time/1/9/7/0/USAF_IntroductorySpaceScience/index.html
<!--#include virtual="/header-start.html" -->
<title>Unidentified Flying Objects (USAF Introductory Space Science)</title>
<meta content="https://www.cufon.org/cufon/afu.htm" name="url">
<meta content="Introductory Space Science - Volume 2, Chapter 33. Department of Physics 370. United States Air Force Academy"
name="copyright">
<meta content="Donald G. Carpenter (Major, Edited by)" name="author">
<meta content="Edward R. Therkelson (Lt. Colonel, Co-Editor)" name="author">
<!--#include virtual="/header-end.html" -->
<section>
<h2>33.1 Introduction</h2>
<p>In this text, an attempt has been made to discuss all observable phenomena from the surface of the sun to the
surface of the planets, particularly the planet Earth. It must be admitted, however, that some phenomena have been
overlooked and that others are not presently explainable. In this latter category we find "Unidentified Aerial
Phenomena." </p>
<p>This is a very broad, all-inclusive subject since the "unidentified" depends on the experience and education of the
observer--to an aborigine, an airplane may be "unidentified" while to the meteorologist even such rare phenomena as
noctilucent clouds and ball lightning may be "identifiable." Thus, sightings of "unidentified aerial phenomena" must
be reported completely and investigated carefully to determine if they are indeed "unidentifiable." There have been
thousands of reports of "unidentified aerial phenomena" in the past quarter-century and a number of these reports
are still listed as "unidentifiable." This may be due to poor reporting, incomplete investigation, or to
deficiencies in our understanding of the atmosphere and the universe at large. The possibility that our scientific
knowledge could be increased by study of these phenomena has led several organizations to explore the subject
further. </p>
<p>The popular literature uses the more restrictive term "Unidentified Flying Objects" instead of the general
"Unidentified Aerial Phenomena." Although there is insufficient evidence that the phenomena are real physical
"objects" or indeed that they are "flying", we will adopt the popular terminology to avoid confusion. Consequently,
we will define an "Unidentified Flying Object" (UFO) as any reported aerial phenomenon or object which is unknown or
appears out of the ordinary to the observer. </p>
<p>While there are purported UFO reports dating from ancient times, the subject of UFOs really was thrust upon the
American public shortly after World War II when Kenneth Arnold on 24 June 1947 reported seeing nine "saucer like"
objects near Mount Rainier. This was the first in a series of UFO reports which has continued to the present. The
newly organized U.S. Air Force was assigned the mission of determining if the UFOs represented a threat to the
national security. The investigation was conducted under Project Sign, later Project Grudge, and finally Project
Blue Book which ended on 17 December 1969. </p>
<p>Because of a rash of UFO reports in 1952 and fears that military communications channels could be clogged by enemy
instigated UFO reports, a special scientific panel chaired by the late Dr. H, P. Robertson was established under
government sponsorship in January 1953 to study the UFO problem. The panel concluded that there was no evidence in
the available data that UFOs were a threat to national security. These scientists recommended that a campaign be
conducted to produce better public understanding of the situation and also to remove the aura of mystery surrounding
the subject. This latter goal has not yet been completely achieved. </p>
<p>FALL SEMESTER 1970 </p>
<p> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------</p>
<p>After this, Project Blue Book continued to receive and evaluate UFO reports, but the conclusions reached were not
always accepted by "UFO-logists" and the general public. The Air Force was often accused of trying to cover up the
UFO problem and of withholding information allegedly indicating that UFOs are extraterrestrial. Consequently, a
panel headed by Dr. Brian O'Brien was empowered to review Project Blue Book in 1966. While this commission
reaffirmed that there was no apparent security threat posed by the existence of unexplained UFO reports, it
suggested that a detailed study of some of the reports might produce something of scientific value. The commission
recommended that a few selected universities be engaged to provide scientific teams for prompt investigation of
selected UFO sightings. Consequently, in 1966, the U.S. Air Force sponsored a $500,000 investigation led by Dr.
