~rQ) THE UFO ENIGMA CCJR MARCffi s. SMITH Analyst in Science and Technology D Science Policy Research J:?ivision CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS The Congressional Research Service works exclusively for the Congress, conducting research, analyzing legislation, and providing information at the request of Committees, Mem- bers and their staffs. The Service makes such research available, without partisan bias, in many forms including studies, reports, compilations, digests, and background briefings. Upon request, the CRS assists Committees in analyzing legislative proposals and issues, and in assessing the possible effects of these proposals and their alternatives. The Service's senior specialists and sub- ject analysts are also available for personal consultations in their respective fields of expertise. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction I. What is a UFO? A. Definitions B. Drawings by Witnesses C. Types of Encounters II. Witness t;:tedibility A. Sociological and Psychological Factors B. Other Limitations on Witnesses C. Strangeness-Probability Curve III. Point -Counterpoint A. Probable Invalidity of the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis B. Alleged Air Force Secrecy and Cover Ups C. Hoaxes and Witness Credibility D. Possible Benefits to Science From a UFO Study IV. Pre-1947 Accounts A. Biblical Sightings B. Other Early Reports C. The Wave of 1896 D. The Post-War European Wave 1947-1969 Accounts and Activities A. United States 1. Kenneth Arnold and the 1947 Wave 2. U.S. Air Force Involvement (1948-1969) a. Projects Sign and Grudge (1948-1952) b. The Robertson Panel and Project Blue c. Special Report #14 and the 0' Brien Report: Project Blue Book (1953-1966) d. The Condon Report and Termination of USAF Congressional Interest a. House Armed Services Committee Hearings (1966) b. House Science and Astronautics Committee Hearings (1968) Private Organizations Arch ives f o r UFO Research Arkivet for UFO-forskning 11 Norrkoping B. Non-U.S. Reports and International Cooperation 2. Soviet Union 3. International Cooperation 1970-1975 Sightings A. 1973 Flap B. Animal Mutilations C. Human Individual Metamorphosis VII. Summary APPENDICES A. Selected Case Summaries 1. January 7, 1948 (Mantell -Type I) 2. July 24, 1948 (Eastern Airlines -Type I) 3. September 10, 1951 (Fort Monmouth, New Jersey - 4. July 2, 1952 (Tremonton, Utah -Type I) 5. July 19-20 and July 26, 1952 (Washington, D. C. - 6. July 17, 1954 (RB-47; South Central U.S. -Type I) 7. September 19, 1961 (Hill Encounter; Zeta Retuculi - 8. April 24, 1964 (Socorro, New Mexico -Type II) 9. March 3, 1971 (Zond IV Reentry -Type I) 10. November 2, 1971 (Delphos, Kansas -Type II) B. Ancient Astronauts and the Bermuda Triangle 1. Ancient Astronauts 2. The Bermuda Triangle C. Text of Letter From Robert Low to E. James Archer and Thurston E. Manning Concerning Colorado UFO Report INTRODUCTION Although the term UFO (for unidentified flying object) has been popular for only about 2 5 years, the phenomenon it refers to has been observed throughout recorded history. It is an unfortunate term, for literally any- thing seen in the sky and not immediately recognized is included. In the ancient skies, UFOs were especially numerous. What are today's UFOs? And what type of person reports them to authorities? Publicity seekers, practical jokers, or sane, intelligent people genuinely mystified by something they have seen? This report cannot, and does not attempt to, answer those questions. After 28 years of concentrated interest in this country alone, experts cannot agree on what inhabits our skies. The U.S. Air Force had official responsibility in the field for 21 years and concluded that whatever was there, it was non-hostile and non- alien. But there are many who disagree. In order for Earth to be visited by beings from other planets, there must be other inhabitants in the universe. The subject of extraterrestrial intelligence, as it is called, is too involved to be included here, and the reader is referred to a previous work by this author for the House Science and Technology Committee entitled Possibility of Intelligent Life Elsewhere in the Universe'' (November 1975) for a discussion of this topic. In addition to discussion about UFOs in general, lately there have been theories advanced that much of our present day knowledge, and indeed our evolution itself, was helped along by aliens. This ancient astronaut losophy and that of the Bermuda Triangle are discussed