report has been 
left safely in the "explained" category where Bluebook put it. 
One has here a sample of the low scientific level of 
investigative and evaluative work that will be so apparent to 
any who take the trouble to study carefully and thoroughly the 
Condon Report on UFOs.  AAAS members are urged to study it 
carefully for themselves and to decide whether it would be 
scientifically advisable to accept it as the final word on the 
22-year-long puzzle of the UFO problem.  I submit that it is 
most inadvisable.
<end McDonald text> 
J.C.    Once again, since this case was originally located in Blue 
Book files, included in the Condon Study, and was so thoroughly 
researched by a highly respected meteorologist, with yet 
additional information brought in by CAA witnesses who were still 
alive, its authenticity is beyond reproach.  The amount of effort 
that McDonald put into his analysis should be obvious to anyone 
reading this.  The additional material he personally brought to 
this case (and others) demonstrates that what was seen was indeed 
a "UFO."  

The witnesses' words 

"..had no wings, tail, or fuselage, was elongated 
in the vertical direction, and exhibited a somewhat 
egg-shaped form (Kaser). It appeared to be perhaps
15-20 ft in vertical dimension, about the size of
an automobile on end, and had a single white light
in its base."
and McDonald's words "Both men were emphatic in stressing to me that _it
in no way resembled an aircraft._"
clearly demonstrate that whatever this was, it was definitely
nothing the witnesses had ever seen before or since.   Additionally, as mentioned, the date and place of this case are  important as it occurred approximately 2 days * prior * to the  Sebago/Stokes cases and, for reasons already stated, I am  personally certain that "Sebago" was indeed a reality.  (jc 2/19/2010: N.B. The incorrect dating found in this last sentence was my original estimate before talking to researchers Jan Aldrich and Brad Sparks who eventually helped me secure the correct dates and times. The actual timing was only hours apart.) ocr.7c Continued: Furthermore, "Stokes" was claimed in the same general location
as the Kirtland case, within a close proximity of time.  Since
it (Kirtland) happened "prior" to those cases, Kirtland obviously
wasn't stimulated by them.  I therefore submit that the probability
of "Sebago" & "Stokes" being exactly what they were originally  represented as being, is extremely high.  This is why I selected  these particular events when compiling my brief history of UFOs.   It is also important to consider all this in the context of Dr.  Hynek's letter to Colonel Sleeper in 1968, which demonstrated,  beyond a reasonable doubt, that the statistics touted in  "Project Blue Book" were little more than a "sham."  If you  remember, Hynek called them a "travesty."  As we said, no civilian  scientist was closer to this data than Hynek. (consultant to Air  Force UFO project for 20 years)   7   As far as Dr. McDonald himself is concerned, the only thing I can  see that he was guilty of was of possibly being a poor politician.
In approaching the National Academy of Sciences by attacking them,  instead of taking the slower route of trying to befriend some of  them, he put himself in a position that was doomed to failure.
(Jan Aldrich says I am incorrect on this, McDonald was extremely
polite and followed protocol as far as he was able, but his
in-depth research had him convinced they just had to look at this
whole UFO thing a little more closely.)


Skeptics have said, a person who is insincere in his views on UFOs 
and that wants to "reap the whirlwind," so to speak, in the UFO
field generally figures out a way to get to the media so they will
pick up his bogus information and sell it for him.  Dr. McDonald
did not fit this profile. The people he was trying to convince were
other scientists.  It is obvious to this researcher that he was
sincere in his beliefs.  Both Walter Webb (Astronomer) and Jan Aldrich 
(Project 1947), whom I previously mentioned, basically echoed the following concerning a visit McDonald made to Hynek:
"Fresh from a visit to Blue Book, an angry McDonald
descended upon Hynek and pounded on his desk.  Allen told
me McDonald had accused him of sitting on the data all
these years without letting the scientific community know
about the impressive cases buried in Air Force files.
Though Allen tried to explain the difficult position he
was in, McDonald would have none of it.  At the same time
Hynek said he felt a great sense of relief because
finally here was another scientist who actually took the
UFO problem seriously."  8

