Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

"Science and the Failure To Investigate Unidentified Aerial Phenomena"

Expand Messages
  • visions
    http://www.freedomofinfo.org/news/science_research.pdf Science and the Failure To Investigate Unidentified Aerial Phenomena by Leslie Kean A Research Report
    Message 1 of 1 , Oct 31, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      http://www.freedomofinfo.org/news/science_research.pdf


      Science and the Failure To Investigate Unidentified Aerial
      Phenomena
      by
      Leslie Kean

      A Research Report

      Commissioned by SCI FI Channel

      October 22, 2002

      Copyright Leslie Kean, 2002.

      i
      Executive Summary

      The UFO phenomenon is real

      Unidentified aerial phenomena, otherwise known as UFOs, are
      real, not the stuff of science fiction. Something for which
      there is no scientific explanation has been observed in
      America's (and the world's) air space for over fifty-five years.
      Trained observers -- pilots, air traffic controllers, radar
      operators, astronauts, military personnel -- and government
      agencies have reported and documented spectacular events
      visually, photographically, and on radar. Many accounts are
      available in the literature.

      - Despite intense public interest, there has been no
      independent, federally financed scientific research conducted on
      these phenomena since the flawed and biased 1969 Condon report.

      The findings of Dr. J. Allen Hynek

      The late J. Allen Hynek, professor of astronomy at Ohio State
      University and later chairman of the astronomy department at
      Northwestern University, was an official astronomical consultant
      to the U.S. Air Force's Project Blue Book. His classified report
      for the Air Technical Intelligence Center (ATIC) at Wright
      Patterson Air Force Base recommended that the UFO question be
      given "the status of a scientific problem," freeing the
      scientists from the restraints of secrecy which confuse the
      public. "The first effort should be to determine with great
      accuracy what the phenomena to be explained really are and to
      establish their reality beyond all question," he said.

      - His request for a scientific study was not granted. Instead,
      the Air Force, CIA, and later the 1969 University of Colorado
      Condon report undermined valid scientific data through secrecy
      and deceptive press releases.

      The Congressional testimony of Dr. James E. McDonald

      On July 29, 1968 the House Science and Astronautics Committee
      heard the testimony of Dr. James E. McDonald, senior physicist
      of the Institute of Atmospheric Physics and Professor of
      Meteorology at the University of Arizona. A respected authority
      and leader in the field of atmospheric physics, McDonald had
      authored highly technical papers for professional journals. He
      spent two years examining formerly classified official file
      material and radar tracking data on UFOs; interviewing several
      hundred witnesses; and conducting in-depth case investigations,
      details of which were provided to the Committee.

      McDonald told the Committee that, "no other problem within your
      jurisdiction is of comparable scientific and national
      importance_the scientific community, not only in this country
      but throughout the world, has been casually ignoring as nonsense
      a matter of extraordinary scientific importance."

      - Despite an apparent positive response from some Committee
      members, the requests of McDonald and other scientists for
      further action by the Congress never materialized.

      ii Seeking UN sponsorship

      Between 1975 and 1978, Sir Eric M. Gairy, Prime Minister of
      Grenada, proposed to the United Nations General Assembly that
      the UN establish "an agency or a department of the United
      Nations for undertaking, coordinating, and disseminating the
      results of research into Unidentified Flying Objects and related
      phenomena." Hynek, with his associate Dr. Jacques Vallee and Lt
      Col. Larry Coyne, a US Army pilot who almost collided with a UFO
      in December, 1978, asked that the United Nations "provide a
      clearing house procedure whereby the work already going on
      globally can be brought together in a serious, concentrated
      approach to this most outstanding challenge to current science."
      He pointed out that UFOs had been reported in 133 member states
      of the UN and that there existed 1300 cases where "there appears
      physical evidence of the immediate presence of the UFO."

      - Like the Congressional hearings of 1968, the proposals got
      nowhere at the UN. The research of Dr. Peter Sturrock

      In 1997, Dr. Peter A. Sturrock, emeritus professor of applied
      physics at Stanford University and emeritus director of
      Stanford's Center for Space Science and Astrophysics, organized
      and directed a four-day workshop funded by philanthropist
      Laurance Rockefeller. The purpose of the conference was to
      rigorously review purported physical evidence associated with
      UFO reports and to assess whether the further acquisition and
      investigation of such evidence is likely to help solve the UFO
      problem.

      Seven investigators presented cases with photographic evidence;
      luminosity estimates; radar evidence; interference with
      automobile functioning; interference with aircraft equipment;
      apparent gravitational or inertial effects; ground traces;
      injuries to vegetation; physiological effects on witnesses; and
      analysis of debris. - A review panel of nine distinguished
      scientists from diverse fields recommended continued careful
      evaluation of UFO reports stating that, "New data,
      scientifically acquired and analyzed" could provide useful
      information and "physical scientists would have an opportunity
      to contribute to the resolution of the UFO problem."

      The French government studies the phenomenon The French space
      agency known as CNES (Centre National d'=C9tudes Spatiales) has
      been the only government agency to conduct a consistent, non-
      military investigation into UFO incidents for over twenty years
      through its agency called SEPRA (Service d'Expertise des
      Ph=E9nom=E8nes de Rentr=E9es Atmosph=E9riques).

      In 1999, four-star General Bernard Norlain, former commander of
      the French Tactical Air Force, and other retired generals and
      admirals from the French Institute of Higher Studies for
      National Defense; Jean Jacques Velasco, head of SEPRA; Andre
      Lebeau, former head of CNES, and a team of scientists and
      engineers, released an historic study titled UFOs and Defense:
      What Should We Prepare For? The group called themselves the
      COMETA, meaning "Committee for In-depth Studies."

      iii The French group spent three years examining nearly 500
      international aeronautical sightings and radar/ visual cases,
      and previously undisclosed pilots' reports. Their three-year
      study drew on data from government and military sources around
      the world. It concluded that about 5 percent of sightings on
      which there is solid documentation seem to be "completely
      unknown flying machines with exceptional performances that are
      guided by a natural or artificial intelligence."

      - To address the problem, the COMETA urged international
      action.
      It recommended that the European Union undertake diplomatic
      action with the United States "exerting useful pressure to
      clarify this crucial issue, which must fall within the scope of
      political and strategic alliances." The group openly challenged
      US denial of the UFO problem.

      Britain's former defense chief weighs in

      Great Britain's former Chief of the Defense Staff and five-star
      Admiral Lord Hill-Norton has taken an outspoken stand in favor
      of scientific research. Two years ago, in response to his
      government's public dismissal of a multiple-witnessed landing of
      a glowing craft that left physical ground traces at Bentwaters
      Air Force base in 1980, he said:

      - "This should be the subject of rigorous scientific
      investigation and not the subject of rubbishing by tabloid
      newspapers."