briefly in an ap- pendix. They are only of peripheral importance to a discussion of UFOs and are included only because they also deal with alien visits to Earth. I. WHAT IS A UFO? A. Definitions A UFO is an aerial phenomenon or object which is unknown or appears out of the ordinary to the observer. U.S. Air Force 1 I A UFO is a moving aerial or celestial phenomenon. detected visually or by radar. but whose nature is not immediately understood. Carl Sagan Astronomer and Biologist 2 I A UFO is any reported aerial or surface visual sighting or radar return which remains unexplained by conventional means even after examination by competent persons. J. Allen Hynek Astronomer and Project Blue Book Consultant 3 I The most commonly used definition of a UFO is expressed in both the Air Force and Sagan definitions and encompasses the vast files of sightings that either have or have not been later identified as natural phenomena -- 12.097 from 1947 to 1967. Hynek's definition is more precise since it covers only those that. after investigation. still remain unidentified and are thought by some to be spaceships from other worlds --697 from 1947 to 1967. 4 I Since the term in general use can mean either of the above. one must be careful as to the context in which the term is used. There are naturally thousands upon thousands of reports that would come under the first two definitions. since many people can become confused by natural objects such 1 I U.S. Air Force. Aids to Identification of Flying Objects. Washington, 21 Encyclopedia Americana. 1967. p. 43. 31 Christian Science Monitor. May 23. 1967. 4 I Figures are from U.S. Air Force. Project Blue Book 1968. as the planets and stars. and other natural phenomena like ball lightning are not well understood even by scientists. For the sake of clarification. William Hartmann (Senior Scientist, Planetary Science Institute, Tucson. Arizona) suggested four groups into which sightings could be classified: UFO --unidentified flying object, the original sighting according to the Air Force and Sagan definitions; IFO --identified flying object, a UFO case that has been concretely solved; EFO --extraordinary flying object. something beyond the bounds of recog- nized natural phenomena; and AFO --alien flying object. ~I The last two are relatively subjective. since those who refuse to speculate on the pos- sibility of Earth being visited by extraterrestrial life will classify all un- identifieds into EFOs, and their counterparts on the other side of the ques- tion will assume that all unidentifieds are AFOs. Other acronyms have also been suggested and one that has some support is "anomalistic observational phenomena" (AOP). The term was coined by Dr. Robert M. L. Baker who notes that although some unexplained phenomena may be occurring, it "may not be 'flying, ' may not always be 'unidentified, ' and, perhaps. may not even be substantive 'objects,'" .s_l Unfortunately UFO has become the accepted term, and changing the habits of the masses is no easy chore. Douglass Price-Williams has listed four stages through which a UFO report should travel before a determination can be made as to its nature. 7_1 5 I Hartmann, William K. Historical Perspectives: Photos of UFOs. In Sagan, Carl and Thornton Page eds. UFOs --A Scientific Debate. Ithaca, New York, Cornell University Press, 1972. p. 12 . Baker, Dr. Robert M. L. Science and Astronautics. Hearings, 90th Congress. U.S. Govt. Print., 1968. [Testimony] In U.S. House. Committee on Symposium on Unidentified Flying Objects .. 2nd session, July 29, 1968. Washington, 7 I Price-Williams, Douglass R. Psychology and Epistemology of UFO Interpretations. In Sagan and Page, op. cit., p. 224-231. The first step is the actual reporting of an unexplained aerial incident. where it is labeled a UFO (he also notes a preference for AOP. but ac- knowledges that UFO has become too rigidly entrenched in our vocabulary). In the second stage. the report is broken down into one of three "popu- (1) reports that are easily explained. without controversy. as known phenomena; (2) reports that one group calls known phenomena while a second group questions that conclusion. and (3) reports that all agree are unknown. The third stage examines those in the third group (and some from the second). This is the key step. for "failure to define the data at this point makes further analysis unamenable to systematic investigation. " Here the questions of witness credibility arises (see chapter 2). for the data are usually dependent