Entrevistas MP

Interview with Dr. Bruce Maccabee
Made by MysteryPlanet: 04/07/2007

Date: 04/07/2007 .·. BACK TO MAIN

	Name: Bruce Maccabee.
	Country: USA.
	Profession and/or Occupation: Physicist.
	Published Books/Researches: Books: “The UFO-FBI Connection”, “Abduction in my Life”, “UFOs Are Real, Here’s the Proof”. Over 120 articles in UFO publications. Appearances on nearly 100 radio and TV shows.
	Web Site: http://brumac.8k.com
	Topics covered in the interview: UFOs, aliens, Battle of Los Angeles, Kenneth Arnold, Gulf Breeze case, Trent/McMinnville case, New Zealand sightings (1978), Mexican Air Force case (2004), abductions, orbs.

Answer: In 1965 or 1966 while I was attending college in Washington DC, I learned about sightings that were discussed in the press during the 1965-1966 UFO “flap” in the United States. I read some books and then joined the National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP) which had its headquarters in Washington DC. The local NICAP investigators allowed me to accompany them during several investigations of local sightings. I learned that the witnesses weren’t “crazy” or deceptive. It appeared to me from what I read and from these early investigations that there was some substance to the UFO phenomenon (not all just “wishful thinking” or hoaxes) so I decided to continue studying.

In the early 1970’s I began my own investigation into the history of the UFO phenomenon and carried out several sighting investigations on my own. I decided to investigate the McMinnville (Oregon) photo case (Paul and Evelyn Trent, 1950). To accomplish this I had to learn photo analysis and also interviewing and investigating techniques. Ultimately, after many years of analysis I decided that they saw and actual Alien Flying Craft (AFC). This led to numerous other investigations, some of which were famous cases (Kenneth Arnold - 1947, Gemini 11-1966, Iranian Jets - 1976, New Zealand - 1978, JAL 1628 - 1984, Gulf Breeze - 1987 through 1992, Phoenix - 1997, Mexico City - 1997, Mexican Air Force - 2004) (see the above web site for details about these and other sightings). I also did historical research which included being the first to obtain the “flying disc” file of the FBI (the “real X files”) and I have written a number of papers on old sightings and the government activities.

*EDITOR’S NOTE: From here on in this interview will be used the abbreviation AFC for “Alien Flying Craft”.

Question: As a scientist, what kind of resistance have you found in the science establishment when it comes to deal with the UFO topics? What would be the reason?

Answer: Many scientists have been very skeptical but basically there has been no resistance. At least no one has told me to stop studying the UFO phenomenon and all that goes with it.

Question: Ok, but there is a classic and arrogant sophism which says UFO topic is not a science matter because there can’t be something unexplained which escapes from our human knowledge, reinforcing the popular misconception that certain subjects are inherently unscientific.

For example, did you attempt to publish UFO related articles in conventional science journals? What can you tell us about your experience?

Answer: I tried to publish UFO articles in conventional journals. I actually did succeed in presenting several papers at meetings of the American Physical Society, but those papers were not refereed. My first attempt was to publish an article in SCIENCE magazine in 1974. This didn’t get past the editor.

My next attempt was in 1979, a paper about the New Zealand sightings, and in this case I was successful, but “by accident” or by “good fortune” and not because the editor of the journal, Applied Optics, was interested in UFOs.

Question: We have noticed that you have analized the acceleration and speed characteristics of UFOs in videos, radar records and witnesses testimonies. Above all, does someone have obtained reliable data about UFO speeds and accelerations? What maximum values have been found or registered? What conclusions do you get from this?

Answer: There are some data available to civilians (and probably much more available to the military) which can be used to estimate AFC (alien flying craft) accelerations. Papers I have written mention tens to many tens of g’s of acceleration, but no one (that I know) knows the maximum acceleration of an AFC. The ability to have high acceleration could explain sudden appearances and disappearances of AFC. The ability to suddenly appear and to suddenly disappear “as if by total disintegration” has been known to the Air Force since the late summer of 1947. This ability may actually be a manifestation of their capability for extreme acceleration and deceleration.

Question: Some people claim that a big percentage of UFO sightings are due to ultrasecret prototypes flying around all the world, thus making a big mockery of secrecy. To do that, they usually put as examples U-2, B-2 or F-117 planes. What do you think about such claims?

Answer: AFC have shapes and dynamical capabilities that go beyond the capabilities of, and have shapes different from, manmade craft (airplanes, helicopters, balloons). Extreme speeds and accelerations and odd shapes (e.g., circular) were characteristics reported in the late 40’s. This is long before the U-2 and other airplanes you have mentioned. Of course, these advanced aircraft may account for some sightings, but certainly not for most sightings of unusual craft.

