Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The original UFO conspiracy nuts

  1. Jan 27, 2004 #1

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The original UFO conspiracy "nuts"

    Dr. Marcus Bach......State University of Iowa
    Rev. A1bert Baller......Robbins Memorial Church
    Dr. Earl Douglas......Religious Writer & Columnist
    Frank Edwards......Radio/TV Commentator
    Colonel Robert B.Emerson......USAR
    Major Dewey Fournet......USAFR, Former AF HQ Monitor to Blue Book
    Mr. J.B. Hartranft, Jr.......President, AOPA (Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association)
    Admiral R.H. Hillenkoetter......USN, Ret., Former Director of the CIA
    Rear-Admiral H.B. Knowles......USN, Ret.
    Professor Charles A. Maney......Defiance College


    Walter N. Webb......Lecturer, Charles Hayden Planetarium
    Jack Brotzman......Physicist (electronics), Naval Research Laboratory
    Frank G. Rawlinson.......Physicist, NASA
    Dr. Leslie K. Kaeburn......Biophysicist, University of Southern Califcrnia
    Dr. Robert L. Hall......Social Psychologist & Assistant Professor, University of Minnesota
    Prof. N.N. Kohanowski......Geologist & Mining Engineer, University of North Dakota
    Morton Gerla......Aviation Ordnance, Past Director N.Y.Chapter, American Rocket Society
    Robert Beck......Color Control Co., Electronics, Optics & Photography
    Ralph D. Mayher......News Photographer, Station KYW, Cleveland, OH
    James C. Beatty......Public Relations, Civil Defense
    Dr. James C. Bartlett......Astronomer
    Mr. Norman S. Bean......Director of Engineering Development.
    Captain C.S. Chiles......Eastern Airlines
    Mr. Albert M. Chop......Former AF Public Information Official on UFOs, OPI/DOD
    Mr. A.L. Cochran......Electronics Engineer
    Mr. Lou Corbin......Former Lieutenant Colonel, Army Intelligence
    Mr. Samuel Freeman......Past President, National Aviations Trades Association
    Mr. Frank Halstead......Astronomer, Former Curator of Darling Observatory
    Capt. R.B. McLaughlin......USN, C.O., Naval Ordnance Laboratory
    Captain W.B. Nash......Pan American Airways
    W/O Delbert C. Newhouse......USN, Chief Photographer of Aviation
    First Officer W.R. Peters......Pan American World Airways
    Mr. Wilbert B. Smith......Electronics Engineer & Former Chief of the Canadian Government's UFO Project Magnet
    Mr. Kenneth B. Steinmetz......Amateur Astronomer, Head of Denver "MOONWATCH"
    Mr. George Todt......Columnist & Public Relations Council

  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 29, 2004 #2
    have a list here that includes 3 Admirals on original Board of Governors-
    Rear Adm. Delmar Fahrney ("father of the guided missle"),and
    Rear Adm. H.B. Knowles (sub commander) plus Hillenkoetter.
    (Keyhoe was Marine-Annopolis) also a Rev. Leon C. Le Van.

    checked the site-don't understand how Fahrney could have been left out! This was Keyhoe's major source for the Navy 'sightings'....notice that there are
    in fact 3 Navy Admiral's here!...and notice the lack of Air Force boys except Fournet (original BB who had prepared the 'best cases' from the files for the CIA sponsered Robertsons Panel (Jan 1953))....he knew what Ruppelt knew-gave access to Key....

    It's quite significant--the AF was in 'control' and 'claming up'-no talk rules etc....the Navy was very 'loose' about all this, why?...the responsibility 'for the skies' was AF.
    Another 'fact' is the rivalry between Navy and AF (new kids on the block vs the Navy, since the Revolution....it's heavy-in depth and serious,personal....funding:more Aircraft carriers and 'first-strike' cover for the Marines (the debate still rages today-all we need are the 'fly-boys'....opposed- only troops on the ground can 'contol' the 'sit'....there's 'tradition' here as strong as North-South and more; who controls "the Bomb"(nuclear funding), missles etc....)

