UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1997 > Nov > Nov 17

UFOR: The 1968 RAND Corporation Report on UFOs

From: Francisco Lopez <d005734c@dc.seflin.org>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 03:54:57 -0500 (EST)
Fwd Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 09:51:09 -0500
Subject: UFOR: The 1968 RAND Corporation Report on UFOs


From: Dr. Rachele Fishman <rayfish@cc.huji.ac.il>
Dr. Fishman is a Scientist and a correspondent in Israel for Lancet


The RAND Corporation

                               RAND DOCUMENT

                             UFOs: What to Do?

                               George Kocher

                              27 November 1968

                             For RAND Use Only

    DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE IN EXTERNAL RAND PUBLICATIONS OR CORRESPONDENCE

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    -1-

                                INTRODUCTION

          Common sense is the quintessence of the experiences and
      prejudices of its time. It is a most unreliable advisor when one
           is confronted with a perfectly new situation. Gustav Naan

UFOs -- unidentified flying objects, or flying saucers as they are often
called -- have been on the mind of the public for at least the last 22
years. For a number of reasons, we know little more about them now than we
did at the outset. There exists a great amount of misinformation about the
phenomenon not only in the minds of the public, but among educated groups
such as scientists as well. It is the purpose of this series of essays to
describe various aspects of the phenomenon, make clear my prejudices and
the reasons for them, and to suggest a means of prodeeding on this
interesting and potentially very significant problem.

But first, a few words about the term UFO. J. A. Hynek, an astronomer
having continuous involvement with UFO study for over 20 years, defines
UFOs as "any reported aerial or surface visual sighting or radar return
which remains unexplained by conventional means even after examination by
competent persons. This definition ... specifies neither flying nor
objects." (1) I would agree, but would prefer to replace "or radar return"
with "or instrumental observation" and "even after examination by competent
persons" to "even after competent examination by qualified persons." This,
then, is the definition I have adopted in the five essays that follow.

                                     ii

                                  CONTENTS

        INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
         Part 1: UFO's: Historical Aspects . . . . . . . . . . . 2
           Part 2: UFO's: Astronomical Aspects . . . . . . . . 8
             Part 3: UFO's: The Character of Reports . . . . 12
              Part 4: UFO's: Phenomenological Aspects . . . 24
              Part 5: UFO's: How to Proceed and Why . . . . 29
         A REPORT FORM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
       BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

                                    -2-

                    PART 1: UFOs -- HISTORICAL ASPECTS

Those familiar with the UFO literature are aware that reports of sightings
did not begin with Arnold's sighting in 1947, but that phenomenology much
the same as is reported today can be found in documents going back to the
earliest times. Vallee (2) gives a sampling of this; B.L.P. Trench (3) has
made a more thorough study and reports on the research of others able to
study the original documents.

What was reported? Luminous discs, shields, globes and elongated objects in
the sky, sometimes alone, sometimes in large numbers. Occasional
descriptions of interactions with the observers are also mentioned,
including landings, and seeing and communicating with occupants. The latter
events especially were almost always interpreted in a religious context. A
recent example is the repeated appearance of a typical UFO phenomenology at
Fatima, Portugal on six successive months in 1917. The October 13
phenomenon was the best reported and was witnessed by a crowd of about
70,000 persons, including a number of scientists, reporters, atheists, and
agnostics, as wel as faithful Catholics. One of the scientifically curious
was Dr. A Garrett of the University of Coimbra. Rain, which had been
falling that day, ceased and the crowd looked up to see the "sun" now
visible through the heavy clouds. Professor Garrett wrote, "...I turned
toward this (sun) which was attracting all eyes and I could see it like a
disk with a clear cut edge, with a vivid rim, luminous and shining, but
without hurting one. The comparison I have heard at Fatima with a disk of
dull silver, does

                                    -3-

not seem to me exact. It was a clearer, more vivid, richer color and with
shifting tints like the luster of a pearl. It was not at all like the moon
on a clear transparent night, for one saw and felt it like a living star.
Nor was it spherical like the moon, nor did it have the same quality of
lighter and less light. It looked like a burnished wheel cut out of
mother-of-pearl. Nor could it be confused with the sun seen through a fog
-- there was no fog... This disc spun dizzily round. It was not the
twinkling of a star: it whirled round upon itself with mad rapidity... The
sun, preserving the celerity of its rotation, detached itself from the
firmament and advanced, blood-red, towards the earth, threatening to crush
us with the weight of its vast and fiery mass. These moments made a
terrifying impression." (4) The relationship of the old phenomenology to
religion are discussed by Thomas. (5)

An example of earlier celestial displays of interest is illustrated in Figs
1 and 2. These are broadsheets from Nuremberg (1561) and Basel (1566),
respectively. The psychologist, C. G. Jung; provides an analysis of the
contents of the woodcuts in his interesting book. (6) Reference 7 has a
very interesting reproduction of a fourteenth century fresco in a
Yugoslavian church.

The modern period of the phenomenon began with a widely publicized sighting
made by Kenneth Arnold in Washington state in 1947. A study by Bloecher of
north american reports over the four week period bracketing the Arnold
sighting lists 853 events, including 38 sightings made before Arnold's
heavily publicized Sighting. (8)

Because the early reports seemed to suggest airborne craft of unusual
appearance and kinematics, the problem came to rest with the newly
organized U.S. Air Force. Initial fears were that the country was being
overflown by advanced foreign aircraft, possibly on intelligence missions.
The latter was suggested by the large number of sightings from the White
Sands, New Mexico area and from the vicinity of the Hanford, Washington
atomic plant.

Serious inquiry proceeded for a few years without any positive results. A
number of supposedly knowledgeable people spoke out pointing out the
sporadic nature of the sightings, and that since the reported

                                    -4-

               [Image]  Fig. 1 -- Nuremberg Broadsheet, 1561

                 [Image]  Fig. 2 -- Basel Broadsheet, 1566

   Both Broadsheets from the Wickiana Collection, Zurich Central Library

                                    -5-

kinematics were inconsistent with current physical theory, the UFOs were
not likely to be from a foreign power. Further, they argued, no other
planets in our solar system were believed to support life -- certainly not
intelligent life -- and since even the nearest star was over four light
years away, the hypothesis of extraterrestrial origin was simply
unacceptable from a scientific point of view. (9)

The Air Force investigative effort worked as follows: (10) Whenever a
sighting was made, a report was to be made out and turned in to the Air
Force at base level. The report was forwarded to Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio
for study. If the report was interesting enough, followup inquiry was made.
By 1952 the number of reports coming in was so large that the CIA was
concerned that an actual attack on the country might not be immediately
recognized. A panel of scientists was then convened in January 1953 to
study the available evidence and see what conclusion could be reached about
UFOs. After seven days of hearing evidence and discussing the matter it was
concluded that there was only circumstantial evidence of the
extraterrestrial hypothesis. The panel recommended a broadened study effort
with full disclosure of investigations. In order to unplug the military
intelligence channels, however, the CIA recommended that, since the UFOs
apparently posed no threat, the Air Force should debunk UFO reports and try
generally to discourage public interest in them, in the hope that they
would go away. (11)

It was the CIA's recommendation, apparently, that was made policy, for the
investigative procedures used since 1953 have been vestigal and the
handling of the subject by the authorities tended to make witnesses look
ridiculous. In spite of the unfavorable publicity accorded witnesses,
reports persisted, and no doubt in response to official behavior several
civilian study groups were formed to receive reports and investigate
sightings. The most successful of these groups is the National
Investigation Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP). NICAP's membership is
well dispersed geographically and acts to learn as much as possible from
sightings. The large number of scientific and technical personnel in the
NICAP membership aids the quality of their evaluations. A summary of
characteristics of the UFO phenomenology published by NICAP

                                    -6-

in 1964 (12) contains 575 reports that were extensively checked by NICAP
for accuracy.