Question: Has the USA government covered up important information about the UFO matter? Has it covered up information about alleged alien aircrafts or devices?

Answer: It would appear that, at the very least, the governent has not been forthcoming with the information it has collected over the years. This is “withholding” of information, which some may call “cover up”. The real question is whether or not this withholding is part of a conspiracy of a small group of people to control information about AFC, either to “protect” the American people (and the world population) from possibly “scary” information or to exploit knowledge from back-engineering the AFC.

Question: Do you think some type of pact between alien intelligences and terrestrial governments really exists?

Answer: I doubt it, but I wouldn’t be very surprised if it were proved to be true.

Question: On February 25, 1942, near the start of WWII, there was an incident called “The Battle of LA”, where an UFO was sighted hovering over Los Angeles skies and the USA anti-aircraft batteries, fearing a Japanese bombing, got into action trying to shoot down the object using “hot guns”, even planes, without any result. What could it be that passed with impunity through the LA skies without suffering any damage in spite of the attacks?

Answer: The shape of the “thing” that seems to have stopped the spotlight beams where they converge seems to have the classic “flying saucer” shape. Hence it could have been an AFC. (+ details)

Question: The famous Kenneth Arnold case has been the primary target for the debunkers by many years because it is considered as a classic case of ufology. There were a lot of discussions on the matter of what Arnold actually saw, at what distance, the shape of the objects, the speed, etc. According to you, what did Kenneth Arnold see that June 24 of 1947?

Answer: After extensive analysis, I concluded that he saw flying objects not made by mankind, i.e., he saw AFC. (+ details)

Question: You have taken a role in the Gulf Breeze UFO photographs analysis, specifically, on the images got by Ed Walters. There have been some speculations on the idea that Ed Walters could be a hoax perpetrator. In short, what is your reply to these critiques?

Answer: In short, my answer is: not a hoax. Furthermore, if Ed’s sightings are removed from the total collection of Gulf Breeze sightings there remains an impressive body of evidence (hundreds of sightings by others over a several year time span) that suggests AFC were flying around the Gulf Breeze area.

Question: The Trent/McMinnville photos show clearly what seems to be a saucer-shape object. What is your opinion about the trustworthiness of the person who took the photos? What is your conclusion with respect to these photos?

Answer: I would say that farmer Trent and his wife were very trustworthy and they saw a TRue UFO (TRUFO) which apparently was an AFC.

Question: Regarding the New Zealand sightings in 1978, what are the more important facts of this enigmatic case?

Answer: The New Zealand sighting of December 31, 1978, are unique in the annals of civilian UFO sightings (perhaps not unique in military sightings!) in the following way: these are multiple witness sightings (by 2 air crew, 2 reporters, 2 ground radar operators, cameraman, sound recordist) with simultaneous radar and visual detections and color movie film and two tape recordings of the events as they occurred (one recording by a reporter on the plane, one recording by the Wellington, NZ air traffic control center). This wealth of data allows one to virtually reconstruct the flight and what the crew and passengers saw. Although numerous explanations were proposed at the time of the sightings, all have failed to explain the witnesses’ descriptions, the visual and color movie data and the radar data.

Out of several simultaneous radar-visual sightings, one stands out as unique: the time that the ground radar saw the airplane target “double in size” as the witnesses saw a light traveling along with the airplane. The radar controller’s interpretation was that an unknown object that had been detected near the plane had suddenly moved so close to the plane that the radar could not detect the small spacing between the two (could not resolve the two target blips on the scope). Another incident involved an extremely bright light that “kept station” with the plane on the outside of a turn as the plane turned left. Skeptics claimed this was a squid boat. If so, it was a very fast boat! Yet another incident involved a flashing light that changed color and shape from a single bright white light (that overexposed the film) to a much dimmer triangular arrangement in which an orange light was above two red lights.

My investigation of the NZ sightings is what convinced me that “UFOs are real”.

Question: Some years ago, on March 5, 2004, in the world wide news was showed a video filmed by Mexican Air Force during a reconnaissance flight in which can be seen several UFOs. What do you think about this video? Don’t you believe military pilots are more than qualified to avoid confusing oil flames with flying objects?

Answer: I carried out the most extensive study of that video with the help of several Mexican investigators and the Mexican Air Force itself at the request of Jaime Maussan. The report is at my web site. Therein I show that the original radar target is unexplained. It was tracked over a considerable distance as the plane flew along, yet, when there was only 2 nm separating it from the plane (while it was ahead of the plane) the witnesses could see nothing visually nor with the aid of a mid-infrared imaging system (flir). There were a couple of other radar targets detected, but they could have been vehicles on the ground. After the plane turned to go home the radar target sped up and continued its track to the northwest. But then the infrared viewing system began to detect “lights” at the left of the plane. In the paper I showed that if the lights were not moving then they were about 100 miles away, at about the same distance and in the same direction as oil field gas-burnoff fires.

