|
by George Kocher
27 November 1968
For RAND Use Only
DO NOT
QUOTE OR CITE IN EXTERNAL RAND PUBLICATIONS OR
CORRESPONDENCE
By Jean van Gemert and Brian Zeiler
from NICAP Website
The RAND Corporation
published a paper titled "UFOs: What to Do?, by George
Kocher, in November 1968. RAND states that this paper was
originally produced as an internal document; it was not prepared for or
delivered to any of RAND's clients. RAND decided to make this paper
available to the public if they asked for it, last year.
To
verify this document I ordered same from RAND. I received same today.
What is interesting about this document, is when doing a search for this
paper on RAND's web page, the document or author are not found,
as far as I could see. You might check this out to see if I missed a
search function. I believe this document can be obtained only if one
asks for it, and knows the document number.
http://www.rand.org
On page 15 and 16
of this document there is reference to a UFO sighting in Tucson,
Arizona in 1947 or 1948. The sighting seen by Mrs.
Olavick seems to describe the same sightings seen over Arizona,
March 13, 1997. You will have to read the document and form your own
opinion.
Please
pass this info onto Pat Welsh at nwu.edu.
To verify
this info I can send web page pertaining to the RAND document. I also
have the snail mail and fax number for RAND, if anyone wishes to order a
hard copy of the document DRU-1571.
I hope this
information is of some value to you.
Best
Regards,
Kim
The RAND
Corporation
INTRODUCTION
Common sense
is the quintessence of the experiences and prejudices of its time. It is
a most unreliable advisor when one is confronted with a perfectly new
situation.
Gustav
Naan
UFOs --
unidentified flying objects, or flying saucers as they are often called --
have been on the mind of the public for at least the last 22 years. For a
number of reasons, we know little more about them now than we did at the
outset. There exists a great amount of misinformation about the phenomenon
not only in the minds of the public, but among educated groups such as
scientists as well. It is the purpose of this series of essays to describe
various aspects of the phenomenon, make clear my prejudices and the
reasons for them, and to suggest a means of proceeding on this interesting
and potentially very significant problem.
But first,
a few words about the term UFO. J. A. Hynek, an astronomer having
continuous involvement with UFO study for over 20 years, defines UFOs
as,
"any reported
aerial or surface visual sighting or radar return which remains
unexplained by conventional means even after examination by competent
persons. This definition ... specifies neither flying nor objects."
(1)
I would agree,
but would prefer to replace "or radar return" with "or
instrumental observation" and "even after examination by competent
persons" to "even after competent examination by qualified
persons." This, then, is the definition I have adopted in the five
essays that follow.
CONTENTS
PART
1
UFOs -- HISTORICAL ASPECTS
Those
familiar with the UFO literature are aware that reports of sightings did
not begin with Arnold's sighting in 1947, but that phenomenology much the
same as is reported today can be found in documents going back to the
earliest times. Vallee (2) gives a sampling of this; B.L.P.
Trench (3) has made a more
thorough study and reports on the research of others able to study the
original documents.
What was reported? Luminous discs, shields,
globes and elongated objects in the sky, sometimes alone, sometimes in
large numbers. Occasional descriptions of interactions with the observers
are also mentioned, including landings, and seeing and communicating with
occupants. The latter events especially were almost always interpreted in
a religious context. A recent example is the repeated appearance of a
typical UFO phenomenology at Fatima, Portugal on six successive months in
1917.
The October 13
phenomenon was the best reported and was witnessed by a crowd of about
70,000 persons, including a number of scientists, reporters, atheists, and
agnostics, as well as faithful Catholics. One of the scientifically
curious was Dr. A Garrett of the University of Coimbra. Rain, which had
been falling that day, ceased and the crowd looked up to see the "sun" now
visible through the heavy clouds. Professor Garrett wrote,
"...I turned
toward this (sun) which was attracting all eyes and I could see it like
a disk with a clear cut edge, with a vivid rim, luminous and shining,
but without hurting one. The comparison I have heard at Fatima with a
disk of dull silver, does not seem to me exact. It was a clearer, more
vivid, richer color and with shifting tints like the luster of a pearl.
It was not at all like the moon on a clear transparent night, for one
saw and felt it like a living star.
Nor was it
spherical like the moon, nor did it have the same quality of lighter and
less light. It looked like a burnished wheel cut out of mother-of-pearl.
Nor could it be confused with the sun seen through a fog -- there was no
fog... This disc spun dizzily round. It was not the twinkling of a star:
it whirled round upon itself with mad rapidity... The sun, preserving
the celerity of its rotation, detached itself from the firmament and
advanced, blood-red, towards the earth, threatening to crush us with the
weight of its vast and fiery mass. These moments made a terrifying
impression." (4)
The
relationship of the old phenomenology to religion are discussed by
Thomas. (5)
An
example of earlier celestial displays of interest is illustrated in Figs 1
and 2. These are broadsheets from Nuremberg (1561) and Basel (1566),
respectively. The psychologist, C. G. Jung provides an analysis of
the contents of the woodcuts in his interesting book. (6) Reference 7 has a very interesting
reproductin of a fourteenth century fresco in a Yugoslavian church.
The modern period of the phenomenon began with a widely publicized
sighting made by Kenneth Arnold in Washington state in 1947. A study by
Bloecher of north american reports over the four week period bracketing
the Arnold sighting lists 853 events, including 38 sightings made before
Arnold's heavily publicized Sighting. (8)
Because the early reports
seemed to suggest airborne craft of unusual appearance and kinematics, the
problem came to rest with the newly organized U.S. Air Force. Initial
fears were that the country was being overflown by advanced foreign
aircraft, possibly on intelligence missions. The latter was suggested by
the large number of sightings from the White Sands, New Mexico area and
from the vicinity of the Hanford, Washington atomic plant.
Serious
inquiry proceeded for a few years without any positive results. A number
of supposedly knowledgeable people spoke out pointing out the sporadic
nature of the sightings, and that since the reported Both Broadsheets from
the Wickiana Collection, Zurich Central Library kinematics were
inconsistent with current physical theory, the UFOs were not likely to be
from a foreign power. Further, they argued, no other planets in our solar
system were believed to support life -- certainly not intelligent life --
and since even the nearest star was over four light years away, the
hypothesis of extraterrestrial origin was simply unacceptable from a
scientific point of view. (9)
The Air Force investigative effort worked as follows: (10) Whenever a sighting was made, a
report was to be made out and turned in to the Air Force at base level.
The report was forwarded to Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio for study. If the
report was interesting enough, followup inquiry was made. By 1952 the
number of reports coming in was so large that the CIA was concerned that
an actual attack on the country might not be immediately recognized. A
panel of scientists was then convened in January 1953 to study the
available evidence and see what conclusion could be reached about UFOs.
After seven
days of hearing evidence and discussing the matter it was concluded that
there was only circumstantial evidence of the extraterrestrial hypothesis.