A series of sightings in 1965 and 1966 received considerable public
attention arid after the poor public reception given the official
explanations, the Air Force felt compelled to contract for a 15 month
(later stretched to l8 months) scientific study to be performed at the
University of Colorado under the leadership of E. U. Condon, a highly
respected physicist. The Condon Committee is due to complete investigations
at the end of June 1968; its report will be reviewed by the National
Academy of Sciences (presumably to validate that the study was indeed the
objective pearl of the scientific method that was desired), and is expected
to be made public in October 1968. Unfortunately, the dismissal of two
members of the Committee in February 1968 resulted in publicity suggesting
that the study was not, in fact, objective. It remains, therefore, to see
the final report to determine the worth of the study.

In the meantime, the respectability accorded UFOs by the $500,000 study
contract permitted a considerable amount of scientific interest to surface.
Astronomer Hynek has made a number of public statements on the basis of his
long involvement as a consultant to the Air Force; atmospheric physicist
James F. McDonald has turned his attention full time to the subject, and a
number of scientific and technical journals have printed some dialogue -
notably Science, the AIAA Journal, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and
the Journal of the Astronautical Sciences. It is also noteworthy that the
University of Toronto has recently formed a UFO study group.

Even the Soviets, who previously refused even to discuss the subject now
admit to having a study group with good qualifications. The USSR Academy of
Sciences still holds to the orthodox scientific view that UFOs are a
nonproblem, however, using the same arguments we heard so long. These
arguments are just as invalid in the USSR as in the USA.

It therefore appears that the subject is slowly and finally being regarded
as a fit subject of scientific inquiry. It is hoped that enough scientists
will acquaint themselves with the subject so that progress can finally be
made.

                                    -7-

(Reference 13 is a good account of how the UFO phenomenon was treated in
the U.S. and is recommended to those wondering how science came to
consciously ignore the subject.)

                                    -8-

                   PART 2: UFOs -- ASTRONOMICAL ASPECTS

           The astonishing thing would be if they did not exist.
                                  Jean Cocteau

We saw in Part 1 that the historical aspects suggest an extraterrestrial
explanation to UFOs. While it has not been established that the
contemporary phenomena are extensions of the historical, there does seem to
be a continuity in the descriptions of the phenomena described. We shall
therefore look at contemporary astronomical knowledge and theories and
ascertain the likelihood of the existence of other highly developed life
forms.

To begin with, the observable universe -- that is, the distance to which we
can observe luminous objects -- is several billion lightyears in radius (a
light year is the distance light travels in a year at a rate of 186,300
miles per second. The sun is 8 light minutes from the earth. The
next-nearest star is 4.2 light years away). Within this vast volume we find
hundreds of millions of galaxies. Our own (Milky Way) galaxy is similar to
many of those we see at great distances. It is a lens-shaped assemblage of
some 100 billion stars having a diameter of about 100,000 light years. The
sun is but one of its component stars and lies about 30,000 light years
from the center, close to the plane of symmetry.

Now let us just consider the stars in our own galaxy -- specifically
excluding those in neighboring or distant galaxies. We would like to
estimate the number of stars having planets roughly similar to the Earth.
From the statistics of stars within 15 light years of the sun we find that
only about one-third are single, the rest binary or multiple. Since
planetary orbits are often unstable in multiple systems (depending on the
details of the configuration) we will say that only 30 billion stars in our
galaxy now have a dynamical environment that permits planets to exist
around them. Will these stars have planets? We cannot state with assurance
that they will; however, current knowledge supports the theory that
planetary formation is a natural adjunct to formation of the star itself
from the interstellar gas cloud.

                                    -9-

We would therefore expect about 30 billion stars to have one or more
planets. Now, we can reject certain classes of stars as candidates or
habitable planets, because their lifetimes are too short (these are stars
of high mass). Others can be rejected because of variability in light
output, a characteristic that would make evolutionary development of life
much more difficult. In fact if we select only those stars similar to the
sun (whose peak of radiation energy coincides with a region of terrestrial
atmospheric transparency) we have only a few percent of the total -- about
one in 30. Therefore, we would expect about 1000 million suitable solar
type stars exist. Of these, it is estimated by various astronomers that
200-600 million have planets at about the right distance and have been
around long enough that life forms as developed as our own could exist.
Implicit in further discussion are the assumptions that:

     1. Planets and/or life evolves to a mutual compatibility;
     2. The life force, whether spontaneous or otherwise, is such that
     whenever the environment is favorable, life will exist;
     3. Our own history of past evolution and development is neither slow
     nor fast, but average and typical for life forms. (Ours is the only
     example available and no one has yet demonstrated that the "average"
     galactic life form should be any different.)

Now let us turn momentarily to time scales. The sun and earth are on the
order of 5 billion years old. We might define modern man as being about
5000 years old (Stonehenge is 4000 years old) -- just one millionth of the
earth's age. The age of science is certainly not more than 500 years, so
our scientific and technical development has thus far occupied only one
ten-millionth of the earth's life span. We expect the sun will burn another
5 billion years before significant changes in its brightness occur. Now the
age of the galaxy is between 5 and 10 billion years; therefore among the
200-600 millidn stars we would expect to have acceptable planets, some
would be older than the sun, some younger (for star formation is still
continuing, even though at a lesser rate than in the galaxy's early
history) and some the same age. It should be clear from assumption (3) and
the example of our own

                                    -10-

development, that among the populated planets those younger than the sun
would be peopled by beings very much behind us technologically, while those
on older planets would be extraordinarily advanced (remember our progress
of 500 years and note that some planets could be as much as a few billion
years older). Indeed, we would be surprised to find someone else at just
our stage of technological development. For the purposes of this paper, we
can ignore both the multitude younger than ourselves and those at our point
of development. Even so, we are left with the possibility of 100,000,000
planets in the galaxy having life forms very much advanced from us. (This
number would be reduced significantly if life forms destroyed themselves
soon after reaching our age of development. This is a philosophical point
on which I am optimistic -- I believe the majority of races will learn to
survive.) If these stars are uniformly distributed in the galactic disk,
the average separation will be about 10 light years.

