Missing UFO Evidence Part One:

Fool Me Twice…

"You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." Bob Dylan

You’ve heard it before: there is not one shred of evidence UFOs exist.

But the truth is, UFO history gives us plenty of physical evidence of UFOs.

Why don’t your friends and neighbors get this simple fact? Not to mention the science community…

In this two-part series, I examine 10 spectacular UFO physical evidence examples, and the lies, theft, blatant alteration and disappearance of evidence…and worse. All apparently accomplished by our own government --accountable to you and me, the taxpayers and voters-- and predominantly through the agency of the United States Air Force.

We can all agree there are good folks, many people of goodwill, in all our armed forces. But how many people up and down lines of command for how many generations and decades now have been involved in destroying physical evidence?

We’ll look at 5 cases here, 5 more in Part Two.

Lost Evidence Case #1: One dead dog, disappeared debris plus two dead researchers.
Let’s start with a widely documented historic case popular authors and scientists alike overlook. Welcome to Maury Island. You can visit, but you may never leave.

Maury Island Report UFO Drops Material In boat Kills Dog:
“After seeing the debris and hearing the story, Brown and Davidson decided that it was a hoax. They took a box of the debris and told Arnold they had to leave. They drove to McCord Field and told the intelligence officer there that they felt it was a hoax. They hadn't told Arnold because they didn't want to embarrass him, he was so taken in by Dahl and Crisman. The next morning, August 1, they boarded a B-25 back to Hamilton Field. A few hours later, they were killed when the B-25 crashed.
“They made much of the fact that the crew chief and a passenger were able to bail out, but that Brown and Davidson were not…
Arnold packed up and flew home in disgust. On the way home, however, he crashed his plane at Pendleton because somehow the fuel valve had gotten turned off. He wasn't hurt. Crisman and Dahl seem to have vanished. No one could find them. According to Jenny Randles, two intelligence analysts who studied the case in 1980 said it had all the earmarks of an intelligence operation”.

http://ufos.about.com/od/ufofolkloremythlegend/p/mauryisland.htm

Lost Evidence Case #2: Missing Frames From Big Sky Country:
The Great Falls, Montana UFO Color Film of Two UFOs.
August 15, 1950.
“When he received his film back from the Air Force, Mariana was surprised to find that the earliest, best portion of the film, that showing what he said were the two objects with a notch or band at the outer edge and an obvious spinning movement, was missing. He estimated that about 35 frames were gone.”

After investigation and analysis, the author concludes:
“In spite of the Air Force's claims to the contrary, there is strong evidence that the film sequence was clipped after it had been sent to the Air Force in 1950.

Source: http://ufologie.net/indexe.htm
More Proof: DC Press Conference November 12th 2007






Lost Evidence Case #3: The Infamy of Mantel’s Crash--or--
“I See People In This Thing!”
Richard T. Miller, who was in the Operations Room of Scott Air Force Base in Belleville, Illinois…made several profound statements regarding the crash. He was monitoring the radio talk between Mantel and Godman tower, and heard this statement very clearly. "My God, I see people in this thing! (UFO)"

In conclusion, Miller made this statement, "that evening, Air Technical Intelligence Center officers from Wright-Patterson AFB arrived and ordered all personnel to turn over any materials relating to the crash.”Then, after we had turned it over to them, they said they had already completed the investigation." "I was no longer a skeptic. I had been up to that time. Now I wondered why the Government had gone to all of the trouble of covering it up, to keep it away from the press and the public."
http://ufologie.net/indexe.htm

So, in Mantel, a brave pilot chases a UFO in 1948; he dies in a crash, but ground control has all of the tapes of his conversation. Where are those tapes now? It was 1948, and they still have to keep secret a pilot chasing “Venus” or a secret project?

What happened --is happening even now-- to all this evidence?

Lost Evidence Case #4: The USAF Makes The Astronaut A Liar?
Col. Gordon “Gordo” Cooper, Historic Mercury Flight’s Astronaut, tells the story in his own video feature of UFO landing.
“…former Astronaut disclosed that while the crew was out there, they spotted a strange-looking craft above the lake bed, and they began taking films of it.
I Wonder were the files Are? More Proof DC Press Conference:



Cooper says the object was very definitely “hovering above the ground. And then it slowly came down and sat on the lake bed for a few minutes." All during this time the motion picture cameras were filming away…
Col. Cooper was not fortunate enough to be outside at the time of this incredible encounter, but he did see the films as soon as they were rushed through the development process.
After he reviewed the film at least a dozen times, the footage was quickly forwarded to Washington. Cooper no doubt expected to get a reply in a few weeks' time as to what his men had seen and photographed, but there was no word, and the movie *vanished* - never to surface again... “
Source: http://ufologie.net/indexe.htm
Where’s the movie, especially if it proves UFO don’t exist? Where’s the movie, if this was really critical documentation of some type of “experimental craft”?
Is anyone going to tell me a 1958 experimental craft is still secret?
Where’s the beef, USAF? Prove UFOs are really just ours! You guys have the documents and film, right?
Lost Evidence Case #5: The Gemini Switcheroo.
Astronaut and American Hero James McDivitt took photographs Of UFO:
In June 1965, Major James McDivitt saw, filmed, and photographed an object, which approached the Gemini IV (3rd June – 7th June 1965) capsule in which they were orbiting the Earth, passing over Hawaii. The UFO had a long arm sticking out of it. McDivitt did not see any special importance in what he saw. He did not file any UFO report, he also always insisted that it was not the Titan II booster. He also never gave an opinion about the nature of what he saw. Some researchers rightfully noted that the astronauts eyesight was affected by the long exposition to the oxygen saturated atmosphere in the Gemini capsule…Almost everyone agrees that it could not have been a human satellite, such as a secret US satellite or a Russian craft. In conclusion, there is no certainty. The publicized picture is not the correct one, and the correct one will probably never be seen.
Source: http://ufologie.net/indexe.htm

Missing UFO Evidence Part Two:
next Friday, July 24.

Joseph Capp
UFO Media Matters

The Last Scientist Part 2

"I saw 10,000 people who's tongues where all broken... Bob Dylan

“It wasn’t just one UFO that landed at noon on July 17 1955, but two. They landed three or four streets apart. One was in Bexleyheath, King Harold’s Way. All the people came out of their houses. There must have been at least 170 people standing around this thing.”
http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/2008/07/07/public-are-in-denial-over-ufos-says-investigator-55578-21272583/


How do you talk about a man who was a giant but now, to trendy ufologists, is nothing more than a footnote? A man who stood head and shoulders above the people who destroyed him…

In UFO history this giant’s hardly mentioned, while others are championed as heroes. Today the cult of celebrity means it’s more important to be known…than what you are known for.

Dr. James McDonald never wanted to leave the mainstream scientific community. In fact, Dr. McDonald was counting on the scientific establishment to support the unraveling of the UFO phenomenon because he was a member.

James McDonald understood that if sloppy science were allowed to stand as explanation for UFOs, then nothing put forward as evidence by UFO researchers --save the final smoking gun proof-- would ever be looked at seriously.

Sloppy science had to be discounted right away, McDonald believed. And not with rhetoric and disinformation campaigns, but by logically refuting the science around the explanation, and examining the science, sloppy or otherwise, right along with your scientific colleagues.

McDonald had qualities other researchers did not possess. Because he was both well-respected as an authority and genuinely liked by the larger scientific community, Dr. McDonald was extremely dangerous. So stopping him was a must.
.
As time has begun to show us, McDonald’s approach to research was right.

Run this inventory yourself: in the last 60 years have you witnessed any real change in the attitude of science on UFOs? Isn’t it still true that a talking head science expert on TV can throw out the most outlandish explanation for any facet of the UFO phenom and it’s never, ever challenged?

The other tragedy of the inquisition mounted against McDonald back in the day --no matter what you and I might imagine UFOs will ultimately turn out to be-- is that the debunkers, along with the government, have effectively halted pure science research projects on this important reality.

By destroying or marginalizing anyone and any evidence pointing to the reality of this phenomenon, not only were careers ruined, but pure science was ended and the debate controlled.

Seventy-odd years later, we’re still debating what these things in the sky and landing in our fields are, yet the evidence for their existence continues, with global reporting from citizens of every nation.

November 2007 Washington DC Press Conference "Close Encounters"


One of the wonderful approaches Dr. McDonald took was going right to the source: the witnesses. McDonald took witness testimony at face value, regarded testimony as both specific and as an organic whole, and then built his explanation around the entirety of that testimony. Our young UFO researchers would do well to stop cherry-picking testimony and adopt an attitude of empathy for the witness. I hope we can find a scientist with the credentials and the fire in his heart to look at UFO reality with eyes unclouded.

