Missing UFO Evidence Part Two:

Fool Me Thrice…

Larry King Live (Missing film showing Missle Shot Down By Flying Saucer)
KING: “He saw it. They confiscate”
Dr. Bob Jacobs was head of the special camera and lens operations and a witnessed to the film
Dr. Jacobs
I was there. I was there. I saw the film with my own eyes. I'm not lying. Why would I?I'm a university professor with a Ph.D. and a lot of years of good respectful research. So the (INAUDIBLE) officer may not have seen the UFO, but they saw the results of it. I saw the damn thing on film with my own eyes, so don't call me a liar and you weren't there, I was.(VILE) NYE: I didn't -- with all due respect, I'm not calling you a liar. It's just quite a step to say there was a film with remarkable images on it that the CIA confiscated, which I saw and which...JACOBS: It's quite a step they did.NYE: Yes. Which is quite a step from there to say it was definitely a spacecraft from another civilization. That's the leap that the skeptical community is reluctant to take.JACOBS: Listen, I didn't -- hey, pal, listen to me. I didn't say it was a space ship from another civilization. I said it was something in the air that we couldn't identify. Therefore, it was an unidentified flying object. It was shaped like two saucers put together with a golf ball on top. And it fired a beam that we assumed was a plasma beam at a dummy warhead and knocked it out of space. Tell me what happened. Tell me who did that. Tell me in 1964 who had that technology, pal. Not us and not the Russians and nobody I know of.”

By the way, The Larry King Show was fabulous, especially
for those of you who are students of psychology. Look closely and you
get a great insight on how debunker Bill Nile uses classic debunker
tactics to manipulate the subject matter through diversion. But Jacobs
destroys this by bringing Nile back to the subject at hand and asking
him to define what actually happened. Brilliant! http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0807/18/lkl.01.html


I think evidence has already proven “UFO craft” are in fact some kind of reality.

But a funny thing keeps happening to all this evidence.

Bad luck? In any case, or, maybe we should say, in every single case we’re looking at here in Part Two of Missing UFO Evidence, every time the government was given physical evidence, the government ‘losses’ it.

Lost it in more than one way.

Something the late, great ufologist Dr. James McDonald [see UFO MM JULY 11, 2008] mentioned in a letter triggered a question I’ve had for a long time. So I started looking at a small cross-section of cases, important cases. And voila! A thing impossible to ignore: continuing loss of UFO evidence, decade after decade…which somehow still doesn’t manage to raise a single scientist’s eyebrow.

Case #6: USAF returns obviously altered copies, loses originals to ‘fire’.
Here’s an example of evidence surrendered to the government, from the Newhouse Report, material I didn’t include when we examined part of this report recently, wherein a NAVY photographer films a flotilla of flying disks:
“Newhouse said that the Air Force didn't send the originals back to him at any time…what they did finally send back to him was a color print which he stressed was distinctly inferior to the original. Not only that, but he was positive that they had cut out the first 10 or 20 feet, which were shot when the objects were very much closer and appeared much sharper on the film.”
(On going over my telephone notes, I just noted another point on the lost film. It was at the time of the movie-making, in the mid-1950s, that he wrote to the Air Force to ask them to return the originals. A warrant officer at ATIC told him the originals had been lost in a fire. I see further that I jotted down a direct quote on his remarks about having sent off the originals: "Very naively, I sent them the original.")

http://ufologie.net/indexe.htm

Edgar Mitchell, The Man Who Walked On The Moon


Lost Evidence Case #7: X15 Test

Pilot Walker’s 6 Films Take A Walk.
On May 11, 1962 NASA pilot Joseph Walker said that one of his tasks was to detect UFOs during his X-15 flights. He had filmed five or six UFOs during his record breaking fifty-mile-high flight in April, 1962. It was the second time he had filmed UFOs in flight. During a lecture at the Second National Conference on the Peaceful Uses of Space Research in Seattle, Washington he said:
"I don't feel like speculating about them. All I know is what appeared on the film which was developed after the flight."
To date none of those films has been released to the public for viewing.
Source: http://ufologie.net/indexe.htm
Lost Evidence Case #8: 1965’s Heflin UFO Photos: Dehoaxified



When Original Polaroids Surface!
The Heflin photos, taken in Santa Ana, California, in 1965 were regarded as most probably genuine…until 1968. Back in the day, scientists and other UFO researchers asked difficult questions that would remain unanswered until the 1990s. Provenance of the Heflin photos was at question, and not only topically: the four original photos had been taken by unidentified persons posing as government personnel! According to debunkers these photos were unimportant-- probably hoaxed. In 1993, Heflin’s Polaroid originals surfaced unexpectedly under mysterious circumstances. But the photos were important enough to somebody to be kept in pristine shape for almost 30 years.