The usual scientist's reaction at this point is, well, even if the
assumptions are correct and this number of advanced civilizations does
exist, contact is still impossible because of the speed of light limitation
of the theory of relativity. An excellent example of this kind of
reasonsing can be found in Ref. 14. My reply is that such a statement would
appear to be shortsighted. For the moment, let us ignore the possibilities
of overcoming the long time of travel by suspended animation and the like.
Recall that our own physical theory has been developed in only 500 years.
What can we expect in the next 500? Or 1000 or million or even billion
years? I suggest that _if_ a way to circumvent the speed of light
restriction is possible, it has already been found by someone in our
galaxy. (I haven't the faintest idea how this might be done and I fully
agree that our own experimental data appear to accurately confirm the
existence of this limitation.) If it has been discovered by one, we
certainly would expect it to be used; if no other planet's inhabitants
independently discovered the means, it makes little difference for such a
thing could be taught by the discoverer. Thus we may conclude that it is
very likely that at least one, and probably many of the 100 million
advanced planetary populations is capable of interstellar travel.

                                    -11-

The next question is, of course, have any of them been here? That question
cannot yet be answered definitively. Without knowing what kind of
phenomenology extraterrestrial visitors might exhibit, I will fall back on
my scientific, mechanistic attitudes and say it makes sense to look for
some kind of vehicle or spaceship. It appears that the class of
phenomenology called UFO reports may contain, as a subset, actual
observations of such craft. We shall now turn to the reports to see when
and where things are seen and by whom and what phenomenology, if any) is
revealed by the reports.

(Further information about the astronomical and biological possibilities
are in Ref. 15, whose principal defects are (1) the authors uninformed
rejection of UFO phenomenology as being relevant to the subject under
discussion, and (2) their meek acceptance of the speed-of-light restriction
as a universal truth. References 16 and 17 provide more detailed and more
technical discussions of some aspects of the problem.)

                                    -12-

                 PART 3: UFOs -- THE CHARACTER OF REPORTS

Any collection of reports of unknown aerial sightings by the public will
include a large percent of noise - sightings of something explainable. The
reports are made because the appearance falls outside the range of the
observer's experience, and the observer believes it is sufficiently
anomalous to warrant the attention of authorities. Thus, any large
collection of reports will include descriptions of aircraft, balloons)
spacecraft, astronomical objects, atmospheric effects and the like. Often
the practiced and perceptive analyst can recognize the stimulus,
particularly if he has access to records of aircraft, balloon, and
satellite movements, meteorological data and astronomical phenomenology.
Recognition of stimulus is aided by a high quality report which is as
quantitative as possible and which shows the observer to be able to
differentiate between observation and interpretation. Of course a number of
reports will be so lacking in details that no conclusion can be reached
about what was seen. These are of little use; they may, however, serve as
corroborating evidence to another, higher quality, report and should not,
therefore be rejected. The really interesting class of reports is that
reporting phenomenology which is clearly extraordinary. The observer's
qualifications may be such that the report is not only highly credible but
is articulate and quantitative as well. It is this subclass of reports,
variously estimated at 5 to 20 percent of the total, that offer hope of our
learning what is going on.

Hynek considers two parameters of reports) credibility and strangeness, and
suggests that the investigator really needs only to be concerned with
reports having high strangeness and high credibility. The physical
scientist is in a position to evaluate strangeness, the social scientist
should be able to provide some measure of credibility. Hynek also comments
on a number of beliefs about UFOs and reports stating, (18) among other
things, that most reports are made by people who previously never gave much
thought to UFOs; that reports are not always vague; and that well educated,
well trained, reliable, stable people also contri- bute reports. These
conclusions have been reached by most people who have taken the trouble to
collect and investigate reports first hand.

                                    -13-

To illustrate the character of reports, I will quote several narratives
from the literature. (Narratives, of course, are just the beginning of any
report. Quantitative information, usually not given in the narrative must
be obtained by careful interview of the witness.) The firzt is taken from a
collection of 160 reports by Olsen. (19) It was originally made to NICAP.

     Date: 24 April 1962
     Place: Springfield (Delaware County), Pennsylvania

First witness, J. A. Gasslein, Jr. (Lt. Colonel, USAR Ret.) reports: "Time:
Approximately 1945 hours, weather: clear, cloudless, medium blue sky,
visibility good.

"My wife was driving her mother home following the latter's visit to our
home. They had driven around the block to higher ground when my wife's
mother looked out the car window and saw a large object. It was moving
slowly and silently in an east-to-west direction at not over 50 ft. above
street level. (Determined by the proximity to and relationship to the size
of the Cape-Cod-type bungalows over which the object was passing.) My wife
then plainly saw the object herself.

"Anxious to have me see the object, my wife quickly drove the car back to
our house and attracted my attention. I had been working in the basement. I
ran out of the house and up the street for a view. by the time I saw it,
the object appeared to be about a quarter to a half-mile away, moving in a
westerly direction. I saw it as an object smaller at the top than at the
base, seemingly suspended in the air at an angle of about 45 degrees from
my position, and giving off colored lights. I know that the object was not
any kind of conventional aircraft of balloon.

"Having had the advantage of a closer viewing than I, my wife describes the
object as follows..

" 'The UFO appeared to be about the size of one of the Cape Cod houses over
which it passed, which would make it approximately 30 ft. in diameter and
about the same dimension in height. It was circular, surmounted by a dome
giving off flashes of green light. The center section rotated a series of
square shaped "windows", each giving off a brilliant white light. The base
section was somewhat saucer-shaped,

                                    -14-

curved upward. Shafts of white light were directed downward from the base.'
Unfortunately, my wife cannot recall if the exterior was metallic in
appearance. In any event, the object had a well-defined outline. Again, it
moved silently. There was no evidence of occupants of the UFO.

"Approximately 20 to 25 minutes following the first sighting described
above, the following~sighting occured: "Returning from taking her mother
home, my wife drove the car into our driveway alongside the house, headed
westward. In the rear of our home was a wooded park area. My wife walked
down the driveway to enter the house. Coming up the driveway was a neighbor
friend, a young lady 20 years of age. In a tone of astonishment, she called
my wife's attention to the park area, from which was emerging an object of
the same description as outlined above moving easterly at low level -- not
over 50 ft. above ground level, as judged by the trees in the area -- the
UFO proceded relatively slowly and without sound. It was approaching the
rear of our home and adjacent properties.

"Again, my wife called me from the basement. By the time I got outside, the
object had made a 90 degree turn northward and was proceeding parallel to
the backs of the houses in the same line as ours. It was perhaps 150 - 200
yards distant. My observation of the characteristics of the UFO tallied
with my wife's and the young lady's. Each of them independently made a
pencil sketch within a few minutes after the sighting, and the sketches
were substantially alike. "All told, there were at least 15 persons in the
vicinity who acknowledged seeing the object at about the same time as the
sightings made by my wife and myself."

Another witness, P. T. Scattergood, reports: "Around 8 (p.m.) I stepped out
the front door, facing south and saw a brilliantly lighted object low in
the southern sky. At first I took it to be a jet taking off from
Philadelphia Airport, which is in that general direction. But I could hear
no engine noise and it was traveling too slowly to be a plane. Also it did
not have the usual blinking lights.

"It appeared to have a row of yellowish lights (which I took for the
windows of the "jet") with a clear green light at the top. As I

                                    -15-

watched, the row of lights appeared to be obscured as though a large
paddle-wheel were revolving and blotting them out, beginning with the rear
lights and proceeding forward. Since the object was moving west, I saw the
right hand side of it. The periodic appearance and disappearance of the
lights was perfectly regular. The top green light was constantly visible. I
stood on the pavement and watched the object sail leisurely to the west
until it disappeared behind some trees. The observation probably lasted
from 5 to 10 minutes."

This report has the desirable features of the UFO being seen by a number of
people (about 15) of which two actually made reports. (Hynek estimates the
number of sightings to be about 10 times the number of reports turned in) .
Other desirable aspects of this sighting are that it was made during
daylight; that it was near enough that some details of its configuration
were observable; and, it was visible long enough to allow the observers to
consider "explanations" as they watched it.

The second example is reported by James F. McDonald in T. Bloecher's book
on an intense period of UFO activity in 1947. The report was made 20 years
after the sighting to Prof. McDonald for the reasons given at the end of
the quotation.

"Mrs. Olavick was in her kitchen at 2101 East Hawthorne Street, Tucson,
while Mrs. Down was out in the back-year patio. Suddenly Mrs. Down called
her out excitedly, and both proceeded to observe what had caught Mrs.
Down's eye. The time was just after the noon hour; Tucson's skies were
completely cloudless. Somewhat north of their zenith lay an unusual,
isolated, "steamy-fleecy" cloud at an altitude which Mrs. Olavick found
difficult to estimate, though she recalled that it seemed lower than
average for that time of year (thus, perhaps at or below 10,000 feet,
say.). No other cloud was to be seen in the sky. In and out of the cloud
moved a number of dull-white disc-like objects that rose and fell in an
erratic manner, occasionally disappearing into or above the unnatural
cloud. She said that these objects were round in planform but were not
spherical, for they frequently tipped a bit, exposing a flattened-sphere
form. She estimates that they watched these objects cavorting near the
cloud for perhaps five or six minutes before the entire group suddenly
disappeared within the cloud or perhaps above it.

                                    -16-

"After a minute or so, as she now recalls it, a new object, perhaps three
of four times as large as the little objects, came out of the cloud on its
east side. After it emerged, the small objects began to emerge also, taking
up a V-formation pattern behind it. The V comprised a line of four-abreast
just to the rear of the large object, then a line of three-abreast behind
that, and finally two-abreast in the rear. Thus the point of the V was to
the rear (in the sense of the emergent and subsequent motion). This
formation permitted the first accurate count of the small objects, nine in
all. No sooner had the last pair emerged than all ten objects shot off to
the northeast, climbing out of sight in a time that she thought was
probably two to three seconds. She does not recall what happened to the
cloud after the ten objects departed.

"I (McDonald) have spoken with Mrs. Olavick several additional times,
following her first call. Her account was presented in an unembellished
manner, and her descriptions were carefully framed, specifying just which
parts had become less distinct in her memory. But the basic vividness of
her memory of this observation she stressed repeatedly. I had to explain
that it was by no means clear that the objects she saw were identical with
those reported by Kenneth Arnold two months later. When I queried her as to
why she had not reported them, she pointed out that she and Mrs. Down were
entirely convinced that they had been fortunate enough to witness some new
American military vehicles about which the general public had not yet been
informed. Later she heard of the "flying saucers," and she and Mrs. Down,
when they rejoined their husbands in mid-summer in Iowa, told them about
their own observation. The husbands, she recalled, made such a joke of it
that they ceased mentioning it.

Again we have a daytime sighting of several minutes duration, with two
witnesses. As is often the case when.the phenomenon appears mechanical, it
was interpreted as some secret government development. Ridicule of the
sighting by family members and friends (if not by authorities) is
frequently mentioned as a reason for delayed reporting of sightings.

                                    -17-

A third report is taken from a paper Prof. McDonald presented at the 12
March 1968 Canadian Aeronautics and Space Institute Astronautics Symposium,
Montreal.

"At about 5:15 am., PDT, on the morning of July 4, 1967, at least five
witnesses (and reportealy others not yet locatable) saw an object of
unconventional nature moving over Highway 5 on the edge of Corning,
California. Hearing of the event from NICAP, I began searching for tne
witnesses and eventually telephone-interviewed four. Press accounts from
the Corning Daily Observer and Oakland Tribune afforded further
corroboration.

"Jay Munger, operator of an all-night bowling alley, was drinking coffee
with two police officers, James Overton of the Corning force and Frank
Rakes of the Orland force, when Munger suddenly spotted the object out the
front windows of his bowling alley. In a moment all three were outside
observing what they each described as a dark gray oval or disc-shaped
object with a bright light shining upwards on its top and a dimmer light
shining downward from the underside. A dark gray or black band encircled
the mid-section of the object. When first sighted, it lay almost due west,
at a distance that they estimated at a quarter of a mile (later
substantiated by independent witnesses viewing it at right angles to the
line of sight of the trio at the bowling alley). It was barely moving, and
seemed to be only a few hundred feet above terrain. The dawn light
illuminated the object, but not so brightly as to obscure the two lights
on top and bottom, they stated.

"Munger, thinking to get an independent observation from a different part
of Corning, returned almost immediately to telephone his wife; but she
never saw it for reasons of tree-obscuration. At my request, Munger
re-enacted the telephoning process to form a rough estimate of elapsed
time. He obtained a time of 1-1.5 minutes. This time is of interest
because, when he completed the call and rejoined Overton and Rakes, the
object had still moved only a short distance south on Highway 5 (about a
quarter of a mile: perhaps), but then quickly accelerated and passed off to
the south, going out of their sight in only about 10 seconds, far to their
south.

                                    -18-

Paul Heideman, of Fremont, California, was driving south on Highway 5 at
the time of the above sighting, along with a friend, Robert King. I located
Heideman and obtained from him an account of his observation made from a
point on the highway north of Corning. He saw the light from the object,
and had veered east (a turn not seen from the more restricted viewing point
of the bowiing-alley parking lot). Heideman said that, when first seen, it
lay almost straight down Highway 5, serving to check the estimate of the
other observers that the object lay only a few city blocks to their west.

