AIR AND STAFF COLLEGE
UFOs AND EXTRATERRESTRIAL LIFE
Darrell L. Stanley, FR 66348,1931-
A Thesis Submitted to the Air Command and Staff College of Air University in Partial Fulfillment of The Requirements for Graduation
Thesis directed by Lieutenant Colonel Dale E. Downing
Over the years, the evidence on UFO has con- tinued to mount. Many sightings are eventually explained, but an impressive number are not. This study examines the evidence, showing that its credibility has grown as the “unknowns” have accumu- lated. The study also examines the likelihood of extraterrestrial life, and attempts to draw inferences about technological achievements on other worlds. It concludes that there is a growing case for the reality of UFOs, and that intelligent extraterrestrial life almost certainly exists. Recommendations involve ex- panded and more aggressive means of obtaining UFO evidence–including thoughts on physical seizure.
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
II. CONCERNING THE EVIDENCE . . . . . . . . 8
III. THE QUESTION OF ORIGIN . . . . . . . . . 21
IV. LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE . . . . . . . . . . 32
V. EXTRATERRESTRIAL TECHNOLOGY . . . . . . . 40
VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . 46
FOOTNOTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs) may constitute one or the most peculiar mysteries, if not the greatest, in all or recorded history, The mystery is peculiar because its incidents are both current and repetitious. To be sure, there are other great mysteries or the world, such as how the Pyramids or Egypt were built, or why the dinosaurs perished in prehistoric time, or how man himself emerged on this planet. But these like many other perplexing riddles are obscured by time. The mystery of UFOs, on the other hand, prevails as a current issue, even though sightings may date back almost in definitely. At the bottom of the mystery, of course, is the question or whether UFOs are fact or fiction, real or imaginary, material objects or illusionary effects. Equally intriguing is the variety in the nature of observations and the circumstances surrounding the sightings. This gives rise to some difficulty when
attempting to generalize about the phenomena. A still greater difficulty apparently arises when one attempts to neatly classify the objects observed as real but explainable, real but inexplicable, apparitions, or figments of the imagination. This difficulty stems not from a shortage of written works on the subject; to the contrary, the great abundance of material tends to cloud the issue, deepen the mystery, and widen the diverging points or view. In the midst of the voluminous material on the subject, a distracting element or sen- sationalism also often appears, Other publications, some with an air seriousness, properly belong in the realm or science fiction, which contributes little in serious research on the subject. Despite the research difficulties, the question as to the credibility of UFO evidence is a valid one which surely demands a timely answer. For if there is sufficient, credible evidence to indicate the material existence of UFOs, a new and perhaps more disturbing problem emerges: What is the origin of the mysterious objects? Yes, they could be some secret development or earthly origin. The other alternative is that UFOs are extraterrestrial. If there is a
logical case for the latter, we as a nation should be pointedly concerned, This is not because or any direct threat or attack, although maybe this should not be entirely discounted, but because extraterres- trial vehicles on or near our planet surely mean the product of an advanced technology is in our presence. As developed as our technology might seem, it has not yet progressed to the point of sending manned space vehicles to planets in our own solar system, let alone those of other stars. Accordingly, the UFO may hold secrets of great technological significance, particu- larly as they might apply to aircraft or spacecraft pro- pulsion and the attendant potential worth in the area or national defense. Disclosure of such secrets, it can be reasoned, might well represent the most import- ant technological breakthrough of this century, It follows that there is a positive need to examine and assess the ever increasing number of UFO sightings. The problem must be squarely faced if there is sufficient evidence to show that UFOs are believable, and if their origin can credibly be established as foreign to this world.
The main objective of this thesis is to deter- mine whether or not the expanding amount of evidence
means an increasing level of credibility that UFOs are more than legend, more than imagination, more than incorrect interpretations or commonplace things under- taking of this objective involves the exploration and analysis of numerous published accounts on evidence, along with an examination of the most logical points of origin. An additional objective is to assess the possibilities and probabilities or intelligent life in the extraterrestrial environment. Another objective, closely related to the foregoing, is to speculate on the level or technology that extraterrestrial societies might achieve. As the thesis is developed, the reason- ing intends to imply that the reality of UFOs is quite compatible with the theories or abundant extraterres- trial intelligence.
With the undertaking of this study several assump- tions are made, first, to clear up a technicality, it is assumed that if UFOs are real, they are dispatched or controlled by some form or intelligence. By real, it is implied that the objects are material, artificial, and not natural phenomena such as meteors. Secondly, it is assumed that the origin or UFOs will not be in- disputably divulged either by some form of coherent
communication or by captive observation. In other words, any absolute confirmation that UFOs are real and extraterrestrial would largely obviate the purpose of some of the theoretical reasoning presented in this writing. Additionally, it is assumed that no new and vigorous action will be taken by the U. S. Government to initiate more aggressive methods or obtaining UFO evidence. Any such action would tend to preempt re- commendations and conclusions set forth later in this study.
At first glance, the term UFO may seem to need no further definition. However, in some articles a contradiction in usage appears. Consider this hypo- thetical statement: “Many UFOs are actually aircraft, weather balloons….” The point here is that once identified, the object can no longer be properly called a UFO, but rather would be more correctly called an “identified flying object” (IFO). The term UFO as used herein means a flying object which has not or cannot be identified as worldly air/space craft or natural phenomena. The term “Flying Saucer” is sometimes used synonymously with UFO, although there 5
is some apparent distinction. UFOs, for example, are not always configured in the shape or a saucer.
Research will be limited to the sources available at Maxwell Air Force Base and the Montgomery, Alabama area. As another limiting factor, research will be concentrated more heavily on recent publications, especially on matters such as accumulated statistics. Additionally, no complete historical analysis will be attempted, due to the great volume or material avail- able on the subject,
The next Chapter will outline the nature of the evidence, its improving credibility, and assess the reaction in the scientific community and government circles. Chapter III includes a discussion on the likelihood that UFOs are secret devices originating right on earth. Further discussions will reason on the proposition that UFOs originate on other planets in our solar system. Chapter IV deals with the possibilities of advanced social life on other planets. Chapter V outlines a discussion of the inferences which
can be drawn about the technology of extraterrestrial societies. The last Chapter will present conclusions and recommendations which can be drawn from the text.
