UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1997 > Oct > Oct 3

Greenwood's UFO Survey

From: jan@cyberzone.net (Jan Aldrich)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 15:37:39 -0700
Fwd Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 23:34:24 -0400
Subject: Greenwood's UFO Survey

Since I have asked others to fill this out, here are my
answers to the survey.  If you don't agree or if you
have better answers, don't bother arguing with me.  Fill
out your survey and send it to Greenwood.

Thank you.

Jan Aldrich

Jan Aldrich wrote:

> Greetings List Members

> Barry Greenwood would like to do an survey of knowledgeable
> UFO researchers.

> If you wish, you may post your answers to this list, or send
> them to me, or answer anonymously by mailing your
> questionaire to:

> CAUS
> P. O. Box 176
> Stoneham, MA 02180

> You may simply answer yes or no, or include a few words or
> long essay with your opinions.  It will be of great interest
> to see if there is a common consensus on the important UFO
> cases.

> Please indicate what E-Mail list you are on:
All

> Project 1947    Currently Encounters   UFO Updates
> Other list (please indicate list)

> [Other lists, please feel free to cross-post.]

> Questions:

> I.  Please list the ten most important UFO cases.  Please
> list cases by date and location.  If you wish, you may also
> tell why they are important.

First, as I told Barry, I do not agree with this type of
argument that we have a few cases that establish something.
I do not see ufology as turning on any "critical evidence."
I believe that the preponderance of evidence indicate
something unusual is going on.

The biggest mistake Roy Craig made ever made was to advise
Condon not to look at McDonald's Top 20 Evidential Cases. "If
we shot these down, he will just bring us 20 more."   Exactly,
it is called science.

What Craig turned down was the best conservation measures for
the project's limited time and resources.  Instead of having to
look through huge amounts of raw to find possible interesting
material, here was a first rate physical scientist who was handing
the Condon committee on a silver platter the data the needed to
deal with the problem.

Craig's quick-reaction investigation team idea was excellent,
the early warning network was good, the field equipment kit was
excellent.  His execution of field investigations was poor.
Why?  They had no filter to decide which cases were worth a
special trip and which should be ignored.  Craig's rather
lame argue that you might miss a good case is hogwash.

You set up certain criteria that a case has to meet before
you conduct a field investigation.  Sure you may miss some
good ones.  You must constantly re-adjust your citeria from
experience factors.  If you read Craig's book, you will see
that this has not occurred to him in the last almost 30
years.

The 4602d Air Intelligence Service Squadron files are full of
cases that were easy to explain.  Just calculate the location
of Venus, or check with the local weather station for balloon
releases.  When they did get an amazing case, instead of
investigating, they wrote it off as overactive imagination or
psychological.

Good cases are rare.  Scientists and other who have to plow
through a whelter of IFO could easily conclude there is nothing
there.  I personally worked on a particle physics experiment.
Over 95% of the events were thrown out because they had no
meaningful information or if they had particle events, they
were not relevant to the study.  No one came and said the
experiment was flawed because most of the data was useless.
It wasn't even mentioned.

This was an experiment under controled conditions.  How much
data can you expect to be relevant when the raw data comes
from chance observations?!?  But the obsession of the USAF,
CIA, MOD, Battelle, and numerous scientists with the percent of
unexplained from small nonrepresentative samples is completely
ridiculous.  I didn't do too well with statistic, but I can say
this: that kind of reasoning is off the wall and has nothing at
all to do with science.

That said, here are my ten important cases not in order of
priority:

     1.  August 1947, Twin Fall, ID,  Trees were swaying as the
object passed over them.  One of several of the same kind of
cases in  less than a five month period.  Hynek's explanation
of "atmospheric eddy" is laughable.  The Battelle scientists
evaluated it as unknown.  Hynek in his re-evaluation of USAF
cases disgarded his explanation.  The FBI gave the main witness a
good recommendation.  Unknown to the investigators was that the
witness was well-known in the Northwest.  Two other newspapers
outside of Idaho vouched for the main witness' integrity.

    2.  July 10, 1947 Newfoundland, the cloud-cleaver.  This
may have been a meteor as Hynek suggested, but it was one
that should have been brought to the attention of the
scientific community.  There are photographs of this phenomenon.

    3.  The twin sightings of Oloron College and Gaillac, France
represent a truly strange and rare phenomenon.  The phenomenon
continues to this day as The UFO Evidence, Volume II will
hopefully demonstrate.  Keyhoe had some original accounts of
these twin sightings in his papers.