upon the subjective observations of one or more witnesses, not upon exact measurements. Other than rejecting all present UFO re- ports and starting anew with a more exact reporting system. Price- Williams suggests going through existing reports searching for clues that can be relied upon to some extent. such as reports where some reference point was available to the witness(es) for distance. size. and speed esti- mates. Also a cross-correlation of what has been seen over the years in terms of these characteristics might prove valuable. The final stage of the UFO report calls for a confrontation between data and hypotheses. Price-Williams points out that the crucial test for any hypothesis is for it to be tested. and this is the crucial problem with the extraterrestrial hypothesis. He suggests that outside of actually capturing a specimen. one would have to "posit a model embodying aerodynamic and engineering properties that are then matched against the observed data as These models are bounded by an upper limit where literally anything is considered possible due to technologies we may not be aware of. and the lower limit which allows not only that the physical model make sense within our framework of knowledge. but that someone be able to con- struct a realistic model (although not necessarily a working model). B. Drawings by Witnesses Since Kenneth Arnold's 1947 sighting that began the current interest in UFOs in this country (see chapter 5). many drawings have been made by witnesses to show others what they saw. A few of .these are presented be- low. reprinted with permission from UFOs: A New Look. National Inves- tigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena. (NICAP) 1969. WITNESS SKETCHES The following graphic portrayal of the UFO mystery makes of actual witness sketches drawn to describe what they had seen. Some of the drawings had to be touched up for re- production purposes; however, they have not been altered. A few are artists' renditions carefully based on witness descriptions. This small sample was selected from hundreds in recent years to illustrate some of the commonly reported types and features. Additional sketches appear throughout the text. (Cf., The UFO Evidence, especially pages 23, 54, 144, 147 and 182). of the obvious recurrent features, also typical of thou- sands of documented verbal reports, are: clear structures most commonly disc-shaped or elliptical; light beams; body lights; of "portholes" or lights; domes and other projections; sur- rounding haze; and physical effects on the environment. Although it was not possible to give additional details of the sightings here, many of the most complete cases will be reported in full in Volume II of The UFO Evidence scheduled for publi- cation in 1969. LIGHT BEAM CASES TOP CENTE~ OF OBJECT APPEARED MUCH THICKER THAN OUTSIDE RIM August 16, 1968; Nr. Hamilton, Ohio 11 p.m.; Large group of people saw UFO approach, beam liW!ts down which reflected off Greenbriar Lake. 1"1 SoLID BRIGHT RED UGHr 'J ABO'O'l' 2 FBft HIGH IN REAR PINKISI WHITE LIGH'l'S SlttRIIG DOWNWARD elf APPROI. J.60 .liiGLI ~ONT VIEW, AS OBJECT CAME TOWARD WI'l111SS I.T ABOU'l' 400 t.o SOO FEEr .ALmODE AS VIDiED THROUGH BINOCULARS BRIGHT RED LIGHT /"' / OBJECT TURNED TOWARD WEST STIIJ. J.T ABOUT 400 t.o .S00 FUr // // 6 ALTITUDE SHOONG NO SIGHS OF WIIIDCAIS, JUst A THICKNESS / / TOWARD CENTER ON TOP, AID A SLIGRJ.' STRAIGH'l'ER OR SLIMMER "' ' ON BOTTQ( SW!'ION PINKISH WHITE LI(]{T -ONLY ONE VI~IBLE ON SIDE VIl!lrl January 18, 1967; Shamokin, Pa. 6 p.m.; Low-level UFO rose suddenly, joined second object; both sped away horizontally. July 15, 1968; Nr. Columbus, lndien. Abt. 3 a.m.; UFO emitted beam like searchlight to ground; also nwrower red beam or ray. February 16, 1967; Nr. Kingman, Arizona 11:43 p.m.; UFO illuminated ground, joined two other objects as it fltw 11118'f. three red and one green body lf9lts August 19, 1968; Oxon Hill, Maryland 8:25 p.m.; UFO ap proached, hovered, disappeared upward into clouds, visible several minutes. April 12, 1968; Cape Neddick, Maine 11:15 p.m.; UFO_.. passing below moon during total eclipse. Body dull~; small red lights, bright pulsating white light on end . 22, 1966; So. Kingston, N.H. 9 :05p.m.; UFO maneu vered for 35 minutes; six witnesses; "falling leaf" mot1on noted. March ~2, 1966, Hillsdale, Michigan; UFO si\tlted in midst of Michigan wJNe. Yellow light em.nated.from central band other lights red, whrt.e and green. ' 26, 1965; Hartshorne, Oklahoma 7 p.m.; UFO hovered 4-5 minutes just above treeline in front of one tall tree, then "whisked awlf'(." Upper part silver, lower gray-red; spots like indentations. emitted white shafts of light from "portholes." October 14, 1966; Nr. Newton, Illinois 6:45 p.m.; Yellow orange UFO, blue line .