UFOs and Flying Saucers

UFOs are, simply, Unidentified Flying Objects, no more, no less. The word "object" is used in a very broad way, not to imply a physical "object" but more an experienced phenomenon, e.g. something seen, heard, "sensed" etc. This means that if you are out one night and see a light moving in the sky and cannot immediately identify it as a certain star, planet or other object, then it is by definition a UFO. THIS DOES NOT MEAN YOU HAVE SEEN AN ALIEN SPACESHIP.

A better question would be:

3.1.1 Are UFOs alien spacecraft?

Probably not. The vast majority of UFO reports, when investigated by competent researchers (and that is a problem all by itself), can be easily explained as natural or manmade objects misidentified for one reason or another. The actual percentage is around 95%. A very few reports are provable hoaxes. The remaining few percent (some skeptics argue that there are no remaining reports) are not explained at this time. Again, this does not mean that they are observations of alien spaceships. All we can say is that, given the information presently available, some cases don't appear to be stars, balloons, airplanes, aurorae. etc. Given a great deal more time and effort, many more could likely be identified. It's possible that the witness(es) were in error, or are very good liars. And the remaining few cases? Well, the best we can say, as true skeptics, is that we don't know what they were, but there is NO proof that they were alien spacecraft.

3.1.2 Are UFOs natural phenomena?

Possibly. A number of theories have been proposed, suggesting that some UFOs are "plasmas" or variations of ball lightning or earthquake lights. Unfortunately, the theories seem to change to fit observed data, rather than predict the observations. Also, studies designed to support the theories have used newspaper articles and raw, unsifted UFO case lists for data, and therefore the studies do not appear to be completely unbiased. Perhaps time will tell. Until then it is safe to say that SOME UFOs are probably ball lightning or other rare natural phenomena.

3.1.3 But isn't it possible that aliens are visiting Earth?

Yes. But it is also possible that there is an invisible snorg reading this over your shoulder right now.

Basically, some astronomers (e.g. Carl Sagan) are convinced that there are other habitable planets in our galaxy, and that there may be some form of life on them. Assuming that parallel evolution occurred on these other planets, there might be intelligent life forms there. It is possible that some of these life forms could have an advanced civilization, and perhaps have achieved space travel. But - there is no proof that this is so. SETI programs such as the High Resolution Microwave Search now being conducted by NASA under the direction of Jill Tartar are "listening" to other stars in the hope of detecting radio signals that might indicate intelligent life - kind of listening for the equivalent of "Watson, come here, I need you!", or "I love Lucy" in the infancy of our early communications. Such searches have been fruitless, so far.

If there are aliens on distant planets, then it is possible that they might have found a way to travel between stars in their lifetimes. According to our present understanding of physics, this is not likely, given the vast distances between stars. Even travelling at the speed of light (which cannot be done), a round trip to the nearest star would take about ten years. This does not rule out interstellar ships, but it does make it seem unlikely that we are being visited.

If even one civilization has found a way to travel between stars in the entire history of the Milky Way Galaxy (about ten billion years), it ought to fill the entire Galaxy in only a hundred million years or so. The question, then, is why don't we observe evidence of alien civilization everywhere? This question is known as the Fermi Paradox, and there is no really satisfactory answer. If, however, we postulate alien visits to Earth, we must also accept a Galaxy-wide civilization and ask why we see no evidence of it.

3.2: Is it true that the US government has a crashed flying saucer (MJ-12)?

The MJ-12 documents purportedly established that the U.S. government had established a secret organization of 12 people called MJ-12 or Majestic-12 to deal with UFOs. These 12 people were all conveniently dead at the time the documents were discovered. Klass proved that the documents are fakes.

The "Roswell Incident" refers to an alleged UFO crash in Roswell, NM. Philip Klass has also investigated this one and shown the reports to be bogus. One of the more notable items of "evidence" was a document "signed by the president". Klass showed that this signature was a photocopy of an existing presidential signature. See SI 14:2 (Winter 1990) pp 135-140.

All such allegations involve a conspiracy theory. Sometimes these conspiracy theories get very big indeed. One common one involves a treaty between the government and the saucer people whereby the government stays in power and the saucer people get to abduct humans for various gruesome purposes.

3.3: What is "channeling"?

"Channeling" is remarkably similar to Spiritualism. The main difference is that the relatives "on the other side" are replaced by a wide variety of other beings. This means that the channeler does not have to worry about providing accurate information about people in the audience. The beings that channelers claim to speak for range from enlightened aliens to humans who lived thousands of years ago to discarnate intelligences who have never had bodies.

3.4: How can we test a channeler?

Some channelled entities are alleged to come from the distant past. They can be asked about events, climate and language in ways that can be checked.