CONCERNING THE EVIDENCE
The phenomenon of UFOs seems not to be anything very new. Reports on evidence or UFO sightings may date back as far as man’s history itself. The Old Testament of the Bible, for example, includes passages about the landing of a strange craft, which could be interpreted as a UFO sighting, in the Year 597 B.C.  Through the middle ages there are also reports of observed phenomena in the sky. During World War II many allied pilots observed strange and unidentified objects while flying missions; these phenomena were referred to as “foo-fighters”, In any event, mys- terious aerial sightings are not limited to any specific time frame. Neither are they restricted to any particular area. Rather, the phenomena have been of an international nature. With due respect to the diversity in both time and location, the earlier historical recordings of such incidents show a char- acter of vagueness, Perhaps like many other early historical events, the sheer passage or time has caused obscurity. Then too, there is the matter of
provincial perception and later interpretation. Before the eighteenth century, such phenomena were probably viewed strongly from the religious or superstitious standpoint. As a matter of illustration, strange obser- vations could have earlier been attributed to comets, meteors or even an eclipse of the moon might then have drawn the same attention as a modern UFO sighting. Today, of course, much more is understood as far as natural aerial phenomena are concerned. Meteors, as a case in point, are understood and accepted for what they are, as a matter or elementary science. In contrast, the astronomers and other scientists in the nineteenth century did not accept the idea of “stones” falling from the sky, It was only after an unusually heavy siege or meteors over France in 1802 that the scientific viewpoint changed. But with all the pro- gress in modern science, the UFO remains unexplained and up until recently was not very seriously viewed. Nevertheless, intriguing reports have continued to mount in recent times. Although the number or sight- ings varies from year to year, the rate, if anything, appears to have increased during the modern era of UFOs. In approaching some or the evidence on UFOs, it may be well to first define what might be called the
modern UFO era, as this is largely the time span to be considered. This period started in 1947 after a sighting of nine UFOs near Mount Rainier in Washington State, Incidentally, the term “Flying Saucers” was coined as a result of press coverage of that incident, More importantly, this particular sighting marked the beginning of an official tabulation of UFOs. Since that time, the U.S. Air Force has been charged with the responsibility of evaluating and recording UFO or alleged UFO reports. These of course are limited to those occurring in or near the United States. Yet, after two decades of accumulating data, the tabulations and attendant evidence hardly settle the issue–whether or not UFOs are real. While the issue remains unsettled in the minds or many and controversial among others, the situation has changed somewhat since 1947, and other changing outlooks may be in the offing. For one thing, there is now the considerable accumulation of evidence in the reports of visual observations, Additionally, as of late there is a certain recognition of the riddle as a matter for serious scientific inquiry. With all the evidence and apparently some tendency toward a changing scientific attitude, where does the
case for UFOs rest today? Is there now sufficient evidence from which to draw conclusions, or at least tentative conclusions? Although early historical reports of sightings cannot be totally ignored, the most credible and persuasive evidence has surely evolved and has been accumulated in the modern era. During this period, in the United States alone, there have been over 11,000 sightings of mysterious aerial objects. Of those, about 650 are on the record as UFOs–according to Project Blue Book, the U.S. Air Force agency con- cerned with UFO affairs. At first glance these often cited statistics might appear to be rather straight forward, but as often is the case with statistics they can be misleading. In the first place, the objects which can be identified, or IFOs, should have little to do with the UFOs, in the sense that a comparison of the figures for each would reveal anything worthwhile. Any serious and logical treatment should surely exclude identified objects, for these are no longer a puzzle– assuming the evaluation was correct. It could also be argued that the motive of the statistics was to cast doubt on the UFO case simply by the ratio involved.
The whole point here is that there have been over 650 reported UFO sightings in the past twenty years. Also, there is every indication that if any case could have been explained it would have been. For this reason, and because or some erroneous explanations of UFOs, the figure of 650 should be taken as minimal. Understandably, the matter or faulty explanations has represented a sizable share of the overall controversy. Casting still greater doubt on certain sightings cata- loged as IFOs is the allegation that the Air Force has been the most persistent and consistent debunker of the UFO, not an entirely ill-founded charge. While caution and prudence are necessary in such inquiries or evaluations, some or the Air Force’s explanations discounting UFO sightings turned out to be wrong, as mentioned earlier, which suggests more than bad statistics. There is for example, the UFO sighting which was “explained”–and registered as an IFO–as certain stars in the constellation Orion. Later it was discovered that Orion was below the hori- zon in that season at the latitude of the sighting. There are also cases that were dismissed and attributed to military refueling aircraft, when none were actually near the particular area. These errors or hasty
judgments have not only cast doubt on the categorical tabulations but have also allowed for the inference to be drawn that information is being withheld or distorted. As a possible consequence, some of the more recent incidents which were discredited offi- cially as UFOs could be and have been viewed with suspicion. Consider the puzzling observation of lights near Dexter, Michigan, in the spring of 1966. Despite the overwhelming amount of testimony from eye witnesses–including many such as police officers, who were completely reliable, the phenomenon was attributed to marsh gas. Oddly enough, at one point in time the explanation involved military aircraft; then later it was determined that no such aircraft were in the area during the majority of reported ob- servations. Thus as the evidence has mounted, so apparently has the criticism of the official findings and classifications. While a good deal of the criti- cism appears justified, it is not the intent here to make disparaging remarks about the agency making the evaluations–whether incorrect unintentionally or otherwise. Rather, these inconsistencies are pointed out to show the number or solid UFO cases may be con- siderably greater than the figure of 659.
There are several other aspects in the area of statistics that should be considered from the stand point of inferential data. It is not often mentioned, but surely not all UFO sightings, or what people thought were UFOs, are reported. Take the case of four hunters who supposedly saw a UFO land at a remote, mountainous region in Utah, seven years ago. By mutual agreement, none of them reported the myste- rious affair until after the Air Force announced that the University of Colorado would undertake an independ- ent, government-financed project to investigate UFOs. This apparently might signal a change to the previous reluctance of many people to report sightings for fear of ridicule or simple to avoid any publicity, sometimes adverse. However, this hardly changes the UFO count which is probably low for this reason as well as those mentioned above. Dr. Edward Condon who heads the scientific investigation at the University or Colo- rado, has said that he expects for every reported sighting there are ten to twenty that have not been reported. His opinion, although alone worthy of con- siderable weight, does not lack support. A Gallup poll, for instance, indicates that 5,000,000 adult people in the United States have seen a UFO, or what
they believed was a UFO. Furthermore, according to the same poll, 46 per cent of the adult Americans believe that UFOs are something real. The number or solid UFO cases or unexplained observations is then surely greater than the official figure of 659, itself significant. With some so called “explained” cases belonging in the UFO category, plus the proposition ten or more times that many have gone unreported, the statistics take on a more impressive scope than might otherwise be noted by the casual reader. Extrapolating the implied data further to include all land area on the earth is more impressive, even sur- prising. Using this line or reasoning the number or UFO sightings is incredibly high. In contrast to the rather abundant evidence in the form of testimony be first hand witnesses–whether or not the “low” official figure is used, physical evidence or hardware is another matter. Such evidence in the narrowest sense would involve either a part of a UFO or a UFO itself. Some “non-believers” it seems would settle for nothing short of the latter, in the laboratory for authentication and capable or many re- markable demonstrations. This would no doubt settle the issue, but for now there is no such material
evidence; if there are pieces or parts or UFOs, such evidence has either been suppressed, undiscovered, or not reported. Granted, the most significant short- coming in solving the mystery is the lack of physical evidence. However, maybe our rules of scientific evi- dence simply do fit the phenomenon of the UFO. If that is possible, it would be logical to fit the in- vestigations to the phenomenon, This means for the time being that any assessments can only be made from the type evidence on hand. What type of evidence is there? There is more than just the voluminous array of first-hand witness accounts; but first, a discussion of these accounts is in order. Specifically, the quality and worth of these will be considered. Witness reports are good evidence, although circumstantial in nature; prominent scientists concede that there is an abundance of good circumstantial evidence indicating UFOs are real. There are problems, however, in handling such evidence, i.e., witness reports. The greatest of these would appear to be in determining the veracity of the witness or witnesses. More simply it is the degree of credi- bility which could be attributed to an observation or to collective observations. In dealing with one or
only a few cases, there would remain the possibility that a witness was lying, was mistaken in what he thought he saw, or had seen something that existed only in his mind. But when considering the immense number of well corroborated and documented reports by many credible witnesses, the evidence becomes very convincing. The caliber of many witnesses, perhaps as much as the sheer number, lends the greatest cre- dence to the total evidence. There have been hoaxes, and the crackpot element along with publicity seekers. On the other hand, as the observations increase, so does the cross section of population of witnesses. Numerous sighting, for example, have been reported by respected, intelligent people with technical training– astronomers, control-tower operators, physicians, meteorologists and pilots. Besides the eye witness reports, there are other forms of evidence, although these are scarcely any more scientific. These include photographs, radar confirmation of UFOs viewed separately by other ob- servers, and ground marking supposedly left by a UFO. Since most UFO sightings are aerial in nature, ground marks of scorched vegetation corresponding to observation are fairly rare, but their worth would seem to add
heavily as suggestive evidence, although not conclusive. Likewise, radar sighting which corroborate visual ob- servation surely lend a high degree of credence. Photography, as promising as it might seem, may create more problems than it solves. For one thing, authentication or photographs–especially Prints–is most difficult, Flaws in the film or lens can create spots; unless there is some background other than the sky, little can be judged as to the size and distance or a UFO. And no doubt, the general knowledge of trick photography impedes the acceptance of photographs otherwise very convincing. One way around this or course is to have a witness of the picture taking pro- cess. This gets back to the matter of credibility. Accordingly, photographs remain generally at least as controversial as witness reports, and the motives of the photographer might be questioned unduly, for a film is a quick means to publicity, Yet, there are hundreds or photographs, several of which constitute quite persuasive evidence. Some of the clearest nega- tives or a UFO ever obtained were taken by a farmer in Oregon in 1950. These photographs are similar to UFO pictures taken in France in 1954. The likeness of the objects in both sets or pictures is the most striking
and suggestive aspect, although rough similarities are not uncommon in other photographs. One of the most convincing set of photographs was taken in daylight from an airliner over Brazil. The pictures, taken from above the UFO, show the ground below as well as a shadow of the UFO. The geometry of the situation stands up under scrutiny; this plus the presence of witnesses in the plane is surely as near to scientific evidence as is available. This case is to be studied further by the team from the Univer- sity of Colorado. Although the evidence available is empirical and circumstantial, it certainly appears to point over whelmingly to the reality and materialistic nature of UFOs, Even though hardware is not available to sat- isfy the rigid rules of scientific evidence–such as reproducibility–there are certain indications of acceptance of the evidence in the scientific community. For one thing, UFO articles now appear in scientific journals. Another significant vote of confidence on the evidence so far accumulated is the government financed project by the University of Colorado to conduct a scientific investigation. The cost: $313,000. Probably more impressive is the changing attitude of
scientists. Not a few in prominent positions now ap- parently regard it as cause for serious inquiry. Speci- fically, Dr. Allen Hynek, Director or Northwestern University’s Dearborn Observatory, and the Air Force’s longtime consultant on UFOs, now advocates a view of seriousness and open-mindedness to fellow scientists. Yet, in his early days as a consultant, Dr. Hynek ad- mits that he thought UFOs were sheer nonsense. In light of the evidence, many other scientists favor in- vestigation; a few others have boldly suggested that UFOs are purposefully dispatched vehicles from outer space, a conclusion which presupposes the reality of UFOs. James E. McDonald, University of Arizona atmo- spheric physicist, after studying the evidence concluded: “The amount of evidence is overwhelmingly real..the evidence points to no other acceptable hypothesis than the extraterrestrial.” In the face of such evidence, and its growing credibility, the next logical question involves origin. As will be pointed out in the next chapter, the reality or UFOs does not necessarily solve the entire riddle, although proof that they were fabricated devices of extraterrestrial origin would rather definitely settle the question of reality.
THE QUESTION OF ORIGIN
Unless there is some degree of acceptance that UFOs are real, the question of origin is hardly de- serving of discussion. For if UFOs could be written off as figments of the human imagination or some natural phenomenon of the earth’s atmosphere, such conclusions would forego the necessity of any further examination. As it is however, the evidence has grown and gained enough credence to suggest that the matter or origin should be addressed seriously. The very question of origin has probably been a stumbling block to an objective view of the evi- dence. This is true because even any tentative ac- ceptance about the material existence or UFOs raises the equally difficult tasks of facing the alternatives of origin. Some of these, as the later discussions will show, are amenable in the scientific world while others are quite controversial. With contrast to the general acceptability re- garding origin, the categorical placement or definition
of alternatives is somewhat more straight forward. Alternatives in the simplest terms are that UFOs originate either from this planet or elsewhere (terrestrial or extraterrestrial, respectively). However, the latter category as infinitely larger than the first; thus for the purpose or this thesis, the classification of extraterrestrial is subdivided into interplanetary and extrasolar sources. The possibility that UFOs originate right on our own planet will be considered first. This classi- fication probably has the widest and most immediate de- gree of acceptance. When even the severest critic is impressed by the evidence and tends to concede the reality of UFOs, the first reaction is apt to be that the objects are some secret but earthly hardware de- velopment. It is surely evident that space activities have generated reports that were later shown to be missile tests, satellite reentry after orbit decay, advanced conventional aircraft and so on. Yet, there are several arguments against the theory that UFOs are secret devices from our own planet. First, it would seem that the lengthy record of UFO sightings would cast doubt on such a theory. Whatever country
or countries making such a mysterious and impressive development should hardly test it for so long, with out some practical applications which would remove the shroud of secrecy. But the strongest argument against earthly origin involves the broad scattering of UFO reports.  As mentioned in Chapter I, the phenomenon of UFOs is worldwide, although certain parts of the world have had the so called flying saucer waves which come and go, Ir the UFOs were an advanced technological development of some country, testing would not logically include so many areas of the globe; rather, testing–or any operation for that matter–would most likely be confined to the country itself, in a specific area. Global operations as represented by UFO sightings would be a careless gesture, regardless of the basic intentions. While the UFO may well represent a quantum jump in techno- logy, there would be some risk in operating such craft in foreign air space. The device could malfunction or fall victim to disabling attacks from conventional weapons, allowing capture. The most likely candidates for developing an advanced vehicle resembling UFOs are the Soviet Union and the United States. Yet it seems highly unlikely that either country could for so long