As we had seen Hynek had done, McDonald, too, was putting his 
career on the line. If you are wondering what McDonald's 
credentials were at the time, I offer both the following quote 
from Val Germann regarding McDonald's criticism of the scientific 
community in regards to the UFO topic, and his listing of 
McDonald's credentials.  9
"....McDonald was a scourge of the complacent ufologists
of his day.  He blasted the Air Force, Hynek, Menzel,
Condon and anyone else doing a second-rate job in the UFO
arena.  He was a first-rate intellect and a world- famous
atmospheric scientist, this last very important since
UFOs are mainly reported in the atmosphere, not in outer
space.  This put the astronomers (Hynek & Menzel) on the
spot when they tried to challenge McDonald.  You see, he
was *in* his field, *they* were *not*.  This would often 
cause Menzel acute embarrassment."

Biographical Information: Dr. James E. McDonald
as of July 1968 (by Val Germann)

Born: Duluth, Minnesota, May 7, 1920.
B.A., Chemistry, University of Omaha, 1942.
M.A., Meteorology, M.I.T., 1945.
Ph.D., Physics, Iowa State University, 1951.
U.S. Navy, Intelligence & aerology, 1942-45.
Instructor, Physics, Iowa State University, 1946-49.
Assistant Professor, Physics, Iowa State University, 1950-53.
Research Physicist, Cloud Physics, Univ. of Chicago, 1953-54.
Associate Prof., Physics, Univ. of Arizona, 1954-56.
Full Professor,, Physics, Univ. of Arizona, 1956-57.
Senior Physicist, Inst. of Atmospheric Studies, 1958 - present.
Member, Weather Modification Panel, NAS, 1965 - present.
Member, Navy Stormfury Advisory Panel, 1966 - present.
Member, NSF Weather Modification Panel, 1967 - present.
Member, AAAS, American Meteorological Society, Sigma Xi, American
Geophysical Society, American Society of University Professors.
Married, Six Children.
Is Germann's comment accurate regarding Menzel & Hynek?  Here is a 
quote from Hynek, from his own book "The UFO Experience:"  10
" ... Harvard astronomy professor Dr. Menzel, who 
took a seemingly compulsive interest in the flying
saucer question, even though this subject was far
removed from his scientific field.  He loudly 
proclaimed UFOs were nonsense and particularly
championed the "mirage theory" of flying saucers.
He ascribed properties to mirages, and mirage
properties to UFOs, which have since been shown to
be completely untenable
, even by the air force
itself." 11
  J.C.    This is not to infer anything disparaging concerning Dr.  Menzel's other scientific endeavors which I am sure, as per his  reputation, were highly respected.  However, when it came to  pronouncements concerning UFOs, his comments left much to be  desired.

JC Addendum:

Other scientists have leaned on Menzel's reputation, 
taking his stance in regard to UFOs without closely examining all 
available case facts in some of them.  With cases on record, such 
as those mentioned herein, it is not unreasonable for people to 
have begun wondering what was in the particular craft seen.
Cases revealed by FOIA requests and lawsuits have proven that 
various branches of our government have communicated both 
internally and amongst each other regarding cases such as the 
previously mentioned 1975 SAC base visitations.   Some of those 
communications described those 1975 visitations in which craft of 
some type apparently hovered over atomic missile silos and storage 
areas of several SAC bases, and could not be apprehended.  12    
This obviously indicates intelligent guidance of some sort and our 
inability to deal with it. (You really can't blame our Air Force 
for not telling us.  Anyone remember the Orsen Wells "War of the 
Worlds" broadcast?  If that was any general indication of how 
people might react to an announcement of this sort, it most 
probably is not too advisable to scream this too loudly or 
incessantly to everyone.)
Also briefly discussed in a prior post, the Belgium Air Force 
1989/90 NATO cases documented a craft which played a cat & mouse 
game with F-16s for *seventy five* minutes and *forty G* 
accelerations which would have killed a human pilot, recorded on 
gun cameras and observed by "a great number of witnesses, among 
them *twenty* national policemen who saw both the object and the 
F-16s."  Prior to scrambling the F-16s, "headquarters had 
determined to do some very precise studies during the next *fifty 
five* minutes to eliminate the possibility of prosaic explanations 
for the radar images.  Excellent atmospheric conditions prevailed, 
and there was no possibility of false echoes due to temperature 
inversions."  13    The cases detailed herein certainly lend 
credence to the Belgium incident(s).  Since Air Force claims that 
most UFOs have been explained were "blown away" by Hynek's 1972 
book, cases such as these are remarkable, undeniable data to be 
added to the entire picture before us.
jc 10/18/2008: We can now add to that the testimony, November 2007 at the Washington
Press Club, Washington D.C., USA, of now Major General, retired Wilfried De Brouwer,
Deputy Chief of Staff at the time of those sightings, concerning that incident. (pdf viewer
  Furthermore, (and I am not happy saying this) with military cases such as these on record, it certainly would behoove the human race to take a really close look at "animal mutilation cases" and claimed "abduction" cases.  Although a great percentage of the abduction claims most certainly could be hoaxes or psychological aberrations, and a percentage of the "mutilation" cases may be attributed to natural predators, etc., the data displayed herein demonstrates it most certainly is not impossible there may be a core of them that exists that could be the "real" thing.  We certainly have a core of "real UFO" cases.  To not examine these other type cases carefully would be to ignore what may very well be related, documented evidence that has been accumulating over the years and might well be the most foolish thing mankind has ever done.  To have main-stream scientists scoffing at these without examining them _thoroughly_, is obviously ill-advised.  "Some" of the people reporting these things may not be as crazy as certain scientists and newscasters, who are unaware of the quality and quantity of this documentation, would have us believe.

One final question to all skeptics who have read these essays & documentation
to this point thus far:

Are you honestly all as positive as you were before reading them,
that Gordon Cooper was not telling the truth about what he saw?
Remember, the date of Cooper's claimed landing at Edwards AFB was
May 3rd, 1957 (as per Mr. Oberg), six months prior to the Kirtland
case which occurred November 4th of the same year.
In correspondence with Jan Aldrich from Project 1947, dedicated to 
researching available information from cases 1947 on, I discovered
that my estimate was wrong and that my three prime cases were mere 
hours apart rather than the days or so apart I originally thought.
Is it just possible that the following quote attributed to Dr. 
Hynek by Mr. Oberg, may have been a totally valid criticism of the 
BBC's "The Case of the UFOs"?
Oberg ¶ 21      In late 1982, Dr. J. Allen Hynek blasted
the British Broadcasting Corporation for its production
of "The Case of the UFOs" (aired in the US on NOVA in
October 1982) for avoiding any mention of Gordon
Cooper's UFO experiences, which Hynek clearly portrayed
as genuine and unsolvable.
And, considering the information Hynek had appraised us regarding 
Project Blue Book, some of the excellent overlooked cases therein 
and the statistical "travesty" perpetrated by that project, is it 
really so difficult for us to understand why Dr. James McDonald 
did not accept the Air Force's "weather balloon" explanation 
(Oberg ¶ 50) for the 1957 Edwards AFB case?  Below is a portion of 
the argument given to convince us of the case against Cooper's 
Edwards AFB UFO claim and McDonald.
Oberg ¶ 51       But oddly enough, even though the 
original sighting was published in numerous newspapers
(and made national wire services), the explanation was
written up in no newspaper that I have been able to find.
Nor did the pro- UFO McDonald (who hardly could have
failed to be aware of it, since he had been sent the same
material by Gettys) mention it before the congressional
committee. Of course, the explanation "weather balloon"
elicits snickers of disbelief from anybody familiar with 
how the term was over-used for other cases. . . . .
Respectfully, Mr. Oberg, it certainly does.

jc	7/21/2009 Addendum: The Air Force was also using "the planet Venus" 
as an explanation for impossible-to-solve cases. Click HERE for a prime example
of this in another McDonald-investigated case which occurred April 1966.