    4.  The Leveland series.  Maybe this is a something that
shows up once every ten years as a rare natural phenomenon
or maybe it was something even more unique.  Menzel, Keyhoe,
Hynek and USAF were not helpful here at all.  Except for Hynek
each talked about their particular belief system before they
even investigated the phenomenon.  Hynek's request to the Air
Science Division Review again, did not did not recognize that
anything unusual was happening. He talked of "mass suggestion"
a cause of ignition stops.  Loren Gross has shown that there
was an increase in sightings starting before Levelland, but
Hynek talked about the flood of sightings after (and caused by)
Levelland.  There were many more sightings (unknown to the
USAF and the UFO organizations) in the newspapers and
especially more car-stalling accounts that exist only in the
old newspapers files.  The USAF should have tried to gather
double the troublesome 500 cases.  They might have got a hint
of what was going on.
>
    4.  Gulf of Mexico, December 1952.  The Air Force throw
everything in as answers to this case except the kitchen sink.
This is indeed an unusual case.  A Canadian radar expert after
reading Keyhoe's version, wrote to the Air Force to ask if such
a fantastic event had indeed occurred.  Keyhoe's melodramatic
version had made him doubtful.

     5.  Leominster, Massachusetts, 8 March 1967,  EME, close
approach, physiological effects.


     6.  Socorro, New Mexico, April 1964.  Hynek was only
allowed to check this one case.  There were a series of
similar cases within a short time and not too distant from
Socorro...

     7.  Nemingha, NSW, Australia, March 22,1976,  EME, trace,
light engulfment.

     8.  Atlanta, Missouri, 4 March 1969  EME and other effects.

    9.   Minneapolis, MN.  Oct 10-11, 1951, General Mills
scientists.

   10.  Shag Harbor.  Whatever this was, it is a good mystery.

> II.  Considering what has been done in the last 50 years,
> and the situation today, what should be the next step for
> ufology?

Unfortunately, scientific ufology about reached its peak in
late 1960s and early 1970s as far as scientific investigations.
There was a recovery in the mid-1980s.  There were also some
good guidelines laid down.  That effort collapsed, also.

It seems now ufology is constantly attracted to the highest
strangeness and most sensationalized cases.

Some UFO advocates now sound like lawyers.  They use of rhetorical
tricks, obfuscation, and appeals to emotions.  Fine for a court of
law.  Cicero may have been able to use his skills in the law courts
to get guilty murders off, however these skills have no use in
scientific inquiry.

Courts are not a place to search for truth.  Courts are arena of
controlled conflict where by social contract everyone agrees
to abide by the results right or wrong.

Once a ufologist starts saying, "you can't disprove this."
Red flags should go up.  That should be the end of the
argument.  It is the person making the claim that has to
prove the contentions.  James, Ed, and especially myself have
been sucked into this silly game of trying to prove a
negative.

The argument that the skeptics behave in the same way has no
weight here.  (BTW Many skeptics behave honorably and are even
sympathetically.)  I don't care about skeptics.  I am trying to
reform ufology not skepticism.  Ufologists should have a very
critical and skeptical attitude toward evidence.  Otherwise,
we get the emotional near feeding frenzy we find on the web
when someone reports NLs.  Ufologists should not need skeptics
or others to "keep them honest."

I think that CE II cases are the key to obtain good solid
evidence.  However, realistically, investigations of such
cases are not easy.  Considering where we are today, CE II cases
are probably the best entree to more scientific information and
improved understanding.  Dr. James McDonald thought that radar
cases were the most important evidence.  Unfortunately, the only
radar catatlogs I know of are The UFO Evidence and the Condon
report.  Most radar cases are woefully inadequate, missing
a lot of important information.

Ufology is a philosophy of science problem.  The Condon committee,
in its early meeting recognized this.  Their debates on this are
very interesting.  This question has never been adequately addressed.

How do you study things that seem to be involve chance
observation of a transient nature.  Hard, but not impossible.
Scientists who say they can't are like generals who can't mount
operations in the face of the enemy.

To paraphase Churchill concerning the Mulberries:  "Don't
tell me all the reasons it can't be done, just go and do it."

> III.  Government involvement in the UFO problem.

>       1.  Is there a government cover up or foul up?

>           Cover-up

>           Foul up

   I agree with James McDonald there is a foul-up and to a
certain extent a cover up of a foul up.  Saying that, McDonald
had a list of 100 "obfuscation cases" which indicated cover up.
However, the cover up idea has grown.  First, if we only got
the Project Blue Book files that would prove the existance of
high level knowledge about UFOs.  Then, the CIA were the ones.
However, sections in the OSI of the CIA handed the UFO problem
back and forth to one another and they didn't want to do anything
with it.

