Archive for June 14th, 2012
In the current issue of the Australian bimonthly magazine “UFOLOGIST” Vol.16, No.1 May-June, 2012, in my new column SCIENCE and the UFO CONTROVERSY I have written a piece with the focus: PAY ATTENTION SCIENCE SKEPTICS AND MEDIA, ASTRONOMERS DO SEE UFOs. I demolish a statement by Sydney Observatory consultant astronomer Dr. Nick Lomb where he stated “Only amateurs see UFOs,” and that no serious observer, particularly astronomers or even amateur astronomers, has ever seen a UFO. Dr. Lomb, author of the recent excellent book “Transit of Venus,” is an expert on astronomy, but he is clearly uninformed about serious UFO research.
I recently had the opportunity to briefly met up with Dr. Lomb during an Observatory Sydney Writers Festival event. He cordially signed my copy of his book “To Bill, clear skies to see identified objects,” and I gave him a copy of my column which discusses his statement and my response to it. I hope he takes the time to consider this and makes a considered response.
Anyone seriously acquainted with the UFO subject would dispute Dr. Lomb’s skeptical statement. For example, Clyde Tombaugh the discoverer of Pluto reported UFO sightings. Dr. Hynek undertook an early 1950s survey which revealed some astronomer’s sightings, and Professor Peter Sturrock’s survey during the 1970s revealed further evidence of UFO sightings by astronomers. Dr. Hynek once took photos of UFOs himself. He couldn’t explain what he captured on film from a plane window.
Over 3 issues of the UFO Investigation Centre’s UFOIC Newsletter (No. 37, 38 & 39: 1972 – 1973) the group’s secretary at the time William Moser (also president of the local chapter of the British Astronomical Association) had his article “Astronomers and UFOs” published, listing numerous sightings by astronomers.
Related External Links
Britain's top court refuses to reopen Assange case
Pakistan Daily Times
LONDON: Britain's Supreme Court said on Thursday it has rejected an application by WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to reopen his appeal against extradition …
Related External Links
Is This a UFO or Just Another Botched Missile Test?
Is This a UFO or Just Another Botched Missile Test? by Gizmodo UK. Something really weird appeared in the sky over Israel, Turkey, Jordan, Cyprus and …
Related External Links
Today, my wife and I took advantage of the big celebration and went out to the site of the UFO crash of late 1948 in Hart Canyon. The workers who dedicated their time to this presentation of an important part of New Mexico history are to be commended. The road signs to guide the visitors were strategically placed, and the plaque marking the spot was in the right place. The aliens had built stone cairns marking the path from the oil field road to the crash site. These cairns are still in place today. The trees around the crash site open to the south, which is a typical distress signal for extraterrestrials.
The area looked essentially as it had in 1948 when the OSS sent our group there. We were to make a detailed survey of the area and report back to them, which we did. We were then reassigned elsewhere. We were never told what the OSS was looking for.
But a traveling survey crew like that eats in cafes, sleeps in motels, has no close family, and knows intimately only the men they work with. So, of course, we spect many long nights trying to figure out just what did happen in Hart Canyon.
We had heard rumors that a UFO had crashed there. But it did not look like a crash site. And we had heard that army personnel had rushed in there and cleaned up the site. But it did not look like a clean-up site either. One thing did stand out. There appeared to be some heavy traffic – not on any graded road – leading through the large rock slides to the canyon northwest of the site.
So what it boiled down to was this: No UFO crash. Instead, the UFO landed there for some specific intent to place (bury?) some instrument or thing there. They they got into their saucer and flew away. All of the other stories were put out by the government to cover up what they did not know about it. I guess the answer might be found in the old files of the OSS. But not in my time.
2. Reed, in his letter, refers to several stone cairns which the aliens had left in place to mark the road from the oil road to the “crash site” (note the contradictory statement even within this letter – “crash site” vs. “landing site”). After his interview with Scott, we now have the “out of place, large concrete pad” that had been poured to aid in the recovery.
3. Reed, in his letter, states that the “clean-up” operation occurred in late 1948. After his interview withe Scott, this date has been “corrected” back to April, 1948.
4. Reed, in his letter, talks about how the trees around the crash site open to the south, which is a “typical distress signal for the aliens.” This ridiculous statement, which shows more than anything else that Reed is blowing smoke, is nowhere to be found after his interview with Scott.
5. Reed, in his letter, states that his group was sent to the site to make a “detailed survey of the area” and “report back” to the O.S.S. After the interview with Scott, this has morphed into a “cleanup” operation, despite the fact that in his letter, Reed stated that “We had heard that army personnel had rushed in there and cleaned up the site.”
This should drive a stake into the heart of this testimony. Given this letter, written days before the Ramsey interview, it is clear that Reed’s story evolved quickly and drastically. Since Ramsey had a copy of the letter, he should have reported on these problems but did not.
Yes, we all have been caught by “witnesses” who were spinning tales. Frank Kaufmann and Gerald Anderson spring to mind. But in those cases, neither had presented a story that was so clearly changed from the beginning so quickly. Anderson began to adjust his tale, adding information to cover discrepancies, but not within a week of his original interviews. Kaufmann was able to produce documents to support his stories because he had a stash of old military letterhead and a couple of vintage typewriters.
But the other side of that coin is that when I learn that a witness has fabricated some of his testimony, inflated his credentials by claiming military rank and awards that were unearned, or made other statements that can’t be verified, I expose them myself. Here we have a case in which the testimony is at odds with what was written just days earlier, but there is no indication in subsequent reporting that the man has radically altered his statements.