possess an advanced and superior flight system without some reflection or it in the terms or national policy. From a somewhat prejudiced point of view, this would seem especially true when speaking of the Soviet Union, for it has not been their practice to withhold or play down the potential of hardware developments that might offer a military advantage. To the contrary, such things as Soviet ICBMs, for example, were seemingly well advertised by that nation. Of greater importance perhaps is the Russian view or the UFO situation as of late, There are persuasive clues to indicate that the Soviets have recently undertaken a serious scientific study of UFOs, (This may or may not be a simple co- incidence to the U.S. Government’s greater UFO in- terest manifested by the study by the University of Colorado.) Such studies, along with other inferences, very sharply diminish the likelihood that the U.S.S.R. is the point of origin. The same reasoning more or less applies to the United States. To believe that UFOs are the products of U.S. technology, stretches the imagination more than a little. If so, never before has there been a secret so well kept for so long. Most convincing perhaps is the interest stressed by members of Congress. Some members long ago demanded 24
repeatedly that formal UFO investigations were in order. It seems unlikely then that Congressmen along with other high officials in government would be unaware or any advanced craft which could account for UFO activity. Finally, the most telling argument against terrestrial origin is rather well expressed in a statement by Major Donald E. Kehoe, USMC (Retired), Director of NICAP, and author or several books about UFOs: “If the Soviet Union or the United States had ‘these things’ they would scarcely be fooling around with the crude objects they are now putting into space,” If UFOs are not from this world, what about the possibility of interplanetary origin, i.e., from other planets in our solar system? “Solar system”, used here in the traditional sense, refers to the earth, the eight other planets, the sun–around which the planets orbit–and the natural satellites orbiting the planets. The discussion here obviously excludes our own planet as a point of origin, because that has already been discussed. In many ways, the proposition of interplanetary origin has certain appeal. For one thing the distances from earth are plausible for space travel as we under- stand it, For another, our own programs in space lend
reality to the whole idea: The U,S. has sent space probes to both Mars and Venus. This surely sharpens the receptivity or the idea that the other planets could reciprocate, not only with probes but eventually with manned interplanetary vehicles. The current U. S. technology certainly envisions such interplanetary travel, if not something more ambitious. As early as 1962, the mission or the U. S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) was formally revised to include “the search for extraterrestrial life.”  Note that extrasolar searches are not excluded although the “state or the art” on Earth almost surely excludes for the time being any ventures outside the planets around our own sun. As promising as our technology may be for ex- ploration of the solar system, the knowledge already accumulated is somewhat discouraging about the existence of life on neighboring planets, particularly intelligent life capable of launching interplanetary vehicles to the earth. Mars and Venus are generally considered as the only likely candidates on which some forms of life could exist. Since these are the closest planets to the earth, their observation by astronomers has allowed fairly persuasive predictions as to their ability to support life.
While Venus is the closer of the two, its sur- face is shrouded by what appears to be clouds. Com- pounding the difficulty in viewing Venus is its orbit inside that of the earth. In other words, when it is closest to Earth we see the dark side; only when it is quite far away in orbit does the planet appear “full.” Despite these difficulties in making observations, scientists for some time had postulated that Venus was a hot (around 500 F.), inhospitable planet, enveloped by a dense atmosphere of carbon dioxide. In mid- October 1967, the earlier determinations were confirmed when the U. S ‘s Mariner 5 space probe transmitting data back to Earth passed within 2,500 miles of the planet’s surface. While such data would certainly diminish the likelihood of any past or present life on Venus, detection of hydrogen and some nitrogen brought up new speculation. The atmospheric mixtures are hauntingly similar to that of the earth several billion years ago. Does this mean that Venus is evolving more slowly but otherwise the same as the earth did? Whatever Venus might become someday is outside the discussion here, but the implications are relevant to discussions later about life on extra- solar planets.
Although farther away than Venus, slightly smaller Mars is a better subject for observation. With an orbit outside the earth’s, it never obscures its illuminated side; thus when Mars is in the closest approach to the earth, it appears full. Equally important, the tenuous atmosphere of Mars can hardly obscure the surface from observation by earthbound astronomers. But with all the advantages in observing Mars, the basic question of life will probably remain doubtful until man personally ex- plores the surface. Photographs taken of Mars, in July 1965 and transmitted back to Earth by the U. S.’s Mariner 4 probe have created doubt about the existence of “canals” on the surface; of course, only a small fraction of the surface was photographed. The so- called “canals” as reported by astronomers in the late 1800’s could serve as a strong argument supporting the theory of intelligent life. Even earlier, several essential features were discovered; white caps appear- ing on either pole depending on the season, and alter- ations in color from season to season. The Martian atmosphere is believed to be only a fraction as dense as the earth’s and contains very small quantities of water vapor. The reasoning followed that the “canals” necessarily provided water from the polar regions of
Mars to the arid, desert-like areas in the lower latitudes. Furthermore, it could be contended that the geo- metric design of the “canals” meant massive construction by an advanced civilization. But as astronomers gained increasing knowledge of the planet and or the likely requirements for life, they became increasingly more skeptical of the proposition of “canals”; besides, only a few notable astronomers persisted in observing the canals clearly. Thus today, many astronomers hold little hope of finding intelligent life on Mars. Many feel that simple forms of plant life may well prevail; others have not entirely ruled out the existence of intelligent life , If UFOs were from Mars or Venus–despite the dis- couraging surface conditions–there would be advantage- ous times, or locations in their respective orbits, to launch space probes or manned interplanetary vehicles. These optimum times correspond to planetary positions where a spacecraft can be launched so that it will travel along a minimum-energy path. The U. S. Mariner launches were obviously planned to take place during favorable times. Likewise it would be logical to
predict that vehicles from either Mars or Venus would be launched according to this principle, although the calendar dates would be different from optimum launch periods for objects from Earth to those planets. In any case, the favorable launch times from the two planets can be and have been computed, arrival time at Earth estimated, and the results compared with UFO activity. The findings revealed that there was a poor correlation, adding to the other discouraging evidence. In summary, the possible points or UFO origin were categorized. These, in the broadest sense are inter- solar or extrasolar; the former is subdivided into terrestrial and interplanetary, and both were dis- cussed in this chapter. The case for terrestrial origin of UFOs, while maybe the easiest to accept, is confronted by several obstacles: the wide scatter- ing of UFO sightings, the longevity or the phenomena, and the indication that both the U. S. and the Soviet Union–the countries most likely to achieve a scienti- fic breakthrough–have undertaken government financed UFO investigations. : Examination of whether UFOs originate from other planets in the solar system was approached by assessing
the features or the planets. In turn, these features were discussed in view or the probability of certain planets being able to sustain the higher forms of life. As was shown, Mars is the only other planet with con- ditions reasonably conducive to life as we know it. However, further discussions indicated a greatly dimin- ishing likelihood of any life except that of simple plants. Additionally, UFO sighting trends relate poorly to predictable arrival on Earth of any interplanetary trips from either planet. Thus the prospect that UFOs, if real, originate in our Solar System is quite dis- couraging, although it cannot be definitely excluded. What about points of origin outside the solar system? This will be dealt with next.
LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE
The question which arises next has to do with probable origination of UFOs from outside the solar system. It might be contended, on the basis of data in earlier chapters, that UFOs “had to be” extra- solar; however, all possibilities of closer points of origin were not by any means eliminated. Along with those earlier discussions, that surely tend to indicate extrasolar origin, the intent here is to assess such a hypothesis from another viewpoint, Specifically, this viewpoint deals with the likelihood of the development and existence of intelligent life on planets of other stars in our own galaxy, the Milky Way. For if highly developed beings are fairly common- place in the galaxy, it could be reasoned that their technology could be greatly in advance of anything on Earth, and capable of staggering achievements, space travel notwithstanding. Attempting to predict the occurrence of an in- telligent life in the galaxy, or for that matter the
existence of suitable planets, is quite speculative for several reasons. First, man has had no oppor- tunity to study first hand any forms of life that may exist on other worlds, including those which may exist in our own solar system; hence, our understanding of biological life may be rather constrained. Secondly, given that such life may well exist, estimation or the eventual technological capabilities seems impossibly difficult, and bounded only by the imagination. Nevertheless, from using known data, some fairly well reasoned conclusions will be attempted. Considering our own galaxy first, it would not seem to be anything out of the ordinary. Of the 100 odd billion galaxies detectable in the universe, the Milky Way–our own galaxy–certainly does not seem unique in any way. Rather, it is a typical spiral type galaxy, and these fall into several common classes. The Milky Way consists of somewhere between 150 and 200 billion stars, one of which is the sun. Many of these apparently would be suitable for life while others would not. The latter category would include stars not in the main sequence; these should be excluded
because either the life span or the star is judged insufficient for life to develop or because the luminosity is so low that planets, if any would have to orbit in a very restrictive band around the star. Further, not all stars in the main sequence should be considered as suitable places for planets with life to evolve, Double star systems, for example while individually suitable, probably would cause unacceptable extremes of temperature on any planets. After these exclusions and certain others, the re- maining independent main sequence stars which are likely abodes of higher forms of life, number about six billion; the sun incidentally, is rather typical of this special group of stars in our galaxy. Per- haps it should be emphasized that the six billion figure is just for our galaxy, one of about a hundred billion. Regardless or suitability, however, this approach depends on the existence of planets around these stars. While the preceding paragraph dealt with observable data about stars, there is scant information regarding extrasolar planets, as even fairly large ones could not be seen if they in fact did orbit the nearest star.
The meager information available involves the solar system, i.e., the sun with nine orbiting planets. This admittedly is a small sample when addressing the probability of planets around six billion stars; but there is additional data about stars which implies that planetary systems are the rule rather than the exception. Billions of stars, for example, show an unexplained slow angular motion; unexplained, that is unless such motion is accounted for by the presence or planets (the sun has slow angular motion ). Still another theory has evolved which may indicate that planets indeed are verY common. This involves the observed wavering of many stars from a more or less straight line path through the sky. This motion according to astronomers can only be accounted for by dark companions orbiting around such stars. Thus in addition to the great number of suitable stars, there would appear to be a tremendous quantity of planets. Many astronomers assume that the fraction of suitable stars with planet systems is close to one. In other words, practically all suitable stars of the main sequence variety have planets. The next question is how many suitable stars with planetary systems contain one or more ideal planets
(development of higher forms or life). We know that the sun has one such planet, the earth, and Mars may be just on the outside or the fringe. Again, this is a small sample and extrapolations from it would seem to produce an optimistically high figure. Many astro- nomers would accept a probability for such an ideal planet at around 0.5, although this is based on quite limited empirical evidence. Using this figure, remem- bering that the suitable stars numbered six billion and most all probably had Planetary systems, the re- sults show a figure approaching three billion stars with an ideal abode for life in the Milky Way alone. For sake of illustration, suppose the probability was 0.1 instead or 0.5; the result would still be a staggering 600 million. To say the least, conditions for life elsewhere in the universe seem quite abundant. The extent to which life evolves and inhabits these is obviously an open subject. Leading scientists and astronomers generally ridiculed the notion that life as we know it could exist elsewhere in the universe and they stubbornly adhered to this belief until the early 195O’s when a gradual change in thinking began to occur. In the
1960’s, scientists–some who had earlier scoffed at the thought–have subscribed seriously to the concept of extraterrestrial life. Many recently published works, as manifested by titles in the Bibliography hereto, treat the subject as almost a self-evident truth, and dwell instead on the extent, characteristics and capability of such extraterrestrial life; as mentioned earlier NASA long ago incorporated the “search for extraterrestrial life” into its mission, an official U. S. action which apparently presupposes the existence of extraterrestrial life. In summary, this chapter has dealt with the proba- bility associated with the occurrence of intelligent life outside or our own solar system. In the last chapter, it was reasoned that there was little prospect of even lower forms of life on other planets around the sun. The reasoning for such a judgment is based on observations and generally accepted data. Attempt- ing to predict the occurrence of intelligent life on planets of other stars is a far more difficult task. This is because of a much smaller amount of observable scientific data, in lieu of which theory must be sub- stituted.
Based on the limited data and theories, this chapter–in contrast to the preceding, points per suasively to a great abundance of life in the galaxy. In short, the Milky Way consists of 150 billion stars, six billion of which are suitable for life bearing planets. The sun is the only one which we are certain has a life bearing satellite. But there is evidence of planets around other stars. Using modest figures for computation, the planets ideally suited for life may number as high as 3 billion. Thus, if life evolves only in a few places where favorable conditions prevail, intelligent life in the galaxy may be unbelievably commonplace. Further, it was shown that the idea of other intelligent life was not long ago heatedly rejected. Today, many noted scientists as well as other pro- fessional disciplines face the theory openly. Last year at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, discussions indicated that life elsewhere in the universe almost certainly exists. With persuasive prospects for countless abodes for advanced forms of life, can any assessment be made of
intelligence that would emerge? Specifically, could their technology be greatly advanced, accounting for UFOs? These questions will be assessed in the final chapter.