The panel recommended a broadened study effort with full disclosure of
investigations. In order to unplug the military intelligence channels,
however, the CIA recommended that, since the UFOs apparently posed no
threat, the Air Force should debunk UFO reports and try generally to
discourage public interest in them, in the hope that they would go away.
(11)
It was the CIA's
recommendation, apparently, that was made policy, for the investigative
procedures used since 1953 have been vestigal and the handling of the
subject by the authorities tended to make witnesses look ridiculous. In
spite of the unfavorable publicity accorded witnesses, reports persisted,
and no doubt in response to official behavior several civilian study
groups were formed to receive reports and investigate sightings. The most
successful of these groups is the National Investigation Committee on
Aerial Phenomena (NICAP). NICAP's membership is well dispersed
geographically and acts to learn as much as possible from sightings. The
large number of scientific and technical personnel in the NICAP membership
aids the quality of their evaluations. A summary of characteristics of the
UFO phenomenology published by NICAP in 1964 (12) contains 575 reports that were
extensively checked by NICAP for accuracy.
A series of sightings
in 1965 and 1966 received considerable public attention arid after the
poor public reception given the official explanations, the Air Force felt
compelled to contract for a 15 month (later stretched to l8 months)
scientific study to be performed at the University of Colorado under the
leadership of E. U. Condon, a highly respected physicist. The Condon Committee is due to complete
investigations at the end of June 1968; its report will be
reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences (presumably to validate that
the study was indeed the objective pearl of the scientific method that was
desired), and is expected to be made public in October 1968.
Unfortunately, the dismissal of two members of the Committee in February
1968 resulted in publicity suggesting that the study was not, in fact,
objective. It remains, therefore, to see the final report to determine the
worth of the study.
In the meantime, the respectability accorded
UFOs by the $500,000 study contract permitted a considerable amount of
scientific interest to surface. Astronomer Hynek has made a number
of public statements on the basis of his long involvement as a consultant
to the Air Force; atmospheric physicist James F. McDonald has
turned his attention full time to the subject, and a number of scientific
and technical journals have printed some dialogue - notably Science, the
AIAA Journal, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and the Journal of the
Astronautical Sciences. It is also noteworthy that the University of
Toronto has recently formed a UFO study group.
Even the Soviets,
who previously refused even to discuss the subject now admit to having a
study group with good qualifications. The USSR Academy of Sciences still
holds to the orthodox scientific view that UFOs are a nonproblem, however,
using the same arguments we heard so long. These arguments are just as
invalid in the USSR as in the USA.
It therefore appears that the
subject is slowly and finally being regarded as a fit subject of
scientific inquiry. It is hoped that enough scientists will acquaint
themselves with the subject so that progress can finally be made.
(Reference (13) is a
good account of how the UFO phenomenon was treated in the U.S. and is
recommended to those wondering how science came to consciously ignore the
subject.)
Back to Contents
PART 2: UFOs
ASTRONOMICAL ASPECTS
The
astonishing thing would be if they did not exist.
Jean
Cocteau
We saw in Part
1 that the historical aspects suggest an extraterrestrial explanation to
UFOs. While it has not been established that the contemporary phenomena
are extensions of the historical, there does seem to be a continuity in
the descriptions of the phenomena described. We shall therefore look at
contemporary astronomical knowledge and theories and ascertain the
likelihood of the existence of other highly developed life forms.
To begin
with, the observable universe -- that is, the distance to which we can
observe luminous objects -- is several billion lightyears in radius (a
light year is the distance light travels in a year at a rate of 186,300
miles per second. The sun is 8 light minutes from the earth. The
next-nearest star is 4.2 light years away). Within this vast volume we
find hundreds of millions of galaxies. Our own (Milky Way) galaxy is
similar to many of those we see at great distances. It is a lens-shaped
assemblage of some 100 billion stars having a diameter of about 100,000
light years. The sun is but one of its component stars and lies about
30,000 light years from the center, close to the plane of symmetry.
Now let us just consider the stars in our own galaxy --
specifically excluding those in neighboring or distant galaxies. We would
like to estimate the number of stars having planets roughly similar to the
Earth. From the statistics of stars within 15 light years of the sun we
find that only about one-third are single, the rest binary or multiple.
Since planetary orbits are often unstable in multiple systems (depending
on the details of the configuration) we will say that only 30 billion
stars in our galaxy now have a dynamical environment that permits planets
to exist around them. Will these stars have planets? We cannot state with
assurance that they will; however, current knowledge supports the theory
that planetary formation is a natural adjunct to formation of the star
itself from the interstellar gas cloud.
We would therefore expect
about 30 billion stars to have one or more planets. Now, we can reject
certain classes of stars as candidates or habitable planets, because their
lifetimes are too short (these are stars of high mass). Others can be
rejected because of variability in light output, a characteristic that
would make evolutionary development of life much more difficult. In fact
if we select only those stars similar to the sun (whose peak of radiation
energy coincides with a region of terrestrial atmospheric transparency) we
have only a few percent of the total -- about one in 30.
Therefore, we
would expect about 1000 million suitable solar type stars exist. Of these,
it is estimated by various astronomers that 200-600 million have planets
at about the right distance and have been around long enough that life
forms as developed as our own could exist. Implicit in further discussion
are the assumptions that:
1.
Planets and/or life evolves to a mutual compatibility
2.
The life force, whether spontaneous or otherwise, is such that whenever
the environment is favorable, life will exist
3. Our own
history of past evolution and development is neither slow nor fast, but
average and typical for life forms
(Ours is the
only example available and no one has yet demonstrated that the
"average" galactic life form should be any
different.)
Now let us turn
momentarily to time scales. The sun and earth are on the order of 5
billion years old. We might define modern man as being about 5000 years
old (Stonehenge is 4000 years old) -- just one millionth of the earth's
age. The age of science is certainly not more than 500 years, so our
scientific and technical development has thus far occupied only one
ten-millionth of the earth's life span. We expect the sun will burn
another 5 billion years before significant changes in its brightness
occur. Now the age of the galaxy is between 5 and 10 billion years;
therefore among the 200-600 million stars we would expect to have
acceptable planets, some would be older than the sun, some younger (for
star formation is still continuing, even though at a lesser rate than in
the galaxy's early history) and some the same age.
It should be
clear from assumption (3) and
the example of our own development, that among the populated planets those
younger than the sun would be peopled by beings very much behind us
technologically, while those on older planets would be extraordinarily
advanced (remember our progress of 500 years and note that some planets
could be as much as a few billion years older). Indeed, we would be
surprised to find someone else at just our stage of technological
development. For the purposes of this paper, we can ignore both the
multitude younger than ourselves and those at our point of development.
Even so, we are left with the possibility of 100,000,000 planets in the
galaxy having life forms very much advanced from us.
(This number
would be reduced significantly if life forms destroyed themselves soon
after reaching our age of development. This is a philosophical point on
which I am optimistic -- I believe the majority of races will learn to
survive.)