    AF interrogates Navy fliers and tells them to 'say nothing to nobody'.....it doesn't go down well.....Oct 26th 1956 two Navy planes collided chasing UFOs near Okinawa-1 rescued, 1 died..
    you guys are in charge-what the H is going on and on and on...

    Keyhoe was a non-stop pit-bull critic of AF....
    Dec 1949 article in True Magazine, "The Flying Saucers Are Real"=the AF knows they're 'alien' and are afriad the population will 'panic'.It's a flat out 'cover-up' ....

    This is 'it' in a 'nutshell'....this is Keyhoe's 'personal mission'.

    "Hilly" makes some remarkable statements about his 'beliefs'--so Key 'brings him on-board'==but H is CIA-in a big way....is this all a ploy?

    Admiral Fahrney at the press conference announceing the 'new formation' of NICAP (the founder had resigned-Townsend Brown-Jan 57, Keyhoe becomes new director), the Adm pulls no punches:

    "Reliable reports indicate there are objects coming into our atmosphere at very high speeds and controlled by thinking intelligences."

    Goes on to say folks are P'd with the AF-and so are they--therefore, start reporting to us.....
    slap in the face, and the AF responds:nothing to it=we're in 'control', but if ya got something let us know.....to repeat: the Navy guys "knew" this was BS,same as you'll
    know if you read Ruppelt--the 'real' cases weren't even going to Blue Book--this was all a 'public relations' front......

    as a number of writers have noted=esp Vallee-there's some strange goings on from the beginning of NICAP.....

    Some of the 'ex-CIA" boys were; Count Nicolas de Rochefort
    first Vice -chairman of NICAP (Russian, scriptwriter for Voice of
    America=and with 'psychological' warfare staff in CIA)
    2. Bernard J.Carvalho-CIA fronted 'business'...
    3. Col. Joseph Bryan, (Chief of Psych War Staff and the Count's
    'boss', joined in 1960).
    4.Karl Pflock-briefing officer

    Col. Bryan is the guy responsible for getting Keyhoe 'removed' as director
    Dec 3rd 1969
    John Acuff becomes director(head of Society of Photographic
    Scientists and Engineers-some CIA connection),there's more-
    but NICAP is all downhill from here-the 'cover' is on tight.

    What's the point?......

    this was 'serious' stuff....military reports from the most sensitive
    nerve centers of our defense system---all of a sudden----nothing about 'little green men' and 'alien probes' here....."unknowns" doing the impossibe......what were they?

    AF balloons and pelicans?---give me a break!!
  4. Oct 5, 2007 #3
    why do you refer to these people as nuts

    I dont know why you are reffering to people who have seen or have evidence of ufo's as nuts but I would refer to you as unscientific.

    [insults deleted]

    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 5, 2007
  5. Oct 5, 2007 #4

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    It was intended to be sarcastic, which is why "nuts" is in quotes.
  6. Oct 5, 2007 #5


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Yup. One of the most ardent UFO "nuts" I have ever known was also one of the most scary-smart people I have ever known, and he held top-level security clearances all through the cold war. I have an idea what his specialty involved due to the places where his expertise was needed, but he could never discuss his work as it remains classified. His sons are close friends of mine and they don't know any more than I do about their father's work.
  7. Oct 5, 2007 #6


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Any one that thinks UFOs are nuts is nuts, there has been to many reports to just ignore them, i do not care if they are proven to be optical illusions, figments of the mind or what ever, just prove them one way or tother.
  8. Oct 6, 2007 #7


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The existence of UFO's is not an issue, just the interpretations, Wolram.
  9. Oct 6, 2007 #8

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Last edited by a moderator: May 3, 2017
  10. Oct 6, 2007 #9

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    One of Tsu's uncles retired as a base commander in the Marines. One day he and I talked about UFOs. I expected the raised eyebrows and rolling eyes like I had gotten from Tsu's dad on this issue, but Uncle did no such thing. He proceeded to tell me about UFO/ fighter jet intercepts that he heard on the military radio while in Vietnam, and he admitted outright to being a believer as a result of these and other occurrences.