Government agencies have not been forthcoming with information
and have constantly been very non-cooperative and in many cases
have lied about their records on the subject.  I have been on the
inside and have sympathy for the pressures of the military
requirements.  However, if you have time and money to occupy
people full time in looking for Roswell records, you have the
time and money too follow the FOIA requirements or great rid of
the whole thing and put everything out there.


>           Other (please specify)

>       2.  To what exent is/are the government(s) involved:

>           A.  United States (everyone may answer this
> question):

>               Major involvement

>               Minor involvement

There is always a national security implication to things in the
skies.  At other times there may have been a major involvement.
>               Not Interested

>            B. If you are not a US resident, indicate country
> and government involvement:

>               Major involvement

>               Minor involvement

>               Not interested

> IV.  Abduction phenomenon.

>      1.  Is the abduction phenomenon part of the UFO problem?

>          Yes

>          No

>          Cannot determine at this time

I am unsure on this.  I think investigations of these things
are important and may lead to interesting findings.  However,
I do not think this should at this time be the center of
ufological attention.

>      2.  Is the study of the abductions important to
> understanding the ufo problem?

Unfortunately, the investigators of the abduction phenomena
are generally part of the problem and not part of the solution.
Dr. Bullard is the most credible and he is not a case
investigator per se.  A lot of investigators who are more
circumspect are probably doing better work.  I am appalled by
comments like,  "you can throw a rock and you will hit an
abductee," "do 'they' ask about me?"

>         Yes

>         No

>         Do not know

Research is important.  Again, the UFORC's approach is
probably the best if you feel something is happening here.


> V.  Paranormal phenomena

>     1.  Is the UFO phenomenon related to paranormal phenomena
> such as psi, ghost, fortean phenomena,  etc.?

>         Yes

>         No

NO!  I am surprised that scientist like Vallee proceeded down
this road.  This debate had already taken place in the 19th
century.  Huxley pretty well laid out the ground rules.  There
were phenomena and divine [or paranormal, if you wish]
manifestations.  Science is concerned with phenomena, the
divine [read also paranormal] may be very interesting, but
it is outside what is being looked at.  (A gross
oversimplification of Huxley's cogent and elegant arguments.)
Phenomena are in the physical world, and we can try to
understand and measure them.  The others are outside the
relam of understanding or study by the methods of science.
(Now, maybe psi is a mental phenomenon, and if so, it could
be studied.  But if Uri Geller can't bend certain spoons.
but can bend others, then something is wrong here.)


>         Cannot determine at this time

>     2.  Should the study of the paranormal be part of UFO
> studies?

>         Yes

>         No

No, it is a big distraction to the study of the problem.

>         Do not know

> IV.  The probably answer(s) to the UFO phenomenon is/are [you
> may choose more than one--if so, please indicate order of
> importance by "1st, 2nd, etc"]:

>         Extraterrestial
  I am unhappy that the word "UFOs" now equals ET space ships....
It should mean unidentified flying objects....just that.
>         Parallel universe

>         Time travelers

>         Little understood natural phenomenon/phenomena

2d.  Almost certainly there is something to this.  When I
first saw ball-lightning, the scientific consensus was that
it did not exist.  It would be useful to look at UFO reports
for "once in a decade/50 year/century phenomena."  It is
stupid not to look.  (But to a certain extent with all the
foolishness associated with the phenomenon it is understandable.)


>         Secret man-made phenomenon

>         Misidentification of man-made and natural phenomena
  3d I am not thinking about raw data here which contains
the majority of IFOs, but after filtering IFOs out, these will
still exist.

>         Psycho-sociological phenomenon/phenomena

  This area, for sure, is important!  I am appalled by
American ufology's obsessions with abductions and
crashed saucers.  I am equally appalled with the European's
obsession with the psycho-sociological explanation.
Americans don't give this area enough weight.  European have
ridden this like a hobby horse.  It is time to dismount from
the theories and beliefs and collect and compile better data.

>         Occult phenomenon/phenomena

This a post-modern world....every idea and opinion is
equal to any other idea and opinion....  No, we need to make
a break here and try to define the limits of ufology.
These things are outside.

>         Other (please specify)

>         Cannot determine at this time

  1st.  This is the same way I felt in 1959.  I have seen
nothing that has changed by mind.

> As you can see, this is not a survey that can be done in
> five minutes.  Please take your time.

> Thank you, the results will be posted to the lists and in
> JUST CAUSE.

--
Jan Aldrich
Project 1947
http://www.iufog.org/project1947/



Search for other documents from or mentioning: jan

[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com