The weather was clear, no haze, no wind, according to the witnesses.
Munger's concise comment was "I've never seen anything like it before." He
estimated its "diameter" at perhaps 50-100 ft, and its vertical thickness
as perhaps 15-20 ft, with some kind of edge (band) perhaps 5-10 ft thick.
No sound was ever heard. Overton stated to me that he had no idea what it
was, but that "there was no doubt it was a craft of some sort."

The next example is from a report I personally investigated. It occurred in
the area where I was reared; the observers are known to my family; I am
familiar with the natural phenomenology of the area.

     Date: 10 October 1966
     Place: Near Newton, Illinois

First witnesses: Mrs. A (she prefers not to be publicly identified because
of the reaction of friends and neighbors). Time: 5:20 p.m.

"Mrs. A was in her kitchen preparing supper; five of her children were
playing outdoors. The children shouted to her to "come out and see the
silent plane". She writes "I glanced out the south window and there it was
coming into sight just south of our 72 foot silo moving very slowly from
east to west. It was about 35 feet high. My first thought was that it was a
plane making an emergency landing, but when I saw it in full view, I knew
it was no plane, not like anything I have ever seen. I hurried outside to
join the children in the yard. It

                                    -19-

continued to move in a straight line to the west. We could see it clearly
as it drifted over a 50 by 100 foot machine shed being built at the time
[the workers were, however, in the fields this day]. It appeared to be
larger than our car, and was more oval. There was a bluish glow around the
ends, top, and bottom of it. It (the glow) wasn't bright, since it was
daylight yet, but more like a low cloud, haze, or fog; or a mixture of
bluish-grey tiny bubbles floating along around it. The object was seen
clearly. It was blue in color and appeared to be made of metal. You could
see [longitudinal] seam lines. There was one black window. I thought they
(assuming someone was in it) could see out but we could not see them. I
kept looking for someone to peep out and wave, but don't recall seeing or
feeling anything at the time. There was a brownish-gold design on the lower
back half. A raised part was on the top near the back which was noticed by
all the children. It moved very quietly, making no sound at all except for
a whirling or vibrating sound for 1 or 2 seconds as it drifted on toward
the west... We followed it down the yard and lane, continuing to watch it
as it was 300 feet, then 200 feet from the north and south gravel road and
the REA electric line which is on the west side of the road. We were
talking together, all very excited about what it was, where it came from,
if there were people in it, and if it would rise to clear the electric
line. It did; it rose so quickly and was out of sight in just a few
seconds. Our eyes could not follow it fast enough. This was certainly a
fantastic thing."

The questionnaire, a lengthy correspondence, an interview in June 1967 and
other checking produced the following details:

     Meteorology: Clear, warm, dry weather, cloudless.
     Astronomical: Moonset 3:51 p.m. EST
     UFO: Prolate spheroidial shape as shown below.

                                 [Image]

                                    -20-

The surface appeared to be non-specular, like dull aluminum or metal, and
blue, the color probably deriving from the self-luminous halo. Lon-
gitudinal seams were apparent, but no rivets or such were seen. The black
rectangle was assumed to be a window and appeared to be recessed. It was
not shiny, but "like the dark of night." The surrounding glow was partly
opaque, yet self luminous. It was darker than the sky and extended about
1/4 the object's length in all directions. The halo was particularly opaque
at the ends: of the object, obscuring the underlying parts. The design at
the lower rear looked like a pattern of crosses and dots like (1) or (2)

                                 [Image]

Mrs. A says the glow obscured the design and in any case her attention was
fixed on the "window". The only sound heard occurred when the UFO was
nearest the unfinished shed, being constructed of a wooden framework
covered with ferrous sheets. It is possible that some sheets were caused to
vibrate. No electromagnetic effects were noted (TV was off) and no
electrostatic or other effects were noted by Mrs. A or her children. As the
UFO disappeared, Mrs. A was just looking along the road for a car; two of
the children said the UFO pitched nose-up and as it went up a light or
flame of orange color was seen at the rear.

Enough angular data was provided from building and landmark placement and
sizes that it is possible to estimate the size of the metallic portion of
the UFO at 16 to 20 feet in length, seen at a distance of 150 to 300 feet.
Its linear speed was about 4 to 8 miles per hour, based on the above
distances and timings obtained by re-enactment. It was visible for 4
minutes. Angular size was 2 3/4" at arms length. In an effort to quantify
the colors somewhat, a Nickerson color fan was used by the witnesses to
select the colors most nearly like those on the UFO. The color selections
were made independently in direct sunlight with the color fan held in front
of a white field. The colors given were

                                    -21-

        Metallic surface
                Mrs. A.         7.5 PB - 7
                Child 1         2.5 PB - 8/5
                Child 2         7.5 B  - 3/5
        Glow (The color of "grayness" was not uniform)
                Mrs. A.         5   PB - 8/5
                                2.5 PB - 8/5
                Child 1         5   PB - 7/7
                Child 2         2.5 PB - 6/8
        Orange flare on ascent
                Child 1         5   YR - 7/11
                Child 2         5   YR - 7/11

Second event: Same day, 6:30 p.m., sky is now dark. Location is in town of
Newton, Illinois, about seven miles north west of first event.

Mrs. B was walking down the steps of a friend's house toward her car. "As I
started down the steps my eyes were drawn by something in the south eastern
sky. I stopped a moment and saw very clearly a luinous bluish object moving
quite rapidly from east to west. It seemed to be rather low in the sky, but
at night it is difficult to judge distance either as to how high it was or
how far away it was. It did appear larger than a full moon, but instead of
being round it had a definite oval shape. I would say an elongated oval.
There was no sound that I could detect, and while it appeared to be blue
and purple, there was also a whitish glow in it. The outline of the object
was very distinct. I watched it until it disappeared behind some trees and
a house a little less than a block from me.

Further correspondence and discussion brought forth the following
information: The major axis of the oval was horizontal; its path was not
perfectly horizontal) but somewhat undulatory. Its color was brightest and
whitest at the center, becoming more blue and darker toward the edges. Mrs.
B. estimated the colors as shown below (Since the interview was conducted
in the evening) the color fan was illuminated by an incandescent lamp).

                                 [Image]

                                    -22-

In itself, this last report, which describes a sighting of 15 to 20 seconds
duration, contains insufficient information to come to any conclusion.
However, when put alongside the earlier report there is the possibility of
a relationship -- could these be reports of the same thing seen under
differing conditions of illumination? We'll never know positively but the
suggestion is quite strong.