    Tsu's dad happened to be sitting with us and I would bet that his eyes were as big as pie pans!!! He has great respect for his brother and had no idea.
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2007
  11. Oct 6, 2007 #10

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The only explanation that I can see that is consistent with some of the most reliable and interesting reports, and that doesn't involve ET [whatever that means], is the following:

    1). There is at least one phenomenon that appears to have properties similar to those described in some ball lightning reports - ie. a highly energetic, plasma based or plasma producing phenomenon that can emit strongly in the visible spectrum

    2). In some cases, the [or one] phenomenon appears to be nearly massless as evidenced by observed accelerations. Some reports suggest accelerations of 20 or 30 g's, or more. They have been reported by pilots to perform at levels that far exceed the limits of our most advanced fighter aircraft of the time.

    3). Based solely on my own review of the many military reports that are now declassified, and I've read just about all of them, it seems that the phenomenon might sometimes be "propelled" away from a RADAR source at great speeds; presumably due to the energy of the RADAR itself. The late SelfAdjoint once mentioned that some models for solitons [I think to model ball lightning] would be radio opaque at these frequencies.

    4). It can be stable for minutes or even hours

    5). Close proximity to this phenomenon can result in dramatic hallucinations, disorientation, or even loss of consciousness. Later, I assume for psychological reasons, false memories may result.

    6). The phenomenon can travel through the air at speeds in excess of 4000 mph, and may be capable speeds greater than 10,000 mph. It can hover, glide gently over the countryside, or dart about the sky.

    7). Some evidence suggests that it [or one] can affect inertial gyros, and more commonly, compasses, control, weapons, and communications systems.

    8). It may be seen showering sparks or dripping something like molten metal. There are some UFO reports that come with trace evidence - metal drippings found on-site and as reported.

    9). It can act in a highly complex manner, such as seemingly maneuvering through the trees in a forest, making it seem to be intelligently controlled.

    10).It can sometimes produce beams of light like LASERS.

    11). It can trail or even pace aircrafts. Perhaps an aircraft can actually produce this effect in some fashion. This might explain why they seem to be attracted to aircrafts, and how they can act as if guided. Or, perhaps it actually can be attracted to passing aircraft for some reason.

    12) It might be found hovering near ground level, or at altitudes as high as 50,000 feet or more.

    13). It is often reported to be spinning and or emitting multi-colored lights in rapid succession.

    14). It can split from one into two or more separate targets and/or merge back into one.

    15). It can suddenly accelerate out of sight - horizontally or vertically - for no apparent reason.

    16) It can appear to be ellipsoidal and metallic in the daylight.

    17) It may be able to reflect RADAR signals when not seen, or it may be visible but not reflect RADAR, or it may be confirmed by RADAR, by one or more stations, and by eyewitnesses.

    IMO, most of the above have probably been observed in one or more real phenomena at one time or another. If one or several phenomena can be identified that would account for the above, one would have a fair chance of killing ET.

    18) Oh yes, and this is one that has made believers out of a good number of pilots: Though many reports descibe nothing more than basketball sized orbs, in the most extreme cases, pilots have reported phenomena that appear to be as large as an aircraft carrier.

    19). Some of the most common daylight reports describe metallic [appearing] ellipsoids or discs ranging between ten and thirty feet in diameter.
    20). Reports of cylindrically shaped phenomena are also common.
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2007
  12. Oct 6, 2007 #11


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    That is an impressively assembled list.
  13. Oct 7, 2007 #12


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Obviously, I haven't put as much effort into this as you*, but some of the seemingly more compelling (such as the Mexican UFO thing a year or so ago, which covers all three) turn out to be tricks of perspective. I'm not inclined to accept that there are even objects being seen to have moved in such a way, much less that they are massless.
    This one always tickles me, given the fact that the term "flying saucer" is a misquote of Kenneth Arnold that stuck. Ever since, a very high fraction of UFOs have been described as 'saucer-shaped'. These facts are very strong evidence that a very high fraction of these are just mass delusion or wishful thinking, etc.