If these stars
are uniformly distributed in the galactic disk, the average separation
will be about 10 light years.
The usual scientist's reaction at
this point is, well, even if the assumptions are correct and this number
of advanced civilizations does exist, contact is still impossible because
of the speed of light limitation of the theory of relativity. An excellent
example of this kind of reasoning can be found in Ref. 14. My reply is
that such a statement would appear to be shortsighted. For the moment, let
us ignore the possibilities of overcoming the long time of travel by
suspended animation and the like. Recall that our own physical theory has
been developed in only 500 years. What can we expect in the next 500? Or
1000 or million or even billion years? I suggest that 'if' a way to
circumvent the speed of light restriction is possible, it has already been
found by someone in our galaxy.
(I haven't the
faintest idea how this might be done and I fully agree that our own
experimental data appear to accurately confirm the existence of this
limitation.)
If it has been
discovered by one, we certainly would expect it to be used; if no other
planet's inhabitants independently discovered the means, it makes little
difference for such a thing could be taught by the discoverer. Thus we may
conclude that it is very likely that at least one, and probably many of
the 100 million advanced planetary populations is capable of interstellar
travel.
The next question is, of course, have any of them been
here? That question cannot yet be answered definitively. Without knowing
what kind of phenomenology extraterrestrial visitors might exhibit, I will
fall back on my scientific, mechanistic attitudes and say it makes sense
to look for some kind of vehicle or spaceship. It appears that the class
of phenomenology called UFO reports may contain, as a subset, actual
observations of such craft. We shall now turn to the reports to see when
and where things are seen and by whom and what phenomenology, if any) is
revealed by the reports.
(Further information about the
astronomical and biological possibilities are in Ref. 15, whose principal
defects are
(1)
the authors uninformed rejection of UFO phenomenology as being relevant
to the subject under discussion
(2)
their meek acceptance of the speed-of-light restriction as a universal
truth
References
(16) and (17) provide more detailed and more
technical discussions of some aspects of the problem.)
Back to Contents
PART 3: UFOs
THE CHARACTER OF REPORTS
Any collection of reports of unknown aerial sightings by the
public will include a large percent of noise - sightings of something
explainable. The reports are made because the appearance falls outside the
range of the observer's experience, and the observer believes it is
sufficiently anomalous to warrant the attention of authorities.
Thus, any large
collection of reports will include descriptions of aircraft, balloons)
spacecraft, astronomical objects, atmospheric effects and the like. Often
the practiced and perceptive analyst can recognize the stimulus,
particularly if he has access to records of aircraft, balloon, and
satellite movements, meteorological data and astronomical phenomenology.
Recognition of stimulus is aided by a high quality report which is as
quantitative as possible and which shows the observer to be able to
differentiate between observation and interpretation. Of course a number
of reports will be so lacking in details that no conclusion can be reached
about what was seen.
These are of
little use; they may, however, serve as corroborating evidence to another,
higher quality, report and should not, therefore be rejected. The really
interesting class of reports is that reporting phenomenology which is
clearly extraordinary. The observer's qualifications may be such that the
report is not only highly credible but is articulate and quantitative as
well. It is this subclass of reports, variously estimated at 5 to 20
percent of the total, that offer hope of our learning what is going on.
Hynek considers two parameters of reports) credibility and
strangeness, and suggests that the investigator really needs only to be
concerned with reports having high strangeness and high credibility. The
physical scientist is in a position to evaluate strangeness, the social
scientist should be able to provide some measure of credibility.
Hynek also comments on a number of beliefs about UFOs and reports
stating, (18) among other things, that most reports are made by people who
previously never gave much thought to UFOs; that reports are not always
vague; and that well educated, well trained, reliable, stable people also
contribute reports. These conclusions have been reached by most people who
have taken the trouble to collect and investigate reports first hand.
To illustrate the character of reports, I will quote several
narratives from the literature. (Narratives, of course, are just the
beginning of any report. Quantitative information, usually not given in
the narrative must be obtained by careful interview of the witness.) The
first is taken from a collection of 160 reports by Olsen. (19) It
was originally made to NICAP.
Date: 24
April 1962
Place: Springfield (Delaware County),
Pennsylvania
First
witness, J. A. Gasslein, Jr. (Lt. Colonel, USAR Ret.) reports: "Time:
Approximately 1945 hours, weather: clear, cloudless, medium blue sky,
visibility good.
"My wife
was driving her mother home following the latter's visit to our home.
They had driven around the block to higher ground when my wife's mother
looked out the car window and saw a large object. It was moving slowly
and silently in an east-to-west direction at not over 50 ft. above
street level. (Determined by the proximity to and relationship to the
size of the Cape-Cod-type bungalows over which the object was passing.)
My wife then plainly saw the object herself.
"Anxious to have me
see the object, my wife quickly drove the car back to our house and
attracted my attention. I had been working in the basement. I ran out of
the house and up the street for a view. by the time I saw it, the object
appeared to be about a quarter to a half-mile away, moving in a westerly
direction. I saw it as an object smaller at the top than at the base,
seemingly suspended in the air at an angle of about 45 degrees from my
position, and giving off colored lights. I know that the object was not
any kind of conventional aircraft of balloon.
"Having had the
advantage of a closer viewing than I, my wife describes the object as
follows..
" 'The UFO appeared to be about the size of one of the
Cape Cod houses over which it passed, which would make it approximately
30 ft. in diameter and about the same dimension in height. It was
circular, surmounted by a dome giving off flashes of green light. The
center section rotated a series of square shaped "windows", each giving
off a brilliant white light. The base section was somewhat
saucer-shaped, curved upward. Shafts of white light were directed
downward from the base.' Unfortunately, my wife cannot recall if the
exterior was metallic in appearance. In any event, the object had a
well-defined outline. Again, it moved silently. There was no evidence of
occupants of the UFO.
"Approximately 20 to 25 minutes following
the first sighting described above, the following~sighting occurred:
"Returning from taking her mother home, my wife drove the car into our
driveway alongside the house, headed westward. In the rear of our home
was a wooded park area. My wife walked down the driveway to enter the
house. Coming up the driveway was a neighbor friend, a young lady 20
years of age. In a tone of astonishment, she called my wife's attention
to the park area, from which was emerging an object of the same
description as outlined above moving easterly at low level -- not over
50 ft. above ground level, as judged by the trees in the area -- the UFO
proceeded relatively slowly and without sound. It was approaching the
rear of our home and adjacent properties.
"Again, my wife called
me from the basement. By the time I got outside, the object had made a
90 degree turn northward and was proceeding parallel to the backs of the
houses in the same line as ours. It was perhaps 150 - 200 yards distant.
My observation of the characteristics of the UFO tallied with my wife's
and the young lady's. Each of them independently made a pencil sketch
within a few minutes after the sighting, and the sketches were
substantially alike. "All told, there were at least 15 persons in the
vicinity who acknowledged seeing the object at about the same time as
the sightings made by my wife and myself."