As far as Mrs. A's sighting is concerned, we have obtained enough data from
follow-up inquiry and on-site investigation to rule out known airborne
craft, meteorological, and astronomical phenomenon. Yet the observations
are sufficiently detailed to give us adequate confidence that some sort of
machine was present, behaving in a very extraordinary way. Some parts of
the object are similar to other reports (the effervescent glow, the orange
color on acceleration, the very black "window" (which sounds like a
block-body absorber)). Other parts are unusual -- the UFO's prolate
spheroidal shape and the pattern (although seeing the pattern would require
the observer to be quite close). The original correspondence and data
sheets on Mrs. A's sighting run to over 40 pages. In correspondence and
interviews over a period of 8 months no substantial inconsistencies could
be found. The geometric data, particularly, are so intricately related that
it is most unlikely that the witness could have fabricated a story so well.
In addition, acquaintances made it clear that Mrs. A. is not prone to story
telling and that "she is too busy to dream up such a tale". Mr. A, who
returned from the fields that evening found the household still
considerably agitated four hours after the event. He said he had no idea
what it was his wife and children saw, but he obviously treated the
sighting seriously for he went to considerable trouble to comply with a
request to measure the sizes and locations of each building and tree on the
farm.

It is this kind of sighting - the kind which is clearly inexplicable in
contemporary terms, which causes me (and other interested persons) to take
the whole subject so seriously. Hynek suggests that it is just this kind of
sighting that often goes unreported, because the witness -- especially if
his education or training are appropriate -- knows that what he saw was
unambiguously extraordinary. And machine-like. A number of such reports
were belatedly made after the University of

                                    -23-

Colorado study effort got underway. Apparently the witnesses waited for the
respectability the UOC study brought to the subject. It is hoped that the
scientific and intellectual climate will change to the point where
witnesses, particularly those having the best qualifications, can feel free
to report sightings and know that they are being taken seriously.

Not all reports are visual reports only. An example of a photographic
observation studied in detail is given in reference 20. Here, a 16mn movie
of two objects sighted in the daytime provided the analyst enough
information to conclude that no known phenomena could have caused the
images. This report is, hopefully, the first in a series of instrumented
sightings carefully and adequately studied.

                                    -24-

                PART 4: UFO'S - PHENOMENONOLOGICAL ASPECTS

Since I have made a first hand study of only a dozen sightings, the
phenomenology described in this section will necessarily be based on
descriptions of reports collected by others, particularly NICAP, APRO,
UFOIRC, and Vallee. There is, unfortunately, no central file of reports
accessible to the interested scientist, although large numbers of reports
are in the hands of the organizations mentioned above. (The extensive Air
Force files are of very limited use, from what I can tell, because of the
extremely inconsistent quality of investigation.) In an unfortunate number
of cases the report consists of little more than a narrative. My experience
with the Newton sightings suggests that quantitative information is
available if the investigator takes the trouble to personally make an
on-site study. True, it may not be the quality of an instrumented sighting,
but enough quantitative data are available to permit meaningful study of
sighting reports.

NICAP's document "The UFO Evidence" contains a summary of patterns in
appearance and behavior as determined from cases they had studied through
1963. Regarding appearance, the most common type is a disc shape, followed
by spherical, oval/elliptical, cylindrical, and triangular. The breakdown
of NICAP's 575 cases goes as follows

        Disc                            26  %   149      cases
        Round                           17  %    96      cases
        Oval/elliptical                 13  %    77      cases
        Cylindrical                     8.3 %    48      cases
        Triangular                      2   %    11      cases
        Other (Radar, light source,     33.7%   194      cases
               not stated)

      [Image] Obviously, there may be some mis-classification within the
              first three groups because of projective effects. Discs may
     be coin-shaped or lens shaped (double convex). The domed disk is
     plano-convex, (sometimes double convex) with a smaller radius bulge
     atop the convex side. The saturn disk is a sphere or oblate spheroid
     with a thin ring projecting from the equator. Similar objects are

                                      -25-

      [Image] seen without the equatorial ring also. Another subset are the
              hemispheric variety, sometimes with a small protrusion at the
     apex and usually seen with the flat side down. All the above mentioned
     objects are generically oblate with the axis of symmetry usually seen
     oriented vertically. Another group are prolate, having the major axis
     horizontal, usually. This includes the elliptical (football) variety,
     the triangular or tear drop variety, and the cylindrical or cigar
     shaped species.

Reported colors depend strongly on the luminous environment. NICAP finds
that of the 253 cases of daytime observations where color is stated, the
results are

        Silver or metallic              34.8 %  88 cases
        White                           32.0 %  81 cases
        Specular                        13.4 %  34 cases
        Gray                            7.5  %  19 cases
        Black                           12.3 %  31 cases

It should be noted that a few reports exist suggesting that the brightness
of the object first thought by the observer to be reflected sunlight, was
in fact self luminosity, as ascertained by the geometry, presence of clouds
and the like.

In the dark-sky observations, the outline or shape of the UFO is often not
seen. What is seen is a light or series of lights, sometimes extremely
bright. Luminous rays are also reported, going up sometimes (particularly
from domed discs) downward (from hemispheric types principally, also from
discs) and from one UFO to another (spherical types). The luminous column
is usually not divergent. Excluding these interesting rays, the reported
colors of UFOs seen at night are, for 162 cases

        Red                             38.3 %  62  cases
        Orange                          15.4 %  25  cases
        Yellow                          17.3 %  28  cases
        Green                           13.0 %  21  cases
        Blue                            16.0 %  26  cases
        Purple                          0       0

                                    -26-

Brightness and color changes are also noted, and while the sample is small
(82 cases) NICAP found the following: Of the 25 cases showing a change in
brightness, 23 of the changes occurred at the moment of a velocity change
(a change of either magnitude or direction). Concerning the change of
color, 23 cases showed a color change related to acceleration. While the
supporting data are not conclusive, it appears that the spectral shift is
to the red upon acceleration.

It should also be noted that UFOs reported at night have only a star-like
appearance unless very close. Distant UFO's sometimes turn off and on. When
closer to the observer, reports often indicate a number of lights, located
at the top and around the rim usually. Sometimes the lights flash on and
off or change color rhythmically. Several cases have been reported of the
UFO flashing its lights in response to the witness flashing hand or
vehiclar lights. In other cases the lights winked off with the approach of
another car or an aircraft, only to turn on again when the vehicle had
passed.

While practically any luminous behavior could be produced by someone with
sufficient time and money, kinematic behavior at odds with experience or,
preferably, at odds with Newtonian behavior are suggestive of
non-terrestrial origin.

A common kind of motion is called oscillation by NICAP and is subdivided
into "wobble on axis" (frequently described also as fluttering, flipping,
and tipping); pendulum motion on slow ascent, hovering and decent (also
called "falling leaf motion"); and occasionally a side-to-side oscillation
observed as the UFO proceeds horizontally. These motions are most often
performed by discs, although examples of similar behavior by other forms
also exist.

The last class, that of violent and erratic maneuvers, most clearly lacks
an explanation from current physical theory. Using terms like bobbing,
erratic, jerky, zig-zag, dark, and shot away, witnesses describe motions
involving high angular accelerations and velocities. A number of radar
observations appear to substantiate this anomalous behavior. Among the 40
cases showing such characteristics, NICAP finds that 28 percent were
reported by scientific or other appropriately experienced personnel.