CHAPTER V EXTRATERRESTRIAL TECHNOLOGY AND UFOs
The purpose of this chapter is to discuss and ponder the technology that extraterrestrial societies might attain. It stands to reason that if UFOs are in fact vehicles from outer space worlds, the tech- nology of the beings sending them is superior to our own. But the fallacy here is that we do not have any such certain information. Nevertheless, by extending the reasoning of the foregoing chapter, some better perspective of the possibilities of extraterrestrial technologies may be visualized. Earlier , it was shown that the probability of life on planets around other stars was rather good. So good in fact, that many scientists accept extraterrestrial life as almost a certainty. Bearing this in mind and remembering other points of origin are excluded by per- suasive argument, there is a subtle connection between intelligent life elsewhere and the UFO. For certain,
the former hypothesis is quite compatible with the UFO evidence. Putting it another way, the connection is amply illustrated in a statement by Dr. Allen Hynek, accepting the possibility that UFOs are extraterres- trial: “As long as there are ‘unidentifieds’, the question must obviously remain open.” Conceding that extrasolar life may abound, could their eventual technological achievements be so far superior to that on Earth, that it would scarcely be understood here? One way to judge this is to look at the age of the earth and its expected longevity. The solar system is about 4.5 billion years old; the sun’s total life expectancy, similar to other main sequence stars, is about 10 million years. With a presumed wide distribution of age among the suitable main sequence stars, the odds are that the majority of these would indeed be farther advanced societies than on Earth. The extent to which their technology would excel is difficult even to ponder; however, perhaps it is no more difficult than predicting what our earthly techno- logy might represent, say 4 billion years from now. Five hundred years from now boggles the imagination, especially when realizing that a scant hundred years ago most of our current technology would probably have seemed fanciful. For example, had scientists even
fifty years ago been exposed to disciplines of modern nuclear physics, there would probably have been pessi- mists and “doubters”. Looking a little farther back might also improve perspective. Remember that less than 500 years ago men were burned at the stake for advocating that the earth rotated around the sun, as earlier proposed by Copernicus. The popular view in his time held that the earth was not only flat but also the center of the universe. There is another way of approaching the technologi- cal aspect, although it contains an obvious assumption. Nevertheless, some authors have expressed the idea that clues of the originating technology could be found in the behavior of UFOs. The curious pendulum motion, or oscillation reported in some UFO sightings is most often used to discount observation as natural phenomenon. However, this trait may suggest a propulsion system far beyond our earthly understanding. The apparent acceleration capability gives further rise to questions on what type of power plant might propel UFOs, although speed and acceleration traits are elusive because it would seem that these could not be accurately judged without knowing the size of the object and its distance–
–a common shortcoming even when witnesses are reli- able. Hovering is another trait, which appears to suggest some extraordinary means or propulsion. A popular view, although quite speculative, proposes that UFOs are not aerodynamic but are propelled by a gravity force (G-field). Such a theory could indeed account for the UFOs maneuverability and other traits which apparently defy what we recognize as basic laws of physics. One subscriber to this theory overcomes the inherent difficulties in two ways. The first is by way of an analogy, about the so called universal laws or forces. Newton’s laws of motion were not proven inaccurate by Einstein’s the- ories; rather the latter’s merely extended the appli- cation of Newtonian principles. Following this logic, it could be reasoned that Einstein’s theories do not represent the ultimate in the disciplines of physics. Additionally, to quiet the pessimists, his- tory often reveals poor judgment of what technology may attain. Not so many years ago authoritative people claimed the airplane could never fly across the Atlantic Ocean. The error stemmed from their use of calculations based on the known and accepted ef- ficiencies then in existence. The deeper and common
fallacy, which has repeatedly been ignored, is attempt- ing to interpret the unknown based on scientific know- ledge possessed at the time. Chapter III dealt with the prospect of UFOs being either terrestrial or interplanetary, concluding that these points of origin were unlikely. Using a different approach, the possibilities of extrasolar origin were assessed in Chapter IV. In this chapter an attempt was made to assess the chances for highly advanced technologies. First, if life emerges in the galaxy as often as the conditions prevail, intelligent life may be unbelievably commonplace. Following this pre- mise, it is most likely that there are literally millions of societies with technological achievements beyond those known or even understood on Earth. To illustrate the problems of extrasolar technological assessments, one can ponder what these might amount to on Earth in the year 4,000,001,968 A. D. As further illustrations, previous resistance to new scientific concepts was cited. Further, using some of the UFO traits as a basis of discussion, some of the technological implications were presented. The reasoning was aimed at showing that propulsion as we on Earth know it, may be quite inferior to what propels the UFO, or what might be
achieved by extraterrestrial civilizations. It was also shown that estimates of our own technology have frequently been too pessimistic. In short, we may be too quick to assume that all basic principles of knowledge have been attained; and therefore imprudently degrade possible achievements of extraterrestrial societies–which surely exist in great numbers. Dr. Allen Hynek, longtime adviser to the Air Force and previous UFO skeptic, summarized the foregoing idea quite appropriately in this statement:
I have begun to feel that there is a ten- dency in the 20th century to forget that there will be a 21st century science, and indeed a 30th century science, from which vantage points our knowledge of the universe may appear quite different, We suffer perhaps, from temporal provincialism, a form of arrogance that has always irritated posterity.
Having discussed the evidence on UFOs, the as- pects of their origin, and the likelihood of extra- terrestrial intelligence, it is now time to look for conclusions which may be drawn, This will be undertaken in the next and final chapter, along with a presentation of recommendations.
CHAPTER VI CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Over the years, the evidence on UFOs has continued to mount; and as it has, the reality of UFOs as material, foreign, artificial objects has become increasingly more credible. 2. UFOs are evidently not of terrestrial origin; i.e., it was reasoned persuasively that UFOs are not some secret, advanced development from the U. S., the Soviet Union, or any other nation on our planet. 3. Other planets in our solar system are un- suitable for life as we on earth know it. Therefore, if UFOs are real objects, fabricated by intelligence of some form. (as opposed to earthly creations or natural phenomenon), they most probably originate from outside the solar sYstem. 4. Based on empirical evidence, suitable abodes for intelligent life in the galaxy are surprisingly
abundant. Extension of this reasoning strongly implies that there are countless extraterrestrial societies older than those on Earth. 5. Because of the probable great number of older, predictably more advanced societies, their technologies could theoretically be expected to greatly surpass our own. It is further concluded that as the sophistication of technology (in general) increases, so does the means to overcome barriers to space travel. 6, As evidenced by the U, S. and the Soviet Union’s ventures in space technology, extraterrestrial beings could be expected to eventually develop sophisticated technologies, and to explore space when these had advanced sufficiently. 7. The UFO evidence and the theory of extra- terrestrial life is entirely compatible. 8. It does not appear possible in the near future to disprove that UFOs originate from outer space.
1. The United States Government should promulgate greatly increased measures to gain more information about UFOs. Specifically, the aim should be to secure data sufficient to ascertain whether or not UFOs are real,
Purposefully constructed objects, as the mounting evi- dence tends to indicate. 2. It is further recommended that these measures include more active means of dealing with UFO sightings. As it stands now, the U. S. Air Force agency designated to do so, evaluates sightings after the fact; likewise, the independent work being done by the University of Colorado, under government contract, is largely devoted to evaluating second hand information, i.e., reports which long ago grew “cold”. By active measures, the author means a rapid, airborne response system poised to deal specifically, although perhaps not exclusively, with UFO sightings when they occur. The aircraft in- volved could be assigned on an area basis, but possibly staged into other or specific localities when warranted by a rash of reported activity. The aircraft should be equipped with special photographic and timing instru- ments. Aircraft thus equipped, and working in pairs with predesignated intercept techniques could perform triangulation reconnaissance and photography. Data obtained in this manner would reveal the size, speed and range of a UFO, information heretofore decidedly lacking, It would also overcome the ever-present
problem of witness credibility when evaluating second hand reports or previous occurrences. 3. In line with active measures for dealing with UFOs, recommend that research be conducted to discover feasible means of capturing a UFO. While this recommen- dation may seem to lack specificity, it should be noted that hovering is a commonly observed UFO characteristic, and one which invites the idea as a possibility. Means to capture one should ideally, although not necessarily, rule out destructive tactics. This is because the basic reason for capture is for the potential discovery of a higher order of technology. 4. That the Air Force Project Blue Book be recon- stituted under NASA, with a much larger staff–including scientists of many disciplines. This should afford the wherewithal to give more study in depth and variety to the passive aspects of analyzing, correlating, and re- cording data on UFO reports. In addition, expanded independent studies, such as the smaller scale contract with the University or Colorado, should be continued.