Another
witness, P. T. Scattergood, reports:
"Around 8
(p.m.) I stepped out the front door, facing south and saw a brilliantly
lighted object low in the southern sky. At first I took it to be a jet
taking off from Philadelphia Airport, which is in that general
direction. But I could hear no engine noise and it was traveling too
slowly to be a plane. Also it did not have the usual blinking lights.
"It appeared
to have a row of yellowish lights (which I took for the windows of the
"jet") with a clear green light at the top. As I watched, the row of
lights appeared to be obscured as though a large paddle-wheel were
revolving and blotting them out, beginning with the rear lights and
proceeding forward. Since the object was moving west, I saw the right
hand side of it. The periodic appearance and disappearance of the lights
was perfectly regular. The top green light was constantly visible. I
stood on the pavement and watched the object sail leisurely to the west
until it disappeared behind some trees. The observation probably lasted
from 5 to 10 minutes."
This report has
the desirable features of the UFO being seen by a number of people (about
15) of which two actually made reports. (Hynek estimates the number of
sightings to be about 10 times the number of reports turned in) . Other
desirable aspects of this sighting are that it was made during daylight;
that it was near enough that some details of its configuration were
observable; and, it was visible long enough to allow the observers to
consider "explanations" as they watched it.
The second example is
reported by James F. McDonald in T. Bloecher's book on an intense
period of UFO activity in 1947. The report was made 20 years after the
sighting to Prof. McDonald for the reasons given at the end of the
quotation.
"Mrs. Olavick
was in her kitchen at 2101 East Hawthorne Street, Tucson, while Mrs.
Down was out in the back-year patio. Suddenly Mrs. Down called her out
excitedly, and both proceeded to observe what had caught Mrs. Down's
eye. The time was just after the noon hour; Tucson's skies were
completely cloudless. Somewhat north of their zenith lay an unusual,
isolated, "steamy-fleecy" cloud at an altitude which Mrs. Olavick found
difficult to estimate, though she recalled that it seemed lower than
average for that time of year (thus, perhaps at or below 10,000 feet,
say.).
No other
cloud was to be seen in the sky. In and out of the cloud moved a number
of dull-white disc-like objects that rose and fell in an erratic manner,
occasionally disappearing into or above the unnatural cloud. She said
that these objects were round in plan-form but were not spherical, for
they frequently tipped a bit, exposing a flattened-sphere form. She
estimates that they watched these objects cavorting near the cloud for
perhaps five or six minutes before the entire group suddenly disappeared
within the cloud or perhaps above it.
"After a minute or so, as
she now recalls it, a new object, perhaps three of four times as large
as the little objects, came out of the cloud on its east side. After it
emerged, the small objects began to emerge also, taking up a V-formation
pattern behind it. The V comprised a line of four-abreast just to the
rear of the large object, then a line of three-abreast behind that, and
finally two-abreast in the rear.
Thus the
point of the V was to the rear (in the sense of the emergent and
subsequent motion). This formation permitted the first accurate count of
the small objects, nine in all. No sooner had the last pair emerged than
all ten objects shot off to the northeast, climbing out of sight in a
time that she thought was probably two to three seconds. She does not
recall what happened to the cloud after the ten objects departed.
"I (McDonald) have spoken with Mrs. Olavick several additional
times, following her first call. Her account was presented in an
unembellished manner, and her descriptions were carefully framed,
specifying just which parts had become less distinct in her memory. But
the basic vividness of her memory of this observation she stressed
repeatedly. I had to explain that it was by no means clear that the
objects she saw were identical with those reported by Kenneth Arnold two
months later.
When I
queried her as to why she had not reported them, she pointed out that
she and Mrs. Down were entirely convinced that they had been fortunate
enough to witness some new American military vehicles about which the
general public had not yet been informed. Later she heard of the "flying
saucers," and she and Mrs. Down, when they rejoined their husbands in
mid-summer in Iowa, told them about their own observation. The husbands,
she recalled, made such a joke of it that they ceased mentioning it.
Again we have a
daytime sighting of several minutes duration, with two witnesses. As is
often the case when the phenomenon appears mechanical, it was interpreted
as some secret government development. Ridicule of the sighting by family
members and friends (if not by authorities) is frequently mentioned as a
reason for delayed reporting of sightings.
A third report is taken
from a paper Prof. McDonald presented at the 12 March 1968 Canadian
Aeronautics and Space Institute Astronautics Symposium, Montreal.
"At about
5:15 am., PDT, on the morning of July 4, 1967, at least five witnesses
(and reportealy others not yet locatable) saw an object of
unconventional nature moving over Highway 5 on the edge of Corning,
California. Hearing of the event from NICAP, I began searching for the
witnesses and eventually telephone-interviewed four. Press accounts from
the Corning Daily Observer and Oakland Tribune afforded further
corroboration.
"Jay Munger, operator of an all-night bowling
alley, was drinking coffee with two police officers, James Overton of
the Corning force and Frank Rakes of the Orland force, when Munger
suddenly spotted the object out the front windows of his bowling alley.
In a moment all three were outside observing what they each described as
a dark gray oval or disc-shaped object with a bright light shining
upwards on its top and a dimmer light shining downward from the
underside.
A dark gray
or black band encircled the mid-section of the object. When first
sighted, it lay almost due west, at a distance that they estimated at a
quarter of a mile (later substantiated by independent witnesses viewing
it at right angles to the line of sight of the trio at the bowling
alley). It was barely moving, and seemed to be only a few hundred feet
above terrain. The dawn light illuminated the object, but not so
brightly as to obscure the two lights on top and bottom, they stated.
"Munger, thinking to get an independent observation from a
different part of Corning, returned almost immediately to telephone his
wife; but she never saw it for reasons of tree-obscuration. At my
request, Munger re-enacted the telephoning process to form a rough
estimate of elapsed time. He obtained a time of 1-1.5 minutes. This time
is of interest because, when he completed the call and rejoined Overton
and Rakes, the object had still moved only a short distance south on
Highway 5 (about a quarter of a mile: perhaps), but then quickly
accelerated and passed off to the south, going out of their sight in
only about 10 seconds, far to their south.
Paul Heideman, of
Fremont, California, was driving south on Highway 5 at the time of the
above sighting, along with a friend, Robert King. I located Heideman and
obtained from him an account of his observation made from a point on the
highway north of Corning. He saw the light from the object, and had
veered east (a turn not seen from the more restricted viewing point of
the bowingalley parking lot). Heideman said that, when first seen, it
lay almost straight down Highway 5, serving to check the estimate of the
other observers that the object lay only a few city blocks to their
west.
The weather was clear, no haze, no wind, according to the
witnesses. Munger's concise comment was "I've never seen anything like
it before." He estimated its "diameter" at perhaps 50-100 ft, and its
vertical thickness as perhaps 15-20 ft, with some kind of edge (band)
perhaps 5-10 ft thick. No sound was ever heard. Overton stated to me
that he had no idea what it was, but that "there was no doubt it was a
craft of some sort."