                                    -27-

Variation of Sightings with Time

It appears that the UFO phenomenology has been with us from the earliest
times. In the last twenty-five years, however, there seems to be a drastic
increase in the number of sightings. It is practically impossible to
estimate the number of world-wide sightings because of the lack of suitable
data collection means. In the U.S., the principal depositories are
currently the Air Force, NICAP and APRO. It is estimated that currently
these sources together receive about 2000 reports per year. Since only
about one sighting in 10 is reported, the number of sightings is about
20,000. But of these, 80 to 95% are not interesting, leaving us with "only"
1000 to 4000 worthwhile sightings per year for North America.

In addition to the background of reports more or less constantly flowing
in, occasional periods of intense activity are also noted. One such period
was October 1954 over most of France. NICAP lists a number of these
"flaps". Sometimes they are very localized, covering only a small portion
of a state for a period of a few weeks.

APRO concludes, on the basis of the reports available to them, that the
patterns of appearance follow phases - atomic test areas and installations
in the late 1940s and early 50s, rivers, reservoirs and bodies of water in
the late 50s and early 60s and now electrical distribution systems.
Convincing evidence to support this hypothesis has not been published;
however, if the hypothesis were true it would certainly raise a lot of
question.

McDonald and others suggest that reports of the last few years show more
sightings of objects at low altitude (or landed) and more sightings made
from urban areas (in the 40s and 50s sightings were generally inversely
correlated with population densities).

Interactions with the Environment

Interactions of UFOs with the environment produce a kind of believability
that pure visual observations will never do. Some examples of interaction
are cases showing electromagnetic disturbances in practically every kind of
device -- radio, TV, auto ignition, aircraft electronics, compass,
magnetometer, magnetic automobile speedometer, etc. NICAP lists 106
examples. NICAP also lists 81 cases of radar

                                    -28-

tracking of UFOs, most of which were simultaneous with visual sightings,
and a number of which involved use of interceptors. Among the physiological
effects noted are burns, temporary paralysis, prickling sensation, and eyes
irritated as by ultraviolet light. A number of witnesses claim to have
observed landings; depressions in the ground and damaged vegetation usually
result. At a landing site in France, only weeds grow in a nine foot
circular area where a disc was seen to land two years ago, despite efforts
to replant. (21) At another landing site, French railway officials
calculated that a weight of 30 tons would be required to make the
depressions found in some railroad ties where a UFO was reported to have
landed.

While most UFO's are silent, some have made sounds described as hissing,
rushing, swishing, humming, whirring, whining, droning, like thunder, like
shotgun, and a series of staccato explosions. In the past the absence of
sonic booms from supersonic UFO's bothered many scientists; it appears now
that that problem might be overcome by surrounding the craft by a corona
discharge (which incidentally would be a luminous blue glow around the
object). (23)

I will purposely not comment much on occupants, except to say that there
are a few (very few) reasonably reliable and carefully investigated reports
of UFO occupants. For the time being, I would prefer to concentrate on
reports of the objects, however, as the frequency of reliable occupant
reports is so low. I have no bias one way or the other along these lines.
If UFOs are of extraterrestrial origin, they may or may not be "manned". If
manned, one should expect an occasional appearance. Readers more interested
in this aspect of UFOs are referred to reference 24.

In summary, we see a wide, almost exasperating range of reported
phenomenology. By careful interviews with witnesses and analysis of a large
number of reports the significant patterns in phenomenonology should
appear. If the UFOs are a new manifestation of nature, they should exhibit
some pattarns of appearance or behavior which would aid in identifying and
predicting them. If of extraterrestrial origin and intelligently guided it
may be possible to anticipate appearances. This will be discussed in the
next and final essay.

                                    -29-

                  PART 5: UFOs -- HOW TO PROCEED AND WHY

        We are so far from knowing all the forces of Nature and the
          various modes of their action that it is not worthy of a
      philosopher to deny phenomena only because they are inexplicable
         in the present state of our knowledge. The harder it is to
      acknowledge the existence of phenomena, the more we are bound to
                   investigate them with increasing care.
                                  Laplace

Laplace's remarks are certainly as true and significant for us today as for
his contemporaries. In the preceeding essays I have suggested that there
exists a class of phenomena rather widely occuring today (and perhaps since
earliest times) that is elusive, puzzling and often at variance with known
scientific and technical experience. What are we going to do about it? What
should we, what can we do about it?

J. E. MacDonald suggests that the UFO phenomena lie somewhere in the
following categories of explanation:

     1. Hoaxes, fabrications, and frauds. Report files contain examples of
     these; investigators believe about 5 percent of all reports made are
     in this category. Detailed study, however, usually uncovers such
     reports.
     2. Hallucinations, mass hysteria, and rumor phenomena. Present
     understanding of psychology does not admit many of the significant
     reports to be explained in this way.
     3. Misinterpretations of well known physical phenomena (meteorolo-
     gical, astronomical, optical, etc.). By far the largest percentage of
     reports fall in this category. Study by an experienced investigator
     can usually identify these.
     4. Poorly understood physical phenomena (rare electrical or
     moteorological effects, plasmas). Certainly a distinct possibility in
     a number of cases, it is a category worthy of careful study. Some of
     the most interesting cases, however have sufficient observational
     datail to eliminate this possibility (I am referring to reports of
     unambiguously machine-like objects).

                                    -30-

     5. Advanced technologies (test vehicles, satellites, reentry effects).
     Again, some reports can be attributed to this cause, but most cannot.
     6. Poorly understood psychic phenomena (psychic projections,
     archetypal images, parapsychological phenomena, etc). It is difficult
     to comment on this possibility because the current lack of knowledge
     of parapsychology. While a (small) number of UFO reports do exhibit
     aspects of parapsychological phenomenology (25) general relationships
     have yet to be convincingly demonstrated. Reference 6 deals with this
     explanation.
     7. Extraterrestrial probes. A possibility commonly held by the public
     and commonly rejected by scientists. Prof. McDonald believes a number
     of sightings are best explained by this hypothesis.
     8. Messengers of salvation and occult truth. This explanation is
     listed because of the nature of certain reports (particularly
     "contact" reports -- reports involving communication of UFO occupants
     and the witnesses) and because of the historical aspects of the
     phenomenology. See reference 5 for elaboration.
     Perhaps, to play it safe, an additional category should be listed:
     9. Other

Clearly, the explanation of UFOs will interest someone. Psychologists have
an interest in 1, 2, 3 and 6; theologians in category 8, scientists in 4
and 7. Therefore, whatever the explanation, it is a problem of at least
average interest. If, by chance, the explanation is 7, or even 8 (and
possibly 6) the value to society would be profound and significant. In this
sense, an identification of the phenomenon would be a task of highest
potential urgency.

How might it be done?