And McDonald understood something else largely forgotten today. Science is here to help us not to devalue us.

McDonald certainly knew what UFO witnesses face when just trying to find some explanation for their experience. McDonald’s core method is best illustrated when he revisits Newhouse, a famous case initially considered unexplainable.

In Newhouse, the main witness, a Navy photographer, took 16mm film of the event. The images became the center of controversy when the original investigation refuted familiar explanations, like birds, jets, balloons. Another important conclusion found these objects to be “a light source (themselves) rather than reflected light…” Interesting, too, how the expert who came to that conclusion was the same man who would later discover Russian atomic missiles hidden in Cuba…but, to hear the debunkers of the day spin it, even that amazing achievement didn’t qualify him to analyze UFO cases.

Later, as McDonald reviews the case, we can see how his logical, organic method is to listen to the witness first. McDonald goes back to the people who experienced the event and highlights their original story. And it’s this central fact that proves how the debunkers --and even contemporary ufology stars like Kevin Randles-- find it too easy to forget the flesh and blood of this story, preferring instead to nit pick what the evidence, the technical revelations of the 16mm film ‘might’ mean. McDonald’s method demands we look at what the witnesses say, and at what the captured images show, instead of trying to make direct testimony and images fit belief systems or accepted theory.

In this famous case a Navy photographer --who was, after all, you debunkers out there, just the “trained observer” you guys keep screaming about-- along with his wife and two children witnessed a group of UFOs fly over their heads. They filmed the objects.
One object stopped in the sky, then returned in the same path. It was explained away as birds by debunkers.

Here in this excerpt from a letter, McDonald reflects on his conversation with the Newhouse Family:

“I had a long telephone discussion with Delbert Clement Newhouse (Naval Photographer) last night. He was the one in El Cajon; the other one, amusingly enough, is his son. His son recently retired from Naval Aviation duty and now flies with United Airlines. We covered a lot of relevant points…

Shortly after I identified myself and we got down to brass tacks, Newhouse asked his wife to get on an extension phone, so I had the double benefit of getting comments from both of them as we went over details of that July 2, 1952 incident.”

Kudos to the women of ufology, by the way, like Mrs. Trent, Mrs. Hill, and Mrs. Newhouse, for keeping it honest.
“As you will recall, one of the key points that I wanted to check with Newhouse concerned the description given by Ruppelt (and repeated in Baker's analysis as reproduced in the 1968 Congressional hearings), namely, that they appeared to be silvery-gray, "gunmetal", and like two pie pans face-to-face. Both Newhouse and his wife fully confirmed that, Newhouse comparing the shape to a discus in his comments to me. Mrs. Newhouse pointed out that they occasionally tipped, so that their round projected area, as seen in the “initial portions of the sighting” when they were nearly overhead, was replaced occasionally by a side-view exhibiting their discoid shape. There was not the slightest equivocation or any element of uncertainty as either of them discussed that very important point”.
This is how McDonald researched his sighting by building a hypothesis around the entirety of what the witness said. Not via the lazy path where witness testimony is sliced, diced and cherry-picked according to the flavor-of-the-month theory.
Now here’s another remarkable moment in UFO history, where a respected scientist documents witness testimony, making sure we understand that science must value the citizens’ powers of observation and understanding of their surroundings, including their definitive statements that local flora and fauna are not what’s being reported:
“…latter parts of our conversation, that his son and daughter had gotten fairly good views of the objects, too. The son was then 14, the daughter, 12. He said that, in the minds of all four of them, there was not the slightest suspicion that what they had seen were gulls. This, he emphasized, was because, when first seen, the shapes were very distinct and bore no relation at all to sea gulls. He made further remarks to the effect that he supposes that others who have gotten good looks at UFOs must have about the same feeling he does”.
http://ufologie.net/htm/tremontonmcdonald.htm#doc
Full Discussion:
http://ufologie.net/htm/tremontonarticle01.htm

After the constant attacks and the breakup of his marriage, Dr. James McDonald put a gun to his head.

Pure science for science sake was killed that day, and I still wait for it’s resurrection.


Joseph Capp
UFO Media Matters
Non-Commercial Blog