The next
example is from a report I personally investigated. It occurred in the
area where I was reared; the observers are known to my family; I am
familiar with the natural phenomenology of the area.
Date: 10
October 1966
Place: Near Newton, Illinois
First
witnesses: Mrs. A (she prefers not to be publicly identified because
of the reaction of friends and neighbors). Time: 5:20 p.m.
"Mrs. A
was in her kitchen preparing supper; five of her children were playing
outdoors. The children shouted to her to "come out and see the silent
plane".
She writes "I
glanced out the south window and there it was coming into sight just
south of our 72 foot silo moving very slowly from east to west. It was
about 35 feet high. My first thought was that it was a plane making an
emergency landing, but when I saw it in full view, I knew it was no
plane, not like anything I have ever seen. I hurried outside to join the
children in the yard. It continued to move in a straight line to the
west.
We could see
it clearly as it drifted over a 50 by 100 foot machine shed being built
at the time [the workers were, however, in the fields this day]. It
appeared to be larger than our car, and was more oval. There was a
bluish glow around the ends, top, and bottom of it. It (the glow) wasn't
bright, since it was daylight yet, but more like a low cloud, haze, or
fog; or a mixture of bluish-grey tiny bubbles floating along around it.
The object was seen clearly. It was blue in color and appeared to be
made of metal. You could see [longitudinal] seam lines. There was one
black window.
I thought
they (assuming someone was in it) could see out but we could not see
them. I kept looking for someone to peep out and wave, but don't recall
seeing or feeling anything at the time. There was a brownish-gold design
on the lower back half. A raised part was on the top near the back which
was noticed by all the children. It moved very quietly, making no sound
at all except for a whirling or vibrating sound for 1 or 2 seconds as it
drifted on toward the west...
We followed
it down the yard and lane, continuing to watch it as it was 300 feet,
then 200 feet from the north and south gravel road and the REA electric
line which is on the west side of the road. We were talking together,
all very excited about what it was, where it came from, if there were
people in it, and if it would rise to clear the electric line. It did;
it rose so quickly and was out of sight in just a few seconds. Our eyes
could not follow it fast enough. This was certainly a fantastic thing."
The
questionnaire, a lengthy correspondence, an interview in June 1967
and other checking produced the following details:
Meteorology:
Clear, warm, dry weather, cloudless.
Astronomical: Moonset 3:51 p.m.
EST
UFO: Prolate spheroidial shape.
The surface appeared to
be non-specular, like dull aluminum or metal, and blue, the color
probably deriving from the self-luminous halo. Longitudinal seams were
apparent, but no rivets or such were seen. The black rectangle was
assumed to be a window and appeared to be recessed. It was not shiny,
but "like the dark of night." The surrounding glow was partly opaque,
yet self luminous. It was darker than the sky and extended about 1/4 the
object's length in all directions. The halo was particularly opaque at
the ends: of the object, obscuring the underlying parts. The design at
the lower rear looked like a pattern of crosses and dots.
Mrs. A
says the glow obscured the design and in any case her attention was
fixed on the "window". The only sound heard occurred when the UFO was
nearest the unfinished shed, being constructed of a wooden framework
covered with ferrous sheets. It is possible that some sheets were caused
to vibrate. No electromagnetic effects were noted (TV was off) and no
electrostatic or other effects were noted by Mrs. A or her children. As
the UFO disappeared, Mrs. A was just looking along the road for a car;
two of the children said the UFO pitched nose-up and as it went up a
light or flame of orange color was seen at the rear.
Enough
angular data was provided from building and landmark placement and sizes
that it is possible to estimate the size of the metallic portion of the
UFO at 16 to 20 feet in length, seen at a distance of 150 to 300 feet.
Its linear speed was about 4 to 8 miles per hour, based on the above
distances and timings obtained by re-enactment. It was visible for 4
minutes. Angular size was 2 3/4" at arms length. In an effort to
quantify the colors somewhat, a Nickerson color fan was used by the
witnesses to select the colors most nearly like those on the UFO. The
color selections were made independently in direct sunlight with the
color fan held in front of a white field. The colors given were
Second
event: Same day, 6:30 p.m., sky is now dark. Location is in town of
Newton, Illinois, about seven miles north west of first event.
Mrs. B
was walking down the steps of a friend's house toward her car. "As I
started down the steps my eyes were drawn by something in the south
eastern sky. I stopped a moment and saw very clearly a luinous bluish
object moving quite rapidly from east to west. It seemed to be rather
low in the sky, but at night it is difficult to judge distance either as
to how high it was or how far away it was. It did appear larger than a
full moon, but instead of being round it had a definite oval shape. I
would say an elongated oval. There was no sound that I could detect, and
while it appeared to be blue and purple, there was also a whitish glow
in it. The outline of the object was very distinct. I watched it until
it disappeared behind some trees and a house a little less than a block
from me.
Further correspondence and discussion brought forth the
following information: The major axis of the oval was horizontal; its
path was not perfectly horizontal) but somewhat ondulatory. Its color
was brightest and whitest at the center, becoming more blue and darker
toward the edges. Mrs. B. estimated the colors as shown below (Since the
interview was conducted in the evening) the color fan was illuminated by
an incandescent lamp).
In itself, this last report, which
describes a sighting of 15 to 20 seconds duration, contains insufficient
information to come to any conclusion. However, when put alongside the
earlier report there is the possibility of a relationship -- could these
be reports of the same thing seen under differing conditions of
illumination? We'll never know positively but the suggestion is quite
strong.
As far as Mrs. A's sighting is concerned, we have
obtained enough data from follow-up inquiry and on-site investigation to
rule out known airborne craft, meteorological, and astronomical
phenomenon. Yet the observations are sufficiently detailed to give us
adequate confidence that some sort of machine was present, behaving in a
very extraordinary way. Some parts of the object are similar to other
reports (the effervescent glow, the orange color on acceleration, the
very black "window" (which sounds like a block-body absorber)). Other
parts are unusual -- the UFO's prolate spheroidal shape and the pattern
(although seeing the pattern would require the observer to be quite
close).
The original
correspondence and data sheets on Mrs. A's sighting run to over 40
pages. In correspondence and interviews over a period of 8 months no
substantial inconsistencies could be found. The geometric data,
particularly, are so intricately related that it is most unlikely that
the witness could have fabricated a story so well. In addition,
acquaintances made it clear that Mrs. A. is not prone to story telling
and that "she is too busy to dream up such a tale".
Mr. A, who
returned from the fields that evening found the household still
considerably agitated four hours after the event. He said he had no idea
what it was his wife and children saw, but he obviously treated the
sighting seriously for he went to considerable trouble to comply with a
request to measure the sizes and locations of each building and tree on
the farm.
