the other day I was reading a book about SETI and the author committed the
error of appealing to an authority… which means he didn’t have a good argument
other than to say that these prestigious people and organizations have weighed
in and they say UFO phenomenon is all hogwash.
I know you’re confused so I’ll expand. He was writing about UFOs, which, if
you’re going to discuss SETI you need to address, even if it is to dismiss the
idea of alien visitation. He wrote that the Air Force began to study the
problem with Project Blue Book in the 1950s and then with the University of
Colorado study now known as the Condon Committee which ended official research.
the fact that the Air Force investigation began in January 1948 (officially), and
had the name changed a couple of times until they settled on Blue Book in the
1950s, anyone who has reviewed these files find them filled with inaccuracy,
half-truth, smears of witnesses, explanations that are completely wrong
(Portage County UFO chase began with the sighting of a satellite that,
according to all records including those in the Blue Book files proved were not
visible at the time) to documentation showing exactly what the mission evolved
into and it wasn’t investigation of UFOs. To suggest that the Air Force
investigated and found there was nothing important in the sightings was to miss
the point. The real point of the Air Force investigation was to ensure that
National Security was not compromised. It did not prove there was nothing important
to UFO sightings and that nothing important would be learned by continued
is documentation that shows the Condon Committee was a put up job. Condon had
the conclusions written a year and a half before the end of the project. Those
conclusions did not match the information contained in the research and in one
case they “identified” the UFO as a phenomenon so rare it had never been seen
before or since. If nothing else, the various investigations conducted by the
Condon scientists suggested that something of scientific value could be learned
through additional research.
the real point. The author of the book shouldn’t have dismissed UFOs for the
reasons he cited. They are not valid. Had he looked into the UFO phenomenon himself,
studied a few of the cases, and determined through that investigation that UFOs
have nothing to do with SETI is one thing. To reject it because of the
obviously biased research of someone else is something else.
you want to know what should be done. Easy. The SETI crowd should conduct an
investigation into UFOs and decide for themselves if there is anything of value
in the reports. They may well decide UFOs will provide nothing to further their
research, but they shouldn’t allow the biased research color their thinking.
There are other studies that have concluded the opposite.
something that I have been thinking about for a while. Scott Ramsey and I
debated the reality of the Aztec UFO. One of the witnesses to part of the story
was a fellow named Bass who was nicknamed Sam. He reportedly knew something
about the case but we couldn’t interview because he had been killed in a
traffic accident in Vietnam. I mentioned that this name didn’t appear on the
Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, D.C., though they had tried to
identify everyone who died there whether from combat, sickness or accident. In
fact, they included the names of those who had been wounded, injured or fell
ill in Vietnam but died outside the country.
man’s name does not appear on the memorial.
suggested this was a problem for the tale he told but Ramsey said that the sites
that listed all the names of the dead said that they tried to get everyone, but
they might have missed a name or two. It was through this door that Ramsey
asked if he had the serial number of Bass, and Ramsey said that he did. I told
him with that information we could get his service record and learn the truth.
I volunteered to do it, but Ramsey would not supply the number. I told Ramsay
how to secure the military record and as far as I know he has not done so.
where I am on this. If Bass was killed in Vietnam, he should be recognized for
that service and his name should be added to the Wall. That has been done a
couple of times. The documentation in Bass’ military records would provide the
proof that he served in Vietnam and died in a traffic accident there.
goes beyond the reality of the Aztec UFO crash. This is something that should
be done for a man who served and died. His name should be added to the wall,
and all that must be done is a simple records check from the NARA archives in
St. Louis. It takes several weeks to get a response (they receive thousands of
requests each week) but they would provide the information that he had served
in Vietnam and that he had died there. I think it is something that should be
done for the man and really has little to do with the Aztec UFO crash.
is, if he existed and this is the right guy. So, the question really is, “Why
hasn’t Ramsey sought this information, and once he had it, why hasn’t he
released it?” That would bolster his case and provide the man the recognition
in your court, Scott… let us know what you learn.
find that sometimes, if I pose a question here, someone out there has an
answer. I have said for a very long time that there are only two conclusions to
be drawn about the pictures taken in McMinnville, Oregon. They either show a
craft from another world, or they are a hoax. I do not see a third possibility
given the clarity of the photographs, the features of the object, and the state
of our research and development of aircraft in 1950.
Klass believed the photographs to be a hoax and research and analysis on the
photographs suggested to Robert Sheaffer that the pictures were taken in the
morning rather than the evening as claimed and they were taken in a different
order than claimed. They believe that if the Trents lied about the time of day
when the pictures were taken, then they probably lied about other aspects of
the case, and that suggests hoax. If they are correct in their analysis, I
would have to agree with them… if they are correct.
today’s world, is there a way to resolve this?
but it depends on a couple of things. First, we have to locate the original
negatives which I understand are now in the possession of MUFON. If true, all
we need is for someone to look at them, which I hope this will inspire them to
we have to hope that the negatives were numbered at the time they were
developed. As we all know, 35 mm film, for example, is numbered, which would
allow us to establish the sequence in which the pictures were taken. This was
not a 35 mm camera but one that took a roll of film that was loaded into the
camera by hand in a dark room. But if that film had numbers on it, or if the
negatives are numbered, then we can determine the sequence in which the
pictures were taken.
we can do that, if there are numbers on the film, we can answer the question but
I find nothing on the Internet to suggest that this has been done. I believe it
is because most of those who studied the photographs were working from prints
or copy negatives and the numbering sequence wasn’t important information
during those earlier investigations… or it might just mean they weren’t
numbered in which case we’re back to square one.
they are numbered, however, that will either confirm or refute part of Sheaffer’s
analysis by telling us in what order the pictures were taken. If they were
taken in the sequence given by the Trents, then it is one more bit of evidence
of authenticity. If they were taken in the order that Sheaffer suggested, then
it is evidence that the Trents faked the whole thing. Either way, we learn
something new about the photographs and that advances our understanding of the
situation. I just can’t believe that someone has yet to do this.
Robert Sheaffer tells me that his original calculations came from prints that
Philip Klass had supplied but in 1976 he, and Bruce Maccabee, made a study from
the original negatives that Maccabee had retrieved. Sheaffer wrote that he didn’t
remember seeing numbers on the negatives and that scans of those prints were
available at http://debunker.com/trent.html.
This doesn’t completely resolve the issue but suggests that there may be no
numbers on the negatives. I have yet to hear from Bruce Maccabee.)
(Update No. 2: I have received information that the film manufactured in the 1960s did not have numbers on it. I will assume from this, that this type of film from 1950 would not have numbers either. It was suggested that if the negatives are matched, meaning that they were usually hand trimmed so that the cuts wouldn't be perfect, it might be possible to deduce the order in which the photographs were taken.)