Because of the transient nature of UFO's we cannot expect to have the
interested scientist rush to the spot to make his own observations. Reports
so far accumulated, however, show that UFO's sometimes appear frequently in
certain areas for a short period of time (a so-called "flap"). One
characteristic of the flap is a larger percentage of sightings of objects
at low levels than one normally obtains. If the reporting and analysis
system were responsive enough, men and instruments

                                    -31-

could be dispatched when a flap was recognized with a reasonable hope of
making first hand observations. I would therefore suggest the following:

1. Organization of a central report receiving agency, staffed by a
permanent group of experienced UFO investigators and having on call
specialists in astronomy, physics, optics, atmospheric physics, psychology
and the like for application when needed.

2. This agency should be readily and instantly accessible to the public for
the purpose of reporting. (Witnesses should be able to turn to someone
other than the press to make reports.) Report forms could be made available
in Post Offices, for example. More urgent reports could be made by
toll-free telephone lines. (Radio amateurs have recently begun cooperating
with NICAP to provide an alerting system.) Because many sightings are made
at night when most services are closed, the local police office should be
prepared to receive reports of sightings. Experience indicates that
witnesses usually turn first to the police, particularly if the UFO was
close or if the witness was frightened. Such a local "data center" would be
very useful for identifying flaps and could possibly serve to dispatch
personnel to an area of interest. Care must be taken to properly inform the
officers involved about the aims of the project and requests for assistance
should be made in such a way as to minimize additional police work. An
awareness of the problem by a dispatcher or desk sergeant might be
sufficient to draw attention to a developing situation. An interested local
scientist could then be notified, perhaps in time to make an observation.
Hynek also suggests that the police carry cameras in their cars should they
become involved as observers. This advice obviously applies to all
interested persons.

3. A loose organization of interested scientists should be available to
investigate reports in their local areas. A good start toward this has been
made by NICAP. It is important that investigations be made rapidly and by
properly qualified people.

4. The press should be encouraged to report sightings accurately and in a
non-sensational manner. Suitable reporting would encourage other witnesses
to come forth.

                                    -32-

5. Existing sensor records could be examined for anomalies, particularly if
visual reports are made nearby. Since we don't know what to expect, it is
difficult to say what is needed; however records of electric, magnetic and
gravitational fields, radioactivity, optical and radio frequency anomalies
would be a logical place to start. Radars could also contribute, if they
are designed for general purpose use. As it is, most current radar
detection and tracking devices are designed to ignore anomalous objects.

After a few years' operation in this mode, it should be possible to study
the resulting report statistics to draw generalities about appearance and
behavior (such as was done in Part IV) and most importantly to anticipate
times and locations of appearances. Only when this is done will it be
possible to instrument sightings and therefore obtain the objective data so
badly needed If the explanation is #4, some environmental correlations are
bound to occur. For #7 it is possible that appearances could be
anticipated, if we are clever enough; for #6 and #8 we will likely not be
able to anticipate appearances.

Certainly the conclusions drawn by NICAP from reports in their file are
startling and, if valid worthy of considerable scientific effort. It would
be much more convincing if data could be collected worldwide and if the
most interesting reports could be most interesting reports could be
intensively and completely investigated. I believe current reports justify
the expanded data collection and analysis effort.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pages 33 to 40 consist of the basic report form used by the University of
Colorado UFO project which have not been included here. A copy of this
reporting form is reproduced in "The Final Report of the Scientific Study
of Unidentified Flying Objects," Bantam Books, 1968, published in
association with Colorado Associated University Press.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                    -40-

                                BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Christian Science Monitor, May 23, 1967

2. Anatomy of a Phenomenon, J. Vallee, Ace Books, Inc H-17

3. The Sky People, B. LePoer Trenth, London, Neville Spearman, 1960.

4. The Meaning of Fatima, C. C. Martindale, S. J., P. J. Kenedy & Sons, New
York 1950, p. 77.

5. Flying Saucers Through the Ages, Paul Thomas, Neville Spearman, London,
1966.

6. Flying Saucers - A Modern Myth, C. C. Jung, Harcourt, Brace & World New
York, 1959

7. Sputnik, January 1967 issue, p. 174

8. Report on the UFO Wave of 1947, Ted Bloecher, 1967; Available from
NICAP, 1536 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20036

9. Bloecher, pp. 1-9, 10, 12

10. The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects, E. J. Ruppelt, Ace Books,
Inc. G-537

11. UFO's: Greatest Scientific Problem of Our Times? J. E. McDonald UFORI,
Suite 311, 508 Grant Street, Pittsburgh, Pa., 15219

12. The UFO Evidence, NICAP, 6536 Connecticut Avenue, NW., Washington D.C.,
20036, 1964

13. Flying Saucers: Hoax or Reality? L. Jerome Stanton, Belmont Books
B50-761

14. "The Physics and Metaphysics of Unidentified Flying Objects", William
Markowitz, Science, 15 Sept. 1967

15. Intelligent Life in the Universe, J. S. Shklovskii and Carl Sagan,
Holden-Day, Inc. 1966 (San Francisco)

16. Habitable Planets for Man, S. H. Dole, Blaisdell Publishing Co., New
York, 1964

17. Interstellar Communication, Edited by A. C. W. Cameron, Benjamin, New
York, 1963

18. Science, 21 October 1966, letter by J. A. Hynek, p. 329

19. The Reference for Outstanding UFO Sighting Reports, T. M. Olsen, UFO
Information Retrieval Center, Inc., Box 57, Riderwood, Md. 21139

                                    -24-

20. Observations of an Anomalistic Phenomenon, R. M. L. Baker, Journal of
the Astronautical Sciences, January/February, 1968

21. Flying Saucer Review, 14, 1, January/February, 1968, cover and pp.
6-12.

22. Vallee, p. 109

23. Aviation Week and Space Technology, 22 January, 1968, p. 21

24. The Humanoids, special issue of Flying Saucer Review, 49a Kings Grove,
Peckham, London, S.E. 15, England (1967)

25. An interesting example appears in the July, 1968 issue of Science &
Mechanics, starting on page 30

26. A highly recommended collection of recent views on this subject are
contained in the Symposium on Unidentified Flying Objects, Hearings Before
the House Committee on Science and Astronautics, July 29, 1968.

_________________________________________________________________________

To respond and/or give feedback to an author, reply to his or her E Mail
address. If you want us to consider your reply for public posting, you can
send a Carbon Copy to us. We reserve the right to edit and post. UFOR
articles are archived in http://www.Reference.COM.  For any change in your
UFOR participation, please, e mail me at d005734c@dc.seflin.org

The most ample distribution of articles published in UFOR is highly
encouraged as long as proper attribution and respect for the authors and
participating lists expressed wishes, if any, are mantained, this include
printed and electronic media, including for profit and non profit
organizations.
_________________________________________________________________________






Search for other documents from or mentioning: d005734c | rayfish

[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com