It is this kind
of sighting - the kind which is clearly inexplicable in contemporary
terms, which causes me (and other interested persons) to take the whole
subject so seriously. Hynek suggests that it is just this kind of
sighting that often goes unreported, because the witness -- especially if
his education or training are appropriate -- knows that what he saw was
unambiguously extraordinary.
And
machine-like. A number of such reports were belatedly made after the
University of Colorado study effort got underway. Apparently the
witnesses waited for the respectability the UOC study brought to
the subject. It is hoped that the scientific and intellectual climate will
change to the point where witnesses, particularly those having the best
qualifications, can feel free to report sightings and know that they are
being taken seriously.
Not all reports are visual reports only. An
example of a photographic observation studied in detail is given in
reference 20. Here, a 16mn movie of two objects sighted in the daytime
provided the analyst enough information to conclude that no known
phenomena could have caused the images. This report is, hopefully, the
first in a series of instrumented sightings carefully and adequately
studied.
Back to Contents
PART 4: UFO'S
PHENOMENONOLOGICAL ASPECTS
Since I have made a first hand study of only a dozen sightings,
the phenomenology described in this section will necessarily be based on
descriptions of reports collected by others, particularly NICAP,
APRO, UFOIRC, and Vallee. There is, unfortunately, no
central file of reports accessible to the interested scientist, although
large numbers of reports are in the hands of the organizations mentioned
above.
(The extensive
Air Force files are of very limited use, from what I can tell, because of
the extremely inconsistent quality of investigation.)
In an
unfortunate number of cases the report consists of little more than a
narrative. My experience with the Newton sightings suggests that
quantitative information is available if the investigator takes the
trouble to personally make an on-site study. True, it may not be the
quality of an instrumented sighting, but enough quantitative data are
available to permit meaningful study of sighting reports.
NICAP's
document "The UFO Evidence" contains a summary of patterns in appearance
and behavior as determined from cases they had studied through 1963.
Regarding appearance, the most common type is a disc shape, followed by
spherical, oval/elliptical, cylindrical, and triangular. The breakdown of
NICAP's 575 cases goes as follows
Disc
26 % 149
cases
Round
17 % 96
cases
Oval/elliptical
13 % 77
cases
Cylindrical
8.3 % 48
cases
Triangular
2 % 11
cases
Other
33.7 % 194 cases
(Radar,
light source, not stated)
Obviously,
there may be some mis-classification within the first three groups because
of projective effects. Discs may be coin-shaped or lens shaped (double
convex). The domed disk is plano-convex, (sometimes double convex) with a
smaller radius bulge atop the convex side. The Saturn disk is a sphere or
oblate spheroid with a thin ring projecting from the equator. Similar
objects are seen without the equatorial ring also.
Another subset
are the hemispheric variety, sometimes with a small protrusion at the apex
and usually seen with the flat side down. All the above mentioned objects
are generically oblate with the axis of symmetry usually seen oriented
vertically. Another group are prolate, having the major axis horizontal,
usually. This includes the elliptical (football) variety, the triangular
or tear drop variety, and the cylindrical or cigar shaped
species.
Reported colors depend strongly on the luminous
environment. NICAP finds that of the 253 cases of daytime
observations where color is stated, the results are
Silver or
metallic
34.8 % 88
cases
White
32.0 % 81
cases
Specular
13.4 % 34
cases
Gray
7.5 % 19
cases
Black
12.3 % 31
cases
It should be
noted that a few reports exist suggesting that the brightness of the
object first thought by the observer to be reflected sunlight, was in fact
self luminosity, as ascertained by the geometry, presence of clouds and
the like.
In the dark-sky observations, the outline or shape of the
UFO is often not seen. What is seen is a light or series of lights,
sometimes extremely bright. Luminous rays are also reported, going up
sometimes (particularly from domed discs) downward (from hemispheric types
principally, also from discs) and from one UFO to another
(spherical types).
The luminous
column is usually not divergent. Excluding these interesting rays, the
reported colors of UFOs seen at night are, for 162 cases
Red
38.3 % 62
cases
Orange
15.4 % 25
cases
Yellow
17.3 % 28
cases
Green
13.0 % 21
cases
Blue
16.0 % 26
cases
Purple
0
0
Brightness and
color changes are also noted, and while the sample is small (82 cases)
NICAP found the following: Of the 25 cases showing a change in brightness,
23 of the changes occurred at the moment of a velocity change (a change of
either magnitude or direction). Concerning the change of color, 23 cases
showed a color change related to acceleration. While the supporting data
are not conclusive, it appears that the spectral shift is to the red upon
acceleration.
It should also be noted that UFOs reported at night
have only a star-like appearance unless very close. Distant UFO's
sometimes turn off and on. When closer to the observer, reports often
indicate a number of lights, located at the top and around the rim
usually. Sometimes the lights flash on and off or change color
rhythmically. Several cases have been reported of the UFO flashing its
lights in response to the witness flashing hand or vehicular lights. In
other cases the lights winked off with the approach of another car or an
aircraft, only to turn on again when the vehicle had passed.
While
practically any luminous behavior could be produced by someone with
sufficient time and money, kinematic behavior at odds with experience or,
preferably, at odds with Newtonian behavior are suggestive of
non-terrestrial origin.
A common kind of motion is called
oscillation by NICAP and is subdivided into "wobble on axis" (frequently
described also as fluttering, flipping, and tipping); pendulum motion on
slow ascent, hovering and decent (also called "falling leaf motion"); and
occasionally a side-to-side oscillation observed as the UFO proceeds
horizontally. These motions are most often performed by discs, although
examples of similar behavior by other forms also exist.
The last
class, that of violent and erratic maneuvers, most clearly lacks an
explanation from current physical theory. Using terms like bobbing,
erratic, jerky, zig-zag, dark, and shot away, witnesses describe motions
involving high angular accelerations and velocities. A number of radar
observations appear to substantiate this anomalous behavior. Among the 40
cases showing such characteristics, NICAP finds that 28 percent
were reported by scientific or other appropriately experienced personnel.
Variation of Sightings with
Time
It appears that the UFO
phenomenology has been with us from the earliest times. In the last
twenty-five years, however, there seems to be a drastic increase in the
number of sightings. It is practically impossible to estimate the number
of world-wide sightings because of the lack of suitable data collection
means.
In the U.S.,
the principal depositories are currently the Air Force, NICAP and APRO. It
is estimated that currently these sources together receive about 2000
reports per year. Since only about one sighting in 10 is reported, the
number of sightings is about 20,000. But of these, 80 to 95% are not
interesting, leaving us with "only" 1000 to 4000 worthwhile sightings per
year for North America.
In addition to the background of reports
more or less constantly flowing in, occasional periods of intense activity
are also noted. One such period was October 1954 over most of France.
NICAP lists a number of these "flaps". Sometimes they are very localized,
covering only a small portion of a state for a period of a few weeks.