If the entity is from a technically advanced race, try asking for the complete factorisation of 2^1024+1.

3.5: I am in telepathic contact with the aliens.

See the earlier section on psychic experiences and then try testing your aliens to see if you get a specific answer. If you can come up with new facts that can be tested by scientists then you will be listened to. Otherwise you would do better on alt.alien.visitors.

3.6: Some bozo has just posted a load of "teachings" from a UFO. What should I do?

You have several choices:

• Ignore it.

• Ask for evidence (see question 3.4 above).

• Insult or flame the poster. This is a bad idea.

3.7: Are crop circles made by flying saucers?

There is no convincing evidence that crop circles or any other kind of UGM (Unusual Ground Markings) were made by aliens. There are some reports of lights being seen in and around crop circle sites, and a few videos showing objects flitting over fields. The lights are hardly proof, and the objects in the videos seem to be pieces of foil or paper being tossed about by the wind.

In a deliberate attempt to test crop circle "experts", a crop circle was faked under the watchful eyes of the media. When cerealogists were called in, they proclaimed it genuine.

3.7.1: Are crop circles made by "vortices"?

Probably not. There are a number of meteorologists who believe that crop circle formations are created by rare natural forces such as "ionised plasma vortices". Basically, winds blowing across rolling hills sometimes form eddies, which in some circumstances (that have never been quantified) become strong, downward spiralling drafts that lay down the crop. Cerealogists claim to have over two dozen witnesses to such events. Unfortunately, many more have said they have seen flying saucers do the same thing.

Scientific articles arguing for the reality of these vortices have appeared regularly in the Journal of Meteorology. But its editor is the leading proponent of the theory, Dr. Terence Meaden.

Winds can lay down crop in patches known as lodging. But geometric patterns in fields can hardly be attributable to natural phenomena. Meaden has changed his theory to first accommodate complex circles, ovals and even triangles (!), but now admits that most circles are hoaxes and the theory can only explain simpler patterns.

3.7.2: Are crop circles made by hoaxers?

Of course. Although most people have heard only of two, Doug Bower and Dave Chorley of England, many others have been caught, not only in Britain but in other countries such as Canada. Their methods range from inscribed circles with a pole and a length of rope to more complex systems involving chains, rollers, planks and measuring devices.

And as a further note: just because you can't prove a crop circle was made by a hoaxer, you should not assume aliens were involved. Remember Occam's Razor (Section 1.6).

3.7.3: Are crop circles radioactive?

This is a claim that has received wide circulation in UFO/cerealogy circles (pardon the pun). It is also untrue. Examination of the data from spectral analyses of soil taken from crop circles has shown that there were no readings above the normal background levels. The proponents of this claim are debating this, however.

3.7.4: What about cellular changes in plants within crop circles?

Yes, what about the changes? Although this is another claim that is widely circulated among ufologists and cerealogists, the evidence is simply not very good. A few photographs of alleged changes in the "crystalline structure" of wheat stems were published in some magazines and UFO publications. The method used was spagyrical analysis. This is a technique involving crystallization of the residue of organic material after harsh processing, invented three centuries ago and popularized by Sir Kenelm Digby. Digby is known for other wonderful inventions like condensation of sunlight and the development of sword salve (which you had to put on the weapon rather than on the wound, in order to cure the wound). The fact that this technique was tried at all casts serious doubts on the "researchers" involved.

3.8: Have people been abducted by UFOs?

While the number of people who believe themselves to have been abducted by flying saucer aliens must number at least many thousands, not one of them has produced any physical evidence to establish the reality of their claim. On the contrary, a number of factors clearly point to a subjective basis for the "UFO abduction" phenomenon. Probably the strongest factor is that of the cultural dependence of such claims. Such claims were virtually unknown until the famous abduction story of Betty and Barney Hill received widespread publicity in the late 1960s. Also, the appearance and behavior of supposed UFO occupants varies greatly with location and year. UFO abduction claims are made much less frequently outside North America, especially in non-English-speaking countries, although foreign reports have started to catch up since the publication of Whitley Strieber's Communion. Furthermore, the descriptions of supposed UFO aliens contain clear cultural dependencies; in North America large-headed grey aliens predominate, while in Britain abducting aliens are mostly tall, blond, and Nordic. Aliens that are claimed to steal sperm, eggs, and fetuses, or make scars or body implants on those supposedly abducted, were practically unknown before the publication of Budd Hopkins's books. This particularly alarming type of abduction seems to be quite rare outside North America.

