UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1998 > Jul > Jul 20

Re: Foo-Fighters: The German view

From: Jan Aldrich <jan@CYBERZONE.NET>
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1998 23:20:34 -0700
Fwd Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 06:12:45 -0400
Subject: Re: Foo-Fighters: The German view

Greetings James,

I don't mind if you sent this to Jenny. There has been some good
information published over the years about "foo-fighters".  More
awaits publication. However, ufology, like coinage, seems to be
governed by a variant of Gresham's Law. "Bad information drives
out good."

James Easton wrote:

>Regarding...

>>Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1998 00:21:43 -0700
>>From: Jan Aldrich <jan@CYBERZONE.NET>
>>Subject: Re: Foo-Fighters: The German view
>>To: PROJECT-1947@LISTSERV.AOL.COM

>Jan wrote:

>>Greetings James,

>>>...in Jenny Randles latest book, 'UFO Retrievals', she mentions:

>>>"UK comedian Michael Bentine, then an intelligence officer
>>>supervising the polish forces, told me of the debriefing he carried
>>>out in the  late 1944 on aircrew who had seen the lights during
>>>raids on the secret V-rocket base at Peenemunde and the intense
>>>interest in them shown by US intelligence staff".

>>Not at all surprising since everything about Peenemunde was of great
>>interest to the Allies.

>Jan,

>Very much so, the point was that this may have referred to a
>previously undocumented encounter and there are possibly others. I
>have asked Jenny if there's more specific information she might have
>recorded.

Yes, please do.

>>>In Time-Life's 'The UFO Phenomenon', it's claimed:

>>>"...the notion that these fireballs might be secret weapons soon
>>>faded, since none had ever harmed an Allied plane. Also, as
>>>Americans learned after the war, German pilots saw them, too - and
>>>assumed they were Allied secret weapons".

>>I very much doubt if Time-Life did much research other than to
>>synthesize material from the current UFO literature which repeats
>>this line over and over again.

>Yes, I'm sure that's the case. The fact this wasn't substantiated by
>any evidence didn't contend otherwise.

>>>I would have thought it unlikely that the Nazis had perfected such
>>>technology and if they had, why wouldn't they have made these
>>>'explosive' devices rather than psyops weapons?

>>[...]

>>I have seen references to three small wing or disc shaped weapons,
>>however none had anything like ionizing jets. To say I am dubious
>>of Haribson is about the understatement of this decade.

>Likewise, as I said, "If the papers allegedly uncovered are ever
>published, they might lend more substance to the story".

Perhaps, but I would rather believe that the Rebel Reptilian
Grand Fleet was responsible for Bentwaters than the clap-trap
that Harbiston is trying to sell.

>>The Germans did tow pieces of aircraft above Allied formations and
>>released them into the formations, many times detonating an explosive
>>on the part. The Allied aircrews called these "scare crows." Or the
>>Germans and Japanese tried aerial bombardment, dropping bombs in to
>>the formations. In many case the object was simply psychological.

>Noted and further questions why they would resort to such 'primitive'
>methods if having the technology Harbison claims.

>>>Jenny continues:

>>>"According to Harbison, this was only the beginning of the story...

>>>[...]

>>Good story!  But Nazi saucers stories are a dime a dozen. They were
>>a favorite subject in some German magazines after the war. There are
>>plenty of letter to the American authorities offering such
>>information for a price, a trip to American. Considering the
>>conditions in Germany right after the war, we should be surprised?

>Agreed, I've seen some of these letters.

>>>Greenwood's [Barry Greenwood] independent search of Foo Fighter
>>>records, many years after Harbinson's book appeared, found that all
>>>cases from February 1945 focused closely around that specific date".

>>No, not so....in any case lots more have been found for lots of
>>different dates.

>That's important, thanks for the clarification.

>>>Jenny adds a note of caution:

>>>"Harbinson's claims enter more contentious territory when he
>>>speculates about the Antarctic bases where the Foo Fighters was
>>>developed further by renegade Nazis who escaped the fall of Germany
>>>and whose research was to become the source of subsequent UFO
>>>encounters".

>>Really, just a note of caution?

>Jenny hardly posts a warning and it's arguable whether it's even a
>cautious note!

