Editorial Comment

REACTION TO CONFIRMATION
NBC Special: February 17, 1999

This brief note is in response to the CONFIRMATION special and their coverage of the 1994 Trumbull County Disturbance.

First, thanks to the CONFIRMATION team for the elaborate and dramatic production. Also, thanks to them for securing interviews with the officers involved. That was an accomplishment.

And above all, thanks to these police officers for their courage.

What was not addressed in the CONFIRMATION special was the societal factors involved which kept this information from the public for 4-years. The viewer was basically unaware that this affair was mired in secrecy.

Although the Trumbull County Disturbance - as a UFO sighting - is interesting as well as credible, a good portion of the actual story is the secrecy engine which forged ahead after the happening. These details even indicate that news media officials in Youngstown, Ohio allowed this story to be denied public consideration.

Further, it was stated that CONFIRMATIONS broke the story for the first time on television. This was a slight inaccuracy, as WXIX FOX-19 News in Cincinnati broke the story of the Trumbull County Disturbance last summer.

Astronomer Mr. James E. McGaha was also shown on the segment, given airtime to 'dismiss' the Trumbull County Disturbance. McGaha asserted that 'twinkling stars' were to blame for the event and a simple 'fireball' was responsible for the light reported by Officer Melero. The 'shutdown' of the patrol cruiser, McGaha proclaimed, was sheer coincidence while the fireball was seen overhead.

Mr. James E. McGaha, I am sorry sir, but your suggestions were most irrational and inappropriate given the facts of the Trumbull County situation. You did demonstrate a powerful lack of understanding regarding the key data elements of this case.

Eliminating this entire affair with an all-encompassing explanation of this nature denies and disregards key detail such as:

• Officers were responding to CITIZEN ADVISEMENT of a UFO situation. It was not a 'police only' affair.
• The location of the primary object was triangulated by several units approaching from different directions while corresponding via radio. This could not happen had twinkling stars been a factor.
• Eyewitness testimony indicates varying descriptive detail given:
• a blue flaming object,
• massive light which illuminates the ground,
• structured object,
• "parachute-like" appendage spied through binoculars, and
• a "massive, rotating saucer."

These specific comments - using selected terms to describe the visual observation of a low-level object - have been ignored by McGaha. His deletion of key detail is not scientific and should be recognized as such.

Note that visual separation is established by officers involved who were able to recognize stars and planets versus the UFOs. Visual separation is also established by the officers, who report jet aircraft later flying in the region. Stars were clearly differentiated between the jet aircraft and UFOs.

By appearing before cameras suggesting an explanation so fraudulent provides us with a suspicion that Mr. McGaha's motives were ideological, and not valid scientific concerns.

Interestingly, during my interview for the CONFIRMATIONS special last summer, I soundly refuted McGaha's suggestions even before his interview was conducted. For reasons I cannot fathom, those refutations were deleted from the piece. Perhaps this deletion was in the interest of 'balance...?'

At any rate, it is nice to see this amazing case receive interest and my hats off to the producers and participants. I am thankful to have been involved.

Feb. 18, 1999
Kenny Young