Clear "borrowings" from popular science fiction stories can be traced in certain major "UFO abductions." Barney Hill's description of his supposed abductors' "wraparound eyes" (an extreme rarity in science fiction films), first described and drawn during a hypnosis session on Feb. 22, 1964, comes just twelve days after the first broadcast of an episode of "The Outer Limits" featuring an alien of this quite unique description. Many other elements of the Hill story can be traced to the 1953 film "Invaders from Mars," including aliens having "Jimmy Durante" noses, an alien medical examination, something done to her eyes to relax her, being probed with a needle, a star map hanging on a wall, a notebook offered as a remembrance, even the imagery of a needle in the navel. Other "abductees" borrowed other ideas from "Invaders From Mars," including brain implants, aliens drilling into a human skull, and aliens seeking to revitalize a dying world.

Originally, stories of UFO abductions were obtainable solely by hypnotic regression of the claimant, although in recent years the subject of "UFO abductions" has become so generally known that some subjects claim to remember their "abduction" without hypnosis. Hypnosis is a NOT a reliable method for extracting so- called "hidden memories", and its use in this manner is likely to lead to fabrication and error. Moreover, if it is suggested to a hypnotized person that fictitious events have occurred, the subject himself may come to believe this (See the article "Hypnosis" in the 1974 Encyclopaedia Britannica by Martin Orne, and section 10.1 on False Memory Syndrome).

3.9: What is causing the strange cattle deaths?

Cattle and other animals have been found dead with strange mutilations. Organs, especially genitals, have been removed "with surgical precision" but no blood appears on the ground. These events are also sometimes associated with reports of alien encounters and UFOs.

However:

1. Cattle are very expensive. Each "head" is worth several thousand dollars.

2. Insurance doesn't cover "range death" due to natural causes (e.g falling and killing themselves).

3. Insurance does cover vandalism (eg. a vandal shooting a cow).

4. A space alien killing a cow will be covered by the insurance - provided a cooperating policeman will write up the report that way.

5. Space aliens mutilating cows seem to respect county (police jurisdiction) lines.

6. Relatively little blood leaks out of a dead animal (compared to a live animal) when it is cut. The heart just isn't pumping.

The best source of information on cattle mutilations is the book Mute Evidence by Ian Summers and Daniel Kagan, a couple of investigative journalists who started out believing that something mysterious was happening, but ended up skeptics. SI has published James Stewart's "Cattle Mutilations: An Episode of Collective Delusion" (way back in vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 55-66). Stewart is a sociologist who examined the pattern of reports and found that new reports were inspired by previous media coverage. It came in "waves" or "flaps".

3.10: What is the face on Mars?

One of the Mars orbiters took a photograph of a part of Mars (Cydonia) when the sun was very low on the horizon. The picture shows a "face" and some nearby pyramids. Both these structures are seen more by their shadows than their actual shape. The pyramid shadows appear regular because their size is close to the limit of resolution of the camera, and the "face" is just a chance arrangement of shadow over a couple of hills. The human brain is very good at picking out familiar patterns in random noise, so it is not surprising that a couple of Martian surface features (out of thousands photographed) vaguely resemble a face when seen in the right light.

Many people find the "face" more reminiscent of a monkey than a human being.

Richard Hoagland has championed the idea that the Face is artificial, intended to resemble a human, and erected by an extraterrestrial civilization. Most other analysts concede that the resemblance is most likely accidental. Other Viking images show a smiley-faced crater and a lava flow resembling Kermit the Frog elsewhere on Mars. There exists a Mars Anomalies Research Society (sorry, don't know the address) to study the Face and related features.

The Mars Observer spacecraft had (and for all we know it still has) a camera that could give 1.5m per pixel resolution. Unfortunately NASA scientists lost contact with the spacecraft just before it arrived at Mars. Among the theories proposed to explain this are:

1. The failure of a couple of transistors after spending years in space.

2. The presence of evil beings on Mars who wish to hide their existence from humanity (so why did they build the Face and let Viking see it?).

3. The existence of a conspiracy on the part of NASA and the US government to hide the existence of aliens from humanity (see section 0.8 on Conspiracy theories).

Anyone who wants to learn some more about this should look up Image Processing, volume 4 issue 3, which includes enhanced images of the "face". Hoagland has written The Monuments of Mars: A City on the Edge of Forever, North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, California, USA, 1987.

[Some of this is from the sci.space FAQs]

3.11: Did Ezekiel See a Flying Saucer?

The chapter in question is Ezekiel 1:4-28. This vision is an example of apocalyptic writing common in the centuries before and after Christ. (Good examples are chapters 2 and 7-12 of Daniel and the book of Revelation.) Apocalyptic literature is difficult to interpret because the language is symbolic and figurative. In some cases the writer will reveal what is meant by the symbols. Verse 28 identifies Ezekiel's wheels within wheels vision as, "the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD." This "glory" is the "Khabod", a manifestation of brilliant light thought to be present in the temple. The wheels are described as appearing in a vision which is more like an hallucination than a physical event. The wheels are seen again in Ezekiel chap 10 leaving the temple in Jerusalem, but Ezekiel sees this while sitting inside his house which is in Babylon (see Eze. 1:1-2 and Eze. 8:1). In other words this was a message from God (or a hallucination) rather than a physical event.

3.12: What happened at Tunguska?

At 7:17 in the morning of June 30th 1908, close to the Stony Tunguska River, on the Central Siberian Plateau, a huge air explosion occurred. The explosion was powerful enough to be heard hundreds of miles away. The area around the Stony Tunguska River is inaccessible and consists mostly of bogs and pine forests. The seismic shocks from the explosion were detected around the Earth. The London Times of July 4th, 1908 reported "The remarkable ruddy glows which have been seen on many nights lately...seen...as far as Berlin."

When an expedition eventually reached the epicentre of the explosion they found that the pine trees had been pushed over, pointing away from the centre. The trees directly under the explosion remained standing. Some small craters were observed at the time but have disappeared over the years due to the boggy land. The pattern is now recognised as being similar to that produced by an air-burst nuclear bomb.

Currently the event is usually explained as a small, unnoticed, comet hitting the upper atmosphere somewhere over China and finally exploding a few seconds later above Tunguska. A number of other explanations have been offered...

• an atomic explosion. Some reports collected some time after the event describe a typical mushroom cloud. The problem here is that such clouds are typical of large explosions due to any cause - they are not peculiar to atomic explosions. There is also the difficulty in explaining how the Russians first developed and then forgot the technology when it would have been very useful in two major wars!

• a small black hole weighing a few million tons passed through the Earth. The other entry/exit point was unnoticed as it was in the ocean. Steven Hawking has now shown that black holes of such a size have very short lives in cosmic terms due to an `evaporation' effect.

• a small anti-matter meteor. This now seems very unlikely with the recent discovery of large amounts of inter-stellar matter in which, although still close to a vacuum, is quite sufficient to erode any small amount of anti-matter quite rapidly. In addition, the very existence of anti-matter in any sizable amounts in our universe is now thought to be very unlikely.

• an alien spaceship, damaged and out of control, exploded during an emergency landing. There is no supporting evidence for this apart from eye witness reports of the vapour trail caused during the objects passage through the atmosphere showing a distinct `bend', which is supposed to be due to a course change. Such bends can also be found in the vapour trails of aircraft which can be seen to be flying straight and are caused by winds in the upper atmosphere.

References

John Baxter and Thomas Atkins, The Fire Came By, Futura Publications Ltd, 1977, ISBN 0 86000 7540 0

Oliver, Charles P. "The Great Siberian Meteorite," Scientific American, Vol. 139, No. 1(1928), 42-44

Growther, J.G. "More About the Great Siberian Meteorite," Scientific American, Vol. 144, No. 5 (1931), 314-317

Zigel, Felix. "Nuclear Explosion over the Taiga: Study of the Tunguska Meteorite," Znaniye-Sila, No. 12 (1961), 24-27 [English translation available from Joint Publications Research Service, Washington, DC., JPRS-13480 (April 1962)

Parry, Albert. Russia's Rockets and Missiles Macmillan 1962, pp 248-267

Cowan,C.,C.R. Atluri and W.F. Libby. "Possible Anti-Matter Content of the Tunguska Meteor of 1908," Nature, Vol. 206, No. 4987 (1965), 861-865

Jackson, A.A., and M.P. Ryan, "Was the Tungus Event Due to a Black Hole?", Nature, Vol. 245, No. 5420 (1973), 88-89

3.13: How did the Dogon know about Sirius?

The story goes that when they were first contacted by Europeans, a small stone-age tribe in Africa called the Dogon knew about a string of astronomical phenomena, including Jovian satellites, the rings of Saturn and the invisible companion star of Sirius ("The Pup"). Some UFO enthusiasts have taken this as proof of visits to the Dogon by aliens.

In Broca's Brain, Carl Sagan writes:

The most striking aspects of Dogon astronomy have been recounted by Marcel Griaule, a French anthropologist working in the 1930s and 1940s. While there is no reason to doubt Griaule's account, it is important to note that there is no earlier Western record of these remarkable Dogon folk beliefs [...]

The facts known to the Dogon were mostly discovered over a century before Griaule discovered them. It is most likely that the Dogon got this knowledge from human visitors rather than extra-terrestrial ones. In addition their astronomy included a number of facts which were widely accepted in the 1920s but which are now known to be false. It seems odd that visiting aliens would have made the same mistakes.

Apparently a debunking of Dogon astronomy can be found in an article by W. Van Beck in Current Anthropology, vol. 32, pp. 139-167, 1991.