>I had maybe interpreted that it should be?

>>About this time the whole thing should go into the trash.

>I wouldn't disagree, Jan.

>>When did reports of 'Foo Fighters' cease - were there none at all
>>after a definitive date?

>>That is not so easy. Ferry pilots supposedly were still reporting
>>them in the North Atlantic after the war was over.

>I suspected this wasn't definitive and there were probably subsequent,
>sporadic reports.

>My conclusions, I'm sure like many others, were that the 'Foo Fighter'
>reports evidenced a factual phenomenon, definitely not a secret German
>weapon and that an explanation might lie in the realms of 'ball
>lightning', or something [even remotely] similar.

If you read Lindell, he will lead you to his current thoughts
that foo fighters were night perception problems brought on by
the lack of reference points in the dark, acceleration effects
on the eyes and the body's balance system. These causes people
to think that disembodied lights like stars are doing all sort
of unusual maneuvers.

There are, in fact, such  problems involved in night flying. The
US Navy did a multi-year, multi-million dollar study on such
problems. WW II was at the beginning of the era, and if that
were the case, then we would also expect the Germans, Italians
and Japanese to report similar effects. Ditto, for electrical
phenomena. This was the idea of Alvarez and Robertson. Griggs
apparently did not agree, and both the two other scientists
bowed to his superior knowledge of "foo-fighters."

>I wonder how many later 'UFO' reports from aircraft crews/passengers
>might be unconnected, but actually comparable with the 'Foo Fighter'
>phenomenon?

I expect that UFOs, that is the residuum of unexplained reports,
have multiple causes which are not current well understood nor
well investigated. About the same idea that the Sturrock panel
announced as the indications they saw.  My thoughts in 1959 and
today.

>>I must suggest that you get some better sources than you quote here.

>Although Jenny is hardly a world authority on 'Foo Fighters', I trust
>you agree that her reference to Michael Bentine's experiences were
>relevant.

Certainly, but Wilkins, Time-Life, and Nazi saucer tails are not
of the best quality.

>It also wasn't accidental that I preceded the mention of Jenny's
>comments in her latest book, assuming that these wouldn't be well
>known, with the words, "For information".

>As Jenny included a reference to Schriever and this might have been
>of interest to David, who was "looking into the activities of
>engineers like Miethe, Schriever...", it was as stated, simply for
>information.

>Despite the recognised caution re Wilkins' claims, he does give some
>quite specific details (are none of his 'Foo Fighter' reports
>authentic?) and it was mentioned he referred to the 'American Legion
>Magazine' as being an 'excellent' source, which is apparently correct.

Wilkins basically re-worked Jo Chamberlin's article. Primary
sources would be interviews with the aircrews or official
reports, the secondary source, Jo Chamberlin's article which was
derived from the primary material, and finally with Wilkins we
are already working on a third level sources. Since Chamberlin's
article is of some importance, I have asked permission to
reproduct it in my foo-fighter report.

>The authenticity of the Time-Life photograph also seems unresolved.

No, the authenticity of the Time-Life photograph is not
demonstrated. In fact, it was in dispute by one of Japan's most
reliable UFO investigators, Jun-Ichi Takanashi. Unless someone
can come up with some reliable information it must be considered
dubious....not a good advertisement for Time-Life's research,
but that was not the point, selling slick books with flashy
visuals was.

>It's recognised there are more authoritative sources, however there
>are less authoritative sources who publish to a wide and uninformed
>audience.

Again Gresham's Law works for ufological information.

>Presuming that Ivo, Jean-Luc, Werner [all comments greatly
>appreciated] and yourself have no objections, I will pass on to Jenny
>copies of the source material you respectively recommend and I'm sure
>she will welcome the further insight.

Be my guest. I would be happy if better information about this
period got out to the public. Even at this late date, it is
still possible to interview veterans about these experiences. I
did one last year. Many times these things left a lasting
impression that did not go away over the long years.

I would think that information, referred to by Jones, should be
available with the proper sort of research in the UK official
records. Just don't go looking for under the name "foo-fighter."

--
Jan Aldrich Project 1947 http://www.iufog.org/project1947/
P.O. Box 391, Canterbury,
CT 06331, USA
Telephone: (860) 546-9135