1. Chapters I and II, Verses 4, 6, 10, 13-19, Book of Ezekiel, the Old Testament.
2. B. Trench, The Flying Saucer Story (London: Neville Spearman Ltd., 1967), p.48.
3. “Fresh Look at Flying Saucers,” Time, Vol. 90, 4 August 1967, p. 32.
4. David C. Whitney, “Flying Saucers,” Look Special, 1967, p. 17.
5″ Ibid., p. 9
6. “Fresh Look at Flying Saucers,” op. cit., p, 32.
7. Whitney, op. cit., p. 7.
8, Warren Rodgers, “Flying Saucer,” Look, Vol. 31, 21 March 196?, p. 76.
9. J. G. Fuller, Incident at Exeter (New York: G. P. Putman’s and Sons, Inc., 1966) p. 137.
10. Whitney, op. cit., p. 21.
11. Whitney, op. cit., p. 15.
12. J. G. Fuller, “A Communication Concerning the UFOs,” Saturday Review, Vol. 50, 4 February 1967, p. 71.
13. “Disputed Central Intelligence Agency Document on UFOs,” Saturday Review, Vol. 49, 3 September 1966, p. 46.
14. J. Allen Hynek, “Flying Saucers, Are They Real?, Readers Digest, Vol. 90, 5 March 1967, p. 65.
15. “Fresh Look at Flying Saucers,” op. cit., p. 33.
16. Hynek, op. cit., p. 65.
17: “Fresh Look at Flying Saucers,” op. cit., p. 33.
1. Richard H. Hall (Ed.), The UFO Evidence, Wash- ington: National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena, 1964, p. 6.
2. Ibid., p, 5.
3. J, Allen Hynek, “The UFO Gap,” Playboy, Vol. 14, No. 12, December 1967, P. 144.
4. “Trade Winds: USAF Reaction to Recent Sightings,” Saturday Review, Vol. 49, 16 April 1966, p. 23.
5. David C. Whitney (Ed.), “Flying Saucers,” Look Special, 1967, p. 16.
6, John A,Keel, “Flap Dates,” True, Vol. 2, 1967 p. 15.
7. “Greenhouse Planets,” Newsweek, Vol. 70, No. 18, 30 October 1967, p. 52.
8. “Crazy, Mixed-Up Planets,” Newsweek, Vol. 70, No. 19, 6 November 1967, p. 61.
9, Walter Sullivan, “We Are Not Alone” (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company), p. 150.
10. Ibid., p. 153.
11. Roger A. MacGowen and Frederick I. Ordway, III, “Intelligence in the Universe” (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1966), p. 316.
12. Ibid., pp. 318-320.
13. Charles H. Smiley, Dr., “The 9:05 From Mars is Late,” True, Vol. 2, 1967, p. 30.
1. Roger A. MacGowen and Frederick I. Ordway, III, “Intelligence in the Universe”, (Englewood Cliffs, N, J.: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1956), p. 361.
2. Ibid., p. 362.
3. Walter Sullivan, “We Are Not Alone”, (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1966) , p. 48.
4. Ibid., p. 51,
5. MacGowen, op. cit., p. 368.
6. Ibid., p. 369.
7. John A. Keel, “Flap Dates,” True, Vol. 2., 1967, p. 16.
8. Dr. C. Sagan, Intelligent Life in the Universe (San Francisco: Holden Day, Inc., 1966), p. 39.
9. Advertiser-Journal, Montgomery, Alabama, 5 December 1967, p. 7.
1. Advertiser-Journal, Montgomery, Alabama, 5 December 1967, p, 7. In an anonymous article on the editorial page, titled, “Other Planets, Other Voices?,” this statement was reported:
….recent discussions of scientists at the annual meeting or the American Association for the Advancement or Science indicated that life almost certainly exists elsewhere in the universe….
2. J. Allen Hynek, “Flying Saucers, Are They Real?,” Readers Digest, Vol. 90, 5 March 1967, P. 65.
3. Dr. C. Sagan, “Intelligent Life in the Universe” (San Francisco: Holden Day Inc., 1966), p. 391. 4. Walter Sullivan, “We Are Not Alone” (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1966, p. 150.
5. Leonard G. Cramp, “Space, Gravity and the Flying Saucer” (New York, N.Y.: British Book Centre, Inc., 1955) pp. 80-104.
6. Ibid., p. 49.
7. Ibid., p. 88.
8. J. Allen Hynek, “There’ll Be a 21st Century Science Too,” True, Vol. 2, 1967, p, 67.
Adamski, George. “Inside the Space Ships. New York: Schuman, 1955.
Aime’, Michael, “Flying Saucers and the Straight Line Mystery”. New York, N.Y.; Criterion Books, 1958.
Constance, Arthur. “The Inexplicable Sky”. New York, N.Y.: Citadel Press, 1957.
Cramp, Leonard G. “Space, Gravity and the Flying Saucer”, New York, N.Y.: British Book Centre, Inc., 1955.
Davidson, Leon. “An Analysis of the Air Force Project Bluebook”. Ramsey, N.J.: Ramsey Wallace, 1966.
Edwards, Frank. “Flying Saucers-Serious Business”, New York, N.Y.: Lyle Stuart, l966.
Firsoff, V. A. “Life Beyond the Earth.” New York, N.Y.: Basic Books,-Inc., 1963.
Fuller, John G. “The Interrupted Journey.” New York, N.Y., Dial Press, 1966.
_________. “Incident at Exeter.” New York, N.Y.: Putman, 1966
Girvan, Waverly. “Flying Saucers and Common Sense.” New York, N.Y.: Citadel Press, 1956.
Glasstone, Samuel, “Sourcebook on the Space Sciences.” Princeton, N.J.: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1965.
Hall, Richard H. “The UFO Evidence.” Washington D.C.: NICAP, 1964.
Jessup, Morris K. “The Expanding Case for the UFO.” New York, N.Y. : Citadel Press, 1957.
_________. “UFOs and the Bible. New York, N.Y.: Citadel Press, 1966.
_________. “The Case for the UFO. New York, N.Y.: Citadel Press, 1955.
Jung, Carl Gustav. “Flying Saucers: A Modern Myth of Things Seen in the Sky,” London: Routledge and Paul, 1959.
Keyhoe, Donald E. “The Flying Saucer Conspiracy,” New York, N.Y.: Holt, 1955.