The tests were finally carried out, proving how important they were. 30 years too late. Who, but a select few, even listened? Here’s your chance to catch up:

“Our team’s reanalysis of the set of four Heflin UFO photos lead us to draw
the following conclusions: (a) The clouds in all four photos are consistent; (b)we have detected a wake, never before reported to our knowledge, impressively suggesting a real object moving through the atmosphere; (c) the mid-1970s GSW analysis that showed a “string” was a stunning error, certainly not based on legitimate copies, and possibly hoaxed itself, by persons unknown, on the copies Spaulding and GSW used; (d) the notations on the back of the first three photos suggest they were part of a covert analysis; (e) James E. McDonald, erroneously led to believe that the fourth photo was taken at a different time and place from the first three Heflin photos, missed a golden opportunity…
Source: http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/articles/pdf/14.4_druffel_wood_kelson.pdf

Lost Evidence Case #9: Dwarves, Balloons, and Tinfoil Over New Mexico.
If it wasn’t a spaceship that crashed at Roswell, where is the evidence of MOGUL weather balloon pieces? Or pieces of the crashed plane carrying the dead dwarves? Where is this evidence? Where is the required, routine notification back up the chain of command to MOGUL, the message that went something like “Hey! We found your balloon! Caused a great deal of ruckus --we even thought it was a spaceship.”

Why does this happen over and over again? Why is the history of this “unimportant topic” across all those decades of Air Force and NASA involvement just riddled with a blatant thread of --dare I say it-- conspiracy?

When the evidence does turn up, maybe it’s also showing some individuals in the government really do have a sense of faith in the people’s ability to decide.

And when we seem to get a line on resurrected evidence, it’s almost a moot cause.

Because it is old news.

But truth takes a long time to shine sometimes and in the Portage, Ohio 1966 case, it took till 2006.

Lost Evidence Case #10: Persecution of Cops Who Said They Didn’t Chase Venus.
The Sheriff of Portage County, Pennsylvania, was ordered to hide evidence that would have cleared the names of two deputies the media would falsely hype as “cops chasing Venus through three counties.”

But sometimes, you learn as much from what’s missing, as from what’s left out in the open.


And so it was with the missing evidence of Portage, evidence which, by its absence, not only reveals what happened, but shows who was really in charge in 1966 and long after. Who was in charge of the lost, suppressed, and planted evidence of this last infamous case can only have been a group with very high secret clearance and power… enough power to give the orders to the County Sheriff to hide conclusive evidence that it was not Venus the officers chased, but a radar-verifiable, “trace leaving” UFO. And more: to not just deny, but to give out false accounts and inject the lie that the officers were not really there or at least close by when the UFO actually landed. (The Officers were allowed to tell all but there was no evidence except their testimony and since Venus was in that place in the sky it was the pronounced verdict by PBB. There was no planted evidence just absence of evidence)

The County Sheriff of Portage, PA, was even instructed to hide evidence including soil samples of the actual landing site from the officer, the public, and even Project Blue Book…their own USAF’s home team! Go figure. Those high-clearance officials coordinated the marginalizing of officers reports which then deverted attention off of who owned the “official looking car”(their car) right next to where the “UFO” had landed . The officers weren’t fired outright but that report lead to dead end careers and harassment and ultimately family problems. Who except the UFO folks followed it anyway.

The County Sheriff of Portage, PA, was even instructed to hide all the evidence as reported by sworn officers of the law --sightings, to radar, to a witnessed UFO landing-- from the investigators in Project Blue Book, the USAF’s home team! Go figure. Were those high-clearance officials who coordinated first the silencing, then harassment and firing of the local law enforcement convinced that UFOs were so unimportant…that they didn’t want to bother Project Blue Book with the evidence? Is that why the power group convinced the very County officials who collected the hard evidence, to throw it away?