-ound center, red lights just under rim. Object illuminated ground, affected TV, other typical features. 15, 1967; Hollywood Bottom, Texas 10:15 p.m.; observed UFO with body lights, haze around body, "vibrating" noise. BIIHt1J'M" light from dome, redorange from front:(r), bright white trail. March 19, 1966; Big Rapids, Mlchigln 5:20 a.m.; UFO sur- by bluish-white haze. LiFtS on bottom flicked on and off one at a time. Very similar obi:t lighted 45 miles WI8Y at Grand Rapids March 17. April 22, 1967; Tulsa, Oklahoma 8:10 p.m.; UFO l9tted by several witnesseS; liltlts or "ports" appeered to rotate. OTHER REPORTS OF STRUCTURED OBJECTS January 19, 1967; Dunbar, W.Va. 9:05a.m. Merchant saw UFO hovering about 4 feet above Interstate 64, blocking roadway. Aluminum-colored UFO rose rapidly out of sight. July 19, 1965; Vaucluse, Australia 5:30 p.m.; UFO obsenled off from beach; sound of ruthing air; dogs barited loudly. 7, 1965; Williamstown, N.J. 6 a.m. UFO with patches of shimmering orange light, steady yellow light underneath, moved slowly at tree-top level. March 8, 1966; Chesterton, Indiana 2:30 p.m.; UFO h0Yef'8d above cloudbank 4-5 minutes, surrounded by bright, misty haze, changed angles and sped away. C. Types of Encounters Encounters with UFOs can be placed into three general categories. herein referred to simply as Type I. II. and III: Type I: The witness sees only a moving light or image on a radar screen which is unknown. These can be seen either at night or during the day. and many have been photographed. T_ype II: The. UFO is seen close up and physical effects are noticed. eith~r on the Witness or. say. on an automobile engine. This type includes landmgs when marks are left. but not where aliens are seen. Type III: Alien beings are either observed in the spacecraft during a Type II encounter. or are actually contacted. This would include those r~po~ts. ofvi~its aboard spaceships (such as the famous Betty and Barney Hill mcident m New Hamphsire) and the Pascagoula. Mississippi incident in 1973 (see below). 1. Type I. This is by far the most common type of sighting. From objects that move erratically across the skies to radar images picked up by airport controllers. thousands have been catalogued since 1947 alone. A typical example of this kind of case was reported by J. Allen Hynek: . An. example ... is a case I investigated personally. involving five witnesses. the senior witness being the long-time associate director of a prominent laboratory at MIT. The nocturnal light was first sighted by his son. who had been out airing the dogs. He came bounding into the house crying. 'There's a flying saucer outside. ' The senior observer picked up a pair of binoculars on his way out. He told me he didn't expect to see an thing unusual but was going out to see what the commotion was all about. For the following ten minutes he was engrossed in what he saw --the nature of the light. its motions. its hovering. and its takeoff. He described the light as having a high color-temperature also though essentially a point source. subtending less than a minute of arc in the binoculars. . . . the trajectory of the object was plotted against the framework of the branches of a denuded tree. This observer was a good one. and his report included the condition of his eyes and those of the members of his family. 8_/ A case involving radar is typified by the following example: Lakenheath. England. August 13. 1956. 11:00 P.M. Bf Hynek. J. Allen. Twenty-one Years of UFO reports. In Sagan and Two RAF ground-radar stations detected several objects moving at high speed on a clear moonlit night. The first radar tracked one traveling at about 3. 000 miles per hour westward at 4. 000 feet altitude; simultaneously. tower operators reported a bright light passmg overheaa toward the west and the pilot of a C-4 7 aircraft at 4. 000 feet over the airfield saw the bright light streak westward underneath him. The second radar station. alerted by the first. detected a stationary target at about 20. 000 feet altitude that suddenly went north at 600 mileRAer hour. It made several sudden stops and turns. After 30 minutes an F fi~hter was called in and made airborne-radar contacts with the object over ed- ford (just north of Cambridge. Eng