This
week I talked with an old UFO investigating and writing partner, Robert Charles
Cornett, sometimes known as RC Squared. We talked about our research trip to
Maxwell Air Force Base in the mid-1970s after we had learned that the Project
Blue Book files were there and open for public scrutiny. We might have been the
first UFO researchers to look through the files at Maxwell, which eventually
were sent on to the National Archives and were then heavily redacted before the
public was again allowed to view them. You can listen to the discussion here:
One
of the cases we talked about was the Kinross disappearance of 1953. I mentioned
that I had talked with an Air Force officer who had been there at the time. He
told me that there had been two schools of thought. One was that the fighter
had crashed into the lake and the other was that “it” took the plane. It being
the UFO. The plane has never been found.
We
also talked about our investigations into cattle mutilations in that same time
frame. I did mention some of the things that I had learned in the last decade
or so about some of those mutilations including my discussion with Jefferson
Davis in Wisconsin. You can read some of
my thoughts about cattle mutilations here:
For
those interested in those sorts of things, we did talk, briefly, about writing,
and editors and that sort of behind the scenes thing. There wasn’t much about
it, but just a bit of an aside look into how publishing operated thirty years
ago.
Next
week, I’ll interview John Greenewald about all the ins and outs of the To the
Stars Academy, Lue Elizondo, and the metametal they’re all excited about. If
you have questions, put them in the comments section and I’ll try to get
answers during the program.
7 comments:
This interview was somewhat sad. A couple of UFO experts who seem like they never got enough evidence despite all the decades of work to find this evidence. Its sort of like Edison never finding the filament that worked for the light bulb. Come on guys! Is it really that you need evidence to convince everyone else or is it evidence to convince yourselves? Statements in the program that there will always be unknowns because we have lack of complete information kind of point to the futility of it all. Is it the hunt that was what it was all about? Or the interesting people you meet? Depending on others for data seems to be the primary problem. This is why is seems the only course of action is independent data collecting facilities (non governmental) rather than more witness reports. Ray Stanford had it right with Project Starlight International. Others seem to be trying this approach but with curious difficulties and lack of results.
How involved did the FBI become with investigating ‘UFO’ subjects ?
Did the CIA and other ‘intelligence agencies’ work through certain individuals in the Pentagon with funneling cases to FBI?
What agencies were involved with Maury Island incident ?
Moonman -
The point is that the evidence available, while interesting, while persuasive, is not conclusive. The point is that there will always be unidentified sightings, but that does not lead to the extraterrestrial.
Mouseonmoon -
Almost from the moment that Kenneth Arnold saw the nine objects, the FBI was involved. The Army wanted the FBI assistance in investigating the backgrounds of the witnesses. Hoover, however, wanted access to more information than that.
Maury Island was a hoax... It appears the main investigators were Kenneth Arnold, airline captain E. J. Smith and officers from the Fourth Air Force.
Thank you,
Especially interested in “redacted” files ( overall) - has information from 50/60s been released
that helps deal with the ’smoke and mirrors’ ?
Did the FBI investigate NICAP members ?
Why would the FBI want more info (re Arnold’s sighting)?
Also always wondered about the motivation of the Maury Island hoax ?
Does the vault have many files on this case ( Crisman etc) ?
thanks again,
looking forward to the interview - try to get him to do 4 hours !
Kevin: "The point is that the evidence available, while interesting, while persuasive, is not conclusive. The point is that there will always be unidentified sightings, but that does not lead to the extraterrestrial."
Then, for gosh sakes, can we finally drop the ancient "cases" and new "cases" and do some proactive UFO remote sensing? As we have seen no amount of landing traces, radar, pics/videos, multiple witnesses is going to be enough to "prove" these UFOs are ETs. Even the TicTac stuff is questionable since we have no Earthly idea why they are letting this groundshaking data out to the public and essentially admitting we are all sitting ducks. And since when do we trust the government?
Can you please interview Ray Stanford, Chris O'Brien, Doug Trumbull (UFOTOG), or Erling Strand (Project Hessdalen)? Stanford and Strand got hard data from their projects. ET? Hard to say unless you track it to outer space eh? Stanford has largely not published his PSI work but I got to say I like his spirit when he fired a laser at a UFO and recorded some interesting data. But he is not a scientist so he could not be expected to follow the rule book. And I keep reading weird stuff on Hessdalen implying some "intelligence" (I don't mean military). As for the other two guys, just apocryphal reports so far or works in progress.
Moonman -
As I mentioned, I have interviewed Ray Stanford and you can find a link by typing his name in the search engine on the blog...
Have talked to Chris O'Brien, who asked me to explain the lack of copper in the blood of alleged mutilated animals... and I found several terrestrial explanations for that.
I have been around this field for a very long time and have talked to a large number of people directly involved in sightings, research and other aspects...
The point is that there are some very strange cases (Levelland, Roswell, Coyne) but when all is said and done, there is not the proof positive that we need to leap to the extraterrestrial. Most of that is the fault of the way the investigations were carried out. In Levelland, Don Keyhoe and the Air Force were arguing about the number of witnesses, rather than actually collecting evidence. I suspect had the investigation been conducted properly, we'd be having a completely difference conversation.
I know that the analysis of the Coyne case by Philip Klass is deeply flawed because he knew nothing about Army helicopter procedures, and the guy he talked to didn't know them either.
But again, we simply do not have that all conclusive proof, which isn't to say that it doesn't exist, only that we in the civilian as opposed to governmental world don't have it.
Thanks for letting me know about the Stanford interview. I bet I had even heard it but forgot! I will listen again.
Just because Chris mentioned the missing copper and you found some good possible rationale does not mean he does not get brownie points for attempting to use some nice state of art tracking, recording, data collection. He is a lot like Stanford in a way in that he has some hard to accept data, opinions, analysis, but sometimes he has some good stuff that shows he is not crazy. Look at Stanford's dinosaur work. An amateur, but he runs circles around scientists. Chris' magnum opus on cattle mutilation is similar.
I do not think post-sighting investigation of cases in the past or present or future will ever answer anything. You need to be proactive. Collecting evidence at Levelland seems like it would be either hushed up or messed up or apocryphal. That's how it always has been.
Post a Comment