Edward U. Condon of the University of Colorado to make a scientific investigation of UFOs, not necessarily to
identify UFOs but only to determine if there is scientific merit in the study of them. </p></section>
<section>
<h2>33.2 Hypotheses to Explain UFOs</h2>
<p>In any scientific investigation, we establish an hypothesis or hypotheses, collect data, analyze the data in light
of our hypotheses and then refute or confirm our hypotheses or conclude that we have insufficient data to do
either. </p>
<p>Approximately 6% of the UFO reports collected by Project Blue Book are officially listed as "unexplained." If we
propose to "explain" these remaining cases we must first set up a list of possible explanations. There is always the
danger in this procedure that the true explanation for a particular event is not contained in the given set of a
priori hypo-theses. With this note of caution before us, we adopt a set of hypotheses proposed by Dr. James McDonald
of the University of Arizona: </p>
<ol>
<li> Hoaxes, fabrications, and frauds. </li>
<li> Hallucinations, mass hysteria, rumor phenomena. </li>
<li> Advanced terrestrial technologies. </li>
<li> Lay misinterpretations of well understood physical phenomena. </li>
<li> Poorly understood physical phenomena. </li>
<li> Poorly understood psychological phenomena. </li>
<li> Extraterrestrial visitation.</li>
<li> Messengers of salvation and occult truth. </li>
</ol>
<p>Let us examine each of these in light of the data collected over the past twenty-plus years. </p>
<p> 1. Hoaxes, fabrications, and frauds. There is no question that some UFO reports are hoaxes, fabrications, and
frauds perpetrated by persons playing pranks with candles in plastic cleaning bags, persons faking photographs,
persons seeking notoriety or recognition, and practical jokers. The UFO literature is replete with examples of all
types. However, confirmed hoaxes are only a small percentage of the total number of UFO reports. Most reports are by
reliable witnesses and show no evidence of fabrication or fraud. </p>
<p> 2. Hallucinations, mass hysteria, rumor phenomena. There is evidence that UFO reports occur in waves and that a
rash of sightings in a localized area may be due to increased public sensitivity to an initial report. Some reports
received at these times may indeed be inspired by the increased attention to UFOs and not true sightings at all.
However, the large number of multi-observer reports from independent observers, and reports from military personnel,
airline pilots, policemen, scientists and other qualified witnesses makes it unlikely that many UFO reports are the
results of hallucinations, mass hysteria, and rumor phenomena. Psychologists and sociologists are unable to estimate
what portion of UFO reports may be due to such causes but analysis of the credentials of witnesses in most reports
would indicate that the number must be small. </p>
<p>3. Advanced terrestrial technologies (e.g. test vehicles, satellites, reentry phenomena, secret weapons). The noted
space scientist Arthur C. Clarke has observed that any sufficiently advanced technology will appear
indistinguishable from magic. Thus advanced terrestrial technologies are certainly the cause of some reports. The
reported characteristics of UFOs do not appear to have changed markedly over the years while man has made great
technological progress. Thus while some current UFO reports may be attributable to space vehicle reentries or
satellite launches, the reports in the forties and early fifties cannot be attributed to these causes. Similarly,
advanced weapon systems in the development and test stages (secret weapons) now would give rise to a different type
of UFO report from those of earlier eras. The variety and world-wide distribution of UFO reports make it unlikely
that the reports are due to sightings of products of an advanced terrestrial technology. </p>
<p> 4. Lay misinterpretations of well-understood physical phenomena (e.g. meteorological, astronomical, optical). From
our definition of UFOs it is obvious that a large number of reports will fall in this category. Misidentification of
aircraft landing lights, blinking and flashing lights during aerial refueling operations, weather balloons, meteors,
movements of the planets Venus and Jupiter, searchlight reflections on low cloud ceilings and lens flares in
photographs are a few possibilities. The reader can undoubtedly suggest others and find still more in the UFO
literature. In his article, "The Physics and Metaphysics of Unidentified Flying Object Dr. William Markowitz
discusses the UFO problem in light of the currently accepted physical laws. In particular, he considers the
following five basic laws: </p>
<p> a. Every action must have an equal and opposite reaction. </p>
<p> b, Every particle in the universe attracts every other particle with a force proportional to the product of their
masses and inversely as the square of the distance between them. </p>
<p> c. Momentum and mass-energy are conserved. </p>
<p> d. No material body can travel at c, the speed of light in free space. </p>
<p> e. The maximum energy which can be obtained from a body at rest is governed by Einstein's famous equation, E =
mc2 </p>
<p>To date these laws have enabled physicists to predict and control many phenomena for practical purposes. They can