      Aviation safety is a concern

      In 2000, Dr. Richard Haines, a retired senior aerospace
      scientist from NASA-Ames Research Center and formerly NASA's
      Chief of the Space Human Factors Office, authored a report
      documenting over 100 cases of pilot encounters with unidentified
      aerial phenomena that raise safety concerns, including 56 near
      misses. The objects paced the aircraft at relatively near
      distances, disabling on board instrumentation and sometimes
      caused pilots to make sudden, evasive changes in their flight
      paths. Most incidents remain unreported due to the ridicule and
      official debunking policy that the pilots face. According to the
      report, "Aviation Safety in America - A Previously Neglected
      Factor," published by the National Aviation Reporting Center on
      Anomalous Phenomena (NARCAP) founded by Haines,

      - "Responsible aviation officials should take[these] phenomena
      seriously and issue clear procedures for reporting them without
      fearing ridicule, reprimand or other career impairment and in a
      manner that will support scientific research."

      It's time for a scientific study of UFOs

      The national security argument is no longer acceptable as a
      justification for the U.S. government withholding of decades old
      reports of events and physical samples that may have been
      recovered. Scientists are the proper authorities to determine
      the true nature of the UFO phenomena. They stand ready and
      waiting to conduct comprehensive, ongoing studies, if only the
      resources are provided. The public appears ready to support the
      research with its tax dollars, if only they are given the
      opportunity.

      - The policies and attitudes of certain government officials
      and
      agencies must change so that the investigation of unidentified
      aerial phenomena can move forward with the rest of contemporary
      science.

      Science and the Failure To Investigate Unidentified Aerial
      Phenomena Overview

      "Physicists working in Europe announced yesterday that they had
      passed through nature's looking glass. . . opening up the
      possibility of experiments in a realm once reserved for science
      fiction writers," stated a September New York Times article
      about the creation of antimatter.[1]


      A scientific probe into unidentified aerial phenomena, also
      known as UFOs, could do the same thing. Yet there has been no
      independent, federally financed scientific research conducted on
      these phenomena since 1969, despite intense public interest. A
      September 2002 Roper Poll, prepared for the SCI FI Channel,
      showed that 56% of Americans believe that UFOs are something
      real and 72% believe that the government is not telling the
      public everything it knows about UFO activity.[2]

      UFOs are not science fiction. In the 1950's the Air Force
      defined them as "any airborne object which by performance,
      aerodynamic characteristics, or unusual features does not
      conform to any presently known aircraft or missile type, or
      which cannot be positively identified as a familiar object."[3]

      There is no implication of origin inherent in the meaning of the
      word "UFO." It simply means "unidentified." These objects have
      been observed in our air space for over fifty years. Trained
      observers - pilots, air traffic controllers, radar operators,
      scientists, military personnel -- and government agencies around
      the world have reported and documented spectacular events
      visually, photographically and on radar.

      Accounts of these incidents are widely available in the
      literature.[4]

      Most of the thousands of UFO reports submitted each year can be
      explained. But approximately 5% to 10% represent solid objects
      capable of speeds, maneuverability and luminosity far beyond
      current known technology.[5]

      As far as we know, these are not natural and they are not
      manmade. The question is: What are they? Why haven't scientists
      been able to study them and provide us with answers? Those
      scientists who have examined the evidence agree that for the
      benefit of all humanity, our government must disclose
      information on the phenomenon to facilitate a full-fledged,
      independent scientific investigation spanning many disciplines.

      "The phenomena is something real"

      In 1947, Lt. General Nathan Twining, Commander of Air Materiel
      Command at Wright Patterson Air Force Base, sent a now-famous
      secret memo concerning "Flying Discs" to Brig. General George
      Schulgen, Chief of the Air Intelligence Requirements Division at
      the Pentagon.

      "The phenomena is something real and not visionary or
      fictitious," he wrote. "The reported operating characteristics
      such as extreme rates of climb, maneuverability (particularly in
      roll), and action which must be considered evasive when sighted
      or contacted by friendly aircraft and radar, lend belief to the
      possibility that some of the objects are controlled either
      manually, automatically or remotely." Twining described the
      objects as metallic or light-reflecting, circular or elliptical
      with a flat bottom and domed top, and usually silent.

      The AMC Commander stressed the need for "physical evidence in
      the shape of crash recovered exhibits which would undeniably
      prove the existence of these objects."[6]

      In order to make a detailed study and investigation, the Air
      Force established the top secret Project Sign. It presented an
      "Estimate of the Situation" to Chief of Staff General
      Vandenberg, concluding that the evidence indicated UFOs were
      interplanetary. Vanderberg decided the report lacked proof and
      sent it back; it was declassified and burned shortly
      thereafter.[7]

      From then on, it was clear to Air Force investigators that the
      effort must shift to a search for other explanations, such as
      Soviet spacecraft or weather balloons. Project Sign was renamed
      Project Grudge, which became Project Blue Book in 1951. With no
      access to case information classified higher than Secret, the
      project was largely a public relations effort attempting to
      explain away as many sightings as possible.

      Government enlists scientists to undermine science

      Documents show that while grappling with the reality of
      unexplainable flying objects, some government officials could
      not so easily dismiss the possibility of something
      interplanetary. In July of 1952, the FBI was briefed through the
      office of Major General Samford, Director of Air Intelligence,
      that it was "not entirely impossible that the objects sighted
      may possibly be ships from another planet such as Mars." Air
      Intelligence is "fairly certain" that they are not "ships or
      missiles from another nation in this world," the FBI memo
      reports.[8]

      Another FBI memo stated some months later that, "Some military
      officials are seriously considering the possibility of planetary
      ships."[9]

      The CIA had urgent national security concerns. H. Marshall
      Chapman, Assistant Director of Scientific Intelligence, told the
      Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) in 1952 that, "Sightings
      of unexplained objects at great altitudes and travelling at high
      speeds in the vicinity of major U.S. defense installations are
      of such nature that they are not attributable to natural
      phenomena or known types of aerial vehicles."[10]

      The agency decided to establish a "national policy" as to "what
      should be told the public regarding the phenomenon, in order to
      minimize risk of panic," according to government documents. It
      would be presented to the National Security Council. Chapman
      said the DCI must be "empowered" to initiate the research
      necessary "to solve the problem of instant positive
      identification of unidentified flying objects."[11]

      To do so, the DCI would "enlist the services of selected
      scientists to review and appraise the available evidence_"[12]

      The office of scientific intelligence began an association with
      H. P. Robertson, specialist in physics and weapons systems from
      the California Institute of Technology, "toward establishing a
      panel of top scientists and engineers" for this purpose.[13]

      In January 1953, the CIA Office of Scientific Intelligence
      convened its advisory panel of "selected scientists" for a
      cursory, four-day review of some UFO cases and film footage. The
      group fulfilled its mission of establishing the desired national
      policy: A covert "educational program of training and debunking"
      designed to reduce the number of UFO reports. It suggested using
      "mass media such as television, motion pictures, and popular
      articles" to reduce public interest and gullibility, with the
      assistance of psychologists and advertising experts. Civilian
      groups studying UFOs should be "watched" due to their influence
      on public thinking. The final recommendation was that "the
      national security agencies take immediate steps to strip the
      Unidentified Flying Objects of the special status they have been
      given and the aura of mystery they have unfortunately
      received."[14]

      The pronouncements of the panel forever affected attitudes in
      the media toward the subject of UFOs. Ridicule remains the
      predominant mainstream media response to the subject, despite
      the fact that those dismissing it have not looked at the
      evidence and are uninformed. Attitudes of the scientific
      community are greatly impacted by media condescension and
      censorship of this issue.

      J. Allen Hynek, professor of astronomy at Ohio State University
      and later chairman of the Astronomy Department at Northwestern
      University, was an official technical consultant to Project Blue
      Book for two decades. As a skeptic and debunker himself when
      beginning his work for the Air Force, Hynek sat in on most of
      the Robertson panel meetings. He said later that the panel gave
      short thrift to real science. "The implication in the Panel
      Report was that UFOs were a nonsense (non-science) matter, to be
      debunked at all costs," Hynek wrote in 1977.[15]

      After interviewing astronomers on the subject of unidentified
      flying objects just prior to the Robertson Panel meeting, Hynek
      noted that even discussing the subject led to an "overwhelming
      fear of publicity" for these scientists.

      In a 1952 classified report for the Air Technical Intelligence
      Center (ATIC) at Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Hynek
      recommended that the UFO question be given "the status of a
      scientific problem," freeing the scientists from the restraints
      of secrecy which confuse the public. "The number of truly
      puzzling incidents is now impressive," he reported. "The first
      effort should be to determine with great accuracy what the
      phenomena to be explained really are and to establish their
      reality beyond all question."[16]

      His request was not granted. Instead, five months later the
      Robertson Panel "made the subject of UFOs scientifically
      unrespectable. For nearly 20 years not enough attention was paid
      to the subject to acquire the kind of data needed even to decide
      the nature of the UFO phenomenon," Hynek said.[17]


      Air Force press release misrepresents scientific data

      Following the 1952 overflights of unidentified objects in
      Washington DC, which were picked up on radar at two Air Force
      bases and chased by F-94 jets[18], the Air Force turned to the
      Battelle Memorial Institute, a prestigious scientific research
      organization. It asked the Institute scientists to address the
      following question: Do the objects officially designated as
      "unknowns" differ from the "knowns?" If one examines the basic
      characteristics of color, speed, shape, light brightness, number
      of objects and duration of observation, are the descriptions
      similar for both groups? Through a statistical analysis, it
      could be determined at what probability the unknowns and knowns
      were actually the same. If the characteristics of both groups
      are close to the same, one could deduce that the unknowns are
      probably misidentifications of ordinary things. If they differ
      strongly, then one could argue that UFOs are "real." Performed
      under the supervision of ATIC, the findings of this study were
      presented in the 1955 Project Blue Book Special Report #14,
      classified Secret.[19]

      When standardized statistical tests were applied to over 2000
      sightings, the probability was less than 1% for each of the five
      characteristics (other than brightness) that the unknowns and
      knowns were the same. Yet the report's conclusion blatantly
      disregarded these definitive results. It stated, "The results of
      these tests are inconclusive since they neither confirm nor deny
      that the unknowns are primarily unidentified knowns, although
      they do indicate that relatively few of the unknowns are
      astronomical phenomena."

      The unknowns were defined in the Battelle report as distinct
      from known objects such as balloons, astronomical data,
      aircraft, and miscellaneous and psychological manifestations.
      They were also defined as clearly distinct from those sightings
      with insufficient information. In other words, there was enough
      information to determine the unknowns were not anything known.
      Yet the summary stated the false contradiction that "all
      unidentified aerial objects could have been explained if more
      complete observational data had been available."[20]

      Another finding of the study was that unknowns constituted 33%
      of all sightings from 1947 - 1955 for which the reliability of
      the sighting was categorized as "excellent." Yet the press
      release never presented this. It only cited the unknowns from
      the first four months of 1955, which were a low 3%, as if that
      was the relevant determination of the study.

      The press release concluded that no evidence for "flying
      saucers" was found.[21] This simply was not true. Although the
      report contained extensive data and applied sound scientific
      techniques, the scientists presented nonsensical conclusions
      unrelated to that data. Blue Book Special Report #14 was never
      made available to the press or public so they could read it for
      themselves. The press summary was conveniently used to further
      debunk the issue, in support of the Robertson Panel
      recommendations. Battelle even kept its involvement secret from
      the press and public. After the report was declassified, Hynek
      attempted to retrieve the records and working papers of the
      Battelle study, which the study had stated were being preserved
      for reference. The Battelle Memorial Institute - "an otherwise
      flawless scientific research organization" -- told him they had
      been destroyed.[22]


      Congress hears from scientists

      On July 29, 1968 the House Science and Astronautics Committee
      was pressured by public reaction to some dramatic UFO sightings
      to hold a day-long "Symposium on Unidentified Flying Objects"
      because "the rigid and exacting discipline of science should be
      marshaled to explore the nature of phenomena which reliable
      citizens continue to report," according to the then Chairman
      Representative J. Edward Roush of Indiana."[23]

      The testimony of Dr. James E. McDonald, senior physicist of the
      Institute of Atmospheric Physics and Professor of Meteorology at
      the University of Arizona, was the most extensive. A respected
      authority and leader in the field of atmospheric physics,
      McDonald had authored highly technical papers for professional
      journals. He spent two years examining formerly classified
      official file material and radar tracking data on UFOs;
      interviewing several hundred witnesses; and conducting in-depth
      case investigations, details of which were provided to the
      Committee.

      McDonald told the Committee that no other problem within their
      jurisdiction compared to this one. "The scientific community,
      not only in this country but throughout the world, has been
      casually ignoring as nonsense a matter of extraordinary
      scientific importance." McDonald indicated that he leaned
      towards the extraterrestrial hypothesis as an explanation, due
      to "a process of elimination of other alternative hypotheses,
      not by arguments based on what I could call 'irrefutable
      proof.'"[24]

      Dr. James Harder, a University of California professor of civil
      engineering, explored possible propulsion systems for
      interstellar travel that could be used by those UFOs
      demonstrating incredible maneuvers at high speeds without any
      noise. "On the basis of the data and ordinary rules of evidence,
      as would be applied in civil or criminal courts, the physical
      reality of UFOs has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt," he
      said. UFOs have demonstrated "scientific secrets we do not know
      ourselves."[25]

      Dr. Hynek recommended that a Congressional UFO Scientific Board
      of Inquiry set up a mechanism for the proper study of UFOs
      "using all methods available to modern science" and that
      international cooperation be sought through the United
      Nations.[26]

      Despite an apparent positive response from the Committee
      members, the requests of the scientists for further action by
      the Congress never materialized.


      The Air Force tries closing the book

      In 1966, the Air Force commissioned the University of Colorado
      to conduct a definitive, impartial study on all the UFO data
      accumulated by Project Blue Book. Headed by physicist Dr. Edward
      U. Condon, the project was profoundly flawed right from the
      start. A memo by project coordinator Robert Low to two
      University Deans on August 9, 1966 discussing the pros and cons
      of taking on the project was unearthed by two project members
      who were fired for making it public.

      If the project were to be undertaken, Low laid out the problem:

      One has to approach it objectively. That is, one has to admit
      the possibility that such things as UFOs exist. It is not
      respectable to give serious consideration to such a
      possibility_one would have to go so far as to consider the
      possibility that saucers, if some of the observations are
      verified, behave according to a set of physical laws unknown to
      us. The simple act of admitting these possibilities just as
      possibilities puts us beyond the pale, and we would loose more
      in prestige in the scientific community than we could possibly
      gain by undertaking the investigation.

      But Low offered a way out:

      Our study would be conducted almost exclusively by non-believers
      who, although they couldn't possibly prove a negative result,
      could and probably would add an impressive body of evidence that
      there is no reality to the observations. The trick would be, I
      think, to describe the project so that, to the public, it would
      appear a totally objective study but, to the scientific
      community,6 would present the image of a group of nonbelievers
      trying their best to be objective, but having an almost zero
      expectation of finding a saucer.[27]

      Condon had no problem making his negative attitudes towards his
      subject matter public. In January 1967, he stated in a lecture
      that, "It is my inclination right now to recommend that the
      Government get out of this business. My attitude right now is
      that there's nothing to it." He added "but I'm not supposed to
      reach a conclusion for another year..."[28]

      In fact, Condon himself did not participate in the analysis of
      the carefully researched case studies that made up the bulk of
      the 1000 pages of the Condon Report, "Scientific Study of
      Unidentified Flying Objects," released early in 1969. But his
      own summary - all that most of the press and public would ever
      read - closed the door to any hope of scientific research in the
      years to come.

      Like the Battelle report, the lengthy body of the study provided
      some excellent scientific analysis, verifying the reality of the
      UFO phenomena. Investigator William K. Hartman, astronomer from
      the University of Arizona, stated in Case 46 (McMinnville, OR)
      that, "This is one of the few UFO reports in which all factors
      investigated, geometric, psychological, and physical appear to
      be consistent with the assertion that an extraordinary flying
      object, silvery, metallic, disc-shaped, tens of meters in
      diameter, and evidently artificial, flew within the sight of two
      witnesses."[29]

      Gordon Thayer concluded for one of his cases that, "The
      apparently rational, intelligent behavior of the UFO suggests a
      mechanical device of unknown origin as the most probable
      explanation of this sighting."[30]

      For another case, he wrote, "The preponderance of evidence
      indicates the possibility of a genuine UFO in this case."[31]

      Regardless, Condon's summary stated that, "Nothing has come from
      the study of UFOs in the past twenty years that has added to
      scientific knowledge...further extensive study of UFOs probably
      cannot be justified in the expectation that science will be
      advanced thereby."[32]

      And the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) endorsed Condon's
      recommendation. "A study of UFOs in general is not a promising
      way to expand scientific understanding of the phenomena," it
      concluded seven weeks later.[33]

      Condon added insult to injury by telling The New York Times that
      his investigation "was a bunch of damn nonsense," and he was
      sorry he "got involved in such foolishness."[34]

      The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA),
      however, came up with a different conclusion. After spending a
      year and a half studying the actual text of the Condon report,
      an AIAA panel stated that Condon's summary did not reflect the
      conclusions contained in the report but instead "it discloses
      many of his[Condon's] personal conclusions." The AIAA found no
      basis in the report for Condon's determination that further
      studies had no scientific value. These scientists said that, "a
      phenomena with such a high ratio of unexplained cases (about
      30%) should arouse sufficient curiosity to continue its
      study."[35]

      Twenty-nine percent of the cases studied in the Condon report
      remain unexplained to this day.[36]


      Is UFO technology beyond existing scientific knowledge?

      In conjunction with the Condon report, the Secretary of the Air
      Force announced the termination of Project Blue Book, thereby
      claiming no more official involvement with the investigation of
      UFOs. In another slap in the face to science, his press release
      declared that no sightings "categorized as 'unidentified'
      represented technological developments or principles beyond the
      range of present scientific knowledge."[37]

      However, the existence of advanced technology by UFOs had been
      well established through military and pilot reports of their
      behavior, beginning with the Twining memo. At the time, the
      public did not have access to the documentation now available,
      which proves the Air Force contradiction.

      In 1952, Project Magnet, a classified Canadian Government study
      on UFO reports by Wilbert B. Smith released by the Canadian
      government in the 1970's, stated the following:

      It can be deduced that the vehicles have the following
      significant characteristics. They are a hundred feet or more in
      diameter; they can travel at speeds of several thousand miles
      per hour; they can reach altitudes well above those which would
      support conventional aircraft or balloons; and ample power and
      force seem to be available for all required maneuvers. Taking
      these factors into account, it is difficult to reconcile this
      performance with the capabilities of our technology, and unless
      the technology of some terrestrial nation is much more advanced
      than is generally known, we are forced to the conclusion that
      the vehicles are probably extra-terrestrial, in spite of our
      prejudices to the contrary.

      Smith concluded:

      Such vehicles of necessity must use a technology considerably in
      advance of what we have. It is therefore submitted that the next
      step in this investigation should be a substantial effort
      towards the acquisition of as much as possible of this
      technology, which would no doubt be of great value to us.[38]

      In 1960, Iowa Congressman Leonard G. Wolf stated his concern in
      the Congressional record that UFOs could cause accidental war if
      mistaken for Soviet weapons. Gen. L. M. Chassin, NATO
      coordinator of Allied Air Services, warned that a global tragedy
      might occur "if we persist in refusing to recognize the
      existence of these UFO's." Rep. Wolf stated that all defense
      personnel "should be told that the UFOs are real and should be
      trained to distinguish them - by their characteristic speeds and
      maneuvers - from conventional planes and missiles_the American
      people must be convinced, by documented facts, that the UFOs
      could not be Soviet machines." Since UFOs could be distinguished
      from Soviet and US conventional aircraft and weaponry by the
      "documented facts" of their characteristic speeds and maneuvers,
      General Chassin was making it clear that the objects were
      displaying a technology not yet acquired by any country.[39]

      UFO technology was undoubtedly of interest to those scientists
      working secretly with government agencies. In 1976, two F-4
      Phantom crews of the Imperial Iranian Air Force pursued a
      brilliant UFO, which ejected a second object. While speeding
      toward the F-4, the smaller object disabled the jets weapons
      control system and communications at the instant the pilot
      attempted to fire a missile.[40]

      UFOs shut down and restarted the Kuwait Oil Company's pumping
      equipment in 1978, prompting the Kuwaiti government to send a
      committee of "experts" from the Kuwait Institute for Scientific
      Research to investigate. According to a US State Department
      document, "The KISR Committee rejected the notion that the
      'UFOS' were espionage devices but remained equivocal about
      whether they were of extraterrestrial origin."[41]

      The documentation shows that in the decades following the close
      of Blue Book, the Air Force continued its UFO investigations
      behind closed doors, due to continuing national security
      concerns[42] - despite the fact that the Air Force stated in 1969
      that Blue Book was closed because "no UFO reported, investigated
      and evaluated by the Air Force has ever given any indication of
      threat to our national security."[43]

      The Air Force claims that this is still the case today, even
      though government agencies refuse to comply with Freedom of
      Information Act (FOIA) requests on the basis of "national
      security." Information that has been obtained under FOIA and
      even some official government reports themselves contradict the
      government's denial of national security concerns, both before
      and after the closure of Blue Book. Recently, military reports
      and ongoing government investigations in countries such as
      England, France, and Chile also provide contradictory
      information.[44]

      In 1975, U.S. fighter jets attempted to pursue UFOs as recorded
      in North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) logs.[45]

      Defense Department reports state that UFOs were pursued by U.S.
      Air Force fighter planes after the objects hovered over three
      supersensitive nuclear missile launch sites that same year.[46]
      Iranian and Peruvian air force planes tried to shoot down
      unidentified craft in 1976 and 1980.[47] F-16s from Belgium
      armed with missiles pursued a UFO in 1990.[48] Certainly these
      incidents were of national security concern in each country over
      which they occurred.

      The Air Force press release gave a third reason for its
      termination of Blue Book: "There has been no evidence indicating
      that sightings categorized as `unidentified' are
      extraterrestrial vehicles."[49] No alternative explanation for a
      very real phenomena was provided to the public. Many qualified
      investigators would take issue with the "no evidence"
      declaration (as had Air Force and FBI officials), pointing out
      that although much more evidence must be acquired, it is proof
      that we lack. In any case, scientists are the proper authorities
      to make this determination. They must be provided with the
      necessary government documents, physical samples and resources
      to do so.


      Science in default

      Less than two weeks after the closure of Project Blue Book, the
      American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) held
      a symposium on Unidentified Flying Objects which had been
      planned for over a year. Astronomers, physicists, sociologists,
      psychologists, psychiatrists, and The New York Times science
      editor presented papers. Again, James McDonald - who had added
      another year of intensive study since his presentation before
      Congress - was the strongest voice in laying out details of
      unexplained cases and advocating for adequate scientific
      research.

      He pointed out the clear weaknesses of the Condon study. Claims
      of scientific competence were "the single most serious obstacle
      that the Air Force has put in the way of progress" with "the
      regrettable consequence of denying scientists at large even a
      dim notion of the almost incredible nature of some of the more
      impressive Air Force-related UFO reports," he said in his
      landmark paper, Science in Default: Twenty-two Years of
      Inadequate UFO Investigations.[50]


      President Carter and NASA

      Less than a decade later, President Jimmy Carter attempted to
      reopen the door to scientific inquiry into unidentified flying
      objects, partly due to his own sighting for which he filed a
      report. In July 1977, his Science Advisor Frank Press wrote to
      NASA Administrator Robert Frosch recommending that NASA set up a
      "a small panel of inquiry" to see if there were any "new
      significant findings" since the Condon Report. "The focal point
      for the UFO question ought to be NASA," he said Frosch's initial
      response was positive and open, and he began the process of
      internal review of the request.

      The Air Force, which claimed to have had been out of the UFO
      business since 1969, seemed to have some concerns. Colonel
      Charles E. Senn, Chief of the Community Relations Division at
      the Air Force, stated in a September letter to NASA's Lieutenant
      General Duward L. Crow, "I sincerely hope that you are
      successful in preventing a reopening of UFO investigations."[51]

      NASA eventually turned down the White House request from the
      President's office. Frosch said that NASA needed "bona fide
      physical evidence from credible sources." Due to the absence of
      such evidence, he said that, "we have not been able to devise a
      sound scientific procedure for investigating these phenomena."
      Therefore, no steps would be taken.

      Dr. Richard C. Henry, professor of astrophysics at Johns Hopkins
      University, was then Deputy Director of NASA's Astrophysics
      Division and privy to some of the decision making process. In a
      1988 essay for the Journal of Scientific Exploration, Henry
      takes issue with Frosch's claim of "an absence of tangible or
      physical evidence."[52]He says there was an abundance of
      relevant evidence at the time.[53]

      Henry says Frosch's statement denying the existence of a sound
      scientific protocol was also false. "The National Academy of
      Sciences endorsed the Condon study of UFO's, and specifically
      endorsed their procedures (protocol). It hardly does for us to
      say no sound protocol is possible!" he wrote in a memo to NASA
      Space Science Administrator Noel Hinners. "The point is, that to
      be meaningful the protocol must cover the possibility that the
      UFO phenomenon is due in part to intelligences far beyond our
      own."

      Although he outlined some possibilities, Henry was not able to
      draw a definite conclusion as to why NASA turned down the
      request from the President of the United States.[54]


      Raising the issue at the United Nations

      Between 1975 and 1978, Sir Eric M. Gairy, Prime Minister of
      Grenada, proposed to the United Nations General Assembly that
      the UN establish "an agency or a department of the United
      Nations for undertaking, coordinating, and disseminating the
      results of research into Unidentified Flying Objects and related
      phenomena."[55]

      With his associate Dr. Jacques Vallee and Lt Col. Larry Coyne, a
      US Army pilot who almost collided with a UFO in December, 1978,
      Hynek asked in a speech to the UN that it "provide a clearing
      house procedure whereby the work already going on globally can
      be brought together in a serious, concentrated approach to this
      most outstanding challenge to current science." He pointed out
      that UFOs had been reported in 133 member states of the UN and
      that there existed 1,300 cases where "there appears physical
      evidence of the immediate presence of the UFO."

      Hynek highlighted a new French study, conducted by scientists
      from many disciplines in cooperation with the Gendarmerie under
      the auspices of the Centre National d'=C9tudes Spatiales (CNES),
      the French equivalent of NASA. The case studies were "exemplary
      and far superior to the previous studies in other countries_the
      implications for science and the public at large of this French
      investigation are profound," he said.

      Hynek's remarks reflected the sad state of affairs for many
      American scientists who dared to take an interest in UFOs. These
      individuals were associated with "large and prestigious
      scientific organizations, both government and private" which
      "are silent or even officially derisive about the UFO
      phenomenon," Hynek told the United Nations. Those with "intimate
      knowledge of the UFO phenomenon are restrained by organizational
      policy to remain officially silent about their interest and in
      private work with UFO matters."[56]

      Mercury astronaut Gordon Cooper also asked the United Nations
      for "a top level, coordinated program to scientifically collect
      and analyze data from all over earth_"[57] But like the
      Congressional hearings of 1968, the proposals never went
      anywhere.


      Recent developments and high-level foreign interest

      Regardless of the consistent disregard by key U.S. institutions,
      the UFO problem would not go away. In the 1980's, two
      extraordinary cases involving the landing of objects leaving
      physical evidence were documented by military personnel and
      scientists in England[58] and France.[59]

      "This should be the subject of rigorous scientific investigation
      and not the subject of rubbishing by tabloid newspapers," said
      England's former Chief of the Defense Staff and five-star
      Admiral Lord Hill-Norton in 2000. He was responding to his
      government's public dismissal of the multiple-witnessed landing
      of a glowing triangular craft that left three depressions at
      Bentwaters Air Force base in 1980.[60] Deputy Base Commander Lt.
      Col. Charles I. Halt provided a detailed description of the
      objects, the landing, and the physical evidence in a classified
      Air Force memo.[61]

      Events in the U.S. were also significant, although barely
      noticed by the media. In March 1997, hundreds of people across
      Arizona reported seeing huge triangular objects, hovering
      silently in the night sky. One series of lights were caught on
      videotape. Following a thwarted effort by Phoenix City
      Councilwoman Frances Barwood to investigate, a U.S District
      court demanded a search for information from the Department of
      Defense about these aircraft. Despite irrefutable documentation
      of the event, DoD responded that it could not find anything
      about the existence of the triangles. This heightened citizen's
      fears: How could our government not know about something huge
      flying low over major population centers?[62] Even Senator John
      McCain acknowledged that this incident, known as the "Phoenix
      Lights," has "never been fully explained."[63]

      In 2000, four policemen at different locations in St. Claire
      County, Illinois, witnessed a similar craft exhibiting extreme
      rapid motion, again unacknowledged by nearby Scott Air Force
      Base or the Federal Aviation Administration.[64]

      Dr. Peter A. Sturrock, emeritus professor of applied physics at
      Stanford University and emeritus director of Stanford's Center
      for Space Science and Astrophysics, has taken the lead in
      reactivating a scientific evaluation of the UFO phenomenon. He
      conducted a 1975 survey of the American Astronomical Society and
      found that 75% of the respondents wished to see more information
      on the subject published in scientific journals. Due to the fact
      that the journals rejected papers on the UFO problem out of
      hand, Sturrock founded the Society for Scientific Exploration
      (SSE) and its Journal of Scientific Exploration (JSE), which
      began publication in 1987. With associates in more than 40
      countries, the JSE provides a forum for the presentation and
      debate of topics that are not otherwise discussed in scientific
      societies.[65]

      Sturrock is perhaps one of the most eminent scientists ever to
      apply the conventional scientific method to the UFO phenomenon.
      He won the 1986 Hale Prize in Solar Physics from the American
      Astronomical Society, the Arctowski medal in 1990 from the
      National Academy of Sciences, and the 1992 Space Sciences Award
      from the 40,000 member American Institute of Aeronautics and
      Astronautics for his "major contribution to the fields of
      geophysics, solar physics and astrophysics, leadership in the
      space science community, and dedication to the pursuit of
      knowledge."

      In 1997, Sturrock initiated and directed a four-day workshop at
      the Pocantico Conference Center in Tarrytown, New York, funded
      by philanthropist Laurance Rockefeller. The purpose of the
      conference was to rigorously review purported physical evidence
      associated with UFO reports, in order to assess whether the
      further acquisition and investigation of such evidence is likely
      to help solve the UFO problem.

      Seven investigators presented cases with photographic evidence;
      luminosity estimates; radar evidence; interference with
      automobile functioning; interference with aircraft equipment;
      apparent gravitational or inertial effects; ground traces;
      injuries to vegetation; physiological effects on witnesses; and
      analysis of debris.

      A review panel of nine distinguished scientists from diverse
      fields (mostly "decidedly skeptical agnostics" who did not have
      prior involvement with UFOs, according to Sturrock) reviewed the
      presentations and provided a carefully worded summary. The panel
      was "not convinced that any of the evidence involved currently
      unknown physical processes or pointed to the involvement of an
      extraterrestrial intelligence." Continued careful evaluation of
      UFO reports was recommended. "New data, scientifically acquired
      and analyzed" could provide useful information allowing physical
      scientists "to contribute to the resolution of the UFO problem."

      In contradiction to the Condon summary, the panel concluded that
      the UFO problem is not simple, and "whenever there are
      unexplained observations, there is the possibility that
      scientists will learn something new by studying these
      observations."[66]


      Pilots continue to report sightings of unidentified aerial
      phenomena

      A few years later, Dr. Richard Haines, a retired senior
      aerospace scientist from NASA-Ames Research Center and formerly
      NASA's Chief of the Space Human Factors Office, authored a
      report documenting over one hundred cases of pilot encounters
      with unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) that raise safety
      concerns, including fifty-six near misses.

      Haines had spent thirty years developing a 3,400 case,
      international database of first hand sightings by commercial,
      military and private pilots. His independent study "Aviation
      Safety in America - A Previously Neglected Factor" also draws on
      FAA, NTSB and NASA files.[67]

      With an international team
      of scientists and aviation specialists, he recently founded the
      National
      Aviation Reporting Center on
      Anomalous Phenomena (NARCAP), which facilitates pilot reporting
      and studies=

      a wide range of aerial
      phenomena impacting aviation safety.

      Pilots represent the world's most experienced and credible
      observers of air=

      traffic with extensive
      specialized training. In the study, they report sightings of
      varied
      geometric forms displaying colors and
      lights and conducting high-speed maneuvers that are inconsistent
      with known=

      aircraft or natural
      phenomena.

      Pilots and crew members report that the objects approached and
      paced their aircraft at relatively near distances, disabling on
      board instrumentation. Sometimes speeding objects narrowly
      avoided a head-on collision by a sudden, 90-degree turn. On
      other occasions, pilots made sudden, evasive changes in their
      flight paths due to the object's proximity or dynamic behavior.
      Cockpit distraction is always a concern "when the crew is faced
      with an extremely bizarre, unexpected and prolonged luminous
      and/or solid phenomena cavorting near their aircraft," says the
      report.

      Haines says that the hundreds of UAP reports he has analyzed,
      some dating back to the 1940's, "appear to suggest that they are
      associated with a very high degree of intelligence, deliberate
      flight control, and advanced energy management."

      The study documents the ridicule and "psychological negative
      feedback system" that pilots have faced since the 1950's due the
      official debunking policy. Most pilots never file reports at
      all.[68]

      In 1986, veteran Japan Airlines Captain Kenju Terauchi and his
      crew encountered a huge craft over Alaska reported in the media
      and investigated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
      "Most unexpectedly two space ships stopped in front of our face,
      shooting off lights," reported Terauchi. "The inside cockpit
      shined brightly and I felt warm in the face." Terauchi's
      reporting of the incident resulted in his temporary dismissal,
      despite the FAA determination that he was stable, competent and
      professional.[69]

      John Callahan, former Division Chief of the Accidents and
      Investigations Branch of the FAA in Washington, D.C., has in his
      possession the radar recorded data, air traffic control voice
      transcripts, FAA report, and computer printouts of the Terauchi
      event. He says he attended a meeting about the incident with the
      FBI, the CIA, and President Reagan's Scientific Study team in
      which he was told, "this event never happened, we were never
      here and you are all sworn to secrecy."[70]

      "I saw a UFO chase a Japanese 747 across the sky for over half
      an hour on radar. And it's faster than anything that I know of
      in our Government," said the high level FAA official in 2001.
      "It still bothers me that I've seen all this, I know all this,
      and I'm walking around with the answer, and nobody wants to ask
      the question to get the answer."[71]


      International openness vs. U.S. secrecy

      Other countries, whose governments are open about their interest
      in getting the answer, have challenged the policy of official
      secrecy in the United States.

      The French space agency CNES has been the only government agency
      to conduct a consistent, non-military investigation into UFO
      incidents for over twenty years. It's project first called
      GEPAN[13] (Groupe d'Etudes des Phenomenes Aerospatiaux Non-
      identifies) was renamed SEPRA (Service d'Expertise des
      Phenomenes de Rentrees Atmospheriques) in 1988.[72]

      In 1999, four-star General Bernard Norlain, former commander of
      the French Tactical Air Force, and other retired generals and
      admirals from the French Institute of Higher Studies for
      National Defense; Jean Jacques Velasco, head of SEPRA; Andre
      Lebeau, former head of CNES, and a team of scientists and
      engineers, released an historic study titled UFOs and Defense:
      What Should We Prepare For? The group called themselves the
      COMETA, meaning "Committee for In-depth Studies."[73]

      The group spent three years examining nearly 500 international
      aeronautical sightings and radar/visual cases, and previously
      undisclosed pilots' reports. Their study drew on data from
      official sources, government authorities, and the Air Forces of
      other countries.

      Confirming the aviation safety concerns of the Haines study, one
      multi-witness case presented by the study involved a 1994 Air
      France sighting of an object that instantaneously disappeared,
      as recorded on radar; another described a 1995 Aerolineas
      Argentinas Boeing 727 encounter with a luminous object that
      extinguished airport lights as the plane prepared to land.

      The authors' note that about 5 percent of sightings on which
      there is solid documentation cannot be easily attributed to
      earthly sources, such as secret military exercises. This 5
      percent seem "to be completely unknown flying machines with
      exceptional performances that are guided by a natural or
      artificial intelligence," they say. Some scientists have
      developed theoretical models for travel from one solar system to
      another and for technology that could be used to propel the
      vehicles, the report points out.[74]

      The best explanation is "the extraterrestrial hypothesis," the
      report concludes. Although not categorically proven, "strong
      presumptions exist in its favor and if it is correct, it is
      loaded with significant consequences."

      To address the problem, the COMETA urged international action.
      It recommended that France establish "sectorial cooperation
      agreements with interested European and foreign countries" on
      the matter of UFOs. The European Union should undertake
      diplomatic action with the United States "exerting useful
      pressure to clarify this crucial issue, which must fall within
      the scope of political and strategic alliances." The group
      openly challenged US denial of the reality of UFOs.[75]

      In 1997, the Chilean government formed the Committee for the
      Study of Anomalous Aerial Phenomena (CEFAA) under the direction
      of the Ministerial Department of Civil Aeronautics (DGAC), the
      equivalent of our FAA. Official observations of anomalous aerial
      phenomena at a remote Chilean airport prompted this action,
      following official acknowledgement that unidentified objects
      were flying over national territory.

      The agency uses "serious, objective and scientific analysis to
      determine if these phenomena have meant any risk to the security
      of aerial operations," says CEFAA executive secretary Gustavo
      Rodr=EDguez Navarro, a retired air traffic controller.[76]

      Like the members of the COMETA, Ricardo Bermudez Sanhuesa,
      General of Chile's Air Brigade and President of the CEFAA,
      believes that international cooperation is important "to provide
      an incentive for universities and scientific organizations to
      work in multidisciplinary teams in all the branches of [14] this
      science" and to establish "a uniform method of investigation
      processes and analysis." General Bermudez says that CEFAA
      contacted the United States government on two occasions but was
      ignored each time.[77]

      Peru has also begun conducting official, yet public, UFO
      investigations. In December 2001, the Peruvian Air Force created
      the Office for the Investigation of Anomalous Activity, under
      the direction of Air Force Commander Jose Luis Chamorro.

      "There are several mysteries that we believe are highly
      important and which merit our full attention," Chamorro says.
      "If we can arrive at definitive conclusions, our work will be
      highly beneficial to Peru and all of humanity."

      Unexplainable events in the sky are frequent in Peru, Chamorro
      says. Out of hundreds of calls coming into his office every
      month, about a dozen are credible sightings with no easy
      explanation. Chamorro told the Miami Herald last September that
      a video taken in Chulucanas, Piura in late 2001 shows a huge
      ship sitting in the sky for nearly two hours. "The ship made no
      noise and did not move. You can see the shape, which includes
      even windows," he said.[78]


      Scientists call for systematic investigation

      Given the irrefutable evidence of extraordinary objects in the
      skies around planet Earth, and the high standing of those who
      have requested further scientific investigation, what stands in
      the way? And what can be done to overcome the obstacles?

      According to Peter Sturrock, scientists face a lack of sustained
      funding for research; harbor a false assumption that there is no
      data or evidence; have a perception that the topic is "not
      respectable;" and believe that the Condon report settled the
      question. Despite overwhelming public demand - which often
      drives scientific research - scientists simply aren't motivated.

      Sturrock says that the single biggest obstacle to the study of
      UFOs has been the paucity of available physical evidence. To
      remedy this situation, he proposes improving techniques for the
      retrieval of physical evidence through field investigations and
      its laboratory analysis; planned experiments in the lab testing
      physical effects; systematic cataloguing of case reports and a
      search for patterns in the data; and the development of theories
      based on the facts using scientific inference.

      "In principle, we can prove a hypothesis not only by finding
      strong evidence in its favor, but also by finding strong
      evidence against every other possibility," he says.[79] This is
      the approach taken by the French COMETA group in the
      determination of their hypothesis in 1999.

      The need for physical evidence points to the critical nature of
      a renewed FOIA initiative into Project Moon Dust and Operation
      Blue Fly, the secret Air Force units which retrieved objects of
      unknown origin, as revealed in government documents released in
      the 1990's. So far, scientists have been denied the fragments
      and the final determinations of these investigations.[80]

      Because the UFO problem makes them uncomfortable, scientists are
      prone to interpreting the issue theoretically and then giving a
      theoretical reason for dismissing it. For example, Astronomer
      Francis Drake stated in 1998 that if UFO reports are real, they
      must be due to extraterrestrial spacecraft. However,
      interstellar travel is impossible, therefore the reports must be
      discounted. This argument boils down to: It cannot happen;
      therefore it does not happen. "In normal scientific research,
      observational evidence takes precedence over theory," says
      Sturrock, "if it does happen, it can happen."[81]

      Computer scientist and astrophysicist Jacques Vallee, who has
      traveled the world studying the UFO problem for decades and was
      a close associate of Hynek, points out that a key problem is
      that scientists need journals and "unbiased venues" other than
      JSE to debate this increasingly deep and complex problem.[82]
      "New radical hypotheses may be needed to study the problem,
      beyond the limited polarization between skepticism and belief in
      'extraterrestrials,'" he says.[83]

      Dr. Bernard Haisch, Director of the California Institute for
      Physics and Astrophysics and author of over a hundred published
      papers, agrees. "I propose that true skepticism is called for
      today: neither the gullible acceptance of true belief nor the
      closed-minded rejection of the scoffer masquerading as the
      skeptic." Haisch was the editor of the JSE for twelve years.
      "Any scientist who has not read a few serious books and articles
      presenting actual UFO evidence should out of intellectual
      honesty refrain from making scientific pronouncements," he says.
      "To look at the evidence and go away unconvinced is one thing.
      To not look at the evidence and be convinced against it
      nonetheless is another. That is not science. Do your
      homework!"[84]

      The COMETA believes the central barrier to scientific progress
      lies in the lap of the United States. The world's superpower
      ignores the research and ridicules the UFO phenomenon. "Only
      increasing pressure from public opinion, possibly supported by
      the results of independent researchers, by more or less
      calculated disclosures, or by a sudden rise in UFO
      manifestations, might perhaps induce U.S. leaders and persons of
      authority to change their stance," the group states.

