Chapter 1

The UFO Enigma: A New Review of the Physical Evidence
by Peter A. Sturrock

The word “UFO” presents an enigma-a puzzle concerning which everyone has an opinion but no one has an answer. Ordinary citizens are typically curious and open-minded. By contrast, professional people (administrators, policy makers, journalists, scientists, and most other scholars) are typically very guarded in their response.

In 1976, I carried out a survey of the members of the American Astronomical Society to assess their level of interest in the subject, whether they thought it deserves scientific investigation, and whether any members could report observations similar to those of typical UFO reports (Sturrock, 1994 a, b, c). I learned that most of the respondents were as curious as most citizens; most considered that the subject does indeed deserve scientific investigation; and a few percent had witnessed events similar to those described in the UFO literature.

When speaking in public, however, scientists tend to be dismissive of the UFO question. The great physicist Richard P. Feynman, one of the most open-minded and articulate scientists of the twentieth century, made the following remarks in the course of a lecture entitled “This Unscientific Age,” presented at the University of Washington in April 1963:

If we come to the problem of flying saucers, … we have the difficulty that almost everybody who observes flying saucers sees something different … orange balls of light, blue spheres which bounce on the floor, gray fogs which disappear, gossamer-like streams which evaporate into the air, tin [sic], round flat things out of which objects come with funny shapes that are something like a human being… . Just think a few minutes about the variety of life that there is. And then you see that the thing that comes out of the flying saucer isn't going to be anything like what anybody describes… . It is very unlikely that flying saucers would arrive here, in this particular era… . Just when we're getting scientific enough to appreciate the possibility of traveling from one place to another, here come the flying saucers (Feynman, 1998).

The problem of trying to understand the cause or causes of UFO reports has become more difficult since Feynman gave his lecture in Seattle. Now a citizen may ask a scientist not only about “flying saucers,” and not only about possible extraterrestrial occupants, but also about reports that some objects have crashed and been retrieved, that some human beings are being subjected to examination by extraterrestrial visitors, and that federal agencies are hiding important relevant information from the public. Such prospects are so mind-boggling and so close to science fiction, and the issues so very far removed from conventional scientific research, that nowadays scientists are even less willing to become involved in this subject than they were in 1963. This has resulted in considerable polarization: citizens are keenly interested in the problem and want answers, but scientists who could help provide answers have little interest and no incentive to cooperate in this endeavor.

These were some of the thoughts that came to mind in December 1996, when Mr. Laurance Rockefeller asked about my thoughts on what might be done to learn what lies behind UFO reports. I had come to recognize the complexity of the issue, and I had also learned something about what works and what does not work in scientific research.

For the last thirty years, I have been involved in theoretical research into solar physics, wrestling with a number of puzzles such as why the Sun's outer atmosphere, the corona, has a temperature of a million degrees, and what happens during a solar explosion called a flare. I have learned that it is helpful to break down each of these complex issues into a number of simpler phenomena that raise more specific questions. It is always tempting to develop a theory to answer such a question and then immediately check that theory against the data. Sometimes that procedure works, but more often it does not. If I try four or five ideas and none of them work, I finally realize that I must change my attitude and adopt a different strategy. At that stage, my best option is to recognize that (a) I do not understand the phenomenon; (b) I need to study the data much more carefully; and (c) the best question to ask is, What is the Sun trying to tell me? I believe that the UFO problem needs a similar approach. Scientists need to ask, first, What are the facts? and second, What are those facts trying to tell us?

However, this is not so easy. Concerning the UFO problem, Richard Feynman did not see any solid, clear-cut facts in 1963, and most scientists do not see any such facts today, beyond the obvious one that reports continue. Social scientists and detectives are used to dealing with anecdotal reports; physical scientists are not. If a witness is taken to a scientific research institution and asked to describe his or her observations, it is highly unlikely that this will lead to any significant relevant research. On the other hand, if the witness can produce some physical evidence, such as a photograph, a tape recording, or a piece of metal, there is a great deal that the staff of a well-equipped laboratory could do. If careful field investigation of ten separate UFO events, each with strong witness testimony, were to produce ten items of physical evidence, if each item were analyzed in several different laboratories, and if the resulting reports showed that the items were (a) very similar, and (b) very unusual, then we would have not only evidence, but a pattern among the evidence. We would have established a fact.

If it does indeed turn out that there is relevant physical evidence, if this evidence is carefully collected and analyzed, and if this analysis leads to the identification of several facts concerning the UFO phenomenon, then will be the time for scientists to step back and ask, What are these facts trying to tell us? If those facts are strong enough to lead to a firm conclusion, then will be the time to confront the more bizarre questions. If, for instance, it turns out that all physical evidence is consistent with a mundane interpretation of the causes of UFO reports, there will be little reason to continue to speculate about the role of extraterrestrial beings. If, on the other hand, the analysis of physical evidence turns up very strong evidence that objects related with UFO reports were manufactured outside the solar system, then one must obviously consider very seriously that the phenomenon involves not only extraterrestrial vehicles but probably also extraterrestrial beings.

For these reasons, it was my opinion that the very first step in the direction of scientific research into the UFO problem would be a determination of whether or not there even exists physical evidence related to UFO reports. This specific question could be addressed by means of a panel review, as we discuss further in Chapter 5, “Introduction to Pocantico.” The review and the resulting report are contained in this book, together with some selected case studies.

Experienced UFO investigators find that the majority of reports that come to their attention can be attributed to natural occurrences, familiar objects seen under unusual circumstances, et cetera. A very small percentage of reports will be recognized as due to hoaxes perpetrated on or by the witnesses. Of the remaining reports, many will be uninteresting because they contain little information, or conflicting information, and little or no supporting evidence. A very small fraction of the cases have good documentation (but usually not as good as one might like) and some form of physical evidence (but never as much as one might like). A few of these interesting and challenging cases (drawn from those presented in summary form to the review panel) may be found in Part Five of this book. However, before getting into this review, it may be helpful to go back to the very beginning of the UFO story.

© 1999 by Peter A. Sturrock

About the Author

PETER A. STURROCK is emeritus professor of applied physics and emeritus director of the Center for Space Science and Astrophysics at Stanford University. He has received numerous awards including prizes from the American Astronomical Society; The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics; Cambridge University; The Gravity Foundation; and the National Academy of Sciences. His other publications include five edited volumes, two monographs, and over two hundred scientific articles.