_________. “Flying Saucers from Outer Space,” New York, N.Y.; Holt, 1953.
_________. “Flying Saucers: Top Secret.” New York, N.Y.: Putman, 1960.
Lorenzen, Coral. “The Great Flying Saucer Hoax; Facts and Interpretations.” New York, N.Y.: William- Frederick Press, 1962.
MacGowen, R. and Ordway, F, “Intelligence in the Uni- verse. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1966.
Menzel, Donald H. and Boyd, Lyle G. “The World or Flying Saucers: A Scientific Examination of a Major Myth of the Space Age.” Garden City, New York: Doubleday, l963.
Menzel, Donald H. :Flying Saucers.” Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1963.
Reeve, Bryant. “Flying Saucer Pilgrimage.” Amherst Wisconsin: Amherst Press, 1957.
Ruppelt, Edward J. “The Report on UFO.” Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1956.
Sagan, Carl, Dr. “Intelligent Life in the Universe,” San Francisco , California: Holden Day, Inc., 1966.
Skully, Frank. “Behind the Flying Saucers,” New York, N.Y.: Holt, 1950.
Sullivan, Walter. “We Are Not Alone.” New York, N.Y.: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1966.
Thacker, Lawrence J. “Flying Saucers and the USAF.” Princeton, N.Y.: Van Nostrand, 1960.
Trench, B. “The Flying Saucer Story.” London: Neville Spearmon Ltd., 1967.
Twitchell, Cleve. “The UFO Saga.” Lakemont, Georgia: CSA Press, 1966.
Unger, George. “Flying Saucers: Physical and Spiritual Aspects.” East Grinstead, England: New Knowledge Books, 1958.
U. S. Congress, Committee on Armed Services. “Hearings on Unidentified Flying Objects.” Washington, D. C, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1966.
Vallee, Jacques. “Challenge to Science.” Chicago, Illinois: Regnery, 1966.
_________. “Anatomy of a Phenomenon.” Chicago, Illionis: Regnery, 1965.
Wilkins, Harold T. “Flying Saucers Uncensored.” New York, N.Y.: The Citidel Press, 1955.
Articles and Periodicals
Asimov, I. “UFO’s–What I Think.” Science Digest, Vol. 59, 7 June 1967, P. 44.
Booth, Leon (Colonel). “Flying Saucers,” Ordnance, Vol. 51, July-August 1967, pp. 30-31.
Cohen, David.- “Should We Be Serious About UFO’s?,” Science Digest, Vol. 77, June 1965, pp, 41-44.
“Crazy, Mixed-Up Planets,” Newsweek, Vol. 70, No. 19, 6 November 1967, p. 61.
“Disputed Central Intelligence Agency Document on UFO’s, Saturday Review Vol. 49, 3 September 1967, PP.45-50.
Durham, A. “Visual Perception or UFO’s,” Flying Saucer Review, Vol. 12, No. 3, May-June l967, pp. 27-29.
“Flatus Season: Sightings at Ann Arbor and Hillsdale,” Time, Vol. 87, 1 April 1967, p. 25.
“Flying Saucers: Illusions or Reality,” Senior School, Vol. 89, 16 September 1966, pp. 4-7.
“Flying Saucers from Earth,” Science News, Vol. 91. 13 May 1967, p. 452.
“Fresh Look at Flying Saucers,” Time, Vol. 90, 4 August 1967, pp.
Fuller, J. G. “A Communication Concerning UFOs,” Saturday Review, Vol. 50, 4 February 1967, pp. 70-72.
“Greenhouse Planet,” Newsweek, Vol. 70, No. 18, 30 October 1967, p. 52.
“Gullible Experiment,” Time, Vol. 87, 8 April 1966, p. 70.
“Hard Look at Flying Saucers,” U.S. News, Vol. 60, 11 April 1966, pp, 14-15.
Hellan, H. “A New Look at the UFO Enigma,” Science Digest, Vol. 80, No. 5., November 1967, pp. 9-15.
Hynek, J. Allen, Dr. “Flying Saucers, Are They Real?,” Readers Digest, Vol. 90, 5 March 1967. pp. 61-67.
_________. “The UFO Gap,” Playboy, Vol. 14, No. 12, December 1967, p. 144.
_________. “There’ll Be a 21st Century Science Too,” True, Vol., 2, 1967, p. 36.
Keel, John A, “Flap Dates,” True, Vol. 2., 1967, p, 15.
Lear, J. “Research in America–What are the Unidentified Aerial Objects?,” Saturday Review Vol. 49, 6 August 1966, pp. 41-52.
Mallan, Lloyd, “Gloom at the Top,” True, Vol. 2, 1967, pp, 18-21.
Mallan, Lloyd, “Saucers Right in SAC’s Backyard,” True, Vol. 2., 1967, p. 32.
_________. “There’s More (And Less) to Saucers Than Meets the Eye,” True, Vol. 2, 1967, p. 27.
Markowitz, W. “Physics and Metaphysics of Unidentified Flying Objects,” Science, Vol. 157, 15 September 1967, pp. 1274-1284.
“New Light on Flying Saucers,” U. S. News and World Report, Vol. 62, 20 March 1967, p. 16.
Ogles, George O,, Major. “Air Force Takes the Stand: ‘Just the Facts, Sir’,” True, Vol. 2, 1967, p. 5.
_________. “The Airman, Vol. XI, No. 7, July 1967, “What Does the Air Force Really Know About Flying Saucers?,” Washington, D.C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1967.
“Other Planets, Other Voices?’ Advertiser-Journal, Montgomery, Alabama, 5 December 1967, p. 7.
“Outer Space Ghost Story,” Readers Digest, May 1966, pp. 72-74.
Phillips, Charles. “How Not to Murder Your Pilot,” True, Vol. 2, 1967, p. 23.
Rodgers, Warren. “Flying Saucers,” Look, Vol. 31, No. 6, 21 March 1967, pp. 76-80.
Ruddy, J. “Look–There’s a Flying Saucer,” MacLean’s (Canada), Vol. 80, No. 11, November 1967, pp. 34-37.
“Saucers Out of Sight, But Not Out of Mind,” true, Vol. 2, 1967, p.38.
Smiley, Charles H. (Dr.). “The 9:05 from Mars is Late,” True, Vol. 2, 1957, P. 31.
Solomon, Leslie. “This Faster Than Light Bit,” True, Vol. 2, 1967, p. 25.
Stine, G. H. “Prowling Mind or Henry Conda,” Flying, Vol. 8O, 8 March l967, pp. 64-68.
“Trade Winds: USAF Reactions to Recent Sightings,” Saturday Review, Vol. 69, 16 April 1966, p. 10.
“UFOs and the Law of Physics,” Saturday Review, Vol. 50, 7 October 1967, p. 59.
“UFO Photographs, Anyone?.” Science Digest, Vol. 62, September 1967, P. 73.
“Well Witnessed Invasion by Something,” Life, LX, 1 April 1966, pp. 24-31.
Whitney, David C, “Flying Saucers,” Look Special, 1967, pp- 3-67.
“Who’s Minding the Store?,” Flying Saucer Reports, Vol. 1, 1967, p. 62.