Convince me I am not living an Orwellian nightmare.

Our Air Force, the most powerful in the world, is either incompetent or knows exactly what it’s doing.

And while I’m at it, NASA, I don’t want to hear anymore about how you’re really a “private organization”. Since the beginning days till now you have not been forthright.


We all have a reason to be very angry at this. Over the years we have been told there was not one shred of evidence… what should have been said Is…”because of many governments on earth we don’t have a shred of evidence…Yes other governments, please don’t get me started on the other governments…Or Maybe I will?

Material Sources:
UFOlogie is a extensive database history of UFO cases and Documentation.
http://ufologie.net/indexe.htm

The Hefflin Analyses is from a pdf file:
Reanalysis of the 1965 Heflin UFO Photos:
ANN DRUFFEL & ROBERT M. WOOD ERIC KELSON
http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/articles/pdf/14.4_druffel_wood_kelson.pdf

Joseph Capp
UFO Media Matters

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

The Last Scientist Part 1

"Thus I freely admit that in arriving at my proposals I have been guided, in the last analysis, by value judgments and predilections. But I hope that my proposals may be acceptable to those who value not only logical rigor but also freedom from dogmatism; who seek practical applicability, but are even more attracted by the adventure of science, and by discoveries which again and again confront us with new and unexpected questions, challenging us to try out new and hitherto undreamed-of answers.
The Logic of Scientific Discovery"
By Karl Popper
http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/thornhill.htm

There are scientists and there are scientists. Dr. James McDonald was one of those true scientists: an adventurer. In "Firestorm " a biography by Ann Druffel, I got a lot closer to understanding what it’s like experiencing the pure joy of honest scientific thought.

We have many more scientists today, but how many of them are engaged in pure science? Dr. McDonald had a passionate love of pure science. You know what the pure kind is--the kind before ego gets involved.

Unfortunately it was through that passion that McDonald was destroyed. I’m certain McDonald’s presence would be powerful today…if he hadn’t committed suicide

So who was this man professional debunker the late Phil Klass tried to destroy?

Dr. James McDonald was the debunker of the bunk purveyors, people like Phil ‘No Class’ Klass and Dr. Donald ‘Merely’ Menzel.

McDonald was sharper than guys like these could ever hope to be, and they knew it. McDonald had the sharpest scientific mind --on both sides of the UFO controversy-- even to this day. He was also a great teaching professor, and we all know about that kind, too: the prof the students love, the lecturer who really teaches and fires them up, the inspiring kind of teacher and scientist. That was James McDonald. When the good Professor McDonald taught he never used notes, he had that kind of memory. From Firestorm:
“McDonald believed that curiosity was the heart of science”

Most of our scientists today seem to have more answers than curiosity,

Debunkers don’t really want to talk about McDonald’s good science on the possibilities of UFO reality, they’d rather take the easy way out and slander. Make that almost slander, since the professional debunkers have typically been too legal-minded to use full-on, prosecutable slander.

But it is true that McDonald was a pure scientist, something so rare it’s hardly thought of these days. He was like a monk who hadn’t learned the difference between the divine and the church.

Pure science was largely corrupted by government, with research grants cautiously doled out until the field of endeavor was no longer about science, but scientific funding. You had to toe the line to get the government money and the government told you what the line was.

But McDonald had a passion, transforming the value of inquiry into an almost spiritual belief that science should always be applied objectively, no matter what. Yet he was also a very practical researcher who did not spend time on those UFO cases he felt were patently absurd.

McDonald was tough on UFOs, but at the end of the day you knew the UFO reports Dr. McDonald couldn’t explain, nobody else --scientist or debunker-- could explain, either.

McDonald did what only a few UFO researchers do today: he went to the witnesses.
The minute McDonald debunked the science used to explain UFO sightings he became a problem. But it was because other scientists liked and respected him that he became a major problem. He didn’t know that the people he was rubbing the wrong way were radicals. These radical thinkers come in all guises but are the same type we find in fundamentalist religious groups and even inside the UFO community. These ‘I’m right no matter what’ people are addicted to lockstep thinking, and they can be dangerous if they go after you.