Footnotes to "Oberg/Cooper rebuttal.7abc:"

1 (Germannvh) . alt.paranet.ufo . "Yet 
More McDonald -- 1/6" . 21 Dec 1995
2       posted on Usenet newsgroup "alt.paranet.ufo" : also to be 
posted on WWW TUFOP (The Ultimate UFO Page) at
3       Newsday, (L.I. Newspaper) . Wednesday 11/6/57 . "CG Ship 
Sights Weird Object Off Louisiana" : Newsday, (L.I. Newspaper) . 
Wednesday 11/6/57 . "Flying Something Still Unidentified"
4       From an address given by McDonald, James E., Professor of 
Atmospheric Sciences, to the American Association For The 
Advancement Of Science (AAAS) at Sheraton Plaza Ballroom, Arizona 
12/27/69 . 134th Meeting, Symposium, Unidentified Flying Objects . 
Subject: Science in Default; 22 years
5       Ibid #4 : also, case # 19-X, 361-B located in Condon, 
Edward U. "Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects", 
1/8/69 . New York Times Book
6       Ibid #2 . Germann, Val . McDonald, Dr. James E. .  address 
to the AAAS UFO Symposium, Boston, Dec. 27, 1969.
7       Hynek, J. Allen "The UFO Experience" Henry Regnery Company 
1972, appendix 4 (Excerpt of a Letter from J. Allen Hynek to 
Colonel Raymond S. Sleeper) : Cohen, R.J., WITH  RESPECT  TO  DR.  
HYNEK.3 - "The UFO Experience" & "Blue Book" . NET POST TUFOP :
8       Webb, Walter N . (Charles Hayden Planetarium, Boston) . 
Center for UFO Studies "International Reporter" 1/93 . "Allen 
Hynek as I Knew Him". p9 "The Later Years" . col. 1. last 
paragraph & col 2 : Jan Aldrich, Project 1947 . Letter exchange with
Jerry Cohen, CohenUFO, 9       Germann, Val . (Germannvh) . "Yet More  McDonald -- 1/6" . alt.paranet.ufo . 12/21/95 . "Dr. James E.  McDonald  --  What Might Have Been - 1/6" 10       Hynek, J. Allen "The UFO Experience" Henry Regnery  Company 1972 . Chapt. 11 "The Air Force  and the UFO - Pages from  Blue Book" . paragraph 18 11      Menkello, F. G. "Quantitative Aspects of Mirages,"  Report  No. 6112, Menkello is a first lieutenant, USAF, Environmental  Technical Applications Center.  "It is easy to show that the 'air  lenses' and 'strong inversions' postulated by Gordon and Menzel,  among others, would need temperatures of several thousand degrees  Kelvin in order to cause the mirages attributed to them." 12      Newsday (Long Island newspaper) . Fri 1/19/79 . UFOs Seen  at Air Bases in 1975 : Fawcett, L. & Greenwood, B. "The UFO Cover- up" Simon & Schuster Fireside Book 1992 : Gersten, Peter (FOIA  lawyer) . Frontiers of Science . May/June 1981 . "What the U.S.  Government Knows About Unidentified Flying Objects" 13      CUFOS Journal (International UFO Reporter) . July/Aug 1990  . "Remarkable military encounter in Belgium" : also detailed in an  "Unsolved Mysteries" television episode narrated by Robert Stack  complete with Belgium military gun camera documentation and  statements by Belgium Air Force personnel and police.

Oberg/Cooper rebuttal.7c
McDonald comments re: Kirtland & the Colorado Study
Hynek comments re: Menzel
(part 3 of 3)
End: O/C rebuttal

Respectfully submitted,
Jerry Cohen


To: 1997 Gordon Cooper National Enquirer Article

Return 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)