      The French group notes that conventional scientists are burdened
      by the prevailing concept of "anthropocentric humanism"- the
      belief that man is "the best nature can produce in this small
      corner of the galaxy" and remains the sole controller of his
      destiny. To acknowledge the possible existence of beings outside
      our planet with vastly superior technological capabilities and
      scientific understanding is both "frightening and unacceptable"
      and would leave us feeling infantile. "The social position of
      the scientific elite would be considerably compromised," their
      report says.[85]

      A more contemporary - perhaps radical by some standards -
      perspective is provided by Johns Hopkins astrophysicist Richard
      C. Henry. "We humans are newborn babes_our Earth is merely a
      minute portion of an inconceivably vast universe [of which] we
      are only an utterly unimportant element," he says. It is
      possible that other civilizations are visiting us, for reasons
      we can't conceive. He has a message to the scientists of our
      planet: "Collect and collate evidence of anomalous phenomena!
      What kind of a civilization would not collect and collate
      evidence of anomalous phenomena? Only a foolish and short-
      sighted civilization indeed!"[86]


      It's time for a scientific study of UFOs

      Despite intense public interest and the weight of fifty years of
      evidence provided by scientists, pilots, military officers and
      government agencies around the world, there has been no
      independent, federally financed scientific research conducted on
      these phenomena since the flawed and biased 1969 Condon report.
      We are long overdue for an ongoing, comprehensive study in the
      United States that leading scientists have been requesting for
      decades.

      The national security argument is no longer acceptable as a
      justification for U.S. government withholding of reports of
      events decades old. If sources and methods need protecting, this
      is legitimate. If information on Soviet objects or man-made
      technology is sensitive, this is also understandable. Neither of
      these aspects is of concern to the matter at hand. Scientists
      must be able to access all other information and any physical
      samples in the possession of U.S. government agencies. We have
      evidence of objects and bizarre anomalies in our skies that
      appear not to be natural or man made. This is a remarkable state
      of affairs. Clearly, it is worthy of the highest level of
      scientific exploration.

      American scientists stand ready and waiting to take this on, if
      only the resources are provided. The public appears ready to
      support the research with its tax dollars. It is clear that the
      policies and attitudes of certain government officials and
      agencies must change so that the investigation into these
      mysterious phenomena can "pass through nature's looking glass"
      along with the other great discoveries of contemporary science.


      Notes

      1 Overbye, Dennis; "More Sci Than Fi, Physicists Create
      Antimatter" New York Times, Sept. 9, 2002.

      2 Roper Number: C205-008232 , "Americans Beliefs and personal
      Experiences, UFOs and Extraterrestrial Life," September 2002 by
      RoperASW via OmniTel, on 1,021 male and female adults.

      3 Headquarters 4602D AISS, Draft "Guide to Identification,
      Unidentified Flying Objects" Date unknown. Contained in Clifford
      S. Stone, UFOs are Real (SPI Books, 1997).

      4 For starters: Edward J.Ruppelt, The Report on Unidentified
      Flying Objects (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1956); J. Allen
      Hynek, The UFO Experience: A Scientific Inquiry (Marlowe &
      Company, NY, 1972,1998); David Jacobs, The UFO Controversy in
      America (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1975); the files
      of Project Blue Book, available through the National Archives or
      in Brad Steiger, editor Project Blue Book: The Top Secret UFO
      Findings Revealed, (Balantine Books, NY,1976); Clifford E.
      Stone, UFOs are Real (SPI Books, 1997); Peter A. Sturrock, The
      UFO Enigma: A New Review of the Physical Evidence (Warner Books,
      NY, 1999); UFOs and Defense: What are we prepared for? The
      French Association COMETA, study from the Institute of Higher
      Studies for National Defence, July 1999.

      5 The French Association COMETA, study from the Institute of
      Higher Studies for National Defence, July 1999, estimates 5% of
      sightings are true UFOs. Other estimates are higher. In 1985, J.
      Allen Hynek put the figure at 20% (interview by Dennis Stacy.)
      Peter Sturrock points out that 29% of the cases in the Condon
      report of 1969 remain unidentified today. It is impossible to
      know the exact figure.

      6 General Nathan F. Twining to Commander, Air Material Command,
      "AMC Opinion concerning `Flying Discs'" 23 September 1947
      (Contained in Edwin U. Condon, Project Director Scientific Study
      of Unidentified Flying Objects, 1969) p. 894-95.

      7 Ruppelt, pp.62-63; Hynek UFO Experience p.173.

      8 W.P. Keay, FBI Memorandum "Flying Saucers" July 29, 1952
      (contained in Bruce Maccabee, UFO FBI Connection: The Secret
      History of the Government's Cover-Up (Llewellyn Publications, MN
      2000).

      9 W.P. Keay, FBI Memorandum "Flying Saucers" October 27, 1952
      (Maccabee, Ibid).

      10 H. Marshall Chadwell, memorandum for Director of Central
      Intelligence, Dec 2 1952.

      11 H. Marshall Chadwell, memo for Director of Central
      Intelligence "Flying Saucers" 11 Sept. 1952, p.3-4.

      12 "Unidentified Flying Objects" 4 Dec 1952 IAC-M-90.

      13 H. Marshall Chadwell, memorandum for Director of Central
      Intelligence "Unidentified Flying Objects" Dec. 10 1952.

      14 F .C. Durant, Report of Meetings of Scientific Advisory Panel
      on Unidentified Flying Objects, Convened by Office of Scientific
      Intelligence, CA January 14-18, 1953.

      15 Hynek, UFO Report p.23.

      16 J Allen Hynek, "Special Report on Conferences with
      Astronomers on Identified Flying Objects" to Air Technical
      Intelligence Center, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, August 6,
      1952, p.18, 20.

      17 Hynek, UFO Experience p.169.

      18 Ruppelt pp 160-167; Peter Carlson, "Alien Armada!50 Years
      Ago, Unidentified Flying Objects From Way Beyond the Beltway
      Seized the Capital's Imagination" Washington Post, July 21, 2002

      19 Project Blue Book Special Report No. 14 "Analysis of
      Unidentified Flying Objects," Project No. 10073 (Air technical
      Intelligence Center, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, 5
      May 1955); Hynek, UFO Report, p.272.

      20 Project Blue Book Special Report No. 14 "Analysis of
      Unidentified Flying Objects."

      21 Air Force Releases Study on Unidentified Flying Objects,
      Department of Defense, Office of Public Information, Washington
      DC, No. 1053-55 Oct. 25, 1955.

      22 Ibid. p. 274-275.

      23 Hearings before the Committee on Science and Astronautics,
      U.S. House of Representatives, Ninetieth Congress "Symposium on
      Unidentified Flying Objects" July 29, 1968 (U.S. Government
      Printing Office, Washington 1968) p.1.

      24 Ibid. p. 32; 83.

      25 Ibid. p. 121;124.

      26 Ibid. p. 14-15.

      27 Robert J. Low, memo to E.James Archer and Thurston E. Manning
      "Some Thoughts on the UFO Project," August 9, 1966. Contained in
      Marcia S. Smith with George D. Havas, revisions and updates,
      Science Policy Research Division, The UGO Enigma Congressional
      Research Service, June 20, 1983; Appendix C.

      28 John Fuller, "Flying Saucer Fiasco," Look, May 14, 1968

      29 Condon, Edward U., Project Director and Daniel S. Gillmor,
      Editor Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects (Bantam,
      NY, 1969) p.407.

      30 Ibid. p. 164.

      31 Ibid. p. 248.

      32 Ibid p. 1.

      33 Review of the University of Colorado Report on Unidentified
      Flying Objects by a Panel of the National Academy of Sciences,
      1969.

      34 "A<br/><br/>(Message over 64 KB, truncated)
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.