First, a telling scene from classic Christmas film “It’s A Wonderful Life”. Lionel Barrymore plays a sleazy bank president trying to destroy his more honest competitor, James Stewart, owner of a small town savings and loan. Stewart’s a good guy who approves loans to good honest working people of meager economic means in his community. Initially the corrupt banker tries to make a deal with Stewart and they shake on it. Stewart notices his hand is wet with sweat from the banker’s hand, and starts to walk out. At the moment he realizes what type of person he is dealing with, he understands that’s just what the banker lives for: to break down and corrupt honest men, to feel justified in his horrible actions, and most of all, to feel superior.

Enter Phil Klass in James McDonald’s life.


This Is How McDonald Would Have Loved It:
Nov 12 2007 National Press Club Wash. DC:



McDonald, after some common sense and research, had come to believe some UFOs were not explained by science. McDonald also made it his business to correct any sloppy science which was put forward to explain UFOs by other scientist.
Menzel found that out about McDonald rather quickly.
After a brief era of cordiality between Phil Klass and McDonald (and Stanton Friedman told me once that Klass was likable), the friendlier state of affairs ended when McDonald pointed out one of Phil’s “plasmoid” (ball lighting) explanations for a certain UFO sighting was impossible in atmospheric physics.

Klass started to hunt McDonald like a jackal hunting prey. Klass alerted the Navy, asking the brass if they knew McDonald was spending their money to investigate UFOs, by way of suggesting McDonald was either irresponsible or corrupt.

When the Navy replied McDonald had permission to do just that and did more than anticipated on all of his other duties, Klass continued to go up the line, hollering wasted money till he started to hit pay dirt.

Don’t you feel safer knowing good old Phil (No Class) Klass was watching out for us by destroying the reputations of decent people? Of course all this was nonsense. But Klass, defender of the faith and guardian of your tax dollars, continued his program of harassment.

McDonald was a kind of workaholic. Klass and Menzel could throw out their half-ass ‘scientific’ explanations untested, and only the brave would reply. It was simply that most scientists didn’t believe and some scientist couldn’t believe, but if any of them had checked they would have known. I’m sure they told themselves all kinds of reasons why they didn’t pursue looking at the exlanations seriously and carefully.

But thanks largely to the ceaseless program of attack-dog methods practiced --perhaps coordinated-- by Klass and Menzel, the only honest reason serious scientists of the era could give to avoiding proposing research projects or even commenting on the whole range of science related to ufology was lack of courage.

McDonald lectured before many scientific bodies and demonstrated how their explanations were frankly wrong, no question! He embarrassed scientists in front of their peers. Menzel --long a State Department ‘advisor’ in Latin America-- we know now was probably connected with intelligence. But I think from what I read, to Menzel, it was also personal with McDonald.

Here’s one example when McDonald demolished Klass. At a conference McDonald addressed Klass’s Plasma as The Theory of Everything UFO, citing a case where a bright object followed a plane. Take a good look at this one. A UFO reported as a bright light followed a plane almost --dare I say-- intelligently. Klass does a little scientific juggling and notices how his “plasmoids” (ball lighting) can be attracted to a negative charge much like that, he said, a dusty airplane might produce; therefore, the ball lighting followed the dusty plane. According, at least to Klass’s selective application of a primary physics principle.

Problem is, after McDonald gets out the slide rule and does some calculations, he uses a little science and some math to determine that the airplane would have to be moving slower than a person could pace, almost hovering, just so this ‘ball lightning’ could follow.

All these years, and at last! I have the answer: it was a UFO that was there, invisible, hovering, then flying next to the plane captured by a negative charge so the “Plasmaoid” must have been attracted to it. Guess that makes more sense than a walking airplane…

Dr. McDonald grew influential through his impeccable science and NICAP’s reputation as an organization flourished. Because NICAP had the top UFO research team with the most clout, it became a conduit for good reports and research. And so behind the lines even more influential eyes were watching, and it seems other powerful groups had planned for this very turn of events.



Part Two of The Last Scientist:
Science Loses A Friend