The Decline of Ufology: Decades of Fraud, Frustration and Failure?

a reply to: draknoir2

I did not say it was an option I endorsed, but it is truthfully the only other option I am aware of. I guess "Cynic" is not the correct label to apply as that implies a resistance to new ideas or information but not an absolute rejection. The people I am talking about exist on both sides, as the people who will continue to espouse certain events as proof of something despite it being thoroughly confirmed to be false. The people that think that hole in Antarctica was a crashed Alien spacecraft. The people who think that the (Something, I forgot) lights were actually flares.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

Some people are "insane cynics." Either that or on someone's payroll. Be too cynical and new ideas will find it outrageously hard to penetrate your thick skull, be too open-minded and your brain will drip from your ears.

Its all too easy to label someone "insane" to dismiss what they are saying. Same thing with the suggestion that people are paid to have a point of view. All we have are peoples words here and our ability to make sense of those words.

Then I shall not label them under broad terms. I shall simply call them as what they are, "Factually wrong." The response I made to Darknoir clarifies what I mean further.

Though perhaps they have merely obtained their information from the incorrect place.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Then I shall not label them under broad terms. I shall simply call them as what they are, "Factually wrong."

I like that. Points of view and facts are all that matter.

“or even worse, see alien craft whenever they see a strange cloud formation”

Just a short note on that statement.

Last summer I was reading in the back yard when I just happened to look up and see a puff of cloud. Suddenly I saw another puff forming. Right beside this second small cloud I glimpsed a sliver of shinny white, say about ¼” long from my viewpoint.

And then it was gone. My first thought was that I just saw a saucer, edge on, creating a cloud to hide in.

There were no other clouds in the sky at all.

I watched for about 45 minutes and saw many small clouds forming and then dissolving a few minutes later.

Yet I never saw another glint of anything shinny. So I cannot classify this as a UFO sighting. Possibly I saw an aircraft far behind the cloud which just happened to be there. Yet I never saw any evidence of that aircraft either after that moment.

a reply to: TheFinalCountdown

a reply to: mirageman

Or will it finally be the death of Ufology?

You should see what has been going on behind cased-doors.

Air Force B-52 encounter with a UFO

minotb52ufo.com...

Oh, Blue Book was a scam. An absolute scam. Its purpose wasn't to find and reveal the truth behind UFO cases (though it did manage to do that for a few), its purpose was to obfuscate things as much as possible.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
Oh, Blue Book was a scam. An absolute scam. Its purpose wasn't to find and reveal the truth behind UFO cases (though it did manage to do that for a few), its purpose was to obfuscate things as much as possible.

You have to look at the context of the times. The beginning of the cold war. Paranoia about Russia and their capabilities and the flying saucer craze. What better way to get people to look up at the sky? So I don't think Blue Book's purpose was to obfuscate UFOs intentionally. I think they were more concerned about Russian spy planes than aliens. Once they got the answer they were looking for, they shut it down. So I agree that they weren't looking for the "truth" behind UFO cases.

No, I mean, they intentionally shunted cases into sections where they didn't belong to cut down on the number of "unexplained" cases. Events with highly unsatisfactory explanations and so forth.

If you believe what a few of the people who worked on Blue Book have said, the most interesting things went to a higher level anyway.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
Oh, Blue Book was a scam. An absolute scam. Its purpose wasn't to find and reveal the truth behind UFO cases (though it did manage to do that for a few), its purpose was to obfuscate things as much as possible.

It was a poorly staffed PR department whose mission was never really getting to the truth.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
No, I mean, they intentionally shunted cases into sections where they didn't belong to cut down on the number of "unexplained" cases. Events with highly unsatisfactory explanations and so forth.

I agree with the assessment that they did these things. Governments aren't concerned with ghosts or aliens, they are, however, concerned with other countries that are hostile that can fly in their airspace. That same airspace where UFOs are seen.

"What's that you said you saw? a swirling multicolored disk that landed?" Obviously not Russian so who cares? And right, they wanted keep the unexplained cases to a minimum because they didn't want to get into the alien business.

That's my take on it.

If you believe what a few of the people who worked on Blue Book have said, the most interesting things went to a higher level anyway.

A Russian spy plane would go to a higher level too.

Governments don't tend to be very forward thinking, or very thinking thinking for that matter. If they wanted to avoid the alien business, obfuscating things is the worst possible choice.

Also, they would very much be concerned with aliens, if only as possible threats/allies/things to get tech from so they can beat up the big bad Russians. Also, wasn't there are a department for UFO stuff before the cold war? Like, the 1930s.

Still, it's possible it was just meant to deal with the Russians.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

One of the incidents that Blue Book explained away was the RB-47/UFO incident, where the UFO, which trailed the jet bomber over multiple states. was explained away by Blue Book as a propeller-driven DC-6 of American Airlines, which occurred at altitudes far above the operational altitude of a DC-6.

Simply amazing!

a reply to: skyeagle409

Russian spy plane.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Also, wasn't there are a department for UFO stuff before the cold war? Like, the 1930s.

Not that I know. The government interest in UFOs I am aware of begins after the end of WW2.

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

Hmm, yes, I must have been mis-remembering. The earliest I can find is Project Sign which started in 1947, and was quickly superseded by Project Grudge.

""On February 11, 1949, an order was written that changed the name of the UFO project from Project Sign to Project Grudge. The order was supposedly written because the classified name, Project Sign, had been compromised. This was always my official answer to any questions about the name change. I'd go further and say that the names of the projects, first Sign, then Grudge, had no significance. This wasn't true; they did have significance, a lot of it."

A grudge on the soviets.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: skyeagle409

Russian spy plane.

I'm only suggesting that discovering hostile aircraft was the original intention...not as an explanation for any sighting. just to be clear.

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

No, I'm sure the Russians would have been in mind. How was the Cold War going on around 1947 when Sign was started up? Did it even exist at that point?

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

No, I'm sure the Russians would have been in mind. How was the Cold War going on around 1947 when Sign was started up? Did it even exist at that point?

I remember looking into when the Cold War started and the answer I got was that there was no real date...hold on Wikipedia..

Historians do not fully agree on the dates, but 1947–91 is common

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

No Russian spy plane had the range nor the ability to penetrate that far inland. I might add that the pilot of that RB-47, Lt. Col. Lewis D. Chase, wrote a report in regards to the UFO incident involving our Minuteman missiles, and there were several incidents at multiple SAC bases. Here is one of his reports.

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
HEADQUARTERS 341ST COMBAT SUPPORT GROUP (SAC)
MALMSTROM AIR FORCE BASE, MT 590402

REPLY TO
ATTN OF: BO 3 July 1967

SUBJECT: UFO Observations, Malmstrom AFB Area

to: Colonel James C. Manatt (lettered TDET/UFO)
HQ Foreign Technology Division (AFSC)
Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio 45433

1. Reference TDET/UFO letter dated 30 June 1967 on above subject.

2. This office has no knowledge of equipment malfunctions and abnormalities in equipment during the period of reported UFO sightings. No validity can be established to the statement that a classified government experiment was in progress or that military and civilian personnel were requested not to discuss what they had seen.

3. A written report on the events that transpired during the alleged UFO reported landing on 24 March 1967, fully documents all findings by the investigating officer. A copy of this report was forwarded to your office on 3 April 1967.

4. If we can be of further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to write.

FOR THE COMMANDER

LEWIS D. CHASE, Lt Colonel, USAF
Chief, Operations Division

After Vietnam, where I experienced my first UFO sighting in 1968, I was assigned to Hill AFB, Utah, which is the depot for the Minuteman missile. My base was involved in an investigation regard an UFO disabling Minuteman missiles at Malmstrom AFB. Here's a bit of information regarding such incidents. You will see a reference to OOAMA in a following reference. OOAMA is located at Hill AFB and has sent me with a team of specialized technicians on TDYs from time to time to the Far East and other locations.

Robert Kaminski

The late Robert J. Kaminski, who headed the Boeing Company missile engineering team that investigated the case, says he was told by a Boeing–Air Force liaison that UFOs had indeed been sighted in the vicinity of the flight's launch silos at the time of the missile malfunctions. Kaminski unequivocally states that his team could find no prosaic cause for the failures.

www.cufon.org...


EXCERPTS FROM KAMINSKI’S LETTER TO JAMES KLOTZ

“Hi James,

I received your package of information on Tuesday January 28, 1997. After reviewing the information it sure revived memories concerning the Malmstrom AFB E-Flight investigation of which I was the Boeing in-house project engineer for the field team investigation. Per your request I have documented my direct involvement as I recall the event and give names and other information not previously covered in my book, "Lying Wonders."

As I previously mentioned to Bob Salas and others, I never submitted a final report from Boeing to the Air Force. A final report was generated but not submitted. This will become clear as you will see in my recollection noted below...

At the time of the incident, I was an engineer in the MIP/CNP (Material Improvement Project/Controlled Numbered Problem) group. This was a Logistics Engineering group. The group was contracted by the Air Force so that Boeing could respond to specific Air Force Minuteman Missiles problems that occurred in the field. The assignments came from the OOAMA Air Material Command. Our group was made up of a small unit of engineers that were knowledgeable of, and had worked on the Minuteman Missile program...

We were usually notified by our OOAMA Boeing contact (located at Hill AFB) when a request was coming in from the Air Force. Don Peterson, was our Boeing OOAMA contact...

...At the outset the team quickly noticed a lack of anything that would come close to explain why the event occurred. There were no significant failures, engineering data or findings that would explain how ten missiles were knocked off alert. This indeed turned out to be a rare event and not encountered before. The use of backup power systems and other technical system circuit operational redundancy strongly suggests that this kind of event is virtually impossible once the system was up and running and on line with other LCF's and LF's interconnectivity.

The only thing that even came close to a failure was that a transformer on a commercial power pole down the road from one of the sites was in the process of failing. It exhibited a intermittent transient type of failure that could have generated noise spikes on the power line. This in itself could not have caused the problem at E-Flight. The problem was reported to the local power company who took action to replace the transformer.

The team met with me to report their findings and it was decided that the final report would have nothing significant in it to explain what happened at E-Flight. In other words there was no technical explanation that could explain the event. The team went off to do the report. Meanwhile I was contacted by our representative at OOAMA (Don Peterson) and told by him that the incident was reported as being a UFO event--That a UFO was seen by some Airmen over the LCF at the time E-Flight went down.

Subsequently, we were notified a few days later that a stop work order was on the way from OOAMA to stop any further effort on this project. We stopped. We were also told that we were not to submit the final engineering report. This was most unusual since all of our work required review by the customer and the submittal of a final Engineering report to OOAMA.

Days later, I asked our Boeing OOAMA rep what was going on. His reply to me--off the record---was that the LCF capsule jockeys were suspected of causing the problem somehow by something they did to one of the digital racks in the LCF. The Air Force capsule officers apparently were quietly removed from their job as LCF officers. This part of the story can not be verified by me, as it was hearsay...

Sincerely Yours,

[Robert Kaminski]


Interview with Colonel Walter Figel, Oct. 20, 2008

Figel confirms that he had received a report from a security guard about a "large, round" UFO hovering over one of Echo Flight's missile silos, seconds after that missile failed.

www.theufochronicles.com...


Former Minuteman Electro-Mechanical Technician, Henry Barlow

Barlow further said that he and other members of the 341st Missile Maintenance Squadron had observed UFOs on several occasions, both prior to and following the Echo incident, while working in Malmstrom's missile field during 1966–67.

www.theufochronicles.com...

The Air Force attempted to coverup the Malmstrom AFB incident by blaming the missile commanders, which is typical of the way the Air Force and the CIA were doing business after the Robertson Report was released.