APRO concludes, on the basis of the reports available to them,
that the patterns of appearance follow phases - atomic test areas and
installations in the late 1940s and early 50s, rivers, reservoirs and
bodies of water in the late 50s and early 60s and now electrical
distribution systems. Convincing evidence to support this hypothesis has
not been published; however, if the hypothesis were true it would
certainly raise a lot of question.
McDonald and others suggest
that reports of the last few years show more sightings of objects at low
altitude (or landed) and more sightings made from urban areas (in the 40s
and 50s sightings were generally inversely correlated with population
densities).
Interactions with the
Environment
Interactions of UFOs
with the environment produce a kind of believability that pure visual
observations will never do. Some examples of interaction are cases showing
electromagnetic disturbances in practically every kind of device -- radio,
TV, auto ignition, aircraft electronics, compass, magnetometer, magnetic
automobile speedometer, etc. NICAP lists 106 examples. NICAP also lists 81
cases of radar tracking of UFOs, most of which were simultaneous with
visual sightings, and a number of which involved use of interceptors.
Among the
physiological effects noted are burns, temporary paralysis, prickling
sensation, and eyes irritated as by ultraviolet light. A number of
witnesses claim to have observed landings; depressions in the ground and
damaged vegetation usually result. At a landing site in France, only weeds
grow in a nine foot circular area where a disc was seen to land two years
ago, despite efforts to replant. (21) At another landing site, French
railway officials calculated that a weight of 30 tons would be required to
make the depressions found in some railroad ties where a UFO was reported
to have landed.
While most UFO's are silent, some have made sounds
described as hissing, rushing, swishing, humming, whirring, whining,
droning, like thunder, like shotgun, and a series of staccato explosions.
In the past the absence of sonic booms from supersonic UFO's bothered many
scientists; it appears now that that problem might be overcome by
surrounding the craft by a corona discharge (which incidentally would be a
luminous blue glow around the object). (23)
I will purposely not
comment much on occupants, except to say that there are a few (very few)
reasonably reliable and carefully investigated reports of UFO occupants.
For the time being, I would prefer to concentrate on reports of the
objects, however, as the frequency of reliable occupant reports is so low.
I have no bias one way or the other along these lines. If UFOs are of
extraterrestrial origin, they may or may not be "manned". If manned, one
should expect an occasional appearance. Readers more interested in this
aspect of UFOs are referred to reference (24).
In summary, we see a wide,
almost exasperating range of reported phenomenology. By careful interviews
with witnesses and analysis of a large number of reports the significant
patterns in phenomenology should appear. If the UFOs are a new
manifestation of nature, they should exhibit some patterns of appearance
or behavior which would aid in identifying and predicting them. If of
extraterrestrial origin and intelligently guided it may be possible to
anticipate appearances. This will be discussed in the next and final
essay.
Back to Contents
PART 5: UFOs
HOW TO PROCEED AND WHY
We
are so far from knowing all the forces of Nature and the various modes of
their action that it is not worthy of a philosopher to deny phenomena only
because they are inexplicable in the present state of our knowledge. The
harder it is to acknowledge the existence of phenomena, the more we are
bound to investigate them with increasing care.
Laplace
Laplace's
remarks are certainly as true and significant for us today as for his
contemporaries. In the preceeding essays I have suggested that there
exists a class of phenomena rather widely occuring today (and perhaps
since earliest times) that is elusive, puzzling and often at variance with
known scientific and technical experience. What are we going to do about
it? What should we, what can we do about it?
J. E.
MacDonald suggests that the UFO phenomena lie somewhere in the
following categories of explanation:
1.
Hoaxes, fabrications, and frauds. Report files contain examples of
these; investigators believe about 5 percent of all reports made are in
this category. Detailed study, however, usually uncovers such reports.
2. Hallucinations, mass hysteria, and rumor phenomena.
Present understanding of psychology does not admit many of the
significant reports to be explained in this way.
3.
Misinterpretations of well known physical phenomena (meteorolo- gical,
astronomical, optical, etc.). By far the largest percentage of reports
fall in this category. Study by an experienced investigator can usually
identify these.
4. Poorly understood physical phenomena (rare
electrical or moteorological effects, plasmas). Certainly a distinct
possibility in a number of cases, it is a category worthy of careful
study. Some of the most interesting cases, however have sufficient
observational datail to eliminate this possibility (I am referring to
reports of unambiguously machine-like objects).
5. Advanced
technologies (test vehicles, satellites, reentry effects). Again, some
reports can be attributed to this cause, but most cannot.
6.
Poorly understood psychic phenomena (psychic projections, archetypal
images, parapsychological phenomena, etc). It is difficult to comment on
this possibility because the current lack of knowledge of
parapsychology. While a (small) number of UFO reports do exhibit aspects
of parapsychological phenomenology (25) general relationships have yet
to be convincingly demonstrated. Reference 6 deals with this
explanation.
7. Extraterrestrial probes. A possibility
commonly held by the public and commonly rejected by scientists. Prof.
McDonald believes a number of sightings are best explained by this
hypothesis.
8. Messengers of salvation and occult truth. This
explanation is listed because of the nature of certain reports
(particularly "contact" reports -- reports involving communication of
UFO occupants and the witnesses) and because of the historical aspects
of the phenomenology. See reference 5 for elaboration.
Perhaps, to
play it safe, an additional category should be listed:
9.
Other
Clearly, the
explanation of UFOs will interest someone. Psychologists have an interest
in 1, 2, 3 and 6; theologians in category 8, scientists in 4 and 7.
Therefore, whatever the explanation, it is a problem of at least average
interest. If, by chance, the explanation is 7, or even 8 (and possibly 6)
the value to society would be profound and significant. In this sense, an
identification of the phenomenon would be a task of highest potential
urgency.
How might it be
done?
Because of the transient nature of UFO's we cannot expect to
have the interested scientist rush to the spot to make his own
observations. Reports so far accumulated, however, show that UFO's
sometimes appear frequently in certain areas for a short period of time (a
so-called "flap").
One
characteristic of the flap is a larger percentage of sightings of objects
at low levels than one normally obtains. If the reporting and analysis
system were responsive enough, men and instruments could be dispatched
when a flap was recognized with a reasonable hope of making first hand
observations. I would therefore suggest the following:
1.
Organization of a central report receiving agency, staffed by a
permanent group of experienced UFO investigators and having on call
specialists in astronomy, physics, optics, atmospheric physics,
psychology and the like for application when needed.
2.
This agency should be readily and instantly accessible to the public
for the purpose of reporting. (Witnesses should be able to turn to
someone other than the press to make reports.) Report forms could be
made available in Post Offices, for example. More urgent reports could
be made by toll-free telephone lines. (Radio amateurs have recently
begun cooperating with NICAP to provide an alerting system.)
Because many
sightings are made at night when most services are closed, the local
police office should be prepared to receive reports of sightings.
Experience indicates that witnesses usually turn first to the police,
particularly if the UFO was close or if the witness was frightened. Such
a local "data center" would be very useful for identifying flaps and
could possibly serve to dispatch personnel to an area of interest. Care
must be taken to properly inform the officers involved about the aims of
the project and requests for assistance should be made in such a way as
to minimize additional police work.
An awareness
of the problem by a dispatcher or desk sergeant might be sufficient to
draw attention to a developing situation. An interested local scientist
could then be notified, perhaps in time to make an observation.
Hynek also suggests that the police carry cameras in their cars
should they become involved as observers. This advice obviously applies
to all interested persons.
3. A loose organization of
interested scientists should be available to investigate reports in
their local areas. A good start toward this has been made by
NICAP. It is important that investigations be made rapidly and by
properly qualified people.
4. The press should be
encouraged to report sightings accurately and in a non-sensational
manner. Suitable reporting would encourage other witnesses to come
forth.
5. Existing sensor records could be examined for
anomalies, particularly if visual reports are made nearby. Since we
don't know what to expect, it is difficult to say what is needed;
however records of electric, magnetic and gravitational fields,
radioactivity, optical and radio frequency anomalies would be a logical
place to start. Radars could also contribute, if they are designed for
general purpose use. As it is, most current radar detection and tracking
devices are designed to ignore anomalous objects.
After a few
years' operation in this mode, it should be possible to study the
resulting report statistics to draw generalities about appearance and
behavior (such as was done in Part IV) and most importantly to anticipate
times and locations of appearances. Only when this is done will it be
possible to instrument sightings and therefore obtain the objective data
so badly needed If the explanation is #4, some environmental correlations
are bound to occur. For #7 it is possible that appearances could be
anticipated, if we are clever enough; for #6 and #8 we will likely not be
able to anticipate appearances.
Certainly the conclusions drawn by
NICAP from reports in their file are startling and, if valid worthy
of considerable scientific effort. It would be much more convincing if
data could be collected worldwide and if the most interesting reports
could be intensively and completely investigated. I believe current
reports justify the expanded data collection and analysis effort.
Pages 33 to
40 consist of the basic report form used by the University of Colorado UFO
project which have not been included here. A copy of this reporting form
is reproduced in "The Final Report of the Scientific Study of Unidentified
Flying Objects," Bantam Books, 1968, published in association with
Colorado Associated University Press.
Back to Contents
Additional Information on the Rand Report
Greetings
List Members,
I guess
ufology has no institution memory. About every six months someone
"discovers" "THE RAND DOCUMENT"!!!!
George Kocher worked at
RAND. He was interested in the UFOs. He wrote up a short paper for
circulation within RAND. It was personal. It was not an official RAND
document. Kocher got little or no response to his privately
circulated document. One copy of it did make its way to
Wright-Patterson. LTC Quintanilla wrote RAND a blazing letter. Once
again, Quinanilla's letter was not an official ATIC response, but from
Quintanilla's address and his personal opinion.
Kocher's
supervisor turned Quintanilla's letter over to Kocher. RAND never
responded to Quintanilla. Kocher did not follow up on his paper.
The matter went no further. Kocher confirmed all this in a letter to Dr.
Hynek which is now at CUFOS with a copy of Quintanilla's letter.
CUFOS made copies of Kocher's document available years ago. You
can, I believe, still purchase copies from them.
Ruppelt,
I believe in his papers, mentioned that the chief of RAND in the early
1950s was hostile towards UFOs. Prior to that RAND had done a
"Spaceship" study that COL McCoy requested in 1948. Parts of the study
were used in the Project Grudge report.
There were several RAND
scientists who, like Kocher, had at one time or another a personal
interest in UFOs. NICAP was in contact with one or two. However, over
the years contact was lost with these people.
There was one
request from a scientist at RAND in 1965 to the Air Force for UFO
material. The Air Force forwarded the request to Hynek. Nothing seems to
have come of it. Again, it may have just been a personal interest item.
The Kocher's document will probably now fade from sight,
and in six months we can again go through another cycle of the great
discovery of THE RAND DOCUMENT!
Regards,
Jan Aldrich
Project 1947
http://www.iufog.org/project1947/
Back to Contents
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1.
Christian Science Monitor, May 23, 1967
2. Anatomy of a
Phenomenon, J. Vallee, Ace Books, Inc H-17
3. The Sky People,
B. LePoer Trenth, London, Neville Spearman, 1960.
4. The
Meaning of Fatima, C. C. Martindale, S. J., P. J. Kenedy & Sons,
New York 1950, p. 77.
5. Flying Saucers Through the Ages, Paul
Thomas, Neville Spearman, London, 1966.
6. Flying Saucers - A
Modern Myth, C. C. Jung, Harcourt, Brace & World New York, 1959
7. Sputnik, January 1967 issue, p. 174
8. Report on
the UFO Wave of 1947, Ted Bloecher, 1967; Available from NICAP, 1536
Connecticut Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20036
9. Bloecher, pp.
1-9, 10, 12
10. The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects, E.
J. Ruppelt, Ace Books, Inc. G-537
11. UFO's: Greatest
Scientific Problem of Our Times? J. E. McDonald UFORI, Suite 311, 508
Grant Street, Pittsburgh, Pa., 15219
12. The UFO Evidence,
NICAP, 6536 Connecticut Avenue, NW., Washington D.C., 20036, 1964
13. Flying Saucers: Hoax or Reality? L. Jerome Stanton,
Belmont Books B50-761
14. "The Physics and Metaphysics of
Unidentified Flying Objects", William Markowitz, Science, 15 Sept.
1967
15. Intelligent Life in the Universe, J. S. Shklovskii
and Carl Sagan, Holden-Day, Inc. 1966 (San Francisco)
16.
Habitable Planets for Man, S. H. Dole, Blaisdell Publishing Co., New
York, 1964
17. Interstellar Communication, Edited by A. C. W.
Cameron, Benjamin, New York, 1963
18. Science, 21 October
1966, letter by J. A. Hynek, p. 329
19. The Reference for
Outstanding UFO Sighting Reports, T. M. Olsen, UFO Information
Retrieval Center, Inc., Box 57, Riderwood, Md. 21139
20.
Observations of an Anomalistic Phenomenon, R. M. L. Baker, Journal of
the Astronautical Sciences, January/February, 1968
21. Flying
Saucer Review, 14, 1, January/February, 1968, cover and pp. 6-12.
22. Vallee, p. 109
23. Aviation Week and Space
Technology, 22 January, 1968, p. 21
24. The Humanoids, special
issue of Flying Saucer Review, 49a Kings Grove, Peckham, London, S.E.
15, England (1967)
25. An interesting example appears in the
July, 1968 issue of Science & Mechanics, starting on page 30
26. A highly recommended collection of recent views on this
subject are contained in the Symposium on Unidentified Flying Objects,
Hearings Before the House Committee on Science and Astronautics, July
29, 1968.
Back to
Contents |