Others had raised the question of whether or not the lights could have been gas fires. Not all of the available flir data were completely consistent with the oil fire hypothesis. I suggested to the Mexican Air Force several experiments they could which would prove or disprove the oil fire theory. Their only response was that they fly often in that area and have not seen the fires. I consider the case for oil fires to be unproven, although I would guess that the probability of them being oil fires is greater than 50%. At any rate, the initial radar target remains unexplained.

Question: Which are the more convincing evidences that prove the reality of the UFOs and the extraterrestrial origin of them? Which are the more common “prosaic explanations” or excuses given by skeptics for rejecting such evidences?

Answer: Let us first change the designation from UFO, which is some unidentified object, to AFC, which implies identification (as an alien craft).

The first step in proving the “reality of AFC” is to show that there are UFO sightings which (a) can’t be explained by conventional phenomena and (b) which contain descriptions of shapes, dynamics or other properties of the observed phenomenon or object which are different from the shapes, dynamics, etc., of mundane (known) phenomena or objects. For example, a circular object that is flat on the bottom, pancake shaped, and with a fin on top that can hover and then accelerate to the speed of a jet, all without making any noise, is not any known airplane. Yet this is the description of an object seen by 5 witnesses in May, 1949 (the Rogue River sighting described at my web page). Two of the witnesses worked at the Ames Research laboratory and used binoculars to get good views of the object. They filed an official report with the Air Force. Consider, then, that this one sighting by itself proves AFC are real. A “prosaic explanation” offered for this sighting was “weather balloon with radar reflector”. This explanation has been rejected as essentially ridiculous when compared with the sighting details.

Other more famous sightings also have “collected” explanations, as shown in the paper “Prosaic Explanations: the Failure of UFO Skepticism” at my web site. Explanations typically fall into the following three classifications: misidentification (most explained sightings), delusion (very few sightings) and hoax (not many; the Air Force estimated about 2%). Misidentified objects include stars, planets, meteors, fireball meteors, insects (close to cameras making blurred images), “flash orbs”, airplanes of various sizes and shapes including helicopters, balloons (sometimes with candles), internally lighted blimps (some videos of lighted blimps are featured in some UFO documentary videos), birds, odd clouds, etc.

Question: What is your opinion about the abduction phenomenon?

Answer: Probably real at some level, i.e., actual physical abduction may occur (not “all in the mind”). However, what happened during the abduction, as recalled afterward, whether without (25%) or with (75%) hypnosis, may not be exactly what the abductee says happened.

Question: In your opinion, what are the North American Ufology achievements and what are the goals to fulfil?

Answer: One major achievement is the amassing of a huge volume of evidence in spite of the reluctance of scientific organizations to provide any support for investigation and in spite of the resistance of the government (Air Force in particular) to allowing access to information that was collected by the government. Although there certainly have been numerous sightings in other countries, the U.S.A. and Canada seem to have amassed the largest collection of UFO data. One goal of North American ufology is to make this mass of data availble for analysis. (MUFON is attempting this, as are some other organizations.)

Question: In many occasions, users have sent messages to the e-mail box of our website with photos showing anomalous circular images, often called “orbs”, in them. We think that you, as an optical physicist, can give us a more than qualified opinion about this phenomenon. What are they?

Answer: There are orbs which can be seen with the naked eye and orbs (and other shapes) which are not seen with the eye but appear on film when there is a flash used or if there are light beams passing close to the front of the camera. These “flash orbs”, seen only in a photo, are typically “diffuse” or low contrast images, often with a fine structure due to lens aberrations and diffraction. At my web site there is a discussion of “flash orbs” which are typically round but could be other shapes (they are the shape of the lens aperture which typically is round). These orbs appear in photos but are not seen at the time of the photographs. The orbs that are seen without the use of a camera are another thing entirely. They are the real “orbs”. What they are I do not know but they have been reported for many years.

Question: Dr. Maccabee, we thank you a lot for grant us a few of your time to make this interview. In order to close, do you wish to leave some message to our web visitors or talk about your future projects?

Answer: Thanks for the opportunity. I hope everyone reads my Abduction book that you can order from me directly by contacting me through my web site. “Abduction in my Life” is different from every other UFO book. It is really two books in one: the combination of a novel and a fact book. It has gotten good reviews from abductees who can identify with many of the incidents portrayed in the book.



Photo 1 (left): UFO with the jet approaching from the right and heading to the left. Photo 2 (right): The jet got very close to the UFO. Photo 3 (below): Magnified image.