also be valuable in analyzing UFO reports. The details in most UFO reports do not cause any conflict with these laws
and lead us to conclude that UFOs may well just be misidentified ordinary phenomena. However, some reports seem at
variance with one or more of these laws, leading us to question either the reliability of the UFO reports or the
reliability of our physical laws. Since our physical laws are more firmly established both in theory and by
experiment, the validity of the physical law is usually a more acceptable alternative to the scientist. We must
realize, however, that any physical law may be subject to change with the discovery of new evidence. </p>
<p> 5. Poorly understood physical phenomena (e.g. rare atmospheric electrical effects, cloud phenomena, plasmas of
natural or technological origin). Attempting to explain UFO reports by some poorly understood phenomenon is risky at
best, and probably is impossible until the phenomenon is better understood. Lenticular clouds as explanations for
certain UFO reports may be on firm grounds, but attempts to explain UFOs in terms of mirages, ball lightning (a
sphere-shaped plasma blob usually associated with electrical storms) , atmospheric inversion layers, or anomalous
propagation of radar signals are much less tenable. Some UFO reports may be explainable by these phenomena, but it
is impossible to make positive identifications based on our present limited understanding of the phenomena.
Consequently, all such explanations should be considered only tentative. There may be still other atmospheric
phenomena which are observed so rarely that they remain uninvestigated and unnamed. </p>
<p> 6. Poorly understood psychological phenomena. Psychologists are the first to admit that there are many aspects of
psychic phenomena that have not been adequately explored. Few data are available to determine how these phenomena
may relate to the UFO problem, but we must at least allow for the possibility that there may be some effects. </p>
<p> 7. Extraterrestrial visitation. Dr. Condon states in the summary of Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying
Objects that convincing and unequivocal evidence of extraterrestrial visitation would be the greatest single
scientific discovery in the history of mankind. While this may be a slight exaggeration, it at least points out why
this hypothesis adds so much excitement and controversy to the UFO problem. Despite numerous UFO reports concerning
purported space vehicles and alien visitors, there remains doubt as to the veracity of these reports. Such reports
do, however, contain a number of strange elements that are verifiable. One would prefer hard evidence in the form of
a tail fin, a jettisoned propulsion unit, a crashed UFO, several good photographs, etc. Such physical evidence does
not seem to exist, despite stories to the contrary. Several scientists have concluded that the priori probability of
extraterrestrial visitation appears to be exceedingly low in terms of present scientific knowledge. Although no
conclusive proof as to the validity of this hypothesis can be drawn from the evidence at hand, a panel of the
National Academy of Sciences has concluded that on the basis of present knowledge, the least Likely explanation of
UFOs is the hypothesis of extraterrestrial visitations by intelligent beings. </p>
<p> 8. Messengers of salvation and occult truth. Certain cults have adopted the belief that the mission of UFOs is
spiritual and that all Physical efforts to determine the nature of UFOs must necessarily fail. While such may be the
case, evidence to support it is clearly lacking. Further discussion of this hypothesis is beyond the scope of this
text. </p></section>
<section>
<h2>33.3 Conclusion</h2>
<p>Having presented the arguments for each of the hypotheses, possible conclusions are now considered. It is apparent
that no single hypothesis can account for all UFO reports. Hypotheses 1, 2, 3, and 4 are obviously valid and, as a
group, account for a large number of UFO reports. However, the evidence is insufficient to conclude that all UFO
reports can be attributed to these causes. Hypothesis 8 is unlikely to yield to any form of scientific analysis, so
we eliminate it from further consideration. If hypotheses 5, 6, and 7 are scientifically the most interesting since
they offer the possibility of new knowledge about ourselves and our environment. As indicated above, hypotheses 5
and 6 require additional research on poorly understood phenomena before conclusions can be reached as to their
bearing on the UFO problem. At this time, there appears to be insufficient evidence available to either confirm or
refute hypothesis 7.</p>
<p>One additional note of caution must be included at this point. In most of this chapter, we have discussed primarily
the scientific implications of the UFO question. However, the Lorenzens contend that UFOs are primarily an emotional
problem, secondly a political problem, and only incidentally, a scientific problem. They feel that when the
emotional and political problems have been resolved, the entire UFO problem will yield to scientific
investigation. </p>
<p>Is such scientific investigation likely to be conducted? At least one major scientific study has been made. Dr.
Condon and his University of Colorado Project ended their Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects in late
1968 with the general conclusion that nothing has come from the study of UFOs in the past two decades that has added
to scientific knowledge and that further extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the expectation
that science will be advanced. This conclusion and the entire report were endorsed by a select panel from the
National Academy of Sciences. </p>
<p>Based on the conclusions of the Condon report and its own twenty-year UFO experience, the Air Force terminated
Project Blue Book in December 1969 with this final statement, "As a result of investigating UFO reports since 1948,
the conclusions of Project Blue Book are (1) no UFO reported, investigated, and evaluated by the Air Force has ever
given any indication of threat to our national security; (2) there has been no evidence submitted or discovered by
the Air Force that sightings categorized as 'unidentified' represent technological developments or principles beyond
the range of present-day scientific knowledge; and (3) there has been no evidence indicating that sightings
categorized as 'unidentified' are extraterrestrial vehicles." </p>
<p>Consequently, there is presently no official government agency investigating UFO reports. Dr. McDonald and several
private UFO investigative agencies have decried alleged inadequacies of the Condon report and Project Blue Book and
urge that the entire subject be re-investigated. Specifically, Project Blue Book, during its existence, was
criticized for superficial investigation of UFO reports, low level of scientific competence among its personnel, and
unreasonable explanations concerning specific UFO reports. Criticisms of the Condor report include the contention
that the conclusions reached are not supported by the bulk of the evidence in the report itself and that the firing
of two staff members for "incompetence" before the completion of the final report raises questions concerning the
objectivity and completeness of the study. While some of the criticism may possibly be justified, it is unlikely
that any new official scientific studies will be forthcoming, primarily because the conclusions of the Condon report
have been so widely accepted. </p>
<p>The UFO problem must now compete on its scientific merit with all the other pressing scientific problems facing
mankind. To receive attention from scientists and the requisite economic support, the potential rewards from UFO
research must be shown to be commensurate with the resources expended. Although the Condon committee cautioned that
nothing worthwhile was likely to result from such research, it suggested that all of the agencies of the federal
government and private foundations should be willing to consider UFO research proposals along with the others
submitted to them on an open-minded, unprejudiced basis. </p>
</section>
<p>REFERENCES</p>
<ol>
<li> Air Force Regulation 80-17, Unidentified Flying Objects, 19 Sept 66, (Rescinded 25 March 1970),</li>
<li> Binder, Otto , What We Really Know About Flying Saucers, Greenwich, Conn: Fawcett Publications, 1967,</li>
<li> Condon, Edward U., Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects, New York: Bantam Rooks, 1967.</li>
<li> Lorenzen, Carol and Jim, UFO's-The W@ole Story. New York: Signet Books, 1969.</li>
<li> Markowitz, William, "The Physics and Metaphysics of Unidentified Flying Objects," Science, Vol. 157 pp.
1274-1279, 15 Sept 67.</li>
<li> McDonald, James E., Unidentified Flying Objects-Greatest Scientific Problem of Our Times., Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh
Subcommittee, NICAP, 1967.</li>
<li> McDonald, James E., "UFO's--An International Scientific Problem," speech presented 12 Mar 68 at the Canadian
Aeronautics and Space Institute, Astronautics Symposium, Montreal, Canada.</li>
<li> OASD(PA) News Release No. 1077-69, Project "Blue Book" Terminated.</li>
<li> Saunders, D.R. and R.R. Harkins, UFO's? Yes, Where the Condon Committee Went Wrong, New York: Signet Books,
1968.</li>
</ol>
<!--#include virtual="/footer.html" -->