    Have you ever read "The Demon Haunted World", Ivan? Sagan makes a very strong case that the UFO craze is the same as witches, sprites, angels, and other historical observations of unknown phenomena. 500 years ago, if a dancing light followed you around, it must have been an angel or demon. Today, it's a flying saucer. It's the same delusion.

    Also, Sagan makes the case that the idea that people are delusional, prone to halucination, etc., shouldn't even carry such a negative stigma. It is, in fact, a natural bodily function - the brain attempting to process and make sense of information it can't comprehend. Pattern recognition. It is the very phenomena that forms the basis of our intellect.

    *Caveat: on some level, effort is irrelevant. It only requires one compelling episode to provide the necessary evidence that these are alien spacecraft.
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2007
  14. Oct 7, 2007 #13


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Here's an thought I've never heard before - with all the airplanes up there, surely every now and then one must fly through the cone of an Iridium flare? They are brilliant, they move, and if an airplane is flying in the same direction, they could last 30 seconds or more.
  15. Oct 9, 2007 #14

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I wouldn't consider that case compelling. It seemed to be at first, but it didn't take long before Maccabee and others had explained it. One has to allow time for people to do their work. Otherwise you are just following the whims of the media.

    I didn't say massless, I said nearly massless. A rather significant misquote, wouldn't you say. But I agree that you haven't put nearly as much effort into this as I have. :biggrin: In fact you usually get your facts wrong.

    He did describe and draw them as flat ellipsoids, and later he likened them to a flying wing. So in fact the reports have been fairly consistent.
    http://www.nicap.org/arnoldka.htm [Broken]

    This case has been discussed numerous times and the links have been in the Napster for years now.

    Considering that some dancing lights have been explained, I would say the point moot. There are lights in the sky. The question of interest is what people actually see, and not how they interpret the sighting.

    That is why we have compelling cases, and many more that are not compelling.

    Who said they are alien spacecraft? And why do you argue that some UFOs have to be ETs?
    Last edited by a moderator: May 3, 2017
  16. Oct 9, 2007 #15
    If 20,000,000 people do a stupid thing, it's still a stupid thing. The Lemming Philosophy of jumping to a conclusion simply because a large number of other people have already jumped to it is illogical.

    Grouping every sighting into one bin is also illogical, because not every sighting is the same, and could very well have different causes.

    However, investigating them is a good thing. I hesitate to invoke Project Blue Book here, but there was at least some governmental effort toward explanation. Civilian efforts are hampered by classified data, mainly because they focus on Groom Lake and Roswell, the location of classified aircraft R&D. The ones that don't focus on that area are hampered by a lack of information and evidence. Video evidence tends to be too blurry or fuzzy to be conclusive. There just isn't enough information to declare the objects to be extra-terrestrial.

    While none of the Blue Book investigations produced extra-terrestrial origins as a possible cause, I do not rule out that the investigators were wrong at least once. Simply put, I have insufficient evidence to prove the existence of extra-terrestrial visitations, and it is a logical impossibility to prove the non-existence of anything. Therefore, when asked if I believe in alien craft visiting Earth, the best answer I can give is "There is insufficient evidence available for a meaningful answer." Perhaps the evidence exists. Don't matter. Even if it does exist, I don't got it, I can't get it. If I ever do, then I'll revise my opinion. Until then, it's an unknown.

    Flying stuff that can't be identified is all over though. Whether or not it's from another world is a different story entirely. I just don't know what it is.
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2007
  17. Nov 10, 2007 #16

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    One note on Bluebook: The summary, which was the voice of one man [Condon] looking for an out, is not representitive of the entire study. This is common knowledge and is easily verified by reading individual cases in the report. In fact investigators were quite perplexed by a good number of cases, but this was never mentioned in the summary. Also, project Sign, which predated Bluebook, led some involved to favor the ET hypothesis, however this explanation was rightly rejected by General Vandenberg since there was no conclusive proof that it was true.

    See the UFO Napster for details
  18. Nov 14, 2007 #17
    Out of curiosity, where does one report sighting a UAV (or UFO), other than local authorities?
  19. Nov 14, 2007 #18

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

  20. Nov 14, 2007 #19
    Thank you.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook