Col. Richard French USAF says "My primary job was to debunk them [UFOs]"

Originally posted by JimOberg
Aside from the comic relief, the only time I ever saw 'swamp gas' used as a proposal was in the Michigan dormitory case [1966?]. And Hynek always ruefully maintained that for the story he was investigating -- night-time glows in the swamp near the dorm -- it was not an unreasonable hypothesis.

Of course, it blew up in his face and embarrassed him and the AF enormously, and has been a joke ever since.

But logical argumentation doesn't rest on mockery, only those who avoid reasoning resort to a 'laughter curtain' on either side of the debate.

What goes around comes around, and look at the bitter harvest for serious ufology.

So -- is the testimony accurate? Did they use 'swamp gas' deceptively and repeatedly to debunk any UFO stories?

A single other example where they did, please. Just one more.

Whilst not swamp gas there's the other one, Venus. Charles Mantell? www.nicap.org... And from what I can tell the U.S. Airforce used a variety of ridiculous explanations, Venus or weather balloons kind of goes against the other witnesses who reported seeing an object:

T. Sgt. Blackwell

About 1345 or 1350 I sighted an object in the sky to the South of Godman Field. As I wanted verification, I called my Detachment Commander, 1st Lt Orner, to the Tower. After he had sighted the object, he called for the Operations Officer, Capt. Carter, over th e teletalk box from the Traffic Desk. He came up stairs immediately, and looked at the object through field glasses in the Tower. He then called for the CO, Col Hix. He came to the tower about 1420 (appx)and sighting the objec t immediately.

Captain Carter:

At approximately 1400 hours and 7 minutes, 7 Jan 48 I received a call from Lt. Orner, AACS Detachment Commander, that the Tower had spotted an unidentified object and requested that I take a look. Lt. Orner pointed out the object to the southwest, which was easily discernible with the naked eye. The object appeared round and white (whiter than the clouds that passed in front of it) and could be seen through cirus (sic) clouds.

PFC Stanley Oliver: "resembled an ice cream cone topped with red."

Now the official explanation given for this was Venus, but how can that be so when even to a skeptical mind the logical explanation would've been a Skyhook balloon?

THEORIES AND EXPLANATIONS : What is interesting here is the descriptions all suggest something with a rounded top and then a long and tapering underside. The weather balloons, with which they would have been familiar in 1948 all would have been about 15 to 20 feet in diameter and would have been round, or ball like. Clearly these descriptions do not fit with a weather balloon, but do fit with that of a Skyhook balloon.

I'm pretty sure there's a lot more instances like this, when not even an official investigation can come to a definitive and satisfactory answer.

Originally posted by FlyingTeacup
I'm just going to come right out and say it because nobody else will. This Col. French character is a fraud and a liar. Anybody can tell just by what he says and his body language. I was told personally by the researcher that found Col. French that he thought Col. French was now lying and that he regrets having introduced this fraud to the world.

Please provide sources and documented evidence that backs up your claims.

Originally posted by K-PAX-PROT

Originally posted by FlyingTeacup
I'm just going to come right out and say it because nobody else will. This Col. French character is a fraud and a liar. Anybody can tell just by what he says and his body language. I was told personally by the researcher that found Col. French that he thought Col. French was now lying and that he regrets having introduced this fraud to the world.

Please provide sources and documented evidence that backs up your claims.

What an astonishing suggestion! Does that mena that YOU will now be following it as well in your OWN future claims! This is terrific news, we're all grateful to hear it. Good for you.

reply to post by JimOberg


Just an FYI.
I didn't post the information I was refering to because K PAX PROT beat me to it. It was James McDonald I was thinking about who claimed as many as 4,000 of the Blue Book cases were actually unidentified. He argued with Hynek that the total number of cases being unidentified may be an order of magnitude greater than was concluded in the report. Specifically he was looking at cases involving military personnel as witnesses in which objects were also seen on radar.
There are loads of these cases apparently.